VOLUME III - APPENDICES 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 DATE; OCTOBER 13, 1976 ------- VOLUME III - APPENDICES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF FEDERAL PERMITS TO THE PITTSTON COMPANY OF NEW YORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 250000 BARREL/DAY OIL REFINERY AND MARINE TERMINAL — EASTPORT MAINE PREPARED BY: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I, BOSTON., MA 02203 DATE : OCTOBER 13, 1976 ------- VOLUME III TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX SUBJECTS A NPDES Permits, Rules & Regulations, BEP Order B Topographic and Seismic Maps C Employment Statistics D Tidal Currents Data E Sediment Analysis, Ground & Tidal Water Data F Terrestrial and Marine Ecology Data G Air Quality H Noise Assessment I Archaeological Evaluation J FEA Analysis of Need for New England Refineries ------- APPENDIX A ------- THE PITTSTON COMPANY IV NPDES PERMITS A. Rafinery 1. Guidelines a. General Under provisions of the Water I o1lution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Guidelines for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category were published in the Federal Register May 9, 1974. Amendments were added by publication on May 20, 1975. Publication of the “Development Document for Effluent Limitations, Guidelines, and New Source Performance Standards for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category” was in April of 1974. The development document present the findings of an extensive study of the Petroleum Refining Industry for the purpose of developing effluent limitation guidelines, standards of perfor- mance, and pretreatment standards for industries to implement Sections 304, 306, and 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Act of 1972, (PL 92—500). Guidelines and standards were developed for the overall petroleum ref ining industry, which was divided into five subcategories. Effluent limitation guidelines contained in the Petroleum Indus- try document set forth the degree of reduction of pollutants in effluents that is attainable through the application of best practicable control technology currently available (BPCTCA), and the degree of reduction attainable through the application of best available tcchnology economically achievable (BATEA) by exist- ing point sources for July 1, 1977, and July 1, 1983, respectively. Standards of performance for new sources are based on the application of best available demonstrated technology (BADT). The document contains supporting data and rationale for the development of proposed effluent limitation guidelines and stan- dards of performance. b. Industry Categorization Five categories are used for the petroleum refining industry and are defined as follows: (1) Topping Subcategory — includes all refineries which produce petroleum products by the use of topping and and catelytic reforming. (2) Cracking Subcategory — includes refineries which contain topping, reforming, and cracking operations. Also in— ------- —2— eluded are first generation coventional ref inery——asso— elated products or intermediates such as benzene—toluene-- xylene (BTX), alkanea, alkenes, alkynes, and other mis- cellaneous items such as sulfur, hydrogen, and coke. First generation petrochemicals shall only be for those whose production amounts to less than 15% of the refinery throughput. (3) Petrcchemical subcategory — includes topping, cracking and petrochemical operations. Petrochemical operations include first generation conventional refinery—assoicated production as described in the cracking subcategory, but only when it amounts to greater than 15% of the refinery throughput. This takes into consideration the additional cooling tower blowdown from this operation. Intermediate chemical production Including such typical products as cumene, phthalic anhydride, alcohols, ketones, trimer, nd styrane shall be considered second generation petrochemical oper- ations and classify a refinery in this subcategory. (4) Lube subcategory — th (4) Lube subcategory — the operations included under the crack- ing subcategory are expanded to include lube oil inanufac— turing processes. Lube oil processing excludes formulating blended oils and additives. (5) Integrated aubcategory — Includes operations in lube subcate— gory plus petrochemical operations. The effluent guidelines for the petroleum industry specifies effluent limitations for each of the above 5 subcategories. These limitations are for BOD 5 , total suspended solids, COD, oil and grease, phenolic compounds, ammonia nitrogen, sulfides, total and hexavalent chromium, and pH. These limitations are only general requirements for each of the above 5 subcategories. These limit- ations are modified for each particular refinery by 1. a process factor which is a measure of the degree of complexity of the par- ticular refinery and 2. a factor based on size. Using the guideline limitations, size and weighting factor will result in the requirements for process wastewater. The effluent guidelines include separate limitations for contaminated and un- contaminated stornvater runoff, ballast water, and cooling water blowdown. These limitations include requirements for Total Organic Carbon, Oil & Grease, Total Suspended Solids, BOD , COD, and pH. Since this particular refinery is a new proposal, limitations defining “New Source Performance Standards” have been used to compare with the limitations in Pittston’s NPDES permit application dated September 26, 1975. Pittston has chosen a system which does not require a cooling water discharge, therefore this is not discussed in the following material. ------- —3— c. Effluent Guidelines ( 1) New Source Performance Standards According to the refinery description presented by Pittston in the “Environmental Impact Assessment” dated March 8, 1976, 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 Nay 20, 1975. Effluent Guideline Limitations applicable to Pittston’s proposal are shown on Table I. These limitations include requirements for process vastewater, ballast water, contaminated and uncon— taininated stormwater runoff and non—contact cooling water discharges. ( 2) Treatment Technology Section XI of the “Development Doctrnent” defines New Source Performance Standards for petroleum refineries as best practi- cable control technology currently available (BPCTCA) being applied to the wastewater flows used as the basis for best avail- able technology eco’ iomica11y achievable (BATEA). BPCTCA consists of in—plant and end-of—pipe control practices currently being used in the industry. These practices include the following: (a) Installation of sour water strippers to reduce the sulfide and ammonia concentrations entering the treat- ment plant. (b) Elimination of once—through barometric condenser water by using surface condensers or recycle systems with oily water cooling towers. - (c) Segregation of sewers, so that unpolluted storm runoff and once—through cooling waters are not treated normally with the process and other polluted waters. (d) Elimination of polluted once—through cooling water, by monitoring and ‘repairing surface condensers when nec- essary or by use of vet and dry recycle systems. (i Equalization and storm diversion. (f) Initial oil and solids removal (API separators or buffle plate separators) followed by further oil and solids removal by use of clarifiers, dissolved air floatation or filters; carbonaceous waste removal with a biological system followed by sand, dual media or multi—media filtration. ------- —4— To develop BATEA, a flow of about 10.5 gallons/barrel of throughput was used for this type refinery. In—plant processes to be used to achieve this flow, in addition to or in lieu of processes discussed above include: (a) Use of air cooling equipment (b) Reuse of sour water stripper bottoms in crude desalter. Cc) Reuse of once—through eooling water as make—up to the water treatment plant. (6) Using wastevater treatment plant effluent as cooling water, scrubber water, and influent to the water treatment plant. (e) Reuse of boiler condensate as boiler feedwater. (f) Recycle of water from coking operations. (g) Recycle of waste acids from alkylation units. (Ii) Recycle of overhead water in water washes. (i) Reuse overhead accumulator water in desalters. (3) Use of closed compressor and pump cooling water system. (k) Reuse of heated water from the vacuum overhead con— densers to heat the crude. This reduces the amount of cooliug water needed. (1) Use of rain runoff as cooling tower make—up or water treatment plant feed. ‘ 4-4 - ------- —5— 2. Effluent Limitations a. General Pittston’s refinery will have a production of 250,000 barrels of crude oil per calendar day or 263,000 barrels per stream day. Effluent guidelines are based on stream day production levels. Based on Pittston’s refinery description, a size factor of 1.57 and a process factor of 0.62 have been used to calculate the effluent limitations for the process vastevater diseharged from the refinery. Limitations for ballast water and contaminated storrnvater runoff are based on the follow flow rates as estimated in Pittston’s Environmental Impact Assessment: Ballast Water — 2.2* mgd Contaminated Runoff — 0.43 utgd Process wastewater flow is estimated to be 0.86 mgd which is less than the flow base used to develop the guidelines for this subcategory. Effluent limitations are presented in the draft NPDES permit attached as Appendix A. b. Process Wastewater Figure 1 shows a schrmatic of the proposed treatment facilities to be installed by Pittston Company. For the process wastewater, the treatment will include oil separation by separation and air floatation followed by biological treatment of organics, solids removal by settling and sand filtration; and, disinfection with ozone. Collected solids will be dewatered using filtration, air floatation and then incinerated. Ash from the incinerator will be sent to a land fill. Pages 2 thru 6 of the draft NPDES permit indicates the proposed effluent limitations for the Pittston Refinery. The permit requires treatment facilities to be operational at the time of startup of refinery operations. Final holding basins are to be provided for additional settling and for protection against spills and equipment breakdown. The final discharge is to a submerged diffuser which is required by the permit to be a minimum_of 3 feet below low tide. c. Ballast Water As shown in Figure 1, the ballast water is to be treated by scree ng, air floatation and sand filtration. Slop oil is to be sent to storage and collected solids are to be sent to process solids handling facility. Effluent limitations from this waste stream are shown on Page of the draft permit. ------- —6— d. Storm Water Runoff (1) Contaminated Runoff Storm water holding basins are to be provided to collect storm water that potentially may become contami iated with oil. After the holding basins, these flows are discharged to the process wastewater treatment facility as shown in Figure 1. Effluent limitations for contaminated storniwater runoff are included in limitations for process water because the atormwater is disd’harged through the process water treatment system. (2) Uncontaminated runoff as indicated by the effluent guidelines is limited to 35 mg/i TOC (Total Organic Carbon) and 15 mg/i oil and grease. f. Outfall Following treatment, the above va8tewater streams are to be combined into a single outfall of the submerged diffuser type. The outfall is to be located a minimum of 3 feet below low tide and in an area where the discharge will have a minimum Impact on surrouding shorelines and other potentially biologically sensitive areas. B. Existing Water Quality Conditions NPDES permits have been issued to about eleven significant discharges in the Eastport area. These are listed in Table II along with permit conditions that will be required to be met by October 1, 1976. From Table 11, it can be seen that of the discharges, the ones with the more significant impact on the water quality are the Town of Eastport itself and the sardine canners. The town discharges raw sewage and storm water through approximately 24 separate discharge points. These discharges include sanitary waste from approximately 1,000 people. This is important to the existing water quality because Eastport’s position on the priority list for State and Federal funds is relatively low which means that the raw discharges will occur well after 1976. Significant amounts of coliform bacteria will be found in the areas of the raw discharges. The sardine canners and other fish processors are important because the discharges have a significant visual impact on the receiving waters during the periods when the discharges are occurring. High oil and grease levels and foaming tendencies of the waste cause problems with water quality although the problem is generally within the immediate area of the plants. Two of the sardine canners are located in Lubec, in the Lubêc Narrows, approximately 1 1/2 miles from the refinery site. The effects of these discharges is important due to the economic conditions of the fish industry which at the present time isn’t good. Because of this, little treatment is required of the fish processors. Treatment required is the equivalent of 8creening of all the discharges and oil skimming of the cooking operation discharges. As can be seen from Table , this results in an oil and grease content of about 300 mg/i in the total waste flow which may cause continued water quality problems after October, 1976. C. Impact of Refinery on Water Quality Condit ions The preceeding sections described the discharge levels of contaminants from the refinery. The most significant parameter regarding water quality conditions ------- —7.- is oil and grease. All discharges •are limited to 15 mg/i. The worst situation regarding this oil and grease obviously viii be when ballast water, storm water runoff, and process wastevater is being discharged all at the same time. These discharges combined will produce a flow of approximately 3.5 mgd. At 15 mg/i, this is 500# of oil/day or 60 gallons/day. Dispersion through the diffuser outfall should minimize the visual impact of this amount of oil and grease, but it will still be present in the biological systems where it was not present before. Long—term exposure to small concen- trations of petroleum products is felt by some to be more harmful than the results of a major spill. The oil from the refinery is not the samc as from the sardine canners. Oil from the sardine canners is natural oil either from the cooking of the fish or from the soy bean oil used to pack the fish in the cans. Undoubtedly, a certain amount of hazard is created with the addition of petroleum based oil from the refinery to the ecosystem surrounding Eastport. Stringent compliance with the permit limitations, maximum attention to the operation and maintenance of all wastevater treatment facilities, and involvement with developments of new technology will be essential to maintain a minimum impact of the refinery discharge. ------- TADLE I EPA STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE OTt NEW SOURCE DISCHARGERS: SUflPARTA, TOPNNGCATEGOTIY flOD TSS COD Oil & Grease I’hcnolic Compounds Sulfide Total Chromium l1c, avaIcnt Chrom. p 11 PROCESS WASTE WATER Lbs. /1000 Earrola of FC d____ For A vg. L’ iIy Any For 10 Ono Day Consce. Days ‘IltEATED RUNOFF Lb . /1000 Gallons of Flow For Avg. Daily Any For 30 One Day Conzcc. Days 0.21 0.17 1.6 For Any One Day 0.40 0.27 3.9 0.12’. Gallons of Flow Avg. Daily For 30 Conscc. Days 0:21 f 1 U. I. I 2.0 0. OGI (a) for eke, 1.57 x bovc, WATER STI 2AM Allowable Maximum ThEATEDDAL I4ITT Lbs. /1000 0.40 027 3. 1 4.2 3.0 21.7 1.3 0.031 1.0 0.027 0.064 a. 00 52 2.2 1.9 11.2 0.7 0.016 0.45 0.0 12 0.037 0.00 25 0.126 a— 0.087 6.0 9 0 6.0-L).0 6.0—0.0 6.0-9.0 6.0—9.0 o. :; ... • Q Notes : 1.. For process wastcwaters, the following multipliers are applicable for the Eaatport proJcct: ar.cI ( ) for proecasing complexity, 0.62 x above. 2. Trc ttcd runoff above fa for proccas area no!f which Is collected and treated in the main treatment system. All other runoff, 1. o. • tankficlda and ion-proccso areas, segregated from main waato water discharge, shall not exceed a con— ccntrat on of 35 mg/i of TOC or 15 mg/I of oil and grease when d schnrgcd. 3. Once-through cooling water may be diachargcd with a total organic carbon concentration not to cxcccd 5 mg/I. Ph ------- TABLE it EXISTING DISCHARGES - Eastport Area Oct. 1976 Permit Conditions NPDES No. 1. MEO100200 2. ME0002145 3. ME0000221 4. 1EOO0O019 5. ME0000396 6. ME0000931 7. ME000 8. ‘1E0022233 Name & Location Eastport MTP Paispeari, Eastport Holmes Packing, Eastport Argenta Products, Eastport Mean Corp., Eastport Mean Corp., Eastport B. H. Wilson, Eastport 93 Water St, Comm. Bldg., Eastport Booth Fisheries, Lubec R.S. Peacock Canning, Lubec Pleasant Pt. STP, Perry Type Of Operation Municipal Treatment Out of Business Sardine Canning mfg. of pearl essence mfg. of fish meal mfg. pickled herring Out of Business Sanitary Wastewater Sardine Canning Sardine Canning Sanitary Wastevater 300 mg/l 100 mg/i 15 mg/i 3#/d 300 mg/i 300 mg/i BOD 5 SS Flow (mgd) 200#fd 200#/d Raw Sanitary Sto Oil & Grease Remarks 0.1 mgd 15 mg/i coliform rmwater Discharge from 24 Outf ails. 9. 10. 11. 4000# /d 30#Id 40#/d 8# /d 4000#/d 4000# /d ME000241 1 ME0000523 MEO 100773 i000#/d lO#/d 400#/d 20#/d l600#/d 1600#/d 0.10 mgd 0.0027 mgd 0.136 mgd 0.0005 mgd 0.10 mgd 0.1 mgd Based on 50 tons/day Based on 50 tons/day Based on 50 tons/day ------- ,— øsI a.w c.’ftw..ra &4 ?4 FIGURE 1 i — ? JM PM II OO5 -rUncontaminatad Runoff ------- FIGURE 2 , ‘I.. , S I.i Proposed Pier Outall located beneath pier — 3’ mm. below low tide 0 rvtt LOCATJON MAP Effluent Discharge: Proposed Eastport Refinery and Marine Terminal fj 0 I. . S rn SHACKFORD HEAD ------- Pcrm,t No. MEOO2 2420 Application No. APPENDIX A AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER ThE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et.. seq; the “Act”). THE PITTSTON COMPANY 380 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 is authorized to discharge from a facility located at Eastport, Maine to recei(,ing waters named Broad Cove in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, and II I hereof. This permit shall become effective on 30 days from date of signature. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, Signed this day of Leslie Carothers, Director Enforcement Division Environmental Protection Agency EPA For,, 3320—4 (10—73) A ------- A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginning facilities startup and lasting through permit expiration the permittee is authorized to discharge process wastewater from outfall serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: Effluent tharactenst c Discharge Limitations 11,8/day Other Units (Specify) Daily Avg Daily Max Daily Avg Daily Max (mg/i) FIow—xn 3 /Day(MGD) — — BOD 5 560 1070 50 mg/i Suspended Solids 485 765 35 mg/i COD 2860 .5540 240 mg/i Oil & Grease 180 330 15 mg/i Phenols 4.0 8.0 0.35 mg/i Ammonia (N) 115.0 255.0 11 mg/i Sulfide 3.0 7.0 0.3 mg/I. Total Chromium 9.0 16.0 0.7 mg/i Ilexavalent Chromium 0.6 1.3 0.06 mg/i Fecal Coliform 15/100 ml Monitoring Requirements Measurement Sample Frequency Type 1/day Continuous recording i/day Composite i/day Composite i/day Composite 1/day Grab i/week Composite 1/week Composite 1/week Composite 1/week Composite 1/week Composite 1/month Grab I ) C 0 0I- 0 -1 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 90 standard units and shall be monitored daily. Discharge shall not cause a violation of the water quality classification of the receiving stream. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location(s): Prior to discharge to the receiving stream. ------- B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginning facilities startup andlasting through permit expiration the permittee is authorized to discharge process water and contarnir ated run—off from outfall serial ‘iumber 001. & 004 Such discharges shall be limited and monito; I by the perrnittee as specified below: Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements lbs/ddy Other Units (Specify) Measurement . Sample Daily Avg Daily Max Daily Avg Daily Max Frequency Type Flow—in 3 /Day (MGD) 1/day Continuous recording BOD 5 650 3245 50 mg/I 1/day Composite Suspended Solids 560 885 35 mg/i 1/day Composite COD 3550 6890 375 mg/I 1/day Composite Oil & Grease 210 385 15 mg/i 1/day Crab Phenols 4.0 8.0 0.35 mg/i 1/week Composite Ammonia (N) 115.0 255.0 11 mg/i 1/week Composite Sulfide 3.0 7.0 0.3 mg/i 1/week Composite Total Chromium 9.0 16.0 0.7 mg/I 1/week Composite Hexavalent Chromium 0.6 1.3 0.06 mg/i 1/week Composite Fecal Coliform 15/100 ml 1/month Grab The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily. Discharge shall not cause a violation of the water quality classification of the receiving stream. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location(s): Prior to discharge to the receiving stream. Above limitations apply only when storm water is being discharged through process wastewater treatment facility. Permittee shall report time of start and end of stormwater discharge with self—monitoring date. ------- C. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Duringthe period beginning start of facilities construction and lasting through completion of construction thepermitteeisauthorjzedtodjscharge sanitary wastewaters, stOrm water runoff from outfall serial number 002. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: Effluent tharacterjsl jc Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements kg/day (lbs/day) Other Units (Specify) 1. Sanitary Measurement Sample Was tewater Daily Avg Daily Max Daily Avg Daily Max Frequency Type Flow—rn 3 /Day (MOD) — — — — i/month Estimate BOD 5 30 mg/i. 45 mg/i 1/month Composite Suspended Solids 30 mg/i 45 mg/i 1/month Composite Pecal Coliform 200/100 ml 1/mouth Grab 2. Stormwater run—off (All discharge points) Flow — — — — 1/month Estimate Suspended Solids 50 mg/i 100mg/i i/mouth Grab The pH of either discharge shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard units. . There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location(s): prior to discharge to Broad Cove. ------- D. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginning facility startup and lasting through permit expiration the permittee is authorized to discharge stormwater runoff from outfall(s) serial number(s) 004 & 005. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: Effluent tharacteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements lbs/day Other Units (Specify) 1. Uncontaminated Measurement Sample Run—off Daily Avg Daily Max Daily Avg Daily Max Frequency Type Flow—MCI) — — — — 1/month Estimate TOC 35 mg/i i/month Composite Oil & Grease 15 mg/i 1/month Grab The pH of any discharge shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard units. No discharge shall cause a violation of the water quality classification of the receiving stream. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location(s): 3 prior to mixing with any other vastewater stream. ------- E. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ,Duringthe period beginning facilities etart—uo and lasting through permit expiration the pennittee Is authorized to discharge ballast water from outfall aerial number 006. Such discharges shall e limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: Effluent tharacteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements lbs /da7 Other Units (Specify) Measurement Sample Daily Avg Daily Max Daily Avg Daily Max Frequency Type Flow —rn 3 IDay (MOD) — — — 1/day — BOD 5 465 880 50 mg/i 1/month Composite Suspended Solids 375 600 35 mg/i 1/month Composite COD 4400 8600 470 mg/i 1/month Composite Oil & Grease 150 275 15 mg/i 1/day Grab The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard units. Discharge shall not cause a violation of the water quality classification of the receiving stream. . . There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. za — Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location(s): prior to mixing with any other wastewater stream. ------- PART I Page 7 of 1.3 Permit No. ME0022 420 B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE 1. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations specified for discharges in accordance with the following schedule: a. Report start of construction of refinery and wastewater treatment facilities. b . Report progress of construction of refinery and treatment facilities 9 months and 18 months from date of start of construction. c. Report completion of construction of refinery and vastewater treatment facilities. d. Submit final plans for all vastewater treatment facilities 3 months prior to estimated date of start of construction. e. All wastewater treatment facilities are to be operational at time of start—up of refinery facilities. 2. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of compliance, the permittee shall submit either a report of progress or, in the case of speeific actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or noncompliance. 1n the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance, any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled requirement. ------- PART I Page 8 ot 13 Pernili No. l’ 0022420 C. MONITORING AND REPORTING 1. Representative Sampling Samples and measureme nts taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge. 2. Reporting Monitoring results obtained during the previous 1 month shall be suzmnarized each month and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1), postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month following the completed reporting period. The first report is due 30 days from facilities start—up. Duplicate signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the Regional Ad!niàietratór and the State at the following addresses: Environmental Protection Agency Maine Department of Environmental Region I Protection Permits Branch Hospital Road P. 0. Box 8127 Augusta, Maine 04333 Boaton, M& 02114 3. Definitions a. The “daily average” discharge means the total discharge by weight during a calendar month divided by the number of days in the month that the production or commercial facility was operating. Where less than daily sampling is required by this permit, the daily average discharge shall be determined by the summation of all the measured daily, discharges by weight divided by the number of days during the calendar month when the measurements were made. b. The “daily maximum” discharge means the total discharge by weight during any calendar day. 4. Test Procedures Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to regulations published pursuant to Section 304(g) of the Act, under which such procedures may be required. 5. Recording of Results For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirer.ients of this permit, the permittee shall record the following information: a. The exact place, date, and time of sampling; h. The dates the analyses were performed; c. The person(s) who performed the analyses; ------- PART I Pa 9 0 13 Pi rinit Nc . ME0022420 d. The analytical techniques or ,nethods used; and e. The results of all required analyses. 6. Additional Monitoring by Permittee if the perrnittee monitors any pollutant at the location(s) designated herein more frequently than required by this permit, using approved analytical methods as specified above, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the values required in the Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1). Such increased frequency shall also he indicated. 7. Records Retention All records and information resulting from the monitoring activities required by this permit including all records of analyses performed and calibration and maintenance of instrumentation and recordings from continuous monitoring instrumentation shall be retained for a minimum of three (3) years, or longer if requested by the Regional Administrator or the State water pollution control agency. ------- PART II Pare 10 ol 13 Permit No. 0022402 A. MANAGEMENT REQUI REMENTS 1. Change in Discharge . \lI discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a level in exccss of that authorized shall constitute a violation of the permit. Any anticipated facility expansions, production increases, or process modifications which will result in new, different, or increased discharges of pollutants must be reported by submission of a new NPDES application or, if such changes will not violate the effluent limitations specified in this permit, by notice to the permit issuing authority of such changes. Following such notice, the permit may be modified to specify and limit any pollutants not previously limited. 2. Noncompliance Notification If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with any daily maximum effluent limitation specified in this permit, the permittee shall provide the Regional Administrator and the State with the following information, in writing, within five (5) days of becoming aware of such condition: a. A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance; and h. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying discharge. 3. Facilities Operation The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and operate as efficiently as possible all treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittec to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. 4. Adverse Impact The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact to navigable waters resulting from noncompliance with any effluent limitations specified in this permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge. 5. Bypassing Any diversion from or bypass of facilities necessary to maintain compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit is prohibited, except (i) where unavoidable to prevent loss of life or severe property damage, or (ii) where excessive storm drainage or runoff would damage any facilities necessary for compliance with the effluent limitations and prohibitions of this permit. The permittee shall promptly notify the Regional Administrator and the State in writing of each such diversion or bypass. ------- PART II Page 11 of 13 Permit No. ME0022420 6. Removed Substances Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering navigable waters. 7. Power Failures - In order to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations and prohibitions of this permit, the permittee shall either: a. In accordance with the Schedule of Compliance contained in Part I, provide an alternative power source sufficient to operate the wastewater control facilities; or, if such alternative power source is not in existence, and no date for its implementation appears in Part I, b. Halt, reduce or otherwise control production and/or all discharges upon the reduction, loss, or failure of the primary source of power to the wastewater control facilities. B. RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Right of Entry The permittee shall allow the head of the State water pollution control agency, the Regional Administrator, and/or their authorized representatives, upon the presentation of credentials: a. To enter upon the permittee’s premises where an effluent source is located or in which any records are required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; and b. At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; to inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required in this permit; and to sample any discharge of pollutants. 2. Transfer of Ownership or Control In the event of any ithange in control or ownership of facilities from which the authorized dIscharges emanate, the permittee shall notify the succeeding owner or controller of the existence of this permit by letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the Regional Administrator and the State water pollution control agency. 3. Availability of Reports Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the Act, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for pubhc ------- PART ft Page 12 of 13 Permit No. ME0022420 inspection at the offices of the State water pollution control agency and the Regional Administrator. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly making any false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided for in Section 309 of the Act. 4. Permit Modification After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part during its term for cause including, but not limited to, the following: . - a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit; b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; or c. A change in airy condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge. 5. Toxic Pollutants Notwithstanding Part II, B-4 above, if a toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established under Section 307(a) of the Act for a toxic pollutant which is present in the discharge and such standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation for such pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be revised or modified in accordance with the toxic effluent standard or prohibition and the permittee so notified. 6. Civil and Criminal Liability Except as provided in permit conditions on “Bypassing” (Part H, A5) and “Power Failures” (Part I!, A-7), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance. 7. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act. 8. State Laws Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable State law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Act. ------- PART I I Page 13 oi 13 Permit No. MEOO 22420 9. Property Rights The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations. 10. Severability The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby. PART III OTHER REQUIREMENTS A. As a result of EPA’s Environmental Impact Statement Proceedings, the following conditions shall also apply: 1. Final outfall of com ined discharges shall be of the submerged diffuser type. The outfall shall not contact any surrounding shorelines. 2. Final outfall shall be located a minimum of 3 feet below low tide. B. Under Section 401(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended in 1972 (the “hct”), the State of Maine is authorized to certify that a discharge being considered for an NPDES permit will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 301,302,306, and 307 of the Act. As part of its certification for this permit, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection has required compliance with the conditions set forth in its Order #29—1466—29210 of March 12, 1975 as amended on June 4, 1975. In accordance with Section 401(d) of the Act, those conditions set forth in the Board Order as amended which are now required to assure compliance with Sections 301,302,306 and 307 are hereby made part of this permit. ------- RULES AND REGULATIONS 21939 hIformed In writing of the reasons thercior. If an agreement Is negotiated. the initial fuflding shall specify the pe- riod for which that agreement is con— templated. Additional funds may be added at a later time provided the ac- tivity is satisfactorily carried out and appropriations are available. The State may also be required to amend the agreement for continued support. 1908.7 Tori,iination of agreemcn . (a) Termination b the parties. Either party may tertninat.e this agreement upon 15 days written notice to the other party. (b) Termination upon plan approval. In no event shall an agreement under this part continue in effect beyond 30 days after a State’s occupational safety and health plan has been approv d. n- section 18(c) of the Act. 1908.8. Exclusion. This agreement does not restrict hi any manner the authority and responsi- bility of the Assistant Secretary under sections C. 9. 10. 13, and i’7 of the Act. SIgned at Washington, D.C. thIs 15th day of May 1975. JOHN STENIJaR, Ass fstant Secretary of Labor. IFR Doc.75—13246 Filed 6— 19--75;8:6s amI Title 40—Protection of the Environment CHAPTER I—FNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SUBCHAPTER N—ErrlUENT CLIIDEUUES AND srANoARos I?RL 3 -21 PART 419—PETROLEUM REFINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY Effluent Limitations, Guidelines nd Pretreatment Standards; Amendments On May 9, 1974, efiluent limitations, guidelines, and standards of performance and pretreatment standards for new sources were pubhshed applicable to the topping subcategory, cracking suhcate- gory, petrochemical subeategory, lube subcategory, and integrated suboategory of the petroleum refining category of point sources. Public participation pro- cedures for those regulations were de- scribed In the preamble thereto, and are further discussed below. Petitions for review of the regulations were filed by the American Petroleum In- stitute and others on August 26, 1974.. After the regulations were publishe comment,s were received criticizing cer- tain aspects of the regulations. As a re- sult of these comments, the Agency con- cluded that the ranges used in preparing the size and process factors were too broad. Accordingly, a notice was pub- lished in the FEDERAL Rrcisrsa (Thurs- day, October l’i, 1974. 39 FR 37069) of the Agency’s Intention to reduce the range sizes. In response to the October 17 notIce, a variety of detailed comments were re- ceived concerning all aspects of the reg- ulations. The commenters sought major lnod.iftcations of the regulations as promulgated, The EnvIronm nta rot’ ct.ion Agency has carefully evajua ci nil comments which were received. The data base and methodology have been reexani.med, and, i t t sonic cases, new data havc been gath- ered and reviewed. Most conunenters favored the changes outlined In the modifications proposed on October 17th. However many more substantial changes were sought by cotu- eneuters. The Agency has concluded that promulgation of t proposed modifica- tions is appropriate. However, the record does not warrant, except In two in- stances. the additional nicdificr.tions sought. The bases for the Agency’s con- clusions are set forth iz dot.aL below, with responses to all major comments re- ceived. HIsrOav OF ‘rHC REGTrLSTION ’ DEVELO?MF.NT Background. With the enact Iflt of •the 1972 Am ndmnents to the ‘ederal Water Pollution Control Act (PWP&A), the Efiluent Guidelines Division of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumed responsibility for the prepara- tion of eliluent guidelines and limitations under sections 301 and 301 of the Act. The Petroleum Refining Industry In the United States and its territories is made up of 253 refiuci ics. these re- fineries produce a wide rauge of petro- leum and petrochemical groducts and Intermediates from crude ol and natural gas liquids. The size and type of hydrocarbon mote- c’ules and impurities contained in crude oils from around the world vary greatly, as do the products produced at each re- finery. The configuration of a refinery Is therefore r function of the type of feed- stock usec (crude oil and natural gas liquids) and the products whtch are to be produced. There are several hundred different processes used in this industry because of these variations in feedatocks and products. The general categories of processes used are: (1) Distillation, which separates hydrocarbon molecules by diffe ences In their physical prop- erties (boiling points): (2) cracking, which Is the breaking down of high mo- lecular weight hydrocarbons to lower weight hydrocarbons: (3) polymeriza- tIon and alkylation, which rebuild the hydrocarbon molccules; (4) Izorneriza- tion and reforming, which rearrange molecular structures: (5) solvent refin- ing, which Is the separation of different hydrocarbon molecules by differences In. solubility in other compounds; (6) de- salting and hydrotreating, which remove impurities occurring in the feedstock: (7) the removal of impurities from finished products by various treating and finish- Irig operations; and (8) other processes. Several years ago, the Industry began classifying refineries Into five categories: A. B. C, D. and E. Each category was de- fined as foUows: A—Refineries using distiflatlon and any other processes except cracking. B—Refineries using distillation, cracking, and any other process, but v. 5th no petrocheent- cal o: lube oil manufacturing. C—Category B, with the additier’ of pc’tro- chemicals. - D—Category B, with the addition of lube o1] . n—Category B, with the addition of both petrochemicals and lube oils. Petrochemicals as used by the Industry meant any amount of production in a group of compounds historically defined as “petrochemicals”. These compounds included some produced through proc- esses normally associated with refineries, such as isomerisafion or distillation, and will be referred to as first generation petrochemicals. ‘I’he second group of compounds considered petrochemicals were those produced through more coni- plex chemical rcactlons These corn- poun s’ vil be referred tQ as second gen- eration petrochem ca1s. The Agency was given the task of es- tr ’fiishing effluent limitations for this r i verse group of refineries. The first step needed was breakdown of the Industry Into smaller groups of refineries, since the flow per unit of production within ‘the industry was too diverse to be fit by a single set of lImitations. Refineries weze subeategorized based upon process configurations, I.e., the process used on the feedstock. Otice the Industry was subeategorized, it was necessary to determine how the effluent limitations would be derived and what limitations would be established for each subcategory. Since refinery per- formance data (effluent concentrations) seemed to be independent of subeategory, EPA concluded that a single set of effluent concentrations eguld be achieved by nil subcategories. It was then necessary to define a flow base and a method by which the amount of production at any given refinery could he taken into account. Since the Industry produces many hun- dreds of products and these products produced are a function of process con- figuration and feedstock, it was decided to base the limits on the quantity of feed- stock consumed. The flows were there- fore based on a unit of flow per unit of feedotoek consumed. The resulting limits were therefore de- fined as a quantity of pollutant per unit of feedstock (mass allocation), derived by multiplying a predicted flow per unit of production times an achievable con- centration. A more detailed discussion is set forth below of how the subcategories, flows. achievable concentrations, and short- term limits were derived, beginning with the contractor’s report and ending with EPA’s reconsideration. 1. Subcategorisat ion. The earliest sub— categorization of the Petroleum Refining Industry for pollution control purposes was made by the Office of Permit Pro- grams in the preparation of their Edlu- cut Guidance for the Issuance of dis- charge permits under the 1899 Refuse Act. This initial subcategorization, which was made prior to the enactment of the FWPCA. followed a classification of the Industry made by the Industry Itself, as discussed abovo. Roy F. Weston, Inc., which had pre- viously assisted EPA in preparing Effluent. FEDERAL REGISTER , VOL. 40, NO. 98—TUESDAY, MAY 20, 975 ------- 21940 RULES AND REGULATIONS Guidance for the Petroleum Refining In- dti tr ’ wa tabled to prepare a Di-aft Jj v J(qMfleflt Document for Efluent Llzn- lt ioas Guidelines and New Source Per- ormance Standards for the Petroleum inin point Source Category. After an additional six-month study of the Indus- try. Weston submitted a draft report in June. 1973, which proposed a somewhat ditferent subcategorization approach tlmn bad been used previously. These Jjncauons In subeategorization were in recogmtien of the wide range of In- tiustry complexities found within the original ve subcategories and consti- tuted divisIon of the B subcategory (Into Ji—i and B—2) based on the amount of cracking, arid the combining of the D and F subcategories. Many comments on the draft report g bcat.egorizaUon argued that splltting B Into B—i and B—2 was a step in the right direction, but It was Inappropriate to combine D and E. It was also argued that a further breakdown of the Indus- try was warranted because of the wide range of sizes and complexities within each subcategory. In response to these early comments, EPA. In its proposed regulation published December 14, 1973, 38 FR 34542, mod!- lied Weston’s subcategorlzatlon by rode- fining the term petrochemicals, once again separating the D and E subcate- gories, and establishing a new specialty lube subeategory. The 18 specialty lube refineries in the U.S. were not covered by the proposed regulation, because of the lack of data available at the time. As In the ease of the draft report, many comments on the proposed regulation arcued that the proposed subcatcgoriza— lion did not adequately consider the wide range of plants within each subeategory. 1 cprese: t tives of the American Petro- leum Institute Environmental Committee (including both API personnel and em— ployees of several member companies) met with EPA on several occasions In January, February, and March, 1974. At these rncetings API presented a new sub- eategoriza don technique which had been -developed by one of Its subcommittees. Additional meetings were held with API through April for further discussion of the API proposed subcategorization tech- xitque and of EPA’s response to their proposaL API proposed a method of predicting raw waste loads for each refinery -based on a regression analysis (best fit) per- formed on the data for various wastO ranieters drawn from the 1972 refinery survey carried out jointly by API and EPA. ThiS approach would predict cx- pee ted flc’n s and raw waste load levels for such ar. .rrct.ers as BOD, COD, et.c. API propo eu guidelines that were to be dc- rived Iron the raw waste loads by assurn- ing a removal efficiency for each par n et ’ r. There ivcre several major problems with the specific approach recommended by API: (I) After Initially running their rcgrc.s ,ions API dIscarded 20 percent of the dat.a poInts in order to improve the corrdation. Much of the discarded data per tab- d tc large refineries. Thus, the validity of the analysis, particularly as applied to those refineries, Is open to se- rious questions. (2) API adjusted the results of the mathematical ane Iysis by making “engineering judgments.” The Agency could find no defensible basis for these judgments. (3) The results of the regression on raw waste load showed little hope for a further subcategoriza- tion because of the poor correlations found. This might, in part, be explained by the fact that the regression data base included only a single day’s sample for each refinery for each of the raw waste load parameters (BOD, COD, etc.). A major drawback to API’s proposal that EPA use these analyses was that a separate regression and set of criteria (achievable removal efficiency) would be required for each parameter (BOD, COD, suspended solids, oil and grease, phenol- lea, ammonia, sulfides, and chromium). Based on API’s Initial work, this a.p- proach did not appear to be workable. API expected to complete, by September 1974, a report embodying their recom- mended approach; this report has never been submitted to the Agency. Nevertheless, It appeared that the re- gression analysis proposed by API might work well In predicting difierences in flow volumes from refineries based on the configuration of each refinery, be- cause the dry weather flows from refin- eries are relativley constant and the one day’s data (taken during dry weather) gathered In the API /EPA sur- vey would therefore be representative. A procedure for predicting flows based on refinery characteristics would also be usable in connection with the approach used in the proposed regulations, since the limitations were based on achievable concentrations for each parameter mul- tiplied by a flow for each subcatcgory. After several months of work, EPA arrived at a techuique, utilizing regres- sion analysis, for predicting iiows. The promulgated regulations are based upon this technique. It. was found that size as well as complexity (type of processing carried on in each refinery) had an effect on the expected how volume. Using the results of a regression analysis would then allow the limits to vary up or down for each refinery ba.sed on the actual characteristics of the individual refinery. EPA compared the median flaws used In the propose 1 regulations and the flows predicted by the regression, to the actdai finery flows given in the API/EPA • .ey It was found that the regression predicted flows for the Individual re- fineries more accurately than did the median for the appropriate subcatcgory. In the final regulations, EPA’s regres- sion analysis was used to develop factors by which the median flows are adjusted up or down. ckpending upon the com- plexity and size of the refinery. For ex- ampiC, a complex, very large refinery would be predicted to have a higher flow per unit of production than a simple, less complex refinery. 2. Sources of data. One of the diffi- culties encountered in developing these regulations has been, except for the data supplled by the API for flows, obtaining usable data. Few refineries either kept data on their effluent or reported It it kept. The data used and relied upon by EPA represents a significant fraction of all the pertinent data extant. The draft contractor’s report utilized, for its flow data, Information from 94 of the refineries of the 1972 API/EPA Raw Waste Load Survey. The achievable concentrations in the report for Best Practicable Technology (BPT) (1977) were based upon data from 12 refineries, upon reference materials, and upon pilot plants. These 12 refineries, misnamed “exemplary” refineri*ts, were selected be.- cause they had treatment in place and data available; they did not pecessarlly represent the best or even the better re- fineries. The achievable concentrations In the contractor’s report for Best Avail- able Technology (BAT) (1933) were based upon pilot plant and reference ma-- terials. The variabilities used in the re- port were derived from those of the 12 “exemplary” refineries for which long- term data were available. The proposed regulations were Issued using tile same data as that in the con- tractors report. The flow basis of the final regulations was the same as that of the contractor’s report. The BPT achievable concentra- tions used in the final regulations were the same as those In the contractor’s re- port, except that thi-ce additional re- fineries were used to calculate the chemi- cal oxidation demand (COD) concentra- tions. The BAT achievable concentra- tions for those regulations were the same as the contractor’s. For variabilities, data from five additional refineries were added to those used hi the contractor’s report. For EPA’s reconsideration of the reg- ulations, leading to promulgation of the amendments to the eflluent limitations guidelines, the flow basis did riot change front that utilized in the contractor’s re- port. In reexamining the BPT achievable concentrations, however, additional re- finery data were used, as well as the data from the above-cited 12 refineries used for the final regulations. In reexamining the EAT achievable concentrations, ad- ditional references and pilot plant data were used. Long-term data for 7 addi- tIonal refineries were u ’ed In the rccors- s1der ition of the varlabliities. 3. F’ow basis: In the draft contraetdv’s report the flows I rgm the refineries were broten down into three categories: I) proce:s water, 2) storm runoff, and 3) once-through cooling water. The process waters Included: waters wh1ch come into direct contact wIth a product, interme- diate, or raw material; contaminated storm runoff: and cooling tower blow- down. Process waters were considered to require treatment, and were to be segre- gated and discharged separately from clean storm runoff and once-through cooling water whIch were presumed to be uncontaminated. If the clean storm run- off arid once-through cooling water were contaminated, however, no additional al- locations were made. The process flows appropriate to each subeategory were derived from the 1972 FEDUAL REG(STEP VOL. 40, NO. 9&—TUESOAY, MAY 20. 1975 ------- RULES AND REGULATIONS 21 9 .11 API. EPA survey. This survey gove total flow data (process water plus once- through cooling vater) for 136 refIneries. Since Weston’s proposed allocation was to be based on prace,ss flow, It was ap- propriate to restrict this data base to the 94 refIneries having less than 3 percent removal of heat by once-throuch cooling water. Of the 94 refineries, 77 had no once-through cooling water. EPA continued to use the 91-refInery data base because it was believed that the inclusion of the 19 refineries with 1—3 percent of heat removal by mice-through cooling would only cause a all eht over- estimate of the P OCCSS water flows and that the disadvantage of the resultant over-allocation of process flow would be more than offset by the advantage of using a larger data base. The proposed regulation differed from the contractor’s report In several re- spects. The definition of process water remained the same, except that an added allocation was given for ballast water and contaminated storm water, over and above the basic allocation. In addition, concentration limits were set for both clean storm runoff and once-through cooling water. ‘I’hese changes meont that the basic pollutant allocation was now actually based on process water flows, and the contaminated storm runoff, bal- last, clean storm runoff and once— thi’ough cooling water each received sep- arate allocations. In the promulgated regulation, the sub- category definitions terre dhan ed. This change altered th number of refineries in each bcat . gary. and consequently altered the median flows for each sub— category. However, these flows ccntinuect to be based upon the same 94 refinerIes, and the previous definitions of different types of waste streams (process v;a t.er, ballast water, eta.) were retained. E2A has not modified the contractor’s orig- land approach to Identifying flows used, In the calculation of the BAT limitations. BAT flow is the average of the flows for those refineries In each subcategory hav- ing less flow than the lIFT median flows. These flow values have changed as the subcategory definitions have changed. 4. AchIevable concentrations. The ef- fluent concentrations used to calculate the pound allocations tBPT and new source) were the same for both Inc con- tractor’s draft report and the proposed regulations. The achievable concentra- tions were recommended by the con- tractor and were based upon actual per- forinance within this and other indus- tries, and in pliot plants. When the eliluent regulations were pro- mulgated the achievable concentrations for chemical oxygen demand (COD) and ammonia were changed. The COD limita- tions were ir.creased (for the cracking, petrochemical, lube, and Integrated sub- categories) to account for differences in treatability of raw waste associated with various feedstocks (specifically heavy crudes). The changes in the ammonia limitations were a consequence of the changes in subcategorization. During the pest Severn! months EPA ha obtained additional data, Including data on refineries in cold climates. Anal.y- sbc of these data shows that the pol- lutant parameter concentrations estab- lished for BPT tire in fact practicably attainable, In ract, a number of refineries are achievtag all of the regulations con- centrations. . expected, refineries proc- essing light crucjes generally discharge COD cencentrations e _3o percent lower than the concentrations ott which the final i -cgislation are based. 0i51l ’ the ammonia limitations ame occasionally be- ing exceeded by a f - of the refineries examined. However, most of these me— thwriiw are currently clesigniflg or in— stalling additional stripping capacity or a second stage of sour water stripping which will allow them to achieve the am— nionia limitations. 5. Variability Ja n for. The flow basis and o chievable concentrations discussed to this point are bared on the limits re— fineries are designed t.a attain and ex- peeled to achieve over a long period of time (generally (Lns dered to be one year). For enforcement purposes, shorter terra limits were set to allow determina- tion to be made more quickly ‘ahether or not a given refinery is in compliance with its permit limitations. In order to derive short-term limita- tions from long-term data, the disper- sion of chort-tem-ro values about a long- term mean must be token into account. Some daiiy values will be Ilibiler than the mean, some vihl be lower. The du’)y varir.bility is the magnitude of this d s— persion of daily values about the long- term mean. The monthly averages wdl also show variability about the long- term mean. but to a lcr er extent. Variability occurs in both flow- and conccnt ation. Some of the factors which cause variability ale listed below: I. Flow volume varlftt!ofls— A. Storm runoff In addition to dry weather flow B. The varying throughput of tho re- finery. siaCe it will not always operate at Its rateci cap city C. Verlatlons in pcrnp capacity and pros- sure I c scs tiirou h the refinery D. Vc ’aatlons in ’ blowdo volume from the coollr.g torers because ol the evapora.’ tion rate from the tov er3 E. Others II. Variation in trestroent system e- clency (effluent concentration)— A, Flow variatloOs result In varying reten— tion time3 (since the hiolcgtcal treatment lystem for a given refinery are fixed In size, the retention time will vary with flow-volume and the removal efliciericy varies with reten- tion time) B. System ripsete C. tiaw waste variations I D. Amount of equailiattorc, which con- trols the Impact at system upsets or raw Waste variations E. Clogging of storm runoff F. Start-up and shut downs 0. Spills II. E:,ttrexrme or unusual weather conditions L Temperature effects IDIL Factors sCectiag both flow and con- Ctlitratiot is— A. Sampling techniques B. Measurement error and variability Many of the factors listed above can be minimized through proper design and operation of a given facility. tech- riiqucs used to minimize variability are as follows: 1. Storm-rnnoff, Storm water holding facilities should be used, Their design capacity should be based on the rainfall history and area being drained at each refinery. They allow the runoff to be drawn off at a constant rate to the treat.- ment system. 2. Flow variations, system upsets and raw waste variations. The oiutIon to thesc problems is similar to (fiat f°r storm runoff; leveling off the peaks through equali:cation. Eciua liza Lion is simply a recent ion of time wastes in a holding system to average out the in- fluent to the treatment system. 3. Spills. Spills which will cause a heavy loading on time system fcc a short period of time, can be most damaging, A spill may not only cause hifli eguent levels as it goes through the r:,stern but may also kill or damage a biological treatment system and the stare hate longer term effects. Equalizatica helps to lessen the effects of spills. However, long-term, reliable control car only be attained by an aggressive spill preven- tion and maintenance program including careful training of operating personnel. 4. Start-up and shmmt-domnm. These should be reduced to a mninimuns and their effect dampened through eqm al za- tion or retention as with storm runoff. 5. Temnpcraf irc. The (leStgn operrttI ’mml and choice of type of biological treat- rnent system should in part be hazed on the temperature mange encountered at. the refinery location sc that tills effect can be minimized. The data base utilized by the Agency includes rednery Usta from cold climates and very large suns- mer-winter t.ern perature differences. 6. Sarnplinp techniques an s i om.aititical error. These can be minimloed thiough utilization of trained personnel and care- ful procedures. From the beginning it was realised that the causes of variability could, not be quantified Individually. The variability (variation from average) must tacerefore be calculated front actual refinery data. representing tile combined effect of all causes. The information touelet. from the data were time maximum deily and monthly avelage limits, which cheuld not be exceeded If the refinery IS meeting the prescribed long-term averages. The contractor analyzed data from several refineries. To determine the dafly variability (variations of slnmr!e values from the average) he arranged the data from each refinery for each parameter In nscending order. The data point that was exceeded only 5 percent of the time and the median point (50 percent above, 50 percent below) were Identified. The ratio of these values (95 percent prob- abllity/50 percent probability) was called the daily variability. For the monthly varIability, the daily values for each month’s data were averaged aned these monthly averages were analyzed as above. The resulting daily arid monthly variabilities for each parameter were averaged with the variabilities for the same parameter for all of the mefiilem’ics FEDUAL 1EGISTER, VOt. 40, NO. 90—TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1973 ------- 219t2 RULES AND REGULATIONS tc yield the daily and monthly varIabj j. ties for the entire Industry. These in- dustry variabilities were then multiplied by hc long-term average limits to oh- n the maximum daily and maximum monthly average limits. For the iproposed regulation, all of the variabilities were rccalculated. The ap- proach used by the contractor was re- jected because it was inappropriate ex- cept for extremely large quantities of data, and it made no attempt to differ- entiate between preventable and Un- ireventable variability. EPA selected rom the contractor’s data those periods believed to represent proper operation. The data used by the contractor for some refineries contained unexplained periods of high values. Attempts were made to determine the causes of these values. In one case, one month of extremely high values occurred after a major hurricane hit the refinery in 1971. Not until a month later was the treatment system back In normal operation. In another cto e the treatment system operated with relatively low variability for over one year and then rhoued an unexplained large Increase In variability the follow- ing year. Since the data for the first year of operation demonstrated that ) . wer variability could be athie ed over a, long period of time, that year was se- lected for analysis. The contractor determined daily var- bblIty by dlvldlr.g the 95th percentile point by the 50th pcrcentllc point. EPA modifled this approach by selecting the predIcted 99th percentile divided by the mean. The change from 95th to 99th percentile as intended to minimi7e the chance that a refinery would be found in ‘violation o the basis of random sam- pies exceeding the limitations. Similarly, EPA selected the 98th percentile fur use in determining the maximum monthly Gt erage. The upper percentiles were derived bayed on the assumption that the data were distributed according to a normal or bell shaped distribution. An avc”age variability for each parameter was then ealcutated and that average multiplied by the long-term average to set the daily maximum artd niazimuin monthly averages. 