VOLUME II
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
-------
FINAL
ENVIRW1 ENTAL Ir’PACT STA1B’ENT
PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF FEDERAL
PERMITS TO
THE PIUSTOt\I COt1 ANY OF NEW YORK
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
29),000 BARREL/flAy OIL REFINERY
AND MARINE TERMINAL - EASTPORTI MAINE
PERMIT APPLICATION No 1 IVE OQ 142O
PREPARED BY:
U. S. ENVIRONVENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I, BOSTON, N A 02203
APPROVED BY:
NI STRATOR
-------
ERRATA SHEET
Volume II — Pittston Final EIS
Correction
1—6 The final paragraph should read: “Fish processing
plants would be adversely affected by a reduction
in fish available for purchase. Reduced income
would result in all sectors of the fishing industry
until the area recovered. Birds would be damaged
depending on size of spill and time of year,
especially swimming and diving species. Marine
mammals can avoid”
1—1k 2nd paragraph, 7th line: throughput not throughout
1—15 3rd line: below not blow
11—3 3rd paragraph add: Clean Water Act, formerly the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, (33
U.S.C. §1251 et. seq.); Clean Air Act of 1970 and
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (42 U.S.C.
§1857b—1) et. seq.; Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. §6901 et. seq.)
111—13 First line, omit one “the”
111—69 1st line of’ note: A (not w) = Aquatic Birds
III—1k2 Footnote: “SPL” not “SPC”
IV—29 Note on Table IV—6 should read: MDWT = 1000 DWT
IV—31 — IV—33 The location points for the VLCC planned passage
track as displayed in Figure IV— ? and Tables IV—tO
and IV—11 have been refined for the PSD analysis.
The new location points as well as distance and
travel time between points, may be found in the
technical support for the PSD analysis. These
values vary only slightly from those presented in
the Final EIS.
VI-9 Last paragraph, line 2 should read: “Further,
although sizable”
vi—k8 3rd paragraph, 7th line: “expereicne” should be
“experience”
VI—52 #2: archipelego, not archipelgo
-------
Paze Correction
VI—76 Last paragraph, 1st line: “onsidered” should be
“considered”
VI—92 2nd paragraph, 5th line: “That is,” not “This is”
X—18 1st paragraph, last line: omit “the”
X—30 Response 8 should be removed and replaced with the
following: “The number of oil vessel movements
required, entering and leaving, to transport crude
oil to the refinery and oil products from the
refinery will average 14k per month if 150,000 Dwt
crude carriers are used (Tables 1, 2, and 3). The
number of transits that can be made in a month
while operating within the limitations set forth in
the BEP conditions range from 40 in December, when
daylight is shortest, to 69 in June when daylight
is longest. During the three month 1977—78 period
December, January, and February, the number of
transits possible are 140, 143, and 414 respectively.
Table 14 summarizes the analyses; Table 5 presents
the details of the tidal and daylight observations
for Eastport during the four months analyzed.
In the event weather or other factors reduce the
number of transits that can be made under the
current BE? limitations, the refinery operations
can continue at normal rates for several weeks,
since crude and product storage capacities are
provided for 20 and 2 4 days respectively. In the
event of a prolonged interruption in transits, the
refinery operation will simply be slowed down for a
time. Obviously, if there are any relaxations in
the present BEP conditions, the number of transits
possible will increase substantially, particularly
in the short daylight winter months.”
-------
Table 1
Table 2
Oil Vessel Sizes
Planned For The Eastport Project
• Crude Oil 250,000 Dwt
• No. 5 Fuel Oil.. . .70, 000 Dwt
• No. 2 Fuel Oil....70, 000 Dwt
• Gasoline 40,000 Dwt
Number of Oil Vessels Needed to Transport Crude & Product
For the Eastport Project Per Present Market Outlook
Crude or
Product
Gravity
Quantities —
Days Per
Tanker
Tankers
Per Year
API Ebls./Ton
BPD
Tons/D
Crude
33
7.45
250,000
33,600
7.44
49*
No. 5
23
7. 00
96, 400
13, 770
5.08
72
No. 2
35
7.54
80,500
10,700
6.50
56
Gasoline
59
8. 62
49, 600
5, 750
6. 96
52
Total
229
Table 3
oIf 150, 000 Dwt crude carriers were used, 82 loaded tankers would be
required.
Table 4
Number of Transits NeededO
For The Eastport Pro ect
Oil Vessels
TvDe Condition
Per
Year
Per
Month
Loaded Vessels
49
4
oVLCC
o Product Tankers
ISO
229
15
19
o Total Loaded
In Ballast
o VLCC
49
4
o Product Tankers
160
229
15
19
o Total in BalLast
Total Transits
45S
38
‘;With 250,030 Dwt VLCC’S. Li
150, COO Dwts are used, there will
be 44 more total transits per month.
Number of Transits Possible
Under BEP Conditions
Month
No. of
Days
Transits
Possible
In
Out
Total
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
‘77
‘78
‘78
31
31
28
20
22
22
20
23
22
40
43
44
June
‘78
30
34
35
69
BEP Conditions: Transit between sun-
rise and sunset; berth and deberth at
slack water; inbound on ebb and outbound
on flood; applio o VLCC’s and to prod-
uct tankers also.
-------
StM PY SI1EE’I’ F Pii s’irt i’INERY
WI 1I L I) PCT S’PM
Draft
(X) Final
Environnenta-l Protection agency
1 egion I, Boston, Massachusetts
1. Type of Action
(X) ninistrative
Legislative
2. Brief Description
The Pittston Carpany of New York has applied to EPA, I gicm I for a
National Pollutant Discharge Eliitiination Systan pen it, *irsuant to Section
402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, to discharge
wastewater fran their proposed 250,000 barre]Jday oil refinery and marine
terminal at Eastport, Maine. The Pittston Ccrpany proposes to process
cr e oil, which will be delivered to the refinery on tankers up to
250,000 tWT. The proposed refinery’s principal products will be la sulfur
beating and industrial fuel oils. Gasoline production at the facility
will be limited.
In Mi tion to EPA, several other federal agencies are involved in the
review of this proposed facility:
a. Federal Aviation Ac ninistration (FAA )
A portion of the site proposed for the refinery (60 ac res) is
currently used as the Eastport 4micipal Airport. The City has petitioned
the FAA to release thei fran their obligation to operate and maintain
the airport.
b. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers ((XE )
The Pittston Cai any has applied to the CCE for a permit to
dredge approximt tely 1.45 million cubic yards of material fran Deep and
Broad Coves in the vicinity of the proposed tanker berths and to construct
piers at both Broad and Deep Coves with a diffuser discharge on the Deep
Cove pier. The permit is r uired by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899.
1
-------
3. viruii ntal Ii p
Air Quality
Because of the rural setting arxi lack of industrial develqz ent in
Washington Cc*mty, the existing air quality in Eastport could be described
as relatively clean. itoring perforn d at the proposed site for sulfur
dioxide and total suspended partioulates mdi c ted very low backgra.ind
levels of these pollutants. How ever, summer and f Ll background levels
of ozcz ware fow to be in e ess of the federal standard approximately
2 percent of the time. These violatia s do not appear to be the product
of local nissicri sources )*it rather the result of the transport of ozone
into the Eastport area fran nore urbanized areas to the south. The proposed
refinery sI ild have minimal inpacts on existing air quality, aixi it is not
expected to cause additional violations of air quality standards.
However, the refinery is estimated to be able to operate just
within the Class I Prevention of Significant Deterioration
increment for 24—hour SO 2 levels at Campobello International Park.
Odor
A1th0141 the refinery will it anall an zits of odor-producing
substanoes,in carpariscxi to existing ditiais, they sF uld be undetectable.
Noise
At the present time,
is generated by intennittant
of the site will be severely
on the majority of the ta ns
Solid Waste
the only existing man-wade noise in the area
traffic on !bute 190. I nes in the vicinity
iirçacted, Iu ever, there wili be minimal iupact
people.
All of the refinery waste materials will be handled on site in
accordance with state guidelines.
Water Quality
Waste ter will be discharged fran the refinery throngh a
located on the Deep Cove pier. This discharge i tiich will xzisist
water, I 11a.qt water and sanitary wastes will be treated prior to
The discharge, ich nust be in accordarx with the c xtditions of
discharge permit, will o 1 y with Maine Water Quality Standards.
Socio-Ecxiuuc
diffuser
of process
discharge.
EPA’S
Ccaistruction of the refinery slould generate a total net gain
of $17,000,000 within Washington County. ( oe the refinery begins oper-
ation, it will GTploy 300 wrkers directly. It is expected that 200 of
those jths will be available to Washington County residents. It is ex-
pected that a total of approximately 540 jths for Washington County
residents will be created, directly or indirectly, as a result of re-
finery operation.
ii
-------
4. Potential Iipacts
At the present tine, due to the limited ship traffic in the Eastport
area, there is little if any danger of a serious oil spill. If this facility
is approved, the anount of oil being shipped through the port will increase
dramatically, consequently there is a much greater possibility of an oil
spill. The irrpact of an oil spill u1d vary depending on the quantity of
oil spilled, the weather conditions and the location of the spill. There
is, Iver, a potential for significant 3.verse inpacts on the rnarire re-
sources in the area.
5. Alternatives
In 1972, during their original site selection process, the Pittston
Q tpany evaluated 13 sites. In the draft environrrental ii pact stat nt,
four areas are examined in detail fr the standpoint of environmantal
quality. These include:
Eastport
Penobscot Bay/Blue Hills
Nachias Bay
Portland
In addition to these sites, the report considered the inpact of an
alternate deliveiy system for crude oil and refined product.
6. Public Cczm nt Period
The Notice of Availability of the draft environnental inpact stat tent
appeared in the October 29, 1976 Federal I gister. Carrrents were accepted
for a period of 60 days ending Dec ter 28, 1976. A public hearing was held
at the Shed 1 rorial High School in Eastport, Maine on Dec er 3, 1976.
The draft enviror ntal inpact stata nt was a three- o1uae report
consisting of an Executive Sutinary, Main Text and a Technical Appendices.
7. Preparation of FEIS
Approximately 320 comments were received on the DEIS. All
of these comments were reviewed and consequently extensive
rewrites of the DEIS were undertaken in the areas of air
quality, marine biology/oil spills, and socio—economics. Only
irfinor changes were made in the remainder of the DEIS text.
All comments are addressed in detail in Volume IV of this
FEIS.
8. The following Federal, State and local agencies and in-
terested groups and individuals were invited to comment on
the draft environmental statement and will receive a copy
of the final EIS:
The Council on Environmental Quality
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.
11 -i
-------
U.S. State Department
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Treasury Department
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Federal Energy Administration
Farmers Home Administration
Federal Communications Commission
New England Regional Commission
New England River Basins Commission
Government of Canada
Office of Bilateral Relations — Ottawa
do U.S. State Department
Members of Congress
Senator Edmund S. Muskie
Senator William D. Hathaway
Congressman William S. Cohen
COngressman David F. Emery
State of Maine
Office of the Governor
Department of Environmental Protection
Board of Environmental Protection
State Planning Office
Office of Energy Resources
Department of Marine Resources
Department of Conservation
State Historic Preservation Officer
Coastal Zone Management
State Development Office
Eastport, Maine
Chairman, City Council
Interested Organizations and Private Citizens
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
LIST OF FIGURES X
LIST OF TABLES xiv
I. INTRODUCTION I-i
History of the Project I-i
Description of the Proposed Action 1-2
EPA ’s t cision on tI NPIES Pennit 1-3
II. ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT 11-]_
Federal Agencies Involvement lI-i
National Environmental Policy Act and the 1 1-1
Environmental Impact Statement Process
FEIS Process 11-2
Agency Involvement ‘11-2
Pittston Company’s Involvement in the
EIS Process 11-5
III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Description of Study Area I ll—i
Geology 11 1-1
Regional Geologic History 1 1 1—1
Site Geology 111—5
Subsurface Soils and Rock 111—6
Topography 111-12
Land Use 111—12
General Area 111-12
Project Site 1 1 112
Socio—Economic Characteristics 111—13
Population 111-13
Economy 111-15
Housing 111—20
Recreational Facilities 111—21
Taxes 111—22
Aquatic Resources 111—24
Freshwater Hydrology 111-24
Marine Hydrology 111-31
Uses 111—56
V
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Ecology 111-59
Terrestrial Ecology 111-59
Aquatic Ecology 111-70
Air Resources ui—ui
Climatology ui —ui
Air Quality 111—124
Odors 111—139
Noise 111—140
Standards 111-140
Regulating Agencies 111-141
Ambient Noise Levels 111—141
Infrastructure 111—144
Sewage Collection and Treatment Facilities 111-144
Water Supply System 111-147
Solid Waste Disposal 111—147
Transportation 111-149
School Facilities 111—156
Health and Safety Services 111-157
Other Existing Environmental Conditions 111-158
Historic and Natural Areas for Preservation 111—158
Archaeological Sites 111-159
Other Federal Projects in the Area 111—159
IV. PROPOSED PROJECT
Purpose , Policy and Need IV-l
Purpose IV-1
Policy IV-1
Need for Project 1V1
Analysis of Need for New England Refineries IV-2
Description of Plan
General IV-19
Marine Transport System IV-23
Oil Spill Containment and Recovery IV-38
Oil Storage and Movement System IV—46
Oil Refining Process System Iv-48
The Ancillary System IV—52
Waste Disposal Systems IV—55
Operations and Manning IV-63
Project Execution Plan IV—64
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
V. ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives Available to the Federal Agencies V1
Alternatives Available to the Pittston Company V-2
Alternative Sites v-2
Modified Plan at Eastport V-lU
Varying Tanker Sizes V-15
No Action Alternative V—16
Eastport V—16
VI. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Land Use and Displacement VI-l
Income and Employment Impact VI-4
Construction Impacts VI-4
Operating Impacts V18
Social Impacts of Employment Change VI-lO
Tax Impacts V 111
Property Tax Impacts V111
State Income Tax Impacts V113
State Sales Tax VI-14
Housing Impacts V 114
Construction Phase VI—14
Operation Phase VI-16
Municipal Services VI-18
Construction VI- 18
Operation Phase VI-22
Transportation V124
Historical/Archaeological VI-27
Aquatic Resources VI—28
Fresh Water VI-28
Impact of Routine Refinery Discharges VI-28
on Marine Water Quality
Oil Spills During Routine Transfer Operations VI-29
Oil Spills Due to Tanker Accidents V135
Potential Effects of a Severe Spill on V 138
Environmental Resources
Commercial Impacts V 150
vi i .
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Toxicity VI —53
Carcinogenicity VI-56
Dredging VI—59
Air Resources V162
Refinery Emissions and the Prevention VI—62
of Significant Deterioration
Pollutant Transformations in the VI-65
Atmosphere
Acidification of Precipitation VI-78
Odor VI-81
Construction Emissions VI—8].
Upset Conditions VI-82
Other VI-82
Noise
Measurement Methodology VI-83
Noise Levels VI-83
Impacts vi—ag
Solid Waste V 194
Solid Waste Generated from Refinery VI-94
Solid Waste Generated From Construction V 199
Activity
VII. ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED AND Vu-i
MITIGATING MEASURES WHICH WILL BE EMPLOYED
VIII.RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF VIII-1
THE ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM BENEFICIAL USES
IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 1X1
RESOURCES
X. ISSUES RAISED BY FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL X-l
AGENCIES AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR
Introduction X1
Socio-Economic X-2
Economic Impacts X-2
Housing X-7
Services X-9
Transportation X l3
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Physical Environment X-15
Marine Ecology X15
Fisheries Resources X23
Hydrography and Navigation X26
Terrestial Environment X-35
Air Quality X37
Cultural Resources X41
Alternatives X42
Marine Board of Environmental Protection Order X47
Oil Supply X48
Canadian Interests X49
ix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
111—1 Site Vicinity Map 1 1 12
111—2 General Location Map 111—3
111—3 Regional Location Map 111—4
III— 4 Eastport Formation 1117
111—5 Soil Profile of Site 1 1 18
111—6 Soil Map of Site 1119
111—7 Major Parks in Area 11 123
111-8 Drainage Area for Cobscook and Passamaquoddy I1125
Bays
111—9 LocatIon of Stream Gauging Stations 111—28
111—10 Flow—Duration Curves 1 1 129
111—11 Bathymetry of Eastport Waters 1 1 132
111—12 Bathymetry In Deep Cove Pier Area 111—34
111-13 Bathymetry in Broad Cove Pier Area 111—35
III_l1 Flood Tidal Current Patterns in Quoddy Region 11 138
at Selected Stations
111-15 Ebb Tidal Current Patterns In Quoddy Region 11 139
at Selected Stations
111-16 Location of Moored Current Meters in 111—41
Approach Channel
111—17 Location of Moored Current Meters in Pier 111—43
Areas
111-18 Tidal Excursions in Quoddy Region 111—44
111—19 Dominant Non—Tidal Circulation of the Gulf of 111—48
Maine (July-August)
111—20 Water Quality Classifications 111—49
x
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Page
111-21 Marine Biota and Sediment Sampling Location 111-55
111-22 vegetation Map 111—64
111-23 Maine Coastal Inventory 111-73
Fish and Wildlife 1
111—24 Maine Coastal Inventory 111-74
Fish and Wildlife 2
111-25 Planning Regions as Designated by the 111-84
Coastal Planning Group of the Maine
State Planning Office
111-26 Eastport Area, Clam Flats and Scallop Beds 111-90
III- 27 Lobster Tidal Pounds in Charlotte County, 111-95
N.B.
III— 28 Wind Duration Frequencies: Jan.—April 111-115
III-. 29 Wind Duration Frequencies: May—Aug. 111-116
III— 30 Wind Duration Frequencies: Sept.—Dec. 111—117
III— 31 Hours of Fog June-August 111-120
III- 32 7 nnua1 Occurrence of Fog at Eastport 111-121
III— 33 Fog Duration and Frequency at Eastport 111-122
III— 34 Maine Air Quality Regions 111-127
III— 35 Pollution Distribution for Non—Methane Hydro— 111—134
carbons as Measured by Pittston — Fall 1975
36 Nearby Hydrocarbon Sources 111-135
hI- 37 Pollution Di3tribution for Ozone as Measured 111-136
by Pittston - Fall 1975
xi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Page
111—38 Site ?4ap With Measurement Locations for Existing 111-143
Noise Survey Superimposed and Existing LEQ(2 1 4)
Levels Indicated
111—39 Community Facilities 111—145
III_40 Eastport’s Sewerage Systems 111-146
Iii 41 Modified Layovts of. Pittston Refinery and .. 111-160
Passamaquoddy Tidal Power
111-42 Half Moon Cove Tidal Power & Mariculture Projects 111-165
IV-l Schematic of Principal Operating Systems IV2Q
IV—2 Site Plan IV-21
IV—3 Artist’s Rendition of Site Plan —22
IV- 4 Integrated Communications and Radar Surveillance Iv-25
System
IV-5 Head Harbor Passage Channel at Casco Island IV-28
iV-6 Typical Tanker Dimensions and Size Categories IV-29
IV—7 Approach to Project Site Showing Tanker Tracks IV-31
and Width of 75 ft. + Channel
IV-8 VLCC Movements and Current Speeds IV-34
IV-9 VLCC Berth at Broad Cove IV-36
IV-lO Project Tanker Berths In Deep Cove Area IV-37
111—li Pollution Control Systems at Loading Platform IV39
IV—12 Oil Spill Booms at VLCC Pier IV40
IV—13 Refinery Block Flow Diagram IV-50
IV-1 4 Wastewater Treatment - Block Diagram Iv-57
IV-15 Wastewater Flow (Schematic) IV-58
iv-16 Organization and Manning IV-65
111—17 Project Execution Plan and Schedule Iv-67
V—i Alternate Site Locations V—4
11-2 A] .ter iate Crude Oil Delivery By Pipeline v-12
xii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Page
‘fl-i Project Land Site VI—3
VI-2 The Port of Milford Haven VI—31
VI-3 Flow Diagram of Refinery Emissions VI-66
Excluding Hydrocarbon Losses
VI-4 Location of Stacks VI-67
VI-5 Location of Maximum Short Term Impact VI-70
VI-6 Noise Contour Map with Measurement VI—84
Locations Superimposed and Projected
Refinery Noise Levels Indicated
VI-7 Typical Fluidized Solids Incinerator VI—98
for Refuse and Sludge
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
ill—i Summary of Test Boring and Test Pit Elevations 111—10
and Depths
111—2 Summary of Laboratory Test Results 11 1—11
111-3 Population Changes In Washington County and 111—14
Eastport
III 4 Employment by Industry Washington County, Maine 111—16
111—5 Comparative Economic Status of Washington 111—17
County Residents, 1970
111—6 1975 Year Round Housing in Washington County 111-20
and Eastport, Maine
111—7 Cobscook and Passamaquoddy Bay Drainage Basins 111—26
111—8 Surface Water Records 111—27
111-9 Width of Eastport Approach Channel Based on 111—33
Bathymetry in CG&S 801 Chart
111—10 Maximum Speed of Currents 111—40
111—11 Currents in VLCC Pier Area 111—45
111—12 Residual Currents In Eastport, Maine Area 111—46
111—13 Analyses of Tidal Water in Site Area 111—50
111-14 Average Seasonal and Annual Temperatures and 111—52
Salinitles in the Quoddy Region
111—15 Differences Between Temperature and Salinity 111—53
at High Water and at Low Water (Values at High
Water Minus Values at Low Water)
111—16 Grain Size of Sediments in Subtidal and Inter— 111—54
tidal Areas at Site
111-17 Hydrocarbon content of Sediments from Subtidal 111—57
and Intertidal Areas at Site
111-18 Existing Discharges — Eastport Area 111—58
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
111—19 Soil Series and Suitability for Wildlife and 111—60
Forest Uses
111—20 Soil Suitability Ratings 111—61
111—21 Soils Suitability of the Proposed Site for 111-62
Wildlife and Forest Uses
111—22 Vegetation Summary and Mapping Keys 111—63
111—23 Fauna Observed During Field Studies at the 111-69
Proposed Refinery Site (Fall, 1q75)
111-24 Characteristic Phytoplankton in the 111—80
Quoddy Region
111-25 Preliminary Data on the Distribution 111—85
of Species of Maine and Estuarine
Invertebrates Reported Since 1940 for
11 Regions Along the Coast of Maine
111—26 Distribution of Species Among the 111—88
Higher Taxa
111—27 washington County Invertebrate Landings 111—91
and Landed Value
111—28 Area, Population Density and Standing 111-92
Crop on Clam Flats with Study Area,
by Town
111—29 Charlotte County Invertebrate Landings 111—96
111-30 Bay of Fundy Invertebrates, Average 1 1 197
Landings and Landed Value, 1968-75
111-31 Landings and Landed Values of Groundfish 111-98
in Washington County
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
111-32 Landings and Landed Values of Groundfish 111—101
in Charlotte County
111-33 Landings and Landed Values of Groundfish 111-101
in Bay of Fundy
111-34 Landings and Landed Value of Herring 111-103
111-35 Herring Landings from Weirs 111—103
111-36 Quantities and Landed Values of 111—104
Herring Scales
111-37 Landings and Landed Values of Mackeral 111—104
111-38 Landings and Landed Values of Diadronious Species, 111-106
Bay of Fundy
111—39 Normal Monthly and Annual Precipitation 111—112
at Eastport, Maine
111-40 Mean and Maximum Monthly Snowfall at 111-112
Eastport
111-41 Mean Temperatures and Extremes for 111-114
Eas tport
111—42 Duration and Frequency of Fog, Rain, 111-123
Snow and Vapor at Eastport, Maine
III— 43 Air Quality Standards 111—125
III— 44 Non-Deterioration Increments 111—126
III- 45 Representative Results of Air Monitoring at 111-129
Eastport Site
111—46 Results of Applying Statistical Models to the 111—131
Recorded 24-Hour Data
111-47 Summary of On-Site Monitoring Data 111-132
III— 48 Data Summary Compared to Air Quality 111—131
Standards
III- 49 General Summary of the Ambient Air Quality 1 1 1131
Found in the Area
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
Page
III— 50 Yearly Average Equivalent Sound Levels 111-141
Identified as Requisite to Protect the Public
Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of
Safety
III- Si Representative Chemical Analysis of Fresh Water 111—148
Supplied by the Eastport Water Company
III— 52 Highway Traffic Flow 111—150
111—53 Airports in Washington County, Maine 111—152
111—54 Public School Enrollment, Washington County 111—156
and Eastport, Maine
111-55 Conservation Areas III-i5’8
IV—1 U. S. Petroleum Product Demand (.MBPD) IV-3
I\ -2 Comparison of Product Costs IV-6
IV— East Coast Petroleum Product Demand ( PD) Iv-12
IV- 4 New Refinery Capacity Scheduled in PADD’s I and Iv—12
III Through 1980 (BPD)
IV- 5 New England Petroleum Product Demand (BPD) Iv—13
IV— 6 TransportatIon and Investment Economics Iv-15
250,000 Barrels Per Day Capacity at U. S.
Gulf and East Coast Locations
IV— 7 SensitivIty of Delivered Product Cost to Iv— 17
Certain Important Assumptions $/Bbl
IV— 8 Derivation of Composite Product Transportation iv-is
Costs
IV—9 A Comparison of the Ports of Eastport and Iv-24
Milford Haven
IV- 10 Planned VLCC Passages Inward and Outward - Iv-32
Channel Entrance to Broad Cove
IV-11 Planned Product Tanker Passages Inward and Iv-33
Outward - Channel Entrance to Deep Cove
iV-12 Storage Tanks IV-47
IV—13 Production of Oil Products IV-49
1V-14 Various Steps and Equipment IV—59
V—i S02 and Particulates Emission at Acadia V-5
National Park
V—2 Portland Area Ozone Levels V—6
xvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
VI-1 Anticipated Traffic Demand for VI-25
Construction Phase on State 190
VI-2 Peak Hour Land of Service — Inter- V126
section U.S. 1 and State 190
VI—3 Oil Spill Experience, Port of Milford V 132
Haven, Wales, United Kingdom
VI—4 Oil Spills V 134
VI-5 Equivalent Oil Coating Capacities V 141
for Spill Scenarios
VI-6 Planimetry Calculations of Impact Area V 141
Surface Acres and Shoreline Miles
VI-7 Critical Oil Volume Accumulations in V 142
Intertidal Zones of Designated Impact Areas
VI-8 Predicted Fates of Oil Spilled Under Five V 142
Scenario Conditions Near Eastport, Maine
VI-9 Scenario 1 Impact Maxtrix VF-44
VI-lO Scenario 2 Impact Matrix VI-44
VI-li Scenario 3 Impact Matrix VI—45
VI-l2 Scenario 4 Impact Matrix V 145
VI-13 Scenario 5 Impact Matrix V 146
VI—l4 Summary of Weighting Code Totals for V 146
Each Scenario and Impact Area
vI-15 Summary of Toxicity Data VI-54
vI-16 Maximum Emissions by Source at Eastport V 163
Refinery and Marine Terminal as Estimated by EPA
VI-17 Deleted VI-64
VI—18 Maximum Short Term Impact Concentrations for vI—68
for Eastport Area
VI-l9 Summary of Maximum Air Quality Impacts VI-69
Estimated by EPA
VI—20 Maximum Secondary Impacts Estimated by EPA VI-72
xviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
VI—21 Deleted VI-72
VI-22 Approximate Noise Levels of Typical vI—86
Activities
VI—23 Construction Equipment Noise Levels VI—87
\TI-24 Noise Contour Distances for Other vI-88
Refineries
VI-25 Noise Contour Distances, Level VI-89
Ground Propagation
VI-26 Estimated Hourly LEQ-dBA Noise Levels VI-90
with both Refinery and Other Community
Noise Sources Operating
VI-27 LEQ (24) - dBA Noise Impact at Five VI-9 1
Measurement Locations
VI-28 Relative Impact Due to an Increase vI-91
in LEQ (24) or LDN
VI-29 LDN - dBA Noise Impact at Five vI-93
Measurement Locations
VI-30 Tabulation of Impacted Receptors VI-93
VI—3]. Solid Wastes VI-95
VI-32 Metallic Contact of Sludge
VI—33 Emissions VI—96
Vu—i Adverse Impacts and Mitigating Measures vII-2
xix
-------
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
-------
INTRODUCTION
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
opposition 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,
continuing them through January 23, 197!!.
Prior to making a decision on the application, the Board
was advised that it might lack jurisdiction in the matter. In
the opinion of the Attorney General, the decision of the Maine
Supreme Court In the case of Walsh v. City of Brewer, Maine, 315
A. 2d 200 (19714) asserts that “title, right and Interest” by an
applicant in the property to be developed is a necessary pre-
requisite to administrative review by the Board. On July 10,
1974, Pittston moved to dismiss the pending application,
requesting permission to file a new application which complied
with the requirement for “title, right and interest”. Permission
was granted the same day.
Hearings were reopened on August 19, 1974 and suspended
the following day when it was determined that Pittston did not
have adequate control of those portions of the site presently
utilized as the Eastport Municipal Airport. The Issues involved
were: (1) whether or not the Federal Aviation Administration
(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, 197!!, the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) advised FAA that It could make a tentative determination
on the matter which would become final only after consideration
of the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a con-
clusion that such release is in the best interests of the
nation. Subsequently, EPA, Region I was named lead agency for
such an Els.
The Board resumed hearings on January 6, 1975, concluding
on January 29, 1975. On March 12, 1975, the Board issued a con-
ditional approval of all aspects of the project except the crude
I—i
-------
transport system. Hearings were, therefore, reopened, and after
two days a conditional approval of the crude transport system
was granted on June 1 , 1975. A copy of the final Board order is
contained in Appendix A.
The Maine BEP has completed Its permitting process on this
project. Copies of the Waste Discharge License, the Air Emission
License, and the Wetlands Permit (all issued May 25, 1977) are
contained in Appendix A.
Federal involvement in the project is detailed in the
following sections of this EIS.
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
Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) class, refine the crude oil
into fuel products, and offload the products into medium sized
tankers and barges for transport to product distribution ter-
minals on the Northeast Coast. If local inland markets develop,
a small portion of the products will move by rail or road.
The project has been planned to refine 250,000 barrels*
per day (B?D) of high sulfur content Imported crude oil In a
process that Is uncommon in the U.S. because it will produce
only low sulfur content heating and industrial fuel oils as
principal products. 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 25 percent gasoline. The principal products to be made
are: 96, 0O BPD of No. 5 Industrial fuel oil; 80,500 BPD of
No. 2 heating oil; ‘ 19,600 BPD of gasoline; 7,700 BPD of propane
and butane. 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. In addition, ‘150 tons per day
of pure sulfur will be made as a saleable by—product.
The refinery itself will consist of: (a) process units to
separate and refine the crude oil into finished products;
(b) storage tanks and associated pipelines for conveying the
oil within the complex; Cc) 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 (d) waste disposal
facilities by which waste gas, waste and ballast water, waste
heat, and waste 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, controls, etc. necessary
*One barrel=’12 gallons
1—2
-------
to handle cargo transfers and service the berthed vessels.
Included also will be such ancillary facilities as oil spill
containment and recovery units, tugs, small crafts, and
control guidance and communications systems to assist in the
passage and maneuvering of vessels between the open sea and
the piers. One pier will be for loading products onto
barges and tankers of up to 70,000 dead weight tons (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
alongside the pier structures. All dredged material will be
utilized on the refinery site.
EPA’S Decision on the NPDES Permit
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 Statements, 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 Statement (EIS) and
extensive comments from the public and other governmental
agencies, it is EPA’s intent to issue the permit with the
conditions necessary to minimize adverse impacts on the
environment, following the 30 day comment period on this
Final EIS. This section briefly summarizes the basis for
the determination to issue the permit and explains the terms
and conditions imposed. A separate summary will be issued
when the permit is signed.
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 unacceptable 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 §6.918.
1—3
-------
The permit to be issued to the Pittston Company has
been conditioned on the satisfaction of certain requirements
beyond 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.
In addition to the evaluation of the effects of the
effluent on water quality five related issues have received
major emphasis in EPA’s consideration of the impact of the
Pittston proposal. These are the risk of a major oil spill,
the extent of the evaluation of alternative sites, the
impact of the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power proposals, air
quality impacts, and the position of the Canadian
Government. The Region’s response to these issues is
discussed below 0
1. Impacts and Risks of a Major Oil Spill
The Pittston Company’s proposed oil refinery and
marine terminal will be located on Moose Island in the City
of Eastport, Maine. Moose Island, seven miles from the open
Atlantic Ocean, is located at the eastern extremity of Maine
and is connected to the mainland by a causeway. Tanker
traffic will travel to and from Eastport through the seven
mile Head Harbor passage between two Canadian Islands ——
Campobello Island to the east and Deer Island to the west.
The overriding concern about locating a refinery
at the Eastport site is the possibility of a major oil spill
from a tanker accident during transit to and from the
refinery through Head Harbor passage. The following
discussion describes the marine environment in the area, the
potential impact, and the weight given by EPA to the risk of
an oil spill in its decision to issue an NPDES to Pittston.
a. Marine Environment/Project Impact
The marine environment in the Quoddy region
is notable for conditions that produce diverse habitats for
aquatic life and for its pristine character. The EIS
describes the region as follows: (Page 111—70)
The Marine ecosystem in the Quoddy region is a
complexity of islands, salt mashes, subtidal
ledges, finger bays, and high velocity passages.
1—4
-------
The topography, bathymetric heterogeniety, and
high tidal amplitude of the region interact to
provide diverse aquatic habitats. The diversity
of habitats, efficiency 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.
The important commercial species are soft—
shell clams (particularly in the Eastport—Passamaquoddy
area) , lobsters (in both Washington County, Maine and
Charlotte County, New Brunswick) , shrimp, and scallops as
well as finfish including cod, haddock, herring, and
flounder. There are several species of marine mammals found
in this area including harbor porpoises, white—beaked and
white—sided dolphins, harbor and gray seals and a few “Great
Whales”. Most of these whales are currently listed as
“Endangered Species”.
The Quoddy coastline region is also an
important migratory route as well as feeding and breeding
area for marine birds such as black and common eider ducks,
brant geese, scooter ducks, phalaropes, and members of the
Alcid family including puffins, razorbills, and great
comorants. Although some experts have described the marine
environment of the area as unique in its bathymetric
variability (extremes in conditions of depth) , species
richness, and unspoiled character, this observation cannot
be quantified or confidently appraised because of the lack
of comprehensive study of much of the coast of Maine and the
Bay of Fundy. The Passarnaquoddy Bay area may be unique in
that it is believed to be the center of the Harbor Porpoise
population in the Atlantic Region.
In the course of preparing the draft and
final EIS’s for this project, EPA and its consultants
performed an extensive literature survey. This review
inclucied the oil spill impact analysis presented in the BLM
EIS for Least Sale 42 (Georges Bank), The Loop Seadock
Deepwater Port EIS, as well as National Academy of Science
articles, MIT’s report on the Vulnerability of Machias Bay,
Maine, Canadian Government Report, Fisheries Research Board
of Canada, No. 428 and the Argo Merchant Preliminary Report.
EPA concludes that the “state of the art” is such that it is
impossible to predict the timing or magnitude of a major oil
spill in the Eastport area with certainty. It has been
determined that the probability is extremely small. Oil
spill probability predictions are largely based on the
operating record of a particular port. Because Eastport
presently handles only small fishing vessels and some small
fuel oil barges, there are no data available on shipping
traffic and accident statistics.
1—5
-------
Worldwide statistics indicate that the
greatest number of catastrophic spills occur as a result of
tanker groundings or collisions. Considering the depth of
Head Harbor passage and the anticipated traffic control
system, the risk of a large catastrophic spill in Head
Harbor passage should be small. It should be recognized,
however, that with the lack of existing port statistics, the
extent of the risk is impossible to quantify.
To evaluate the possible environmental
impacts in the EIS, it has been assumed that such a spill
will occur at some point over the life of the facility, and
an effort has been made to identify the adverse impacts on
the marine environment from spills of varying magnitude at
different locations in the area. The EIS examines five oil
spill scenarios chosen to represent spills of both crude oil
and product. The selection of scenario conditions was
arbitrary, as the actual impact of any spill would depend on
the location, volume and type of material spilled. The
variables included spill location, spill volume, character-
istics of materials spilled, size of the intertidal zone,
tidal range, and current velocity. Impacts on
phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophytes, invertebrates,
fish, avifauna, mammals, and aesthetics of the area were
considered. All impacts would be severe in one area or
another, depending on the scenario.
The risk of harm to the marine biota includes
the following impacts. Toxic effects would accrue to
shellfish, the species most directly damaged by an oil spill
(depending on the size and type) , especially the soft—
shelled clam in the Eastport—Passamaguoddy area. Adult
lobsters appear to be the least affected by oil although
lobster larvae are severely damaged by oil. From mid—June
to mid—September, larvae are found in the upper levels of
water columns. With regard to herring, the weirs and seines
used to catch herring would require cleaning or replacement
at a cost of $2,500 and $5,000 respectively. In addition,
any herring in the weir at the time of the spill would be
harmed. Their primary food supply, plankton could be
diminished temporarily and herring migration could change.
In the category of ground fish and larvae, the winter
flounder would be the most susceptible to contamination as
it feeds in the intertidal zone. Most fish seem to avoid
areas coated with crude oil. However, gradual accumulation
of hydrocarbons in fish flesh (tainting) can ensue from
feeding and nesting near contaminated sediments.
Fish processing plants would be adversely
1—6
-------
waters visibly coated with crude oil, but with a fuel oil
spill, oil mixes in the water column and is not visible.
Therefore, mammals may migrate into these areas and suffer
damage. Refined products are more toxic to all marine
organisms than crude oil.
There is no conclusive evidence that an oil
spill or oil spills will render an ecological community
permanently non—productive. However, with the introduction
of oil into the ecosystem, community and population
interactions would be altered. The degree of alteration is
the subject of much research at the present time. Studies
on toxicity, carcinogenicity, repopulation of species in an
area, productivity of an area, and community interactions
are in the preliminary stages.
Depending on the area of a spill and the type
of oil, oil can persist in an area anywhere from 2 to 7
years and possibly longer. With a heavy concentration of
oil, organisms may be completely eliminated and the rate of
re—establishment of the organisms may be slow and restricted
to certain species. This is known from past and present
studies of Friendship Harbor, Maine; Falmouth,
Massachusetts; Portland Maine; Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia;
and others. Community re—establishment is, of course,
dependent on no additional major spills in the 2-7 year
period.
There are no precautions that can be taken
that will eliminate the risk of a major oil spiii from a
tanker accident. However, the following steps to be taken
by Pittston to minimize the possibility of such an accident
are summarized in the EIS: (EIS, p. VII—3)
Pittston will complete a sonar survey of the
channel before operation. An electronic
navigation system will augment shipboard systems.
VL.CC’s and other classes of tankers will have tug
assistance as required. Qualified pilots will be
on board. VLCC’s will move only at times of low
currents and no other ships will move when VLCC’s
are operating. The U.S. Coast Guard Captain of
the Port, the Pittston port control 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 clean up force will be available.
Booms will be provided to lobster pound owners.
Booms will surround the tanker berthing areas
during transfer operations. Based on real time
simulation studies and other information, the U.S.
Coast Guard will review and aprove the operations
manual for the port.
1—7
-------
The conditions imposed by the Maine Board of
Environmental Protection and to be imposed by the Coast
Guard will minimize the risk of major oil spills to the
extent feasible, given the state of the art and the natural
conditions surrounding the Pittston site.
b. Risks of a Major Oil S ill
Notwithstanding the conditions imposed to
minimize the possibility of oil spills, the risk of a major
oil spill cannot be excluded. Although EPA is satisfied
that all reasonable measures will be required to assure the
safe passage of tanker traffic through Head 9arbor passage,
there remains controversy over (1) whether navigation of
tankers through Head Harbor passage can be conducted safely,
(2) whether the marine resources of this pristine area
should be put at risk from an oil spill, even if the risk is
very small, and (3) whether there are alternatives to the
Eastport site providing for significantly safer tanker
transit and placing less valuable marine resources in
jeopardy from a spill.
On the issue of the navigability of Head
Harbor passage for tankers, EPA must defer to the expertise
of the Coast Guard in making the final assessment, following
the completion of the additional studies to be conducted and
the development of operational conditions. EPA is not the
U.S. expert on navigation, and it is the Coast Guard’s
present opinion that the passage can be safely navigated.
Although the Canadian Coast Guard has questioned the
adequacy of the channel, the Eastport site meets the minimum
criteria for safe navigation set forth in the Canadian Coast
Guard’s draft report entitled “Code of Recommended Standards
for the Prevention Pollution in Marine Terminal Systems”.
The Coast Guard can be expected to conduct the necessary
detailed review of any navigability problems and to act upon
its conclusions in granting an operating license for the
port. EPA will participate in the review of the Real Time
Studies, and their successful outcome is a condition of the
NPDES permit.
Even assuming that the Head Harbor passage
meets navigability standards and that all feasible safety
systems are incorporated, there will remain a risk of a
major oil spill. In the opinion of the National Marine
Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce, and the
Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior,
this risk is unacceptable considering the rich marine
resources that would be harmed by such a spill. Clearly the
construction of a refinery at Eastport represents the
acceptance of a risk, however small, that an accident could
affect some or all of the diverse and abundant marine life
in the area. The introduction of this industrial activity
1—8
-------
could possibly mean the severe impairment of a renewable
resource and the fishing industry which depends upon it,
even though the damage would not be permanent.
The question is under what circumstances EPA
should withhold approval for construction of an industrial
facility approved by the State and local communities on the
ground that existing natural resources at a particular site
should be protected from potential harm. The denial of a
permit would be appropriate if EPA concluded (a) the risk of
environmental harm at the site is appreciably greater than
the risk presented at other reasonably available alternative
sites, or (b) the quality and scarcity of the resources at
risk is such that no significant threat to their impairment
should be incurred. Applying these criteria to the Pittston
situation requires comment on several issues, and
necessitates the consideration of alternatives.
At the risk of harm from oil spills at the
site, it is apparent that the Pittston location and the
tanker passage present significant advantages in terms of
the depth and configuration of the channel. The one
drawback that has been cited is the adverse weather
conditions, notably the frequency and rapid development of
fog. It is pointed out in the EIS that tanker passage will
not be undertaken when fog is prevalent or predicted. In
cases where a tanker has already begin to transit the
passage, however, it will be necessary to rely on electronic
navigational aids, because once committed the tanker must
proceed through the passage. While this is a drawback, the
comparison in the EIS of the Eastport site with other
possible refinery sites in the Machias, Penobscot/Blue Hill,
and Portland areas concludes that the risk of an oil spill
is significantly less for the Eastport site than for the
Penobscot/Blue Hill and Portland sites and slightly less
than the Machias site because of the greater exposure of the
Machias area to wind and weather conditions. Considering
the fact that Maine is the only State in New England with
natural deepwater ports, it is reasonable to use that State
as a basis for comparison of safety conditions. EPA is
unable to conclude that the Eastport site is appreciably
more hazardous.
If the Eastport site is no more hazardous
than other potential refinery sites, the question is whether
its marine resources should merit protection even if the
risk is not extraordinary. Again, EPA cannot conclude that
the Eastport area, though pristine, contains resources that
are so unusual or scarce that a federal agency should deny a
permit in an effort to preserve them unimpaired against the
encroachment of industry. So far as the impacts on
commercial fisheries resources are concerned, the analysis
in the EIS suggests that the impacts on such resources would
be less in Portland than in the other sites, but that site
1—9
-------
has other important drawbacks. In addition, the fact cannot
be denied that fishing as an industry has been declining in
the Eastport area, notwithstanding abundant marine
resources.
It comes down to a decision whether the
marine resources of this pristine area should be preserved
against all hazards notwithstanding the taking of all
possible precautions against spills and the choice of the
state and local community in favor of the present industrial
development. Neither the extent of the risk of oil spills
nor the nature of resources at risk is so unusual that EPA
should withhold approval of the Pittston application.
2. Evaluation of Alternatives to the Eastport Site
Im general, EPA’S responsibility in reviewing
privately sponsored projects differs from the agency’s role
in reviewing an EPA—funded project. In the latter case,
EPA has primary responsibility for assuring an optimum site
and the need for in—depth analysis of alternatives is
correspndingly greater. In making decisions subject to NEPA
requirements on permits for privately sponsored projects,
EPA generally believes its role is to determine whether the
proposed site is environmentally acceptable and not to
undertake to locate what EPA would consider to be the
optimum site for a new facility.
We recognize that, even in the case of privately
sponsored projects, approved by State and local authorities,
there may be projects that could be found to be
environmentally unacceptable in part because of the
existence of substantially less harmful alternatives and
that, in such a case, a more extensive analysis of the
alternative sites in an EIS could be necessary. Our
evaluation of this proposed facility did not disclose
alternatives (other an “no action”) that would be
substantially preferable from an environmental standpoint.
Thus, in our view, the purpose of the consideration of
alternatives in reviewing the proposed facility was not to
enable EPA to make affirmative findings that a particular
alternative would be marginally preferable, but to
facilitate comparisons that might reveal substantial
environmental drawbacks in the proposed site. This
different purpose affects the extent of the information on
alternatives necessary to make a decision.
In its comments on the draft EIS, the Council on
Environmental Quality questioned the adequacy of the
analysis of alternatives to the Eastport site. The EIS does
not present a cost analysis of several of the alternative
sites, and the information on the environmental impacts of
the alternatives presented in the EIS is less extensive than
the information on the Eastport site proposed by Pittston.
1—10
-------
EPA discussed its position on this project, as
described above, with staff members of the Council on
Environmental Quality.
In addition, the Eastport site has been
intensively evaluated by the Maine Board of Environmental
Protection. The Maine Board granted the Company conditional
site approval as well as air, water and wetlands licenses.
Furthermore, the State reviewed and commented on the draft
EIS. Such a thorough evaluation by a State agencies more
cognizant of potential alternative sites than EPPk should be
entitled to substantial weight.
3. Impacts on Passamaguoddy Tidal Power Proposals
Eastport has been considered a potential site for
tidal power generation since the 1920’s. The Corps of
Engineers has studied the possibility of an International
Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project using both Passamaquoddy
and Cobscook Bay and calling for dams to close both bays to
create two pools. Power would be generated by discharging
water from the high pool to the lower through turbines. The
Corps has also developed a single pool project using only
the waters of Cobscook Bay on the United States side of the
U..S.—Canadian Boundary. The projects have been periodically
reevaluated, especially in light of the need for alternative
energy sources. However, the tidal projects will not be
economically feasible under the cost—effectiveness criteria
established by Congress for water resource projects unless
those criteria are modified.
The proposed refinery and associated tanker
traffic would make the tidal power projects more complex and
costly because of the need to construct larger navigational
locks to permit the tankers to traverse the tidal power
pools fromed by the dams. However, the Corps of Engineers
has reviewed the proposed Pittston refinery and given its
opinion that the refinery and tanker traffic can be made
compatible with the tidal power projects under consid-
eration. Given this opinion and considering the fact that
the tidal power projects have still not reached the stage of
a specific proposal to Congress, there is no conflict
between the Pittston and tidal power projects sufficient to
call the Pittston proposal into question.
4. Air Quality Impacts
In the draft EIS the impacts of the refinery
operation on air quality were examined and it was concluded
that the proposal would meet the requirements of the Clean
Air Act. Subsequently, on May 25, 1977, the Maine Board of
Environmental Protection issued a license to the Pittston
Company which also concluded that the facility would meet
applicable air pollution control regulations. In addition,
I—il
-------
the facility must also obtain a permit from EPA under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations.
The conclusion in the draft EIS was that the PSD
requirements would be met.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of August 7, 1977
modified the PSD program in several important areas.
Regulations were promulgated implementing certain of the new
requirements on November 3, 1977 and on November 18, 1977,
EPA received information from the Pittston Company updating
and modifying their application in response to the new
requirements. A major substantive change of significance
for this project is the designation of Roosevelt—Campobello
Park and the Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge as so—called Class I
areas. This means that the refinery will have to meet the
strictest PSD requirements for limitations on suspended
particulates and sulfur dioxide. As of this writing, EPA
has preliminarily determined that the refinery will meet
these limitations but this determination is subject to
further review as part of a public comment process.
Although the refinery is considered to satisfy the
requirements of the PSD regulations, refinery emissions will
use up essentially all of the allowable air quality
increment within the Class I area which will mean that no
future major emitter could be located in the area of
influence.
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 permit (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
commences 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
additional controls which are required by the 1977 Clean Air
Act Amendments the Eastport area will not be in violation of
the oxidant standard at the time the refinery goes on line,
nor will the refinery cause such a violation.
5. Position of the Canadian Government
The Government of Canada has opposed the
construction and operation of the proposed refinery, and the
Canadian Department of Transportation and Environment Canada
have commented on the environmental and navigability issues
1—12
-------
in the draft EIS. EPA fully recognizes that Canada shares a
strong interest in protecting the environment and resources
of the Quoddy Region. The EIS describes and evaluates all
potential adverse impacts in the vicinity of Eastport
without regard to the U.S./Canadian boundary, and the final
EIS contains responses to the comments of agencies of the
Canadian Government. The question regarding the rights of
tanker passage through Head Harbor passage is a matter to be
resolved between the U.S. Department of State and the
Canadian government in the event that the Pittston facility
receives all necessary federal approvals.
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
Pittston to provide a vocational training program for
Washington County residents, subject to approval by the
Employment Security Commission of the Maine Department of
Manpower Affairs.
I— 13
-------
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 storrnwater 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 throughout 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 in
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
1—14
-------
certification of the NPDES permit under Section 401(d) of
the Act. The permit calls for the use of a submerged
diffuser outfall located a minimum of 3 feet blow low tide
and providing no contact between the discharge and
surrounding shorelines. It also incorporates by reference
the Order of the Maine Board of Erwironmental 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 and the
conduct of the crude oil transport system.
1—15
-------
CHAPTER TWO
ORGANIZAT IONAL
CONTEXT
-------
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT
Federal Agencies Involvement
National Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental
Impact Statement Process . The National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, Public Law 91—190, requires all Federal
agencies to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement
prior to the implementation or construction of any “major actions
that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment”.
The primary purpose of the EIS is to disclose the environmental
consequences of the proposed action, thereby providing a decision—
making tool for both the governmental agencies involved and the
general public.
The EIS process is a two—phase undertaking which Involves
the preparation of a draft EIS and a final EIS. Both phases
should be completed as early as possible In the planning of the
project. In any case, a draft EIS must be prepared and circu-
lated for comment at least 90 days before the proposed action
commences. The final EIS must be made public at least 30 days
before the proposed action Is initiated. It Is particularly
Important for all interests which will be affected by the proposed
project to take advantage of the public participation opportunity
afforded them by the EIS review process.
The draft EIS must Include: a detailed description of
the proposed action including information and technical data
adequate to permit a full assessment of its environmental
Impacts; Identification and analysis of alternatives to the
proposed action, including the alternatives of no action and
postponing action, which could avoid or mitigate the adverse
environmental impacts; a discussion of the proposed action’s
probable impacts on the environment-primary and secondary,
beneficial and adverse, short term and long term; an evaluation
of any adverse impacts which cannot be avoided should the
project be implemented, and steps necessary to minimize their
harm to the environment; an assessment of the relationship between
local short term uses of the environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long term productivity; an analysis of any
irreversible and Irretrievable commitments of resources which
could result from the action. The final EIS must also include
a discussion of each of the comments or issues raised by other
Federal, State, and local agencies and by private organizations
and individuals during the draft statement’s review process.
In the case of the Pittston proposal, actions by several
Federal agencies have been required. Rather than require the pre-
paration of a series of environmental impact statements, the CEQ
designated one agency — the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region I — to act as the “lead agency” in the preparation of
the ElS. Throughout the EIS preparation process, EPA has received
the full cooperation of each agency participating in this project.
h—i
-------
The EPA, Region I office has followed the procedures set
forth in CEQ’s “Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements” (FR August 1, 1973) and EPA ’s proposed regu-
lations entitled “Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements,
New Source Permits” (FR October 9, 1975). In accordance with
these regulations, on October 22, 1975, EPA issued a Notice of
Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the ap-
plication of Pittston for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimi—
nation System (NPDES) permit. The purpose of this notice was to
solicit public comment to aid EPA in the preparation of the EIS.
Additional comments on the draft EIS were invited anytime
before December 28, 1976. In addition, a public hearing was held
December 3, 1976 in Eastport, Maine.
FEIS Process . Approximately 320 comments were received on
the DEIS. All of these comments were reviewed and consequently
extensive rewrites of the DEIS were undertaken 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
Where comments resulted in changes in the text of the OhS, the
changes are identified by a solid black line in the left hand mar-
gin of the appropriate pages. In addition, Chapter X of this Vol-
ume contains a selection of the most characteristic comments that
were received. chapter X also includes an index of comments.
Those comments which are not addressed by Volume II text changes
or are not included in Volume II Chapter X, are covered in Volume
IV of the FEIS where detailed responses to all comments are pre-
sented.
Agency Involvement . Seven Federal agencies have reviewed
the Pittston proposal from the standpoint of their areas of juris-
diction and expertise. In addition to their involvement in the
Federal Regional Council (FRC) work group on Refinery Siting*,
the actions required by each of these agencies are discussed below.
*The heads of the ten (10) principle Federal grant making agencies
comprise the FRC. Its Energy Resource Development Task Force is
composed of representatives of several Federal agencies, the New
England Governors, the New England Regional Commission and the
New England River Basins Commission. The primary mission of the
Task Force is to improve New England’s energy posture in a respon-
sible way while reducing the region’s adverse energy cost differ-
ential and its dependence on petroleum products. The Refineries
Siting Committee of the Task Force is chaired by EPA and includes
the FEA, the New England River Basins Commission, Department of the
Interior, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries
Service, New England Regional Commission, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
EPA utilized this committee as a coordinating mechanism in the de-
velopment of this EIS. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration Association, National Marine Fisheries Service, FAA,
Department of Labor, and the Maine Office of Energy Resources were
also added to the committee to aid in the effort.
11—2
-------
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . EPA is consider-
ing the issuance of a NPDES permit as required by
Section 1402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendment (FWPCA) of 1972 for the discharge of process
and nonprocess wastewaters from the Pittston Company’s
proposed ci]. refinery and marine terminal into Deep
Cove at Eastport, Maine. This permit would authorize
Pittston to discharge effluent to the receiving waters
only in accordance with certain effluent limitations
based on Maine’s Water Quality Standards and in accor-
dance with EPA’s new source performance standards under
the Petroleum Refinery Point Source Category (39 FR
16563, May 9, 19714) for EPA has determined that the
proposed discharge will constitute a “new source” as
defined in Section 306 of the FWPCA. A copy of the
draft permit is included in Appendix A to this report.
Prior to issuing a “new source” permit, EPA is required
to review the project under the terms of NEPA. As a
result of this initial review, EPA determined that the
issuance of the permit would constitute a “major federal
action that may significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.” Therefore, an environmental impact
statement had to be prepared. The proposed permit will
eventually be issued, denied, or conditioned based upon
the EIS’s evaluation of the significant beneficial and
adverse impacts on the human environment.
Federal laws which set forth EPA’s legal authority and
jurisdication pertaining to the Pittston proposal are:
the FWPCA (33 USC 1151 et seq.); NEPA of 1969 (142 USC
11321 et seq.); the Clean Air Act of 1970 (142 USC 1857 et
seq.); the Solid Waste Disposal Act (142 USC 32514 et seq.);
the 19514 Atomic Energy Act, as amended (142 USC 201 et seq.);
and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 19714 (142 USC 300f).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U. S. Department
of Transportation . A portion of the proposed Pittston
refinery site is currently the Eastport Municipal
Airport. The airport was built in 19142 by the Works
Progress Administration under the terms of an AP—14
agreement between the City of Eastport and the Federal
government. In 1959, the Federal government participated
in improvements to the airport under the terms of a
grant agreement issued in conjunction with the Federal
Aid Airport Program. This grant obligated Eastport to
operate and maintain the airport throughout the useful
life of the facilities, not to exceed 20 years, or until
March 19, 1979.
“—3
-------
The City of Eastport has now requested that FAA release
it from its commitment to continue the operation of the
airport since the PIttston Company has an option to buy
the airport site from the City. After consultation with
the CEQ, FAA stated in its letter of November 12, 1971 !
to the City of Eastport that:
“There is no question that, considering the
prospective actions of a number of federal
agencies, the development of an oil refinery on
this site will require an environmental impact
statement. The Council on Environmental Quality
has designated the Environmental Protection Agency
as the lead agency responsible for assembling
information and preparing the environmental Impact
statement.”
FAA has also Indicated that the release and sale of the
airport would become final “only after consideration of
the final environmental Impact statement and the Issues
raised In It.”
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) . The New England
Division of the COE has received an application from
Pittston for permits to construct piers at both Broad
Cove and Deep Cove with a diffuser discharge on the Deep
Cove pier.
Pittston has also applied to the COE for a permit to
dredge approximately 1,450,000 cubic yards of material
from these same cove areas where the oil tankers will be
berthed. A permit for both the dredging and disposal of
dredged spoils Is required pursuant to Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. No discharges of dredged
or fill material under Section 1!014 of the FWPCA are pro-
posed. Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act,
such authorization Is required for the construction of any
structure or work in, or affecting, navigable waters of
the United States. Impacts to waters under the jurisdiction
of the Corps are addressed in the ElS. No wetlarx s are Involved
in the construction of this prQj ect.
Pursuant to NEPA, the COE has assisted EPA during the
Impact statement process. COE has also provided EPA
with Input on the proposed International Passamaguoddy
Tidal Power Project, discussed in a later section of
the EIS, which, if Implemented, would also be constructed
in the vicinity of Eastport. -
Federal Energy Administration (FEA) . Although not
legally responsible for a permit action, the PEA pro-
vided the analysis of the need for a New England refinery.
-------
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) , L partment of Transportation . Althou
no specific Coast Guard permits are required for the proposed
Pittston project, several aspects of the marine transport and na—
vigation system are subject to Coast Guard approval. For exan’ple,
the Coast Guard is responsible for the placement of aids to navi-
gation in navigational waters of the U.S. Pittston’s aids to navi-
gation require FCC licensing. In addition, Pittston must file an
Operations Manual with the Coast Guard within six nDnths of the
start of operation.
As a result of the Coast Guard’ s expertise in marine matters,
EPA requested their participation in the review of the marine en-
vironmental protection and marine terminals section of the envi—
rorTnental assessment, with special attention paid to VLCC shipping.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Department of the
Interior . Under the terms of the Fish and Wildlife Coordi-
nation Act of 1958, the FWS, which Is responsible for
administering the list of Endangered Species, was consulted
to determine If any plants or animals on the Endangered
List exist in or near the proposed project. FWS has
reviewed the specific Permits and conditions.
National Park Service (NPS) . The National Park Service is
responsible for administering the Archeological Preserva-
tion Act of l97 and the Historic Preservation Act of
1966. Therefore, at the request of NPS, an archeological
survey of the proposed site was performed by the University
of Maine in July 1976.
Pittston Company’s Involvement In the EIS Process .
Following the conditional approval of the proposed refinery
by the State of Maine’s Board of Environmental Protection, the
Pittston Company met with members of both EPA and the FRC
Working Group on Refinery Siting.
Because of the extensive additional Information required
for the EIS, It was agreed that the Pittston Company would
develop an Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) based on an
outline approved by the EPA and FRC. During the preparation of
the EAR, individual agencies were periodically consulted. Various
field surveys and monitoring efforts were also conducted by
Pittston. The EAR was received by EPA in April of 1976. Follow-
ing an in—depth review by EPA and the FRC work group, the Pittston
Company was requested to clarify several issues and provide
additional data where required.
-------
In all cases, the material provided in the EAR and sub-
sequently utilized in the EIS has been carefully reviewed and
documented by the Federal agencies involved. In many cases,
additional monitoring, analysis and literature research were
done entirely independent of the EAR data. Where opinions of
the Pittston Company are included in the EIS in developing an
issue, they are so noted.
ii—6
-------
CHAPTER THREE
EXISTING
ENVIRON ME NT
-------
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Descrip tion of Study Area
The proposed project site is located on Moose Island
within the territorial limits of the City of Eastport, Washington
County, and the State of Maine.
Moose Island, seven miles from the open Atlantic Ocean,
is located at the extreme eastern end of Maine’s sparsely popu-
lated Washington County. It is one of three major Islands near
the Canadian border, the other two being Canada’s own Campobello
Island and Deer Island. As shown In Figure 11 1—i, Moose Island
is connected to the mainland by a causeway built in the 1930’s.
Eastport is situated in the northeastern corner of the
State on the lower reaches of the Bay of Fundy as illustrated
in Figure 111—2. Its location relative to New York City, Boston
and Canada’s Maritime Provinces is shown on the Regional Location
Map, Figure 111—3. The City of Eastport Is the fourth largest
city in Washington County, with a population of 2,100. It lies
28 miles southeast of Calais, the largest city In Washington
County, and 46 miles northeast of Machias, the second largest
city.
Washington County is bounded on the south by the Atlantic
Ocean, on the west by the Maine Counties of Hancock and Penobscot,
and on the north and east by Charlotte County of New Brunswick,
Canada. In road miles, Charlotte County’s easterly and northerly
boundaries are only about 70 and 60 miles, respectively, from
Eastport and the project site.
Geology
Regional Geologic History . Most of the rock in Maine Is
of the Silurian—Devonian Age dating back 350-J140 million years
with some sparsely distributed earlier and later Paleozoic rocks.
During the Silurian—Devonian periods, a process of sedimentation
had already begun, resulting in the deposition of a thick series
of rocks in long, narrow, water—filled troughs known as geo—
synclines. In Maine, these geosynclines received copius marine
sediments and volcanic rock. The sedimentary rocks Include shale
and siltstones; the volcanic rocks are largely fragmental—flow
breccia, tuft breccia, and coarse bedded tuft, with basaltic
flows also present. The measured thicknesses of these troughs in
the Eastport area approach I 5,000 feet. However, the folding,
faulting and intrusion of granitic and gabbroic magmas which
occurred during the middle Devonian period known as the Acadian
Orogeny ended the volcanic activity. Much later in Triassic
times, movements in a system of Northeast—trending faults shuffled
III—’
-------
SITE VICINITY MAP
FIGURE ifi
CHARLOTTE COUNTY
PIEW BRUNSWICK
CANADA)
WASHINGTON COUNTY
(MAINE)
POINT LEPREAU
EASTPORT
.
MS* M
6
BAY OF FUNDY
‘1
H
H
0 MN
N
-D
I
-------
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 111-2
.
\
A EXISTING REFINERY
0
SCALE IN MILES
SmngOr.
PROPOS’)
3ff E
111-3
-------
FIGURE 111-3
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
CANADA
_/MONTREAL .I’
/ U1 1ftE D
STAT
STRAIT
SABLE ISLAND
f
PRINCE
EDWARD
NEW
t
‘I
/
/
I
/
/
I ’
/
SYDNEY
EAST PORT MAINE
+
NEW YORK
ATLANTIC OCEAN
111—4
-------
together blocks of different mineral composition, structure and
age that originally may have been miles apart. This Triassic
Period, some 180 million years ago, was crucial because it marked
the end of Appalachian geosynclinal sedimentation. It also
marked the opening of the Atlantic Ocean. As Europe and North
America drifted apart, there was tensional faulting along the
length of the Appalachians. Although it has ceased, this faulting
may be responsible for some of the gentle seismic activity
observed in the Eastport area. The land raised during the
Acadian Orogeny continued to weather throughout most of the
Cenozoic, with derived sediments deposited off—shore on the
continental shelf.
The final geologic event to affect the area was the
Wisconsinan Stage of the Pleistocene glaciation, which sculpted
and rounded the terrane, helping to carve the deep river valleys
of the northeast coast. After the Ice melted, a mantle of rock
debris was left covering the surface.
Site Geology
Bedrock . A complex, interbedded series of Lower Devonian
rocks, both volcanic and sedimentary, form the base of
Moose Island. This series, called the Eastport Formation,
may be subdivided Into rocks that include basalt—andesite
flows, basalt—andesite tuff breccias, rhyolitic flow
banded vitrophyre and ash flows. The latest unit of the
sequence Is sedimentary, comprising gray, green and maroon
slltstones and shales. Radiogenic dating In the Eastport
Formation yielded an age of l2 million years, which is
consistent with the relative age as determined by fossils.
Most of the rocks In the surface are highly Jointed and
fractured. Many of these have been filled with quartz
and iron sulfides, although subsequent weathering of the
sulfides has reopened many of the fractures.
Layered rocks on Moose Island are part of a syncline that
plunges North—Northwest about 15 degrees. A number of
NE—SW trending faults also cut through the area but have
experienced little or no movement In over 150 million
years.
Additional information is contained in Appendix B.
Surficial Geology . The proposed site is composed of a
series of marine clays, sands and glacial till. Maximum
depth to bedrock Is about 30 feet at the eastern end of
*Thompson, D. E. and T. K. LIu, 1972. Report on Preliminary Site
Investlgations for the Proposed Eastport Refinery, Eastport,
Maine . Haley and Aldrich, Cambridge, Mass.
III- 5
-------
the site, but Is only about 15 feet in the central area
near the airport runways. Soils are dlscu8sed In greater
detail in the following section.
Seismic History . Regional studies show the area to be
of low seismic risk for the nearest major activity zone Is
the St. Lawrence River Valley which is over 200 miles to
the north of the site. Earthquake records from 1927 show
that light tremors from a number of earthquakes outside
Eastport have reached the area. However, only three dis-
turbances were centered in Eastport: August 26, 19314;
July 15, 19145; and August 27, 19145. Additional information
on the area’s seismic history Is contained In Appendix B.
Subsurface Soils and Rock . A preliminary Investigation
of the site was carried out to determine and evaluate subsurface
treatment for the different structures in the proposed project.
The work included: (a) an engineering geological reconnaissance
of the site; (b) test borings; and Cc) laboratory soil tests.
Rock and Soils Map . The results of the geological recon—
naissance are summarized in Figure III_14 which is a plan
view superimposed on the refinery layout. The five major
classifications of subsurface materials encountered were:
fill; marine clays; outwash sands; glacial till; and bed-
rock. The relationship of these materials at one cross
section through the site is shown on the Soil Profile
Map, Figure 111—5.
Test Borings and Soil Analysis . Eight 2—1/2 inch diameter
standard drive test borings were made; four of these were
cored 39 to 60 Inches into the underlying rock. The
boring locations are shown on Figure 111-6 and the
results are given in Table 111—1. Laboratory classi-
fication tests, including Atterberg limits and natural
water content, were performed on Shelby tube samples of
the cohesive soils to evaluate the engineering properties.
Unconfined compression tests were conducted on four samples
of the clay to assist in estimating probable ranges of
allowable soil bearing pressures. These results are
summarized In Table 111—2.
Construction Limitations . Some general conclusions
drawn from this work follow. Post—construction settle—
merit of foundation units constructed on the bedrock and
glacial till should be minimal. Most of the storage
tankage proposed can be supported at normal foundation
depth without piling. In areas where marine clay Is not
present, most structures can be supported on shallow
foundations using normal construction practices. Where
111—6
-------
EASTPORT FORMATION
FIGURE 111-4
Gray, green, maroon
z siltstone, shale
hyre, tuff breccia, ash
I J B c-andesitic flows
J I1 llllllh1lli Diabase dkes
A-A’
Line of section
N
Fauft; dashed where inferred
Stñke and p of beds
A
SCALE OF MILES
111—7
-------
SOIL PROFILE OF SITE
LEGEND
FIGURE 111.5
TEST BORING NUMBER
STANDARD PENETRATION
—TEST RESULTS
28
BXCORE
LENGTH OF CORE
36.0
ORGANIC SOILS (TOPSOIL, PEAT)
- OUTWASH SANDS
y GROUNDWATER LEVEL
MARINE CLAYS
GLACIAL TILL
10
1
1
0
INORGANIC SILT
BEDROCK
80
40
I0
31
-------
SOIL MAP OF SITE
N
-
FIGURE 111-6
___ BORING LOC ATIOI’45
H
H
LE 3END
FILL
MARINE CLAYS
OUTWASH SANDS
GLACIAL TILL
IJillilifi BEDROCK
-------
marine clay is encountered, heavy structures may need
high capacity foundations as opposed to shallow founda-
tions with a low bearing stress.
TABLE l it-i.
SUMMARY OF TEST aoiusc AND TEST PIT ELEVATIONS AND DEPTHS
Boring or Ground Surface Depth of Depth of
Test it Elevations Overburden Bedrock
No. ( MS LI ( ft.) Drilled (ft. )
D l 38.0 3.1 5.0
D2 34.1 1.8 0
D3 33.2 14.4 0
D4 31.2 13.8 3.3
OS 3?.• 29.7 0
D I 41.3 12.1 0
0? 50.0 13.? 5.0
DI $4.0 30.8 4.0
44.9 14.0 0
‘1)2 was a 12-In, diameter hand-excavated test pit and back-
flUed upon completion. The remainder were test borings.
(see text. Section 2-02)
Source: Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Consulting Soil Engineers
111—10
-------
‘Os’
N SA S
TABLE 111—2.
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
FII.t NO. 3067
£? STPORT RZFINERY
EASTPORT, MAIN!
BO INS
S SAUPLE
HUI D EA
DESESIPTIOS
DEPYN
I C(T)
TEST
MO.
NATUN L
SATES
CONTNT
ATI(N 5(RG
LillilS
.!L
UNIT
WEIGHT
Lb/DirT
UNCONFINCO 1(51
CONSOLIDA
T sy
PS(SSQN( C
T0i4/SQ.FT.
OTH(S
TESTS
CO tSSIvL
S1N NGTN
p
STRAIN
I.
03/i
Mottled light brown
silty CLAY
6.5—
8.5
7.7
7,9
8.2
Li
C 1
25.0
23.2
25.6
37.3
17.:
120.6
466
2.6
0.2
PP — 2.25
04(1).
Brown silty CLAY
with frequent silt
laminations (distur—
bed in middle to
9.3’)
8.0—
10.0
8.7
9.0
9.8
L2
C2
24.4
25.0
22.2
39.0
17.7
(124.3
126.7
960
3.4
IV 0.2
PP — 3.3
05/i
Olive gray silty
CLAY, trace organic
matter
8.9—
10.0
9.0
9.2
9.5
9.7
C3
L3
24.8
21.1
17.8
23.2
38.7
16.2
(129.2
128.4
2020
9.6
—
—
TV — 0.7
PP • 1.7
TV — 0.4
PP — ‘4.5
OS/2
Gray sandy SILT to
19.3’, silty CLAY
with trace organic
clay from 19.3’ to
20.0’
—
18.0—
20.0
18.4
18.6
19.0
19.6
L4
C4
LS
—
20.6
20.2
18.4
27.7
19.3
36.5
—
16.4
19.
—
(125.8
130.1
.
970
8.0
—
-----
—
TV 0.1
1.5
09/1
NOT!S
1 to 5—in, thick
irregular alternating
layers of clayey SAND
and silty CLAY (Top
6 disturbed)
TV — Sheaz strength I
PP = Compressive str
) Unit weight of
—
10.0—
12.0
11.2
11.3
11.9
TSP
ngth I
ntire
24.5
22.0
24.9
ed b
sure
—
(124.1
TV 0.24
pp 1.0
as
I TS
iamp
—
measu
as me
.
Tor
by
—
ane m
locket
—
rtufactu:
penetroi.
d by
ter
—
Soiltes
anufact
.
red
—
by Soilte
-I
Source: Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Consulting Soil Engineers
t
III—”
-------
Topography . Maine is generally located in the New
England Upland Province of the Appalachian Mountains although
Eastport itself is in the Coastal Lowlands Province, which has
a gently rolling topography sloping toward the sea. The average
altitude of the region is approximately 100 feet above sea level.
Land Use
General Area . Eastport’s municipal boundaries encom-
pass about 6,700 acres, only 2,300, or less than 35 percent,
of which are land. The remaining , 400 acres are waterbodies.
The majority of Eastport’s residents live in the City’s
center at the southeastern end of the isla id although a small
group lives on the northwestern end in Quoddy Village. This
development was built in the 1930’s to house Army Corps of
Engineers’ personnel undertaking field survey work for the
proposed Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project. The only major
developments in the City since then have been the airport, the
Hillside Cemetery and a State funded fish processing plant which
did not operate successfully.
Except for two industries, the City’s business and indus-
trial districts are located along the waterfront on the edge of
its residential area.
The remainder of Washington County is similar in that
most of its inhabitants also reside in small coastal communities.
Most of its land area, which consists of’ 1.86 million acres, or
2,900 square miles and extends some 85 miles north to south and
55 miles east to west, is in commercial forest use. Only 1 per-
cent of its land is in urban use; 13 percent is wetlands and
waterways; 1 percent is farmland largely devoted to low bush
blueberry crops; and 70 percent is commercial forest. Except
for the Georgia Pacific Company’s paper mill In Woodland, there
are no major industrial areas or complexes in the county.
Charlotte County, New Brunswick, Canada, resembles Wash-
ington County in many ways for, similarly, most of its popula-
tion is along the coastal corridor, while the inland is mostly
forest and waterways. In area, however, Charlotte County is
smaller, encompassing only l, 2 J 43 square miles versus Washington
County’s 2,900 square miles.
Project Site . The proposed refinery and marine terminal
Is to be built on approximately 650 acres of land on the western
part of Moose Island. Approximately 200 acres of the site is
maintained as the Eastport Municipal Airport for transient light
planes. There are also 20 to 30 small frame houses scattered
along the periphery of’ the site adjacent to the highway and
county roads. Five of these houses are occupied and located
111—12
-------
within the the refinery site. The site also includes the
Shackford Head area, an undeveloped woodland of about 90 acres.
Most of the 650 acres Is a mixture of timber, grassland, and
scrub brush although a portion of the site Is presently used as
an open burning dump, receiving municipal refuse from the City
of Eastport, and a five acre camping ground. Immediately adja-
cent to the site on Broad Cove is the Mean Corporation, a manu-
facturer of pearl essence, fish meal, and a fire retardant foam.
The proposed project site is bounded on the northeast by
Highway 190; the remainder of the area Is bounded by the waters
of Cobscook Bay. Since the highway lies along the ridge dividing
Moose Island, the site area is visible from Route 190 for only
3/14 of a mile. It is not visible from the center of Eastport,
the most densely settled area.
Eastport, one of two communities in Washington County
with a comprehensive zoning ordinance, has zoned the entire site
for Industrial development.
Soclo—Economic Characteristics
Population . As indicated by the figures in Table 111—3,
Washington County’s population rose from about 12,700 in 1820 to
a peak of 145,200 in 1900, declining steadily to about 29,800 in
1970. In Eastport, the population peaked at 5,311 in 1900, and
then fell steadily to 1,989 in 1970. Between 1970 and 1973, a
small Increase In population was experienced in both Washington
County and Eastport. These increases, resulting in populations
of about 31,700 and 2,100, respectively, were In the order of
6 percent and are attributed largely to an Influx of (a) elderly,
retired couples, (b) returning former residents and (c) urban
dwellers seeking new lifestyles. Retired couples make up the
largest group of new corners to the Eastport—Pembroke area.
As previously indicated, the largest city in the county
Is Calais with a population of about 14,000. It serves as the
regional shopping center for Washington County and nearby
Canadian communities. In addition, being the northern terminus
of U. S. Route No. 1, Calais is the major border crossing to
Canada from Maine. The second largest city in Washington County,
with a population of 2,700, Is Nachias. It also serves as a
principal shopping center.
The age distribution pattern throughout the area reflects
the decline of a fishing manufacturing center. In 1970, the
median age was 143.7 years in Eastport, 33.14 in Washington County
and 29.3 in the U. S. Eastport’s 1970 master plan noted the
following: “The young working—age population has been con-
sistently leaving Eastport to seek employment In other areas
111—13
-------
where jobs are more readily available at higher income levels.”
Area officials report that this exodus of young people has con-
tinued through today.
TABLE 111—3.
POPULATION CRANGES IN WASRINGTON COUNTY AND EASTPORT
Year
Washington County
East ’ ort
Population Change
(%)
Population
Change (%)
1820
1830
1840
1850
12,744
21,294
28,327
38,811
——
67.1
33.0
37.0
1,937
2,450
2,876
4,125
——
26.5
17.4
43.4
1860
1870
1880
1890
42,534
43,343
44,484
44,482
9.6
1.9
2.6
0.0
3,850
3,736
4,006
4,908
- 6.7
— 3.0
7.2
22.5
1900
1910
1920
1930
45,232
42,905
41,709
37,826
1.7
— 5.1
— 2.8
— 9.3
5,311
4,961
4,494
3,466
8.2
— 6.6
— 9,4
—22.9
1940
1950
1960
1970
37,767
35,187
32,908
29, 859
— 0.2
— 6.8
— 6. 5
— 9.3
3,346
3,123
2,537
1,989
— 3.5
— 6.7
—18.8
-21.6
1973
31,737
6.3
2, 103
5.7
Sources :
• U. S. Bureau of Census: 1820-1970
• U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1975. Current Population Reports,
“Population Estimates and Projections”.
The land area to the north and east of Washington County
lies in Charlotte County In the Province of New Brunswick, Canada.
Charlotte County includes Deer Island, Campobello Island, and
Grand Manaan Island. St. Stephens, New Brunswick, with a pc la-
tion of 3,k09 in 1970, is the closest city, and lies dIrectl
across the river from Calais, Maine.
The total 1971 population in Charlotte County was about
2L ,6OO. Although slightly smaller than Washington County, the
population in Charlotte County continued to increase during the
1950—1970 period while it declined l percent in Washington
County.
iii—i’i
-------
Additional population data is contained in Appendix C.
Economy . The 1970 U. S. Census indicated that about
9,1190 persons were employed in Washington County, 31 percent of
which were in manufacturing; 11 percent in agriculture/forestry!
fisheries; 5 percent in transportation/communications/utilltles;
8 percent in construction; 17 percent in wholesale/retail trade;
2 percent in banking/insurance/real estate; 19 percent in
services; and 7 percent in public administration. Table 111—11
shows that since 1950, this total workforce decreased 6 percent,
and a significant shift in distribution occurred. The number
employed decreased 118 percent in agriculture/forestry/fisheries,
9 percent in manufacturing and 31 ! percent in transportation!
communication/utilities while employment increased 18 percent in
trade, 17 percent in construction, 20 percent in services, and
118 percent in public administration. The largest increase
occurred in the banking/insurance/real estate category.
The decline in employment in the agriculture/forestry!
fisheries industries over this 20 year span reflects the overall
decline in fish resources off the Northeast Atlantic Coast and
the decrease in the number of acres farmed from 37,000 in 19119 to
17,000 in 1969. However, in the past couple of years, commercial
fisheries have increased slightly. According to the records of
the Maine Department of Marine Resources the total fishing
licenses for Washington County increased from 2,995 in 1973 to
3,005 in 19711. The majority of the recently issued commercial
fishing licenses were for lobster and crab although other marine
species fished include scallops and marine worms.
The decrease in manufacturing employment between 1950 and
1970 is due largely to the decline of the sardine canning
industry, leaving only those sardine packing plants at Lubec (2),
Machiasport (1), MilirIdge (2), and Eastport (1). The largest
year—round manufacturing employer in the county now is a pulp and
paper mill located in Woodland and operated by Georgia Pacific
Company.
In 1970, half of those employed in the county were blue
collar workers, with an unusually large proportion of nonfarm
laborers, almost 13 percent versus 6 percent for the State;
17 percent were classified as craftsmen, foremen and kindred
workers versus 15 percent for the whole State. Less than 9 per-
cent were considered professional versus 12 percent for the
State. Tables in Appendix C from the U. S. Bureau of Census,
Maine Department of Economic Development and Maine Department of
Manpower Affairs detail this information.
Historically, the shortage of year—round jobs has made for
high unemployment In Washington County and has been a significant
factor in making this County the poorest in Maine. Unemployment
111—15
-------
TABLE 111—4.
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUS TRY
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MAINE
Industry
1950
1960
1970
% Change
1950/70
Agriculture
830
468
——
Forest & Fisheries
1129
1959
430
898
--
1016
—48
Subtotal
MinIng
ConstructIon
Subtotal
18
620
638
12
1244
1256
7
742
749
——
—20
Manufacturing
— Wood Products
— Food & KIndred
— Other
— Subtotal
1071
1115
1.079
3265
946
726
1375
3047
417
678
1865
2960
—61
—39
+72
— 9
Transportation
Communications/Utilities
513
181
337
176
258
197
—50
- 9
Wholesale & Retail Trade
Banking/Insurance/Real Estate
Services
Subtotal
1348
92
1523
2963
1488
110
1474
3072
1587
235
1827
3649
18
155
20
Public Administration
Other
446
169
511
247
661
—-
48
——
Total
10,134
9542
9490
— 6
Notes
• 1970 figures include 14 to 15 year olds. Including these would increase total to 9636.
• Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, “General and Social Characteristics”, 1950,
1960 and 1970.
iii—i6
-------
rates ranged from 8.6 to 9.6 percent in the 1970 to 197k period,
averaging 13 percent in 1975.
The seasonal nature of available employment also puts
personal income at a very low level. As shown in Table 111—5,
the median family income in 1970 was $6,137 for Washington
County, with 19 percent of the families classified at or below
the poverty level of $5,038. In the food sector of manufac-
turing the average 197k gross wage was $3,218. Of all the
counties in Maine, Washington County has the highest percentage
of families below the poverty level. Median household income
was 30 percent below that of the State and 37 percent below that
of the nation’s. Only 6.5 percent of the families had Incomes
above $15,000.
TABLE 111—5.
COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC STATUS
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY RESIDENTS, 1970
Area
Families
_________
Median
Income
% below Pov-
erty Level
% Above
$15, 000_
Washington County
Maine
New England
United States
$6, 137
8,205
10,617
9,590
19.0
10.3
6.7
10.7
6.5
11.2
24.2
20. &
Source :
a U. S. Bureau of the Cei sus, 1970 Census of Popu1ation
“General Social and Economic Characteristics.”
The 1972 average per capita income in Eastport was only
$2,118. This was l 4 percent below the county level, 30 percent
below the State level, and 45 percent below the national average.
This low value is due primarily to the reduction of the City’s
industrial base, which historically has been sardine canning.
At the turn of the century, when Eastport was a thriving city of
5,300, 16 sardine processing plants were operating within Its
boundaries earning it the nickname, “Sardine Capital of the
111—17
-------
World”. In 1900, 2,200 people were employed in the industry.
Today, only one sardine cannery with a seasonal peak labor force
of 100 remains. This operates only part—time when fish are
available, and it is expected to close permanently within the
next two to three years. There also is some other commercial
fishing carried on In Eastport. According to the records of
Maine’s Department of Marine Resources, a total of 17 lobster
and crab fishing licenses were issued in 1973 and 12 lobster and
crab licenses were issued in 19714.
The industrial sector in Eastport includes Guilford Indus-
tries, a wool spinning mill; Holmes PackIng Corporation, the
remaining sardine cannery; and Mean Corporation. In 19714, 3714
persons were employed in manufacturing work.
As with Washington County, Eastport’s economic problems
are aggravated by the seasonal nature of the food processing
Industry. Peak employment occurs during the summer with massive
unemployment in the winter and spring. In 19714, unemployment
ranged from a low of 5.5 percent in August to a high of 114.1 per-
cent in March, with an annual average of 10.1 percent. In
February 1975, according to State statistics, unemployment reached
19.14 percent. After the sununer peak, unemployment insurance and
food stamps play critical roles In supporting Eastport’s labor
force. This information is detailed further in Appendix C.
The City’s economic problems are further aggravated be-
cause the downturn in manufacturing employment has not been
offset by growth in other sectors of Eastport’s business com-
munity. Noninanufacturing employment dropped from 159 in
September 1972 to 131 in September 19714 with most of this drop
In the wholesale/retail trade sector of the economy. Also, like
most of Washington County, Eastport does not enjoy the economic
benefits from tourism and recreation that many areas of Maine
do. There Is little prospect that there will be any significant
Industrial development In the near future for the response to
community development profiles sent to Industries in 19714 by
the City of Eastport has been low.
Although unemployment is an indicator of the economic
status of an area, Eastport cannot be characterized by unemploy-
ment data alone for many individuals do not meet the minimum
requirements for obtaining unemployment benefits, specifically
Insufficient work period, etc. Other useful indicators of the
area’s economic status are the number of welfare and food stamp
recipients. As of January 214, 1976, 190 of Eastport’s 600 to
650 families were receiving food stamps, and 4O families were
receiving welfare. Knowledgeable officials in Eastport have
estimated that unemployment was more like 22 percent in August
1975 when seasonal employment was at its high point for the year,
rising to 143 percent in January 1976.
111—18
-------
In 1970 the total employment in Charlotte County was 7,985
compared with 9,490 In Washington County. As In Washington
County, many of these jobs were seasonal. In 1970, 20 percent
of the employed worked less than 26 weeks and oniy 147 percent
worked the year round. Personal income levels were comparable
to Washington County.
Fishing is also a primary Industry in Charlotte County.
In 1974, the Fisheries Research Board of Canada estimated that
2,850 people, about 11 percent of the population, were directly
engaged In the fishing industry either as fishermen or as
employees of fish processing companies. Approximately 60 per-
cent of the fishermen are engaged in herring fishing and 50 per-
cent are engaged in lobster fishing. Other fisheries of less
Importance are groundfish and clams.
There are 28 active fish processing plants, 8 handlers
and 18 tidal lobster pounds in Charlotte County. According to
the Board’s 1974 report, Charlotte County Is Canada’s major area
for the long—term storage of live lobsters and the center for
distribution to U. S. markets.
In the Bay of Fundy area lobsters are the most important
resource for the commercial fishermen. Herring and ground fish-
eries are also large employers with scallops, iris moss, clams
and salmon fisheries employing others.
In the Bay of Fundy area, approximately 2 percent of the
population are employed directly by these fisheries. The coastal
areas near the mouth of the Bay are heavily dependent upon the
fishing industry since 78 fish processing plants, 141 handlers
and 20 tidal lobster pounds exist within the region.
The tourist Industry also plays a significant role in
the economy of Charlotte County, New Brunswick. Estimates for
1973 include $10.0 million spent by tourists in the County.
The Passamaquoddy Bay area accommodates about 25 percent of the
travellers to this region. In the Bay of Fundy region, total
income from the tourist trade was about $24.0 million in 1973.
There is less o a tourist industry in Washington County and
very little tourism in Eastport.
In recent years, some industrial development has also
occurred along New BrunswIck’s coastline. Irving Oil’s
150,000 BPD oil refinery In St. John was recently expanded to
250,000 BPD capacity. As a result, this is presently tanada’s
largest refinery. Approximately 8,800 acres of waterfront
property in that section of St. John known as Lorneville has
been slated for industrial development. A 9145 megawatt oil
fired power plant is now under construction in this area. At
Point Lepreau, 214 miles north of Eastport, construction Is
underway on a two unit nuclear power plant.
111—19
-------
Housing . Currently, the housing supply in Washington
County Is plentiful. Single—family homes predominate and are
generally in good condition. According to the 1970 U. S.
Census there were 11,528 year — round housing units
in the country; 88 percent were single - family units;
85 percent were owner—occupied; and 73 percent were constructed
before 19110. At that time, there were 300 vacant units for
sale or rent. The median value for a single—family home was
only $7,200, the lowest In the State and well below the State
and National medians of $12,800 and $17,000, respectively. Over-
crowding did not appear to be a problem with only 6.3 percent of
the units containing more than one person per room, as compared
with State and National values of 7.5 and 8.2 percent,
respectively.
TABLE 111-6.
1975 YEAR ROUND HOUSING
IN WASHINGTON COUNTY AND EASTPORT, MAINE
Washington County
City of Eastpor
Number %
Number
type of Homes
• Single Family
8,709
81
10
817
52
88
6
• Mobile
,060
3
- 35
4
• Vacant
267
6
22
2
• OtherUnits
693
10,729
88
926
100
• TOtal
Condition
805
87
• od or Acceptable
9,455
12
121
13
• Poor to Very Poor
1,274
10,729
100
926
100
• ‘Ibtal
Sonrces :
a Washington County Regional Planning Conunision, County Housing
Survey, Preliminary Data, 1975.
• Calais, Maine Community Development Application, 1975.
A 1975 housing survey undertaken by the Washington County
Regional Planning Commission shows that the overall housing
situation has not changed significantly since the 1970 U. S.
Census: single family homes still represent more than 80 percent
of the year—round housing stock and a vacancy rate of 3 percent
has remained constant for the past five years.
111—20
-------
The most significant change sinêe 1970 was the increase
in mobile homes, from 6 percent of the total housing stock to
almost 10 percent. Their increased use is particularly evident
in Calais which is Washington County’s richest community. Be—
tween 1970 and 1975, mobile homes represented 42 percent of the
new home construction.
In Eastport, housing conditions are similar to the rest
of Washington County. Most of the units are single family and
in good or acceptable condition although the median value for
a single—family home in Eastport was only $5,200 in 1970, 28 per-
cent less than the county median value of $7,200. According to
the 1975 County Survey, the number of single—family homes was
817 and the number of mobile homes was 52, with the total number
of living units listed as 926. The 1970 U. S. Census reported
that only 4 percent of the occupied unit had more than one person
per room. Table 111—6 also summarizes the 1975 WashIngton County
Survey.
