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. ------- |