1 ctween proposal and promulgation, data were given to EPA by the American Petroleum Institute for five additional refuieries, which were said to have I3PT end-of-pipe treatment or its equivalent. EPA did not knOw the names Or loca- lions of these rejineries and therefore could not check potential cause5 of vail- ability. The SODS data from these re- fi a ’rics were studied, and the data base u ’d to calculate the proposed BODS uris recxamlntd. It was found that 1i r ma, t refineries the data more nearly roxim.ate a log-normal (where the lo,,. iUun of the data is normally dis- tributeth rather than a normal distribu- tion. The variabilities were then re- cak ulated assuming either a normal or log- iormal distribution, whichever was the better fit. This analysis yielded an air erage daily variability for BOD5 of 3.1, Instead of the proposed value of 2.1. The final regulations were based on the re- calculated BOD5 value of 8,1, The monthly average variabilities were not changed. For other parameters, the vari- abilities in the proposed regulations were multiplied by the ratio of the recalcu- lated BOD5 variability (3.l/2.3= 1.35), The daily maximum to the median BOD5 variability assuming normal distribution limits were determned by znult.iplylng the long-term average by the recalculated variability, On reexamination following promul- gation of the regulations, EPA has re- viewed 1974 data from seven refineries on all parameters. With the exception of suspended solids, the variability fac- tors derived from these data confirm the variability factors originally established. This additional data on suspended solids Indicated that the daily variability of 2.9 and the monthly variability of 1.7 origi- nally calculated may be too low. Accord- Ingly, a daily variability of 3.3 and a monthly variability of 2.1 have been es- tablished, based on the addition of this new data. No existing plant employs the treat- ment technology (biological treatment followed by activated carbon) specified for 1983. The variability used for 1933 ‘was, however, based upon the lowest variability achieved by any plant for each parameter. The Agency believes that this low variability represents the best prediction that can be made at the present time of variabilities which will be achieved by 1933. These should be much lower than the average varlabil- Itles presently being attained for the following reasons: 1) the additional step of treatment should tend to dampen peaks in the data; 2) most of the effluent data were not from systems with a filter or polishing step after biological treat- ment and this should help dampen peaks; 3) the activated carbon Is tin- alfected by several of the factors causing variability In biological systems; and 4) the industry will have 10—il years of ad- ditional experience In the area of treat.- ment plant operation arid control from the time when data was token, SVMZsASY OP MaioR COMMENTS The following responded to the re- quest for comment.s which was made in the preamble to the proposed amend- ment: Shell Oil Company, The Amerla can Petroleum Institute, and Texaco Tnc. Each of the conunent.s received was carefully reviewed and analyzed. The following is a summary of the significant comments and EPA’a i-espouse to those comments. U) One commenter stated that the regulations and the Development Docu- inent fall to disclose or explain the cr1- teria employed by the engineering con- tractor or EPA for selecting the thirty candidate’ reimucries for “exemplary plant treatment,” and that E1’A had not explained or Justified why and bow the thirty candidate refineries were nar- rowed down to only twelve “exemplary”. refineries. The sources of Information avaflable to the contractor for the development of the subcategoz-ization and the choice of well-operated refineries (In terms of pollution abatement) were as follows: 1. 1972 EPA,API Raw Waste Load Survey 2. Corps of Engineers (Refuse Act) Permit Applications 3. Self-reportIng discharge data from Texas, Illinois, and Washington 4. MonitorIng data from state agench?s and/or regional EPA oflices for Individual retineries. A preliminary analysis of these data indicated an obvious need for additional information. Although 136 refineries were surveyed during the 1972 EPA/API Raw Waste Load Survey, the survey did not Include any effluent data. Refuse Act Permit Application data were limited to identification of the treatment systems used, and reporting of final concentrations (which were diluted with cooling waters in many cases); consequently, operating performance could not be established. Self-reporting data was available from Texas, Illinois, and Washington. These reports show only the final effluent concentrations and In only some cases Identify the treatment system In use; rarely is there production Informatiop available which would permit the estab- lishintmt of unit waste loads. Additional data in the following areas were requIred: (1) Currently practiced or potential In-process waste control techniques; (2) IdentIty and effective- ness of end-of-pipe waste control tech- niques; and (3) long-term data to estab- lish the variability of performance of the end-of-pipe waste control techniques. The best source of information was the r,etroleuxn refineries themselves. New In- formation was obtained from direct In- terviews and inspection visits to pe- troleunt refinery facilities. Verification of data relative to long-term perform- ance of waste control techniques was obtained by the use of standard EPA reference samples to determine the re- liability of data submitted by the pe- t,ro lewn refineries, and by comparison wit.h monitoring data from the state agencies and/or regional EPA omces. The selection of petroleum refineries as candidates to be visited was guided by the trial categorization, which was based on the 1972 EPA/API Raw Waste Load Survey. The final selection was de- veloped from identifying Information available In the 1972 EPAJAPI Raw Waste Load Survey, Corps of Engineers Permit Applications, State self-report- ing discharge data, and contacts within regional EPA oftices and the industry. Every effort wits made to choose facili- ties where meaningful Information on both treatment facilities and manufac- turing processes could be obtained. After development of a probability plot for the respective raw waste loads front the tentative refinery categoriza- tion, the tentative categorization was presented to API and EPA for review arid comment. Three refineries In each category were then tentatively desig- nated as “exemplary” refineries based FWERAI. REGISTER. VOL 40, NO. 98—TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1975 ------- RULES AND REGULATIONS 219.13 Joe raw WMte loads determined by the AP1,’ survey. Sbnti .ltaneously. t t 1iie lists of additional refineries ; ( collected from cach of the Re— ioml EPA offices. Several lists were prepared and submitted to EPA. From the approxiiflntCly 30 refineries on these lists, the refineries for further study were then selected. During this screening 1)roce . ar- ratlgCiflCfltS were made to either visit the refineries or collect additional informa- tion relative to plant operations. In some cases, refineries declined to partici- pate in the program. As a rcsult of the 5 geefling program, twenty— three (23.) refineries were then involved in plant visits. These refineries are listed in Table 1. The purpose of the refinery visits was to collect sufficient dat a in the areas of wastewater plant operations to define raw waste loads, effluent treatment schematics, operating conditions, and effluent analyses. As a result of these plant visits, data from only twelve (12) reflacries (designated by stars in Table l i were found to be available for a sum- icnt!y long-term period (one year or more) to provide an adequate data basis for further definitive projections. Con- sequeflt.l3’, operatil)g data frcm these twelve (12) refineries were then used as one of the major data sonrces in devel- opment of the regulations. TA21.E 1 REFINERIES ISrrED UN&LI CONTIESCT 7d0. 68—Oi—( .59 5 I Chosen as “exemplary” refineries. As can be seen from the above, the selection of these twelve refineries was In large part dictated by the limited avail- ability of Information. More complete or more recent data show sonic of the original twelve re- fincri’s to be less than “exemplary,” See Development Docwucnt for Effluent LimutnUons Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Petro- leum Refining Point Source Category. pp. 12—14; “Draft Development Docuine t for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Performance, Petroleum Refining Industry,” pp. 11.1-2-4. (2) One colnincater obi ctcd to the calculation or 19’i7 flow rates from only 94 refineries, 40 percent of the industry. Of a total of 253 petroleum refineries. EPA holds permit applications for sur- face cater discharge for 1fi0—200 refin- eries. The remaining 50—60 refinerieS are either “zero di eharge” operations or are currently discharging to muniCil)al waste treatment y tems. EPA Is aware of a i unib r of zero discharge refineries ill arid ci’ semi-arid areas of Texas, New Mexico and Southern California, and several refineries in Los Angeles County ore currently discharging to municipal waste treatment. Since none of these plants have direct surface discharge, they are excluded as potential sources of data. Of the remaining 190—20d discharg- ing refineries, 136 were included in the 1972 API/EPA survey, which is the only available comprehensive source of data on refinerj water use. Since the survey does riot show process water use as a separate discharge, but instead lists total flow volume, this limited the number of refineries for which data could be used to those for which process flow consti- tuted most or all of the total westewater discharged. Data fmomn refineries remov- ing more than 3 percent of heat by means of once—through cocliug n- crc not used, since cooling water would cause an :; c.timate of process flow based on total plant flow to be greatly overstated for those refineries. ‘Thus, EPA could use data from only 94 refineries. Since the API/EPA raw waste load survey was designed to be representative of the total industry, and since EPA used all of the refineries in the survey with 3 percent or less best removal by once-through cooling water, the flows usod are actually higher than the process water flows achieved by the Industry. (See “Flow Basis” portion of the History of Guide- lines Development in this Document). (3) One conimenter stated that, of the twelve “cxcm ilary” refineries only one actually complies with the prescribed 1977 levels for every pollutant param- eter. EPA based the regulations not upon the overall performance of the so-called “exemplary” refineries, b’ut on the efilu- (See Sections IV, V, IX, X, X l of the Development Document for Effluent Lim- itations Guideimes and New Source Per- formonce Standards for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category, and Supplement B—’Probabfllty Plots”, re- finery data and analysis files, “Varlabil- lty Analysis.”) (5) One cornmenter objected to the Agency’s reliance upon refineries In Texas and Callforriia., arguing that EPA’s sample should be representative cut concentrations achieved by the “e- eniplary” refineries and plants in other industries, the variabilities achieved by the “exemplary” refineries, and flows achieved by the Industry as a whole. EPA did not expect that these refineries would uniformly comply with all I1 iital ions, since they did not have all the recom- mended technology in place. For ex- ample. few of the “exemplary” refineries were expecteti to meet the degree of, ammonia removal specified, since few were practicing adequate ammonia stripping. EPA has obtained effluent data cover- ing a full year for six of the twelve re- fineries. Four of these had no violations of the 1977 limilatioris, while another had only five data iminsa, out of several hundred data. points, above the limits. In addition, EPA now has data on 10 additional refineries in the United States which had no violations of the regula- tion limits in 1974, and foul’ others that only exceed the ammonia limits. Included in this group of 18 refineries (14 with.no violations and 4 exceeding, the ammonia limits) are “sour” crude users and refineries that are not located In areas with water shortage-s. It should be noted that these 18 refineries do not necessarily represent all of the refineries in the country c ’rc nt.ly meeting tue regulations. The available data cover only 12 of 33 States which have refineries. EPA has requested the American Petro- leum 1n titute to siipi ,. 1 y additional ei2u— mt data. (4) One coinnienter stated that EPA failed to base the standards on tile average of the best existing performances by plants currantly in place. EPA has based its l:mitations upon the best existing performance of plants cur— renfly providing treatment except where the industry is uniformly providing in— ade uate treatment. In every case, the limitations for the Petroleum Refinir.g Point Source Category reflect actual per- formance of plants currently in place. The following table summarizes the approach followed by the Agency in de- veloping the regulations. EPA set the BPT, BAT and New Source limits as follows: of the geographical distribution of the Industry. The comnienter noted that subcategories “C”, “I)”, and “E” are rep- resented solely by efinerles In the coastal areas of Texas and California. A. EPA’s flow data ham includes relinerlea from all areas of the country. B. Of the four refineries selected by the contractor In the “A” and “B” aubcategorics, only one was located in Texas or California. C. There is only one “A’ refinery (PhmU pa. ! 5an aa City) which Is rot located In TexaS, California, or in a coastal area. Company Unin Oil A ino’O Am:o ‘ Co slai States’ Chrmplin ‘__—-—_———— ToOl Leonard’ UnionOli’ xxon Marathon’ Shell’ 01W Refining ‘rex co’ Phillips 1 U.S Oil & Refining ‘.. Shell t BP Gulf Amerada 1ie arce Gulf Kerr-McGee Laketon Reflnery -. Location I,cniout. flu. \Vhlt-Ing. hid. Yorktown, Vs. Corpus Christi, Tex. Do. Alma. Mich. Ilesumont, Tex. £5.ton Rouge La. Texas City. Tex. Deer Parl :, Tex. Oktnuigee. Okia. Lockport. II I. raveeney, Tax. Tacoma, Vaeh. Martinez, Calif. philadelphia, Pa, Do. Port Reading. N.J. PhiLadelphia. Pa. Port Arthur, Tex. Duncan, Okia. Wynnwood Okia. Lakeside, md. Level - . flog, - ‘ Conrentratloc Variability IIPT (ittlI’) Fnw beln cut he 50 percent Averase of the best plants for The averars of thee, i,hrnt’ of the p;tliLS In t’lace ad- which data were available. s Lb trentroent in ;ie.e br hnt’d for prec an’S coin. .. wheh long-term da,ta wre pkclLy twines. - , evabbablo. BAT (tbSP A,e’ngeol the bc.t lico.d on pbIc’t pianti Be_S IniiI,lduai e-fln ry. UAD’l’ (now do jeerer. of (be lest pln ’tr for The aecrafe of thoso p - ,’tl source). which data were a,aiisble. wO ii treatment in plee fr which long-term data wore available. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 93—TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1975 ------- 2 1944 D. The data base for “0” reline rich has been broadened by adth ig ft relinery In I llinois. E. Of the 11 C ” retlnerles In the country. In Texas, Caitfornia, or in a coastal area. ‘me agency has broadened tt.s dat& b to include ft “C reilnery in Illinois. (6) Several commenters stated that EPA has Ignored the effect of crude oil feedstock characteristics on the treat- b1Jity of refinery effluent. They claim that feedztocks containing heavy crudes, in particular crudes from California. have a substantial Impact on effluent quality. Subsequent to publication of the pro- posed regulations, the Shell Oil Coin- pany and the Phillips Petroleum Com- pany submitted data for three refineries processing California crudes: Shell at Martinez, California; Shell at WH ining- t ’n. California; and Phillips at Avon; California. These data ip licated that these refineries appeared to have expe- rienced higher pollutant raw waste loads (the antItie of pollutants in the waste stream before treatment) than the median refineries of their subcategories. EPA considered this additional informa- tion In asesbin whether an additional pollutant allocation should be allowed those refineries processing heavy crudes. EPA was interested In determining whether the above-median raw waste loads of the three refineries could be clearly attr(bt,ted to their California crude feecistocks, or whether their high waste loads reflected the complexities of their refinery processes. Each of the three refineries Is well above-average in complexity for Its subcategory. The conunenters provided raw waste loads for five parameters C3005. COD, TOC, phenols and ruiimonla) from each of the three refineries. Of these raw waste loads, 13 out of the 15 Instances were above the applicable subcategory median. This Is shown by the following table: Rsvma 7ti . W*slI lOAD AS PC .! A5OV ¶ Z J4 ILJI fOh YSS ATi%o?ftlAfl SUSCATZGOEY Phillips &‘rO I 85.11 wflnilfl - Shell iserttnes S r hin i average * 5 0 Don$_.. 2 lii $9 Si CIM) t l9e 3 5 ) 178 TOG 77 58 11* 04 - 50 3.51 —47 06 be,oo ls. - 517 1, 6 062 However, 11 refinery complexity Is taken 1mb account, by dividing each refinery’s reported raw waste loads by that re- finery’s process factor, the resulting “complexity adjusted” raw waste loads exceed the appropriate subcategory me- dian hi only 7 of the 15 instances. ‘L’bis Is demonstrated by the following table; E!D LSY TIAW WA47$ LoAD DIV1D D ST YI R ni. ?T Pacr 1’A( ’TO* 4$ Pj*t ? ASOVA TUS MMIA 5 rQfl IlLS AZPSUPSIAtI 8LhiCiTLGOST ?hftups A voa Sbtfl Wfln$og- *50 Shefi Marunel S avarsg. : Zion ,. .. .- —54 —U fl —12 50 —30 $9 ‘7OC, - Amrno ia.. l b x ’ *s - —43 I —2* ftS S —4 —77 237 —i — 12 46 8 RULES AND REGULATIONS The above table shows that the in- creased refinery complexity asso,çiated with these refineries processing Califor- nia crudes might well be a cause of their higher raw waste loads. Since the proc- ess factor Is a component of the allowed 1fluent limitations, i adequately com- pensates (with the possible exception of phenols) for the larger raw waste loads of those refineries. Existing treatment facilities have demonstrated that the phenol limits are achievable, even when raw waste loads are greatly In excess of the median. Even if Ii were possible unequivocally to attribute an Increased raw waste load to a feedatock type, this “vould not In Itself justify an increased effluent limita- tion for refineries processing that feed- stock. The long-term average quantity of a pollutant In a refinery effluent depends more upon the design and operation of the treatment system than upon the average raw waste load Input to the sys- tem. To determine whether there exists In practice a relationship between average effluent quality and raw waste load, EPA compared, for 14 refinerIes with both raw waste load and effluent data availa- ble, the average amount of pollutant In the effluent with the raw waste load 0! the pollutant. No sneantngful correlation between average ei 1ucnt and raw waste load was observed for the pollutants BOD5, TSS, oil and grease, phenols, and ammonia. Thus, for these poflutants, cj1 erenees In effluent quality between refineries are as ,oc1ated more with other factors (e.g., differences In treatment systems or in- plant controls) than with differences in raw waste load. However, EPA did find a significant correlation between the quantity of COD In the effluent of each of the refineries and the refineries’ raw waste loads. This finding merely supports EPA’ s ac- tion. when it promulgated the regula- Uons, in increasing the COD limitations to avoid any possible Inequity to proces- mrs of heavy crudes. (See “History of the Regulations”, Part 4, “achIevable con- centratlons”.) In addition, EPA examined data f rein one refinery which processed a mixture of crude types. In particlular. it was claimed that the effluent quality for BOD5. phe- nols, and ammoni a decreased as the per- centage of Arabian crude in the feed- stock increased. The Agency could find no significant correlation between ef- fluent quality and the percent of Ara- bian crude used. (7) One eommenter stated that op- erating experience with the full-scale carbon adsorption system at BP’s Marcus Rook refinery has been less than satisfac- tory, that (lull OH Company has found that carbon treatment Is not feasible for their Port Arthur refinery wastewitter, and that Texaco has apparently reached the same conclusion with regard to Its Eagle Point refinery. The best available technology econoni- Ically achievable specified for the petro- leum refining Industry Is the applica- tion of carbon adsorption to the effluent from a well operated blologlcal/phYSical treatment plant of the type required to meet the 1977 limitations. In each case specified by the commenter, activated carbon treatment was applied to waste- waters of considerably poorer quality than is required for 19T1, since activated carbon was being used In lieu of biological treatment. (8) Comments were received which assert that special unproven techniques, such as biological nitrification—denitri- -fication for ammonia removal, and some unspecified technology •for phenols, would be required to meet the ammonia and phenol limitations. The achievable ammonia limits are based on in-plant sour water stripping techniques which are currently In use In the refining industry. A number of plants in this industry are meeting the ammonia limits using this technology. (See “Development Document for Efflu- • ent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Cate- gory”, pp. 95—97; 40 CFR part 419, 39 FR 16562(23) May 9, 1974.) The achievable phenol limits are based on the refinery effluent data and refer- ences cited In Tables 26 and 27 of the Development Document. In addition, EPA has recently acquired phenol efilu- ent data from ii refineries not cited in the Development Document, which data show an average phenol effluent concen- tration of 0.058 mg/I (0.10 mg/I was used as the achievable concentration in set- ting the LPT limits). 19) Some cominentors stated that neither the regulation nor the Develop- ment Document explains or assesses how refineries of widely varying age, process, geographic location, load availability, and other circumstances can further re- duce flows to the 1983 volumes. The methods currently being applied by the Industry to achieve flow reduc- tions are listed on page 169 of the Devel- opment Document for Effluent Limita- tions Guidelines and New Source Per- formance Standards for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category. Some other methods of reducing flows not listed on page 169 are: 1. )dazhnum reuse of treatmeqt plant e uent. evaporation, and consumptive use. 2. Lime and lime soda softening to reduce hardness to allow further tecycling. 3. iJse of specially designed high di ol,ed eollds cooling towers which would use the biowdown from other cooling towers 06 make- up water. Of the 94 refineries used In determnin- ing the flow base for the 1977 limitAl_ tlons, 26 were doing as well or better than the 1983 flow base. These 26 refinerIes are located in 15 different states (Alaska, California, Colorado, flilnois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana. Montana, North Dokota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming). (10) One commenter stated that the control efficiencies needed to meet the limitations are higher than those at- tained by municipal plants employing traditional secondary treatment, and are derived partlaily from EPA’s Inclusion of polishing steps, including granular filtra- tion or polishing ponds. The comnenter FEDSIM EGSTtR, VOL 40, NO. 98—TUESDAY, MAY 20. 1975 ------- RULES AND REGULATIONS 219.15 argued that EPA’s own publications con- cede that there Is no carefully docu— nented filter operating experience with wast.ewater, and that the operating ex- perience of the two refineries using gran- ular media filtration (Amoco, Yorktown; BP. Marcus Hook) shows that this tech- nology will not achieve the limits. Many dischsrg’-rs will be able to meet the limitations without a polishing step. However, the cost of filters was included In the estimates since some refineries might need a polishing step to achieve the suspended solids and oil and grease ilinits. The average effluent suspended solids for the 12 refinerIes for which EPA has 1974 suspended solids data Is 15.1 mg/i (10 mg/I Is the guideline basis). Only one of these plants (Marathon Oil, Robinson, Ill.) has a filter in operation. Several are achieving less than 10 mg/i of suspended solids without a polishing step. The ten refineries for which EPA has 1974 oil and grease data are averaging 5.0 mg/i (5.0 mg/ I Is the regulation basis). Experienc.e with granular media ifi- ters, as well as with other polishing steps, Is extensive and well documented. EPA’S “Process Design Manual for Sus- peuded Solids Removal” gives the results of studies of flitTation of effluent from secondary biological treatment for 32 (a- dIlLies. These 32 show an average sus- pended solids effluent concentration of 6.6 mg/i, with only 3 of the 32 over 10 mg/I. In addition, there are approximately 2500 granular media filters being used for suspended solids removal in the Water Supply Industry. Many filters are in operation in other industr cs, such as steel, for oil and solids removal. Within the petroleum Industry many filters are being employed for oil removal from production water before lt.s dIn- charge from o Tshore oil platforms. Fil- ters are also being used prior to second- ary treatment (ES, Marcus Hook, Pa.; Exxon, Bayonne, N.J.; Amarada-Hess, Port Reading, N.J., etc.). Two filters are currently being used as a polishing step for secondary treatment effluents (Amoco, Yorktown, Va. and Marathon. Robinson, fll.) and several others are now iii design or under con- struction. It is true that the two installations with filters now In place do not achieve the 10 mg/i of suspended solids and 5 mg/I of oil and grease expected from these units. This is a result of the condi- tions under which these installations have been operated. EPA’s 19’77 treat- Inent model assumes that the influent to a polishing step will be an effluent from a well designed, well operated secondary treatment plant, and that the average suspended solids and oil and grease In- fiucnt.s to the filters will be 15—25 mg/i and 5—10 mg/I. respectively. The following data from Amoco, York- town’s filter operation show a distinct Improvement In effluent. quality when the bZluent Is within the expected rango: s ’ d .d Solid, (iu fl) Oil nd grtAse (iug,1) lufl vui Emui ut Influent Effluent July 1971 to Aug. ISTL..__ 18 *4,5 7 ‘1. Seot. 197* 1.0 Nov. 1971...., 43 16 8.5 Dec. 197* to li. lur2 55 39 16 10 )lsr. 19721.0 Slay 1)07. ___ 09 39 17 13 Sept. 107’2 to Nay. 1972 90 42 . * 0 * I,awer Luau thy monthly iliaeim*un limIt 0117 mgth for suspcnded rnlidi, and o( S Iuu /L lot 0* 1 azid grt eno, aswiing taode.*u flow. The above data indicates adequate performance of the filter when the sec- ondary treatment effluent was within the ranges of expected operation, in spite of the following unusual (and correctable) diibeulties encountered at. the facility; 1) filter media losses and channeling eventually forced replacement of the en- tire filter bed; 2) an unexpected increase in flow volume was caused by refinery ac- ceptance oi ballast water; 3) untreated lagoon water (used for backwash) was left In the filter after backwashing; and 4) the filter was not properly designed for both summer and winter Influent conditions. Not as much information was available to EPA on the Marathon, Robinson fil- ters as was available on Amoco. but the following is known: The data for the 9 months (8/72-4/73) of operation prior to the inst dIation of the filters show a. suspended solids effluent from the sec- ondary treatment plant of 19 mg/I aver- age. The secondary treatment plant ef- fluent the 12 months of 1974 showed an average suspended solids concentra- tion 01 49 mg/i. Thus, the filters were operating at a level well above their de- sign limits and on 2.6 times higher in.flu— eat suspended solids concentration than at their Initial installation. It should be noted that in spite of this, the filter effluent averaged 12 mg/i of suspended solids for the first 18 months of opera- tion. Granular media filters arc not a cure- all or a substitute for a well designed and well operated secondary treatment sys- tem, but rather, as EPA intended, a polishing step to further lmp ove a good secondary treatment plant effluent. Thus employed, they can productively be part of a system to meet the 1977 lImitations. (11) In support of the previous com- ment opposing the use of granular media filtration, a discussion of the ivsults from a pilot plant study carried out by Stand- ard of Ohio at its Lima, Ohio Refinery was submitted. The pilot study was de- signed to determine the reductions achievable In BOD5, COD, and suspend- ed solids when a granular media filter was used to treat the effluent from their biological treatment pond. The commenter claimed that the growth of algae precluded attainment of the BPT suspended solids, BOD5, and COD limits. As in the cases cited In t . cior . se to comment no. 10. these filters were being used for more than the polishing step EPA Intended. EPA did not base the reg- ulations on the use of granular media filtration for BOD5 and COD removal. The treatment model a.ssumnes the in— fluent to the filter be below 25 mg/I of suspended solids and 15 mg/i of. B0D5. Thus, the biological treatment ate!) pre- ceding filtration should deliever an ef- fluent of such quality to the fìiteri. Such treatment can be accomplished by sev- eral techniques, either separately or in combination. including activated sludge, biological ponds, trickling filters, and aerated lagoons. The technique selected depend. upon an engineering evaluatjoii of the specific site and raw waste charac- teristics, Where lagoons are employed, the ef- fluent quality of a lagoon system can be affected adversely during certain periods of the year by the algae generated In the system. The algae can settle out in the bottom of a receiving stream or lake, un- dergo death and degradation, exert an oxygen demand In effluent samples and in the stream, and will be. measured ds part of the solids in the effluent, There are, however, a variety of tip- pronches which can be used to control the quantity of solids in the effluent. Most of these approaches either are In use or have been thoroughly demonstrated and can be used where needed. Under spocliic design and operational conditions, ca h approach can be economical. Appii ubl approaches lnclmid micro-straining. co- agulatlon-flocculation, land disposal, granular media or intermittent sand fil- tration, and chemical control. Micro-strainers have been used suc- cessfully in numerous apphcation,s for the removal of algae and other suspended material from water. In a series of nine investigations over a period of years, plankton removal averaged 89 percent. Micro-straining requires little mainte- nance and can be used for the removal of algae from stabilization ponds or lagoons. - Coagulation-flocculation, followed by sedimentation, has been applied exten- sively for the removal of suspended and colloidal material from water. Land disposal (spray irrigation) for all or a portion of the lagoon effluent can reduce outflow to a stream during periods of high algae. This reduction can com- pensate for the increased solids concen- trations and permit the limitations to he attained. Spray Irrigation in a controlled manner onto adjacent land can be ac- complished without additional environ- mental problems. Although EPA did not contemplate using granular media filtration specifi- cally to remove algae, filters have been shown to achieve the EPT limits even when Influcat quality was degraded due to algal growth, The Limit Refinery pilot project showed that the limits were oi>- tamed with certain media sizes and flow rates. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO, 98—TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1975 ------- 19 .iG em cal measureS for the control of C t .IVC algae growths in lagoons are p i o effective, proper application depends upon the type, magnitude, and frequency of growth, the local conditions, and the d. grce at control that is necessary. For njaxi:num effectiveness, algal control meacures should be undertaken before the devclopmeflt of the algal bloom. Thus, there are many alternatives that can be used for algae control and/or removal to assure that the lagoon effluent quali v meets the dercribed limitations. The alternative selected at a specific re- fir.cry v:ill be a function of land avail- ability, available operating personnel, degree of difficulty In meeting the limita- ttrir .s, and overall waste management economics. (12) A commenter suggested that the T .r’T flow basis was based on fiow ex- perienced by refineries which apply good water conservation practices, ahd that only 50 (37 percent). of the 136 refinerIes In the 1972 API/ E PA survey are meeting the EPA flow basis. EPA based the BAT and BADT (1983 and New Source) flow bases on refineries employing good water conservation prac- ticec. The BPT flows were based on what one-half of the Industry was achieving in 1972. In fact, 51 (54 percent) of the 94 rciig’r es used from the 1972 API/EPA gur . cy were at or below the OPT process water flows. No assesnnent of process water flows was made for the remaining 42 of the 136 refineries in the survey, ‘since theIr flow volumes included large amounts of once-through cooling watcr, which was not included In the flow base definition. It must be recognized that the flow base Is not a flcvi limitation,, end that the pollutant allocations allowed by the regulations can be met with flows higher than predicted if the effluent con- centrations are lower than those used by EPA. Since a number of refineries are achieving concentrations for each pollutant parameter that are consider- ably b iO the concentrations used by EPA, a refinery might be able to meet the effluent limits with a higher than nrcdicted flow. The s.nne result might be achieved by careful control and de- sign and consequent lowered variability. (13 Some commenters stated that EPA did not adequately consider the effects of climate on biological waste- water treatment and that substantially hither reductions can be achieved in southern st tes and for Installations re- qutrl : ummer operations only. In .. eiak’d were several exatnples of claimed euminer-wintcr vans (ions In refinery efflut’nt’ . Fi’A has collected data from ten re- fineries located In illinois, Montana, Nu-th LX kota, Washington, and Utah. E luent data from these ten refineries for the parameters which could be af- (ected by cold climatas are as follows: BOD5—13.2 tag/i average (the liinlta- Lion basis Is 15 mg/I), COD—75.5 mg/I average (the limitation basis for these refineries varies between 110-115 mg/I) and phenols—O.049 mg/I average (the limitation basis Is 0.10 mg/I). RULES AND REGULATIONS The commenters own data submitted with the comment provide little support for the position taken In the conunent. These data tend to show, and EPA agrees, that temperature variations, with a host of other factors, do affect refinery varia- bility. This effect Is fully taken into ac- count by the variability factors and does not appear to depend on refinery location.. (14) A cornxnenter argued that EPA regulations would require in-plant modi- fications, arid that EPA was not author- ized under the law to require such mcxli- flcations for 1977. EPA’s regulations do not require any particular form of treatment, ’nor do they require in-plant modifications. The regu- lations require the achievement of ef- fluent limitations which are based upon the performance of good existing plants. Since the total effluent loading In pounds or kilograms Is controlled by three vari- ables, the total effluent flow, the concen- tration of pollutant in the effluent, and the variability, reduction of one or more of these components can be used to achieve the limitations. The limitations are based upon flow, concentration, and variability figures which are readily achievable. If a discharger’s flow is higher than the flow upon which the regulations are based, the discharger has three options: he may reduce his flow to or below the predicted level, and main- tidn the appropriate effluent concentra- tions and variability; he may modify his treatment system so as to achieve lower effluent concentrations; or he may de- sign and operate more carefully to achieve lower variability. EPA luis data on dicehargers which arc achieving con- centrations, flows, and variabilities well below those upon which the limitations are based. EPA is aware, however, that for most such dischargers reduction of flow would be the most economical and, In the long run, the most effective means of meeting the regulations, Accordingly, our cost esthnate.s are based upon the In- staflatlon of treatment necessary to meet the regulations, and for any Inpiant modifications necessary to reduce proc- ess water flow commensurately. It should be emphasized that, even for those dischargers who choose to reduce process water flow by in-plant modi- fications, such modifications amount to nothing more than modification and re- piping of existing processes. To meet the 1983 guidelines, more extensive changes may be appropriate. For example, ills- chargers employing ’iluid catalytic crack- ing may change to hydro-cracking; or those acid treating may change to hydra- treating, to help In meeting the 1933 limitations. However, such changes will not be necessary for any discharger to meet the 1977 limItations. (15) One commenter argucd that EPA made many errors in Its development of the median raw waste loads from the API/EPA suz’vey used In the regression analysis. The median raw waste loads (Tables 18-22 In the Development Document) were not used In the regression analysis. The regression analysis was based on the size, flow, and refining processes of each refinery used. (16) A comment was received to the effect that EPA used median values rather than mean values to determine allowable effluent loadings and variabil- ity factors. The commenter was incorrect. Mean values, not medians, were calculated from the “exemplary” refineries. These means were used to develop the achiev- able concentrations. In calculating the variabilities for each refinery, the 99 percent probability limit was divided by the mean because the variabilities were used to predict 30- day and daily maximums from an an- nual average (mean), (17) A cominenter noted that the variability allowed in many of EPA’s other industrial guidelines is greater than that used for the Petroleum Re- fining limitations. The commenter there- fore requested higher variability factors, especially to cover upset conditions. The variabilities used by EPA in set- ting the Petroleum Refining limitations are derived from extensive long-term data from refinery operations. These variabilities therefore reflect what is currently being achieved In this tndu.c- try. Comparison to variabilities In other Industries Is considered Invalid for sev- eral reasons: 1. The data base u ed to calculate the variabilities in the Refining industry was at least 10 tImes larger than that available In any of the oilier industries mentioned by the cominenter. 2. In other industries, the Agency was of- ten required to establish variabilities based upon relatively little long-term data, In ruch cases, variabilities were often conservatively set at a high level, in order to compensate for the lack of data. Because of the avail- ability of good long-term data on petroleum refiners, the Agency is confIdent that these variabilities are readily achievable by all refIners over the long-term. 3. The technology specified as the beet practicable control technology currently available has been iu use In the petroleum reflntng industry for a long period of time. The experience accumulated over this period of time has enabled the Industry to lion out many lrre utsrltles which contribute to variability. This has enabled the petroleum Industry to achieve lower variabilities than many other Industries with 1cm experience in pollution abatement. The Agency believes that the Industry as a whole should be re- quired to maintain the level’ of control prerenhly practiced by many refiners. The coinmenter also requested higher varIabilities to cover upset conditions. As has been stated previously, data taken during periods of spills, in-plant upset conditions, etc., were Included In calcu- lating the variabilities. However, a few data points, which reported either pre- ventable upsets of catastrophic events (such as the effects of hurricane Agnes on a coastal refinery in Texas). were de- leted from the variability data base, since they did not reflect the normal” operation of a well run, carefully main- tained operation. IEDUAL REGISTEI, VOL 40, NO. 98—TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1975 ------- RuLES AND REGULATIONS 21917 (18) One comment shows that EPA used an incorrect equation in the caicu- lation of sample varianco, A minor error was made In the c 1cU lattons used in preparation of the pro- posed regulations. However, since the approach used for data analysis after publication of the proposed regulations corrected that error. it did not appear In the final regulation., (19) A cornmenter complained of bi- ased data selection on the part of EPA In determining the variabilities. The coniinenter presented four charts shosilng the monthly average loading for BOD. TSS, oil and grease, and ammonia from January, 1970 through April, 1973 for Shell, Martinez. E1’A selected one year’s data, for each parameter, to cal- culate the variability. For 130D, TSZ, nd oil and grease, EPA chose the year after the Installation of Shell’s waste treatment plant in September, 1971. The data for these parameters prior to that date could not be used because It was representative of raw waste and not eflin- ent variability. A period of one year was chosen for several reasons: 1) one year’s data should adequately represent the Un— preventable causes of variability; and 2) the ciuantity of data is sufficient for sta- tistical analysis and prediction of both variability and long-term performance. For oil and grease, EPA did erroneously analyze data for a period before the In- stailatlon of biological treatment. how— ever, EPA has recomputed the variability using data from the same period (after installation of treatment) used for the othar parwneters. the difference Is neg- ligible. EPA belleves, as indicated previously. that low variability is concomitant with good plant operat!on. For this rea- son a year different from that used for the other parameters, a year in which low ammonia variability was attained. was selected for calculating ammonia variability. It Is immaterial that this year preceded Installation of the biological treatment system, since most ammonia removal is accomplished by a separate sY St eflL The commenter also pointed to sev- eral data points that were deleted from the data analyzed frmn the Marathon, Texas City Refinery. Five data points were dropped during the analysis of the ammonia data as not being representa- tive of the normal plant operation., The data points were all of the data from the Period 10/11/72 through 12/6/72. The data prior to 10/11/72 ranged from 2.2 to 23.4 mg/I and the data after 12/6/72 ranged from 3.2 to 39.4. The points dropped were 0.6, 0, 0, 0. and 80 mg/i. These data points were dropped because: 1) they immediately followed a 23 day period for which no data were recorded; and 2) for whatever reason (EPA ha. 5 been unable to determine the cause of these aberrant values), these five con- secutive deleted data points are both atartingly lower and higher than all the rest of the data, They thus may repre— sent sampling or analytical errors. These data p . , clearly so atypical that EPA de aided not to use them In the analysis. Six data points are depicted as having been Ignored by EPA In its analysis of Marathon’s COD data. Two of these points are duplicates (1/12/72 and 1/15/73). and one point (1/31/73) WaS mistakenly deleted by EPA. However, the deletion of this single point (which was a low value) would have no sig- nificant effcct On the regulations. The remaIning four data points were de- leted because Weston’s trip report iden- tified them as the result of operator mistakes. (20) A commenter questioned the In- clusion of three data points since they were preceded by the symbol meaning “less than the sensitivity at that level.” For all analytical techniques a limit of sensitivity exists below which the method does not yield reliable quantita- tive measurements. EPA. thro’cghout Its analysts of the Refinery Industry data. has used the lcvel of analytical sensitivity as the data points where a “less than sensitivity” Indicator appeared In the data. It Is believed that elimination of these low data points might significantly bias the analysis of the total data base. (21) A commenter questioned EPA’s variability analysis on Amoco. York- town’s BOD5 data, on the grounds that two analyses by EPA of the same data yielded strikingly different results (4.54 vs. 2.29). This supposed Inconsistency arose as a result of the progression followed by EPA in preparing the regulations (see “Variability” above). The 2.29 daily var- iability Is the result of fitting Amoco’s data to a normal distribution, while the 4.54 figure is bused on a log-normal lit. The improved methodology now being used by leA results in a 2.80 daily variability. The corrections made Initially for the facts that. the data flt. only Im- perfectly to either a normal or log- normal distribution are no longer necessary. (22) A commeuter stated that EPA erred In using 2.3 as the BOD5 variabil- ity for three refineries in calculating variabilhies for other parameters, since the mean of the three refineries’ BODS variabilities is 2.14. The mean of the three refineries’ BOD5 variabilities is in fact 2.22; how- ever, EPA usod the median value, 2.3, In- stead of the mean. - (23) A commenter indicated that EPA did not avail itself of the data in the Brown and Root Variability study. EPA did In fact utilize data front five of the refineries used In the Brown and Root Variability Study. However, the Brown and Root Variability Study itself could ziot be used in deriving the limita- tions. The study did not give any raw data, or identify the refineries used In the study. Thus. EPA had no knowledge of the operation o( these refineries and no opportunity to determine the causes of suspect data. Moreover, the statistical approach used by Brown and Root was inconsistent with that selected by the Agency. The data from five of the refineries used In the Brown and Root Varlablilty Study were used, along with other re - finery data, to makethe adjustment to the original variabilities which had been based upon a normal distribution. Since EPA has been unable to obtain the names of the refineries used by Brown arid Root, it has been unable to make further use of these data. (24) One commenter stated that since there Is enormous variation in the vari- ability factors themselves, their statis- tical veracity must be challenged. The validity of a variability factor in- creases as the number of data points and the length of time analyzed 1ncrea e. The corninenter has calculated daily varia- bilities within each month and a coeffi- cient of variation (standard deviatica divided by the mean) for each month. Thus, his calculations would be expected to show relatively wide fluctuations. EPA used longer term data (in most. cases, a full year). Accordingly, the uncertainty observed by the commenter is minimized by EPA’s method of analysis. The commenter also compared the daily variabilities based on long-term data to show the wide range of values. EPA Is perfectly aware of the wide range of variabilities, and one of the intentions of the limitations is to prevent these widely varying discharges. In defining BPT. operational control Is considered extremely important. The preven Lion of spills, operator edu- cation, limiting analytical error, and proper treatment plant design for the control of variability are just as impor- tant as flow minimization or designing to achieve a long-term concentration limit, (25) One commenter stated that, since EPA based effluent limits (in pounds) on the product of flow times concentration times variability, and since the commen- ter found no consistent correlation be- tween flow and any effluent parameter, EPA should reevaluate the basis of its effluent limits, The cousnienter provided EPA with a list of ten refineries for which he exam- ined the correlation of effluent load with flow and a list of those effluent param- eters which he found to be significantly correlated with flow. These lists, for which the commenter failed to provide either the data on which they are basad or the regression model he used to an- alyze that data, constitute merely a sum- mary of results obtained. EPA determined which effluent param- eters’ were reported by each of the ten reflueries used by the commeiner. None of the ten refineries reported all eflluoflt parameters, although the commenter’S lists might lead one to believe they did. Based upon the commenter’s own sub- mission, then, the following table can be constructed: Number of Numbrrof reflner1e (with refiner o with i,iore than 25 shzflhfc-ant. itIfluont pfti ftmote dat& poiut ) reporlii .g the effluent peJamet eorrointIon between e11ueut peran eter and flow flOPS CO [ ) ‘roc .. ‘i’ S S . - ?tieno ....j 6 5 8 7 1 1 8 8 8 9 FEOERAL 1 GISTER , VOl.. 40, HO. 98—TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1975 ------- 21948 RULES AND REGULATIONS Th , 1* most eases where the reflner . . lea recorded d .a on a specific param- eter. the commenter actually reported ft jgnJflcant correlation between effluent Ioadrng and flow. There was no reason, therefore. for EPA to reevaluate the basis for tt.i cfflu nt limits. (26) One commenter stated that, since data from Shell’s 1 tartinez refinery were not distributed either normally or log- normally, EPA’s approach to variability was incorrect. The commenter provided with his comment a table summarizing the sta- tistical parameters he Investigated at the Martinez refinery. He did not provide EPA with the data he used. From the number of data points he reported, how- ever. be apparently used data taken over approximately a three-year period.. Since the treatment plant at the Mar- tinez refinery was not installed ‘until late in 1971, it is likely that the commenter combined in his summary data taken both before and after the treatment Ia- ci!iti ’ s were Installed. I.! two such dis- ptrate statistical p pulntions were so combined, the results obtained would be niean jem. In addition, the procedure now used by EPA to determine the variability fac- tor does not require that the data be di5- tribnted either normally or log-normally over Its entire range. (27) A conimen tcr analyved BOD data from Exxon’s Baytown relinery, and de- rived a v. riabi]Ity factor of 3.0t, not 203 as given by EPA. The commenter’s value of 3.06 is the r’.lio h . tu ’ecn the 9ii percentile of the v ‘t. ’bUit.y distribution and the 50th per- ccat, e of tiiatdistrihutton (C99/C50) for lz’e -town refinery. EPA actually de- ihies the variab bLy factor as the ratio bctween the 99th percentIle of the var- 1ab iity distribution and the mean (C D ’ )! A). The correct variability factor for the Baytown refinery therefore is 2.69. EPA originally gave the figure 2.03 as that factor. Upon reanalyzing the Bay- toan data. EPA dircuvered that It had m : de an error In transcribing the ori i— nal Ilgures from the work sheets. EPA then recomputed the overall variability factor using the 2.69 figure, and found It remained unchanged, to within the round-off limits. 22) A coinmenter argued that EPA lies not demonstrated thc availability of carbon adsorption as a proper basis for e tablishthg the 1983 lim!tations. Tue comment.cr cited several references, in a’khtiun to those usc-U by EPA, in mak- ing t,hls argument. Carbon adsorption technology has been u’cd by Industry for many years for the removal of organic contamination In the Sugar and Uquor Industries. In 1960. the detailed evaluation of carbon adtorp- tion as a possible wastewater treatment technology began as part of the mandate of Congress (Pub. L. 87-88) to Invest!- gate advanced waste treatment tcchuol- cay. A 1974 article by Hager In Indesti ’lai Water En neering cites sixteen examples of ft’ 1 -seoie Industry wastewater treat- ment Installations using activated car- bon. In addition, the article gives the results of 220 carbon Isothern tests, de- picting the almost universal applicability of activated carbon as a viable treat- ment. Much of the work done to date on activated carbon adsorption has been to show It is an alternative to biological treatment. However, carbon adsorption seems more universally applicable as a polishing step after biological treatment. A paper by Short and Myers states: “the best levels of reduction were obtained ‘with biological treatment followed by carbon adsorption. Apparently, bin-treat- ment and activated carbon complement each other very well and those materials which are resistant to biological degrada- tion are adsorbed fairly easily while those materials which are not adsorbed by carbon are biologically degradable.” This statement is confirmed by: (1) A paper by Eale and Myers entitled “The Organic.s ilcmoved by Carbon Treatment of Refinery Wastewater”; (2) A study carried out by Union Cm ’rblde Corpora- tion on )3 organic compounds; (3) a paper by E. G. Paulson, “Adsorption as a Treatment of Refinery Elluent” in which carhon isotherm tests show higher BOD and COD percent removals from biological efiluents than front raw wastes; and (4) tue 1974 pilot plant study at the B?. Marcus Hook Refinery where a Blo- Disk was used to remove a portion of EOD5 n1 Or to r.arbou adsOrption, result-. ing In substantially better elbuent quality titan provided by the carbon alone. The Agency derived Its achievable BAT e ;ili.ent concentro tions from the )n- formatiemi available on the results of activated carbon polishing of biolcgicaily treated eilluents. The sources used to coa rxn the probable mtchlcvnbility of these clduent concentrations are as fol- lows: Zhort and Myei-s—’Piiot Plant Activated Carbon Treatment of Petro— lemii Refining Wastewater”; The BP, Marcus Hoo! 1974 pilot plant study of Filtration and Activated Carbon (Bin- Disk); EPA Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption, especially the South Lake Tahoe, California. and Orange, California, biological-activated carbon treatment plant studies. An Important factor in the EPA’s ehoice oi activated carbon adsorption as a treatment step on ‘which to base the 1D 7 3 limitations was the fact that It would be an add-on to the 1977 treat- m nt technology. In addition, the cur— rent interest in activated carbon ad- sorption should make available sullicient Information for the Arency to deter- mine. prior to the implementation of BAT technology not later than 1983, if the ltmit.atioua will require modifica- tion. The comnsenter also quectioned the Justiflcatic-n for lower tur.nIonia con- centrations for 1983, since activated car- bon does- not remove ammonia. While the cornmcntcr is correct, he misunderstood the BAT ammonia limitation. That lthil- tatlon Is nut based upon use 01 carbon adsorption, but rather is based on Ira- pnwcd control of the amount of am- monia released from the ammonia strip- pcr to reach the amount just needed to satisfy the nutrient needs of the bio- logical treatzne.nt plant. The Agency con- cluded that several additional years of experience and experimentation with both ammonia strippers and Individual biological system should result In better control of stripper effluents and more complete knowledge of the nutrient needs of biological systems. Therefore, the Agency set the BAT ammonia lixnita- tions to reflect the expected rcduc ,ion In “excess” ammonia (the difference be- tween the amount discharged from strip- pers now and the amount of ammonia needed by biological systems). (29) Several comments were received concerning the apparent anomaly in the final pound allocations (base limits times process factors times size factor) for certain subcategories. That is, hypo- thetically, in some instances if sufficient petrochemical operations were added to either cracking refineries (“B”) or lube refineries (“D”) t change their classi- fications to, respectively, petrochemical refineries (“C”) or integrated refineries CE”), the final pound allocations for those refineries would decrease. The conirnenters suggested two solutions for (-his anomaly; either (1) add a wei;’ ht.ing factor for the various petrochemical operations to increase the size of their process-factors, or (2) eliminate time “C” and “5” subcategories, and add to the pound allocations for “B” and “D” re- fineries additional pounds based upon the regulations for ti-me plastics, rubber, and organic chemical Industries, In calculating the flows, based upon the API/EPA survey (see “flow basis” above), EPA attempted to derive from the survey data the actual process waste- water flow which would require treat- mcnt. For the most. part, the flows listed In the sui-vey coim: iued both process water and once-through cooling water. t. nce the once-through cooling water would ordinarily not require treatment, it v-as necessary to develop a means for deriving the process flow from the total for; listed in the survey. The promulga ted regulations were based upon the flows from 94 of the re- fiuerie.s in the API/EPA survey. Of these iii refineries, ‘75 had no once-through oo lng and 19 rc-inaved less than 3 per- cent of their heat by means of once— through cooling water. It was considcicd that to a1 flow for these 94 refineries would correspond closely to process flow. After promulgation of the regulations, EPA undertook to identity the cause of the apparent aiior.ialy identified by the commenters. Upon careful examination of the flows In the APIIEPA survey, It was found that the actual process flows for 108 of these 138 refineries (including afi the orIginal 94) could be calculated. When these process flows were compared to the total flows used, the reason for the anomaly became apparent: of the original 94 refinertes, most of thc c with more than zero but. 1053 than 3 percent once-through heat removed by cooling water (13 of 19) were In the cracking (“B”) or lube (“C”) subcategories. This FEDERAL REGtSTfl. VOL 40, No: 98—TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1975 A — Ic. ------- RULES AND REGULATIONS 219.19 cooling water appeared in the process flow allocations for the cracking and lube refineries, giving those refineries an extra “cushion” which will make the regula- tionz easier to attain for such rcflncries. EPA does not believe that the excess water allocations for the cracking and Ii,be subcategories require modifIcation of the regulations. Such modification would have the effect of decreasing the quanti- ty of pollutants allowed to be discharged by refineries in these subca tegmies. Pe- trochemical and integrated refineries would be less affected, since the original flow data for these subcategories included a relatively lower proportion of once- through cooling water. It Is clear, in any event, that the solu- tions proposed by the commenters would be inappropriate. Since the regulations are based upon actual perfornionce by refineries In each subeategory, ii would be absurd to attempt tomodify them on the basis of regulations designed fur other industries. Moreover, no “weighting fac- tor” Is necessary to account for petro- chemical operations, since the flows con- tributed by such operations are fully reflected in the flow data’ from petro- chemical and integrated refineries used to develop the regulations. (30) One commenter argued that the limitation for hexavalent chromium was unreasonable since technology to meas- ure such low concentrations was unavail- able. The cornnienter was correct. Conse- quently, the achievable concentration for bexavalent chromium has been changed from 0.005 mg/I, t. 0.02 mg/i in the amended regulations. (31) Several coinmentcrs stated that EPA underestimated the costs of achiev- tog compliance with the regulations. EPA reexamined the economic impact analysis assuming that the cost cf corn- plianco would be bO percent higher than the costs estimated when the regulations were originally analyzed. That is, the conclusions of the analysis were checked using cost estimates that were 50 percent higher than those shown in the eco- nomic impact report (EPA 230/2—74-- 020) for BAT treatment and for the “b’ Inpiant cost extrapolation (see Thble III on page 1 1 —30). The conclusion of this sensitivity analysis was that the impact of the regulations would not be ap- preciably changed even If the co ts were assumed to be 50 percent higher. Thus, even if this assumption about costs were correct, the results of the Impact study and the appropriateness of the regula- tions would be unchanged. Specifically, using the higher cost as- auxnptlon. the analysis Indicates that a total. of ten small refineries, represent- Ing a total of 33,000 barrels per day capacity, would be cconomicajly threat-; cued by the regulations. Two of these re- fineries, representIng 7,000 barrels per day capacity, would face a significant threat of closure. These essentially are the Impacts projected under the original analysis using the lower cost estimates, and may be affected in any event by gov- ernmental policy. This sensiUvity analysis was con- ducted using a 50 percent Increase In the cost estimates, whereas the industry has suggested that the costs actually are as much as 150 percent higher than origi- nally estimated. This claim was believed to be totally unrealistic for several reasons. Specifically, the estimates should not include “sunk costs” (those costs that already have been increased in the past for pollunon abatement). Nehher should costs which would be incurred regardless of EPA regulations be Included in the estimated costs of the guidelines. Therefore, an increase in the cost estimates of 50 percent is more than adequate to test for the possibility that the original costs were in error. This is particularly true because it is likely that any price increases which might have raised the costs . since the original analysis was made would be offset by the conservative assumptions which were built into the original cost estimates. The cost estimates arc based upon a complete activated sludge treatment system including equalization, flotation cells, anti polishing with mixed media filters. However, from the data before the Agency, it is clear that such an elab- orate s stem will not be required in all cases. Of the plants which are achieving the limitations, a number use only aera- tion lagoons for treatment. Where ade- quate land is available at a reasonable cost, the costs of constructing a lagoon system can be considerably lower than the costs associated with installing an activated sludge system. Moreover, the operating costs of a lagoon system are minimal. Thus, if EPA cost estimates are in error, they arc more likely to over- state, rather than to understate, the re- quired capital and operating costs. (C) As a result of the review under- taken by ‘PA in response to public com- ment upon the promulgated regulations. and upon the modifications thereto pro- posed on October 14, 1974, the following changes have been made in the regula- tions as promulgated: Revision of the proposed amendment and promulgated regulation: (1) The proposed amendments have been promulgated without change (See 39 FR 37009): (2) The achievable concentration for hexavalent chromium has been changed from .005 mg/I to .02 mg/i; and (3) The daily and monthly variabili- ties for suspended solids have been changed from 2.9 and 1.7 to 3,3 and 2.1 respectively. 