The low valuation of Eastport housing Is clue in part to
its age. However, a city program has been working to reduce the
number of structures classified as deteriorated or abandoned by
either removing or upgrading them. As a result, the number of
deteriorated units in Eastport has dropped from 391 in 1960, to
227 in 1970, and to 121 in 1975. Few new units, however, are
being added to the Eastport housing stock. Those being erected
are either mobile, modular or self—built by their owners. The
only significant new construction in Eastport is a 16—unit
development for the elderly, funded by a loan from the U. S.
Farmer’s Home Administration which Is the source for most of
Washington County’s financing for new housing. There has been
some new publicly funded construction In the nearby Passazna—
quoddy Indian Reservation at Pleasant Point.
Charlotte County’s housing stock Is similar in character
to the homes found in Washington County. In 1971, according to
the Canadian census of housing, most of the 7,055 occupied
dwelling units were single—family, owner—occupied homes. The
median value of a single—family home was $6,661, far below the
Canadian provincial and national medians of $9,153 and $10,020,
respectfully. Almost half of the units in the County were con-
structed before 1921 and one in five are without modern lavatory
facilities.
Recreational Facilities . Washington County’s primary
recreational facilities are its forests and waterbodies which
offer good opportunities for camping, hiking, hunting, fishing,
boating, and snowmobiling. As illustrated in Figure 111—7, these
areas are within easy access to Eastport, and include six public
park developments. These are the 22,665 acres Moosehorn National
Wildlife Refuge; the 531 acres Quoddy Head State Park In Lubec;
111—21
-------
the 868 acres of Cobscook State Park in Edmunds; Gleason Point
in Perry with 100 acres; Reversing Falls Park in Pembroke; and
St. Croix National Park in Robbinston. In addition, adjacent to
Washington County on Canada’s Campobello Island is the Roosevelt
Memorial Park.
However, there are no major commercial centers for such
activities, the only commercial facilities being mostly seasonal
motel accommodations designed for the overnight summer motorists.
None of these are in Eastport and, except for a restaurant which
opens during the three summer months, the Waco Diner provides
the only eating and drinking fare available in the City.
Except for one very small camping area on Carryingplace
Cove which Is owned by the City and maintained by the Chamber
of Commerce, the only public recreation areas In Eastport are
located at the schools. Therefore, children depend on the
school playgrounds and athletic fields, backyards, vacant
fields, and lightly travelled streets to serve as their play
areas. A Little League baseball field now exists on land owned
by the Pittston Company.
Indoor recreation facilities are also almost totally non-
existent in Eastport. The only movie theater closed in the
1960’s, and the nearest theaters are now in Calals and Macbias.
Fraternal groups like the VFW organize most of the city’s social
activities such as dinners, dances, etc. The Rotary Club is also
active, sponsoring a six—week program for young people of swim-
ming in the summer and ice skating in the winter.
Taxes . In 1975, Eastport’s property was assessed by
State authorities at $11,700,000; a figure that is intended to
closely reflect the market value. This compares with a local
tax assessment value of only $5,726,000, which Is now being
adjusted upward to conform with the State’s figures. Approxi-
mately 26 percent of this tax base Is commercial and industrial
property.
Local taxes, which are principally the property tax,
provide less than half of’ the City’s revenue. The remaining
funds are obtained largely from Federal and State programs, and
form the surrounding communities whose students attend Eastport’s
high school. The State takes a portion of each community’s
property tax revenues and then redistributes these funds to the
municipalities on a per pupil basis. The State has a 5 percent
sales and use tax, with other selective sales and gross receipt
taxes. These latter taxes provided 73 percent of the State’s
tax revenue in 1973, while corporate and personal Income taxes
provided 1!I percent. Maine residents pay a larger proportion
of their income for State and local taxes than most other New
England residents. In 1975, Eastport received 300,000 for
111—22
-------
MAJOR PARKS IN AREA
FIGURE III•7
‘ St. Andrews
ON
Moosehorn
National
Wildlife
Refuge
Cross Is.
PROPOSED SITE
Quaddy Ueao
Stat. Park
1 MOOSEHORN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (NORTH SECTION)
2. MOOSEHORN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (SOUTh SECTION)
3. COBSCOO$( STATE PARK
4. QUODDY HEAD STATE PARK
5.ST. CROIX NATIONAL MONUMENT
Robbinston
Charlotte
4
0
‘p
111—23
-------
educational purposes from the State with the remaining $171,000
for schools included in the City’s total 1975 expenditures of
$809,000.
Aquatic Resources
Freshwater Hydrology.
Surface Water . Moose Island is bounded by two large
bays: Cobscook on the west; and the lower portion of
the Passamaquoddy, at Western Passage, on the east. The
area tributary to these bays, which Includes the water-
sheds of the Magaguadavic, Didgeguash, St. Croix, and
Dennys Rivers as well as numerous small streams, is made
up of gently rolling lowlands with lakes of varying sizes.
A few higher hills stretch along the divides between the
watersheds, and, for the most part, the area is undevelop—
ed and cutover timberlands; less than one—tenth Is farmed.
The drainage areas of the various river and bay water-
sheds are Illustrated in Figure 111.-a and tabulated in
Table 111—7. In Passamaquoddy Bay, 95 percent of the
surface runoff is conveyed by three long rivers, while
in the smaller Cobscook Bay, 65 percent of the runoff
flows directly to the Bay. In both the St. Croix and
Dennys River basins, flow from the many lakes is regulated
by dams.
Surface water records for the Dennys, St. Croix, Magagua—
davic, and Dlgdeguash Rivers are summarized in Table 111—8.
The average runoff and rainfall characteristics for each
are very similar. Figure 111—9 shows the location of the
gaging stations, and Figure 111—10 presents flow duration
curves.
Of the four rivers, the St. Croix has the largest water-
shed, providing more than 50 percent of the total drainage
area to the two bays. It also forms part of the inter-
national boundary between the United States and Canada,
separating Washington County In eastern Maine from
Charlotte and York Counties In southwestern New Brunswick.
In the St. Croix River basin, hydropower interests maintain
and operate a system of reservoirs principally f or plants
in Baileyville and Woodland, Maine, and in Mllltown, New
Brunswick. The four major lakes used for reservoir
storage are: Spendic, East Grand, West Grand, and Grand
Falls. The Georgia Pacific Corporation controls four of
the five dams on the main branch of the river which begins
at the outlet of East Grand Lake and ends after a distance
of 77 miles and a drop of 30 feet in elevation. Flooding
is of minimal concern in the basin.
III—2 4
-------
DRAINAGE AREA FOR
COBSCOOK AND PASSAMAQUODDY BAYS
/
)
PASSAMAQ4J000y
SAY
— — — — RIVER DRAINAGE AREAS
FIGURE 111.8
r
N
ST. JOHN BASIN
I’
\(
‘Ii
\
I .
‘S
PENOBSCOT BASIN
1
(
A
‘S
NEWS
)
/
MAINE
/
WEST
GRAND LA (E
(
J
/
\
I
EASTERN COASTAL
BASIN
BAY DRAINAGE AREAS
SAY
C’
PROPOSED SITE
0 5 10
I - I I
SCALE IN MILES
2 P
111—25
-------
TABLE 1 11—7.
H
H
t.J
COBSCOOK MW PASSAMAQUODDY BAY DRAINAGE BASINS
Cobscook Bay
Passamaguoddy Bay
Drainage Area
407 Sq. Mi.
Dennys & Direct
Cathance to Bay
Rivera
St. Croix River
via St. Croix
Estuary and
Western Passage
2646 Sq. Mi.
Digdeguash Magaguadivic
River RLv:r via
Magaguadivic
Estuary
Direct
to
Bay
Source
Drainage Area
94
+39
133
274
1635
(387. in Canada)
176
710
125
(Sq. Mi.)
Major Lakes
Meddybemps
Cathance
-
East Grand
Spendic
West Grand
Big Lake
Grand Falls
-
Magaguadav ic
Harvey
West Long
Utopia
Boyden
Total Lake
Surface Area
- (Sq. Mi.)
15.1
.
165
—
21.2
2.7
Number of Dams
6
-
22
-
-
1
-------
TABLE 111—8.
SURFACE WATER RECORDS
River
I ennys
St. Croix
Magaguadavic
* Digdeguash River has no gauging station. Values presented are estimates
based on comparison with Machias River, as made by the International
Passatnaquoddy Engineering Board (1959).
Digdeguash*
Location Dennysvil le
of Gauging
Station
Baring
Elmcroft
Beginning
Year of
Record
1955
1958
1918
Drainage
Area
(Sq. Mi.)
92
1370
547
176
Flow of
Record (cfs7
(max.)
(mean)
( mm.)
3,930 April
190
8.4 Oct.
23,500
2,693
262
60,000 May
1,170
27 Oct.
6,270
360
16
Months of
Max. Flows
Mm. Flows
April
July-Sept.
April-Hay
July-Sept.
April-May
July-Sept.
-
-
Avg. Runoff
2.05
1.97
2.14
2.04
(cfs/sq .ini)
Avg. Rain- 44.0
fall
(in 7 yr)
Avg. a 27.92
Runoff
(in / yr)
40.0
42
42
26.69
29.0
27.5
7 Runoff
63
67
69
65
111—27
-------
LOCATION OF STREAM GAUGING STATIONS
FIGURE
N
-0-
SCALE IN MILES
111-9
1\
‘I
\
5)
NEWS
II
)
/
MAINE
/
WEST
GRAND LAKE
J
/
/
\
I
BAY
• STREAM GAUGING STATiON
PROPOSED SITE
o 5 10
2 p
111—28
-------
FLOW-DURATION CURVES
FIGURE 111-10
98
99.99
o MAGAGUADAVIC RIVER
• ST. CROIX RIVER
o DIGDEGUASH RIVER
• DENNYS R.
PERCENT OF TIME FLOW IS
EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED
111—29
•1
0
0
(U)
C l )
ft
(U)
w
0
I
0
C /)
O
>
-J
a
1
.5
LEGEND
2
90
-------
While the water supply In the basin Is extensive, the
population Is sparse. In 1970, the basin population was
21,521; 9,229 were In Maine and 12,292 In New Brunswick.
The major uses of the basin’s water are pulp and paper
manufacturing, logging, power generation, seafood canning
and processing, and recreation.
Groundwater . On Moose Island, groundwater may be sur—
ficial in well—sorted sands and gravels, or deep in the
joints and fractures of the bedrock. However, since the
Island’s Pleistocene deposits are primarily clays with
only thin patches of sand, there Is a limited quantity of
available groundwater, which is further reduced by the
small recharge area of the island.
The deep groundwater conditions described In 197k by the
U. S. Geodetic Survey (USGS) show that “. . .bedrock
formations are dense and relatively impermeable and
contain little water. Recoverable water is found only
in secondary openings, such as clearage or bedding
planes, fractures, or solution openings.” Available
USGS records for two domestic wells drilled In Eastport
reported a penetration of more than 100 feet of bedrock
before realizing a yield of less than 10 gpm (gallons
per minute). The Geodetic Survey Indicates that the
nearest area for good groundwater, I.e., yields over 50
gpm, is along the perimeter of Theyer Ledges, southwest
of Lubec. Additional good groundwater sources are In
Whiting and Edmunds Townships. Although chemical analyses
are not available on the Eastport wells, representative
data for a bedrock well in Edmunds Township shows the
water to be “moderately hard to hard”, containing 180
mg/L (milligrams per liter) of salt expressed as calcium
carbonate.
Additional Information obtained from the manager of the
local water company confirms that groundwater resources
as Eastport are limited. An Industrial well drilled at
Quoddy Village delivered only 10 to 26 gpm from a depth
of 300 feet. The 750,000 gallons emergency surface
reservoir of the Eastport Water Company adjacent to
Route 190 is fed by groundwater from 40 to 50 feet depths
at an estimated rate of 25 to 50 gpm. In 1971 when the
new Paispearl plant was being constructed adjacent to the
airport area, six wells were drilled to a depth of 300 feet.
Two went dry before the remaining four were completed.
All had poor quality water, dark and brackish. In all,
there are only about 20 wells on the island in those
areas where the water system does not reach, namely,
Kendall Head, Baring Road, and the airport.
III-. 30
-------
Marine Hydrology.
ysical Oceanographic Features (Channel) . The Passaina—
quoddy Bay area, of which Eastport is a part, has been
mapped for navigation purposes by the U. S. Department of
Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Survey, on Chart No. 13328,
formerly Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 801. The
75 foot plus” deep, natural channel that is the approach
to Eastport is delineated in Figure 111—il. The main
entrance to the Passainaquoddy Bay area, and the St. Croix
River, is around the northern end of Campobello Island
through that section of the channel known as Head Harbour
Passage. In the Eastport harbor area, Friar Roads, which
lies between Moose Island and Campobello Island, Is also
approached through Head Harbour Passage. At Eastport,
Head Harbour Passage Joins with Western Passage, lying
between Moose Island and Deer Island.
The seven mile section of channel from Head Harbour Passage
to EAstport averages 3,100 feet in width at mean low water
(MLW); Its narrowest quartermile, however, is 1,650 feet
to 2, 00 feet In width. At mean high water (MHW), the
average width is ,0 10 feet while the narrowest quarter—
mile ranges from 1,800 to 2, 5O feet wide. As shown in
Table 111—9, depths at the center line of the channel
range from 100 to 360 feet at MLW.
Margie Rock, covered by only 12 feet of water and marked
by a buoy, is located about 100 yards south—southeast of
the breakwater; Clark’s Ledge, marked by a day beacon, Is
located about 0.5 miles north of the breakwater. Both
have been identified as potential navigational hazards.
In addition, rocks — some of which are uncovered — extend
about 00 yards south and southeastward from Shackford
Head on the western side of Broad Cove. The Head of
Broad Cove Is a shoal for about 0.2 miles.
At the proposed pier locations in Broad and Deep Coves on
the west side of Moose Island, additional bottom topo-
graphy measurements at closer spacing than the U. S.
charts were taken by EG & G, Inc. for the Pittston Company.
Seismic, fathometer and side scan sonar techniques were
used during the survey to develop the 5 foot contour
bathymetric maps, Figures 111—12 and 111—13, for both
pier location areas. Basement structure was also defined.
111—31
-------
BATHYMETRY OF EASTPORT WATERS
FIGURE lU-Il
\. . __
‘ : J ’ImNIMUM 75 FT CHAN
‘ : j7 - AT MEAN LOW WATER
& : Lj4 :.
. - fzJ f J’- H
._‘ - - i7 - 1 k
____ ____ _______ ‘ a’ - - -
a — _______ , —
- — — -
•t. C • 8 - - •
LU:. —— —
- ____ : - - :
- - _ —
- - ,_
• 4 - - - -- ‘ - •- -.•
C--- -a I -‘•‘ _t.__ — —
) .. . . — - :
. . . •: .¼ ’ - -
N
- -1 -
—. i.i•__• -I . . —
• - - - - -
-
— .\ --z= -j ) $ $4 $
S € •
—. —q1 *1aa..,sL “j H
.4 .- .- a-
‘ a -
t ;/---- - - - - a BAY .OF
FUND)’
-
‘ b2.- 5 - ‘• - - - - ‘ ______
WAif t OEPTW (P1 Fff I
EL
111—32
-------
No.
Location
1
Entrance @ Quoddy Head
& Spruce Island
2
Quoddy Head of Spruce
Island @ 300’ Depth
TABLE 111—9.
WIDTH OF EASTPORT APPROACH CHANNEL
BASED ON BATHYMETRY IN CG&S 801 CHART
NOS 13328 CHART
Approx. Dist.
Between Sects.
0
600’
S
Black Rock
360’
3500’
4
Casco Island
300’
4200’
5
High spot mark —
26’
300’
2920’
6
HIgh spOt mark —
58’
275’
1100’
7
High spot mark —
24’
300’
2450’
8
Pope Shoal
300’
1350’
9
Windmill Pt.
@ 17 High spot
154’
3800’
!
:
10
Thrumcap Island
Stovers Ledge
—
250’
2400’
11*
Cherry Island —
Bald Head
240’
1900’
12
Margie Rock
@16ED
j .
100’
106’
•
5500’
1450’
14
Buckman Head
@ “N” 2
15 Estes Head
I
100’
4700’
2900’
* Opposite Western Passage
** All Dimensions Are Tn Feet.
III— 33
-------
BATHYMETRY IN DEEP COVE PIER AREA FIGURE ffl 12
r -
• /T
\ - -
p : ... ‘- ,, .,.-—J•.. ‘
___ - L -,
9 . - — .—
__________ T ___________ _________
io,.mc. to .o . c *mvvv. a T t im
-------
BATHYMETRY IN BROAD COVE PIER AREA
4
ESTES HEAD
‘ -I
FIGURE II .13
SCM.I U T
H
H
U’
-------
Current and Tidal Patterns In Area’
Tidal Ranges . The tides at Eastport and throughout
the Passamaquoddy Bay region are of an unusually high
magnitude. They may be characterized as semi—diurnal
with slight diurnal Inequalities for there are two
high water and two low water slacks each lunar day,
i.e., in every 214 hours and 50 minutes. The succeed-
ing highs and lows usually differ In elevation by less
than a foot. Monthly tidal variations occur as a
function of the phase of the moon. Maximum or spring”
tides occur before the new or full moon; minimum or
“neap” tides occur before the half moon. During a
month’s lunar cycle, there will be two periods of
spring tides, one being significantly higher than
the other. The higher one occurs when the moon is
near perigee, and the lower one occurs at apogee.
In the 19 year period between 1930 and 19149, mean
tidal ranges varied from 17 feet at North Head, Grand
Manan, to 20 feet at the head of the St. Croix
estuary; at Eastport, the mean tidal range was
18.1 feet. During this same 19 year period, the
maximum observed tidal range at Eastport was 25.7 feet
and the minimum was 11.3 feet; 95 percent of recorded
tides had ranges less than 23 feet but greater than
114 feet. The average spring tidal range at Eastport was 20.7
feet. Hi and low waters throu iout the Q .zx1dy region generally
occur within one half hour of those at Eastport.
Tidal Currents . Considerable information is avail-
able on the tidal currents in the Eastport area. In
1957—58, extensive measurements” were taken over the
entire Passainoquoddy andCobscook Bay region in
connection with the proposed international tidal
hydroelectric power development. Measurements were
again taken in 1973—75 in those areas through which
oil tankers would pass, and/or berth, If the cur-
rently proposed Eastport oil refinery were built.
In the 1957—58 studies currents were monitored for
periods of either 13 or 25 hours at 60 stations in
the area. During the second study by Canada’s Atlantic
Oceanographic Laboratory, EG&G, Inc., and Hydrocon,
Inc., moored meters continuously monitored the currents
‘Canadian Fisheries Board, Technical Report No. 1428, 19714.
“Bumpus, D.F., 1959. “Sources of water in the Bay of Fundy con-
tributed by surface circulation.” Report of the International
Passamaguoddy Fisheries Board to the International Joint Commis-
sion ; Chevrier, J.R., 1959. “Drift bottle experiments in the
Quoddy Region.” Report of the International Passamaquothly Fish-
eries Board to the International Joint Commission ; Forester,
WD., 1959. “Current measurements in Passamaquoddy Bay and the
Bay of Fundy 1957 and 1958.” Report of the International Passa—
maQuoddy Fisheries Board _ to the International Joint Commission,
Chapter 3 .
111—36
-------
for periods of 8 to 30 days in February/March/August
1973, June/July l97 4, and September/October 1975.
These meters were placed In locations within the
channel approach to Eastport, and also in the proposed
tanker berthing areas.
The work for the Passamaquoddy tidal power project
provides a good overall picture of the tidal flow
pattern which Is illustrated in Figures III_1l4 and
111—15 for the entire Passamaquoddy Bay area. It
shows that the principal inflow of water during flood
to Passamaquoddy Bay is through Letite Passage, north
of Deer Island, and Western Passage between Moose
Island (Eastport) and the southern end of Deer Island.
Maximum current speeds occur approximately three hours
after low water slack. Speeds of up to two knots are
attained in Western Passage. In Head Harbor Passage,
the flood currents between Deer Island and Campobello
Island run two to four knots maximum, depending on
lunar time. A portion of this flow Is diverted Into
Western Passage, and the remainder continues through
Friar Roads around Moose Island Into Cobscook Bay.
Additional flow into Friar Roads is through the Lubec
Narrows where currents of four knots are reached.
Within Fassamaquoddy Bay, tidal currents are generally
weak, averaging less than 05 knots. In Cobscook Bay,
no recent meter observations have been reported.
According to the 1973 Trlgom report, which reviewed
available literature on Cobscook and Passainaquoddy
Bay: “The magnitude of the maximum velocities of
tidal currents is related to the cross sectional area
of the passage through which the water must flow.”*
The passage of primary interest in regard to the
proposed project is between Eastport, Maine and
Seward Neck at Shackford Head. It is about 2,100 feet
wide with a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet.
“The greatest mean hourly velocity through this
passage Is 3 knots ( .9 feet per second) and occurs
during the incoming tide. The maximum mean hourly
velocity observed during ebbing tide was 2.7 knots
( 4.3 feet per second), Mean current velocity of
1.9 knots or greater exists for four hours previous
to and for four hours after high tide.* t *
‘Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine (TRIGOM), 1973. “Litera-
ture Review of the Marine Environmental Data for Eastport,
Maine.” Vol. I and II.
“—37
-------
FLOOD TIDAL CURRENT PATTERNS
IN QUODDY REGION AT SELECTED STATIONS FIGURE l -14
PAS S AM A OU ODD V
ER IN PARENTHF I
•FORRESTER! STATION NI’MPE
C CANMT N DEPT.OF FP4VIP )NMFMT L TATT’P9 flI9DFt
F.
•1..
SCALE Nd MILES
9
4
r (K?rnT
111—38
-------
EBB TIDAL CURRENT PATTERNS
IN QUODDY REGION AT SELECTED STATIONS
AOUODDY
SCALE IN MILES
C
1.
•F! RREcTERC STATION NI’MPEP
NUMPER IN PARENTHFcIS IS 9AXIMUM CURRENT SPE fl ( NflT
OCANA 1TPN ! EPT.OF FNVIRON’IFNTAL TATTflN NIIM°FR
FIGURE 111-15
111—39
-------
Moored meter channel current measurements by EG&G,
Inc. and Atlantic Oceanographic Laboratories at the
locations shown in Figure 111—16 indicate that the
currents in Head Harbor Passage and off Broad Cove
are consistent in direction and speed. They are
essentially parallel to the center line of the
channel during both ebb and flood tides. However,
observations* indicate that the water entering Head
Harbor Passage from the east is forced by the bathy—
metry to swing sharply to the southwest causing the
highest velocity currents to occur along the western
side of the channel during flood tide and along the
eastern s de during ebb tide. The actual meter
measurements are contained in Appendix D.
The maximum speed of the currents at each point varies
with time in the lunar cycle. Table 111—10 indicates
that the maximum peaks observed during the high or
spring tides were four knots at Stations 2 and 3,
which are at the narrowest part of the channel;
three knots opposite Western Passage; and, four to
five knots at Broad Cove where the VLCC’s will come
to a dead stop before proceeding with berthing
maneuvers. Maximum currents at the entrance to Head
Harbor Passage were 2.5 knots. During neap tides,
the peak currents were two to three knots lower than
during spring tides. The meter measurements sum-
marized below are from records contained in
Appendix D.
TABLE 111—10.
Channel station
Daily pe
speed in
ak(l)
knots
Azimuth
direction
Maximum
Minimum
Current Channel
No. 1 at entrance to Read
Harbor
2.5
1.0
—— ——
No. 2 near Casco Island
4.0
1.8
230 225
No. 3 near Casco Island
4.0
1.8
220 225
No. 4 opposite Western
Passage
3.0
1.2
230 115
No. 5 opposite Broad Cove
5.0
1.8
90 90
1. Variations over lunar cycle.
‘Bumpus, et. al., 1959.
III— 40
-------
LOCATION OF MOORED CURRENT METERS
IN APPROACH CHANNEL
FIGURE 111-16
EAST QUODDY HEAD
+
4 5
STATION P40.1-4 ATLANTC OCEANOQRAPHC LABORATORY t ,75
STATION NO. 5: EG & 0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS I 7Z
DEER ISLAND
.1
.3
Thrumcap
Cobscook Bay
c? .4
.5
Head
CAMPOBELLO ISLAND
0
I 2 3
KILO M ETE RS
111 —41
-------
Slack water for the berthing maneuvers will also vary
with periods in the lunar cycle. By defining slack
water as the period when currents are running between
0 and 1.0 knots In either direction at the change in
tide, the time available at “slack” for berthing the
VLCC’s Is 50 to 120 minutes, depending on lunar posi-
tion. The maximum time needed to complete VLCC berth-
ing maneuvers is 30 to 145 minutes.
I aximum currents In the berthing area near the proposed
Deep Cove product pier range between 0.14 and 1.0 knots
depending on the lunar period. In the VLCC pier area
in Broad Cove, the maximum currents along the 75 foot
depth contour line are approximately 1.75 knots, and
1.25 knots along the 50 foot depth line, which is
350 feet inward as Illustrated in Figure 111—i3 and in
Table 111-13. The current direction is approximately
parallel to the piers in both locations and during
both ebb and flood tides.
The predominant factor determining high velocity cur-
rents in the Eastport area is the large tidal range.
This is because the residual currents due to runoff,
etc. are very low, and the wind induced currents are
relatively Insignificant since they would amount to
only 1 or 2 percent of the wind velocity. The tidal
currents at all of the locations measured showed a
consistent repetitive pattern that varied directly
with tidal range. Several checks during these field
programs showed that the observed tidal ranges corre-
sponded very closely with predicted ranges. Thus,
there are no scientific grounds to believe that cur-
rents in this area are unpredictable.
Tidal Excursion . The distance a water particle or
a floating object will travel between high water slack
and low water slack, or vice versa, Is defined as tidal
excursion. According to calculations made by Forgeron
(1959) and by Louches et. al. (1973) based on inter-
tidal volumes and flood current knowledge of the Head
Harbor Passage, this ranges from five to eight miles
in the inner Quoddy region as illustrated in Figure i ll—lB.
Residual Currents . Residual currents are those which
are not caused by tidal flow. In a tidal area, they
indicate the net flow of water. These currents are
the result of river runoff, wind, unequal heating
and cooling of surface waters, and the effect of the
Coriolis force (earth’s rotation) on tidal motions in
confined waterways. In the Quoddy Region, these
residual or net circulation patterns have been deter-
mined largely from the drift bottle recovery work of
Bumpus (1959), Chevrier (1959) and Graham (1970).”
Graham, J.J., 1970. Coastal currents of the Western Gulf of
Maine . International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries.
III— 42
-------
LOCATION OF MOORED CURRENT METERS
IN PIER AREAS FIGURE
\
\
\‘
\‘
\
0
I
0
6
.7
(C)
H•ad
Rock
Rock
H..d
Margie
06
•Dcs
Oe
Oi
0 ,
Osz
k
SCALE IN FEET
‘I..
• EG&&IPIC.19721fld1973
‘ VDAO I, INC. SEPTJOCT. 1975
lii 17
H
H
N
Island
-------
TIDAL EXCURSIONS IN QUODDY REGION
PASSAMAQU000Y
BAY
FIGURE tfl-18
BRUNSWICK
SCALE IN MILES
0 1 2 3 4 5
MAINE
1
111—44
-------
TABLE 1 11-11.
CURRENTS N VLCC NER AREA
• Stat1ons See Figure 111—16 for Location
• Source: Hydrocon, Inc. & Dr. R. I. Hirea, Sept.—Oct , 1975
Max. Current VelocItIes-Knot8
Station
95
90%*
85%*
50%
1
1.05
0. 94
0.87
0.37
2
1.69
1.52
1.41
0.96
3
-—
-—
--
-
4
1.60
1.45
1.33
0.80
5
1.05
0.90
0.83
0.50
6
1.82
1.65
1.53
1.08
7
1.04
0.95
0.88
0.58
8
1.97
1.73
1.58
1.10
9
2.24
2.09
2.01
1.44
10
0.93
0.83
0.73
0.40
11
1.66
1.53
1.45
1.05
12
2.10
1.92
1.81
1.24
* % of the time that currents are below these valuee
** Station No. 3 Meter failed
During 1957—1958, 8,1 3O drift bottles were released in
the Quoddy Region; approximately 25 percent were
recovered. The returns were higher in enclosed areas,
such as in Passamaquoddy where over 36 percent of the
bottles launched were returned, while in Grand Manan
Channel, a relatively open area, only 11 percent of
the bottles released were recovered. Approximately
29 percent of the recovered bottles were stranded In
Head Harbor and Western Passage, 20 percent in Letite
Passage, 18 percent in Outer Quoddy Region, 17.5 per-
cent In Passamaquoddy Bay, 5 percent in Nova Scotia,
5 percent In Cobscook Bay, 3 percent In New England,
2 percent In Grand Manan, and O. 4 percent in St. Croix
estuary. Except for a few bottles found afloat off
Cape Spencer, New Brunswick, no recoveries were
reported along the northwestern shore of the Bay of
Fundy, east of Point Lepreau. No bottles were re-
covered on the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia.
The chief features of net surface circulation in
Passamaquoddy Bay are: (1) outflow through Western
Passage; (2) flow from St. Croix estuary into
Passamaquoddy Bay; (3) counterclockwIse circulation
III— 5
-------
in the bay; and (14) both inf low and outflow through
Letite Passage. Southerly winds tend to confine the
waters In the bay while northerly and westerly winds
accentuate net outflow of surface waters.
Within Cobscook Bay, the residual surface flow is
toward Friar Roads. From there, outflow Is through
both Lubec Narrows and the eastern side of Head
Harbour Passage. Inflow is along the western side
of the Passage and the eastern shore of Deer Island,
extending to Western Passage. Outflow from Western
Passage carries this water toward Campobello and
adds to the net outflow along the western shore of
the island.
Outflow from Head Harbour Passage varies according to
the season, the winds, and fresh water runoff. It
may move northeasterly above the Wolves before turn-
ing south; directly southwest along the east coast
of Campobello and Maine, past Grand Manari Island; or
southward to the east of Grand Manan Island. The
magnitude of the residual drift will vary considerably
depending upon wind speed and direction. Residual
current speeds and directions are shown in Table 111—12
TABLE 111-12.
RESIDUAL CURRENTS
TN EASTPORT, MAINE AREA
Location
Station
Residual
Speed
Knots
Current
Direction
Degrees
Channel at
Shackford Head
No.
50
0.44
120
Western Passage
No.
53
0. 51
122
Friar Roads
@Western P s igc
No.
54
0.28
050
Head Harbor
r Sandy Ledge
No.
57
0.07
224
Head Harbor
Casco island
No.
SR
0. 32
050
• Reference, Forrester 1959.
111—146
-------
As shown in Figure 111—19, the Quoddy region’s waters
at Grand Nanan Island join either the large, counter-
clockwise gyre which dominates surface circulation in
the Gulf of Maine, or the smaller counterclockwise
gyre in the Bay of Fundy. In the first instance, the
waters are transported south toward Cape Cod; in the
latter instance, they move across the entrance to the
Bay of’ Fundy toward Nova Scotia. In the Bay of Fundy,
net surface circulation is both inflow along the
coast of Nova Scotia and outflow along the western
side of the Bay.
The counterclockwise gyres in the Gulf of Maine and
the Bay of Fundy are probably due to the combined
effect of the Corlolis force on tidal flood and ebb
currents and freshwater discharges along the coast-
line. In the northern hemisphere the effect of the
Coriolis force is to deflect the currents to the
right of their initial direction. Thus, flood cur-
rents are intensified along the coastline to the right
of their entry, and ebb currents to the left. The
residual flow Is then a counterclockwise gyre. The
net effect of this along the Maine coast is the deflec-
tion of river discharges southward where they con-
tribute to and maintain the counterclockwise gyre in
the 1f of Maine. Surface drift speeds in the
southeasterly flow of the Gulf average about
1—1/2 miles per day and research suggests that the
surface waters generally move along the coast while
bottom waters move shoreward.’
Marine Characteristics.
Water Quality . The State of Maine’s Water Quality
Standards are contained In Appendix E. The classifica-
tion of tidal waters as they apply to the waters
around Eastport are illustrated in Figure 111—20
and Include three categories: the waters to the
north and west of Shackford Head are classified as
Class SA and SBl, which are defined as “suitable for
all clean water usages”; the waters to the south and
east of Shackford Head are Class SC which should be
“satisfactory for recreation except primary water
contact”.
Except for coliform bacteria counts undertaken every
other year by the Maine Department of Marine Resources,
no regular analyses of tidal waters in the Eastport
‘Graham, 1970.
III )47
-------
DOMINANT NON—TIDAL CIRCULATION OF
THE GULF OF MAINE (JULY-AUGUST)
FIGURE
N
-0-
U.S.
ill - ic
NEW BRUNSWICK
•-7--___
111—48
-------
WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
E
A&S MAQUODD I
Little
C,’,
S
FIGURE lfl-20
OF
WND J
LEGEND
.. . CLASS SA
— I —S e-’
== =SB-2
—Sc
N
N
A
I
N
Low Tid. Lilis
111—49
-------
area are conducted. However, two special sampling
surveys were made at four locations around the site
area — Broad Cove, Deep Cove, Cobscook Bay and Head
Harbour Passage — in September and October 1975 by
Bigelow Laboratory for Pittston’s consultant, Enviro—
Sciences. These test results, contained in Table 111—13
give an indication of the quality of water and the
types of pollution present. All samples met both the
applicable usage and the quantitative standards.
During October, the dissolved oxygen levels ranged
from a low of 6.6 mg/L In Broad Cove to 9.14 mg/L in
Cobscook Bay, which is above the saturation level.
The nutrient levels at all four locations and in the
Bay of Fundy were high although they still met stand-
ards; the samples were low In oil and grease as well
as coliform bacteria.
TABLE 111—13.
ANALY OF TIDAL WAlER IN STTE AREA (SURFACE sAI 1ES )
(Sanpies obtained within 1/2 hour of low water slack)
Head Harbor
Source : Blgelow Leboratory Report, Appendix
9/16 !10/16
11/20
* Sanpie location—#29 on Figure 1E [ . .2l.
** Sairple location—#32 on Figure 111—21.
+ Sample location—Midway between Blrchpoint Ledge and Cove Point
# Head Hartor Passage Sanpie location—Midway between Cherry Island Light
and Bold Head
Location
Sample Date 1975
Broad Cove *
9/16 10/16 11/20
Deep Cove**
9/16 10/16 11/20
Cobscook Bay +
9/16
l0/16
11/20
11.0 8.5
31.89 32. 28
7.58 7.73
9.0 4 7. 0
I.
Temperature, °C 12.5 ‘10.0 8.0
Salinity 31.9832.26 31.66
p 11 7,3 7.72 ——
Secchl Disk, m 4.0 7. 0 ——
Oxygen, ppm 7.7 6.6 ——
CM, inglm 3 0.53! 0.12 ——
Oil & Grca8e, mg/i 0.16 0.23 —
BOD, mg/i — — 1. 96 ——
11.0 10.0 8.0
31.95 32. 23 31.48
744. 7.77 -—
8.0 7.0 ——
8.1 8.7 ——
0.39 0.18 ——
0.15 0.01 ——
—— 1.81
8.0
31.71
—-
--
I
11.0 9.9 J 9.0
31.92 32.27 31. 8
7.29 7.76 --
7. 5 8. 5 - —
7.8
0.40
0.18
——
9.4
0.18
0.11
——
——
——
——
2. 72
8.3
0.46
0.16
——
8.7
0.18
0.11
——
——
—-
——
2. 42
Coliforms/100 ml
• Tbtal 240 3 23
I Fecal — —- 3.6
L-
3
—
3
——
.
9.1
3
——
—
3
——
3.6
3
3
--
3 43
—— 3
Nutrients
I microgram-atoms/i
• NO 2 0.33 0.36 ——
• NO 3 8.441 ——
• Nh 4 5.02 1,49 ——
[ • P 0 4 0.531 i.oil ——
0.28
6.88
4.16
0.77
0.34
8.18
1.08
0.83
——
——
——
0.32
6.171
1.23
o.s7J
0.34
7.11
1.08
0.94
——
——
——
0.32
7.79
1. 26
0.61
0.36 —-
7.92 ——
2.60 —-
0.901 —-
111—50
-------
Salinity and Temperature . The volume of fresh water
entering the bay areas of the Quoddy region is small
with respect to the volume of the bays and estuaries,
thus accounting for the relatively high salinity of
the area’s waters as shown in Table III—l 4. However,
at the mouth of the rivers, such as the St. Croix,
salinity decreases.
The lowest salinity values occur during the spring
season, which is also the time of the greatest river
discharges to the bays; and accordingly, when river
runoff is low, usually late summer, high salinity
occurs.
The seasonal distribution of water temperature is
related to water depth and atmospheric temperatures.
Thus, during the summer, surface waters are warmer
than deeper waters and the reverse is true for winter
as a result of the heat exchange between water and
air.
As illustrated in Table 111—15, extremes of both
temperature and salinity in this area are minimized
by the strong influence of the tides for the great
tidal ranges experienced in this region result in
both the vertical and horizontal tidal mixing of the
waters.
Sediment . In the fall of 1975, Bigelow Laboratory
sampled and analyzed sediments from 10 intertidal and
12 subtidal locations around the island for grain
size and potential decanting of larger particles
using the eJ.utriate test and analyses. This type of
testing is done to aid in identifying potential
problems which might arise during the construction
of piers, buildings, etc. in sediment and in the dis-
posal of the sediment material. Therefore, several
sampling stations were located in the proposed
dredging areas adjacent to the piers. Subtidal sam-
pling was undertaken at Stations 22—33, the loca-
tions of which are shown in Figure 111—21. The inter-
tidal samples were taken in Transect I — Broad Cove
and Transect II — Deep Cove, which are also shown in
Figure 111—21.
The sediments were found to be generally gravel and
sand with no observable organic silt material. The
intertidal zone sediments in Deep Cove were primarily
course gravel, while those in Broad Cove were largely
fine sandy silt, with one sample of all rock. In
the subtidal regions, which are farther into each of
111—51
-------
TABLE 111-14.
AVERAGE SEASONAL AND ANNUAL
TEMPERATURES AND SALINITIES IN THE QUODDY REGION
1957
1958
Temp.
°C
Salinity
ppt
Temp.
°C
Salinity
ppt
Cobs cook Bay
1.57
6.08
11.23
8.99
6.67
31.51
31.70
31.88
32.37
31.87
314
6.74
11.12
8.98
7.50
31.56
30.85
32.30
32.20
31.73
Winter
Spring
Sumner
Autumn
Mean
Passamaguoddy Ba
1.02
6.39
11.79
9.50
7.18
31.35
31.24
31.85
32.35
31.92
2.89
6.07
11.70
8.67
7.33
31.06
29.40
31.44
31.85
30.94
Winter
Spring
Suniner
Autumn
Mean
Letite Passage
1.50
5.95
11.10
9.43
6.99
31.80
31.72
32.21
32.61
32.09
3.51
5.59
10.62
8.79
7.13
31.91
30.91
31.85
32.14
31.70
Winter
Spring
Suniner
Autumn
Mean
Western Passage
1.72
5.71
10.66
9.46
6.94
31.75
31.83
32.29
31.73
32.15
3.19
5.50
10.47
9.11
7.07
31.64
31.00
31.85
32.18
31.67
Winter
Spring
StnI!ner
Autumn
Mean
Outside Waters
2.60 32.35
4.99 32.05
1.0.21 32.35
9.62 32.70
6.86 32.36
3.79
4.92
9.68
9.21
6.90
32.20
31.39
32.12
32.47
32.06
Winter
Spring
Sunm r
Autumn
Mean
Note: Tenperatures and salinity values were averaged frcm surface and bottcin
readings. Saiiples were talcen without regard to the particular point in the
tidal cycle.
111—52
-------
the two coves, the sediments were finer in grain size,
finally becoming a fine sandy silt, but with very
little organic matter. Results of the grain size
analysis are contained in Table 111—16.
TABLE 111-15. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEMPERATURE AND SALINITY AT
HIGH WATER AND AT LOW WATER (VALUES AT HIGH WATER MINUS
VALUES AT LOW WATER)
June
Station No. Temperature
St.
Croix
Estuary
August
1958
1958
Salinity
Temperature
Salinity
3 —0.22 2.01 —0.45 0.18
4 —0.38 1.16 —0.26 1.82
5 —0.36 1.03
6 —0.27 0.43 —0.65 0.76
Mean —0.29 1.20 —0.41 0.95
Magaguadavic Estuary
4 —0.43 2.98 0.17 1.51
5 0.38 0.63 —0.30 0.44
Mean —0.03 1.81 —0.07 0.98
Passamaguodd Bay
April 1952 October 1952
Eastern 0.06 0.99 0.50 —0.01
Western —0.39 1.10 0.17 —0.06
Mean —0.17 1.05 0.34 —0.04
Passages and Outer Quoddy
April 1952
Temperature Salinity
Letite —0.30 1.25
Western and Head Harbour —0.30 0.05
Outer Quoddy —0.08 0.41
Testing for the hydrocarbon content in sediments was
undertaken to determine the amount of oil present in
the ocean soil. This is particularly Important if
an area Is to be dredged or disturbed. If oil circu—
lates In the water as a result of these operations,
111—53
-------
TABLE 111—16.
GRAIN SIZE OF SEDIMENTS
IN SUBTIDAL AND INTERTiDAL AREAS AT SITE
Area Sample Taken
Station
No. *
%_on_U.S._Dept._of_Agriculture_Standard_MES
10
20
40
60
200
230
Broad Cove
Intertidal Transect I
2
3
4
5
6
12
0
10
2
0
5
1
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
4
1
2
4
4
48
51
46
48
55
29
46
37
42
36
Deep Cove
Intertidal Transect II
7
8
9
10
85
63
71
45
11
32
13
7
3
5
14
14
1
0
2
17
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
6
Broad Cove Centerline
— Opp. Mearle
— Opp. Eastern Marine
— VLCC Pier Line
— Out further
29
22
24
28
0
4
4
0
2
6
0
2
13
0
3
46
5
65
24
95
24
7
Shackford VLCC Area
23
27
28
24
100
41
48
0
13
2
0
13
11
0
23
26
0
7
9
0
3
4
Product Pier Area
30
31
70
72
9
8
5
4
3
4
6
8
7
4
Center of Deep Cove
32
33
1
5
1
4
1
5
2
7
39
34
56
45
Off Estee Head
25
26
59
62
11
14
9
10
12
9
5
3
4
2
* See Figure VI for Station Locations
Bigelow Laboratory Report, Appendix
111—5 1
-------
MARINE BIOTA
AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIGURE UI-21
cr
DEEP COVE
BROAD COVE
©
N
ESTES HEAD
-0-
111—55
-------
it could be consumed by marine organisms such as
clams, which in turn might become contaminated.
This test would also Indicate If any large oil
residues from an oil spill had accumulated.
For this hydrocarbon analyses, intertidal sediments
along the four transects and subtidal sediments from
Broad Cove arid. Deep Cove at Stations 29 and 33 were
analyzed. As evidenced by the figures contaIned in
Table 111—17, substantial levels of hydrocarbons,
36—82 ppm (parts per million), were present at all
stations sampled. However, closer examination of the
oil In these sediments by chromatography revealed
that the hydrocarbons present in Broad Cove were
natural oils. Such a high concentration of natural
oil is probably due to the discharge of’ waste products
from the fish plants In Broad Cove.
In Deep Cove, the high hydrocarbon levels of 35—6 4 ppm
were found to be part natural oil and part weathered
petroleum fractions. One station in Deep Cove re-
vealed the existence of recent petroleum oils which
were not yet degraded. They are believed to be due
to a spill from a motor boat based In the cove.
Additional data from the Bigelow Laboratory work is
contained in Appendix E.
Uses
In the Eastport area, NPDES permits have been issued f or
the 11 significant discharges listed in Table 111—18.
Permit conditions which must be met by October 1, 1976
are also indicated. It Is evident from this Information
that the City of Eastport’s sewage discharges and the
sardine canneries have a significant impact on the area’s
water quality.
The City discharges both stormwater and raw sewage, in-
cluding sanitary wastes from approximately 1,000 people,
at about 2 4 separate discharge points. Although this
practice adversely affects the existing water quality,
as well as future water quality, Eastport’s position on
the priority list for State and Federal funds under
Title II of the FWPCA is relatively low. Thus, the raw
discharges will continue long after 1976 and significant
amounts of coliform bacteria will continue to be found
In the areas of the discharges.
The sardine canners and other fish processors are important
because their discharges have both a significant quality
and visual Impact on the receiving waters for they are
I I —56
-------
TABLE 111—17.
HYDROCARBON CONTENT OF SEDIMENTS FROM
SUBTIDAL AND INTERTIDAL AREAS AT SITE
Notes :
* ‘lypical levels from biological activity in sediments is 50—100 ppm.
** Evicence of weathered crude oil. Possible from Irving oil spill in 1974.
*** Recently spilled oil, possible lube oil or outboard motor fuel.
• Reference, Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, Biological Survey Report, 16 December 1975.
Station
H
‘ -I
—4
Hydrocarbons, ppm by weight
Sample
No.
Aliphatic
(obtained
from Fat.
Non
Aliphatic
Total
Chromatogram
Observations
Broad Cove
.
natural
• Upper Intertidal
• Mid Intertidal
P1A
P2A
36
47
23 59
25 72
Predominantly
oils, and probably some
fish oils. *
• Subttdal
P3A
82
47
129
Deep Cove
Natural and
• Upper Intertidal
• Mid Intertidal
• Subtidal
P4A
P5A
P6A
35
64
56
49
326
49
84
390
105
PredomInantly petroleum
Predominantly petroleum
Predominantly natural oil
•
-------
Paispearl, Eastport
Holmes Packing,
Eastport
Argenta Products,
Eastport
Mean Corp.,
Eastport
Mean Corp.,
Eastport
8.11. Wilson,
Eastport
93 Water St.,
Comm. B}I,E’port
Booth Fisheries,
Lubec
R.J. Peacock
Canning, Lubec
Pleasant Pt. STP,
Perry
Municipal
sewage
Out of business
Sardine
canning
Mfg. of pearl
essence
Mfg. of fish.
meal ,
Mfg. pickled
herring
Out of busine8s—————-
Sanitary
was tewater
Sardine
canning
Sardine
canning
Sanitary
vast ewater
TABLE 111-18. EXISTING DISCHARGES — EASTPORT AREA
1. MEO100200 Eastport
NPDES
Type
of
October
1976
permit
Oil
and
Remarks
Flow,
No.
Name and location peration
BOD5
SS
(mgd)
grease
H
H
200
200 0.1 mgd 15 mg/L Coliform
lb/day
Raw
lb/day
sanitary or stonrnwater discharge from 24 outfalls.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
ME002145
ME0000221
ME0 0000 19
ME00003 96
ME0000931
ME 000
ME0022233
ME0002411
ME 0000523
KE0100773
4,000 1,000
lb/day lb/day
30 10
lb/day lb/day
40 400
lb/day lb/day
8 lb/ 20 lb/
day day
0.10 mgd
0.0027 mgd
0.136 mgd
0.0005 mgd
Based on 50 tons/
day±.
300 mg/L
100 mg/L
15 nig/L
3 lb/day
4,000
1,600
day+.
lb/day
4,000
1,600
0.1 mgd
300
mgfL
Based
day±.
on
505/
Source: U.S. EPA Reglcai I Permit Files
-------
generally high In oil and grease content. However, the
resulting impacts are usually restricted to the Immediate
area of the plants. Two of the sardine canners are
located In the Lubec Narrows, approximately 1.5 miles
from the refinery site. The economic effect of eliminat-
ing these discharges would be significant due to the
decline of this particular Industry in the area. Because
of this, the only treatment required of the fish processors
is the equivalent of screening all discharges and skimming
the oil from their cooking operation discharges. As
evidenced by the data in Table 111—18, this results in
an oil and grease content of about 300 mg/L in the
total effluent flow.
Ecology
Terrestrial Ecology . Based upon field surveys conducted
within the site area and the observations of ecologists familiar
with Maine’s flora and fauna, an ecological assessment of Shack—
ford Head and the surrounding area was made. Various Individuals
at the University of Maine and Maine’s Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife were also consulted.
Soils Suitability.
Soil Series . The 15 soil series identified on the
site were rated in Table 111—19 as to their suitability
for wildlife and forest uses. The suitability
ratings used were developed by State and Federal
agencies, and are defined in Table 111—20. Wildlife
suitability was rated for six different growths: (a)
seeds, (b) grasses and legumes, (c) deciduous plants,
Cd) coniferous plants, and Ce) wetland. Forest use
suitability was rated for four types of trees: (a)
white pine, (b) red pine, Cc) spruce/fir, and Cd)
hardwoods. In addition, a rating was given to the
“skid trail” factor which is a measure of difficulty
for commercial logging.
As shown in Table 111—21, five soil types accounted
for 90 percent of the 635—acre site: 13 percent
manmade; 19 percent Buxton silt loam; 114 percent
Scantic/Biddeford silt loam; and 143 percent Lyman
fine—sandy and very rocky—fine—sandy barns. The
significant characteristics and suitabilities are sum-
marized in the following tabulation, which brings out
the principle points of this survey and assessment:
(a) the 118 acres In Buxton silt loam, which runs
deep and slopes gently, rates “good” only for white
pine growth, but logging would be difficult because
the skid trail factor Is “very poor”; (b) the 93 acres
111—59
-------
in Scantic/Biddeford silt loam is fairly flat and very
shallow, 8 to 20 Inches above bedrock, and it rates
“good” only for wetland growth; and (c) the 272 acres
in Lyman in fine—sandy and very rocky—fine—sandy barns
is also very shallow, but lies on steep slopes of 8 to
35+ percent and it rates “poor” to “very poor” for all
wildlife habitats, and “fair” to “very poor t for
forest uses.
1. 109 acres “good” for wetland.
2. 153 acres good for White Pine,
TABLE 111-19.
About 39 acres of the site have already been disturbed.
These comprise paved arid unpaved roads, the airport
runways, the garbage dump, an abandoned rock quarry,
a small tenting site, and some buildings.
Flora . The dominant vegetation on the site area is an
ilder thicket community with a major associate species
of raspberry. This alder thicket—raspberrY community
covers more than 34 percent of the area. As the next
dominant community, stands of spruce and other softwoods
and hardwoods cover about 30 percent of the area. Grasses
Soil series
Area
Depth to
bedrock
Slope
Suitability
Wildlife
Forest
Acres Percent
Manmade
81
13
——
——
——
——
Buxton alit loam
118
19
6 ft
+
3—8%
8—15%
15—35%
None
118 acres
White
Pine
Scantic and Bldde—
ford silt barns
93
14
8—20
in.
1—3%
95 acres
wetland
None
Lyman fine—sandy
and very—rocky—
fine sandy barns
272
.
43
8—20
in.
8—35%
None
None
Other 10 misc.
71
11
——
——
15.5 acres
wetland
85 acres
White
Pine
25 Spruce
Fir
Total
635
100
(1)
(2)
25 acres “good” for Spruce Fir.
IIr—60
-------
TABLE 111-20.
SOIL SUITABILITY RATINGS
WILDLIFE tEES
Good (C) The habitat element is easily improved, maintained or
created. There are few or no soil limitations.
Fair (F) The habitat element can be improved, maintained or
created on these soils but moderate soil limitations
affect habitat management or development. A moderate
intensity of management and frequent attention may be
required to insure satisfactory results.
Poor (P) The habitat element can be improved, maintained or
created o’i these soils but soil limitations are severe.
Habitat element management ,is difficult and expensive
and requires intensive effort. Soil conditions
generally limit number of species of plants.
Very Poor (V) Under prevailing soil conditions, it is impractical to
improve, maintain or create habitats. Unsatisfactory
results are probable.
FOREST tEES
Good (C) Growth rates are high and produce good yields of forest
crops. High intensity management is usually justified
on these sites when adequately stocked.
Fair (F) Growth rates are moderate on these sites. Timber may
be grown but at slower rates than on good sites. Inten-
sive management cannot be expected to yield as good a
return as on the better sites.
Poor (P) Growth rates on these sites are slow and timber is not
often grown under intensive management. It may not be
justified as an economic practice.
Very Poor (V) Growth rates are extremely slow on these sites. Tree
species will, grow on the soil, but intensive management
is not justified as an economic practice.
,Source: Ferwada, Rourke, and Stratton (Ed.) 1975
111—61
-------
TABLE 111-21.
H
H
• Key: G’ Good; F—Fair; P=Poor; V—Very poor.
• Source: Ferwada, Rourke and Stratton (Ed.), 1975
SOILS SUITABILITY OF THE PROPOSED SITE
FOR WILDLIFE AND FOREST USES
Wildlife
Habitat
Uses
Forest Use
Grasses
Deci-
Coni-
Dry-
7.
and
duous
ferous
land
Wet-
White
Red
Spruce-
Hard-
Skid
Soil Series
Acres
Total Slope
Seeds Legumes
Plants
Plants
Herbs
lands
Pine
Pine
Fir
woods
Trails
Coastal Beach
2.4
0.4 3-8%
V V
V
V
V
P
V
V
V
V
V
PeatartdMuck
4.5
0.7 1-3%
V V
V
V
V
G
V
V
V
V
V
Rocktand
6.2
1.035+7.
V V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Madeland
81.2
12.7 -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Colton Very Stony
Sandy Loam
9.0
1.4 8-15%
V V
P
P
P
V
F
F
P
P
F
Duane Sandy Loam
12.6
2.0 3-8%
P P
P
P
F
P
C
P
C
F
F
Walpole Sandy Loam
11.0
1.7 1-37.
P P
P
P
P
C
P
V
F
P
V
Elmwood Fine Sandy
Loam
10.2
1.63-87.
F F
F
F
F
P
C
P
F
F
V
Buxton Silt Loam
104.0
16.2 3-87.
P F
F
F
F
P
C
P
F
F
V
“ “ “
3 6
0 6 8-157
P F
F
F
F
P
C
P
F
F
V
“ “ “
10.0
1.6 15-35%
V P
F
F
P
V
C
P
F
F
V
Scantic Silt Loam
81.4
12.7 1-37.
P P
P
P
P
C
P
V
F
P
V
Biddeford Silt Loam
12.0
1.9 1-37.
V V
V
V
V
C
V
V
P
p
V
Wawxibek Sandy Loam
12.2
1.9 3-8%
P P
p
p
F
P
C
P
C
F
F
Leicester Very Stony
Loam
3.8
0.63-8%
V V
P
P
p
P
V
,
F
Lyman Fine Sandy Loam
17.4
2.7 3-8%
P P
P
P
F
V
F
P
F
F
V
P
“ “ “ “
98.0
15.3 8-157.
P P
P
P
F
V
F
P
F
Lyman Very Rocky Fine
P
Sandy Loam
70.2
11.0 8-157.
V V
P
P
F
V
P
V
P
V
“ “ “
87.0
13.6 35+7.
V V
P
P
V
V
P
V
P
V
P
V
-------
and a variety of major associates Including such herbs as
legumes (pea family plants), asters and goldenrod, as well
as meadowsweet comprise the next largest community found
in the area. The location within the site area of these
different types of vegetation (trees, grasses, and herba—
ceous plants, including wildflowers) is illustrated in
Figure 111—22. In addition, the types of vegetation and
the acreage and percentage of land occupied by each
community are tabulated in Table 111—22.
TABLE 111—22.
VEGETATION SUMMARY AND MAPPING KEYS
Map
Type
Acres
7. Total
Symbol
Garbage Dump
2.7
0.5
Dump
Tenting Area
2.3
0.4
TA
Rock Quarry
5.1
0.9
Q
Roads
13.9
2.3
Roads
Airport Runways
15.5
2.6
AR
Rock Outcrops
22.0
3.8
R
Grasses
63.3
10.8
C
Grasses and Herbs
1.3
0.2
GH
Grasses, Herbs, and Alder
49.1
8.4
GHA
Grasses and Alder
1.0
0.2
GA
Grasses and Spiraea
11.4
2.0
GSp
Spiraea
1.0.5
1.8
Sp
Spiraeaand Alder
14.1
2.4
SpA
Alder
181.0
30.9
A
Spiraea, Grasses and Alder
7.8
1.3
S PGA
Hardwoods
43,3
7.4
1 q
Hardwoods and Rock Outcrops
30.1
5.1
}MR
Hardwoods and Softwoods
14.8
2.5
1 W
Spruce
89.5
15.3
S
Cedar
1.4
0.2
C
Cutover
2.2
0.4
Cutover
Broken Timber
3.5
0.6
B.Timber
Source: Compiled by Dr. Alan Kyles, Field Survey prepared for
Pittston Co.
1 11—63
-------
VEGETATiON MAP
T V ’S
TEW ’ SA
ROAOS
ORT RU AYS
RO O cROPS
GRASSES
GRASSES N C HE 5
GRAaES. ANOALD(R
GRASSES NC
GRASSES ARC SPIRIA
SPIREA ANDM.O(R
A4D E R
IA. GRASSES AM) MD(R
HA OOOS N C ROOK OLflcROPS
OOANDSO WOOO6
cEDAR
CUTOVER
S RO RENTAM€R
FIGURE 111-22
H
H
H
NAP
ou
‘A
0
AR
R
0
OH
GA
Gap
‘p
SPA
A
HW
HEW
cUTOYER
S TI tR
-------
The European alder stands ( Alnus glutinosus ) are found in
the deep, poor to well—drained soils such as the Buxton or
Scantic silt barns. Many of these alders are 3 to LI inches
in diameter and 30 to 110 feet high. As Indicated, rasp-
berry ( Rubus hispidus ) is the major associate species
within the thickets although the major species at the
edge of the stands is quaking aspen ( Populus tremuloides) .
The pure grass stands are found around the runways, at
home sites, and on abandoned farmland. These areas, which
are predominantly grass mixed with wildflowers (herbaceous
plants), are found mostly on the eastern part of the site.
The alder bushes in this area are 15 to 20 feet high;
raspberry is again the major associate species. Meadow-
sweet ( Spirea alba ) also grows In some localized areas
in pure stands with the alders.
Seven locations in the forest area were sampled for both
the canopy and. understory of the forest. A discussion of
the sample data for the principal areas, contained in
Appendix F, follows.
Timber covers approximately 179 acres of the project site.
Approximately 60 percent of the trees are larger than
6 inches in diameter and 75 percent are softwoods (spruce,
fir, cedar, and hemlock) with the remainder being hard-
woods (birch, alder, ash, aspen, maple, and cherry). In
reference to the vegetation zones for the country, this
part of Maine lies between the Northern Boreal Forest and
the Hemlock — Northern Hardwood Forest. This transition
zone Is a mixture of deciduous trees (flowering species)
and gymnosperms (cone—producing trees) and is often
referred to as an ecotone zone* because of the changes
in the forest composition as illustrated below.
The hardwood, spruce, and other softwood communities,
totalling lOLl acres, are the only areas of potential
timber value. All but one of these areas Is classified
as a red spruce association, the exception being a paper
birch—red spruce—balsam fir association.
The major tree species of the hardwood areas vary. While
most hardwood areas are a mixture of quaking aspen and
paper birch with shrub layers of nannyberry and pin
cherry, others are diverse mixtures of yellow birch and
mountain ash with red spruce and balsam fir. The variable
understory includes alder, nannyberry and saplings of all
FLucy Braun, 19117.
111—65
-------
the above tree species. Raspberry, strawberry, cinque—
foil, partridgeberry and various ferns make up the ground
cover.
In one hardwood area situated on a 35 percent slope, the
major tree species are mature paper birch and northern
white cedar. Nannyberry is the dominant shrub species;
the ground cover is leaf litter. A small stand of northern
white cedar, averaging 7 to 8 inches in diameter and com-
prising l.t acres, lies just east of the runways. The
understory is a combination of alder and young cedar which
have developed from root sprouts, most of which are dead
or dying. Ground cover is limited to cedar needles, twigs
and fallen saplings.
One 38 acre spruce stand, located east of the runway, is
almost exclusively on Lyman fine sandy loam soil and Lyman
very rocky fine—sandy loam soil. Red spruce, with northern
white cedar, predominate with paper birch and yellow birch
as associates. Red spruce and northern white cedar, to-
gether with balsam fir and paper birch, are also the
most Important understory species. Hardwoods such as
alder, nannyberry, quaking aspen, and pin cherry are
found around small rock outcrops scattered throughout
this stand. The overstory density ranges from to
1,018 trees per acre, while the understory density
varied from 227 to 40 4 saplings per acre. The basal
area of the stand of trees ranges from 137 to 315 square
feet per acre. Ground cover is evergreen needles.
Another spruce area west of the airport contains red
spruce as the predominant overstory species; paper birch
and balsam fir are the major associates. Red spruce and
balsam fir are also the major understory species with a
variety of hardwood saplings comprising the remainder of
the area. The overstory density is 605 trees per acre.
The basal area of the trees is 1148 square feet per acre.
The understory density is 633 saplings per acre. Ground
cover is leaf and needle litter with a sparse growth of
ferns and herbaceous plants.
On Shackford Head the forests are spruce with some fir,
paper birch and other hardwoods. Red spruce is again the
dominant overstory species, but density, basal area and
major associates differ. Ground cover Is spruce needles
and leaves.
A complete list of all plant species observed on the site
area in the Fall season (1975) is found in Appendix F.
The list is divided into three sections: Ferns and mosses,
Herbaceous plants, and Trees (Deciduous and Evergreen).
ii i—66
-------
Endangered and Threatened Species . Both the State
of Maine’s Planning Office and the Smithsonian In—
stitute’s Department of Botany were contacted for a
list of endangered and/or threatened plants found in
Maine and the vicinity of the project. As . result
of these contacts and a review of the Department of
the Interior’s list of endangered plants,* a list
of rare plants possibly occurring in the site area
was developed.
However, the species of plants listed in the Federal
Register and by the Smithsonian Institute are inland
plants and are, therefore, not found in such coastal
habitats as Eastport. This was later confirmed by a
botanist familiar with the area. See Appendix F for
correspondence from Dr. Charles Richards, Professor
of Botany, University of Maine.
Subsequently, the Center for Natural Areas, Northeast
Office, South Gardiner, Maine compiled its own list
of rare plant species which do occur in Maine. Dr.
Richards then indicated three critical arctic species
which might occur on the site area. As a result, a
survey was conducted in June 1976 to determine if any
of these plants or their habitats were located on the
site area. Although the habitat for these plants —
rock outcrops along the shore — is similar to that
found on the Eastport site area, and all three arctic
species — Bird’s eye primrose ( Primula laurentiana) ,
beachead iris ( Iris hookeri ) and Roseroot ( Sedum
rosea ) are known to exist in the Lubec area and north
of Eastport, none were found within the site area.
See Appendix E.
Fauna.
Mammals . Mammals which were observed on the proposed
site and in the surrounding area during both the fall
and early summer (three days) were Eastern gray
squirrel ( Sciurus carolinensis) , porcupine ( Erethizon
dorsatum) , and striped skunk ( Mephitis rnephitis) .
During the fall survey evidence of a red fox ( Vulpes
fulva ) was found on the rock outcrops on Shackford
Head. Numerous entrances to rodent tunnels were also
seen. In addition, black bears ( Ursus americana ) have
occasionally been seen in the vicinity of Moose Island.
*Federal Register lrThreatened or Endangered Fauna or Flora, ’
July 1, 1975.
111—67
-------
A list of the observed species is contained in
Table 111—23 while a list of other possible mammals
common to areas of similar habitat is found in
Appendix F.
Avifauna (Birds) . The bird species in the area can
be classified into four main groups: aquatic birds,
raptors (birds of prey), upland gamebirds, and song—
birds. During the fall field studies, songbirds and
aquatic birds were the two most prevalent species
although two species of upland game birds were also
observed. During the three days of the early summer
survey, the songbirds were slightly more numerous
than the aquatic birds. Aquatic birds will be dis-
cussed in greater detail in the marine biology section
of this report.
In the alder—birch—hardwood and spruce—cedar—softwood
habitats the hairy woodpecker ( Dendrocopos villosus) ,
the downy woodpecker ( Dendrocopos pubescens) , the
hermit thrush ( Hylocichla guttata) , the white—
throated sparrow ( Zonotrichia al icollis) , and the
slate gray Junco ( Junco hyemalis) , were sighted
numerous times. The common crow ( Corvus brachyrhyn—
chos ) was seen around all types of vegetation. The
different kinds of sparrows — song ( Melospiza melodia) ,
tree ( Spizella arborea arborea ) and savannah ( Passer—
culus sandwichensis ) — were seen in grass areas and
at the edge of the woods. The black—capped chickadees
( Parus atricapillus ) were numerous in the alder
thickets. Other species sighted in the open areas
included robins ( Turdus migratorius) , starlings
( Sturnus vulgaris) , and red—winged blackbirds
( Agelalus phoeniceus) . Additional songbirds sighted
on the proposed site are listed in Table 111—23. A
detailed list of other birds Including aquatic birds,
raptors, upland gamebirds and songblrds which may be
found In this region of Maine Is contained in
Appendix F.
The upland gamebirds found on the site area were the
ruf fed grouse ( Bonasa umbrellus ) and gray partridge
( Perdix perdix) . The area’s alder thickets, open
woodlands, and softwood stands provide the habitat
used by these birds.
Although owls and hawks from the raptor family have
been sighted In the Cobscook Bay area, none were
observed during the time of these surveys. However,
these birds are known to inhabit the northeast coast’s
forest and shore areas which are similar to those at
Eastport.
11 1—68
-------
TABLE 111-23. FAUNA OBSERVED DURING FIELD STUDIES AT THE
PROPOSED REFINERY SITE (FALL, 1975)
Birds Mammals
Glaucous Gull A Gray Squirrel
Great Black—Backed Gull A Porcupine
Herring Gull A Red Fox (Scat)
Common Loon A Striped Skunk (Of f site)
Black Duck A
Mn. Woodcock U—C
Killdeer A
Ruf fed Grouse U-C
Gray Partridge U—C
Hairy Woodpecker S
Downy Woodpecker S
Hermit Thrush S
White—Throated Sparrow S
Slate—Gray Junco S
Common Crow S
Black—Capped Chickadee S
Blue Jay S
Song Sparrow S
Tree Sparrow S
Robin S
Starling S
Red—Winged Blackbird S
(June 15—18, 1976)
Birds Mammals
Glaucous Gull A Porcupine
Great Black—Backed Gull A Gray Squirrel
Herring Gull A Striped Skunk (Of f site)
Double—Crested Cormorant A Harbor Seal (At Reversing Falls, West
Barn Swallow s Pembroke)
Bank Swallow S
Purple Martin (Of f site) S
Common Crow S
Ruby—Throated Hummingbird S
Savannah Sparrow S
B 1ackpo11 Warbler S
Bobolink S
Common Crow S
Starling S
Robin S
American Redstart S
Goldfinch S
Black Duck A
Common Eider (Of f site) A
Red—Winged Blackbird S
Note: W = Aquatic birds; U—C Upland gamebirds; and S Songbirds.
111—69
-------
Reptiles and Amphibians : No amphibian or reptilian
species were observed on the site during the field
surveys. However, since small water bodies, decaying
logs and stumps, and openfield areas which could serve
as their habitats do exist on the site area, a list of
possible species for this area is given in Appendix F.
Endangered and Threatened Species . The only endanger-
ed species, as listed in the Federal Reglster,* which
is found in this region is the Arctic Peregrine falcon
( Falco peregrinus tundris_). It migrates along the
northeast coast and may be found in the Eastport area
for only short periods of time.
The Department of the Interior has recommended that
the northern bald eagle ( Hallaeetus leucocephalus
subspecies alascanus ) also be identified as an
Endangered species.** (FRVolun No. l3 1; page 28525).
Mr. Frank Gramlich, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Augusta, Maine, indicates that there are probably five
active nests and approximately 114 birds in the Cob—
scook Bay area. The eagles use the bay for feeding
and are often seen near the water. Although rio nests
are known to occur on the site area, birds have been
seen as close as one mile from the site boundary.
Aquatic Ecology
Marine Ecosystem . There have been numerous surveys of the
ptiysicai environment in the Passamaquoddy Bay region dating
back to the late 1800’s. Most of these surveys were con-
ducted in conjunction with a specific project. As a result
of these studies, species lists showing the occurrence and
occasionally the abundance of marine life have been formu-
lated. Although species lists are often helpful as inven-
toires of the marine life in an area, they do not detail
the importance of community interactions which take place
in a marine biological system. Knowledge of these inter-
actions can give insight to food chains, population changes,
adaptations, and species disappearances.
The marine ecosystem in the Quoddy region is a complexity of
islands, salt marshes, subtidal ledges, finger bays,and high
velocity passages. The topography, bathymetric heterogeniety,
and high tidal amplitude of the reaion interact to provide
diverse aquatic habitats. The diversity of habitats, effi-
ciency 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 ma-
rine biota.
*Fei . 1 Register, Vol. 140, No. 118, Pg. 14141412, June 18, 1975.
111—70
-------
The uniqueness of the marine environment of the Quoddy re-
gion is a function, in part, of the relative area to which it is
compared and how the term “uniqueness” is defined. If uniqueness
is to be considered as the presence of species or habitat types
that are found absolutely nowhere else, then the Cobscook Bay
area cannot be considered unique. No evidence has been found to
indicate that species are present in the area which would be
eliminat as the result of an oil spill. All species found
in the Cobscook Bay area are thought to occur at least in other
habitats along the coast of Maine.
A broader definition of uniqueness could be used to de-
scribe existing habitats that are the result of an unusual cornbina—
tion of physical characteristics. For instance, if the project
area (and the Coast of Maine) are compared to the remainder of
the Atlantic Coast, the New England coastal area could be con-
sidered unique because of the occurrence of rocky shorelines and
high tidal amplitude that are not typical in other Atlantic
coastal states. The primary difficulty in being able to define
specifically the uniqueness of the project area results from
the lack of existing field data for many aquatic environments a-
long the Coast of Maine and in the Bay of Fundy. The State of
Maine is currently investigating many of these areas.
There are several known unusual characteristics of the project
area that are representative of the combination of physical charac-
teristics described earlier. Dr. Peter F. Larsen of the Maine Re-
search Laboratory, Department of Maine Resources, Maine, has
studied a number of coastal areas in Maine and is preparing an
inventory of marine and estuarine invertebrates of Maine. His
impression (by phone 8 August, 1977) is that the marine environ-
ment of eastern Maine, and specifically of the Cobscook Bay area,
is unique compared to the rest of Maine but that it is difficult
to quantify this uniqueness. Certainly the Quoddy region does
provide extreme bathymetric variability, high species richness,
and a relatively clean environment. Bathymetric variation and
current patterns in Head Harbor Passage have produced unique
“pockets” where the diversity and abundance of marine organisms
are extremely great (MacKay 1976). In the vicinity of Head
Harbor Passage, MacKay identified these sites at:
Spruce Island
Sandy Island
Bean’s Island
Vicinity of Parker Island
Haddock Ledge
The “Hub”, Simpson’s Island
Furthermore, Dr. David E. Gaskin, University of Guelph,
Ontario, Canada, maintained that the Passamaquoddy Bay area
is unique in the very least, because it appears to be the center
of the Harbor Porpoise (by phone, Dr. David Gaskin, 9 August 1977). Dr.
Gaskin, in a rld-wic e sttxiy of the Harbor Porpoise, has found that other pop-
MacKay, Arthur A. 1976. Comments on EPA s Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the Proposed Pittston Oil refinery at Eastport, Maine, 37 pp.
111—71
-------
ulation$ are on the verge of collapse. He believes that the
population centered in the Passamaquoddy Bay area may be the
last healthy Atlantic group.
In addition, the Cobscook Bay Region has been described as unique
in that although most of the organisms found in the coastal waters
of states to the south also are found there, the existing marine
environment is in a condition similar to that which probably was
present in southern New England about a century ago (TRIGOM 1973).
This is attributable to the small human population of the area
and the lack of large industries.
Six areas within Cobscook Bay have been identified as potential
aquaculture sites. These sites, along with other resources, are
shown on Figures 111—23 and (Maine Dept. of Inland Fish-
eries and Wildlife, 1976).
The marine ecosystem of the Quoddy region may be divided into a
number of distinct subsystems. The major subsystems are:
1. Salt marshes
2. Intertidal mud, sand, and cobble flats
3. Intertidal rocky shorelines, headlands, and rock
outcropping $
4. Benthic habitats
5. High velocity channels
6. Bays
These subsystems, with their representative flora and fauna,
interact to form a complex food web. A brief description of
each subsystem will aid the understanding of the interrelation-
ships of these components toward the functioning of the system
as a whole.
Salt Marshes . The inner Quoddy region contains approximately
278 acres of salt marsh (TRIGOM 1973). Salt marshes are sys-
tems of rooted, emergent vegetation and tidal creeks which are
inundated and drained diurnally by salt water. Salt marshes
fringe aquatic areas of low physical energy and are common a—
long the back waters of bays and sheltered coves. The more
extensive marshes contain well—developed zones of low water
cordgrass ( Spartina alterniflora) , salt hay ( Spartina patens) ,
and a Juncus zone of mixed species. Numerous small invertebrates
also inhabit the salt marshes which include ribbed mussels
( Modiolus demissus) , amphipods, mites, and grasshoppers.
Biologically, salt marshes are among the most productive ha-
bitats in the world. Energy fixed by the grasses and algae
of the marsh is washed into the estuary by the tide in the form
of particulate organic matter (detritus). This material is an
111—72
-------
-
C ’
4 ,
I
I
Figure 111-23
S
N
\
\
\
\
NO 14
U EC
111—73
-------
s e
“—71 $
Figure 111-24
0
V
• p t —
* C—
0
— —
1
$..-_
C-
Ds -
1.dll n ra
\
N
0
-v
4,
-V
0
ueEc
MAINE COASTAL INVENTORY
Fish and Wildlife 2
MAINE STATE PLANNING OFFICE
rail
-
LOCAT Or O AOIAW
-------
important component in the supply of energy to the detrital
food chain as it provides food for many animals in the es-
tuary.
In the area of Eastport, salt marshes are most common along
Bar Harbor and the numerous fingers of the Cobscook Bay area.
Intertidal Mud, Sand, and Cobble Flats . The inner Quoddy re-
gion contains approximately 9,300 acres of intertidal mud and
sand flats (TRIGOM, 1973). The specific nature of the sub-
strate of these flats is determined largely by the water cur-
rent velocity in that area, as well as by the geology of the
region. The particle size composition of the flat will in-
crease with the energy of the water current. Thus the sub-
strate in areas with moderately strong currents will have a
greater composition of sand or gravel, while flats with very
weak currents will be areas of decomposition characterized
by soft, mud substrate. The particle size composition of the
substrate often will vary between flats, or gradients may
exist within a flat.
The rigors of intertidal exposure, the velocity of the water
currents, and the nature of the substrate largely determine
the faunal composition of the intertidal flat. Exposure to
the atmosphere (i.e., dessication, increased solar radiation,
and changes in temperature and salinity} during periods of
low water represents a severe environmental stress on those
organisms remaining on the flats. Inhabitants of intertidal
areas survive these stresses through physioloqical and be-
havioral adaptations. For example, polychaetes may build protective
tubes or burrow into the substrate, mussels will close their
valves, and amphipods and nemertea will seek refuge under
clumps of algae.
Intertidal Rocky Shorelines, Headlands, and Rock Outcroppings.
Intertidal rocky shores are high energy, eroding environments
characterized by strong currents and hard substrate. The hard
substrate provides stable surfaces for the attachment of sessile
and sedentary organisms. Thus the predominant biota are attached
epifauna rather than infauna as were common in intertidal areas
of mud and sand. Unlike the flats, orqanisms on rocky shores
also must be adapted to swift currents and pounding surf (along
111—75
-------
unsheltered, seaward shores) Various holdfast mechanisms
C e.g. the byssal threads of mussels) enable these organisms
to maintain their position in strong currents.
The biota of steep rocky shores often exhibit pronounced ver-
tical zonation. The vertical distribution of species on rocky
shores is dependent largely upon the ability of the organisms
to tolerate variations in temperature, salinity, dessication,
intensity of light, and other environmental conditions. Sub-
tidally ,there are the larger attached seaweeds of the kelp
beds (e.g., Laminaria , and in shallower water, Chondrus crispus) .
In the lower intertidal area, the rockweeds ( Ascophyllulfl sp .
and Fucus spp. ) are attached to the rocks, while barnacles and
periwinkles are located farther up on the rocks. The highest
intertidal zone is occupied by patches of blue-green algae
which often discolor the rock surface.
Benthic Habitats . The extreme bathymetric features of the inner
Quoddy region have lead to diverse and productive benthic habi-
tats. Some areas, such as Head Harbor Passage, are hundreds of
feet deep while other areas, as in sections of Cobscook Bay, are
very shallow, allowing light to penetrate to the bottom. Such
extremes in depth provide an extensive area for colonization
and satisfy the environmental requirements for diverse marine
life.
Benthic areas with soft sediment, e.g., intertidal mud and sand
flats contain many common species (especially infaunal species).
These areas occur predominantly in the bays and coves where the
water currents are sufficiently reduced to prevent scouring.
Where light penetrates to the bottom, eel gras beds ( Zostera
marina ) may develop. These beds not only contribute to the pri-
mary productivity of the bay (as do the benthic diatoms and
dinoflagellates), Dut also provide additional habitat, food, and
refuge for a variety of marine life. The blades of the eel grass
provide surface area for the attachment of epifauna that would
111—76
-------
otherwise be limited in availability in a soft bottom com-
munity. Although the subtidal communities of the inner
Quoddy region of Eastport have not been well studied
(TRIGOM 1973), it may be assumed that the diversity of
organisms associated with eel grass beds in other estuaries
will be similar to this region. In general, the richness
of these beds will include encrustingalgaeand byozoariS,
polychaetes, barnacles, mollusks, isopods, amphipods, crabs,
and fish.
High Velocity Channels . High velocity channels have been de-
scribed as passages where the flow of water ranges from 3 to
20 miles per hour or more, bottom substrates are swept clean,
and species of attached organisms especially adapted to strong
currents may grow abundantly (Odum, 1969). Encrusting or-
ganisms as bryozoans, barnacles, sponges, and encrusting algae
(e.g., the red algae - Lithothamnion ) are especially suited
for attachment to rock surfaces in strong currents. Heavy
growths of LaminarIan algae and its associated fauna also may
be abundant.
Areas in the inner Quoddy region that provide habitats charac-
terized as high velocity channels are Pembroke Falls, Indian
River, Western Passage, portions of Head Harbor passage, Friar
Roads, and Letite Passage.
Bays . The bays (Cobscook Bay and Passamaquoddy Bay) are the
important open water habitats of the plankton-based communities.
These communities include all the organisms living in the
water column which are subject to the currents and tidal flow.
The phytoplankton portion of this cornmuni y is primarily
diatoms and some dinoflagellates and contribute to primary pro-
ductivity of the region along with the benthic microflorá, sea
grass and algae beds, and salt marshes. The growth of phyto-
plankton is dependent on light, nutrient recycling, and tem-
perature. Growth occurs in pulses with maximum nopulations
occurring in the spring. In the Eastport area, however, the
lack of stability of the water column due to strong currents and
turbulence may limit the productivity of the plankton—based
community (TRIGON 1973).
111—77
-------
Other components of the plankton community are zooplankton
and larvae of crabs, fish, and lobsters. Like the phyto-
plankton, the larvae also are most abundant in the spring
and summer. The plankton community as a whole is very in—
portant to the energy flow from primary production to
the higher trophic levels such as the lobster, fish, birds,
and mammals. The phytoplankton are grazed upon by the zoo—
plankton which, in turn, provide food for crustaceans (e.g.,
Euphansid and inysid shrimp) and fish. The zooplankton are
also important for the support of herring populatinswhich
are of commerãial importance as well as vitally important
to the food web.
Flora and Fauna of the Quoddy Region
The diverse and productive marine resources found in
the Cobscook and Passamaguoddy Bay regions have been noted
by many researchers familiar with the area. Recent studies
of the Passamaquoddy and Cobscook area include those done by
the University of Maine; University of New Hampshire; Ply-
mouth State College, New Hampshire; Suffolk University Bio-
logical Laboratory, Dennysville, Ilaine; St. ndrews Biologi-
cal Station, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, New Bruns-
wick; Marine Research Associates on Deer Island, New Bruns-
wick; Huntsman Marine Laboratory, New Brunswick; and the
Maine Department of Marine Resources ,and.Bieglow Laboratories
West Boothbay Harbor 1 Maine. Species lists compiled by these
researchers have been reviewed by the Research Institute of
the Gulf of Maine (TRIGOM) and are used in this section. The
most teflS1Ve sampling is of the marine invertebrates and
aquatit birds in the Cobscook and Passamaquoddy areas.
The biological resources of the marine ecosystem may be divided
into several major catagories of flora and fauna. These cata—
gories are the plankton, macrophytes, invertebrates, fish,
marine avifauna and marine mammals.
Plankton . The plankton are those organisms (plant and animal)
living in the water column which are subject to curreflts and
tidal flows. Phytoplanktofl, the plant component of plankton,
are microscopic plants, such as diatoms and dInoflagellates
which contribute to the overall primary productivity of the
area and serve as an important food source for many marine
organisms. PhytoplanktOfl growth, however, occurs in pulses
and is dependent on the availability of light, nutrients, and
to a lesser extent, temperature. Thus climatic and hydrolo-
gical conditions of the Eastport area may limit phytoplankton
111—78
-------
productivity. In 1932, an extensive study* of the nutrients
and phytoplankton in the Bay of Fundy (17 stations including
one in Passamaquoddy Bay) and the Gulf of Maine (10 stations)
was conducted. This study indicated that phytoplankton pro-
ductivity was limited by factors other than the availability
of nutrients (concentrations of phosphates and nitrates were
high). The limitation of growth was attributed to the tur-
bulence of the water (strong currents and tidal scouring)
turbidity, and the limitation of light from cloudy and foggy
days. These limitations were found to be less severe in Pas—
samaquoddy Bay wherethe turbulence of the water is not as
great. In addition, those areas characterized by vertical
turbulence and nutrient distribution throughout the water
column, might be expected to have a significant benthic dia-
tom component in the phytoplankton (TRIGOM 1973). Table iii-24
lists the dominant and characteristic species of phytoplankton
at three stations of Gram and Braarud’s study (TRIGOM 1973).
The occurrence of the spring diatom maximum was in late June
in Cobscook Bay in 1957 and 1958** in contrast to the late
March to early April bloom in Passamaquoddy Bay.
Zooplankton are the faunal component of the plankton and in-
clude copepods, coelenterates, cladocerans, various larval
stages of molluscs, polychaetes, and crustacea, and fish eggs
and larvae. Zooplankton depend on phytoplankton as a food
source while they themselves provide an important source of
food for many invertebrates and fish (e.g., copepods are im-
portant as food for herrings). A study of the seasonal and
areal distribution of zooplankton in the coastal waters of the
Gulf of Main *confirmed a previously observed general de-
cline in the abundance of zooplankton from the western area
(Cape Anne, Mass., to Cape Elizabeth, Mass.) to the central area
(Cape Elizabeth to Mt. Desert Island) to the eastern area (Mt.
Desert Island to Machias Bay). This has been attributed to
the dissimilar hydrography along the coast. In the eastern
area, the unstable water column and the lack of appreciable
* Gram, H.H. and T. Braarud, 1935. “A Quantitative Study of
the Phytoplankton in the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of Maine.”
Journal of Biolo , Board of Canada 1.
** LeGare, J.E. and D.C. MacClellan, 1960. “A Qualitative
and Quantitative Study of the Plankton of the Quoddy Region
in 1957 and 1958 with Special Reference to the Food of Herring.”
Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 17 .
***Sherman, Kenneth. 1970. Seasonal and Areal Distribution
of Zooplankton in Coastal Waters of the Gulf of Maine, 1967
and 1968. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Sci. Rep.
Fjsh 594,8 pp
111—79
-------
Table 111—24
CHARACTERISTIC PHYTOPLANKTON IN THE QUODDY REGION+
(From Gran and Braarud, 1935)
APRIL Cell. Concentrations ’ -
Thalassiosira nordenskioei i Very high
ChaetocerOUS debilis Low
Porosira glacialis Low
ThalassiOsira gravida Low
NAY
Thalassiosira nordeflskiOeldi Very high
ChaetocerOUs debilis Low
ChaetoceroUS diadema Low
Melosira sulcata Low
JUNE
Chaetocerous debilis Very high (only in
Passainaquoddy Bay)
ThalassiOsira décipens Very low
AUGUST
Sceletonerna costatunt Low
PeridiniurEt triguetrum Medium
SEPTEMBER
ThalassiOfleifla Nitzschioides High
+ Stations in Passamaquoddy Bay, mouth of Western. Channel
and Gran4 Manan Channel.
* High = > 100,000 cells/liter
Medium = > 10,000 cells/liter
Low = < 10,000 cells/liter
ITI ——PO
-------
influx of zoo 1ankton from the north and east lead to less
favorable conditions for population growth. The higher
spring and summer temperatures in the western and central
areas, where the water column is relatively stable and
stratified, provide increasingly favorable conditions for
growth from Mt. Desert to Cape Ann (Sherman 1970).
Copepods were the predominant zooplankters in the coastal
waters ranging from 98 percent of the total zooplankton
in the winter of 1968 to 41 percent in the summer of 1967.
Appendix F lists species composition and seasonal variation
of copepods in the three areas of the Gulf of Maine (Sherman
1970). As for zooplankton in general,the abundance of cope—
pods generally decreased from west to east. Notable ex-
ceptions were the high concentrations of Calanus pinmarchicus,
Pseudocalanus minutus, Tortanus discaudatus , and Temora
longicornis .
The zooplankton in the Quoddy region was studied by Legare
and MacClellan in 1960. Samples were collected from sta-
tions in Cobscook Bay, the Passages, Passamaquoddy Bay and
the Bay of Fundy. App Mdix F 1i ts
the various species and their seasonal occurrence (TRIGOM
1973). The zooplankton were most abundant during the summer
(63% of the yearly total). Their number decreased through
the autumn (20%) and the winter (11%) to a spring minimum
of six percent. Appendix F lists the relative density of zoo-
plankton in the 4 areas of the Quoddy region (Legare’ and
MacClellan 1960 within TRIGOM 1973). Zooplankton were much
more abundant in Cobscook Bay (33% of the numbers taken at
all stations) than in Passamaquoddy Bay (7%). The density of
zooplankton in the Passages and Bay of Fundy were similar
but less than that found in Cobscook Bay( 28 and 32%re-
spectively).
111—81
-------
Macrophytes . Algae such as rockweed, kelp and moss are
found predominantly in rocky intertidal and subtidal areas.
These plants can be found attached to rock surfaces, other
plants, or in small tidal pools along the rocky shoreline.
Both Deep Cove and Shackford Head are intertidal areas of
solid rock boulders, cobbled—sloping shorelines, and steep-
exposed rock outcroppinas. Bigelow Laboratoryls* sampling
revealed that common rockweed ( Fucus vesiculosus ) was the
predominant species within these areas. Other rockweed
species included ( Fucus sprialis , F. edentatus or Fucus
evanescens) . The knotted wrack ( Ascophyllum nodosum ) also
accounted for a significant amount of the biomas in the area.
Together, these brown algae comprised the bulk of the inter-
tidal vegetation. These species of intertidal algae also are pre-
dominate on Caxnpobello Island (Franklin D. Roosevelt Park)
as noted by Dr. Radcliff Pike ( Trigoml973).
In the lower intertidal area, nearer the subtidal zone, Irish
Moss ( Chondrus crispus) , a red algae, was abundant. A few
kelps, ( Laminaria saccharaina , and Chorda .) were also found
in the lower intertidal area, extending into subtidal loca-
tions. Also, low levels of green algae such as sea lettuce
( 1va lactuca)and green seaweed ( Enteromorpha .) were iden-
tified.
In the Shackford Head area, where the most exposed, steep rock
areas are found knotted wrack(Ascophyllum nodosum ) predominates
and at the mid-intertidal mark, it is very dense and large. A
small amount of rockweed ( Fucus .) was also found.
Other species near the low intertidal area include green algae
( Ulva lactuca and Entermorpha .) and red algae such as dulse
( Rhodyinenia palmata) . As the lower intertidal area extends
into the subtidal zone, species such as Irish moss ( Chondrus
crispus), Gigartina stellata , and large Japanese Non-layer
( Porphyra umbilicalis ) were common. Crustose forms of red
algae, (Lithothamnium glaciale, Hildenbrandtia prototypus,
petrocelis middendorf ii ) and brown algae ( Ralfsia fungiformis
and Ralfsia sp. ) were found to be an abundant subtidal species
in this location. As noted by Pike, this community of crust-
ose algae seems to be characteristic of this particular marine
location.