40 ciFP. Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part 419 Is hereby amended as set forth below to be effective June 19, IIrIS , Dated: May 9, 1975. Russztt E. TRAIN, Administrator. EFrLUENT LIMITATIONS GSYIDEUNES YOR ExisrxwG SOURCES s o STANDARDS 07 PERFORMaNCE AND PRETREATMENT STAND- aims roa NEW Souacns FOR ThE LEUM REFINING POINT Souncs Cam- GORY (1) The tables In 419.12 (a), b (1) and (2), and (C) (1) and (2) are revised to read as follows: - § 419.12 Efflitejit hns’at tions gui Hines representing the degree of e%fha,’,it rcduetjon attainable by the nppiiea. lion of the he t practicable cu,,I rol technology currently available. (a) * * Emutt C) ct r( IlC Elfluerit 11iijl( Uons Maximum for any 000 day Av ro e of SR valfls for iii , h consecutive d is stiali not CXee* i- -- DOI)5 22.7 I:’ 0 ‘ras i&s io. t COD I . I ’lie uo lie .1 14 .076 compounds. Anmmoruia as N 2.81 1.27 54 5 ‘lotal chromium. -. . Ilexavaleni. .028 .012 c hrom iu m. p11 Within the range 0.0 tO 9.0. English unft., (pounds p 1, bbt of fotistoei ) nODS 8.0 4. 25 ‘ 5 5 5 5. 6 3.6 CU)) I 41.2 21.3 oil aimS grease 2.6 1.3 Pi ,tno 5c t .000 .027 cm ’ n cmundt. Ammonia* sN .45 Sultide C m l .024 ‘30101 chroimmium 1° .07 1 JImsatalcut 0.10 0014 (lIlO I l mIl lIl i. p ) t Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. S (b) (1) Size factor. 1,000 bbl or ieedstoek per straazn day: Less than 24.9 25.0 to 49.9 50.0 to ‘74.0 ‘76.0 to 99.9 100.0 to 124.9 12.5.0 to 149.9 150.0 or greater (2) Process factor. ProCe configuration: Less than 2.49 2.8 to 3.49 34 40 4.49 4.5 to 5.49 5.5 to 5.91) 6.0 40 6.49 8.5 to 6.99 7.0 to 7.49 7.5 to 7.99 8.0 4o8.49 8.8 to 8.99 9.0 to 9.49 9.5to9.99 _ 10.0 to 10.49 10.5 to 10.99 11.0 to 11.49 — 11.5 to 11.99 12.0 to 12.49__ ...._____.._._ _— -—— — 12.5 to 12.99 13.0 to 13.49__..._______— - .__— 13.5 to 13.99 ______-_— —— —— 14.0 or greater (C) ‘ (j)SSS FEDEItAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 98—TUESDAY, M M ’ 20, 1975 Metric units (kilograms per 1,000 m ’ of feedsto b) Biae /actor 1.02 1.06 1. 16 1.26 1.38 1.50 1.67 Process /astor 0.62 0.67 0.80 0.95 1. 07 1. 17 1. 27 1.39 1.51 1.64 1. ‘78 195 2.12 2 35 2.51 2.73 2.98 3.24 3.53 3.84 4.18 4.86 ------- ssnuone Average ot .da 1 l chCtsftsUO inwlmUm for vattias for iilrty sHy one day cniisecuUve dayS ihall not excood— MeLiie Wills (kilograms per nihic meter 01110w) J: US- 0.6-i* 0.0 26 . .033- .02 1 u ’’L)’— .3 - . 19 ‘tl i , td grease- 1%tt li tttthera&ige — 6.0 to 9.0. l -:ngllsh units (poundS per 1 .006 gal of for) 0.40- 0.21 - . 17 (‘ )I_ 3.1- 1.6 ( ! a .I grease . 126 - .067 v it . Wutt t P 6 .OLe 0. - 001$. ‘1 -- - I I I) ’- 4 ..i-.i green— 05 — Wltlin the range 6.0 to 9.0. 0.0 2 4 .oi .24 .tx$ — - 040 —. 1-’.---- 4 ‘i) ’ .3.9- am.I grasle.ilS-——--- p 11- W llhlnthe range3.Oto 9.0. 0.21 J7 2.0 .067 C S S S S (2) The tables In * 419.13(b) (1) and ( ) are revised to read as follows: 119.13 Effl ,scnt limitations guidelines reywewnhiflg the degree of effluent reduction attainable by she applies- lion ot the heat available technology econonucally achievable. S S S S S (b) ‘ • U) Sizefactor. SUe I .990 bbl of feedetock per stream day: factor L s than 24.9 I. ° 2S.0 to 49.0 1.06 ! O.0to74.9 1.16 to 99.9 1.26 100.Ot.o224 .9 1.38 1 . 5.0t O149J iso.o or greater 1.57 12) l’rocess factor. I ’roctA., conflgurntkM- 1as than 2.40 23t03.49 3 5 to 4.49 45 10 549 5510591) 6.0 to 6.49 — 6.5 to 6.99 RULES AND REGULAIIONS - Process con . 5gurattolt: - 7.0 to 7.49 1.5 to 7.99 8.Ot .o8.49 — 8.5 to 8.99 — 9.0 to 0.49 9.5 to 9.99 10.0 to 10.49 10.5 to 10.99 — 11.0 to 11.49 11.5 to 11.90 — 12.0 to 12.49 12.5 to 12.90 13.0 to 13.49 13.5 to 13.99 14.0 or greater a 5 S e (3) The tables In §419.15(a), (b)(1) and (2) ,and (c)(1) and (2) are revised to read as blows: § 419.15 Standards of performance for flew sources. (a) ‘ * ‘ - Effluiant characteristic -. Effluent limitations Ma tmurn for any one day Average of daily values for thirty eonsecutf vs days atoll not caceed— BOD S 11.6 ‘rss 6.3 COD’ 61 Oil nt.d reese 3 . 0 rhencho .006 ecmponnd . 2.6 32 1.9 043 1.3 8u1 1 1- te .073 ‘lutSl CI IrOI4I (W11 4 3 B r s o sa lcnt .016 .033 . 166 .006* - ChtOttU Wfl. pit Within the r*flg 0.0 to 9.0. Eugil!h units (pounds per 1,000 b hI of feedMock) BODS_ 4.2 TSS 3.0 COD’ 21.1 Oil end grease 1.3 Fh-iiolic .031 3.2 ia 11.2 .70 .016 - cornpoun ’h. Aninssii nsN 1.0 Bui l ilde 027 ‘Fc .tSI chrou,liun 06-4 Utea va ’ enl .6063 - .45 .012 .031 - 0626 chromium. Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. (b) • • (1) SIze factor. SUe 1,000 blil of feedstock per stream day factor Lcss than 24.0 1. 02 25.0 to 49.9 1.06 50.04074.9 1.16 75.0 to olo 1.26 100.0 to 124.9__ 1.38 125.0 to 149.9 1.50 or greater 1.57 (2) Proce& factor. Process configuration: 7.0 to 7.49 7.5 to 7.90 8.0 to 8.49 8.5 to 8.99 9.0 to 9.49 9. StoO.99 10.0 to 10.49 — — 10.5 to 10.09 11.0 to 11.49 — 11.54011.99 12.0 10 12.49_..__ 12.5 to 12.90 13.0 to 13.49 13.5 to 13.99 14.0 or greater (c)’ - (1) ‘ ‘ Efikient characteristIc Effluent limitations MaxImum for any one day Average of dolly values fur thirty consecutIve days shall not exceed— Metric units (kilograms per cubic meter of flow) BOOS 0.018 0.026 TOS ._ .033 . .021 COD $ .37 - Oil end gresen .015 - .1250 pH Within the. range 6.0 to 0.0. English units (pounds per 1,000 gal of flow) - BODS 0.40 0.21 P 68 .17 COl) * 3.1 1.6 Oil end grease .126 .067 p0 Within the range 6.0 to 6.0. (2) Effluent limitations Effluent Average ol daily cl ,araetertstio Maxitnmn for values for thirty one day consecutive days any bai1 not exceed— 0.043 0.026 BODS P63 .633 .021 .24 Oilsndgresse Oi l p it WIt.leht the range 6.0 1. 9.0. .0 0 3 PEoE*AL IEGISTER, VOL 40. NO. 9$ .— .TUESOAY. MAY 20, 1975 2l )5O Effluent limitatIons Process factor 1.30 1.51 1.64 1.79 1.95 2.12 2.31 2.51 2.73 2.08 3.24 3.53 3.84 4.18 4.36 factor 1.39 1.51 1.64 1.70 1.95 2.12 2.31 2.51 2.73 2.98 3.24 3.53 3.84 4.18 4.36 (2) • E0iuent limitations F .iTh wnt Average of doily ct’-racterts*lO Maximum r values for thirty a I*y one day consecutive Jays - shalt not exceed— \ktrtc units (kilograms per cubIc meter of flow) Iletric units (kilograms per 1.000 so’ of feedatock) 1ng 166i units (poun ts per 1,000951 of 0 0w) Motile units (kilograms per cubic meter of flow) English units (pounds per 1,000 gal of flow) BOD& . 0.40 .. 0.21 P 63 27 .47 COD’ 3.9 - 2.0 Oil and grease (26 007 pit Within the r uge 6.0 to 0.0. S S $ S S Process faCtor 0.62 0.67 0. 1 1 17 Process Process conflgur*ttofl factor Less than 2.49 0.62 2.5 to 3.49 0.67 3.5 to 4.49 0.80 ---- ‘ 6 49:_..._:.,.:::::::::::_::: 1 17 1.27 (4) The tables In I 419.22 (a) and (b) (1) and (2) are revised to read as fol— lows: 419.22 Emnessi limiuctiona guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction attarnahic by thc pphica- don of the beat pracurahile control technology currently available • • ------- BOOS- 211.2. 19.5. Col, ‘— 210. oil nd grease. 8.4. .21. r n nponndS. Aniniotua a N. 18.9_ Told chrnjiiiuia . 4 3 - .035- c Iirom iUUt. p 1 1. Within The nuige 6.0 to 11.0. . 1 56 I:’.6 109 4.5 . 10 8.5 . 23 .016 B0D5. 11.9. TS5- 6.9 • COt)’-? 4 — Oil and grease 3.0 Plirnolic corn- .074 11.5 4.4 I. C, . I 3t dflds. &n ,tnoIdlSaSN.. -_. 6.6 5 ,.jllide 075 Total chromium 15 .0 1” 3.0 . . . ckwmlmii. WitIdo the range 0.0 to 11.0. (b) ‘ (1) &i te factor. 1,000 bbl of foedstoc per Stream day: Less than 24.9 26.0 to 49.9.. 50.0 to 14.9 15.0 to 99.9 100,0 to 124.9 129.0 to.. 149.9 150.0 or greater (2) Process factor. Process conOguratlon: Less than 2.49 2.5 to 3.49 3.5 to 4.49 4.5 to 5.49 5.5 to 5.99 6.0 to 6.49 6.5 to 6.99 1.0 to 1.49 75 to 1.99 8.0 to 8.49 8.5 to 8.99 9.0 to 9.49 9.5 greater Si ze factor 0.91 0.05 1. 04 1. 13 1.23 1.35 1,41 Ptocess factor 0.58 0. 6.3 0.14 0. ha 1.00 1. 09 1. 19 1.29 1.41 1.53 1.67 1.02 1.89 (5) The tables In 1 419.23(b) (1) and (2) are revised to read as follows: § 419.23 Effluent liniitatione guklelliecs representing the degree of cflluciii reduction ttuainahle by the itpIica. lion of.the best available teehnohogy economically available. - (b) (1) SIze factor. 1.000 bbl of feedatocic Sizc per stream day: facto? Less than 24.9 0. 91 25.0 to 49,9 0.95 80.0 to ‘14.9 1.04 15.0 to 99.9 1.13 100.0 to 124.9 1.23 125.0 to 149.9 ——-— 1.35 rao.o or greater 1.41 RULES AND REGULATIONS (2) Process factor. Process configuration: Less than 2.49 2.5 to 3.49 3.5 to 4.49 — 4.5 to 5.49 5.5 to 5.99 — 6.0 to 6.19 6.5 to 6.99 .1.0 to ‘ 1.49 7.5 to 7.99 8.0 to 8.40 8.5 to 8.99.... 9.0 to 9.40 9.5 or greater * S S S (6) The tables In 419.25 (a) and (b) (1) and (2) are revised to read as 101- lows: § 4)9.25 Stondurds of performance for new Sources. (a) ‘ • Emrant characteristic 61uerit Itmitatlone lthximurn for any one day Average of daily va)i..os for thirty c necutlve days shall not e ccc4— BOOS 16.L . z TS 5 11L._.. COt)’ 11$ . 11.7 7.2 61 Oil ant grease 4.8 I’henolic .119 2.0 .068 eompnvnds. Arnm nila os N 18.8 Oulflds . Total chromium nessvalent .020 . 1.0 . oos .14 . 00 58 chromium. With In the yangc 6.0 *09.0. BOD5 6.11 3.1 TSS 4.0 2.5 C(.)1) I 41.5 21 Oil nd grease 1.7 Flienolic .042 .93 .030 con ,i ’ounds. Ammonia us N 6.6 3.0 $ulf ide 037 .017 Total r1- mluin ( 5.4 .049 )fezava lcnt .C sj 2 0332 chromium. p11 WIthin the range 6.0 to 9.0. S 1.000 bbl of feedstock per stream day: factor Lees than 24.9 0.91 25.0 to 49.0 0.95 50.0 to 74.0 . 1.04 75.0 to 90.9 . 1. 13 100.0 to 124.9 1:23 125.0 to 149.9 1.35 150.0 or greater 1.41 (2) Process factor. 21951. Process Process configuration: factor ‘7.6 to 7.99 1.41 8.0 to 8.49 1. 53 8.5 to 8.99 1.67 9.0 to 9.49 1.62 9.5 or greater — 1.69 S S 5 - 5 5 (7) The tables In I 419.32(a) and (b (1) and (2) are revised to read as fo)- lows: § 419.32 Effluent limitations idclisn ’a representing the degree of cClii’nt reduction att. sna1,le by the sp l ,licn- lion of the best practicable control technology currently available. (a) * Effluent characteristic Effluent limitations Maximum for any one day Avera rold.iIv valt .s 1o tL rtv cot n cuti haIl not eA,r l— BOOS 34.6 i 4 ‘1 58 23.4 its COD I 210 OI l and grease 11.1 Phrziolic corn- .25.. ......_ . 0 .12t) poundi. Arrn ’uIn as N 73.4 10.6 Fullide 22 Total chromium 52 . 10 .0 16 . (‘ -‘0 chromium. Within tho range 6.0 to 11.0. . l IODI 12.1 11.5 TSS 9.3 COD 74 . 5. 75 3 4 Oil and gi’eo... ... 11.9 Phertollo corn- .088 2.1 . pounds. AmmonIa is N 8.25 Suiikio 078 3.8 . Total chroniluss..,... .183 llex avalent .018 .107 .0772 chromium. Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. S (b) (1) Size factor. Size 1,000 bbl of feedetock per stream-day: factor Less than 24.9 0. 73 25.0 to 42.9 0.16 50.0 to 74.9 0.83 75.0 to 99.9 0.91 100.0 to 124.9 0. 99 .125.0 to 149.9 1.08 150.0 or greater 1. 13 (2) Process factor. Process configuration: Less than 4.49 4.5 to 5.49 5.5 to 5.99 6.0 to 6.49 6.5 to 6.99 7.0 to 7.49__. ._...__...._____..______ 1.5 to 7.90 8.0 to 8.49 8.5 to 8.99 0.0 to 9.49 9.5 or greater • . S S S S (8) The tables In § 419.33(b) (1 and (2) are revised to read a.s follows: F3fluent limIttitloflhl M liuent - Average of daily charSeterlitiC Maxln4Uin tot values k ’s thirty any one day conesettice’ elr e ihall not encco,i— Sic InC uniL (lilograms pee 1,000 tu’ of tecdstock’) Process factor 0.56 0.63 0.14 0.88 1.00 1.09 1.19 1.29 1.41 .1.53 1.67 1.82 1.89 Tingilah units (pounds per 1.080 bbl of teedstoc)) Metric units (kilograms per 1,000 m’ of 1teto 1. SteLrtc units Ocflograsns per 1,008 m t of feedstock) English units (pounds per 1.000 bbl of focdstoek) English units (pounds per 1.003 bbl of foedsioct) (b) ‘ * • • (1) Size factor. Process Process configuration: - facto? Less than 2.49 0.58 2.5 to 3.49 0.63 3.5 to 4.49___ ________..___....__ 0.14 4.5 to 5.49- _ . .________.._...___..__ 0.88 5.5 to 5.99 1.00 6.0 to 6.49 1.09 6.5 to 6.99 1. 19. 1.0 to ‘ ‘ 1.29 Process factor 0.73 0.80 0.91 0. hO 2.08 1. 17 1.28 1.53 1.51 1.65 1. T i FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 98—TUESDAY. MAY. 20, 1975 ------- 2 952 RUtES AND REGULATIONS 1I’).33 Effluent tiniilatlons ruldelbes ilgng the degree of effluent reduclion attainabk by the eppisea. lion of t1 best available technology cconornteafly achievable. (h) ‘ Ut Size factor. Stee 1.000 bbl of feedstock per stream day: factor Less than 24.9- 0.73 25.0 49.9— 0.75 50.0 to 74.9 0.83 75(1 tO 99.9 0.91 100.0 to 124.9 0.90 125.0 to 149.9...._ 1.08 150.0 or greater 1. 13 (2) Process factor. Proee.cs configurAtLOit .css than 449 — 4.5 to 5.49 5.5 to 5.99 6.0 to 6.49 6.5 to 6.99____ 7.0 to 7.49 — 7.5 to 7.99 8.0 to 8.49 — 8.5 to 8.90 — 9.0 to 9.49 — 04 or greater S S C 0 0 (9) The tables In * 419.35 (a) and (b) (1) i .ncl (2) are revised to read as fol- lows: 419.35 Standards of pcrformance for new iowees. (a) • • RI8*at ebaract tst*s . 60usnt 3u tMia Mazinun lot sn7000da7 of dolly mu .m tar Nitty ud RODE 21.1 -.. 1L6 V . 14.9 - 80 ‘ . ‘i awt grr051 8.6 35 t 1w .oUr .158 .077 ri fl.4 10.7 140 .063 T .. I rhro,a1ua . .32 . .18 clua ,iüem. pit Withktb. rangs tOte 0.9. Edith units (pouods 1,080 bbl 01 s 35sc fl”flE — 7.7. — 42 5.2 ..._ 1 .3 ( JI 47 _.- . - oni rn — 2.4 ._._______ . 1_a £58 : .irnoundi. I) LI _ ___ -- .1*6 _ _a .0 86 ili ‘ s.3tut .00 _ ... .8035 rhrou um. .i I WIthin the c: ra’ . lOW t o. - (1) SIze factor. S tze 1.000 bbl of feedetock per stream day: factor Lees than 34.9 0.73 25.0 to 49.9 0. 75 50.0 to 74.0.. 0. 83 750 to 99.9 0. 91 100.0 to 124.9 0.99 125.0 to 149.9 2.08 150.0 or greater_.... 1. 13 (2) Process factor. Process Process configuration: factor Less than 4.49 0.73 4.5 to 5.49 0.80 6.5 to 5.99 0.91 6.0 to 6.49 0.99- 6.5 to 6.99 1.08 1.0 to 7.49 1.11 7.5 to 7.99 ___ 1.28 8.0 to 8.49 1.39 8.5 to 8.99 1.51 .9.0 to 9.49 1.65 9.5 or greater 1.73 (10) The tables In * 419.42 (a) and (b) (1) and (2) are revised to read as fol- lows: 419.42 Effluent itusitationi guideline. representing the d..gree of effluent reduction attainable by the ppIka. lion of the best practicable control technology currently available. (a) • I tM o ent it onsotri1sUS Bflluent 3mltado&* Avernr. 014.lIi Msxlanm P stup. for Ibiity any oun day esnieCull vi days thoU not sloosd— Mitttc tolls (kflo Tsml per 1.00w eI editoek) BODE 30.6 . ... 25.6 ‘T88 31.6 COD’ 305 Oil and greun 16.2 Phenollc $ 0. 22.1 587 L I .135 OOfl ,p OIIfldiS. rnonI*aiN . Sulfide .3* Total ehro ,niass ..... .77 Ileasyslent .066 206 .150 .4 5 .666 ch mhi p18 Within the ia: , LOts 8.0. Zoglish units (posindi per 1 .000 bbt of le.dstcth) BODE .. ‘l’SS .-...._ 12.5 COD’ Oil aM grcass........ 6.7 Phenoile ..._ . ._ . LI SO 06 .065 00 51 potuidi. £nla,otu*u N L$... ._ . .. RulCsde 116....... Total h t nia .. .27* Usssvs leM .80L.. .. - 1. 6 .053 .160 .051 thi,m lu* pU. ... .. —. Within i ii. 6SLO t o Size 1.000 bbl of feedatock per stream day: factor Less than 49.9 0.71 50.0 to 74.9 0.74 75.0 tO 99.0 0.81 100.0 to 124.9 0.88 125.0 to 149.0 — 0.97 150.0 to 174.0 1.05 175.0 to 199.9 1. 14 200.0 or greater 1. 19 Process configuration: Less than 6.49 6.5to7.40 — 7.6 to 7.99 8.0 to 8.49 8.5 to 8.99 9.0 to 9.49 9.5 to ‘.99 10.0 to 10.49 10.5 to 10.99 11.0 to 11.49 11.5 to 11.99 12.0 to 12.49 12.5 to 12.99 13.0 or greater 0 * C 0 (11) The tables In 419.43(b) (1) and (2) are revised to read as follows: § 419.43 Effluent limitations guidelines repre.enlrng the degree of effluent reduction Attainable by the applica- lion of the best svuil.ible technology economicitily achievable. * C C C I (1) SIze factor. Size 1,000 bbl of feedztock per stream-day: factor Le v i than 49.9 0.71 50.0 to 749 0.74 ‘75.0 to 90.9 0. 81 100.0 to 124.9 0.88 125.0 to 149.9 0.97 150.0 to 174.9 1.05 175.0 to 199.9 1. 14 200.0 or greater 1. 10 (2) Process factor. Process configuration: Less than 6.49 8.5 to 7.49 ‘7.5 to 7.99 8. OtoB.49 8.5to8.99 9.0 to 9.49 9.5 to 9.99 10.0 to 10.49 10.5 tO 10.99 11.0t 011.49 i1.bto 11.99 — 12.0 to 12.49 12.5 to 12.99 13.0 or greater • S S S • P UA1 REGISTER, VOl. 40, NO. 98—TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2973 (1) 5I e factor. (2) Process factor. Process factor 0.73 0.80 0.91 0.99 1.08 1.17 1.28 1.29 1.51 1.65 1.72 Process factor 0.81 0.88 1.00 1.09 1.19 1.29 1.41 1.53 1.67 1.82 1.95 2.15 2.34 2.44 Motsio unitS (hfle yasss per 1,000 es of lurditcck) (b) • Process factor 0.81 0.88 1.00 1.09 1. 19 1.29 1.41 1.53 1.67 1.82 1.08 2.15 2.84 2.44 (12) The tables in 1 419.45 (a) and (b) (1) and (2) are revised to read as fol- lows: ------- 21953 RULES AND REGULATIONS Effluent cbaractcristic Emuent UmIt Uons MaxinlUn) for any ono day Avenge of ,3giiy vatue3 for thirty olnseeutlvo days S1ISU not cxceu 1 — 8005 - ‘rot- 23.4 (1)1)’ 245 0)1 and yTe3.’ e 10.6 Pl ,cnohC .25 14.9 2.6 cenipounds. Aanu ’oiiiaa . N 23.4 8u 11 ’de - Total elironiiuzn Bc .avele it .046 ior .31 elnon ’iurn. p 31 Within the rAnge 6.0 to - ao.. — F.ngJIsll u ,nts (pounds per 1,040 bh I of fcodstock) BODI 12.2 8.3 6. 5 5.3 coD’ 87 c li inj ‘3 5 P 1 1 5)1 15 - cofl lPnU IVl$. Ainiiion laa cN . 2.0 .043 38 Sulfide Tolsi rb ,roniiun , I SO )lcza r si n 0 .022 - u . YZ2 cre:iitun. p It Wlt .hl , , Lie - range 6.0 *0 9.0. S (b) ‘ (1) Size factor. 1,000 bbl of ecdst .oCk per stream day: facto? Less than 49.9 0.71 50.0 to 74.9 0.74 75.0 to 99.9 0.81 300.0 to 194.9 0.88 i25.0 to 149.9 0.07 150.0 to 174.9 1.05 175.0 to 109.9 1. 14 200.0 or greater - (2) Process factor. • S a S * (13) The tables In § 419.52 (a) and (b)(l) and (2) are revised to read as follows: --• - § 419.32 Effluent 1itnftat ous guideUitca reprcacnhiiig the degree of effluent re-duetlon anainoble by thc applica. turn of the beat praeikaible control technology currently availaisle. ffluent charnctcrieUe - ZM nh1taUo avenge of d l1y Maxjuiujn tot voitice for thirty any one day consecutive days ihail not exceed— 3301)6 54.4 373 COD ‘ a .. (11% and gregs. 57.1 ]1,onollr own- .40 poui ’ls. Ajnn ,otiaAsN 51.4 Pulfide In Total chromiurn -- ga I l n av a ie .nt .026 chromium. - 28.9 23.7 1 91 - — .192 10.6 .158 .48 .002 - - pit Within-the rs ’ , r 6.0 to 11.0. 0 ,) • (1) SIze factor. Stae 1.000 bbl of fcethtock per stream day: factor Less than 124.0 0.73 125.0 tc 349.0 0.76 150.0 to 114.9 0.83 175.0 to 199.9_ 0.91 200.0 to 224.9 0.99 225 or greater 1.04 (2) Process factor. Process conflguratlofl than 6.49 6.5 to 7.49 7.5 to 7.99 - - 8.0 to 8.49 8.5 to 8.99 9.0 to 9.49 9.5 to 9.99 10.0 to 10.49 30.5 to 10.99 11.0 to 11.49 11.5 to 11.99 12.0 to 12.49 12.5 to 12.99 13.0 or greater * S - S •e (14) The tables in I 419.53(b) (1) and (2) are revised to read as follows: 419.53 Effl t limitations gmtdeline. representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the apphica. lion of the best atnilable technology economIcally achievable. (b) • • (1) SIzo factor. Si c 3,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day: factor Lees than 124.9 0.13 125.0 to 149.9 0.70 150.0 to 174.9 0.8:1 1750 to 199.9 0.91 200.0 to 224.9 0. 99 225 or greater 1.04 (2) Process factor. Process conilguratlon: Less than 6.49 6.5 to 7.49 7.5 to 7.99 8.0 to 8.49 8.5 to 8.99 9.0 to 9.49 9.5 to 9.99 10.0 to 10.49 10.5 to 10.99 11.0 to 13.49 11.5 to 11.90 12.0 to 12.49 12.5 to 12.99 13.0 or great-er S $ S (15) The tables in 419.55 (a) and b) (1) and (2) are amended to read as follows: § 439.55 Standards of performance fnr - new sources. (a) • • • - EOI ,ien l Arero e c,! d.e ly ehiiracterlstic Masimuzn for vai,irs L ,r tl’y any one day eot )CuUvr tlnvs shall not excem — Metric units (kilc ’grains per 1,820 in’ of feodstock) BODS 41.6 TOS 28.1 COD’ 5 Oil and grease 12.6 Phoi moIlo .30 compounds. Ainn ,omis as N 23.4 DilOde .26 Tot i chromium.. flexavoteut .052 elirondom. Within thc 22.1 17. a ,: , . t 7 - 14 10. .12 .37 - pit range 6.0 Lof S.0 . FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 40, NO. 98—TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1975 ,+- -I § 419.45 Standards of performance for new sources. (a) • * (a) • • Metric units (kiloglamns per 1,000 nm’ ,f (eo ,istaclO £nglmsh units (ie w0s r c 1.050 bbi of fecmdstock) Proce s s factor 0.75 0.82 0. 02 1. 00 1.10 1. 20 1.30 1.42 1.54 1.68 1.83 1 99 2.17 2. 2ft B OltS P 1.2 13.2 cOn’ 334 oil and grcs 82) Fhenolie coin. .14 Anminniass N 8.3 . $ul ,ide 24 TotAl c! ,rn,flhl1m . - - .? ‘ - .. )Iessvsleimt .18.., chromniun,. p11 WitI ,in the - raiI , ’e 8.0 to 1)0. 18.2 8.4 70 3.2 3.8 .0 56 .17 .011 Effluent limitations Process Process eonfl uratlon: - factor Less than 6.49 0.81 6.6 to ‘7.49 0.88 7.5 to 7.99 1.00 8.0 to 8.49 1.09 8.6 -to 8.99 3.19 9.0 949 1.29 9.5 to 9.99 1. 1 30.0 to 10.49 1.03 10.5 to 10.90 1.67 11.0 to 11.49 1.82 11.5 to 11.99 1.98 12.0 to 12.49 2. 35 - 12.5 to 12.99 2.34 - 13.0 or greater 2.44 Process factor 0.75 0.82 0.92 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.42 1.54 .1. 68 1.83. 1.99 2.17 2.26 Bn lish nlta (pounds per 1.000bbi of feedctock) - DOD5 14.7 - . 7.6 TSS 9.9 ._ 8.3 con’ 104 .. . Oil and grease 4.5 . 2.4 1’l me , moic .105 _ . .061 cOlnPOOlIds. Am msoid saSN 8.3 . . 3.6 Sui 8de 053 - Total chromniuni .13 I I e sv ale nt .019 . chromium, p 1 1 Within the range 6.0 to 8.0. S S S S * (b) ------- 21 9Z 1 RULES AND REGULATIONS ii ) Slaefactcr. Siae 1.000 bbl of feedatoCk per stream day: factor Less Ussa 124 .9____ 0.13 123.0 to 149 0. ‘s 150.0 to 174.9_____. __ _ 175.0 to 109.9 - o.o : 200.0 to 224.0 o. in 225 or grea r 1.04 (3) ProcesS factor. Process Process con flgurat-Aoa: lace or 1.pss than 6A9 0.75 6.5 to 7.49 0.82 7.5 to 7.99 0.92 8.0 to 8.49 1.00 8.5 to 8.99 1.10 9.0 to 949 1.20 9.5 to 0.99 1.30 10.0 to 10.49 1.42 10.5 to 10.94 — — - — 1.54 11.0 to 11.49 — 1. 8 11.5 to 1.83 12.0 tO 12.43 1.99 12,5 to 12.99 2.17 13.0 or greater 2.26 IFR Doc.75—12959 Plied 5—19—75:8:45 amI Title 41—Public Contracts and Property Management CHAPTER 114w-DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PART 114-47—UTILIZATION AND DISPOSAL OF IIEAL PROPE.RTY R assignment by Agencies and Report of Identical Bids Pursuant to the uthortty of the Sec- r .’t.a .ry of the Interior contained In 5 U3.C. 301, and sec. 2C 5(c), 63 StaL 390 (10 U.S.C. 486(c)), Subp ’rt .s 114-47.2 at:.1 114—47.3. Chapter 114. of Iltia 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, are amended as set forth below. It is the general polIcy of the Depart- ment of the Interior to allow time for i ’ te:ested parties to take part l.a the rulemaking process. However, these itmendment.s are entirely administrative In nature. Therefore, the public rulernak- 1:17 process LI waived and these amend- ments will become effective on May 20, 197 . RICHARD R. Hirs, Depufy Assistant Sccretary 0/ the Interior. Mtv 12. 1975. Subpart 114—47.2—Utilization o Excess Real Propetty S.ecuon 114—47.203-1 is amended by re- vising paragraph (dl to read as follows: 5 11 .1—17.203--I Re si nn1cn1 of zeal property by the agencies. . s e d Circuiar(zatio* of power traiis;nis- stoa facilities. The approval of the appropriate program Assistant Secretary shall be obtained prior to clrcuiar!zatlon of any available powcr transmls.slo.i line or related facility having an estimated fair market value of $1000 or more. (1) in the case of planned dlspocal of facilities held by the Bonneville Power Administration, Alaska Power Adminis- tration, and the Southwestern Power Ad- ministration such approval shall be obtained from the Ass ;tant Secretary— Energy and Minerals. (2) In the case of planned dIsposal of facilities held by the Bureau of Reclama- tion, approval of the Assistant Secre- tary—Land and Water Resousces shall be obtained. (3) Requests for approval to initiate action to dispose of power transmission faciliLi s shall be accompanied by a com- plete description of the circumstances which the holding Bureau believes makes such disposal feasible. A copy of each request shall be furnished the Assistant Director for Property Management, of- fice of Management &rUccs. Subpert 114-47.3—Surplus Real Property Disposal Section 114—47.304—8 Is revised to read as follows: § 114—47.30-1—8 Report of idraikal l,ds. (a) The reporting rejuirement,s spe- cified In FPMR 114—47.301—1 are applica- ble to all saics of Governmcnt-ov ’ned property made ’on a competitive basis whether competition Is obtained through seated bid, negotiation, auction, or spot bid procedures. They apply to: (1) 1’regram sales made pursuant to special statutes authorising the Secre- tary of the Interior to sell specific real properUe . . and (2) Sab:s of surplus trot property made pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Property end AdmInlst aLlve Services Act of 1949. as amendc l. (b) 1 cinrt ,s on ldentic l bids required by this suh ’ectlon shaLl b. submitted by the heads of treaus and Ocuces directly to the Attorney General In accord with FPMR 101—47.304—8. A copy of the tram- mittal letter and a copy of the abstract of bids shall be furnished to the As- sistant Director for Property Manage- ment, Ofhce of Management Services. (FIt Doc.75—13146 Piled 5.-l9—75;8 :45 am! Title 45—Public Weliaro CHAPTF .Z 1—OFFICE OF EDUCATION, DE- PART( H 1 OF HEALTh, EDUCATION, AND WLLFACE PART lOOa—DIRECT PIU)JECT GRANT ANt.) CONTRACT P. 1OGRAM PART 184—ETHNIC HERITAGE STUDIES PROGRAM Miscellaneous Amendmenls Notice of proposed rule making was published In the FroscM. REGIStER on December 31, 1974 (39 FR 45297), setting forth rc - ulations for the Ethnic Herit— aae SLudi . S Program (T tIe IX of the Elementary and Second ry Education Act) as at’ded by section 501 of the Edit- cation Amcndmenl-s of 1972, Pub. L. 92—318 (2(1 US.C. 900 to 900a—5), and amended by section 111 of the Education Amendtner t.s of 1974, Pub. L. 93-350. These proposed titles wou!d replace standards tuid funding criteria ‘which were published on Apr11 12, 1974 (39 FR 13297 by adding a new Part 184 to the Code of Federal Regulations. This pro- gram was administered under the April 12 standards last fiscal year. The following paragraphs reiterate the fundamental changes between tho stand- ards published on April 12, 1974 and the regulations u.s they will be published in fiuial form. a. The standards published In April required all authorized activities (cur- riculuin development, dissemination, and training) to be performed by a grant recipient. This may have had the result of unduly restricting entry into the pro- gram because some applicants with the ability to perform some activities lacked the capacity to perform all activities. Section 184.11(a) of the rule perinit.s an applicant to qualify for consideration If it can perform at least one of the three activities listed. This change results from a substantive amendment to the Act made by section 111 of Pub. L. 93—380. b. Previously, the Act required that curriculum materials developed be for use in elementary and secondary schools and 1ns itution.s of higher education. The amendment contained hi section 111 of Pub. L. 93—380 pernilts the development of matenais for elementary schools, sec- ondary schools, or institutions of higher education, thus allowing a more flexible approach. This change Is zeflected In 184.11(a) (1) of the rule. c. As a result of the 19’74 itmeudments, funding criteria have been added for separate n tlvities (curriculum, dissemi- nation, and training). (set? § 184.31(c).) d. Ihie see .tIJn on advisory councils (f 184.12) Is essentially In the form set forth In the previous standard, with some drafting an i clarifyIng changes. Interested parties were Invited to sub- 11111 written comnients, suggestions and objections. Behw Is a summary of the comments received pertainIng to the pro- posed rule and the responses from this Omce. All comments received were given careful consideration, but none was suf- ficiently substantive to merit a ciange In the proposed rules. Several technical cor- rections were made In the citations of legal authority under the tab 1 e of con- tents and under subpart D, Funding Cri- teria. Several typographical errors were also corrected. 1. C’omment. A comxnenter, an Indian tribe, requested that American Indian tribes be specifically designated as eligi- We applicants Ifl the regulations. Response. Title IX acknowledges tile importance of ti ethnic heritage of all Americans, conseq:irctiy the scope of the leais!ativo Intent encompasses native American tribes and or anizauons as eligible to the extent. that they are non- profit and have an educational purpose. Section 184.21 states the parties eligible for assisance. as provided by the statute, Including nonprofit educational oreani- zations. The noi:proflt educational erga- nizations of an Indian tribe would be eligible under this language. This oflice received applications from several dif- ferent Indian organisations which were considered In the preceding year. FEOSRAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 93—TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1975 ------- THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1975 PART VI: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY U NEW SOURCE PERMITS NPDES Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements ------- PROPOSED RULES 47714 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ 40 CFR Part 6] tFBL 349—7J NEW SOURCE NPDES PERMITS Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements The National Envlronmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Implemented by Executive Order 11514 of March 5, 1970, and the Coun- cil on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) Guidelines of August 1, 1573, requires that all agencies of the Federal Govern- ment prepare detailed environmental statements on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions sig- nificantly affecting the quality of the hum n environment. The objective of the Act Is to build Into the agency deci- slon-maklng process an appropriate and careful consideration of all environ- mental aspects of proposed actions, ex- plain potential environmental effects of proposed actions and their alternatives for public understanding, avoid or mini- mize adverse effects of proposed actions and restore or enhance environmental quality as much as possible. Section 511(c) (1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (FWPCA) (Pub. L. 92-500) requIres that NEPA apply to the Issuance of a permit under section 402 of FWPCA for the dis- charge of any pollutant by a new source *s defined In section 306 of FWPCA. The discharge of a pollutant, as defined In section 502(12 of FWPCA, means an addition of any pollutant to navigable waters, the contiguous zone, or the ocean from any point source. This proposed regulation provides pro- cedures for applying NEPA to the Issu- ance of new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDEB) permits as authorized by 1 301 and I 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Conirol Act as amended. This regulation shall apply only’ to the Issuance of a new source NPDES permit by the U.S. En- vironmental Protection Agency and not to the Issuance of a new source NPDES permit from any State which baa an ap- proved NPDF program In accordance with section 402(b) of FWPCA. The reg- ulation, when used In conjunction with the references to 40 CFR Part 125 (the National Pollutant Discharge Ilhn1n& ton System (NPDES)). provides the EPA procedures for processing neW source NPDES permit applications. A final regulation will be published after receipt and consideration of the coin- inents. Upon the date of promulgation of this regulation In final form, the Fzssa .si Rzcisrxs notice of September 30, 1974, “RequIrements fcr Environmental Assessments” shall no longer be effective. This notice requested that potential new source applicants request a pre-applica- tion conference with the appropriate Regional Administrator twenty-four (24) months prior to discharge. The new source NPD regulation Is published separately from the regulation applying NEPA to EPA’S nonregulatbry programs which was promulgated In final form In the zizuz , REGISTU (40 FR 16814) on AprIl 14, 1975. EPA also Issued a separate notice In the October 21, 1974, PIDSRAL RZGI5TER (39 FR 37419) which gave Agency procedures for voluntarily preparing lS’s on certain other EPA regulatory activities. The Environmental Protection Agency inVItes all Interested persons who desire to submit written comments or sugges- tions concerning the preparation of final regulations to do so in triplicate to the Omce of Federal Activities, (A-104), En- vironmental Protection Agency, Wash- ington, D.C. 20460. Such submissions should be received not later than Novem- ber 24, 1975, to allow time for appropriate consideration. Copies of the submissions wIll be available for inspection and copy- Ing at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Information Reference Unit., Room 2922 (EPA Library), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. In consideration of the foregoing, It Is proposed to amend Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new Subpart I to Part 6 as set forth below. Dated: October 1, 1975. Jome QVARLSS, Acting Administrator. 4ub ,t I—Preparation si Environmontal Impact $t.tsm,nts on New Source NPOES Permits Purpose l cd policy. Deftn ltlona. Administrative activity subject to this part. New source determination procedures. Procedures for environmental review. Guidelines for determining whether to prepare an E18. Draft environmental impact stat- mont. Public hearing. Final environmental. Impact state- ment. Decision on the Federal action. Additional procedure.. AvaIlabilIty of documents. Content of an environmental Impact statement. Emmrm 1. (a) Notice of Intent Transpxittsl Memo- randum—Suggested Format. (b) Notice of Intent—Suggested Format. 2. Negative Declaration—Suggested For- mat. S. Environmental Impact Appraisal—Sug- gested Format. 4. Cover Sheet for Environmental Impact Statement.. 5. Summary Sheet Format for Environ- mental Impact Statements. 6. PUblIC Notic, and News Beleaao—Sug- — Format. Appendix A—Guidance on Determining a New Source. Appendix B—Document Distribution and Av iIabtllty Procedures. Avmouvv: SeC. 102.103,92 Stat. $54 (The National Environmental Policy Act 011969); Sec. 301, 300. 402, $6 Stat. $16 et seq., (The Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended). § 6.900 P rpoae and policy, (a) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Implemented by Executive Order 11514 and the Council on Environ- mental Quality’s CEQ’s GuIdelines (40 CFR 1500) requires that all agencies of the Federal Government prepare detailed environmental statements on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, The objec- tive of NEPA is to Include in the agency decision-making process appropriate and careful consideration of all environ- mental effects of proposed actions, ex- plain potential environmental effects of proposed actions and their alternatives for public understanding, avoid or mini- znlze adverse effects of proposed actions and restore or enhance environmental quality as much as possible. (b) This part provides procedures for compliance with NEPA in the Issuance of new source National Pollutant Dis- charge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits as authorized by sec- tion 301 and section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.). (C) All references In this part to Part 125 shall mean Part 125 of TItle 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). (d) EPA b ’ reby reserves all odd nwn- bers beginning with § 6.901 ct seq. for future modifications and additions. § 6.902 Definitions. (a) The abbreviated term “EPA” means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (b) The term ‘Source,” as defined In sectIon 306 (a) (3) of FWPCA, means “any building, structure, facility or Installa- tion from which there Is or may be the discharge of pollutants.” (C) The term “New Source,” as defined In section 306(a) (2) of FWPCA, means “any source, the construction of which Is commenced after the publication of proposed regulations prescribing a stand- ard of performance under this section which will be applicable to such source, If such standard is thereafter promulgated In accordance with this section.” (See Appendix A for guidance.) (d) The term “Construction,” as de- fined In section 308(a) (6) of FWFCA, means “any placement, assembly, or In- stallation of facilities or equipment (in- cluding contractual obligations to pur- chase such facilities or equipment) at the preenises where such equipment will be used, Including preparation work at such premises.” (e) The term “Administrative Action” means tJ e Issuance by EPA of an NPDES permit to discharge as a new source. (1) “Responsible Official” means the Regional Administrator of EPA or his designee. (g) The term “Environmental Assess- ment” means the report prepared by the applicant for an NPDES permit to dis- charge as a new source which identifies and analyses the environmental Impacts of the applicant’s proposed source and feasible alternatives as provided in I 6.908 of this part. (h) The term “Environmental Review” means the formal evaluation undertaken by EPA to determine whether a proposed administrative action will be a major 8ec. 6.902 6.904 6.906 6.90$ 6.910 6.912 6.914 6.916 6918 6.9 ) 6.923 6.924 FEDØAI. RIGISTU, VOL 40, NO, 197—ThU1SDAY, OCTOIfl 9, 1975 ------- PROPOSED RULES 47715 Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. (I) The term “Environmental Impacts” shall refer to both the adverse and the beneficial Impacts associated wit i a new source. (j) The term “Notice of Intent” means the written announcement to Federal, State, and local agencies, and to Inter- ted persons, that a draft environmen- tal impact statement will be prepared. The notice shall brle y describe the EPA action, It s location, and the Issues In- volved. (Exhibit 1.) The purpose of a notice of Intent Is to involve other gov- ernment agencies and Interested per- sons as early as possible In the planning and evaluation of actions which may have siguificant environmental Impacts, This notice should encourage public In- put In the preparation of a draft ElS and assure that environmental values will be identified and weighed from the outset, rather than accommodated by adjust- ments at the end of the decisionmaking process. (k) The term “Draft Environmental Impact Statement” means the document, prepared by EPA, which attempts to Identify and analyze the envirozunental Impacts of a proposed EPA action and feasible alternatives, and Is circulated for public comment prior to preparation of the final environmental impact state- ment. (1) The term “Final Environmental Impact Statement” means the document prepared by EPA which Identifies and analyzes In detail the environmental Im- pacts of a proposed EPA action and In- corporates comments made on the draft El . (m) The term “Negative Declaration” means the written announcement, pre- pared subsequent to the environmental review, which states that EPA has de- cided not to prepare a draft environ- mental impact statement. The negative declaration shall describe the proposed project, Its location, any potential pri- mary and secondary impacts of the proj- ect, and the procedures whereby Inter- ested persons may comment on the de- cision not to prepare an EIS. (Exhibit 2) (n) The term “Environmental Impact Appraisal” means a document, based on the environmental review, which sup- ports a negative declaration. (ExhibIt 3) (0) The term “New Source and Envi- ronmental Questionnaire” means a doc- ument which EPA furnishes to a poten- tial new source applicant to obtain In- formation on the status and potential impact of the proposed source. (p) The term “Interested Persons” means any Individuals, Pedera or State agencies, conservation groups, organiza- tions, corporations, or other nongovern- mental units, Including any applicant for a new source NPDES permit, Issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who may be Interested In, af- fected by, or technically competent to comment on the environmental impact of the proposed action. (q) The term “Potential New Source Applicant” means the prospective owner or operator of an anticipated point source, as defined in section 502(14) 0’ ! the FWPCA, who arguably falls within a proposed standard of performance category. § 6.904 Administrative activny subject to this part. (a) This part shall apply solely to the Issuance of a new source NPDES permit by the EPA with the following excep- tions: (1) These detailed procedures shall not apply to the issuance of a new source NPDES permit to a Federal facility as defined in Executive Order 11752 of De- cember 18, 1973. The official of any Fed- eral agency making application for an EPA new source NPDES permit shall be responsible for determining whether the Agency’s proposed activity necessitating the permit will constitute a major Fed- eral action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment In ac- cordance with it own regulations. Doc- umentation of the Federal agency’s de- termination shall be communicated to EPA prior to EPA’S public notice of the Issuance of a permit under 40 CFR 125.32. (2) These detailed procedures shall not apply where another Federal agency has agreed to be “lead agency” or has been designated by the Council on Envi- ronmental Quality (CEQ) to be “lead agency” In accordance with the CLQ Guidelines, 40 CFR 1500.7(b). These pro- cedures shall be supplemented by the provisions of an Interagency agreement which has been established between EPA and any other Federal agency, or agen- cies, to Jesignate “lead” and “nonlead” agency responsibilities In the prepara- tion of an environmental impact state- ment, Prior to the establishment of a lead agency agreement, EPA wifi assume responsibility for consulting with those Federal agencies that are also respon- sible for performing a NEPA review on their own Federal actions affecting an appiLant who has been determined by EPA to be a new source in order to de- termine which agency shall be “lead agency.” § 6.906 New source determination pro- cedures. (a) Any person who may require an NPDES permit under the FWPCA shall so notify the EPA responsible official hav- ing jurisdiction over the area In which the discharge Is proposed to be located. (b) The responsible official, upon re- ceipt of such notice or of his own accord, shall provide any potential new source applicant with the new source and en- vironmental questionnaire (NS/EQ). (c) The potential new source appli- cant shall return the completed NS/EQ at least 9 months prior to commence- ment of construction of the facility, as defIned in I 306 of the FWPCA. (It Is to the applicant’s advantage to return the questionnaire as early as possible, so that if the facility Is determined to be a new source, and therefore subject to an en- vironmental review, construction will not be unnecessarily delayed pending comple- tion of the environmental review.) (d) Upon receipt of the NS/EQ, the re- sponsible official shall make an initial de- termination of whether the facility is a “new source” (see Appendix A for guid- ance) unless there is Insufficient Infor- mation to make this determination. (e) If additional information is needed to make the Initial new source determi- nation, the responsible official shall ob- tain such additional information. The applicant shall provide additional infor- mation as requested by the responsible official. The applicant may request confi- dential treatment of such Information In accordance with procedures in 40 CFR 125.37. (f) If the facility Is Initially deter- mined to be an existing source, the re- sponsible official shall: (1) Notify the applicant of this initial determination and of his right to have the Initial determination reconsidered at an adjudicatory hearing held pursuant to 40 CFR. 125.36. (2) Provide the applicant with an ap- plication for a permit to discharge as an existing source. (3) Notify the public of such decision no later than the public notice of the Is- suance of a permit pursuant to 40 CFR 125.32. (g) If the facility Is Initially deter- mined to be a new source, the responsible official shall: (1) Notify the applicant of this initial determination and of his right to have the Initial determination reconsidered at an adjudicatory. hearing held pursuant to 40 CFR. 125.36. (2) ProvIde the applicant with an ap- plication for a permit to discharge as a new source. (3) Notify the public of such decision no later than the public notice of the Is- suance of a permit pursuant to 40 CFR 125.32. (4) Notify the applicant that he must submit an adequate environmental as- sessment unless the responsible official determines that the new source and en- vironmental questionnaire Is an adequate environmental assessment. A suggested format for the contents of the environ- mental assessment is found in 1-6.924 Cc) of this Part. (h) If the applicant or any interested person, within 20 days of the date of mailing the notice of initial deterinina- tion, requests an adjudicatory hearing, the responsible official shall act upon the request for the adjudicatory hearing in accordance with procedures prescribed in 40 CFR 125.36. (I) If no hearing is requested in ac- cordance with (h) above, the initial new source determination of the responsible official shall become the final new source determination of EPA. § 6.908 Procedures for environmental review. (a) If EPA’s final new source deter- mination under § 6.906 is that the facility Is a new source, the responsible official shall conduct the environmental review to determine whether the issuance of the permit Is likely to have significant Im- pact on the quality of the human envi- ronment, whether any feasible alterna- FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 197—THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1975 4— 4-S ------- PROPOSED RULES .47716 tives can be adopted or changes can be made In project design to eliminate or minimize significant adverse Impacta, and whether an EIS or a negative declar- ation Is required. (b) The responsible official shall base his decision on the need for preparing an ETS on the guidelines In 6.910 of this Part. (C) The responsible official may require that the applicant submit environmental assessment lnformation.in addition to the NSIEQ containing the additional Infor- mation that the responsible official deems necessary to conduct the environmental review. The responsibl official shall de- termine the proper scope of the environ- mental review and the applicant’s envi- ronmental assessment and shall specify to the applicant what information is re- quired. In determining the scope of the environmental assessment, the respon- sible official shall consider the size of the new source, the potential environ- mental impacts of the new source, and the extent to which the applicant or his designee is capable of providing the re- quired Information. The responsible offi- cial shall not require the applicant to gather raw data or to perform analyses either of which duplicate existing data or the results of existing analyses available to EPA. The responsible official shall keep requests for data to a minimum consist- ent with his responsibilities under NEPA. (d) If the environmental review re- veals that the preparation of an envi- ronmental impact statement Is required, the responsible official may require re- ports, data and other information for the ElS to be compiled by the applicant or a third party under contract with the applicant and furnished directly to the responsible official. in all eases, the re- sponsible official shall specify the type of information to be developed and shall maintain control of the Information throughout the gathering and presenta- tion of this Information. The responsible official shall keep requests for data to a minimum consistent with his responsl- bthties under NEPA. When the third party approach is taken, the responsible official shall approve the selection of this third party contractor after consulting with interested Federal, State, and local agencies, public Interest groups, and members of the general public as he deems appropriate to assure objectivity in this selection. (e) Upon completion of the environ- mental review, the responsible official shall make known his determination re- garding the need for a draft EIS. If a draft ETh Is to be prepared and circu- lated. the responsible official shall issue a notice of Intent (ExhIbit 1): If the de- termination Is made not to prepare a draft EIS, the responsible official shall Issue a negative declaration (ExhIbit 2). 1) Such notice of intent shall be Is- sued prior to the public notice of the Issuance of a permit under 40 CFR. 125.- 32. Such negative declaration shafl be Issued prior to or simultaneously with the public notice of the Issuance of a permit under 40 CFR 125.32. (2) Such notice of intent or negative declaration shall be distributed In ac- cordance with procedures described In 40 CFR 125.32(a). Potentially appropri- ate agencies referred to in 40 CFR 125.32 (a) are found In the Council on Environ- mental Quality’s GuIdelines, 40 CFR 1500, Appendices II and III. Additional distribution procedures are provided In Appendix B. (3) Any negative declaration shall state that interested persons wishing to comment on the decision may submit comments for consideration by the re- sponsible official. (4) For any negative declaration, the responsible official shall prepare an en- vironmental impact appraisal which states EPA’s reasons f or concluding that there will be no significant impact result- lug from the issuance of the applicable new source NPDES permit or that sig- nificant adverse impacts have been miti- gated by making changes in the proposed new source. (ExhibIt 3). This document shall briefly describe the proposed action and feasible alternatives, environmental impacts of the proposed new source, steps to minimize harm to the environment. the relationship between short term ,uses of man’s environment and the mainte- nance and enhancement of long term beneficial uses, the Irreversible and irre- trievable commitments of resources for the new source, comments and consulta- tions on the new source and reasons for concluding there will be no significant adverse Impacts. The environmental Im- pact appraisal shall be available for pub- lic Inspection at the time of the issuance of the negative declaration and shall re- main with the internal records of the permit. § 6.910 Guidelines for determining whether to prepare an EIS. The following guidelines shall be used when performing the environmental re- view: (a) General guidelInes. (1) When de- termining the significance of a proposed new source’s Impact, the responsible of- ficial shall consider both its short term and long term effects as well as its pri- mary and secondary effects as defined In 6.924(c). However, EIS’s should be pre- pared first on those proposed actIon with the most adverse effects which are scheduled for earliest implementation and on other proposed actions according to priorities assigned by the responsible official. (2) If EPA is proposing to issue a num- ber of minor, environmentally Insignifi- cant new source NPDES permits, during a limited time span and In the same gen- eral geographic area the responsible of- ficial may determine that the cumula- tive impact of the Issuance of all these permits may have a significant environ- mental effect. (3) In determining the significance of a proposed new source NPDES permit, the unique characteristics of the new source area should be carefully con- sidered. For example, proximity to his- toric sites, parkiands, wetlands or wild and scenic rivers may make the Impact significant. (b) Specific criteria. An EIS will be prepared when: (1) The new source will induce or accelerate significant changes in industrial, commercial, agricultural, or residential land use concentrations or distributions which have the potential for significant environmental effects. Pactors that should be considered in de- termining If these changes are environ- mentally significant include but are not limited to: the nature and extent of the vacant land subject to increased develop- mont pressure as a result of the new source; the increases in population or population density which may be induced and the ramifications of such changes: the nature of land use regula- tions In the affected area and their po- tential effects on development and the environment; and the changes in the availability or demand for energy and the resulting environmental Consequences. (2) The new source may directly or through Induced development have a sig- nificant adverse effect upon local am- bient air quality, local ambient noise levels, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, fish, wildlife, and their natural habitats. (3) Any major part of the new source will be located on wetlands or WIll have significant adverse effects on wetlands. Including secondary effects. (4) Any major part of the new source will be located on or significantly affect the habitat of threatened or endangered species on the Department of Interior’s lists of threatened and endangered species. (5) The environmental Impact of the Issuance of new source NPDES permit is likely to be highly controversial. (6) The environmental impact of the Issuance of a new source NPDES permit will have significant direct and adverse effect on a property listed In or eligible for listing In the National Register of Historic Places or will cause Irreparable loss or destruction of significant scien- tific, prehistoric, historic or archaeo- logical data. § 6.912 Draft en ironmentaI impact statemc!d. (a) The responsible official shall assure that a draft environmental impact state- ment Is prepared as soon as practicable after the release of the notice of Intent. The draft ElS shall be published not later than the publication of public no- tice of the Issuance of a permit pursuant to 40 CFR 125.32. (b) The content of the draft ElS shall be as specified according to § 6.924 of this Part. (C) The specific procedures that should be taken with respect to distribu- tion and availability of the draft EIS’s are listed In Appendix B. (d) Parties who wish to comment have at least forty-five (45) days to reply alter the date of publication In the FaDERAL ReGISTER of the listing of the draft EIS by CEQ. DRIAL GISTER , VOL 40, NO. 1 97—THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1975 ------- PROPOSED RULES. 47717 § 6.914 Public hearing. (a) If there is a significant degree of public interest, the responsible official may convene a public hearing after pub- lication and circulation of the draft EIS. He shall issue public notice of such hear- ing In accordance with 40 CFR 125.32(d). The public hearing shall be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 125.34. (b) In addition to the procedures pro- vided in § 6.914(a), the following shall also apply: (1) If the responsible official deter- mines, prior to publication arid distribu- tion of the draft ElS, that a public hear- ing shall be held, he shall place such notice of such hearing In the draft EIS following the summary sheet. (2) A written record of the hearing shall be made. As a minimum, the record shall contain a list of witnesses together with the text of each presentation. A summary of the record including the Is- sues raised, conflicts resolved and any other significant portions of the record shall be appended to the. final ElS. § 6.916 Final environmental impact statement. (a) The responsible official shall pre- pare a final environmental impact state- ment, which shall contain responses to substantive comments received on the draft ElS, a summary of the record of any public hearing, and any other rele- vant information. (b) The final EIS shall be published not later than the responsible official’s determination containing the proposed permit pursuant to 40 CFR. 125.35. (c) The final ElS shall include the responsible official’s recommendation on whether the permit is to be issued or denied. (1) If the recommendation is to deny the permit, the final EIS shall contain the reason(s) for such a recommendation and the measures that EPA recommends the applicant take in order to receive a permit. (2) If the recommendation Is to Issue the permit, the final EIS shall, when appropriate, also recommend the actions the perinittee shall take to prevent or minimize any adverse environmental Un- pacts identified In the analysis. (d) The specific procedures that should be followed with respect to the distribution and availability of the final EIS are provided in Appendix B. (e) In addition to the requirements defined in 40 CFR 125.35, no administra- tive action shall be taken by EPA until thirty (30) days after the publication of the final ElS and not until a minimum of ninety (90) days after the publication of the draft EIS. § (,.918 Decision on the Federal action. The responsible official may approve or deny the new source NPDES permit following a complete evaluation of any significant beneficial and adverse en- vironinental impacts on the human en- vironinent consistent with EPA’s legal authority, Including, but not limited to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). the Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 3254 et seq.), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 138 et seq.), the 1954 Atomic Energy Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 300f). § 6.920 Additional procedures. (a) Historic and archaeological sites. EPA is subject to the requirements of § 106 of the National Historic Preserva- tion Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., Executive Order 11593 and the Archaeo- logical and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, 16 U.S.C. 469 et seq., and the regu- lations promulgated thereunder. These statutes and regulations establish en- vironmental review procedures to follow independently of the requirements of NEPA. (1) If the new source may affect prop- erties with historic, architectural, ar- chaeological or cultural value whloh are listed in or eligible for listing in the Na- tional Register of Historic Places (pub- lished in the FEDERAL REGISTER each Feb- ruary with supplements on the first Tuesday of each month), the responsi- ble official shall comply with the pro- cedures of the Advisory Council on His- toric Preservation (36 CFR 800) includ- ing determining the need for a memo- randumn of agreement among EPA, the Advisory Council, and the State Historic Preservation Officer. (2) Whenever a memorandum of agreem’nt has been executed in accord- ance s th 36 CFR 800, It shall be in- cluded in the ElS if one Is prepared on that new source NPDES permit. Copies of the draft and final ElS’s should be sent to the appropriate State Historic Pres- ervation Officer and the Executive Di- rector of the Advisory Council on. His- toric Preservation for their comment ac- cordiag to the Advisory Council’s pro- cedures (36 CFR 800). (3) In order to adequately complete his environmental review and his re- sponsibilities under 36 CFR 800, the re- sponsible official may request that the applicant for a new source NPDES per- mit consult with the State Historic Pres- ervation Officer to determine If the new source will have a significant adverse effect on properties with historic, ar- chitectural. archaeological or cultural value which are listed in or eligible for listing in. the National Register of His- toric Places. If the new source will not have an adverse effect, the applicant may be requested to submit a determination of no-effect in a memorandum to the re- sponsible official in accordance wIth 36 CFR 800.4c). If the new source will have an adverse effect, the applicant may be requested by the responsible official to work with the State Historic Preserva- tion Officer to develop alternatives to avoid or mitigate the adverse effect(s). The responsible official may request further assistance of the new source NPDES applicant in order to comply with EPA’s requirements under 36 CFR 800 prior to the responsible official’s de- termination containing the proposed permit pursuant to 40 CFR 125.35. (4) If the new source may cause Irreparable loss or destruction of signifi- cant scientific, prehistoric, historic or archaeological data, the responsible of- ficial shall consult with the Secretary of Interior in compliance with the Archaeological and Historic Pre&erva- tion Act of 1974, 6 U.S.C. 469. (b) Wetlands, coastal zones, flood- plains, fish and wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and wild arid scenic rivers. The following procedures shall be applied to the EPA administrative activities covered by this part that may affect these environmentally sensitive areas. (1) If the new source may affect wet- lands, the responsible official shall con- sult with the appropriate offices of the Department of the Interior, the Depart- ment of Commerce, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the states involved, dur- ing the environmental review to deter- mine the probable impact of the new source on the fish and wildlife resources and land use of these areas. (2) If the new source may affect coastal zones or coastal waters as defined in Title III of the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.. the responsible official shall consult with the appropriate State offices and with the appropriate office of the Department of Commerce during the environmental re- view to determine the probable impact of the new source on coastal zone or coastal water resources. (3) If the proposed new source will encourage new industrial, commercial, and residential development in currently undeveloped fioodplains which are of sig- nificant value for agricultural produc- tion, recreation, or wildlife habitat, the responsible official shall act pursuant to Executive Order 11296. (4) If the new source may affect por- tions of rivers designated wild and scenic or being considered for this designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 18 U.S.C. 28, the responsible official shall consult with appropriate State offices and with the Secretary of the Interior, or where national forest lands are involved, with the Secretary of Agriculture, during the environmental review to determine the probable impact of the new source on eligible rivers or portions thereof. (5) Whenever the new source will re- sult in the control or structural modifica- tion of any stream or other body of water for any purpose, including navigation arid drainage, the responsible official shall consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior), the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and At- mnospheric Administration (Department of Commerce), the US. Army Corps of Engineers, and the head of the agency administering the wildlife resources of the particular state in which the action will take place, to determine any steps which may be taken to conserve wildlife resources. (6) If the new source may affect threatened or endangered species, de- FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 197—THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1975 ------- 47718 PROPOSED RULES fined under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act f 1073. 18 U.S.C. 35. the responsible omclal sha fl consult with the SeretaZY of the Interior or the Secre- lazy of Commerce according to the pro- eedw es of sectIon 7 of that Act. (7) Requests for consultation and the results of such consultation shall be doc- umented in writing. The agencies should be given thirty (30) days to comment as measured from the date of the written request If an EIS Is to be prepared on a new source and wetlands, coastal sousa, floodplatns, fish and wildlife, threatened or endangered species or wild and scenic rivers may be affected, the required con- sultation may be deterred until the prep- aratlon of the draft ElS. In all cases where consultation has occurred, the agencies eonMilted shall receive copies of either the notice of intent and ElS or the negative declaration and environ- mental appraisal prepared on the pro- posed action § 6.922 Availabfl iy of documsats. (a) EPA will print cogdes of draft and final KIS’s for agency and public diatsi- butlon. A nnn inal fee may be charged for copies requested by the public. (hI When EPA no longer has eoiAes of an ElS to distribute, copies shall be made available for public inspection at regional and headquarters O oes cit Pub- lic Affairs. Int ested persons also should be advised of the avai1a 21ty (at cost) of the EIS from the Environmental Law InstItute, 1346 Connecticut Avenue. N.W., Woshlngton, D.C. 20038. (c) Lists of ElS ’s prepared or under preparation and lists of negative decla- rations prepared will be available at both the regional and headquarters O ces of Public Affairs § 6.924 Cosden.t of an euvironmrnl&l impact statement. (a) Cover sheet. The cover sheet shall indicate the type of ElS (draft or final), the nature of the proposed EPA action. the n m of the permit appliosnt, the responsible EPA once, the date, and the signature of the responsible official. The format Is shown In 1itIdt 4. (b) Summary sheet. The 5Imlm.ry sheet shall conform to the format pre- scribed In Appendix I of the August 1, 1973 Council on Environmental Quality’s OuldailneA (40 CFR 1500). 11 e format Is sho ’ n In Exhibit 5. (C) Body of statemenL The body of the ElS shall Identify, develop, and ana- lyze the pertinent Issues included In the seven sections below. Each section need not. be a separate chapter In the state- ment. The EIS shall serve as a means for the responsible ofitciol and the pub- lic to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed Issuance of a new source NPD permit, rather than as a Justi- fication for decisions already made. En- vironmental Impact statements should be prepared using a systematic, Inter- discipllnaxy approach. 8tatements should incorporate all relevant analytical dis— dpllnas and should provide meaningful and factual data, Information, and anal- yses. The presentation should be simple and concise, yet Include all facts flee— easary to permit Independent evaluation and appraisal of the beneficial and ad- verse environmental effects on the hllntftn environment of alternative ac- tioss. 71 ameunt of detail provided should be commensurate both with the extent and expected impact of the ac- tions, and with the amount of informa- tion required at the particular level of decislonmaking. To the extent possible, statements shall not be drafted In a style which requires extensive scientific or technical expertise to comprehend and evaluate the environmental impact of the proposed EPA action. (1) Background and description of the proposed new source. The EIS shall de- scribe the proposed source, its product or purpose, Its location, Its construction and operation time schedule. To pi-cv ixt piecemeal decision making, the new source should be described in as broad a context as necessary. The relationship of the proposed new source project to other projects and proposals directly *1- fected by or stemming from the constr5c- tin and the operation of the new source shall be discussed, Including not only other EPA activities, but also those of other Governmental and private organi- rations. Development and population trends In the project area and the as- sumptious on which they are based shall also be Included. Maps, photos, and as- tist sketches should be Incorporated if available when they help depict the en- vironmental setting. If not enclosed, sup- porting documents should be referenced. (2) AlternatIves available to the pro- posed new source. The feasible alterna- tives available to the proposed new source shall be described, developed and objectively weighed against the proposed new source. The analysis should be suf- ficiently detailed to reveal the EPA’s com- parative evaluation of the environmental impacts on the human environnient, coats, and risks of each feasible alter- native. The analysis of alternatives shall Include the alternative of not construct- ing or operating the new source or post- poning construction or operation. Feas- ible design, process, and site alternatives must be described. This analysis should be written In such a manner that the general public Independently can judge the relative desirability of the various alternatives. (3) Environmental Impacts of the pro- posed new source. This shall be a de- scription of the primary end secondary environmental Impacts, both beneficial and adverse, anticipated from the new source. The scope of the description shall Include both short and long-term Im- pacts. Emphasis should be given to dis- cussing th ee factors moat directly ha- pacted by the proposed activity. (I) Primary Impacts are those that can be attributed directly to the con- struction or operation of the new source. UI) Secondary Impacts are Indirect or Induced Impacts. Construction of a f a- duty such as a large Industrial facility may stimulate or induce secondary of— facts in the form of associated invest- snenta and changed patterns of ao l and economic activities. Particular at- tentlon should be paid to potential changes In population patterns or growth. ‘When such changes are signifi- cant, tbelr effect on the resource base, incbi ug land use, water quality arid quantity and air quality should be de-’ termined. A discussion of how these Im- pacts conform or conflict with the objec- tives and ecIfic terms of approved or proposed Federal, State, and local land use plans, policies, and controls for the area should be Included. (4) Adverse Impacts which cannot be avoided should the new source permit be Issued. The E lS shall describe the kinds and magnitudes of adverse Impacts which cannot be reduced in severity, give the remedial and protective measures which shall be taken, describe the ad- verse impacts which can be reduced to an acceptable level, and the mitigative measures which should be taken. These adverse Impacts may include water or air pollution, undesirable land use pat- terns, damage to ecological systems, ur- ban congestion, threats to health or other consequences adverse to the environmen- tal goals set out In sectIon 101(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act. (5) Rel&ioruhlp between local short term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term beneficial uses. This shall be a de- scrh’ptlon of the extent to which the pro- posed activity Involves trade offs between short term environmental gains at the expense of long term losses, or vice-versa, and the extent to which the proposed action forecloses future options. Special attention should be given to effects which narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long berm risks to health or safety. (6) Irreversible and Irretrievable com- mitment of resources which would result If a new source permit were Issued. Tills shall be a description of the extent to which the proposed activity curtails the diversity and range of beneficial uses of the environment. Secondary Impacts, such as Induced growth in undeveloped areas, may make alternative uses of that land Impossible. Also, Irreversible dam- age can result from environmental acci- dents associated with the new source and this possibility should be evaluated. (7) A discussion of problems and ob- jections raised by other Federal, State, and local agencies and by Interested per- sons In this review process. Final 5 18’s (and draft 518’s If appropriate) shall summarize the comments and sugges- tions made by reviewing organizations and shall describe the disposition of Is- sues raised. e.g.. changes to the proposed new source to mitigate anticipated in- pacts or objections. In particular, the EIS shall address any major Issues In which the EPA posItion differs from re- viewers’ recommendations and objec- tions, giving reasons why specific corn- merits and suggestions could not be adopted. Revtewers’ statements should be set forth In a list of “comments” and accompanied by EPA ’S “responses.” In addition, the source of all comments should be clearly Identified and copies of the comments (or sutnmarles where PED AL RIG1STER, VOL 40, P40. 197—THUSSDAY, ocvosa 9, im ------- PROPOSED RULES 47719 a response has beon exceptionafly long) should be ftttached to the final EI8. (di Document4tlon. Any- books, re- search reporto, field study reporta. cor- respondence and other doèuxnents which provided the data base for evaluating the Impact of the proposed new source and alternatives discussed in the EI8 shall be cited In the body of the ZIS and Included In a bibliography attached to the ElS. Enrrmrr I NOTIcs OP E TZNT rsANSMIITSL MZ3gO- W—aUQG roamer (Dat.) ENVIRON NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Appropriate Office) (Mdress, Ctty, State, Zip Code) ‘lb All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groupe. Gentlemen: A - required by the EPA reg- ulatlons, “Preparation of Environmental Im- pact Statements (ElS’s) for New Source NPD Permits” (40 CPR 6.900), attached is a Notice of Intent to prepare an £18 for the proposed EPA action described below: (Nature of EPA Action and NPD Permit Application Number) (Name of Applicant and Nature of Project) (City, County. Stats) U your organization needs additional In- formation or wishes to participate In the preparanon of the draft £18, pl .aa. advise the (appropriate office. city, state). Very truly your.. (Appropriate EPA Official) (List Federal, State, and local agencies to be solicited for comment.) (lAst public action groups to be aolloited for comment.) No rxcs or I r—Sucomrw Foaajer NOTIcE OP ZNT2NT—INV ON3LENTAL raO -zi0N AGENCY 1. Proposed EPA Action: 2. Type of Facility: 3. Location of Facility: City County Stat. 4. Issues Involved: 5. Proposed Starting Date of Discharge: EXHmIT 2 - wmATIvz usc ARATION GGssTED POSMAT NEGATIVE DECLARATION ¼Date) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, (Appropriate Office) (Address, City, State. Zip Code) To All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups. Gentlemen: As required by the EPA regu- lations. “Preparation of Environmental bu- pact Statements (ElS’s) for New Source NPD PermIts” (40 CPR. 6.900), an en- vironmental review has been performed on the proposed £P&action below: (Name f Applicant and Type of Facility) (Pacility Location: City, County, State) (Nature of EPA Action) (NPDES Permit Application Number) Project Description, Originator and Purpose (Include a map of the project area and a brief narratlve describing the prisnary sad secondary impacts of the project. purpose of the project, and other data in support of the negative declaration.) Th. review procern did -not indicate sig- nificant environmental impacts would re- suit from the proposed action, or that aig- nlflcant adverse Impacts have been mitigated by i.kft,g changes in the project. Conse- quently, a preliminary decision not to pre- pare an £18 has been made. This action Is taken on the basis of a careful eview of the environmental assess- ment, and other supporting dsta, which are on file in the above office and will be avail- able for public review upon request. Comment. on thl decision may be sub- mined for consideration by EPA. After eval- uating the comments received, the Agency will make a final decision on the need for an £18. Sincerely. (Appropriate EPA Official) E 1UTh1T3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL— SUGGESTED FORMAT - A. Identity Project: Name of Applicant Type of Facility Address B. Summi -ize Assessment: 1. Brief description of the facility: 2. Probable impact of the Issuance of an NPDES New Source permit on the environ- ment: 3. Any probable adverse environmental 1- facts which cannot be avoided: 4. Alternatives considered with evaluation of each: 5. Relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-term beneficial uses: 6. Any irreversible and irretrievable com- mitment of resources: 7. Public objections to the facility, if any, and their resolution: - - - 8. AgencIes consulted about the facility: State representative’s name Local representative’s name Other C. Reasons for concluding there will e no significant Impacts. (Discuss topics 2, 8, 5, 6, and 7 above, and bow the alternative (topic 4) selected is the moat appropriate. (Signature of appropriate official) (Date) ‘Ex i i 4 -- COVfl 5 r FORMAT FOR ENVIRONMXN ’r&L ENPWP WrATRMINTB (DRAFT, FINAL) Environmental Impact Statement (Provide Name of Facility and Type of EPA Action) (Provide Identifying NPDZS Permit Application Number) Preparedby (Responsible Agency Office) Approved by (Responsible Agency Official) (Date) ZZmBXT 5 SUMM ,AnY sREE FORISAT FOR RNVISONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS - (Check one) ( ratt. PtaaL Envlronmen$i Protection Agency (Responsible Agency Office) 1. Name of action. (Check one) ( ) Administrative action. ) Legislative action. 2. BrIef description of action indicating what State. (and counties) are particularly affected. 3. 8umm ry of environmental impact and adverse environmental effects. 4. List alternatives considered. 5. a. (for draft statements) List all Federal, State, sad local agencies from which corn- menta have been requested. b. (for ftnal statements) List all Federal, State, and local agencies and other sources from which written comments have been received. 6. Dates drat statement and final state- ment made available to Council on Environ- mental Quality and public, Zxaisrr 6 • PUBLIC NOeTCI AND NEWS RELEASE— 5UG iw FORMAT PUBLIC NOTICE Th. Environmental Protection Agency (originating office) (will prepare, will not prepare, has prepared) a (draft, final) en- vironmental Impact statement on the fol- lowing project: (Name of Applicant and Type of Facility) (Nature of EPA Action) (Facility Location, City, County, State) (Where £15 or Negative Declaration can be obtained) This notice Is to Implement EPA’s policy of encouraging public participation in the decision-making process on proposed EPA actions. Comments on this document may be submitted to (full address of originating office). APPENDIX A GUIDANCE ON DETERMINING A NEW SOURCE (1) A source should be considered a new source provided that at the time of proposal of the applicable new source standard of performance, there has not been any: (1) SIgnificant site preparation work, such as major clearing or excavation; or FED M hOISTER, VOL 40, NO. 197—THURSDAY, OCTOI 9., 1975 ------- 17720 PROPOSED RULES t1) Placement. aesembly, or Installation of unique ficilities or equipment at the premises where such faculties or equipment win be uaed or (il l) Conisactual obligation to purchase such unique facilities or equipment. Pacili. tlee and equipment shall include only the major items listed below, provided that the value of such item. represents $ substantial commitment to construct the facility: (a) structures; or b) structural materials; or (C) macbinary; or d) procees equipment; or (C) construction eqUipment. (lv) Contractual obligation with a firm to design, engineer and erect a completed facil- ity (I.e., a “turnkey” plant). (2) Modifications to existing sources will be controlled through the permit modifica- tion procedures. A new source is a totally new source (i.e., eli of which has yet to be con- structed), or a major alteration to an exist- ing source. A major siteratlon will be con- sidered & new source If the alteration is of such magnitude to. In effect, create a new facility. In mkklng such a determination, the responsible c lal shall find that the permit modification procedures are not appropriate and shall consider, among other relevant fac- tors, whether as a result of the alteration, the source can reasonably achieve the stand- ard of performance. (Only those portions of a facility determined to be a new a es shall be required to achieve the Standard of Per- formance promulgated under Section 300 of the PWPC4.) Ami U B DOCUMSNT omvusuvso *1(0 AVAfl. . ?TITT X Distribution of Docum.nts—8Usstsd Guidance (a) Tb.. responstbtu official should distrib- Ut. notices of intent end negative declare- tione according to procedures listed In 40 CFR 12532(a) and as follows: (I) The Office of Federal Activities (one copy). (2) The Office of Public Affairs (one copy). (5) The Office of Legislation (one copy). (4) Thi Office of Wctcemsnt (one copy). (5) A brief news release may be submitted to a local newspaper, which has adequate circulation to cover the srsa that will hi af- fected by the proposed facility, Informing the public that an Impact statement will be or will not be prepared on a particular project and that the agency is requesting public comment (see ExhIbit 3). (b) Draft .nvtronmental impact state- ments. lbs specific prooeden ’ee that should be taten with respect to theft environmental Impact statements are as follows: (I) Before tr .dtting the draft state- ment to the Council on ExvlroomentaL Quality, the responsible officist should: (I) Notify by phone the Office of Federal Activities (OFA) that the theft Impact state- ment has been peepere& (II) Send two (2) copies of the thattetate- ment to the Office of Federal A tivit1ee (OPA) for their review and o ent, OFA may seek amistance from other Agency compo- nents to provide their review and comment on all or Individual enviroceneatsi impact statements. (2) If neither OFA nor one of the offices requested by OFA for comment requests any changes within a ten (10) working day period after notification, the responsible of- ficial should: (I) Send five (5) copIes c i the draft en- virosunental lu sci statement to the Council on Exvlrcnmentst Quality. (ii) Inforni the Office of Public Affairs of the tre —’ Itta1 to the Council on iviron- iomtal Quality and the pls s ice’ local pram release. (lii) Notify the Office of Legislation of the transmittaL (3) The responsible officid should provide copies of the draft statement to: (i) The appropriate offices of reviewing Federal agencies U t have special expertise or jurisdiction by law with respect to any envWotlmental impacts. lbs Council cc Zn- vironmentel Quality’s Ouldellnes (40 OPft 1500.0 and Appendices U and U I thereof) list those potential agencid to which theft ES’s may be sent fee o 4 ] review and com- ment. Two (2) copies of t state- ment should be provided each agency un1 they .hsve made a specific request for more copies. The agencies ese eapected to repiy dimctly to ti* originating A office. - nsesthng agencies shell have at least fosty— five (45) calender dape to reply (the reply period &us.U c .nni n w from the date of p- licatioc in the F -’ amrm of lists of statements received by th Council on - vironinental Quality); resZtar, it ahoild be presumed that. unless a tuno extension has been requested, the agency baa no com- ment to make. ‘A may grant extensions where practical of fifteen (15) or more calen- der days. (11) The Office of Legislation if they re- quest copies (two copies). (Iii) The Office of Public Affairs (two copies). (iv) The Office of Enforcement (two copies). (v) The Office of Federal Activities (two copies). (4) The appropriate State and local agen- cies and to the appropriate State and metro- politan clearinghouses. ‘lbs time limits for review and extensions should be the same as those available to Federal agencies. (5) Interested persons and public libraries. The time limits for review and extensions should be the same as those available to Federal agencies. (c) The responsIble official should submit to the local newspapers and other appropri- ate media a news release (see ExhibIt 6 of this Part) that the draft statement Is avail. able for comment and where copies may be obtained. (d) Final environmental impact state- ments. Distribution and other specific ac- tions will be as specified for draft state- ments. In the case of Federal and State agencies and Interested persons, only those who made substantive comments on the draft statement or request a copy of th* final statement should be sent a copy. The appli- cant should be sent a copy. Where the num. bee’ of comments on the draft statement Is such that distribution of the finel statement to all commenting entities appears Imprac- ticable, the responsible officisi preparing the statement should consult with the OFA, who will discus. with the Council an Environ- mental Quality alternative arrangements for distribution of the statement. II. Availability of Documents Draft and n&l BIB’s, negative declarations and environmental impact appraisals should be made available for public review at the following locations: (1) The originating office; (2) Public Ii- brshee within the project area. Post offices, city halls or courthouse. may be used as distribution poInts If public library facilities are not available; (3) The Office of Public Affairs for draft and final BIB’s only. IFS Doc.75—26045 FIled 10—3—75:8:45 am) AL SIST. VOL 40, NO. l 7—THUtSDAY, OCTOMI i 75 ------- STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUGUSTA, MAINE 04330 BOARD ORDER “5’ OF l& ’ THE PITTSTON COMPANY ) Oil Refinery and Marine Oil Terminal ) ORDER EASTPORT, MAINE .- #29-1466-29210 c (“TI On March 12, 1975, the Board issued an approval to the Pittston Company approving with conditions the construction of anoil refinery and storage facility and a product transport system at Eastport, Maine but denying the applicant’s proposal for a crude oil transport system. The Board subsequently received a petition from the licensee to reopen the pro- ceedings to permit considerations of an amended proposal with regard to its crude oil transport system. The Board then voted to reopen the proceedings, and hearings on the licensee’s proposals, relating to the location of its crude oil piers and the size of vessels bringing crude oil to that pier, were held on April 17, May 1 and May 19, 1975. Based upon the transcript of these hearings and the evidence admitted therein, the Board makes the following findings: 1. In its order of March 12, the Board in evaluating the original application, found that “oil spills at Shackford Head, due to the currents, cannot be controlled using presently available technology.” (Findings of Fact and Order, Page 7). Further evidence developed at the reopened hearing suggested alternative pier locations which have lower current velocities. The Board now finds that inasmuch as existing oil spill containment technology permits the control of oil spills in currents of up to 1 knot, an oil spill at a pier located in the Shackford Head area can be controlled provided that it is contained within currents of that speed or less. However, the licensee presented only general evidence at the hearing as to the precise location of the one knot line in the Shackford Head area, and in addition indicated that sub- stantial amounts of dredging will be required to construct a pier behind that line. Accordingly, additional data as to current conditions and dredging is necessary to specifically locate the pier with minimum impact. 2. In its order of March 12, the Board found that VLCC’s had a greater potential for catastrophic harm than ships of the size approved for product carriage, and de- fined VLCC’s as ships in the 100,000 to 250,000 DWT category. After reviewing the record in the present proceeding the Board now concludes that differences in handling characteristics are such that ships up to 150,000 DWT may be safely navigated in the waters of Eastport as proposed by Pittston, if sufficient safeguards are provided, in- cluding early completion of the required Real Time Simulation Studies. Accordingly, the Board amends its order of March 12 to permit vessels of this size to be employed but imposes on them the conditions which ‘it has already imposed on vessels of 70,000 OWl or less in that order. Therefore, on the basis of the above findings, the Board concludes: 1. The licensee may construct a pier for the off loading of its crude oil in the Shackford Head area subject to all applicable conditions in the Board’s order of March 12, provided that the location of that pier shall be such that the currents on ------- THE PITTSTON COMPANY -2- ORDER Oil Refinery and Marine Oj’lTermjnal EASTPORT, MAINE #29—1466-29210 its out board side are at no time greater than one knot. Further, within one year of the date of this order the licensee shall submit to the Board for its approval, before the coninencement of construction, engineering plans of such pier showing its exact proposed location and demonstrating that such location is behind the one knot line as established by definitive current studies. Such plans shall indicate the extent and effect of dredging to be undertaken and include a plan for the disposal of the dredged spoil. 2. The following conditions are substituted for the corresponding conditions in the Board’s Order of March 12: a. Condition B 11: “Pittston shall, before transporting any oil in a vessel in the 70,000 to 149,999 range, conduct .12 test runs with a tankship of that size or larger and tugs in a ballast condition similar to fully loaded conditions to confirm the operability of such a vessel in the area. Such test runs will be observed by the Harbor Control Officer. b. Condition 0 1: TM N0 oil vessel greater than 149,999 DWT shall carry crude oil or refined petroleum product or by products to or from Pittston’s marine oil terminals. c. Condition D 15: “Before transporting oil on a vessel in the 70,000 to 149,999 OWl range, all pilots and tug crews engaged in the initial operation of the facility shall undertake 12 trial runs navigating a vessel of that size or greater in a ballast condition which simulates a fully loaded condition, between Deep Cove and Quoddy Head, utilizing tug assistance and all navigational aids. All pilots and tug crews subsequently engaged at the facility to operate a vessel in the 70,000 to 149,999 range shall undertake 12 round trips between Deep Cove and Quoddy Head in such vessel or in a vessel of greater size under the observation and instructions of a previously qualified pilot. 3. The indicated conditions of the Board’s Order of March 12 are hereby amended as follows: a. Condition B 2: Add at theend of the condition “and shall be submitted within eighteen months of the date of this order”. b. Conditions B 4, 0 14, D 16: Change the word “terminal” to “terminals” in each instance where it appears. DONE AND DATED AT AUGUSTA, MAINE THIS FOURTH DAY OF JUNE, 1975. BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WILLIAM R. ADAMS, JR., CHAIRMAN Bodrd Members Concurring Board Members Dissenting 1. Edgar Thomas 3. Lionel Ferland 1. Charles Wyman 2. Norman Gleason 4. John Hess 2. Evelyn Jephson 5. Irwin Douglass ------- STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUGUSTA. MAINE 04330 BOARD O DEfl IN RE: THE PITTSTON COMPANY Ofl Refinery and Marine Oil Terminal FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER Eastport, Maine Site Application No. 29—1466-29210 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April, 1973 The Pittston Company (hereinafter “Pittston” or “applicant”) filed an application under 38 M.R.S.A., SS 481-488 for an oil refinery and marine oil terminal to be located in Eastport, Washington County, Maine. Public hearings were begun on June 18, 1973 in Eastport. The Board suspended the hear— ings on that date, due to expressed opposition from the Canadian government, and directed the aoplicant to resolve the problem of tanker access with Canada. Upon an order of the Superior Court the Board resumed the hearings on July 16, 1973, and continued them through January 23, 1974. Prior to rendering a decision in early 1974, the Board was advised by the Attorney General that it might lack jurisdiction in this matter. This opinion of the Attorney General, based upon the decision of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in Walsh v. City of Brewer, Me., 315 A. 2d 200 (1974), was that “title, right and interest” by Pittston in the property proposed for development was a necessary jurisdictional prerequisite to administrative re- view by the Board. Consistent with that opinion of the Attorney General the Board deferred decision on Pittston’s. application pending demonstration by Pittston of sufficient “title, right and interest” in the development site. On July 10, 1974, Pittston moved the Board to dismiss the then pend-. Ing application, having concluded that it lacked sufficient title, right and interest in the site, and requested permission to file a new application. This request was granted by the Board on that date. ------- -2- Hearings on this new application opened on August 19, 1974 and were sus- •pended on August 20, 1974, when the Board determined that applicant did not have adequate control of the airport property at the center of the refinery site. After receiving additional information, the Board voted to resume the hearings and this was done on January 6, 1975. The Board coninenced hearings on such new application incorporating by reference all evidence an testimony from the prior proceeding and limiting new testimony and evidence to (1) evidence bearing on the newly proposed VLCC site for Shackiord Head and (2) other evidence bearing on any other issue which had become available since the conclusion of the prior proceeding. The intent of such limitation was to avoid needless repetition of testimony. On January 29, 1975, the Board concluded hearings on the Pittston proposal a,,d ieci iv d ,riefs fr t p:rtic:. !tt t! e conclusion 0 f the hearina and after submission of briefs from the parties, the record included approximately 5,000 pages of testimony and 260 exhibits (some of great length and complexity) plus numerous briefs and pleadings. In addition to reviewing such record the Board made several trips in and about Eastport, by air and water, to view the proposed site. The Board also visited oil refineries and marine oil terminals in New Brunswick, Canada; Nova Scotia, Canada; Wales and Norway in an effort to fully educate itself on all issues related to operation and construction of such facilities. ii: FINDINGS A. The Scoie of the Prolect Sun narized briefly, Pittston proposes to construct a 250.000 barrel per day oil refinery to process Middle East crude and prcduce a variety of ------- —3- refined products and liquid sulfur. The refinery site will be located on approximately 650 acres of land on Moose Island (which island is the City of £astport) lying generally between Highway 190 and County Road on the east, Carrying Place Cove on the north, Deep Cove on the west and Broad Cove on the south. Two marine terminals are proposed, the first being for the transhipment of refined product and sulfur and located in Deep Cove, the second for the Teceipt of crude oil and located adjacent, to Shackford Head. CrUde oil will nove to and from the facility at Shackford Head via ships up to 250,000 dead- weight tons (DWT) from the Bay of Fundy through Head Harbor Passage, Friar Roads and to Shackford Head. Refined products will be moved in barges and ships up to 70,000 OWl and will follow the same route to and from Deep Cove. Some products will move from the site via rail. The proposed facility includes air emission and wastewater discharge control systems, navigational controls and oil spill control devices. The total projected cost of the entire project is estimated at $500,000,000. B. Financial and Technical Capacity (38 M.R.S.A., S 484 (1) ) 1. -Air -and Water Pollution Control Facilities Applicant has not filed for other permits or licenses required from the Board, including waste discharge and air emission licenses, nor have the detailed ‘plans which will be required in such licensing procedures been submitted. The terms of any such licensing can only be defined after the applicant files -appropriate application for such permits and licenses. The record does indicate the type of equipment which will be installed by the applicant to meet these standards. The evidence adduced at the hearing aIsc Indicates that the applicant has available to it substantial sources of financing to install such equipment and construct the entire development. Pittston is an established company with large financial reserves and a sound financial picture. ------- -4., These reserves, in combination with traditional sources of capital for projects of this type should be adequate to finance the project. With respect to technical capacity, Pittston is an established company with technically trained employees familiar with the construction and operation of oil refineries. In addition, Pittston has available to it consultants who appeared on its behalf and who are capable of designing the necessary air and water pollu- tion control facilities. Such technical resources are sufficient to meet the statutory requirements. 2. Solid Waste The refinery will generate solid waste from spent catalysts in the process units, scrap material from maintenance, normal trash and rubbish gener- ated in office and service areas and sludge from wastewater treatment. Spent catalysts, In the amount of 300 tons per month, and scrap metal will be shipped by rail or truck for reprocessing. All other wastes will be Incinerated and disposed of at a landfill site. Substantial additional solid waste may be generated by requirements of this order for air pollution controls on the Claus Desuiphurization unit. Plans for such disposal will be required. 3. Offensive Odors The proposed development will generate a variety of air pollutants, some of which will cause odors. Adequate emission controls will prevent vio- lation of air quality standards and prevent offensive odors from going beyond the site boundaries. Controls will be designed and specific limitations estab- lished by the Board at such time as an emission license is Issued under 38 M.R.S.A., S 581-605. 4. Water Supplies Fresh water for use as process and drinking water will be obtained from the Eastport Water District. The refinery requires 2,000,000 gallons per day. ------- -.5- The water supply of the Eastport Water District is adequate to supply the needs of the project. 5. The Character of the Applicant The Intervenors raised the issue of the character of the applicant. This is an appropriate area for consideration. Not only must an applicant have sufficient financial and technical resources, but he must be willing to use them responsibly. This is an implicit requirement under the Site law. Examination of an applicant’s prior conduct is a measure of the likelihood of its satisfying Maine’s environmental standards. Adequate technical and financial capacity is predicated upon the willingness of an applicant to use the same. With respect to the construction and operation of the refinery and product pi r(! cp Ccve) whore the hazards posed by the operations are less serious, we believe the applicant’s record in rreeting environmental and safety standards to be adequate to meet the standards of the Site law. C. Traffic Movement (38 M.R.S.A., S 484(2) ) 1. Product Vessels Refined product and sulfur will move in vessels of up to 70,000 DWT to and from Deep Cove via .the Bay of Fundy, Head Harbor Passage and Friar Roads. Some tankers and barges have in the past safely transitted’these waters. Using the proposed aids to navigation, employing qualified pilots, and accompanied by adequate tug assistance, such vessels can be maneuvered in these waters. Ade-. quate deep water and a sufficient channel is available to permit safe navigation. The Deep Cove product pier site is a sheltered area. Currents are such•that any spills or accidents at the pier can be sufficiently controlled using presently available technology. The existing level of vessel traffic is minimal, consti- tuting mostly small fishing vessels, and should not interfere with navigation. Pittston proposed numerous limits on vessel .p vigation and other evidence ------- -6- was presented by the Board’s consultant with respect to navigation. Such limita- tions as proposed by Pittston were directed principally to limits on VLCC move- ment. SUch limits ought to be imposed on all oil vessels regardless of size to insure safe navigation. Ample evidence is available that certain navigational conditions should be imposed to reduce dangers of accid nt. These limits are found in conditions Dl-D7, D14, D16 and D17. In addition to these navigational limits certain modern design features can be incorporated into vessels to minimize hazard. These design features are currently available for oil vessels and have been demonstrated to be of signifi- canteffect in reducing accidents and the magnitude of spills in case of accidents Such features are reflected in conditions D8 - D 13 of this Order. Adequately trained personnel are essential to safe Operation of oil vessel!. Only one pilot is currently trained for Eastport. In order to insure adequately trained personnel certain pre-operational training must be undertaken utilizing procedures presently in use or porposed by the applicant. These training requirements are found in conditions Cl, D 15. Other pre-operational tests and procedures deemed necessary in view of the evidence are found in conditions B2-B4, B11, B12, C3, C6, Cl5 and Dl5. The record indicates that the safe operation of oil ports is greatly improved when subject to the continuous surveillance of an independent regulatory agency which exercises affirmative contro1 over such harbors. Such a control is neces- sary for Eastport. Prior to operation of the marine terminal, facilities the Board will appoint a Harbor Control Officer for Eastport. That officer shall have complete control over all oil vessel movement in and through Head Harbor Passage and bound to or from Pittston’s facility. He shall enforce all of the above, navigational limits. No oil vessel shall navigate between East Quoddy Head and Deep Cove without clearance from said officer.. The officer shall have full ------- —7— coninunications with all such vessels using communication facilities provided by Pittston. He shall have full access to all navigational aid coninunication systems and marine terminal facilities of Pittston) and will insure their proper and safe operation at all times. He will be responsible for insuring compliance by Pittston with all regulations which may be promulgated by the Board under the Oil Conveyance Act, 38 M.R.S.A., S 551 et. seq. This independent full time control will insure continuing compliance by Pittston with all of the above limits. 2. Crude Oil Transportation VLCC’s and the Shackford Head site are inappropriate for the following reasons. Oil spills at Shackford Head, due to the currents, cannot be controlled using presently available technology. The record provides no evidence that significant breakthroughs in such technology can be expected in the near future. The combination of currents, tides, fog, extremes of weather and rocky shores make Eastport one of the more difficult ports in the world. While smaller ships might safely navigate these waters, vessels of the VLCC class are inappropriate. The problems of navigating VLCC’s are substantia1ly greater than those of navigat- ing the 70,000 DWT vessels. Within the last several years numerous VLCC accidents have occurred, resulting in massive oil spills. VLCC’s are extremely hazardous vessels which ought not to be operated in these difficult waters. Weather conditions, especially fog, in conjunction with visibility limits proposed by Pittston will have the etfect of severely limiting the number of days that VLCC’s can deliver il to the refinery. This limitation and the re- sulting financial impact may result in Pittston attempting to operate its c ’ude oil delivery system in marginal conditions in order to supply the refinery with crude oil ------- Such economic pressures are fncompatthle with safe operation of this facility. The timing of VLCC movement down head Harbor Passage is of critical importance. The VLCC must be at the Shackford head site to berth durina slack tide. Any delays .in transit of the passage would mean that berthing could not take place during slack tide and thereby increase the difficulty of such maneuver. A vessel that missed the docking period would have to be held or anchored in Friar Roads until the next slack tide. Vessels so anchored for a substantial period will interfere with navigation and will create additional hazards. The financial pressures to operate the refinery at optimum capacity, especially i -n view of the limitations noted above, may increase the probability that Pittston ou1dchoose to take unacceptable risks to keep the refinery supplied with crude oil. The potential for catastrophic harm resulting from a VLCC accident (vessels from 100,000 to 250,000 OWT) and the difficulties associated with navigation of such ships are substantially greater than those occasioned by the movement of .70,000 DWT oil vessels. Added to this Is the difficulty of controlling spills at the proposed crude oil pier. This increased level of risk and difficulty requires that a higher standard be utilized in evaluating an applicant’s record of corporate ‘responsibility. In view of Pittston’s poor environmental and safety record, Pittston lails to meet this high standard and lacks the necessary corporate coninitment to sacrifice profits for safety in such an undertaking. 3. Other Transportation Modes Other types of traffic will move into and out of the proposed development, 3ncluding motor vehicles and trains. Rail service will not present any new environ- mental considerations since such service will presumably use existing tracks. Motor wehicles will move to and from the site to carry equipment and materials necessary ‘for construction. After th construction phase is complete, daily vehicular traffic will consist largely of vehicles for the approximately 300 refinery employees, spread out over 3 shifts during the day. This amount of additional traffic appears to present no adverse impact. Consideration should be given, however, to the access A—Go ------- -9-. road to the site to ensure that traffic, particularly during the construction phase, presents no safety hazards. D. jfifecLt on the tral Environment (38 M.R.S.A. S 484 (3)) _ •1. The 1jjj.er L$jte The refinery site is relatively flat, lying 20-60 feet above mean sea level except for a large bedrock hill 110 feet high at the eastern end. Shack- ford Head and Broad Cove are hilly with elevations 40-120 feet. Bedrock under- lies the site with sand and marine clay forming a thin veneer in places. Ground- water is not abundant and groundwater level is near the surface throughout most of the site. Much of the site is overgrown with alders and scrub brush. There are stands of second growth conifers at Shackford Head and in some other shore- line areas. Approximately 5% of the site is wooded, 35% is open and 60% is scrub. Th site is rc r.t ’ velcpcd xccpt for 2 3 ãC.e used as the municipal airport for light aircraft. The airport is in need of substantial repair. There are 20-30 frame residences around the perimeter of the project, mostly on Highway 190 and the County Road. Several fish processing plants and wooden piers are adjacent to the site or within the site boundaries. One •pier is proposed for Deep Cove; two piers are proposed for Broad Cove and Shackford Head. No other shoreline development exists in the area. The refinery site and shoreline area are zoned for industrial uses. No shoreline disturbance is required except for the area near the proposed pier structures. This alteration can and should be kept to an absolute minimum. The land site is not an importanthabitat for waterfowl or wildlife. No rare or endangered species of birds or mammals use the site for a habitat. The site does not have agricultural value. The proposed use of the land for the refinery/marine complex is compatible with use of adjacent land. The site is relatively isolated and should not interfere with access or use of other man- ‘4 —.” ------- -10- made deve1oPti e1 tS In the area, nor any places of natural or historic importance. An oil refinery, oil storage and terminal facility is large and will have some unavoidable impact on its neighbors and the surrounding environment, but the intrusion of a refinery can be reduced by a substantial degree. In this case, although the refinery and storage facility is proposed for a coastal loca— tion, the topography of the refinery site will nearly rrevent it from being seen from the metropolitan area of Eastport, Head Harbor Passage, or most land or water areas in Cobscook Bay including Campobello. Most of the structures are set back from the immediate shore areas thereby reducing visual impact. The refining facility itself will be removed from the immediate coastline. However, additional consideration to landscaping the development boundary, principally for screening is needed to keep such impact to a minimum. The applirant proposes a 100 foot wl”e buffer zone around t e entire project. Inhere natural vegetation in the buffer zone Is scrub brush, this buffer zone should e planted with substantial coniferous trees indigenous to the area and of sufficient size and density to screen the development to the maximum extent possible. 2. ExistIng resources The Passamaquoddy Power Project is designed to take advantage of the natural tidal ranges in the Bay to generate electricity. The proposed refinery and terminal is not incompatible with utilization of this natural resource since the record reflects no proposal for development of such a project which appears viable in the foreseeable future. 3. Oil In the marine environmerct Oil will enter the marine environment as a result of the operation of this refinery, and oil In the marine environment is harmful. The extent of harm depends, however, on the type and amount of oil spilled, and the location end conditions under which such oil Is spilled. Steps can be taken to reduce the ------- likelihood of a spill and to contain and clean-up any spilled oil. Generally Pittston has shown such capability to entrap and remove oil spills at the Deep Cove product piers. Such capability has not been shown for the Shackford Head VLCC site. The likelihood and magnitude of spills in the channel is. reduced using 70,000 DWT vessels although such spills remain a serious concern. However, further planning is necessary prior to final authorization for construction. Entrapment sites to contain spilled oil and facilitate removal from the water should be identified. Sites for storage of clean-up equipment around the Eastport, Head ilarbor Passage, Cobscook Bay and Passamaquoddy Bay areas should be identified. Pittston proposes to use a boom to contain oil spills in the channel, which boom is notsuitable for the conditions likely to be encountered there. An alternate toom more suitable for the area must be selected. Applicant’s boom-dock to surround the pier is an innovative technique and should be demonstrated at an early date to acquaint clean-up personnel with procedures, techniques and equipment. -Applicant’s testimony indicated the likelihood of improved technology for oil spill clean-up and containment. Applicant’s operations should continue to employ the latest in such technology. All vessels carrying oil, refined products or.sulfur..between the terminal and East Quoddy Head should occur in daylight hours to facilitate clean-up of oil or liquid sulfur spills. The evidence shows that it is nearly inmossible to detect such spills at night. 1 he applicant has not indicated any ability or plans to remove sulfur spills. Satisfactory capability and plans must be developed prior to construction. The record indicates that the waters surrounding the site, (including Cobscook Bay, Friar Roads, Head Harbor Passage and Passamaquoddy Bay) support a variety of marine life, some of unusual size. Pittston has conducted no specific studies in this area to determine the type and abundanceof such resources. In order to /4-’) ------- -12. continually monitOr the effect of refinery and terminal operations on the marine environment, Pittston should conduct a comprehensive pre-operational and post- operational marine population studyto provide baseline data against which effect the operation of the refinery and marine can be measured and monitored. 4. _ .Airquality The record indicates that air emissions can be controlled to meet prcsent Maine air quality standards. Additional control equipment will be -necessary, however, including an S02 recovery system on the Claus desuiphuriza- Lion unit. The applicant, of course, will be required to meet State and Federal air quality standard and emission limits (including new source performance stan- -dards and non-degradation standards) in effect on the operational date of the refinery. The applicant relied solely on data gathered by the Department staff over the last few years. This Information should be supplemented to provide domplete background data against which the operation of the plant can be com- pared. 5. Water qualit y _ -We find on the basis of the evidence from the applicant’s witnesses that - raastewater discharges (including heat) can be controlled to meet Maine water quality standards. The applicant will be required to meet State and Federal water quality and effluent limits in effect on the operative date of the refinery. Again, as in the air quality studies and for the same reasons, the applicant must conduct pre-operational and post—operational water quality studies to deter- viine the effect of the refinery effluent on the water of Maine. 6. Other impacts The Little River is capable of supplying the refinery needs for fresh water without adverse impact on existing uses or the natural resources. Construction on land will require earth moving and blasting. Construction ------- —‘13- of piers will require pile driving. No detailed plans for erosion control were provided other than assurances that such plans would be prepared. Sound at the site boundary along Route 190 will be 35-40 decibels (ordinary conversational levels) during refinery operation. These levels are acceptable. Little data bias provided on noise levels anticipated at other sites around the “refinery. The plant should be constructed and operated in such a fashion that noise levels at all points of the site boundary do not exceed 35—40 decibels. A pro—operational and post-operational noise survey should be performed around the perimeter of the site to confirm that the noise levels will be within, these limits. The firefighting capacity of the refinery Is adequate to handle moderate fires at the refinery. The refinery will have to meet minimum underwriting standards to 4btain insurance for the facility. Because of the size of local communities and the probable lack of extensive firefighting equipment in this rural area of Wash- ington County, it would be prudent for the refinery to be totally self-reliant to 4eal with major fires. All tugboats and workb’oats must be equipped with fire- -fighting equipment. Tugboats should have elevated monitors high enough to direct water and foam on the deck of all vessels under all loading conditions. Waste gases will be discharged to the atmosphere through a flare. During upsets or emergencies in refinery operation, additional gases discharged through this stack will be incinerated by the flare.’ The flare shall not emit visible air contaminants. It should be located in a site which will reduce its visual .impact -on surrounding areas and, If possible, at ground level. Flare emissions must be licensed under 38 M.R.S.A. 581—605. Since the refinery and tank farm site will be located adjacent to some exist- Ing homes, the development must be screened from such areas and noise and light must not interfere with the rights of adjacent landowners. ------- —14- Oil spills resulting from loading of rail tank cars and truck tankers may create problems of oil spilled on the ground and potential fires. Additional detailed in- formation should be provided regarding spill and fire prevention procedures associated with such operations. At the height of the construction phase, some 2200 workers will be employed at the site. This will last for nearly a year. Pittston introduced evidence regarding con nunity impact resulting from the influx of such a large work force. Pittston asserted that the housing and health needs of this work force could be met within East- port and surrounding comunities. in order to ensure that Pittston t prediction is correct, more detailed consideration must be given to solid waste and sewage dis— posa) facilities for this large number ofpersons, particularly in view of the in- adequacies of Eastport’s sewage and solid waste disposal systems. More detailed consideration must also be given to the condition of Quoddy Village and whether it could safely and healthfully house at least 1200 persons. E. Soil Types (38 M.RS.A. SS484 (4) ) Most of the soils at the site are shallow to bedrock. While suitable for con- struction such soils may create erosion problems occasioned by massive earth moving. Care should be taken in advance planning to minimize soil erosion. Approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of earth moving will be required for the refinery site. Such earth will be disposed of at the site. ‘F. Health Safety and General Welfare All environmental effects of the plant have been adequately addressed in the above findings. The record does not show that any other aspect of the development is likely to adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare. 1!!. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the above finding we conclude that: ------- —‘15- . The crude oil transport system proposed by Pittston has failed to meet the requirement of 38 M.R.S.A. S 484 in that it falls to make adequate provision for move- ment of VLCC’S to and from the refinery site, lacks the technical ability to meet •water pollution control standards, and will have an adverse effect upon the natural environment. 2. The refinery and oil storage facility and product transport system satisy the requirements of 38 M.R.S.A. SS484 subject to the conditions enumerated below. With respect to this approval, it is apparent that in many instances the findings state that furthe ’ study is required or more detailed plans are necessary. The general findings and conclusions are not inconsistent with this approach. There is a fine dividing line between preparation of evidence sufficient to satisfy the Site law standards and preparation of all final details of a project. While the evidence may be sufficient to make a general finding on each statutory element, that does not Incdn that iuri.her jurisdiction is reiinqu s ed. preparation of detailed plans is often necessary, as In this case, to insure that general proposals, when f in- ally implemented, meet the environmental standards of the Site law. in many cases it can be found that the applicant is correct that a particular environmental problem is capable of solution. By requiring detailed plans for later review, there is in- surance that the original judgement was sound and that the specific plan adequately treats the specific problem. The imposition of such conditions precedent on final approval and construction follows a long established procedure of the Board designed to treat the applicant fairly and adequately protect the intervenors and public. If detailed plans of the type here required were necessary to gain Site approval, the cost to all applicants would be prohibitive. The issuance of an initial approval with the requirement for further preparation of plans, permits the applicant to proceed further with its project. The requirement for detailed plans and specification on each Item of im- portánce prior to construction insures that the public is adequately protected and that an applicant does not submit an application and obtain final approval based only A- 7 ------- -16- on generalitic s and promises to ‘taI e care of that in the future’. Finally no construction may begin until all conditions precedent have been satisfied. This condition is customary and is necessary to ensure that an appli- cant does not place both itself and the Board in an untenable position. For example, should the applicant commence construction only to discover that he is unable to satisfy an essential element of this approval, both it and the Board would be in an awkward position. In such a case, it would be exceedingly diffi- cult for the Board to halt the project after the applicant had made a substantial investment. It would also be unfair to the applicant to halt the development of this project in such a situation. Therefore, final construction is conditioned on approval of all conditions precedent. IV. Q1 ITJOtjS _ OF APPROVAL A. General Conditions 1. The applicant shall construct and operate the development in the loca- tion and manner stated in the application and supporting exhibits and documents and as represented by it or its witnesses in the hearing. Any variance from or change in such manner of construction and operation shall have the prior written approval of the Commissioner. Any such change or variance which involves signi- ficant environmental considerations, as determined by the Coninissioner, shall have the prior written approval of the Board. 2. Prior to coninencing any construction, Pittston shall obtain a certifi- cate from the Commissioner that it has complied with all conditions of Part IV. (B) of this Order. 3. PrIor to corrinencing operation, Pittston shall obtain a certificate from the Coninissioner that it has complied with all conditions of Part IV (C) of this Order. ------- —17- 4. Pittston shall not sell, transfer or assign any part of this develop- ment, except as expressly permitted by this order or as cont plated in the application as necessary to the development, without express written approval of the Board. 5. The Board explicitly retains continuing jurisdiction over this develop- ment to review and approve the operation thereof and issue such additional orders as might be necessary to prevent or abate, reduce or control significant adverse environmental impact not anticipated by Pittston in its application or the Board In its review. 6. Pittston shall provide notice to all parties in this proceeding of the filing of all documents and plans to comply with all terms of this order. 7. The Board, its employees, agents and representatives shall have full access at any time to all land r water areas or facilities which are the subject of this approval and shall have the right to inspect all records and reports maintained by Pittston with respect to the operation of this facility and the conditions of this order. 8. Pittston shall submit all reports and studies to the Coniriissioner or Board as required by this order and shall maintain copies of the same at all times at the project site in Eastport, Maine. 