Appendix F c9ntains the detailed lists of algal species with
biomoss (g/m 4 ) for Deep Cove and Shackford Head. Also in-
cluded in this Appendix is the preliminary report on “Inter-
tidal Marine Algae of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Park,” from
the University of New Hampshire. The algae found in the area
by Marine Research Associates of New Brunswick IS also in
the Appendix.
Certain species of algae are of commercial importance. In
Charlotte County, New Brunswick dulse ( Rhodymenia palmata)
is the only algae presently landed for commercial markets.
* Consultant to Pittston Co.
111—82
-------
From 1968-1972 annual average landings of dulse were 75,000
pounds, valued at $36,000. About 95 percent of this total
comes from Grand Manan Island. Other parts of the Bay of
Fundy (Nova Scotia) harvest Irish moss, dulse, and rockweed
(Fucus vesiculosus), averaging 18 million pounds total pro-
duction.
Invertebrates . The Quoddy region lies within the Atlantic
Boreal (Labrador to Cape Cod) faunal province of the north-
east coast of North America. The province to the north is
the Atlantic Arctic Provinceand to the south the Atlantic
Temperate Province. The two northern provinces are charac-
terized by rather constant environmental conditions while
the southern province is a region where environmental para-
meters change seasonally. The invertebrate fauna of the
Quoddy region are predominantly characteristic of the Borèal
province although occasional migrants move down from the
Arctic and up from the temperate regions.
A list of 836 species of invertebrates found in the Quoddy
region has been compiled by MacKay (1976) from records of
collections by Marine Research Associates of New Brunswick,
as well as other sources. This list is included in Appendix
F along with lists of species provided by Paul Langer, Uni-
versity of New Hampshire; Dr. Larry spencer, Plymouth State
College; the Suffolk Biological Station, Fisheries Research
Board of Canada; Marine Research Association; and a species
list compiled by Reed and D ‘Andrea on Maine Coastal Eco-
systems .
Also a checklist of marine and estuarine invertebrates of
Maine (Perkins and Larsen, 1975) has been included in the
Appendix to provide a preliminary comparison of changes in
invertebrate communities along the coast of Maine. The coast-
line was divided into 11 regions by the Coastal Planning
Group of the Maine StatePlanning Office (Fig. III- 25). These
same regions were maintained for the checklist to maximize
its usefulness to planners as a generalway of describing
the distribution of invertebrate species and as a means of
highlighting areas when thorough surveys have not been con-
ducted. The checklist includes only those species reported
since 1940. Table III- 25 lists the number of species identifi2d
* Perkins, Lee F. and Peter F. Larsen. 1975. A Preliminary
Checklist of the Marine and Estuarine Invertebrates of Maine.
Marine Research Laboratory, Department of Marine Resources.
37 pp.
III.-83
-------
BAR
HARBOR
LUBEC
I. UPPER PENOBSCOT BAY
2. KNOX REGION
3. EAST PENOBSCOT BAY
4. EAST HANCOCK COUNTY
5. LINCOLN COUNTY
6. WESTERN MID -COAST
7. WEST WASHINGTON COUNTY
6. CENTRAL WASHINGTON COUNTY
9. EAST WASHINGTON COUNTY
10. CUMBERLAND -
GREATER PORTLAND
I. SOUTHERN MAINE
74
A
CITY
BOOTHBAy
HARBOR
SACO
CITY
Figure III— 25 Planning regions as designated bythé Coastal Planning Group of the Maine State Planning Office.
-------
Table 111—25
Preliminary Data on the Distribution of
Species of Marine and Estuarine Invertebrates
Reported Since 1940 for 11 Regions
Along the Coast of Maine.*
Species Only
Identified
Region Total Number of Species in this Region
1 193 31
2 100 14
3 54 8
4 154 16
5 539 129
6 95 2
7 118 8
8 119 1
9 359 62
10 294 63
11 310 51
*perkjns and Larsen. 1975.
111—85
-------
thus far in each region, as well as, the number of species
presently identified as occuring only in that region. How-
ever these data should be used only to identify areas of high
diversity. Dr. Larsen (by phone, 9 August 1977) has stated
that the extent of investigation has varied between regions,
and thus differences in the number of species may not be an
accurate estimate of true difference from one area to another.
In addition, with regard to this report, Region 9 terminates
at the international boundary with Canada and does not include
the entire Quoddy region.
Other investigations in the study area include an 18-month
survey along a subtidal transect in the area proposed for
dredging for the replacement of piers and berthing at Deep
Cove, Eastport, Maine.* A diverse invertebrate community was
found in the cove area. The subtidal areas include many species
of crabs such as Cancer borealis , C. irroratus, Hyas coarctacus,
Pagurus acadianus , and Pagurus pubescens . Other arthropods
include shrimp ( Spirontocaris groenlandicus) ; lobster ( Homarus
aniericanus) ; and barnacles ( Balanus balanus) . Some of the
molluscs found in this cove area include periwinkles ( Littorina
Littorea) , L. obstusata,L. saxatilis) ; snails - top shells
( Margiarites groenlandica , M. costalis , M. helicna and others);
chitons ( Ischnochiton albus) ; clams ( Mya truncata , M. arenaria,
Hiatella arctica , and Hiatella striata) ; mussels ( Mytilus edulis,
Musculus discors , and Modiolus modiolus) ; scallops ( Placopecten
magellanicus, Chiamys islandicus) ; and squid ( hex illecebrosa) .
Sponges ( Porifera) , hydroids ( Hydrozoa) , worms ( Annelida) , anemones
( Anthozoa class), and jellyfish ( Schphazoan class) are some of the
are some of the other phyla and classes of species found in Deep
Cove. Of the three worms ( Ammotr ypane awlogaster, Myicola
infundibulum , and Sabella crassicornis ) found in the Cobscook Bay
area, only two are considered rare.*
Also of interest are the starfish (Asteriodea), cucumber
(Hoithuriodea), and green sea urchin (Echinoidea). A detailed
list of species identified during Langer’s study is contained in
Appendix F.
In September 1975, the Bigelow Laboratory undertook a benthic in-
vertebrate surlYey for the Pittston Company. Of the different
habitats sampled at 33 station locations in the cove areas as pre-
viously illustrated in Figure 111—21, over 200 families of organ-
isms were discovered; 162 of these were identified to the species
level. The habitats sampled were intertidal areas in Broad Cove
and Deep Cove, both being exposed and protected, rocky intertidal
areas on Shackford Head; and two subtidal areas, one with a silt clay
content greater than 20 percent and one with a silt clay content
less than 20 percent. To determine the dominant species in each
*Dr. Larry T. Spencer, Plymouth State College, New Hampshire.
111—86
-------
habitat, the results of this sampling were evaluated by
rank analysis methods. The results generally concurred
with those of Langer and other biological researchers who
have studied the Eastport area.
In both cove intertidal areas, many species of periwinkles,
limpets, clams, and worms dominated the habitat. In the slit
clay subtidal areas, aside from the many species of worms,
(polychaetes), chitons, brittle star ( Ophuira robusta) , sea
urcñlns, amphipods, and bivalves (clam family) were the dom-
inant invertebrates. The rocky intertidal areas, which were
covered with algae and densely populated with organisms such
as snails, also contained some of the above named species
but were dominated by such species as anemones, mussels.
nacles, and dog whelks ( Thais lapillus) .
Table III- 26 lists the distribution of species among the higher
taxa (Bigelow Laboratory Survey 1975). The rank scores il-
lustrating the frequency and abundance of the species sampled
for all habitats during the Bigelow Laboratory survey are con-
tained in Appendix F.
Additional information on the invertebrate resources (and
fish) adjacent to the Canadian-United States boundary is
being prepared by Dr. G.M. Hare at the St. Andrews Biologi-
cal Station in New Brunswick and should be available by late
fall 1977.
Commercial Invertebrates . Several species of invertebrates
found in the Quoddy region have commercial value. The fol-
lowing section discusses landings and dollar values for only
those species of cc*mnercial interest in Washington County,
Maine and Charlotte County, New Brunswick. These species are
lobster(Homarus americanus) ; soft-shelled clam ( Mya arenaria) ;
shrimp ( Pandalus borealis) ; scallop ( Placopecten magellanicus) ;
periwinkle ( Littorina littorea) ; blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis) ;
and worms ( Nereis virens and Glycera dibranchiat a) . The
spawning survival of these s ies, particularly lobsters
and clams, depends on such factors as turbulence, water tem-
perature, siltation, food supply, and other environmental
factors which have not been fully studied. Although lobster
as shown in Table III - 27 is the most important of the com-
mercial invertebrate species for Washington County (about
1,910,000 pounds valued at $3,192,000 were landed in 1975 ) the
the soft shell clam is the most important species for the
Eastport-Passamaquoddy area. Estimates of Washington County’s
1975 clam landing are about 2,675,000 pounds valued at $2,4l1,000.*
The clam flats, as illustrated in Figure III—26. are located
in the intertidal areas around Eastport and the mainland of
Charlotte County. Because of the relative inaccessibility of
the areas in Cobscook Bay and the pollution caused
* Maine Department of Marine Resources.
111—87
-------
TABlE 111—26
Distributic of Species Anong the Higher Taxa
Phylun or Higher Taxon Niztber of Species
Porifera 2
criidaria 5
Platyhelminthes 2
Ithynthoo e1a 1*
Asd ie)ipitthes 2
Bryozoa 1*
Bracthiopoda 1
tt, l lusca 58
Po lyplacxphora 3
Gastropoda 29
Bivalvia 26
Armelida 61
Sipuncula 1
Arth 55
Pycrogcmida 4
Aradmida 1
Insecta 2
OstrooJda 1
Cirrip&ia 1
Oxra a 3
Tanaidacea 1
Iscipoda 5
Anphipoda 32
5
Ec*uiixderinata 7
Ec*iinoidea 2
Asteroidea 4
Ophiuroidea 1
Urod ordata 3
*The several forn of n rteans ar bxyozoans re rot speciated.
111—88
-------
by a recent oil spill, clam production for this
region is low. However, it is estimated that
about 1714,000 bushels of soft—shell clams
representing 59 percent of the total standing
crop open to harvesting are in desirable digging
areas around Cobscook Bay. At 1975 prices, this
represents a value of over $2 million.*
Pittston’s consultant also estimates that in
1974 about 100 people harvested between 10,000
and 15,000 bushels of clams; the Department of
Marine Resources in Maine estimates that about
40,000 bushels of clams were harvested.
Table III— 28 indicates the total acreage of each
of the commercial clam flats shown on the map
and the estimated yield in bushels of clams per
acre.
Estimates for other commercially fished inverte-
brate species in the Eastport—Cobscook area are
not readily available. In 19714, 12 lobster and
crab licenses were issued to individuals in
Eastport,** and of the approximately 0 boats that fish
for lobster in Washington County, it is estimated
that approximately 15 use Cobscook Bay.
As mentioned previously, lobster is the most
important invertebrate commercial species. The
location of lobster pounds In Charlotte County
are shown in Figure 111—27. On the average,
5.2 million pounds per year are stocked in this
area. However, since the operations are seasonal,
much less than 5.2 million pounds are stocked at
any one time. Generally, stocks peak during the
months of January and July when they are about
1.6 million pounds. In 1975, the total landings
of lobster were 855,000 pounds, valued at
$l,1496,000.
*GillfIllan, E., P. Larsen and J. Topinka, 1975. Personal
Communications. Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences.
**Maine Department of Marine Resources.
-------
EASTPORT AREA
CLAM FLATh AND SCALLOP BEDS
FK URE 111-26
CLAM FI.ATS
T) ScALLOP BEDS
111—90
-------
TABLE 111-27 WASHINGTON COUNTY INVERTEBRATE LANDINGS AND LANDED VALUE
Landings Value
Species lb x 1,000 $ x 1,000
1975
Clams 2,675 2,411
Lobster 1,910 3,192
Scallops 195 313
Sandworms 297 327
Bloodworms 198 436
Periwinkles 15 16
Mussels 22 7
Shrimp 30 8
Conk eel 3 1
Total 5,345 6,711
Maine Department of Marine Resources
(Robert L. Dow)
111—91
-------
TABLE 11 1-28 AREA, POPUlATION DENSITY AND STANDING CROP ON CLAN FLATS
WITH STUDY AREA, BY TOWN
Bushels
Standing
per
crop
Closed
Location Area No. Acres acre
bushels
acres
Robbinston
Lamb Cove 1 28 75 2,100 28
Brooks Cove 2 33 75 2,475 33
Mill Cove 3 102 75 7,650
163 12,225 61
Perry
Lewis Cove 4 92 50 4,600
Loring Cove 5 15 25 375
Frost Cove 6 8 25 200
Gleason Cove 7 81 50 4,050 56
Pigeon Hill 8 275 50 13,750
East Bay 13 79 100 7,900
Sipp Bay 14 74 75 5,550
Sipp Bay 15 23 75 1,725
647 38,150 56
Eastport
Bar Harbor
Quoddy Bar 9 155 75 11,625 130
Carrying Place Cove 10 64 75 4,800
Harris Cove 11 40 25 1,000 40
Broad Cove 12 64 25 1,600 64
323 19,025 234
Pembroke
Sipp Bay 16 64 50 3,200
Hersey Cove 17 112 50 5,600
Pennamaquan R. 18 53 50 2,650
Leighton’s Neck 19 84 50 4,200
Young’s Cove 20 214 50 10,700
Leighton’s Neck 21 89 50 4,450
Hardscrabble R. 22 36 50 1,800
Total 652 32,600
111—92
-------
TABLE 111-28 (Continued). AREA, POPULATION DENSITY AND STANDING CROP
ON CLAN FLATS WITH STUDY AREA, BY TOWN
Bushels
Standing
per
crop
Closed
Location Area No. Acres acre
bushels
acres
Dennysville
Hinckley Pt. 23 20 25 500
Total 20 500
Edmunds Twp
Denny’s Bay 24 250 50 12,500
Broad Cove 25 59 50 2,950
Burnt Cove 26 80 50 4,000
Fields Pt. 27 76 50 3,800
Total 465 23,250
Trescott
Leighton Cove 28 31 25 775
Welt Cove 29 173 25 4,325
Timber Cove 30 60 25 1,500
Carrying Place Cove 31 94 75 7,050
Straight Bay 32 376 50 18 ,ffiOO
Total 734 32,450
Lubec
Straight Bay 32 295 50 14,750
Young Point 33 13 25 325
Denbow Neck 34 33 75 2,475
Federal Harbor 35 46 25 1,150
Bassett Creek 36 31 75 2,325
Red Point 37 220 75 16,500
South Bay 38 350 75 26,250
Seward Neck 39 46 50 2,300
Seward Neck 40 97 25 2,425
Seward Neck 41 28 75 2,100 28
Johnson Bay 42 112 75 8,400 20
South Lubec 43 667 125 83,375
West Quoddy Head 44 15 25 375
Coffin Neck 45 173 50 8,650
Total 2,126 171,400 48
111—93
-------
A relatively new shrimp fishery is centered around
Grand Manan Island. Landings are mostly by bottom
trawling at depths of 20 to 60 fathoms.The season
Is generally from January to May.
Deep sea scallops occur abundantly in depths from
10 to 100 fathoms off the Maine coast. Since
scallops spawn from August to October, their
survival rate Is heavily dependent upon the water
temperature at this time. There is some dragging
of scallops In the St. Croix estuary and those
areas of Cobscook Bay previously illustrated In
Figure 111—26 however, scallops are caught mostly
in Passamaquoddy Bay and taken to Digby, Nova
Scotia. Estimates for the l973—7 4 season In Cob—
scook Bay are 20,000 pounds of scallops (shuckedweight).
Other invertebrates of commercial Importance are
periwinkles and mussels. The common periwinkle
(snails), which spawn during the spring and sum-
mer, are harvested year—round in both Washington
and Charlotte Counties. Reports Indicate that the
periwinkles In the Eastport area are larger in size
than in other areas of Maine.
Mussels are also commercially landed In both
counties. They are found on the mud flats, par-
ticularly around Cobscook Bay, and also serve
as a source of food for flounder, cod, eels,
crabs and lobsters.
Other commercial species such as sandworms and
bloodworms are of particular importance In Lubec,
Pembroke and Eastport, where the worm_producing
flats are concentrated.
Tables 111—29 and 111—30 show the landings and
dollar values for the years 1973—1975 for all of
the above—named species. The total 1975 landings
for Washington and Charlotte Counties were
5,3l 5,000 and 1,509,000 pounds valued at $6,711,000
and $1,603,000, respectively. Estimates for
landings In the Bay of Fundy are shown in
Table 111—31.
Other invertebrate species which are either not
yet used extensively but could be developed com-
mercially, or are inadequately recorded as to
abundance and distribution of landings include:
crabs ( Cancer borealis and Cancer lrroratu&) ,
sea urchin ( Stith gy1ocentrotUS droebachieflSi S) .
III.- 9 L1
-------
LOBSTER TIDAL POUNDS
IN CHARLOTTE COUNTY, N. B.
FIGURE Ifl- 27
610
5.
a
-S.
$50
_450
45.—’
Note: Capacitteti
in. ‘000 pounds
V
— 50
55.—
01
- 45•
40’
C,and
Mcncn
45.- ’
$50
500
250
40”
5
45°
111—95
-------
TABLE III- 29 CHARLOTTE COUNTY INVERTEBRATE LANDINGS
Grand Manan West Isles Mainland 1. ft in1and E. Thtais
(lbx ($x (lbx ($x (lhx ($x (lbx ($x (lbx ($x
1000) 1000) 1000) 1000) 1000) 1000) 1000) 1000) 1000) 1000)
1973
Ld sters 678 980 95 135 66 97 60 90 899 1302
S.S. C1an 0 0 4 1 1964 154 1629 290 3597 445
Shrinps 0 0 39 7 0 0 28 3 67 10
Scallops 11 19 4 8 0 0 6 11 21 38
Winkles 71 10 19 2 0 0 9 1 99 13
Ibtals 760 1009 161 153 2030 251 1732 395 4683 1808
1974
t&*sters 621 943 64 90 53 79 52 74 790 1186
SS. C1an 0 0 15 2 496 58 518 99 1029 159
Shrirzps 0 0 20 7 0 0 0 0 20 7
Scallops 3 5 3 6 0 0 5 9 11 20
Winkles 51 8 12 2 0 0 10 1 73 11
Totals 675 956 114 107 549 137 585 183 1923 1333
1975
Idsters 708 1257 55 90 63 102 29 47 855 1496
S.s. c1an 0 0 15 2 484 60 70 13 569 75
Shrirrps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scallops 2 3 5 ii 0 0 3 5 10 19
Winkles 60 10 6 1 5 1 4 1 75 13
Totals 770 1270 — 81 - 104 552 163 106 66 1509 1603
Av. 196 8—75
I bsters 731 866 97 107 62 74 77 81 967 1128
s.S. C1an 4 — 20 2 1041 85 828 119 1893 206
Shriitps 46 6 117 14 14 4 262 61 439 85
Scallops 10 12 3 4 1 1 6 9 20 26
Winkles 49 6 14 2 2 — 16 2 81 10
Totals 840 890 251 129 1120 164 1189 272 3400 1455
Source: Fisheries Research Board of Canada) 19711. Summary of
physical, bioLgical, soclo—economic, and other factors
relevant to potential oil spills in the Passamaquoddy
Region of the Bay of Fundy. Tech. Report ITo. 1128.
111—96
-------
TABLE III- 30 BAY OF FUNDY INVERTEBRATES. AVERAGE LANDINGS AND
LANDED VALUE, 1968—75
Total Bay of Fundy
Species (lb x 1,000) ($ x 1,000)
Lobsters 5,073 5,376
Scallops 503 616
S.S. Clams 4,808 511
Shrimp 494 95
Winkles 122 13
Baitworms 5 4
Bar Clams 33 3
Crabs (unspecified) 18 2
Total 11,056 6,620
Source: Fisheries Research Board of Canada, l97 . SuTninary of
physical, biological, socio—economic, and other factors
relevant to potential oil spills in the Passamaquoddy
Region of the Bay of Fundy. Tech. Report.No. 28.
111—97
-------
TABLE III— 31 LANDINGS AND LANDED VALUES OF GROUNDFISH IN
WASHINGTON, COUNTY
1975
Landings Value
Species lb x 1 0OO $ X 1000
Cod 114 13
Haddock 16 6
Cusk Eel 7 4
Dab (plaice) 29 3
Hake 23 2
Pollock - 22 2
Halibut 4 4
Winter Flounder 26 4
Witch Flounder 16 2
(Gray sole)
TOTAL 257 40
Source: Maine Department of Maine Resources
(Robert L. Dow)
111 —98
-------
and the striped shrimp ( Pandalus montagui) . These species
are of possible commercial importañ e to both Charlotte
County, New Brunswick and Washington County, Maine.
Fish
Commercial Finfish . Much of the information available on
The abundance of finfish and other species and their dis-
tribution within the area was gathered as part of the bio-
logical profile of Passamaquoddy Bay which was done by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with research
on the feasibility of the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project.
Additional information on the commercial fisheries in the
area has been gathered on a regular basis.
A preliminary list of the finfish species found in the
Passamaquoddy region has been compiled by TRIGOM, using
information from the Fish and Wildlife Service*, the
New Brunswick Museum**, and known commercial species.
This list is contained in Appendix F.
Groundfish . Landings in the Bay of Fundy area include
species of cod ( Gadus caliari J , haddock ( lanogram-
mus ae lef1nus) , redfish ( Sebastes marinus) , hake
( Merluc ius bilinearis) , pollock ( I’ ollachius virens) ,
American plaice ( Hippoglossoides platessoides) , and
different species of flounder ( Glyptocephalus cyno-
glossus, Liopsetta putnami, Pseudopleuronectes america —
nus and others). Most of these species do not appear
to spawn in the waters around Eastport.*** Although
* Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953.
** Gorham, 1970.
***DOw, 1959, U.s Fish and Wildlife Service, Bigelow and
Schroeder.
111—99
-------
cod eggs and pollock larvae have been found In
the Bay of Fundy, the migrations of these fish
suggest that the majority of spawning is done
outside of this area. A study done by the
National Marine Fisheries Service on redfish
suggests, however, that this particular species
Is endemic to the Eastport area.
Groundfish landings in Washington County f or
1975 totalled about 257,000 pounds, valued at
about $110,000. Cod was the largest landing,
with about 1111,000 pounds valued at
$13,000. Table 111—31 lists the different
species of groundfish by weight and landed values.
Both values have been rounded to the nearest
1,000.
According to the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada figures contained In Table III -. 32, annual
groundfish landings In Charlotte County, New
Brunswick for 1975 totalled about 2,942,000 pounds
with a value of $302,000. Cod, haddock, and
pollock have historically been the most important
species landed, both in weight and value. The
Board’s 1974 report indicates that most of these
fish are caught outside of Passamaquoddy Bay.
The area fished extends from Peer Island to Saint
John, New Brunswick and from Dlgby to Yarmouth to
Peer Island, New Brunswick.
The total 1975 groundflsh landings for the Bay of
Fundy region were 311 776,000 pounds valued at
$4,706,000. Table I1I.. 33 Indicates landings for
the years 1973—75 in the Bay of Fundy and Charlotte
County, New Brunswick.
As previously mentioned, Atlantic herring ( Clupea
harengus (sardines) has been the single most
important fishery in the region. Weirs are the
principle gear used in the Eastport area to catch
herring. Today, weirs located in Passamaquoddy
Bay are operating mostly along the coast of Perry
in Washington County, Maine, (24 weirs), and in
Charlotte County, New Brunswick (250 weirs).
The Bay of Fundy region serves as an important
spawning area for the herring, both
III_.100
-------
TABLE III- 32 LANDINGS AND LANDED VALUES OF GROUNOFISH IN
CHARLOTTE COUNTY
Species Landings Value Landinqs Value Ltnc3j t Value
(thxl000) ($xl000) (lbxl000) ($xl000} (lbxl000) ($xl000)
1973 1974 1975
cod 1186 143 1174 203 1015 119
}Iaddock 218 56 143 43 209 53
W dfish 35 2 5 — 34 2
Ua1ibu 5 3 4 3 5 3
flake 159 11 82 7 154 U.
CuskEe l 1 — 7 —
Pollock 1278 88 680 58 1258 85
&lffish 15 — 1 — —
Plaice 3 3 —
Witch 39 6• 18 5 33 5
Ye llcwtai l 31 4 10 2 26 3
Winter Flounder 31 3 92 12 26 3
Mixed Flounder 200 22 39 6 171 18
Others 1 1 —
‘It,ta l
3202 338 2249 339 2942
302
Source: Fisheries
Research Board of Canada, Technical Report
No. 428,
Updated figures, Aug., 1976.
TABLE III-
33 LANDINGS AND LANDED VALUES OF GROUNDFISH IN
BAY OF FUNDY
Species
Landings Value Landings Value Laixiin ;s
(lbxl000) ($xl000) (lbxl000) ($xl000) (lhxl000)
1973 1974
V 1ue
(Sxl000
1975
cod
7422 898 7562 1028 7 1 3
1145
Haddock
4101 833 8018 1524 10519
2074
r x lfish
67 3 15 1 135
6
Ila lthut
126 113 79 69 112
101
Hake
3040 200 3150 214 2819
219
Cusk Eel
178 13. 579 48 613
57
Pollock
17315 1060 9411 658 9103
715
1ffish
823 59 780 58 800
57
Plaice
72 6 23 2 28
3
Witch
30 2 83 9 101
11
Ye11c .itai1
3 — — —
Winter Flounder
1161 120 1301 142 1007
132
Mixed Flounder
1550 143 1973 148 1684
182
Others
511 44 1184 100 40
4
‘Ibtal
36399 3494 34158 4000 34776
4706
Source: Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Technical Report No. 1428, undated
tgure , Aug. 1976.
111—101
-------
larval and post—larval stages, and especially as
a feeding area during the winter months. The
major area of spawning is at the entrance to the
Bay in the Trinity—Lurcher area. From this area
larvae are dispersed throughout the Bay. The
concentration of larvae in the Bay area was sur-
veyed by the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
during November 1972 and February — March 1973.
The distribution of larvae from these surveys is
shown in Appendix F.
The herring landings for Washington County for
1975 totalled 6,596,870 pounds, valued at
$293,717*. Fishing takes place from spring to
fall, after the influx of herring into the bay
from the south.
In Canada, the Bay of Fundy herring fisheries
represent a multi—million dollar industry. The
total landed value for herring in 1975 was
$5,917,000, with $282,9’I 4 of this from weir
landings. It has been estimated by the Board of
Canadian Fisheries that the product value for
herring is generally three or four times the
landed value. Charlotte County contributes about
1 1I percent to the Bay of Fundy landing total of
131,965,000 pounds. For more details on the
herring and herring scales landed by the Canadian
fishermen, see Tables III— 34, III— 35, 111-36 and
III— 37 following this page.
Diadromous species . Diadromous fish refers to
hose species which migrate from salt water to
fresh water streams and lakes or vice versa to
spawn. These species spend part of their lives
near the marine shore areas, close to the surface.
The Atlantic salmon ( Salmon salar ) and shad
( Alosa sapidissima ) are anadromous species
which move from salt to fresh water to spawn.
The Atlantic salmon, which usually spawn during
the fall, are found in many Maine rivers, including
Denny’s River. Although the population of this
species has been declining, TRIGOM’s survey of
literature reveals that the salmon run has recently
Maine Department of Marine ResourceS, 1976.
111—102
-------
TABLE III-. 3Z LANDINGS AND LANDED VALUES OF HERRING
Char1ott County Bay of Fundy
Years Lindincis Lzmdcd Values Lindinqs Landed V i1 ucs
(lbx l000) ($x l000) (lbxl000) ($xl000)
1973 117,568 2,857 242,410 5,398
1974 113,549 3,075 265,481 6,294
1975 131,965 3,383 282,946 5,917
Source: Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Technical Report
No 428, upd tcd figures, Aug. 1976.
TABLE III- 35 HERRING LANDINGS FROM WEIRS
Charlotte County Bay of Fundy
Years Weirs Total Weirs Total
( lbx l000) ( lbx l000)
1973 58,244 117,568 66,920 242,410
1974 49,340 113,598 56,134 265,385
1975 131,965 282,944
Source: Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Technical Report
No. 428, updated figures, Aug. 1976.
III— ]. 03
-------
TABLE 111—36 QUANTITIES AND LANDED VALUES OF HERRING SCALES
charlotte County of Fu y
Landed Landed
Year3 L ’ .ndinqs Values Landinqs V a 1
(lbxl000) ($xl000) (lbx l000) ($xlMOO)
1973 1,409 203 3,840 451
1974 2,112 229 4,869 613
1975 1,408 59 2,310 101
Source: Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Technical
Report No. 428, updated figures, Aug. 1976.
TABLE 111—37 LANDINGS AND LANDED VALUES OF MACKEREL
.4
Charlotte County Bay of Fundy
landed Landed
Years LandingS Values Landings Values
( lbx l000) ($xl00 0 ) (lbxl000) ($xl000)
1973 380 8 1,637 63
1974 698 13 1,434 62
1975 425 26 1,582 113
Source: Fisner es Research 9oard of Canada, Technical
Report No. 428, updated figures, Aug. 1976.
III_101
-------
increased to several hundred in Denny t s River.
This represents about 20 percent of the total
Atlantic run. In Washington County, salmon Is
a sport fishery.
Other sport fish include striped bass ( Morone
saxatilis ) and brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis) .
The trout and bass are found mostly In rivers and
streams, but do move seasonally to coastal loca-
tions. In addition, some of the large open ocean
fish such as Bluefin tuna ( Thunnus ynnus) ,
which are seen on a regular basis In the summer,
enter the waters of the Bay of Fundy and are part
of the areats sport fishing. Shark species in
the area include blue shark ( Prionace glauca) ,
sand shark ( Carcharias taurus) , basking shark
( Cetorhinus maximus) , hammerhead shark ( Sphyrna
zygaena ) and others.
In New Brunswick, commercial fishing of salmon
was closed in 1972 due to the rapid decline of
the salmon population. In 1975, salmon landings
for the Bay of Fundy were only 10,000 pounds,
valued at $18,000. The St. John River and tribu-
taries are the prime location for salmon runs.
Other diadrotnous fish of some commercial value
are alewife ( Alosa pseudoharengus) , smelt
( Osmerus mordax) , eel ( Anguilla rostrata )
and sea sturgeon ( Acipenser sturlo) . Alewives
migrate from marine areas to fresh water streams
and lakes. The most recent alewife fishery in
the Eastport area Is located In Boyden Stream,
which originates at Little River and travels down-
stream to Boyden Lake. This fishery was started
in 1972 by the Maine Department of Sea & Shore
Fisheries.
In Washington County, 709,790 pounds of alewives,
valued at $19,992, were landed In 1975.* The
Canadian landings of alewives In 1975 were
6,997,000 pounds, valued at $3814,000 for the Bay
of Fun if (Table 111—38). Although the migration
patterns of alewives has not been studied, the
Canadians assume their movements follow somewhat those
of the salmon.
Smelt is found along the local inshore areas
during summer and migrate to estuaries in the
winter. Spawning occurs in tributaries of low
salt content.
*Maine Department of Marine Resources, 1976.
111—105
-------
TABLE 111—38. LANDINGS AND LANDED VALUES OF DIADRONOUS
SPECIES, BAY OF FUNDY
Year
Species
1973
Alewives
8598
260
2147
149
Shad
18
Smelt
100
31
Eels
12
14
Sturgeon
6
8
Salmon
357
Total
90148
19714
Total
Alewives
Shad
Smelt
Eels
Sturgeon
Salmon
9772
252
193
82
10
8
10317
365
53
32
23
2
15
1490
1975
Total
Alewives
Shad
Smelt
Eels
Sturgeon
Salmon
6997
155
159
122
10
10
71453
38 14
55
31
149
LI
18
514].
11 1—106
-------
Marine Avifauna . Most of the information available
on aquatic birds for the Eastport and Quoddy Regions
is from such unpublished sources as amateur bird ob-
servers and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries
and Wildlife. Therefore, the information used In this
discussion is compiled from the observations of William
Townsend of Sorrento, Maine; the Moosehead National Wild-
life Refuge; the Canadian Wildlife Service, Nova Scotia
and as previously mentioned, the Maine Department of
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
In Eastport and the surrounding communities the coast-
line areas (mudflats and salt marshes) and Islands
(Moose Island, Deer Island, and Campobello Island)
are important feeding and breeding areas for aquatic birds.
Areas within the Cobscook Bay region that are important
for waterfowl have been identified in the Maine Coastal
Inventory as shown in Fig. 111—23. Migrating birds, resi-
dent birds, and shore birds all use these areas for at
least part of their life cycle.
The intertidal mudflats between Lubec and Quoddy Head
are one of the major food producing areas for the win-
tering population of black duck ( Anas rubripes) . Theee
same flats are also a feeding area for many shore birds
and, in the spring, the northward migratory brant geese
( Branta bernicla ) use this area. It is estimated that
about 9,275 acres of suitable food producing mudflats
exist in the area of Eastport. Of this, 6,029 acres,
or 65 percent, are in Cobscook Bay.*
Salt marshes are also an important habitat for aquatic
birds. These areas are located in the vicinity of
barrier beaches and the upper reaches of tidal rivers.
The total acreage of salt marshes in the Eastport area
is only 278 acres. There are 12 areas in the Lubec—
Quoddy, Perry, and Pembroke areas surrounding the East—
port vicinity identified as salt marshes; a list of these
areas is in Appendix F.
It is very difficult to estimate the number of birds which
use the Passamaquoddy and Cobscook Bay areas, including
Eastport, Lubec, Deer Island and Campobello Island, New
Brunswick, for the number of birds fluctuates according
to the time of year and day, tides, and availability
of food. However, these areas are an important part of
the migratory route for scooter ducks ( Melanitta fusca ,
M. perspicillata , and Oidemia nigra) ; shore birds such
s phalaropes and Bonaparte’s gull ( Lobipes lobatus and
Larus philadelphia) ; and the previously mentioned black
ducks and brant geese.
*Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
111—107
-------
From August to October flocks of northern phalaropes
and Bonaparte’s gulls pass southward between Deer Is-
land and Canipbello Island. According to Townsend and
other observers, these flocks can range from 5,000
to 100,000 birds which all feed at one time in the tidal
whirlpools between Eastport and Deer Island. Head Har-
bor Passage, in fact, has been identified by Dr. R.I.G.
Morrison of the Canadian Wildlife Service as the most
important site for northern -ia1aropes on the east
coast and that as many as 500,000 individuals have been
estimated to be in the Passage at one time (MacKay 1976).
Kittiwakes ( Rissa tridactyla ) and other species of gulls
also are prevalent in great numbers in October.
Between Nov iiber and March, there are many wintering
species found in this vicnity. White-winged scoters
(N.__fusca), goldeneye ducks ( Glaucionetta clangula) ,
bufflehead ducks ( albeola) , and old squaw ducks
( Clangula hyemalis ) are abundant between the areas
of Eastport and Campobello Island and the Cobscook Bay
area. Smaller numbers of razor—billed auks (Alca
tcirda), thick-billed murres ( Uria lornvia) , great
comorants (Phalacrocorax carbo ana common puffins (Fra—
tercula arctica)are also common to the area. Flocks of
Kittiwakes and dovekies ( Plautus alle al].e ) numbering from
6,000 to 10,000 bIrds occur in the Lubec — Eastport and
Grant Manan — West Quoddy Head areas.
During the many years that the Maine Department of
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has surveyed the winter-
ing species in the Cobscook Bay area, black ducks have
been the dominant species. See Appendix F.
Although the common eider ducks ( Somateria mollissima )
are a noted wintering species which is sighted year-
round on Grand Manan Island, they are not common to
areas around Eastport and Cobscook Bay.*
There are many other species of marine birds found in
the Eastport and surrounding areas during different
seasons such as: common loons ( Gavia sp.); great
scaup ( Aythya marila) ; arctic and commc’n terms ( Sterna
paradisaea and S. nirundo) ; plovers ( Pluvialis s .);
d Id iu uy utIit s. A list compiled by Townsend illus-
trating the seasonal occurrence of all species ob-
served in the Eastport area is contained in Appendix
F. Also marine birds occurring in the study area as
identified by Marine Research Associates of New
Brunswick is inAppendix F (MacKay 1976).
Also in Appendix F is a survey of some marine species
in the southwestern New Brunswick area from 1966 to
1973.
*State of Maine and Mr. William Townsend of Sorrento, Maine.
111—108
-------
Marine Mammals
At least 21 species of whales and porpoises and five
species of sealshave been recorded in the Gulf of Maine.
Appendix F includes tables listing the frequency of occurrer e
and general characteristics Of whales and seals in this region.
(Katon and others 1975). A n-umber of these mammals have
been observed in the Quoddy region on a regular or occa-
sional basis. Head Harbor Light, on Campobello Island,
and West Quoddy Head, near Lubec, Maine, are identified
as two of the best places along the Atlantic Coast to
observe whales and porpoises from land (Katona and others
1975)
The most abundant marine mammal in the Passamaquoddy re-
gion is the harbor porpoise. The local , year around
population of harbor porpoises is increased during mid—
July to mid-September when a large migration moves into
this area. As many as 200 porpoises ñiaybe seen in the
Head Harbor Passage area, Western Passage, and Passama-
quoddy Bay. Research by Dr,. David Gaskin of the Univer-
sity of Guelph, Ontario, Canada and by the College of
Atlantic, Bar Harbor, Maine, indicate that the Passama—
quoddy Bay area is the center of the harbor porpoise
population. The species appear to be more common in this
area than anywhere else along the coast of the United
States (Katona 1976). In a world-wide study of the harbor
propoise, Dr. Gaskin has indicated that other populations
of this mammal are on the verge of collapse. He believes
that the population along the northeastern coast, centered
in the Quoddy region, may be the last healthy Atlantic
group (by phone, Dr. David Gaskin, 9 August 19771.
Dolphins which frequent the area include both the white
beaked dolphins ( La enorynchus albirostris ) and white
sided dolphins ( Lagenorynchus acutus) . In 1975, an es-
timated 1,000—1,500 white sided dolphins were in the
Cobscook Bay as far inland as the Dennysville area. For
unknown reasons, several hundred died of over exposure
on the beach and mudflat areas. Dolphins which are rarely
seen in the area include bottlenosed dolphins ( Tursiops
trnn a1-n ) and common dolphins ( Delphinus delphisl .
* Katona, Steven; David Richardson; and Robin Hazard. 1975.
A Field Guide to the Whales and Seals of the Gulf of Maine.
97 pp.
**Katona, Steven. 1976. Letter, Steven Katona, Faculty in
Biology, College of the Atlantic, to USEPA I, 22 December
1976, 5pp.
111—109
-------
The harbor seal ( Phoco vitulina ) and grey seal ( Halicho-
erus grypus ) are seen regularly in the area. Only rarely
are the harp seal ( Phagophilus groenlandicusi and the
hooded seal ( Cystrophora cristata ) seen. Several hundred
of the harbor seals breed in Cobscook Bay; several grey
seals still breed near Grand Manan Island where there
once was a colony of grey seals.
Three of the “Great Whales” found with some regularity
in the Bay area waters include the finback ( Balaenop—
tera physalus) ; minke (B. acutororstrata) ; and right
( Eubalaena glacialis) . Depending upon the seasonal
water changes, these mammals migrate from open high
seas to bay areas nearer the coast.
These large whales are most common in the area from July
through September. Right whales appear to use the area
as a major feeding ground during late summer and early
autumn (Katona 1976). According to the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada, the right whale is reaularlv siahted be-
tween Ix e ort, Nova Scotia and Grand Manan Island. In
1971. a riaht whale staved in the Head Harbor Passage area
for over a week. Finback whales also frequent this region
during September and October. In addition, small numbers
of minke whales frequent the waters in Charlotte County,
while the humpback whales m.iy be found slightly farther
offshore. Other whales, such as the blue and sei occur
in waters south of Grand Manan and are occasionally sighted
nearer to Head Harbor Passage. Though most of these whales
leave the region in late fall, occasionally a few will stay
in the bay waters during the winter.
The walrus ( Odobenus rasniarus rosmarus ) and such whales
as the pilot ( Globicephala melaena) , be1u a ( Deiphinap-
teras leucas ) and killer ( Orcinus orca ) species are only
rarely seen in this region.
Endangered and Threatened Species . Except for the
minke whale, all of the above—named species of
“Great Whales” are on the Department of the Interior’s
Endangered Species List.*
* Federal Register, 2 December 1970.
111—110
-------
Air Resources
Climatology . Despite the northern location of Eastport
at latitude 1414° —514’, the climate Is somewhat modified by Its
proximity to the Atlantic Ocean. The onshore sea breeze blows
several miles inland along the coast, bringing cooling trends in
the summer and warming trends in the winter. The Labrador
Current flowing southward along the Nova Scotlan coast brings
cold water into the Gulf of Maine and contributes to the area’s
weather patterns.
Precipitation . The average monthly precipitation for
Eastport during the period of record, 19141 to 1970, ranges
from about 5 inches in November to about 3 inches In
July. This Includes snow measured in equivalent inches
of rainfall. This abundance of precipitation is normal
for this region.
Average annual rainfall for this same period was about
140 inches with winter being the wettest season.
Thunderstorms, averaging only 12 per season, are not
considered common during the summer for the cooling
effect of off—shore summer breezes lessens the chance
of conventional thunderstorms which result from less
intense heating of the land. As previously mentioned,
the influx of tropical air Is less because of the
northern location of Eastport.
The mean annual snowfall In Eastport was about 71 Inches
during the years of record. Snow normally falls from
October through May with February averaging the heaviest
snow at 18.3 inches. The greatest monthly total fell
in February of 1907, with about 145 inches. Heavy seasonal
snowfalls of over 100 inches occur about once every
eight years.
Table 111—39 summarizes the recorded average, and maximum
and minimum precipitation for the years 1872 to 1970.
Table 111-40 shows the recorded mean and maximum monthly
snowfall at Eastport for the years 19140 to 1970.
Temperature/Humidity . Summer temperatures in the East—
port area are generally comfortably cool, averaging about
60 degrees F with afternoon maximums in the low 70’s.
The highest temperature recorded was 93 degrees F In
July 1901 and August 19149.
111—111
-------
TABLE III— 39
N0 4&L MONTHLY AND ANNUAL PRECIPITATION AT EAST ORT 5 MAINE
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
1 Annual
Nori al Precipitation
3.56
3.51
3.00
3.18
3.36
2.98
2.94
2.91
3.16
3.39
5.09
4.06
41.14
Inches
(1941—1970)
Inches
3.61
3.21
3.63
2.87
2.95
3.04
3.12
2.98
3.06
3.50
3.68
3.54
39.19
(1872—1951)
of Annual
8.70
8.50
7.30
7.70
8.20
7.20
7.10
7.10
7.70
8.20
.2.40
9.90
00.00
(1941—1970)
of nua1
9.20
8.20
9.30
7.30
7.50
7.80
8.00
7.60
7.80
8.90
9.40
9.00
00.00
(1872—1951)
Record Wettest
9.01
9.38
9.39
6.83
3.22
7.40
9.07
9.44
7.65
9.54
p.57
8,63
52.09
Tsar
1886
1884
1876
1884
1881
1917
1883
1922
1944
1926
t!50
1884
1951
R.cord Driest
Year
0.56
1940
0.40 0.57
1941 f 1915
0.46
1941
0.13
1911
0.52
1941
0.66
1898
0.49
1883
0.78
1906
0.19
1947
0.90
1913
1.07
1935
21.24
1924
TABLE 111-40.
MEAN AND MAX DflI ’( MONTHLY SMOWFALL AT E&STPORT
Jan
Mean
• Feb
Mar
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
Snowfall
16.5
18.3
12.9
6.7
0.2
0
0
fl
0
0.2
4.0
12.3
71.1
.1941—197O
I of I.
Annual 23.2 25.7
18.1
9.4
0.3
0
0
0
0
0.3
5.6
17.3
MezL
Monthly
Snowfall
43.7
44.5
32.5
27.9
4.5
0
0
0
0
2.5
16.2
35.2
,
24 Hour
MazLai
Tsar
13.3 17.7
1908 [ 1943
16.4
1929
18.5
1946
4.5
1907
0
0
0
0
2.5
1906
10.8 17.0
1899 1916
111—112
-------
Winter temperatures average about 25 degrees F in the
Bay area. An average of only seven days per year exper-
ience a temperature of 0 degrees F or lower. However,
freezing temperatures may occur by October 23 while
normally, the last freezing temperature in the spring
occurs by April 28. An average 178 days each year are
without freezing temperatures.
Because of the coastal location, extremes of temperature
are unusual at Eastport. The monthly mean temperatures
and extremes recorded can be found in Table III— 41.
Winds . The prevailing winds in Eastport are westerly.
In the winter (November to March), the combination of the
Icelandic low pressure and continental high pressure
systems cause winds to blow from the west—to—north direc-
tion; from spring to fall (April to October), these two
pressure systems gradually weaken with the Azores—
Bermuda high pressure system dominating the area by
August when southwesterly winds predominate in the region.
Daytime cloudiness and some thunder showers result.
The strongest winds and gales — a gale force wind is equal
to or greater than 314 knots — occur during the winter
when the winds are from a northerly direction. Wind
speeds over the open ocean areas near the coast are
almost always greater than winds in the harbors or
sheltered areas. Wind direction frequencies and average
monthly wind speeds for the Portland area, based on the
longest and most complete period of record of the National
Climatologlca 1 Center, N. C., 1931 to 19148, are shown in
Figures I1I—2R, 111—29 and 111—30. Available limited
records of wind speed and direction experienced at East—
port during this same period agree with the Portland
data.
Storms and Pressure Systems . This region is character—
Ized by a general west to east air movement pattern with
cold dry air masses from the polar regions and warm moist
air masses from the tropical regions meeting to influence
the climate and resulting weather pattern. In fact, most
of the storms in the area are the result of these two
air masses converging on the region. Rapid weather changes
and wind shifts in the cooler seasons occur due to the
low pressure systems resulting from the mid—latitude storms
or extratropical cyclones which frequent this area. These
storms, which come from a westerly or southwesterly direc-
tion, and usually occur from September to April, are
often called Nor’easters for the winds over the coastal
area blow from the northeast. Heavy rain or snow, and
sometimes gale force winds, accompany these storms which
111—113
-------
TABLE III— 41
MEAN TEMPERATURES AND EXTREMES l LAS TPO
Jan Feb May Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual
Monthly Mean 21.2 21.6 29.8 39.0 47.8 55.2 60.4 60.7 56.0 47.8 37.4 25.8 41.9
187 2—19 5 1
Monthly Mean 22.6 23.5 31.2 40.2 48.9 56.4 61.8 61.9 56.8 48.9 39.6 27.1 43.2
1941-1970
Mean Daily 29.0 28.9 36.1 45.4 55.2 63.4 68.9 68.5 62.8 54.0 43.2 32.6
Maximum
Mean Daily 13.3 14.2 23.4 32.6 40.4 47.0 52.1 53.1 49.2 41.7 31.6 L8.7
Minimum
p 4
‘ -I
Record High 58 54 16 81 90 92 93 93 92 83 67 60
Year 1932 1951 1945 1938 1937 1941 1901 1949 1945 1898 1931 1950
Record Low -20 -23 -10 2 24 30 45 44 30 22 -13 -23
Year 1907 1914 1950 1874 1950 1875 1931 1940 1904 1936 1975 1933
Compiled from: “Monthly Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, & Heating and Cooling Degree Days “ 1941—
1970. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1973a, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Climatology of the U.S., No. 81.
“Normal (1941—1970) and Extreme (1872—1951) Monthly and Annual Precipitation in Eastport,
Maine. Original Station Data, NOAA, Nashville, N.C.
-------
WIND DURATION FREQUENCIES: JAN-APRIL
FIGUREIII-2a
JANUARY
MARCH
Average Wind
Velocity, mph
FEBRUARY
Portland, Maine
PERIOD OF RECORD 1931-1948
111—115
-------
WIND DURATION FREQUENCIES: MAY-AUG.
Average Wind
Velocity, mph
FIGURE 111-29
Portland, Maine
PERIOD OF RECORD 1931.1948
111—116
-------
WIND DURATION FREQUENCIES: SEPT.-DEC.
Average Wind
Velocity, mph
FIGURE 11 1-30
OCTOBER
I DECEMBER
Portland, Maine
PERIOD OF RECORD 1931-1948
111—117
-------
generally reach maximum intensity near New England and the
Canadian Maritime Provinces. One of the worst storms In
recent years hit Eastport on February 2, 1976. This
unusual storm produced sustained southeasterly winds in
excess of 70 mph (miles per hour).
Tropical cyclones of the hurricane variety occur infre—
quently in this area. These late summer and autumn storms
are more intense than Nor’easters. Of the 11 tropical
cyclones which occurred in the Machiasport coastal area
during the period of record between 1886 and 1970, four
reached hurricane intensity.
Inversions . Temperature inversions refer to situations
when air temperatures in the atmosphere increase rather
than decrease with height resulting in an inverted lapse
rate. Normally, the greater the distance from the earth’s
surface where heat is reradiated the colder the air. This
pattern is referred to as the normal/environmental lapse
rate.
Inversions occur when warm air overlies cooler air, limit-
ing its vertical movement. This static condition is
likely to occur when skies are clear with little wind,
resulting in an intense heat loss during the night through
reradiation. Thus, the ground cools while the air over the
ground remains warm and the stratified air layer remains
stationary. This is called a nocturnal radiation Inversion.
Depending on the season, low level inversions of this sort
occur 20 to 40 percent of the time on the northern Atlantic
Coast. Inversions are the most common meteorological con-
ditions contributing to Increased air pollution levels for
dispersion of air pollutants Is prevented by the absence
of strong winds.
Fog . The entire Maine coast, as well as the coasts
of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to the north and Cape
Cod to the south, are part of the same fog producing
regime.’ These areas are susceptible to occurrences of
varying Intensity fog for varying periods of time. The
most severe fog conditions are encountered during the
summer months, at which time the light prevailing
southwesterly winds bring moist, warm air over the cool
water of the area. Radiation of heat from nearby land
areas or from the top of a pre—existing fog bank tends
to thicken the fog during the dark hours. Thus, the
fogs are more frequent and dense from about midnight
to 8:00 a.m. than later in the day.
‘U. S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Services Administra-
tion, New England Coastal Fog, Richard Fay, 1967.
111—118
-------
In general, the frequency of the summer coastal fogs
increase as you move northeastward along the coast.
For example, during the three months of June, July
and August, the number of hours with fog increases
from about 100 in Boston to 250 in Portland and
750 in Eastport as shown in Figure 111—31. It also
increases in the seaward direction, with more fog at
the mouths of the bays than at the heads. There is
a good correlation between fog frequency and sea-
surface temperature. The colder water to the north
results in more situations where the sea—surface
temperature difference becomes favorable to the
inducement of fog formation.
In the Eastport area, the intensity, frequency, and
duration of fog is measured at three points, namely
East Quoddy Head, West Quoddy Head, and Dog Island.
F. R. Harris reviewed the existing fog data for the
area and developed the information displayed In
Figure III— 32which illustrates the percentage of
time during each month when there Is fog with a
visibility of 0—0.5 mIles, 0.5—2 miles, and greater
than two miles. It was determined that fog with a
visibility of less than 0.5 miles occurs 5 to 10 per-
cent of the time in spring, winter and fall, and
25 to 30 percent of the time In the three summer
months.
Because the duration and frequency of each occurrence
of fog is significant In operations, Harris also
developed Figure 111—33 and Table 111—42 to illus-
trate this data for the period 1969 to 1971 since
these were years which had higher than average fog
occurrences. From these, it was concluded that fog
with a visibility less than 0.5 miles and a duration
of two days may be expected to occur once a year,
while a similar fog having a five—day duration might
occur once in 10 years. Approximately 65 percent of’
the fog occurrences last for a period of less than 12
hours.
A further review of Harris’ analysis reveals that:
(1) the figures for percent of time with visibility
greater than two miles are directly related to the
hours of fog horn operation on which the figures
are based. This information is available from the U. S.
Coastal Pilot and other sources. (2) The only way
that the figures for visibility ranges of 0.5 to 2
miles and 0 to 0.5 could be developed is by drawing
111—119
-------
HOURS OF FOG JUNE-AUGUST
QUEBEC
CANADA
MAINE
FI6URE III- 31
2
NEW
BRUNSWICK
5
U I
x
a
I
— s 11s
. 1
‘Is
BOSTON
.340
PORTLAND
175
TUCkET
4I
SCALE IN MILES
0 *5
FOG VI %LflY 2. M1L S dK LESS
Source: U. S. Department of Commerce
Environmental Sciences Services Admin-
istration, Weather Bureau, Eastern Region,
Technical Memorandum No. 21, “New
England Fog”, Richard Fay, April 1967.
)
I I .
z
0
UI
‘p
0
I
111—120
-------
Notes :
• Orservatlons at West Quocicly Heaa, averages for period 1950-1967.
• Compiled from U. S. Coastal Pilot and U. S. Weather Bureau at
Eastport by Frederic R. Harris, Inc., 1972.
• Average annual hours of fog during this period 1, 584. Maximum
annual hours of fog during any one year 2; 128.
LEGEND
.1
iI 11JllT11
ll1Uill1U 0.5102 MILES
ANNUAL OCCURRENCE OF FOG AT EASTPORT FIGURE III32
PER 0O OF RECORD: 18 YEARS
0
z
111—121
-------
FOG DURATION AND FREQUENCY AT EASTPO AT FOR VISIBILITY LESS THAN 0.5 MILES
FiGURE 111-33
5- 6 7 a q 10
2o
.5 4
RETURN PERIOD — YEARS
IL
là
(I)
H
I -I U.
p , (I)
&f
0
2
I
((0 Sb 6O7o O toO
-------
TkBLE 111-42.
DURATION AND FREQUENCY OF
FOGJ RAIN, SNOW & VAPOR AT EASTPORT, MAINE
• For Years 1969 Through 1971
Interval
of Duration
Hours
Avg. No. of Occurences
Month of Aug. 1969/1971
Avg. No. of Occurences/Yr.
Years 1969 Through 1971
Rain Snow Fog Vapor Total
Rain Snow Fog Vapor Total
0—3
4-6
7—9
10—12
13-18
19—24
25-30
31-36
37—48
1 0 2 0 3
0 0 2 0 2
0 0 2 0 2
6 6 14 1 27
4 6 14 3 27
3 4 13 1 21
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 1 0 1
1 6 9 1 17
3 4 11 2 20
1 2 6 0 9
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1
0 1 — 1 1 3
0 1 2 0 3
0 1 6 0 7
49-60
61—72
73—84
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 2
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 1 0 1
85—96
97-112
113-136
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Compiled from Quoddy Head fog data.
iii—123
-------
conclusions from a synthesis of the fog horn data,
the U. S. Eastport weather bureau data, which records
only the iumber of days in which a fog reduced visi-
bility to below l/ mile during some part of the day,
and interviews with knowledgeable people about the
characteristics of the fog. Therefore, this must be
considered as an educated approximation, not as
conclusive data.
As a practical matter, the rate of fog development is
probably a more important factor than the percent of
occurrences, particularly if a ship enters the passage
under clear conditions and a wind shift to the south-
west brings in fog. The ship would probably have no
choice but to continue through the passage, relying
on the electronic navigation system.
Air Quality.
Standards . EPA is the Federal agency responsible for
the implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act
of 1970, PL 9l—60 4. Under the terms of this legislation,
EPA was required to develop air quality criteria for six
major pollutants: particulate matter, sulfur oxides, hydro-
carbons, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants and nitro-
gen oxides. These criteria establish levels above which
these pollutants by themselves, or in combination with
other pollutants, adversely affect the public health or
welfare. Based on these criteria, EPA established two
types of national standards — primary standards, which
must be sufficiently stringent to protect the public health,
and secondary standards which are designed to protect
the public welfare, including property and vegetation.
Table III— 43llsts these applicable standards.
Following the publication of the national primary and
secondary standards, each State was required to develop
an “Implementation Plan” to achieve and maintain these
standards. The States could also develop standards of
their own, but they had to be at least as strict as the
Federal standards. In several cases, specifically the
particulate matter and sulfur oxides standards, the
State of Maine established standards designed to “protect
the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects associated with the presence of such air pollu-
tants in the ambient air”, whereas the less stringent
national primary standards are based on the premise of
“protecting the public health” only. Table 111-43 also
contains the Maine standards.
The State Implementation Plans (SIP) were then reviewed
by the public and submitted to EPA for approval.
111—124
-------
The State of Maine’s implementation plan was approved by the
Regional Administrator of EPA on May 31, 1972 (Federal
Register). In a July 1, 1976 letter to Governor Longley,
EPA requested revisions to the Maine SIP. These are discussed
in detail in the impact section of the report.
As part of the SIP, Maine was subdivided into five Air
Quality Control Regions (AQCR’s). The proposed refinery
site in Eastport, Maine lies within Maine’s Downeast AQCR III
which includes Washington, Hancock, and Penobscot Counties.
This region, extending approximately 80 miles east to west,
and 80 miles north to south, covers an area of over 6,400
square miles. Figure 111-34 illustrates the limits of the
AQCR’s in Maine.
Table 111—43.
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Maine
Federal EPA Standards
Star
ppm
lards
ug/m 3
Primary
ug/i 3
Secondary
ug/m 3
‘articulate Matter
o Annual Geometric Mean
o Max. 24—hour average
———
———
50
100
75
260
60
150
ulfur Oxides
o Annual Arithmetic Mean
o Max. 24—hour Average
o Max. 3—hour Average
0.02
0.09
0.45
57
230
1150
80
365
———
———
———
1300
Carbon Monoxide**
o Max. 8—hour Average
o Max. 1—hour Average
9
35
10
40
10
40
10
40
‘hoto Chemical Oxidants***
0.08
160
160
160
o Max. 1—hour Average
lydrocarbon ex Methane
o Max. 3—hour, 6 to 9 A.M.
0.24
160
160
160
litrogen Dioxide
o Annual Arithmetic Mean
0.05
100
100
100
Allows These Additional Concentrations Over
*Non... Degradation Provision Which
Existing in Downeast AQCR—III.
**Carbon Monoxide Expressed as Milligrams Per Cubic Meter.
***Canadian 1 hr. standard is the same. They also have an 8 hour average of .025 ppm.
111—125
-------
One of the goals set forth in the opening section of the Clean
Air Act is:
“To protect and enhance the quality of the
Nation’s air resources so as to promote the
public health and welfare and the productive
capacity of its population.”
To carry out this mandate EPA promulgated regulations on
December 5, 1974 entitled “Prevention of Significant Air
Quality Deterioration.” These regulations specifically
applied to two pollutants-total suspended particulates (TSP)
and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). The purpose of the regulation was
to consider the effect of new industrial growth and its second-
ary impact on specifically—defined geographical areas. Accord—
ing to the regulations, all areas or the country were to be
classified as:
Class I: An area where even a small change in the existing
air quality could be considered significant
Class II: An area where the type of air quality deterioration
which accompanies moderate well controlled growth
would be considered insignificant
Class III: An area where a greater amount of additional
industrial growth will be accommodated.
The December 5, 1974 regulations set forth specific limitations
on the amount of SO 2 and TSP which could be added to the base-
line concentration in the above areas.
At the time the draft EIS was published, the facility had been
reviewed in accordance with these regulations. Eastport,
located in Maine’s Downeast Air Quality Control Region, had
been designated a Class 11 area and the operation of the facility
did not result in a violation of the Class II increments for
either TSP or SO 2 .
On August 7, 1977, however, President Carter signed the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1977. This new legislation contained
several elements which had a significant impact on the licensing
of this facility. First, according to Section 162 of the Act,
all international parks and national wilderness areas in excess
of 5,000 acres automatically became Class 1 areas. Consequently,
Roosevelt Campobello International Park, located approximately
3 miles from the proposed facility and the Moosehorn Wildlife
Refuge approximately 8 miles from the facility became Class I
areas. Second, the amount of increase in pollutant concentration
allowed over the baseline condition was reduced.
111—126
-------
TABLE 111-44 NON-DETERIORATION INCREMENTS
Class I
Class I Class II Class III Exception
ug/m 3 ug/m 3 ug/m 3 ug/m 3
Particulate matter:
Annual geometric mean 5 20 37 19
24-hour maximum 10 37 75 37
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean 2 20 40 20
24-hour maximum 5* 91 182 91
3—hour maximum 25* 512 700 325
*A variance may be allowed to exceed eachof these increments
18 days/yr., subject to imiting 24—hour increments of 36 ug/m
for low terrain, 62 ug/m for high te 9 ain; and 3—hour increments
of 130 ug/m 3 for low terrain, 221 ug/m for high terrain. To
obtain such a variance requires both state and federal approval.
The City of Eastport and the remaining portion of the Downeast
Air Quality Control Region are still classified as a Class II
area. The Act requires, however, that any new industrial source,
whose emissions may impact a Class I area meet the Class I in-
crements. Therefore, although the proposed facility is physically
located in the Class II area, its emissions which impact both
Campobello Island and the Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge must be
within the Class I increments for TSP and SO 2 .
The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations
also require that the source apply “best available control
technology” (BACT) for total suspended particulates and sulfur
dioxide.
The amount of pollutants emitted from the proposed refinery are
also controlled by new source performance standards which are
developed for specific industrial categories. These standards
also specify “Best Available Control Technology” via either an
emission limitation or an equipment specification for large
point sources such as petroleum refineries.
Since mercury and beryllium also emitted by the proposed
facility are considered hazardous to health, emission levels
for both mercury and beryllium are limited by the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
In addition, in accordance with the Act, it is anticipated
that EPA will establish non-deterioration limitations for
carbon monoxide (CO) , nitrogen dioxide (NOx), non methane
hydrocarbons (HC) and photochemical oxidants by 1979.
III—126a
-------
-=-———
0
S
i f
FIGURE 111-34
z
g
2
AiR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS
I METROPOLITAN PORTLAND
N CENTRAL MAINE
III DOWNEAST
IV AROOSTOCK
V NORTHWEST
SCALE IN MILES
F • 4 b 13
UINOR C r it DN IONS SHOWN
MAINE AIR QUALITY REGIONS
/
/
-1
S
—
--I
-
-H
a
I I
111—127
-------
‘1 se latest regulations also require the use of “Best Available
Control chnology” (B r) for control of particulate and sulfur
dioxide emissions fran the refinery. Several changes to EPA’s
present strategy to prevent significant deterioration are pre-
sently being considered by the Congress.
Pursuant to Section III of the Clean Air Jct, EPA has also set
standards of performance for the control of emissions fran new
stationary sources, incinding petroleum refineries. Such standards
are kx n as “New Source Performance Standards” which define
“Best Available Control Technology” via either an emission limi-
tation or an equi xrent specification for large point sources such
as petroleum refineries.
Since marcury and beryllium concentrations are considered
hazar&xis to health, emission levels for both nercury and
beryllium are limited by the National E nnission Standards
for Hazarthus Air Pollutants.
Existing Air Quality . An air nr itoring program to establish
the existing air quality was carried out at the EastpOrt site
by Scott Envirormental Tedlrxlogy, Inc. under cxmtract to
Enviro-Sciences over a 10-week span during Septather, Octcber,
and , ther, 1975. The follcwing pollutants were nonitored:
total hydrocarbons, Ix)rI thane hydrocarbons, ozone, nitrogen
oxides, particulates, and sulfur dioxide. Wind speed and direction,
taiperathre, and humidity were also recorded. Carbon ironoxide
data were not taken because, due to the lack of vehicular
traffic and other sources in EastpOrt, very 1cM concentrations
were expected at the nonitoring site.
An xir i tional 502 and particulate nonitoring program was con-
ducted fran Decarber, 1976 through February, 1977, because winter
is historically the season of highest ccncentration of these
poflutants. Mclitional ozone mDnitoring was perforned at Eastport
durir j the rronths of July, August, and SeptErber, 1976. For the
uonth of July, 49 violations of the Federal primary ozone standard
were recorded, with a maxiitum value recorded of .152 ppn, or al-
irost twice the Federal standard. This n irber of violations is
equivalent to a roximately 7 percent of the total nuxrber of read-
ings taken in July. In August, 10 readings out of 744 taken ex-
ceeded the standard, while in Septeirber, 8 of the 375 readings
exceeded standards.
1’ asured values for all pollutants except nitrogen oxides shcMed
wide variations as illustrated by the representative daily results
for Octeber 1975 contained in Table 111-45. The cxiicentrations
correspond to expected values for a renote area. The influence of
111—128
-------
TABLE 111—45. REPRESENTATIVE RESULTS OF AIR MONITORING AT EASTPORT SITE
Daily Avg. Ground Level Concentrations Meteorological
Oct- ; H.C. cx Sulfur Parti— _______ Readings ( 12 Noon
ober Methane Dioxide Ozone culates Wind Wind Temp. - Rel.
1975 ppm ppm ppm mglm 3 MPH Dir.° F 0 Hum.
1 .12 .0023 .029 23.4 8 170 63 82
2 .10 .0026 .027 21 8 2 —— 61 74
3 .08 .0024 .019 11.2 ‘: 6 290 52 36
4 .07 .0012 .016 10.7 6’ 310 57 44
5 .07 .0016 .018 3.8 4 200 53 38
6 ‘ .10 .0004 .026 16.4 10 240 59 82
7 .05 .0010 .018 8,4 4 320 52 26
8 : .06 .0010 .017 13.8 3 310 52 46
9 ‘ .06 .0011 .018 7.3 4 280 52 32
10 ‘ .09 .0012 .019 8.5 3 200 50 32
11 .08 .0006 .020 5.6 5 160 57 44
12 .05 .0003 .020 12.0 15 50 53 100
13 .04 .0001 .015 1.0 2 250 49 98
14 .08 .0006 .014 10.7 10 290 61 .72
15 .08 .0006 .014 4.5 5 290 55 36
16 .10 .0007 .011 9.3 3 310 52 94
17 I .06 1 .0010 .010 3.8 7 280 54 52
18 I .05 .0009 .012 7.1 12 30 43 100
19 ‘ .03 .0012 .013 6.3 14 60 50 80
20 ‘ .03 .0005 .018 8.9 9 60 46 100
21 .06 .0009 .017 8.7 7 270 54 82
22 .07 .0011 .019 19.1 5 270 57 70
23 .08 .0011 .013 1.4 4 350 56 52
24 .10 .0006 .013 8.0 6 210 57 52
25 .08 .0002 .018 3.8 —— 200 66 70
26, .02 .0007 .017 3.6 —— 330 56 78
27 .07 .0020 .015 4.9 .4 140 57 24
28 .07 .0020 .014 1.0 8 190 58 60
29 .06 .0002 .014 8.0 3 130 58 82
30 .07 .0010 .014 10.7 5 310 38 100
31 .04 .0010 .018 4.2 7 330 41 36
• Source: Scott Laboratories,
111—129
-------
local sources of pollution were ctserved on infr uent occasions,
generally when the wind speed was belcw one mile per hour. H .z-
ever, even on these occasions sate pollutant levels r nained quite
lcw. For exanple, sulfur dioxide cxzicentrations were typically
.00.-.002 ppn; while, for a f minutes during poor ventilation
periods they rose as high as .01 to .02 n. There were nc ozone
or rxxsrethane hydrocarbons violations during the fan period.
Ccitplete de1 i led data are presented in the technical Appendices.
Soott Laboratories statistically ucdeled the existing particulate
and sulfur dioxide data fruit the 10-week, 1975 n itoring program.
Larsen’ s nethod was used to estimate the secxnd highest concentra-
tion of each pollutant that wculd have been continuous for a year.
This work is s1 n in Volume III and si.utinarized in Table 111-46.
E sults of on-site rrcriitoring are presented in Tables 111-47 to 111-49.
A gra ical technique was used to estimate the secxui highest
yearly cxxicentration based on the results of both the 1975 and
1976 ncmitoring. These results are stmnarized in Table 111-47
and the gra 1is of frequency of occurrence of cencentration for
each pollutant are in Appendix M . Table 111-48 provides a n-
pariscrt of the maxinum nixtitored concentrations to the Maine am-
bient standards for each pollutant. Except for ozone and hydro-
carbons, background pollutant concentrations cud not exceed the
standards.
It appears that the oxidant violations reoorded in Eastport are
nct due to nissions of either existing precursor pollutants or
the local formation of axidants. Rather, the transport of oxidants
into the area appears to be the likely cause of these violations.
An irrportant factor in classical ozone formation theory is the
role of nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen dioxide, in the presence of
sunlight, bexutes a source of free oxygen atcxr which react with
oxygen noleailes to form ozone. Thus, ozone cannct be created
unless there is both nitrogen dioxide and sunlight present. Data
f run Ac 1ia, which is near the Eastport area, s1 i nitrogen diox-
ide levels to be very lcw. Since there are nc significant sources
in this area, these data should be representative of the Pitt-
ston site. i vi ’zing the itetsorological variables associated
with the days that the violations occurred reveals an increase
in ozone cxz oentrations with time, either preceeding a warm or
a oold front, thus indicating the transport of ozone into the
area. i 1itiona1 detail on this ienatenon is set forth in the
technical AppendixM.
111—130
-------
TABLE II I- 46 RESULTS OF A PLYING STATISTICAL MODELS TO THE
RECORDED 24—HOUR DATA
Projected values Standards
Scott EPA Highest recorded value Maine EPA
TSP ug/ia 3 40 56 33 ]0O 150
S02 ug/m 3 22 17 10.6 235 365
TABLE itt- 48 DATA SIThIMARY COMPARED TO AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Eastporti Maine
Pollutant ineasuted max. standards
Sulfur Dioxide ppm 0.0036 0.09(1)
Particulate matter uglra 3 73 iOO(1)
Nitrogen oxides ppm less than o.on 2 0.05
Ozone ppm 0.152 0.08
Hydrocarbons Ex Methane ppm 0.33 0.24
1. 24—hour maximum. 2. Acadia Nat’l. Park
TABLE iit- 9 GENERAL SUMMARY OF THE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY FOUND IN THE AREA
Pollutant Evaluation
Particulates Well under standards
Sulfur dioxide Well under standards
Nitrogen dioxide Well under standards (Based on Acadia data)
Nonziiethane hydrocarbon Over the guideline values
Ozone Less than 2 percent of hourly readings
exc-eeted the primary standards (based
on summer and fall data only)
111—131
-------
Table 111—47 SUMMARY OF ON-SITE MONITORING DATA
Contami— Averaging Standard Monitoring M dian M xiinum Geom. 2 n Hi/Yr Excesses of
nant Time ug/m ppm Dates ug/m ’ ppm u Jm ppm Std. Dev. ugjm ppm Std. per Yr.
TSP 24 hr. 260 (primary) 9/75—11/75; 12 — 73 — 1.93 76 — 0
12/76—3/77
150 (second— 12 — 73 — 1.93 76 — 0
ary)
1 yr. 75 (primary) 9/75—11/75; 12 0
(geom.) 12/76—3/77
60 (sec. 12 0
guide)
50 3 hr 1,300 0.50 9/75—11/75; 3 0.0011 29.2 0.0011 2.02 36 0.0135 0
2 12/76—2/77
24 hr 365 0.14 9/75—11/75; 3 0.0011 10.6 0.0036 1.78 14 0.0052 0
12/76—2/77
1 yr 80 0.03 9/75—11/75; 3 0.0011 — — — — — 0
12 / 76—2177
NO * 24 hr — — 1/76 —12/76 7 0.0035 22 0.011 1.93 41.5 0.0218 —
2 1 yr 100 0.05 1/76 —12/76 7 0.0035 22 — — — — 0
O 1 hr 160 0.08 9/75—11/75; 46 0.023 304 .152 1.75 360 0.18 120
7/76—9/76
NC 1 hr — — 9/75—11/75 45 0.068 286 0.33 1.90 485 0.73 —
6—9 am 160 0.24 9/75—11/75 44 0.067 219 0.33 1.95 286 0.43 250
CO** 1 hr 40,000 35 — —
8 hr 10,000 9 — —
*N0 2 data are from Acadia rather than the refinery site. However, they arebelieved to be representative of site conditions.
** No CO monitoring was done. However, since there are no significant sources of CO in this area, levels should be low.
H
H
H
t.J
-------
Figure 111-35 d ionstrates that the average concentration of non-
nethane hydrocarbons varies with wind direction. P s shc n, high
levels occur when the wind blcy,js fran the southwest to the east-
northeast. These are believed due to nearby U.S. hydrocarbon
sources shc n in Figure 111-36. No local sources significantly
influence the pollution rose.
Based on the above discussion, it appears that locally emitted
precursor pollutants are responsible for very little of the
“typical” or classical formation of ozone. Therefore, it may be
wnclnded that transport of oxidants fran the south is a major
cause of the violations which were recorded in Eastport (See
Figure 111—37).
At both the regional and national levels, EPA is conducting
an on-going research program to determine the accuracy of our
oxidant control strategies. These oxidant studies have docinented
frequent violations of the oxidant standard in both urban and
i,jral areas.
While transport of oxidants and their precursors may occur,
nest urban areas prcbably are responsible for their a n oxi-
dant prct)lEn. The high oxidant levels in nonurban areas, where
the nurrber of violations of the standard and the maxinum con-
centrations are sa times as high or even higher than in nearby
urban areas, appear to be the result of both locally produced
precursors and precursors transported fran urban and other non-
urban sources. s a result, control strategies for such nonurban
areas as Eastport will need to be directed at neasures ‘which
reduce emissions fran nonurban sources as well as urban sources
and which neet the specific needs of each of these areas.
In general, the following strategies are suggested:
Continued application of hydrocarbon control measures
in the urban area . Because of the high precursor emis-
sion densities and the great numbers of people exposed
to oxidants, continued emphasis on intensive control
measures within cities will be necessary to meet the
oxidant standard in major urban areas.
Increased control over wide geographic areas through
Federal and State programs to meet standards in non-
urban areas . In addition to the continued intensive
iii—133
-------
POLLUTION DISTRIBUTION
FOR NON-METHANE HYDROCARBONS
FIGURE 111-35
Measured at Eastport,Me. by Scott Labs for Pittston, Fall 1975. LInes
Represent Average Concentration Over a 10 Week Period When the Wind
Blew From the Direction of the Line.
Scale: Parts
per billion
111—134
-------
NEARBY HYDROCARBON SOURCES
FIGURE 111—36
04 oo
ILC.
a.
4.
Town
Call’.
Woodland
Pembroke
C 4l.r
Jone .port
bUle. From
Ka.tport
22
22
20
H.C.
Tom/Yr.
32
820
104
29
14
Note: Canadian sourcea not Included
Y ____
T ... • . )TJJ ( ____ _____ _____ ____
‘.‘ a .-•-‘
} . .;
I
— - .--——•—-——.‘ ‘-V I a
.\u, d y1 I 1
e. 4 . _”V’ ‘ ProJ.ot Awr ox 400 Tom IL C /Yssr
• 1 •...“ .
• . 2
a”, - -.. .. . . L .
ft I L . 71 k
1 I.
‘—4 ( I I (
- i- ’; ’ , 4C,4
C i . . . . . 3 . \‘ \ ‘, ‘ . I ... \\ 4
3 / . — :11 . 3 ’. . _ , ‘K
I. —I. .\ ‘s! .
- .‘ ‘ -, -• ,I— , . - -: —
- 3 ‘•. — . I
I d .i ‘?
c ... .1 .
O Csa’ k : — . . I)’ ®
— .. ‘ . a -.
0 4 1 . I
- . . _____________
£ k . )
0 ... * . . . — J I
0 4 — 1 .. .. — — 1 6*.$.ea II .$
—
0 U .d04 000
‘ - I I I POPULATION
• 1000 1 .5000
I1)1 LI . 4
1 14 114 1 C Q 5000*. 0.000
-..! “ . -_ • I0.0O0.ed . Ic
111—135
-------
POLLU lION DISlItI P3U LION F’U1-( OZON1
FIGURE 11 1-37
Measured at E stport, Me. by Scott Labs for Pittston, Fall 1975. LInes
Represent Average Concentration Over the 10 Week Period When the Wind
Blew From the Direction of the Line.
N
Scale: Parts
per billion
111—136
-------
control of hydrocarbon emissions in urban areas, it may
be necessary to extend some measures under present State
Implementation Plans to include nonurban areas as well
as cities.
Increased control of stationary sources . Although mobile
source controls, including Transportation Control Plans,
will continue to be a major part of the oxidant control
program, there is a need for more stringent control of
precursor emissions from stationary sources.
Increased em hasis on controlling all reactive organics .
Under conditions of both transport and persistence of
stagnant air masses, there can be sufficient time for
less reactive hydrocarbons to contribute to oxidant forma-
tion. This indicates the importance of controlling all
organic compounds which can form oxidants.
Control of nitrogen oxides as well as hydrocarbon emis-
sions may become necessary to meet the oxidant standard
nationwide. Nitrogen oxides emissions may be transported
into rural areas where they contribute to oxidant forma-
tion by reacting with locally emitted organic compounds.
It may eventually become necessary to consider control
of nitrogen oxides, coordinated with the control of hydro-
carbons, as a part of the oxidant control strategy.
Emissions from natural sources . Oxidant concentrations
which can be attributed to natural sources are usually
less than 0.05 ppm compared with the oxidant standard of
0.08 ppm. Because of these emissions from natural sources,
more stringent reductions of man—made emissions may be
necessary in some areas.
Further refinement of the oxidant control strategy requires a
more quantitative understanding of the chemical and the rneteoro—
logical processes leading to high oxidant concentrations. EPA
is presently engaged in an extensive program of laboratory and
field studies to obtain the needed information, including
studies to quantify the relationship between emissions of pre-
cursors and concentrations of oxidants in the air at both urban
and nonurban locations. More extensive data are being obtained
on atmospheric levels of oxidants and precursors as well as
data on natural and man—made precursor emissions. It is ex—
pected that, through this program the current strategy will
evolve over the next several years to include the best measures
needed to control oxidants in both urban and nonurban areas.
111—137
-------
NonmetrOpOlitafl areas, in contrast to the major urban centets,
have their emission sources spread over wide geographic
areas. Control measures that need to be taken must be ef-
fective over these broad areas. The Federal control pro-
grams for mobile and stationary sources apply nationwide
and, therefore, have this character. Other regulations
now tend to be confined to major urban areas within the
States. Through the State Implementation Plans, further
reductions in emissions can be achieved from both station-
ary and mobile sources in nonmetropolitan areas that have
an oxidant problem. Thus, in the future, it may be deter-
mined that certain States need to adopt statewide station-
ary source controls and possibly certain transportation
measures such as vehicle inspection/maintenance. This
latter measure employed throughout a State would help
assure maximum effectiveness of the Federal Motor
Vehicle Control Program.
State Implementation Plan . Data from oxidant studies in
southeastern New England and aerial studies over southern
Maine suggest that violations of the standard for this
pollutant do occur in Maine. Provisions of the 1977 Clean
Air Act Amendments require Maine to submit a list of non-
attainment areas to the U.S. EPA by December 5, 1977, and
to submit revisions to its state implementation plan by
January 1, 1979, that would ensure compliance by 1982. How-
ever, it is probable that extensions of this 1982 attainment
deadline will be granted to states which are not in com-
pliance because of high CO or oxidant levels.
If, after the data evaluation, a revision is required to
attain standards for oxidants, the revised SIP will require
all reasonable statewide measures to control hydrocarbon
emissions to the ambient air. Measures which should
be considered include: vapor recovery for gasoline
marketing operations; control of emissions from major
organic solvent users, such as dry cleaners and paint
manufacturers; motor vehicle emission inspection and
maintenance; and programs to reduce total vehicular travel.
The ultimate degree of control which will be required
is dependent upon the effectiveness of the Federal Motor
Vehicle Emission Control program which should be evaluated
111—138
-------
in terms of the extent of reduction that will occur.
An update of the monitoring networks for oxidants and
the development of a comprehensive hydrocarbon emission
inventory will be necessary inputs for the analysis
described above.
Odors . There are no Federal standards prescribing
ambient odor limitations. However, many states and
local communities have ordinances which attempt to
restrict local sources of odor. These regulations
are usually part of a nuisance prevention statute.
At the present time, there are several sources of
strong odors in the Eastport area. These include
a fish processing/fire foam plant.
111—139
-------
Noise
Standards . Noise is generally defined as “unwanted
sound.” Of course, the definition of “unwanted” is subjective
for what Is unpleasant noise to one person may very well be a
pleasant sound to another. Thus, several factors relating to
the specific sound must be evaluated to determine its nuisance
value and health effects, including frequency; overall level
or magnitude, time distribution during the day; duration; and
total exposure time. In addition, although noise is basically
an acoustic phenomenon, its effects on humans can be both auditory
and nonauditory, ranging from mild annoyance and interference
with activities such as speech communications and sleep to
permanent and irreparable hearing damage.
Determining what levels or duration of noise causes a
specific impact is extremely difficult. First, due to the ampli-
tude, frequency, and temporal variations, there Is the problem of
quantifying the noise level. Secondly, there are the problems
associated with establishing a quantitative description of a
basically subjective human response. Thus, there are no com-
pletely satisfactory criteria for evaluating or predicting the
subjective effects of noise on people. However, specific noise
assessment criteria can be found In regulations and guidelines
adopted by various government agencies as a basis of comparison
with the area’s ambient noise levels. Of particular interest
to the present study are the assessment criteria used by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), and EPA.
Because the proposed refinery would operate on a 2 4 hour
per day, seven days a week schedule it Is appropriate to evaluate
any noise impact in terms of a 2 14 hour exposure rather than a
single hour exposure. Therefore, the peak hour FHWA criteria
for new highway construction projects Is not really applicable
to this project. In addition, since the new noise source
represented by the proposed project is an oil refinery and marine
terminal rather than a new housing development, the HUD standards
for new construction are also not directly applicable to the
situation being studied here. Also, FAA’s aircraft noise regu-
lations do not directly apply to the project. Thus, the EPA
identified noise levels are used as the primary assessment tool
In this noise impact study although the Occupational Safety and
Health Act’s (OSHA) noise exposure standards have also been taken
into account.
The EPA criteria, summarized in Table 111—50, in effect
give only a single numerical evaluation, i.e., the noise level
111—140
-------
TABLE 1 1 1—50
YEARLY AVERAGE’EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVELS IDENTIFIED AS
REQUISITE TO PRoTEcT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH
AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY
Measure
Indoor
To Protect
Activity Hearing Loss .
Inter- Considera- Against
Both Er-
ference tion
fects (b)
Outdoor
To Protect
Activity Hearing Loss
Inter- Considera- Against
Both El-
ference Lion
fects (b)
Residential with Out-
side Space and Farm
Residences
L j
Leq(24)
45
70
I
45
55
70
55
Residential with No
Outside Space
Lj
Leq(24)
45
70
45
Commercial
L ( 24 )
(a)
70
70(c)
(a)
70
70(c)
Inside Transportation
Leq(24)
(a)
70
(a)
Industrial
L q(24 d)
(a)
70
70(c)
(a)
70
70(c)
Hospitals
Ltj
Leq(24)
4
70
4
70
EducatiOnal
q(24)
Leq(24Xd)
4
70
45
55
70
55
Recreational Areas
L (24)
(a)
70
70(c)
(a)
70
70(c)
Farm Land and
General Unpopulated
Land
I-eq(24)
(a)
70
70(c)
Code:
a. Since different types of activities appear to be associated with different levels, identifl-
cation of a maximum level for activity interference may be difficult except in those
circumstances where speech communication is a critical activity. (See Figure D-2 for
noise levels as a function of distance which allow satisfactory communication.)
b. Based on lowest level.
c. Based only on hearing loss.
d. An Leq(8) of 75 dB may be identified in these situations so long as the exposure over
the remaining 16 hours per day is low enough to result in a negligible contribution to
the 24-hour average, i.e., no greater than an Leq of 60 dB.
Note: ExpLanation of identified level for hearing 103$: The exposure period which
results in hearing loss at the identified level is a period of 40 years.
‘Rerers to energy rather than arithmetic averages.
111—141
-------
can give an L j, * above or below the 55 decibels* (dBA)
established for activity interference. A similar single number
evaluation can, of course, be made for hearing loss considera—
tions using the LEQ(2 )’level of 70 dBA.
Regulating Agencies . EPA coordinates the noise control
programs of all Federal agencies. Its principal authority for
these activities is contained in the Noise Control Act of 1972
which requires EPA to set standards limiting noise emissions from
various types of products and equipment, such as motors and con-
struction equipment. However, FAA is responsible for the control
of aircraft noise while the Department of Labor, under the
authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, sets
occupational noise exposure limits.
The real authority to control ambient noise rests primarily
with State and local governments. Although many states and
municipalities have not yet enacted laws specifically designed
to control noise, the necessary authority usually exists under
current land use standards, building codes and zoning ordinances.
Ambient Noise Levels.
Measurement Considerations . As indicated earlier, the
City of Eastport and the Eastport Municipal Airport site
are located on Moose Island. The city itself is shielded
from the airport site by a ridge running almost down the
middle of the Island between the airport and the City
proper. The acoustic shielding provided by this ridge,
plus the approximately one mile distance separating the
proposed refinery site and the City proper, give enough
noise attenuation with normal atmospheric conditions to
effectively make the refinery noise inaudible in the main
sections of Eastport. For this reason, the five measure-
ment locations were situated on the airport side of the
ridge as shown in Figure 111—38
Each individual location was selected on the basis of
representing the existing noise climate in its vicinity
as well as being Indicative of any future noise impact
from the refinery. Consideration was also given to
providing microphone locations free of reflections from
- nearby surfaces.
1 Söund pressure levels (SPC), or noise levels, are measured in
units of relative quantity known as decibels and used to express
the relationship between any sound pressure or noise and a
reference pressure. The Ldn Indicator Is the equivalent
energy level for a 2 I hour period with a 10 dB penalty Imposed
on the SPL values during the hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m. The LEQ(2 ) indicator is the equivalent energy level for
a 2 4 hour period.
111—142
-------
SITE MAP WITH MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
FOR EXISTING NOISE SURVEY SUPERIMPOSED
AND EXISTING LEQ (24) LEVELS INDICATED
Mud
Taylor PuPr t
Carr ijngpi ,
c •
Approxj te acoustic Cave
center of proposed
refinery aw l lsIsnd :
Mud
FIGURE nt ;3
111—143
-------
Measurement Methodology . As indicated, field data were
collected using either a manual sampling technique or
automatic data logging instrumentation. The Instrumenta-
tion used for both types of measurement as well as an in—
depth discussion of the methodology are contained In
Appendix H to this report. All five locations were moni-
tored concurrently beginning at approximately 6:00 p.m.
on August 2, 1976 and running until about 7:00 p.m. on
August 3. Weather conditions during the survey were almost
Ideal, with mild temperatures and only slight occasional
breezes.
Results of Noise Survey . The manually sampled SPL
readings taken at locations 1, 2 and 3 were fed Into a
digital computer and processed by a straightforward data
reduction routine. A listing of this data reduction pro-
gram, together with a sample computer output record, has
been included in Appendix H to this report. Computer
output records for all measurements taken at these sites
are also included In Appendix H. Results of the computer
data reduction runs for the measurements taken at these
three locations reveal that the existing noise climate
can be classified as very quiet, particularly during the
late evening and early morning hours. The major noise
source during daytime hours is traffic along Route 190 and
other local roads. During the night there are only
occasional automobile drivebys and the background noise
level is set by distant sea—gulls, wind in the trees, and
other low level natural sources.
Infrastructure
The following sections describe the community facilities
and services available in the area generally and the City of
Eastport specifically. Locations of the City’s facilities are
Indicated In Figure 111-39.
Sewage Collection and Treatment Facilities . As shown
in Figure 111—40, Eastport’s municipal wastewater system consists
of three separate collection systems serving the city proper,
the Redoubt Hill area, and Quoddy Village. The city proper
system consists of five miles of sanitary sewers, some of which
are over 100 years old. Since additions were made as the need
arose, the system contains sections of tile, concrete and metal
piping. The Quoddy Village system consists of almost two miles of
sewers. All are considered to be In good condition.
111—144
-------
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
FIGURE 1 11-39
H
H
I- I
Ui
p
Co ..
Hor,,a
Co” ,n ’ oc.
Co ..
LEGEND
Moffi w, 11 1 *14
Sp.c .cI. l IIood
I. CITY OFFICES
3. HOSPITAL
3. EXISTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
4. NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
S. SIIEAD MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL
S. FIRE STATION
7. SAARAC*S BUILDING. FT SUWVAN
S. CENTRAL CONGRESSIONAL CHURCH
S. PEAVEY MEMOALVI. UORARY I FROF4TIERBAMI
IS. US CUSTOMS HOUSE I POST OFFICE
II. SIIATINGRIWL
IX. LITTLE LEAGUE FEW
13. PCNICAREA
CHURCH
CEMETERES
Cop.
IN
I 1W ‘1* R
-‘
-------
EASTPORT’S SEWAGE SYSTEMS
F$GUREIII-40
H
H
H
V
C.,.
H r,.
Cv’rn
I
C . ,.
MsMI.l
0
I—
I. UI4 M.. ESStN . .__ F M)
1. A ITA O .CT$GO
1
& MOIP UPG ICMI fl
I JWM !OO.. P C LST )
S
i. uIFO U *T , p .c woa v*a
C.,.
— p opOsto ni ci m uw s
i atnsiu uwmwto oowunc UWAO
tN tI $ ( I ffiPCE
-------
As previously mentioned in the aquatic resources section,
the three systems currently discharge raw domestic sewage into
the Bay at the 2 4 locations shown in Figure 111—40. In addition,
seven industrial discharges are also identified on this figure.
At the present time it is anticipated that Eastport will
be eligible for a Step 1 Facilities Planning Grant pursuant to
Section 201 of the FWPCA by the beginning of 1978. This is
based on Eastport’s present position on the State’s priority funding
list for wastewater treatment facilities. This is the first
step in a 3 stage federal, state and local grant program. The
construction of these plants is financed 75% through federal
funds, 15% through state funds and 10% through local funds.
Water Supply System . Eastport is supplied with fresh
water by a privately owned utility, the Eastport Water Company.
The sources of supply are surface water reservoirs located nearby
on the mainland in a 12.3 square mile watershed area which has a
safe yield of 12 million gallons per day. The primary reservoir
is Boyden Lake, 11 miles northeast of the City of Eastport. From
Boyden Lake, the water flows via the Little River to a 20 million
gallon reservoir and pumping station at Perry. Except for the
first and last miles in the supply system where the pipe is
10 inches, the main supply lines are 8 inch diameter pipe. Quoddy
Village Is supplied off the main trunkline which, since the
Village has no standby reserve, is maintained at pump pressure.
Eastport itself has an emergency standby surface reservoir of
750,000 gallons near Route 190, and an elevated 30,000 gallons
tank near the high school for normal standby purposes. The main
system and pumping stations were installed In the 1900 to 1910
period.
In 1972, metered water services were provided for 389
residential accounts, 63 commercial, 17 industrial and 13 public
service accounts. Normal daily use averaged 300,000 gallons per
day, or about 108 gallons per capita per day. Peak daily con-
sumption was 450,000 gallons per day. A representative chemical
analysis of the water from the Eastport Water Company is given
in Table III— 51.
Solid Waste Di posa1 . Eastport currently uses an inland sani-
tary landfill site in the nearby coninunity of Edmund to dispose of its
solid waste. The 200 acre disposal site is shared by the municipalities
of Perry, Pembroke, Dennysville, Pleasant Point and the unincorporated
territories of Edmund and Plantation 14, as well as by Eastport. This
site has replaced the Broad Cove open dump area which was closed in
November, 1976. The fon r site, because of its proxinIty to Broad
Cove, was in violation of Maine’s recently passed Solid Waste Manage-
ment Regulations which ban the disposal of solid wastes within 300
feet of a waterbody. The Edmund sanitary landfill site presently serves
less than 5,000 people and it is anticipated that one acre of land will
be used up annually.
Eastport currently charges $3.00 per capita to pay for a privately
contracted sanitation pick—up service and for the rraintenance of the new
dunp as part of a five year solid waste disposal plan approved by the
Eastport City Council on September 20, 1976.
111—147
-------
TABLE 111-51
REPRESENTATIVE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
OF FRESH WATER SUPPLIED
BY THE EASTPORT WATER COMPANY
Parameter
Parts Per
Mfllion*
Chlorine 0.5
Temperature °C 140
Turbidity (JTU) 9
Color (Pt-Co) 21
pH (Std. units) 6.5
Total Alkalinity 4.0
Phenolphthalein Alk. 0
Total Hardness 36
Carbonate Hardness 4.0
Non Carbonate Hardness 32.0
Calcium Hardness 6.0
Total Iron 0.08
Manganese 0.3
Nitrate 0.22
Nitrite 0.06
Netap1 osphate 0.19
Orthophosphate 0.21
Total phosphate 0.4
Free C02 0.0
Total solids 48.0
Chlorides 4.6
Aluminum 0.13
Fluoride 1.2
Silica 4.0
*Parts per million unless otherwise noted.
Source: General Water Works.
111—148
-------
Transportation.
Land Transportation . Eastport is located six miles
east of the two—lane U. S. Highway 1’Io. 1, which is the
major regional highway through Washington County. High-
way No. 1 provides the link to Interstate Route 95 at
Bangor, 120 miles away, and to the small inland and
coastal towns such as Machias, Lubec, Calais, and
Princeton.
Eastport connects with Highway No. 1 via State Route 190,
a paved two—lane highway that connects Moose Island, on
which Eastport Is located, to Pleasant Point by a man—made
causeway and thence runs westward to Perry. This is the
only land route to and from Eastport.
U. S. No. 1 has been Improved in recent years but is still
basically a two—lane rural route. Pavement width for both
U. S. No. 1 and Route 190 is 214 feet. Traffic volume
data for both routes in 1966, l 2 and l97 4 is summarized
in Table 111—52. Preliminary capacity analysis for the
U. S. No. 1/Route 190 Intersection, based upon the 1965
Highway Capacity Manual,* Indicates its ability to handle
1,000 vehicles per hour.
There is no scheduled passenger service to Eastport by
bus or rail. Nor are there any car rental agencies in
Washington County.
The Maine Central Railroad provides limited freight service
to Eastport by a spur from Its Bangor to Calais branch,
starting at Ayers Junction, which is 17 miles from East—
port. The spur generally follows the alignment of State
*J t Hjghway Capacity Manual,” Highway Research Board Special
Report 87, Publication 1328, National Academy of Sciences,
National Research CouncIl, 1965.
111—149
-------
Highway Route 190 to the edge of Eastport, then through a
freIght yard near Washington Street and County Road,
terminating at the Maine Central Wharf on the waterfront,
There has been no passenger service for many years; freight
movements have steadily decreased from 503 cars in 1967,
to 299 in 1969, and finally to an average of 250 cars
per year during the 1970 to 1975 period. An application
to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) for abandon—
ment of the service altogether was turned down in 1971.
Another petition for abandonment was filed in October
l971 , but no action has been taken on this to date. The
line is maintained in a condition safe enough to permit
freight trains to operate over It at speeds up to 20 mIles
per hour.
TABLE 111-52
HIGHWAY ThAFFIC FLOW
(Number of Vehicles)
Location
Average
Daily Traffic
Peak
Hourly
Peak Hourly
One Direction*
1966
1972
1972
1972
1974
U. S. No. 1
• North of Route 190
• South of Route 190
Route 190
• Between U. S. 1 and Quoddy
• Between Quoddy and Eastport
• lnEastport
1369
1284
1421
1515
1615
1780
1615
1785
2045
2140
267
242
267
307
321
160S
145N
160 S/N
184 S/N
193S/N
17CS
160 N
176 S/N
202 S/N
212S/N
* On Route 190, directional peaks occur at two different times.
Source: Maine Department of Transportation, 1972 Traffic Flow Plan.
Marine Transportation . Eastport has ready access to
the open sea and to the surrounding bays. Prior to World
War I, Its natural deep water, sheltered harbor and
proximity to the once rich fishing grounds made Eastport
a busy commercial port. Entry f or large vessels Is through
Head Harbor Passage, which Is a boundary water between
mainland Canada and Campobello Island. Smaller vessels
can enter via Lubec Passage, which Is a boundary water
111—150
-------
between the U. S. mainland and Canada’s Campobello Island.
However, passage through here is severely restricted by
the new International Bridge which has clearance limits
of only 7 feet vertically and 100 feet horizontally.
Today’s ship traffic into Eastport waters consists almost
entirely of small fishing craft and some pleasure boats.
In 1971, daily traffic through Eastport and/or Lubec Channel
averaged six to seven small crafts.*
The largest commercial vessels regularly using these
waters are a 1,500 DWT seagoing oil barge, and a
3,000 DWT coastwise tanker. The oil barge is towed on
a long hawser and makes a round trip every 10 days be-
tween the oil refinery at St. John, New Brunswick, and
storage tanks located in Calals and St. Stephens. This
trip takes the barge through the Bay of Fundy, Head
Harbor Passage, Friar Roads, Western Passage, Passama—
quoddy Bay, and up the St. Croix River. The 3,000 DWT
tanker carries oil products to Pembroke at the head of
Cobscook Bay via Head Harbor Passage, Friar Roads and
Cobscook Bay. The tanker usually makes only one round
trip every four to six weeks without tug or pilot
assistance. In January 1975, a 20,000 DWT oil tanker
also made one trip, unattended, up Head Harbor Passage,
through Western Passage, and dropped anchor at the mouth
of the St. Croix where Its cargo of No. 6 fuel oil was
transferred to barges for transit up the River to Calals
and St. Stephens.
In the past, the harbor was a frequent port of call for
large commercial schooners and square—rigged sailing ships
carrying lumber, salt and coal. In times as recent as
the 1930’s, U. S. naval ships were frequent callers, enter-
ing the harbor under their own power and anchoring in
Friar Roads. In 1975, the 295 foot Coast Guard training
bark, Eagle, entered Eastport Harbor via Head Harbor
Passage under its own power, and after anchoring in Friar
Roads for 2 hours, returned under full sail to sea via
Head Harbor Passage.
A •car ferry capable of carrying four automobiles between
Eastport and Deer Island was operated for many years by
Canadian authorities, but this service was terminated In
September 1975.
IU. S. Corps of Engineers .
1 1 1 —151
-------
Air Transportation . Washington County is not served
by any scheduled air carrier or air taxi service. The
nearest scheduled air carrier service is to Bangor, Bar
Harbor and Houlton. Air taxi service is also available
at these locations and several other locations in Maine,
but none are based at Eastport.
However, as shown In Table 111—53, eastern Washington
County does have 10 general aviation airports, support-
ing 13 based aircraft and 18 licensed pilots. Additionally,
airports in St. Stephens, N.B., Baring, Machias, and
Princeton offer air access to the Eastport region. These
airports are approximately 30, 31, 145 and 50 miles,
respectively, from Eastport.
TABLE ii I-E a AIRPORTS IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MAINE
Eastern Washing on County Western Washin&ton County
Baring Alexander 1
Brookton Debois
Calais( -) Ha tford
Eastport Jonesboro
Lubec Jonespoint
Marion
Meddyb nps
Perry
Princeton
Woodland
1. Seaplanes only.
Sources: — Airport Master Plan Report for an Eastern
Washington County Regional Airport is Calais,
Maine; by Hunter—Ballew Associates; undated
(ca. 1972).
— Private Communication: Howard Needles of
Tammen & Bergendoff to J. B. Hill, 1/26/76.
Eastport Municipal Airport was constructed in 19142 by the
Works Progress Administration (WPA) under the terms and
conditions of an AP—4 agreement between the City of East—
port and the U. S. Government. The FAA has administrative-
ly determined that the useful life of all AP— 1 4 improve-.
ments has expired. Consequently, there are no obligations
relative to maintenance or operation currently in effect at
Eastport.
111—152
-------
In 1959, however, the Federal government participated in
certain additional improvements at Eastport under the
terms and conditions of a grant agreement issued in con-
junction with the Federal Aid Airport Program (FAA?).
The Federal investment in this project was $L 2,350. The
project consisted of resurfacing the NW/SE runway, approach
clearing, runway marking, removal of utilities and
acquisition of the public right—of—way In Deep Cove Road.
Under the terms of the grant agreement, the City of’
Eastport Is obligated to operate and maintain Eastport
Municipal Airport as a public airport throughout the
useful life of the facilities developed under the
project, but not to exceed 20 years, or until March 19,
1979.
There have been no Federal funds invested in Eastport
Municipal Airport since 1959 and very few, If any,
improvements funded from other sources.
The initial construction was for national defense pur-
poses. It appears that the second, or FAAP construc-
tion, was undertaken because it represented a minimal
investment to protect the government’s initial construc-
tion and foster, promote, and serve a projected civil
aeronautical need in the immediate Eastport area.
FAA maintained an active compliance program up to about
1970. One of the purposes of this program was to
insure the City’s compliance with their operation and
maintenance obligations. FAA files indicate that the
City was never found to be in noncompliance with or
default of their operating and maintenance obligations
to the U. S.
The aeronautical demands for the airport never materialized
as originally projected in the late 1950’s, principally
because of the absence of economic development In the
community. Furthermore, the 1972 FAA National Airport
System Plan (NASP) Indicated no future role for this
site since the area’s aeronautical needs could be served
through a new airport In the Calais area or the existing
airports at Machlas and Princeton. The Maine State
Airport System Plan coordination process currently under-
way will reflect FAA’s recommendation to assign whatever
aeronautical activities are generated In the Eastport
area to the above existing airports or to a new Washington
County Airport.
The existing facilities at both the Princeton and Machias
airports are capable of serving the aeronautical needs of
eastern Washington County for the immediate future.
111—153
-------
Princeton, originally constructed as a military airport,
is located about 50 miles northwest of Eastport. The
airport has two ,000 foot runways oriented O6—2 4 and
15—33 and is equipped with lighting facilities to handle
aircraft operations at night. Princeton is controlled
through Bangor with no local flight control available.
At the time of the 1972 NASP report, no additional con-
struction was recommended for this facility.
Machias Airport is located in Machias Valley within 25 air
miles of Eastport. The facility was constructed in 196 I
with a 50 foot wide runway, 2,000 feet long, a short
taxiway and an aircraft parking apron. In 1969, a 500 foot
runway extension was constructed. The 1972 NASP report
recommended considerable expansion of this facility over
the next 10 years. Proposed improvements include land
acquisition, a new E/W runway, improvement of the end
zones, the development of approach aids, lighting and
miscellaneous airport development.
There are currently 13 aircraft based at Machias Valley
Airport. The average short term forecast of airport
operations predicts 1$,900 annual operations with the next
several years.
The City of Calais, Maine is located about 100 miles
east of Bangor and i8 to 20 miles northwest of Eastport
in the eastern section of Washington County adjacent to
the Province of New Brunswick, Canada. As the County’s
largest urban area, the city serves as the focal point
for commerce and the tourist industry. Because of the
inadequacies of the area’s ground and air transportation,
the City of Calais undertook a study to determine the
feasibility of the development of a regional airport to
be located In Calais to serve the eastern section of
Washington County and the immediate area of New Brunswick.
The results of the study, undertaken In cooperation with
the Maine Aeronautics Commission, now part of the Maine
Department of Transportation, and the FAA, selected an
airport site which has already received FAA’S conditional
approval. This approval is subject to a more thorough
environmental assessment and the results of the Maine
State Airport System Plan StUdye
In February 1972, with funds provided by the City of East—
port and FAA, the City of Calais undertook the preparation
of an Airport Master Plan Study to determine the physical
requirements of an airport at the conditionally approved
site, and the economic feasibility of the airport develop-
ment. The conclusions and recommendations of this study
revealed that an airport in Calais would best serve the
111—154
-------
air transportation needs of the area because it was both
the region’s population and geographic center. If built,
it could replace both Princeton and Eastport. Actual
approval of the site by FAA, however, Is dependent upon
completion of an Environmental Assessment. Because of
local disinterest in the project, this study has never
taken place.
The City of Eastport has requested that FAA release them
from their commitment to continue the operation of the
airport, offering in return:
“that should the FAA concur in the release and sale
of the entire airport, the City proposes when and if
the full option price of $78,000 Is paid to enter
into an agreement with an eligible sponsor under
Airport and Airway Development Act of any existing
airport In the region, the State of Maine, or other
eligible sponsor wishing to construct a new airport,
to make available for a reasonable period of time
the proceeds of sale for rehabilitation, improve—
ment or construction of airport facilities In the
region; and If at the end of the time period agreed
to, no sponsor has been found willing to take the
money for airport purposes, the City of Eastport will
then reimburse the Government for the present value
of their investment.”
The Pittston Company already has an option to purchase the
airport property.
FAA indicates no evidence of more than a minimum level
of aeronautical activity at Eastport Municipal Airport
since 1957 and considers the facility essentially aban-
doned. The FAA’s 19714 and 1975 inspections at the airport
revealed: that the physical condition of the facility has
reached a point where the work needed to keep It In a
serviceable condition goes beyond normal maintenance and
is now considered reconstruction or repair; that the need
anticipated when the facility was Initially justified
never developed, nor is it now expected to develop; that
the physical conditions which now exist were not a result
of the City of Eastport’s noncompliance with any of the
terms and conditions of their various contracts; and that,
in FAA’s opinion, the current cost of repairing or rehabili-
tating the facility to a serviceable condition cannot be
justified when equated with the aviation needs of Eastport.
Thus, on July 7, 19714, FAA advised the City of Eastport
that, as a preliminary opinion, they concurred that the
useful life of the facilities had expired. However,
FAA’s final determination must take into account the
111—155
-------
requirements or NEPAU This position was reaffirmed on
November 12, 197k, when FAA advised the City that it was
their tentative determination that the useful life of the
facilities has expired and, based upon the advice of the
CEQ, their determination on this matter would become final
only after consideration of the environmental impact
statement and the issues raised In It.
School Facilities . Eastport presently has two elementary
schools and a high school, with a 1975/76 enrollment of 316 and
266, respectively. Enrollment in the elementary schools has
declined steadily from 366 in 1965/66 to 316 in 1975/76.
The Eastport schools are administratively grouped as a
“school union” with the nearby communities of Perry, Pembroke,
Charlotte, Robbinstori and Dennysvllle, which share the school
facilities. Although each of these has Its own elementary school,
except for Dennysville, approximately two—thirds of the enroll-
ment in the school union attends the Eastport schools. The
high school enrollment has increased from 21 10 In 1965/66 to 266
In 1975/76 following a decline to 231 in 1970/71. This recent
Increase reflects a greater attendance from surrounding towns
since Eastport’s contribution tothe high school attendance has
declined. Table 111—54, compiled from literature provided by
Maine’s L epartment of Education and Cultural Services, illustrates
this occurrence.
TABLE 111.54. PUBL IC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, WASHINGTON
COUNTY AND EASTPORT, MAINE
1965—66 1970—71 - 1975—76
Washington County 7,528 7,784
School Union 104 984 928 943
City of Eastport
Elementary 366 326 315
High School 240 231 266
Total 606 557 581
Sources: — Maine Department of Education and Cultural
Services, School Directory.
— Office of Superintendent of Schools for School
Union 104.
111—156
-------
Eastport’s two elementary schools are turn—of—the—century
frame buildings which will be replaced by a new building scheduled
to open during the present school year. The high school is a
masonry building constructed in l91 4 with a capacity of 320
students. Eastport also has several other educational facilities,
namely, a new industrial arts and music building, a modern
auditorium—gymnasium, and the Peavy Memorial Library.
The total Washington County public school system consists
of 39 elementary schools arid eight secondary schools. Total
enrollment in 1970/71 was 7,528; in 1975/76 it was 7,7814. There
is also a branch of the University of Maine located in Machias.
Health and Safety Services.
Medical Facilities . There are three hospitals, 13
physicians, five dentists and two optometrists within
a 50 mile radius of Eastport in Washington County. The
ph ,3ic1ans, two of whom practice in Eastport, are general
practitioners who also perform minor surgery. Specialized
medical personnel are available In Bangor and are called
on as consultants when necessary.
Of the three hospitals in Washington County, one each
Is located In Calais, Machias, and Eastport. The total
beds number 135 Working contacts are maintained between
these hospitals by a short wave communications system
and by ambulance service.
Eastport itself has the 26 bed Eastport Memorial Hospital,
housed in a large, moderized frame building constructed
in 1896. It is a nonprofit institution staffed by two
doctors, one dentist, seven registered nurses and other
health workers. Its facilities include an operating room
for minor surgery. The hospital also owns two ambulances
operated by a volunteer group.
Police and Fire Protection . Eastport has a full—time
police department staffed with five full—time officers
and one dispatcher. Five additional officers are avail-
able on a part—time basis. The department has two patrol
vehicles. When required, the State Police and the County
Sheriff provide additional patrols. The State Police also
provide laboratory facilities and Investigative assistance.
There is no local jail; when necessary, a facility in
Calais Is used.
Eastport has a 214 member volunteer fire department. Appur-
tenant to its water supply system, the city maintains
a fire hydrant system. It also owns six modern fire trucks
which are housed in a well maintained station house built
in 1969. Mutual aid arrangements exist with other fire
111—157
-------
departments in the area, including Perry, Pembroke, and
Calals. The Coast Guard provides fire fighting assistance
on the waterfront.
Other Existing Environmental Conditions
Historic and Natural Areas for Preservation . Twelve
landmarki are listed in Washington County in the National Regi.ster
of Historic Places as of July 6, 1976. One of these is located
in Eastport — the Barrack’s Building of Fort Sullivan built in
i8o8. Two others are In the nearby vicinity: the Mansion House
(c. 1800) which is 17 miles away In Robbinston; and the St. Croix
Island National Monument (i60 ), which Is on the international
boundary 20 miles away near Red Beach.
Eastport’s Central Congregational Church, which dates back
to 1829, may be nominated for the Register. Three other buildings
in Eastport are considered by the Maine Historical Preservation
Commission as potential nominees to the Register. These are the
U. S. Customs House (1890—93), the Peavy Memorial Library (1893),
and the Frontier Bank (1882). Also of historical significance
are the West Quoddy Head Light House In Lubec, seven miles south
of Eastport, as well as the Roosevelt Cottage on Campobello Island
in Canada two miles southeast of Eastport by water.
The following five conservation areas, shown In Table
111—55, are located in the vicinity of Eastport.
TABLE 111-55. CONSERVATION AREAS
Miles from
Eastport
Potential site
Bertrand E. Smith Natural Area
25
Northwest
Camp Two Natural Area
8
Southwest
Carrying Place Cove Bog (Lubec)
4
South
Edniunds Natural Area
8
Southwest
Sunken Bog Natural Area
8
Southwest
The first four are In areas of deciduous forest; the last in an
Inland wetland. All the sites are at least 60 feet above mean
sea level.
111—158
-------
En a Smithsonian Institute draft report* for the Maine
Center for Natural Areas, the Cobt cook Bay area and the Downeast
area were listed as Conservation Priority Zones. Cobscook Bay
extends east from the site and has 97 miles of shoreline encom-
passing 15,800 acres of water. Downeast refers to an area south
of the site, extending from Quoddy Head at Lubec southwest to
Sprague Head at Cutler. This area has 50 miles of coastline, and
encompasses 11,600 acres of water, including some offshore
islands.
Archaeological Sites . At the request of EPA, the Pittson
Company retained Robson Bonnichsen from the Department of Anthro-
pology at the University of Maine at Orono to perform a survey of
the shore line area and the 650 acre proposed refinery site. This
survey was conducted on July 25 and 26, 1976. Although inland
areas covered by scrub brush and densely wooded were too difficult
to systematically survey based on testing that was done, it is
reasoned that there are no archaeological or cultural resources in
the area. A subsequent survey of archaeological files at the Uni-
versity of Maine also did not contain any records of findings in
the area. Details of the methodology used in conducting the survey
can be found in Appendix I. A marine archaeological survey will
be done by a qualified archaeologist for Pittson prior to any dredging.
Other Federal Projects In the Area
1. Proposed Federal Tidal Power Projects
a. International Passamaguoddy Tidal Power Project
The Eastport area is a potential site for a major Federal project:
the proposed ‘assainaquoddy Tidal Power Project (The Quoddy Pro-
ject). Conceived in the 1920’s, the proposal was for an inter-
national energy production project involving the use of both
Passainaquoddy and Cobscook Bays. Each bay was to be closed by
a series of dams, with regulating gates and small craft naviga-
tion locks to form a two—pool tidal project. Continuous power
was to be generated by discharging water from the high pool In
Passainaquoddy Bay to the low pool in Cobscook Bay through tur-
bines located between the two pools. However, in the early
1930’s, Canada withdrew from the project and work was suspended.
In 1935 the Government of the United States undertook
development of a single—pool project using only the waters of
Cobscook Bay on the United States side of the international
boundary. This work was suspended in 1936 when no further funds
were made available for the project.
As the result of continued interest In the Passamaq zoddy
Tidal Power Project on the part of the people of Maine and New
Brunswick, supported by an Increasing awareness of the need to
exploit all possible sources of energy, the International Joint
* Reed & D’Anreas, 1973. ‘ 11 1159
-------
MODIFIED LAYOUTh OF
PITTSTON REFINERY AND PASSAMAQUODDY TIDAL POWER
FIGURE III. 41
H
H
H
a.,
0
-------
Commission was requested by both governments to a study a large—
scale i iternational tidal power project in Passamaquoddy and
Cobscook Bays. The study and its review were accomplished be-
tween 1956 and 19614.
In 19614, recommendations were submitted to th Secretary
of the Interior for authorization of a combination of the Quoddy
Project and the proposed Dickey—Lincoln School Lakes Projectin—
volving the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Upper Saint
John River.
In 1965 a review of the two projects was made by the De-
partment of Interior based on subsequent economic developments
of the power industry. This economic review Indicated that the
Dickey—Lincoin project was ultimately authorized by the Congress
and is currently In the preliminary design stage. Continuing
study and further review of the tidal power project was rec—
commended.
Presently, the Corps of Engineers is re—evaluating the
tidal power project based on an authorization in December 1975
to review the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project to determine
Its current feasibility In the Interest of providing tidal power,
recreation, economic development and related land and water re-
sources purposes.
In light of today’s priorities the tidal power projects
would utilize the high tides which are a dependable and renew-
able source of energy for generating electricity.
The preliminary site plans for both the proposed refinery
and deep—water marine terminal at Eastport and the Passamaquoddy
Tidal Power Project have been coordinated between the Pittston
Company and the Uorps of Engineers, New England Division. As
shown on the preliminary sketch, Figure 111—41, dated 8 July 1976,
the ilayout of the two projects appears compatIb .e.
The Pittston Company has been advised that In the event
the tidal power project is authorized and constructed, there
would be operational and waterborne navigational constraints
on shipment of’ their crude and finished products. This is prin-
cipally due to the dam system and navigational lock proposed in
Head Harbor Passage. The water transport route to and from the
refinery, as well as the associated docking facillties, would be
in the “low pool” of the international tidal project in which
the water level normally operates between mean sea level and mean
low water elevations. The lock would be one of the largest in
existence and would be a considerable engineering and construction
accomplishment.
111—161
-------
The basic tidal power project includes the construction
of a 1115’ x 60’ x 21’ deep navigational lock in Head Harbor
Passage. The preliminary estimated Total Investment Cost for
this lock is $22,l110,000 for which present planning is that the
Government will provide all construction and operation and
maintenance costs.
In view of possible navigational needs, two alternate
larger size locks were considered for the project, namely 830’
x 120’ x 112’ deep and 1,250’ x 180’ x 67’ deep; their pre—
llmlnary estimated Total Investment Costs are $86,1 1113,000 and
$1’I0,167,000, respectively. The lock size will be a matter
for future determination, and based on costs versus naviga-
tional needs and benefits if and when the tidal project is
authorized. The costs of the navigational locks would be charged a-
gainst the tidal project and be borne by the Government.
b. All—American Tidal Power Projects . In addition
to the 500 and 1000 megawatt Internatio a1 Passamaquoddy Tidal
Power Project, economic feasibility studies are being accom-
plished by the Corps on possible tidal power projects which
would be in Cobscook Bay and entirely within the boundaries of
the United States. Various single and double pooi concepts
are possible in Cobscook Bay and the principal ones are under
evaluation.
It is noted that the Energy Research and Development Ad-
ministration and Office Of Technical Assessment, U.S. Congress,
also have been independently studying the potential and economic
feasibility of tidal power in the Passamaquoddy—Cobscook Bay Re-
gion.
In general, the single pool concepts utilize Cobscook Bay
as a high pool with water flowing through a powerhouse located
in the vicinity of Carryingplace Cove and into Western Passage.
A series of darns, filling gates and a navigational lock would be
placed between Estes Head, Eastport, and Lubec, Maine.
In the various two pool concepts, Cobscook Bay would be
divided into two parts, a lower and upper pool, with possible
dams, filling gate and navigational locks in the vicinity of
Estes Head to Lubec, Shackford Head to Coopers Island, and/or
Leighton Point to Seward Neck, etc. Possible powerhouse loca-
tions are at Carryingplace Cove, Birch Point, and Leighton Point.
Some of the various proposed All—American tidal power
schemes present potential land—use conflicts with the proposed
oil refinery and marine terminal. In the single pool concept
111—162
-------
a tidal powerhouse in the vicinity of Carryin lace Cove would require
a water channel raceway which could affect Mathews Island and the lo-
cation of oil storage facilities. A site layout plan similar to the
one that was agreed to by the Pittston Ccn]pany and the Corps of En-
gineers for the International tidal power plan would appear to be
satisfactory. One of the two pool schemes in Cobscook Bay proposes
an earth and rock filled dam, navigational lock and err tying gates
between Shackford Head, Coopers Island and Seward Island. This con-
cept separates the proposed oil loading and unloading berthing areas
with permanent structures and could cause waterborne navigational
probleme with the tidal project enptying gates and navigationa] lock
cperationr. Other concepts known at this tine do not appear to affect
the imnediate refinery and terminal areas. Coordination between the
Pittston Ccqany and the Corps will have to be carried out if and
when ftrther study of the tidal power project is cailTienced. During
a meeting on 12 May 1977 a representative of the Pittston Ca any
stated to the Corps of Engineers that the firm would cooperate in
any land use adjustments required so as to make the refinery and
marine terminal facilities ccrnpatible with the tidal power project.
Subsequently, by letter dated 2t 1 May 1977 the Pittston Cc*npany ad-
vised the Corps that “Pittston would be more than willing, at the
appropriate tine, to discuss in detail with the Anny Corps of En-
gineers, once it has settled upon a specific set of desiges, those
steps necessary to assure canpatibility.”
Like the international tidal power concepts, the All-American
schemes would also require navigational locks to serve recreational
boating, fishing and other coninercial waterborne shipping. In the
event an All—American tidal power project is constructed, the size
and location of locks would have to be coordinated and studied with
all concerned. The location, size and nunber of navigation locks
varies depending on which tidal power concept was selected. All tidal
power plans will cause varying degrees of waterborne operational and
navigational constraints to shipping. Presently, If any tidal power
project is constructed, the costs of the navigational locks will be
charged against the tidal project and be borne by the Government.
c. Insofar as the Corps of Engineers is concerned, all tidal
power concepts are still under consideration. Their economic feasibility
studies indicate that the projects are not feasible under present con-
ditions when assessed by the conventional methods dictated by Congress
for water resource projects. Analysis of sane of the tidal concepts
on a “life—cycle” costing method, however, indicates that the projects
do appear econa’nically feasible and are worthwhile. In addition, two
other Federal agencies, the Ener i Research and Development Administra-
tion and the U.S. Congress Office of Technical Assessment, are evalu-
ating the econanlc feasibility of tidal power In the Pass amaquoddy
and Cobs cook Bay areas. These agencies are also analyzing the various
projects from a life—cycle standpoint.
d. In suiinary, at this stage the Corps of Engineers does
not have any specific tidal power project to recarinend for future
study and is still investigating several All—American and the Inter-
national concepts. Further, the results of the three separate agency
111—163
-------
studies on tidal power will have to be evaluated. At this time the
outstanding determinant is a national level decision as to whether
the life-cycle costing method will be recognized as a basis for
the economics of the project and the Survey Scope Study Report.
2. Half—Moon Cove Tidal and Mariculture Project
The Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Tribal Council, Pleasant
Point Reservation, Perry, Maine is proposing a small demonstration
type tidal power project (4-12KW) and mariculture development in Half
Moon Cove in the northeasterly portion of Cobscook Bay, Maine. This
is not a Federal project, however the Council has received approximately
$15,000 from the Federal Energy Administration for the purposes of
obtaining some background data and preparing an unsolicited proposal
for conducting a feasibility study. If the results of the feasibility
study are positive, it is anticipated that the Tribal Council will
seek funds to further plan, design, construct and operate the project.
Half-Moon Cove is northwesterly and approximately 2.3 miles
distant from the proposed oil refinery and products loading marine
terminal. The waterbourne shipping to and from the refinery marine
facilities would not be transiting past or through the tribal projects
since access to Friar Roads, Head Harbour Passage and the Bay of Fundy
is in a southeasterly and opposite direction from the tribal projects.
Observations by the Corps on the tribal projects as they relate to
the proposed oil refinery and marine terminal, whether or not the
Federal Tidal Power Project is constructed, are as follows:
a. If the Federal tidal project is constructed :
(1) The tribal tidal power project would not be physically
affected by the refinery and marine terminal.
(2) The tribal mariculture development in Half-Moon Cove
would be unaffected by the presence of the refinery and terminal.
b. If the Federal tidal project is not constructed :
In this event, the oil refinery and marine terminal would
not affect either the tribal tidal power or mariculture projects.
The following map shows the location of the tribal power
plant, Half-Moon Cove and the proposed oil refinery site.
111—164
-------
PLEASANT POINT PASSAMAQUDDY TRIBAL COUNCIL
HALF-MOON COVE TIDAL POWER AND MARICULTURE
PROJECTS
LOCATION OF PROPOSED
MARICULTURE
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION OF
PROPOSED
TIDAL POWER PLANT
FIGURE 111—42
MOOSE
ISLAND
3
C OBSCOOK
BAY
LOCATION OF PROPOSED
OIL REFINERY AND
MARINE TERMINAL
111—165
-------
3. The Maine Coastal Zone Management Program was de-
veloped in response to the Federal Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) Act of 1972. The CZM provides Federal assistance to
States to develop a management program for their coastal areas.
The first phase involves developing an inventory of the re-
sources, an analysis of their suitability for various uses,
a definition of permissible uses, and a designation of areas
of particular concern such as unique or highly- productive
natural areas. Procedures and authorities for the Implemen-
tation of the plan must also be developed.
The second phase begins upon completion and adoption of
the management program by the State, and after approval of it
by the Secretary of Commerce. In this phase, States are e11-
gible to received administrative grants to aid In implementing
the plan.
After final approval by the Secretary of Commerce, any
applicant for a Federal license or permit must provide a cer-
tification that the proposed activity complies with the approved
program and that it will be conducted in a manner consistant
with the program. No license or permit shall be granted until
such certification Is made or the State fails to act. The appli-
cant for a permit may appeal a denial to the Secretary of Com-
merce.
Maine’s program Is in the fourth year of the planning
phase. An application ie expected to be filed for the imple-
mentation phase of the plan by ,vether, 1977. In Execu-
tive Order 1OFY 75/76 dated February , 1976, the Governor
established the Governor’s Advisory Committee on Coastal De-
velopment and Conservation. Among other things the Committee
Is charged with advising the Governor and State agencies on
issues concerning coastal planning and use, including develop-
ment and conservation policies and any work performed pursuant
to the CZM. In particular, they must evaluate alternate po 1 i—
les and strategies and make recommendations for coastal
economic development, the conservation of important natural
coastal resources, and the siting of energy and heavy indus-
trial facilities.
The Committee is aware of this proposal and the schedule
for the preparation of this EIS.
111—166
-------
4. TENNECO PIPELINE . On December 20, 1976, Tenneco
Atlantic Pipeline Company, TAPCO), filed an application with the
Federal Power Commission in Docket No. CP77-l00 et al for a cer-
tificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the im-
portation of natural gas to be purchased at the Maine—New Bruns-
wick border at Calais, Maine, construction and operation of 495
miles of new pipeline to transport the gas through Maine, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, to a point near Milford,
Pennsylvania. The gas would originate at a proposed liquif led
natural gas tanker terminal and vaporization facility at St.
John, New Brunswick. The pipeline right of way would be 75 feet
wide. A Draft EIS has been filed by the FPC and hearings are in
progress. Calais is about 25 miles from the proposed Pittston
refinery site.
EPA has reviewed this action with relation to the Pittston
project. Each action appears to be independent of the other.
There are no direct relationships between them either in terms of
port facilities or distribution systems. The FPC reviewed al-
ternative U.S. Ports as part of their EIS. Although sites in
Penobscot Bay and Machias Bay were identified in an early screen-
ing process, only Penobscot Bay was deemed an acceptable site.
Eastport was not identified as an alternative site.
111—167
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
THE PROPOSED PROJECT
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Purpose, Policy and Need
Purpose . The Pittston Company proposes to construct
and operate an oil refinery, storage facility and marine ter—
minal on the site of the Eastport Municipal Airport. The fa-
cility will receive crude oil from large tankers, refine
250,000 BPD of the high sulfur content imported crude oil
into fuel products, and off load the products into medium
sized tankers and barges for transport to product distribu-
tion terminals on the Northeast Coast.
Policy . It has been the policy of the Federal Govern-
ment, through several administrations, to encourage the con-
struction of refining capacity to meet domestic needs within
our own borders as a matter of national security. Until 1960,
U.S. refining capacity was adequate to meet domestic demand.
However, after 1960, the growth in refining capacity slowed
and lagged behind demand. By the year 1973, our product im-
ports totaled 3 million barrels per day, or 17% of total re-
quirements.
Changes in Federal policies in 1973 caused a number of re-
finery expansions to go forward, and in 1976 alone, about
900,000 barrels per day of new capacity was added. Imported
refined products dropped from the 1973 peak to a level of
2.0 million barrels per day during 1976. However, during the
first four months of 1977 product imports exceeded 2.5 million
barrels per day. More domestic refining capacity is needed to
back out imported products, which are still quite high, and
to take care of future demand growth.
We are all now familiar with the serious problems created
by our dependence on foreign produced crude oil and the monu-
mental task the nation must now undertake to correct this
condition. To become overly dependent on foreign refineries
could be equally dangerous.
The region with the most severe deficit of refining capacity
is the east coast, where refining capacity equates to only
about 30% of requirements. The situation is even more pro-
nounced for the New England States, which have no regional
refining capacity. It seems clear that increased refinery
capacity on the east coast, particularly in the New England
area, is in the national energy interest.
Need for the Project . The Federal Energy (FEA) at
EPA’s request, reviewed the “need” for additional U.S. re-
finery capacity generally and the “need” for a New England
refinery in particular. FEA’s analysis clearly supports
IV-l
-------
the need for additional new U.S. refining capacity. Six
significant considerations weigh heavily in support of the
Eastport, Maine proposal:
1. Eastport is a deepwater port which could enable
super-tankers to supply crude directly.
2. The refinery proposal is sized to have the econ-
omies of scale, i.e., a 250,000 barrel a day re-
finery.
3. The Eastport location is a geographic position-
ing in which there is deficit refining capacity.
4. The proposed product slate of the refinery will
serve the projected petroleum demand mix of the
area.
5. The refinery would have independent ownership
by a company that has significant marketing ex-
perience.
6. The Eastport community has expressed broad
acceptance of the refinery proposal.
FEA’s report is summarized below:*
Analysis of Need for New England Refineries.
U. S. Demand for Petroleum Products . The primary
justification for new refining capacity is the
Nation’s increasing need for petroleum products
despite conservation efforts and other measures
designed to reduce consumption. In 1985 petroleum
products will supply nearly t 2 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 14 1/2 million BPD more in 1985, an increase
of 12 percent and 27 percent, respectively, over
1975 consumption. Table IV—l shows this U. S. pro-
jected consumption by—product for 1980 and 1985.
Developing U. S. Refineries.
National Policy . In recent years, the develop-
ment of U. S. refining capacity sufficient to
provide a secure, domestic supply of petroleum
products has been a national energy policy objec-
tive. The 1973 Import License Fee Program was
‘The complete report is available in Appendix J.
IV-2
-------
adopted in an effort to meet this objective.
When fully in effect on May 1, 1980, the fee
system should provide refiners with an effective
price protection on petroleum products of $0i 2
per barrel which Is a $0.63 product fee less a
$0.21 fee on crude oil. For the first five years,
75 percent of the new U. S. refinery capacity
will be exempt from the $0.21 crude fee and, thus,
will enjoy an additional $0.16 per barrel protec-
tion resulting In a total protection of $0.58 per
barrel.
TABLE IV—l. U. S. PETROLEUM PRODUCT DEMAND (MBPD)
1975
1980
1985
Gasoline
6,714
7,085
7,539
Distillate
4,009
5,046
6,314
Residual
2,432
2,553
2,700
Other
3,136
3,605
4,178
Total
16,291
18,289
20,731
In his January 1975 State of the Union Message,
President Ford envisioned In his energy program
the construction of “30 major new oil refineries”
in the United States over the next 10 years. Cur-
rent policy is to provide domestic refining
capacity sufficient to meet increased U. S. demands
for petroleum. Therefore, the FEA is now develop-
ing recommendations to the President to gradually
raise the effective fee on product imports in order
to provide a more effective Incentive to locating
new refining capacity within the United States.
It is felt that the higher import fee is necessary
to offset foreign tax benefits and shipping cost
advantages and to counteract increases In labor,
construction, and transportation costs as well as
the added expense of meeting the environmental
requirements associated with building and operating
new refineries in the United States.
Security of Supply . The strongest argument for
locating sufficient refining capacity in the U. S.
to satisfy U. S. demand Is that it provides in-
creased national security in the event of another
IV-3
-------
embargo. As an Industrialized nation dependent
upon petroleum products, the United States Is
presently In the unique and vulnerable position
of not possessing sufficient refining capacity
to meet its own needs. Sufficient capacity means
not only total volume, but also the flexibility
to accept different types of crude inputs and to
supply the appropriate slate of product outputs
needed In an oil supply crisis. Domestic refining
capacity provides more assurance of continuous
product supply when normal sources are cut off
because alternate sources of imported crude oil
are more readily available than alternate sources
of imported products.
In addition to providing this flexibility, domestic
refineries also provide a degree of assurance of
petroleum product supply for an extended period
because of supply arrangements and storage systems
associated with normal refinery operations. A
typical refinery may have in storage from 30 to
35 days supply of refined products and more than
10 days supply of crude oil over and above the
supplies held in ordinary storage terminalS.* In
addition, since steaming time for tankers from
the Persian Gulf to the East Coast is about 30
days, tankers already at sea that are committed
to specific East Coast refineries provide further
assurance of supply in an embargo. Thus, product
inventories plus crude stocks In storage and
afloat mean that a typical East Coast refinery
has 65 to 70 days of assured supply.
The benefit of local refinery capacity was demon-
strated during the recent Arab oil embargo. The
Eastern States, which have existing refinery
capacity capable of supplying only 25 percent of
their needs, were affected by product supply
shortages sooner than other regions of the country
where local refinery capacity was more nearly com-
mensurate with product demand.
Although storage terminals could be expanded to
provide the same number of days additional supply,
the considerable added capital required for such
facilities and Inventory, with no foreseeable
return on investment, makes this possibility
‘U. S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Industry Surveys, “Crude Petroleum,
Petroleum Products, and Natural Gas Liquids.”
IV-4
-------
unlikely unless required by law. Such a require-
ment would likely result in increased costs to
consumers.
Considerations related to the Strategic Petro-
leum Reserve Program also argue for the develop-
ment of domestic refining capacity to meet es-
sential U.S. demand. The cost advantage of
storing crude oil over storing products is sig-
nificant: $1.30 per barrel to store crude oil
in salt domes on the Gulf; $3.00 to $10.00 per
barrel to store crude oil or products in rock
quarries or steel tanks elsewhere in the United
States. However, storage of crude oil requires,
in turn, that the refining capacity needed to
supply refined products during a supply emer-
gency be available. The best way to guarantee
this availability is to have the refining ca-
pacity located in the United States.
Economic Benefits . Further advantages to the
development of needed refining capacity in the
United States are derived from the retention
of investment and jobs in this country. By 1980,
construction in the United States of a new
250,000 BPD refinery will cost up to $645 mil-
lion in materials and labor, and employ up to
3,000 workers for one to three years. Thus,
building this same refining capacity in foreign
countries would result in the loss of this sub-
stantial investment and sources of jobs to the
U.S. economy. In addition, although refineries
are not labor intensive, for each job provided
directly by refinery operations, another three
to four jobs are typically provided in associated
industries and services.
Location of refining capacity in this country
also has a balance of payments benefit. In gen-
eral, the net savings in dollar outflow approxi-
mates the value added to crude oil refined in
foreign locations plus the marginal cost of
shipping products over crude to ports in the
United States. For New England this savings is
equivalent to the difference between the de-
livered cost of crude oil at Eastport, Maine
and the delivered cost of the equivalent amount
of products at East Coast ports such as Boston.
iV-5
-------
The factors and assumptions needed to calculate
a net flow of funds impact as a result of ad-
ditional East Coast refining capacity are rea-
sonably similar to those found in the Pace
Study. 1 Using information from that Study,
the delivered cost of crude oil to Eastport
Maine was compared with the delivered cost of
products from Curacao, the Bahamas, and Rot-
terdam, Netherlands. See Table 2. These three
foreign refining centers are representative of
probable suppliers of East Coast markets if
sufficient domestic refining capacity is lack-
ing. In order to simplify calculations, it was
assumed that these three refining centers would
share the East Coast import market equally.
TABLE 1V—2
( D4PARIS( CF PR)WCI (DSTS
1btal Delivered
Product Cost
(per bbl.)*
Bah nas $17.78
Ibtterd n 18.58
O.irac 17.82
Avera 18.06
Delivered Crtxle Cost 16.02
(Eastport, Maine)
Difference 2.04/thi.
*1980 dollars
1 The Pace Company, “Determination of Refined
Petroleum Product Import Fees,” July, 1976.
IV-6
-------
Assuming that a 250,000 BPD refinery operates at
90% of capacity over a sustained period, the
daily output is approximately 250,000 x 9 =
225,000 BPD, or 82 million barrels per year.
If this quantity were bought from the three
foreign refining centers instead of being re-
fined domestically, the difference in the out-
flow of funds would be 82 million barrels x $2.04
or $167 million annually.
Six similar refineries would produce a net savings
in dollar outflow of $167 x 6 or approximately
$1 billion annually.
A significant reduction in the price of oil pro-
ducts in New England is unlikely to result from
the construction of a single refinery in the area.
It is probable that, with one refinery, product
prices will either be unaffected or will decline
by less than 0.5 per gallon on the average. The
0.5’ per gallon figure represents the difference
between the cost to a Middle Atlantic refiner and
a Gulf Coast refiner marketing in New England.
(This is discussed more fully in the economic
section.)
Factors that would tend to reduce product prices
are related to the supply situation and market
competition. A refinery, by increasing the supply
of products available to New England, might cause
some of the higher priced sources to be displaced.
However, the possible price reduction would pro-
bably be no greater than the transportation cost
savings between New England and the closest mar-
ket area. That is, output from the refinery could
also be sold in the Middle Atlantic region, so
refinery output prices to New England would not
fall below prevailing product prices in the
Middle Atlantic minus transportation costs.
An inducement to a new refinery to sell oil pro-
ducts for less than the prevailing market price
in New England would be the potential to gain a
larger share of the market. The price shaving
could be either temporary or permanent depending
upon the reaction of competitors.
Although some factors would encourage price
cutting, others would limit or offset its like-
lihood. As mentioned previously, the Middle
Atlantic and indeed the entire East Coast are
IV-7
-------
alternative markets for a New England refinery.
In addition, the refinery need only sell its
output for slightly less than the market price
to gain entry. Finally, the refinery will be
seeking long-term sales contracts and will
therefore be unlikely to price its product
any lower than necessary.
Profitability by the first refiner may foster
additional refiner interest in New England.
The siting of two or more refineries in the
region could alter the price situation sub-
stantially. If competition between refineries
arises, and the combined output of regional re-
fineries more nearly meets market demand, prices
would be more likely to reflect the full cost
savings of their location.
Current Situation . Although a surplus of re-
fining 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 capa-
city was adequate to meet domestic demand; how-
ever, by 1975 the 16,291,000 BPD demand for
petroleum products exceeded the output of do-
mestic refineries by 1,884,000 BPD. Therefore,
the following quantities of products were im-
ported to make up this deficit:
Gasoline 1814,000 BPD
Distillate 289,000 BPD
Residual 1,1914,000 BPD
Other — 217,000 BPD
Total 1,8814,000 BPD
The East Coast, where 1975 demand was 5,911,000 BPD
while refining capacity was only 1,752,000 BPD, is
the region with the most severe deficit of refin—
Ing capacity. To make up the deficit, domestic
products were shipped by pipeline and tanker from
Gulf Coast refineries and an additional
1,552,000 BPD of products were Imported from
foreign refineries. East Coast product Imports
represented 82 percent of the United States’ total
product Imports and 26 percent of Its total product
demand.
IV-8
-------
This East Coast situation resulted from the
1959 Mandatory Oil Import Program which evol-
ved in such a way that, while crude oil imports
were restricted, importation of residual fuel
oil was virtually unrestricted with an allow-
ance of 2,900,000 BPD by 1973 although the
maximum East Coast demand for residual fuel
oil was only 1,735,000 BPD. While East Coast
refinery development was limited by the re-
striction on crude oil imports, other domestic
refineries concentrated on making products such
as gasoline that were much more profitable than
residual fuel oil. Meanwhile, residual fuel oil
was priced to compete with coal but had a deci-
ded advantage over coal in that it could be more
easily transported and stored. It also had
marked air quality advantages over coal.
This situation is even more pronounced in the
New England States where no regional refining
capacity exists. In 1975, New England consumed
1,089,000 BPD of petroleum products, all of
which was either imported or transshipped from
refineries in the mid—Atlantic or Gulf Coast
States. New England depended on foreign imported
products for 31% of its 1974 needs.
Amount of New Capacity Needed . As noted pre-
viously, current U. S. policy supports the develop-
ment 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, ’ 0,000 BPD by 1985. Planned new capacity
through 1980 presently totals only 2,277,000 BPD.*
‘ Trends in Refinery Capacity and Utilization (June 1976). This
report includes, a 175,000 BPD refinery scheduled for Norfolk,
Virginia in 1979 about which there is increasing uncertainty,
and the proposed 250,000 BPD project for Eastport, Maine. These
two planned refineries have been excluded from the calculations
used throughout the discussion of scheduled capacity.
Iv-g
-------
Of this scheduled new capacIty, 1,790,000 BPD are
planned expansion of existing capacity and
487,0O0 BPD are planned new construction. Expanded
capacity includes both fixm plans for 1,090,000
BPD and that which is estimated on the basis of
trends Indicating that, historically, 60 to 70
percent of new capacity has been provided by
expansion of existing capacity. This way of meet-
ing new requirements may continue nationally to
some extent, but, for reasons discussed below, is
unlikely to occur on the East Coast.
However, assuming that all of the new capacity
cited above is constructed, the United States will
still nee to build additional capacity totalling
2,163,000 BPD by 1985. This amounts to the plan-
ning, siting, and construction of the equivalent
of eight to nine 250,000 BPD refineries above the
capacity already scheduled In the U. S. over the
next nine years.
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 country and have sufficient capa-
city 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 predominantly high—sulfur crude oil from
the Middle East. Thus, new capacity, of an
entirely different design, incorporating extensive
desulfurization facilities, is required both
to process high—sulfur crude and to produce low—
sulfur products, especially residual fuel oil.
‘v—b
-------
Siting of New Refinery Capacity . Two important
factors to be considered in determining the location
of new refinery capacity are transportation costs and
environmental restrictions.
Transportation Costs . Transportation must be
taken into account in the siting of refinery
capacity because it is a significant variable in
product costs. Transportation costs need to be
accounted for in two ways: cost of transporting
crude oil to a refinery; and cost of transporting
products to consumers. In general, crude oil Is
considerably cheaper to transport over long dis-
tances than products because products are more
corrosive, product specifications are difficult
to maintain when the product is being moved great
distances, and, individual products do not move
In sufficient volume to take advantage of the
much lower-per—barrel cost of large tanker trans—
port.* It is, thus, cheaper to bring crude oil to
refineries near the market than to refine near to
the source of crude and transport products.
Given these cost considerations, the East Coast
is a prime candidate for new refinery sites. Ports
along the coast could receive crude oil from
tankers and supply products to a market which will
make up J40 percent of the projected U. S. market in
1985. The New England market area, with no existing
refinery capacity, would be particularly well
served by location of new refinery capacity near a
large segment of the East Coast market.
Table IV—3 shows projected demand for petroleum
products on the East Coast in 1980 and 1985. As
mentioned previously, in 1975 the East Coast s**
refinery capacity of 1,752,000 BPD was adequate
to meet only 30 percent of the 5,911,000 BPD
* “Economics of Refinery Location and Size,” Walter L. Newton,
a paper given on April 7, 1966, at the Northwestern University
Transportation Center.
**project Independence Evaluation System (PIES) refinery regions
1A and lB. These two refinery regions include the same States
as PIES Demand Regions 1, 2, and 3, and are equivalent to Petro-
leum Administration Defense District (PADD) I.
‘v—il
-------
regional demand. The New England States, with no
refinery capacity, accounted for a little over 25
percent of this deficit.
TABLE IV- 3 .
EAST COAST PETROLEUM PRODUCT DEMAND (BPD)
1975 1980
1985
Gasoline
2,223,000 2,327,000
2,453,800
Distillate
1,715,000 2,140,000
2,660, 0O
Residual
1,460,000 1,637,000
1,852,900
Other
513,000 899,000
1,371,400
Total
5,911,000 7,003,000
8,338,500
Table
III:
IV—14 shows planned capacity in
PADD’s I
and
TABLE
IV- 1.
NEW
REFINERY CAPACITY SCHEDULED IN PADD’ S
THROUGH 1980 (BPD)
I AND III
PADD 1(1) PADD 111(2)
Total
New
—0— 450,000
450,000
Expansions
194,000 845,000
1,039,000
Total
194,000 1,295,000
1,489,000
1.
1,
Includes Project Independence Evaluation System (PIES) Demand Regions
2, and 3 with the following States: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia, Virginia, West
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
2. PADD III includes Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and
New Mexico.
In the past several years, approximately 50 per-
cent of PADD III ’s capacity has been devoted to
the supply of’ East Coast markets. Assuming that
this same proportion of new PADD III capacity is
already planned to serve the East Coast in 1985,
6148,000 BPD of new capacity In PADD III plus
Iv —12
-------
1914,000 BPD of new capacity in PADD I for a total
capacity of 8142,000 BPD now scheduled to serve the
East Coast. However, this still leaves a require-
ment for a new capacity of 1,780,000 BPD to meet
the increased East Coast demand of 2,1428,000 BPD
by 1985 or the equivalent of approximately seven
new 250,000 BPD refineries.
Table IV—5 shows this projected petroleum demand
for New England in 1980 and l9 5 by product.
If New England were to develop refinery capacity
sufficient to meet the 1985 projected regional
demand of 1,521,000 BPD, which is equivalent to
approximately six new refineries with an average
capacity of 250,000 BPD, 63 percent of the projected
1975—1985 increase in demand on the East Coast
would be met, and this, combined with scheduled
new capacity, would meet nearly all new East Coast
demand. Any excess capacity that might result
from a reduction in demand due to extensive con—
servation would contribute to further reducing
the level of U. S. product imports.
TABLE IV- 5 NEW ENGLAND PETROLEUM PRODUCT DEMAND (BPD)
1975(1)
1980
1985
Gasoline
341,000
350,000
361,000
Distillate
304,000
390,000
495,000
Residual
346,000
431,000
537,000
Other
98,000
112,000
128,000
Total
1,089,000
1,283,000
1,521,000
Environmental Restrictions . In the past, most
new domestic refining capacity has been developed
by expanding existing refineries. On the East
Coast, however, most existing capacity, which is
concentrated in the metropolitan areas of New York
and Philadelphia, has already been increased many
times and possibilities for further expansion are
severely constrained, both by environmental
requirements and by lack of space.
1. Preliminary.
IV—13
-------
From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the
U. S. will need to construct a substantial amount of
new refining capacity in the next few years to meet
Increased demand for petroleum products. This
capacity must be developed to operate within environ-
mental requirements and it must produce products
which meet environmental standards. Considerations
of cost and security of supply recommend the siting
of refineries near the market for products rather
than near the source of crude. Since the East Coast
and New England, in particular, provide large mar-
kets with Insufficient local refining capacity to
meet demand, the construction of several new refiner-
ies in New England between now and 1985 is justified.
In addition, new refineries, such as the proposed
Eastport project, would bring the region added
security of supply In the event of an embargo, as
well as economic benefits.
Economic Rationale for Eastport Refinery . The
Pittston Company, through its subsidiary, the Metro-
politan Petroleum Company, markets petroleum products
extensively throughout the Northeast area of the
United States. It has some 35 terminals which it
either owns or leases In New York, New Jersey, Massa-
chusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Montreal and Ottawa.
Pittston has traditionally purchased Its oil from
both foreign and domestic sources.
In view of its market area and the availability of
deep water sites on the New England coast, Pittston
proposes to build a 250,000 BPD refinery and terminal
at Eastport, Maine.
In order to demonstrate the incentives for construct-
ing a refinery close to the New England market area,
the Eastport location was compared with alternate
sites in the Middle Atlantic States and the Gulf
of Mexico. In each case, the same size refinery,
processing the same crude oil, making the same slate
of products, and supplying the same market, was
evaluated. All costs, investments, and tariffs were
similarly escalated to reflect expected 1980 conditions.
The results favor the Eastport location over the Gulf
Coast and the Middle Atlantic States, in that order.
As illustrated in Table 1V-6, Eastport has a $0.37
per bbl cost advantage over the Gulf location and a
$0.58 per bbl advantage over a Middle Atlantic loca-
tion. These differentials are based on delivered
product costs and do not reflect prices, or even the
IV—14
-------
TABLE Iv—6 TRANSPORTATION AND INVESTMENT ECONOMICS 250, 000 BARRELS
PER DAY CAPACITY AT U. S. GULF AND EAST COAST LOCATIONS
Eastport, Maine Middle Atlantic Gulf Coast
A. Crude Cost — $/Bbl
taken on board (TOB)
Ras Tanura(l) 14.68 14.68 14.68
B. Crude Transportation
VLCC’s at W.S. 4B.9 1.34 1.33 1.41
50,000 DWT at W.S. 82 ———— 0.42
Total Transportation 1.34 1.75 1.41
C. Crude Handling
Entreport Charges 0.36
VLCC lightering 0.20
Total handling 0.36 0.20
D. Delivered Crude Cost 16.02 16.79 16.29
E. Refinery Investments
Location factor 1.20 1.20 1.00
Investment — $1 1M 645.3 645.3 537.7
Working capital 175.0 175.0 175.0
Total investment 820.3 820.3 712.7
F. Refining Costs ($/Bbl)
Salary and wages 0.11 0.11 0.09
Utilities 0.11 0.11 0.11
Maintenance 0.16 0.16 0.13
Supplies 0.01 0.01 0.01
Catalyst/Chemicals 0.12 0.12 0.12
Taxes and insurance 0.10 0.10 0.08
Depreciation 0.71 0.71 0.59
Income tax 0.82 0.82 0.71
Profit (10% A.T.) 0.82 0.82 0.71
Total 2.96 2.96 2.43
Plus del’d crude cost 16.02 16.79 16.29
Total mfg cost —
$/Bbl Crude 18.98 19.75 18.72
$/Bbl Product 20.26 21.08 19.98
G. Product Shipping Cost
Composite Cost 0.46 0.22 1.11
IV— 15
-------
TABLE IV—6 TRANSPORTATION AND INVESTNENT ECONOMICS 250,000 BARRELS
PER DAY CAPACITY AT U. S. GULF AND EAST COAST LOCATIONS
Eastport, Maine
Middle Atlantic Gulf Coast
H.
Total Delivered
Cost
$/Bbl Product
20.72
21.30
21.09
1.
Located in Saud
I Ara
bia on
the Persian
Gulf.
probable effect on prices, for consumer price perfor-
mance will be determined by competitive factors., The
cost differentials shown are simply location advan-
tages resulting from the elements of raw material,
transportation costs, refining costs and investments.
The advantage for the Eastport location is due largely
to transportation, principally of crude oil. In the
Gulf Coast, direct VLCC lightering was assumed, since
it is known that this operation Is already being ini-
tiated there. The economics of the lightering opera-
tion are almost identical to that for a superport in
the Gulf such as the proposed Loop or Seadock. The
Middle Atlantic location is handicapped by the lack of
deepwater ports and the lack of any active planning of
superports. In this case, it was assumed the Middle
Atlantic location would be supplied through Caribbean
transshipping, an activity already in extensive prac-
tice. Although some lightering Is presently being
done In Delaware Bay, it is not from VLCC’s and no
further growth in this activity is foreseen.
Table IV—7 contains sensitivities of delivered
product cost to certain potential cost variables,
including the effect of the Eastport terminal being
limited to 150,000 DWT vessels as opposed to
250,000 DWT vessels. Sensitivity to other modes of
crude oil receipt In the Gulf location Is also shown.
As shown in Table IV —8 product transportation costs
create a severe debit for the Gulf location case.
This Is due to the high U. S. flag tanker rates and
the distances over which the product must be hauled.
Lowest product transportation costs occur in the
Middle Atlantic case because of the proximity of
market outlet,
IV—16
-------
TABLE Iv—7 SENSITIVITY OF DELIVERED PRODUCT COST TO CERTAIN
IMPORTANT ASSUMPTIONS $/Bbl
Refinery location
Eastport, Maine
Middle Atlantic Gulf Coast
Base (Table IV—O
20.72
21.30
21.09
Variable
1. Eastport limited to
150,000 DWT
21.00
21.30
21.09
2. Gulf Coast supplied
by Caribbean
Transshipping
20.72
21.30
21.47
3. Gulf Coast supplied
by Superport and
VLCC
20.72
21.30
21.26
4. 10 percent increase
in VLCC WS rates
20.86
21.44
21.24
5. Effect of omitting
return on investment
and income tax from
product costs
18.97
19.55
19.57
6. Effect of maximum use
of exchanges to save
product freight
20.56
21.22
21.09
Pittston also has a potential added incentive for the
Eastport location if arrangements could be made with
other companies for product exchanges. Theoretically,
Pittston could deliver virtually its entire Eastport
refinery outlet into New England with such an arrange-
ment. The advantage could range up to about $0.16 per
barrel. Such an arrangement could also be made in
the case of the Middle Atlantic location, but the
effect would be smaller. For a new refinery in the
Gulf, this potential advantage does not exist since
any incremental production of LPG, gasoline, or
heating oil in the area must be moved to the North-
east anyway. Presumably, a new refinery on the
Gulf could dispose of some or all of its residual in
the Gulf Coast area. However, this creates a case
which is not comparable with the others.
IV—17
-------
TABLE Iv—8
DERIVATION OF COMPOSITE PRODUCT TRANSPORTATION COSTS
1. Pipeline rates. All other rates are U. S.
Gulf, used AR 140 escalated to 1980 costs.
Systems analysis for Pittston.
2. Truck and barge.
Built into the delivered product
cent return on investment. This
refinery costs.
flag tanker rates. For the
For Eastport, used Chem
cost is a 10 per—
is included under
Pittston has two terminals in Canada. It Is expected
that these terminals will be supplied through exchanges
or other special arrangements. For this reason, they
are excluded from the refinery economics as a delivery
point.
The xii 1ete FE report: with technIcal secticr s is printeI in
Volui III, I endix 3.
Movement
Product
BPD volume
$IBbl Composite $IBbl
Eastport to New York
Mogas
24,787
$0.60
No. 2F.O.
30,260
0.67
No. 5F.O.
48,200
0.615
LPG
7,669
$O.459
Eastport to Boston
Mogas
No. 2F.O.
No. 5F.O.
24,787
40,260
48,200
0.30
0.34
0.31
Gulf to New York
LPG
Mogas
No. 2F.O.
No. 5F.O.
7,669
24,787
40,260
48,200
2.25(1)
0.61(1)
0.61(1)
1.26
$l.112
Gulf to Boston
Mogas
No. 2F.O.
No. 5F.O.
24,787
40,260
48,200
1.26
1.26
1.26
Middle Atlantic
Local Distribution
Barging to Boston
LPG
Mogas
No. 2F.O.
No. SF.O.
Mogas
No. 2F.O.
No. 5F.O.
7,669
24,787
40,260
48,200
24,787
40,260
48,200
0.15(1)
0.15(1)
0.15(2)
0.30
0.30
0.30
j
— $0. 218
IV— 18
-------
Description of Plan
The following section is based upon information officially
submitted by the Pittston Company to EPA and the other Federal
agencies involved in the review of this proposal. Therefore, the
section contains a detailed discussion of the proposed project.
General . The refinery, storage facility and marine
terminal is basically a complex consisting of five distinct
operating systems. Each system has a particular principal func-
tion, but is also an integral part of the total scheme. These
five systems are as follows:
The Marine Navigation/Berthing System deals with the
guidance, movement, and maneuvering of tankers starting
from an approach point in the open sea and continuing
until they are tied up at a berth and connected to on-
shore loading pipelines.
The Oil Storage and Movement System conveys the crude oil
from tanker to storage, and from storage to the refining
process units; then conveys the projects from the refining
units to product storage; and from there to the marine
berths for loading onto tankers, or to loading racks for
transfer to railcars or motor transports.
The Refining Process System takes the crude oil, separates
it into several fractions and converts these into finished
marketable products.
The Ancillary System generates the steam, compressed air,
and, if not purchased, the electric power needed to drive
machines and equipment, provide heating and lighting, and
to aid directly in some phases of the refining process
itself. Also included are maintenance shops, stores, fire
fighting equipment, etc., that service all systems.
The Waste Disposal System provides the means by which
malodorous and ecologically detrimental compounds in the
waste gas and wastewater are treated or removed. This
system also provides the means by which waste gas, waste—
water and waste heat from all operations are safely and
unobtrusively dispersed without significant harm to the
environment.
Figure IV—l schematically shows the interrelationship
of these systems. Figures IV—2 and IV—3 Illustrate the physical
site layout of the total project. Although the facility will be
virtually a self—contained and self—sufficient Industrial complex,
It will depend on local suppliers and firms to provide consumable
IV— 19
-------
SCHEMATIC OF PHINCIPAL OPERATING SYSTEMS
FIGURE (V-I
H
0
-------
SITE PLAN
r
FIGURE IV-2
-
(J PROPERTY OPTIONED TO. OR OWNED BY PITTSTON
OWNED BY MEARL CORP
OFFERED TO PITTSTON. BUT NOT UNDER PITTSTON CONTROL
0 OTHER PROPERTY NOT UNDER PITTSTON CONTROL
C,
SCALE INPUT
4 ,. ‘..
(i
-------
ARTIST’S RENDITION
AERIAL VIEW FROM THE SOUTHWEST
FIGURE IV-3
H
‘4-
-------
materials and goods, equipment such as motor vehicles, and certain
contracted services such as painting, building repair, grounds
maintenance, etc.
Marine Transport System . This system will consist of:
(a) the equipment and procedures needed to ensure the safe, routine
transit of tankers between the open sea and the berths via the
seven mile Head Harbor Passage, and (b) the equipment and struc-
tures needed to handle the vessels and load/unload their cargo
at the berths. The component parts of the system are discussed
individually bel ow:
Navigation Aids . Eastport, while a sheltered deepwater
port with a long maritime history, is not a regular port
of call for very large vessels. Therefore, its navigation
facilities are limited to the conventional visual and
audio aids, such as buoys, lights, fog horns, etc. adequate
for the sparse traffic in the area. To reduce the risks
of navigational misjudgments, the project plan calls for
upgrading these conventional systems and Installing the
following new, modern, sophisticated direction systems to
assist In the passage through the channel and in the final
berthing maneuvers:
1. Upgraded conventional visual aids Including the addi-
tion of radar reflectors;
2. High intensity strobe range markers;
3. Shorebased radar with channel center line computer;
. Carry—aboard electronic channel guidance unit; and
5. A radio communications system, both ships to shore,
and shore to ships.
The electronic surveillance/guidance/communications facili-
ties specified are based on a field survey of the Eastport
harbor area by ITT—Decca Marine, Inc. The upgraded con-
ventional visual aids and high intensity strobe range
markers will be similar to installations now in opera-
tion at Milford Haven in the United Kingdom which Is one
of the busiest VLCC ports in the world. A comparison
of the two ports Is contained in Table IV—9.
The proposed Eastport shorebased electronic facilities
will consist of an operations center, a radar station or
stations, and a radio station. The operations center,
the radio station and one radar station are to be centered
in one facility located on either Shackford Head or Estes
Head. The second radar surveillance station would either
IV—23
-------
be located as an unmanned unit at a down—the—channel loca-
tion such as Brown’s Head on Campobello, or it would be
located at the central operations facility. All displays
and controls will be in the operations center.
TABLE IV—9 A COMPARISON OF THE PORTS OF EASTPORT AND MILFORD HAVEN
—— Eastport Milford Haven
(1)
Channel characteristics Depth 75 tO 360 ft 53 to 72 ft
Width
—Average 3,100 ft 1,000 ft
—Narrowest 1,600 ft 850 ft
Configura-
tion Straight 60 deg turn
Operating features Turning area 4 x VLCC 1—1/2 x VLCC
Tidal range 11 to 26 ft 7 to 26 ft
Cross
currents None 2.5 knots
Berthing At slack (2) At 1—1/2 knots
Tanker
traffic 10 to 15 per week 65 to 70 per week
1. ¶11w 75 foot figure is fran C1 art No. 13328. H iever
tI ncst re it M6 surveys (1918) indicate the thannel
is proven to a d th of 44 feet.
2. This is scenario for cr x1e tankers. Currents rise to 4
to 5 krxts during tI tidal cycle in the passage.
The radar system Is designed to provide a clear high
resolution picture for the entire channel area from Head
Harbor Light to the Deep Cove tanker berths, and, In
addition, for 118 miles out to sea as shown In Figure IV—11
Four radar pictures will be produced and displayed simul-
taneously in the control center. These will show all
traffic in the area. The shore based radar system will
also be equipped to display on the screen the precise
center line of the channel so that the position of the
vessel and its movement with respect to the channel center
Is always apparent. Another feature will be a computer-
ized measurement device that, within seconds, calculates
the speed and exact position of the tanker, and projects
its track for one mile ahead. The operations center and
the tankers will be in continuous communication, and all
information will be transmitted to the tanker from the
IV—24
-------
INTEGRATED COMMUNICATIONS
AND RADAR SURVEILLANCE
FIGURE IV- 4
SYSTEM.
IV— 25
-------
shore based operations center by a two—way VHF—FM radio
system. Other information and instructions to be given
to the tankers on harbor traffic and conditions will be
obtained from radio contacts with other vessels, the
shore Installation, Coast Guard units, etc., via VHF,
medium frequency, and citizens band radio systems also
located In the operations center. The electronic
system will be equipped with backup units to ensure
100 percent availability. The ships themselves will
also have their own Independent, on board radar equip-
ment. The overall concept is to provide an integrated
communications—surveillance system which permits the
operations center to schedule and guide all vessels tra-
versing Eastport water and its approaches.
A second electronic channel guidance system will also be
provided. This will operate from on board the ship and
be totally Independent of the shore based radar system.
It will be an adaption of the conventional range marker
system using electronic devices and will consist of a
portable electronic unit which is carried on board by
the pilot. This unit will send out signals to preplaced
onshore responder markers, receive and Interpret the
responding signals, and display on an Indicator the
exact position of the ship in the channel as well as
its position relative to the channel center line, and
also the vessel’s speed. The ship’s own radar will
also be In operation.
In addition to these electronic systems for channel
guidance, the marine facilities plan for the project
calls for revamping and upgrading the visual navigation
aids system by Installing range markers, lighted bell
buoys, cans and nuns with radar reflectors. It may also
Include the modernization of the East Quoddy lighthouse by
installing a brighter light and stronger radio beacon.
Preliminary discussions of these proposals have already
been held with the U. S. Coast Guard in Boston, and with
the Canadian Marine Services in Halifax. Although the
degree of upgrading desired appears achievable, exactly
what it will include and how it will be done will have
to be worked out cooperatively by the three parties.
A third modern electronic guidance system will be installed
at the berths to ensure accident—free berthing maneuvers.
This will be the newly developed LAZ—17 unit by ITT—Deca,
Inc. which Is based on the principles of underwater echo—
sounding. Ultrasonic impulses will be sent out from the
pier to the broadside of the approaching tanker and the
echo picked up by an electronic device which will quickly
and continuously calculate and display the ship’s distance
IV— 26
-------
to the pier, Its alignment, its approach speed, and,
finally, give an audible warning If the speed starts to
exceed recommended limits.
Other Important equipment related to the navigation and
maneuvering of the tankers are the tugs. Four heavy
duty 24,000 horsepower tugs, each with 240 bollard pull,*
will be provided. These tugs will be specified to handle
VLCC’s of at least the 250,000 DWT size under all condi-
tions anticipated In the Eastport waters. The tugs will
accompany the tankers In the channel to provide guidance
and/or supplemental power assistance If needed, and pro-
vide both the power and the steering to maneuver the
tankers into and out of their berths. Each tug will have
a four or five man crew, and will be equipped with
apparatus for fire fighting, oil spill containment, and
oil spill cleanup.
Transit and Berthing Procedures . The basic control “frame—
work” surrounding all ship movements to and from the site
will consist of the marine superintendent’s office, a
pilotage organization, the electronic and visual naviga-
tion systems, preset minimum acceptable weather conditions,
and four heavy—duty tugs.
The depth, width, length and alignment of the channel
are such that the tankers could be brourht In, or sent
out, on either ebb or flood tides. In the Eastport area,
the channel Is defined as the 75 feet (NOS letter) January
5, 1977, Comments on DEIS) minimum depth waterway at MLW.
A survey will have to be done to prove the channel to a
depth of’ 75 feet. The width of’ the channel ranges from
1,650 feet opposite Casco Island to over 3,750 feet near
the mouth. It Is not constricted by nearby land masses so
that the expanse of water between the principal shore-
lines that parallel the channel is about two miles. The
most constricted stretch of water Is 3,000 feet wide for
a half mile at Casco Island but, as Figure IV—5 illus-
trates, the water available relative to the rec uIrernents
and dimensions of a VLCC is more than adequate.
The big ship traffic will be entirely of vessels related
to this project. On the average, traffic will consist of
one 250,000 DWT VLCC arriving and leaving per week, and
one to two smaller tankers and/or barges each day to take
on products, Including sulfur. The tankers for gasoline
and fuel oil will be conventional ships: 35,000 to
70,000 DWT MST’s (medium size tankers), and 6,000 to
35,000 DWT “Handy” size tankers as shown in Figure iv—6.
The barges will be ocean—going vessels with a carrying
*A bollard pull is equal to 100,000 pounds.
IV—2 7
-------
HEAD HARBOR PASSAGE CHANNEL AT CASCO ISLAND
FIGURE IV - 5
75’ CONTOUR © MLW
H
t 4
CASCO ISLAND
2400’ 75’ CONTOUR @ MLW
MAX. DEPTH 240’
MEAN HIGH WATER
CAMPOBELLO ISLAND
MEAN LOW WATER
SHIP ILLUSTRATED IS 250,000 DWT
VLCC WITH 65’ DRAFT
NOT TO SCALE
-------
TYPICAL TANKER DIMENSIONS
AND SIZE CATEGORIES
FIGURE V-6
3
2
1
0
N
Length 861’ Draft 49.6 Beam 125’
250,000 D T
Billions of Tons
1 970—Actual
T o O DEAP ø wr T.i
Tanker Size
1980— Projected
Length 1,141’
Draft 65.4’ Beam 170’
500,000 D T
Length 1,300
Draft 82’
Beam 233’
-------
capacity up to 10,000 DWT. The LPG will be taken on In
small tankers equipped with low pressure tanks typically
used In “bottled gas” service. Sulfur will be taken on
as a liquid in a conventional sulfur tanker of the
handy size class.
Typical planned passages are shown in Figure I1J 7 and
Table IV—lO. These describe the tanker passage In
sequential segments of the seven mile channel in terms
of the vessel’s track, speed, elapsed time, and tidal
currents. In the case of a typical VLCC Inward passage,
the trip would be planned so that the ship would reach the
berthing area at slack water to facilitate the berthing
maneuvers. After picking up a pilot just off East Quoddy
Head, the VLCC would enter Head Harbor Passage at a ground
speed of six knots with two of the four tugs alongside,
but all available if needed. The other two tugs would
come alongside about one mile inside Head Harbor Passage.
The VLCC would then slow down progressively as it proceeds
along the channel by roughly one knot every mile until
it came to a dead stop in the channel opposite the berth
at Broad Cove, aided as necessary by tugs. Here it would
wait for the berthing maneuvers to begin. The planned
passage from East Quoddy Head to the berthing area would
take 132 minutes. During these two hours of transit, the
average tidal currents would be running essentially paral-
lel to the ship, and not in excess of 1.5 to 2.0 knots.
The berthing maneuvers at the VLCC pier would consist of
four tugs slowly pushing and guiding the tanker broad-
side toward the breasting dolphins. This maneuver would
take about 30 minutes until the lines are secured to the
pier. If the tanker arrives at the berthing area at the
beginning of the slack water period, it will be turned
around so that Its bow faces out to sea when berthed.
The typical outward VLCC passage, as shown In Table hi_b,
and in Figure iv—8, Involves deberthing at either high
water or low water slack, with all four tugs available
for assistance. Once in the channel, it would pick up
speed to roughly four knots off Buckinan Head, and gradually
increase to eight knots at the end of the channel. The
passage time will be about 1.5 hours, and the maximum
current the ship encounters will be 1.5 knots.
Product tanker passages will be similar to those for the
VLCC. However, since the smaller product tankers do not
have to berth or deberth at slack water, they will need
less tug assistance. The planned programs for these ships
are shown in Table iv—ll. Passages will take about
IV—30
-------
APPROACH TO PROJECT SITE SHOWING
TANKER TRACKS AND WIDTH OF
75 FT. + CHANNEL
FIGURE IV - 7
Note: As shown on NOS Chart 13328.
67’
IV—31
-------
TABLE IV—1O
PLANNED VLCC PASSAGES
rNWARD & OUIWARD - CHANNEL ENTRANCE TO BROAD COVE
VLCC INWARD PASSAGE
S See Figure P1—7 for Map & Locations
I
Distance
Reach Miles
Berth at High Water
Berth at Low Water
Ground
Speed
Knots
Time
Minutes
Approx
Tide
Knots
Ground
Speed
Knots
Time
Minutes
Approx
Tide
Knots
AtoB 1.9
BtOC 0.7
C to D 1.0
D to E 1.4
E to F 1.0
F to G 1.0
7.0
6-45
5+4
4-3
3+3
3+i
1-40
20
9
17
28
30
30
134
2.04.1.5
1.5
1.5.1.3
1. 3i0. 15
0. 75O. 5
Slack
6— 5
5-4.4
4—9.3
3—4.2
S— 1
1-40
20
9
17
28
30
30
134
2.0-. .5
.1.5
1. 5- ..1. 3
-1.3 + 0. 75
0.75÷0. 5
Slack
VLCC OUIWARD PASSAGE
Distance
Reach Miles
Deberth at High Water
Deberth at Low Water
Ground
Speed
Knots
Time
Minutes
Approx
Tide
Knots
Ground
Speed
Knots
Time
Minutes
Approx
Tide
Knots
C to F 1.0
FtoE 1.0
EtoD 1.4
DtoC 1.0
CtoB 0.7
BtoA 1.9
1.0
0- i-i
1—44
4—s8
8
8
8
30
24
14
7
5
14
94
51—1.0
1.0—1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0-,4
144
4.. .8
8
8
8
30
24
14.
7
5
14
94
S1 - 1.0
1—41.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
IV—32
-------
TABLE IV.-11
PLANNED PRODUCT TANKER PASSAGES
INWARD & OUTWARD - CHANNEL ENTRANCE TO DEEP COVE
• See Figure IV—7 for Map & Locations
PRODUCT TANKER INWARD PASSAGE
Distance
Reach Miles
Arrive After High Water
Arrive Before Low Water
Ground
Speed
Knots
Time
Minutes
Approx
‘ilde
Knots
Ground
Speed
Knots
Time
Minutes
Approx
Tide
Knots
AtoB 1.9
BtoC 0.7
CtoD 1.0
DtoE 1.4
E to F 1.0
F to H 2.1
8.1
8
8
8
8
8 —i -4
4.40
14
6
7
11.
8
40
86
Slack
Slack
0.5
0.5
0.5+1.0
1. 0-?-1. 5
8
8
8
8
8-#4
4-j-0
14
6
7
11
8
40
86
2— .1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1. 5.- .0. 5
PRODUCT TANKER OUTWARD PASSAGE
Sail Before High Water Sail at Low Water
Ground Approx Ground Approx
Distance Speed Time Tide Speed Time Tide
Reach Miles Knats Minutes Knots Knots Minutes Knots
H toF 2.1 0—i 4 40 1.5 ,1.0 0— -4 40 S1#1.5
F to E 1.0 4—4-8 8 1. 0-4.0 4-- .8 8 1.5
E to D 1.4 8 11 Slack 8 11 1.5
DtoC 1.0 8 7 Slack 8 7 1.5
C to B 0.7 8 6 Slack 8 6 15
BtoA 1.9 8 14 Slack 8 14 1.5
8.1 86 86
IV—33
-------
VLCC MOVEMENTS AND CURRENT SPEEDS
FIGURE IY-E3
6
51
4
2
Pk P4Z 9 GC
o P D / (‘At.t
o $HA pog.b b cP o
I I
0
2
¶4
ENT
VL.CC MOVEMEHI
HIGH WN
VfSXL. ØL TH P
N
LOW W 1EL
VIICC I4OV M?
r M (i. oui )
-------
1.5 hours, and maximum currents again will not exceed
1.5 knots. Only two tugs will be needed, but the others
will be available.
Certain operating limitations will be in force to ensure
safe passage and minimal risk of accidents during transit
and maneuvering of the tankers in the Eastport waters.
There will be no movement of any tankers when visibility
is less than one mile; approaching tankers will hold in
the open sea and departing tankers will hold at their
berths until visibility exceeds limitations. VLCC tanker
passage will be one way. No major size vessel will move
in the channel or berthing areas while a VLCC is moving.
VLCC’s will berth and deberth at slack water. In the
event that an emergency occurs on land at the site, in-
coming tankers already in the channel will be turned
around in Friar Roads, and will proceed to the open sea
for temporary holding maneuvers. All ships would be
required to use qualified pilots supplied from the local
pilotage group which will be established as either a joint
U. S./Canadian authority, or a State of Maine authority.
The U.S. Coast Guard, in their capacity as captain of’ the Port,
will pranulgate regulations regarding use of the harbor.
Pier Structures . The marine berthing facilities will
consist of two independent pier structures, one for crude
oil and one for refined products. The crude tankers will
be serviced by a pier and berth located at Sharkford Head
off Broad Cove and designed for vessels up to 250,000 DWT.
A second pier with three berths will be located at Deep
Cove for loading product tankers ranging in size up to
70,000 DWT, and barges up to 30,000 DWT. These facilities
are shown in Figures IV.-9 and IV—l0. The location of the
pier would be in compliance with the one knot current
limit set by the Maine BEP order.
Each tanker berth will consist of three pile—supported
units, namely a loading platform, mooring dolphins, and
breasting dolphins. All units are to be Interconnected
by walkways leading from the loading platform of the berth
to the shore. These walkways will carry a pipe gallery and
a one lane roadway.
Unloading/Loading Facilities . The crude tanker berth at
Shackford Head will have two 36—inch lines running to shore
designed to offload crude at a rate of 100,000 barrels per
hour. This berth will also be equipped to load heavy fuel
oil products. The product berths at Deep Cove will be
equipped with three 2k—inch lines for light products, one
2Lt_inch line for heavy fuel oil, one 10—inch line for LPG,
and a 10—inch line for liquid sulfur. In addition, piping
for bunkering the tankers and for handling their ballast
water will also be provided. All piping units will be
hydraulically operated and fitted with quick connect—dis-
connect couplings or bolted flanges.
IV —35
-------
VLCC BERTH AT BROAD COVE
FIGURE IV-9
H
(A)
-------
PRODUCT TANKER BERTHS IN DEEP COVE AREA
FIGURE :i-io
H
-4
-------
As shown in Figure IV—ll, spill prevention and spill con-.
trol are to be inherent features in each berth. Loading
platforms will be curbed and watertight with provisions
made for collecting and pumping away all oil and water
drainage, including rainfall. Crude, product and ballast
water lines will be connected to the tankers via counter-
balanced loading arm units fitted with swivel joints. The
loading arms will be of sufficient length to permit the
vessel to move within Its mooring limits without inducing
strain. All piping will be welded. All matings of tanker
discharge nozzles and on—shore connections will be made
over the vessel rather than over the dock so that any
leaks at the connections will be contained on the ship’s
deck. Fast—action emergency shut off valves that close
in 30 seconds are to be installed at the loading platforms
and on shore and will be capable of activation by push-
buttons on either the platforms or in the onshore control
center. Check valves will be Installed in the platform
crude lines to prevent flow In the reverse direction
should there be a manifold or loading arm failure. A Coast Guard
shoreline checkout procedure is required to prior to
unloading/loading vessels. All lines will be checked
during low flow conditions to assure pipeline integrity.
At the end of the transfer operations, all loading arms
will be drained to a slop tank and blanked off over a drip
pan prior to storage. The oil collected In the tank will
be pumped into the crude line.
Oil Spill Containment and Recovery . Each vessel will be
surrounded by a boom after berthing Is completed as shown
in Figure IV—l2. Should a spill occur, the booming proce-
dures at the Leonardo Testing Facilities for EPA, Region
II show that boom containment Is effective without skimmers
to remove the oil in currents of two knots parallel to the
boom surface and one knot perpendicular to the surface.
Therefore, the boom will be placed at a 30 degree angle to
effectuate a perpendicular velocity of one knot. With
skimmers, the same configuration would be effective at
higher currents. The pier trestle itself will be sealed
off with a boom dock. This will provide a 5 foot wide
working platform at the water surface for men and equip-
ment, including skimmers, to aid in oil recovery.
Containment . If an oil spill occurs immediate steps will be
taken to prevent the spilled material from entering the water.
These containment facilities include:
Containment curbs. These are provided around the working
platforms at the tanker and barge berths. The scuppers which
drain each platform are plugged during loading/unloading at
that berth. The scuppers will normally drain to an oil stor-
age container situated below the platform. A level controlled
suinp pump will discharge the contents of the oil storage con-
tainer to the transfer pipelines.
IV—38
-------
POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS AT LOADING PLATFORM
FIGURE V-lI
1 -4
(dJ
1 .0
-------
OIL SPILL BOOMS AT VLCC PIER
SI SACKFORD 4EA
N
-U-
a
FIGURE IV-12
o SEA
AA ANCHOR ASSEMBLY AL ANC ’Ofl LP E ASSEtIBLV
CS CABLE STRONGRACK CL CABLE “1” ASSEMBLY
CT CABLE IITH ASSEMBLY CW CABLE ANO ‘EIrWT ASSEMBLY
A NIH ASSEMBLY MP MOORINV PLATE ASSE!IRLY
FLOATING PLATFORM t. ITH SELF CONTAINED SKIMMED
SM MAHIFOLQ scAL A5 Ar3L
FIXED BOW!
BOOM TOWED INTO POSITION
ALTERNATE OOl1IN’
•‘ % /
— I
/
/
,
/
/
,
/
/
I-I
0
FEET
-------
If a spill occurs outside the containment curb, on—scene per-
sonnel will use sorbents to try to contain the spill on the
pier. If oil enters the water, actions described in the clean-
up section will be taken.
Facility drainage system. The curbed and diked areas of the
tank farm and process area drain to the refinery water treat-
ment system. Drainage to the treatment system is valve-con-
trolled so that the capacity of the system is not exceeded.
These valves are closed; they are opened after rains to con-
trol runoff. Thus the system provides a containment basin
for oil spilled in the tank area. Oil contained in these
areas will flow to the treatment facility. The appropriate
containment actions that must be taken when a spill occurs
are dependent upon the spill location.
Other. Should a spill occur elsewhere within the facility
or fail to be constrained by any of the land containment
facilities, the operator will insure that all drainage valves
to the facility drainage system are closed. He will dispatch
sorbent to the spill location and alert those involved to
stand by to assist, if necessary.
Cleanup Operations . The cleanup of any accidental oil spill
will begin immediately after the oil has been sufficiently
contained to control and minimize the extent of pollution.
Generally there are two phases involved in oil spill cleanup
activities: oil removal and cleaning/restoration.
Immediate Oil Removal . Extensive equipment on site will be
utilized to recover any releasedoil. This equipment consists
of: 24-foot motor boats with gasoline powered fire pumps;
positive displacement (rotary) pumps; portable diesel genera-
tors; portable vacuum skimmers; an 8,000 - 10,000 barrel
vacuum slop barge; portable hose; and oil skimming equipped
tugs.
The processes involved in oil removal can be described by
the following general categories: 1) Oil skimming, 2) Adsor-
bents, 3) Herding agents.
Oil Skimming . Since the oilto be removed will be effectively
contained within the boomed area appropriate equipment will
be moved into position either manually or by means of the
auxiliary pollution craft. Skimming can be done both from the
water, by means of the vessel, or from the dock through conven-
tional methods employing the double diaphragm, air-operated,
positive displacement pumps, or by means of skimmer heads
connected to the vacuum trucks which can develop 28” of vac-
uum.
Depending on the conditions of the water with respect to tide,
wind, and direction of flow, there may also be employed a work
boom which will be deployed inside of the main boom. This
IV_L1
-------
will hold much of the spilled oil in close proximity to the
skimming operation. Normally, the oil will be washed into the
work boom by means of portable pumps operated from either the
auxiliary pollution craft or a small boat which can easily
maneuver under the dock area. The floating oil will be wash-
ed into the work boom area and “locked-in”, then the the work
boom can be gradually decreased in area, thus accomplishing
a more rapid oil removal by increasing the efficiency of the
skimming operation.