9. Except where otherwise stated all reports, studies, or plans or surveys shall be submitted to the Commissioner for his approval prior to the implementation thereof. B. Pre-Operational Conditions 1. Pittston shall obtain air emission, wastewater discharge, wetlands, and 2 L ------- oil terminal licenses from the Board and all other local, State) Federal or Canadian permits, licenses or certificates to construct or operate the facility. 2. Pittston shall conduct Real Time Simulation Studies simulating the navigational conditions to be experienced In Eastport to confirm intitial evalua- tion of the navigability of Eastport and to determine the precise location for all lights, buoys, ranges and navigational aids. The results of such studies and the resulting plans for locating navigational aids shall be reported to the Board for review and approval. 3. Pittston shall undertake comprehensive bottom studies in Friar Roads to determine whether and where ships may anchor in that area and report the results of that study to the Board for review and approval. In the event that such studies indicate that no suitable site is available, because of bottom conditions or for any other reason, Pittston shall select a site for a permanent mooring buoy, said site to be subject to Board approval. 4. Pittston shall execute appropriate agreements or otherwise secure approval or permits from appropriate Canadian authorities (1) regarding transit through and pilotage in Canadian waters, and (2) installation, construction, maintenance and use of navigational aids in Canadian territory, or provide to the Board certificates from such officials stating that no such agreements, approvals or permits are required. 5. Pittston shall prepare a detail ed erosion prevention plan, for review and approval by the Board. 6. Pittston shall prepare plans for review and approval by the Board for the disposal of wastes frbm periodic tank cleaning and from the Claus desulphuriza- tion unit. 7. Pittston shall provide a detailed plan for review and approval by the Board indicating the location of tank car and tank truck loading facilities and ------- —‘19— procedures to prevent spills or fires involving oil refined products or sulfur. 8. Pittston shall prepare a detailed plan for review and approval by the Board on (1) provision for solid waste and sewage disposal for construction workers and families housed at Quoddy Village, and (2) provisions for providing safe and healthful housing for constrUction wàrkers and families. 9. Pittston shall prepare landscaping plans, for review and approval by the Board 1 providing for the establishment and maintenance of a 100 foot vegetated buffer strip around the entire land facility. Where necessary such plan shall provide for the addition of indigenous conifers of a size and density to effectively screen the refinery site. 10. Pittston shall prepare plans for review and approval of the Board to clean- • up sulfur spilled in waters of the state. • 11. Pittston shall conduct 12 test runs with a 70,000 DWT tankship and tugs in a ballast condition similar to fully loaded condition to confirm operability of such ships in that area. Such test runs will be observed by the Harbor Control Officer. 12. Pittston shall undertake an oil clean-up testing program, using soy bean oil or other non-hazardous substance with properties similar to the oil to be handled, both in the channel and at the proposed marine terminal. Plans for such testing program shall focus on Pittston’s technical ability to control and remove oil under the most critical field conditions. Said plans, and results shall be reviewed and approved by the Board. C.. Pre-Operation Conditions 1. All pilots involved in operatton of the marine terminal shall receive training in Real Time Simulation prior to operation or navigation of any tankship in or through Head Harbor Passage or Eastport Harbor. 2. Pittston shall install, construct, operate and maintain all navigational aids as proposed or as subsequently determined to be necessary. ------- 3. Pittstcn h ]1 conduct complete comprehensive tide and current studies over a complete lunar cycle at the mouth of Head Harbor Passage, midway In Head Harbor Passage, at the confluence of Head Harbor Passage and Western Passage, in Friar 0 Roads and at the site of the piers to determine the set and drift of the current at depths up to 70 feet. The results of such studies shall be reported to the Board for review and approval within one year of the date of this order. 4. Pittston shall install at least three current meters .at each proposed pier. 5. Pittston shall construct only one product pier in that location shown on Exhibit 2B, figure 7. Additional product piers shall not be constructed without written approval from the Board. 6. Pittston shall install redundant ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore communica- tion systems. 7. Pittston shall nrepare for review and approval of the the Board a detailed plan for (1) entrapment sites for oil spills, (2) storage sites for clean-up equipment, and (3) a regular training program for clean-up personnel, including regular emergency drills. 8. The Board reserves the right to require Pittston to install an SO 2 recovery system on the Claus desulphurization unit at such time as It considers the application for a license under Title 38 M.R.S.A. SS 581-605. 9. Pittston shall conduct comprehensive pre-operational marine biological and population study in the waters around the site to provide baseline data against which the effect of the refinery/terminal can be measured. 10. Pittston shall conduct pre-operational water quality surveys to determine the effect of the refinery effluents on water quality. 11. Pittston shall conduct a comprehensive pre-operational sound survey at the perimeter of the refinery site. 12. Pittston shall perform a one-year ambient air quality monitoring program prior to plant operation to determine (1) the ambient air quality In areas likely ------- to be affected by refinery emissions, and (2) the point or points of maximum ground level concentratiuri of contamindnts emi Lied by the refinery. 13. Pittston shall prepare a firefighting plan to make the refinery totally self-reliant and not dependent on support from local communities. 14. Pittston shall implement and maintain all plans prepared and approved pursuant to Parts B and C of this order. 15. After installation of all navigational aids and completion of marine terminal facilities, Pittston shall conduct 5 test runs in the fashion required by Condition B 11. Such test. runs may be used to partially fulfill the requirements of Condition D 15. D. Navigation and Vessel Design 1. No oil vessel of greater than 70,000 DWT shall carry oil or refined petroleum product or by-product, to or from Pittston’s marine oil terminal. 2. oil v I f afl transit Harbor ra3sa e when visibility is ass one mile. 3. No oil vessel shall transit Head Harbor Passage except during the period between nautical sunrise and nautical sunset. 4. No oil vessels shall be berthed and deberthed from the marine oil terminal ex- cept during slack tide (current less than one knot). 5. All oil vessels shall enter Head Harbor Passage only on ebb tide and leave Head Harbor Passage only on flood tide. 6. No other oil vessel associated with this project shall be permitted to operate In the channel between Estes Head and East Quoddy Head when another vessel is in the channel. 7. All oil vessels navigating between Quoddy Head and Deep Cove shall be accompanied and assisted in navigation by at least two 40-ton Bollard pull 4000 horse power tugs. 8. All oil vessels of 30,000 OWl or more shall be provided with segregated ballast ------- tanks and a double bottom throughout their cargo length. The height of the double bottom shall be not less than one-fifteenth of the tankship’s molded beam. In no case shall oil or other polluting substances be carried in the double bottom. 9. All oil vessels shall haveand employ gas inerting systems. 10. All oil vessels shall have bilge residue tanks. 11. All oil vessels shall have complete engine control systems located on the bridge. 12. All oil vessels shall comply with all IMCO standards applicable to new vessels. 13. All oil vessels shall have on board docking collision avoidance systems on the bridge to measure rate of closing. ‘14. Anchorage in Friar Roads or any other portion of Eastport Harbor shall be for emergency purposes only. No oil vessel bound to or from Pittston’s marine terminal shall transit in or through Eastport Harbor while any oil vessel is at anchor. 15. All pilots and tug crews engaged in initial operation of the facility shall undertake 12 trial runs navigating a vessel of at least 70,000 DWT in a ballast condition simulating a fully loaded condition between Deep Cove and Quoddy Head, utilizing tug assistance and all navigational aids. All pilots and tug crews sub- sequently engaged at the facility shall undertake 12 round trips between Deep Cove and Quoddy Head observing and under the instruction of a previously qualified pilot. 16. Ho oil vessel bound to or from the Pittston marine terminal shall transit Head Harbor Passage between Quoddy Head and Deep Cove without prior clearance from the Harbor Control Officer, such off4cer to be appointed by the Board prior to operation of the project. AU vessels operated by or for Pittston shall maintain radio contact with said officer at all times while in waters of the State of Maine and shall operate under the control and direction of said officer. 17. The Harbor Control Officer shall have full access to all cormnunication, navigation and marine terminal facilities of Pittston to enforce the operational ------- -23 limits imposed by this order, lie shall communicate with vessels operated byor for Pittston using communication systems provided by Pittston. E. Continuing Conditions 1. Pittston shall conduct a continuing post-operational marine biological and population study in the waters around the site to measure the effect of the refinery/ terminal on the marine environment. 2. Pittston shall conduct a continuing post-operational air quality monitoring program to evaluate the affect of refinery emissions on the ambient air. 3. Pittston shall coflduct a continuing post-operational water quality survey to determine the effect of refinery effluents and oil discharges on water quality. 4. Pittston shall conduct a continuing post-operational sound survey at the perimeter of the refinery site. 5. Sound levels at the refinery site due to activities of Pittston shall not exceed 40 decibels. 6. No dredge spoils or solid wastes shall be disposed of other than on the refinery tank farm site unless an alternate site is approved by the Board. 7. All tugboats and workboats shall be equipped with firefighting equipment. All tugboats shall have elevated monitors high enough to direct water or foam onto the deck of all vessels. 8. The flare shall emit no visible air contaminants. The flare shall be located at ground level unless Pittston can demonstrate to the Board that such requirement presents a safety hazard. The emission from such flare shall be licensed under 38 M.R.S.A. SS 581-605. 9. Pittston shall thoroughly screen the refinery from adjacent or nearby residences and take all such steps as are necessary to prevent increased in sound levels, light, air contaminants or any other interference with such residences. 10. Pittston shall prepare an annual report to the Board detailing the latest techniques, procedures, and their proposals for sulfur and oil spill containmz 1 t ------- -24— and clean-up. The Board retains the right to require the purchase and installation of additional equipment or employment of additional personne1 deemed adequate by the Board to cope with oil or sulfur spills. The Board would consider a request for amendment to the application of the Pittston Company dealing solely with the crude oil delivery system or any other aspect of this order. With respect to crude oil delivery any such amendment should, at a minimum, include substantial additional information on alternate methods of crude oil shipment (such as single point moorings, smaller tankships, etc.) alternate pier locations, and.oil spill control and clean-up systems. Any future hearings which might result from any request for an amendment will be limited to the particular request, unless otherwise ordered by the Board. Done at Augusta, Maine, this 12th Day of March, 1975. By Order of the Board of Environmental Protection Board Members Concurrlng Board Members Dissenting Evelyn Jephson None Erwin Douglas Charles Wyman Lionel Ferland Edgar Thomas Norman Gleason Board Members Not Participatlnq Jean Childs John Hess Richard Anderson Paul Burbank ,4—7 . William R. Adams, Jr., Coninissioner ------- COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL OUALDY U PREPARAnON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS r u SIU Y. A *J$T 1. i 73 DL Tibsu *S Ulur 147 ‘4-77 $$ILU— I ------- 20550 RULES AND REOULATtONS On May 2. 1973, the Council on En- ‘ronmental Quality published in the xDsw. REGISm, for public comment, a posed revision of its guidelines for the reparation of environmental impact t tements. Pursuant to the National E ivironmentaI Policy Act (P.L. 91—190. 2 USC. 4321 et seq.) and Executive Order 11514 (35 FR 4247) all Federal departments, agencies, and establish- n ents are required to prepare such state- rnent.s in connection with their proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The author- ity (or the Coundil s guidelines is set forth below in I 1500.1. The specific pol- icies to be Implemented by the guidelines is set forth below in 11500.2. The Council received numerous com- ments on Us proposed guidelines from envlronmentaj gYnupe, Federal, 8tate, and local agencies, Industry, and private Individuals. Two general themes were presented in the majority of the com- ments. First, the Council should Increase the opportunity for public involvement in the Impact statement process. Second, the Council should provide more detailed guidance on the responsibilities of Fed- eral agencies In light of recent court decisions Interpreting the Act. The proW posed guIdelines have been revised In light of the specific conunents relating to these general themes, as well as other comments received, and are now being issued In final form. The guidelines will appear In the Code of Federal Regulations In Title 40, Chap- ter V. at Part 1500. They are being codi- fied, In part, because they affect State and local governmental agencies, envi- ronmentaj groups, Industry. arid private Individuals, In addition to Federal agen- cies, to which they are specifically di- rected, and the resultant need to make them widely and readily available, Sec. 1500.1 Purpose and authority. 1500.2 PolIcy. 1500.3 Agency and 0MB procedures. 1500.4 Federal agencies included; aSset of the act on existing agency man- dates. 1500.5 Types of actions covered by the act. 16001 Identifying major actions stgutfl- eantiy affecting the environment. 1500.7 Prepsrtng draft environmental statements, public bearings. 15005 ConteOt of environmentaj state- ments. lbO0 RevIew ot draft environmental statements by Federal, Pedersi- State. and local agenda, and by the public. 1600.10 PreparatIon and clrcutation of Snal eli v1sotimental statements. 1500 11 Transmittal of statements to the Council: minimum periods for re- view requests by the Council. 1600.12 LegislatIve actions. 150013 ApplIcation of section 102(2) (C) procedure . to existing projects arid programs. 1500.14 Supplementary guldelinee, evalus- tin of procedures. Appendix I 8umi . ’ 3 to accompany draft and final statements. Appendix II Areas of environmental Im- pact and Federal agencies and Federal Stat agencies with Jurisdiction by law or Special expertise to comment thereon. Appendix In O ces within Federal agen- cies and Federal-Stats agencies for Informa- tion regarding the agencies’ NEPA setivitia, and for receiving other agencies’ impact statements for which comments are requested. Appendix IV State and local agen.y review of impact stat -, 1ente. AuTHoSrry ’ National Environmental Act (P.L. 91-W0. 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and Executive Order 11514. § 1500.1 Purpose and authority. (a) This directive provides guidelines to Federal departments, agencies, and establishments for preparing detailed environmental statements on proposals for leg1slatio and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as required by section 102(2) (C) of the National En- vironmental Policy Act (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. $ Q.) (hereafter “the Act”). UnderWing the preparation f such environmental statements Is the mandate of both the Act and Executive Order 11514 ( :15 FR 42471 of March 5. 1970, that all Federal agencies, to the fullest extent possible, direct their poli- cies, pZaw and programs to protect and enhance environmental quality. Agen- cies are required to view their actions in a manner calculated to encourage pro- ductive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, to promote efforts preventing or eliminating damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulating the health and welfare of man, and to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural re- sources important to the Nation. The objective of sectIon 102(2) (C) of the Act and of these guidelines is to assist agen- cies in implementing these policies. This requires agencies to build into their de- cisionmaking process, beginning at the earliest possible point, an appropriate and careful consideration of the envi- ronmental aspects of proposed action In order that adverse environmental effects may be volded or minimized and envi- ronmental quality previously lost may be restored, This directive aLso provides guidance to Federal, State, and local agencies and the public in commenting on statements prepared under these guidelines. (b) Pursuant to section 204(3) of the Act the Council on Environmental Qual- ity (hereafter ‘the Councu” is assigned the duty and function of reviewing and appraising the programs and activities of the Federal Oovernment, In the Ught of the Act’s policy, for the purpose of de- termining the extent to which such pro- grams and activities are contributing to the achievement of such policy, and to make recommendations to the President with respect thereto. Section 1022 (B) of the Act directs all Federal agencies to Identity and develop methods and pro- cedures, In ccnsultatlon with the Coun- cil. to Insure that unquantifled environ- mental values be given appropriate con- sideraijon In dectslonmaking along wilt economic and technical considerations; sectIon 102(2) (C) of the Act direct.s that copies of all environjnental Impact state- ments be filed with the Council: and sec- tion 102(2) (if) directs alt Federal agen- cies to assist the Council in the perform- ance of Its functions, These pr ’irions hay been supplemented in sections 3 hI and (I) of Executive Order 11514 i.y ci- rections that the Council issuc ctu:’e- hues to Federal agencies for p.€-i.;r.- lion of environmental impact stater• rt 1 and such other Instructions to ag and requests for reports and icr. tion as may be required to carry oi’t Council’s responsibilities under tb. Act. § 1500.2 PoItcy, (a) As early as possIble and ir. all prior to agency decisloa concernir - . . ommendatlons or favorable ri’ jU, , .i. proposals for (1) legislation si riifi .., ii .’ affecting the quality of the hurmin tn- vtronment (see ft 1500.5(i) and 1500.12 (hereafter “legislative action.s” a. 2. all other major Federal action.s cantly affecting the quality of the h ’t -ian environment (hereafter “administ. . i e actions”), Federal agencies will. ii ion- sultation with other appropriate Fi ”Icral, State and local agencies and the iubiic assess In detail the potential environ- mental impact. (b) Initial assessments of the environ- mental Impacts of proposed action should be undertaken concurrently with Initial technical and economic studies and, where required, a draft environ- mental impact statement prepared and circulated or comment in time to accoin- pony the proposal through the existing agency review processes for such action. In this process, Federal agencies shall: (1) Provide for circulation of draft en- vironmental statements to other Federal. State, and local agencies and for their availability to the public in accordance with the provisions of these guidelines; (2) consIder the comments of the agen- cies and the public: and (3) Issue fluial environmental Impact statemeuLs re- sponsive to the comments received. The purpose of this assessment and consulta- tion process is to provide agencies and other decisionmakers as well as members of the public with an understanding of the potential envlronmentaj effects of proposed actions, to avoid or minimize adverse effects wherever possible, and to restore or enhance environmental qual- ity to the fullest extent practicable. In pai’Ucular, agencies should use the en- vironmental impact statement process to explore alternative actions that will avoid or minimize advers Impacts and to evaluate both the long- and short- range Implications of proposed actions to man, his physical and social surround- ings, and tonature. Agencies should con- sider the results of their environmental assessments along with their assessments of the net economic, technical and other benefits of proposed actions and use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national • policy, to restore environmental quality as well asto avoid or minimize undesir- able consequences for the environment. Till. 40—Pratection of the E*wwonment See. CHAPTER V—COUNCIL Oil ENVIRONMENTAL QUALiTY PART 1500—PREPARATION OF ENVIRON. MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS: GUIDE- LINES UAL G1ST , VOL 35, P40. 1 47—WEDP4ESOAY, AUGUST 1, 1973 ------- RULES AND REGULATIONS 20551 § 1500.3 Agency and OMS procedure.. ( ) pursuantto sectIon 2( 1) of Execu- tive Order 11514, the heads of Federal agencies have been directed to proceed with measures required by sectIon 102 (2) (C) at the Act. Previous guidelines of the Council dlrectd each agency to estahltah Its own formal procedures for• (1) IdentIfying those agency actions re- quiring environmental statements, the appropriate time prior to decision for the consultations required by section 102 (2) (C) and the agency review process for which environmental statements are to be available. (2) obtaIning informa- tion required in their preparation. (3) designating the officials who are to be responsible for the statements, (4) con- sulting with and taking account of the comments of appropriate Federal, State and local agencies and the public, in- cluding obtaining the comment of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency when required under section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and (5) meeting the require- ments of section 2(b) of Executive Order 11514 for providing timely public infor- mation on Federal plans and programs with environmental Impact. Each agency, Including both departmental and sub- departmental components having such procedures, shall review Its procedures sod shall revise them, In consultation with the Council, as may be necessary In order to respond to requirements im- posed by these revised guidelines as well as by such previous directives. After such consultation, proposed revisions of such agency procedures shall be published In the FeDERAL RzGXsTze no later than Octo- ber 30. 1973. A minimum 45-day period for public comment shall be provided. followed by publication of final proce- dures no later Than forty-five 145) days after the conclusion of the comment period. Each agency shall submit seven (‘I) copies of all such procedures to the Council. Any future revision of such agency procedures shall similarly be pro- posed and adopted only after prior con- sultation with the Council and, In the case of substantial revision, opportunity for public comment. All revisions shall be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER. (b) Each Federal agency should con- Sult, with the assistance of the Council and the OMce of Management and Budget if desired, with other appropriate Federal agencies In the development and revision of the above procedures so as to achieve consistency In dealing with simi- lar activities and to assure effective coor- dlna,Uon among agencies In their review of proposed activities. Where applicable, State and local review of such agency procedures should be conducted pursuant to procedures established by Office of Management and Budget Circular No. £45. (C) stlng mechanisms for obtain- ing the views of Federal, State. and local agencies an proposed Federal actions should be utilized to the maximum cx- tent practicable In dealing with environ- mental matters. The Office of Manage- aent and Budget will Issue Instructions. as necessary, to take full advantage of such existing mechanlema. 5 1500.4 Federal agencies Included; ef. feet of the Aet on existing agency mandates, (a) SectIon 102(2) (C) of the Act ap- plies to all agencies of the Federal Gov- ernment. Section 102 of the Act pro- vides that “to the fullest extent possible: (1) The policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shafl be inter- preted and administered in accordance with the policies• set forth In this Act.” and section 105 of the Act provides that “the policies and goals set forth In this Act are supplementary to those set forth In existing authorizations of Federal agencies.” ThIS means that each agency shall interpret the provisions of the Act as a supplement to Its existing author- ity and as a mandate to view traditional policies and missions in the light of the Act’s natio ;al environmental objectives. In accordance with this purpose, agen- cies should continue to review their poli- cies, procedures, and regulations and to revise them as necessary to ensure full compliance with the purposes and pro- visions of the Act. The phrase “to the fullest extent possible” in section 102 is meant to make clear that. each agency of the Federal Government shall comply with that section unless existing law applicable to the agency’s operations ex- pressly prohibits or makes compliance impossible. § 1500 5 Types of actions covcrcd by the (a) “Actions” Include but are not lim- ited to: (1) Recommendations or favorable re- ports relating to legislation including requests for appropriations. The re- quirement for following the sectIon 102 (2) (C procedure as elaborated in these guidelines applies to both (i) agency rec- ommendations on their own proposals for legislation (see f 1500.12); and (ii) agency reports on legislation initiated elsewhere. In the latter case only the agency which has primary responsibility for the subject matter involved will pre- pare an environmental statement. (2) New and continuing projects and program activities: directly undertaken by Federal agencies; or supported In whole or in part through Federal con- tracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of funding assistance (except where such assistance is solely in the form of general revenue sharing funds, distributed under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 19’12, 31 U.S.C. 1221 et. seq. with no Federal agency con- trol over the subsequent use of such funds); or involving a Federal lease, per- mit, license certificate or other entitle- ment for use. (3) The making, modifIcation, or es- tablishment of regulations, rules, pro- cedures, and policy. § 1500.6 lacusifying major actionS . 1g. nifleanily affecting the environment. (a) The statutory clause “major Fed- eral actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” Is to be construed by agencies with a view to the overall, cumulative impact of the action proposed, related Federal actions and projects in the area, and further ac- tions contemplated. Such actions may be localized In their impact, but if there is potential that the environment may be significantly affected. the statement Is to be prepared. Proposed ma or actions, the enviornmental impact of wl ich is likely to be highly controversial, . hould be covered in all cases. In considering what constitutes major action signifi - cantly allecting the environinen t , : ‘ , en - cies should bear in mind that thr effect. of many Federal decisions about c proj - ect or complex of projects can be i- dividually limited but eumulativcy coi- siderable. This can occur when ore oi more agencies o”er a peii of years p t.s into a project individually minor L’u col- lectively major resources, when cnc de- cision involving a limited amoult of money is a precedent for action in much larger cases or represents a decision iu principle about a future major cow se of action, or when several Government agencies individually make d ’c;sionS about partial aspects of a major tion. In all such cases, an environ.tental statement should be prepared if it is rea- sonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant Impact on the environment from Federal action. The Council. on the basis of a written assessment of the Im- pacts Involved, is available to assist agencies In determining whether specific actions require Impact statements. (b Section 101(b) of the Act indi- cates the broad range of aspects of the environment to be surveyed in any assess- ment of significant effect. The Act also indicates that adverse significant effects Include those that degrade the quality of the environment, curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment, and serve short-term, to the disadvan- tage of long-term, environmental goals. Significant effects can also include ac- tions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on bal- ance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial. Significant effect.s also include secondary effects, as described more fully. for example, in i 1500.8(a) (iii) (B). The significance of a proposed action may also vary with the setting, with the result that an action that would have little impact in an urban area may be significant In a rural setting or vice versa. While a precise deflni ion of en- vironmental “significance,” valid in all contexts, Is not possible, effects to be considered in assessing significance in- clude. but are not limited to, those out- lined in Appendix II of these guidelines. (C) Each of the provisions of the Act, except section 102(2) (C), applies to all Federal agency actions. Section 102(2) (C) requires the preparation of a detailed environmental impact statement in the case of “major Federal actions signifi- cantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” The Identification of major actions significantly affecting the environment is the responsibility of each Federal agency, to be carried out against the background of Its own particular op- erations. The action must be a (1) FEDSIAI UOISTER. VOL. 31, NO. 141—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1973 ------- RULES AND REGULATIONS ‘major ” action. (2) which Is a “Federal a .t4on.” (3) whIch has , “skgnthcant”el- fect, and (4) which involves the “quality of the human environment.” The words “major” and “significantly” are Intended to Imply thresholds of importance and Impact that must be met before a state- ment a s required. The action causing the impact must aLso be one where there is sufficient Federal control and respon- sibilzty to constitute “Federal action” in contrast to cases where such Federal cc,ritrol and responsibility are not present as. for example, when Federal funds are dIstiibuted in the form of general reve- nue sharing to be used by State and local governments (see I 1500 .SUD I. Finally. the action must be one that significantly affects the quality of the human envi- ronment either by directly affecting human beings or by indirectly altecting human beings through adverse effects on the environment. Each agency should review the typical classes of actions that It undertakes and, in consultation with the Council, should develop specific cr1- terta and methods for identifying those actions likely to require environmental statements and those actions Likely not to require environmental statements. Normally this will involve: 1 Making an initial assessment of the environmental Impacts t3rptcslly as- soctated with principal types of agency action. (it) Identifying on the basis of this assessment,, types of actions which nor- mally do, and types of actions which nor- mally do not, require statements. in With respect to remaining actions that may require statements depending on the circumstances, and those actions determined under the preceding para- graph (Cl (4)(ll of this section as likely to require statements, identifying: (g) what basic information needs to be gathered: (b) how and when such in- formation is to be assembled and ana- lyzed: and c) on what bases environ- mental assessments and decisions to pie- pare impact statements will be made. Agencies may either include this sub- stantive guidance In the procedures Is- sued pursuant to I 1500.3(s) of these guidelines, or Issue such guidance as supplemental Instructions to aid relevant agency personnel In Implementing the impact statement process. Pursuant to I 1500.14 of these guidelines, agencies shall report to the Council by June 30. 1974, on the progress made In developing such substantive guidance. d 11 Agencies should give careful attention to identifying and defining the purpose and scope of the action which would most appropriately serve as the subject of the statement. In many cases. broad program statements will be re- quired in order to the environ- mental effects of a number of Individual actions en a given geographical area (e.g.. coal’ leases), or environmental impacts that are generic or common to * series of agency actions (e.g., maintenance or waste handTh ’ig psactices), or the over- all Impact of a large-scale program or c ln of conte”tp!ted projects (e.g, major lengths of highway as cçpoeed to small segments). Subsequent statements on major Individual actions will be nec- essary where such actions have signifi- cant environmental impacts not ade- quately evaluated in the program statement. (2> Agencies engaging In major tech- nology research and development pro- grams should develop procedures for periodic evaluation to determine when a program statement is required for such PZWtSUIS. Factors to be considered in making this determination include the magnitude of Federal investment in the program, the likelihood of widespread application of the technology, the degree of environmental impact which would occur if the technology were widely ap- plied. and the extent to which continued Investment In the new technology Is likely to restrict future alternatives. Statements must be written late enough in the development process to contain meaningful information, but early enough so that this information can practically serve as an input in the deci- Mon-snaking process. Where it Is antici- pated that a statement may ultimately be required but that Its preparation Is still premature, the agency should pre- pare an evaluat*c briefly setting forth the reasons for It s determination that a statement Is not yet necessary. This eval- uaUon should be periodically updated. particularly when significant new Infer- mation becomes available concerning the poientiej environmental Impact of the program. In any case, a statement must be prepared before research activities have res .ched a stage of investment or commitment to implementation likely to determine subsequent development or restrict later alternatives. Statements or technology research and development programs should Include an analysis not only of alternative forms of the same technology that might reduce any. ad- verse environmental impacts but also of alternative technologies that would serve the same function as the technology under consideration. Efforts should be made to Involve other Federal agencies and Interested groups with relevant cx- perUse In the preparation of such state- ments because the impacts and alterna- tives to be considered are likely to be less well defined than In other types of statements. (C) In accordance with the policy of the Act and Executive Order 11514 agen- cIes have * responsibility to develop pro- cedures to insure the fullest practicable provision of timely public Information and understanding of Federal plans and programs with environmental Impact in order to obtain the views of interested parties. In furtherance ot this policy. agency procedures should Include an ap- propriate early notice system for inform- ing the public of the decision to prepare $ dr*ft environmental statement on pro- posed administrative actions (and for soliciting comments that may be helpful in pre aring the statement) as soon as Is practicable after the decision to prepare the statement I, made. In this connec- tion, agencies should: (1) maintain a list of actions for which en- vlronmental statements are being pre- pared; (2) revise the list at regular inter- vals specified In the agency’s procedures developed pursuant to I 1500.3’a of these guidelines (but not less than quar- terly) and transmit each such revision o the Council; and (3> make the list avsil- able for public Inspection on request. The Council will periodically publish such h ’1s in the FEDERAL REosslu. II ’ an agent : ‘ decides that an environmental statemet is not necessary for a proposed actic - (I) which the agency has identified pu - suant to 11500.6(c(4)(ii > as nornialy requiring preparation of a statement, Ii - which is similar to actions for which t. agency has prepared a significant nun:- ber of statements, (ji which the ager . has previously announced would be he subject of a statement, or (iv) for wliI h the agency has made a negative deter- mination in response to a request from the Council pursuant to 1500.llf >, the agency shall prepare a publicly availabk record briefly setting forth the agency’s decision and the reasons for that detc- inination. Lists of such negative dete-- minatlons. and any evaluations maL ’ pursuant to I 1500.6 whIch conclude thst preparation of a statement Li not yet timely, shall be prepared and made avail- able In the same manner as provided in this subsection for lists of statements under preparation. § 1500.7 Preparing draft environment4 statements; public hearings. (a) Each environmental Impact state- ment shall be prepared and circulated in draft form for comment In accordance with the provisions of these guidelines. The draft statement must fulfill and satisfy to the fullest extent possible at the time the draft Is prepared the re- quirements established for final state- ments by section 102(2) (C). (Where an agency has an established practice of declining to favor an alternative until public comments on a proposed action have been received, the draft environ- mental statement may Indicate that two or more alternatives are under considera- tion.) Comments received shall be care- fully evaluated and considered In the decision process. A final statement with substantive comments attached shall then be issued and circulated In accord- ance with applicable provisions of *11500.10, 1500.11, or 1500.12. It Is ha- portant that draft environmental state- ments be prepared and circulated for comment and furnished to the Council as early as possible In the agency review process In order to permit agency dccl- sionmakers and outside reviewers to give meaningful consideration to the envi- ronmental Issues Involved. In particular. agencies should keep In mind that such statements are to serve as the means of assessing the environmental Impact of proposed agency actions, rather than as aj i catlon for decisions already made. This means that draft statements on administrative actions should be pre- pared and circulated for comment prior to the first significant point of decision In the agency review process. For major categories of agency action, this point, should be Identified in the procedures Is- PIDUAL 0 (STEI. VOl. 3$, NO. 147—WEDNESOAY, AUGUST , t 513 ------- RULES AND REGULATIONS O553 pursuant to § 1500.3(a). For major ategorles of projects involving an appli- cant and identified pursuant to (c) (c) (it) as normally requiring the prsratlcri of a statement, agencies oujd Include In their procedures provi- sions limiting actions which an applicant is permitted to take prior to completion and review of the final statement with respect to his sp icatIcn. (b) Where more than one agency U) direcily sponsors an action, or is directly involved In an action through funding, licenses, or permits, or (2) is involved in group of actions directly related to each other because of their functional inter- dependence and geographical proximity, consideration should be given to prepar- ing one statement for all the Federal actions Involved (see §1500.6(d)(1)). Agencies In such cases should consider the possibility of joint preparation of a statement by all agencies concerned, or 4Fn11_pat*ct1 of a single “lead agency’ to assume supervisory responsibility for preparation of the statement. Where a lead agency prepares the statement, the other agencies involved should provide assistance with respect to their areas of jurisdiction and expertise. In either case, the statement should contain an en- vironmental assessment of the full range of Federal actions involved, should reflect the views of all participating agencies, and should be prepared before major or Irreversible actions have been taken by any of the participating agencies. Fac- tors relevant In determining an appro- priate lead agency Include the time sequence In which the agencies become Involved, the magnitude of their respec- five Involvement, and their relative ex- pertise with respect to the project’s en- vironmental effects. As necessary, the Council will sIst In resolving questions of reepcnslbthty for statement prepara- tion In the case of multi-agency actions. Federal Regional Councils, agencies and the public are eneouraged to bring to the attention of the Council and other rele- vant agencies appropriate situations where a geographic or regionally focused statement would be desirable because of the cumulative environmental effects likely to nsult from multi-agency actions In the area. (ci Where an agency relies on an ap- plicant to submit initial environmental Information, the agency should assist the applicant by outlining the types of Inf or- matlan required. In all cases, the agency should snake its own evaluation of the environmental Issues and take respon- sibility for the scope and content of draft and final environmental statements. (d) Agency procedures developed pur- suant to I 1500.3(a) of these guidelines should indicate as explicitly as possible those types of agency decisions or actions which utilize hearings as part of the nor- mal agency review process, either as a result of statutory requirement or agency practice. To the fullest extent possible, all such hearings shall include considera- tion of the environmental aspects of the proposed action. Agency procedures shall also specifically include provision for Public hearings on major actions with environmental impact, whenever appro- priate, and for providing the public with relevant information, including Informa- tion on alternative courses of action. In deciding whether a public hearing Is ap- propriate, an agency should consider: (11 The magnitude of the proposal in terms of ecanonsic costs, the geographic area involved, and the uniqueness or size of coitimitment of the resources Involved; (2) the degree of Interest in the pro- posal, as evidenced by requests from the public and frOm Federal, State and local authorities that a hearing be held; (3) the complexit) of the issue arid the like- lihood that information will be presented at the hearing which will be of assist- ance to the agency in fulfilling Its re- sponsibilities under the Act; and 4) the extent to which public involvement al- ready has been achieved through other means, such as earlier public hearings. meetings with citizen representatives, andor written comments on the pro- posed action. Agencies should make any draft environmental statements to be Is- sued available to the public at least fifteen (15) days prior to the time of such hearings. § 1500.8 Content of en ronmental t tCiiiefli s. (a) The following points are to be covered: (1) A description of the proposed ac- tion, a statement of Its purposes, and a description of the environment affected, including Information, summary tech- nical data, and maps and diagrams where relevant, adequate to permit an assess- ment of potential environmental Impact by commenting agencies and the public. Highly technical and specialized anal- yses and data should be avoided in the body o the iraft Impact statement. Such mateijajs should be attached as ap- pendices or footnoted with adequate bibliographic references, The statement should also succinctly describe the envi- ronment of the area affected as it exists prior to a proposed action, including other Federal activities In the area af- fected by the proposed action which are related to the proposed action. The in- terrelationships and cumulative environ- mental Impacts of the proposed action and other related Federal projects shall be presented in the statement. The amount of detail provided in such de- scriptions should be commensurate with the extent and expected Impact of the action, and with the amount of informa- tion required at the particular level of decislonmaking (planning, feasibility, design, etc.). In order to ensure accurate descriptions and environmental assess- ments. site visits should be made where feasible. Agencies should also take care to Identify, as appropriate, population and growth characteristics of the affected area and any population and growth as- sumptions used to justify the project or program or to determine secondary popu- lation and growth impacts resulting from the proposed action and Its alternatives (see paragraph (a)(l,(3)Ui), of this section). In discussing these population aspects, agencies should give considera- tion to using the rates of growth in the region of the project contaIned In the projection compiled for the Water Re- sources Council by the Bureau of Eco- nonilc Analysis of the Department of Commerce and the Economic Research Service of the Depsrtmnt of Agricul- ture (the “OBERS” PtOJSetIou). In any event it Is essential that the sources of data used to Identify, qt*snWy or evalu- ate any and all envircismental conse- quences be expressly noted. (2) The relationship of the proposed action to land use plans, policies, a d controls for the affected area. This re- quires a discussion of how the proposed action may conform or conflict with the objectives and specific terms of appro ed or proposed Federal, State, and local land use plans, policies, and controls. i any, for the area affected inciwding thost ’ developed In response to the Clean Al” Act or the Federal Water Pollution Cor. trol Act Amendments of 1972. Where conflict or inconsistency exists, the state- ment should describe the extent to which the agency has reconciled its proposed action with the plan, policy or control, and the reasons why the agency has de- cided to proceed notwithstanding the ab- sence of full reconciliation. (3) The probable Impact of the pro- posed action on the environment. (I) This requires agencies to assess the positive and negative effects of the pro- posed action as It affects both the na- tional and International environment. The attention given to different environ- mental factors will vary according to the nature, scale, and location of proposed actions. Among factors to consider should be the potential effect of the action on such aspects of the environment as those listed In Appendix II of these guldslines. Primary attention should be given In the statement to discussing those factors most evidently impacted by the proposed action. (Ii) Secondary or Indirect, as well as primary or direct, consequences for the environment should be included In the analysis. Many major Federal actions, in particular those that involve the con- struction or licensing of infrastructure investments (e.g., highways, airports, sewer systems, water resource projects, etc.), stimulate or Induce secondary ef- fects in the form of associated invest- ments and changed patterns of social and economic activities. Such secondary effects, through their impacts on existing community facilities and activities, through Inducing new facilities and ac- tivities, or through changes in natural conditions, may often be even more sub- stantial than the primary effects of the original action itself. For example, the effects of the proposed action on popula- tion and growth may be among the more significant secondary effects. Such popu- lation and growth Impacts should be es- timated If expected to be significant (using data identified as Indicated In § 1500.8a) (1)) and an assessment made of the effect of any possible change In population patterns or growth upon the resource base, including land use, water. • and public services, of the area In question. FEDERAl. REGISTER, VOL 35, NO. 147—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1973 ------- RULES AND REGULATIONS (4) Alternatives to the proposed ac- tin, including, where relevant, those not withI t the existing authority of the re- sponsible agency. (Section 102(2 ’ (D) c i the Act requires the responsible agency to “study, develop, and describe appro- priate alternatives to recommended courses of action In any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources”;. A rigorous exploration and objective evaluation of the environmental Impacts of all reasonable alternative actions, par- ticulariy those that might enhance en- vironxnentaj quality or avoid some or all of the adverse environmental effects, Is essential. Sumcient analysis of such al- ternatives and their environmental bene- fits. costs and risks should accompany the proposed action through the agency review process in order not to foreclose prematurely options which might en- hance environmental quality or have less detrimental effects. Examples of such al- ternatives Include; the alternative of taking no action or of postponing action pending further study; alternatives re- guiring actions of a significantly differ- ent nature which would provide similar benefits with different environmental im- pact’ (e.g., nonstructural alternatives to flood control progrsm , or mass transit alternatives to highway construction ; alternatives related to different designs or details of the proposed action which would present different environmental impacts (e.g., cooling ponds vs. cooling towers ‘for a power plant or alternatives that will significantly conserve energy); alternative measures to provide for com- pensation at fish and wildlife losses, in- cluding the acquisition of land, waters, and Interests therein. In each case, the analysis should be sufficiently detailed to reveal the agency ’s comparative evalua- tion of the environmental benefits, costs and risks of the proposed action and each reasonable alternative. Where an exist- tug impact statement already contains such an analysis, Its treatment of alter- natives may be Incorporated provided that such treatment is current and rele- vant to the precme purpose of the pro- posed action. (5.) Any probable adverse environmen- tal effects which cannot be avoided (such as water or air pollution, undesirable land use patterns, damage to life sys- tems. urban congestion, threats to health or other consequences adverse to the en- vironmental goals set out in section 101 (b) of the Act). This should be a brief section summarIzing In one place those effects discussed in paragraph (a) (3) of this section that are advese and un- avoidable under the proposed actlo . In- cluded for purposes of contrast should be a clear statement of how other avoid- able adverse effects discussed in para- graph (a)2 of this section will be miti- gated. (I) The relatlobahip between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term ,productlvlty. This section should contain a brief discussion of the extent to which the proposed action in- volve. tradeoffs between short-term en- vircomental gains Si the expense of long- term losses, or v e versa, and a discus- sion ci the extent to which the proposed action forecloses luture riptions. In this contextahort-term ,d r i g-term do not refer to any fixed time se iods. but should be viewed In t err’: nI t Im environ- mentally significant c i .r.,r uiees of the proposed action. (7) Any irreversible ‘i .‘d irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved In the proposed action should it be Implemented. This requlre the agency to identify from its survey of un- avoidable impacts in paragraph (a) (5) of this section the extent to which the action Irreversibly curtails the range of potential uses of the environment. Agen- cies should avoid construing the term “resources” to mean only the labor and materials devoted to an action. “Re- sources” also means the natural and cul- tural resources committed to loss or de- struction by the action. (8> An indication of what other In- terests and con ideratioiis of Federal policy are thought to offset the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action identified pursuant to paragraphs (a) 31 and ‘5 of this section. The state- ment should also indicate the extent to which these stated countervatting bene- fits could be realized b following rea- sonable alternatives to the proposed ac- tion (as identified In paragraph (a) (4) of this section that would avoid some or all of the advet-se environmental effects. In this conuection, agencies that prepare cost-benefit analyses of proposed actions should attach such analyses, or sum- maries thereof, to the environmental im- pact statement, and should clearly Indi- cate the extent to which environmen al costs have not been reflected in such analyses. (bi In developing the above points agencies should make every effort to con- vey the required information succinctly in a form easily understood, both by members of the public and by public de-’ cls%onznakers. giving attention to the substance of the information conveyed rather than to the particular form, or length, or detail of the statement. Each of the above points, for example, need not always occupy a distinct section of the statement if It is otherwise ade- quately covered in discussing the Impact of the proposed action and its alterna- tives—which Items should normally be the focus of the statement. Draft state- ments should Indicate at appropriate points in the text- any underlying stud- ies. reports, and other Information ob- tained and considered by the agency in preparing the statement Including any coat-benefit analyses prepared by the agency, and reports of consulting agen- cies under the Fish and Wildlife Co- ordination Act. 16 U.S.C. 661 el seq., and th National Historic Preservation Act of 1664. 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., where such consultation has taken place. In the case of documents not likely to be easily ac- cessible sueh as internal studies or re- ports). toe agency should indicate how such Information may be obtaIned It such Information is attached to the statement, care shosdd be taken to en— sure that the statemsot rewaip an es- sentially self con%*klSfl instrument, Cap- able of being understood by the reader without the need for undue cross re rence. (r> Each environmental statement should be prepared In accordance with the precept In sectIon 102(2> (A) of the Act that all agencies of the Federal (30V- ernment “utilize a systematic, interdis- ciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural ard social sciences and the envlmnmenta design arts in planning and declsioimaklng which may have an impact on man’s environment.” Agencies should attempt to have relevant disciplines rei resented on their own staffs; where this Is not fea- sible they should make approprii.te use of relevant Federal, State, an Aocal agencies or the professional sen,ces of universities and outside consultana. The interdisciplinary approach should not be limited to the preparation of the en- vironniental impact statement, but should also be used in the early plan- ning stages o’ the proposed action. Early application of such an approach should help assure a systematic evaluation of reasonable alternative courses of action and their potenUal social, economic, and environmental consequences. (d Appendix I prescribes the form of the summary sheet which Ibould accom- pany each draft and final environmental statement. § 1500.9 Rrvit’w of draft environmental iitalemenls by Federal, Federal-State, State, and local agencirs and by the public. (a) Federal agency review. (1) In general. A Federal agency considering an action requiring an environmental statement should consult with, and (on the basis of a draft enviromnental state- ment for which the agency takes re- sponsibility) obtain the comment on the environmental impact of the action of Federal and Federal-State agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental im- pact Involved These Federal and Fed- eral-State agencies and their relevant areas of expertise include those identi- fied in Appendices II and Ifl to these guidelines. It is reconunended that the listed departments and agencies estab- lish contact points, which may be re- gional omces, for providing comments on the environmental statements. The re- quirement in section 102(2)(C) to ob- tain comment from Federal agencies having jurisdiction or special expertise is in addition to any specific statutory obligation of any Federal agency to co- ordinate or consult with any other Fed- eral or State agency. Agencies should, for example, be alert to consultation re- quirements of the Fish and Wildlife Co- ordination Act. 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq., and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470 ct seq. To the ex- tent possible, statements or findings concerning environmental Impact re- quired by other statutes, such as section 4(f of the Department of Transporta- tion Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. 1853( 1) . or FEOUAL teatSIft. VOL 35, NO. 147—WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 1, 73 ------- ction 106 of the National Eisto 1c preservation Act of 1966, should be corn-. bined with compliance with the environ- mental tmpact statement rqinrenienss .,f section 102(2) (C) of the At to y eid a single document which meets all applicable .requir ments. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of the Interior, in consulta- tion with the Council, will issue any flee- essary supplementing Instructions Lor tumsiung information or findings not ‘orthcomlng under the environmental impact statement process. (b) LP4 review. 8ection 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 1857h-7) - provides that the Adminis- trator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall comment in writing on the environmental impact of any matter re- lating to his duties and responsibilities, and shall refer to the Council any mat- ter that the Administrator determines is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmen- tal quality. Accordingly, wherever an agency action related to air or water quality, noise abatement and control, pesticide regulation, solid waste disposal, generally applicable environmental ra- diation criteria and standards, or other provision of the authority of the Admin- istrator Is involved, Federal agencies are required to submit such proposed ac- tions and their environmental impact statements, If such have been prepared. to the Administrator for review and comment in writing. In all cases where EPA determines that proposed agency action is environmentally unsatisfac- tory, or where EPA determines that an environmental statement Is so inade- quate that such a determination cannot be made, EPA shall publish its determi- nation and notify the Council as soon as practicable. The Administrator’s com- ments shall constitute his comments for the purposes of both section 309 of the Clean Air Act and section 102(21 (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act. (C) State and local review. Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-95 (Revised) through Its system of State and areawide clearinghouses pro- vides a means for securnig the views of State and local environmental agencies, which can assist in the preparation and review of environmental impact tate- ments. Current instructions for obtain- ing the views of sucn agencies are con- tained in the joint OMB.