Absorbents . During the oil removal phase, some absorbent booms,
pillows and sweeps may be employed to clean up any oil that
may be outside the boom. This will be accomplished by per-
sonnel operating from the small workboats or the auxiliary
pollution craft.
Generally, the use of absorbents will be restricted for the
final removal of trace or vestigal amounts of oil where it
becomes impractical to use skimmers or vacuum trucks. None
of the loose type of absorbents will be utilized on the spills
in the berthing areas. The only type of absorbents that will
be employed are the pad type with gromments that can be held
in place by means of a line or easily piôked up by means of
a boat hook or rake. The reason for this selection is to pre-
vent any of the absorbent utilized in picking up the oil from
getting away from the dock area and being carried out into the
channel through tidal action.
Herding agents . During the oil removal phase, there may be
instances where due to the monomolecular thickness of oil,
the use of an appropriate herding agent will be required.
When the area boomed in is extensive, it may be necessary to
use a herding agent to push the oil film away from the boom
so that the boomed—in area can be shortened by means of a
secondary or work boom. This technique has been used success-
fully on many oil spill cleanups and requires the personnel to
be in a small workboat, where they will slowly pour the herd-
ing agent on the inboard side of the boom. The herding agent
utilizes the inboard surface of the boom as a base point to
exert its high surface tension effect, causing the oil film
to be pushed away and concentrated.
IV—42
-------
The use of herding agents has been approved by EPA. The herding
agent that Pittston utilizes (Shell Oil Herder) has an applica-
tion rate not to exceed two gallons of Shell Oil Herder per
linear mile in any six hour period, with no more than three
applications in any 24-hour period.
Cleaning/Restoration Phase . After all of the free flowing oil
has been removed, the cleaning and restoration phase of the
oil spill cleanup activities will begin.
The immediate concern in the event of a spill when a vessel is
tied up at the berth and is within the boom network, will be
to remove the free floating oil and otherwise position the
booms to allow the vessel to clear the dock and proceed on its
way. In the event there is a spill occurring on the vessel
which results in oil contamination of the sides of the vessel,
thus prohibiting ready departure, the pollution cleanup personnel
will immediately begin to remove the oil from the deck and hull
of the vessel by the use of non-emulsifiable oil solvents, by
hydroblasting or hand wiping and scraping. All of the resultant
oil being removed from the vessel deck and hull will be contained
within a boom to prevent any subsequent pollution. The use of
non-emulsifiable oil solvents will also insure that no emulsion
can be formed which may allow oil to travel in the water in a
dispersed form only to come to the surface at some distant point
from the actual spill site.
After the vessel has been cleared and the boom has been removed
for cleaning at a shore side installation, attention will be
given to the full and complete removal of any oil soaked debris
and the restoration and cleaning of any pilings, bulkheads,
docks or rip—rap which may be contaminated with oil.
For the shore side areas at the high water mark, the use of
Sorbent Blankets and hydroblasting will be employed to remove
the oil and prevent its redisposition in the water.
Any of the debris that has been removed will be carted off in
plastic bags or other suitable containers for disposal in approved
dumps by means of sanitary land fill or incineration.
Any oil residues or mixtures of oil and water picked up from
the spill or subsequent cleanup activities will be processed
in the refinery.
In the event that oil to be picked up is a heavy oil with a
pour point in excess of 450 F, during cold weather operations
there may be employed a flexible 2” steam hose for purposes
of reducing the viscosity. The heavy oils can then be readily
picked up by normal skimming and/cr vacuuming procedures. Re-
moval during the cleaning and restoration phase of heavy oils
will be done by hydroblasting with steam and/or hand scraping,
depending upon the location and structure.
iv—43
-------
Contingency Plan . The contingency plan, should a spill
occur in transit, involves the same personnel and adminis-
trative procedures described in the contingency plan con-
cept and administrative procedures. The difference in
approach involves the cleanup of an uncontained spill.
The basic elements of the plan involves the removal of the
source of the oil, containing and diverting the oil, deploy-
ment of protective equipment in sensitive areas and cleanup
activities. Although many of the activities will be occur-
ring simultaneously, they will be described as separate opera-
tions. The order in which each activity will occur will be
the responsibility of the On-Scene Coordinator. The On-Scene
Coordinator is the Federal official pre-designated by the USCG to
coordinate and direct discharge removal efforts. The decision
of priorities is based upon the location of the spill occur-
rence, the tidal cycle, the “sea—state”, and the proximity to
sensitive areas.
Should a spill occur in transit from a loaded tanker compart—
ment, the tanker will be stopped in the channel with tug
assistance (unless it is very close to the berth). Spill
emergency signals would be sounded. The tanker crew will
take immediate action to start transferring oil from the
ruptured tank to the shipboard slop tanks, other cargo tanks
where space exists, and to the permanent water ballast tanks
if feasible. In addition, if any barges or tankers are avail-
able at the terminal, the cargo will be pumped to them for
transfer to the facility.
The tugs, motor boats, and the vacuum barge will form the
nucleus equipment for containment and recovery work on oil
that gets in the channel from any source. The tugs and
barges will beequippedwith a quantity supply of the most
appropriate booms for channel work. The boom will surround
the oil spill and will be used to contain and divert oil to
quiescent areas. The prime areas where the oil will be di-
verted to and eventually removed will be determined by dye
tests, scheduled for the construction phase. Locations of
these areas will be incorporated into the final operational
plan. Quantities of boom will be stored at or near these
areas to achieve quick response. Buoyed anchor points will
be located for boom fastenina.
Permanent folding booms will be installed at Northern
Harbor, Lamberts Cove, Clam Cove, and Doctors Cove lobster
pounds on Deer Island. Leonardsville Harbor and Campobello
pounds will be protected by portable barriers also. In the
event of an oil spill alert the booms would be deployed into
a protective position. Pound operators will be instructed as
to the procedures for deployment. Should a pound operator be
unreachable, Pittston personnel will deploy the booms to the
protective position.
Clam flats that have not been protected by these booms
will be protected by portable booms positioned if the need
arises.
IV—44
-------
Carbide cannons will be utilized in areas where waterfowl may come
into contact with the oil spill. Usage will continue until clean-
up has been accomplished.
Cleanup activities are generally as described in the section
of dockside spills. All attempts will be made to contain as
much oil as possible within the boomed area. Assessment as to
whether diversion booming, or absorbent utilization will be
undertaken will be a decision of the On—Scene Coordinator.
The primary equipment used will be the tugs, the vacuum barges,
and motor boats. The refinery vacuum trucks would also partici-
pate if the area is accessible by road. Aerial reconnaissance
and direction via chartered small plane and helicoptor would be
used as necessary.
The remaining cleanup problem is any oil that is deposited on
the shoreline. A number of absorbents are effective for pick-
ing up oil from beaches and flats. These include “natural”
substances as well as man-made absorbents. The most appropri-
ate absorbent would be used. For rocks, piers and other per—
amnent installations, washing with high pressure water is em-
ployed. Trucks for picking up absorbent and resident debris,
foam for fire protection (if fire hazard exists) and heavy
equipment such as bulldozer, backhoe, tractor, etc., are
usually needed. The refinery will have much of the needed
equipment as part of its normal operations, and would stock-
pile reasonable quantities of absorbents, foam and other
supplies. In addition, the contingency plan will contain an
up-to-date listing of and procedures for obtaining addi-
tional equipment and supplies that may be necessary from
local sources.
As stated previously, all oil removed will be processed at
the refinery.
Fire Protection . A self—contained fire protection system con-
sisting of fire pump stations, distribution piping and applica-
tion apparatus will be provided at each marine terminal. Under-
deck protection will be provided at the loading platform by an
automatic water fog system. Provisions will also be made for
spraying foam into manifold areas. Tugs will provide any extra
fire fighting capability required.
IV — 45
-------
The design of all oil transferring operations will con-
form to all applicable regulations, particularly with
the following: (1) The State of Maine Department of
Environmental Protection “Oil Discharge Prevention and
Pollution Control Regulations”, (2) The Department of
Transportation, U. S. Coast Guard, “Pollution Prevention,
Vessels and 011 Transfer Facilities”, Volume 37,
Number 21 16, Part II, and (3) U. S. Coast Guard, “Security
of Vessels and Waterfront Facilities”, Number CG—239.
Oil Storage and Movement System . This system will basic-
ally consist of steel pipelines, storage tanks, pumps and control
valves. It will be the means by which the raw material, and the
intermediate and finished products, are moved and stored. There
are to be 66 tanks in all, with a storage capacity of 13.5
million barrels. The storage tank types and characteristics are
summarized in Table IV—12 . The storage tank and pipeline layout
were previously shown in Figure IV—2.
Transfers to and from the tanks will normally be controlled
automatically from control stations located near the tanks. The
control procedure will consist of opening/closing valves,
starting/stopping pumps, and accurately monitoring liquid levels
In the tanks. The actions Involved could also be carried out
manually. The system will include both audible and visual warn-
ing devices which will activate when liquid levels rise to
95 percent of the maximum allowable; if the levels continue to
rise to 98 percent of maximum allowable, the pumps will shut
down automatically, thereby preventing overfilling and conse-
quent spillage of contents to the ground area around the tanks.
The oil storage and movement system will be above
ground, welded steel. Pittston has agreed to undertake routine
daily visual inspections on the entire tankage and pipeline
network to detect any leakage, and periodic visual and physical
measurement Inspections to detect incipient corrosion, stresses,
etc. which may lead to equipment failure and oil leakage. Any
repairs will be easily made while operations continue. The
overall oil movement system will also include extensive fire
protection and fire fighting facilities which are described
later.
IV— 46
-------
TABLE 1V—12 STORAGE TANKS
EService
No.
Tanks
Capacity
‘000 Bbls
Dimensions
Type
Diam.
Ht.
Crude Oil
10
5, 000
264
.
52
Float RoOf
Finished Products
15
27
11
109*
Cylinder
• LPG—C 3
• LPG-C 4
5
62
51
51
Sphere
• Gasoline
6
508
120
42
Float Roof
• No.2 Fuel Oil
6
2,460
230
56
Cone Roof
• No.5 Fuel Oil
6
2,280
220
56
Cone Roof
Intermediate
7
118
100
42
Float Roof
• Light Naphtha
• Heavy Naphtha
7
300
160
42
Float Roof
• Atmo. Gas Oils
14
705
200
42
Cone Roof
• Atmo.Residua.ls
14
1,700
252,
64
Cone Roof
Miscellaneous
• Refinery Fuel Oil
2
110
100
40
Cone Roof
• Slops
2
110
100
40
Cone Roof
• Ballast Water
3
450
160
42
Cone Roof
* Horizontal Length
In addition, the oil storage and movement system will be
carefully designed to reduce the amount of hydrocarbon vapors
escaping to the atmosphere. The storage tanks for all raw
materials and products associated with the refinery will be
selected and designed in accordance with vapor pressure require—
ments as specified in the “Federal Standards of Performance of
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids ”*. Furthermore, as re-
quired by statute, volatile organic compounds with vapor pres-
sures equal to or in excess of 1.5 pounds per square inch
absolute pressure (psia) but less than 11.0 psia will be stored
in tanks equipped with a floating roof, a vapor recovery system,
or their equivalent. Products with vapor pressures less than
1.5 psia will be stored in cone roof tanks. Products with vapor
pressures in excess of 11.0 psia will be stored in totally en-
closed pressure vessels of the bullet or spherical shape. All
*Federal Register, Subpart K, paragraph 60.112, March 8, 19714.
IV— 47
-------
pumps and compressors handling oil streams will be provided with
mechanical seals specifically designed to prevent leakage of
oil and hydrocarbon vapors.
The tank spacing and arrangement is designed with strict
adherence to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Standard No. 30, American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 650,
and the Standards of the U. S. Department of Labor’s OSHA Flam-
mable Liquids Code. Tanks will be diked to provide sufficient
containment for the contents of either a single tank, or the
largest tank within a multiple tank arrangement. Within any com-
mon diked area, additional spill dikes will be constructed around
each tank to minimize spill exposure between tanks in that area.
The floors of the diked areas, as well as the internal walls of
the dikes, will be made of compacted clay or lined with a suitable
impervious material to prevent oil seepage.
The products made from the proposed project will be ship-
ped out almost exclusively by tankers and barges for delivery to
coastal locations in New England and in the metropolitan New
York area. Depending on local area demands in Maine, products
will be shipped to nearby water terminals by barges or handy
size tankers. Product movement from the site by the different
modes of transportation is estimated as follows: eight tankers
per week, four barges per week, five to 10 truckloads per day,
and one or two railcars per day.
Oil Refining Process System . This system is the “manu-
facturing” part of the project where the raw material, the crude
oil, is separated and converted to products of desired specifica-
tions by being subjected to a series of steps or “process opera-
tions”. In these steps, a predetermined and controlled combina-
tion of heat, pressure and catalysts cause separations and
chemical reactions to take place that ultimately produce the
quantity and quality of desired products.
The oil refining system is designed to process 250,000 BPD
of high sulfur content crude oil. The process scheme has been
planned to maximize yields of low sulfur heating and industrial
fuel oils, and to minimize gasoline yields. To acheive this, sul-
fur must be removed from the oils. It is removed as pure
elemental sulfur, and will be sold as such. When processing
light Arabian crude oil, the production of oil products will be
as shown In Table IV-13.
This type of refinery design is classified by EPA as a
“Topping” facility; however, in the trade, it is called a “fuels”
refinery or a “hydroskimming” refinery. It is the simplest in
refining schemes because It uses a minimum number of process
steps and thereby results not only in fewer types, but lower
IV—48
-------
volumes, of pollutants and emissions. Specifically, it excludes
thermal conversion processes such as coking, visbreaking and
catalytic cracking which in the past have been the largest sources
bf pollutants from refineries. Eliminating these processes also
reduces solids emissions and the formation of chemical compounds
such as phenols. As described elsewhere in this report, provi—
sions required to control emissions within environmental limits
are incorporated in the design of the Eastport project.
TABLE IV—13 PRODUCTION OF OIL PRODUCTS
Saleable products
Barrels
per day
Percent
volume
Low sulfur No. 5 Fuel 011
96,1400
4l
Low sulfur No. 2 Fuel Oil
80,500
314
Gasoline (premium and
regular)
149,600
22
Liquified petroleum gases
(LPG)
7,700
3
The simplified block flow diagram in Figure IV—13 lists
the process units, the sequence of the processing steps, the
Interrelationship of these units, and pertinent quantities and
qualities of various streams. The function of each unit, briefly,
is as follows:
1. The Crude Distillation Unit receives crude from the
storage tanks, removes the indigenous salt, and
separates the oil into three principal fractions,
namely, raw naphtha, raw heating oil, and residual
oil.
2. The Naphtha Hydrodesulfurization Unit removes the
sulfur from the naphtha fraction produced in Unit 1.
3. The Catalytic Reformer Unit converts the naphtha
from Unit 2 into a high octane number gasoline.
14. The Isomerization Unit takes a portion of the product
made in Units 2 and 3, and further enhances its octane
number quality.
IV— 49
-------
REFINERY BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM FIGURE IV - 13
H
U ”
0
-------
5. The Distillate Hydrodesulfurizer Unit takes the raw
heating oil from Unit 1, treats it with hydrogen in
the presence of a catalyst to remove the sulfur, and
produces a low sulfur home heating oil.
6. The Residual Hydrodesulfurization Unit takes the
residual fraction from unit 1, trii s it with hydrogen
In the presence of a catalyst to remove sulfur, and
produces a low sulfur industrial fuel oil.
7. The LPG Unit takes all the by—product gas made in
Units 2 through 6, and extracts the fractions which
are suitable for LPG products.
8. The Sulfur Unit treats the by—product sulfur—contain-
ing gases made in Units 2, 5 and 6, and, using the
Amine/Clause Process, converts the sulfurous gases
into a pure liquid sulfur product. EPA has determined
that in addition to the Clause unit, further treatment
will be required to meet the BACT requirement for
sulfur recovery plants.
9. The Hy drogen Unit , using as raw material the by—product
gas produced in Unit 3, produces the hydrogen that is
needed for removing sulfur in Units 2, 5, and 6.
All of these process units are of conventional design, are
well known in the art, and are in widespread use. The nature and
amount of waste emissions that will originate from each unit are
covered in a subsequent section, together with the treatment they
will receive.
This complex of process units will be operated and con-
trolled as an integrated system from a central control room. The
operations are to be precisely controlled using sophisticated
instrumentation, servo—mechanisms, and automatic remote control
equipment and devices. In terms of equipment, these process
units will consist of carefully specified pumps, motors, turbines,
compressors, piping, fittings, valves, pressure vessels, fired
heaters, fan type coolers, tube and shell type heat exchangers,
instruments, etc. All are to be custom engineered Items, each
selected to meet the needs of the system as regards scope, size,
reliability, and adherence to applicable engineering and Insurance
underwriter codes.
Energy will be consumed in the heating of the oil feed—
stocks for processing. It will also be consumed for generating
steam and electric power which, in turn, are to be used. larg ly to
drive motors, pumps and other machinery. The energy requirements
for the process system are to be provided by burning all the
by—product gas, and some of the fuel oil product made. The by-
product gas will be a ??cleantt ulfür—free fuel and the fuel oil
IV—51
-------
a high quality desulfurized fuel, low in nitrogen and ash and
containing O.25weight percent sulfur. This will result in very
low sulfur oxide emissions to the air. In the event of an adverse,
short—time weather Inversion, an even lower sulfur content fuel
such as naphtha with 0.1 weight percent sulfur will be substituted.
The energy Input to the refining process system will
ultimately be discarded as low level heat to the atmosphere
through extensive cooling by air. The heat disposal system will
be described In a subsequent section. No cooling water towers
are to be used.
The Ancillary System . This system will provide the utili-
ties and other services necessary to drive the machinery and
equipment, furnish certain refining process needs, and provide
heating and lighting. It will include the generation of steam,
electric power distribution, the process cooling system, the fire
protection system and miscellaneous systems. These are described
individually below.
Steam Generation . The three boilers, burning 0.25% sulfur
fuel oil, will each be capable of producing 310,000
pouruls per hour of steam at 625 pounds per square Inch
gage pressure (psig) and 700 degrees F temperature. Each
boiler will be sized to produce 50 percent of the normal
steam requirements. This spare capacity will make it
possible to periodically shut each boiler down In turn for
routine Inspection and maintenance. The overall system
will be carefully designed so that it can continue opera-
tion under certain emergencies such as a temporary loss of
electric power. The boiler feedwater will consist largely
of recovered steam condensate. However, overall system
water losses of about 1,3140 gpm made up by the addition of
purified freshwater which has been demineralized and
treated with hydrazine, sodium hydroxide and a chelating
agent will occur. Boiler blowdowna, or purges, are to be
made periodically to flush out precipitated solids from
the steam system. This blowdown stream will be sent to
the wastewater treatment plant.
Electric Power . The plant will require a 60,000 kilowatt
(KW) electric power supply which will be generated on—site
using heavy duty gas turbine power package units fired with
low sulfur (0.1%) product fuel oil.
The distribution system will be primary and secondary
selective when feeding process related equipment. Major
support facilities will be supplied through a loop systeme
To ensure high reliabilIty, each process plant substation
will be fed by two feeders and each secondary bus will be
served by two transformers. Normal and spare motor
IV— 52
-------
drivers will be fed from separate busses. Primary dis-
tribution will be at 13,800 volts, secondary at 4,160 volts,
and utilization voltages at 4,000 and 460 volts. A small
emergency power generator and battery operated emergency
lights will be provided to supply critical safety needs
in the event of a power failure. All electrical installa-
tions and lighting circuits are to be governed by, and
will be installed in strict accordance with, the
applicable codes. Additionally, appropriate plant
lighting will be provided.
Miscellaneous Systems . A fuel oil and fuel gas system
will supply fuel to the various furnaces, heaters, and
boilers which will produce the heat needed for the process
operations and steam generation. The furnaces, etc. will
burn a total of 13,500 BPD of low sulfur product fuel oil,
and the equivalent of 3,500 BPD of by-product sulfur-free
gas. Fuel oil will be supplied to the consuming units from
a system consisting of a storage tank, a pump, a continuous—
f low looped pipeline circuit, and a heater which will en-
sure proper fuel oil fluidity at all times. Fuel gas will
be distributed to users through a separate pipeline circuit.
The gas circuit will contain a standby liquified petroleum
gas (LPG) vaporizer to supply extra gas to compensate for
any sudden changes in fuel gas production.
The plant fresh water system will require about two million
gallons per day. This will be supplied by the Eastport
Water Company from an assured source at Boydon Lake. At
the refinery, fresh water will be received into a storage
tank and then distributed for three different usages:
potable for personnel needs; water to the demineralizer
for steam boiler feedwater preparation; and utility water
for general plant services, process cooling water, and in
the fire water system.
A compressed air system will furnish air for all control
instruments and for general plant use The system will
consist of two 1,500 cubic feet per minute compressors and
associated dryers and storage tank. One compressor will be
motor driven and will supply the normal system needs. The
second compressor will serve as a spare and will be steam
driven, starting up automatically in the event of extra air
needs or a power failure.
Fire Protection System . The plant facility will be self-
sufficient in terms of fire fighting equipment and capabil-
ity. The major facilities for fire prot ction will include:
IV— 53
-------
a pressurized firewater main; a foam system for cone roof
tanks; a self—contained marine terminal system; fire trucks;
and a fire fighting organization.
The site will contain a network of pressurized fire water
distribution mains and laterals along its perimeter and
strategic paths throughout the plant in order to provide
adequate fire water coverage to the entire facility. Part
of the supply tank In the fresh water system will be re-
served exclusively for the storage of fire water, and will
provide enough for a minimum of four hours supply to the
fire main. Provision will also be made to use the treated
water from the wastewater treatment plant holding basin as
a standby source of additional water. Water pressure will
be maintained in the fire water main by a motor driven
pump which will start automatically when line pressure
drops. A standby diesel engine driven pump will also be
In the system and will start automatically on still lower
line pressure. Fire hydrants will be Installed along the
fire mains at regular intervals throughout the plant.
These will be supplemented by fire monitors or turret noz-
zles connected into the fire mains and located in the
butane storage area and at strategic points In the process
areas. They will be able to blanket an area with water
from a safe distance. The propane storage vessels will
be provided with a spray system which will also receive
water from the pressurized mains.
All cone roof tanks storing flammable liquids will have a
foam smothering system consisting of fire water risers
connected to foam chambers and distribution heads installed
on each tank.
Each marine terminal will have its own self—contained fire
fighting system comprised of a fire pump station, distri-
bution piping and application equipment. The fire pumps
will draw water directly from the sea. Under—deck pro-
tection will be supplied at the pier loading platforms by
an automatically activated, waterfog system. Foam will
be capable of being applied to the manifold areas of each
loading platform. Tugs will also provide fire fighting
capability since they will be equipped with elevated high
pressure multi—directional nozzles, water pumps and lines.
Mobile fire equipment will include two fire trucks, each
with 1,500 gpm booster pumps for providing high pressure
fire water and capable of generating fire fighting fog.
In addition, one truck will have a 1,000 gallon foam tank
for producing fire fighting foam, and the second truck
will carry 3,000 pounds of dry chemical and nitrogen
IV—54
-------
expellant. Additional hand carried equipment including
hoses, extinguishers, and blankets will be stored at
various strategic locations around the plant.
The fire department will be comprised of plant personnel
supervised by the plant safety supervisor. Each eight
hour shift will have a designated fire crew, with alter-
nates available. A telephone and alarm network will link
up all units in the plant. Personnel assigned to the fire
teams will take part in periodic drills to assure their
readiness and that of the fire fighting equipment.
Waste Disposal Systems . The proposed operations will
emit certain waste compounds and heat which must be controlled
and disposed of so that they will have no detrimental effect on
the terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna. These emissions
will occur largely in the air and water and only minimally on the
land. The pollution control and abatement systems for the pro-
posed facility will be planned to limit the discharge of poten-.
tial pollutants to the minimum practicable amounts and concen-
trations. The criteria used In planning and designing the waste
disposal systems will be to meet all environmental protection
standards required by local, State and Federal agencies.
The systems for handling wastewater, gaseous emissions,
solid wastes and heat are described Individually below.
Wastewater . There will be four different sources of
wastewater effluents. Two of these are to be process
wastewater and sanitary wastes produced by the refinery
from the fresh water it consumes. The third will be
rainwater runoff. The fourth will be ballast and bilge
water plus other wastes received from tankers.
The process wastewater will be generated within the
refinery units primarily by: (a) the condensation of
steam used in the refining processes; (b) purge streams
such as boiler blowdown; and (c) certain water washing
operations such as crude oil desalting, and filter wash-
ing. The amount of process wastewater generated will
be minimized through careful refining process selection,
reuse of water, and the use of a process cooling system
which produces no wastewater. The process wastewater
will contain dissolved and suspended salts, oil, and trace
quantities of sulfides, and ammonia. However, It will
be neutralized and freed of harmful gases before entering
the treatment system. The total process wastewater is
estimated to be 600 gpm.
The sanitary waste will be normal sewage generated by the
300—man workforce on the site. The quantity is estimated
to average 14,500 gallons per day.
IV—55
-------
The rainwater is classified according to the area onto
which it falls. Rainwater falling on roadways, offices,
warehouses, and open areas is like rainwater falling In
a town area, and it will be drained away directly through
storm sewers and ditches to the sea. Rainwater falling
Inside a processing unit area could pick up oil; therefore,
It will be collected in a separate sewer drain system and
sent to a holding basin at the wastewater treatment facili-
ties. Similarly, rainwater falling within tank field
dikes could pick up some oil. Therefore, all dlked areas
will be equipped to hold the water after a rainstorm un-
til it can be gradually drained off to the treatment plant
as its load allows.
The fourth effluent, the waste streams received from the
tankers will consist of ballast water from product tank-
ers as well as bilge water and sanitary wastes from all
vessels. The ballast and bilge water will consist of
sea water containing very small percentages of oil. The
tanker sanitary wastes will be sewage from personnel which
has been collected and stored aboard the ship. These
streams will be pumped ashore to Individual storage tanks
and then processed in the treatment system.
The wastewater treatment facility will be comprehensive,
utilizing the latest technology available. In basic con-
cept, It will consist of two separate treatment sections,
one for fresh water waste streams, and one for the salt
water waste streams from the tankers. Figure IV—11 Is
a block flow diagram showing the origin and treatment of
each waste stream. Figure IV—l5 schematically Illus-
trates the equipment involved and the sequence of steps.
The freshwater treatment section will handle the process
wastes, plant—sanitary wastes and the oily stormwater.
The various steps and equipment Involved are listed in
Table 111—14.
In this treatment section, the stormwater holding basin
and sump will function as a gross separator of heavy
oils and sludge. The waste stream will be pumped to a
corrugated plate interceptor (CPI) separator where free
oils will be removed. The separated oil will then be
skimmed off and pumped to the slop oil tank. Settled
solids and heavy residues will be periodically drained
from the bottom of the interceptor to the sludge storage
tank. The sludge will then be fed to a belt filter for
dewatering and then to a fluldized bed Incinerator for
final disposal. Water from the CPI separator will be
further processed in a dissolved air flotation unit for
oil and solids removal.
IV—56
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT—BLOCK DIAGRAM
FIGURE IV -14
H
U i
-4
SHIPS TANK
H SEWAGE TREATMENT
4 PACKAGE PLANT
GRAVITY
SEPARATION
GRAVITY
-- SEPARATION
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
TERTIARY
TREATMENT
(2 STAGES)
* - 4 -
TO RECEIVING
WATERS
I HOLDING
BASIN
TYPE OF
WASTE WATER SOURCES OF WASTES
OIL FREE STORM
ROOF DRAINAGE
BOILER BLOWDOWN
WATER TREATMENT ION EXCHANGE
REGENERATION WATER
COLLECTION SYSTEM SPECIAL TREATMENT
STORM SEWERS AND DITCHES
DESALTER WATER
PUMP GLAND COOLING
BAROMETER CONDENSER (SWEET)
OILY STORM WATER
OILY PROCESS WATER
TREATMENT OR DISPOSITION
OUTFALL
NEUTRALIZATION
PROCESS WATER SEWERS
DRAIN
OIL FREE
PROCESS
SOUR
PROCESS
SANITARY
SALT
CONDENSATE FROM STRIPPING
BAROMETRIC CONDENSER (SOUR)
DESULFURIZER WASH WATER
PROCESS PIPING
LOCKER ROOMS AND LAVATORIES
RECYCLE
f INT J
SANITARY SEWER
BALLAST WATER
SANITARY PIPING
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
(2 STAGES)
BILGE WATER
SPENT DETERGENTS
+
BALLAST PIPING
SE1TUNG TANKS
TERTIARY
TREATMENT
(2 STAGES)
LcOOLING_WATER—&IOAD COVE
1
F HOLDING _____
I BASIN
___________________ ICAL ADDITION
BILGE PIPING
1 COOUNG WATER PIPING
-------
WASTEWATER FLOW (SCHEMATIC)
COI*UekrfP
Pl.A1
SLOW
D,vrft.i,oi I $10M WAtU O1.PlI S
oLOR OM MI PioTAy’ON
rD .STDM*L
Ø!OLO I (AS fl!E*TM&NT
FIGURE IV-15
smo FILlER OZOMT/ON OZONE E#E*Aro
PAcMê u iCAfl.N
AMrA*v w4grt
P4DA r*MkU9. --
ApPFDON
PRAiY
OuI?ICH ORUM
LANO
MONSlOX /NG
i7:.M0N
001
LEGEND
Wastewater Recirculation
Sludge Handling
Floatables
005 Uncontaminated Runoff
-------
TABLE IV-14
Purpose or step Equipment or treatment
Primary oil and solids removal Storinwater holding basin and
s ump
Secondary oil and solids Corrugated plate Interceptor
removal (CPI) separator/dissolved air
flotation
Biological treatment Dissolved air flotation/oxida-
tion pond
Suspended solids removal Sand filtration
Final polishing Ozonation
Finely divided oil droplets and small solid particles
will be floated to the top of the air flotation unit as
a froth. The sludge will be skimmed and combined with
the sludge from the biological treatment pond for de—
watering, thickening, and subsequent incineration. The
effluent from the air flotation unit will be biologically
treated by microorganisms to reduce the Biological Oxygen
Demand (BOD) and the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). Addi-
tional oxygen will be provided by surface aerators. From
the biological oxidation pond, the effluent will pass
through a clarifier to remove the activated sludge. Next,
the clarified effluent will be pumped through a sand
filter for final solids filtration. The stream will
then be ozonated for final purification and sent to a
holding basin for testing before release.
The second treatment section will handle the salt water
waste streams, that is, the ballast water, bilge water,
and sanitary wastes from the tankers which will be stored
separately. The sanitary waste will be processed through
a municipal-type package sanitary sewage treatment plant.
The bilge water will first settle In storage and, after
Its pH Is adjusted, the water layer will be fed to the
treatment section. The ballast water storage will consist
of three large tanks to accommodate both receiving and
settling. After the contents of a tank have settled, the
oil layer will be removed for reprocessing and the ballast
water will be fed to its treatment section. This treat-
ment section will also provide tertiary treatment which
will Include gravity separation In a CPI separator, air
flotation, sand filtering, and ozonation. The purified
IV—59
-------
ballast water, bilge water, and tanker sanitary waste will
flow into a second holding basin along with treated
effluent from the first section’s holding basin. The
total treated effluent will then be discharged to Deep
Cove through a diffuser.
Primary Emissions. The primary emissions from the proposed
facility will result from (a) the operation heaters
and boilers which provide the heat needs of the facility,
(b) the sulfur recovery plant, (c) the incinerator,
(d) evaporation and working losses from storage tanks,
(e) product loading losses, (f) normal processing
operation emissions, and (g) an electric power generation unit.
The primary emissions generally consist of sulfur compounds
such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NO ), particulate matter,
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. The design of all process
units, utility systems, storage areas and transportation facilities
comply with the established State and Federal environmental
guidelines. The Best Available Technology Economically Achieve-
able must be used in the design of equipment to control atmos-
pheric emissions.
The total emissions from the facility are estimated to
be as follows:
Component
Emission Rate
Pounds Per Hour
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulate Matter
1,109
283
Nitrogen Oxides
1,664
Hydrocarbons
466
The sources and control methods for each of these emissions
are discussed below.
The SO 21 particulates and NOx all originate in the flue
gases of the process heaters and boilers, gas turbine,
and sulfur recovery unit. The flue gases from the
individual units are combined and released to the
atmosphere through a single 300 foot high stack. SO 2
emissions will be minimized by burning low sulfur(0.25% )
fuel(but 0.1% for the turbine) and by the installation of
a sulfur recovery plant. NOx emissions will be controlled
by heater disign with particular emphasis on proper
IV— 60
-------
mixing and flame quenching techniques. Particulate
emissions come from the fuel oil that is burned, and
from the incinerator off—gas. Particulate emissions
are very low since the fuel oil ash content is only
0.013 wt.%, and the incinerator is equipped with electro-
static precipitators (ESP’s). Emissions of CO (controlled
by maintaining good combustion conditions), Pb, Hg, and
Be (controlled by the incinerator ESP’s) are very low.
Hydrocarbon emissions will come largely from oil movement
and storage operations. These are the result of evapora-
tion and displacement when tanks, barges, tankers, etc.
are loaded or unloaded. Losses are higher for the more
volatile oils since they evaporate more readily. The
emissions from operations as the site are expected to
be:
Hydrocarbons
Source of Emissions Pounds Per Hour
Process Emissions to Stack 106
Storage l 1 osses 152
Tankers
- Product Loading& Unloading (105)*
- VLCC Ballasting 0
Process Venting and Leakage 104
Others 104
Total 486
Intermittent , not inc1ude in total
The design criteria and features for minimizing vapor
emissions from storage tanks were discussed in a previous
section of this report.
Vapor emissions from processing operations will be
minimized by equipping all pumps and compressors with
mechanical seals, by using welded piping connections,
and by adhering to high maintenance and housekeeping
standards.
Hydrocarbon releases made during startups, shutdowns,
and operating emergencies will be discharged into the
pressure relief and flare system, and burned to carbon
IV—61
-------
dioxide and water. The released hydrocarbons are routed
to a steel depressurizing drum, and then to an elevated flare
where they are burned under smokeless, low noise conditions,
and are discharged in a safe manner. This system will
operate infrequently, and then only for a short duration.
At such times, the flare will be visible, but the normally
small pilot flame cannot be seen at ground level.
Waste Heat . Heat from operations will be dispersed indirectly
by a system that is designed to minimize heat discharge
into the sea, and also to prevent the possibility of
leakage of contaminants into cooling water that discharges
directly into the sea without treatment. The design calls
for disipating most of the waste heat to the atmosphere by
extensive use of air coolers in which motor driven fans
blow air over coils that contain the fluids to be cooled.
No visible vapors such as fog or steam will be generated.
However, some of these fluids have to be cooled still further.
This will be done in a heat exchange apparatus in which the
warm fluid is on one side of a pipe, and cold fresh water is
circulating on the other side. This fresh water warms
up, and is cooled in turn by a stream of cold sea water
in a second similar system, and the resulting cooled fresh
water is recycled to the first system to cool more warm
fluids. In the event of a leak during the first heat ex-
change, the warm fluid (hydrocarbons) will contaminate the
fresh water, but will not contaminate the sea water since
this water recirculates in its own independent closed circuit.
If a leak develops in the second exchanger system, any
contamination in the fresh water stream will not finds its
way into the sea water, because the sea water is kept at
a higher pressure. As an additional precaution, the re-
circulating fresh water stream is equipped with an oil leak
detector.
The cold sea water will be brought in from Broad Cove
through a screened inlet flume. It will flow through the
system at 27,400 gpm, and will finally be returned into
Deep Cove 20°F warmer. The exit sea water will be discharged
at a velocity of 8-10 feet per second through a diffusing
device located offshore below low tide level.
Waste Solids .
The solid wastes that the plant will generate consist of:
paper and general refuse from office and personnel activities,
IV—62
-------
metal scrap and worn out machinery, solid chemical catalysts
used in the process operations, and solids generated and
collected in the waste water treating plant. There will be
no sludge front storage tanks because the tanks will be equipped
with mixers which will prevent any sludge from settling out.
The plant will have a modern incinerator that will dispose
most of the waste. The method of disposing each waste is
described below.
The paper and refuse will be deposited in receptacles through-
out the plant, collected periodically, and burned at the in-
cinerator. Scrap metal and machinery will be stored in a
salvage yard and will be sold to scrap metal dealers. The
solid chemical wastes will be spent catalysts, and these will
be returned to their manufacturers for reprocessing. The
solids generated at the water treating plant consist of
suspended solids from the API separator, the sludge from the
air flotation units and the bio-oxidation unit. These solids
or sludges will be sent to a storage tank, and are then
dewatered and transferred to the incinerator. The incinerator
will operate at about 1,500°F, and will be equipped with an
electrostatic percipitator. The exit gas will be essentially
carbon dioxide and water vapor. The incinerator will produce
a small amount of ash. This ash will, be stored in closed
containers and periodically removed to an approved municipal
landfill site, or if necessary, to a prepared fill site within
the plant boundaries.
Operations and Manning . The operation of this facility
will involve continuous, around—the—clock manning, seven days
per week. No disruptions, planned or otherwise, are
expected for periods of at least 10 to 24 months. The
reliability of the facility will be such that full plant
operations will be maintained 95 percent of the time.
The workforce will be organized into two principal groups,
operations and administration. The total number of personnel
IV—63
-------
will be about 300, with approximately 230 in operations
and 70 in administration as shown in Figure IV-16.
The operations group will consist of the personnel
directly assigned to operating equipment and systems,
maintaining that equipment, and providing the direct supplies
and materials needed to keep the operations going. The
first group will work a shift schedule while the others will
work both shift and conventional day schedule, depending
on their duties.
The administrative group will consist of personnel in-
volved in planning and scheduling operations, engineering,
laboratory product testing, accounting, purchasing, personnel,
medical, security, public relations, general affairs and
management. Most of this group will work a conventional day
schedule.
A high level of individual skill, competence and reliabil-
ity will be required in virtually all jobs.
Project Execution Plan . The tentative plans that have
been developed for executing this project are based on extensive
contractor experience in organizing and building grass roots
projects of this type throughout the world, and on a pre-
liminary survey of site conditions, resources, and facilities
available in the Eastport area. The expertise and capability
in planning, organizing, controlling, and carrying out the
project are available in a number of international contract-
ing/engineering firms which specialize in process-based projects.
The overall work will consist of five distinct types
of activities whi*th must be carefully timed and executed to
attain a successful project completion in terms of quality, time
and cost. These principal activities will consist of: (1) de-
fining and optimizing the final process scheme and plant layout;
(2) preparing detailed mechanical design and drafting to establish
specifications for purchase of equipment and material, and
IV-’64
-------
ORGANIZATION AND MANNING
FIGURE II
16
UNTS
mctLN
UPITS
O HO 25
GPERA QNS
OOG$C 20
TuGeoAT ®
CCAMUMCA ON
SHOPS
WARBIOUSE
IV—65
-------
construction of the plant; (3) procurement of material and equip-
ment; (14) field construction and erection; and (5) startup of the
plant.
A general contractor experienced in this type and magni-
tude of project will organize and manage the first four categor-
ies listed above. Pittston will undertake the organization and
training of the refinery staff and personnel in time for the
scheduled startup of the plant.
The plan of contractor activities is broadly outlined in
terms of logic and timing in Figure IV—17. Total elapsed time
from start to mechanical completion of the plant will be approxi-
mately 30 months. It is intended to proceed immediately after
the basic necessary approvals have been finalized, and satis-
factory financial arrangements have been completed.
The first seven months following contractor selection
will be devoted to the initial engineering work and organization
of the project. Procurement activities will start at the be-
ginning of the eighth month when commitments will be made on
orders for major equipment, and will continue for approximately
one year. The construction phase of the project will begin
with site preparation and labor housing development program in
the eighth month of the project and shortly after, will expand
to full construction activity. Total scheduled time for the
construction phase is 23 months.
The manpower, systems, and expertise needed to execute
engineering and procurement activities for the project will be
supplied by the contractor. This work will be done at the con-
tractor’s home office, as will the contract management. Al-
though all this work Involves close to a million technical man-
hours It will pose little demand on, and have no effect on, the
Eastport area.
The construction phase, however, will depend very signi-
ficantly on the local manpower and material resources, and on
the specific site characteristics. Because this Is so, a pre-
liminary survey of the Eastport site was conducted in order to
assess potential problems and to establish the following tenta-
tive, but feasible, construction plan for this specific location.
The principal steps or activities in organizing and
executing the construction program for this project will be as
follows and essentially in the sequence listed: (1) site pre-
paration; (2) establishment of labor camp and housing and living
facilities for imported workers; (3) erection of temporary con-
struction facilities such as offices, warehouses, etc.;
(14) mobilization of construction tools; (5) implementation of
IV—66
-------
H
-.1
PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN AND SCHEDULE
FIGURE 1V17
MONTHS I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 1 6 I I 8 9 0 I ‘ I I 3 I 4 5 6 7 I 8 I 9 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 1 25 11 3.6 I 17 I 1 I 29 130
PflCOu.., rs,vra
f - — - — --------—— ‘.“ ‘ ‘
N ‘p’ -
\ 1 L r O “‘ “ ‘
\ “ 5 -
/ , — I /
: ‘ ‘,- ,-, ,,,-
/ I / /
/i /
5144r 00 pao. 1 rcr- \ / I
/ /
t /
aflan ,Aa7 / / /
‘P 4 .)‘“, “4 “• 5 “ ‘%
•,• - - + -- — —----——--- --- ---
PROCOOS t VC.Wtfl’V4
P.O #,C, F,%’4/A#FtD#A/
AM14 F F& N’
QO .‘ 4 ’/P
DflP/A’4
S Ff ##f eJa
r# oo o4
CoN5, puct,on fitocest
“_ “ . 5
rOAfJPA’ldfT,OA, 0001 /7 . 51
MONTHS
—
—
P
I
I
!
1 2 I 3
4
5
6 j?
.
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
26 I 2? I 28 I 29 30 I
0 I II
I3
IA IS
9 20 I 21 22
23 24 25
-------
labor recruiting and training programs; (6) build—up of con-
struction forces, tools, and auxiliary facilities and supplies;
(7) receipt of materials and equipment and execution of con-
struction operations in accordance with plans; (8) review of
progress and implementation of alternate plans if situation
warrants it; (9) completion of construction; (10) dismantling
of temporary facilities; and (11) clean—up operations.
In developing the construction plan, the principal fac-
tors that were considered and allowed for were the following:
(a) topography and soil conditions which relate to site pre-
paration, (b) access to transportation for movement of materials
and equipment, (c) availability of local supplies and materials,
(d) labor availability, (e) accommodation of transient labor,
and (f) impact on community facilities such as safety, traffic,
schools, recreation, etc.
Construction activities will be carried out in accordance
with the guidelines and intent of all applicable environmental
and safety regulations as well as local ordinances and codes.
The principal problem will be to obtain the large workforce of
skilled labor needed for the construction.
tV- 68
-------
CHAPTER FIVE
ALTERNATIVES
-------
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives available to the Federal government for
actions on permit applications are more limited than they are for
Federal projects undertaken directly. Essentially, EPA, the COE,
and FAA, may only deny, grant, or grant with conditions, the
applications before them. The Federal sector does not have the
latitude on permit applications which it has on its own projects
to develop alternatives. Thus, the Federal actions must relate
to the project as conditionally approved by the BEP and for which
the application has been made. An understanding of the basis for
the project as submitted is important, however, to determine the
relative impacts of the various alternatives so that a decision
regarding the Federal actions to be taken Is made with knowledge
of the reasonable alternatives. Therefore, this section discusses
the alternatives available to the Federal government, the Pittston
Company, and the community of Eastport.
Alternatives Available to the Federal Agencies
The only alternatives available to EPA and COE are to
simply grant the Pittston Company its permits, deny them, or grant
them with conditions. EPA shall issue with CONDITION, or deny
a new source NPDES permit following a complete evaluation of
any significant beneficial and adverse environmental impacts on
the human environment consistent with EPA ’s legal authority,
including, but not limited to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Air
Act of 1970, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the 19511 Atomic Energy Act,
as amended, and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 19711. The COE
will base its determination on a broad review of the project in
relation to the public interest; and FAA, after considering the
overall impacts of the project, will determine its final action
by reviewing the effects the proposed action will have on the
administration of its own programs.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
FAA considered four options in evaluating Eastport’s
petition, including:
Denial of Eastport’s petition requiring them to keep
the present site available for public airport purposes
until March 19, 1979, thus, constituting a “no—action”
alternative for FAA;
Denial of Eastport’s petition, attempting to force the
City into a repair or rehabilitation program of suff 1—
cient magnitude to provide a truly serviceable facility;
V —i
-------
Granting Eastport’s request subject to the understanding
that a replacement facility must be constructed at
Eastport or elsewhere in the Region; or
Granting Eastport’s request and determining that other
presently existing public air transport facilities
located In eastern Washington County will adequately
serve the aeronautical needs of Eastport and its
immediate environs.
The first option appears feasible. However, the airport
has essentially been abandoned and there has been no indication
of an existing or projected aeronautical need in the Eastport
area.
The Federal government does not have the authority to
pursue option two without the full consent of the City of East—
port. The City has clearly indicated that they do not wish to
retain their airport.
Furthermore, in both options one and two, it is conceiv-
able that a court might find that FAA’s interest in this matter
has already terminated, for If the useful life of the facilities
has expired, under the terms of the grant, the City of Eastport
would be free to dispose of the facility.
Option three, which requires a replacement facility, is
dependent upon the future growth of aeronautical demands In the
region. Certainly the City of Eastport’s offer to contribute
the total amount received from the sale of the site toward the
rehabilitation, improvement or construction of airport facili-
ties elsewhere in the region will be very attractive to the other
municipally owned airports serving eastern Washington County. The
FAA, however, cannot impose this development on other communities.
Alternatives Available to the Pittston Compan y
From Pittston’s viewpoint, there are three basic alter-
natives to constructing and operating an oil refinery and marine
terminal as proposed at Eastport, Maine. The first is to relocate
this project to a site other than Eastport; the second Is to
proceed with construction at the Eastport site following modifi-
cation of the proposal as required, particularly with regard to
the crude delivery system; the third Is to abandon all plans for
the project which Is considered the “no action” alternative.
Alternative Sites . Pittston has indicated that Eastport
Is Its preferred site because the location offers significant
economic advantages as well as a very low risk potential for
a major accidental oil spill. More specifically, In Pittston’s
opinion, Eastport offers the following advantages:
V-2
-------
A very deep, natural sheltered harbor, with excellent
channel approaches as regards its width, depth, straight-
ness, 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 U. S. mainland, which ieduces the risk
of unilateral actions by other governments that could
adversely affect the economic viability of the project,
and the reliability of production that Is geared to
supply U. S. markets;
A receptive local community, with an historically indus-
trial/commercial orientation and essentially no tourist,
recreational, or summer residential development to
endanger;
An adequate site which has been acquired or is under
binding options.
Since 1971, when development of the proposed plan began,
the significance of some of these factors has increased as
knowledge of the site became greater, and as national and foreign
developments occurred in energy policy and supply.
Before Eastport was selected as the preferred site for
feasibility evaluation, screening studies were made of 13 likely
sites In New England, and one on Delaware Bay. These included
Eastport, Cutler, Hancock Point, Blue Hill, Harbors Isle,
Brooksville, New Harbor, and Georgtown, Maine; Naushon Island,
Mass.; Little Compton, Narragansett, and Jamestown, R.I.; Orient
Point, LI.; and Cape Henlopen, Delaware. These studies were
made under the direction of the Metropolitan Petroleum Company,
Pittston’s wholly owned petroleum products marketing division.
Each site was rated in terms of 10 criteria that were considered
significant at that time. The overall ratings put Eastport as the
first choice. See Figure V—l.
In order to satisfy the requirement of VLCC Class tankers
for very deep water close to shore, only the sites In Maine would
qualify. A discussion of alternatives to the proposed Eastport
site from an environmental standpoint should include those sites
which meet some of the basic business criteria necessary for
Pittston to proceed with the project. Therefore, alternative
sites in Machias and the Periobscot Bay and Blue Hill Bay region
of Maine were evaluated since access for deep draft vessels exist—
Ing close to the shore allows the economies of scale in transpor-
tation costs to be realized. The evaluation of these two areas
V-3
-------
COMPARISONS OF THE VARIOUS REFINERY SITES
FIGURE V-I
ITEMS REFINERYNUMBERS 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14
DISTANCE TO6OF T. WATER @ MLW - 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 4 4 2 3 3 1 2
SHELTEREDANCHORAGE 4 0 4 2 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 2 3 0
t4AVIGATIONALPRO BLEMSFORAPPROAcH 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3
WATER DISTANCE TO NEW YORK. N.Y. 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
WATERDISTANCETOMONTREALQL!E. 3 _ 4 _ 4 3 3 3 _ L _ .2 _ 2 2 2 2 2 1
AVAILABIJY OF R.R. SERVICE
RATING COMPARISONS
o NONE OR NOT POSSIBLE
1 USABLE OR POSSIBLE
2 FAIR
3 GOOD
4 EXCELLENT
QUEBEC
)
z
0
,
kt
w
I
-J
MAINE
NEW HARBOR
ORIENT POINT
COMPTON
SCALE IN MILES
zs • S i
ALTERNATE SITE LOCATIONS
CANADA
PO T
0
v— 4
-------
included many of the proposed sites listed In the 1971 alter-
native site location study.* A third location, Portland, Maine
was also evaluated. Although presently not offering deepwater
access, this port already receives large numbers of oil tankers
with drafts up to 5 feet. Theoretically, a single point mooring
system (3PM) could be installed lii Luske Sound off Long Island in
Casco Bay to accommodate VLCC’s. However, due to a lack of avail-
able land, the refinery itself would probably have to be located
somewhere in the outskirts of Portland and relatively near to the
crude oil receiving site In Portland harbor.
The following analysis by EPA compares Blue Hills/Penobscot,
Machias, Portland and Eastport from the standpoint of environ-
mental quality.
Air Quality . Machias is located approximately 30 miles
southwest of Eastport and In the same air quality control
region. Presently, there are no Industrial developments
nor unique sources of air pollution in the Machias area
which are not also found In Eastport. Therefore, the
air quality in the Machias area can be assumed to be
approximately the same as that in Eastport. No air
monitoring data is presently available for the Machias
area.
The Penobscot/Blue Hill Bay area is comprised of two
air quality control regions, Regions II and III. Unlike
Eastport, however, there is more Industrial development
In the area. A cement factory located In Rockland and
Industrial development In Belfast and Bucksport
account for a generally poorer quality of air. The area
Is also different from the Eastport and Machlas regions
because of heavy tourism In the summer months and a
greater density of population. Monitoring at Acadia
National Park over the past year indicates the values,
shown In Table V—l, for SO 2 and particulates (TSP):
TABLE V—l. SO 2 AND PARTICULATES EMISSION AT
ACADIA NATIONAL PARK
Pollutant
Annual average
l97 4, ug/m 3
Average January—
September 1975,
ug/m 3
Average Januar -
May 1976, ug/m
302
2.7
0.8
3•
TSP
22.6
22.0
27.0
*Cutler, Blue Hill, Brooksville, Harbor Side and New Harbor.
V-5
-------
The closest monitoring site to the Periobscot Bay/Blue
Hills area is located at Acadia National Park which is
southeast of the point sources in the area.
Prevailing winds are from the southwest. Therefore,
although the data Indicate that SO 2 and TSP are well
within Federal standards, higher values may be found
downwind from the area’s point sources.
Portland, which is in a separate air quality control
region, is more heavily industrialized and densely popu-
lated then Penobscot/Blue Hill, Machias or Eastport. The
existence of the petroleum Industry in the Portland area,
including Casco Bay, accounts In some measure for the
presence of hydrocarbons, one of the precursors of ozone.
A summary of the monitoring data follows in Table V—2.
TABLE V—2. PORTLAND AREA OZONE LEVELS
Ozone Month Highest hourly average (ppm) Hours of standard viol.
Jan.
0.0 140
0
Feb.
0.036
0
Mar.
0.061
0
Apr.
May
0.0814
0.088
3
3
June
0.170
15
July
Aug.
0.136
0.161
2 13
31
Sulfur dioxide annual averages for downtown Portland were:
1972 98 ug/m 3
1973 88 ug/m 3
19714 73 ug/m
1975 60 ug/m
Annual averages for particulate levels are as follows:
1972 147 ug/m 3
1973 149 ug/m 3
19714 514 ug/m 3
1975 ‘a ug/m 3
For the period of January to August 1976, the ozone monitor-
ing data indicates that the Federal and State standards
for ozone (0.08 ppm) were violated during 80 hours of the
monitoring program.
V-6
-------
As evident in the above data, the Portland area’s air
quality no longer violates Federal SO 2 standards, but
is in violation of the ozone standards and approaches the
standard for TSP. However, State annual SO 2 standards
are violated while TSP values approach the State standards.
Assuming the same pollutants would be emitted from a
refinery located in the Eastport, Machias, Penobscot/Blue
Hill and Portland areas, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
The effect on air quality in Machias would be the
same as in Eastport;
The effect on air quality in the Penobscot/Blue Hill
region cannot be quantified since the monitoring data
Is at a location where the emissions from area point
sources may not be reflected due to prevailing winds
and the relatively large distances; however, there
are more point sources which contribute air pollutants
In this region than in the Eastport area;
The existing Portland air quality is in violation of
oxidant standards, has violated sulfur dioxide
standards in the past, and is approaching the
standards for particulates; an additional source of
emissions will add to the existing loadings of the
area.
Nondegradation standards could be met at all sites
considered.
Water Quality . The tidal waters surrounding Machias
are classified under Maine’s Tidal Water Classification
System as SA, the highest tidal water classification.
There are, however, certain waters In the Town of Machias
Itself which are classified as SC. The tidal waters of the
Penobscot/Blue Hill Bay area are classified from SA
through SB—i and SB—2. Portland tidal waters are generally
classified as SC. As previously Indicated, Eastport’s
waters are classified as SA, SB—i and SC.
Assuming that a proposed refinery would discharge the same
effluent as that anticipated for Eastport, there should be
no significant changes or impacts associated with placing
the refinery In any of the three alternative locations.
Land and Sea Uses . The uses of both the land and the
sea around Machias are substantially similar to those
found In the Eastport area, including the presence of a
rural uninhabited countryside with no industrial growth.
Traffic density on the water is limited to local fishing
boats.
V-7
-------
The Penobscot/Blue Hill Bay area, although retaining
its rural uninhabited countryside, also has pockets of
Industrial growth and a population density closer to
that of the larger towns. In addition, tourism, recrea—
tion and their related land uses are significantly more
important than in the Machias and Eastport areas. Acadia
National Park, consisting of most of Mount Desert Island
and Schoodic Point, Is located in the middle of the area.
The area attracts many people, including a large out—of—
state summer population which lives on many of the islands
In the Bay. Water traffic is likewise greater than In
Eastport due to both commercial operations and the opera-
tion of pleasure boats, particularly during the summer
months.
The Portland area, however, is significantly different
from the others in that a high density population is
encountered together with heavy Industrialization. As
in the Penobscot/Blue Hill Bay area, tourism Is heavy
during the summer months, with several large resort areas
in the Immediate vicinity, Including Biddeford, Old
Orchard Beach and Harpswell. Commercial and pleasure
boat traffic In the area is the heaviest on the Maine
Coast. Numerous pleasure boat enthusiasts locate their
craft in this area for Portland Harbor Is the largest
port.
Noise . Residents of already industrialized urban
areas are subjected to higher background levels of noise
than residents of predominantly rural areas. Consequently,
the overall noise impact of the facility would be less
perceptible in Portland than at the other three sites.
However, the degree of noise impacts will vary in all
cases depending upon the distance of the facility from
sensitive receptors.
Terrestrial and Aquatic Flora and Fauna . The Impacts
of a refinery on the flora and fauna found in the Machias
region would be similar to that experienced in the East—
port area. The Penobscot/Blue Hill Bay area, although
more Industrialized and supporting a larger human population,
has large areas which are also uninhabited; therefore, the
terrestrial impact should be the same as In Eastport. The
major difference Is that the Penobscot/Blue Hill Bay area
Is the center of Maine’s lobster, clam and fishing in-
dustry. The heavily industrialized and densely populated
Portland area has substantially less flora and fauna
than Eastport, Machias or Penobscot/Blue Hill. However,
Casco Bay and its environs are also Important fishing
grounds for lobsters, clams and various fish.
-------
Aesthetics . The aesthetic impact of a refinery in
Machias and Penobscot/Blue Hill Bay area would be
similar to that in Eastport, although the unique
topography of Moose Island, which would shelter the
refinery from the inhabited areas at Eastport, may not be
found at other locations. In Portland, the aesthetic
impact would be significantly less if the refinery were
located within the City’s industrialized area. If located
in the residential outskirts of Portland, the impact
would be much greater than in other locations.
Oil Spills . The risk of oil spills from an oil transport
system using VLCC’s and a fixed pier delivery system could
be slightly greater in Machias than Eastport for harbor
facilities in the Machias area would be more exposed to the
wind and weather from the Bay of Fundy. The tanker opproach
to the Penobscot/Blue Hill Bay area would be approximately
30 miles long and between numerous Islands. Thus, compared
to the six —mile passage at Eastport, this long passage
could expose the tankers to a greater possiblity of mishap
closer to shore and inhabited areas. This would directly
affect not only the summer homes In the area, but much of
the commercially important fishing grounds. The impact
of an oil spill could be the most severe in this area.
Portland’s harbor facilities are narrow and constricted and
unable to accept VLCC’s. The location of an SPM in Luske
Sound, would be exposed to the open ocean and protected
only by Long and Great Chebeque Islands. Conseqently, an SPM
in Portland would be subject to a greater risk of spill
than a fixed pier structure as contemplated for Eastport.
Socio—economic Considerations . The socio—economic
impact of a refinery in Machias will generally be the
same as In Eastport for the high unemployment rates, low
tax bases, and lack of industrialization are common
throughout Washington County.
The Penobscot/Blue Hill Bay area, which is more heavily
industrialized, also experiences seasonal fluctuations
in employment due to its summer tourist trade. The
tax base is high compared to the rest of Washington
County. This is due in part to the numerous summer homes
in the area. However, the installation of a half—billion
dollar facility would be of great significance.
Portland does not experience the high unemployment found
in Washington County although It is still a serious
problem. While the tax base Is considerably higher than
either the Penobscot/Blue Hill Bay area or Washington
County, the Installation of the refinery would still be
of significance. However, the spinoff of jobs associated
v-q
-------
with a refinery located in Portland would probably not be
as great as in the other two areas since many of the
services required would already be in place. As with the
Penobscot Bay location, any spill that reached the
recreational/tourist areas would have a significant
effect on the economies of the area.
The Portland area was eliminated by Pittston because, due
to the depth of the channel, the largest tanker it can accept
is 75,000 DWT, and suitable land for a refinery site and marine
terminal for shipping products was not available, although a
crude unloading site or arrangements could have been negotiated.
The Machias site could not be considered because the only suitable
land was under option to others and was subsequently sold to a
partywith oil interests and a nature conservancy group.
Sites outside the U. S. A. which could accommodate VLCC’s
were also considered during the 1972 714 period, including two in
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Both of these were excellent in
terms of availability of land and natural deepwater as well as
constructive and receptive political attitudes. However, because
of the uncertainties of future import/export actions on crude and
products between Canada and the U.S.A., and because of the
potential problems relative to capital and ownership in foreign
countries, Pittston made a policy decision that this project
would have to be built in the U.S.A. itself. This decision is
obviously also applicable to countries less politically stable
than Canada.
Thus, in EPA ’s opinion, none of the alternative sites
evaluated would provide a significantly greater degree of
environmental protection than the Eastport site. Consequently,
several modifications of the proposed facility at Eastport were
considered:
Modified’ Plan at Eastport . The project as proposed calls
for the delivery of crude oil in VLCC’s of up to 250,000 DWT in
size. Several alternate and/or modified crude oil delivery
systems were considered and evaluated during Pittston’s initial
study. These included: (a) pipeline delivery from the Lorneville
development near St. John; (b) a monomooring receiving system
with the monobuoy installed in deep water off Lubec in the Grand
Manan Channel; and (c) smaller tankers with unloading at a
proposed Shackford pier location. Location of the pier at Deep
Cove near the product tanker berths was also considered, but was
proposed because of a need for more maneuvering room for berthing
and deberthing operations.
Pipeline Delivery System from Canada . The pipeline
alternative was advanced as a result of a proposal by
the Trans Mountain Pipeline Company, Ltd. of Canada to
build a crude pipeline delivery system which would
v-b
-------
receive crude from VLCC’S at Lorneville, New Brunswick,
and move it through a 670 mile long pipeline across
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York to refineries
In Oswego and Buffalo, New York. A 1 0—mIle spur off the
main line at Calais, as Illustrated on Figure V—2, would
serve Eastport. However, all plans for this have been
dropped by the proposer, largely because plans for a
large new refinery in Buffalo have been indefinitely
postponed. A similar plan to supply only the Eastport
project is not economically feasible. The costs would
be greater than unloading at Eastport since 95 miles of
16—inch pipeline would be needed, and new VLCC berthing
and unloading facilities would have to be built at
Lorneville, including a breakwater to protect the moored
tanker from the open seas of the Bay of Fundy.
This alternative would also put a vital part of the Pitt-
ston facility under control of foreign authorities.
Monomooring Berth Of f Lubec . The alternative to berth-
ing tankers at piers constructed near shore would be to
provide a system for mooring them offshore and transferring
the oil cargo via undersea pipelines. These could be a
sea island with fixed berths, a multi—buoy mooring scheme,
or a monomooring scheme. Unless shared by many large
users, the sea Islands are usually too expensive to build.
However, the monomooring system has found considerable
application in locations where near shore deep water did
not exist or where sheltered, fixed piers could not be
built.
The monomooring system can have several advantages depend-
ing upon the character of the site area, prevailing condi-
tions, and the distance off shore. These potential
advantages are:
Reduction or elimination of dredging;
Elimination of vessel traffic close to shore, thereby
reducing the potential for grounding;
Reduction of traffic density, thereby reducing colli-
sion hazard; and
Location of oil transfer operations further away from
shore areas, thereby reducing risks to sensitive
coastal ecology.
However, offsetting these potential advantages for the
monomooring system are the greater risks of minor spill
accidents during transfer, more frequent operation inter-
ruptions, and more safety risks to personnel because of
the exposure to open sea wind and waves. Recovery of oil
V-il
-------
ALTERNATE CRUDE OIL DELIVERY BY PIPELINE
1
I
(
t
FIUUHE V-2
QUEBEC
GULP OF
Si; LAWRENCE
ONTARIO
sIIe
NEW
BRUNSWICK
•0
NEW YORK i,.s,
HAMPSHIIII
AT LANTIC
LEG END
I
OCE AN
Pr p s
oi. SOT$IOO
$ss . hi .Hs.
-------
spills would be possible only under the best weather condi-
tions. In addition, bunkering in the open waters would be
more difficult and risky, and routine maintenance of the
deep water system both hazardous arid costly.
If the transfer system, whether monomooring or sea island,
could be located a considerable distance from shore, how-
ever, the probability that an oil spill would reach shore
or cause extensive damage if it does, decreases as the
distance increases. For this reason, in Its February 1975
Policy Statement on Refineries and Deep Water Ports in
New England, the EPA recommended as follows:
ttport facilities should be located some distance from
the coast — between 10 and 25 miles — and in areas
assuring freedom from navigational hazards, protection
of unique environmental values, and having the capabil-
ity to absorb or contain oil spills. We favor a mono—
buoy type system where tankers could unload crude oil
offshore and have It piped underground to refineries
onshore . .
Furthermore, a deep sea mooring system with an alternate
product delivery system would eliminate the physical incom-
patibilities of the refinery project with the potential
Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project. Consequently, the
Maine Board of Environmental Protection and. EPA requested
that Pittston evaluate this alternative.
A Frederic F. Harris, Inc. study commissioned by the Pittston
Company established that it was technically feasible to
construct a i’nonobuoy off Lubec in the Gran t4anan Channel.
Because of the approach and the swinging distances needed,
the moriobuoy would be located 1—1/2 miles from shore
in 250 feet of water and connected to shore tanks via two
36—Inch diameter submarine pipelines. An overriding
concern was to locate the SPM in U.S. waters. From there,
it would be connected to the refinery nine miles away via a
pumping station and two 1 42-inch diameter lines which,
although mostly overland, would require two submerged
crossings. The total cost of the system was estimated to
be double that of the original shore fixed berth, although
the monomooring berth itself was only 10 percent of the
total. Since this analysis was done, the estimated amount
of dredging required for the fixed pier has increased by
nearly 1,000,000 cubic yards. As a result, the fixed pier
will cost more than the SPM; however, Pittston rejected the
monomooring alternative on grounds of greater risks of oil
spills, more difficult maintenance and operation, and
safety hazards to personnel.
Comments on the Harris study by ECO, engineering consul-
tants to BEP, suggested that the costs of the total
V-l3
-------
system could be reduced, and that the use of a newer
design monomooring berth (SALM) would make the frequency
of oil spills less than at a fixed berth. However, no
substantiating data was presented. ECO also pointed out
that locating the monomooring over 10 miles from shore
would reduce the shore impact of a.n oil spill because
weathering of the oil would occur. The distance between
the mainland shore and Gran Manan Island is 10 to 12
miles, making it impossible to locate the moriobuoy there
and still get the safety advantage of distance from shor.e.
Product transfer via a monomooring berth was not con-
sidered for Eastport in the Harris study. If monobuoys,
which can be used for product loading are used at Eastport,
one or two additional monomoorings would be needed be-
cause of the frequency of product tanker traffic and the
need for multiproduct and ballast water transfer opera-
tions. On shore pumping capability, as well as storage
and ballast water treatment facilities, would also be
required. However, in this case, because of the relatively
small size of the product tankers, the buoys would be more
heavily utilized and, because of the exposed position of
the buoys in Fundy Bay, delays due to weather conditions
would be a significant factor. Two buoys in close proximity
to each other would also result In significantly Increased
tanker traffic in the area, thus eliminating another
Important reason for using a monobuoy. 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.
There Is conflicting evidence regarding the potential for
oil spills at SPM’s as compared to docks. Harris con-
cluded that there was greater potential for small chronic
spills at SPM’s and that there would be little or no
chance to contain and remove oil spilled in the open sea.
ECO, on the other hand, suggested that the frequency of
chronic spills could be smaller at the SPM than at the
near—shore port and while spills at SPM’s are not easily
contained, current conditions at Eastport may preclude
effective cleanup there also. In addition, the SPM would
eliminate the need for large tankers to navigate close
to shore and through Head Harbour Passage, thus reducing
the potential for large crude spills due to grounding.
A reoort for NOAA by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) Sea Grant Program concluded that “SPM’s
appear to have considerably higher incidence of small
operational spills than well run fixed berths in protected
water per ship call. However, It is quite possible the
V-l 1 4
-------
SPM may decrease the total volume spilled relative to
fixed shoreside berths by decreasing the number of ship
calls and Increasing the minimum distance to shore..”
Additionally, they concluded that spill frequencies at
loading buoys are probably greater than at buoys used for
unloading.
In general, It appears that SPM’s would result in fewer
spills as operating experience is gained and better hard-
ware developed. However, In EPA’s opinion, because of the
locational constraints in the Eastport area, a monobuoy
for crude transfer would not significantly reduce the
overall environmental Impacts associated with this project.
A monobuoy in conjunction with an alternative product
delivery system would result in a reduced hazard to
Passamaquoddy Bay, but an Increased hazard to the Machias
Bay area. Although the possibility of large spills due to
crude tanker groundings would be reduced, current data in
the Machias Bay area suggests that the spilled oil would
reach the shore. Alternative crude and product handling
facilities would eliminate the physical conflicts between
the proposed refinery and the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power
proposal.
Pipelining products to existing land distribution centers
at Searsport or Portland is probably also out of the
question due to the great distances involved. Although
pipelining products to a new shoreside terminal in Machias
Bay may be feasible, It would not result in an overall
reduction of hazard to the environment but would merely
transfer the hazard to an equally ecologically sensitive
area..
Varying Tanker Sizes . 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 BE? 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.
It is anticipated that the BEP conditions limiting vessel
size will be a condition for State certification of the Federal
permits. In addition, BE? is also requiring that two other pre—
operational conditions relating to tanker movement be met prior
to commencing construction. These are:
1. Condition B.2., which requires that Pittston conduct
tanker movement simulation studies to be completed
by December 1 , 1976; and
V-15
-------
2. Condition B.11, which requires Pittston to conduct
actual traverses by tankers and tugs in a ballast
condition similar to anticipated fully loaded
conditions.
In their memorandum of August 23, 1976, the USCG advised
that “it is the opinion of the CG that the channel is adequate
for safe navigation of 250,000 DWT tankers; however, final deter-
minations would have to be based on the vessel dimensions, man-
euverability, speed, etc.” The Pittston Company produced expert
witnesses at the hearings who testified that 250,000 DWT tankers
could be navigated safety through Head Harbour Passage, particu—
larly during periods of slack tides. Opponents testified that
such navigation was not safe. In actuality, 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 compartmented 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 choose
the most favorable tide and weather conditions without endanger-
ing the refinery’s supply of crude. Therefore, this EIS does not
limit Its considerations to 150,000 DWT ships or less.
No Action Alternative . The no action alternative
would eliminate current plans for development of a 250,000 BPD
oil refinery and marine terminal at Eastport. From the Company’s
perspective this would force a continuation of their present
situation, I.e. the purchase of refined products from domestic
and foreign refineries constructed and operated by their
competitors.
The no action alternative would also continue the energy
demand and supply situation currently existing In the United
States, New England and Maine by eliminating the only presently
proposed, and actively pursued, application for refinery construc-
tion In the area. Likewise, no action will 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 imported.
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 already proved fruitless and, because of its remote location,
a deepwater port would not appear to be of value except as an oIl
port.
Therefore, for Eastport, abandonment of the project would
mean a continuation of its existing soclo—economic status without
the economic benefits which could accrue from the construction and
V-l6
-------
operation of the refinery. If constructed, the much discussed
Passamoquoddy Tidal Power project could provide a short term
soclo—economic boom very much similar to the impacts associated
with the refinery construction. It might also provide for an
Increased marine based industry due to aquaculture. However,
this project remains a “potential” project which has not yet
achieved the status of a proposed project. Thus, no action will
continue and, perhaps for the time being, ensure the present life
style in the area which is deeply cherished by some residents.
Finally, no action will leave the site on Moose Island and the
Eastport Harbor area for other potential development.
V-17
-------
CHAPTER SIX
IMPACT OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Land Use and Displacement
The proposed refinery and marine terminal which is ap-
proximately 625 acres in area, is bordered on the north by
Route 190; the remainder of the site is surrounded by Cobscook
Bay. The major land uses which are contained in or adjacent to
this area are the Mean Corporation, the Eastport Municipal Air-
port, and 25 small frame houses. In addition, a 5—acre camping
ground is also located within the project site.
If the refinery were built, the Eastport Municipal Airport
would be displaced. Currently, the airport is occasionally used
by transient light planes. Based on inspections of the airport
by the FAA in 1974, the FAA advised the City of Eastport that the
useful life of the facility had expired. In addition, it appears
that the remaining existing aviation airports located at 10 dif-
ferent locations in eastern Washington County, would be capable
of serving the aeronautical needs of eastern county residents for
the future.
The Mean Corporation, a manufacturer of pearl essence,
fish meal and a protein ingredient used in fire-retardant foam,
is located just east of the project site. It is not expected
that the operation of the Mean Corporation would be affected by
either the construction or operation of the refinery. However,
if there should be any oil spills in the vicinity of Broad Cove,
the fish rendering plant’s source of clean process water could be
affected.
Of the 25 small frame houses in the vicinity of the site,
five structures (which are seasonal) are located within the proj-
ect site boundaries. At the present time, it is not known whether
these buildings will have to be displaced due to the refinery’s
construction; however, Pittston does have an option to purchase
the five houses. In the event that these structures would have
to be purchased, it is expected that the owners would be able to
replace their summer homes within the same general vicinity, since
these residents would be reimbursed by Pittston and vacant land
is readily available in the area.
VI- ’
-------
An additional 18 homes, located along the refinery site’s
northern boundary, would likely be exposed to increased noise
levels and air pollutant discharges, both during the construction
and operation of the facility. The impacts resulting from such
pollutants as sulfur oxides, total suspended particulates, nitro-
gen oxides, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons will be discussed in
the following sections. Furthermore, the refinery’s flare would
be visible from these houses during upset conditions. However,
the plant itself would be screened by a 100 foot buffer zone of
trees which will be located between the boundary fence and the
refinery proper.
Construction of the proposed facility would also necessi-
tate the closing of the recreational camping area presently lo-
cated on the site. Because of Washington County’s abundant out-
door recreational facilities which are within easy access to
Eastport, it is believed that the recreational opportunities for
City or County residents will not be significantly diminished.
In addition, there is a parcel of land which is bordered
both on the north and the south by the proposed refinery, which
is to be a Marine trade training center. The land and the three
buildings upon it is owned by the State of Maine Department of
Education and Cultural Services. Beginning in July 1978, the
Vocational Technical Institute of Washington County will com-
mence classes on the site to improve the skills of the local
populace in fishing and marine activities.
The construction of the refinery will not require the
acquisition of this land and since access to the site is pro-
vided by Deep Cove Road, it is expected that the refinery’s
construction will not interfere with the implementation of the
training school.
Finally, although geographically separated from the re-
finery site, the central district of Eastport and the Quoddy Vil-
lage area may be impacted during the construction phase because a
high level of activity would be generated from the increased de-
mand for services and supplies. Essentially, the transformation
of the character of the area would be similar to what was exper-
ienced during the Passamaquoddy Study when 4,000-5,000 workers were
there, or during World War II when several thousand Seabees were
stationed at Quoddy Village. However, the transformation will
differ for two reasons; the first being the additional work force
for the Pittston Refinery is approximately one third as large 3S
the aforementioned Passamaquoddy Study, and second, the workers
will have greater mobility, thus causing the impacts to be less
concentrated on the Eastport area.
With regard to the operation phase of the proposed refinery,
it is possible that additional residential development in Eastport
could develop if the project were to cause the City’s property
tax to be substantially reduced. However, Eastport is presently
revising its existing comprehensive land use plan in order to
take into account the possible land use impacts of the refinery.
VI-2
-------
PROJECT LAND SITE
rIL uK V—i
Mobile
/ Home
Closed
Beer
‘ Tavern
Junkyard
(Abandoned
I Abandoned
Quarry
Garage &
Auto Junks
4 Houses
Closed
Garage
2 Houses
Eastport
Business
District
Cit)T Garages
& Fire House
Tenting
Grounds
Water
Emergency
Pump House
Wooden
I Shed
2 Houses / Garage
, / & Grocery
Collapsed
Coal Sheds
& S Houses
New
Wooden Pier
Plants
Old Closed
Fish Canneries
V1—3
-------
INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS
Construction and operation of the Pittston refinery will
generate significant income and employment impacts in Washington
County. The following discussion will briefly describe the major
impacts expected to result: a more detailed discussion, including
the derivation of the figures quoted below, is found in Appendix
The construction and operation phases of the refinery are treated
separately due to differences in the scale and duration of the
impacts involved.
Washington County is used as the local impact area around
the site for two reasons: 1) detailed employment data is avail-
able at the County level, since the County is a “labor area” as
defined by the Maine Department of Manpower Affairs; 2) the Coun-
ty is geographically large enough so that all, or virtually all,
refinery construction and operating workers can be expected to
have permanent or temporary residences within the County’s borders.
Construction Impacts
Labor Income Impacts
The bulk of construction expenditures for the refinery
will go for items such as materials, equipment, design services,
etc., rather than for direct construction labor. Washington
County’s economy is not equipped to provide these relatively
sophisticated materials and services; hence, no income impact
is expected to result from this source. Significant income im-
pacts are expected to result, however, from the direct wages
generated by the project’s construction.
It is currently estimated that the construction of the
refinery and its marine terminal will require a peak work force
of 2,275 workers, and a total of approximately 3,220 man—years
of labor. The peak work force will be required for a period of
only ten months.
It is expected that workers from Washington County will
supply about one-third of the peak and total labor requirements
for the refinery’s construction, i.e., about 760 workers during
the peak construction period and about 1,060 man-years of labor.
The large number of unemployed individuals within the County and
the willingness of construction workers to commute long distances
daily should render it feasible for the refinery to supply a signifi-
cant proportion of its needs locally. During the peak construc-
tion period, however, it is likely that other sectors of the lo-
cal economy, particularly construction, will experience shortages
of labor.
VI-4
-------
Wages for Washington County workers over the entire
length of the construction period are expected to total ap-
proximately $12,750,000. An additional $4,300,000 is expected
to be retained as income within the County out of the wages
of imported workers. Imported workers will make up approxi-
mately two—thirds of the refinery construction work force.
The wage estimates used reflect a local work force comprised
of lower—skill predominantly non-union individuals and an im-
ported work force with higher skills and a high proportion
of union members. These wages are comparable to union and
non-union wages paid in other construction works throughout
the state.
Only a small proportion of the imported workers t
earnings will be retained as income within the County, how-
ever, for two reasons: a) most imported workers will not bring
dependents with them and can therefore be expected to spend a
considerable portion of their earnings in their home areas
rather than in Washington County; b) only a fraction of the
money spent by imported workers within the County will be
retained there as income, since many of the goods and ser-
vices purchased by these workers must be imported into the
County from other areas.
The total income gain to the County must be adjusted to
take into account two factors. First, during the peak construc-
tion period, it is likely that many refinery workers will be
drawn from other jobs where they will not be replaced, primarily
due to a shortage of workers with suitable skills. The income
derived from refinery construction thus somewhat overstates the
net gain to the County. Second, insofar as refinery development
results in a reduction of the number of individuals receiving
unemployment benefits, the net gain to the County is also reduced.
The total loss of income from these two factors is estimated to
be about $4,250,000.
This loss of $4.25 million must be subtracted from the
anticipated gain of $17.05 million. Therefore, the net direct
income gain to the County due to the refinery’s construction is
approximately $12.8 million.
VI-5
-------
This net income increase is subject to a multiplier effect
as it circulates through the economy. Due to the high level of
imports required by an economy such as Washington County’s, how-
ever, the multiplier for the County is estimated to be relatively
low - about 1.2. The total income impact on the County, includ-
ing income induced through the multiplier effect, is estimated
to be approximately $15,370,000.
Other Income Impacts
In addition to income increases resulting directly from
refinery construction expenditures, three additional sources of
income impact should be considered.
First, local government expenditures are likely to increase
during the construction period in order to provide for needed
increases in services such as police protection and education.
A detailed analysis of likely required increases in service ex-
penditures is provided in another section of this document. No
attempt will be made, however, to determine the impact of increas 1
expenditure upon local income. This is because the greatly in-
creased property tax revenue from the refinery, or even the antici-
pation of this revenue, may encourage the City or County to under-
take further expenditure increases in order to improve the quality
of existing services. The uncertainty concerning the size of
the net effect of the refinery’s construction on total government
expenditures would greatly reduce the accuracy of any impact
estimate undertaken.
Second, and an issue involving similar problems, is the
effect of any reduction in property tax rates during the refinery
construction on the income of Eastport’ $ inhabitants. Again, a
sound estimate of the significance of such an impact would re-
quire knowledge of what is unforeseeable at the present time:
specifically, Eastport’s future decisions to cut taxes or in-
crease expenditures in the face of a major increase in the
property tax base.
Third, local income may be increased if additional pri-
vate investment (e.g., in stores or other commercial facilities)
is encouraged by the refinery’s construction and its consequent
impact upon local income and employment. It is quite impossible,
however, without undertaking a very detailed investigation, to
determine with any ac curacy the overall likely amount of such
potential activity.
VI-6
-------
While no detailed analysis of these three factors will be
undertaken, their existence should be noted. Should they prove
significant (and at least the first and second are likely to be
of importance), they would mean that the results of this analysis
underestimated somewhat the actual income impacts to be antici-
pated. Inclusion of these factors would be unlikely to bring
about a really significant change in the scale of the Impacts,
however. An Increase of 10—15% in the final income and employ-
ment estimates for Washington County should prove adequate to
account for the effects of these factors. The total income im-
pact on Washington County would then fall in the range of
$17,000,000 to $17,500,000.
Employment Impacts
Based on the analysis of income impacts, it is possible
to develop rough estimates of the total employment impact likely
to result in Washington County from the refinery’s construction.
Taking into account the losses due to worker non-replacement,
discussed previously, the net gain in direct construction employ-
ment on the refinery should total approximately 745 man-years.
Income induced through the multiplier effect may create an addi-
tional 315 man-years of employment.
This total of 1,060 man-years of work gives an average of
about 350 jobs per year over the three-year construction period.
Taking into account the additional income impacts described above,
an average level of about 385 jobs per year for three years ap-
pears reasonable. However, it should be recognized that the
heaviest employment impacts will occur during the peak construc-
tion period.
Creation of these jobs would have a significant effect
upon the unemployment rate in Washington County. Since the of f i-
cial annual average unemployment rate for 1976 in Washington
County was 11.5%, with 1,610 individuals unemployed, construction
of the refinery can be expected to reduce the annual average un-
employment by about one-fourth for a period of three years,
bringing the rate down to between 8% and 9%. As mentioned, how-
ever, the most dramatic impact will occur during the peak construc-
tion period, when it is likely that a total of about 800 County
residents will be employed directly or indirectly, as a result
of the refinery’s construction. For a period of a single year,
this would reduce the County’s average annual rate of unemployment
by about half. Significantly smaller declines in the unemploy-
ment rate would occur before and after the peak period.
VI-7
-------
It is recognized that the actual unemployment rate in
Washington County may be higher than the official rate. If such
is the case, the refinery’s proportional effect on the unemploy-
ment rate would be reduced, but the jobs contributed by the re-
finery would be all the more important to local citizens.
It is difficult to estimate the proportion of this employ-
ment which may accrue to residents of Eastport itself. Eastport
residents make up approximately 7% of the total unemployed within
the County. They therefore could be expected to obtain at least
this proportion of refinery—related employment. However, a num-
ber of additional factors may act to increase this proportion:
a) since the refinery will be located in Eastport, jobs will be
relatively more accessible to Eastport residents than to residents
of other areas in the County; b) most increased local government
expenditures during refinery construction will come from the
government of the City of Eastport; c) similarly, Eastport is
likely to receive a high proportion of whatever amount of imported
construction worker wages are retained within the County.
Due to these factors, Eastport is likely to enjoy a high
proportion of the total employment generated by the refinery’s
construction: probably, at least 10% of the total, and perhaps
even 15%, for an average of 35 to 55 jobs per year for three
years. It is possible that up to 100 members of the peak construc-
tion force will be drawn from Eastport.
Operating Impacts
Refinery Income Impacts
During normal operation, the refinery is expected to em-
ploy about 300 workers with an annual payroll of $3,000,000. In
view of the high unemployment rate within Washington County,
the County’s labor force should be able to supply 200 of these
workers without strain. The Pittston Company will make every
effort to recruit and train 200 people from the local areas’ work—
force to be employed at the refinery. About 100 workers, in-
cluding those possessing skills not available locally, will be
imported from outside the area.
In addition to direct salaries, the refinery will spend
considerable sums annually on items such as maintenance, sup-
plies, and chemicals. The great majority of these expenditures
will be made outside Washington County, and even outside New
England. However, it is expected that about $1,825,000 of such
expenditures will be retained annually as income by residents
of Washington County.
vI-8
-------
As in the case of construction income impacts, income
impacts due to refinery operation must be adjusted to take into
account the factors of worker non-replacement and loss of unem-
ployment benefits. The total loss resulting from these two
factors is estimated to be about $885,000 annually.
The total direct and indirect annual income impact of the
refinery’s operation is thus estimated to be approximately
$3,000,000 + $1,825,000 — $885,000 $3,940,000.
Using a multiplier of 1.2, the additional income induced
due to the multiplier effect is estimated to be $790,000 annually.
Therefore, the total annual income impact of the refinery is
estimated to be approximately $4,730,000 annually.
Other Income Impacts
As in the case of the refinery’s construction, additional
sources of income impact must be considered in evaluating the
refinery’s total effect. First, the presence of the refinery
may lead to increased local government spending due to: a) some-
what higher demands for some government services; and b) the
availability of significantly increased property tax revenue.
Second, decreases in the local property tax would increase the
disposable income of Eastport’s inhabitants. Third, the opera-
tion of the refinery may encourage additional investment, par-
ticularly in commercial and retail facilities, within Washing-
ton County, at least for a short period at the beginning of
the refinery’s life. The increased demand for goods and ser-
vices resulting from the refinery’s operation is especially
likely to benefit Eastport’s business district.
It is difficult to estimate the effects of these three
factors quantitatively. Further, although
these factors are relatively minor compared to the major income
impacts resulting from refinery expenditures on salaries and
operating costs. The total effect of the three factors can be
roughtly approximated by increasing the income and employment im-
pact estimates for Washington County by about l0%-15%. Total
annual income from the refinery would then fall in the range of
from $5,200,000 to $5,400,000.
VI—9
-------
Employment Impacts
Translating the income figures cited above into employ-
ment estimates, it is expected that the operation of the refinery
will directly provide 200 jobs for Washington County residents.
Allowing for some non—replacement of workers who change jobs, a
net gain of about 180 jobs can be expected.
In addition, it is anticipated that Washington County will
retain as income approximately $1,825,000 of the refinery’s an-
nual operating expenditures for such items as maintenance and sup-
plies. It will be assumed that 90% of this total will go to sup-
port workers in new jobs, the balance going to higher wages for
existing workers or higher firm profits. Since annual average
wage levels in the County are approximately $7,300/year, this
level of expenditure is sufficient to support approximately 225
additional jobs. Again, allowing for worker non—replacement, a
net gain of about 200 jobs can be expected from this source.
Similarly, 90% of the induced annual income of $740,000
within the County should allow support of approximately 100 addi-
tional jobs. This amount is based on a net income gain, and so
does not need to be adjusted for the effects of worker non-
replacement.
Thus the operation of the refinery should generate approxi-
mately 180 + 200 + 100 = 480 permanent jobs for local workers.
If an adjustment is allowed to take into account the likely effects
of increased government spending, property tax relief, and private
investment, the total should be increased to approximately 540
jobs.
Since average annual unemployment in Washington County was
just over 1,600 in 1976, an employment increase of this magnitude
should reduce the County unemployment rate by one third.
Based on the same arguments presented in the construction
impact analysis, Eastport can be assigned approximately 10% to
15% of the total jobs generated within Washington County. Thus,
Eastport residents are likely to obtain between 55 and 85 perma-
nent jobs as a result of the refinery operation.
Social Impacts of Employment Change
The increased availability of’jobs in Washington County
would benefit many residents, but could also encourage some
change of lifestyle. Impact in this area is not expected to be
significant, however. First, the number of jobs made available
VI— 10
-------
due to the refinery will be very large only during the brief
peak construction period. Thus, while numerous County residents
will undoubtedly switch jobs to work on the refinery, most will
have to return to their former occupations after a relatively
brief period. Such job-switching should pose no significant
problems for residents of an area where must of the current em-
ployment is seasonal and involvement in more than one type of
employment is fairly common. Individuals who work on construc-
tion of the refinery may benefit through improvement of their
construction skills.
Second, over the long term, operation of the refinery will
involve only a small percentage of the County’s work force. The
overall makeup of the County’s labor force thus will not be
drastically changed. It should be noted that a significant por-
tion of the County’s work force is already employed in manufac-
turing industries, such as paper and fish processing.
TAX IMPACTS
Three taxes are likely to be significantly affected by
development of the Pittston refinery: the property tax, the
state income tax, and the state sales tax.
Property Tax Impacts
The property tax revenue generated by the new refinery
will be dependent on two factors: the assessed value of the re-
finery, and the tax rate applied to it.
The cost of constructing the refinery is estimated to be
about $650 million. Assessment of the refinery is assumed to
be based on replacement rather than full construction costs.
Replacement costs include construction costs except engineering
and design and generally constitute about 80% or 90% of construc-
tion costs. A figure of 85% is used here resulting in a replace-
ment cost of the refinery of approximately $550 million.
Currently, property in Eastport is being revalued to bring
assessments more closely into line with market value. It is
expected that this reevaluation will result in assessment ratios
of 80% to 90% of full value. * For purposes of this analysis, it
is assumed that the refinery is assessed at 85% of its replacement
cost. Therefore the assessedvalueis approximately $470 million.
In order to simplify the analysis, it is assumed that
Eastport will account for future depreciation of the refinery by
making a one—time immediate 25% reduction in the assessed value
of the refinery. Such an adjustment would allow Eastport to
* Boyd Franklin, assessor for the City of Eastport, telephone
communication. VI—il
-------
assess the refinery at a constant level of .75 x $470 million=
$350 million over, for example, the first 2Oor 25 years of the
refinery’s life. Such a procedure would assure Eastport of a
constant tax revenue stream from the refinery over a long period.
The alternative would be to allow for a constant annual deprecia-
tion of the refinery’s value at some rate such as 4% per year.
This would result in higher tax collections at the beginning of
the refinery’s operational period, but significantly lower col-
lections later on.
Up until the repeal of the Uniform Statewide Property Tax
December 1977, the total property tax in Eastport was 24 mills
per dollar of assessed value, or .024 of assessed value. This
rate was made up of the following:
1) The Statewide Uniform Property Tax of 11.5 mills(.0115
of assessed value) which was collected by the state government.
Revenues from the tax were then disbursed to localities to pay
for approximatley half of the local school expenditures.
2) The City of Eastport’s property tax which is used to
help finance City and County government expenditures. This
tax rate is set annually based on the anticipated level of
City and County expenditures and the value of ratables subject
to the tax.
With the repeal of the Uniform State Property Tax it is
not certain how Eastport’s property tax structure will change.
However, according to the State Department of Education, the
State still intends to pay 50% of the local sc]xol
expenses through existing surplus funds. However, the vehicle
by which these funds will be allocated has not yet been de-
cided. In any case it is expected that the total tax rate for
Eastport would decrease.
Due to the way in which the County and City tax rates are
set, it is very likely that development of the refinery will
lead to significant decreases in current tax rate levels.
It is impossible to determine by how much the rates are likely
to drop, however, since the rate levels also depend on ex-
penditures and the availability of new tax revenues will un-
doubtedly result in higher spending for services, by both the
County and City governments. Past experience with other
localities enjoying a sizable increase on their tax base in-
dicates that both expenditures increases and tax rate de-
creases are to be expected.
The relative magnitude of the refinery’s likely impact on
city and county revenues can be roughly indicated, however. If
the refinery is assessed at $350 million, each mill of tax rate
imposed will generate revenues of $350,000 annually. This is very
*Harbridge House, Inc., The Social and Economic Impact of a
Nuclear Power Plant Upon Montague, Massachusetts, and the
Surrounding Area, November, 1976, Part IV.
VI—12
-------
nearly the total amount of property taxes collected by the City
of Eastport in 1975, and is about seventeen times the 1977 con-
tribution from Eastport to the County. Development of the re-
finery would thus appear to give both the City and the County
significant leeway for either decreasing the tax rate or improv-
ing service levels.
Construction of the refinery may also generate further
additions to the County’s tax base in the form of new investment
and new construction resulting from increased economic activity.
One of the most important such additions is likely to be the new
housing which will be needed, directly or indirectly, to house
the families of the 100 workers who will be imported into Washing-
ton County to help operate the refinery. The construction cost
of new one—family homes in Washington County currently averages
about $34,000/unit. Even if some of the new units constructed
are much less expensive mobile homes, 100 new housing units should
constitute an addition of $2.5 to $3.0 million to the County’s
property tax base.
State Income Tax Impacts
The State of Maine imposes an income tax with rates of 1%
to 10%, depending on income levelft Since much of the income
generated within the State by the refinery’s construction and
operation will be generated within relatively low income areas
such as Washington County, it is likely that the average tax
rate on this additional income will be somewhere toward the lower
end of the scale. Therefore, a figure of 3% will be used as the
average proportion of increased income captured by the State
through income tax.
The analysis of refinery employment and income impacts,
detailed in Appendix K, indicates that construction of the re-
finery will generate a state—wide income increase of approximately
$39,615,000, spread out over about three years. Operation of the
refinery will generate additional state—wide income of approximate-
ly $7,660,000 annually. Increased state income tax revenues re-
sulting from this income increase can therefore be estimated as
follows:
1) construction — .03 x $39,615,000 $1,190,000 spread out
over three years or an average of about $395,000 annually
for three years.
2) operation — .03 x $7,660,000 = $230,000 annually.
* State of Maine Bureau of Taxation.
vi—l3
-------
State Sales Tax
The State of Maine also imposes a 5% sales tax on a wide
range of consumer purchases, except food.* While purchases vary
widely from one consumer to another, it would appear reasonable
to assume that approximately 40% of consumer income might go for
items subject to the state sales tax. The sales tax could then
be expected to capture approximately 2% of any statewide income
increase.
Using the same income figures mentioned above, the in—
creased sales tax revenue resulting from the refinery’s develop-
ment may be roughly estimated as:
1) construction — 0.2 x $39,615,000 = $790,000 spread out
over three years or an average of about $260,000 annually
for three years.
2) operation — .02 x $7,660,000 $150,000 annually—
HOUSING IMPACTS
Construction Phase
It has been estimated by Pittston Company that approximate-
ly 1,500 workers (about 200 of whom are expected to be of family
status) will have to be imported into the Eastport area during
the period of peak construction activity for the proposed refinery.
The peak period is expected to last approximately 10 months, and
it is likely that the greatest strain on the existing housing
supply in the area would occur during this time interval.
The degree to which these workers will impact the existing
housing market depends, in part, upon the availability of housing
in Washington County. Housing data indicate that of the total
year-round housing units in Washington County, 344 units, or 3%,
were vacant and in good or fair condition in 19752 * Approximately
15% (50 units) of these existing vacant units are rental units.
However, much of the vacant housing noted above were not available
for sale or rent, thus reducing the number of available units to
less than 3% * Based on the low vacancy rates and the limited
number of rental units in the County, it can be concluded that
during the peak construction period, there would be an insuffi-
cient number of existing dwelling units available for the impacted
construction workers. Therefore, if the existing housing market
is not to be impacted, additional housing must be provided in
sufficient quantities to meet the new demand. Below is a detailed
description of how it is expected that this additional housing
will be supplied.
* State of Maine Bureau of Taxation.
** Housing Element of the Regional Comprehensive Plan, Washington
Regional Planning Commission, 1975.
VI —14
-------
To begin, a substantial amount of the new housing would
be provided by Pittston itself. Pittston plans to house 1,100
single workers in a single-status labor camp which would consist
of approximately 55 skid-mounted metal buildings for living
quarters, a mess hall and a recreation building. An area of
3—4 acres would be required to set up such a camp. The primary
sites which are being considered by Pittston at the present time
are located in Quoddy Village and on the refinery site. A suf-
ficient amount of vacant land would be available to accomodate
the proposed structures at either location. In addition, the
Company is considering purchasing and renovating 26 existing
vacant residences in Quoddy Village for use as temporary living
quarters. These houses are currently owned by the Four Seasons
Land Company, and most of the structures are only in fair to
poor condition.
The impact to the existing housing supply will be greatly
determined by the degree to which these workers will utilize the
temporary housing provided. Based upon case studies of large
construction projects with locational characteristcs that are
similar to the proposed Pittston project, it can be concluded
that a substantial number of the single workers (over 75%) will
locate in the barracks provided by Pittston. For those workers
who do not choose to live in the barracks, the experience of past
projects would indicate that trailers would be used to supplement
the existing housing supply. This theory has been confirmed by
Washington County officia1s. Furthermore, these same officials
stated that many homeowners in Eastport and in surrounding commu-
nities in Washington County would establish rooming houses in
order to shelter workers looking for spare rooms within commuting
distance to the project site and that at least 200 spare rooms
could be made available within a 50-mile radius of Eastport.
It can be concluded, therefore, that with the addit4onal
units to be supplied by Pittston, together with the spare rooms
and trailers that would become available, a sufficient amount
of housing will be made available, and the single workers imported
into the County will not be seeking accommodations within the
existing supply.
With regard to the estimated 200 workers who will be accom-
panied by their families, Pittston plans to establish a trailer
park of 50 units in a 2-3 acre area at the north end of Quoddy
Village supplemented by an additional 150 mobile homes dispersed
throughout Quoddy Village.
Based on the amount of vacant land in Quoddy Village, shown
in an existing land use map of the City of Eastport, it is estimated
that the planned 200 trailer units could be placed within the
Village. In addition, Mr. Everett Baxter, City Manager for East-
port, stated that there are a sufficient number of vacant lots
in Quoddy Village to accommodate this number of trailers.
* Mr. Robert Crane, Director of Washington County Regional Planning
Commission.
vi— 15
-------
Since available existing rental units are extremely
scarce in the County, it is likely that the imported married
workers and their families would, by necessity, locate in either
trailers provided by Pittston, or in trailers made available by
local citizens, builders, or the workers themselves.
In conclusion, it is recognized that the amount of avail-
able rental housing in Washington County is extremely limited.
Nevertheless, it is believed that additional housing will be pro-
vided by Pittston and county residents and builders in sufficient
quantities so as to meet the anticipated demands. Consequently,
it is expected that any adverse impacts upon the existing housing
market will be minimal. If impacts are to take place, it will pro-
bably be to those local renters who do not have leases or whose
lease has expired during the peak construction period. Although
it is impossible to determine just how many people will be af-
fected in this manner, it is believed that the number would be
small indeed-, due to the unique circumstances necessary to cause
displacement.
Operation Phase
It is expected that of the 300 people permanently employed
full-time at the proposed refinery, 100 workers and their depen-
dents would come from outside Washington County. The degree to
which the new households would place a strain on the housing sup-
ply in Eastport and in surrounding residential areas in the
County depends, to a large extent, on the growth rates of the
present housing stock and population in these locations.
According to data obtained from the Washington County Re-
gional Planning Commission and the U.S. Census Bureau, the Coun-
ty’s housing supply and population grew at approximately the same
rate, nearly 12%, between 1970 and 1975. This relationship is
further substantIated by the fact that the area’s housing vacancy
rate in 1975 was estimated to be approximately 3%, about the same
as in 1970. Assuming that housing and population growth rates
remain roughly the same in the near future, and the vacancy rate
is as low as it is presently, a strain on the county’s housing
supply might develop during the short period when non-local
permanent workers look for housing in the Eastport area. However,
the number of housing units that would have to be provided for
these workers and their dependents would represent less than 1%
of the existing housing stock in Washington County. Based on
current new housing construction rates,* the annual number of net
new housing units which are being produced in the County is three
tImes the requirement for meeting the housing needs of the refine-
ry’s operational work force.* Furthermore, there is more than
enough available vacant land in Eastport and in other neighboring
* Washington County Regional Planning Commission, 1975.
vi—16
-------
municipalitIes to support the present level of residential con-
struction activity. These factors indicate that the area has
the necessary labor, construction materials and land resources
to meet the long—term housing needs of the refinery’s work force.
It is likely, therefore, that any impact on housing would be tem-
porary, lasting only until the supply of housing units could be
brought into equilibri ’m with the increased housing demand.
With regard to the cost of recent residential construction,
slightly more than 40% of the new housing were mobile homes costa
ing an average of approximately $9,000 each, exclusive of land
costs.* The bulk of the remaining units were single family homes,
must of which were financed through the Farmer’s Home Administra-
tion Rural Home Subsidy Program. The average cost of a 3—bedroom
single family home built during this 5-year period was about
$34,000.* The quality of new construction in the Eastport area
is probably equivalent to the quality of new homes which cost
several thousand dollars more in more densely populated areas due
to the fact that land and labor Costs are relatively low in Wash-
ington County. In addition, approximately 86% of the county’s
housing stock is in good condition. Overall, the quality of the
new construction and the general condition of the existing housing
supply is sufficiently high to prove acceptable to the new refinery
families who would move into in the area.
An additional impact on local housing may be caused by the
ability of the proposed refinery to absorb the great bulk of the
property tax burden in Eastport. As a result of this phenomenon,
the tax contribution of the remaining property owners in the City
is likely to be dramatically reduced. Therefore, it is possible
that much of the pressure for future residential development in
the County would be shifted to Eastport because city residents
would enjoy a significant tax advantage (due to the refinery’s
presence) compared to most other municipalities in the area.
Case studies of communities in which power plants have been con-
structed indicate that there is a relationship between changes
in tax rates and residential growth rates. In addition, these
studies have also shown that the existence of local regulatory
land use controls can modify residential growth induced by tax
rate changes. Therefore, if the proposed refinery were to induce
significant pressure for residential development in Eastport, due
to a substantial reduction in the City’s property tax rate, the
degree to which the municipality adheres to its comprehensive
plan would largely determine the community’s ability to properly
manage any new residential construction which might occur.
In conclusion, it is believed that the County has the suf-
ficient resources to meet the housing needs of the refinery’s
operational work force and therefore, the long-term impact on
housing is expected to be minimal. In addition, the physical
character of Eastport’s neighborhoods is not expected to change
due to the refinery’s presence.
* Mr. Robert Crane, Director of Washington county Regional Planning
Commission.
VI- 17
-------
MUNICIPAL SERVICES
With an influx of workers and their families to Eastport
for the construction and operation of the proposed Pittston Re—
finery, the demand for certain municipal services is likely to
increase as well. In addition, it appears that the greatest im-
pact on these services would develop during the refinery’s con-
struction because the number of new people attracted to East-
port would be significantly larger during the construction phase
than during the operational phase. For this reason, impacts
during these two phases are discussed separately.
Construction
In the discussion which follows, service cost expenditure
estimates are estimates of peak and not average costs and are
applicable to the service demand likely to occur during the re-
finery’s peak construction year. As such, they constitute a dis-
tinctively worst case situation. Service expenditures in the
periods preceding and following the peak construction year should
be lower than the estimates presented below.
General Government Administration
General government administration includes such functions
as tax collection, financial administration, construction and
maintenance of public buildings, city planning, issuance of building
permits, audits, etc. The two largest expenses in operating the
local government are employee salaries and construction and/or
maintenance costs of city buildings. A review of ity expenditures
in this area over the last four years indicates that these expen-
ditures have not been sensitive to change in total population,
and have in fact declined in real terms. The influx of population
due to the refinery’s construction is therefore unlikely to neces-
sitate significant increased expenditures in this area.
Police
During refinery construction, the Eastport Police Depart-
ment would require an expansion of the present force by a maximum
of five additional officers. In addition, salary increases for
the existing police officers would probably be necessary if it
should be required to offer higher wages to attract a sufficient
number of new officers. Furthermore, the purchase and operation
of a new police cruiser would be necessary, as well. The estimated
impact of these additional expenditures would be to increase the
police budget from its current level of $55,000 annually to about
$123,000 annually.
It is also anticipated that the existing jail facilities
in Calais would be insufficient and persons would have to be taken
to the County Jail in Machias.
vI—l8
-------
Fire
The Eastport Fire Department is a volunteer organiza-
tion equipped with 6 modern trucks which are housed in a well
maintained station house constructed in 1969. The department’s
present fite fighting capability is not expected to be dimin-
ished during the refinery’s construction. It is also estimated
that increases in local traffic during the construction period
will not adversely affect the department’s response time to
emergency situation s.*In addition, Pittston Corp. has stated
that its internal fire-fighting force would be capable of hand-
ling a major fire at the refinery, and that the need for assis-
tance from local fire units during such an event would be high-
ly unlikely.
Sanitation
Eastport currently uses an inland 200 acre sanitary
landfill site in the nearby community of Edmund to dispose of
its municipal solid waste. Since solid waste produced by the
refinery would be handled by Pittston on the plant site, the
city would be responsible for disposing only of the household
and commercial wastes generated by the construction worker force
and their families expected to move into E stport. In addition,
the city charges $3.00 per capita to pay for a privately con-
tracted sanitation pick—up service and for maintenance of the
dump. Therefore, it is estimated that any additional costs
incurred by the City in this service area would be minimal.
Sewage and Sewage Treatment
The refinery will have its own secondary wastewater
treatment facility, so it will not increase the amount of
untreated waste discharged locally. Furthermore, it is ex—
pected that only a portion of the refinery’s operating workers
will settle in Eastport itself. Thus, the amount of untreated
residential sewage discharges generated within Eastport is not
expected to increase substantially. However, as previously
discussed, it is anticipated that Eastport will be eligible
for a Step 1 Facilities Planning Grant pursuant to Section
201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) by
the beginning of 1978. This is based on the state’s priority
funding list for wastewater treatment facilities and is
the first step in a three stage Federal, state, and local
grant program.
* Mr. Mel Conte, Fire Chief, City of Eastport.
VI—19
-------
Water Supply System
The Boyden Lake reservoir, with a capacity of ap-
proximately 20 billion gallons, would be able to supply
a sufficient quantity of water for the refinery’s needs
even during the summer months. However, the present water
system is inadequate to deliver the required amount of water
to the refinery. A 12 inch main and assoicated pumping equip-
ment would have to be added to the existing delivery system.
In addition, Boyden Lake dam would have to be repaired to reduce
leakage. The total cost of all these improvements is estimated
to be $800,000. Ordinarily, the construction costs for such *
improvements are borne by the user requiring the construction.
However, the arrangement for the payment of such improvements
(if they are undertaken) has not been formulated at the present
time. In any event, since the water supply company is privately
owned and operated, the finances of the governments of Eastport
and Washington County are not expected to be affected.
If the City of Eastport were to purchase the water supply
system, as is now being discussed, the City would then pass along
the construction costs mentioned previously and the impacts
would be the same. Any maintenance costs that would be in-
curred by the City would be passed along to the customer
through service charges.
Health and Welfare
The major expense of the City’s limited expenditures
on health services and welfare is the salary of the health
inspector. Since it is not expected that another health in-
spector would be needed and, given the small amount of over-
all cost for this area, it is likely that any changes in the
expendiutres for this service would be insignificant.
*Eastport Water Company.
VI—20
-------
Medical Facilities
The Pittston Company plans to establish a first aid
station on the refinery site to care for minor injuries and to
provide an ambulance. Additional medical help would be pro-
vided by the Eastport Memorial Hospital.
This Hospital is a non—profit corporation operated by a
Board of Directors. The majority of the funds received by the
hospital for its day to day operation are obtained from the
State of Maine’s nursing home reimbursement program. Additional
revenues are provided by Medicare and Medicaid programs, Blue
Cross, and payments from patients.*
The hospital basically functions as a nursing home at
the present time and is currently filled to capacity. It is
extimated that extra space would be needed to house additional
patients during the refinery’s construction. According to the
hospital director this space could be made available through
the use of trailers located on the hospital parking lot adja-
cent to the building. In addition, the present hospital staff
would probably have to be expanded; specifically, one extra
doctor, one x—ray technician, and one nurse would be needed.
In order to pay for this additional personnel and facilities,
the hospital director stated that the hospital would take a
loan. It is expected that this loan would be amortized by in-
creased revenues derived from an increased number of patients.
It should also be pointed out that the City of Eastport contri-
buted funds in the past to the hospital and this could be an
alternative source of revenue in the future. To conclude, it
can not be determined exactly where the hospital will receive
additional funding or exactly how much will be rfeeded.
Highways and Bridges
As detailed in the transportation section, the bulk of
the traffic impacts will be confined to State Route 190 and the
intersection of Route 190 and U.S. 1. Although some improve-
n nts to the aforementioned intersection may be desired, it has
not yet been determined what actions the State Department of
Transportation will take. Consequently, it is not possible to
identify costs that would be connected with these improvements.
Some additional auto traffic due to the increased popu-
lation during the peak construction period may be directed onto
local streets. However, it is not expected that the extra traf-
fic would have a significant affect on expenditures for this
service area.
* Dr. James Bates, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
Eastport Memorial Hospital.
v’ - 21
-------
Recreation
The majority of recreation expenditures in Eastport
are spent on library services. It is doubtful whether any
expansion of library services could be justified for the
short term construction period. Other recreational facili-
ties appear to be adequate to meet the needs of the new workers
and their families. It is expected, therefore, that little
additional recreational costs would be incurred by Eastport
as a result of the refinery’s construction.
Schools
It is expected that during the refinery’s peak construc-
tion period, 225 new students would be added to the school sys-
tem’s present enrollment. Since Pittston has stated that the
Company would provide temporary classrooms where needed, no new
school capital expenditures are expected to be necessary. Pro-
viding additional teaching, custodial and busing services that
would be required for the new pupils would cost approximately
$148,000 annually. However, since roughly 50 percent of the
total school expenditures in Eastport are paid for by the State
of Maine, it is anticipated that the State would pay $74,000
of the additional school expenditures.
Furthermore, it is estimated that the present school
programs and activities which require the use of cafeterias,
gymnasiums and sciene laboratories would not be affected due
to the expected increased school enrollment.
Summary
In conclusion, it is expected that increased cost expen-
ditures would have to be made in the service areas of police
protection and schools. The total expenditure during the peak
constructIon year is estimated to be approximately $l43 000 for the
City of Eastport and $74,000 for the State of Maine.
Operation Phase
It is expected that due to the modest numbers of workers
to be employed atthe refinery during its normal operation, the
only services to be effected would be police and school. Be-
low is a description of the costs that would be incurred by
these two municipal services.
Police
It is not known at the present time whether the five addi-
tional police officers, hired during the construction period,
vi-22
-------
would remain as permanent members of the force. If the force
reverted to its original size (5 officers) it is expected that
the salary increases, received by these officers during the
construction phase, would remain in effect. Therefore, the
annual police expenditures would increase from a current level
of $55,000 to approximately $66,000.
If the City chooses to retain the five additional police
officers as permanent members of the force, and elects to main-
tain the additional marked patrol car determined to be necessary
during the construction period, the annual police expenditures
would amount to about $123,000 as opposed to the current level
of $55,000.
Schools
It is estimated that an additional 71 elementary school
students and 24 high-school students would be added to the school
systems’s present enrollment. Based on the current enrollment
(320 students) and capacity of 400 students of Eastport’s ex-
isting elementary school, the primary school could absorb the
additional students with little problem. Although the high
school is presently overcrowded, the anticipated new high school
students could be accepted into the high school without expan-
ding the existing building. It is expected, therefore, that new
capital expenditure would not be required.
Teaching and custodial expenses for the new students are
expected to total about $66,000 annually. Assuming 50 percent
of the City’s total school expenditures is paid for by the State,
it is estimated that Eastport’s portion of the total school cost
increase would be $33,000.
Conclusion
It is anticipated that the total expenditure for increased
service demand during the opertation of the proposed refinery
would amount to approximately $ 44,000 for the City of Eastport
if the police department reverts to its original size, and about
$101,000 for the City if the 5 additional officers and extra cruiser
are retained. In addition, an increased expenditure of $33 , 000
would be incurred by the State of Maine during the refinery’s
operation.
vi— 23
-------
TRANSPORTATION
Construction Phase
State Route 190
To determine the impacts to State Route 190 during the
construction of the refinery, it is necessary to determine
the future traffic volumes that would exist if the refinery
were not constructed and add to this base volume, the addi-
tional number of vehicles which would be generated from the
construction work force. However, since the demand volumes
are expected to be minimal during the off-peak periods, only
peak hour conditions were examined.
To determine the base condition for the year 1968 (an-
ticipated date of construction), 1972 peak hour counts are mul-
tiplied by a 2-1/2% per annum growth factor.*
To determine the traffic generated from the work force,
it is necessary to explore two scenarios due to the fact that
it is not yet certain whether or not the barracks for the
single workers will be built at Quoddy Village or at the work
site. Table VI—l illustrates the total vehicular traffic volumes
that are to be expected according to these varying conditions. In
addition, Table VI—l relates these anticipated volumes to the
capacity of the roadway and the corresponding Level of Service
as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual.
It can be seen from Table VI-l that without the construc-
tion of the refinery, during peak hours the roadway would operate
at Level of Service C, which is defined as a stable flow condi-
tion. However, if the refinery is constructed, the roadway will
be operating at a level of Service E, even if the barracks are
constructed on site. Level of Service E means that the road-
way will be operating at or near capacity with the traffic flow
being unstable and experiencing stoppages of momentary duration.
If the barracks are constructed at Quoddy Village, then it
is clear that the expected volume would exceed the roadways
capacity. It should be noted however, that Pittston has stated
that they will supply transportation to the residential areas on
an as needed basis. If 5 buses where provided, making 35 runs,
to transport the workers to and from Quoddy Village (if that site
were selected for the barracks) then State 190 would be able to
c’nerate at Level of Service E.
It should be mentioned, however, that these figures may
still understate the construction impacts. As noted in the
table, it was assumed that trucks would only constitute 5% of
the peak hour traffic. This percentage was used because Pittston
has indicated that the movement of goods into the site would be
accommodated by the use of barges. It is uncertain, however,
that this will be the case. If the percentage of trucks does
increase above the 5% level assumed, then State 190 will operate
at Level of Service E no matter where the barracks are constructed.
* Growth factor suppliedby Maine Department of Transportation.
VI—2 4
-------
Table vi—1
Anticipated Traffic Demand for
Construction Phase on State 190
Peak Hour
Volume
Volume
Capacity
Level of
Service
Base condition
348
veh./hr.
.21
C
Barracks on Site
1,395
veh./hr.
.82
E
Barracks at
Quoddy. Vi1lage
2,495
veh./hr.
1.47
F
Assumes: 5% trucks, 0% grades, variable % buses dependent upon
Quoddy Villages buses, 50 MPH Average Highway Speed,
35% Passing Sight Distance, 1 person per vehicle.
It can be concluded that during the construction phase
of the refinery, State 190 will be seriously impacted during
the peak hours of the day.
If the impacts imposed upon State 190 are to be remedied,
there are several alternatives available. First, major improve-
ments in the form of widening the highway could be implemented.
However, the fact that the major problems will occur only during
the peak hours of the day during the construction phase would
indicate that a large capital expense may not be warranted.
Secondly, a mix of several mobility enhancing improvements could
be coordinated in addition to the use of the buses from Quoddy
Village already discussed. Phasing of employee arrivals, the in-
stitution of a company operated car—pooling program, and company
operated buses from centralized localities other than Quoddy
Village would all function to lessen the demand volume during th
construction phase of the project. This would ease con-
gestion and improve the level of service during this period of time.
Intersection of State Route 190 and U.S. 1 Analysis
The intersection of U.S. 1 and State Route 190, as it
presently exists, is an uncontrolled intersection. Since it is
expected that some of the construction workers will be commuting
on U.S. 1 to and from work (see Housing Section), it is expected
that this intersection will experience an increase in traffic
and vehicular conflicts. Since these increased volumes and con—
flicts could reduce the safety of the intersection’s operation,
VI—25
-------
it was determined that a signal should be installed to control
the traffic flow during the peak periods. To determine how the
intersection would function with this restraint, Highway Capacity
Manual procedures were used to determine that a minimum cycle
length of 70 seconds should be used. Using this information,
together with the anticipated demand volumes, levels of service
were determined and are shown in Table VI—2. (Future volumes
were obtained by multiplying current volumes by 2-1/2% per annum.)
Table VI-2
Peak Hour Level of Service —
Intersection US. 1 and State 190
Level
Unadjusted
Service Volume
Load
Factor
of
Service
Northbound
U.S.
1
876 veh/hr/green
0.3-0.7
D
Westbound
State
190
1,061 veh/hr/green
0.7-1.0
B
Assumes: No pedestrian conflicts NB U.S.l — 80% right turns
PHF = .80 WB S 190 - 50% right turns
5% trucks 50% left turns
Based upon the anticipated service level, it is apparent
that severe impacts will exist at the intersection during the
peak hours of the day during the construction phase of the project.
These problems will be manifested in two fashions. First, heavy
delay will be experienced not only by vehicles heading towards
the proposed site, but mainline U.s. 1 and State 190 vehicles
will also experience severe delays. In addition, a hazardous
safety condition will be caused by the heavy moven nt of left
;urning vehicles and right turning vehicles into the single lane
of State 190.
In order to improve these conditions, intersection improve—
ment would seem appropriate. It is suggested that the main theme
in any improvement should be the widening of approaches to allow
for two lanes of movement in any direction within the area. In
addition, right turning channelization or permitting right turns
on red would ease these heavy movements in the intersection. A
leading or lagging green should also be provided on south-bound
Vi—26
-------
U.s. 1 for left turning vehicles. However, signalization would
only be needed during peak periods of operation. During of f-
peak periods or during the normal operating phase of the project
this signal should be maintained as a flashing signal or as deemed
appropriate.
Operation Phase
During the operating phase of the project impacts upon
the existing traffic network would be minimal. The service level
of State 190 would not change from C (stable flow) except where
excessive truck demands of over 15% would be present. In this
case, it would change to level of service D, which signifies
approaching unstable flow.
The intersection of U.s. 1 and State 190 would function
much as it does today.
Historical/Archaeological . As of July 6, 1976, 12 land-
marks in Washington County are listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. The only one of these landmarks located in
Eastport is the Barracks Building at Fort Sullivan, bult in 1808.
Two others are located nearby: the Mansion House (c. 1800) whIch
is 17 miles away In Robbinston; and the St. Croix Island National
Monument (16011) which is on the international boundary 20 miles
away near Red Beach. It is not antIcipated that the construction
of the proposed project will result in any adverse impact to
these landmarks.
An archaeological survey of the site of the proposed
refinery performed by Dr. Robson Bonnichsen of the Department
of Anthropology, University of Maine at Orono, found no evidence
of any archaeological resources. Dr. Bonnichsen’s complete report
is Included in Appendix I.
The review of the proposed project’s historical/archaeo-
logical structures or sites was coordinated with the State of
Maine, Historic Preservation Officer.
VI-27
-------
Aquatic Resources
Fresh Water.
Surface Water . There are no fresh water bodies in the
immediate vicinity of the site which will be affected by
the construction or operation of the proposed facility!
However, during construction, drainage ditches may carry
silt to Cobscook Bay if not properly monitored. It does
not appear that any wetlands will be threatened by either
primary or secondary development.
Groundwater . No significant use is made of the ground-
water in the vicinity of the site. However, the site loca-
tion and operation of the landfill must be undertaken in
accordance with Maine’s regulations, which would result
in little, if any, impact to the area’s groundwater.
Water Supply . The City of Eastport’s water supply comes
from Boyden Lake located on the mainland. The capacity
of the lake Is more than adequate to serve any increase
in population, which may result from either th “efinery’s
construction or operation, as well as to supply process
water to the refinery.
Impact of Routine Refinery Discharges on Marine Water
Quality.
Dlscharges.* Preceding sections described the various
pollutants to be discharged from the refinery. The most
significant parameter regarding water quality conditions
is oil and grease. The worst situation regarding this oil
and grease obviously will be when ballast water, storm—
water runoff, and process wastewater are all being dis-
charged at the same time. These combined discharges will
produce a flow of approximately 4.4 mgd. At the permitted
maximum concentration of l5mg/L, this would be 550 pounds
of oil per day or 92 gpd( 6 lbs/gal).
However, dispersion through the diffuser outfall should
minimize the visual impact of this amount of oil and
grease, although it will then be present in the ecosystem.
The concentrations In the vicinity of the diffuser should
be near or below the threshold at which animals and plants
may be affected. However, there will be a chronic accum-
ulation of oil deposits in the sediments near the diffuser.
________________________ VI—28
* See Appendix A for specific permit conditions.
-------
Water current velocities usually do not exceed 1 knot in
the cove areas, thus discharges will not be pushed into
open water and diluted as readily as with greater veloci-
ties. The sediments in the immediate area of the diffuser
will lose the potential for supporting benthic life and
consequently also those organisms which depend on the benthos
as energy processors. It is expected, however, that the
loss of organisms in the immediate vicinity of wastewater
discharges will have insignificant effects on the
ecosystem.
The concentrations of oil and grease in the receiving
water will meet NPDES regulations. Also, the hydrocarbon
content of the discharge is expected to be low, and the
diffuser will not contact the bottom. These factors
should aid In mitigating more severe Impacts.
Undoubtedly, a certain amount of hazard to the ecosystem
surrounding Eastport will be created with the introduction
of petroleum based oil from the refinery. Stringent com-
pliance with the permit limitations, maximum attention to
the operation and maintenance of all wastewater
treatment facilities, and knowledge of new tech-
nological developments will be essential to en-
sure a minimum impact from the refinery dis—
charge.
Oil Spills During Routine Transfer Operations . Pittston’s
goal in installing the previously described preventive
structures and its adoption of stringent operating pro-
cedures is to prevent oil spills from all sources. Except
for unusual or severe incidents, an average of approximately
20 barrels of oil is expected to be spilled per year. A
severe incident is defined as one where the oil spill ex-
ceeds 700 barrels. (Note: Some tanker spill analyses define
a large spill as over 1,000 barrels.)
The 20 barrels per year projected spillage for Eastport
amounts to less than 0.00002 percent of all oil handled.
This projection is 10 times less than the amount spilled
at Portland, Maine, New England’s largest oil port, which
is considered to have an excellent record and is recognized
as a well managed port. In 1972, a typical year, oil spil-
lage in Portland was 0.0002 percent or 400 barrels per year,
with 600,000 BPD of oil handled. However, the best example
of a universally recognized well managed port is Great
Britain’s major oil port at Milford Haven, which is located
at the southwest tip of Wales. It receives all sizes of
tankers, including three or more VLCC’s per week.
VI —29
-------
The projected oil spillage figures for Eastport cçerations were derived
fran Milford Haven’s cperational experiences. Milford Haven data were
taken as a basis rather than worldwide oil spill statis-
tics because the worldwide statistics do not delineate
or segregate oil spill occurrences according to comparable
conditions. For example, traffic densities, configuration
of channel, use of pilots, lighting, similarities of
locale, navigation aids, operating conditions, types of
ships, operating controls, etc. can all differ. Therefore,
these world wide statistics have little significance in
making projections for specific locations or conditions.
However, for Eastport, use of the Milford Haven data
Is both meaningful and statistically significant for
several reasons:
The size of the sample is large. Over the nine year
period 1963 through 1971, 22,1156 ships entered the
port, and the oil volume handled ranged from
300,000 BPD in 1963 to over one million BPD in 1971.
During the three-year period 1969 through 1971 when
10 106 ships entered the port, the oil volim har Ued eta-
bifized to a cz million BPD.
Extensive and complete records of all oil spills have
been kept and classified according to size and circuin—
stance; that is, whether the spill occurred while a
tanker was in passage, at moorings, or at a berth
undergoing unloading/loading/ballasting or bunkering,
or whether the spill occurred on a pier or on land
rather than on a tanker.
The size of vessels handled have ranged from the
“handy” size tanker to a 285,000 DWT VLCC.
The tidal range, the currents, the channel depth and
width, the sea approaches, the expanse of water sur-
rounding the channel, and the adjacent land terrain
at Milford Haven are all similar to Eastport in many
ways.
Pertinent statistics on the volume of cargo handled and
the maximum size ships that have entered Milford Haven
are given in Figure VI-2, which also includes a map of the
port. Table VI—3 presents the oil spillage experience for
each year in the 1963 through 1971 period, giving the num-
ber of spills, quantities, and classifications by source
and size. The severe spills, defined as ones exceeding 700
barrels, are also listed in Table VI—3, separately by in-
cident. Only four occurred In this period.
VI—30
-------
THE PORT OF MILFORD HAVEN
FIGURE vi 2
VLCC’S Entering
ANNUAL
3M
CARSO NANOLE
rj
D(in mWlsn
$ it this)
1963
1966
I
1969
1912
.
2.8
13.0
j 28.9
39.9
45.7
ANNUAL TONNAGE OF VESSELS HANDLED (I tIupst.fTh.s )
20 MIlhon -
15 M l n
10 Mifion
5M ilhon
LitiSit — S SSC SM.
INCREASE IN SIZE OF SHIP HANDLED o. t..s
I OLYMPIC CHALLENGER 65.000
•. ESSOLIBYA 9O.000
. . BERGEHAVEN 142.000 —
• ‘ ESSO SCOTIA 250.000 — -
S ROSAMAERSK285000 _. _ I
:d II
r -
ce TJ Sb!ePS
- -
Mu FORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BOARD, Offices Signal Stat on and Boot Harbour
Year
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Number
116
125
152
208
147
I.275.’
if
o S
1
V tw ck P
GtCostle
1ead --
BROKE
POWER
STATION I
VI—3].
-------
TABLE VI-1.
OIL SPILL EXPERIENCE
PORT OF MILFORD HAVEN. WALES. UNITED KINGDOM
Data Submitted to Maine’s Board of Environmental Protection in July 1873
NOTE: Above includes spiiis from all sources except where the spill was larger than 100 tons which are claBSifled as “severe”.
The “severe” spills during the 1963-71 period caused by accidents In the harbor are as follows:
• Ease Portsmouth July 9, 1960
• Benjamin Coates March 20, 1962.
• Refinery Incident . . . . Nov. 1, 1968
a ThUntSJlkW March15, 1971.
• . . 300—350 Toes
100-150 Tone
• . . 90—100 Tons
•.. lOOToes
VI—32
YEAR
1963 1964
1965
1967
1968 1969
1970
1971
1963—1971
10
13
1236
00008
2.1
2.3
0.7
0.8
1966
30
29
2378
.00011
2.5
3.0
1.1
1.3
.9
18
1392
.00005
1.9
2.4
0.5
0.6
36
25
1935
.00014
3.3
4.2
1.4
1.8
11
28
2580
.00006
1.8
1.9
0.6
0.6
14
16
15
41
11
43
3400
2669
3226
3490
.00005
.00004
• 00030
.00003
1.1
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.9
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.3
ORIGINAL STAThT!CS
• Total Oil Spilled, Tons
• Total Oil Moved, Million Tons
• Total Ships Involved
• % Oil Spilled
• No. of Spills/Million Tons
• No. of SpiIls/ 100 Ships
• Tons Spilled/Million Tons
• Tons Spilled/100 Ships
NO. OF SPILLS
CLASSIFICATION BY SOURCE
• Tankers In Transit Or Mooring
• Tankers Loading/Unloading
— Loading
— Discharging
— Rallasting
— Deballasting
- Subtotal
• Tankers Bunkering
• Tankers Miscellaneous
• Piers: Hoses, Pipelines, Slop, Etc .
• Total
158
267
22,456
00006
1. 8
2. 1
0.6
0.7
18
98
100
29
17
244
59
65
95
481
6 — — a
1 8 11 17
5 3 9 13
1 2 6 3
2 3 3 —
9 16. 29 33
1 S 13 8
5 7 17 14
8 8 24 15
28 34 83 72
1
10
17
S
I
31
4
9
5
50
3
9
10
4
23
9
6
12
52
S
11
22
4
37
9
3
6
58
2
16
8
6
1
31
4
1
11
3
16
13
4
3
35
8
S
6
55
NO. OF SPILLS
CLASSIFICATION BY SIZE
• Slight: 80 Gallons
• Medium: 80-160 Gallons
• Considerable: Over 160 Gallons
• Total
16
5
5
28
19
13
2
34
44
21
18
83
38
21
is
72
27
16
7
50
2’f
24
1
62
36
17
.5
58
17
S
55
36
10
3
49
280
144
57
481
-------
Pittston’s projection of the Eastport spill frequency is
as follows: the key figures in Milford Haven’s data
are that, excluding severe Incidents, an average of 1.6 spills
per 100 ships entering the harbor occurred from all
sources. Each spill amounted to an average of 2.6 barrels.
Projecting these figures to Eastport where the 500 to 750
ships entering the port annually will be considerably less
than Milford Haven’s 3,500, spills are expected to total
14 to 22 barrels a year. Table VI-2 summarizes the Milford
Haven experience, and presents projections for Eastport,
which are dependent upon the number of ships entering the
•port annually.
At Milford Haven, 90 percent of the spills were less than
4 barrels each, and almost 90 percent of the incidents
occurred in operations while the tanker was berthed. Only
3.7 percent of the occurrences documented above were attri-
buted to tankers in passage or at moorings away from the
piers. At Eastport, where the berthed tankers will be
surrounded by booms, essentially all of these oil spills
should be contained, causing no harm in other areas.
The record from 1971 through 1975 shows that total oil
spillage from chronic, or routine operation, exclusive of
a 2,300 ton spill resulting from a carrier grounding,
remained essentially the same as in the 1969—1971 period.
This was true even though both the quantity of oil handled
and the number of ships entering the port increased.
During the five years from 1971 through 1975, ships enter-
ing Milford Haven included 7148 VLCC’s of 190,000 DWT or
larger. Not a single oil spill incident was attributed
to these vessels; the only incident involving VLCC’s
was a slight grazing of one’s keel while it was being swung
around in the relatively limited dredged space adjacent
to its berth, an occurrence which is less likely to happen
in Eastport’s deeper waters.
Although 22,1456 tankers entered Milford Haven in the 1963—
1971 period, only two of the four severe oil spill inci-
dents experienced in the port came from tanker groundirigs.
The other two incidents were due, respectively, to an
overflow from a refinery tank and a rupture In a tanker
caused by the collapse of heavy shore—based piping onto
its deck. These spills ranged from 700 to 2,800 barrels.
It is particularly difficult to estimate oil spill fre-
quency and probability for a port like Eastport. The
normal method of estimating spill frequency is to analyze
VI—33
-------
TABLE VI—2.. OIL SPILLS
Milford
Haven
Eastport
Projection
Actual
1963—71
Actual
1969—71
A
B
Oil handled, barrels per
day 337,000 1,050,000 473,000 473,000
Number of ships per year 2,495 3,368 (1) 750(1)
Oil Spillage Averages
Incidents per year 53 54 8 12
Incidents per 100 ships 2.1 1.6 1.6(1) 1.6(1)
Barrels spilled per
incident 3.9 1.8 1.80-) 1.8(1)
Barrels spilled per
year 206 98 14 22
No. Spills Classified by
Accident
Tankers in passage or
moored 4% 5%
Tankers loading, ballast—
ing, etc. 51% 64%
Tankers bunkering 12% 13%
Tankers miscellaneous 13% 4%
Pier equipment
operations 20% 14%
No. Spills Classified by
Size
Slight: Under 80 gallons 58% 66%
Moderate: 80 to 160 gallons 30% 27%
Considerable: Over
160 gallons 12% 7%
1. Scenarios depend on number of ships entering annually. Reasonable size
and frequency ranges are:
Class (DWT) Tankers/year Tankers/week
150,000 87 1
30—70,000 305 6
10—30,000 180 4
Smaller 100 2
VI—34
-------
historic traffic and accident statistics for the port In
question. However, since Eastport presently handles Only
very small fishing vessels and several small fuel oil
barges, EPA applied Milford Havents reported annual ratios
of spilled oil to total oil handled to the Eastport
plans to check the Pittston projections. In the years
1963—1974, spills from all causes ranged from 0.00002 per-
cent of the oil handled in 1974 to 0.001436 percent in
1973. The 1963—1974 average was 0.00068 per nt. Sub-
tracting those spills which occurred in transit (1967,
1971, and 1973), the percentage of handled oil spilled was
only 0.000041 perc nt. This would equal 86 barrels per
year at Eastport.
Pittston anticipates that Eastport will better the 1969—
1971 Milford Haven experience for those spills occurred
before Milford Haven Installed a shore—based radar surveil-
lance system, the carry-aboard radar channel approach unit,
and the centralized communications center, all of which
will be available at Eastport at the start of operations.
In addition, Eastport has other favorable features which
further decrease the risks of groundings and collisions:
the channel Is wider, deeper and straighter; the traffic
density is considerably lower; and, because there are no
depth limitations at the Eastport berthing area, a VLCC
can turn around on any tide after It enters the channel
unlike at Milford Haven where, once committed, tankers Triust
proceed to berth and cannot exit until the next high tide.
Eastport will also have the benefits of Milford Haven’s
long experience In all phases of operating a modern,
efficient oil port.
Based on these data, it can be concluded that the chronic
spillage at Eastport will probably be between 20 and 86
barrels per year, in addition to the equivalent of 1-2
barrels per day discharged in wastewater. As previously
inducated, booms will control much of this spillage so
there should be very little effect on the environment
resulting from routine spills at the docks.
Oil Spills Due to Tanker Accidents
The focus of concern with the proposed project, however,
Is not the chronic spill potential of the activities at the ter-
minal, but rather the potential for a larger, catastrophic spill
due to a tanker grounding or collision. The only agreement to
be found on this Issue Is that the large spill potential Is small
but very difficult to quantify.
VI—35
-------
Usually, predictions on spills due to tanker accidents can
be made by extrapolating the existing traffic and accident statis-
tics of the port, applying standard factors based on world aver-
ages, or by a direct comparison with another port which has similar
navigational characteristics. In this case, however, there is no
existing data base except the knowledge that occasionally a large
ship has safely transited Eastport s waters. The application of
world—wide statistics does not provide a ready solution because
the data base is derived from a record of all tanker accidents
involving all sorts of vessels under many different conditions
and with varying quantities of oil. Therefore, probabilities
derived from this data cannot be applied to a particular port.
The spill data itself also poses problems for statistical
analysis and comparison because the amounts of oil spilled in
any particular accident can be as much as 10 millIon times the
average amount spilled per accident. For instance, an MIT analy-
sis revealed that the Torrey Canyon spilled twice as much oil as
reported spilled in all the accidents In the U. S. during 1970.
Furthermore, two—thirds of the U. S.’s total was spilled in just
three incidents. Therefore, the average figures of spilled oil
volumes do not accurately represent EPA ’s primary concern, i-. e.
the potential fora damaging spill at a particular port.
The validity of comparing Eastport with other ports such
as Milford Haven has also been questioned. The characteristics
of Milford Haven and Head Harbour Passage were previously dis-
cussed in Chapter IV and illustrated in Table IV-9 which shows
that, in all respects, the physical characteristics of Head
Harbour Passage are more favorable to VLCC passage than those
of the channel to Milford Haven. However, while currents in the
two ports are similar, maximum velocities are somewhat greater
at Eastport where there is also a greater frequency of fog.
The U.S. Coast Guard assessed the adequacy of the channel
through Head Harbour Passage* and concluded that “the channel
is adequate for safe navigation of 250,000 DWT tankers and
those of lesser size provided certain provisions are made to
assure safe passage.” These provisions include 1) confirmation
of passage area depths, configurations, and current data by a
hydrographic survey, 2) provision of a navigation system for
the monitoring, communication, and scheduling of all vessel
traffic, 3) provision of means to control the movement of
tankers in the event of steering and/or propulsion power fail-
ure, 4) development of and strict adherance to an operatinq
procedure for tanker passage. The Coast Guard feels it can
be premised that tank vessels can safely navigate the channel
approaches to Eastport under certain conditions——and the Coast
Guard fully intends to determine those conditions and see to their
implemerktatiOfl(August 8, 1977 letter).
At the BEP hearing, Pittston’s expert witnesses testified
that, In relation to Milford Haven and other ports, the passage
to Eastport was less hazardous, particularly if, as proposed,
the transit is made at times of low velocity currents. The pro-
posed electronic navigation systems, backed up by existing
*Letter dated March 25, 1977
VI —36
-------
shipboard systems, were seen as a further guarantee that the
accident hazard would not be increased during the many periods
tf limited visibility. In any event, VLCC’s would be aided by
four powerful tugs ,and no VLCC’s would operate when visibility
was less than one mile. Therefore, Pittston indicated that there
was sound reason to believe that Milford Haven’s excellent record
of few accidents could be surpassed in the Eastport case.
Opponents, on the other hand, testified that Head Harbour
Passage and the Friar Roads area were dangerous and that there was a
greater accident potential at Eastport than at Milford Haven.
Others have had difficulty in even developing a basis to
pred.icta spill frequency for either Eastport or other harbors.
Moore, et al*, developed his analysis on the vulnerability of
Machias Bay to supertanker accidents by using an assumed spill
frequency and calculating the possible effects rather than devel-
oping a frequency on a mathematical basis.
Dr. David Scarett** combined this assumed spill frequency
with the Milford Haven data provided to the Maine BE? and then
assumed that the minimum rate of occurrence of a 500—ton spill
would be Q in eight years. However, Dr. Scarett considered his
predictions speculative at best.
Finally, whatever the probability, one can never answer
the question of when a spill will occur for if the probability
is calculated to be c ce in 60 years, there is no way to deter-
mine whether the spill will occur during the first year of
cç eratim or during the 60th year.
The real time simulation studies and the test voyages
using ballasted tankers, already a condition for State of Maine
approval, will help to settle the navigation issue as well. Real
time simulation studies are to be conducted by the National Mari-
time Research Center (Kings Point, N.Y.) in conjunction with the
Coast Guard and the State of Maine (see p. X—34) . However, even
with this information, the only conclusion that can be drawn is
that the regular passage of tankers to Eastport will expose the
area directly to a potential spill hazard resulting from tanker
groundings or collisions. Currently, this hazard now exists only
indirectly due to tanker traffic to the port of St. John, New
Brunswick. The following section outlines the types of impacts
which could occur should the potential become a reality.
*A Preliminary Assessment of the Environmental Vulnerability of
Machias Bay to Supertankers, Moore, et al, MIT, 1973.
**Fjsheries Research Board of Canada, Report No. 428.
VI—37
-------
Potential Effects of a 3ever Spill on Environmental Resources
The data presented for the spill frequencies and volumes at
Milford Haven excluded “severe” spills (those in excess of 700
barrels, or 29,1 100 gallons) because severe spills occur infrequent—
ly. However, the possibility (and probability) of severe spills
always exist near oil refineries that receive crude oil from tank-
ers. The proposed Eastport refinery ultimately will experience
its share of severe spills as have other comparable refineries.
The environmental resources of the Eastport area are ex-
tremely productive and valuable, and the committment to construct
a refinery in the area will commit a portion of the area resources
as a price to be paid for the benefits of an oil refinery In Maine.
The small spills whIéh will occur predictably and regularly will
probably not have significant adverse Impacts on the ecosystem.
However, the prime environmental concern is the potential loss of
resources due to massive spills at points along the tanker corridor.
In order to predict the potential effects of oil spill events
In the project area, the many variables (environmental and en-
gineering) which comprise “existing conditions” at the time of a
spill event must be valued and predicted. The valuation process
involves selecting those variables which are most Important in
predicting spill impacts. The prediction process involves select-
ing reasonable or representative quantitative levels for the vari-
able so that mathematical calculations are possible. The vari-
ables that were selected for valuaticn and predicticri incl x?e spill
location, spill volume, characteristics of materials spilled,
size of the intertidal zone, tidal range, and current velocity.
The selection of scenario conditions are arbitrary. The
location of the spill, the volume of the spill, and the type of
material spilled are variables which are critical factors in the
ultimate impacts of a spill event. Therefore, the scenarios
which were chosen for evaluation were selected because they repre-
sent potential severe spill event diaracteristics. The scenarios to be
evaluated are as follows:
1. 80,000,000 gallon spill of crude oil (100% VLCC capacity)
near Casco Bay Island In Head Harbor Passage.
2. 20,000,000 gallon spill of crude oil (25% VLCC capacity)
near Casco Bay Island In Head Harbor Passage.
3. 20,000,000 gallon spill of crude oil (25% VLCC capacity)
near Treat Island at the mouth of Cobscook Bay.
VI— 38
-------
1 L 13,000,000 gallon spill of No. 2 fuel oil (57% product
tanker capacity) near Casco Bay Island in Head Harbor
Passage.
5. 3,000,000 gallon spill of No. 2 fuel oil (l ê% product
tanker capacity) near Treat Island at the mouth of Cobs—
cook Bay.
The spill locations are selected because they represent the
most likely points for tanker groundings. The spill volumes
are selected arbitrarily as amounts that potentially may be
lost In consideration of the crude arid product tanker capacities.
The forms of oil spilled were selected as representative of VLCC
and product MST loads which will arrive and depart, respectively,
on a regular basis.
The most difficult aspect of evaluating oil spill scenarios
is determining where the oil will go and what the impact will be
on environmental resources. Because this is extremely difficult
to quantitate without undertaking a major modeling effort, reason-
able assumptions must be made in valuing variables. The following
assumptions were made in evaluating the impacts of an oil
spill In the Eastport project area:
1. The tide stage and direction of flow at the time of a spill
will have minimal importance to the ultimate Impacts of the
oil on the environment. It is assumed that for all five sce-
narios considered, oil will discharge from tankers over a
period of days rather than all at once. This means numerous
tidal cycles will be completed as the oil is discharged, and
this tidal action will act to expedite mixing and distribution
efficiency.
2. The Impact evaluations are based on the assumption that
discharged oil has reached its final destination (coating
intertidal zone, carried out to sea, diluted, etc.).
3. In order to quantitate severity of impact, it was determined
that for crude oil spills, a volume of oil sufficient to coat
25% of one area’s intertidal zone with a 1” thick layer of
oil is sufficient to cause severe or catastrophic Impacts to
the aquatic biological resources of the area. The accumul-
ation of crude oil of this thickness in intertidal areas has
been noted by other researchers studying the fate of spilled
oil* . For fuel oil spills, the critical volume for severe or
* Blumer, M., M. Ehrhardt, J.H.Jones. 1973. EnvIronmental
Fate of Standard Crude 011. Deep Sea Research, Vol. 20.
VI —39
-------
catastrq*iic inpacts has been estimated at a 25% coating of the intertidal
zone 1/4” thick. A thinner layer is selected for fuel oil due to its solu-
bility and higher toxicity. Thicknesses prcbably would range fran 1/8 to
1/4” but a cx servative estimate of 1/4” was decided pon to allcw for the
heavier product oils. Table Vt-S presents information on the equivalent
coating capacity for the 1une of oil spilled in each scenario. It should
be understood that these acci.niiulation thicknesses are selected as repre-
sentative of those which actually occur after an oil spill. It is neces-
sary to designate an average thickness so that critical wlun s may be
calculated. H ever, average thicknesses less than those used here may
result in adverse envirciimantal inpacts, possibly of less severity.
4. Arbitrary widths of the intertidal zones have been selected in areas
that would be irrpacted by oil spills. Intertidal zone widths in Ccb-
scxxk Bay and Passamaqirddy Bay were estimated at 30 yards. Intertidal
zone widths in Head Harbor Passage and along the east coast of Carrpo-
bello Island were estimated at 10 yards.
In order to evaluate the inpacts of oil spills in the Eastport area,
the region was divided into four inpact areas. These areas inclix? CcIs-
cock Bay, Passan xx dy Bay, Head Harbor Passage (which incli.x s half of
Western Passage and Friar Roads, and is designated “Passages”), and the
east shore of Canpcbello Island. Other areas may be iirpacted by oil spills
in the area depending on specific spill cx ditions, h ewr we have
att ipted to deal with major i.npact areas for the purposes of evaluating the
five scenarios. The results of areal p].aninetxy calculations on each inpact
area (at .EL) axe presented in Table VI-6. The voliite of oil requir d to
coat 25% of the intertidal zone at the designated thickness in each irrpact
area was calculated. These cx putations are presented in Table VI- 7.
For purposes of evaluating the five scenarios, the critical volun s
presented in Table VI-7 represent the criteria used to distinguish catas-
trcçiiic or severe iirpact predictions fran predictions of less severe i-
pacts. Oil lares equal to or in excess of the critical ‘ oliites would result
in devastating inpacts to the aquatic envircxment. Also predicted are the
vohm s of oil that will accunulate in each ii pact area as a result of each
scenario. These estimates also are arbitrary value jixlgenents, but they are
based on evaluations of tidal activity data. Estirrates of the vo1u s and per-
centages of spilled oil that ultimately will reach each designated irrpact
area under each set of scenario cxu±iticns are presented in Table VI-8.
VI—40
-------
Table vI—5. Equivalent oil coating capacities for spill scenarios.
Scenario
Volume Spilled
(gal.)
Equi
valent Coverage
(acres)
1
80,000,000
(crude)
2,946*
2
20,000,000
(crude)
736*
3
20,000,000
(crude)
736*
4
13,000,000
(No. 2
fuel)
1,915+
5
3,000,000
(Nd. 2
fuel)
442+
* Assumes 1” thick layer of crude oil
+ Assumes 1/4” thick layer of No. 2 fuel oil
Table VI_6.Planimetry calculations of impact area surface acres
and shoreline miles.
Impact Surface Acres Shoreline
Area (at MSL) Miles
Cobscook Bay 24,433 230
Passages 11,051 44
Passamaquoddy Bay 53,505 119
East Shore Campobello Island NA 21
NA = Not applicable
VI— 41
-------
Table VI—7. Critical oil volume accumulations in intertidal zones
of designated impact areas.
Oil Volume (gallons)
Impact ___________________________________________
Area 1” thick (crude) 1/4” thick (No. 2 fuel)
Cobscook Bay 17,000,000 4,250,000
Passages 1,080,000 270,000
Passamaquoddy Bay 8,810,000 2,200,000
East Shore Cainpobello Island 518,000 130,000
TableVI—8. Predicted fates of oil spilled under five scenario
condiElons near Eastport Maine.
Scenario
Volume 6
Spilled (10
gal)
Distribution of
Spilled
Oil (106
gal)
Cobscook
Passages
Passamaguoddy
Campobello
1
80
(lOO)*
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)
O( 0)
*Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the total volume
spilled.
VI-42
-------
In addition to determining critical volurres of oil representing
severe or catastrcç uic impacts on the various inpact areas, it is
sug s ted that a weighting system for the evaluation of iirpact severity
for each scenario upon the specific uatic resources be utilized with-
in each area. Attempts have been made to k p the weighting cxdes as sitiple
as pcssibie because catplexity in the matrix process would defeat the in-
tended purpose of sinplifying irrpact carparisons. A zero to 3 weighting
cxx 1e is used with 3 representing severe irrpacts; 2, rrcderate inpacts; 1,
slight impacts; and 0, no inpacts. Constructing a matrix which would
distinguish location of impact (intertidal, s .btidal, pelagic, etc.)
and persistence of oil (long term, short term, transient, etc.) was
considered initially along with direct effects on aquatic organisms,
hcwever, it was found that the resulting netrix tables were too nunerous
and too ccxrplex to be of valiE. It was therefore decided to present one
matrix table for each scenario, and impact weighting code is assigned
for each inpactable resource in each irrpact area. The list of iripactable
resources was carpiled on a trophic level basis because of the trcphic level
differences in preferred habitat, sensitivity to petroleum toxicity, and
ability to actively avoid oil spills.
The prirre criterion used in assigning weighting codes was the severity
of o rall irrpact on the ecosystem (rather than on just the organisms).
For example, if phytcplankthn die as a result of an oil spill, the
severest possible impact on piiytcplankton has occurred. If, hcMever, phyto-
plankton have the capability to reprodtx and to repcpulate contaminated
areas in a very short period of tine (days), then the overall inpact
on the ecosystem is not as severe as if oe tain other trcçahic levels were
destrc jed. 1 esthetic was added as an iimpactable resource even though it
is not consistent with trcphic level classifications.
The results of the impact evaluations through matrix cx struction
are presented in Tables VI-9 through VI-13. The totals listed for each
impact area should be interpreted with care. It cannot be assurred that
the difference of one weighting code unit for one trophic level is
equivalent to the sane difference at another trcphic level. The weighting
codes are totaled to indicate our valus jndg e.nts as to the severity
of impacts in a designated inpact area for a specific scenario. Table
VI-14 provides a sunrnary of the weighting code totals for each scenario
and for each designated impact area.
VI —43
-------
Table vI-9 Scedbrio 1 impact matrix.
Resources Cobscook
Bay
Passages
Pas
samaq
Bay
uod
dy
East Shore
Campobello
Phytop lankton 1
1
0
1
Zoop lankton 1
1
0
1
Macrophytes 3
3
2
3
Invertebrates 3
3
3
3
Fish 2
3
1
3
Avifauna 2
3
2
3
0
0
0
0
Aesthetics 3
3
2
3
Totals 1’5
17
10
17
Table vi—io Sc nario 2 .impact
matrix.
Resources Cob scook
Bay Passages
Pas
samaqu
Bay
od
dy
East Shore
Campobello
Phytop lankton 0 1 0 1
Zoop lankton 0 1 0 1
Macrophytes 2 3 1 3
Invertebrates 2 3 2 3
Fish 1 3 0 3
Avifauna 1 3 1 3
M 1T na1 5 0 0 0 0
Aesthetics 2 3 2 3
Totals 8 17 6 17
VI — 44
-------
Table VI—llScenario3 Impact matrix.
Resources Cobscook
Bay
Passages
Passamaquoddy
Bay
East Shore
Campobel lo
Phytop lankton 1
1
0
0
Zoop lankton 1
1
0
0
Macrophytes 2
3
1
o
Invertebrates 3
3
2
0
Fish 1
3
0
0
Avifauna 2
3
1
0
•
0
0
0
0
Aesthetics 3
3
2
0
Totals 13
17
6
0
Table VI—l2Scenario 4 ..impact
matrix.
Resources Cobscook
Bay
Passages
Passamaquoddy
Bay
East Shore
Campobeijo
Phytop lankton 1
1
0
1
Zooplankton 1
1
0
1
Macrophytes 2
3
1
3
Invertebrates 3
3
2
3
Fish 1
3
1
3
Avifauna 2
3
0
3
Manmia ls 0
1
1
1
Aesthetics 3
3
1
•
3
Totals 13
18
6
18
VI—45
-------
Table v i . - ]. 3Scenario 5 :.impact matrix.
Resources CobscooI Passamaquoddy
Bay Passages Bay
East Shore
Campobello
Phytop lankton 0 1 0
0
Zooplankton 0 1 C
0
Nacrophytes 2 3 1
0
Invertebrates 2 3 2
0
Fish 1 3 0
0
Avifauna 1 3 1
0
0 1 1
0
Aesthetics 2 3 1
0
Totals 8 18 6
0
Table VI_14S *ry of weighting code totals for each scenario
impact area.
and
Cob scook Passainaquoddy
Scenario Bay Passages Bay
East
Campo
Shore
hello
L 15 17 10 17
2 8 17 S 17
3 13 17 6 0
4 13 18 6 18
5 8 18 6 0
VI—46
-------
Scenario 1 .
It is felt that a]iw st all impact areas will receive sufficient
volumes of crude oil to result in catastrophic impacts to the aquatic
ecosyst n. The volume of oil estimated to enter Passanaquo y Bay is
only slightly less than the projected critical volute of 8.8 million
gallons. ft)r our p.irposes, the predicted impacts in Passamaqucddy
Bay shc ild be considered severe.
The passages ar the east shore of Campobello Islar are the
impact areas that would be n st severely devastated. It is assumed
that for all spills near Onsco Bay Islarx , at least 50% of the spilled
volume will be carried easterly out of Head Harbor Passage ai then
southerly with the prevailing currents along the east shore of Campo-
hello Islar . Only a portion of the spilled voltm€ will actually coat
the eastern shore; lxMever the volume required to result in severe im—
pacts along the eastern shore is so nall in relation to the volume
Spilled that severe effects are a certainty. Macrophytes ar inverte—
brates in the intertidal zone arxl in sa e subl—iAil areas will be —
pletely coated with oil, aud fish (adults ar larvae) which feed ar
nest in those areas will be severely impacted. Avifauna which feed on
the nud flats will be coated with oil arxi many will die. Maxmals should
be able to avoid the oil so that they will not be adversely affected.
The thick coating of oil along the shoreline will have the severest of
aesthetic impacts.
After passing the east shore of Caxrpbello Islarx , the rat aining
vohme of oil will either continue to rrcve south along the coast of
Maine or across the n xith of the Bay of Furx y to Nova Scotia. The Ui-
thrate fate of this oil will depeud upon the direction an velocity of
the wir , as well as on the prevailing surface currents which vary
seasonally. *
The passages area also will experience severe impacts, arxi assigned
weighting codes were identical to those assigned for the east shore of
Campobeflo Islaud. The passages are characterized by many steep cliffs
which will be coated with oil within the tidal range limits. It is con-
sidered that phytoplankton art3. zooplankton izr cts are slight (both in
the passages ard along the east shore of Campobello Is lard) , because
they will reproduce rapidly after the oil content in the water is reduced.
The Cbbscook Bay impact area will have severe effects similar to
those described for the passages ard for Campobello Islard. t is felt that
the impacts on fish ard avifauna in Cobscook Bay would be less severe than
in the passages ard along Cançobello IslarxL The trener 3c*is exposure of
intertidal zone within Cobscook Bay provides for at least a fe i areas
that s’x .iJ.d escape contamination. Thus, fish ard avifauna would be able
to feed in these areas.
1974. Sumiary of physical, biological, socioeconciidcs
arki other factors relevant to potential oil spills in the Passamaquoddy
r ion of the Bay of Fundy. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, ¶I chnical
Report 428. 229 pp.
VI —47
-------
In Passainaqucxldy Bay, ytc lankton ard zooplankton probably would
rot be significantly affected. Because the bay is so large, much of the
oil will be diluted or spread over a h je surface area. I bst of the re-
sources in Passarnaqtx)&ly Bay were assigned reduced weighting ocdes (except
for invertebrates) in canparison to the other izrp3ct areas. However, while
Passanaquoddy Bay inpacts win rot be as severe as those elsewhere, they
still will be substantial ard will have near devastating effects on the
aquatic environment.
Scenario 2 .
The volune of crude oil spilled iS 75% less than in Scenario 1.
However, this reduced voli.i e is still great erot h to result in e ctly
the same iirpact evaluation as in Scenario 1 for both the passages ard
for the east shore of Campobello Islan:1. This is because the volumes of
oil that would affect each of these impact areas for both Scenarios 1 ard
2 (Table VI-8) e eed the critical volirres for catastro ic effects (Table
\TI-7). This should give an iix3.ication of the negnitixie of the volume of
oil discussed in Scenario 1 ard the severity of the potential Impacts.
The reduction in the volute spilled in Scenario 2 does nake a dif-
ference in the potential irrpacts to Cc± scook Bay aixi Passamaquoddy Bay.
Phytcplanktcn ard zooplankton should not be affected edversely by the
reduced voltir of the spill. Macrcç ytes ard fish in Obscvok Bay will
experieuce n derate ard slight iipacts, respectively, while macro ytes
ard fish in Passamaquo&ly Bay will experieroe only slight arxl no impacts,
respectively. Invertebrates ard aesthetics will expereicne noderate un—
pacts in both bays. The nain reason that O bscook Bay will be impacted
I ore severely than will Passamaqucddy Bay is that the fomer will receive
aWroxixnately three tines the volure of oil received by the latter. The
shoreline of Q±scook Bay is cx nsiderably nore irregular than that of
Passamaqucddy Bay as a cxinparison of shoreline miles irx3icates (Table
VI-6). Thus Cctiscook Bay exposes a greater surface area of productive
intertidal zone than does Pass naqixx1 y Bay.
Scenario 3 .
The voltite of crude oil spilled is unchanged fran Scenario 2, but the
location of the spill is changed to Treat Island at the nouth of Cobscook
Bay. The impacts c i i the passages will r rain catastro Mc, arri the passages
weighting code assigritents are rot changed fran those in Scenarios 1 and
2. It is felt that a spill at the n .ith of Cthsa3ok Bay would result in nost
of the oil renaming in O±scook Bay, Passamaquoddy Bay, or the passages.
Considering the mean current velocity over a tidal cycle between Ccbscook
Bay and the nouth of Head Harbor Passage, and considering the distance
fran the bay to the nouth of the passage, very little of the spilled oil
will be carried out to sea and/or south alci the coast of Canpobe 110
Island. Thus, it is felt that none of the Caxçthello Island shoreline
resources will be & wrsely affected by spills near Treat Island.
VI—48
-------
Most of the oil probably will enter Cobscook Bay. We es-
timate that 70% of the spilled volume will coat the banks of the
bay as compared to 30% In Scenario 2. Even though 70% of the
spilled oil represents a volume slightly less than the calculated
critical volizne for severe impacts, the overall ii pacts on the Cthscook
Bay ecosystem should be considered near—catastrophic. The Cobs—
cook Bay weighting code assignments for Scenario 3 differ from
those for Scenario 1 (in which devastating impacts were predicted)
only for macrophytes and fish. The effects on these particular
resources should be slightly less In Scenario 3 than in Scenario 1.
Because most of the oil spilled will enter Cobscook Bay and
the passages, the predicted impacts on Passamaquoddy Bay resources
will not be severe. The impact weighting code assignments for
Passamaquoddy Bay in Scenario 3 are Identical to those in Scenario
2. We estimate that the total volume of oil reaching Passamaquoddy
Bay is Identical in both scenarios.
Scenario 4 .
Scenario 4 is similar to Scenario 2 in that the spill lo-
cation is identical. However, Scenario 1! involves spillage of No.
2 fuel oil rather than crude oil, and the volume spilled in
Scenario is 35% less than that spilled In Scenario 2. Again,
the passages and the east shore of Caxnpobello Island would be
devastated. The impact weighting code assignments for these two
impact areas are Identical to those assigned In Scenario 1 ex-
cept for mammals. We feel that mammals can readily avoid crude
spills because the oil Is quite visible. With fuel oil, however,
the spilled oil is more readily soluble in the water column and
thus Is not as visible as crude oil. t is felt that mammals
will be impacted slightly by this difference in olisolubility.
Passaznaquoddy Bay will not be affected as severely as will the
passages and Campobello Island Impact areas as was the case In
Scenario 2. Plankton again should not be affected. Mammals
should be affected more severely than in Scenario 2, but aes-
thetics should be affected less severely because of the fuel
oil characteristics described previously. The volume of fuel oil
entering Passamaquoddy Bay is estimated to be 35% less than the
volume of crude oil entering the bay In Scenario 2. However, fuel
oil is more toxic to marine organisms than is crude oil. There-
fore, the totals for the Impact weighting codes were identical
both for Scenarios 2 and 1 •
Cobscook Bay should experience severe impacts in that the
estimated volume of oil entering the bay is almost identical to
the estimated critical volume for producing catastrophic effects.
Plankton will be slightly affected, while invertebrates and
aesthetics should be severely affected. Because fuel oil Is more -
VI— 49
-------
readily soluble in the water column, a greater expanse of benthic
habitat is potentially impactable as a result of fuel oil spills.
This Is the primary reason invertebrate impacts are projected as
severe. Macrophytes and avifauna should experience only moderate
impacts because some productive intertidal habitats will remain
uncoated.
Scenario 5 .
Scenario 5 is similar to Scenario 3 considering spill lo-
cation, however Scenario 5 involves a fueloil rather than crt e
oil spill, and the volume spilled is 85% less than that spilled
in Scenario 3. Again, the passages will experience catastrophic
impacts resulting from the spill with impact weighting codes that
are almost identical to those for the passages in Scenarios 3
and It. However, as in Scenario 3, the east shore of Campobello
Island will not be affected by the spill.
In Passainaquoddy Bay, the overall impacts on the ecosystem
will be comparable to those for Scenario 3. However, aesthetic
impacts should be less severe, while Impacts on mammals should
be more severe than in ScenarIo 3 due to the differences in fuel
oil and crude oil physical and chemical characteristics.
Cobscook Bay will receive about 50% of the volume of oil
estimated to result In catastrophic Impacts. However, no re-
sources were estimated to experience catastrophic effects. The
macrophytes, invertebrates, and aesthetics will be only moderately
affected in relation to the other scenarios.
In summary, the passages Impact area will be affected most
severely by all scenarios, while the Passainaquoddy Bay area
will be affected least. The east shore of Campobello Island will
experience severe Impacts resulting from both crude oil and fuel
oil spills If the spills occur near Casco Bay Island. Spills
near Treat Island should not affect the shore of Campobello
Island. Cobscook Bay will experience severe impacts depending
largely on the volume of oil entering the bay. For crude oil
spills, Scenarios 1 and 3 would cause devastating effects on the
ecosystem, whil Scenario 2 would result in less severe impacts.
For fuel oil spills, Scenario 14 would have severe effects, while
Scenario 5 would have more moderate effects. For each scenario
considered, at least two impact areas would experience catastrophic
Impacts on the aquatic ecosystem (except for Scenario 5, where
only the passages would be severely affected).
Commercial Impacts .
As previously indicated, mucth of the herring fishing is daie by weirs
vI-50
-------
and seines (nets). If oil contacts this gear, it would require
cleaning or replacement. The cleaning of a large seine Is es-
timated to cost about $2,500 (not including labor and overhead).
Complete replacement of a weir Is estimated to cost about $5,000.
In addition to the initial costs and Inconvenience of clean-
ing seiries and weirs, there may be longer term damage as well since
herring feed on the lower tror iic level organisms which would be affected by a
spill. Sardine migration could also be affected. Reports by
various sources indicate that the areas impacted by the 10,000—
ton Arrow spill In Chedabucto Bay were adversely affected In
localized areas for two to four years. Overall, however, the
fishery was not significantly affected.
Because many fish can avoid areas contaminated with crude
oil, mortality may not occur. Tainting of fish flesh, however,
may not be avoidable. This is particularly true if fish feed
in areas with contaminated sediments. The greatest risk appears
to be to the winter flounder which feeds in the intertidal zone.
Sheilfishing would be the most directly impacted activity In
the areas affected by a spill. However, the extent of the adverse
effects would depend, obviously, on the size of the spill. Soft—
shell clams, the most important commercial species for the Eastport—
Passamaquoddy area, could be significantly affected by an oil spill.
Lobster, which is the most important commercial shellfish species
to the fisherman of both New Brunswick and Washington County, appears
to be the least affected by oil spills, for not only are lobsters
more resistant to oil damage, but the lower solubilities of heavy
fuels, In effect, protect these bottom dwellers. As an example,
the Falmouth, Massachusetts (1969) and Portland Harbor (1972) spills
did not result in any successful claims of damage to lobsters al-
though there were successful claims for damage to other shellfish.
Lobsters held in pounds are more vulnerable to a spill than those
in their natural habitat. Therefore, the Pittston Company has
agreed to provide booms to protect these pounds. Fuel oil spills
would be more hazardous to lobsters. Also, lobster larvae would
be severely impacted by a spill. Lobster larvae are free—swimming
from mid—June to mid—September and are normally found In
greatest numbers In the upper levels of the water column where
they are most susceptible to oil.
Fish processing plants which depend primarily on local
sources could also be adversely affected by a reduction in the
supply of fish. This, in turn, could affect both the areats
demand for labor and the market supply of fish. Another prob-
lem which could possibly arise from an oil spill is the contamina-
tion of clean sea water which is used in fish processing. Water
filters might have to be installed if no other alternative source
of process water is available.
VI —51
-------
Tables 111—37 and 111-38 previously showed the annual marine
resource base income of Washington and Charlotte Counties. Since
fishing is the prime livelihood of many local residents, its re-
duction due to a spill could result in reduced incomes In all
sectors of the industry until the environmental recovery of the
affected areas occurs. There are few alternative sources of in-
come for these people. Furthermore, fishing Is a life style as
well as an Industry.
Birds In the area could also be damaged by a large spill.
Once again, the extent of the damage would depend upon the time
of year and the size of the spill. The Lorneville Impact Analy—
sis* concluded that a major oil spill could directly or indirect-
ly affect many of the birds frequenting the bay, especially the
swimming and diving species. These effects would be evident at
the time of the spill and would continue for a considerable time
after the incident. Particularly sensitive areas of the bay were
evaluated with respect to possible oil spill effects, Including:
1. Machlas Seal Island, where any large concentrations of
oil could easily extirpate the small colonies of
Common Puffins and Razorbil].s and adversely Impact the
Arëtic rns found thsre;
2. Grant’ Manan archipelgo, where an oil pill would
threaten the Common Elders and other diving ducks
during both the winter and their breeding and
migrating seasons as well as threatening Brant
ducks in the spring; and
3. Passamaquoddy Bay, where, during the winter and
migrating seasons, diving ducks would be most
vulnerable while, in the summer, the nesting
Common Elders and Doublecrested Cormorants would
be subject to some risk.
At the time of the Chedabucto Bay disaster with the tanker
“Arrow”, there was a general feeling of relief when oil slicks
moved away from the coast and out to sea. It was strikingly
Illustrated there, however, that oil continued to kill aquatic birds
over the continental shelf. Sable Island’s shores even received
some of this oil and several thousand birds perished.
*Lornevil]e Impact — An Analysis of the Environmental Consequences
of t velopnents proposed for Lornevllle, New Brunswick, Vol. I and II (Jan. 1973).
VI—52
-------
Mammals can avoid waters visibly coated with crude oil, but
with a fuel oil spill oil mixes in the water column and is not
visible. Therefore, mammals may migrate into these areas and suffer
damage. It should be kept in mind, that fuel oil is more toxic
to all marine orgar isms than crude oil.
Long Term Impact
There is no conclusive evidence that an oil spill or oil spills
will render an ecological community permanently non—productive.
However, with the introduction of oil into the ecosystem, community
and population interactions would be altered. The degree of alter-
ation is the subject of much research at the present time. (Studies
on toxicity, carcinogenicity, repopulation of species in an area,
productivity of an area, and community interactions are in the pre-
liminary stages.)
Depending on the particular area of spillage, type of oil, and
kind of spill, etc. oil can persist in an area anywhere from 2 to
7 years and possibly longer. With a heavy concentration of oil,
organisms may be completely eliminated and the rate of re-establish-
ment of the organisms may be slow and restricted to certain species.
This is known from past and present studies of Friendship Harbor,
Maine; Falmouth, Massachusetts; Portland Harbor, Maine; Chedabucto
Bay, Nova Scotia, and others. Community re-establishment is of
course dependent on no additional major spills in the 2 to 7 years.
The continued presence of small amounts of oil (chronic spills)
in the environment may cause a varying pattern of community species
in a local area. This localized effect has been noticed at refinery
sites such as Milford Haven. The refinery would be a commitment of
the community, region, and 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. Thus the commitment to an industrial
activity could force the suppression or even elimination of a renew-
able resource, fish and other marine life, as well as the potential
elimination of the fishing industry in the region.
VI -52 a
-------
Toxicity•
As mentioned previously in the marine ecology section,
interactions between ecological communities and populations
are a complex, diverse set of actions which are not yet completely
understood by ecologists. The addition of’ oil to the environment
further complicates ecologists’ understanding of these Inter-
actions. It can be stated, however, that they would be somewhat
altered by even small concentrations of oil in the ecosystem.*
The types of oil to which the marine species in the East—
port area would be exposed are crude oil, refined No. 2 and No.
5 fuel oils, and some gasoline. The importance of the type of
oil In terms of its effects will be discussed in the following
sections.
The effects of oil on individual organisms depends heavily
upon the concentration of soluble hydrocarbons in the water
column and, in particular, the concentration of soluble aromatic
derivatives (SAD). Five effects are recognized as direct re-
sponses of’ organisms to concentrations of oil in the environment.
These are lethal toxicity; disruption of physiological or be-
havioral activities (sublethal); mechanical disruption from di-
rect coating by oil; accumulation of hydrocarbons in organisms
(tainting); and changes in biological habitats. With a heavy
concentration of the oil, the organisms may be eliminated corn—
pletely,and the rate of reestablishment of the organisms may be
slow and restricted to certain species.’
Lethal toxicity refers to the direct Interference of hydro-
carbons on cellular and membrane activities which leads to the
dealth of organisms. The ccr centration of soluble hydrocarbcris de-
termines the toxicity of the oil to organisms. No. 2 fuel oil
appears to be more lethal to organisms than residual oils and
crude oil because of greater percentages of’ these lighter fractions
and the tendency for it to be more easily distributed through the
water column. Table VI—15 , compiled from a review study by
Moore and others, summarizes toxicity data for finfish; larvae;
gastropods such as periwinkles and limpets; bivalves Including
clams, mussels, and scallops; crustaceans such as shrimp, lobster
* “A Preliminary Assessment of the Environmental Vulnerability of
Machias Bay, Maine to 011 Supertankers,” Moore, Stephen;
Robert Dwyer; and Arthur Katz, MIT Report No. SG 73—6,
uary 1976.
**Barnstable 011 Spill Study 1972.
VI—53
-------
and crab; and other benthic invertebrates. It is evident from
this table that larvae appear to be 10 to 100 times more vulner-
able to oil than other classes or organisms.
TABLE V I - 15 SUMMARY OP TOXICIT! DATA
Class or organisms
Estimated typical toxicity
stances
ranges
.
(ppm)
for various subu.
No. 2 fuel oil/
SAD(l) kerosene
Fresh
crude
Weathered crude
Flora
10—100 50—500
1O 4 —
L0 5
Coating more
significant
than toxicity
Finfish
5—50 25—250
“
“
Larvae
.1—1. .5—5
102 —
“
Pelagic Crustaceans
1—10. 5—50
1O 3 —
io 4
1
Gas tropods
10—100 50—500
io —
“
Bivalves
5—50 25—250
“
“
Benthic Crustaceans
1—10 5—50
iO —
io
,,
Other benthic
invertebrates
1—10 5—50
io —
IT
1. Soluble aromatic
derivatives (aromatics and
napth
enoaroma
tics).
“A Preliminary Assessment of the Environmental Vulnerability of Machias
Bay, Maine to Oil Supertankers”, Stephen F. Moore et. al., January 1973
MIT SG—73—6, p. 92.
The disruption of physiological or behavioral activities
(sublethal), which incllMies such activities as feeding, re-
production, respiratory movements, and other activities con-
trolled by chemical communication, do not lead directly to death.
From experiments conducted on chemical responses, such dis-
ruptions can apparently occur as a result of even relatively
low concentrations of petroleum substances, on the order of 10
50, ar 1OO t.** However, the chemical effects of crude oil on
species and populations have not been fully studied.
* MIT Report No. SG 73—6.
** MIT Report No. SG 73—6, p. 95
VI— 54
-------
The effects of mechanical disruption from direct coating
by oil are important even when oil has had a chance to weather
to the degree that toxic fractions have evaporated. Again, avail-
able evidence seems to suggest that No. 2 fuel oil settles into
the intertidal sediments more readily and would therefore be the
most damaging. The organisms found in the intertidal zone, both
flora and fauna, are usually affected to the greatest extent for
they are not mobile. Species such as snails, some crustaceans,
and especially clams found in intertidal mudflats can filter
small amounts of oil. However, a heavy coating of oil or a large
quantity in the water will suffocate these organisms. Direct
coating occurs only in the most heavily impacted areas.
Aquatic birds and marine mammals can also be endangered by
an oil slick coating. Although there are no concrete figures on
the extent of marine mammal deaths other than that some have
occurred, the effects of oil on birds is well_documented.*
These effects, which may end in death, are the result of a loss
of body heat due to matting of feathers by the oil.
An accumulation of hydrocarbons in marine organisms may
result in tainting and may be an important effect of oil from
a public health point of view, for it introduces hydrocarbons
into the food chain. Many edible marine species, including lob-
sters, clams, crabs, etc. can become contaminated as a result
of the incorporation and accumulation of hydrocarbons in their
systenis.** Tainting and gradual accumulation of hydrocarbons
would occur over a wider geographical area then coating. However,
no public health significance to humans has been determined.
As previously mentioned, depending upon water depth, the
extent of oil weathering, and the amount of vertical mixing of
the waterbody as a result of wind, currents, and stratification,
oil can settle to the bottom of the waterbody where the contamin-
ated sediments can cause changes in the organisms’ biological
habits. Once accumulated, the oil tends to degrade slowly, as
noted from oil spills in a number of areas.*** Contamination of
the sediments, especially mudflats-clay sediment, can persist
in the intertidal zone for years, affecting such species as
filterfeeders and detritus feeders and finally resulting in changes
in an area’s species composition.
* Straughan, 1971.
** Zobel, 1971.
Friendship Harbor, Maine; Falmouth,Massachusetts; Portland Harbor,
Maine; Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia.
vI—55
-------
Oil in sedliTent may also change the sediirent caipositicxi and sta-
bility which may deter plant grc th in such places as salt marshes and
estuaries.
¶L above discussion prc, rides only a basic understanding of s e
of the inpacts that could occur in the marine environmant in the event
of an oil spill. Hc .jever, as indicated, the specific inpacts to an area
will depend upon the size and ccnditicns of spillage and, thus, cannot
be fully evaluated unless these specifics are ]cr n.
Carc rx gen city .
The question of the carcinogenicity potent I 1 of petroleum Wh &
reaches the marine envira inent, either thro xjh oil spills or the continual
wastes generated hy the refinery and oil tankers, is very caTplex. 1 —
search on this question is still in prethninaxy stages and the prthl n
r nains a potential area of concern. Midi research into the carcinogenic
effects of oil has centered around a caTpcnent of both crtx e oils and
catalytically cracked oils referred to as polynuclear armatic hydro-
carbons (PI½H). These d nical species are ocaiplex polycyclic xitrx nds
a sisting of fran four to seven unsaturated benzene ring structures.
C ly a few of the many c] sely related P H oct pc*inds have been found
to cause carcizxgenic effects. The prototype of these ccztçounds, benzo-
(a) pyrene, is present in crude oil stocks at a concentration of arprox-
iinately 1 n y1cg (Zthell, 1971). i1 benzo(a)pyrene cxxitent of cataly-
tically cracked oils is higher than that of crede stocks ( tore and
tx’ yer, 1974).
A rnither of benthic invertthrates available as food sources in
t}e bay and passage areas near Eastport are kria t to incorporate hy-
drocarbcris into their tissue at the sites of an oil spill. Specifical ly,
the nussel ( Mytilus edulis) , the soft shelled clan ( arenaria) , and
the lthster (Hanarus ricanus ) have been sh n to e up polyrnx lear
arunatic hydr i into the tissue (Lee et. al., 1972a; Tanacredi,
1977). Similarly, certain marine fishes have been found by Lee et. al.
(197 ) to incorporate olyrnxlear aranatic hydrocarbon into their
tiss when exposed to this cxzr x]ind under laboratory ccrxliticxis.
Zthell, C.E. 197LScu s and biodegr& ation of carcinogenic hydrocarbons.
pp 1 4 1 ft . . 1 451. In Proceedin , Joint Conference on Prevention and Control
of Oil Spills. M rican Petroleum Institute, Washington, D. C.
Moore, S.F. and R.L. t . yer. 197 4. Effect of oil on Marine or nisma: A
critical assessment of published data. Water Research 8: 819—827.
Lee, R.F., R.F. Sauerheber, and A.A. Benson. 1972a. Petroleum Hydrocarbons:
Uptake and discharge by the marine mussel, ? tilus edulis , Science 177: 31414_3146.
Tanacredi, J.T. 1977. Petroleum hydrocarbczis fran effluents: detection in
marine envrornient. Journal of Water Pollution arntrol Federation. Mard i:
216—226.
VI—56
-------
Retention times of these compounds in the tissues of marine
organisms is a critical factor. The ability to metabolize PAH
appears to vary among marine organisms. Lee et. al. (1972b)
showed that several species of marine fishes have detoxification
mechanisms which allow for efficient removal of P1H from specific
body tissue. In depuration studies, Dunn and Stich (1976) have
shown that mussels contaminated with benzo(a)pyrene were free of
detectable levels of this compound when maintained in an uncon-
taminated environment for a period of 40 to 45 days.
To date there has been no scientific evidence to suggest
that concentrations of PAH accumulate at successively higher
trophic levels. However, research data indicate that benthic
invertebrates, which are lower trophic level organisms, may be
more susceptible to PAH contamination than other marine organisms.
This may be due to the small surface area to volume ration of
these organisms, i.e., most of their body tissues are exposed
to pollutants.
Cancerous tumors have been documented in invertebrate marine
species found in the Eastport area, specifically, the quahog
( Mercenaria mercenaria ) and the soft shell clam ( Mya arenaria )
(Barry and Yevich, 1972; Yevich and Baraztz, 1976). Although
the exact causative factors of the tumors was not determined,
research by Barry and Yevich (1975) at the site of an oil spill
of 14 metric tons of fuel oil mixed with JP5 jet fuel in Long
Cove, Searsport, Maine, revealed a high incidence of cancerous
gonadal tumors in soft shelled clams contaminated with oil. The
highest incidence of the tumors, which were found in 21% of the
organisms collected, correlated highly with the site of major
impact from the oil spill. Sediment samples taken at this same
collection site during the spill, contained hydrocarbon concen-
trations of 212 ppm (Mayo et. al., 1975). Control animals col-
lected 50 miles away showed no evidence of cancerous growth.
Lee, R.F., R.F. Sauerheber and G.H. Dobbe. l972b. Uptake, meta-
bolism, and discharge of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by
marine fish. Marine Biology 17:201—208.
Duna, B.P., and H.F. Stitch. 1976. Release of the carcinoqen
benao(a)pyrene from environmentally contaminated mussels. Bul-
letin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 15(4):
398—401.
Barry, MM. and P.P. Yevich, 1972. Incidence of gonadal cancer
in the quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria . Oncology 26:87-96.
Yevich, P.P. and C.A. Baraztz. 1976. Gonadal and hematopoiatic
neoplasrnas in Mya arenaria . Marine Fisheries Review. 38(10)42-43.
Barry, M.M. and P.P. Yevich, 1975. The ecological, chemical, and
histopathological evaluation of an oil spill site. Part III Histo—
pathological Studies. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 6(ll):171—l73.
Mayo, D.W., C.G. Cogger, and D.J. Donovan. 1975. The Ecological,
chemical, and histopatholic evaluation of an oil site. Part II
Chemical Analysis. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 6(11)166-170.
VI—57
-------
It is doubtful that the chronic input of treated refinery
and tanker wastes would sufficiently elevate PAN concentrations
in the sediments in the vicinity of the diffuser to pose a
health problem due to contaminated shellfish.
The National Academy of Science (1975) reports that 500 mg/kg
might be considered a typically high total hydrocarbon concentra-
tion found in contaminated shellfish after an oil spill. They
assume that if the contaminating hydrocarbon were to contain the
same benzo(a)pyrene content of normal crude oil (about 1 ppm),
the benzo(a)pyrene concentration in a highly contaminated shell-
fish might be estimated at about 0.5 ug/kg (or approximately 5.0
ug/kg dry weight). This is very close to benzo(a)pyrene ranges
documented in other foods.