-CEQ enemoran- dims attached to these guidelines as Ap- pendix IV. A current listing of clearing- houses is issued periodically by the Of- fice of Management and Budget. (d) Public review. The procedures established by these guidelines are de- signed to encourage public participation In the Impact statement process at the earliest possible time. .gency procedures should make provision for facilitating the comment of public and private orga- nixations and individuals by announcing the availability of draft essvirbnmental statements and by making copies avail- able to organisations and Individuals that request an opportunity to comment, RULES AND REGULATIONS Agencies should devise methods for pub- llciaing the existence of draft statements, for example, by publication of notices in local nawspapers or by maintaini’ig a list of groups, Including relevant ccnserva- tion coinnusslons, known to be interested In the hgeney’s activities and directly notifying such groups of the existence of a draft statement, or sending them a copy, as sooa S it has been prepared. A copy of the draft statement should In all cases be sent to any applicant whose project is the subject of the statement. Materials to he r.iade available to the public shall e p..ovided without charge to the extent pr.scticable, or at a fee which Is nos more than (he actual cost of reproducing c ip es required to be sent to other Federal agencies, including the Council. (e Responsibilities 0/ commenting entities. U) Agencies and members of the public submitting comments on rro osed actions on the basis of draft environmen- tal statements should endeavor to make their comments as specific, substantive, and factual as possible without undue attention to matters of form in the Im- pact statement. Although the comnIen s need not conform to any particular for- møt. it would assist agencies reviewing comments if the comments wert orga- nized in a maimer consistent , ‘ith the structure cf the draft statement ,. Empha- sis should be placed on the assessment of the environmental impacts of the pro- posed action, and the acceptability of those Impacts on the quality of the envi- ronment, particularly as contrasted with the impacts of reasonable alternatives to the acU n. Commenting entities may recommend modifications to che pro- posed action and/or new alternatives that will enhance environmental quality and avoid or minimize adverse environ- mental impacts. t2; Commenting agencies should indi- cate whether any of their projects not identified in the draft statement are sufficiently advanced in planning and re- lated environmentally to the proposed action so that a discussion of the environ- mental interrelationships should be in- cluded in the final statement (see §1500.8(a) (1)). The Council is available to assist agencies in making such determinations. (3 Agencies and members of the pub- lic should indicate In their comments the nature of any monitoring of the environ- mental effects of the proposed project that appears particularly app opriate. Such monitoring may be necessary dur- ing the construction, startup, or opera- tion phases of the project. Agencies with special expertise with respect to the en— vironmental Impacts involved are en- couraged to assist the sponsoring agency in the establishment and operation of appropriate environmental monitoring. (1) Agencies seeking comment shall establish time limits of not less than forty-five (45) days for reply, after which It may be presumed, unless the agency or party consulted requests a specilled ex- tension of time, that the agency or party consulted has no comment to make. Agencies seeking comment should en- 20555. deavor to comply with requests for exten- sions of time of up to fifteen (15) days. In determining an appropriate period for comment, agencies should consider the magnitude and complexity of the state- ment and the extent of citizen interest in the proposed action. 1500.10 I’rcparation and circulation of (‘unal etivironmenjal MaIcmcnie, (a Agencies should make every ef- fort. to discover and discuss all major points of view on the environmental et- fects of the proposed action and it ,s al Ler natives in the draft statement itsel ’. However, where opposing professional views and responsible opinion have been overlooked in the draft statement and sic brought to the agency’s attentic.n through the commenting process, the agency should review the environinenL effects of the action in light of these views and should make a meaningful re - ercuce in the final statement to the exist- ence of any responsible opposing view not adequately discussed in the draft statement, indicating the agency’s me- sponse to the issues raised. All substan- tive comments received on the draft (or summaries thereof where response h s been exceptionally voluminous) shoud be attached to the final statement, whether or not each such comment is thought to merit individual discussion by the agency In the text of the statement. (b) Copies of final statements, with conunent.s attached, shall be sent to all Federal, State, and local agencies and private organizations that made substan- tive comments on the draft statement and to individuals who requested a copy of the final statement, as well as any applicant whose project is the subject of the statement. Copies of final statements shall in all cases be sent to the Environ- mental Protection Agency to assist it in carrying out its responsibilities under section 309 of the Clean Air Act: Where the number of comments on a draft statement is such that distribution of the final statement to all commenting enti- ties appears impracticable, the agency shall consult with the Council concern- ing alternative arrangements for distri- bution of the statement. § 1500.11 Trais.niiital of statements to - the Council; minimum periods for review; requests by the Council. (a) As soon as they have been pre- pared, ten (10) copies of draft environ- mental statements, five (5) copies of all comments made thereon (to be for- warded to the Council by the entity mak- ing comment at the time comment Is for- warded to the responsible agency), and ten (10) copies of the final text of envi- ronmental statements (together with the substance of all comments received by the. responsible agency from Federal, State, and local agencies and from private or- ganIzatlon and individuals) shall be supplied to the Council. This will serve to meet the statutory requirement to make environment-al statements avail- able to the President. At the same time that copies of draft and final statements are sent to the Council, copies should also be sent to relevant conunenting en- FEDESAL IEGISTER, VOL. 35, NO. 147—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1973 ------- RULES AND REGULATIONS titles as set forth in ii 1500.9 and 1500.10(b) of these guIde1ine . b) To the maximum ext iit practi- cable no administrative action subject tosection 102(2) (C) I c to be taken sooner than ninety (90> days after a draft environmental statement has been cir- culated for comment, furnished to the Council and, except where advance pub- lic disclosure will result In significantly increased costs of procurement the Government. made available to the jub- lie pursuant to these guidelines; neither should such administtativc action be Laktn sooner than thirty ‘30i days after the final text of an environmental state- ment (together with commentsi h s been made available to the Council, commenting agencies. and the pw lic. fn all cases, agencies should allot a suffi- cleat review period for the final state- ment so as to comply with the statutory requirement that the “statement and the comments and views of appropriate Fed- eral. State. and local agencies ac- company the proposal through the exist- ing agency review processes.” If the final text of an environmental statement As filed within ninety (90i days after a draft statement has been circulated for comment, furnished to the Council and made public pursuant to this section of these guidelines, the minimum thirty (30 day period and the ninety (90) day period may run concurrently to the ex- tent that they overlap. An agency may at. any time supplement or amend a draft or final environmental statement, par- Ucularly when substantial changes are made in the proposed action, or signifi- cant new, information becomes available concerning its environmental aspects. In such cases the agency should consult with the Council with respect to the pos- sible need for or desirability of recir- culation of the statement for the ap- propriate period. (C) The Council will publish weekly in the FLDEIAL R&GISTU lists of environ- mental statements received during the preceding week that are available for public comment. The date of publication of such lists shall be the date from which the minimum periods for review and ad- vance avatlabthty of statements shall be calculated. (d The Council’s publication of no- tIce of th , availability of statements is in addition to the agency’s responsibility. as described In • 1500.9(d) of these g iidelines. to Insure the fullest practi- cable provision of timely public Informa- tion concerning the existence and avail- ability of environmental statements. The agency responsible for the environ- mental statement Is also responsible for making the statement, the comment, re- ceived, and any underlying documents available to the public pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Infor’ma- boa Act (5 U.S.C.. 552). wIthout regard to the exclusion of Antra- or Interagency memoranda when such memoranda transmit comments of Federal agencies on the environmental Impact of the pro- posed action pursuant tol 1600.9 of these guidelines. Agency procedures prepared pursuant to I 1500.3(a > of these guide- lines shall implement these public In- formation requirements and shall In- clude arrangements for avaiiabthty of environmental statements and com- ments at the head and appropriate re- t’ ional offices of the responsible agency and at appropriate State and areaw de clearinghouses unless the Governor of the State Involved designates to the Council some other point for Etceipt of this irtfornlatlon. Notice of such de ,igna- Lion of an alternate point fur receipt of this information will be included in the Offirt of Management. and Budget list- ing of ‘learinghouc s referred to In I l500.9 e’. Where emergency circumstances make it necen.aiy to take an action with siitnifictint environmental impact with- nut observim. the provisions of these guidelines concerning minimum periods for agency review and advance availa- bitit ’ of environmental Ftatements, the Fedei al agency proposing to take the action should consult with the Council about. alLerna is ’e arrangeniects. Simi- larly where there are overriding consid- C: ’atAons of expense to the Government or impaired program eff ’tt ene s. the re- 5l)ofl%lbh’ agency should cu uit with the Council culirerning ap’ ,.uliate moth— flcatton.s cif Ihe mnmimLma petiods. ‘(I In order to assist the Council in fulfilling Its responsibilities under the Act and under Executive Order 11514. all agencies shall (as required by section l02’2i (H) of the Act and section 3iI) of Executive Oider 11514) be responsive to requests by the Council for reports and other information dealing with Issues arising in connection with the imple- Inentation of the Act. In particular. agencies shall be responsive to a request by the Council for the preparation and circulation of an environmental state- ment, unless the agency determines that such a statement is not required, in which case the agency shall prepare an environmental assessment and a publicly available record briefly setting forth the reasons for its determination. In no case, however, shall the Council’s silence or failure to comment or request prepara- tion, modification, or reclrrulaticmn of an environmental statement or to take other action with respect to an environmental statement be construed as bearing in any way on the question of the legal require- ment for or the adequacy of such state- ment under the Act. 9 1500.12 Legislati r iution . (a) The Council and the office of Management and Budget will cooperate In giving guidance as needed to assist agencies in Identifying legLsative Items believed to have environmental signifi- cance. Agencies should prepare Impact statements prior to submission of their legislative proposals to the Office of Mait- agesnent and Budget. In this regard, agencies should Identify types of repeti- tIve legislation requiring environmental Impact st$tements (such as certain types of bills affecting transportation policy or annual cc-nstruct.Ion authorizations). (b) With respect to recommendations or reports on proposals for legislation to which sectIon 102(2) (C) applies, the final text of the environmental statement and comments thereon should be svall- able to the Congress and to the public for consideration In connection with the pror.. ed legislation or report. In CaSes dicre the scheduling of congressional hearings on recommendations or reports on proposals for legislation which the Federal agency has forwarded to the Congress does not allow adequate time for the completion of a final text o an en- viroilmental statement (togeti.’ r with comments), a draft environmen a1 state- ment may be furnished to the Oongress anti made available to the public pending transmittal of the comments as received and the final text. § 1500.13 Application of se tk’n 102 (2)(C) procedure to exis. n; nroj- edt and programs. Agencies have an obligation to :easseSs ongoing projects and programs Art order to avoid or minimize adverse e iv1rofl- mental effects. The section l02t2)(C) procedure shall be applied to further major Federal actions having a signifi- cant effect on the environnv’nt even though they arise from projects or pro- grams Initiated prior to enactment of the Act on January 1, 1970. While the Status of the work and degree of completion may be considered In determining whether to proceed with the project, it Is essentIal that the environmental Im- pacts of proceeding are reassessed pur- suant to the Act’s policies and proce- dures and, If the project or program Is continued, that further incremental major actions be shaped so as to enhance and restore environmental Quality as well as to avoid or minimize adverse environ- mental consequences. It is also impor- tant in turther action that account be taken of environmental consequences not fully evaluated at the outset of the proj- ect or program. 1500.11 Supplementary guidelines; e .lu.tion of procedures. (a) The Council alter examining en- vironmental statements and agency pro- cedures with respect to such statements will Issue such supplements to these guidelines as are necessary. (b) Agencies will continue to assess their experience in the implementation of the section 102(2) (C) provisions of the Act and In conforming with these guidelines and report thereon to the Council by June 30, 1974. Such reports should include an identification of the problem areas and suggestions for revi- sion or clarificatIon of these guidelines to achieve effective coordination of views on environmental aspects (and alterna- tives, where appropriate) of proposed ac- tions without Imposing unproductive ad- ministrative procedures. Such reports shall also Indicate what progress the agency has made in developing substan- tive criteria and guidance for making en- vironmental assessments as required by 1500. 0(c) of this directive and by sec- tIon 102(2) (B) of the Act. F (SAL SSTU, VOl.. 3S, NO. 147—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1973 ------- Effective date. The revisions of thee. guidelines shall apply to all draft and ftn ’d Impact statements flied w ttt the Coit:wil after January 28, 1973. Russais E. TWN. Chatrma*. APPLNDIX t —8uMU ’.aY TO AcCOMPANY Dears AND FiNAL Svarzserwrs (Check one) C ) Draft. ( ) Final En.. .::Msmet%tat Statement. Name of responsible Federal agency (with n.sme of operating division where appropri- stei. Name, address, and telephone number of div1diaI at the agency Who Can be con- tacterl £.‘r additional trdormatlon about the propused action or the statement. 1. Name of action (Check one) Ad.. ministrative Action. ( ) Legislative Action. 2. Brief description of action and its pur- pose. Indicate what States (and counties) particularly ffectect. and What other pro- posed Federal actions in the area, it any, are discussed in the statement. S. Summary of environmental impacts and adverse environmental effects. 4. Summary of major alternatives consul- t ired. 5. (For draft statements) List all Federal. State, and Local agencies and other parties from which comments have been requested. (Foe final atatemants) List all Federal, State, and local agencies and other parties from which written comments have been received. 5. Date draft statement (and final environ- mental statement, If one has been Issued) made avail*ble to the Council snd the public. Amwou II.—Aaw of INVIS0NMZNTAL las- PACT AND FEDISAL Aoixczns AND PISSRAL StaTs AGIsiciss’ Wrru JuszsoIcTtosi PT LAW 0* SPeCIAL EXPSaTISI To COMMZNT THIIZO N ass Air Qual it V - Department of Agriculture— Forest Service (effects on vegetation) Atomic Energy Commission (radioactive sub- stances) Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare - Environmental Protection Agency Department of the Interior— Bureau of Mines (fossil and gaseous fuel combustion) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (effect on wildlife) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (effects on recreation) Bureau of Land Management (public lands) Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lends) National Aeronautics and 8pace Administra- tion (remote sensing, aircraft emissions) Department of Transportation— • Assistant Secretary for Systems Develop- ment and Technology (auto emissions) Coast Guard (vessel emissions) Federal Aviation Administration (aircraft emissions) ‘River Basin Commissions (Delaware, Great Lakes, Missouri, New England, Ohio, Pacific Northwest, Souris.R.d-Ralny. Bus- quehanna, Upper Mississippi) and similar Federal-State agencies should be consulted on Ctions affecting the environment of their specific geographic jurisdictions. ‘In sit cases where a proposed action will have significant international environmental effects, the Department of State should be Consulted, and should be sent a COPY of any draft and final Impact statement which cOT- Ha such action. RULES ‘ANO REGULATIONS Weather No4t es$ ca Department of Agricuituea— Forest Service Department of Commerce— National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- istration Departmer t of Defense— Department of the Air Pores Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation WATES Rxsosisc*s Oovitcm WATss Water Quality Depaitinent 01 Agriculture— Soil Conservation Service ?orest Service Atomic Energy Commission (radioactive sub- stances) Department of the Interior— Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Land Management (public lands) Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Geological Survey Office of Saline Water Environmental Protection Agency Department of Health. Education, and Wel- tare Department of D,fenae— Army Corps of Engineers - Department of the Navy (ship pollution control) National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion (remote sensing) Department of Transportation— Coast Guard (oil spills, ship sanitation) Department of Commerce— National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- istration WaLe- Resou nsa Council River Basin Commissions (as geographically appropriate) Marine Pollution. Commercial P’iahery Conservation. and She llfls?s Sen t teflon Department of Commerce— National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adnths . . Istr ation Department of Defense— Army Cerpa of Engineers Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy Department of Health. Education, aBd Wel- fare Department of the Interior— Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Bureau of Land Management (outer con- tinental shelf) Geological Survey (outer continental shelf) Department of Transportation— Coast Guard Environmental Protection Agency National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion (remote sensing) Water Resources Council River Basin Commissions (as geographically appropriate) Waterway Regulation end Stream Modfflcatso* Department of Agriculture— Soil Conservation Service Department of Defense— Army Corps of Engineers Department of the Interior— Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Geological Survey Department of Transportation— Coast Guard Environments) Protection Agency 20557 Estlonal Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion (remote sensing) Water Resources Council River Basin Commissions (as geographically appropriate) FISH AND WILDLIFE Department of Agriculture— Forest Service Soil Conservation Service Department of Caesm.ve.— National Oceanie $ 54 Atmo.pberic Admin- istration msfles lpsctm) Department of till Enlesior— Bureau of epori P afli . . and Wildlife Bureau of Lend Msaag.me.t Surepu of Outdoor Recreation Environmental Protection Agency sotos WASTE Atomic Energy Commission (radioac ire waste) Department of Defense— Army Corps of Engineers Department of Stealth, Education, and VYe - fare Department of the Interior— Bureau of Mines (mineral waste, mine acid waste, municipal solid w ate, recycling) Bureau of Land Management (pubLc lands) Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) Geological Survey (geologic and hydrolog.c effects) Ollice of Saline Water (deminer*llzation) Department of Transportation— Coast Guard (ship sanitation) Environmental Protection Agency River Basin Commissions (as geographically appropriate) Water Resources Council NOISE Department of Commerce— National Bureau of Standards Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment (l*nd use and building materials aspects) Department of Labor— Occupational Safety and Health Adminis- tration Department of Transportation— Assistant Secretary for Systems Develop- ment and Technology Federal AviatIon Administration, Office 0 ! Noise Abatement Environmental Protection Agency National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion SADLSTION Atomic Energy Commission Department of Commerce— National Bureau of Standards Department of Health, Bduc*tion, and Wel- fare - Department of the Interior— Bureau of Mines (uranium mines) Mining Enforcement and Safety Adminis- tration (uranium mines) Environmental Protection Agency HAZARDOUS Sussiawess To xic Materials Atomic Energy Commission (radioactive substances) Department of Agriculture— Agricultural Research Service Consumer and Marketing Service Department of Commerce— National Oceanic nd Atmospheric Ad- -‘ ministration Department Defense Department of Health. Education, and Wel’. fare Rirvironmental Protection Agency I UT—Pt. II—2 FEDERAL RIStSTEI, VOL 38, NO. 147—WVDNIIDAY , AUSUST I, 1973 4 —Pr’ ------- 20558 RULES AND REGULATIONS Food I4dftlvea sad Oawdr.stlo* of Poodsti Is Department of AgricultuTe— Consumer and Marketing Service (meat and poultry products) Department of Health. Zducst1o , and Wel. tar. Environmental Protection Agency PeatlcM ss Department at Agriculture— Agricultural Research Service (bIckgiCal controls, food and Abet production) Consumet and Marketing Service Porest Service Department of Commerce— Nat. ce.al Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- ministration Dep. runent of Health. Bdutstlon. and W.l- tare Department of the Interior— Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (fish and wildlife eRects) Bureau of Land Management (public lands) Bureau of Ind ia n ASairs (Indiafl la ) Bureau of Reclamation (lrrlgsted lands) Evironnaent*l Pr ticticn Agency TruspOrtsftoit mud NeadUag of Hsis?douiS Umterisli Atomic Energy Ccmmbaloli (radioactive sub- stances) Department of Commerce— Maritime AdminIstration National Oceanic and Atmouphede Ad- ministration (effects on maims tie and thi coastal lis) Department of Defense— Armed Services Explosive Safety Board Army Corp. of Engineers (navigable waterways) Department of TransportLUcb— Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Motor Cant., Safety Coast Ouard Federal Railroad AdmuisteatiOn Federal AViation Adodnistratien Am*stsnt Secretary for Systeme Develop- ment and Technology office of Hasardous Materials Office of Pipeline Safety Environmental Piotection Agencl I O Y SUPPLY 5)15 )IATVRU. emoo* s D*vZLOP i s iT Eiectnc Energy Development. O .tton. and Tra*amissiO* slid Use Atacele Energy Oommbeicn (nuclear) Department of Agriculture— Rural E lectriffcatioQ AdminIstratiOn (rural areas) Department of Defence— Army Corp. of Rngtnsers (l iydrO) Department of Health. SeucuAlen. and I— fare (radlatioO effects) Department of Housing and Urban Dendup- m.nt (urban areas) Department of the Int ed oP— Bureau cc Indion Affair. ( T S )a lands) Bureau of Land Management (public lands) Bureau of R.eLaznaUOn Power Marketing Adm*uiis*rttime Osological Survey Bureau of Sport Fisheries and WildiHo Bureau of Outdoor *eesea$lsB NsUonai Park Service Environmental Protec kffl A nc, Federal Power C’ (b7dsC is— Uc and nspply) River Basin gecguipölesUl Tsnnee Valley Authority Water Resources CouneM Pefroisess D.velopmeuit. Retraction , Re$rsi*g. Transport. sad Use. Department of the Interior— Office of Oil and Gas Bureau of Mines Geological Survey Bureau of Land Management (public lands and outer continental shelf) Bureau of Indian Affair. (Indian lands) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wfldltte (effects on Ash and wildlife) Bureau of Outdoor RecreatiOn National rark Service Department of Transportation (Tranapqit and Pipelnie Safety) Env!ronunct.’ ‘l Protection Agency Intemt*ta C ’n, inerce Commission Nalzin4 G. flat clopment. Prod uctio*. Tr nsz’ifssto . and fire Department of Housing anti Urban Develop- ment. (urbar. :.re&s) Department of tht Interior— Office of Oil ama Gas Geological Survey Bureau of Mines Bureau of Land Management (public lands) Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau of Ouldour RecreatioB National Park SeTs I Ce Department of Transportation (transport and safety) Lnvwonrnsn,.sl Protection Agency Federal Poe. Conunisslon (production. tran*mu ilou. and aupl.’ly I Interstst Commerce Coa iu*laaiOfl Coal nud Nlr.eruls DrrZopine*t. Mining. Cos version, Froeesriwg, rrensporl, mud Use Appalsetilan Regionsl Commission Department of Agriculture— Service Department of Commerce Dspartment of the Interior— ORe. at Coal Research Mining Enforcement and Reisty Adminis- tration Bureau of Mines Geological Survey Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) Bureau of Land Management (public lands) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau of Outdoor Recreation National Park Service - Department of Labor— Occupational ffafety and Health Adminis- tration Department of ‘l ’Thn*portatlOn Buvisusimental Protection Agency Interstate Commerce Commission Teunemee Valley Authority Rcneip.ble Resource Vevelopsie%t. Frodlic— Lion. Ms*apeseenf. Hsrvrst. Trsuisport. gad V .. Department of Agriculture— ForeSt Service Soil Conservation Service Department of Commerce Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment tbullding materials) Department of the Interior— Geological Survey Bureau at Land Management (public I ii Indian Affair. (Indila lands) Pusnu .1 Sport Fisheries and WIId IirS Bureau of Outdoor Reersatlen RaUo al Part service Department of TransportatiOn Environmental protection Agency Interstate Commerce Commission (frs t rates) mercy sad Nmtiarel Resources Oo%sarvution Department of Agriculture— - Forest Service Soil Conservation Service Department ol Commerce— National Buretu of Standards (energy efflc le . cyt Department of Housing and Urban Duvel- opnuent— Federal Hnueiug AdmInistrstloa (housing standards) Department of the Interior— Office of Energy Congerystion Bureau of Mines Bureau of Reclamation Geological Survey Power Marketing Administration Department of Transportation Iltivirniumental ProteCtion Agency Federal Power Commission General Services Administration (des1g % end operation of buildings) Tennessee Valley Authoi ity LAND VSE A IID MANSOSMINT Land t’se Changes, Planning m*d egi;;mLt0t oJ Land Development Department of Agrlcut .ure— Forest Service (forest lands) Agricultural Research Service (agric itural Is da) Deps.rtmtnt of Housing and Vrbs.n tvcelop- ment Dep&rtuicnt 01 the Interior— Office of lAnd Use and Water planning Burcen of Land Management (public is Bureau of Land Management (publiC lands) Bureau of Indian Affair. (Indian lands) Bureau of Spurt Fisheries and Wildlife (wildlife refugee) Bureau of Otitdo r Recreation (recreation lands) Nstlonal Park Service (NPB units) Department of Transportation Envlronlnentftl ProtectiOn Agency (pollution effects) National AeroLatittes and Space Admiltistra- thin (remote sensing) Rh-er Basins Cc-suumisrdon5 (as geographically appropriae). Public Land MandgefiieIIt Department of Agriculture— Forest Servict (forests) Depart incnt of Defense Department of the Interior— Bureau of I.end Management Bureau of Indian Alairs (Indian lands) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (wildlife refugeS) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (recreation lands) National Push Service (NPS unit.) Federal Power Coinmisuion (project land.) General Services Admifl sttOn National Aeronautics and Space Adalahera ton (remote sensing) Tennessee Valley Authority (projeot ia ds) Puom .11nN or Rieviso W*LLT V AL Aaw-FL00O?LMir qu5 Duals, Ulorrams Boils. S Sacris. AQuIF Rrcu*acu AsSes, l C. Department of Agriculture-” Agricultural Stabilicetlon and Conserve.— tion Service ____ Soil con s ervation asseice Forest istration (coastal areas) Department of Detenee— D.urlld U,bea Develop- ment (urban and BoOdplaia asses) , ! _ aa SlglU. VOL 35. iiO. I47 W N1iDAY, AUSUST 1. ) 73 ___-- ------- l)epsrtnmnt of the Interior— O$oe at Land Use and Water Ptenatng Bureau of Outdoor Rscreation Bureau of Heciamation Bureau at Sport Ptth.ries and Wildltf. Bureau of land Management Geological Survey Environmental Protletion Agency (pollution effects) National Mronauties and Space Administra- ti in (remote sensing) R1”er Bums Oc miedons (as geographically appropriate) Water Reaources Council LAND USE IN COASTAL Akii* Department of Agriculture— Poiest Service 13011 Cofllervation Service (soil stability, hydrology) Department of Commerce— National Oceanic and Atmoapheric Admin- istration (Impact on marine it. and coastal son. management) Department of Defense— Army Corp. of Engineers (beaches, dredge and flU permits. Retiree Act p.rmits) Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment (urban areas) Department of the Interior— Office of Land Use and W t.r Pte.seving Bureau at Sport Fisheries and Wildlife National Park Berries Geological Survey Bureau of Out4o Recreation Bureau of Land Management (public lands) Department of Tranipee-tatlon...- Coast Guard (bridges, flsvigstio ) Environmental Prot.ctloit Agency (pollution effects) National Aeronautics and Specs Admin a- tto (remote sensing) Rzvevziopwarry AND cowsmocr oj ni Borny-Ur Mass Department of Commerce— Economic Devslcpm.nt Adminlstrbtion (designated areas) Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment Department of the Interior— Office of Lsnd Use and Water Planning Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Oeneral Services Administration Office of Economic Opportunity DENSITY AND CoNcEaTloil MITIGATION Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment Department of the Interior— Office of Land Use and Water Planning Bureau of Outdoor Rccreation Department of Transportation Environmental P tectioc Agency liesGusoaflooo CHASACTEE AND Coirrwuivy Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fAre Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment N&tlonai Endowment for the Arts Office of Economic Opportunity IMPACTS O)f LOW-fltcoMi POPULATION. Department of Commerce— Economic Development Administration (designated areas)- Dep tment of Health. Education, end Wel- ler. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment Office o f Economic Opportunity RULES AND REGULATIONS Rmeosw, Mcxns aim ASCNDOLOSICA& Pammvarmow Advisory Oouncij on Historic PreservatIon Department of Housing and Urban Develop. Department of the Interior— NationaL Park Service Bureau of Land Management (public lands) Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands) General Services Administration Nation j Endowment for the Arts Sot.. AND PtaNT CONSEaVATION AND Hvu -o ooy Department ot Agn’fltur,— Soil Conservation Service Agricultural Service Poreet Service - Department of Commerce—- National Oceanic and .ttrnoepheric Admin- istration Department of Defense— Army Corps of Engineers (dredging, aquatic plants) Department of Health, Education, and We !- far Department ci the Interior— Bure&u of Land Management Bureau at Sport Fisheries and WUdiit• Geological Survey Bureau of Reclamation Environineutai Protection Agency NStional Aeronautics and Space Admlnietra- tion (remote sensing) River Basin Commissions (as geographically approprtatet Water Resource8 Council OUT000E SECREATION Department of Agriculture— Forest Service Soil Conservation Service Department of Defense— Army Corps of Engineers D.partm at of Housing and Urban Develop- ment (urban areas) Department of the Interior— Bureau of Land Management National Park Service Bureau of Outdoor R.crewtlon Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wlldlif. Bureau of Indian ASairs Environmental Protection Agency National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion (remote sensing) River as1n Commissions (as geographically appropriate; Water Resources Council APPENDIZ I ll—OFFICES WITHIN PsoEEAL Acspcrss AND FEDFRAI.-STATE AGENcISE Pos INPOaMATI0N REGAinING Tua Acesecim’ NEPA Acrrvrrrrs AND Von RECeIVING Ovieaa AcENcIrS’ IMPACT STATEMENTS Poe WIUCH • CossMEw’rs ACE RzqursvzD ADVISORY COUNCIL. ON HISTORIC I’RESERVATION Office of Architectural and Environmental Preservation. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Suite 430, 1522 K Street, NW., Washington. D.C. 20005 254-3374 Regional Administrator, I, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Room 2303, John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg., Boston, Mass. 02203, (617) 223—7310 Regional Administrator, U, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Room 903. 26 Federal Plaga New York. New York 10007 (212) 284—2525 20559 DEPAITCIENT OP Aoascm,yuv.i’ Office a t the Secretary, Attn Coordinator Environmental Quality Activitiis, U.S. De- partment of AgricuLture, Washington, D.C. 20250 447—3065 APPALACHIAN ASGIONAL COMMIsSION Office of tbg Alternate Federal Co-Chairman, Appalachian Regions! Commission. 1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20235 967-4103 DEPAITMENT OF THE ARMY (coaps or ENGINEE*H) Ezecutive Director of Civil Works, Office f the Chief of Engineers. 11.8. Army Corps uf Engineers, Washington. D.C. 20314 693— 7168 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMIS iION For nonregulatory matters: Offlc of Agalstant General Manager for Biomedical and En- vironmental Research and Safety Pri,- grams. Atomic Energy Commission, Wash-V ington. D.C. 20545 973-3208 For regulatory matters: 0111cc of the Assist- ant Director for Environmental Projects. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545 973-7531 DEPARTMENT or COMMERCE Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C. 20230 96’7- 4333 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense (Health and Environment), U.S. Depart- ment of Defense, Room 3Ei72, The Penta- gon. Washington. D.C. 20301 631-3111 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN cOMMISSION Office of the Secretary. Delaware River Basin Commission, Post Office Bog 360, Trenton. N.J. 08603 (609) 883-9509 ENVIMONMENTAI. PROTECTION AGENCY ’ Director, Office of Federal Activities. Environ- mental Protection Agency. 401 54 Street, SW., Washington. DC. 20460 755-0777 ‘Requests for comments or Information from individual unitS of the Department of Agriculture, e.g.. Soil Conservation Service. Forest Service. etc. should be sent to the Office of the Secretary. Department of Agri- culture, at the address given above. Contact the Office of Federal Activities for environmental statements concerning legislation, regulations, national program proposals or other major policy issues. For all other EPA consultation, contact the Regional Administrator in whose area the proposed action leg., highway or water re. source construction projects) will take place. The Regional Administrators will coordinate the EPA revIew. Addresses of the Regional Administrators, and the areas covered by their regions are as follows: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont New Jersey. New York, Puerto Rico. Virgin Islands NDEIAL 545132, VOL. 3 1, NO. 147—WIDNESBAT, AUGUST 1, 1P73 4- 7 ------- 2$5N A In00r41St. U . v90mei 5tol Re*4$$0 5 — Ourth 90 4th Walnut S0s r -- - P.. 90100 (215) 007-9001 IicgiCllal Adm1Zl1*in*t . I V. U -S. Heskoaceinlul Protsetlcs hp _ ., . 1411 FUsthinse e set X.*.. Attanto. Oe. 00 (404) IIS-S ’lSl NeSI0IILaI A in atct V. - US. vtronmeatol Pr cttis 3$s507 IN. Wackar DrIve Chicago. Dunce 00009 (212) 353—5200 Regional AdmInluinstor VI. US Rn.lronmuntsl Protection A4UncY 1600 Patterson Street Suite 1100 DeflaL T a 15901 (214) 140—1903 Regional Admth atC, V US. Re,konceentol Protsetion Alone, 1’135 BaIttInoro Avenue city. 1 zt 44100 ($14) 314-640* — Adminiotra VUI. US. lnv*ronm.ntsi Protectiis Agency Suits 900, Uncoin Tower 1090 UncolS Street Den,sr. 00100146 adN (309)031-3090 Regional Admtn ster . U I. Ro,kgnmeDtsl Prvtsettos *11. 17 100 00ltteruia Street Sen Pranelww. caiUsenio kill (411) *50-0319 Regional dadnoiba$09 X. OS. Ro,iromaental t lcn 1100 SIxth *51.0. Seattle . Wathingios $0101 t_) 443 1 I . POW CommIadon s A4V er is SaL- “00 Quality. Piduiul P — N. C.pttcl Street. $1.. Washington. DC. IS*4 900-0004 onom aL OSce ci Rev to1 OSIS ci uty A*4lakshsad 109 ‘PrWec . A ta 00 Wadio ton, D C. 19401 341 —4151 omaT 1â 00009 ci the &ris. thins I 1471 Pl . _ Read. P.O. Nm $10. Ann Arbea’, 00100 ($13) 100’- 7431 *av T C meaT.. - - £1. wuiaa• . --.--- Ix , knaeeo$s, M Omhfvrnta. Ranull, Amen. 00* Otam , Triad TuIrtIWlU 01 Pse Wsade . Wake b a4 — Re,iroa nte1 OS u . s. ospsrtiss ci Reslik, fliucettos sad Woifare Room 10075 John P. Heancly Oonter 5.lcs. . oasttm 00300 (411) *4— N i l P-q1 U: ____ Regional Reylrcsnus tal O00csr UI. Department ci Nmth. acs sad Welfare 90 PiJ.iiJ Piom New Teak, New YO rk 10007 (111) 104 ’ 1190 - UI: n i..J Re k — _ on Ocur U .S. De t ci Health. and Weltore P O. Nm 11 ,14 r . . PenaepWS&S £1901 (*11) R. - IV: n141a1 Nmk-- ’ ! u09 U I. Depertm 01 Nm 190. Ive’ 4 and Wadire Room 494 90 Seventh Plead. NI. *1,ee. Os.., * 90*4 (*4) Ni NI? ngts ,a I R ovI._ USt us. Ditm*4 ci HeelS. stle sad * 1th00 Ras fls. New Pad — Wad Yes RasisIhuot - INS? (*11)9054104 a.gicn VI: RegIonal Znv*ro590entml OSour U I. D.partmlitt 01 Health, Nmcnt*cs and WetfaZe 1114 Commerce Street Dallas, Tazas 75102 (214) 745-2900 ion VU: Regional Hnvir0010eDtal OSoer US. Department ci Health. Neucs*ton and Welfare 001 5 .it 12th Street Kansas City, Mtmouri 04104 (114) 374- 3644 Rsgi. VflI: Regional Env1r i tal OScar U S. Department 01 Health. R4 meitur sad Welter. $017 Federal B” tote sad Stout Denver, COlOradO 00193 ( ) 037-4175 Region IX Regional Zovircomental OScer US. Department ci Health. oast$on end Welfare 60 PUlton Street Sen Francisco, 00Ufornla *4104 (415) 590-1910 Region X: Regional Znvironmental OSoer U.S. flepsrtmsnt ci Husith. ReucstPfl end Walters Arcade Plus $ 4ld1n$ 1321 Seoo d %trsst Seattle. Washington 00101 (104) 441.- 0410 4 Contoct the Director t* regud to en- Itronmsntal Impacts of policy 90 ntoments. program re4 — and pro- SSdUT.e. and preeadent- g project de. W’’ . For ill oth.r HUD i1ta*3c*. 00n- tact the BUD Regbeasi A 1nIada$ea’ in ubsee jurIsdiction th. project 1100. 00 lows: Regional AdmInIstrator I, Environmental Clearmee OScer US. Department of Homing end Urban Development _______ Room 406, John P. annedy Federal Building Boston, lIars, 02209 ( II ?) *40000 Regional AdminIstrator n, Reviroemental Clearance Oosr U .S. Department 01 Hoadag and Urban Development 90 Federal Piers Nsw Tort, New Y40k 10007 (211) 114- 9010 Regional Administrator UI. Revironmental Cisarsacs OSoer UI. Department 01 Nonaing end Urban Curtic BuOSc(. Sixth end Walnut Street PbUsdslphIs. Peneaytvanio 1*104 ($13) 907-1010 RIgt LI Adm InistratOr 1?. Heviroamental clearance OScer V S. Department .1 Ro...uing and Urban De,.lopce u 4 Pseckkos-S’vSflth I R SIIIS . ‘VOL 30 , ISO. 147—_UJY, MS*4 I 1173 iute A USUIATIONS - )Re$aM, Pes a , V 5 5 a*TMT.T ot VkgInIs. D iiI st w ‘SI-uT’ - Uboctor. OSce ci Ou untty *4 ta1 Standarde, Duparbaist 01 1 1am— lag end Urban Helelcplnent, Room 1 )00, w s ’ j “ - Washington. D.C. INto ‘ Nmth 00nd $odR UI Tan- 0- 1° Arkensin — New ?ba s, Coicrade. Moatane. Nerth South psko Utah. wprndng OSce ci Nmlg sto* A OSIe 0100s Aiaat Se . Mr7 Ice -‘-‘ --UAn 1.1 - t Depar t 0111 .015. 50 .- and Weliern. W D adN 001*044 • Contact tM OSca 01 At- faire to, tntOrma*$is on ‘ on .L . . — tel etutomemle omoanlag l-g 1511055, nattoiml 5--.- N ’ major pcdcy adom. and fur all su _ ak 109 w— ——-on==-r —lest o tb - _ Per tafasI-stis with to time seeseving 00001* the j. - ci *4 Depar Ar ’ Regional L r 1 *4 . ,.5- ..,Isase n.jl __ *i NeL —— ‘ ____ Attests. Ooergle . $5011 (494) IN U N Regic. ’ inImra*er V. ReskonmeUtsi clearance OScer U.S Department .1 11*4ng and Urban D cgo , Utmoin 151 11 (*11) *4 SIl O ------- u.*se ’ mIT OP T nrT o6 Director. OSee of ,lrommente1 Pse).oI s- v(ew, Dspsr ent of the Tuu.ior. thtaelor BW&dtn. Wuhilgtas, D.C. 90240 243-. 3031 UITssST&TZ co cONisi osee of Proea.dtns. Interstate Commeree. Co I d . Wuhhsgton, D.C. 1042$ 343-3107 DSPa*TMI1I Or LAWS A30atant S.cr.t& 17 for Occupational Safety end Health. Department of Labor, Wash- h,gton, D.C. 10310 963-3406 5IIS*OU I1 Seams COMMsssaOW O ce of the Chairman. Missouri River Reels CommissIon. 10060 Regency Cirole. Omahn. N.braaka 65124 (403) 3*7-6114 M&TIONAL amOr*utice 6 5 (0 ee*cu aa avesuoie GRas of the Compteolls, Itationa.l A.ronau- tics and Space Admintatrsuon. Washing- ton, D .C. 20646 766-0440 MCT M. CJPtT*J. PLA 1IING COM.U$aIom ORes of Invtronmentei Affairs, O o. of to. Izecutise Director. National Capital Plan- fling Washington. D.C. 10576 813-7100 5(CTIOSAL amOWse T lot ‘fWZ S afe GRas of Arehueetura sad Revirona.ntai Art. Program. National Rudowm.nt for to. Arts Washington. D.C. 10506 552-8765 1 1 1W afOLAlID IZVU ***U15 COMMZS*IO$ ORes Of the Crasri, few England River Ruins 56 Court Street. Bos- ton. Miss. 05100 (617) 038—1284 Regional L n1taIate$tOr VI, Environmental Clearance 003c.r • U.S. D.perhnsnt of Housing and U,- baa Development Pedersi ORes Building. Sia Strest Part Worth, Tuas 76102 (517) 3*4-.INI Regional Administestor VU. Environmental Clearance ORcer U.S. D.partm.nt of Housing and Urban Development 911 Walnut St ..t W.t . City, Missouri 64106 (816) 374— 2051 Regional Mmtnistrator VU!. Envtronm.ut..j Clearance ORcer U.S. Department of Rousing and Urban Development Building. 1051 South Broad- wai D.nver, Coloiado 80209 (308) 837-4061 Regional Administrator IX, Environmental Clearance Officer U.S. Department of Housing end Urban Development 460 Golden Gate Avenue, Poet ORe. RO 2000$ San Francisco. California 94103 (415) 586-4752 Regional Adminlatrator X. EnvI ,onm.ntei Clearance CRc ., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development EoO 226. Arcade Flame Build in$ 8.attle. Washington 95101 (208) 583’- 5416 1 R.qussts for comments or info me4in. from individual unit. of to. Department of the Interior should be sent to the ORe. of Environmental Project Review at the addre — above. 1ULES AND tEGULATIONS deyzcv or scowossic o,roas ’nsn ,T aRc. of to. D4recto . Oce of Zooncenic OpportunIty, 1100 RRRI Street. NW., Wash- Ington. D.C. 1060$ 264-4000 onro aipsa sagw couuguxoic ORe. of the Chairman. Ohio River B.asin CommJsVon. 31 East 4th Street. SuIte 208— 10, C” ”.t1. OhIo 45202 (613) 604—8131 P&CUTC NOaTnwsa’r HVfl Mmi ii COMMIssIoN S ORce of the Chairman, PaciEc Northwest River BasinS CommIssion. 1 ColumbIa River, VCncouver. Washington 93660 (2061 633-3606 - 505)115-am ‘aaU ( T livEs 3*51115 COMMiSSION CRc. of the Chairman, Souris-Red-Re.iny River Basins Cunufliasion, Suite 6. Profes- sional Building. Holiday Mall, Moothe*d. Minnesota 56560 (101) 237-522’? STM.ENT or staTs aRea of the Special Assistant to lisa Secre- tary for Environmental AiTairs, Department of State. Washington. D.C. 10520 633-7904 eeTBQUISJANN& I.I.VT.$ 3*3 511 011cc of the Executive Director, Sqiquehanpa River Ussin Commission. 5i112 1.en er Street, Mechericsnurg, Pa. 17.155 (717) 137—0501 ?NESSEL VCLLLY AUTNOSXTY ORe. of the Director of Environmental Re- search end Development. Tennessee Valley Authority. 720 Edney Building. Chatta- nooga. Tennessee 37401 (615) 755—2002 DSPARTMZNT or TRANSPORTATION Director. 0 51cc of Environmental Quallty. 051cc of the Assistant Secretary for En- viromnent, Safety, and Consumer Affaili Department of Transportation. Washing- ton, D.C. 20590 426-4357 ‘Contact the 051cc of Environmental Quality. Department of Transportation, for information on DOD. environmental state- ments concerning legislation, regulations. isa- tionsl program proposals, or other major policy iesues. Par information regarding the Department of Transportation’s other environmental statements, contact the national 0111cc for the appropriate admtnistr tion: U.S. COc,st Guard Office of Marine Environment and Systems. U.S. Coast Guard, 400 7th Street. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 426-2007 Federal Aviation Adn iintstro.iio Office of Environmental Quality. Federal Avi&tton Administration. 800 Independence Avenue. SW., Washington. D.C. 20591, 426—8406 Federal Highway AdmInistration Office of Environmental Policy. Federal Highway AdminIstration, 400 7th 8t eet. SW., Washington. D.C. 20590. 426-0351 Federal Railroad Administratio* Office of Policy and Plans. Federal Railroad Adznluisiratlozs. 400 7th Street, SW.. Wash- ington, D.C. 20590. 426-1567 Urban Mass TranspOrtation Admsntstration 20561 Poe Other administration’s not listed above, contact the Of6ce of Environmental Quality, Department of Transportation, at the ad- drets given above. For comments on other agencies’ environ- mental statements, oontact the approprtate administratton’s-r.gtonai oiflce. If more than One adntii,j tration within the Department Of ‘ rnportatton is to be requested to COi.uflc’u!. c* .itsct the Secretarial Represent. aLIve In the appropriate Regional omce (or CO,rdlnatlon of the Department’s comments: SECRE’TARIIII, SSPSESENTATIVR Ragio 1 Secretarial Representative. UI. De- partment of Transportation, Transt..rta tion Syst.ems Center, 55 BrOadway, Cam- bridge, Massachusetts 02142 (617) 494- 2709 Re’,ion IT Se -retarial Representative, US. nepartment of Transportation. 26 Fe .i- -rat ISaza. Room 1511. New Yoric. New voik 10007 (212) 264—2672 Region III Secretariat Representative. -5 Department or Transportation. Mali lii. Id- ing. Suite 1214. 325 Chestnut Street. Phia- cleiphia, PennsylvanIa 19106 (215) 597—0407 Region IV Secretarial Representative, U.S. Department of Transportatior.. Suite 515, 1720 Peachtree Rd., NW. Atlanta, Oeo gIa 30309 (404) 526—3735 Region V Secretarial RepresentatIve. 3.8. Department of Transportation. 17th iloor. 300 5. Wacker Drive, Chicago. IPlrIois 60606 (312) 353-4000 Eegioo V Secret: ,rlal Representative, tJ.S. Dc- pal tnient of Transportation. 9—C—18 Federal Center, 1100 Commerce Street. Dsliss. Texe.s 75202 (214) 749—1351 Region V II Secretarial Representative, U.S. Department of TransportatIon. 601 E. 12th Street. Room 634, Kansas City, Missouri 64106 (816) ‘674-2761 Region VIII Secretarial Representative, U.S. Department of Transportation. Prudential Plaza, Suite 1822, 1050 17th Street, Denver. Colorado 80225 (303) 537—3242 Region I X Secretarial Representative., U.S. Department of Transportation. 450 Goiden Gate Avenue. Box 36133, San Francisco. California 04102 (415) 556-5961 - Region X Secretarial Representative, U.S. Department of Transportation, 132i Sec- ond Avenue. Room 507, Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 4U-0590 I’L’DEiSAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION N*w llngl;osd Region, Office of the Regional Directo:. Federal Aviation Administration, 154 Middlesex Street, Burlington. Massa- chusetts 01803 (617) 272—2350 Eastern Region, Office Of the Regional Direc tor. Federal Aviation Administration. Fed- eral Building. J?X International Airport. Jamaica, New Tork 11430 (212) 995-3333 Southern Region. Office or the Regional Di- rector. Federal Aviation AdministratIon. P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta. Georgia 30320 (404 ) 526—7222 Greet Lake. Region. Omce of the Regional Director, Federal Aviation Administration, 2100 East Devon. Des Plaines. IllinoiS 60018 (4 ,i2) 694-4500 Southwest Region. Office of the Regional Di- rector, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 1589, Port Worth. Texas 76101 (817) 624—4911 Central Region. Office 01 the Regional Direc- tor, Federal Avistion AdminIstration. 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City. Mtssouri 64106 (816) 374—5626 Rocky Mountain Region, Office of use Re” gional Director. Federal Aviation Admin- istr atiOll, Park Hill StatiOn. 1.0. Box 7213, Denver. Colorado 80207 (303) 831—3646 Western Region, Office of the Regional Three- toe. Federal Aviation Administration. P.O. Box 92007. WoridW*y Postal Center. Los Angeles. California 90009 (213) 536—6421 p3flsA g564$T61, 904.. 38, 110. 147—WEDNESOAY , AUGUST 1, 1973 Office of Program Operations. Urban Uses Transportation AdministratIon. 400 ‘ (lii Street. S.W., Washington. D.C. 20590, 426- 4020 ------- lUtES AND REGUlATIONS Ir*30 a I . -- . OS 0 1 1k. S5I00SI a- ys si . FeI...ã Litoales Am11a aUes , ra* aaI$ Bceta ( 15 .41. Isattal . Wash . te Is . 10310 ( lOS ) 217-2300 AL n WAY £.emusraArIoa. lo 1, eØaa& Admin5.UaI.r. I ’.dmI U kea7 AdedaistraUco, 4 Nerasastaft Bo 1s7srd. Dries.,. New York 11104 (510) 41)-I I7S RarIca 3. *.gIonsI Admln5.tratoe ’. Federal EtIhllY h%IItrittll . Beas 1521, Osw s N. Pollen Federal OSor RqIldln . 31 mip PIece.. BalUseoro. Maryland 21301(301) ll1-13S$ argIen 4. *e ionst AdmIn5.ttstor. Federal N*hesy minirtratIen. Suit. 350. 1710 Psechtaes Noel, NW.. Atlanta Oeorgla 31050(404) 13S 507$ No tes 1. IsgIonel Adaintetraler. Feder*l Highway AdalnImraUon . D*ZIO Highway. Hoard . IUtnola 10430 (311) 721-6350 fleglon S asgIonal AdminelraLor. Federal Highway La ‘ImraLlon , $1 0 Taper Street, t Worth, Teas 2*102 ($12) 134—3212 Bugles 1. RagIi ..i AdatnIetrator. Federal Highway AdateletrsUon, P.O. Bct 710$ Coeate7 aub $1&-’ns. ty , Mi s.. wurt 1411$ ($15) 3S 1—ISS$ fl. I.a I, fisgIosel Adalatetratar, F i Highway £da*nletrauon. flooce 14*. Bold- hug * Dinver Federal Center. Denver. Ce. a- fleØ..& I. $o’ia* Adalniutrator. Pbdeml H Adatalatestron, 400 C — Oats £,ssas Boa 1555$. Bo Celiter. ale 04*11 (411) 540- fission IS asgia.z AdatnistratcI. Pilsial Highway Adainleiratton. flosa 41*. Mo- k.wk fl044$ . SW. 2L.ir s Itrest. Bolisal, Ceuges *7154 (053) 11 1-ISIS Me1R& B U0N f l e les I , e. lbs uura Buprumesaure. Dikes Mar 1’ImmpsrteUss U Teampertstks 0 Center. Ts- LJ,. BUU Boar 277.10 Bosdeap. 211 (117) 404- -I Bugl s U. OSos of the UMTA L,... ..... . l eUvs. Mace Ibemportateon Adatnietra- tice. N FriarS PIar. Boil, iMa , 3 5 5w York. 1 5 5w Test 11017 (*11) 154-4411 m’ i m. OSes of - UMTA a_ asa- Dikes Mese Teaaugert.Uoa unties. Malt . Butte 1114. — nt eunsi. - p Finseyl- v 10105 (211) 0 57-4557 Sugien IV. 0555 01 UMTA BSPrasSnt.Uv.. Vibes — Adalaletra- tIes, *714 PSSCbtrSS BesS Nce*ueat, BoW 501 , Llama. Cecigla 10505 (404) 424-0041 Bugks V. C ISc. Of the UMTA flspressntatlv.. Urba* - - Tiamporteison Adatnistra- tIes. ISO South W er Celve . Suite I SO. CbICa,O. Ulbiole 50605 ($12) 303-4006 asgion VI, OSce of the VISTA Bupreventa- tIre. Urban Mass Tianiportatlon Admln- istratlon. P.d...Z Csntsr, Suit. 0324, 1100 Onasceerce Start, Dallas, Tees_s 75302 (214) 240-1142 Nsglon VU. OSce of the UWrA Repressnta- Un. titian Ma TraniportMioi Adselnie- tratlon. do FAA Management Systems DI- ,talcs, Boom 100W, 401 Bust 12th Street, Kasissi City. MImourl 04105 (11$) 374— 5251 fleglon VIII. OSca of the UMTA flepreasots- tI,e. Urban Mais Transportation Admiats- trsUoo. Prudential Pisas. Suits 1522. 1060 17 1k Street, Denver, Colorado $0002 (303) $37 242 fisgios IX. CISc. of the VISTA Neparseta- U,.. Urban Mar T aniportatlon Adalnie- tralion, 445 Ooldsn 0.1. Avenue Box 30115. Bun Ivanc i eco. CalifornIa 94102 (415) 500-1104 fle Ioa Z, OSee of the OISTA RepresentatIve. Urban Mass Trani ort tIcs Adminletra.- tics. 13*1 Bucosd Avenue, Suite 50’PS. lest- Us. WridaSton (100)444-4050 T T 00 TieS IW*U&Y OScs of AssletaPt 8.emlary for Adalnaltra- tics, erba.cst 01 the Treasury, Wash— tastes, D . a- 004-6351 - - 1 a- 9A$1$ 00 OSce 01 the Obebass, Upper it’- pl fIrer Bose . Federal 050. Buidlug. Vast 10 5 540g. TwIn Cities. MIs- nssolel&lRl ($ 11) 715 1050 wales aroesom couis . 055501 the Diactor. W Mr fis- 0seac . 2110 L Street. NW., Butte 500. WashIngton, D.C. 10031 254-4442 A.......,U IV—0r*a SlID LocaL Aom,cT B..... , or Iar*cr Br meis 1. chuvler 1I . A—IS through its 7 5.. Bo 51 dear ess ru,lde . a 35t’ for s wal the vise. of State and least environ- sstal whish am amst Zn the rep- asa4 of sct V esornta . Under A- I l, review of the Ii63P , 1 project In the case Of federally tsd projects (Pirt I of A-Il) generally takes place pdcr laths pesparatlon of the impact statement. Therefore. oem- meats on the environmental sheet. of the proposed project that are secured during thie stsgs of the A-Il process represent in- puts to the envirOsunentel Impact statement. 2. In the case of direct Federal develop- ment (Part II of A-IS). Federal agencies are required to consult with clearlngboiaes t the earliest practiceble time in the planning of the project or actt,tty. Where suco con- sultattan occurs prier to completion of the draft impact statement, comme nt. rslatlr.g to the envIronmental effects of the proposed action would al . 0 represent Inputs to the in vtronmentai lmpSCt statement 3. In either case, whatever comments kit mad, on environmental effects of pipomwi P der l or federally seshied project. by 1ssr- tnghoueee, or by Stat. and local e ir Or .- mental agencie, through c*earlnghous.s. i the course of the A-OS review should e tt- tacked to the draft Impact statenisr.t eLefl it la circulated for review. Copie. of the htatt meat should be emt to the agencies DIak1Iu such on.=Rl,v.ts . Whether those agencies then sect t casement again on the basis of the draft Impact statement is a matter to be left to ths dimrstloc of the commenting agency dep.ndL’ g on Its resource,, the ilgnlfl- canes of the project, and the Silent to which its es ther comments were considerid In pre- paring th. draft statement. 4. The clearinghouses may also he used. by mutual a 5resment , for securing reviews of the draft envIronmental impact stats- ment. However, the Federal agency may wish to deal directly with appropriate Stats or locsl agencies in the review 01 Impact state- ments because the clsarlngbousse may be unwilling or usable to handle this pb s.. of the proc.... In some ares. the Osv.rncr may have dedgnated a sp.dtflc agency, other than the clearinghouse, for securing revisei of Im- pact statement.. In any case, the clearing- houses should be sent copies of the Impact stat.msnt. 5. To SM clearinghouses In coordinating Stats and local ‘ ‘ts , draft statement. should Include copies of Stale and local agency ‘ c—.—’—”ts made earlier under the A-Il piece.. and should Indicats on the sum- mary sheet thwe edhse agencies from which have bess requsstsd. as mec13ad In AppendIx lot the CNQ Oulasilar. LPR DOC.7$—ISIS$ Piled 1—31—73;I:45 am) m.r a., us w -rn.i , LU I, Nfl ------- * The Federal Register p 1ication of the Council on Environmental Quality idSiines contains the following typ.setting errors. Table of Contents: (1) Section 1500.9 should read “Review of draft environmental statements by Federal, Federal- State, State, and local agencies, and by the public.” (2) The word “Sec.” after Section 1500.14 should be deleted. Section 1500.6(a): “enviornmerital” shou’d read “environmental “. Section 1500.6(c): “(see § 1500.5; ii)” should read “(see § 1500.5(a) (2))”. Section 1500.6(c) (iii), “paragraph (C) (4) (ii)” should read “paragraph (ii)”. Section 15006(e): “S 1500.6(c) (4) (ii)” s uld read “ 5 1500.6(c) (ii)”. Sectipn 1500.7(a): “5 1500.6(c)(c)(i,i)” should read “5 1500.6(c) (ii)”. Section 1500.8(a) (1): “see paragraph (a) (1) (3) (ii)” should read “see paragraph (3)(ii)”. Section 1500.9(a): “(a) Fedcra7 aq. .’ review. (1) ‘i :” should rea “(a) federal apc flop review: in.”. Section 1500.9(c): “secLrning” should read “securing”. Effective Date: The effective date should read January 28, 1974, not January 28, 1973. ------- —2— Appendix I: “WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL”. an pearing after the heading Weather Modification slEuld be aligned with the left har d margin and read “Water Resources Council” PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTALLy Cart’ ICAL AI &S--FT 1 OODt’L1 INS, WET iIiNDS, BEACHES AND DUNES, IJNSTh13LE SO1L 1 S • S EP SLOPES, AQUIF! R REcI RGE AREAS, TC” hou1d read Protection of 1 nuironmentally Critical Areae—Ptoodplainc, Wetlands, Beaches and Dun . , Unstable Soils, Steep Slopes, a4qutfcr Recharge Areas, Etc.” “lAND USE IN COASTAL AREY3” should read “Land Us. in Coastal Areas” j)EV op?4E!jT AND CONSTRUCTION IN BUILT- UP AR&VtS” should read “Rez velopme;it and Constri ct on In Bkilt-lJp Areas” “DENSITy I’. D CO GEc ’PTON MITIGATION” should z’ead Density and Congestion Plitigation” w n OD c .R cTER AND coN’rINuITr’ should read 1.jghborhood Character and Continuity” “IMPACTS ON LOW INCOI’IE POPULATIONS” should read “ Impacts on Low-Inco ns Populations” “ Fl S2ORIC, AkCHITECTUP AL, ZL4D I\r cl17 or.oGIcAL PRNSUV/t’tIUN ” should read” Historic, Arokit.ctstral, and Archeological Preservation” “SOIL AND PlANT CONSERVATION A D H’tDRGLOG’” should read “Soil And Plant Caneervat on and tydro logy” ------- APPENDIX B ------- GENERAL TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP FIGURE Johnson Sh.ddo L.d. ‘4 \‘ \ H..d S \\ \‘ M.rg e Rock Rock in H. B—i L.dss Hsd 0 M L [ ------- SEISMIC RISK MAP OF THE UNITED STATES FIGURE B-2 3 PROPOSED SITE ZONE 0—NO DAMAGE ZONE 1—MINOR DAMAGE, CORRESPONDS TO INTENSITIES V AND VI OF THE MM SCALE ZONE 2—MODERATE DAMAGE, CORRESPONDS TO INTENSITY VII OF THE MM SCALE ZONE 3—MAJOR DAMAGE, CORRESPONDS TO INTENSITY VIII AND HIGHER OF THE MM SCALE SOURCE: ALGERMISSEPI igeg ------- NEW ENGLAND QUAKE OF APRIL AREA AFFECTED 26,1957: FIGURE B-3 LIMITS OF FELT VI 0 NCW SAUN K Alt ols OUEREC CANADA ) •1\ 0 * ------- APPENDIX C ------- TABLE C—i OCCUPATIONAL CATEGOIIIES: WASHINGTON COUNTY AND MAINE ocupetlon Washingtr’ ‘t County Maine_____ Number % Number % . Professional, technical & kindred • 803 8.5 44,924 12.3 Managers/AdmInistrators, Ex Farm 794 8.4 32,234 8.8 Sales Workers 478 5.0 21,005 5.7 Clerical & Kindred Workers 1,072 11.3 50,611 13.8 Craftsmen, and Kindred Workers 1,600 16.8 55, 148 15.1 Operatives, except transport 1,567 16.5 68,978 18.9 Transport Equipment Operatives 471 5.0 15,085 4.1 Laborers, except farm 1,203 12.7 22,195 6.1 Farmers and farm managers 172 1.8 4,806 1.3 Farm laborers & farm foremen 244 2.6 5,340 1.5 Services, ex private household 920 9•7 39,815 10.9 Private household workers 166 9,490 1.7 100.0 5,649 365,850 1.5 100.0 Total AU Workers Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1910 Census of Population , “General Social and Economic Characteristics.” TABLE C-2 COVERED NON-MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT IN EASTPORT, MAINE FOR SEPTEMBER, 1972-1974 (D Industry L ! !! ! 7± Contract Construction 2 4 3 Transportation, Communication and Public Utilities 15 14 15 Wholesale and Retail Trade 85 62 58 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 13 12 13 Non-Domestic Services and Misc. Non-Manufacturing 44 65 42 Total Numbers Employed 159 157 131 Source: Maine Department of Manpower Affairs, “ Area Manpower Review, Washington County, with Special Emphasis on Cal ls and Eastport!’,April , 1975 (1) Data relates to payroll periods which include the 12th of the month and to employment covered under the Maine Employment Security Law. ------- It, Notes : TABLE C-S SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT FLUCTUATIONS IN EASTPORT, MAINE • Data relate to payroll periods which include the 12th of the month, and to employment covered under the Maine Department of Manpower Affairs, Employment Security Law. • Source: Maine Deparment of Manpower Affairs, Area Manpower Review with Special Emphasis on Calais and Eaatport , April, 1975. Industry Manufacturing ContractCotkstruct lon Transportation, Communication, and Public UtilitieN Wholesale and Retail Trade Jan. 321 3 13 49 Feb. 340 3 13 47 Mar. 274 2 12 56 Apr. 225 2 13 52 363 2 14 52 June 457 2 15 83 July 465 1 16 55 Aug. 684 2 15 56 Sept. 618 3 15 58 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Nonclomestic Services and Mis- cellaneous Nonmanufacturing Total 10 38 434 11 39 453 13 39 396 12 48 352 12 48 491 13 48 618 Ii 40 588 13 40 810 13 42 747 ------- TABLE C-4 POPUIA’ IION CHANGES IN WASHINGTON COUNTY. 1860-1970 Community 1860 1900 1970 % Change 1900—1970 Addison Town 1272 1059 733 —27 Alexander Town 445 333 169 —49 Batleyvtile 363 215 2167 908 Beals —— -- 663 —- Beddington 144 86 32 -63 CalaIs 5621 7655 4044 —47 Centerville 191 91 19 —79 Charlotte 611 315 199 —37 Cherryfteld 1755 1859 771 —59 Codyville —— 68 45 —34 ColumbIa 1265 516 162 —69 Columbia Fall. -— 569 367 -36 Cooper 468 207 88 -57 Crawford 273 112 74 -34 Cutler 890 565 588 4 Danforth 283 1092 794 -27 Deblo is 131 73 20 —73 Dennyaville 485 482 278 —42 East Macbias 2181 1521 1057 —31 Eastport 3850 5311 1989 —63 Grandlake Stream -- 221 186 -16 Rarrtngton 1130 1165 553 -53 Jonesboro 518 606 448 —26 Jonesport 1148 2124 1326 —38 Lubec 2555 3005 1949 -36 Machais 2256 2082 2441 17 Machalsport 1502 1218 887 —27 Marshfield 328 227 227 0 Meddybemps 297 154 76 -51 Milbridge 1282 1921 1154 —40 Northfleld 262 126 57 —55 Pembroke 2299 1652 700 —58 Perry 1195 1245 878 —29 Plantation #14 —- 77 29 -62 Plantation #21 —- 86 83 — 3 Princeton 626 1094 956 —13 Robb inston 1113 844 396 -53 Roque Bluffs -- 168 153 - 9 Steuben 1191 901 697 —23 Ta lmadge —— 93 25 -73 Vanceboro —_ 550 263 -52 Waite —- 135 70 -48 Wesley 343 198 110 —44 Whiting 479 399 269 -33 Wh ltneyville 579 424 155 —63 Other Areas 3203 2388 1472 - 38 Total 42,534 45,232 29,859 —34% Source: U. S. Bureau of the Cenaus: 1860, 1900 and 1970. ------- TABLE C-5 CO1 TIIUCT1ON WO4 XERB NEEDED AND AVAILABLE LOCALLY Craft Men ** Needed Available Locally Plpeflttere 700 10% ElectrIcians 250 30% Insulators 250 5% Iron Workers 150 30% Laborers 200 100% Boilermakers 150 10% Carp ters 150 30% Operating EngIneers 100 15% M i llwrIghts 50 2000 6% — Total * Commuting Area ** Peak Force for Reflnery Ckdy. Another 200 Needed for Marine Facilities Also Needed are 75 8 srvIaors. ------- CONSTRUCTION MANPOWER LOADING SCHEDULE MONTHS FIGURE. C-6 REFINERY • • •• • •. • • • • • • • • • •• • 0 6 24 ------- APPENDIX D ------- MOORED CURRENT—METER MEASUREMENTS AT CHANNEL STATION NO. 2 CT)1. HEAD HARBOR PASSAGE NEAR CASCO ISLAND FIGURE D-1 ‘3 a .3 U a 2 D i\I )\i 11 \! 1/ 1 1/ \1 11 i M i Oe n4 Smr&TR,6 AT 3G9 U’ 1 4i i ri I /k 1 A ñ 1 kLJh J A/LflJi f1M11J\JL J\kfLA&Ak A I \1 I \! i 1L i l! )iJ g I 1/ / 1/ i 1I iI l1 i 1/’il 1J’ii I 2 0 JIV V.Y V V Ifl v mm I U rtI H TIrE cc is c LI 2 ‘1 10 1 4 ’ I 10 TIrE ( ‘ S) 20 Ou C ? AVLA’TIL CA 71W b(%Q 5. ‘ ! “f 73 ------- MOORED CURRENT—METER MEASUREMENTS AT CHANNEL STATION NO. 3 HEAD HARBOA PASSAGE NEAR CASCO ISLAND FIGURE D 2 . !- , ,u a Y/VV \r 0 • t ( T5) l T I *Pfl4 :3 ic R5 S’, a I U S TIrE tI T5 ‘3 U 0 20 So 4t : W 4 LA3, ------- MOORED CURRENT—METER MEASUREMENTS. AT CHANNEL STATION NO. I t U1: 5 M T!