Finally, in the event that marine foods contaminated by PAH
were to be ingested, a report by Gerarde (1960) indicates that
because of their complex molecular structure, PARs are not appre-
ciably absorbed into the bloodstream from the gastrointestinal
tract of humans.
Thus it appears from scientific data compiled to date, that
the presence of PA!! from petroleum sources in the marine environ-
ment do not pose a significant health hazard. It should be cau-
tioned, however, that scientific research into this area remains
incomplete, and no safe threshhold for exposure to these sub-
stances has been determined. In addition, little research has
been conducted to determine whether other hydrocarbon components
of petroleum might also display carcinogenic properties.
National Academy of Sciences. 1975. Petroleum in the Marine
Environment . National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C.
Gerarde, Horace W. 1960. Toxicology and Biochemistry of Aromatic
Hydrocarbons . Elsevier, London.
VI—58
-------
Dredging .
In constructing the VLCC unloading pier and the product pier,
approximately 1.45 million cubic yards of material will be removed
from areas of Broad and Deep Coves,respectively. Most of the material
removed will be rock with the remainder comprised of coarse gravel and
some organic matter. Transport of the dredged material from the area
by barge will be unnecessary because all of the removed material will
be used on the refinery site.
During the operation, the Pittston Co. proposes to use bucket
dredges. After blasting, the fragmented rock and gravel will be load-
ed into barges and moved to shore storage areas where they will be de-
posited in bermed stockpile areas. These materials will be used in
the construction of roads, foundations, dikes, and other base structures.
Dredged materials will be well drained thus runoff from stockpile areas
is expected to be minimal. Berins around the stockpile areas will con-
tain disposed materials so that suspended materials will settle prior
to drainage. Drainage from these stockpiles will not effect inland
areas outside of the refinery site. It is not anticipated that
maintenance dredging will be necessary.
The blasting and dredging operations will result in significant
disruption of existing bottom sediments. A portion of these sediments
will be suspended in the water column as a result of the force of blast-
ing and bucket dredge operation. Suspended particles are transported
by currents and can potentially result in substantial adverse impacts
to productive biological habitats in adjacent areas. The volume of
sediment that may be transported and the distance that particles may
be carried are functions of several variables including grain size,
water depth, water temperature, and current velocity.
Blasting during the dredging operation will kill fish and bottom
organisms in the area of the explosion. The lethal range of the blast
is not expected to exceed two hundred yards, unless unusually large
amounts of explosives are used. Areas that are not altered but ex-
perience benthic mortality will be repopulated quickly. No significant
affect to any commercial fishery is anticipated and no populations
of fish are expected to be significantly reduced. The impacts as-
sociated with dredging and blasting are considered to be temporary
and short—lived in nature. The survival of aquatic resources and
the ecological integrity of the area will not be threatened. To
ensure the protection of fish migration and spawning, the Pittston
Company will be regulated under permit from the Corps of Engineers
to cease blasting operations. The company has expressed their
willingness to work with biologists and local fishermen to
determine the presence of such fish.
The settling velocity of dredged material grains is a
function of their diameters and the temperature of the water. If the
temperature of the water and the particle size are knc*’in, the settling
velocity of the particle may be calcuated (Blatt et al. 1972).
Blatt, Harvy, Gerard Middleton, and Raymond Murray. 1972. Origin
of Sedimentary Rocks . Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 634 pp.
VI—59
-------
Particle sizes in the vicinity of the proposed VLCC unloading
and product loading piers were presented in Table 111—16. The
data Indicated that at the unloading site, an average of over 60%
of the particles In a sample from the area were retained by a No.
10 mesh sieve (2.0 mu pore size). Also, over 90% of .the particles
were retained by a No. 60 mesh sieve (0.25 mu). These particle sizes
fall In the classifications of sand and gravel. At the product
pier site, over 70% of the sample -particles were greater than
2.0 urn In diameter. Also, over 90% of the particles were greater
than 0.25 mm in diameter. Thus Deep Cove had a greater percentage
of particles with diameters greater than 2.0 mu, but the sizes of
particles at both locations generally were coarse. Coarse particles
will settle at a faster rate than will fine particles.
It blasting and dredging are scheduled during slack water,
particle transport will be minimized. However, the following
calculations are presented to provide an estimate of the area
that would be affected by particle transport due to turbulence
from blasting and dredging. Assuming a water temperature of 10°C,
a product pier area depth of 50 ft, a VLCC pier area depth of 75
ft, a Cobscook Bay mean channel depth of 150 ft, and a Cobscook
Bay current velocity of Just under 2 knots (3.3 ft/sec), the
following information is determined:
Water Depth
m (ft)
2.0 Dian&eter
Settling Distance
Ve1ocity Transported
(czn/sec) (in)
0.25 n Diaiieter
Settling
Velocity
(em/sec)
Distance
Transported
(kin)
15.2 (50)
27
57
2.6
0.6
22.9 (75)
27
85
2.6
0.9
45.7 (150)
27
170
2.6
1.8
VI—60
-------
The “distance transported” calculations are to be used as
general guidelines for defining the potential sedimentation im-
pact area. Variations In water depth and current velocities
both above and below those respective average levels used for
calculations affect actual distances transported. It should be
clear from these estimates, however, that the areas to bepo-
tentially ii acted by sedin ntàticii are relatively localiz .. Particles
> 2.0 itin In diameter should settle within 3 mInutes of suspension
at a distance from the dredging area of < 170 inn. The direction
of particle transport will be west further into Cobscook Bay
during ebb tides. Particles > 0.25 mm In diameter should settle
‘within 30 minutes of suspension at a distance from the dredging area
of < 1.8 km. It is reemphasized that the greatest percentage of
particles at each dredging location are > 2.0 mm In diameter.
Thus the number of particles that are <2.0 mm but >0.25 mm
in diameter is low, and the number of particles In this size
range that would be transported a full 1.8 km from the dredging area
is also low. Because particles will remain suspended for a very
short period of time, biological impacts due to increased turbidity
(thus decreased light penetration) will be insignificant.
The benthic species present In the proposed dredging areas include
primarily snails, tubeworms, sea urchins, and clams. The tube—
worm was the predominant species present in benthic samples,
ranging from 29% to 70% in relative abundance. The other species
present generally comprised less than 10% each of the total num-
ber of individuals collected (except for a snail species near the
proposed product pier which comprised 23% of the Individuals
collected).
The dredging will result in the direct removal and destruct-
ion of the plants In the dredge areas, but should have little
deletrious effect on either the subtida] . or intertidal areas beyond.
The activity of the tidal currents is expected to quickly dis-
perse any fine sediment released by the dredging operation. Since
the biota in the Shackford area are already exposed to sedl.ment
movement, they are well adapted to withstand local siltatiOn
from dredging. In those areas where plants are removed or buried,
no long—term disruption of the plant community Is expected to
occur. Recolonization of plants should begin in a few months,
and within 2—3 years the area should be recovered. Where the
dredging extends to and exposes more bedrock surfaces, conditions
will be more favorable for a denser algae population than pre-
viously existed.
The benthic habitat also will be lost In the immediate
dredging areas. Where the dredging continues to bedrock, the
infaunal species typically present In the sands and gravels will
not be able to reestablish themselves although the epifaunal
species, which include many of the dominant species found near
V’— 61
-------
Shackford Head, are expected to recolonize rather quickly on the
fresh bedrock surfaces. In any event, the areas to be affected
are small enough so that the dredging is unlikely to affect sig-
niflcantly the benthic or algal productivity of the Eastport area.
A marine archaeological survey will be done by a qualified archae-
ologist for Pittson prior to any dredging.
Air Resources
Refinery Emissions and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Primary Emissions . The proposed refinery will emit
various quantities of pollutants, including particulates,
nitrogen oxides, nonmethane hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides,
and trace amounts of mercury, beryllium, and lead. Sources
of these pollutants within the plant will include: (1) steam
generating boilers; (2) the sulfur recovery plant; (3) pro-
cess heaters (combution); (4) the refuse and wastewater
sludge incinerator; (5) petroleum storage and handling
facilities; (6) process losses (pumps and valve leaks, etc.)
and (7) the electric power generating gas turbine fired with
0.1% sulfur No. 2 oil. Table vI-16 shows the esti-
mated rates of emission for each source, or combination of
sources. Many of the emissions are limited by existing regu-
lations, either New Source Performance Standards or National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Figure VI-3
shows an emission flow diagram while Figure VI-4 indicates
the location of the source for each pollutant. Both the EPA
and Pittston estimates are given for both the controlled and
uncontrolled situations.* Calculations show that the re-
finery has the potential for becoming a major point source
for the following pollutants: (1) particulates; (2) nitro-
gen oxides; (3) non—methane hydrocarbons; and (4) sulfur ox-
ides, including total reduced sulfur compounds. As indicated
above, certain metals may also be present in trace amounts.
In order to further protect the public from any potential
adverse health or welfare effects from the pollutants,
the New Source Performance Standards, the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and
existing State regulations require emission monitoring
programs once the plant has commenced operation. In
general, the regulations will require testing for:
(1) TSP; (2) nitrogen oxides (NO ); (3) sulfur oxides,
*The term “controlled” means the application of what is considered
to be “Best Available Control Technology” (BACT).
VI- 62
-------
Table vI—16
MAXIMUM EMISSIONS BY SOURCE AT EASTPORT REFINERY & MARINE TERMINAL AS ESTIMATED BY EPA
SOURCE
TSP NO HC SO Pb Hg Be
lb/hr lb hr lb/hr lb hr lb/hr gm/day gm/day
Process Emissions To Stack
• Naph. Desulfurizer
• Dist. Desulfurizer
• Resid. Desulfurizer
• Hydrogen Unit
• Boiler
• LPG Unit
• Isomerizer
• Cat Reformer
• Crude Unit
‘ ‘ Total For Above * 250 1340 79 940 — — —
• Incinerator * 10 12 2 — 3.0 35 3.5
• Power Generation 23 312 25 64 — — —
• Sulfur Recovery Unit ** — 105 —
Storage Tanks * 0 0 152 0 0 0 0
Tankers (Intermittent )
• Product Loading and
Unloading 5 105 105 25 0 0 0
• VLCC Ballasting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Process Venting & Leakage 0 0 104 0 0 0 0
Flares (Intermittent)
Others 0 0 104 0 0 0 0
TOTAL (Less intermittent emissions) 283 1664 466 1109 3.0 35 3.5
Note: CO emissions are negligible
* Controlled by federal emission limitations
** Proposed New Source Performance Standards
-------
TABLE VI-17 DELETED
vI—64
-------
measured as SO ; (4) beryllium; and (5) mercury. At the
present time, ederal standards exist for particulates, nitro-
gen oxides, sulfur oxides, beryllium, and mercury. There are no
lead (Pb) standards.* Nonmethane hydrocarbons and ozone were not
included in the EPA dispersion modeling program since the re-
finery’s impacts on the levels of these pollutants cannot be as
accurately quantified, and computer models to predict their con-
centrations have not yet been validated and approved by the EPA.
Although the impact analysis is based only on design information
and other estimates, the monitoring requirements insure that
regulations will be met. The technical appendix provides more
detail regarding such requirements.
In order to estimate the impacts of the proposed refinery’s
emissions on the existing air quality, extensive computer
analyses were performed independently by Dr. F. Davis of
Drexel University, as a consultant to the Pittston Company,
and by Marvin Rosenstein of EPA, Region I. The objective
was to determine the maximum possible concentrations of
sulfur oxides, particulates, nitrogen dioxide, and lead
that would impact the surrounding area. As shown in
Table VI—l8and Table VI—19,the impact estimates
involve different averaging times in accordance with the
ambient air quality standards. Different models were used
for short — and long—term estimations. Figure VI-5 illus-
trates the location of various expected naximum short—
term impacts as determined by the models. However, the
“state of the art” of diffusion modeling is such that,
at best, emissions from the actual refinery could be as
far as a factor of two from the predicted
values; i.e., a prediction of 12 indicates that the
measured value could range from 6 to 24. Nevertheless,
modeling work allows many combinations of meterorology,
topography, and stack emission effects to he considered
in the evaluation of air quality impacts. Table VI-19
indicates the highest values calculated for all the
possible conditions. Because of the complexity of the
modeling performed during this study, a detailed explana-
tion of the methodology, its basic assumptions, the types
of models used, and the combination of factors that
produced the “worst case” impacts is contained in
Appendix G. The results of this analysis also indicate that
violations of applicable Class I and II nondegradation increments
for sulfur oxides and particulates should not occur, provided best
available SO control technology is used. Thus, the refinery’s
primary emissions will not result in violations of ambient air
quality standards.
* The EPA has proposed a monthly average Pb standard of 1.5 ug/m
which poses no difficulty for such sources as petroleum re-
fineries.
VI— 65
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM OF REFINERY EMISSIONS
EXCLUDING HYDROCARBON LOSSES
FIGURE VI-3
Note : Hydrocarbon emissions would be from storage tanks, and loading and unloading docks. Smaller amounts
would be emitted throughout the plant.
STAC K
r
7 4/L GAS
-------
LOCATION OF STACK
FIGURE VI-4
j Hydrocarb4x eInI8BiOflS would be from storage tsnkL and loading and Unloading dock8. Smaller amounta
would be emitted throughout the plant.
VI—67
-------
TABLE VI-18
MAXIMUM SHORT TERN INPACT
CONCENTRATIONS FOR EASTPORT AREA
DISTANCE (km) S02 (ug/in 3 ) TSP (ug/m 3 )
3—hour 24—hour 24-hour
1.0 -48.8 2.6 0.7
2.0 15.7 4.9 1.2
3.0 16.2 5.1 1.3
4.0 14.5 4.5 1.1
5.0 13.1 4.1 1.0
6.0 13.8 4.3 1.1
8.0 14.6 4.6 1.2
10.0 15.6 4.9 1.2
12.0 14.9 4.7 1.2
15.0 12.9 4.0 1.0
Class I Standard 25 5 10
Class II Standard 512 91 37
NOTE: These maximum levels will occur more often at points that
are downwind from the refinery, considering predominant
wind directions.
VI —68
-------
TABLE VI-19
SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ESTIMATED BY EPA
(ug/m 3 )
Maximum Allowable Method 1 Method 2 Method 3
PTMTP CRSTER CDM
Roosevelt—Campobello International Park——Class I
TSP annual 5 0.13* 0.05 0.02
24—hour 10 1.3 0.8
SO 2 annual 2 Ø 49* 0.19 0.09
24—hour 5 4.9 3.0
3—hour 25 15.6 14.3
NO 2 annual 100 0.74* 0.29 0.14
Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge——Class I
TSP annual 5 0.12*
24—hour 10 1.2
SO 2 annual 2 Ø•47*
24—hour 5 4.7
3—hour 25 14.9
NO 2 annual 100 0.71*
All Other Areas——Class II
TSP annual 19 0.13*
24—hour 37 1.3
SO 2 annual 20 0.52*
24—hour 91 5.2
3—hour 512 48.8
NO 2 annual 100 0.78*
NOTE: Impacts for Pb, Hg, and Be are negligible.
*Conse atively assumed to be 10% of 24-hour maximum values.
VI—69
-------
-4
0
Figure VI-5 Location of Maximum Short Term Impact
-------
Prevention of Significant Air Quality Deterioration . As dis-
cussed earlier, the background concentrations of TSP and S02
in the Eastport area are well below national air quality stand-
ards. The results of a monitoring program conducted by Scott
Laboratory for the Pittston Company and reviewed by EPA indicate
conditions consistent with those expected in a rural area. Some
impact from local sources of pollution were observed during the
monitoring period generally when the wind speed was below one
mile per hour. Sulfur dioxide concentrations were typically 1-2
parts per billion (ppb), while during poor ventilation periods
they rose to 10—20 ppb for a few minutes, but they never exceeded
8 ppb as a hourly average. The levels of particulates appeared
sensitive to wind speed and direction since the particles may be
transported for some distance over a relatively short period of
time. Monitored TSP values ranged from 1 to 73.4 micrograms per
cubic meter for 24—hour averaging periods.
As pointed out in Chapter III the source’s emissions must first
meet “best available control technology” (BACT) for TSP and SO 2
as stated in 40 CFR 52.21(d) (2) (ii). EPA has determined that
“best available control technology” will encompass the following
criteria:
A. The 48 tons per day Incinerator will meet NSPS for
incinerators. The unit will emit 0.08 grains of particulate
per standard cubic foot using an electrostatic precipitator.
B. The sulfur recovery plant will meet the proposed, but
not promulgated, NSPS. The plant will not:
1. Burn in any fuel gas combustion device any fuel
gas which contains hydrogen sulfide in excess of 230 mg/dscm
(0.10 gr/dscf), except that the gases resulting from the com-
bustion of fuel gas may be treated to control sulfur dioxide
emissions provided Pit tston demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the Administrator that this is as effective in preventing
sulfur dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.
2. Discharge or cause the discharge of any gases
into the atmosphere from any sulfur recovery plant (by tail
gas scrubbing) containing in excess of:
a. 0.025 percent by volume of sulfur dioxide at
zero percent oxygen on a dry basis if emissions are controlled
by an oxidation control system, or a reduction control system
followed by incineration, or
b. 0.030 percent by volume of reduced sulfur
compounds and 0.0010 percent by volume of hydrogen sulfide
calculated as sulfur dioxide at zero percent oxygen on a dry
basis if emissions are controlled by a reduction control
system not followed by incineration.
VI—71
-------
C. Although the NSPS emission limits for the steam
generators are 0.8 and 0.10 pounds per million BTU heat input
for °2 and TSP respectively, the company has proposed to meet
0.28 pounds per million BTU for SO and 0.07 pounds per million
BTU for TSP as a special permit cof dition. This will be
accomplished by burning 0.25% sulfur No. 5 fuel oil.
0. The gas turbine generator NSPS (proposed) allows a
new source to either burn 0.8% sulfur fuel or emit SO 2 at a
rate equal to or less than 0.015% by volume in the flue gas
on a 15% oxygen and dry gas basis. Pittston has proposed to
burn .1% sulfur distillate fuel oil or meet an equivalent
0.002% of SO 2 in the flue gas on an 15% oxygen and dry gas
basis.
Most of the process pollution will come from combustion of fuels
in the boilers, process heaters, and gas turbines. After burning,
flue gases from the above equipment will be collected and
released through a 300 foot stack (refer to Figure VI-3). All
the combustion emission estimates are based on the following
rates of fuel consumption as supplied by Pittston:
13,500 barrels per day (BPD) *5 fuel oil
3,500 BPD fuel gas (equivalent)
32,500 lb/hr #2 fuel oil
In addition to the primary emissions generated by particular
refinery processes and described above, tankers delivering
crude oil to the refinery are expected to generate a certain
amount of air emissions. Therefore, although intermittent
in nature (one VLCC unloading once every seven days and in port
for 36 hours) EPA did include their impact in evaluating the
impact of the overall facility.
Since it was determined that the operation of the refinery does
not contravene State or Federal ambient air quality standards,
the more stringent Class I and Class II increments set forth in
the PSD regulations will govern the review of this facility for
TSP and SO . Therefore, a study, which included computer modeling,
was conduc ed to determine the maximum downwind pollutant con-
centrations from the facility on the surrounding Class I and II
areas. This analysis took into account the modifications in
facility design and the reduced sulfur content of the fuel which
were reflected in Pittston’s November 18, 1977 letter to EPA.
(See Appendix G.)
Conclusion :
Based on the analysis described above and presented in Appendix
G, EPA has tentatively determined that the refinery will satisfy
the requirements of the PSD regulations. The impacts at Campobello
VI-7la
-------
Island and Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge will be within the Class
I increments set forth in the Clean Air Act. In addition the
refinery will meet all the proposed and promulgated New Source
Performance Standards that legally define “best available con-
trol technology.” The Pittston Company has also agreed to limit
several emission sources to rates well below the NSPS.
VI-71b
-------
TABLE VI-20
MAXIMUM SECONDARY IMPACTS ESTIMATED BY EPA
24—Hour Annual (10% of 24—Hour )
(ug/in 3 ) (ug/m 3 )
COMMUNITY GROWTH
Eastport area
TSP <0.1 <0.1
SO 2 <0.5 <0.1
Roosevelt—Campobello Park
TSP <0.1 <0.1
SO 2 <0.1 <0.1
ISOLATED SHIP IMPACTS
Eastport area
TSP
SO 2 6.6 0.7
Roosevelt—Campobello Park
TSP <2.0 0.2
SO 2 <2.0 0.2
SHIP PLUS STACK EMISSION IMPACTS
Eastport area
Ship SO 2 6.6
Stack SO 2 0.0
TOTAL 6.6 0.7
Roosevelt—Campobello Park
Ship SO 2 0.1
Stack SO 4.9
TOTAL 2 5.0 0.5
STANDARDS
Eastport area(Class II)
TSP 37 19
SO 2 91 20
Roosevelt—Campobello Park(Class I)
TSP 10 5
SO 2 5 2
VI—72
-------
TABLE VI-21 DELETED
Secondary Emissions . Growth which may occur within a
community as a result of the construction or alteration
of a major facility such as a highway, airport, sewer or
oil refinery is generally described as secondary growth
and often results in an increase in
the levels of the various pollutants within the com-
munity. In addition, during the VLCC unloading operation
the ship’s emissions must be considered, as must the
possibility of the ship emission impacts plus the re-
finery stack emission impacts in combination exceeding
standards. The increases in TSP and SO 2 levels
associated with the proposed refinery in Eastport have
thus been estimated. The short—term and annual im-
pacts show only small increases in these pollutant
levels, as shown in Table VI-20. Estimated values are
based on “worst—case” operational, housing density and
weather conditions; therefore, they are conservative
estimates. The impacts are all very sma4, and the
Class I 24-hour SO 2 increment of 5.0 ug/m is equalled,
but not exceeded. Thus, all standards will be met.
Pollutant Transformations in the Atmosphere
Hydrocarbons and Oxidants . As indicated earlier, the
impact of additional hydrocarbon emissions and ozone
formation as a result of the refinery in Eastport can-
not be accurately quantified. Ozone, unlike the other
air pollutants, is a secondary pollutant resulting from
the reaction of the precursor pollutants in the presence
of sunlight. Numerous chemical reactions take place
under various meteorological conditions in the forma-
tion of ozone and no existing mathematical model is
capable of quantifying the ozone formation even if
the emissions of precursor pollutants are known.
Current modeling efforts for evaluating the effects
of hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions on ozone
concentrations downwind are largely theoretical and
unvalidated. Therefore, only a discussion of the poten-
tial impacts of hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen
emissions from the refinery, which range from no impact
VI— 73
-------
to a negative impact* and show that a reduction of
precursor pollutants such as organic compounds and
nitrogen oxides do not reduce ozone concentrations,
follows.
Recent studies show that: 1) man—made emissions are
the predominant sources of high levels of oxidants,
even in remote rural areas**, 2) transport of oxi—
dants and their precursor compounds for distances up
to 50 miles downwind of urban areas has been demon-
strated, Consequently, the additional emissions of
hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen from the refinery
may cause additional ozone formation in areas up to
50 miles or more downwind of Eastport. It is likely,
however, that transport over larger distances occurs.***
A projection of the impact of the hydrocarbons and ni-
trogen oxides emissions from the proposed refinery
on air quality downwind of Eastport can be made by
comparing the Eastport data to the results of a study
done for EPA by the Research Corporation of New Eng-
land (TRC). In the summer of 1974, TRC completed a
measurement program**** assessing the impact of hy-
drocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions from the Port-
land, Maine metropolitan area on oxidant levels at
distances of up to 37 miles downwind. Air quality
monitoring was performed at three fixed ground
stations near Portland and with an instrumented air-
craft aloft. The program design was constructed on
the basis of local topography, prevailing meteoro-
logical conditions, and local emission patterns.
* Cleveland, W.S., B. Kleiner, J.E. McRae, and J.L. Warner (undated):
The analysis of ground level ozone data from N.J., N.Y., Conn.,
and Mass.: Transport from NYC Metropolitan Area. Bell Laboratory.
** Stern, AC., Air Pollution . New York: Academic Press, 1968.
Control of photochemical oxidants—-technical basis and implications
of recent findings, USEPA, Office of Air and Waste Management,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, July 15, 1975.
Polgar, L.G., Measurement program for xnbient 03, NOx and NMHC
at Portland, Maine, Summer 1974. TRC Report No. 42387-01,
prepared for USEPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, November 1975.
VI—74
-------
The conclusion of the study states that, although
there was no conclusive evidence for an urban ozone
plume, there was an increase in ozone levels at
Stations 2 and 3 on days when these stations were
downwind of Portland. The increase, which occurred
during peak ozone time periods (I.e., afternoon),
was about 0.01 ppm. This increase may be compared
with a mean of peak values of about 0.0k ppm which
occurred on days when the stations were not downwind
of Portland. Whether the increase is due to Portland
area precursor emissions per se, or to general
, ather patterns associated with elevated ozone levels
at a variety of sites, cannot be reliably determined
from the data. It was, therefore, concluded that
there was some evidence for an urban ozone plume; how-
ever, that evidence was slender but, if taken to be conclu-
sive, the incremental effect of the Portland plume is
about .01 ppm on the ground for a distance of about 3.8
miles and about .02 ppm aloft for a distance of about ko
miles.
For such small differences and lack of extensive data,
it Is difficult to evaluate whether such increases were
even attributable to Portland emissions. Consequently,
the Impact of precursor pollutants from Portland, Maine
on oxidant formation downwind of the City appears to be
small. However, it should be pointed out that the high
ambient ozone readings in Eastport, may not only be the
result of transport from Portland but may also reflect the
effects of an urban ozone plume which Is one of several
carried along the coast from the northeast metropolitan
areas.
Ex Isting emissions from the Portland area, specifically
Cumberland county, are an important consideration in
inferring from the Portland study the possible impact
of refinery emissions. The county emits aim ost
10 times the amount of hydrocarbons and three times
the nitrogen oxides that the refinery is projected to
emit. By inference, the refinery precursor emissions
should have even less of an impact on oxidant formation
downwind of Eastport, Maine, than that of the City of
Portland, Maine. Apparently the long distance transport
of massive amounts of oxidants from the metropolitan
northeast will continue to govern the situation.
The effect of the Pittston Refinery’s emissions on area
photochemical oxidant levels has been modeled by Dr.
1-leicklen, an expert in the field of atmospheric chemistry.
Based on this work, It was concluded that the regional
oxidant level would not be increased due to refinery
vi- 75
-------
emissions of NOx and hydrocarbon and that the oxidant
level in the immediate vicinity would be reduced. This
was largely explained by the fact that oxidant formation
is strongly favored by a high ratio of hydrocarbon to NOR,
while the refinery is expected to typically release greater
quantities of N0 than of hydrocarbons. Addition of NON,
mostly emitted as NO, to existing smog would reduce the
oxidant level through the rapid reaction:
NO + 03 .N0 2 +02
These conclusions are subject to question for several
reasons. The model considered only a small number of
hydrocarbon species, whereas the real environment is
much more complex, involving many more species which have
differing reaction rates. Also, the Input hydrocarbon
emission rate corresponded to a long—term average based
mostly on storage tank standing and working loss calcu-
lations, while the Input nitrogen oxide emission rate
corresponded to the maximum expected from such sources as
full—load steam generation. Since compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for photochemical
oxidants must be judged by comparison to concentrations
observed over one—hour periods, It may be more appropriate
to employ the maxImum one—hour average hydrocarbon emission
rate and the minimum (If this gives the highest oxidant
level) one—hour average nitrogen oxide emission rate for a
truly worst—case modeling calculation. On the long, hot,
sunny summer days most conducive to rapid oxidant formation,
hydrocarbon emission rates may be expected to greatly ex-
ceed the long—term averages, though the maximum one—hour
hydrocarbon emissions have yet to be calculated. On the
other hand, nitrogen oxide emission rates from steam
generating equipment decrease rapidly In response to re-
duction In boiler load, and may be negligible at a greatly
reduced load condition. Furthermore, the possibility of
such nitrogen oxide emitting equipment being completely
shut down should be considered.
Other factors that should be onsidered as relating to the
validity of the photochemical oxidant modeling study in-
clude the use of the maximum predicted 2 1 1—hour average
ground—level concentrations (rather than plume-level, one—
hour average values) as being representative of the air
mass NO and hydrocarbon levels, the uncertainties of the
programmed reaction rate constants (by about an order of
magnitude even the the case of an important reaction step),
vI— 7 6
-------
and the termination of the computer program’s calcula-
tions after 12 hours’ reactions have been simulated
(though the number of the consecutive daylight hours in
the Eastport area can be considerably longer). The
possible significance of the reaction rate constant and
solar radiation time uncertainties is evident from the
fact that the modeled oxidant concentrations were gen-
erally still increasing at the 12 hour cut—off point,
rather than having reached maximum potential levels.
Because of the above limitations, the results of this
modeling work cannot be considered conclusive.
Since the refinery hydrocarbon emissions and subsequent
oxidant formation cannot be quantifiably analyzed with
any degree of certainty, the refinery processes will be
required to use best available control technology in
conformance with the direction of oxidant control advo-
cated by EPA for the control of hydrocarbon and nitrogen
oxides and thus minimize the potential oxidant formation
in Eastport. However, it is also clear that the stand-
ards violations in the Eastport area are not governed by
locally generated emissions but rather by transport
of large amounts of oxidants from the metropolitan areas
of the northeast. Technical evidence to date clearly
indicate that a source such as this refinery is unlikely
to significantly effect the oxidant standards violations
recorded in Eastport. Thus, the focus of the regulatory
effort will be on the areas where the emissions which
cuase the violations originate, principally, in southern
New England and further south.
The Agency anticipates that if all reasonable measures
are applied to the dense urban and industrial emission
areas to the south of Eastport, as is required by the
1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, then there is a good
chance that oxidant standards will be met in Eastport
by the time the refinery begins operation. According-
ly, the Agency has determined that requiring hydrocarbon
emission offsets is not appropriate at this location.
VI—77
-------
Acidification of Precipitation
Based on an extensive review of existing technical litera-
ture, discussed in detail in the Appendix L,
it may be concluded that acid mist at ground level, due to the
refinery’s emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides, will not
be of critical concern. However, there may be a significant
increase in the acidity of rainfall, and possibly some of the
lakes, within a radius of about 25 miles, and possibly a lesser
decrease in pH over a much wider area.
Sulfur oxide emissions result from the burning of fuel
oil containing sulfur. During combustion, most of the sulfur
is oxidized to SO 2 and about 1—2% is oxidized to SO 3 . After
release to the atmosphere, SO 2 continues to be oxidized both
directly (homogeneously) and catalytically (heterogeneously).
Numerous meteorological influences and atmospheric ehemical
reactions, fect the conversion of SO 2 to sulfate. According
to Miller’ , there are three primary mechanisms of SO 2 oxida-
tion in contaminated environments. These are 1) an indirect
photocheinical reaction containing an 03/HC intermediate,
2) an aqueous manganese catalyzed reaction, and 3) an aqueous
ion catalized reaction. Results of a successful modeling
effort for New York City in the summer show that the IIC/0 3
mediated reaction is responsible for more than 90% of the
predicted sulfate levels. The direct photochemical mechanism
is responsible for about 3% of the sulfate and the wet aerosol
mechanisms comprise about 7% of the sulfate contribution. On
one particularly humid day, the wet aerosol mechanisms con-
tributed over 30% of the projected sulfate.
Oxidized metals such as chromium, copper, iron, manganese,
tin and vanadium, which may be present in flyash, catalytically
oxidize SO , especially in the presence of moisture. At rela-
tive humidities of up to 70%, the oxidation has been observed
to proceed quite slowly, on the order of 0.1% per minute.Rowever
at higher relative humidities the oxidation pro-
ceeds on the order of 1 percent per minute.
Therefore, the possibility of stack plumes containing SO 2
interacting with the frequent fog droplets found near Eastport
merits consideration.
Sulfur trioxide, being extremely hygroscopic, is readily
converted to sulfuric acid mist according to the reaction
SO 3 + fl H 2 0 + H 2 S0 4 . (n-l) H 2 0
v i — 78
-------
Alkaline oxides such as those of calcium, magnesium, potassium,
and sodium, which may be found in flyash, may neutralize a
small fraction of the SO 2 , SO 3 and H 2 S0 4 . In addition, carbo-
naceous matter, which constitutes smoke and is also present in
flyash, may to a small extent adsorb SO 2 and SO 3 . The sulfuric
acid mist concentration at any point is approximately propor-
tional to the SO 2 concentration and to the plume travel time,
during which a fraction of the SO 2 reacts to form H 2 S0 4 .
In addition to the formation of sulfate aerosol and its
corresponding sulfuric acid mist, sulfur oxide emissions con-
tribute to the acidification of rainfall over large areas.
The northeastern United States has an extensive and severe
acid precipitation problem. Unlike a pH of 5.6, based on a
natural CO 2 equilibrium, the analysis of recent precipitation
samples reveals a consistent pH of less than 4.4. It appears
that some 64% of the acidity is due to H 2 S0 4 , 30% to HNO 3 ,
and less than 5% to HC1.
Analyses of prevailing winds, reaction times, and precipi-
tation — formation times indicates that this is a large scale
phenomenon, as is evidenced by low pH values even in the most
rural areas of the Northeast.
Acid precipitation has been shown to have widespread
ecological effects. It can adversely affect plants, animals
and exposed non—living materials. It can cause increased
leaching of nutrients from foliage and alter leaf physiology
and hinder growth. Acidification of lakes and streams can
result, damaging aquatic ecosystems, including fish populations.
These effects can be experienced hundreds of miles from the
pollution sources, making it very difficult to identify or
control each source.
To date there is considerable scientific evidence to
indicate that acid rains may have prolonged deleterious effects
on the aquatic communities of certain susceptible freshwater
lakes. The buffering capacity of a lake is determined by the
geology of the watershed and the availability of a source of
the bicarbonate ion (HCO 3 ). Other factors such as the amount
of precipitation and the size of the watershed are also
important.
Well-buffered lakes which are very high in bicarbonate are
able to absorb moderate amounts of strong acid, such as sul—
furic acid, with relatively little change in pH. However,
VI— 79
-------
lakes with very little bicarbonate which are poorly buffered
can be made very acidic by the addition of even small amounts
of a strong acid.
The Adirondack Lakes of New York are an example of this.
These lakes are poorly buffered and studies have shown that
they have been adversely affected I y acidic rain. The majority
of the lakes in Maine are also low in bicarbonate as are a
large percentage of the freshwater resources of the maritime
provinces of Canada. Thus, these lakes have a low buffering
capacity and would be vulnerable to degradation by acid rains
due to the emission of sulfur and nitrogen oxides by the pro-
posed Eastport refinery.
Though its emissions of both sulfur and nitrogen oxides
will be small in comparison with those associated with large
fossil—fuel fired power generating stations, mitigating measures
could be employed at the refinery in order to minimize its
contribution to the growing acid rain problem in the Northeast.
The burning of lower sulfur oil products (0.1% rather
than 0.25%) for plant steam generation could help locally, but
if all the fuel oil is to be burned in the Northeast by Pitts-
ton and its customers, nothing would be gained regionally.
Flue gas desulfurization by such means as wet scrubbing is
relatively simple where such low—sulfur fuels are burned, but
is not generally employed in such case , results in environ-
mental (for example, waste disposal) difficulties and increased
energy consumption, and may not be a cost—effective application
of emission control technology.
VI—80
-------
Odor . Although EPA has yet to establish any standards
governing odor, it is an area of concern. Most modern
refineries are relatively odor—free, although even Best
Available Control Technology will allow some hydrogen
sulfide (H 2 S) emissions from the stacks. Therefore,
calculations were made to determine maximum downwind con-
centration of this pungent compound (approximately
0.5 units ppb (parts per billion)). Studies have shown
that H 2 S may be detected in the one to 1,000 range.
Similar low concentrations would result from other sulfur
compounds as well. If incineration is the last step of
control, these gases could be almost completely destroyed.
Whether incineration would be used as the final step
depends on the type of tail gas scrubbing that Pittston
will employ for sulfur removal.
Construction Emissions . Construction Impact on air
quality is generally of a temporary and localized nature. The
degree of impact will depend on the level of activity, time
duration, weather conditions, construction practice and other
factors. Since the background values for particulates, sulfur
oxides, and nitrogen dioxide are so low, construction impacts are
not of as much concern as In other projects in more polluted
areas.
The principal sources of air pollution during construction
may include fugitive dust and emissions from construction vehicles
and equipment. The potentially impacted area will be the areas
immediately adjacent to the construction site and access roads
approaching the site. There are sensitive receptors, such as
homes, immediately adjacent to the refinery site which could be
affected. However, these construction Impacts can be minimized
by implementing applicable control measures which may Include the
following:
VI - 81
-------
Watering of the dirt roads at the construction site;
Covering stockpiled soils;
Cleaning mud and dirt off vehicles before they leave the
construction site;
Cleaning dust or dirt dropped from trucks on paved access
roads;
Limiting truck speeds on the construction site and on dirt
access roads;
Covering open—bodied trucks when they are in motion;
Timely scheduling to minimize the time and area exposure
of denuded areas;
Appropriate maintenance of construction vehicle and
equipment; and
Scheduling truck movements to minimize potential inter-
ference with local traffic.
Upset Conditions . Pittston has estimated that flaring
for upset conditions would be done only occasionally and
then only for short periods of 1 to 10 minutes. Our best
estimates indicate that under the worst case conditions,
flaring might occur from one to three hours.
Other . Other special topics which have been considered
in addition to those already mentioned Include:
1. Fumigation conditions;
2. Inversion conditions;
3. Topographical effects;
4• Downwash.
As these areas are quite technical and are normally considered in
the computer modeling analysis, they are Included in the modeling
section of the technical appendix.
v i— 82
-------
Noise
To obtain the necessary environmental and governmental
approvals, this project must demonstrate that It meets all cur-
rent regulations for noise emissions. In order to determine
this compliance, EPA conducted a noise study to establish the
environmental noise impact resulting from the proposed con-
struction of the oil refinery, storage facility and marine
terminal on the site of the Eastport Municipal Airport. Particu-
lar attention was paid to the possible increase in noise levels
at nearby residential receptors both during the construction and
operation of the facilities.
The noise impact study considered only two possible alter-
native courses of action — build and no—build. Under the no—build
option, It was assumed that the area’s future noise climate will
be similar to today’s. The noise Impact of the build alterna-
tive, therefore, was then quantified by a comparison of the
existing levels, as discussed in Chapter III, against those
projected for the operating facilities.
Measurement Methodology . As discussed earlier, field
data was collected using either a manual sampling technique or
automatic data logging instrumentation. The results of the
existing noise survey at the five locations are contained in
Chapter III of this report and discussed in—depth in Appendix H.
In summary, the existing noise climate at the locations shown
in Figure \rI—6 is classified as very quiet, particularly during
the late evening and early morning hours. The major daytime
source of noise is automobile traffic along Route 190 and other
nearby local roads. Nocturnal sounds are the result of occasional
vehicular traffic together with the background levels set by
distant sea gulls, winds in the trees, and other natural sources.
Noise Levels . As previously explained, EPA’s criteria
identify allowable noise levels In terms of LEQ(2 I) and Ldn
indicators were used to provide a basis for the quantitative
comparison of before and after noise levels at the project site.
The LEQ(2 1 ) indicator Is defined as the equivalent energy level
for a 2 1 4—hour period. The Ldn indicator is the same except that
a 10 dB penalty Is imposed on the SPL values during the hours
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
VT-Ri
-------
NOISE CONTOUR MAP WITH MEASUREMENT
LOCATIONS SUPERIMPOSED AND PROJECTED
REFINERY NOISE LEVELS INDICATED FIGURE vr-6
N
\
‘ •/ ) K*r daIIH,.d ‘ .. (
(c /( .\
•$ 4 H1
4 , ‘ 5 4 ‘ ( 0
%-5dBc • I/ \ _)
/ jN iJY/ j\ \
• / 50
s Carr pr p1ac. “S j c ‘zJ ’ ‘ — —-‘
‘ 1/ c i I DogIsJ.nd
. . j , i ,- ore . 5 - \T -- r1’ - .,i 1 /
- “ -‘L-f I - I i ’i-X ‘OX J’ 4 ’.
d’.? .‘ A I 1 ‘ I ’t .
C. • p .
—t . - /f g t th.ws C I k L•
4 / q
I I < cASTP T’ ‘‘ \
Sc I ‘ 4? )iZ”V f 1
I I i i \ \‘N // — Ic “ I\’ I- 14
U - -. Todd Heai
\ - \
NN \
I ‘\ - P- 7 /
X —4’-eJ -,#‘-f ‘ - 1
r - ‘ . S q 4scg Rock
N -J -- d 1 Gia . I
I / - Stock
/ t_ — \. \ Page Rock
c “ ‘S - - EASTPOP
L.) —
.aI ,. ->
\ —‘ - _ \ — ‘ -
— . : ,
IA ‘ ¼ Ouckman Head
Scale in feet: C is.’a ci
____ 2000 O0O
- - - --1
— -- — ._BM j
vi- 84
-------
To add significance to the following discussion of
projected noise levels, Table VI—22 illustrates for comparison
the approximate noise levels of typical activities.
Construction Noise Levels . It Is well known that con-
struction activity is a significant source of noise and
noise—related annoyance for many people. A detailed
survey of construction noise carried out for EPA ” esti-
mates that between 114 and 35 million people in the U. S.
are exposed to significant construction noise levels
during a 12 month period. Typical exposure levels for
these affected persons range from 60 to 1,800 hours per
year depending upon the particular situation.
For the Pittston refinery, heavy construction activity
can reasonably be expected to continue for about 214 months
with nearby residents experiencing varying amounts of
noise exposure during this time period. Representative
levels of construction noise generated by individual
items of equipment are listed in Table VI—23. As in-
dicated in this tabulation, typical individual noise
levels are about 85 dBA at 50 feet from the source.
Assuming 10 such Items of equipment to be operating con-
currently during a typical construction phase, the noise
level would be 95 dBA at 50 feet. Because the decibel
scale Is logarithmic rather than linear, the decibel con-
tribution of 10 pieces of equipment is not 10 times the
contribution of one piece of equipment. The general
rule for adding sound pressure levels can be summarized
as “increasing the number of identical contributing
sources by a factor of 10 corresponds to reusing
the SPL by 10 dB.” Furthermore, neglecting ground
absorption and acoustic shielding, and assuming spherical
spreading (—6 dB/DD), this 95 dBA level becomes 65 dBA
at 1,600 feet, 59 dBA at 3,200 feet and so forth.
The construction noise levels estimated above as 65 dBA
at 1,600 feet, etc. proved to be comparable to those
calculated for normal operation of the refinery. Thus,
it is reasonable to assert that the extent of the noise
impact during the construction phase of the project will
be roughly the same as during the normal operation
phase.
*Source i 4 in bibliography.
VI—85
-------
TABLE vI-22.
APPROXIMATE NOISE LEVELS
OF TYPICAL ACTIVITIES
INDOOR NOISE LEVELS DECIBELS OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS
140 - - THRESHOLD OF PAIN
130 - - Pneumatic riveter
Oxygen torch 120 - -
110 - - Elevated Train
Jet flyover at 1000 feet
Rock and roll band 100 - -
Farm tractor
Lawn mower at 3 feet
Boiler Room 90 - - Motorcycle at 25 feet
Food blender at 3 feet
Diesel truck, 40 mph at 50 feet
Garbage disposal at 3 feet 80 - -
Lawn mower at 100 feet
Shouting voice at 6 feet 70 - -
Car, 50 mph at 50 feet
Normal speech at 3 feet
60 - - Heavy traffic at 300 feet
Average business office 50 - -
Average residence Bird calls
40 - -
Library
30 — —
Quiet rural area at night
Broadcasting studio
20 - - Rustling leaves
10 — -
0 - - THRESHOLD OF HEARING
VI —86
-------
TABLE vi- 23 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
yp çal dEA level at 50 ft
Earth moving:
Loader 78
Back hoe 82
Grader 86
Truck 88
Materials handling:
Concrete mixer 82
Concrete pump 82
Crane 82
Stationary:
Generator 77
Compressor 81
Impact equipment:
Wrenches 85
Jack haxnzner/drill 89
Pile driver 100
Source: “Noise Impact Assessment Report, Pittston Refinery,
Eastport, Maine,” prepared for U. S. EPA, Region I,
September 1976.
Noise Contours, Nonnal Operation . The proposed refinery
would obviously be a new stationary noise source intro-
duced into a semi—rural, but existing community. As such,
the noise impact imposed by the refinery on the community
can be conveniently quantified by the use of noise
contours.
The calculations necessary to generate representative
noise contours are generally quite complicated for a
large refinery for the physical dimensions, operating
capacity, estimated individual noise level, location, and
propagation path of each major piece of equipment must be
defined and entered into the calculation. Because of
the multiplicity of possible noise sources that make up
the facility, plus the multiplicity of receiver locations
which must be considered In order to construct the con-
tours, the calculations are quite extensive and somewhat
repetitive. Therefore, noise contour calculations are
often carried out using digital computer routines.
vi—87
-------
Noise contour calculations are, however, only as accurate
as the input information used. In the case of the pro-
posed Pittston facility, the detailed design information
needed for the noise contour calculations was not available
and because of this, it was necessary to estimate the
noise output of the Pittston refinery based on noise
contours calculated for similar refinery installations.
Specifically, two other installations were considered.
Contour distances for these refineries were taken from
previously published studies* with the results shown in
Table VI—24.
TABLE VI—24. NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES FOR
OTHER REFINERIES
Refinery
BPD
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Sanford, ME
250,000
——
2,300
3,000
Perth Amboy,
NJ
150,000
•
1,100
1,500
——
Perth Amboy,
NJ
250,000(1)
1, 1400
1,900
3,500
1. Scaled up from 150,000 BPD capacity accordingly to:
L = 10 log ( BPD1 ) (D2) 2
BPD 2 ç
Source: “Noise Impact Assessment Report, Pittston Refinery, East—
port, Maine,” prepared for U.S. EPA, Region I, September
1976.
It should be noted that the contour distances shown in
Table VI—25 are based on level ground propagation,
i.e., acoustic shielding from ground terrain is not in-
cluded in the tabulated values. Nominal shielding due
to buildings, towers, and other structures within the
refinery has, however, been included. It should also
be noted that these contour distances are based on the
assumption that no other noise sources are active in the
community.
For the purposes of evaluating the Pittston refinery,
which is to have a capacity of 250,000 BPD, an average
of the two 250,000 BPD figures given In Table VI—24
was assumed for both the 60 and the 55 dBA contours.
This assumption, together with the scaling equation cited
In the footnote to Table VI—24 resulted in the dis—
tances listed in Table VI—25.
VI—88
-------
TABLE VI-25. NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES, PITI’STON
REFINERY, 250,000 BPD CAPACITY, LEVEL GROUND PROPAGATION
Contour level, dBA
Radial distance, feet
60
2,100
55
3,250
50
5,780
145
10,300
These level ground propagation distances, together with
corrections for natural terrain shielding, were then used
to construct the noise contours shown in Figure vI—6.
Detailed calculations of shielding corrections are given
in Appendix H.
The noise levels expected to be produced at the five
locations previously shown in Figure Vi—6 by the facility
under normal operating conditions, assuming all other
community noise sources to be absent. These noise levels
were interpreted from the noise contour lines.
Estimated Noise Levels, Normal Operation . As discussed
above, the noise contours represent the noise produced
by the refinery with all other community noise sources
Inactive. Since this situation never exists in practice,
it was necessary to modify the levels derived from the
Noise Contour Map, Figure vi—6. In particular it was
necessary to estimate the LEQ(214) and LDN noise levels at
each of the five measurement locations using a quasi—
graphical technique discussed more fully In Appendix H.
The combined LEQ levels are tabulated in Table VI-26 for
all five measurement locations. Also shown In the table
are the LEQ(2 1 4) and LDN for each location where these•
2L _hour irxlicators have been calculated from the hourly
LEQ values according to the manual calculation procedure
outlined In Appendix H.
Impact s.
Construction Noise Impacts . The temporary nature of the
construction activity, together with the limitation on
nighttime construction operations, tends to somewhat
alleviate the Impact of construction noise in the community.
Thus, while construction noise will Indeed be an impact
VI— 89
-------
on the community, it will not be as severe as the noise
Impact resulting from the 2 4 hour per day operation of
the completed refinery.
TABLE VI-26. ESTIMATED HOURLY LEQ-dBA NOISE LEVELS
WITH BOTH REFINERY AND OTHER COMMUNITY
NOISE SOURCES OPERATING
Inasmuch as the five measurement locations used in
surveying the existing noise levels were selected on the
basis of representing nearby receptors in the community,
Time Loc. 1 Loc. 2 Loc.
3
Loc.
4
Loc.
5
period LEQ(1) LEQ(1)
LEQ(1)
LEQ(1)
LEQ(1)
19—20
—
—
62
63
55
20—21
58
60
—
60
55
21—22
—
—
62
60
55
22—23
58
60
—
59
55
23—00
—
—
62
59
55
00—01
58
60
—
59
54
01—02
—
—
62
59
54
02—03
58
60
—
59
54
03—04
—
—
62
59
54
04—05
58
60
—
59
54
05—06
—
—
62
59
54
06—07
58
61
—
60
55
07—08
—
—
62
60
55
08—09
58
61
—
60
57
09—10
—
—
62
60
57
10—11
59
61
—
60
55
11—12
—
—
62
60
56
12—13
59
61
—
60
55
13—14
—
—
62
60
55
14—15
59
61
—
60
55
15—16
—
—
62
60
55
16—17
59
61
—
60
55
17—18
—
—
62
60
55
18-19
59
61
-
60
55
LEQ(24):
58
61
62
60
55
Operation Noise
this project is
in terms of the
was carried out
LEQ(2 I) and LDN
Impacts. Since the EPA criteria which
to meet specify acceptable noise levels
LEQ(24) and LDN indicators, this study
primarily in the terms of the recommended
recommended.
VI 90
-------
they also provided a convenient and representative
vehicle for comparing the before and after LEQ(2 ) noise
levels. The LEQ(2)4) levels at these five locations
without the refinery in operation are contained in Appen-
dix H. The location of the proposed Marine Trade Training
Center was proposed after the noise meast’rement survey was
conducted. The existing L Q(24) level at. this site and the
.projected LEQ(24) level are the sa as measurement location
#3. The projected LEQ (24) levels with the plant in operation
were given in Table VI-26. A direct comparison of these “with”
and “without” LEQ(24) values is given in Table VI—27 together
with a qualitative assessment of the magnitude of the impact
per the criteria defined in Table VI-28.
TABLE VI-27. LEQ(24)—dBA NOISE IMPACT AT FIVE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Existing Projected
(without (with Increase
refinery) refinery) due to
Location LEQ(24) LEQ(24) refinery Qualitative impact
1 47 58 11 Moderate (more than twice
as loud
2 55 61 6 Moderate
3 43 62 19 Significant (almost four
times as loud)
4 53 60 7 Moderate
5 48 55 7 Moderate
Average increase = 10 dBA
Note: Per Table 111—46, the EPA recommended LEQ(24) is 70 dBA for hearing
loss consideration
TABLE VI—2 RElATIVE IMPACT DUE TO AN INCREASE IN LEQ(24) OR LDN
LEQ(24) or LDN increase, dEA Relative impact
Less than 5 Slight (noticeable but less than
twice as loud)
5 to 15 Moderate (approximately twice as loud
Greater than 15 Significant increase in noise level
vI—91
-------
As indicated in the tabulation, each of the five locations
is expected to experience an increase in LEQ(214) ranging
from 6 to 19 dBA with an average increase of 10 dBA. That
is, on a 214 hour energy basis, the refinery is projected
to bring about a 10 cIBA increase in the noise level averaged
over five locations. This 10 dBA increase is equivalent
to a ten—fold increase in acoustic energy. The LEQ(24)
irtlicator is heavily influenced by the peak noise intrusions
over a 214 hour time period and normally influenced to a
much lesser extent by the background or L90 level.
Therefore, a 10 dBA increase in the community LEQ(214)
index, brought about by the introduction of a steady
source of noise, must be viewed as a substantial noise
impact. However, none of the five locations is expected
to exceed the EPA recommended LEQ(214) of 70 dBA.
Table VI—29 summarizes the before and after LDN levels at
the five measurement locations in the same manner as
Table Vi—27 summarizes the LEQ(214) levels. These same
results Indicate a more pronounced impact when viewed in
terms of the LDN criteria. This is, the five location
average increase in LDN is expected to be 114 dBA compared
to the 10 dB expected increase in LEQ(2 1 4). In this situa-
tion, the difference In impact can be attributed to the
extra emphasis given to background noise contributions by
means of the 10 dB nocturnal penalty used In the LDN
indicator. Of particular Interest is the fact that, with-
out the refinery, only one of the five receptors has an
LDN slightly in excess of the EPA recommended 55 dBA
level. With the refinery in operation, however, all
five locations are expected to experience LDN levels
averaging 10 cIBA over the EPA recommended level. Thus,
in terms of the LDN criteria, the refinery will introduce
a very substantial noise impact on the nearby receptors.
Further evidence of this impact can be seen in the noise
level versus time graphs contained in Appendix H which
illustrate the readily apparent difference between the
existing hourly L90 levels and the constant noise level
introduced by the refinery. This would result in a notice-
able change in the area’s noise climate, from a very quiet
nocturnal background level to a constant and distinctly
audible 58 dBA generated by the refinery.
From the numerical values given above in Tables VI—27 and
VI—29, it Is reasonable to conclude that noise emissions
from the refinery will significantly Impact nearby
receptors. The number of receptors Impacted can be
VI -92
-------
estimated from the noise contour map* of Figure 4-1 with the results shown in
Table 5 — 3. The tabulation should be viewed as an approximation at best due
to the assumptions involved in drawing the noise contours, particularly at
large radial distances from the refinery. The tabulation does however give
a general indication of the extent of the noise impact on the surrounding
community.
TABLE VI- 2 LDN—dBA NOISE IMPACT AT FIVE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Existing Projected
(without (with Increase
refinery) refinery) due to
Location LDN LDN refinery Qualitative impact
1 49 64 15 Significant
2 57 67 10 Moderate
3 45 68 23 Significant (more than
times as loud)
four
4 54 66 12 Moderate
5 52 61 9 Moderate
Average increase 14 dBA
Note: Per Table 111—46, the EPA recommended LDN is 55 dBA for activity
ference protection
inter-
TABLE vi— 30. TABULATION OF IMPACTED RECEPTORS
Receptors Extent of impact
Five single—family residences on Approximately 60 dBA due to operation
south side of Route 190 of refinery
10 houses on both sides of Route 190 55 to 60 dBA due to refinery operation
Approximately 20 houses 50 to 55 dBA due to refinery operation
Approximately 50 høuseø 45 to 50 dBA due to refinery operation
Marine Trade Traininc Center 60 dEA due to refinery operations
*Supplemented by an on-site count of receptors not shown on the
USGS base map of Figure VI—8.
VI— 93
-------
The introduction of a new noise source into an otherwise
stable noise climate must necessarily Increase the noise
level. The analysis carried out In the preparation of
this report, and summarized In Tables VI—27, VI-29 and
VI—30 represents a quantitative assessment of
wbat this increase In noise level might be.
It is Important to recognize, however, that numerical
values alone cannot give a complete, and perhaps not even
a totally fair, assessment of the probable noise impact.
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 numerical 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 presented,
in judging the environmental acceptability of the proposed
project.
Solid Waste
Solid Waste Generated From Refinery . Refinery solid waste
can be categorized Into three general types: process solids from
refinery operations, solids generated from effluent treatment
processes (sludges, suspended material), and wastes associated
with general plant activities.
The estimated rates of production of these solid wastes
are as follows:
The total amount of solid wastes generated would be about
72 tons per week.
Process Solids . The process wastewater will contain
intermittent streams from runoff and blowdown of opera-
tions. The maximum TSS (total suspended solids) prior to
treatment will range from 1 100 to 600 ppm; however, during
normal flows, TSS concentrations should range from 60 to
100 ppm. The ballast water is expected to be relatively
low in suspended solids, depending upon the quality of
the harbors from which the ballast is obtained.
VI 4
-------
TABLE vI—31. SOLID WASTES
Category (source) Estimated amount, lb/day
Paper (refinery and offices 2,000
Refuse (generated by personnel) 1,500
Maintenance and refinery improvement
wastes (oil, grease, metal scrap) 1 14,000
Sludge from wastewater treatment
(assuming dewatering to 20% solids)
Primary treatment sludge 1,500
Secondary treatment sludge 14,000
Total wet sludge 5,500
Total Dry Sludge 1,100
Metallic compounds, suspended matter, and sludge contained
In the crude oil will pass through the processing units.
Most of the metallic compounds would be absorbed by the
catalyst used In the hydrodesulfurizatiOn of the reduced
crude. This catalyst would be shipped back to the manu-
facturer for reclamation so there will be no regeneration
of It either on—site or in the area. Solids not deposited
on the catalyst would be transmitted Into the wastewater
facility with other waste flows and be deposited in the
primary and secondary sludge.
The metals found In crude oil Include vanadium, nickel,
Iron, lead, beryllium, and mercury; all are associated
with the high boiling fractions of petroleum which do not
mix In water. Therefore, these metals would precipitate
out In the sludge with some appearing in the waste stream.
However, they will not carry over Into the treated effluent.
The estimated metal content in the sludge is shown in
Table VI-32. This table shows the Federal standards for
metal emissions with the anticipated maximum levels of
particular metals in both primary and secondary sludge.*
(Total of sludge (wet) is 5,500 pounds per day.)
Envlro—scienceS, Inc., Rockaway, N.J.
vi—95
-------
TABLE VI—32. METALLIC CONTENT OF SLUDGE
National
standard
Maximum
caseW
Maximum—
maximum( 2 )
Beryllium
10 grams/day
Primary sludge
Secondary sludge
0.07
0.01
grams/day
grams/day
0.11 grams/day
0.02 grams/day
Total
0.08
grams/day
0.13 grams/day
Mercury
2,300 grams/day
Primary sludge
Secondary sludge
1.10
0.46
grams/day
grams/day
1.91 grams/day
0.80 grams/day
Total
1.56
grams/day
2.71 grams/day
Lead
No standard
Primary sludge
Secondary sludge
191
6.2
grams/day
grams/day
Total
197.2
grams/day
1.
Maximum case — data from analyses of sludges from API/Separator Sludge,
Dissolved Air Flotation Sludge, and Waste Biosludge.
2. Maximum—maximum case — data generated from analyses of unit processes of
exchanger bundle cleaning sludge, slop oil emulsion solids and silt from
stormwater runoff.
TABLE VI—33. EMISSIONS
Vanadium
3.73
grains/day
max.
Nickel
1.12
grams/day
max.
Iron
1.87
grams/day
max.
In addition, the estimated vanadium, nickel, and
the air emissions are as stated above.
iron in
Solids Generated From Effluent Treatment Processes (Sludge) .
The method of disposal for the refinery’s burnable solid
wastes, including sludge, would be incineration, with the
VI- 96
-------
resultant ash being landfilled. The incinerator would be
operated one day each week for 20 to 214 hours. Between
operations, the solid waste would be stockpiled near the
incinerator while the sludge would be collected and held
in portable dumpsters.
A description of the proposed incinerator follows:
Incinerator Design . Pittston proposes to use a
fluidized bed incinerator. At present, there are six
operating fluid bed incinerators in refinery service.
This incinerator is divided into three basic sections:
a windbox at the base; a fluid bed middle section;
and a reactor top zone. Air for combustion and fluid—
Ization purposes is supplied directly to the windbox.
The dewatered sludge and other solids are introduced
to the fluid bed middle section by pump or screw
feeder. Any auxiliary fuel, such as oil, is fed to
to the fluidized bed and burned along with the organic
sludge components to provide the most complete des-
truction of the solid wastes. The water contained in
the sludge is converted to steam arid emitted through
the reactor along with gases from the combustion of
organics and fuel and the suspended fine inert ash
solids. The incinerator would be designed to operate
at 1,500 deg F.
The fluidized bed is comprised basically of fine par-
ticles such as sand. Since the fluidized bed would be
hot as a result of the combustion of the auxiliary
fuel and some of the solid wastes (which are immed-
iately immersed in the hot bed), the incineration
reaction is immediate and essentially odorless. The
final gas stream would be passed through a Cottrell
precipitator to remove the fine particulates.
The proposed incinerator is designed for 14,000 pounds
of waste per hour of operation.
A typical installation is indicated in Figure VI—7.
Although the estimate of 5,500 pounds per day of
sludge is considered low by EPA, the proposed design
incinerator could accommodate much higher loads of
sludge. On—site monitoring of both sludge and the
characteristics of sludge would be done in accordance
with Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) air license requirements. These requirements
include routine monitoring of the components of both the
raw sludge and ash to ensure that emission limitations are
VI—97
-------
TYPICAL FLUIDIZED SOLIDS
INCINERATOR FOR REFUSE & SLUDGE
FIGURE ‘11-7
-------
met. If the refinery operation resulted in any viola-
tions due to the volumes of sludge and/or its metal
content, the on—site landfllling operation would be
utilized for sludge disposal rather than incineration.
The landfill would be in accordance with the Solid
Waste Management Regulations of Maine in regard to
design, location and operation. In any event, as
indicated by the Pittston Company, an on—site landfill
would be used for the two to three barrels per week of
ash and any unburnable waste.
A permit and/or approval must be obtained from Maine’s
DEP to operate any solid waste facility. In addition,
the DEP requires on—site monitoring of water and
leachate to protect the surrounding area from ground-
water cont aminat Ion.
Solid Wastes Associated with General Plant Activities .
The burnable solid wastes associated with the refinery
are: paper wastes, other burnable workforce refuse, and
some of the maintenance wastes.
The metal scrap and metal parts from maintenance operation
will be recycled to a metal salvaging company.
Summary . With careful operation and monitoring of Its
solid waste disposal facilities, the refinery is not
expected to generate any adverse impacts.
Solid Waste Generated From Construction Activity . The
wastes associated with construction activities involve the vege-
tation that will be cleared from the site along with metal, wood,
general workforce refuse, and construction material debris. Sal-
vageable wastes will be recycled by the construction workforce or
transported to appropriate salvagers.
The marketable size timber, estimated by the Pittston
Company as 1147 acres, will possibly be sold to a paper mill in
the vicinity of Eastport. It is anticipated that the Pittston
Company will open burn the cleared brush 0 A possible alterna-
tive would be to landfill the brush along with the nonsalvage—
able wastes generated during construction. These wastes would
be landfilled at the approved DEP site in accordance with
the Solid Waste Management Regulations previously discussed.
VI—99
-------
CHAPTER SEVEN
ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH
CANNOT BE AVOIDED
-------
ADVERSE IMPACTS W}IICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED AND
MITIGATING MEASURES WHICH WILL BE EMPLOYED
Table Vu—i 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.
VII— ’
-------
TABLE Vu-i. ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES
Mverseirnpacts which cannOt be avoided
Mitigating measure
1. An essentially rural site will be converted to
heavy industrial usage.
2. Construction impacts — during construction,
there will be:
a. An increase in truck traffic;
b. An increase in ambient noise levels as a
result of truck traffic and the placement
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 approximately 1.45 in 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 suu ner 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 construc-
tion activities 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 f or 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 for their property. The
compensation should enable the owners to replace
the dwellings with other summer homes in the same
general vicinity, should they so desire..
F;-4
-------
TABLE Vu-i (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 berylillium.
b. Discharge of large quantities of treated san-
itary and industrial process water to the marine
environment will 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. 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 no other ships ill move when VLCC’s operate. 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. Booms will be provided to lobster pound
owners. Booms will surround the tanker berthing areas
during transfer operations.
-------
TABLE Vu—i (Continued). ADVERSE 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
negligable amounts.
e. Adverse socio—economic impacts due to the Sound advance planning. Eastport has faced this
influx of construction money and workers situation before, so has experience with it.
creating a “boom—bust” situation. Other 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
potential interference with local traffic.
1j4
-------
CHAPTER EIGHT
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LOCAL SHORT TERM USE
AND MAINTENANCE OF
LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY
-------
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT—TERM USES OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG—TERM BENEFICIAL USES
The short—term impacts from the proposed refinery will
occur mostly during the construction phase of the project. These
impacts will include increased noise levels due to construction
machinery and traffic; removal of vegetation on the proposed site
area which Is presently the habitEt for small birds and animals;
increased erosion and dust; dredging of about 1,450,000 cubic
yards in Broad Cove and Deep Cove and the loss of existing benthic
habitats and their associated flora and fauna; increased short—term
demand for housing and community services, particularly schools;
and the loss of about seven homes on the site area.
The most important long-term impact on the Eastport area
would be the use of Eastport as a marine terminal for the refinery.
This would significantly improve the area’s overall economic con-
dition and increase job opportunities for residents of both East-
port and other areas of Washington County. The change will also
result in the community’s dependence upon a nonrenewable resource—
oil— as well as upon a renewable resource-fish and other marine
life.
The long—term adverse effects associated with this project
Include the introduction of a new and continuous source of air,
water, and noise pollution to the area. However, the pollutant
emissions will be kept to a minimum In compliance with both
Federal and State laws. Another adverse effect will be the expo-
sure of the marine environment, both Canadian and American, to a
possible oil spill with the potential for devastating marine resources.
Other effects associated with this facility would be bene-
ficial, Including increased productivity of the City’s commercial
district, employment, tax revenues, and investment in an area
where recent development has been almost nonexistent.
All of the above impacts on the area, both adverse and
beneficial, have been discussed in detail In each of the parti-
cular impact sections. The adverse Impacts and proposed miti-
gating measures were summarized in Chapter vii.
VIII —1
-------
CHAPTER NINE
IRREVERSIBLE AND
IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES
-------
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Character of the Community
Eastport’s industrial base has been steadily declining
since 1900 when the sardine canning industry was at its peak.
The loss of this industry has not been offset by growth in other
sectors of the business community. As a result, the City’s busi-
ness district presently contains a number of vacant buildings.
In addition, the loss of employment opportunities has resulted
in a decline in population from approximately 5,300 in 1900 to
1,989 in 1970. Unemployment was officially estimated at 19.4
percent in February 1975, but due to the seasonal nature of work
in the Eastport area, it could have been as high as 43 percent during
the winter months
The introduction of a major industrial facility into East-
port may result in significant but temporary changes in the area’s
character. Construction of the refinery will introduce very large
numbers of imported workers into the area (over 1500 during the
peak period). At the same time, many local workers will also find
employment in refinery construction. Some change of existing local
life patterns may result, both as a result of the presence of large
numbers of non—residents and as a result of the increase in local
income which refinery construction will bring. These impacts will
be decidedly temporary, however. Construction of the refinery will
require less than three years, and the peak period will be only ten
months long. Operation of the refinery will make much smaller labor
demands than will construction, so major permanent dislocations in
the life of the surrounding area are unlikely to occur.
Vegetative Cover
Most of the vegetation presently covering the proposed
site will be removed during construction. In theory, if the
refinery were later dismantled and the site restored to its na-
tural condition, vegetation of a similar type would return. How-
ever, it is unlikely that the refinery will be removed. There-
fore, for practical purposes, it should be assumed that much of
the vegetative cover presently found on the site will be lost.
Wildlife Habitat
The site currently serves as the habitat for several spe-
cies of small birds and animals. Although the construction of
Ix- 1
-------
the refinery will force these species to nove to jacent areas, this
should have inini.mal effect on the terrestrial eosyst of this largely
rural area. None of these species are ocnsic red endangered.
Airport
1 Eastport Municipal Airport will be permanently closed and the
runways r ioved.
carping Area
Q struction of the prcposed facility will force the closing of
the nall carrpng area presently located on the site.
Port
cperation of the marine terminal and transportation syst and
the inst 1 1 tion of a navigational aId syst n in Eastport Harbor will
permanently affect the ctharacter of the harbor area. The harbor, whicth
presently handles only small fishing boats and an oocasional fuel oil
barge, ild be handling the largest ocean-going ships afloat. Thus,
the port’ s * asis will shift frcxn fishing to oil and marine operations.
Marine I s rces
The cçeration of the refinery represents the ocmmith nt of the
xinainity, region and State to accept the risk, hcwever nall, that
an accident xBlld affect all or portions of the diverse and abundant
marine life in the area. Thus, the refinery may r resent a carrnitnent
to an industrial activity whicth oculd result in the suppression or even
elimination of a rer ithle r ource—fishing and other marine life.
In l’tion, this sxuld result in the suppression or elimination of
the fishing industry in the Pa sarnaquoddy area.
IX-2
-------
CHAPTER TEN
ISSUES RAISED BY FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR
-------
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 10 contains a selection of the most character-
istic comments that were received from Federal, state, and
local agencies and by private institutions, organizations,
and individuals. These statements and questions reflect public
input that EPA received during the comment period on the DEIS
and from the public hearing held December 3, 1976.
Although Chapter 10 presents only a cross-section of
the types of issues raised, along with an appropriate, informa-
tive reply, Volume Iv contains responses to all substantive
comments raised. Also contained both in Chapter 10 and in
Volume IV is a summary index indicating the source of each
comment, the kind of issue addressed in the comment, and the
location in the FEIS where the response can be found.
x-l
-------
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
While the majority of comments pertaining to socio—economic
impacts of the project showed anticipation of favorable economic
benefits to the region, a number of comments expressed the desire
to maintain the present way of life and showedthe fear of a “boombist”
economic cycle. The areas addressed in the comments include the
local economy, housing, schools, transportation, local services,
especially in the event of an explosion or fire, and the local
water supply.
Economic Impacts
Si. The claim that 300 people will be permanently employed at
the refinery and that there will eventually be 1,200 in-
direct and induced jobs created by the refinery is dis-
puted. The employment estimate in the DEIS uses a multi-
plier estimate of 4.0 to arrive at an estimated 1,200 jobs.
Other such studies use lower estimates. What is the ra-
tionale of using 4.0 as the multiplier?
Ri. The claim that 300 workers will be permanently employed at
the refinery is reasonable and even conservative in light
of employment figures for comparable refineries. The re-
port Petroleum Development in New England by Arthur D.
Little, Inc. estimates that 410 permanent employees would
be required for a 200,000 barrel per day high fuel oil
refinery. Since Pittston’s refinery would have an opera-
tion of 250,000 barrels per day, the estimate is reason-
able.
With regard to the multiplier it is estimated that approx-
imately 540 permanent jobs will be created within Washing-
ton County. The multiplier estimate of 4.0 may have been
meant for application in an area as large as New England,
but it is not appropriate for a small area such as Washing-
ton County where income leakages are significant. The
multiplier of 4.0 also Includes, apparently, indirect as
well as induced employment effects. In the FEIS, an in-
duced income multiplier of 1.2 is used to estimate impacts
within Washington County. Further discussion of the den-
vatlon ana effects of this multiplier can be found in the
Socio-Economic Impact section of the FEIS, and Appendix K.
52. Concern is expressed that the higher paying industrial jobs
at the refinery would go the specialist from outside the
area and that locals would not be hired. Also, the payroll
from those specialists would not contribute to the local
economy.
X-2
-------
R2. Pittston expects to employloo workers from outside the
County to operate the refinery. It is likely that these
workers will be among the most skilled in the refinery
and that they will occupy many of the higher-paying posi-
tions. The 200 remaining positions will go to local
workers however, and the pay is certain to be equal to or
higher than the low wage rates currently prevailing in
the County.
Since the imported operating workers will become County
residents, their income will be spent locally and will
contribute to the local economy in the same way as the
income of other County residents.
S3. Fear that an oil refinery will result in a small community
dependent on a large corporation for its economic livi-
hood. A “boom—bust” effect on the economy would occur
with complex and varied consequences. Mitigation of a
“boom—bust” effect is not discussed in the DEIS.
R3. At the present time, the City of Eastport has three
principal employers. These are Guilford which em-
ploys between 100 and 150 workers, Holmes Packing
which employs approximately 125 workers and Mean
Corporation which employs 74 to 150 workers. However,
many of the workers employed in these and other in-
dustries through-out the City are employed on a
seasonal basis. If the refinery is built, it would be
the City’s largest single employer and would stabilize
the City’s economic condition. The refinery would
be the largest tax contributor to the City. Having
a tax payer of this magnitude could cause the City
to rely upon the refinery to finance the City’s budget.
Since the above comment could reflect a fear on the part of
some citizens, that the refinery will move in and take over
the town, research was undertaken to see how other munici-
palities have fared when a large tax payer has moved in.
The publication entitled The Social and Economic Impact of
a Nuclear Power Plant Upon Montague, Massachusetts and the
Surrounding Area , was therefore consulted in this reference.
The relations between the utility and the town was assess-
ed for four municipalities. The findings of this study are
listed below:
a. Utilities live up to their pledges and are nearly
uniformly considered to be good neighbors.
X- 3
-------
b. Utilities have a self-interest in maintaining a good
relationship with the town even after construction.
c. Utilities differ in the extent to which they become in-
volved in local government. Some promote such po-
litical participation as a policy. Some prefer no par-
ticipation or are indifferent.
d. If asked by a town for technical support or guidance in
an area such as local economic development or land use
planning, utilities generally have the willingness and
capability to respond.
e. Utilities generally make an effort to purchase labor and
materials locally wherever possible.
Although there is no guarantee that Pittston will behave as
the above mentioned utilities did, it would seem that an
oil refinery with similar location problems of a nuclear
power plant would try to foster the same good will. Also,
the above statements tend to indicate that Pittston would
not try to use their economic strength to the detriment of
thr City.
‘ t Boom—bust” problems are unlikely to be very serious. The
peak construction period is very short (ten months) and
numerous areas within the nation have experienced major
construction projects without adverse local economic im-
pacts.
S4. No estimates are given of the maximum population increase
during construction.
R4. It is expected that about 1,515 construction workers will
be imported during the peak period. lthout 200 of these
are expected to bring dependents. If each of these 200
individuals brings two dependents, total population in-
crease will be in excess of 1,900 individuals during the
ten—month peak construction period.
S5. Tax benefits that are to go to Eastport have not been
adequately outlined. It has been shown that industrial
development does not lead to reduced taxes.
R5. A discussion of the refinery’s property impacts can be
found on p. VI-li of the FEIS. The- refinery will greatly
increase the total tax base of Eastport, so that it is
expected that the City will have the options of decreasing
the tax rate, improving services, or both.
S6. The DEIS lacks accurate estimates of the property taxes
to be paid by Pittston to Eastport as well as estimates
of income and other taxes to be paid. The problem of lag
in time between the construciton impacts and the ability
of the refinery to pay full taxes to the community is also
omitted. The question of pro-rated tax payments should be
addressed.
X— 4
-------
R6. See p. VI-Il of the FEIS for a discussion of property, sales
and income tax impacts. By law, annual assessments are con-
ducted in the month of April. Should construction
begin after April, the work accomplished on the refinery
could not be added to the tax rolls until the following
April. Thus it is possible that up to a year t s lag be—
tween commencement of refinery construction and commence-
ment of revenue flows may occur. Even if the maximum lag
occurs, the City of Eastport should not experience signi-
ficant fiscal problems.
S7. Who is responsible for payments of oil spill clean-up costs
and compensation for damages due to such a spill? Is Pitts-
ton responsible? Is Pittston capable of paying for a
clean—up?
R7. In the event of an oil spill where the offending party does
not undertake clean—up operations immediately, such oper-
ations will be financed out of the Maine Coastal Protection
Fund. The Fund will also pay compensation to individuals or
firms for such damages (resulting from an oil spill) as
property damages or business interruptions. The Fund will
then seek reimbursement from the offending party for the
costs of clean—up and damages. In the event of an on shore spill
from a refinery, the company owning the refinery would be
responsible by law for costs and damages. In the event of
a spill from a tanker which has entered Maine waters (within
12 miles of the coast) the owners of the tanker would be re-
sponsible. Should it prove impossible to collect damages from
the tanker, then under Maine law, the terminal which the tanker
was going to or coming from is strictly liable for damages.
With respect to all claims that may possibly result in the
event of an oil spill, the State of Maine has provisions
for the filing of claims in the Maine Coastal Protection
Fund. This fund was set up in accordance with Title #38,
Chapter #3, Subchapter 11-A-Oil Discharge Prevention and
Pollution Control. The Fund is financed from a l/2 per
barrel charge on oil passing in and out of Maine ports. The
Fund currently contains $4,000,000; the current limit to its
size is $6,000,000. There is also a $4,000,000 reserve
available. The limit on the size of the Fund may also be
increased in the near future.
x- 5
-------
In addition to the Maine Fund, the U.S. Federal Water Pollution
Control Act provides a fund of $14 million to be maintained
by ship owners and an additional $8 million for onshore facility
owners to insure that costs of the clean up can be met.
Under this plan, the United States Coast Guard is respon-
sible for the oil spill clean up. Congress has also ap-
propriated $35 million as a fund to cover the costs of im-
plementing Section 311 of the FWPCA. The Canadian govern-
ment maintains a similar fund of $14 million.
The TOVALOP fund (Tankers Owners Voluntary Agreement
concerning Liability for Oil Pollution) is a fund set up
and funded to $10 million to insure the clean up of an oil
spill. An additional agreement which further issues oil
spill clean up is: CRISTAL (Contract Regarding an Interim
Supplement to Tanker Liability for Oil Pollution) which pro-
vides for compensation for polluting and clean up costs
exceeded by TOVALOP.
It should also be noted that the refinery would have equip-
ment to contain and recover an oil spill. The reader is re-
ferred to p. IV-38 of this report for a detailed description
of the proposed containment and recovery procedures and
their expected effectiveness.
X-6
-------
Housing
Regarding the claim by Pittston to build housing for
workers during the construction phase of the project,
the DEIS contains no estimates as to the number of pro-
ject workers who will need housing, the type of housing,
and the location - on-site or off?
Ri. The housing impact section in the FEIS contains a de—
tailed description of the housing needs of the workers
the temporary housing facilities proposed to be built
by Pittston and how additional housing will become a-
vailable to meet the anticipated demand (see p. VI-14).
S2. The DEIS does not adequately address the impacts of the
proposal on the housing resources of the area. The fol-
lowing points were raised:
a. Basic housing is only in fair to moderately good
condition, with rental units extremely scarce. Stan-
dard vacant units are virtually non—existent and ex-
isting vacancies are either deteriorating or dilapi-
dated.
b. The infusion of 2,275 temporary construction workers
into Eastport’s economy could have very disruptive
community impacts. No mention is made of the amount,
type, and size of housing to be made available.
C. It is questionable that the construction work force
will be housed by Pittston. Will not a significant
number of workers choose to find their own accomo—
dations? There will be an impact on the availability
of existing housing to the extent that workers prefer
to live off—site. Reference should be made to exper-
ience in other recent projects with similar locational
characteristics.
d. What effect will higher housing prices have on existing
residents? Will they be forced to migrate elsewhere
as they are priced out of the market?
e. Will the housing supply increase in response to short-
term demands and if so what forms of housing will be
in demand and what will be the effects on land use
patterns?
X—?
-------
R2. With regard to the housing resources of the area, the
following points are made:
a. In the FEIS housing impact section, it is noted that
the vacancy rate throughout Washington County is ex-
tremely low (3%), and that many of these vacant units
are not available for sale or rent, which further re-
duces the vacancy rate. The discussion also notes
that the available units are in fair or good condi-
tion. Furthermore, the analysis states that only 15%
of all vacant units are rental units, thus confirming
the assertion that standard vacant rental units are
scarce or virtually non—existent.
b. Of the total peak construction work force, only 1,500
workers will come from outside the area. For descrip-
tion of temporary housing facilities see Comment 1.
c. As noted in the FEIS’s housing impact section (see
p. VI-l4) according to reports on similar projects, it
appears that the imported workers will utilize the
temporary housing to a great extent.
d. In response to this comment, it should be first pointed
out that one of the conclusions in the FEIS housing
analysis is that the housing supply will be sufficient
to meet the housing demands and that the supply will
not be in traditional housing forms; therefore, it is
believed that there will not be substantial increases
in the area’s housing prices. With regard to the issue
of forced migration of existing residents, see discus-
sion on p.. VI-16.
e. The amount and types of housing that will be supplied
in order to meet short—term demands are discussed in
detail in the FEIS housing section. Impacts on land
use are discussed in the FEIS land use and displace-
ment section on p. VI-l.
s3. The possibility of secondary industrial development should
be examined, as well as the potential demand for transpor-
tation services that may result. Land use and zoning plans
for the surrouding area as they relate to potential indus-
trial development should be noted.
R3. The City of Eastport is currently revising its existing coin—
prehensive land use plan in order to take into account the
possible land use impacts which might be generated by the
refinery.
x—8
-------
Services
Si. The threat of fire is of great concern to residents.
Eastport and the surrounding communities are not
adequately equipped to handle an industrial fire. The
Eastport water system cannot supply the volume of water
needed to quench such a fire.
Ri. The reader is referred to a subsection of Chapter IV
of this report entitled “Fire Protection System.”
Pittston has stated that its internal fire fighting
force would be capable of handling a major fire and the
need for assistance from local fire units during such
an event would be highly unlikely.
In order to supply sufficient quantities of water at the
refinery for fire fighting needs, a pressurized firewater
main will be installed. The reader is also reminded that
a 12 inch main would also be installed to deliver water to
the refinery. In addition to these supply lines, each
marine terminal would have its own self—contained fire
fighting system which would draw water directly from the sea.
Additional fire fighting equipment would include a foam
system for cone roof tanks, fire trucks and tugs equipped
with elevated high pressure multi-..directional nozzles, water
pumps and lines.
S2. Pittston states that the refinery will have its own f ire—
fighting equipment and personnel when construction is com-
pleted. There is no discussion of what kinds of fires
such a force would be capable of handling and whether it
would be sufficient to handle a major fire resulting from
an explosion in either the transport, storage, or refining
systems. Unless the force is able to handle “worst case”
types of fire, the local fire fighters in the surrounding
region may be called to assist, leaving communities un-
protected.
R2. This comment is addressed under the category of fire, on
p. vI—19 of the FEIS municipal services sectL0fl.
S3. There is no mention of the additional fire equipment
and personnel needed to cover the construction workers
housing and no cost estimates are given.
R3. The Fire Chief for the City of Eastport has stated that
no major capital outlays for new equipment or additional
personnel would be needed during the construction of the
proposed refinery (see p• V1l9).
X—9
-------
S4. Effects on governmental services are inadequately dis—
cussed. The report lacks specific cost estimates for
the increased demands for services which will occur in
both construction and operation phases.
R4. The impact of increased expenditures for governmental
services are discussed in detail in the FEIS municipal
services section and cost estimates are provided where
necessary.
S5. There are no cost estimates of additional medical
personnel and facilities. A more definitive statement
as to who will bear these costs should be made.
R5. This comment is addressed on p. VI-20 under the category,
Medical Facilities, in the FEIS municipal services
section.
S6. There are no accurate cost estimates for increases in
the police department.
R6. This comment is addressed on p. VI-18 under the category,
Police, in the FEIS municipal services section.
S7. The DEIS does not address the question of the electrical
transmission network or of its rebuilding and the cost
of such rebuilding or who would pay for it. The network
from Jonesboro and probably from Bangor will have to be
overlaid with added capacity.
R7. It is expected that the refinery would generate its own
power and thus no effect on the region’s electrical trans-
mission network is expected.
s8. The DEIS indicates that Pittston may buy 60 megawatts from
a local power grid, Bangor Hydroelectric Co. What effect
will this have on the electricity rates throughout the area
served by this utility? Will the present customers have
to support the additional cost of running more machinery,
while Pittston, as a large user of electricity, will be
allowed highly favorable rates?
R8. Since it is expected that the refinery would generate its
own power, the purchase of 60 megawatts from the Bangor
Hydroelectric Company would not be necessary.
S9. What will be the impact of disposal of additional solid
waste generated by the construction force and who will pay
for it?
R9. This comment is addressed under the category Sanitation,
on p. VI-19 in the FEIS municipal services section.
X—lO
-------
SlO. The present school population is 250-260 and high school
facilities are already crowded. To double that popula-
tion would probably mean a new school would have to be
built and double sessions during the construction phase
would be required. This would result in disruptIon of
the educational process.
RiO. As rioted under the category, Schools, on p. VI—22 in the
FEIS,municipal services section, Pittston will provide
temporary classrooms where needed.
sil. What are the effects on water supply due to the refinery?
Will Boyden Lake be able to supply the refinery’s needs
even during the summer months?
Ru. It is expected that the refinery will require approximately
2,000,000 gallons per day of water. The Boyden Lake reser-
voir, with a capcity of approximately 20 billion gallons,
will be able to supply the refinery t s needs even during
the summer months.
Sl2. What renovations of the current water transport system will
Pittston do? The project will cause a 500% increase in
daily water use (from the present 450,000 gpd to 2 million
gpd). The present pipelines are 8—Inches and 10-inches
in diameter. These pipes would have to be replaced by a
16-inch pipe at a cost of $1 million. A 24-inch would be
more suitable. Replacement of this main was not mentioned
in the D IS.
R12. In order to supply the refinery’s needs, it is expectedthat
a 12—inch main and associated pumping equipment will have
to be added to the system. In addition, Boyden Lake dam
will have to be repaired to reduce leakage. The total cost
of all these improvements will be approximately $800,000.
The details of who will bear this cost have not yet been
worked out. Ordinarily, a user requiring construction of
a new main pays for the construction and then is partially
reimbursed based on the amount of revenue generated by the
main.
S13. What is the present condition of the underground and under-
water conduits? Public hearings at Eastport show that the
water company cannot account for about 50% of the water
pumped from Boyden Lake. Thus, there is leakage in the sys-
tem but it is not known where.
x—1l
-------
R13. Leakage from the underground pipeline system in the
Eastport area currently totals about 25% of the flow.
This leakage will not affect the system’s ability to
supply the refinery’s water needs. In addition, as
noted above, it is expected that a new 12 inch main
will have to be installed to supply water to the re-
finery.
X—12
-------
Transportation
Si. Future road improvements may be necessary along Route 190
and other locations to accomodateincreased vehicular
volumes. The FEIS should note the possible impacts of
these improvements.
The FEIS has noted that during the operation phase of the
refinery it is expected that the existing roadway network
will be adequate to meet the additional traffic generated
by the site.
With regard to the construction phase, the FEIS discusses
the impacts in detail and recommends various improve-
ments which can help to miminize the adverse impacts.
However, due to the short—term nature of the construction
stage and the fact that traffic volumes will only be ex-
cessive during the peak hours, it is believed that major
improvements involving property takings would not be war-
ranted. The only exception to this would be the possible
widening of U.s. 1 in the vicinity of the intersection
with State 190. However, the State must determine whether
or not such an improvement is necessary, and what the de-
sign of such an improvement would be. Therefore, it is
not feasible to determine what the extent of any takings
might be at this time.
S2. Concern has been expressed about pedestrian /vehicular con-
flict in the vicinity of the Passamaquoddy Indian Reser-
vation at Perry. It has been suggested that a traffic
light or grade separated crosssing be constructed at the
site.
R2. According to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
published by the U.S.D.O.T., the pedestrian volumes at this
location are not high enough to meet the standard criteria
used for the installation of a signal or the construction
of a pedestrian bridge. However, if the State feels that
a dangerous condition exists, a signal or additional signing
may be installed to warn motorists of increased pedestrian
activity.
S3. It is questionable as to whether Routes 1 and 9 to Bangor,
although adequate for present traffic, would be adequate
by present interstate standards for sizable deliveries of
supplies by truck.
R3. At the present time these roadways are major distributors
of truck traffic throughout the State. It is not
anticipated that the operation of the refinery will signi-
X—13
-------
nificantly increase the percentage of truck traffic on
these two routes. During the construction phase, truck
traffic may increase but due to its short term nature,
it is not expected that major improvements to these high-
ways would be justified.
S4. Consideration should be given to modes other than water
carrier for transport of ref iner ’: products, such as the
use of the existing rail service.
R4. A cost comparison of shipping the refinery’s products by
rail as opposed to water shows that rail is not cost
competitive. For example, using standard eonrail ship-
ping rates, it would cost $4.20 a barrel, plus car ren-
tal, to transport oil from Eastport to Boston. To ship
the oil by water using a 35,000 ton tanker, the costs
would be approximately $0.49 a barrel. Although it
could be expected that the use of unit trains would re-
duce the rail costs by approximately 10 to 25%, the cost
differential is still too large to make rail cost effective.
It should also be noted that the Maine Central Railroad
has indicated that its Eastport branch is in poor con-
dition and would need substantial upgrading to bring its
current carrying capacity of 100,000 pounds up to the 263,000
pounds needed by the refinery. The cost for this upqradinq
would run into the millions of dollars.
x—lzI
-------
PHYSICAL ENVIItNMENP
Mari.ne Ecology
Of major concern in the caurents received were the inpacts on
the marine ecology of the Passam jxx1dy and Cthscook Bay area. Most of the
points raised centered around the prc±ability of an oil spill and the
ensuing effects on the marine biota and wildlife of the coastal areas.
It was generally felt that these issues were not adequately addressed
in the DEIS, and that a spill would result in devastation of local
marine resources.