&S Sob %: Vi TL %’ITt O wü V fW FIGURE D-3 AflTh v:Y’1 ; z / 3 2.u 4 I A A k 340 k A’ 1 & a A 0 1 U C’ ‘3 U 0 J ! i LE fl 4$i j1 - ‘. -.. . I I iJ i ‘ ik -4 I r rt / 1 H- ___ 120 .0 ID I R I — — TIrE ( TS) J j L p—3 ------- MOORED CURRENT—METER MEASUREMENTS AT CHANNEL STATION NO. 4 FIGURE D-4 : Tk Q. øerH S T &S çiy RTw vAT Sou G*e%ue. U’ t j c i 0 S Tire T5) ‘I ’ I . ’ a 7 0 to IS TIrE ic rst ------- cn I.- 0 z 0 LU LU (I ) LU C) MOORED CURRENT—METER MEASUREMENTS AT CHANNEL STATION NO. 5 PO3ITEBRCAD VE FIGURE 5 4 ) D-5 t 1 ii t uFU 1\ I t 4’- PL it t1I1gT&A I 1Y1 VV1TIU1t fa MiP4 1’4( 73 ‘ -r MLI 1 J 0 1 3 0 0 r J\t\ A 11 L k - I I 1 M1AA iV\1 I\i t!l!Vifl1t/ i 1 1t( Al It’ l\ 1 V ‘ ‘ — I 2-v to # ¼VL * I 73 - 53 FEET BELOW MLW , ‘ u flY VUVyVVVVYVlfyr -E (‘$13 SOui c EG49,’ . ------- SLACK-WATER IN CHANNEL OPPOSITE BROAD COVE SOU C : E.G.&G. iNC. FIGURE D-6 D4r c MM I4 1973 ------- C , , I - . 0 z a w w 0. (I , w C.) MOORED CURRENT—METER MEASUREMENTS NEAR PRODUCT PIERS S Oi/(2 E: è’ ,t14t FIGURE D-7 C (L Fc QJM’ 1 (913 1 .-Q Y J 1 - - s.6 0 z a 0. C ,) I- z w C.) t±— L4. - (cr73 6 ------- MOORED CURRENT—METER MEASUREMENTS NEAR VLCC PIER FIGURE D-8 U, I ft L I • I i l , Ft. 3 LQW PALW 4J cr. rLL j ¼ ’ 8 Vr. reLO j -4LL/ -3 y eL Lk1 2. 2(3 21 22 23 2L 25 25 27 U i Ui 0. C ,) Ui LE 0 J1}L)f ‘ 7’1 Souttc€:.• t * ------- APPENDIX E ------- Sediment Hydrocarbon Analyses Samples of sediment were taken at mid and high tide lines in Broad and Deep Coves, September 16, 1975. These intertidal transects were the same ones sampled pre- viously. Bottom samples were also taken at station 29 in Broad Cove and statIon 35 in Deep Cove. They were frozen immediately and taken to Bowdoin College for analysis. Results are given in Table 16. Substantial levels of hydrocarbons (36-82 ppm) were present at all stations sampled. For comparison, a clear area in Casco Bay contained less than 10 ppm petroleum hydrocarbons. Examination of the chromatograms in Broad Cove reveals all hydro- carbons were natural oils. They are thought to be waste products of the pearl essence and herring reduction plant in Broad Cove. Both natural (station 33) and petroleum hydrocarbons (at the intertidal stations) were found in Deep Cove. The petroleum hydrocarbons ranged from 3 5-64 ppm. At the upper intertidal station, a typical pattern of highly weathered petroleum is present. This may have resulted from the crude oil spill of June 1974 in the Bay of Fundy. The half tide station shows signs of more recent contamination by a light refined prod- uct that has not yet been degraded. Considering the several small boats based in Deep Cove, this oil may have resulted from fuel spillage. Sediment Analysis Samples of sediment in areas where dredging may occur were taken for grain size and potential elutriate test analyses. Stations 1 through 5 and stations 6 through 10 were intertidal samples of transects I and 11, respectively (Figures 1-3). Stations 22 through 33 were subtidal sampling stations. Sediment in all cases were found to be clean sand, essentially free of organic silty material. The sediment on transect I in Broad Cove, other than station 1 which was all rock, range from 53.6% to 71% larger than 200 mesh particles (greater than 0. 074 mm.); the sediment found on transect II in Deep Cove ranged from 64.2% to 99. 95% greater than 200 mesh. The remaining stations were essentially all in the 90% or greater classification, except for stations 22, 29, 32, and 33. The results were dis- cussed with EPA and due to the grain size characteristics, lack of organic silt, and no evidence of toxic materials no elutriate test was required. Results are shown in Table 17. E—t ------- TABLE E-1 WATER WELLS IN EASTPORT I LocaiWeilNo. W734 • W794 • ner Individual Individual t Altitude, (ft.) 80 20 Weib • Type Drilled Drilled • Depth, feet 110 139 • DIameter, inches 6 6 • Depth to bedrock, feet 2 1 Water: • Level, feet 30 —— • Use Domestic Domestic •Yie ld,gpm -- 3 Notes : • S iroe: Geodetic Survey • Other wella In Eastport are unrecorded In the Geodetic Survey. ------- LOCATION OF GROUNDWATER WELLS IN EASTPORT AREA DwPi FIGURE E-1 Th bc.pI / Dvs P “I N 0 SCALE IN MILES 2 3 SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL. SURVEY, 1973. GROUNDWATER SERIES, SOUTHERN WASHINGTON COUNTY AREA. I MAINE BASIC—DATA REPORT . B. • WELL, IN BEDROCK * SPRING IN UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS o WELL IN UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS 4- TEST HOLE IN UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS er86 , 4500 ’ 55. 1 ’ - 44•45• 6655’ ------- TABLE E-2 STATE OF MAINE STANDARDS FOR TIDAL WATER QUALITY Maine has 5 standards for the classification of tidal waters as described below. The applicable “pH” in all cases is to fall within the 6.7 — 8.5 range. Class SA - suitable for aU dean water usages. Dissolved oxygen content to be not less than 6 ppm at all times. Median coliform bacteria count not to exceed 70 per 100 milliliters. Median focal coliform bacteria count not to exceed 15 per 100 milliliters. Class $81 — essentially the same as SA except that in nonthellfish growing areas th. median total coliform bacteria count is not to exceed 240 per 100 milliliters, the median fecal bacteria count is not to exceed 50 per 100 milliliters. Class $82 - also essentially the same as $81 above, except that median total coliform bacteria counts are not to exceed 500 per milliliters and median focal coliform bacteria counts are not to exceed 100 per 100 milliliters. Class SC — satisfactory for recreation except primary water contact. Dissolved oxygen content to be not less than 5 ppm. Median total coliform bacteria counts in shellfish growing areas not to exceed 700 per 100 milliliters; median focal coli. form bacteria count not to exceed 150 per 100 milliliters. For nonshellfish growing areas, the median total coliform bacteria count is not to exceed 1500 per 100 milliliters; median fecal bacteria count is not to exceed 300 per 100 mdliliters. Claus SD — assigned only where higher dassifi. catiofl cannot be attained after utilizing the best practjable treatment or control of sewage or other wastes. Dissolved oxygen content to be not less than 3 ppm. ------- TABLE E-3 STATE OF MAINE QUANTITATIVE TIDAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Classi- fication Minimum dissolved oxygen (ppm) pH — Shellfish Growing Area Non-shellfish Growing Area Coliform Fecal Coliform Coliforin Fecál Coliform Any series of samples 107. of s rnp1e not to exceed Any series of samp1e ’ 107. of sample not to exceed Any series of samp1e 107. of sample not to exceed Any series of samplei 107. of sample not to exceed SA SB-i SB-2 SC 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.7 to 8.5 6.7 to 8.5 6.7 to 8.5 6.7 to 8.5 70 70 70 700 230 230 230 2,300 - 15 15 150 - 50 50 500 70 240 500 1,500 230 500 1,000 5,000 - 50 100 300 - 150 200 1,000 ------- APPENDIX F ------- TABLE F-i FLORA FOUND ON SITE AREA Ferns and Mosses: Polytrichuin comwne (aphagrn.u was) Lycopodium coinpianatum (creeping Jenny — running pine) ,y podium obscurum (princess pine) Osnunda claytoniana (interrupted fern) Dennstaedtia punctilobula (Hay—scented fern) Dryopteris crietata (created shield fern) Polypodium vulgare (common polypody fern) Pteridium aguilinuin (bracken fern) Herbaccous plants: Carex (sedge) Juncus (rush) Maianthemum canadense (false lily of the valley) Trillium erectum (waterobin) Coodyera teselata (rattlesnake plantain) Comptonia pergrina (sv.st fern) Rumex acetosella (common sorrel) Spirea alba (meadowsweet) Potentilla siu lex (common cinquefoil) Rubus hispidus (raspberry) Fragaria 2• (strawberry) Viburum lentago L. (nannyberry) Kalmia angustifolia (lamb kill) Gaultheria Troc mibens (wintergreen) Vaccinum corymbosum (high bush blueberry) Vaccinum augustifolium (low sweet blueberry) Michella repens (partridge berry) Verbascum thapsus (common mullein) Linaria canadensis (toadf lax) Solidago (goldenrod) Aster (Aster) ------- Achillea millefolium (yarrow) Decéduous and Evergreen Trees: Abies balsamea (balsam fir) Tauga canadensis (hemlock) Thuja occidentalis (N. white cedar) Picea rubens (red spruce) Larix laricinia (tamarack) Salix !P (willow) Populus tremuloides (trembling aspen) Populus deltoides (cottonwood) Fagus grandifolia (American beech) Betula lutea (yellow birch) Betula populifolia (gray birch) Betula papyrifera (paper birch) Alnus z no s (European alder) Malus malus (apple) Os traya jniana (Eas tern hornbeaa) Pyrus americana (mountain ash) Prunus pensylvanica (pin cherry) Prunus virginiana (choke cherry) Prunus avium (sweet cherry) Acer rubrum (red maple Acer spicatum (mountain maple) Acer pensylvanicum (striped maple) Cornus florida (flowering dogwood) Amelanchier !2• (shadbush — service berry) ------- TABLE F-2 COMPOSITION OF PLANT COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED AT SEVEN STATIONS ON THE PROPOSED SITE Sample Station #1 Sample Station #3 Location: ’ West of Gravel Pit Location: ’ West of Airport Basal importance Area Density Value Basal Importance Overstory Overstory 2 Area Density Value Red Spruce 102.2 286.5 189.6 Red Spruce 87.6 358.0 184.1 Northern White Cedar 19.7 77.2 48.6 Paper Birch 30.4 123.9 61.0 Paper Birch 15.1 77.2 61.8 Balsam Fir 20.2 82.6 34.8 Total 137.0 440.9 300.0 Mountain Ash 6.7 27.5 11.8 Alder 3.4 13.8 8.3 2 Underatory Total 148.3 605.8 300.0 Red Spruce 96.5 Northern White Cedar 39.7 Underetory Balsam Fir 28.4 Red Spruce 259.3 Paper Birch 28.4 Balsam Fir 216.1 Flowering Dogwood 11.4 Alder 43.2 Hornbeam 11.4 Mountain Ash 28.8 Mountain Ash 5.7 Yellow Birch 14.4 Unknown 5.7 Hornbeam 14.4 Total 227.2 Striped Maple 14.4 - Paper Birch 14.4 Pin Cherry 14.4 Saemle Station #2 UnknOwn 14.4 Total 633.8 Location : West of Gravel Pit Sample Station #4 Overstory Red Spruce 285.7 891.2 244.7 Location : Shackford Head, East Bank Northern White Cedar 26.1 101.9 45.0 Yellow Birch 3.9 25.5 11.3 Over.tory Total 315.7 1018.6 300.0 Red Spruce 158.1 222.0 203.0 Paper Birch 19.1 84.6 66.8 Underatorv Mountain Maple 4.5 31.7 30.2 Red Spruce 141.4 Total 181.7 338.3 300.0 Northern White Cedar 141.4 Balsam Fir 30.3 Understory Alder 20.2 Mountain Maple 96.6 Nannyberry 20.2 Red Spruce 55.2 Trembling Aspen 20.2 Paper Birch 27.6 Pin Cherry 10.1 Striped Maple 20.7 Rornbeasi 10.1 Balsam Fir 13.8 Unknown 10.1 M .jntain Ash 6.9 Total 404.0 Total 220.8 1 Locations shown in figure 4.5.1. 2 Continued.... Species listed in order of importance-—see Table 4.5.3 for scientific. !smes. ------- TABLE F-2 Contimied) COMPOSITION OF PLANT COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED AT SEVEN STATIONS ON THE PROPOSED SITE - — SamøJ .e Station #5 Sam ls Station #7 Location Shackford Heed, West Bank Location ’ Shackford Head, East Bank Basal Importance Basal Importance rstorY 2 Area Density Value Ova story 2 Area Density Value Rid Spruce 105.0 537.0 196.1 aid Spruce 68.3 172.0 134.6 Balsam Fir 27.1 138.6 58.9 Paper Birch 37.5 114.7 80.1 Pap.r Birch 6.8 34.6 18.0 Trembling Aspen 17.4 22.2 57.0 Yellow Birch 6.8 34.6 17.4 imit. Poplar 0.8 11.5 8.5 Striped Maple 3.4 17.3 9.6 Pin Cherry 2.2 11.5 9.7 Total 149.0 762.1 300.0 yel1 i, Birch 1.7 11.5 9.2 Total 117.9 413.0 300.0 Underitury Red Spruce 322.7 Understor Balsam Fir 197.3 Rid Spruce 110.9 Yellcw Birch 107.3 Paper Birch 86.2 Paper Birch 90.0 Tr 1ing Aspen 61.6 I I Mountain Ash 3.7 Fir 49•3 Beech 18.1 Alder 49.3 Total 789.1 u—’ (Hornbeen?) 37.0 Mountain Map’. 12.3 Mountain Ash 12.3 Sa ,le Station #6 Pin Cherry 12.3 Mannyberry 12.3 Location : Shackford Read, West Bank Total 443.5 Ovsrstor v Bad Spruce 75.9 106.1 161.9 Paper Birch 16.2 58.3 70.9 Trembling Aspen 3.7 21.2 27.3 Baleen Fir 3.0 10.6 17.2 Mountain Ash 0.6 5.3 7.1 Mountain Maple 0.5 5.3 7.5 Sweet Cherry 0,4 5.3 7.5 Total 100.5 212.1 300.0 Und.rstorv Alder 161.4 Red Spruce 126.8 Balsam Fir 57.6 Paper Birch 34.6 Mountain Ash 34.6 ‘Locations shown in figure 4.5-1 Sweet Cherry 23.1 Mountain Maple 11.5 2 species listed in order of iuiportance--aee Table 4.5.3 for scientific Striped Maple 11.5 Total 461.1 ------- UNI\JERSITY OF MAINE I)4 . %rI ,ucns of IIut;, . jjij I’Ijasi I’ .iI.uh. i/ O,wjc, I S4IItt I t ill On.,,.,. 1ai,i. (I I 17 :1 2U $I. ;ü1 81.793O June 21, 1976 Dr. Alan L. Kyles 1114 Nottingham Circle Car)’, North Carolina 27511 Dear Dr. Kyles: I am very certain that none of the plants listed in “Report on Endangered and Threatened Plant Species of the United States” put out by the Smithsonian Institution occur in the Eastport, Maine area. However, there are three plants which are recognized as being critical species in Maine that might occur there. They are Sedurn rosea CL.) Scop., Iris hookeri Penny, and Primula laurentiana These are northern plants whose southernmost range is 1 e northeast coast of Maine. They occur on rock outcrops along the coast and on off-shore islands. It was good talking with you and sometime. If I can be of any further me. Sincerely yours, Charles D. Richards Professor of Botany CDR/c fp I hope that we may meet again help please feel free to call THE LAND-GRANT UNIV ITY UV Till. •TATI. e ll.i Pll. ------- TABLE F-3 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED FLORA AND FAUNA FOUND IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED REFINERY SITE COMMON NA SCIENTIFIC, NAME STATUS HABITAT & LOCALITY FLO t 3. — i ilaceae Birds’ eye primrose Prixnula aur ntian4 Rare Ledges, cliffs, meadows Chiefly calcareous Iridaceae Beachhead iris Irjs Turfy crests of headlands rocky slopes in reach of ocean spray Crassu].aceae Roseroot Seddum tbse Rocky coast & sea cliffs FAUNA 2 -n Amphibians - none Reptiles — none 1 Birds Arctic peregrine Fa ço peregri Endangered Migratory in area 4alcon Mawrtals - none 1. Dr. Richards, 1976.(personal conununication) Plant species listed in report prepared by Center for Natural Areas ‘in Maine for State Planning Office. Common and scientific plant names according to Fernald, 1970. 2. Federal Register 40 (118): 44412 ------- TABLE F-4 AVTFALJNA PROBABLY OCCURXNO IN AREA OF PROPOSED SITE Habitat Gate- - C on Name Scientific Name St*tus Usage Habitat Cat.- C on Name Scientific Name Statup Useas Coumon Loon Red-throeted Loon Red-necked Grebe Horned Grebe Pied-billed Grebe Leach ’s Petrel Double-created Cormorant Canada Goose Black Duck Pintail American Widgeon Green-winged Teal Blue-winged Teal Wood Duck Ring-necked Duck Greeter Scaup Lesser Scaup Coumon Goldeueye Barrow’ a Goldeneye Bufflehead Harlequin.Duclc Coumon Eider King Eider Oldaquaw Coumon Scoter White—winged aco ter Surf Scoter Ruddy Duck Coumon Marganaer Red-breasted Merganser Gavia L •tellste Pod icepa arise ena _________ au itua Podilrnbua podic.pa Oceenodrouia leu pa Phalecrocpr.i uritua Branta canadenaia 4 !. rubripea Mareca americana .H2L c.rolinensia __ & & ‘ panes Aythye collaria Aythye mania aff tnt . Bucephala clanaula islandica pibeola Hiatntonicua hiatrtonlcua Somaterip mol1 apime spectabilis Clangula hyemalta Oideaia jg Melanitta deglandi __________ penepicillata Oxyuza lamaicenata Mergus merganser Mergua serrator Y N/B/SM! W N/B/SM! W N/B/SM/ N N/B/SM/ B B/SM/ B 0 N NIBS/B! H TF/B/SM/ Y N/TV/B/SM! N SM/ N B/SM/ N TV/B/SM/ H SM B B/SM! B B/SM! W B/SM! U B/SM! Y N/B/SM! W Coastal B B/SM! V ES V N/RB !- V N V NIB/SM! V Si ll W N/B/SM! V N/B/SM! N B/Sill V B/SM/ W N/B/SM! V V V V V W V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V U U U V U U U Hooded Merganser Goshayk Cooper’s Hawk Sharp-shinned Hawk Marsh Hawk Rough-legged Hawk Red-tailed Mawk Red-shouldered Hawk Broad-winged Hawk Golden Eagle Bald Eagle Osprey Peregrine Falcon Pigeon Hawk Sparrow Hawk Spruce Grouse Ruff ad Grouse Ring-Necked Pheasant Gray Partridge Great Blue Heron Green Heron Black-crowned Night Reran American Bittern Least Bittern Virginia Rail Sore Yellow Rail Black-bellied Plover Sem.tpalmeted Plover Kilideer Wh1 rel Solitary Sandpiper Spotted Sandpiper Willet Greater Tellowlega Lesser Tellowlegs Short-billed Dowi teher Ruddy turnatone Purple Sandpiper Knot LoDhodYtes cucullatu. Accipiter gentilis cooperti stniptue Circus cyaneua A f2 __ __ __ “ lifleitue .._. _ piatyptetua Aeuila chryisetos Haliaeetua leucocephalus Pandion heli*etus peregrinus _ _ cplumbarius . aparveriup Canachitea can.4ensi a Bonasa urérellus Phaeianua colchicus Perdix perdix thL h*yodiss Butoridea yire .cens Nycticorax nycticorsx Botaurus lent iginosus Ixpbrychua ezilis Rallua liotcole Purugna caroling Coturnicopa novebpricenais Squaterpis s uatarola aenipaiastus vociferu s Nmesntua nhaeonua Trinea aolitaria Actitis asculerta Cetoptrophorua aeminalmetus Totanue melanoleucus Totanus flayipea Lienodrouu gniseus Anenaria interpres Erolia maritime Calidni, canutus B B B B B V B B B B U U U N B r V V V B B B B B B B N U N B N N B U N N N N U M Stptu Y — Year long resident V Wintering B — Breeding N - Migrant B/Sill Woods Woods BS/V/ Grassland 5 )1/ Field/Forest Forest 35/ SM’ SM, 5)4/33/ SM/ES! Field C.Vorests Field/Foreat Forest/Brush Farmland TF/B/sN/BS/ T V/SR/ TV/SRI T V SU/ 35/ Freah Water Marsh SM! 5)1/ VP/SM! T V/ES/ Fl TF/BS/F/ TF/Si4/ ES/D/F/ TV/SM! RS/tF/ESID/ TF/S14/M /D/ 17/SM/DIV TV/Sil/ TF/SM/BS/ RH/TV/ES / RS/ RB /TP/ SU/Bs/ V K K K K K K R K H & H K H H U U U U V V V U V V V V V U U- U U U U U W V U U W Habitat Usage 0 — Oceanic N — Neritic RB’ Rocky Shores iT— Tidal Flats B — Bays SM Salt Marsh BS Beaches/Sandy Shorea D Dunes (continued) Category U — Waterbirda R — Raptor. U — Upland Gamebirda S — Songbirds (continued) ------- TABLE F-4 (CO nUsd) AVTYAUM PROM BLY OCCURINO IN ARZA OP FROP( ED SITE N 514/ 14 RS/TF/BS/ N P.S/TF/SM/BSI H RS/TF/SM/BS/ H IF/SM/as! B SM/F/ B SM/Ill W N/RS/SM/B8/ W 14/8/58/ Y NIP.S/TF/B/SM/BS/D/ W N/RS/TF/BISM/58/D/ N RSIB/SM/BS/D/ It B/SM! H N/RS/TF/BISM/BS/D/ M N/RS/8M/BS/D/ H N/P.S/SM/BS/D M NB/SM/BS/ Y 8Sf 8 1/ B 0/ Y Field/forest B Forest B SM/D/ Y Forest W Forest I Dense thicket. B Forest B SM/BS/D/F/ B Field B Forest B SM! 8 Open woods I Forest B Forest I Nature forest Y Forest I Conifer forest B 514/ B Mixed forest B Fern W V V V W W V V V V V V W V V w V S S S K K 8 a K R S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B Confer Forest B D B Thicket B SM/D/ B Conifer wood. I SM/DIP! B Fern B Fields B 514/ B SM! B Fern I Plain & woods V Conifer forest I FF1 514/Fl I SM! I Conifer forest I Dl I D I B D/ B Thickets B Brush U SM/ B Thickets B Dl B Fields & fame B Forest B D/?/ B F! 14 0/ B D/ 8 Fart .. B 0/ B Conifer forest 14 SM/D/F/ B Shrubs V DIF! B SM/F! Y F, B Mixed forests B DI S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Habitat Cat.- Scientific N Status Us . .. Habitat Cats- C On 1i Scientific Nit.. Status Usage Dunlin Itoh. alDL a Sanderling Crocethis Jj j Wbit.-r*ped Sandpiper BroiL. luscLcollis Least Sandpiper inutilla Seaipel*ated Sandpiper Ereunats. eusil Lu . aerLcsn Woodcock Philobel. C n Snipe Canell. eallina. . Claucous Cull hyperborsus Iceland Gull glaucoid.s Great Bleckbscked Gull nariinas Herring Gull artentatu . Ring-billed Gull _ del.aw.renais Bonaparte. Gull abih.delnhia C on Tern Sterna hirundo Arctic T.rn Sterns naradisia . RoUst. Tern Sterna doo .alhil Caspian Tern Hvdronroen. caapip Rock Dove Cola J j Mourning l)ove Zenaidurg nacro aa Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus er-ythropthalnas Great Horned Owl wiraini s long-aired Owl. Short-eared Owl __ flus Barred Owl gj PiRil Boreal Owl Aesohius funers as Saw-whet Owl Aezolius acsdicua Whip-poor-will Cant inaleus vociferue Canaan Night Hawk Chordeiles Ch1 ey Swift Chastura pelagic . Ruby-throatad lb ingbird Archihochus colubr is Belted Kingfisher Menaceryle Yallow-e tad Flicker Cpl.ptas suratus Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopu. nileetus Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyranicus venus Hairy Woodpecker DendrocopO villosus Downy Woodpecker Dendrocowos oubescens Black-bsck.d three-toed Woodpecker Picoides arcticua Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Eastern Phoebe Spyorots phoeb . Tellcw-b .llied Flycatcher Enaidonax fliviy,ntris Treihls Flycatcher tr .Lllii Least Flyc.tchsr niniens Eastann Wood Pswee Contppus vir,ns Poliy.-sided Flycatcher Nutt.llorni. borealis Horned Lark Erenophila alpeatris Bern Swallow Hirmdp rustic . Cliff Swallow Petrochehidon pyrrbonote Tree Swallow lridonrocne bicolor Bank Swallow Rinania rinania Purple Martin Pro.. . 1 iL Blue Jay Cvanocitta cristata Gray Jay Penisoraus canadensis C on Crow Corvus brachyrhynchop Black-capped Chickads. atricanillus Borsal Chickadee Ixadsonicus White-breasted Nuthatch !& carohin.nais Red-breasted Nuthatch canadensis Brown Creeper Certhie fs .iLisnis House Wren Troglodytes Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Long-billed March Wren Telnatodytes pilustris Catbird Duneteli. carolinensis Brawn Thrasher Toxostana Robin Turdue uiarstonius Wood Thrush Hylocichla woptelina Hermit Thrush I H l tIta Swan.on’s Thrush ustulita Grey-checked Thrush *inini Veery __________ fuscescens Eastern Bluebird Suits stalLs Colddn-crowned Kinglet Regulus sgtrape Ruby-crowned Ringlet calendula Water Pipit Anthus spingletta Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorun Northern Shrike L*nius excubitor Loggerbead Shrika ludovicianus Starling Sturnus vulgaris Solitary Vireo spl.itertus Red-eyed Virso “ oliyaceue (continued) (continued) ------- TABLE F—4 (Continued) AVIFAUNA PROBABLY OCCUBINO fl AREA OP PROPOSED BITE Cc n N Scientific Name Habitat Statug Usage Gate— Habitat Status Usage Cat.- Coemon Hems Scientific Name American Goldfinch Red Crossbill White-winged Croesbill Savannah Sparrow Sharp-tailed Sparrow Spinus tristis gj curviroatra leucootera Passerculup sandwichenaia Ameospira caudacuta Y Y Y B B Fields I brush Pine woods Spruce-pine woods SMID/ SM, S S S S S Vesper Sparrow Slate-colored Junco Tree Sparrow Chipping Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Popecetes gramineus Junco hyemalis Spizelli arborea passerine Zonotrichia leucpphrys B I’ W B H F! Of Weedy fields Fl Fl S S S S S White-throsted Sparrow Fox Sparrow Lincoln’s Sparrow Swamp Sparrow Song Sparrow “ albicollis Passerella iliaca Milospizi liucolnii “ georgians “ .elodia B H B B Y Woods & thicksts Conifer thickits Thick.t. SM! SM/S/F/ S S S S S Lapland Longapur Snow Bunting Calcarius lapponicus Plectrophanax niyslii W W SM/BS/D/P/ 0/Fl S S Philadelphia Vireo Warbling Vireo Black-and-white Warbler fi g philadelphicus “ gilvus )t iotilta varia B B B Forest edge Farms 0/ S S S Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrine B Aspen & spruce woods S Nashville Warbler “ ruficapilla B Young hardwoods S Farula Warbler Parula americana B Forest S Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia B D/ S Magnolia Warb1e Cape May Warbler Myrtle Warbler “ magnolia ‘ tigrina “ coronata B S B Hemlock-spruce f eat Spruce-fir forest SM/ S S S Black-throated Green B Warbler ‘ virens B Conifer forest S Black-throated Blue . Warbler “ caerulescena B Conifer forest S Blackburnian Warbler “ i i i!S .f B Conifer forest S Chestnut-sided Warbler “ pensylvanice B Brush S Bay-breasted Warbler “ castanea B Conifer forest S Blackpoll Warbler Pine Warbler Palm Warbler striate “ “ pilmarum B B B Conifer forest Pine forest DIE! S S S Ovenbird Seturue eurocapillue B Deciduous forest S Northern Waterthrush Seiurue noveboracenais B SM/D/ S Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas B Shrubs S Mourning Warbler Wilson’s Warbler Oporornis philadelphia Wilsonia puatlla B B Shrubs Thickets S S Canada Warbler “ canadensis B Forest brush S American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla B D/ S House Sparrow Bobolink Passer domesticus Dolichonyx oryzivorus Y B Farms SM/F/ S S Eastern Meadowlark Red—winged Blackbird Sturnella gg g Agelsius phoeniceus B B SM/F/ SM/ S Rusty Blackbird Euphagus cardinus B Wooded Swamps S C on Grackle Quiscalus quiscula B D/ S Brown-headed Cowbird Baltimore Oriole Molothrus ater Icterue galbula B B DIP! Shade trees S S Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea B Pine-oak forest S Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus B Deciduous forest S Evening Grosbeak Reaperiphon veapertina W Conifers S Purple Finch Cardopacus puroureus B Open forests S Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Y Spruce—fir forest S Coamon Redpoll Acanthis flameea W Fields S Pine Siskin Spinus Y Conifers S Statuj Y — Year long resident V Wintering B — Breeding H — Migrant Habitat Usage O Oceanic N — Neritic RS Rocky Shores IF— Tidal Flats B • Bays SM— Salt Marsh BS— Beaches/Sandy Shores O - Dunes F — Fields Category W — Waterbird. H — Raptore U — Upland G birds S = Songbird. S ources: I. Robbina, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim, 1966. Birds of North America . 2. The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine, 1974. A Socio-Econo.ic and Environmental Inventory of the North Atlantic Region , Vol.1, Book 4. (continued) ------- • TABLE F-5 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES PROBABLY OCCURRING IN itL AREA OF THE PROPOSED SITE Comon Name Scientific Name Couiinon Snapping Turtle Stinkpot Wood Turtle Chelydra serpent ma Sternothaerus odoratus Cleixmzys inscuipta Northern Red-bellied Snake Eastern Garter Snake Storeria occipitomaculata Thainnophis sirtelis Eastern Ribbon Snake sauritus Northern Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus Northern Black Racer Eastern Smooth Green Snake Coluber constrictor Opheadrys vernalis Jefferson Salamander Blue-spotted “ Ambystoma jeffersonianum laterale Spotted maculatum Red-spotted Newt Northern Dusky Salamander Northern Two-lined Salamander Diemictylus viridescens . Desmognathus fuscus Eurycea bislineata Red-backed Salamander Plethodon cinereus American Toad Bufo americanus Northern Spring Peeper Hyla crucifer Bullfrog Green Frog Rana catesbeiana clamitans Northern Leopard Frog “ pipiens Pickerel Frog “ Wood Frog ‘ sylvatica Source: Conant, R., 1958. AField Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians . ------- TABLE F-6 TABLE 7-7 MAMMAlS PRORABLY OCCURRING IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED SITE SPECIES OF COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL VALUE IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE Co on Name Scientific Name Rairytail Mole Parescalope breweri Starnose Mole Condylurg cyietata Masked Shrew £21:SE cinersus Smoky Shrew 2ZS . fumeus Northern Water Shrew §.2 palust is Pi sy Shrew Mtcroso ez h xi Shorttail Shrew Slartha brevicanda Little Brown Myoti. Myotie lucifugus Keen Myotis Myotia keeni Silver-haired Bat Lgsionycteris npctivagans Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinercus Red Bat Lesiurua borealis Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuepus Black Bear Ursus americanue Raccoon Procyon lotor Marten Martes americana Fisher Mattes peflnanU Shorttail Weasel Mustela erminea Longtail Weasel Muatela fyeuata Mink Mustela Striped Skunk Mephitis menhitia River Otter canademais Red Fox Vylpes Bobcat L Woodchuck Marmota Eastern Ghipimrnk Tasias atriatus Red Squirrel Tamiasciuru. hudsonicus Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus cardinensis Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys aabrinua Deer Mouse Perouiyacua meniculatua Beaver Caator canaden ie Southern Bog Leiraning Synaptomys cooperi Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvgnicus Boreel Redback Vole Muskrat Clethrionononys gepperi Ondatra zibethica Norway Rat Rattu nprvegicu House Mouse Mus uiusculus Meadow Jumping Mouse hudsonius Woodland Jumping Mouse Napaeozapus insignia Porcupine Erethizon dorsstum Snowshoe Hare p j americanus Whitetail Deer Odocoileus virginianus Sources: Burt, E.W. and R.P. Grossenheider, 1964. A Field Guide to the Nemesis . Hall, E.R. and ICR. Kelson, 1959. The Mamnals of North America . Waterfowl • Upland Game Ma le Canada Goose Eastern Gray qu rrel Black Duck Red Squirrel Pintail Snowshoe Hare American Widgeon Green—winged Teal Blue-winged Teal Furbearer. Raccoon Wood Duck Marten Rthg-necked Duck Fisher Greater Scaup Shorttail Weasel Lesser Scaup Longtatl Weasel Co n Goldeneye Mink Barrow’s Goldeneye Striped Skunk Buff lehead River Otter Harlequin Duck R.d Fox Comeon Eider Bobcat King Eider Woodchuck Oldaquaw Beaver Co n Scoter Muskrat White—winged Scoter Surf Scoter Ruddy Duck Bia Game P l Black Bear C n Merg.ns.r Whitetail D.er Red-breasted Merganeer Hooded Merganeer S Sora Virginia Rail American Woodcock Upland Ganebirds Spruce Grouse . Ruffed Grouse Ring-necked Pheasant Gray Partridge Source: Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 1975. Hunting and Trapping Regulations . ------- checklist of the Marine Invertebrates of the Cobscook Bay Region Dr. Larry T. Spencer, Plymouth State College, New Hampshire This list should by no means be taken as a final list. It is based on collections by Dr. Arthur West and his students as well as from personal collecting experiences of the author. Sources used to identify the organisms were Gosner (1972), Minor (1950), and R. I. Smith (1964). KEY: 1. Geographic distribution (from Gosner, 1972, unless otherwise noted) arctic forms extending into the boreal. region B species distributed between Cape Cod and the Bay of Pundy Boreal species that extend slightly south of Cape Cod B—39° boreal species that have been found as far south as the latitude noted V temperate species V+ temperate species extending north into Cape Cod Bay 2. Bathymetric range (from C,osner, 1972, unless noted otherwise) Lit littoral in meters (Gosner translated all measurements into meters) eury euryhaline minimum salinity of occurrence given 16 0/00 3. Presence on other checklists REK on the preliminary checklist by Knowlton (1971) RMBS present on the checklist published by the Huntsinan Marine Biological Station, St. Andrews, N.B., Canada 4. Distribution in the Cobscook Bay region WS found both in Cobscook Bay and along the coast BO found in the bay only CO found along the coast only 5. Abundance Abun always present in its typical habitat Corn normally found in typical habitat 0cc may be found either seasonally, or on an exceptionally low tide Rare only collected once Note:. References cited are simply examples of recent work, and not everything that has been written about the organism. Most articles have in their bib1iogra hies, references pertaining to older studies. ------- PORIFERA Cliona celata Grant, 1826 DV Lit to 40 a REX , WS corn yellow boring sponge-encrusts on mussels and other shells See Hartman (1958) for a discussion of this organism in southern New England and Old (1941) for taxonomy and distribution Halichondria ianicea (Pallas, 1766) AB Lit to 88 a EK, HtiBS (as Halichondria sp.) WS Corn yellow crumb of bread sponge—encrusts on stones and rocks Haliclona oculata (Pallas, 1766) 8 Lit to 150 a REX, HMBS (as Haliclona sp.) WS Corn finger sponge See Hartman (1958) for a discussion of this organism in south- ern New England Leucogolenia sp. (probably Leucosolenia botryoides(Flenuning) B Litto].l7m REX WS Corn small, tubular, occasionally branched sponge Scypha sp. (probably S. ciliata (fabricius. 1780) ____ — DV Littol02m WS Corn small (12 nun tall) vase or urn-shaped sponge CNIDARIA-Hydrozoa campanularia ap. 8+ Lit to 55 a REX (as C. flexulosa (Rincks, 1861) ItS unbranched or with tew branches Clava leptostyla Agassiz, 1862 8+ Lit tO 37 a REK, liMBS (as Clava ap.) WS COIn conunon on seaweeds ( Fucus) Coryinornha Agassiz, 1862 (same name as Hybocodon pendulus ) B+ Lit to 274 a REX WS 0 CC solitary hydroid Hydractinia echinata Flesaing, 1828 DV Lit to 662 a REX, liMBS - I tS Coin polymorphic hydroid colony growing on rocks and snail shells, particularly those of hermit crabs Obelia 9eniculata (Linnaeus, 1758) DV Lit to 82 a • REX liMBS (as Q Jj sp.) ItS Corn thecate hydroid, colony about 25 m high, on seaweeds ------- Sertularia purnila Linnaeus, 1758 B—40’ Lit to 55 ii R7ii s NB Corn colonial hydroid, found in tufts 50 n high on Fucus and other seaweeds CtLIDARIA-Scyphozoa Haliclystis auricula (Rathke, 1806) 5+ REX, HMBS (as HaLiclystis sp) NB 0cc normally occurs on eelgrass. Mayer (1910) reported that stauromedusae were becoming scarce because of pollution. See Berrill (1962) for a discussion of the biology of three New England stecies - Haliclystis salphinx Clark, 1863 B NB 0cc attached clown jelly, 20 n n high, on fucus or laminarians Lucernaria quadricornis Muller B Lit to shallow REX, HMBS (as Lucerñ ria so.) WS 0cc on Fucus or larninaria.ns NIDARIA- nthozoa Metridium senile Linnaeus, 1767 BV Lit to 165 in REX, HMBS las Medridium ap.) NB Corn solitary anemone, 100 nun tall, variable color See Sassaman and Mangum (1970) for discussion of temperature adaptation at Barnatabie Harbor, MA. Bunodactis stella Verrill, 1864 B Lit to 102 lit REX (as Bunodes stella ) NB Corn pale pink or green anemone, partially buried in sand in tideoools, column 50 un high Edwardsia elegans Verrill, 1869 B Lit to 117 m REX 80 collected by Morse (1971) Halcampa duodecincirrata (Sars, 1851) 8 9 to 164 REX 80 collected by Morse (1971) Tealia felina Linnaeus, 1767 (Sunonomous with T. crassicornis ) B — Litto73m. REX (as T. crassicornis ) WS Corn column r d with rows of gray tubercies PLATHYHELMINTHES-Polycladida Notoplana atoinata Mueller, 1776 Lit to 93 in REk, HMBS NB Coimn sr tal1 polyclad worm with four eye clusters that is commonly found in empty bivalve shells See Hyman, (1940), Hyman, (1944), and ilyntan, (1952) R- !5 ------- NEME1 EA- Aznphiporus angulatus (Fabricius, 1774) B+ Lit to 150 n Cout brown to purnie worm, 150 nun long Lineus ruber (muller, 1771) Lit to shallow, eury REK, lIMBS (as Lineus sp.) WS Corn color variable, about 150 nun long ECTOPROCTA Aeverrilla setigera (Rincks, 1887) V Lit to 18 in BO 0cc I am not sure on the identification of this organism. I only found it growing on Chondrus Bowerbankia sp. (most likely B. gracilis Leidy, 1855) By Litto l5m eury, 10 0/0) WS Comm creeping colony with translucent polyp. Bugula sp. REK (as B. turrita and B. simplex) , HMBS (as Bugula sp.) — WS Corn Flustrellidra hispida (Fabricius, 1870) B+ Lit to 19 in P2K WS Corn colony brown or reddish brown, size extensive Mexnbranipora sp. (possibly ! 2.115 unicornis (Flezuning, 1828) 3+ shallow to 100 m REI (as T. unicornia ) WS Coin sheet-1i3 e organism on Fucus and Apcoph 1lum ASCHELMINTHES-Priapulida Priapulus caudatus Lamarck AD Lit to 500 a REK 30 0cc this organism normally occurs subtidally in southern New England, but is found in the littoral zone on especially low tides at Cobscook Bay. Verrill (1880) records it . from 9-1]. in in the Bay of Fundy. BRACHIOPODA Terebratulina septentrionalis (Coutbouy, 3—40 Lit to 3800 a WS 0cc this organism can normally be obtained by dredging, but on very low tides it can be obtained when the tide is fully out ------- MINELIDA-Ol igochaeta Enchytraeus albidus Henle, 1837 BV Lit to shallow REX WS Corn this is one of the two species that is fairly well known from the intertidal zone in New England. See Bell, (1958) See Lasserre, (1971) for discussion of the systematics and geographic distribution and Moore, (1905) for eystematics ANNEL!DA-POLYCHAETA I Aimnotrypane aulogaster Rathke, 1843 et0 18 in this animal is a burrower and a deposit feeder, about 75 mm long. I only found one spedimen from a slightly muddy area near the Suffolk station Amphitrite cirrata Mueller, 1771 B Lit fiNDS (as Amphitrite sp.) WS Corn this and the following two species of the genus are tentacle feeders Amphitrite johnsoni Malmgren, 1866 B Lit to shallow Coin setae on 23-45 segments Amphitrite ornata (Leidy, 1855) V Lit to shallow, eury to 15 o/oo REX WS Corn Aphrodita hastata Moore, (1905) (as A. aculeata in most books) — B,37’3to2024m REX, lIMBS WS 0cc live on muddy bottoms and are normally taken subtidally, but I have taken a specimen on an extremely low tide Arenicola marina (Linnaeus, 1758) B(V?) Lit REX WS 0cc a somewhat green in color worm, about 200 nun long See Seymour (1972) for a distribution of the locomotion of this animal Glycera dibranchiata Ehlers, 1868 V Lit to 403 m eury REX, lIMBS BO 0cc I only found one specimen, but I am sure there were many more around, active, predatory worms flarmathoe imbricata (Linnaeus, 1767) B+ Lit to 3715 in REX, lIMBS (as Harmathoe sp.) BO 0cc Lepidonotus squamatus (Linnaeus, 1758) B, 39° Lit to 245 in REK, HMBS WS Coin this is an extremely conunon species of scale worm, about 50 nun long ------- Lumbrineris tenuis (Verrill, 1873) DV Lit tø 339 in REX (also lists L. acuta and L. fragilis) , liMBS (only list. L. fragilis ) BO 0CC only a few specimens of this carnivorous, burrowing form were found J Myicola infundibulum (Reriier, 1804) DV Lit to 55 in V REX, HMBS DO 0cc this worm is encased in a thick mucous tube buried in the sand or mud, about 200 nun long, used in neurophysiological studies See Wells, et al (1972) for article on the fine structure of this organism. The worms used in this study came from the Marine Biological Laboratories, Deer Island, NB. Nephtys caeca (Pabricius, 1780) B+ Lit to 560 rn REX (he also lists N. ciliata (Mueller, 1789) WS Coin about 250 nun long Nephtys incisa Malingren 1865 B, 370 Lit to 1746 m WS Corn Nereis virens Sars, 1835 B, 370 Lit to 154 m, eury to 10 o/oo REX (also lists N. diversicolar , N. pela9’ica , N. succinea) , liMBS (also lists1 . pelagica ) WS Abun one of the most conui n and abundant polychaetes See Bass and Brafield, (1972) for a discussion of life cycle in the Thames Estuary, Great Britain Pectinaria gouldii (Verrill, 1873) V Lit to 30 in, eury to 5 o/oo REX, liMBS 118 Corn See Peer (1970) for a discussion of the population dynamics of P. hyperborea in St. Margaret’s Bay, Nova Scotia / Sabella crassicornis Sars, 1851 B Lit to 55 in 30 Rare I only found this tube dwelling abellid once, in the mud at the marine station Spirorbis borealis Daudin, 1800 3+ Lit REX, Ift 118 Corn small (2 nun diameter) coiled tube dweller, REX and liMBS also list S. spirilitun which is about the seine size only has a dextril].y coiled tube rather than a ainistrally coiled tube ARTUROPODA-Pycnogonida ------- Phoxichillidium sp. (probably p. fernoratuin (Rathke, 1799) B Littoloim REX (as P. femoratum ) 80 0cc Pycnogonirn littordle CStrom, 1762) 8, 4l Lit to 1482 m 80 0cc Pratt (1935) calls this a cos opo1itn so. cies, and therefore it should be more common than what I have found it to be See Schmidt and Bic mar .n .971 for a discussion of its life history in u -o i -. cu or of its molt. See Jarvis and King (1972) for a discussion ot its reproduction and development in Great Britain ANTHROPODA-Crustac ea Balanus balarus (ti acu 1758) B—40° Lit to 165 m REK, Hi Thur See Newcornbe (l935 for i u ion f this organism at St. Andrews, Balanus ha1arioii’ s (Lthnaeu . i7 7) BV Lit REK (he also Lists rc u • R !& 1.15 Corn smaller than ! . ba1inu See Barnes (1963) f.-r a study ,f the effect of drying and aerobic conditions on the s irviv al or organism Gammarus sp. (probably C. eanicus S ;erst a1e, 1947) 13 Litto37m, eury REK (as G. locusta ) WS Corn Corophium volutatur (Pause) B Lit, eury REK 130 0cc found in a brackish po - l in the upper reaches of the bay See Z organ (1965) for discussion of activity in relation to tidal cycle and Bousfield (1965) for systematics and Shoemaker (1947) Chiridotea ceca (Say, 1818 BV Lit BO 0cc found in the same 1o ation as the I. ve organi$m Cancer borealis Stimpso , 1859 DV Lit to 572 EK, liMBS CO Corn this organi m is of minor coirmerci l importance when com- pared to its west coast: relati ’: , C. macyister See Jeffries (1966) for a disctssion f trelationship between C. borealis nd C. irroratus in Tarragansett Bay, R.I. Cancer irroratus Say, 1817 DV Lit to 794 m REK, iIHBS CO Corn teeth on the carapace are not serrated as they are on C. borealis See Scarratland Lowe (1972) for a discussion of its biology in Kouchibou’uac Bay, ! LD. ------- Carcinus maenas (Linnaeus, 1758) 40—45° Lit to 9 in, eury REX, HMBS Co Corn See Wallace (1972) for a study of activity and metabolic rates of this organism in Great Britain See Newell, Ahsanullch and Pye (1972) for a discussion of respiration (both aerial and aquatic) in this species Crangon septemspinosa Say 1818 BV Lit to 128 m, eury REX, lIMBS WS Corn See Price (1962) for a discussion of the biology of this species in Delaware Bay Homarus ainericanus Mime-Edwards 1837 B Lit to edge of Continen- tal Shelf REX, lIMBS WS Corn See Herrick (1895) for the classic discussion of the biology of the American lobster Hyas araneus (Linnaeus) B40° 9 to 55 a REK, lIMBS BO Dredged this organism has been dredged from the bay near the station Libinia emarginata Leach 1815 BV Lit to 49 in REK WS 0cc See Hiytsch (1968) for a discussion of the reproductive behavior of this animal at Woods Hole Pagurus sp. (probably P. acadianus or P. pubescens ) _____ — 4pV 11to485m REK (also in addition to the above two, lists P. longicarous ) lIMBS (as Pagurus ep.) WS Coin See Grant ( 1963) for a study of the ecology of P. acadianus in Salisbury Cove, Maine See Benedict (1901) for a systematic study and Squires (1964) Scierocrangon boreas (Phippe, 1773) B 9 to 66 in WS 0cc Spirontocaris groenlandica (Fabricius, 1775) B41° 2to2 lOm REX (does not list this one, but does list S. liljeborgii and S. spinus ) lIMBS (as Spirontocaris ep.) 30 0cc I4OLLUSCA-Po lyplacophora Ischnochiton alba (Linnaeus, 1767) B Lit to 617 in REX WS Corn ------- lachnochiton ruber (Linnaeus, 1767) B Lit to 146 in REX, lIMBS WS Cont Tonicella marinorea (Pabricius, 1780) B Lit to 91 in REX WS Corn MOLLUSCA-Bivalvia Astarte borealis Schumaker, 1817 8 27 to 103 in WS Cone Astarte castanea Say, 1822 BV 9 to 119 in REX and Ht4BS do list A. undata WS 0cc neither this nor the species above are listed by REX or Modiolus modiolus Linnaeus, 1758 BV Shallow REX (also lists M. dernissus ) WS Coin See Pierce (1971) ror a discussion of volume regulation in this species and H. demissus in Massachusetts Mya arenaria Linnaeus, 1758 BV Lit to 9 in, eury EK (also lists . truncata) , lIMBS WS Abun Mytilus edulis Linnaeus 1758 BV Lit to shallow, eury REX, HMBS WS Abun See Bayne (1971a, 1971b) for t articles discussing the physiology of this species in relation to 02 tension Placopecten rnagellanicus Gmelin BV 18 to 183 in REX, lIMBS WS Dredged, Coin Tellina sp. By 1 to 45 in REX (as Tellina agilis Stimpson, 1857) See Boss (1966, l968) or a discussion of systernatics Cardita borealis Conrad, 1831 BV 4 to 457 in REX, HMBS WS Dredged Zirfaea cris!ata Linnaeus 1758 BV Lit to 75 rn REX, lIMBS BO 0cc MOLLUSCA-Gastropoda-Shelled forms Acinea testudinalis Mueller, 1776 B, 41° Lit to shallow REX, lIMBS WS Corn Baccinum undattun Linnaeus, 176]. B, 400 Lit to 183 m REX, HMBS WS Corn Colus pygmaeus Gould, 1841 BV 2 to 1171 in REK , lIMBS (as Colus se.) 80 0cc ithough they are undoubtedly along the coast, I didn’t see any there ------- Colus stimpsoni ? 4 oerch, 1867 BV 2 to 862 in REX DO 0cc Crepidula plana Say, 1822 BV Shallow REX (also list C. fornicata and C. convexa) , LIMBS (also listed C. fornicata) CO 0cc this specii was ound on the coast near Starboard Island See Hendler and Franz (1911) for a discussion of population dynamics and life history of C. convexa in Delaware Bay. Crucibilum striatum Say, 1826 DV 2 to 344 in ________— WS 0cc this species has been dredged near the station and found on a very low tide near Starboard Island See Van Winkle (1970) for a study on the effect of environ- mental factors on byssal thread formation See Widdows and Bayne (1971) for a study of temperature acclimation of the organism with reference to its energy budget (in England) See Nixon et al (1971) for a discussion of mass and metab- olism in a Rhode Island population See Fwaan and Fandee (1972) for a discussion of glycogen distribution and seasonal changes in that distribution for specimens in the Netherlands See Newcoinbe (1935) for a discussion of this species at St. Andrews, NB. Littorina littorea Linnaeus, 1758 REX, LIMBS See Arnold (1972) for a discussion to salinity (one population from Bay was studied) See Nowell, Pye, Ahsanuilan (1971) for a discussion of factors affecting feeding rate (in England) Littorina saxatilis Olivi, 1792 8, 400 Lit REX, HI4flS WS Abun See Arnold (1972), see Sandison (1967) for a discussion of the effects of temperature on the respiration of this species Marsenina glabra Coutbouy, 1832 B 27 to 838 a CO Rare the only time I collected this was at Starboard Island Lacuna vin ta Montagu, 1803 REX, LIMBS B, 40’ WS Lit to 37 a 0cc 8, 390 Lit to 37 a WS Abun of behavior in relation Latele Pier, Passamaquoddy Littorina obstusata Linnseus, 1758 PER, LIMBS 8, 40’ wS Lit to 8 a Abun Margarites groenlandiens Gmelin, 1970 B REX, LIMBS (as Margarites sp.) I S Lit to 274 Coin ------- Neptunea decemcostata Say, 1826 B 18 to 91 in REX, lIMBS WS Cost Poliniceg heros Say, 1822 BV Lit to 435 REK (as L. heros , a1 o includes L. triserata) , lIMBS (also catled Lunatia) WS Corn found in muddy areas Thais ] apillus Linnaeus, 1758 (also called Nucella lapillus ) Lit REX, HMBS WS AbUfl See Hughes (1972) for a discussion of annual production in Nova Scotia, also Feare (19.71) for a discussion of behavior See Sandison (1967) for a discussion of the effects of tern — erature on the respiration o f this organism Velutina undata Brown 1839 B 37 tO 55 REX (not listed, but does include V. laevigata) , lIMBS (as Velutina sp.) Co Rare only collected once at low tide at area across from Starboard Island MOLLUSCA- a stropoda-Shell- less Aeolidia papillosa Linnaeus, 1761 B Lit to 366 in Coin Acanthodoris pilosa Abildgaard, 1789 B+ Lit REK WS 0cc Coryphe].la rufibranchialis (Johnston) B Lit REK (also lists C. diversa and C. stellata ) ws 0cc Coryphella stimpsoni Verrill, 1879) B Lit BO 0cc See Morse (1971) for a discussion of its biology and life hi story Dendronotus frondosus Ascanius, 1774 B+ Lit to 110 in REX WS 0cc Onchidoris aspersa Alder and Hancock, 1842 Lit to 38 in REX (also lists 0. fusca ) t’IS 0cc ECI1INODERMATA-Astero idea Asterias forbesii (Desor, 1848) V+ Lit to 49 m 1 t1BS WS 0cc 2 3 — ------- Asterias vulgaris Verrill, 1866 B+ Lit to 655 in REK, HMBS WS COrn See Fafiriou, Whittle and Blumer (1972) for a discussion of the feeding behavior of this organism at Woods Role Leptasterias tenera (Stiznpaon, 1862) BV 18 to 50 in REX (as Aiterias tenera) , liMBS (as Lepasterias ep.) corn Solaster apposus (Linnaeus, 1780) ( Crossaster ) B Litto32lm REX, mms WS 0cc, Dredged Henricia sanguinolenta (Mueller, 1776) BV Lit to 2470 in REX, HNBS WS 0cc See Grainger (1966) for a discussion as to whether the above organism is really H. sanquinolenta See Pequignat (1972) ror a discussion of feeding activities arid physiology of this species in Europe Hippasterias ohrygiana (Parelius, 1770) 8+ 2OtoSOOm REX, liMBS (as Hippasterias sp.) WS 0cc Solaster endeca (Linnaeus) B Lit to 274 in REX, liMBS WS 0cc ECH IN0DERMM A-Echinoidea Echinarchnius parma (Larmarck, 1816) By Lit to 1600 in REX, liMBS WS 0cc Stron y1ocentrotus droebachiensia (Muller, 1776) B+ Lit to 1150 a REX, liMBS WS Abun in hauls taken with a scallop dredge in Cobscook Bay, this organism was the most comon species taken See Stephens (1972) for a discussion of the ecology and reproductive cycle of this species ECHINODERMATA-Ophi uro idea Ophiopholis aculeata (Linnaeus, 1788) 8,40’ Lit to 1647 REX WS Coin See Serafy (1971) for a biometric study of this organism in the Northwest Atlantic Gorgonocephalus arcticus (Leach, 1819) 8+ Lit to 1464 in REX, liMBS WS 0cc this organism has been taken from a ledge near Eastport ------- ECHINODERNATA-HO lothiuroidea . Chiroclota laevis (Fabricius, 1780) 8 Lit to 82 m W5 Corn Cucuinaria frondosa (Gunnerus, 1770) B Shallow to 366 m REX, IDIBS Corn Psolus phantapus (Strussendeldt, 1765) B 20 to 400 m RE HMBS (as Psolus ep.) Co Rare one specimen takerión a low tide on shore opposite Starboard Island HEMICHORDATA Saccoglossus kowalevskii Agassiz, 1875 V+ Lit to a few meters, eury REX, HMBS (as Saccoglossus ap.) WS 0cc UROCRORDATA Amouroucium sp. (probably A. glabrum Verrill, 1871) — 8+ Litto 457 REX WS 0cc Boltenia echinata (Linnaeus, 1767) 8+ Lit to 296 in REX, lIMBS (as Báltenia sp.) WS 0cc, Dredged Boltenia ovifera (Linr.aeus, 1767) 8+ 7 to 494 in REX WS 0cc, Dredged Halocynthia pyriformis (Rathke, 1806) B Lit to 183 in REK, HMBS (as Halocynthia sp) WS 0cc, Dredged Mogula SP. B Lit P K (lists M. citrina, óomplanata, siphonalis) , HMBS (as Mogula sp.) MS Corn F- ------- TABL* p-s FRiF1Sfl SPECIES IN ThE QUODDY AND NEW BRUI WICX REGIOl A’ Anadromous; common in rivera In spring end mmmer A’ Anadromous; very co ” . ” in spring and e.rly sum .r in N. B. A’ Andromane; very oommon in May and June in N. B. rivers U’ Common A’ Found In most larger N. B. rivers that empty Ito sea AT. F’ common in broik. and lakes C’ Catadrosecus; widely distributed in N. B. rivera and lakes B’ Brackisb common on coast ci N. B. Is shallow l.l.la K F’ Widely distributed In ocseial water. ci N.B. K 1’ Known from many lacallues K F’ Known from Inshore and coastal nt . .. . ci N.B. K F’ widely Ratrthuted in N.B. Imoremsini wst.rs, lakes andrivi I i’ Bay ci Fundy U’ Moderately common in the Bay ci T a ndy K’ iRd.ly disbitasted in N. B. ocasthi waters K’ Widely distributed in N.B. oceatal estaTe K’ Fairly common in K. B. coastal esters K’ Imbore waters K’ Fairly common in N. B. marine watar . K’ C ” in N. B. marine waters A’ Coastal . .4&. . and larg. rivers ci LB. K’ Rare In N. B. waters, 5 records for —- r1 y Bay K’ Bsy ci Fmdy ocmmcn austere N. B. U’ Not abundat keowe from Bay ci K’ Commcu Bay ci Tandy sod Rastsra N. B. K’ Moderately In Bay ci Fs K’ th.horu Bay ci Tandy and Eastern It. B. K’ Bay at Tandy sod Pssssmsqxddy Bay K’ Moderately in shallow . ei. . ci Bay ci K’ Bay ci F at eastern N. B. K’ Bares ass record in Peasama oddy Bay K’ Bay ci F and eastern N. B. K’ Bay ci Fusdy axid eastern N. B. K’ Bay ci Fundy and esstsru N. B. K’ Bay ci Famdy and eastern N. B. K’ Rare; fcor records for Bay ci Fu sear N. B. K’ Moderately b — ’ -- K’ Moderately c - ’ In seaters N. B. o— Is Bay ci K’ Common U’ Common K’ Unoosemoes records for - o y j K’ Modsr.tely o in Bay ci P uss— — sesIsra N. B. K’ Common K’ Common K’ Moderately in Bay ci Tandy K’ Bares a ocspls at re id . for N. B. eose*l waters sod Tandy K’ Moderately o In the Bay ci F and isstsrn N. B. K’ Moderately in Bay ci 7aM ueatsrs N. B. K’ Common K’ Moderately o’ K’ Moderately In austere N. B.; ano’— in K F’ Shallow ester; moderately o ’mm ’ In F end a. N. B. K’ Common K’ Fairly common in sever moths K’ e reoord for Eastport. Me. From Thgom Review ci Marine Environmuntal Data, June 19 3 Items Soiendflc N.m. - Coinm K’ Northwestern Tundy and Paseamaquoddy A’ Bay of Tandy; common In rivers and lakes In . ,ried sod summe K’ Rare or accidental In P.eaaua oddy Bay K’ Unooinmoes a number ci m.,r reoords for Tandy K’ A few summer records for Bay ci Tandy K’ A law summer records for Bay ci Fuody K’ Moderately oommon U’ Moderately common K’ Moderately common K’ Koder,taty common Atistlo hsgftah Sea lamprey Saw! shark shark WWts shark Utile skate Barudoor skate Witer skate Thorny skate Alewife American ’s shad 4 ” herring salmon taut Brook front Fr..L .l. . e.l Fesreples stioklsbsok lh .—V - - sfloktshsok Mn. sptssd Toerbeard T VhII.g . cod Mirer hake pM k 1 kek. MrIp.d hess Sand hams ffi MM i mt 1 Tal • wolMek Rook — he — — ± wm Oosse — £a ’. t . . afl,eriIds ms — see seven — — flab Atia o ——l T. . . .ip..& & Window pea. Whak Amedean — Y.Uowtehl pL _ A _ r Iuso Eti jt&- Witor A ” $erpa . a K es G nou Puircenyzan mariaw Carobartan ta Cetorigaw ‘qw CercharodOn carchariss Lamna nasus Baja erlmoeu L lauvia B. ocellata B. radiate Aloes aestivelis A. pscodcharem us A. eaptdlaslma dupes harangue Sa’lmo aslar Salmo trutte SalveUma foednelle Angsdfl. restrain Fmab ue hatero It Apeltes adraom t3stsrostess msle.st 0. wb.stlas P_ 4WI & ms — d.brtea Osdue mor Kerbaoctea btlias.rte l crc tnmesd poflachius ,jraw Morcocunsilis Thtc cain. — — Ammodytas americauua S mber AssrcMeea ISpa a — CrW sV t . 4 s L lemprsta a Ulvarta Ufo — m Pe trbcst U. ’° ’ asaidla 5.beates marlaw Priastos carollima RemUri mmds Krro fesha . asems K. ootodsoema$aosus K. soarpia. Tsiglcps marreyl Aa1ddoiàortdss CycI 1 es 5 — Uparie atlatiom L. lipsrta PIrslic . obto s — aquoea . iR iBic.ø c&oss plstseeaide . TJ tarrat ess U —ta_I U-Moats., A tnedlemees, 7-Freshwater. C -Cstadrcmm. fi-Braskish ------- PARTIAL CHF2CKLTST OP THE SIJBTIT L FAUNk FROM DEEP COVE. EASTPORT. ME . Paul 1). Langer, University of New Hampshire (Note: the following revised list is published as received from the author and has not been verified as to accuracy.) The fol1ow’jn is n inconmiete List of organisms found subti’ a1ly in association wtth three oecies of chitons (MoU.usca, Polyplacophora) at Deep ‘ ove, gastnort, Me. Those listed with an asterisk were collected elsewhere in Cobscook Bay or Passainaquoddy Bay. PROTOZOA Var ous ciliates including Zoothamnium sfl., Folltculli.na sp., stalked suctorlans, and foraminitera. PFERA Cliona celata Cliona vastifica Halichondria pantcea T{alisarca sp. Leucosolenia botryotdes Myictila incrustans UnirL Red sponge * lialiclona c culata * loohon ntgricans * Isodictya deichinannae * Pellina sitiens * Polymastia robusta * Scyiha ciliata * Suberl.tesficus COELE TERAT& fr1ro , oa Campanularia sp. Corymoroha pendula Eudendrium so. ftydractinta s . Obelia geniculata Thuiari.a argontea Thuiarta slintlis Tubularia larynx * Abietinaria sp. * Calycolla syringe * Dinhasiafallax * Gonionemus vertens * Hydrailmania falcata * Tubularta crocea * Tubularta spectabills ------- Ha1i 1ystus 1ptnx Lucerns r1a qtIR’Irlcornf S * Aurnfln iiur ts * Crate rol ophun .oonvol.vul vus Cyanei cnpiI.lata * Iteohanomia sp. Anthozoa Gesenu.a rubtfornii s Metririium senile Stomphia coccinea Tea]ia felina CT NOPHORA Bolinopsis intunr ibulum Pleurobrach a pileus PATYFE 1 thTNT S 1otot,lana atomata Procero es littoralis 4EM! RTEP Ai nhiooru caecus Atnphioorus c • Cerebratulus lacteus Lineus ruber CTOPROCTA Bo u1a simplex Derv robeania murrayans Lichenopora hispida Lichenopora verrucaria Microporel.la cU iat Thrbiceflepora canaliculata Tubulipora liliacea ACUIOPOt * TerebratuUna seotentrlona].is CRAETOG 1ATFIA Sagitta so. iNOR’rY NC!i& Unid. so. ‘ EMATOrY4 Unir . so. r- -s. ------- ANN ELI Ampharetidse ip. Auwiotrypane aulogaster Amphitrite affinia Amphitrite cirrata Amphitrtte johnstont Brada granosa Eulal.ia viridis Filograna implexa Harmothoe imbricata Lapidonotus squamatus Lairnbrinereis fragi].is l(yxicola tntundibulua Naineris quadricuspida Nephtys ciliata ereis pelagica Pectinaria granulata Phyllodoce groenlandica Potamilla rant forntis .3aboll.a crassicornis Spi.rorbis borealis Spirorbis spirillum Syflis cornuta Thelepus otnoinnatus ARTHROPOt Balanus balanus Cancer borealis Caprella septentrionalis Coreutapus vers iculatus Corophium ep. Harpacticoid copepod Houtarus americanus Hyas coar tacus Leptocheirus pingius Pagurus acadianus Pagurus pubeecens Phoxichtlidtuut femoratum Pyonogonum 1 tttorale Scierocrangon boroas Spirontocaris (Lebeus) groenlanr ictts Spirontocaris (Lebeu ) polaris * Cancer irroratus * Leás anatifera MOLW8C Po3.yp1Ftcoj hora Ischnochiton albue Tonicelia ntarinorea Tonicelia rubra ------- Gastropoda Acmaoa testudina]. 1i Aeoltr$ia naptiosa Alvanja areharia Alvania areolata Alvania castanea Aporrhais occidentalls Boreotrophon clathratus &iccinum undatuzn Calliostoma occidental. Clione limacina Coins pygmaoua Coins stimpsoni. Co, rpha11a verrucosa rufibranchialis Crepidula tornicata Crucibulum striatum Dendronotus frondosus Epitonium greenlandicum Hydrobia totteni lacuna vincta Littorina littore Littorina obtusata Littorina saxatilis Lora oleurotonaria Lora turricula Lunatta triseriata Margarites costalis Margarite s groeüand lea Margarites helicna Mitrel].a di.ssimilis Moelleria costulata Natica clausa Neptunea deco costat& Onchidoris aspera chidoris tu.sea Onoba acul ens Puncturella noachina Trichotropis conica Turbonilia bushiana ?urriteflopsls acicula Veluti.na laevigata Velutina undata • Dendronotus robustus * Lunatia heros Bivaivia Anomia aculeata Anomla simolex Astarte borealis Astarte castanea Astarte elliptica Astarte subaequtiatoris Astarte undata Cardita borealis ------- Carai toderma pinnulatwi ChlAmy$I islanritcus Clinocard lum cli tatum Crenelia glindula Miateila arettea Hiatella striata Lyonsia hyalina Modiolus mod talus Musculus dteoors Musculus niger Mya arenarta Nucula proxima Placopecten magellanicus Thyasira sp. * Arttca islandica * Mya truncata * MyttIus adults $ Yolrlia lixnatula Ceohalopoda * Illex illecobrosus ECHINODERNATA Asteio Idea Asterias rubnns Henri.cia sanguinolenta Hippasteria phryngiana Leptasterias lit ora1is Leptasterlas enera Pteraster militarts Solaster endaca Solaster papposus Echtno idea Strongylocentrotus droobachiensis ! !olothuroidoa htridota laevi.s Cucuinaria frondosa Psolus fabricil Psolus phantapus Ophiuro idea Axiogriathus (A . phipholis) squainatus Gorgonocephalus aroticus Ophiopholis aculeata C HO RT TA Urochordata. _____ Boltenia echtnata Clupea harengus BolLenta ovifora Gadus callarias Didetnnum albidum Heiflipterus ai ertcanus flendroa carnea Macrozoarces amarloanus Halicynthia pyriformis Myoxocepha].us scorpius Molgula p. Pholis gunnel].us Pseudopleuronactes amerlcanus ------- LIST OF SPECIES BY ECOLOGICAL SUBSYSTEMS FROMTRIGOM REVIEW 0 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA, JUNE 1973 Characteristic Species Inhabiting the Six Ecological Systems of the Eastport, Maine Atea (adapted from Reed and D’Andreas, no date, Maine Coastal ystems , unpublished manuscript). These lists are incomplete, with several major Phyla not represented or poorly represented. Some corrections, additions and deletions were made to Reed and D’Andrea’s list, but additional checking and improve- ment is needed. 1. Intertidal Mixed Mud, Sand and Cobble Flats. Characteristic Tnvertebrate Infauna and Epifauna of ff1 Salinity 2o-36 o/oo) Intertidal Sediments : polychaete worms Nereisvirens c lamworm Nephtys caeéa Arenicola marina lug worm Clyinonella torguata bamboo worm Pectinaria gouldii tru pet worm nemertoan worm Cerebratulus lacteus ribbon worm molluscs ‘ Mya arenaria soft-shell clam Maconia baithica Ensis directus razor clam Gemina gemma pea clam Nassarius obsoletus mud snail crustaceans Corophium volutator amphipod Phoxocephalus holbolli protochordate Saccoglossus kowalewskyi acorn worm Characteristic Wandering Invertebrates : crustaceans Hornarus americanus lobster Cancer borealis Jonah crab ------- Cancer irroratus rock crab Carcinus maenas green crab Hyas araneus toad crab Pagurus lo gicarpus hermit crab Characteristic Fish (that forage at high tide): Anguil].a rostrata eel Pseudopleuronectes arnericanus winter flounder Characteristic Birds (that forage on the flats at low tide): Ardea herodias great blue heron Charadrius hiaticula semipalinated plover Squatarola squatarola black-bellied plover Totanus melanolcucus greater yellow-legs Totanus flavipes lesser yellow-legs lirolia minutilla least sandpiper Calidris canutus knot Limnodronws griseus short-billed. dowitcher Ereunctes pusillus seinipalinated sandpiper Branta canadensis Canada goose Branta bermicola brant Anas rubripes black duck Anas discors blue-winged teal Anas carolinensis . green-winged teal Larus argentatus herring gull Larus marinus great black-backed gull Corvus brachyrhynchos conunon crow Characteristic Mammals (that forage on the flats at low tid j: Procyon lotor raccoon ------- 2. Subtidal Bottom - based communities. Characteristic Invertebrate Infauna and Epifauna of High Salinity (2c-3 4 0100) Subtidal Sediments : coelenterates Acaulis prirnarius hydroid Cérianthus borealis sea anemone Edwardsia clegans sea anemone polychacte worms Pholoc minuta Phyllodoce j ’roenlandica Nercis vircns clam worm i(ereis p 1agica Ncphtvs incisa Nephtys. caeca Lumhrin.eris sp. Scoloplos fragilis Flabelligera affinis Amniotrypane aulogaster Praxillela sp. Rhodine loveni Terebcllides stroemi. phrodita hastata Glycera dibranchiata Lepidonotus squantatus molluscs Yoldia limatula Yoldia sapotilla Nucula proxima TI sira c ouldii Cerastoderra pinnatulurn cockle Crcnella decussata ------- mahogany quahog Arctica islandica Tellina gilis Astarte undata Pitar rnorrhuana Placopecten inagcllanicus Retusa canaliculata sea scallop Lacuna pallidula Nassarius trivittatus Cingula aculeus çylichna alba Colus sp. Baccinum undatuin Acmea testudina].is Cardita borealis mud snail spire shell canoe shell distaff shell Polinices heros Crus taccanS Phoxocephalus holbolli Orchomcnella pinguis Lep.tochcirus pinguis Corop um volutator Casco bi elowi. Dulichia ppyrccta Diastylis guadrispinosa Eudorcila emarginata Pandalus borealis Pagurus sp. Hyas areneus ec hi node rins Caudina arenata çhiridota laevis phiura robusta Asterias vulgaris amphipod amphipod amph ipod amphipod amphipod amphipod cuinac ean cumacean shrimp hermit crab sea cucumber sea cucumber brittle star sea star 1= , I ------- Characteristic Fish : Squalus acanthias spiny dogfish Raja erinacca little skate Pollachius virens pollock Gadus callarias cod Mclano ramrnus 1efinus haddock Tautoc!olabrus adspersus cunner Merluccius bilinearis whiting lirophycis tenuis white hake lirophycis chuss squirrel hake Pscudopheuronectes americanus winter flounder yoxocephalus scorpius shorthorn sculpin yoxocephalus octodecirnspinosus longhorn sculpin 3. Salt Marshes. Characteristic Plants : Spartina altcrniflora Spartina patcns I)istichlis spicata Juncus gerardi Salicornia europaca Cyperus polystachyos Atriplex patula Plaritago iuncoides Suacda maritima Limonium care] inianum Solidago sempervirens Glaux maritima Scirpus atrovirens Spartina pectinata Panicura virgatum Potentilla anserina saltmarsh cordgrass salt meadow cordgrass spike grass black rush slender glasswort sedge halberd-leaved orach seaside plantain. sea - b 1 i te sea lavender seaside goldenrod sea milkwort sedge fresh-water cordgrass swi tchgras $ silverweed * ------- Characteristic Invertebrates : molluscs Modiohis demissus Mytilus cdulis Mya arenaria Nassarius obsoictus Mar aritcs groenlandica Littorina littorca Melaurnus bidentatus crustaceans Gammarus locusta Orchestia platensis Idotea baltica Idotca phosphorea Crangon septemspinosus ribbed mussel edible mussel soft shell clam mud snail periwinkle land snail beach flea beach flea pillbug pillbug mud shrimp arachnid Batillipes sp. (?) insects Aedes sollicitans Tabanits spp. Chrysops spp. Characteristic Fish : tardigrade salt marsh mosquito green-head flies decrf lies Fundulus hctcroclitus Apeltes guandracus Menidia menidia Characteristic Birds : mummichog fourspine stickleback Atlantic silversides black duck Anas rubripes ------- Ardca herodias Botaurus 1cntic inosus Totanus melanolcucas Totanus flavipes Erolia minutilla Catoptrophorus scn ipalmatus Asio flammeus Passerculus sandwichensj-s Amrnospiza caudacuta great blue heron American bittern greater yellow-legs lesser yellow-legs least sandpiper willet short-cared owl savannah sparrow sharp-tailed sparrow Characteristic Mammals : Microtus pcn.nsylvanicus Procyon lotor meadow vole raccoon ------- 4. High Velocity Channels. Characteristic Invertebrate Infauna and Epifauna of the Subtidal Zone : pori ferans Scypha sp. sponge Cliona celata sponge coelenterate Tubularia crocea hydroid bryozoans Bugula turrita and spp. Schizoporella sp. polychaete worms Nereis pelagica sand worm Lepidonotus squamatus Spirorbis sp. molluscs Crepidula plana flat slipper shell Anoinia simplex jingle shell Modiolus niodiolus horse mussel Hytilus edulis edible mussel Placopecten magellanicus sea scallop Hiatella arctica Arctic rock borer Cardita borealis heart shell Astarte undata waved astarte c.rustaccans Balanus balanus barnacle Balanus crenatus barnacle Cancer irroratus rock crab Crangon septcmspinosis mud shrimp Pagurus 1onc .icarpus hermit crab ------- Cancer irioratus rock crab Crangon scptctnspinosiS mud shrimp Pagurus lonc icarpus hermit crab echinoderins Asterias vulgaris sea star Ophiopholis aculeata brittle star Amphipholis sauamata brittle star Echinarachnius par na sand dollar sea squirts Amaroucium glabrum Didcn!num albidum Dendrodoa carnea 5. plankton-based Sub yst . Characteristic PhytoplaflktP! are given in CharacteriStiC Zooplankton : protozoan Ti.ntinflopSiS sp. coelenterates Aurelj aurita jellyfish Nanoi ia cara hydrozoan Agiantha digitale ctenophorcs V ! 