A. Regarding the effects of an oil spill on the marine biota
itself, the follcMing points were raised:
Si. That the Deer Island-Canpcbeflo region contains a highly pro-
ductive, delicate and intricate food web that is unusual on
the east coast should be r iasized. In the event of an oil
spill, a particularly inportant organism in this web, the
krill (shrinp), would be destroyed and a key ecological
chain cut off.
Hi. The Deer Island-CanpcIDeflo region contains a highly diverse
and productive food web. Those krill caning in contact with
an oil spill prebably would be lost. Ha, ever, it is unlikely
that the food chain wcxild be destroyed. Higher mDrtality is
likely during periods of surface swarming but the effects
prebably would be short-lived. Imnigration and regeneration
should return populations to normal diversity by the
follcwing year provided no further spills occur.
S2. Insufficient consideration was given to possible inpacts on
marine maninals in the region. The Passam uCddy region is an
inportant habitat for whales.
Passage lies along the migration route of the finback and
right whales. consequently, an oil spill would threaten the
habitat of these animals.
FQ. The PassamaquoddY Bay area is inportant for marine inaninals
as it provides habitat for resident populations as well
as migratory species. Marine mamals can avoid waters
visibly coated with cnide oil, but with a fuel oil spill
oil mixes in the water colizrri and is not visible. There—
fore mamals may migrate into these areas and suffer damage.
X-15
-------
S3. Too little recognition has been given in the DEIS of
possible harm to the local sea bird population. What
are the specific effects of an oil spill on birds such
as puff ins, razorbills, and Arctic tern, and what pro—
sions have been made to protect these birds in the event of an
oil spill?
R3. It is probable that those birds which become coated with
oil will be lost as a result of a loss of body heat
due to the matting of their feathers by oil. Diving
birds in the vicinity of spilled oil are especially
vulnerable to coating. The toxicity of oil also may
lead to fatalities in birds through contact during
preening of feathers. Areas where birds may be affected
are Cobscook Bay, Passamaquoddy Bay, and the Passages, as
well as those areas outside the Quoddy region that are
subject to the drift of spilled oil (e.g. Grand Manan
Island).
Carbide cannons will be utilized in areas where water-
fowl may come into contact with the, oil spill. Useage
will continue until clean—up has been accomplished.
S4. What are the effects of an oil spill on plankton, par-
ticularly lobster larvae?
Plankton, including lobster larvae, that come into con-
tact with oil will be lost or permanently damaged. The
effects of this loss, however, probably will be short
lived because of relatively fast re—generation. Pop-
ulations of plankton should be fully recovered within a
year given that no further oil spills occur.
B. The following points deal with the specific problems
of the oil spill itself.
Si. Oil spill containment and recovery are not adequately
addressed. What safeguards will Pittston employ to
combat the problem of oil spills? The report should
clearly delineate mitigating measures for spills of
both crude oil and refined products. There isinsuf—
ficient evidence that Pittston has the capability to
entrap and remove oil .at the Deep Cove piers. The
technical details of booming procedures should be
developed in the report.
X—i 6
-------
Ri. See the sections on Unloading/Loading Facilities ( p.IV-35)
and Oil Spill Containment and Recovery (p. IV-38)
Effectiveness of booms in containing oil has been deter-
mined by experimentation and actual experience. As
stated by the U.S. Coast Guard, booms are now generally
accepted as effectivc in currents up to 1.5 knots.
In addition, recent studies performed by B.A. Folson and
C. Johnson of Ultrasystems, Inc. and presented at the
March 1977 Oil Spill Conference sponsored by EPA U.S.
C.G. and ApI showed a streamlined oil boom/skimmer capable
of retaining and recovering oil spills in currents up to
6 knots and in waves typical of inland waterways.
S2. An oil spill probability analysis should be performed,
and a hypothetical oil spill more specific to the site
should be discussed.
R2. See section on Potential Effects of a Severe Spill on
Environmental Resources, page VI- 38.
S3. The critical importance of just one major oil spill in
the area has not been adequately emphasized in the DEIS.
R3. Comment noted. See p. Vi-38.
S4. The estimate of the amount of petroleum involved in a
“minor spill” is questioned. The DEIS states that 20
to 86 barrels per year would be spilled. However,
given the transfer rate of 100,000 BPH, nearly 900
barrels could.escape from pipe lines in the 30 seconds
required to close the emergency valves. Instant response
on the part of the operator would still spill 417 barrels
of oil, which would be a serious threat to marine birds.
R4. See section on Oil Spill Containment and Recovery. p. Iv-38.
If an unloading line were to part, oil would spill until
the onboard tanker pumps are turned off or the motor
operated valve onthe tanker deck is shut of f. Land-based
operational personnel at the pier together with the
tanker—based personnel supervise the offloading of oil.
The greatest quantity of oil would be lost when the off-
loading is at maximum capacity — lines under full pressure
and pumps operating. When off loading crude oil, four
16—inch loadinq units are in operation. The crude is
X-17
-------
pumped from these lines into two 36-inch. lines which
connect to the refinery tank farm. In the event of a
break in a 16—inch line, the onboard tanker pumps would
be immediately turned off by supervisory tankei person-
nel. At the seine time, the motor operated valve on the
tanker deck would be shut off. The land—based opera-
tional personneiwould also proce dto close the motor
operated gate valve on shore. Because of the immediate
drop in the of floading line, the pressure due to the pump
shut down, and the closing of the tow motor operated valves,
the spill emanating from a complete break would be con-
siderably less than 200 barrels.
The tanker oil collection trough together with the deck
of the tanker will serve to contain most spills of this
nature. Before unloading operations begin, the tanker
is surrounded by containment booms as a precaution in
the event the tanker deck and tanker collection trough
are not adequate for the containment of oil.
In the event of a 36—inch line break, the procedures
that would be taken to rectify the problem are identi-
cal to those outlined for a 16—inch line. The catas-
trophic spillage would amount to 400 barrels - but
again this figure would be considerably reduced be-
cause of line pressure loss from pump shutdown and the
eM otof closing the two motor operated valves.
Experience has shown, that by far the majority of “breaks”
in the off loading units are not breaks per Se, but rather
leaks, splits in piping, etc. Rarely does an of f loading
unit part completely resulting in crude losses outlined
above.
The boomed area around the VLCC has the capacity to con-
tain spills and oil quantities of thisnature.
S5. The availability of hay for absorbing oil and the dis-
posal of hay and sorbents after being mixed with oil
should be addressed.
R5. The availability of hay for use as an absorbing medium
for spilled oil is dependent upon the supply. Absor—
bant material will be kept at the refinery site with
additional quantities warehoused with Metropolitan
Petroleum Co., Inc. Disposal of hay and sorbent materials
mixed with oil will be carried out in accordance with all
local and state regulations.
x—i8
-------
S6. It should be emphasized that a spill of #2 fuel oil or
gasoline from a less than 70,000 DWT tanker would be
much more devastating to marine resources than a
spill from a 250,000 DWT tanker loaded with crude oil.
R6. See section on Potential Effects of a Severe Spill on
Environmental Resources, p. vi-38 and Toxicity p 171-53.
C. Points were also raised concerning routine chronic
discharges.
Si. The impacts of routine refinery discharges were in-
adequately discussed. Such components as heavy metals
could cause significant environmental damage.
Ri. All discharges will meet NPDES regulations. See p VI-28.
S2. The calculations of the chronic low-levels of oil re-
leased during normal refinery operations were questioned.
The large flow rate from the sewage and waste treatment
systems will introduce substantial amounts of petroleum
into the surrounding waters even if on a per-liter basis
the content is small.
R2. See revised section on Impact of Refinery Discharges on
Marine Water Quality, p. VI-28.
S3. What is the anticipated concentration of oil in the dis-
charge plume and in te vicinity of the diffusers and
what is the maximum concentration of all combined dis-
charges? The threshold levels of the area’s biota to
the toxic effects of all constituents in the discharges
should be presented in the report as well as the cumula-
tive effects of chronic low levels of oil and other
discharges.
R3. See section on Impact of Routine Refinery Discharges on
Marine Water Quality p. VI-28.
S4. How will Pittston dispose of the large quantities of
sulfur produced because of the high sulfur crude
processed?
X—]. 9
-------
R4. The refining process will remove sulfur in a pure
elemental form which will then be sold.
S5. Will there be a tendency for discharged materials to
be washed into the inner bays rather than flushed out
into the deeper waters, thus posing the potential for
a build—up of materials to polluting levels at a loca-
tion remote from the site of discharge?
R5. Discharged materials probably will not accumulate in
areas of Cobscook Bay in quantities in excess of that
which can be naturally degraded. However, there will
be a chronic accumulation of oil deposits in the sedi-
ments near the diffuser. This area will eventually
lose the potential for supporting benthic life. It is
expected, however, that the loss of organisms in the
immediate vicinity of the wastewater discharges will
have insignificant effects on the ecosystem.
D. Comments dealing with the effects of petroleum
hydrocarbons include the following.
Si. The report should include information on the known
carcinogenic danger of low—level contamination by
oil residues. The statement that fish caught in the
area of a spill are “not tainted” does not prove that
the product does not contain hazardous substances, as
they cannot be detected by taste or color.
Rl. See section on Carcinogenicity,P. V156.
S2. The difference in toxicity between the different oil
fractions was not addressed. The refined products are
far more lethal to marine organisms than is crude oil:
2,000 times as lethal to finfish; clams, mussels, and
scallops; 10,000 times as lethal to larvae. There have
been inadequate bioassays of the effects of the different
oil fractions on the various marine species.
R2. See section on Toxicity, p. Vi-63.
S3. The hydrocarbons of refined products are more soluble
and easily distributed throughout the water column. How
quickly do they dissipate? Is it controlable?
X-20
-------
R3. The rate at which soluble fractions of product spills
become distributed in the water column is, in part,
a function of the turbulence of the water. The
more turbulent the water the faster the distribu-
tion of soluble fractions. These fractions are
highly toxic and would be distributed within hours.
The soluble fraction cannot be contained.
S4. High hydrocarbon levels of 35-64 ppm exist in Deep Cove.
It seems unlikely that heavy tanker traffic there would
not create yet higher hydrocarbon concentrations.
R4. The level of hydrocarbons in the sediment of both Deep
Cove and Broad Cove will increase with implementation
of the proposed refinery.
S5. In the DEIS fish processing waste oils are compared with
petroleum hydrocarbons in their impacts on marine re-
sources. The question was raised as to the validity of
equating fish oils with petroleum in their toxic effects
on the biota.
R5. The release of fish oil or petroleum with their subse-
quent decomposition imposes oxygen demand on the re-
ceiving water. If excessive, this demand could reduce
the concentration of oxygen in the water below that
which is required for the support of normal aquatic life.
Unlike petroleum, however, fish oil is not toxic to
aquatic organisms.
E. The proposed dredging of Deep Cove and Broad Cove
prompted the following comments.
Si. The report should present more detailed information on
dredging such as the following:
- What is the probability that dredging will take place
during various spawning periods?
- Details on ambient sediment should be presented.
- There should be a discussion of maintenance dredging
and the impacts of dredge spoil disposal.
- The effects of blasting associated with the dredging
should be discussed.
- Dredging operations should be discussed in relation
to the tidal cycle.
X—21
-------
Rl. See section on Dredging, p. VI—59. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is responsible for issuing permits for
dredging and may require specific terms of operation
for compliance (e.g., the time of year dredging could
be done). Dredging should be confined to periods of
incoming tide to minimize sedimentation of adjacent
areas. Dredging will conflict with spawning periods if
it occurs during the spring or summer. However, once
completed, little or no maintenance dredging should
be required. Blasting operations will cease during
migrations of fish through the area. The effects of
explosives on aquatic biota is expected to be
confined to a range of two hundred yards unless unusually
large amounts of explosives are used. The survival of
aquatic resources and the ecological integrity of the
area will not be threatened.
S2. Will the proposed alteration of Deep Cove, and Broad
Cove, and the subsequent release of soluble and parti-
culate matter into the waters of this complex, produce
environmental changes which will alter the marine eco-
systems from those that have been established?
R2. The sediments near the wastewater diffuser will be subject
to a chronic accumulation of oil and will eventually lose
their potential for supporting benthic life. With this
exception, no major environmental changes are anticipated.
S3. The DEIS inadequately assessed the possible effects of
any leaching and siltation from drainage of the dredge
spoils to be used on—site. Minimal water drainage from
these areas should be described.
R3. See section on Dredging, p. VI—59.
X—22
-------
Fisheries Resources
Impacts on fisheries resources of the region in the event
of an oil spill was also of major concern and many of the state-
ments requested justification of jeopardizing this renewable re-
ource for the sake of an action depending on a non—renewable re-
source, oil. Several different aspects of the fisheries indus-
try were addressed.
Si. The DEIS should be modified to point out that the fisheries
industry is very healthy in the Eastport-Quoddy -Fundy
region.
Ri. Comment noted.
S2. Hazards to fisheries in terms of specific areas which may
be affected were not adequately considered in the report.
R2. See section on Potential Effects of a Severe Spill on
Environmental Resources, p. VI-38.
S3. What are the impacts specifically on the Atlantic Salmon?
The Dennys River supports the second largest Atlantic Sal-
mon run on the east coast.
R3. The Atlantic salmon, as other species, are vulnerable to
marine spills which might kill fish unable to move out of
the impacted area. In addition, low level chronic effects
might interfere with their ability to respond to stimuli
necessary for migration. Salmon runs occur along the Dennys
arid St. Croix Rivers.
S4. Concern was expressed that clam production in Cobscook
Bay, already reduced by a previous oil spill but still
worth $2 million, would be further reduced by a future
spill.
R4. Comment noted.
S5. In the discussion of clam production, the value of Cana-
dian clam bed production was not taken into account al-
though the DEIS points out that it would be affected by
an oil spill. Estimates of the commercial Canadian clam
catch and the possible effects from the development of
the project should be included in the report, as clams
represent a considerable Canadian resource.
X- 23
-------
R5 As noted on p. 111-96 of the FEIS and as was also
shown on p. 115 of the DEIS, the soft-shell clam
harvest for Charlotte County, New Brunswick averaged
$206,000 from 1968 to 1975. The production might
be up to one—third greater if pollution is reduced,
diams cleansed, and a greater use could be made of
clams from Class III toxic areas. The discussion
of the impacts of oil (p. VI-51) also applies to
Canadian flats as well as American flats.
S6. Who will maintain and operate booms to lobster pounds?
What about the large pound on the Caxnpobello shore at
Lubec Narrows where the current reaches a velocity of
12 to 14 knots or more? How could the proposed boom
provide protection here?
R6. Booms for lobster pounds will be provided by Pittston.
Pound operators will be instructed in the deployment
of the boom. Should a pound operator be unreachable,
Pittston personnel will deploy the booms. The maximuri
current velocity recorded through the Lubec Narrows is
4.0 knots (p. 111—37).
S7. The DEIS did not adequately assess the value of aqua-
cultural losses in and around Half Moon Cove. The nossible
importance of aquaculture development in the Eastport
area should be assessed, and the fate of the Pleasant
Point Reservation aquaculture project should be addressed.
R7. With respect to aquaculture - the Passamaquoddy Indians
are in the planning and feasibility stages of a combined
aquaculture (oysters)-tida]. power project; the project
is mainly a demonstration plant. If aquaculture of
oysters is proved to be successful, the effect of rou-
tine refinery discharge upon the project would be insig-
nificant. The routine discharges of the refinery will
be well dispersed - this coupled with bacterial decom-
position and flushing action will reduce concentrations
to those well below harmful levels. The effect of a
large oil spill would have significantly more impact.
Since the aquaculture project is to be located within
the tidal pool, closing of the tidal dam would prevent
oil from entering the farmirjg area. However, electricity
production would have to be stopped (See p. 111-1611).
S8. The claim that weirs operate mostly in the Perry region
of Passamaquoddy Bay was disputed. There are 250 weirs
in Charlotte County, New Brunswick.
R8. Comment noted and added to discussion on p. 111—100,
X- 24
-------
S9. The number of lobster licenses is underestimated in the
DEIS.
R9. All data pertaining to lobsters, clams, invertebrates, and
fish were developed in cooperation with Canada and the
State of Maine Dept. of Marine Resources.
SlO. The probable effects of an oil spill on fishing gear
assemblages and ancillary equipment is not adequately
addressed in the report.
RlO. See Chapter X, p. X-.5, R7.
Sil. How is the safety of lures, boats, and fishing gear
of the small fisherman to be protected from the passage
of tugs and tankers? Who pays for interruption of
fishing?
Ru. The VLCC movements will be made known to all boats that
utilize the channel. Also there will be a Captain of the
Port controlling the vessel traffic.
S12. It should be noted that there is an intertidal fishery
for periwinkles In the bay area. and that an extensive
fishery for herring (over 300 weirs) is concentrated
in the vicnity of Eastport. Atlantic herring is the
single most important fishery in the region. Dollar
values for herring landings should be given.
R12. See FEIS Vol. II Commercial Invertebrates, p. III- 87,
and Commercial Finfish, p. 111—99.
X- 25
-------
Hydrography and Navigation
The safety of tanker navigation through Head Harbor
Passage was of over—riding concern in the comments received.
Weather conditions, tidal fluctuations and current patterns
of the region were especially pin—pointed and discussed at
length, particularly in light of the size of the tankers
proposed for the project. It was generally felt that the
physical conditions of the region greatly increased the
probability of an oil spill.
Among the issues dealing with hydrographic and meteoro-
logical factors in relation to tanker navigation, the following
were of particular concern.
Sl. Due to the turbulent waters and large tidal fluctuation
of the reglon even a small oil spill could not be effec-
tively contained by booms. The 18—foot tidal range and
strong vertical mixing currents would rapidly circulate
an oil spill regardless of wind direction. Turbulence
could also carry oil under the boom allowing mixture
with water.
Ri. The effectiveness of booms in containing oil has been
determined by experimentation and actual experience.
As stated by the U.S. Coast Guard, booms are now generally
accepted as effective up to 1.5 knot currents.
The technology and techniques involving the use of oil
booms and associated skimmers is continually being improved.
For example, recent studies performed by B.A. Folson
and C. Johnson of Ultrasystems, Inc., and presented
at the March 1977 Oil Spill Conference sponsored by
EPA, U.S.C.G. and API showed a streamlined oil boom!
skimmer capable of retaining and recovering oil spills
in currents up to 6 knots and In waves typical of Inland
waterways.
S2. The operation of the refinery should be compared with
world—wide statistics and not to Milford Haven, an
exceptionally clean oil port. No data were presented
to compare the climates of Milford Haven and Eastport
and the tidal comparisons were not adequate. The report
should also contain comparisons of fog, high winds and
other conditions that could contribute to accidents.
Considering the severity of meteorological conditions
in the Eastport area as compared to Milford Haven, will
navigational aids there be as efficient as in Mi].ford
Haven?
X—26
-------
R2. See FEIS Volume II, p. VI—29. Oil Spills During Routine
Transfer Operation.
The point of the comparison is that the port of Milford
Haven has been able to maintain an excellent performance
record with physical characteristics that are less
favorable than those found at Eastport, e.g., channel
depth, width and configuration. Therefore Eastport
should potentially be able to better that performance
record If the same or similar operating procedures to
those utilized at Milford Haven are adhered to.
Over the past 11 years at Milford Haven, the average
time that visibility was less than 1,000 meters (0.6
miles) was 119 hours per year. At Eastport, the number
of hours with visibility less than 1/2 mile due to fog
is approximately 1,000 hours per year. Thus, there will
be more occasions at Eastport when tankers cannot move
because visibility due to fog is below prescribed limits.
However, the risk of accidents due to low visibility is
no different.
It should be noted that the port of Milford Haven es-
tablished a good performance record before 1971 without
the use of a shore—based radar surveillance system,
the carry—aboard radar channel approach unit, and the
centralized communications center, all of which will be
available at Eastport from the onset of operations. This
fact coupled with the more favorable channel character-
istics and less tanker density at Eastport would tend
to indicate that the Milford Haven performance record
should be at least equalled despite the greater severity
of the Eastport climatological conditions.
53. The VLCCs which are likely to deliver oil to Eastport
will be registered under Liberian and Panamanian flags
which seem to contribute to more than their fair share
of tanker mishaps. Where will Pittston get their pilots
and the crews for their ships?
R3. Ships utilized by Pittston will comply with all rules
and regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard. All pilots
will be licensed by the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards for
tanker class vessels with a minimum of 12 round trips with
tankers sized similar to those which will be used at East-
port. In addition pilots must pass a written exam relating
to knowledge of local waters, general tanker rules and
specific regulations applicable to the Eastport site.
Crews and pilots will comply with all international re-
gulations and standards set up by IMCO (Intergovernmental
Maritime Consultative Organization). Pilots and tug crews
X—27
-------
will be required to undertake 12 trial runs navigating
a VLCC between Deep Cove and Quoddy Head in a ballast condition
whiàh simulates a fully loaded condition. In addition
navigation of vessels will be under the control of the
U.S. Coast Guard.
S I. Information on anchoring procedures in the event that
ships are not able to berth (i.e., bad weather) should
be provided.
R 1 4. In the event that weather conditions are predicted that
would preclude the use of the channel before the ship
enters it, the ships will be so advised and would delay
their approach until conditions were favorable. In the
event of an emergency after entering the channel such as
a power failure on the ship, the tanker would be held
stationary in the center of the channel by tugs until
the emergency situation is resolved. Alternatively,
the tanker could be turned around and headed out at any
point of the tide, or it could be anchored safely and
out of the way in Friar Roads until repairs were
completed.
S5. Has Pittston’s navaids plan been considered and approved
by the U.S.C.G.? Who will install and maintain the system?
The plan will be reviewed by the U.SIC.G. Approvals
will be made when final designs are developed. The in-
stallation and maintenance will be by either/or combined
appropriate government authorities and Pittston. In
addition, real time simulation studies of VLCC pas-
sages through Head Harbor Passage are being undertaken
at the National Maritime Research Center at Kings Point
in conjunction with the Coast Guard and the State
of Maine.
36. It might be difficult to control local boat traffic in the
area. In thick fog smaller craft without radar or
radios may not be aware of VLCC positions, making this
situation hazardous to both local craft and the tankers.
R6. The proposed channel, Head Harbor Passage, Is a wide
channel for tankers of the VLCC class and even wider
for vessels of considerable less draft such as fishing
vessels. There will be adequate notice before the time
of tanker passage through the channel. Tankers in transit
proceed at a very slow speed and fishing boats would have
ample tine, if needed, to alter their course. If a fishing
boat or other vessel Is disabled, In the passage, this
information would be known by the harbor authorities.
X—28
-------
In the event a boat is disabled and the fact is not recog—
nized until the tanker is in transit, the tanker will re-
duce its speed and If necessary, one of the tugs accompanying
the tanker would come to the disabled boat’s assistance.
The interface of traffic of all types in a port is routine and
occurs throughout the United States and the world. This type of
traffic occurs in Portland Harbor without the use of shore—based
radar with approximately the same frequency of fog that is experi-
enced in Eastport.
S7. The Eastport region Is subject to heavy fogs that can
last for a week or more at a time In the summer and In
winter there are high winds, and vapor, or “sea smoke.”
How will tankers proceed If fog sets In during passage
between East Quoddy Head and Eastport? What will happen
If the fog persists for several days?
R7. See FEIS Volume II, p. 111—118, Fog; p. 111—36, Current
and Tidal Ranges In the Area; p. IV—23, Marine Transport
System.
In any maritime operation, whether on sea or near land,
an essential element is maintaining continuous and thorough
recording of weather conditions and forecasts. This involves
using weather services as well as local visual and recorded
information. Through such efforts, severe weather con-
ditions can be met, and are anticipated, and actions ap-
propriate to the expected situation can be planned and
taken. Fog can also b .f9recastbutwith greater uncertainty
than other weather conditions.
Attempts will be made to monitor the advances and retreats
of fog banks with appropriate weather data, visual and
radar observations, and relevant calculations.
Some weather conditions which would deny navigation of
the passage are to be expected. There will be no movement
of tankers when visibility is less than one mile; approach-
ing tankers will hold in open sea and departing tat kers will
hold in berths until visibility exceeds limitations.
The time required for transit of a VLCC from open sea to
its pier is approximately two hours. In the event that
fog prediction maneuvers fail and fog advances during
tanker passage, tankers will procede through the channel.
The use of electronic navigation is expected to minimize
effects of reduced visibility.
X—29
-------
S8. The DEIS suggests that tanker movements through Head
Harbor Passage will be at slack water In daylight hours
at the rate of one per week and that there will not be
a VIJCC In the passage at the same time as a product
carrier. However, the DEIS does not address the fact
that there may not be enough full slack—water passage
periods In a year that occur entirely in daylight hours
to supply the proposed refinery.
R8. Pittston estimates that approximately 1468 tankers will
enter Eastport annually to service the refinery. Approx-
imately 50 of these will be VLCCs, arriving once every
7 to 10 days. These will proceed directly from sea berth
on one ebb tide, and berth at slack—water. The product
tankers, however, can-enter from sea and anchor at Friar
Roads before proceeding to berth at slack, on the same
tide. On this basis, using a carefully planned schedule,
two or three product tankers can enter and berth on one
tide while meeting conditions as presently stipulated by
Maine Board of Environmental Protection orders. With only
one ebb tide utilized per day, 50 VLCCs and 630 to 9145
product tanker entrances could be made In a year. If
weather were to interfere 20% of the time, there would
still be plenty of opportunity to bring In the 1468
tankers annually that the plan calls for, Furthermore,
there will be two ebb tides daily in the daylight hours
for a substantial part of the year.
S9. The proposed lock to be constructed in conjunction with
the proposed Passamaquoddy Tidal Project is questionable.
The largest locks in existence today are those In the
Panama Canal and accomodate vessels 1,000 feet long, 110
feet wide, and drawing 140 feet of salt water. The 250,000—
ton VLCCs proposed by Pittston would be 1,1141 feet long,
170 feet wide, and draw 65.14 feet of salt water. There-
fore, the lock needed at Eastport would be exceedingly
large and expensive and would have to be the largest in
the world. The DEIS does not specify who would pay for
that lock.
R9. In view of possible navigational needs, two alternate
larger size locks were considered for the project, namely
830’ x 120’ x 142’ deep and 1,250’ x 180’ x 67’ deep;
their preliminary estimated Total Investment Costs are
$86,11143,000 and $l’40,167,000, respectively. The lock size
will be a matter for future determination, based on
costs versus navigational needs and benefits if and when
X-30
-------
the tidal project i authorized. The costr of the
navigational locks would be chairged aprtinst the tidal
project and be borne by the Oovernment.
Sb. Will four tugs be sufficient to assist a tanker through
Head Harbor Passage? Are there weather conditions which
will make it impossible or very difficult for tugs to
assist a tanker?
RiO. It appears that four maneuverable tugs of 3,000-5,000
horsepower would be sufficient. However, the precise
number and size would be subject to a final detailed
review to be conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard. There
are extreme weather conditions wherein it would be
difficult for tugs to assist a tanker. Hurricanes
constitute one example. It is expected that movement
would not be allowed through the passage during such
conditions -
Sib. Is there sufficient maneuvering room for a 250,000
DWT tanker to dock at Pittston’s proposed pier loca-
tion? To what degree Is maneuverability affected by
wind, current, and tide?
Rib. Given suitable tug assistance and tidal stage, maneu-
vering room is sufficient for tanker docking at Pittston’s
proposed pier location. quantitative answer to this
question is very difficult without exhaustive simulation
studies. Real time simulation studies are to be conducted
by the National Maritime Research Center (KingS Point, N.Y.)
in conjunction with the Coast Guard and the State of Maine.
The effect of wind on a deeply laden tanker is quite small
compared to the effects of currents. Wind effect on a
tanker in ballast is increased due to the presentation of
greater hull surface area with less submergence. It
appears however that for the schedule and currents en-
visioned (see FEIS, Voluinn II, p. IV-23, Marine Transport
System and p. 111-36, Current and Tidal Ranges in the
Area), tankers can negotiate the passage safely under their
own control. Tanker accompaniment by tugs would increase
their maneuverability and serve to provide a safe passage.
S12. That the Head Harbor Passage channel Is “75 feet plus,”
as claimed by the National Ocean Survey study Is not
proven. The true shape of’ the Head Harbor channel is
not known because of the limited contour depth data
available. A new survey Is recommended to prove the
75—foot channel before tankers are permitted to transit
the area.
X—31
-------
R12. The 75 ft. figure Is from NOS Chart No. 13328. How-
ever the most recent NOS Surveys (1918) indicate a
proven depth of 1414 ft by wire and drag methods.
A sonar survey of the proposed channel route would be
done 4 c prove It to a depth of 75 feet MLW prior to
passage of any tankers.
S13. The promise not to have vessels brought Into port when
local conditions are not favorable seems to ignore the
reality of commercial oil transport. It Is costly to
keep tankers from docking on schedule — I.e., kept at
sea for several days during bad weather conditions.
There will be pressures on captains to enter even if
not completely safe to do so.
Rl3. The refinery has 20 days of crude storage and Is able
to operate at full capacity for this time period. If
weather or other conditions temporarily limit the crude
supply, the refinery will operate at less than full capacity.
In the event a tanker is delayed by local conditions
from offloading Its cargo, the additional charges are
the responsibility of the recipient. In addition, navi-
gation of vessels will be under control of the U.S. Coast
Guard.
Sill. No information on wave heights is presented in the DEIS.
R1 1 4. Wave height may exceed 6 feet In the Bay of Fundy.
S15. Oil containment booms are not generally very effective
In areas with currents as high as those expected at
Eastport, up to ll knots. In many cases the booms can
be expected to be of little value In containing oil
spills associated with the Pittston project.
R15. See response to Comment 1.
S16. Pittston has failed to give the precise location of
the one—knot current velocity line In the Shackford
Head area. There are many currents over one—knot
(2.9—3.0 knots) In the approach to the tanker berths
at Eastport. These currents are In excess of’ those
in which spills can be handled safely. These points
are obscured in the DEIS.
X— 32
-------
ru6. The Pittston Co. will comply with the one knot current
as specified in the Maine I3EP order.
See response to comment 1 regarding containment of’ spilled
oil.
S17. Analysis of tanker performance in strong winds and tides
was deficient. Actual conditions of the area are often
much worse than simulated model conditions. The models
assumed only slight surface currents and 20 knot winds.
But 25, 5, and 55 knot winds are common in the area.
R17. Computer simulation studies using higher knot winds
and currents were conducted by Dr. Eda at the Stevens
Institute of Technology and conclude: “Major findings
obtained in this phase of the studies are as follows:
1. No difficulty is indicated for the fully loaded
250 type tanker to maintain Its trajectory close
to the desired track during Inbound transit of’
Head Harbor Passage in 60 knots wind (SW or NE
direction).
2. No difficulty is Indicated for the 80 and 150
type tankers to maintain their trajectory close
to the desired track during transit of Head Harbor
Passage under the current and wind conditions con-
sidered In this study (I.e., up to 2.7 kt current
and 20 kt wind).
3. During the outbound transit in the channel of
Eastport, the 250 type tanker at the ballast
condition maintains Its trajectory close to the
desired track under beam wind conditions tested
in this phase of the study (I.e., up to 35 knots
wind tested).
No tug assistance was provided in the test runs. With
tug assistance at the start of the channel transit until
tanker’s speed is built up, it appears that the limiting
wind conditions should be higher than those used In this
series of’ test runs.”
X—33
-------
The planned passage of an inbound VLCC will take approxi-
mately 2 hours, and it is timed relative to the 6 hour
tidal changes such that the VLCC is moving when currents
in the channel are less than 2 knots.
The Pittston Company, in cooperation with the State of
Maine and the U.S. Coast Guard, has contracted with the
National Maritime Research Center (Kings Point, N.Y.) to
perform real time simulation studies of tanker passage
through Head Harbor Passage waters. The Kings Point
facility, known as CAORF (Computer Aided Operations Re-
search Facility), car be used for:
Operational experience on a new or unique ship—
type prior to the time the first hull is ever
launched.
Exposure to a new port prior to actual ship navi-
gation to give the crew experience and to develop
tentative port operating procedures.
Experience in a full range of port environmental con-
ditions in a few day’s exposure rather than years of
“eventual encounter” experience, particularly critical
weather extremes.
Encounters with emergency conditions such as power or
rudder loss, coupled with routine and more critical
navigation constrictions or hazards.
Development of a bridge management team as an effective
unit in typical, as well as atypical situations. This
may include exposure to local pilots prior to port
entry.
Interaction of ship dynamics and channel, e.g. bottom
and bank effects, or the influence of tug forces.
Ability to implement standards or procedures among
fleet personnel for routine operations, as well as
for fog, heavy traffic, and night-time port oper-
ations, etc.
Approach to unique facilities such as offshore ter-
minals in difficult weather.
CAORF can simulate a variety of ships including tankers
of 80,000 DWT, 165,000 DWT, and 250,000 DWT. At present,
CAORF can represent the Port of New York or the Port of
Valdez and can develop and represent any port in the world
within a few months.
X— 3 I
-------
Terrestrial Environment
Many of the comments submitted expressed a desire to
preserve the existing natural environment and to maintain
the aesthetic quality of the region rather than open it up
to industrial development and its ensuing impacts.
S L Figure 111-4 (geologic map) of the impact statement
showns the subsurface fracture system in the area
as being inferred whereas, according to the map, it
appears to be known. This fracture system passes
under the refinery site. A seismic station at Machais,
Maine has detected repeated seismic activity during
the past several years. From current earthquake re-
ports throughout the world seismic activity is in-
creasing in frequency and severity.
Ri. Comment noted.
S2. There is no mention of the occurrences of quartz and
iron sulfides in terms of a potential for mineable
deposits. Also, ores of lead, zinc and silver are
known to occur in the region. The FEIS should assess
the possibility that the project site may contain
economic concentrations of the above—named minerals.
R 2 . No geologic: surveys have been conducted that would
indicate whether significant deposits of lead, zinc,
and silver exist on the site. There is no reason to
perform such a survey since the likelihood of such
deposits being present in mlneable quant1t1e is
remote at best. The possibility of commercial ex-
traction on the site is also remote.
X—35
-------
s3. The DEIS does not provide realistic consideration of the
impact of habitat loss on wildlife populations local to
the refinery site. There may not be suitable habitat
available in adjacent areas.
R 3. Due to refinery construction, birds and mammals will be
forced to migrate to adjacent land areas of similar
character, which are plentiful in the area. The’ increase
in population density on adjacent areas could result- in
competition for food and habitat. However, no serious
disruption is expected from the migration of wildlife.
S 4. Is groundwater monitoring planned to detect infiltration
of pollutant stormwater and other pollutants from re-
finery operations?
R 4. As a part of normal operating procedures, groundwater
samples will be drawn to determine whether the pollution
control techniques are producing the desired results.
Furthermore, monitoring of groundwater is required under
the new Maine Solid Waste Regulatory Code.
X —36
-------
Air Quality
Regarding air quality, most concern was shown for the
sulfur compounds that would be emitted from the refinery and their
contribution to the formation of acid mists in the region.
31. Although predicted SO 2 levels may not exceed certain air
quality standards, they can be considered as significant
degradation when compared to present air quality of the
area. This point should be addressed In the ElS.
Ri. In preparing the ElS, mathematical models have been used
to predict the ground level impact of sulfur dioxide and
particulate emissions from the proposed refinery. Results
Indicate that the Impact due to particulate emissions will
be very small, but that under certain weather conditions,
with the refinery operating at maximum rates, the Impact
of sulfur dioxide emissions may be greater than the guide-
lines established by the EPA for the protection of very
clean areas. These results and the models used to determine
them are explained In detail in the air quality impact
section of the EIS. Measures which might be taken to rnlti-
gate the SO 2 impact are discussed in the Appendix to
that section.
S2. Eastport is noted for its fogs, SO , emissions and water
will create sulfuric acid mists whYch may be a health
hazard. What Is the nature of the equipment to cut down
sulfur emissions, and would It create any Impacts?
R2 The primary ways by which the Pittston refinery can reduce
sulfur dioxide emissions are: 1) more efficiently re-
cover the sulfur which is removed from crude oil during
processing and thereby emit less of it to the atmosphere,
2) use an air pollution control called a wet scrubber to
cleanse the gaseous emissions before they are released
to the atmosphere, and 3) burn fuel which has a lower
sulfur content. The refinery must reduce SO 2 emissions
from the sulfur recovery process to the lowest practical
level using Best Available Control Technology (tail gas
scrubbing), in accordance with EPA policy. Improving the
efficiency of this processcauses no adverse environmental
impact but is quite expensive. The use of a wet scrubber
would consume energy and create a water pollution
problem which could be difficult to treat. Also,
scrubbing usually results in the emission of a large
quantity of steam from the stack although unsightly,
this steam would not be harmful. Burning the low sulfur fuel
X—37
-------
(0.1%) produced at the refinery would reduce its SO 2
emission level. However, less low sulfur fuel would then
be available for consumers, some in areas with serious
local air pollution problems. Thus, the total regionwide
emission of sulfur oxides would not be reduced. These
points are addressed in the air quality impact section
of the EIS, and in the Appendix to that section.
S3. The discussion on air pollution is based on typical
conditions. The EIS should indicate what problems would
arise under worst conditions. At what levels would the
refinery be required to close down?
R3. In determining the impact of a proposed project such as this
refinery, the worst possible meteorological conditions
were chosen as inputs to the air model (those which would
cause the highest concentration of pollutants at ground level).
In addition, the pollutant emission rates are estimated for
the maximum planned refinery operating rate. Thus, it is
not the typical but the maximum impact that is estimated
td compared to the air pollution standards. The refinery
could be required to close down if pollutant concentrations
were to exceed applicable ambient air quality standards;
however, a more likely result would be the requirement of
additional pollution control measures. The EIS addresses
the concern of maximum refinery impact in the section on
air quality impact.
S4. There is no analyses in the DEIS of projected hydrocarbon
emission effects on the ozone level and no data is pre-
sented on hydrogen sulfide emissions.
R4. The projected effects of hydrocarbon and NOx emissions on
the ozone level are discussed on page VI—73 ff of the air
quality impact section of the EIS. These effects have been
estimated by mathematically modeling the atmospheric re-
actions which cause ozone formation and by considering the
results of oxidant plume measurement studies. These es-
timates are rough since the state—of—the—art in photo-
chemical oxidant modeling is in an early development phase.
Concerning hydrogen sulfide emissions, potentially significant
sources have been eliminated by requiring a Claus sulfur
recovery unit(the best available control technology).
X-38
-------
S5. Concern is expressed for the cumulative effects of “trace”
quantities of metals emitted: lead, beryllium, and mercury.
R5. The emission of trace metals from fuel combution and waste
incineration is estimated in the air quality Impact section
of the EIS. Based upon the relative proportion of trace
element emissions to the emission rate of pollutants for
which models were used to determine ground level concen-
trations, the long term impact concentrations of these
trace elements can be estimated. These estimates compare
to the applicable federal standard as follows:
Element Estimated Annual Average National
Impact Concentration,ug/m 3 Stand rd,
Lead <0.002 *
Beryllium <0.0000002 0.01
Mercury <0. 00B002 1
* A standard for lead has not yet been established’ but
the EPA has proposed a monthly average standard of
1.5 ug/m 3 .
6. What are the effects of air emissions, particularly sul-
fur oxides and their acid products, on the flora and fauna
of the U.S. and Canadian coastal regions, particularly the
forested and agricultural areas? The effects are not
adequately defined In the DEIS. Are there mitigative
measures?
R6. The effects of sulfur dioxide emissions on the region’s
lakes, flora, and fauna have been discussed In detail in
Appendix L to the air impact section of’ the EIS. It appears
that the refinery sulfur oxide emissions will result in a
small contribution to the growing regional problem of pre-
cipitation acidification. Measures for reducing the impact
of’ these pollutants are also discussed above. Concerning
particulate matter, the impact concentrations are estimated
to be very low and, therefore, not of great concern.
S7. Advection type inversions are not mentioned In the DEIS.
Due to the frequency of fog in the area these are probably
of significance and their implication should be discussed.
R7. High ground level pollutant concentrations occur when
X-39
-------
trapped pollutants are carried to ground level by air
currents during the breakup of an inversion, which may
occur where an advection Inversion meets a thermal in-
ternal boundary layer resulting from solar heating. This
Is called fumigation. When the maximum refinery impact
concentrations were calculated for the EIS, these fumi-
gation periods were not Included. The concentration
levels during fumigation are estimated to be double the
concentrations which would occur without fumigation.
The duration of a fumIgation Is typIcally 15 to 30 min-
utes, thus the maximum concentration averaged over an
hour during which fumigation occurred would be essentially
the seine as the maximum impact concentrations without
fumigation. The maximum impact concentrations are pre-
sented in the air quality impact section of the EIS.
X— 1 4 0
-------
Cultural Resources
Si. What are the possible impacts of the project on
Roosevelt Campobello International Park?
Ri. The impact on the International Park will be the same
as: for other parks in the area. These impacts are
essentially nil with the exception óf air quality.The
refinery itself except for the stack will not be
visible from the Roosevelt home. The fact that it
is three miles away, will make the facility incon-
spicuous. (Also see p. VI-71).
S2. An archaeological survey of upland and intertidal areas
was conducted by Pittston with no significant findings,
but the sub-tidal area where dredging has been proposed
has not been surveyed. The DEIS does not cover the
potential for offshore—underwater archaeological values,
which may be affected by the proposed offshore facili-
ties.
R2. Divers who have worked in the area that will be disturbed
have not encountered any archaeological artifacts. It
is unlikely that such artifacts would be discovered be-
cause of the tidal regime, geologic structure and age
of the area. A marine archaeological survey will be
done by a qualified archaeologist for Pittston prior
to any dredging.
X- I 1
-------
ALTERNATIVES
Si. The alternative of a single—point mooring system has
not been given adequate consideration. This system
could eliminate the physical incompatibility of the
project with the Passaiuaquoddy Tidal Power Project.
Convincing reasons to dismiss it have not been presented.
Ri. EPA’s analysis of the single-point mooring system is
based upon engineering studies and a review of existing
literature and data, including the record before the
Maine Board of Environmental Protection. We are un-
aware of any material which would change our conclu-
sion contained in the DEIS.
S2. The discussion of alternative sites in the L EIS is in-
adequate. Machiasport and Portland should be analyzed
in greater detail with respect to their marine, clima-
tological and economic characteristics.
R2. No significant cost differentials have been identified
between Eastport, Machiasport and Portland as to the
construction of the proposed refinery. The use of Port—
lan&Harbor, however, would necessitate the use of a
trans—shipment point because the harbor cannot accomo-
date VLCCS. This would result in an additional cost
of approximately 25 a. barrel, which would have to be
passed on to the consum r.
The alternatives discussion in the DEIS does not re-
ject any specific site, but recognizes that the benefits
of any one of the proposed alternative site areas does
not clearly outweigh the advantages of any other. The fact
that suitable land and/or definitive locations are not
available to the company, while in theory may be irrelevant
to an alternatives discussion, is particularly relevant In
the case of an applicant who does not have the right of
federal condemnation afforded to federal projects. While
not a definitive criterion in evaluating alternatives,
availability of potential sites must be given considera-
tion.
Two coastal locations in Maine have received some study
as potential sites for refineries: they are Machi.asport
and Portland.
A description of the marine environment of these two areas
may provide some basis tor judging the Eastport site as
a potential VLCC port. Specific sites for the terminals
are not available, although in Machiasport some studies
have been done on locating terminal piers at Starboard
Island. In Portland a state financed terminal has been
X— I 2
-------
discussed which was to be located near the northeastern
end of the harbor.
Machiasport
Machiasport is located approximately 30 miles south-
west of Eastport; it is 11 miles south and east of
the townof Machias. The coast is predominantly rocky
and .1rops precipitously away from typical pine forest
growth near to the shore. A potential site for loca-
ting a marine terminal at or near Starboard Island
allows for essentially similar approaches to Machias—
port as compared to Eastport. Vessels approaching from the
Atlantic Ocean will pass between Nova Scotia and
Georges Banks. Instead of turning northward towards
Eastport from the southern tip of Nova Scotia, the
vessels would continue northwestward to Macbias Bay.
With the proposed pier location, the vessels would
enter the channel to the south of Libby Islands, pro-
ceed to their berths, and depart by sailing around
the north end of Libby Islands and from there heading
back to the sea.
This approach would allow, under most circumstances,
for a one—way traffic pattern. Available charts in-
dicate that water depths are sufficient to permit the
passage of 250,000 DWT tankers to the berths, although
the channel has not been proven to a depth that would
rule out the possibility of pinnacles that would have
to be removed. The navigable distance between Libby
Islands and Stone Island is approximately 2,000 feet,
while the distance between Starboard Island and Stone
Island, where one of the piers would be needed in the
vicinity of the piers.
Meteorological conditions in Machiasport are almost
identical to those found in Eastport. Libby Islands
provide some shelter from easterly and southeasterly
winds. During the months from November through Feb-
ruary, prevailing winds are from the northwest and
west. For March, April, and May, prevailing winds move
through the westerly quadrant towards the 8outhwest.
During June, July, and August, the winds generally
blow from the southwest. September and October encounter
relatively equal distribution of winds from all directior
except the southeast and east, which are less frequent.
On an annual basis, winds exceeding gale force are en-
countered about 8% of the time, with the highest fre-
quency during the months of November to March. June,
July and August are the most tranquil, with gale force
winds encountered less than 2% of the time. Average
winds during 75-80% of the period are less than 14 miles
per hour.
X- t 3
-------
The minimum tidal range in the Starboard Island area
is 12.5 feet; the maximum tidal range is estimated to
be 18.1 feet. Current direction is approximately
southwest and northeast, which orients generally with
the alignment of the channel. Current speeds rarely
exceed 2 knots in a southwesterly direction and cur-
rent flow towards the northwest rarely exceeds .5 knots.
Machiasport and Eastport are within the same fog regime.
The most severe fog conditions are encountered during
the summer months, at which time the light prevailing
winds are from the southwest, bringing moist, warm air
over the cool water of the area. During the period
1950—1963, visibility was less than 3 miles for an
average of 1,571 hours. More recent records from Libby
Islands indicate that og with visibility of less than
.5 miles and a duration of 2 days can be expected to
occur annually, while a similar fog having a 5—day dura-
tion might occur once in 10 years, and that approximately
70% of the fog occurrences last for less than 12 hours.
A discussion of a monomooring system in the Machiasport
area would be based on the same criteria and considera-
tions as one located off Lubec (discussed in the DEIS).
Sea conditions, weather and location considerations
would be approximately the same in both areas.
Portland
Portland, Maine is located approximately 100 miles north-
east of Boston, Massachusetts, and approximately 170 miles
southwest of Eastport. Unlike Eastport or Machiasport,
Portland harbor is already a busy marine terminal, with
approximately 14 active ship berths, including accomoda—
tions for all tankers up to .ap roximately 60,000 ow t r.
According to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Portland
Pilots Association, traffic averages around 12,000 ship
movements per year in the harbor. This includes the
passage of regularly scheduled ferries, including service
to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.
Standard arrival and departure procedures for Portland
harbor presently start at the Portland Lightship and pro-
ceed to West Cod Ledge. From there, deep—draft vessels
(up to approximately 40 feet) head northward to Witbh
Rock. From this position, the ships turn westward, heading
for the southern tip of Cushing Island, where tKe approach
narrows to a maximum of 1,500 feet at Catfish Rock.
Heading northward up the shipping channel for approximately
3 miles (Portland Head and the berthing area), the chan-
nel narrows to approximately 1,000 feet at a gong buoy,
known locally as a “35—foot buoy”. From this position,
ships pass between Spring Point Lighthouse and House
x—1
-------
Island to a point where a 90° left turn to Portland
Harbor must be made. The shoreline approach is much
the same as found in Machiasport or Eastport; preci-
pitous and rocky with pine forest growing near the
edge. However, unlike Eastport and Machias, a con-
siderable number of residential homes are located
along the South Portland shoreline.
Water depths range, in the initial approach areas, in
the neighborhood of 70-80 feet at mean low water (MLW).
However, once past Witch Rock, the water depths decrease
to 50—60 feet MLWand range in the 40—foot area up to
Spring Point Li hthouse. At least one estimate has
been made for dredging (1.8 million cubic yards)
necessary to insure 45 feet MLW to a pier located just
west of Fish Point in Portland. This would accomodate
tankers up to approximately 60,000 DWT.
Weather information for Portland harbor is generally
available from the Weather Bureau staff at Portland In-
ternational Jetport, which is located approximately
3 miles from the mouth of Portland Harbor. Data taken
for a period from 1951—1968 indicate that winds in
excess of 31 miles per hour occur less than 0.3% of
the time. The wind blows as in Eastport and Machias—
port, from the south and west, depending on the time
of year. Peak gusts were experienced up to 78 miles
per hour, with a maximum sustained wind of approxi-
mately 69 miles per hour during that time period. Cli-
inatological tables contained in the U.S. Coast Pilot
indicate that the yearly mean wind speed for the year
at Portland International Jetport is 7.6 miles per hour,
with the prevailing direction from the south (Eastport:
mean wind speed is 9.3 mph). Fog data for Portland
Harbor is not available in the same format as presented
for Eastport and Machiasport. The U..S. Coast Pilot
indicates that the minimum number of days of heavy fog
(1.4 miles) in Eastport is 60, while Portland experiences
53. Hours of operation of U.S. Coast Guard fog signals,
a measure which depends upon the criteria used to turn
on fog horns and which varies with individual opera-
tors, indicates that for 20 calendar years the fog horn
at Halfway Rock off Portland was in operation 626 hours
for the months of June, July, and August, while Eastport’s
fog horn was in operation 674 hours.
Tidal range in Portland harbor is approximately 9 feet,
with a maximum predicted range of approximately 13 ½
feet. Currents within Portland harbor range up to 1.1
knots.
X_ 1 4 5
-------
Currents in the Portland area vary from a maximum of
approximately 06 knots at the northeastern end of the
harbor to 1 - 1.1 knots at the head of Cushing Island
near Portland Head.
In light of the fact that the approaches to Portland
are inadequate to accomodate VLCC’s without massive
dredging, consideration has been given to locating
a single—point mooring system in the area. The pro-
posed location in Luckse Sound east of Long Island
would allow for a channel approximately 2,400 feet
wide. Water depths in the area exceed 100 feet. The
approach to this location would be through Casco Bay,
passing to the west of Outer Green Island, but to
the east of The Hussey, a reef approximately 6,000
feet from Outer Green Island. This would allow for
a channel varying from approximately 2,200 - 3,000 feet
in width. While it is physically possible to locate
a monoinooring system in Luckse Sound, the area is
relatively open to the sea and is only protected from
the east by Cliff Island.
Chronic spills associated with a monomooring system
in the area would not only potentially interfere with
the fishing industry of Casco Bay but would pose a
hazard to the recreation industry located in the Port-
land area which is not found in Machiasport or Eastport.
Because water depths in Luckse Sound are somewhat less
than those found off Lubec, cost and maintenance problems
associated with the Lubec site might be somewhat less in
the Portland area.
x— 6
-------
MAINE BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ORDER
Several criticisms pointed out the failure of th e DEIS
to address the conditions imposed by the Maine Board of Environ-
mental Protection (BEP) before permits would be granted to Pittston.
Si. How does Pittston plan to operate in compliance with
the BEP order? None of the conditions appended to the
BEP decision have been addressed. The FEIS should
attend to the permits and licenses required by state
and local agencies prior to construction and operation
of the refinery.
Ri. Pittston will comply with all decisions of the Maine
BEP before operation of the refinery will begin.
X- l 7
-------
OIL SUPPLY
Long-term viability of the oil refinery was a common
concern regarding the question of oil production on the east
coast, particularly since oil is a finite resource. Other
concerns included the following.
Si. Fear is expressed that the supply of oil will decline
in 2—3 decades, whereby the refinery will become ob-
solete and a possible despoiled Eastport will be left
behind.
Ri. The supply of oil is not expected to diminish in the
near future. As increased drilling takes place, addi-
tional sources will be found and recovered. New methods
and technologies will be developed to allow for more
efficient extraction of oil.
S2. It was expressed that since the refinery is viable only
in terms of overseas oil and is not in a position to
refine domestic or Alaskan oil, the U.S. would be left
at the mercy of OPEC to a greater degree than at present.
R2. The refinery is viable with any source of crude and is
capable of refining such. The U.S. dependency upon the
OPEC is tied to the total consumption of the U.S. The
NE is importing refined foreign products which naturally
come from foreign crude. This refinery is proposing
to take foreign crude and make products for distribu-
tion in the NE. Although the known supply of oil is de-
creasing, new and more efficient technologies are being
developed to discover and recover more oil.
S3 How does the Georges Bank exploration effect the oil
supply to the refinery?
R3. If and when George’s Bank results in significant quan-
tities of oil, this oil may be processed at the refinery
or depending upon market sources at various other re-
fineries. In any event, the Eastport location will re-
tam its viability under any circumstances due to the
capacity for servicing VLCC’s.
x- 1 48
-------
CANADIAN INTERESTS
Concern has been shown that the Canadian Government,
finding the risks of tanker passage through Head Harbor
Passage environmentally unacceptable, was opposed to
such transport and could not approve of transit through the
affected Canadian waters.
Si. Has Pittston effected sufficient liason with Canadian
officials for the right of vessel passage? The pre-
sent state of the Canadian issue should be addressed
in the FEIS.
Mr. Richard Vine, Assistant Secretary of State for
Canadian Affairs, in a letter to Mr. John McGlennon
of EPA, stated that the Canadian issue of passage
of the tankers was not an appropriate topic of dis-
cussion for the EIS.
S2. Specific oil—spill clean-up responsibilities in both
U.S. and Canadian waters should be delineated in the
event of Canadian approval of tanker transit.
R2. Procedures for oil spills involving the U.S. and
Canada are contained In: Joint Canada—U.S. Marine
Pollution Contingency Plan for Spills of Oil and
Other Noxious Substances, 20 June 19711, Pubi.
#AD—732—895 Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. and
Annex Two Atlantic Coast short title Canuslant
Contingency Plan.
Both Canada and the United States have enacted regu-
latory schemes establishing responsibilities for the
control and clean—up of pollutants discharged into
their respective waters. In the United States, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act sets out the
basic scheme of responsibility on the part of owners
or operators of vessels, on—shore facilities and
off—shore facilities for the discharge of oil or
hazardous substances. Primary responsibility for the
enforcement of section 311 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act lies with the United States Coast
Guard. In conjunction with several agencies, a Na-
tional Contingency Plan for the removal of oil and
hazardous substances has been issued. Under that
plan, the Coast Guard has the responsibility to see
that any spill, whether from a ship or on-shore facility,
is contained and removed. A plan of financial respon-
x—11 9
-------
sibility , including a contingency fund of $14 million
for on-shore facility owners, has been established to
insure that the cost of clean-tip can be met. Addition-
ally, Congress appropriated $35 million as a fund to
cover the cost of implementing section 311 of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act and to insure that the
costs incurred in the removal of such pollutants are
appropriately covered.
The Canadian government has enacted, under the Canadian
Shipping Act, a similar regulatory scheme giving wide
authority to pollution prevention officers to monitor
and control shipping in Canadian waters. Monetary lia-
bility to a maximum of 210 million gold francs (approx-
imately $14 million) is established for the owners of
ships and/or the pollutant owners in a provision which
is essentially similar to that of the United States t
law. The Canadian government has also established a
Maritime Pollution Claims fund to reimburse the costs
involved in clean-up and for damages arising from the
results of the spills.
The State of Maine has also established a system of oil
spill containment and clean-up under state law. Oil
terminal operators are responsible for clean—up and con-
tainment of any spill originating from their facilities
or from any vessel in transit to their facility in state
waters. As provided under the Canadian and United States
Federal systems, Maine has also established a fund to
cover the cost of clean—up and third party damages. The
Maine Coastal Protection Fund is funded at the level of
$4 million.
Canada and the United States have entered into an agree-
ment known as “The Joint Canadian-United States Maritime
Pollution Contingency Plan for Spills of Oil and Other
Noxious Substances”. Under this plan, the Canadian
on—scene coordinator and the U.S. on—scene coordinator
establish procedures whereby control and clean—up of
spills that threaten to cross, or actually do cross,
international boundaries can be managed. In both in-
stances, primary responsibility lies with the federal
authorities for control and clean-up of any spill. The
Pittston Company will hold its men and facilities avail-
able to these and any other appropriate authority to
contain and clean up oil or any other hazardous material
spills, both within Head Harbor Passage and beyond.
Pittston itself will take all affirmative action possible,
with the approval of cognizant authority and where opera-
tionally safe, to initiate clean—up and spill control
should any spill occur.
X—50
-------
COMMENT MATRIX
As stated previously, the comments on the DEIS were
too extensive to be presented in their entirety here.
In order to give some indication as to the nature of these
comments, the index on the following pages has been pre-.
pared. The key to the index is as follows:
Issues Raised
SE — Soc jo—Economic
ME — Marine Ecology
FR — Fisheries Resources
HN - Hydrography and Navigation
AR — Air Resources
A — Alternatives
0 - Other
All references are to pages In Volume II of the.FEIS
unless otherwise noted. The references are generally to the
more substantive comments raised by each Individual or agency.
Those comments which are not addressed by Volume II text changes
or are not Included in Volume II Chapter X, are covered In
Volume IV of the FEIS where detailed responses to all comments
are presented. Volume IV Is avaIlable for review at
X—5 1
-------
Index of Responses
1. R.F. Eiden 1 U.S. Coast
Guard
A: X —142
MN: VI—36, X—26ff, 11—5,
IV—38
SE: VI_Zeff, X—l3ff
0: 111—50, 111—52, IV—53,
VI—29
ME: IV 1 13, VI—38, VI—59,
X— 21
AR VI-.73
2. S.R. Galier ) U.S. Dept.
of Commerce
ME: 111—70, IX—38, XI—38,
X—5, VI—59, VI—38ff
0: X— 49, 111—166
SE: VI— 1 lff
FR: 111—87, VI—28ff
MN: X—26ff
A: X— 42ff
3. WG. Gordon) U.S. Nat.
Marine Fisheries Serv .
ME: Comment noted.
F.S.M. Hodsoll 1 U.S. Dept.
of Commerce
0: Comment noted
5. G. Liii ) Nati. Ocean Survey
MN: X—31
6.
8.
R.E.
Phiipott, U.S.
PEA
0:
Comment noted
J.L.
Reed) U.S. FEA
0:
Comment noted
R,W.
Mitchell 1 U.S.
FEA
9. H.W. Stevensk Roose-
velt Campobello. IPC
ME: IV—38
MN: VI —36
AR: VI—9i, VI—78, VI—63,
vI—6’4, X—37
10. A.W. DlSilvestre 1 U.S.
Sec. of the Treasury
0: Comment noted
11. R.I. Chais, U.S. ICC
SE: X_114
12. C.S. Bucharion. U.S. BUD,
Region I
SE: VI-1 ff, X—6ff
13. H.D. Woon, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service
M : Comni ht noted
ill. SS. Doremus 1 U.S. Dept .
of Interior
uN: X—26ff
ME: VI—38ff, VI—281f,
VI—59 ff
0: X—.35, X— 41, X— 35
15. D.R. King 1 U.S. Dept.
of’ State
0: Comment noted
16.
17.
K. Jonietz, U.S. Dept.
of State
0: Comment noted
S. Jelilnek, Council on
Environmental Quality
A : X— 1 2 f
MN: VI-36, X—26ff
ME: IV—38ff, X—5ff,
SE: VI—iff, X—3
O : 1—3
VI—38ff
18.n. Garver , J. Chandler
Corps of Engineexs
ME: VI—38?f, IV—38f’f, VI-59ff,
X—Sff ’
VI-36, X—26ff
x—14, VI—lff
X_LU, III—159ff
19. J.D. McDermott Advisp
Council on Historic preservation
0 : X— 1
7.
0: IV—lff
MN:
SE:
0:
X—52
-------
20. Passamaguoddy Tribe,
Perry, ME
SE: VI-.lff, IV—lff,
111—159
21. M.F. Marsh, Maine Dept.
of Inland Fisheries &
Wildlife
ME: Comment noted
22. Maine Land & Water
Resources Council
0 : X ’I7
SE: VI-lO, X—2ff, VI—l 1 tff,
X—7ff, vI—i8ff, VI—2 1 4ff,
X—l3, VI—llff
0 : 111—159, X—lO, VI—20, X—lO
HN: X-26ff
A : X— 1 12ff
23. R.A. Giffen, Maine State
Planning Office
O : 111—166
214. M. Barnes, Eastport
City Council
SE: Comment noted
25. E. Baxter, Eastport
Planning Board
SE: Comment noted
26. B. Blanch, Eastport
Planning Board
SE: Comment noted
27. W. Harding, Eastport
Police Dept .
SE: Comment noted
28. R. Flagg, Eastport
Fire Dept .
SE: Comment noted
29. M. Conti, Eastport
Fire Dept.
SE: Comment noted
32. E.J. Boone, Town of
St. Andrews, N.B .
SE: Comment noted
33. R.J. Ryan, Calais Econ.
Development Board
SE: Comment noted
314. A. Bates, Calais Econ.
Development Board
SE: Comment noted
35. E.G. McKeon, Bangor
Dept. of Development
SE: Comment noted
36. F.H. Morell, S.Portland ,
ME
SE: X—2, VI—2
ME: VI—28ff, IV—38ff
37. A.J. West, Cobscook Bay
Laboratory, Boston
ME: VI—28ff, VI —59ff
38. K. Good, Dennysville, ME
AR: vI—78ff’
ME: IV—38ff
39. J.E. Chappell, North-
eastern Univ., Boston
0: 111—159
HN: X—26ff
ME: IV—38ff, VI—25
SE: VI—iff, X—2ff
IO. RG.
Wolfe,
Terre Haute,
IN
ME:
VI—28ff
0:
111—159,
X—149
AR:
VI—62ff
30. R. Maholland, Eastport
Law Enforcement
SE: Comment noted
31.
E.J. Barnes, Office
of Town Mgr., Lubec
SE:
Comment
noted
l. P.S. Mathews, Aliston, MA
0: IV—2
SE: VI—2ff, X—2ff
X- 53
-------
0: See comments by
M. McCleannon in
Vol. IV
Maine
A: X— 1 12ff
ME: IV—31f1, VI—3Bff,
VI—28ff
X—26ff
111—159, 111—166
VI—iff, X—3, VI—l8ff,
Vi—l stf, VI—22
Association
ME: vi —i i , X-lSff,
X- 23ff, see response
by Dr. Edward Gel—
fillan, consulting
oceanographer
X-9
AR: vI—62ff
0: III—159ff
57. H. Stence, Lubec, ME
AR: vi—y8rf ’
0: X—149
SE: VI—iff, VI—liff
ME: VI—28ff
42. A&E. Webb, Winterport, ME
SE: IV—53fT, X—9
AR: VI—78ff
143. D. Walker, Sunbury Shores
Arts & Nature Center
ME: IV—38ff
AR: VI—78ff
1411. M. Hodgins, Trescott, ME
AR: VI —78ff
MN: IV—23ff, X—26ff
45. C. Sunde Trescott, ME
AR: VI—7 ff, IV—6Off ,
X—37
146. S. Lehigh, Colby College,
Watervilic
SE: X—11, VI—20
ME: IV—38
147w D. Hodgins, Eastport, ME
AR: Vi—78ff, VI —62ff
148. D. Dowley, Quoddy Bay
Fish CoOp. Eastport
51. J. Dorchester, Lubec, ME
0: Comment noted
52. C.A. Lewis, For the
Love of Eastport
ME: IV—3Bff, III—iO7ff
0: 111—69, IV—53ff
MN: X—26ff
SE: V—i, VT—lift, X—9
AR: VI—22ff
53. P. Glasser Univ. of Maine
FR: iii—87
MN: X—26ff
AR: VI—9lff, IV—6Off, X—37
0: IV—52
ME: IV—38ff, VI—28ff
A: x—142ff
511. R. Jones, Eastport, ME
SE: VI—20, X—lO, IV—53,
49. C. Herter, Council of
55. J. Strogen, Lubec, ME
AR: VI—78ff
56. S.K. Katona, College
of the Atlantic, ME
FR: 111—87
0: 111—159
ME: VI—28ff , VI—56ff,
III— lO9ff
MN:
0•
SE:
50. A MacKay, Rep. Bay of
Fundy Weir Fisherman’s
58. E.&R. Coakley, W. Pem-
broke, ME
ME: VI —38ff, VI—28ff
SE: VI—iff ’
HN: IV—23ff ’, X-.26f ’f
0: 111—159
x- 54
-------
59. J.E Sullivan, Kearney ,
NJ
AR: VI—78
60. G. Fatula, Cherry Lane
Farm, ME
SE: Comments noted
61. R.L. Dow, Augusta, ME
ME: VI—28ff, IV—38ff,
VI—38ff, VI—53ff
AR: X—37ff
FR: X-2 1 41f
0: III—159ff
HN: X—26ff
SE: VI—9
68. A.
N.S
Ruffman , Halifax,
•
HN:
X—26ff
ME:
VI—28ff
Boston,
69. M.H. Boyer .
MA
ME: VI—28ff, IV—38f1
0: V—llff
70. 1 . Stagg, Port Jefferson,
New York
SE: IV-.115, VI—19, X—9
0: Vol. III, A—5lff
ME: VI—2,8.ff
NY
0: 159ff
63. J.A. Donaghy, Lubec,ME
ME: VI—29ff
0: III—159ff, X—147
FR: X—24
SE: VI— 1 lff
6 4. G.B. Carter, Calais ,
IV—lff, III—159ff,
VI—27ff
VI—21f, VI—iff, VI—9
VI—59ff, VI—29ff
VI—36
65. L. Elerin, Eastpor
ME
0: III—159ff
ME: IV-38ff
66. J. Rier, Lubec, ME
SE: VI— t Iff, VI—29ff
67. J. Sassaman, Sanfor
ME
0:
X— 1 19, X— 1 17, III—159ff,
IV—lff
HN: VI—36, X—26ff
SE: VI—20, X—l1
71. J.H. Hutchison,
Eastport, ME
SE: IV— 43ff , X—g
HN: VI—36, X—26ff
AR: VI—78ff
72. B. Cecirr, Eastport
ME
HN: X—26ff
73. M. Otis, Perry, ME
SE: VI—20, X—11
714. J.H. Buehner , Lubec ,
ME
ME: VI—28ff, IX—38ff
SE: X—5
75. J.P. Grady, Eastpprt
ME
HN: IX—23ff, X—26ff
ME: VI-.59ff
76. R.J. Smith , CamdenL
ME
0: III—159ff
62. R.T. Stagg, Setauket ,
ME
0:
SE:
ME:
HN:
X- 55
-------
77. F.A. Eustis II , Sec.
Plan. Bd., Isle au
Haut, ME
ME: VI—28fr, IV—38fT
A: X— 1 12ff
0: IV—lff
78. G. Lehigh, Eastport ,
ME
SE: VI—22, VI l 1 4ff
79. N.J. Cohen, Lubec, ME
ME: VI—28ff
0: X—141
80. K.A. Lewis, Eastport ,
ME
SE: VI-1
81. R. Klyver , Eastport, .
ME
HN: X—26ff, VI—36
82. R. Molyneaux, Nati.
Parks & Conservation
Association
0: XJ47
A: V—l2ff
AR: VI—62ff
ME: VI—59ff
HN: X—26ff
83. K. Larson, E. Machias ,
ME
NE: VI—281f
814. B. Cunningham, Lincoln ,
MA
ME: IV—38ff’
SE: X-5
85. S. Bahrt, Pembroke ,
ME
SE: IV—53ff, X—9
86. S. Riggs, Robinson ,
87. S. Lambert, Deer Island,
N.B., Canada
HN: VI—36, X—26tf
ME: VI—28ff
88. M.B. Myers, Eastport ,
lIE
0: III—159ff
SE: IV—53ff, X—9
89. W.1-i. Drury, Bar Harbor ,
ME
ME: VI—28ff, IX—38ff
SE: VI 1l, VI—5
90. D. Pike 1 Lubec, ME
AR: vI—62ff
91. . Tran port Canada, 1
Canada
ME: VI—38ff, III—3lff,
III—7Off, IV—38ff,
IV—28, VI—28
AR: VI—62, III—1214ff
uN: IX—23ff
SE: VI—iff
A: X— 1 42ff
92. L. Dale Barteau , Deer
Island, N.B., Canada
HN: IV—23ff, X—26ff
93. E.H. Latham ,
NE
ll : IV—2Tff,
91!. S. McDugold, Eastport, ME
HN: X—261f
NE: VI-28ff
Ellsworth,
IV—38ff
ME
SE: X-5
X- 56
-------
Source
No.
Name or Affiliation
Issues Raised
ME FR {H+N tAR A
—
The response to all the following was “Comment note ..”
x
x
? $B. Barnes, Eastport, ME
96 ‘p.p. Thornton, Neil, Inc. Scarborough, lIE
97 IR.W. & M.E. Clement, Eastport, ME
98 tJ.G. Haynes, Assoc. Gen. Contractors, Augusta, N
99 W.L. Wilson, Calais, ME
100 JW.R. Flagg, Furniture, Eastport, ME
101 G. Jackson, Jiangor, NE
102 LV. Smith, Jonesport, ME
103 S.C. Shaw, Williston, VT
104 J. McGrath, & L. Levesque, Statler Tissue,
Augusta, ME
105 T.M. Armstrong, Biddeford, ME
106 E.W. Thurlow, Cent. He. Power Co., Augusta, ME
107 i.c. Brill, Lincoinville Telephone Co., ME
108 V.B. Rupert, Blue Hill, HE
109 H.L. Vose, Eastport, ME
110 M.L.& C.M. Small, Eastport, ME
111 K. Cline, Eastport, ME
112 J.F. Jaffray, Jr. Pittsfield, ME
113 J.K. Keefe, Econ. Res. Assoc., Waterville, ME
114 J.P. Kelley, Jr., Rotary Club, Calais, HE
115 A.L. Moore, Waterville Savings Bank, Me
116 E.M. Holmes, Winterport, ME
117 H.P. Foley, Eastport, ME
118 G. Peters, Jr., Eastport Water Co., NE
119 PI.F. Norton, Yarmouth, ME
120 N. Davis, Fredericton, N.B.
121 jM.C. Wells, Jr., Assoc. Industries of Maine,
Augusta, ME
122 L.B. Hoxie, Eastport, ME
123 R.S. Jones, Eastport, NE
124 R.M. Stolkner, Insurance Rep., Bangor, ME
125 L.M. Throckmorton, Cutler, ME
126 J.G. Dudle, Alexander, ME
127 C. Weeks, Eliot, ME
128 H. Stence, Lubec, ME
129 Mr. & Mrs. A. Townsend, Sr., Eastport, ME
130 1 M. Taylor, Eastport, ME
1131 C. Ganong, Pembroke, ME
J132 GL. Cole, Cole Express, Bangor, ME
133 R.W. Lyon, Eastport, HE
1134 L.W. Guetersloh, Pine Plaines, New York
l35 J. Collins, Eastport, ME
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X- 57
-------
Item
No.
Source
Name or Affiliation
Issues Raised
ME .! . H+N AR A
0
136 A.)!. Roth, University of New Brunswick, Freder— X X X
icton, N.B.
137 G. Bevers, Trescott, Maine X X
138 F.F. Jones, Lubec, ME X X X X
139 C. Goddard, Eastport, ME X X X
140 Mr. Donaghy, Lubec. ME X X X X
141 R. Ross, Superintendnet of Schools, Easport, ME X
142 j. Dorchester, Crows Neck, ME X X X X X
143 E.P. Kroonenberger, Brookline, MA X
144 A.Je Haug, Eastport, ME X
145 N. Sunde, Lubec, ME X X X
146 A. Harris, Candidate for Council, Eastport,ME X
147 Dr. H. Eda, Stevens Inst. of Tech., Hoboken, N.J X X
148 D.P. Hoult, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA X
149 E. Gilfillan, Bidgelow Laboratory for Ocean X X
Sciences, West Boothbay, NE
150 A.H. Fenlason, Rep.Dist. 1.0, Maine St. Leg. X
151 J.C.Bates, Physician, Eastport, ME X
152 11. Richardson, Eastport Hem. Hosp., Eastport, ME X
153 C. Marshall, Maine Maritime Academy, Castine, ME X
154 W.C.Bullock, Jr., Merril Trust Co., Bangor, ME X
155 W. Thomas, Canal National Bank, South Freeport,MJ X
156 N. Cohen., Coy. Exec. Council, Eastport, ME X
157 Capt. D. Kennedy, VLCC Pilot, Belfast, ME
158 P. Merril, Merril Transport Co., Portland, ME X
159 C.)!. Neily, Economic Resources Council of Maine X
160 H. Loring, Construction & Bldg. Trades Council X
161 R.H.Reny/P.C. Emerson, Maine State Chamber of X
Commerce, Portland, ME
162 B. Cram, Natioanj. Executive Reserve, Bangor, ME X
163 N. Davis, Hachiasport, ME X
164 Dr. J. Cominito, U. of Maine, Machias, 1€ X X X
165 W. Yerxa, Sam Ely Comm. Services, Inc., South X X X
Princeton, ME
166 C.C. Arsenault, Eastport Hem. Hoap., Eastport, M I X
167 M.C. Welles, Jr. Assoc. md. of ME, Eastport, ME X
168 R.N. Haskell, Bangor Hydro—Elec. Co., Bangor, ME X
169 A.)!. Johnson, The Action Committee of 50, Bangor X
170 W.M. haselton, Depositors Trust Co., Augusta, ME X
171 N. Hodgins, Lubec, ME X X X
172 R.M. Smith, Bath Iron Works Corp., Bath, ME X
173 I.McConchle, Owls Head, ME X X
174 B.L. Peters, Maine Central RR Co., Portland, ME
175 L.V. Smith, Pres. Wash. Co. Chamber of Commerce, X
Jonesport, ME
X-58
-------
Item Source ______ Issues Raised
No. Name or Affiliation SE ME FR ff4-N AR A 0
176 D. Bradshaw, .Dennsyville, ME X
177 B.J. Smith, Camden, ME X X
178 H.R. Keezer, Eastport, ME
179 L. Conti, & Co—signers, Eastport, ME
180 H.S. Stanton, Guilford Industries, Eastport, ME X
181 D.F. Turner, Mean Corp., Eastport, ME
182 A. P. May, Pembroke, ME X X X
183 H. Conti, Eastport, HE
184 P. Leighton, Eastport, ME
185 C,M. Small, Eastport, ME X
186 R. Emery, Eastport, ME
187 D.L. Brooks, Friends of Intelligent Land Use,
Kennebunkport, ME
188 D. Cohen, Lubec, HE X X
189 E. Blackmore, Pres. Maine Lobsterman’s Assoc.,
Stonington, ME X X
190 F. Trocco, Lubec, ME X X X X
191 K.J. Leighton, Eastport, ME
192 B. Lehigh, Eastport, ME
193 B. Nagusky—Trocco, Lubec, ME X X
194 R.J. Shinners, Great Northern Paper, Millinocket X
195 J.E. Chappel, Northeastern Univ., Boston, ME
196 Comment No. 265
197 Doc and H. Hodgins, Trescott, HE X X
198 R.& D.Csenge, Perry, NE X X
199 M.M. Kearney, New Sharon, ME
200 Comment No. 270
2Ô1 4. Standen, Eastport, ME X X
202 B. Esler, Foxcraft, ME
203 P. Robinson, Brooksville, ME
204 P. & U. Birdsall, Blue Hill, ME X X
205 R.S. Jones, Eastport, ME X
206 R.L. Grindal, Bangor, ME
207 C.W. Brown, Monson, ME
208 M.J. Conaghy, Lubec, ME X X K
209 E.E. Brown, Monson, ME
210 J.E. Chappell, Jr. Northeastern Univ., Boston,MA
211 L.L. Holmes, Machias, ME X
212 1. Holmes, Eastport, ME X
213 .A. Hofferman, Eastport, ME
214 J.M. Hefferinan, Eastport, ME
215 3. Kent, Co—signers, Monmouth, ME X X X
216 l.A. Donaghy, Lubec, ME
217 1.0. Lehigh, Eastport, NE
218 1.H. Smith, Pembroke, ME X
219 LB. Norton, Harborma ter, Jonesport, ME X X
220 ‘.E. Merrill, Merrill Transport Co., Portland,ME X
X- 59
-------
Item Source Issues_Raised
No. Name or Affiliation SE ME FR H+N AR
A
0
221 K. Ruff, Pres.., Washington Co. Chamber of Corn., X
Calias, 1E
222 A. Bell, Township of Edmond—Wash. Co., ME X X X
223 R. Merrill, Lubec, ME X X X
224 R.J. Peacock, Sun Oil, Lubec, ME
225 R.S. Peacock, Pres. R.J. Peacock Canning, Lubec X
226 1. Otis, Perry, ME X X
227 . Good, W.C.C. Nanufacturer, Deunsyville, ME X X X
228 M.B. Pike, Homes Packing Co., Eastport, ME X X X
229 fr. Aiward, Lincoln, ME X X
230 C. Cronin, Bus. Rep. Local #4 — O.E., ME X
231 R. Conti, Eastport, ME X
232 M.C. Morrison, Perry, ME X X X
233 . Davis, Easport, HE X X
234 fr. Cooke, Eastport, ME X
235 fr. Eramian X X X
236 R.C. Mahan, CalaiS Chamber of Commerce, Calais,H] X
231 1. Leigh, Eastport, ME
238 fr. Reavey, Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Advocates X
239 ir. Cuay, Eastport, ME X
240 r. Klyver, Eastport, HE
241 :. Callahan, Eastport, HE X
242 urrent , Shead Mein.H.S., ME(Poll)
243 r. & Mrs. R. Jamieson,(Gaeta, Italy) Eastport,H1
244 . Kinney, Eastport, ME C X X
245 .H. Blanch, Sentinel Insurance Agency, Eastport X
246 i . Cohen, Member, Gov. Exec. Council, Eastport X
24P . Mills, Representative, Eastport, ME
248 1. Majke, N.B., Canada X X
249 etition X
250 .J. Cook, Washington County, ME
251 . Unobskey, Unobskey’s Fashion Center, Calais,ME X
252 alais Lions Club, Calais, ME X
253 . Keezer, Federson Agency, Inc., Eastport, ME X
254 ). Mitchell, Eastport Little League, Easport, ME
255 [ .!1. Hanscom, Action Agency, Realtors, Machias,ME X
256 .J. King, The New England Council, Boston, MA X
257 T.L. Armstrong, Merrill Trust Co.,Lincoln, ME X
258 . Stagg, Port Jefferson, N.Y.
259 . Sitason, Eastport, HE
260 LB. Jackson, Monmouth, ME X X X
261 .j. Boone, St. Andrews, N.E., Canada X X
262 . Snyder, Whiting, HE X X
263 [ .W. Brydon, Calais, ME X
,264 L. Grandmaison, Locil Union No. 545—SMWA, Lewisto X
65 . Sunde, Trescott, HE X
X- 60
-------
Item
No.
Source
Name or Affiliation
Issues Raised
SE 1NE FR
H+N AR
A
0
x
x
x
x
266
267
268
a 9
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
02
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
1310
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
A
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
T.McDugald, Eastport, ME
P. Segien, Eastport, ME
W.C. Nickerson, Service Master of Maine, Inc.
Portland, ME
A. Harris, Peregrine Assoc., Eastport, ME
F.A. Brown, Brown & Tibbetts, Calais, ME
T.C. Naughton, New York, N.Y.
M. Spencer, East Rockaway, N.Y.
E.Fishbein, Eastport, ME
F. Trocco, Eastport, ME
N.J. Bradshaw, Dennsyvllle, ME
L. Szatkowski, Robbinston, ME
B.M. Shotwell, Kennebunkport, ME
S.B. Miller, Kennebunkport, HE
M. Speer, New York, N.Y.
M. Mullis, Cooper, ME
W. McGarvey, Moose Island, ME
M. Cohen, Trescott, ME
S.G. Levin, The Counseling Center, Bangor, ME
D. Cohen, Killington, VT
{.J. Cohen, Lubec, ME
B. &. M. Mickewieg, Wilmington, MA
C. Aylward, Lincoln, ME
L.M. Healy, New York, N.Y.
M.D. Latham, Ellsworth, ME
Mrs. P. Clukey, Vexted, ME
H.M. Merrill, Jr., Quoddy Bay Co—op, Inc. Lubec
C.S. Morrison, Perry, ME
E.B. Ebershaw, Hanover, N.H.
L.W. Guetersloh, Pine Plains, N.Y.
W.J. Armstrong, Warwick, R.I.
Passamquoddy Tibe, Perry ME
D. Dowley, Quoddy Bay Fish Corp.,ME
Mr. & Mrs. H. Dudley, Eastport
J.W. Anderson, Marine Mannal Corn., Wash., D.C.
G.N. Ewing, Canadian flydrographic Ser., Ottawa
Canada
R. Richardson, Deer Islal3d, ME
M. Majke, The N.B. Fed. of Naturalists, Canada
G.W. Barnes, Engineers, Topshazn, ME
M.C. Casey, Bernardini Co., Calais, ME
J. Lowe, Eastport, ME
E.K. Warmell, Woodland, ME
J. Fouls, Eastport, HE
Mr. & Mrs. H. Dudley, Eastport, ME
R.L. Violette, Hascall & Hall, Inc., Portland,ME
S. Camick, Eastport, NE
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X- 61
-------
Item
No.
Source
Name or Affiliation SE
Issues Raised
ME FR
H+N
AR
Al
2_
311 WG. Preston,Ke eb k, ME X
312 R.A. Dyer, III, Portland, ME
313 w.j. Weck, Cainbro Corp., Pittsfield, NE X
314 F.W. Frost, Calais Federal Savings, ME
315 j. Wilson, Jr., Marietta Cement, S. Portland,ME X
316 CV. Starbird, Starbird Lumber, Strong, ME X
317 LA. Saunders, Saunders Mfg. Co., Winthrop,ME X
318 s.c. Noyes, S.C. Noyes Co., Rangeley, ME
319 H. Loachim & E. Lemhoefer, Robinston, ME X
320 A. Magee, St. Andrews Civil Truàt, N.B,, Canada
321 N. Conti, Eastport, ME
X-62
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Atlantic Canada, 1975. “Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating
Station.”
2. Booker, R. W. and Associates, 1970. A Comprehensive
Development Plan , Eastport, Maine.
3. Boudreau, L. G., 1975. “Labour Force Requirements for the
Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Plant.”
LI. Braum, Lucy. “Development of the Deciduous Forest of
Eastern North America,” Ecological Monograph , 17:
pages 211—219.
5. Census of Canada, 1971. “Population”, Vol. I, Part 1:
“Industries”, Vol. III, Part 14; “Housing”, Vol. II, Part 3:
“Labour Force and Industrial Income”, Vol. III, Part 1.
6. Cooperative Extension Service —— University of Maine at
Orono, 1971. Washington County Statistics .
7. Department of the Environment, 1973. Summary of Physical,
Biological, Socio-Economic and Other Factors Relevant to
Potential Qil Spills of The Passamaguoddy Region of The
Bay of Fundy .
8. Eastport City Council, 1973. Municipal Directory for the
Year 1973 .
9. Engineering Computer Optecnomics, Inc. Aspects of the
Crude Oil Delivery System for the Proposed Eastport
Refinery, May 1, 1975.
10. “Summary of Physical, Biological, Socio—Economic and Other
Factors Relevant to Potential Oil Spills in the Passamaquoddy
Region of the Bayof Fundy.” Fisheries Research Board of
Canada Tech. Report No. 1428, March, 19714.
11. Gray’s Manual of Botany , edited by Fernald, M. L. 1950,
8th Edition.
12. F. R. Harris, Engineers.
13. Hesketh, Howard E., Understanding and Controlling Air
Pollution , Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1973.
114. International Passamaquoddy Engineering Board, 1959.
Investigation of The International Passamaguoddy Tidal
Power Project .
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
15. International Joint Commission, 1961. InvestigatIon of The
International Passamaguoddy Tidal Power Project .
16. Kyles, Dr. Allan, PhD, Entolomology, Enviro Sciences, Inc.
17. Llston, L. L., 1972 — - Maine “Maine: Nature’s Last Stand
in the Northeast”.
18. Little, Arthur D., Inc., 1973. Potential Onshore Effects of
Deepwater Oil Terminal—Related Industrial Development .
Prepared for Council on Environmental Quality. Four volumes.
19. Little, Arthur D., Inc., 1975. Effects on New England of
Petroleum—Related Industrial Deve1op ent . Report to New
England Regional Commission.
20. Little, Arthur D., Inc., 1975. Effects on _ New England of
Petroleum Related Industrial Development . Report to New
England Regional Commission. Four volumes.
21. “Lorneville Impact — An Analysis of the Environmental
Consequences of Developments proposed for Lorneville, New
Brunswick”, Vol. I and II. Lorneville Env. Impact Study.
22. Maine Bureau of Labor & Industry, Department of Commerce &
Industry, 19714. Maine Occupational Wage Survey .
23. MaIne Department of Commerce & Industry, 1970. Facts About
Industrial Maine .
214. Maine Department of Commerce & Industry, 1973. Maine
Economic Data Book .
25. Maine Department of Economic Development, 1968. The Maine
Handbook — A Statistical Abstract .
26. MaIne Department of Economic Development, 1970. Maine
Pocket Data Book —— An Economic Analysis .
27. Maine Department of Economic Development, 1970. “You ——
Me and Your Plant Location”.
28. MaIne Department of Labor & Industry, 1971. Occupational
Wage Survey of Maine .
29. Maine Department of Manpower Affairs, 1971, 1973, and 19714.
Census of Maine Manufacturers .
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
30. Maine Department of Manpower Affairs, 1975. Area Manpower
Review, with Special Emphasis on Calais and Eastport .
Employment Security Division, Manpower Research Division.
31. Maine Department of Manpower Affairs, 1975. 1976 Fiscal
Year —— Annual Manpower Planning Report .
32. Maine Department of Manpower Affairs, 1975. Maine Occupa-
tional Staffing Patterns for Manufacturing Industries .
33. Maine Department of Manpower Affairs, 1975. Maine Occup a—
tional Staffing Patterns for Norunanufacturing Industries .
3)4. Maine State Development-Office, 1975. Facts About Industrial
Maine .
35. Maine State Planning Office, 1975. A New Look at Maine’s
Future Population —— Projections to 1990 .
36. MIT 1973. A Preliminary Assessment of The Environmental
Vulnerability of Machias Bay, Maine to Supertankers NOAA
73032003.
37. MIT Dept. of Ocean Engineering Primary Physical Impacts of
Offshore Petroleum Developments, NTIS COM 7)4 11125, NOAA
accession No. NOAA—7 ) 4050602, April 197)4.
38. “A Preliminary Assessment of the Environmental Vulnerability
of Machias Bay, Maine to Oil Supertankers”. Stephen F.
Moore, et. al. MIT, Cambridge, MA (No. MIT SG 73—6, January,
1973).
39. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration,
Environmental Data Service “Climatological Analysis of
Pasquill Stability Categories”, April 1976.
4O. New Brunswick Today, 1972. “Bargaining Authority is
Established to Aid Labor -— Management Harmony”.
41. New Brunswick Today, 1973.
)42. Occupational Handbook, 197)4 — 1975.
1j3. “Literature Review of the Marine Environmental Data for
Eastport, Maine”. Prepared by TRIGOM (Research Institute
of the Gulf of Maine). Revised June 1973, Vol. I and II.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
141 • Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine (TRIGOM), l97 4.
A Socio-Econornic and Environmental Inventory of the North
Atlantic Region .
115. Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine (TRIGOM), l97 .
A Soclo—Economic and Environmental Inventory of the North
Atlantic Region —— Sandy Hook to The Bay of Fundy . Prepared
for U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Maine Minerals Division. Three volumes.
146. Rodwin, L., et. al., 19714. Economic Development and Resource
Conservation —— A Strategy for Maine . Prepared for the
Maine Bureau of Public Lands, Department of Conservation.
147. Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972. Maine .
148. State of’ Maine Executive Department, Division of Economic
Opportunity, 1973. Profile of Poverty — Maine: A Data
Source .
149. Steering CommIttee, Jan. 1973.
50. “1975 Survey of Buying Power”. Sales Management, Vol. 115,
No. 2, July 21, 1975.
51. U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1950, 1960 and 1970. Census
of Population .
52. U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1970. Census of Housing .
53. U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1975. Population Estimates and
Projections . Series P—25, No. 56’4.
514. U. S. Department of Commerce, 1972. General Social and
Economic Characteristics of Maine taken from 1970 Census
of Population .
55. Washington County Economic Development Corporation, 1972.
Washington County Information .
56. Washington County Regional Planning Commission, 1975.
Farmers Home Administration Rural Housing Loans In Washington
County , 1970—1975.
57. Washington County Regional Planning Commission, 1975.
“Housing Survey” (Preliminary Data).
58. Blatt, Harvy, Gerard Middleton, and Raymond Murray. 1972.
Ori9in of Sedimentary Rocks . Prentice-Hall, EnglewoOd
Cliffs, N.J. 634 pp.
------- |