1CUT0 1! i . pilcus comb. jelly BolinopS infufidibUlti ! . chae tognath Sa itta c1e nS arrowWOrfl ------- po]ychaetc Tomopteris catherina Nereis spp. larvae Molluscs Clione lirnacina Limacina retroversa Mytilus edulis larvae copepods Calanus finmarchicus Pseudocalanus minutus Centropagcs typicus Contropages hanatus Ternora 1on icornis Euryternora hcrdmani Acartja clausi Tortanus discaudatus Microsctclla norve ica Oithona similis Metridia lucens Metridia longa Monstrilla dubia Paracalanus parvus Harpacticôid copepods cladocerans Evadne nordmanni Podon polyphemoides barnacle nauplii Balanus balanoides Balanus balanus ------- Euphausid shrimp Meganyct phane s norvegica Caridean shrimp Eualus p siolus prawn pirontocaris liljeborgii prawn Spirontocarjs spinus - prawn crab larvae Pagurus longicarpus hermit crab Carcinides maenas green crab Cancer borealis Jonah crab sea cucumber larva Cucumaria frondosa Characteristic Fish: Scomber scombrus mac) erc1 Clupea harengus herring ------- 6. Rocky Shorelines Charactcristic Algae of high Salinity (16-36 o/oo) Subtidai. Solid Substrates : browns Laminaria digitata Laminaria ac ardhii Laminaria lon yicruris Desmarestia aculeata Chorda filum Chordaria flagclliformis reds Chondrus crispus Rhodymenia palmata Lithothamnium spp. Plumaria sp. Irish moss dulse browns Ascophyl lum nodosum. Fucus vesiculosus Fucus edentatus Fucus spiralis Fucus evanescens reds Chondrus crispus Polysinhonia lanosa Pol)’siphonizi flcxicaulis Corallina officinaljs knotted wrack rockweed roc kwecd rockweed rockweed Irish moss • kelp kelp kelp characteristic Algae of High Salinity (16-36o/oo) IntertidaL Solid Substrates : ------- Porphyra umbi licalis Dumontia incrassata greens’ Ulva lactuca Enteror orpha intcstinalis 1 nteromorpha comprcssa Cladophora spp. sponges Halichondria panicea Ifaliclona oculata coelcntcrates Metridiurn senile Tealia felina Obelia commisuralis Obelia geniculata Sertularia pumila polychacte worms . J1armathot imbricata Lepidonotus squamatus Spirorbis spirillum crumb of bread sponge dead man’s fingers sea anemone sea anemone hydrozoan hydrozoan bydrozoan scaled worm scaled worm Ainphitrite johnstoni molluscs Hiatella arctica Anoniia sinpiex Anomia aculcata liodiolus rnodiolus Crepidula fornicata lschnochiton ruber Acolidia p pillosa Odostomia seminuda Arctic rock borer jingle shell jingle shell horse mussel boat shell chiton layer sea lettuce Characteristic Invertebrates of High salinity (16- 6 o/oo) Subtidal Solid Substrates : ------- crustaceans ilyas arancus toad crab Cancer irroratus rock crab Cancer borealis Jonah crab Ilomarus amcricanus lobster Spirontocaris 1iljeI or,gii prawn Balanus crenatus barnacle Idotea baltica isopod Idotca phosphorca isopod Leptocheirus pinguis nphipod echinoderms Asterias vulgaris common sea star Flenricia sp. blood sea star Ophiopholis aculeata brittle star Gorgonoccphalus arcticus basket star Cucumaria frondosa sea cucumber Stronc ylcicentrotus droebach - sea urchin lensi-si sea squirts Boltenia echinata Amaroucium c labrum Mogula sp. Characteristic Invertebrates of High Salinity (16 -36 o/oo). Intertidal Solid Substrates : molluscs Littorina littorea periwinkle Littorina obtusata periwinkle ------- Thus lapilitis dog whclk Acinaca tcstudinalis limpet 1!ytilus edulis edible mussel crustaceans Balanus balanoides - barnacle Gammarus locusta beach flea Characteristic Invertebrates of High Salinity (16-36 o/oo) Supratidal Solid Substrates : mollusc Littorina saxatilis periwinkle insect Anurida inaritima springtail Characteristic Fish : Pholisgunnel lzis rock eel Neolipuris atlanticus “sea snail” Liparis liparis “c zi snail” Characteristic Birds: Somaterma mollissima common eider Clangula hyemalis old-squaw ? Iclanitta fusca white-winged scoter Plelanitta perspicillata surf scoter Oidemia nigra American scoter Cepphus grylle black guillemot Arenaria intcrpres ruddy turnstono Erolia maritima purple sandpiper P—1-7 ------- Larus argentatus herring gull Larus rnarinus great black-backed gull Phalacrocorax auritus double—crested cormorant Actitis macularia spotted sandpiper Sterna hirundo common tern Sterna paradisaea artic tern Characteristic Mammal: Phoca vitulina harbor seal ------- lialiohondria sp. ?ialisczrca sp. HaUciOfla Sr. Ciio’ta vantifica et al. Trieho$tpm’fla sp. Chtilir.a sp. Polyinaitia Sr. COELEt TERkTA Hydrozoa Obejia Sp. SertuZaria punhiZ(! Tubujaria cp. c2VcZ sp. Hydractiflia echinata Scypho zoa Aureiia aurita Raliel ystU5 S!1. Lucernaria sp. An thi zá Hetri fi sp. Alcyonaria Duva muitifiora PLAtYHFthINThES I otoplafla ato iata Mono eiio sp. WE1IERThA Cer.bratul ue iacta Linsue sp. Nierura sp. RuguZa sP. Cryptonula sp. schi2opn” Ua Others ANNELIPA 01 igochaeta Cl.it.iiiO arenaria Polychaeta i7a,’eis VirCnD N. p.tagioa CZymenei ia torquat3 Nephthyl 5p. Spio estosa Poiydora ep. A.rphitritE sp. PARTIAL LIST OF FAUNA FROM ThIGOM REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA JUNE 1973 Partial List of Fauna to be Found in the Vicinity of the Biological Station, St. Andrews, N.B. (Supplied by the Fisheries Research Board of Canada and the Huntsmafl Marine Laboratory for Summer Research and Visitors.) PORIFERA rciorrtc TA ------- Polychacta (Continued) Nyxieola infundibulw’i Sterna.p n c’ . Potan,iZZa Sr. Filograna sp. I.w’,brineri t’ (usui Ily 1 . fra zi ?.iø) Aphrod t aculeata Priapulida sp. Spiroi’bis horna tin S npir’iZiw’r Phpi Z odoce X.t.one Lonpa Giycara dibranchiata Lapidonotun aquaniatus Rarn,otho. P.ctinaria (Cict ’nidcn) goul.dii MOLLUSCA Anemia s . Crepidula fornicata Crepidula piana Lacuna vincta Lunatic ln’roa Littori’,a tittOvea Littorina oltunafa Littorina ra.r tiHn Hargaritco Sr. Ny c truncat.a Iliatcila are!fiea • Bssccinuis, undatua, N.ptun.a deo.rncoatata Dcntaiiuu’ ientale roldia sp. Coisia SP. Vrn.giaardia bor•at è Antarte undata Cue pidaria glaciLaita Craa toderma pinnu i turn L ‘spUopteuz’ua ea,weiZatu T.rde sp. S Lffa.a aria pata. Spiauia aoUdis iaà Enais directua. Pandora gouidianm Thai. apiZiua Aemea teetudinaUs Nudibranche Lepidochiton ruber ?4ya aranarta Nytiiua adult. Podia iun modiolua Anomia simplex Anomia acuteata Piacopecten rnageiZaniCUB Pitar rnorrhuana Valutina Sp. Lunatia -. triseriata ------- W)LLI!SCA ARTI IROPODA (Cr nt inu’d) Cy1.ic rn ‘ H’ ?huai’ira p. Ci,rri,:c ir 7a’ ?fcw (.4 ? • (!f? (riipr n: ) t l.a :. ) Puculana ;p. Mcrc na c m(’rceE’z!’jfl Pa 1 4C b:;ol!tu ft.acoma bal thqca Ge? rr!a Carcinu r;(1cnc S Ca7u ?r tr,t ”atuc Career borea?ir Hyai aronc;cR 1arine /u’phip dn 1 .1ar ,inc lsnpoda JIon,arur cr-erle’fltdt Crançyon rtcrplr.C’11143 Balanur 1 c1-ano ea Ba7anu ’ l’ameri Balar.ut balanu: Pagurus p. tpirofl’cePiC sr. Pandalur nunta”ui Pandnlt t, J1OP( Ol F f’js1 teñei .s’. s Chthamaiun sp. iirhaueids t4iganyctiphanse nop Oithona Calanufl Plankton ansortment flClII NflI)l MATA Anterias Vuiga2i$ A,*eria. forbe8t Ctenodiscun criapatus Ilenricia sanguinolanta Soiaater cnd oa Croseaàter pap posuc Caudina a,’snata Hippasteri a8 sp. 1,eptasteriaa sp. Ophioderma sp. Corponocepliaiue arotictI rchinarachniue parnra Strong luocentrotus droethach iensi8 Pnolus sp. ()phiura Sp. Cucumaria fror4esa flRACIII(!l’ODA . 7 r brat tii vz sp. Tereb atelZci 5p F-si ------- C1tORP4TA pIsc1 s 3aeco ’r.::r Halocu??thi( !,:p. ?Iognic ! p. &‘lte’zia sp. rotr ,/.1? ? Sfl. Marsipohr;:nch’ Misxinr ,,lt i?;#’ .’(V 1 1i mohrancbs Raja rodiata Rala .i ’-a Raja oc:?Za Ra ia irt’i’in Raja re.’zth Bony f sh s flf(? 7 4f flUV Cadur l’iorhurE Urop pi ’ r “ •7 MerZ,’ ur ti7 i’.nris P Z1.ac1 u i’ir.’: pqj 0 p 0 d i r” ’r’.’ !.r . ( re,b7( .(J . 7f C C!ynl r ’ p1: 1 ?( :‘P::: ?.orr, i, Ljman t’ r(Pr?,?-.ru ?lipr i lil1s t? :..-r::riSr ;:i; ? 77e rz’ ‘ 1 X( (?t’phaiUC tod ’ceiricrino.. r . 7 i pi ,‘fi’dii’Zlur uneinatus ?4 , rocrr1iajuS neorpiun i!yôaoccphaius aeneus Lu,; .’ata re,u atus tIZr’aria oubhifurcata (‘iul’r’ harenç us Alc ta rscudoharen us Ornneruz, mordax ?‘ai.ictua t’ilZocue ! h7rr oarcec w’,ericanun cimbrius ll( CJ f.AC Jfl(7P flUfl Aa ridop1zoroideB monopterygiu8 f umpcnus iumpretaeforrnis 1icr’t ’tripteru ame ’ioanus Cycioptrrnn iurnpuø Lophiuc arnericanus roronotus triaoanthu C’ tm ’tinthodec rnacutatuo rl?ol1.R qunnellu( ------- Catalog of Marine Research Associates (From: Marine Research Associates, Deer Island, N.B., Canada, 1973 Catalog, used by permission.) MMuNEO jTj s - GENERAL LISTING LMS-2 SEASLIDES. Microscope dides exposed to set- 1 1mg marine larvae and proloroans. Laboratory Applications: Experimental and teaching uses. .Seaslidcs are standard nucri’wope slides which are placed / CALCAREA set open slide tray and held unds’,warer near profuse manna M u-224 growth for a period of JO days yr more. During this period. larval fonns and proto:oans settle out on both sides of the slides. After sufrwient growth has appeared on the slidEs. M they are shipped in seawater as described in she section “General lnfonna:io.n.” Upon arriiol at your laboratosy. they should be placed in fresh, aerated, seawater and fan- DEMOS?’ONGIAE as iruize.! the same as out mans,e w anian. JndiridualC I .M-240 cc: h . distributed in petri dishes for exaininatv.sn bin. rular microscope. With proper care, the progress can befollowed for teve,al weeks. u ’i’-l2 PLANKTON TOWS. The composition of tows v.......s seasonally. Usually. thc contain protozoans. bacteria, larval forms, copepods. medusje, zooplankton. and phyto- S 255 plankton.Supplied in quantities obtained in a 3Ominute tow. Laboratory Ap hcations: Experimental a*l reaching uses. 1. Phototrsspian in Marine Plankton. Some species of plank- C ton are pci sills -ely ph olotropic while others exhibit a negative response. This phenomenon can be iltustrated by covering a jar of plankton with black cwd leaving a slit where the ends meet. Some species will be attracted to a light placed at the slit wslilk others will slot. Examination of each gmss. of rv’aninns should be made hi’ taking samples from C’ crvd ‘lick areas. ‘ “c-as •.‘ changes in Plankton Composition. Plankton tows will he made at the sau te site or specified intervals . .4.an. ,‘d . esearc* on Plankton. Plankton and data cal- kcnon will be made for researchers requiring the use of advanced equipment and techniquer. Researchers requiring such assistance should write, supplying details of their pro- ject. LM-22 MIXED MARINE PROTOZOA. Mixed marine protozoa from a mature culture. Available for classesofl2,2Sand 100. U4 .23 MIXEI) MARINE PROTOZOAN MEDLUM. S LM.330 Fresh algal basis .uid sc wJter for the prepazauon of a mixed culture. Must be uscd immediately. Laboratory Applications: Expcrimental and teaching uses F. Lah ,’r.storr sun’el’x. 77th culture, together with other * available from MRA. gue a complete range of ‘1. ‘‘i the ma/or marine phi to. 7/sty can be used in a C LM-345 ‘.1 ‘list.,, e in i/sc lassie ,nati,iCr as freshwater pro- C - 35 ° F’ ‘i L),namws in a .5/urine Plvso:oan Culture. u - . ‘IJ .‘ j’.’eit ’s ccimpais:noss cast be traced over c is pt’rvsd J lii . . .. hr standard sampling from a culture of iasS knowsi ,vlume. 3. Culture Methods for Marine Forasnisuferu. Lutz. et.al., C LM-36S isp. V. 1%. PORIF MA eurosolenia sp.A small branthingspecies found on shells and pilings. Available year around. Seipha(Granril sp. Tufted Sponge. A simple sponge tound on shells, rocks, and piling. Avail- able. in small numbers. year around. COELENTERATA (CN IDAR IA) P.e,,naria. . sp. Found on seaweeds, stones and pilings. Supplied as available. Tubrslaria crocea Pink-hearted hydrisid. Found oil pilings and weiss from June to October. Cam panularia sp An excellent thecate. Supplied as avaaaibic. Cite/ma oculaiq Finger Sponge. A large species T nd subiidall n pilings and ledges. Available year around. C LM-245 Halichondria sp. Crumb-of-bread Sponge. A complex encrusting species found in tidal pools and subtidally. Available throughout the year. Cliona sp. or related species of “Sulphur Bor- ing Sponge.” Found on shells. Available year around. Isophone ap. An encrusting sponge commonly found on TerebrarulinL Available year around. Other Species. Approximately 30 species of sponges have bees, recorded in the vicinit)- of the Bay of Fund i . We are it the process of collecting, identi 5’ing, and cataloguing other species and will publish she remits of our research in the future. In the mean:nne, we Invite inqusnes regarding any specks not listed here, Laboratory Applications; Experimental and teaching uses. 1. Rcaggrega:ion in Sponges. Diehi. er.aL. pp. 10. 2. Notes on the Cultivation and Growth of Sponges etc. Lutz, c i. aL. pp. 137-139. HYDROZOA Clara leorosrvlo . A small pink hydroid found on rockweed near the low water mask. Supplied as available. C LM-340 Corymorpha pendult A very large (to 1W’) solitary hydroid found subtidally on mud bot- tom. Available from June to October. OheFia so. Available species are supplied with or without gi’nangia. Available year around. C = common in proper habitat M = moderat ly common U = relatively uncommon S = seasonally abundant * = commercial species ------- C LM.370 ii.r ‘ . Available species with gonangia. Sup- plicd ii available. C LM375 Antennutari. p. A large (8 to 10”) nabtadai iccies usually avaibblc ihriiughuut the year. Supphed with nlittlrc gullangla if available. S LM.3$o , ,rh rljjj Oi:curs ae onalIy in utrtj,n b j k,sJi pouls. shipped only when avail- able. SCVPIIOZOA Aprd. STAUROMEOUSAE U LM4IS I.ucern.sa quadrkonnx A large sessále ec*s reaching 3 inches in length. Nalidvsnu may be aubsusuted. Supplied as available. U U4430 E4is dsie ekg.tt A vnafler , mute delicate, burrowing anemone found in instil tocahitjea , Supplied as available. LM435 Akrriji.n,, d:anths,s . The common east coast aucmune. Avadah ear around. Specify we. LM440 Vnicina . A brp slinging anemone found wbtidafly. Available year around. A very anrac. me and interesting species fo e duphay. Othrr Specks. Ntsmevus,s other cuekn:erates here been l. en and obseived by our niilc ,ttvt We are in the prucesz of ti& ’crni t,jun gnu a&iguavg these species and be publishing the rendts 01 u ssr iU whh as the fu flu ,. hi the mc.n:ane, .,rue asqsuwses riling an, specsi? mit kited kri’e. LaIu.aeaey Applica*io.s. F peraswn& and sear*ing uses. I keyrnr,unon in Srv4nuvrwn ’x DiI*I ei . . pp. 11. 2 Srmbaos.t 4Ig si in Sea Anrmoncs. Didui u.af, pp. 12. .• &xte.icylb4WDteugud, ira Lu .lnemone. Dieki. e1 .aa . pp. 13. 4. fà*rg is! Nemaroeynrpum eSeeAnerno .. Dk*h ef.gL pp. I4 3. F&a Setasriour I, a Sc. Anemone . Keewn ,t , pp. 297-298. 6. Nemeiocut Discharge l it a Sea Anemone Kectan, pp. 298. 7. Eph;’sue Piuductk,n in Aurella Mature sirobili are ship. — lit Alarck just prior to release of the ephyra,. 8 Rearing the Scyphistome of Aurelia lit the Laboratory. Listz ,e:.mL,pp. 143. CTENOPHORA Pictgrol,raehia oiteui Sea Gooscberty. A biradi. ally s lIunetric . ii .pccies with eigM combplates. Occuis in large numbers at irregular intervals Shipped as avaibble. Roliiropcit sofunjibulum A large clenophore which us usually is siLebie during th aunmer. PLATYPftLM INTHES Prvc ’rrodec ulvae A small (½”) but very lively tTat orm lound at arveral localities. Available yeas around. C LM.525 Leoroplan . cp . This species occurs under rocks ruc shores in the area. its large size (to 1½”) makes it an ideal study ecimnen. Available throughout the year. but it is un- common during late mmmc ,. NEMERTEA Cerebeetuhis lactru ,A very large whiie ribbon worm tound in tidal flats throughout the area. Supplied as available. , Q .uc ‘ A small, common, intertidil WecieL Ava;l c year around. MU l0 . thrn,r A large, intertidal speom bright cherrv colouued dorsally and white ventrally. Available year around. Laboratory Application.: Expenmentei asid t. ..arkis uses. 1. Aietommw it Ribbon Wwvns. Nente ef cans. D *l, er pp. 16. 2. Ere,SI,JIPI of the Ribbon Worin’s Proboscis. et pp. Ii . ’ 3 Methods for the Laboratory arbw-e of Nerteenz Lw . et..t. pp. !62-16S. SIPUNCULOIDEA LM ’620 _ l,uw ’i! csn,e . Identification of I aninil h u JIL ’t u rcuu1irrned his common thcerta,n ar as where there is sindy mud. Appr nately l’ to 3” relaxed. Asailible year asoprid.. Laboratory applications: Expcnnwn:al and sca u 1. (tpnu,ccul.siwer in the Pc uuu Won,t, Gold/iA Diak4 et4 ,pp. 18. C LM.390 AJ liJ arri:, jrul t..q Moon Jellyfith. Avail- able horn Juss to &-picmbcr. C LM-39l A,ga’elia wirir,, i b,ruba ’ Shipped OQ mature specuniui. A jul.,bk August to September. S LM-470 C LM-J9 . 4urcb: aur,ra scsnl,icrvJn,a . Available year around es.cept .lj, ,h and April. C LM-39J Aurr/ia auma. un ,b,I , Available in March and s LM475 C 1 )4.394 Aureha auru,z, ephi’rar Available in Mardi and April. S 1)4.400 Cuwzea i-q’ilhuua Lion’s Mane 3ellyt di. Occurs Ltd 520 ueu..assonafl during summer. Supplied as as il - - able. Ai4ThOZOA C LM -420 U LM.425 Gerse,nse . “Soft coral.” Small fledsy lobes found attached to subtidal rocks and lodges. Related ecies may be substituted. Supplied as Ltd-bOO available. Cer,anthus borealis. A beautiful subtidal burrow. anemone found in sevsril localities. Sup.,, plied as available. ‘ LMOS C ------- ANNELIDA it.i .a o “ err,c I ’Ircu Common Clam Worm. The corn. moii species found in most mud flats in the area. Avail.mble year round. Speuly sue. U LM-635 Glv er , a dthra,s l,,sr, , Beak-Thrower. Available Iii sm.iJJ •iuinberc. iiizoughout the year. C LM -640 Jrphthii sr . A small species found in sandy mud. an the midiadal area of local tide flats. Available year around. C LM44S CIsr-undlla rr’,qria’o A commonMaldanid found . ,r aiid> mud. I p ao 3’ in length Shipped in their sand tubes. Available year around. C LM .650 Le ,idi,n tuc cu , ,wrurlss . Scale worm. Up to 2” in eisgsh. lh i species is common in tide poois and subtadally. Avail able year around. M .46S5 Ampizirrite sp A large tube worm found in certain mud IT its. and on floats and pilings. LM-700 Available yeas around C LM -660 Cisgenides nuldii (Pectinariaf . Trumpet Worm. cumrtioii in ccrsain localities. This species con- structs attractive tubes Out of sand grains. s LM-705 Available year around. C LM465 Spworbis borealis. This species builds vn.afl snail4ike tubes, approxunately 1/8” in dia- meter on seaweeds and rocks. Available year C l t -71O around. Pozamila oculifera. This Sabeltid is approxi- mately 3 an length. It livei in tough tubesM I . -7lS attached to rocks on certain ledges. Available year around. Mvxicola infundibulum . Up to 3” contracted.M LM-7l6 rehixeil. tills picitI is noted for its giant axon and is in widespread use in neuroplaysio. 5 logical work throughout ? 3rth America and ‘ elsewhere. It is primarily a subtidal species. Available year around. - Other Species. Numerous other annelids have been tak. C U4725 en and observed by our colkcwrs. We are in the process of collecting. idcniijiing. and cataloguing the species and will be publithing the rts .ults i’! our rcwa,ch in the fungre. U L.M-730 In the mea,is lnI , we linac inquiries regaining unlisted speesei Laboratory Applications: L’xperimcnral and teaching us- 1. Movement in A nnel k/s. Diehl. er. al..pp. 20. 2. Food Selcrnoii by P. ‘Iachaete WorniL DieM. ci. al U pp. 21. 3 Coordination in Policharte ls’roms. DieM. ci. c i, pp. 22. 4. Fho,cwerponse in Feather Duster Womia Diehi. ci. ak. pp. 26. S. Regeneraum En Polvdiaeie Woewis. Did.!. et. ak. pp. C 28. 6. Bloat! Cwtuletim in Pohchacte Wo,riu Diehl. ci. L. pp. 29. 7. hmiws.ag by a l’nlsrkaete lVon .t. DII*/. tt. •i. Pr & (O.ltirn.,g the lariwe J eis 1i baii. I.u1:.. pp. 1S2. 184 9. A M th d /i,, Rtanng Were / i qessizi * d N. pDujr.., Lu::. ci. ci.. pp. 184-185. /0. Mvxicolg li/un Jibulum. in neumphyskilogy. r , specie, i x rapsdli hc-c ..unusg the standard species fur oratoty work in n ’urophysiokigy. The Isige axon L (425 to 800 u/. rear around availability, and exce,. haWing capabilities (in fresh or artifical saltwater) m thIs the ideal species for this type of work. For odin ,. a! infonnatnn on this animal write fur “Species Note \ 1. Myxicola in/lindibulum. a research animal from t,... Bay of Funds’. ,llsu, see the references listed under : ‘Research Assurance” section of this catalogue. ARTHROPODA Ltp:s fawicularis. Goose Barnacle. Up to 1 his species is iismon on floating rockwec , during the summer months. Supplied as ass. able. BaFanu balanoides. This is the common nI “tidal barnacle in the area. Shipped on rocks wood. Available year around. Balonus balanus. A common subtidal speces It is difficult to collect and ship in large nu—’ bets. Available year around. Ba/onus liasneri . Common on subtidal musss . ‘iround wh.i ’? s. Available year around. Ba/am a cretsatus. Found subtidallv on slit and ledges. Difficult to collect and ship large quantities. Available year around. Aft-sir ctcmioknis . The common Mysid in I’L• area. Is uccurtiis most ponds and esturaric, Available year around. itfrm _ ,’zLr .fa Taken occasionally in certa - bracka h punds. Supplied if available. Lld-735 Idoiro .cp. This isopod reaches a maximum ‘ aoour i . making it an ideal research spar’ It as found in a few tidal ponds in our ac. . Available year around. U4-740 jlinnciria lienprunt Found on old wear sta .Ji in several localities. Supplied as available. LM-750 hi -pc i -ia . olba . This species is “sythbiotic “Aurcfla aiiei1 Supplied on the host aroma’ Available during summer only. LM•755 O,chestia u ili This is the common ‘bej. Fopper lounaUljnder rotting seaweed. A able throughout the year. It is difficult 10 taut dunn; the winter months. CRUSTACEA C pepndc and Plankton , Copcpods are One.’ The flosS common plaa tonic animals. los . ,, containing these animals are available year a round. LM .675 C ------- dwf . C LM-7( iO Trpkosa pingssis. An extremely abundant subtidal s 4 avenger. Available year around. M LM-770 tJnt,. la iniirata This species reaches a mix- inuin *zc ut .*buut 3/5”. Ii is found in a few tidal ponds. Attractively decorated with crim- son markings. Available year around. C LM-775 Caprella lineans. A very abundant wbtidal • species found on vegetation and hydroids. Particularly common on Tubularie. Not always available during winter. S LM-780 A t ’rt ”hatIet nor#cpca . The common Eup.. fl . i;á. L Iremely jbuiidant during the sum- mer. Not usually available during the reniaind- er of the year. C LM-783 Pendalus monnsguL A common su ,da1 shrimp found around wharves and on ledges through- out the area. To 3” in length. Available year awund. *LM4O5 C hnda!us borcaks. The conunercial shrimp of the Gulf ul Maine and Bay of Fund . Taken by draggers during the winter months. Up to in length. Supplied only by spccisl arrange- ment. C LM.$ S lives ameetas Toad Crab. A common species found around ledges. hasves. and weirs. Sup- — m available. Must easily obt.ined during U 114-845 Nymphon sp. The largest species of sea spider available locally. It is takcn in deep.wa(er drags. Supplied only if available and by special ar- rangement. Other Species: Numerous other Arzhnipods have been taken and obsened &v our colkctors. We a re in the pro- cess of collecting. icntif ing. and cataloguing these spec- ies and will be publithing the readis of our research in the Jiature. In the meantime, we invite inquirieS ivganling un- listed species. Laboratory Applications: Expenmental and teaching uses. 1. 09n(’tsc Tolerance in Crabs. Dichi. c i. at pp. 32. 2. Blood Compw’uons between Selecred Orgenwns. Dick!, c i. at pp. 34. 3. Autonomy in Crabs. Dichi. et. at., pp. 33. 4. Feeding at Barracks. Diehi. ci. at.. pp. 36. 3. Clietnoreceptton in Crabs. Dick!. ci. at.. pp. 4!. 6. I/ear: Seat Rate in Cn,s:ace ens. Dick!, c i. d pp. 43 7. Pigment Regulation in Cnistacea. Diehi. ci. at., pp. 45. & Photoreception in Crabs Dirhl. ci. aL, pp. m. 9. Bckavwur in Hermit Crabs. Dicki. et. at pp. 48. 10. DecoratIon br C)ebs. Dick!, ci. at, pp. SG 1!. Cisastacean legs and movement. Di8 il, erdpp. 51. 12. Zuerz release in Crabs. Lne Hval aid Pt unis carry- atg fer:ili:ed eggs are available in Febraay. Zoea release usually occurs in .tlarc* or April 13. Zoea release in Sh,inp. Berried fem ?aaidhss we meltable in February. /4. Pollutants and the FecdI g Rhythm of tanasclez . Foe- eicn chemicals in sobjiso,, alters the freib are in barn- IS. Meat/ring Hormones. Roman ’s and O have bees, used in experinenhz on moultir g homa mez. Mirj’ui t-du!is . Blue Mussel. Ci n on rocks and püuig tear the low water mek. Available year around. Vouch. (Mudiohts) erodi & se Musarl. A ver large species. reachig 6 es. Corn- ‘ nun subtidaiiy on ledges. AIm ‘n in some tide puols. Available yeai around. Miascvkn diseors. A small mi .Siich is tak- en occaaionplly by our co1Iec Supplied available. ARACHNO1OFA C LM.765 Ga nmornr (Iucnual °° “?‘ j j 4Q Pvenoeo’ntm lfttorak Sea Spider. A littoral i , iteriJal beads Ilca. Available year around. specics Iound,.ii a Fcw lo alities. Supplied if a- vailablc. M L.M-795 Spuontocais q’. Several species of this grotes- quely interesting shrimp are taken on local ledees. Supplied as available. C LM-$( S! r sco,cmc’Mosus. . Sand shrimp. This species is VCI) common in ponds, biys. and estuaries during most of the year. It is difficult to obtain during January, February, and March. An excellent research species which can be applied in large numbers at low cost. - Hommi,s ‘nencanua The Lobster. A comrner- cial species which is conunon throughout the area. Local legal size is approximately one pound. Price is dictated by demand. Available throughout the year. C LM3IO ?qaaais poibcariz and bemhudus. Hermit crab. Common around ledges throughout the area. Available species supplied. Available year a- C L iii- ! srl ,nochiton . Atlantic ds* s.1o 1. Com- mon uts rocks in tide pools dmbtidally. A- round. vailable year around. MOLLUSCA AMPHINEURA LM$lS Cancer borealis. Rock Crab. Up lob inches in width. This species is common subtidally on afl ,/ILYCOPODA t%pes of bottom. Most easily obtained during .910 the fall. Supplied as available. U LMEO ç.- rniJrc Green Crab. This species isn.idcd we It.a> of Fundy during the sxties. *LM ’915 It seems to haie become less common in re- cent eara lIi nevcr. they ran stilt be collect- ed as rtain Iuc litiei. Supplied if avadable.LA . [ 1 4-920 ------- TJ IN 925 Musc,dus co nageius. A miali mussel Isksn LM.IO4S occasionally by our collecion. Supplied as a vailable. LM-930 Placopecten nia .tIla,aicus. The giant l- c Uti-lOSO 1 op. This large species reaches 8 inches. It 5 common subtid lIy. in the proper habitat. Avail- able year around. LU 1055 U LM-935 Chlomvs islandicus. Iceland Scaftop. Taken in small numbers from certain ledges. Limited quantities usually available. Supplied as avail- u LM- 1060 able. LM-950 r”uç fijcrcrn ri J mr,reno,i .e . Cherry-stone. U tf to -‘ l iis occurs in a few localit- U 1 )4-1065 es in our area. Available Irons May to Novem- ber. C LM-9t0 . Anr ”sni sp. Jingle shell. Common on Mussels C LM-l070 on wharves and piling. Available yeararound. .. . LM.965 Hiawl!a arc? ire . Arctic Saxicave. Common, in certaiii areas, intertidally and on floats and C LMIO7S pilings. Available year around. C LM-970 , !!phaea crirpszra Great Piddock. This bur- rowing clam is is ail ble in limited numbers C LM-lO80 at a few localities. Reaches 3W’. Available year around. U LM-97S Teredo novali,. Shipworm. This species occun C 1)1- 1085 in a few warns brackish ponds. Supplied as a- vailable. C IN 1040 Lacuna russia. Cusumirn Atlantic Chink Shell. C LM-2040 A small snail obt snsed when collecting other subtidal species. Available year aruund. j , rriia liuroi Common Periwinkle Vc nhiiiiuui iuitertidally throughout the area Available year around. I.i::on’,a ,itrrucef,, Smooth Periwinkle. Vts mmun intertidally throuthout the arci . vailabte year around. I.sswrusa saxotilic Northern Rough Periwni Av jiabk throughout the year. Iolinices mnnocularus . Moon Snail. A sm I species. Iaken ocr ionally. Supplied as vailable. Lunatic hero ,. Northern Moon Snail. A species. Taken occasionally by our collecrur Supplied as available. A’a.rsariuc rrn’iuarur . New England Basket She ‘ lLh is speirs occurs in cne brackish pond our area. Available frons May to November. No.mariuc broktus. Mud Snail. Found in ‘r brackish poddin siiir. area. Available from M3 to November. Thj,c /api//j Dog Whelk. Common in the pw. per habitat throughout the area. Available year around. Their Icpi!his imbricanis. A variety sculptured with numerous overlapping scales. Availab r year around. Aevlis pupilhisa. The Plumed Sea Slug. Tb’ large species occurs in several areas, but is common. Supplied as available. Lwm’llhrj,wis diade,uoia . A small species Iuu on rocks around icharves. Supplied as able. GASTROPODA C LM.lOlO 1)4-980 Al la renario , Soft-shelled cl. n. Common in 11)1 .1090 Ruccinupn undo firm . Northern Whelk. Th r mud thrin throughout the area. Available year “ip cres reaches 4 niches, It is common sub C around. C tidally around wharvea and ledges. Avaljb c U LM-990 Mt’a rns.tcpto Truncate soft-shelled clam. A- year around. vasLible in small qu inhities at one locality. can M LM-2000 Coins suinpsonhi Spindle Shell. Common be collected only during “spring’ tides. Avail- fairly deep water in certain areas. Supplied able year around. . available. As-opera ticfiJii•h 5 . Common Limpet. Cons- niuti, ji tire lw ssjtc ’r mark, on rocky shores throughout the area. Available year ,jiround. U LM-l0l5 Puncturdila ,.uachjna. Little Puncturella. Tak- en occasionally on other specimens. Supplied NUDIBRANCHIA as available. U LM-l020 ( ‘rucibulurn sirlatun:. (‘up-and-Saucer. Taken 1 LM occasionally on scaliups. Supplied as available. U LU-102S Cre”.fulj r’ . it.. ’ 8 ot shell. Found in a few c 1 )4-2025 . cnripIdia n A common species with ni:’ tide p ’u i eis on scallop shells. Sup- white body and reddish cerata. Available seat plied as avail ible. around. ii 1)1-2010 Neptunea decemcvsrare and N. despecta. Bob of these species occur subLidally in cerj areas. Available species shipped. Supplied m’ available. U LM-l030 Mj,gmrstcs heiscinus. Smooth Helical Top Shell. A beautiful piiikiks snail. Common subridally iILM -2030, __________________ s large species re3c ’ around ledges. Supplied as available. c 3’s”. Consmon on weir netting during sum U LM- 1035 .4 1u,rarstes coughs. Northern Rosy Top Shell. mer. More difficult to obtain during the wo C: A larger species tak ii occasionally around M LM-2035 O,,rhid,rui omrrsq _ This species is relatne ledges. Supplied as available.. cunsmui ubtidully. Supplied as available. ------- CEPHALOPODA M LM-2060 Rosa. . A small edes takin by Jcep.watar draigers. Supplied only as available. Difficult to obtain. 114-2065 hex (Onimastrrphez) ,llecebmsa. The sea Arrow Squid. Cummun in this area during summer and fail. Supplied as available. A difficult q ec- its to skip and maintain. M 1)4-2070 Octopus baidhl. A small species taken by deep- c [ 34-21 s water de*gers. Supplied only as available. Dil- ficult to obtain. O hes Species: Numerous other Molbjscs have c [ 34 .2 140 sd observed by our collectors. W are in the pmc’,ar of collecting. identzfring. and cataloguing these species and will be publithing the rendrz of our research in the /l rure. h r the n. stune. u Uwite mquvws regarding unhzied C U4 .2 ISO q,ecieL cHAETOGNAThA LM-2010 - . Arrow Warm. Common at in.gel. . in - asavagable. M [ 34-2100 Crenodaats cnsp.rut Mud Star. Taken by deep- watts dra gen. Supplied as available, H Lht2210 U 1.34-21 10 H p.saen. phr .nm , A beautiful oeange ipso- let Taken in certain areas near the open say. Available year around. H 1.34-21 15 fler*szeemJhiit ’ , This specwsis red MLM ..22 1S a thick skin. It n available in snail numbers a- - round certain ledges. Available year around. C [ 34-2120 H,.’dci . wi,uJenar. Ilsod Star. Thie beau- tif ipecies ranges cular through red, or- . ruse, purple, and crmm. Ii is relsiredy around loud ledges. Available year a- 4arerier ft -thesL A moderately common spec- ies in the proper habitat. Available through- out the year. Specify size. Axterias rufrarii The most common starlids in our a.e s. l..p 10 1 7” in diameter. Available year around. Specify size. Lep:asit’rias q . Moderately common in the proper habit..t. Adults brooding eggs can be supplied in the spring. Available year around. around. P,olus fab’i.cii. Scarlet Psolus. This beautiful scarlet cucumber is found in several localities, where it adheres so rocks. Available year a- round. Siri.pra iLcpt.’n”topraj inh,rerrnr . This spec- ies is niv ktately ionwioll iii certain areas. CerLam iniernal urgans can be seen through the t,wsducent body wall. Available year around. C L ,M-2 125 Soiester etideca. Eleven-armed Sun Star. This beautiful purple sun taf reaches 16 inches in di*r’e’er. It r ‘e!vively i’,immon throughout the area. Available year around. C 1.34-2130 Crosse.ster pwposus. The most attractive sun Star. Its ten to twelve spiny rays are broadly banded with pink, white, and crimson. Re- latively common on the outer ledges. Avail- able year around. Laboeatoiy Appl*eatioas Experimental and Te.chi us- es. - OIIUUROIDEA 1. Rheotsass in Snails. Diehi, c i. al. pp. .52. C [ 34-2170 Gc ’rgonocephalus apcticus. The Basket Star. Z Moremeni in Snails and Bñi.hre,. Diehi. c i. .1., pp. 53. Common in certain areas around ledges and 3. L’mbrrokrgy of Marine Sngils. Diehl. er. .1., pp. 56. wharves. Available year around. 4. Radula Tr.cks U, Gr*zing Snails. Diehi. ci. a!.. ip C LM-2 175 OpJ,iopholzr iaskara. Daisy Brittlestar. A large 5. Snail reiponar to a ?Ped.ror Sea Star. Diehi, et. d. pp colorful species found subtidally under rocks 6(Oiltwing she e s of) Oiaetopleure Apkvban i throughout the area. Available year around. ci. at, pp. 519-320. C 1.34-2180 A .mph pholis squansaruc A snail, delicate, ep- 7. (CUlturing the s of) The Gerus C epiduk Lutz. c i. ecics lound in tide it is viviparous and ai.. pp. 531-532. hennephroditic. Available year around. 8. Culture Methods for (Fwsa4,iex csnereg. (AppUcsbk to Thals iq,ilkts). Lutz, ci. .1., pp. 532.336. The Ciilriv,uaon of Lan,ethbrancA Larson Lutz, ci. 1.34-2190 ‘ ee rpn, dm hhe irnth The Green pp. 339-342. a i .’rclur i. Common throughout the area. A• 10. Rear . r ....os. Li, a, ct aL pp. 545-546. C vailable year around. Specify size. C 1)4-2195 Echinivachnws porma Sand Dollar. Common near the i,rw water mark in most sandy areas. ______ Available year around. aOLOThUROIDEA C 1)4-2200 Cucumana frondosa. Northern Sea Cucumber. This species reaches 12 inches in length. It is cmnsnon i the proper habitat. Available year ECH INODERMATA hes Species: Numerous other Echinudc,ms have been token md observed by our colleciuf’x We are in the pro- z u of cvilecSav , iiernifvs, and cJ.k in, shear iper- its arid will be pubhshurg the re,4lts of car, rrwwrk U. the a.rc. In the meanimne. we Uwite inqu vies reyardi un- ------- hzffiI spcm Laban tucy Applical...i: t.xperimenial .ad ie.chi g us ‘ S 1. Snail Respo.ise to a F &a:or Sea Star DieM. at. at. M 1144 .231S pp. ’ 0 . 2. Sea Urchin Embrvolugi’ D4*I. ci. a!.. pp. 61. 3. Feeding in Sea Sta,i. D,ehl. a. at. pp. 64. 4. Locomotion in Sea 5zara D,ehl. ci. at. pp. 63. C ut- no 5. Geo:ajris in Sea Sian. DieM. ci. at. pp. 66. 6. Autotuny of Sc. Stan. D ie!,!. ci. .1.. pp. 67. 7. Regeneration of Sea Sian. Dit ’hl. ci. a! pp. 69. - c LM.’32S 8. Evisceralia,, In Sea Cucumbers. Diehl. ci. al., pp. 70. 9. C I ! wry Action on Sea Stars DieM, ii. at. pp. 72. 10. Response of Sea Stars to LEg? ,:. DieM. ci. a!;. pp. 73. Ii. Movement and Feeding in Sea Urchins. DieM, at. at. pp. 74. 12. Response of Sea Urciusu to Mechanical and Light Simulation. Die? ,!. ci. al.. pp. 75. 13. Feeding in Sea Cucumbers. DieM. ci. at. pp. 77 14. Blood C i.-cuLanon in Echs ,,odenns. DieM. ci. a!., pp. 78. 15. PedicelleAce of Sea Urchins and Sea Sta ,s. Diehl, at. at.pp. 79. 16. (Culrwing the e s of) Aste,w.s for6eai Lutz, ci. at, pp. 547-350. 17. The Laborar rv Culture of the Larvae of Asrerias fo’ befl. Lutz. ci. a!., pp. 550-553. IS (Culturing the e s of) Ophiodenna iVeVUPIRL Lutz, ci. .1.. pp. 533-354 /9. Notes on the Culture of Strongyloce ’nh’oius ft.,- cãcanus and Echinarcchniui Lutz, ci. at. pp. 358. 20. Notes on the CWnue of Cucimw4a. Lutz. at at, pp. 559. BRYOZOA BRACH $OPODA C LM-2230 terebn,nalino sepienrnonahs. Brachiopod. I ma speCies Is common aubtidally arod?ld ledgcs ui certaui areas. Asailable ycse around. ENTEROPNEUSTA PROTOCHORDATES O LM-2250 Dol l, ! r.’r! cus sp. Acorn Worm. This species ue crii in certain mud flts in our area. It is a- vailable onI during “spring” tides. It is deli- cate and difficult to ship. Supplied when avid- able. ASCIDIACEA M 114-2300 Boiryihis sp. Sea squirt. Found on pilingt and ledges Supplied as available. has a stalk ibout l to 4 inches in length i , cumnwn on aabiidal Icdies. Available Y ’II a round. Bulletsis echinasa. This interesting sai ., covered with spine-like projections. It is erately common on subtidal rocks. year around. ! ld/,,ri’nrhia pyrifi-iemit Sea Peach. Com,msr just below the low water mark on certain c i gca. Available year around. %lo!e ,4la_sp. Sea Grape. Local Species are sn ace modcrarcly common on certain whas yes amongst blue n usels and othgr organism 5 Available yea: around. VERTEBRATA ‘tlyxine g!uiinosa. Hagfish. Thit oopular es perimental animal is common in certain deep water localities. Available year around, f n.:. tied before November 30th. Peiromv:on marnus. Lamprey. Spawning dults can be obtained from freshwater stre.,n during June. Ammocoetes are available unn. October. S LM-2330 Sair’a cjs . Both aggregate and solitary firms liase invaded the Bay in enormous numbe: during certain years. Supplied only ii availabc Other Species: Other Prorocho ,dates hai’e been obsenc..’ by ow, collceiors. Please write regarding unlisted species Laboratory Applications: Experimental and reaching uses I. WaterPumping in Sea Squfrt DIM!. c i aL,pp. 81. 2. Tunicate Heartbeat. Diehi, ci. a!., pp. 82. 3. Notes on tile Culture of Eight Species ofAscthan&. Lut:. ,. .L. pp. 560.;64. 4. Culture Methods for Ascidian& Lutz. ci. at. pp. 565 571. LM-2400 C C LM-2220 Mcvi . , ” Rrwn’,nrn . Numerous species of Bry. Ud.2410 oans occur in our area. Available species are applied. Available year around. LM-2420 F,,,,dulu.c hetcrnrlzrus . The mummichog is corn C mon us biackish ponds throughout the Sur. mer. Year around supply can be arranged notified by August 3Uth I..M-2430 Gn teros1cu e.wuiean,r. The Three-spine Sticke back is ounInon iii ys and estuaries from May to October. Year around supply can arranged if notified by August 30th. *LM_2440 An iiiJla ,ostrata . American Eel. Common du: c iiig suninser inu 7kns. Numerous other marine vertebrates occur locally and will be made available by special arrangement. Please writC stating your requirements. Some of the mote common species am: C $Squab s acanthus. Spiny Dogfish C _ .Clupea harengus. Atlantic herring C .$Osmeius me , ’,dax. American Smelt C .$Jodus morhua, Atlantic Cod C Mah i iwwuua avgkfuius. lIad6ui .k C 1144-23 10 Brs!ienia ursfem. Sea Potato. This large species ------- C Mkir r.zJisi t4UIlCVid. AIl.uit,c I’omcud C ?h .’ rhs;,s rerins. Pollach ( Strm,ôii w.in.b’us. Mljsiti, Mackerel 4 4iwr#ucha kipus. AIlanIu t 4U.th O)pM asiIh’iJcs s,,otid ti.s. Wryniuvth C La.mpcnus p. Ikmizriprrus w’ierscanus. Sea a.en ‘- NyxuccpIwh s sp. S .ulpin. C Cvclup:erus Llnnpus. Lump(uiih M ft Hippoglouueies piE:essoaIes. Plaice C Pseui.iopleurone:es ainencussus.. Flounder. C Lopws arnL’ncanus. Monkfish C çn ”:r a Harbour Porpoise M PhOCIT llt iU,SJ. ii. our Seal - PLANTS There are numerous species of marine plants in our area. At the tine o( punting this catalogue, we had not com- pleted our identitlc tion of these plants. We wdl be pub. lialiir an expanded list in the luture. We have listed the most CommOn sp cie belOW If )Otl require other species please contact us. we may be able to help. (lire Iot-ru a Sea Lettuce. Common uitertid- on mud, and pilings. Available year around, but most abundant during the summer. C LMB-20 En:errnno17’hç p . Common on tidal flats dur 114 thc Available (torn May to Nov- ember. Ag unt cnbrosuni. Common subtidally out p 11- wgs. Available year around. M LJfB .45 A ie esa.knta. Common on some outer led- r at the low water mark. Available year a- round. C LM -SO Lami’rerw m . Common on pilings and certain ledges. A abk year around. Plants are in poor condition during the winter months. C U*B-SS Chiwda 1 T1, ___ Cornm0fl in certain areas du:- 114 U ufl e LMB ’60 Asciçhilhv’n no The common rock- weed. A a ijbiC year around. Sexually mature during spring and summer. C LI1B.65 furur rp i,I’isut Common intertidal rock- weed c r around., Sexually mature during spring and umrner. C L.M .7O c 1 k ’zLrnri . Common at low waler on the outer led cs. Avj,lable year around. — S LMB-73 Qti r.I.r?? f7 ‘ r or related speeds. It cuiIIiIu Iii iclijill tidc poimls during nan- met md early Ial. Lithoth.mrnunsp. A common encrustm$ spec. its supplied on miall rocks. Available year a- round. F-rc , cI4LOROPHYCEAE C LMB-lO PHAEOPHYCEAE Mula .4o RNODcWHYCEAE C LNB-90 M tMB 95 i,n Iiu.: . Found u a (ewtd mqolt. . ilc.i t Sup 1 ilecI ar available. C LMIl0O hihmthr”j Lnityj This pccies common on A t’;itiyTlum. Available year around. C Rh. 1i’t,rnar 4 ,a( i a/ç _ Dulse . Cummous on the uuI t kJ cs. A%aIljble year around. .i LMB-l 10 ClwaIkInIr crqn.r (Iith Moss. Common ii cer- P S 3 — lain areas. Ave laDle year around. ANGIOSPERMAE M L 18-16O j stcro mamia Eel Grass. Common ii certain tidal poo 1 s. Available year around. ------- EXCERPTS FROM A REPORT BY THE BIGE LOW LABORATORY FOR OCEAN SCIENCES MC KNOWN POINT, WEST BOOTHBAY HARBOR, MAINE “A Preliminary Biological Survey of the Site of the Proposed Pittston Oil Refinery at Eastport, Maine.” 16 December, 1975 Gilfillan, Larsen, Topinka, Hanson, and LeRoyer In an effort to reduce the vol of this doc nt have excerpted the fol1c .iing 9.rTna.ty data frau a report entitled, 1 quatic Field Program, Eastport, Maine by Dr. Edward Gilfillan for the Pittston Canpany. The cxi lete report which inc1tx es a discussiai of the n thcx1s used ard the results can be thtainal frau Dr. Gilfillan or the Pittston Canpany. ------- TABLE r-s TABLE F-ID Rank analysis dominant species from Rank analysis dominant species from transect X in Broad Cove tlntertidah transect ti in Deep Cove (intertidal) SCOre Species Score. Nereis virens 300 Littorina saxatilis arenaria 17.5 *mertea 8 $acoma baithica N.r.ia virena 7 6.0 Littorina sp. 6 Eteons lonqa , _________ mot yp j auloqaster 3.0 a tus oceanicus 6 Unidentified gastropod 25 arenaria 6 Myt ! edulis 2.0 Littorina obtusata 4 1.0 Aomaea testudinalis Littorifla sp. ______ ____________ Balan balanQides Actinaria sp. . 3 i so Acarine (mites) 3 Spionid ep. PolvôP’O ap. 0 ironoiaid 2 ------- TABLE F - i l TABLE P-12 Rank analysis dominant species from the ex o ed Rank analysis dominant species at the low rocky intertidal transect III on Shackford Head silt—clay aubtidal stations (C 2Oç Species Score Species Littorina saxatilis 11 Spirorbis borealis 35 Littorina obtusata 10 Lepidopleurus cancellatus 12 Littorina sp. 7 Spirorbis pirillua 12 Mari aimnarus obtusatus 6 Paraonis gracilis 7 Ampithoe rubricata 5 Strongylocentrotus droeba 1 .. . 6 Neu ertea 5 Terebellid ap. 4 Thais lapillus 4 Cerastoderina pinnulatum 4 Ziargarites heliciruas 4 Syllis gracilis 3 Acmaea testudinalis 4 Leptocheirus pinguis 3 Chironomid 3 Achelia inoaa 3 Platyhe3.minthes sp. A 3 Lepidonotus sguam tus 3 Jáera marina 3 Cardita borealis ‘3 Paraonia ap. 1 Ishnochiton rubar 2 Crenella descussata 2 Aeginina longicornis 2 Corophium bonelli •2 Ophuira robusta 1 Moqula coisplanata 1 ------- Haploops spinosa Unciola irrorat.e.. Moqula complorata Cacco bigelowi Diastvlis ap. Terebellid sp. Edotea triloba Leptochej.rus pinquis Bcoloplos ap. Cerastodernta pinnu1ati ina Nephtys picta Thysira flaxuosa Crenella descuseata Owenia fusiformia LumbrinerW sp. Cardita 11,388 4,648 724 832 TABLE F-13 Rank analysis dominant specie. at the high silt—clay subtidal stations (,20%) Table F-14 Average densities of Individuals per square meter in each of the six defined habitats flAnIr 9 8 8 5 5 4 4 3 ‘- Transect! Habitat Ind iv idua ls/ in 2 Transect Broad Cove-Intertidal 2,495 Transect III Deep Cove-Intertidal Shackford Head exposed- 735 2,750 Transect rv Shackford Head protected- 1,431 Low Slit-Clay rocky Intertidal Cove Area High Silt-Clay Cove Area 4,317 Table F-15 3 Densities of individuals per square meter along 2 the intertidal transects. 2 2 2 3. 3. Transect. I Bigh Intertidal / 864 Transect transect Transect ______ .II III 1,472 1,276 88 1,492 2,008 2,268 4,268 144 1,036 256 1,556 Low Intertidal 4,072 288 104 32 ------- Tablu F-16 TRANSECT X I - Deep Cove 3.ransect Sample Plant fliomass (gun 2 ) 0 a No Plant. 5 a Ascophyllum nodosuin 5.2 Fucus vesiculosus & Pucus 270. 10 in A. nodosum 900. Transect II continued . isi iiosus 3,006. 15 a A. nodosum 882. Mditional. intertidal and subtidal plants noted in transect F. vesiculosus 4,712. Vicinity: 20 a A. nodosum 1,588. F. vesiculosus 2,624. 25 in A. nodosurn 530. Ralfsia fungiformis Cerainiwn !2 . 248. Ralfsia . Polysiphonia lanosa 30 a P. vesiculosus & Fucus . 1,436. Huldenbraudia, prototypus Po ysiphonia . 35 a P. vesiculosus 7.8 Tjrospora . Agarum cribosum 40 a No Plant RI izocloniurn . Chordaria flagelliforaje 45 A. nodosum F. vesiculosus 50.6 Er terornorpha linza Pilaiella littoralia so p. vesiculosus & Fucus . 22.2 Enteromorpha intestinaljs Elachista fueico].a 55 a Chondrus crispus 78.0 cyst3cloniuin purpureum Chorda S ngornor ha artica 0.6 Dictyosiphon iàehiculaceus 0.2 Laminaria aacchariua çy atoc1onium purpureum 1.4 60 a C. crispus 41.7 S. artica 0.6 C. purpureuln 6.1. 65 a C. crispus 1.58. S. artica 0.4 . foehiculaecus 0.8 . pureum . 4.0 TJlva lactuca & Enteromorpha . 0.8 Filamentous greens & browns 4.4 ------- Table P - i? Transect X I Siomass (q/a ) 8.ap l. Total Interv al Plant rucus up. 0* . 0 0 0 5 a 275.2 5.2 270. 10 a 3,906.0 900. 3,006. 15 a 5,594.0 882. 4,712. 20 a 4,212.0 1,588. 2,624. 25 a 778.0 530. 248. 30 a 1,436.0 0 1,436. 35* 7.S 0 7.8 40* 0 0 0 45 a 60.0 4.7 50.6 50 a 22.2 0 22.2 55* 79.2 0 0 60* 48.3 0 0 65* 168.4 0 0 Total Sadpl. 16,587.1 3,909.9 12,376.6 ?abl. F—lB ?2a*5 t ? ITT — Nead (ZxDoued Trans.ct .s p1. Plant Bioaasi ( 1 ) 0 * 8oP lant ——— 2* No Plant ——— 4 a 6 a I a • S Ascophyllum nodosua Pucus vjjjcuiosuu A. nodosum v.uicu osus A. ncd .wu 1,136. 14. 10,332. 72. 9,818.- 10 a A. Rhodvmonip palaatp . 5,276. 0.2 12 a • ‘ A. nodosum P. vesicuTouus 1. I ta ondrus criupue Gigartina •tellãta Ulva lac€uca, Enteromorpha TInza & Ei teromorp1a sp !pongomorpI arcta and Filamentous greens Porphyra umbilicalis 7.772. 6.0 46.0 18.2 12.6 . 0.4 14.4 • . 14 a Percentag. of Total Bicassi A. nodoiwn , 23.6 7ucus up. 74.6 A. nodoswn & Fucus ap. 98.2 A. nodosuzn 8,172. P. esic Iosuu and P. d stichuUeVanesc ns 282. k. palmata 158.6 crispus & C. stellata 25.8 D. lactuca & Enteromo Fja up. 7.0 ystoc1o iium ur urewn 22.2 Ceramiuzu desloncharnpsi 12.6 Other intertidal and subtidal plants noted in transect viciaity F. distichus edentatue Ralfeja ep. Ejachjsta fiicicola - SphacêIa Ta cirrosa Po1j sjphonja lanosa Monostrona sp. Enteroinorpha sp. — ,HiidenbraudThprototypus ntermor ilitestjna1j e L1thothomniu n rOtotypue Entcromo linza Laminaria sactharina Enterornorpha erecta Porphyra p. Palfela fungiforxnii PiiaieTla littoralja ------- Table F-20 Transect XV Biomasi (g/m 2 ) 2 w 4 w 6w 8w 10 a 12 in 14 a 16 a 3.8 m - Total Samples Total Plant 0.0 3,878.0 4,822.0 10,506.0 13,794.0 16,236.0 34,321.6 8,310.8 2,328.6 - 807.2 75,004.2 A. nodosum 0 1,716. 3,860. 4,250.- 3.2,658. 3.3,8 48. 14,302. 8,226. 1,934. 40. 60,834. Combined Fucus sp . 0 2,162. 962. - 6,256. 1,136. 2,388. 16. $2. 282. 572. 13,856. • Table F-19 Transect III Biomass (g un 2 ) c Q • Sample Interval Ow Sample Interval Total P1 nt A. nodosurn FuCuSIP. Ow 0 0’ 0 2 w 0 0 0 4 in 1,150.0 1,136. 14. 6 a 8 in L0,404.0 9,889.6 3.0,332. 9,888. • 72. 0. 10 in 5,276.2 5,276, 0. 12 in 7,870.8 7,772. 6. 14w 8,680.2 8,172. , 282. 16w 0 0 0 Total Saxnplei 43,270.$ 42,576. 374.’ Percentage of Total Biomass A. nodosuzfl 98.4 sp. 0.9 A. nodos & Fucus ep. 99.3 Percentage of Total Biomass nodosun ’ 81.1 FuCUS ap. 18.5 A. nodosun 6 FucUs ep. 99.6 ------- Tabis F-21 ‘ rRANSZc’r IV - Shackford Head (Sheltered ) No Plant Ascophyllusu nodosum Fucus vesiculosus A. nodosum 3,860. P. vjilculoaus 962.’ A. nodosum 4,250. P. vesiculosua 6,256. A. nodosum 22,658 _________ ________ P. vesiculosus 1,136 ___________ 13,848 __________ 2,388. Znteromo pha linza _______ 14,302. p r innrnhA erecta ___________ 16. _____ _____________ 0.4 A2!E2! . ________ _______ Rhizocloniua . _______ 9,226. ____________ 82. 0.4 _______ 0.8 _______ ____________ 1.4 ________ ___________ 0.2 _______ 1,934. 282. 14.8 _________ 11 • 4 14.2 ______ 54.0 ____________ 18.2 40.0 572. _______ 167.4 _______ ________ 3.8 18.6 ___________ ______ 4.0 1.4 Plant Biomass (g/a 2 ) 1,716. 2,162. Transect IV continued Transect Sample Om 10 a 12 a 14 a 16 a 18 a Lithothamniuls glaciale Polysiphonia lanosa Elachista fucicola Enteron%orpha intestinalis Other intertidal and subtidal plants noted in transect vicinity: ____________ ________ Ulothrix . _____________ ______ Petrocelis middendorf ii _________ ________ Ralfsia fungiforrnis ____________ ____________ Hildenbroudia prototypus ____________ _____ Scytosiphon lomentaria ___________ ______ Fucus spiralis Fucus distichus edentatus ____________ Laminaria aaccharina ___________ _______ Monostroma . Spbaa.laria cirrosa A. nodosum F. vesiculosus A. nodosum P. iiiculosus U1v Iäc tuca Enteromorpha linza & Enteronorpha Chondrus cri9pus Rhodymenia palinata A. nodosuin P. èsicu1osui . rispus L paiina i Y. ra uda & Enteromorpha . Porphyra umnbiricalia A. nodosuxn F. vesiculosus & P. distichue — evanescens — B. palmata . crispus & G. stellata U. I ctuca, Eiiteromorpha 3 .inza ahd Enteromorpha . goi i pha arcta & FL1 inen Ou8 greens HalosacciOn rarnentaCeum A. nodosum V. vesiculosus & P. dictichus evahescena — B. palmata . crispus & G. stellata E. flnza Enteromor2ha . 6 U. lactiica S. arcta & fi1an entOus greens Xssö rtcd reds ------- INTERTIDAL MARINE ALGAE OF THE FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT PARK, CAI4POBELLO ISLAND, NEW BRUNSWICK * (This preliminary report was prepared as a student project at the University of New Hampshire and was submitted by Dr. Radclif I Pike). The intertidal areas of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Inter- national Park are of interest to both the amateur and the profes- sional student of the algae. An average tidal amplitude of about 20 feet in the Passamaguoddy Bay area exposes a variety of habi- tats. Three major types fall within the boundaries of the park: exposed rocky shores with massive outcrops of granite; cobble beaches, composed of small boulders and cobbles; mudflats or an estuarine type of environment. The factors of rock ledges, sand, boulders, mud, and exposure are reflected in the number of species found at any one place, the number of plants, and the size of the plants. Herring Cove Head and Raccoon Point (Con Robinson’s Point and Dinner Head are synonymous names) best exemplify the exposed rocky coast. Herring Cove Head is located at the North end of. Herring Cove, a rather beautiful mile-long sand beach which sup- ports little algal veget•ition. It iê an area of very steep rock outcrops which are, in some places, impenetrable. Raccoon Point is located at the South end of Herring Cove, and differs from Herring Cove Head only in the degree of steepness of the rock walls. These outcrops are much lower and allow the phycologist. more freedom of movement while collecting. The species of marina algae are very similar at both of these stations, and only the most obvious will be discussed. The most common (and also the most obvious) of all the algae are the rockweeds ( Fucus spiralis, Fucus vesiculosus, and AscophylluI nodosum) , which cover most of the ro ir cesof the intertidil zone. These species comprise the bulk of the intertidal vegeta- tion. There is a coimnon epiphyte, Polysiphonia lanosa , which grows only upon Ascophyllum . If one has a strong love for the minutiae, the tin ’ parasite Choreocolax polysiphoniae may be found growing on the fronds àf Polysiphonia lanosa . There are many tide pools scattered throughout the int itidal zone, some of which are very large and deep. These poois afford a wealth * From Trigom Review of Marine Environmental Data, June 1973. ------- of ecological niches for the many species of algae. A cross- section of the intertida , zone showing tide pool flora would look something like this: In the highest pools the dominant plants would be Fucus distichus subspecies distichus, Halosac— cion ramentaceum , and Enteromorpha intestinalis . These are plants which are able to stand long eriods of emergence (they are submerged by the ocean only at high tide) and which can tolerate extreme changes in salinity (from low salinity due to rain water dilution to high salinity due to evaporation). The most striking alga is the pinkish calcareous crust which is very extensive throughout the tide pools of the middle and lower intertidal zone. This is the species Clathromorphum circum— scriptum , and inarticulate corraline alga (I.e., a crustose form rather than an erect, branched one). There is also a branched or articulate coralline alga present, Corallina offic- inalis . Liberty Point, located at the extreme southeast tip of the island, is a typical cobble beach. It is rather flat and no clear zones exist; there are very few deep tide pools. The many small boulders provide excellent substrate for the crustose algae ( Petrocelis, Hildenbrandtia, Ralfgia , and Protoderma) , but there is a noticeable lack of the crustose cora].lines. The algae which occur in the shallow tide pools of the cobble beach include Polyides caprinus, Ahnfe]tia plicata, Chordaria flagelliformis , and Spongoinorpha arcta . The rockweeds ( Asco- phyllum nodosum and Fucus spp.) are the dominant plants of the intertidal zone. One of the most interesting ecological niches is the boulder face covered by overhanging Ascophylluzn and Fucus . Beneath this cover many species of algae are cominonly found: Cystoclonium ur pureum variety cirrhosum, Plumaria elegans, Polysiphonia urceolata variety roseola, Rhodochorton purpureum , and Ceramiuzn deslongchaznpii , variety hooperi. Rhodochorton and Plumaria are rarely found in any other habitat. Keips ( Lamin- aria saccharina), Alaria èsculenta , and Chorda tomentosaà i found abundantly at the extreme lower intertidal, and extend subtida]ly. Muiholland Bend is a mud and clay area which begins under the International Bridge and extends southeasterly to Cranberry Point. In marked contrast to open coastal regions, rocks and other solid substrata upon which algae may attach occur only occasionally. Though protected from wave action, this area is subject to rapid currents during ebb and flow of tides. The algae occur in a compressed zone adjacent to the low tide mark, and frequently are larger than in other environments. Large foliose algae sea lettuce ( Ulva lactuca) , Dulse ( Rhodyrnenia palmata , and Entc•romorpha linza , are among the most common forms. Other large forms include: Fucus vesiculosus variety spiralis , Chorda tomentosa, Scytosiphon loznentaria , and a few keips. Occuring as epiphytes on the larger algae are: Porphyra Ectocarpus confervoides, Pylaiella littoralis , and DictyosphOn foeniculaceus . F - b ------- There are also numerous other algae which are crustose in nature, although not necessarily coralline. Some of the more common species include Hildenbrandtia p ototypus, Petrocelie , niddendorfii, Protoderma marinum , and several species of Ra•lfsia . There are also other cruatose corallines, most of which are subtidal. At the extreme lower portion of the intertidal zone occur plants such as Irish moss (Chondrus cris us) , Dulse ( Rho4ymenia palmata), Gigartina stellata , ChordariaflàTgelliformis, Fucus distichus Iseveri] . subspecies), and several species of Porphyra (the Japanese Non). The most noticeable plants at the extreme lower edge of the intertidal zone (and extending to some depth subtidally) are the keips and related large algae. These include Laminaria app . (true keips), Agarum cribrosum , and Alaria esculenta . A preliminary checklist of the marine algae of Campobello Island appears in Appendix VII. This checklist includes areas both within and outsiae tne park. Additional work can and should be done to explore the natural areas along the shores. Y- 7 L ------- FIGURE F-I The distribution of herring larvae in the Bay of Fundy are prcsentcxl for survey cruises onducto in Nov nber 1972, and Fcbruary-Miirch 1973. The closed circles and triangles indicate sanpling stations. From Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Technical Report 428, 1974, P. 113. ------- TABLE F-22 LIST OF SALT MARSH LOCATIONS (over 5 acres ) Area Location Acres 4 Northwest Bailey’s Mistake 10 5 Northwest Quoddy Head 46 6 South Woodward Point 12 7 South Lubec Neck 14 8 North end Sewards Neck 10 9 North of West Lubec 24 10 South end Morong Cove 27 11 Nat Smith Marsh 18 12 West of Duck Harbor 16 13 Northwest Duck Harbor 17 14 Hardscrabble River, North of Meadow 27 15 Boyden Stream Marsh (Little River) 35 SOURCE: Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game ------- TABLE F-23 Winter Waterfowl Inventory - Cobscook Bay (Unit VII) - (January 1-15 each year) Compiled by Game D lv ,, Maine Dept. Inland Fisheries and Gains Year Black Duck Goldeneye Buff lehead Scaup Scoter Eider Old Squiw Misc. Total 1963 3,140 1,746 279 3 276 - 39 503 5,986 1964 2,376 1,120 152 30 285 - - 200 4,163 1965 1966 1,634 1,220 476 29]. 166 114 - - 355 - - - 35 - 69 2,735 - 1,625 1967 1968 • 2,300 2,300 1,400 560 700 300 - - 200 - - - - - 200 120 4,800 3,280 1969 2,200 1,100 320 - 110 300 20 4,050 1970 1,800 700 140 - - - - 90 2,730 1971 400 100 460 - - - 10 970 1972 700 70 670 . - — - 80 1,520 Total 18,070 7,563 3,301 33 1,226 300 74 1,292 31,859 10 Year Average 1,807 756 330 3 123 30 7 122 2,186 ------- TABLE F-24 WINTER INVENTORY—SUMMARY VU ate: Area: sro eather: Wi d.S,) . O Temp. Tide , iiue: Start Finish - ________ Hours /4 otes: 14 , ‘ .‘ hE& 1es Ad : 4 — Iu m.: 0 ; JB .lNrr BU c’ .’S GO1DE1 EYE_ BUPFLEHEAD SCAIJP — ET E 0.5. UNIt). MALLPLRD 1E GAt SER GEESE TOTAL - j (___ — f -- 0 4 1 - 5 - . j .3 O .: .: .:: 8 - . .‘ - 7 .- - \r7 5 - — 3 - : - o. - .-_____ 2- -— ‘ — ‘ 4 - - 0 ‘/0 - (0 ( 5C , - _ T - - i — — - : : ———- __ E ’:E H- 1 I — - ______ — —— - — —___ - - Total ------- Table P.25 Maine Wintering Waterfowl Inventory Results - 1976 1 2 3 4 5 6 D Year i k Duck Mallard Goldeneye Buffle- head Scaup Scoters Elders Old SQUaW • Merganser Unid. Ducks Geese Total 2.975 1976 10,913 3,282 200 34 4,727. 2,928 1,862 573 : 1,360 265 589 186 18,987 7 .815 839 239 1,164 3,111 1,332 1,043 101 141 42,004 19,617 1975 1976 1975 1976 1,946 592 4,097 1,528 12 11 0 995 749 2,856 868 1,713 752 224 413 100 175 326 330 0 29 582 , 545 5,373 185 3,561 435 533/ 63 602 97 105 17 688 13 613 210 280 671 5 10 59 0 11,047 6,530 9,719 5,067 1975 1976 4,277 2,249 22 2 1,020 1,311 470. 569 2,527 6,070 1,991 3,305 805 4,214 141 259 59 27 1,229 520 163 163 15,204 16,189 1975 1976 1975 1976 4,701 4,875 1,680 1,616 58 8 7 6 . 1,039 2.10 .. 610 39 313 162 73 247 0 25 0 0 2 115 5 .133 5,627 2,784 38 0 422 22 157 9 77 1 66 0 5]. 125 13 27 0 0 0 0 12,290 8,227 2.649 2,077 1975 1976 1,708 2,562 9 13 522 186 37 244 0 0 438 99 0 0 77 5 128 21 501 118 0 0 3, i ’\ 3,248J 1975 1976 1,448 700 32 2. 756 290 465 22 0 0 225 115 5,061 901 280 104 17 4 135 223 575 333 8,994 .2,693 1975 1976 30,770 17,404 351 64 12,525 6,481 5,157 2,982 4,313 6,865 3,832 2,027, 38,854 19,877 2,164 1,170 2,304 3,194 4,154 2,937 903 647 105,327 63,648 8 — ‘to.]. rcent 2 , ange—’ 1976 .43,4 —81.8 —48.3 —42,2 +59.2 —47.1 —48.8 —45.9 +38.6 —29.3 -28.4 —39.6 1 -Casco Bay ; 2 - Muscongus Bay; 3 - Penobscot Bay; 4 - Cobscook_B 8 - ittery to Cape Elizabeth. Difference divided by 1975 data. Frenchman’s Bay; 5 - Narraguagus flay; 6 - Machias flay; ------- TABLE F-26 Waterfowl Surveys - Southwestern New Brwlswick* Species Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Brent 0 0 32140 2070 — — — 0 — — — 0 Canada geese 0 0 220 220 — — — 0 — — — 0 Black duck 3010 1710 2590 930 — — — 170 2310 Teal 0 0 0. 140 — — — 10 0 Pintai]. 0 0 0 0 — — — 0 — — — 0 Scaup 0 0 0 0 — — — 0 — - — 0 Goldeneye 670 390 350 80 — — — 0 810 Merganser IjO 70 590 300 — — — 0 — — — 280 Oldsquaw 1490 1450 30 0 — — — 0 — — — 180 Scoter 280 1440 720 5060 — — — 3660 800 Eider 1490 280 3660 6130 — — — 0 770 Total 5180 33140 111400 114830 — — — 38140 - . 5150 * Taken from a report on Canadian Wildlife Service surveys covering the period between April 1966 and April 1973. Nuznbers given are rounded to the nearest 10, and are a summation of the highest counts for the survey blocks from Lorneville to the St. Croix River and Grand Manan. — : ai ates no data. ------- TABLE F-27 WA1TR BIRDS OBSERVED IN TRE EASTPGRr AREA, From Th am Review at Marine Environmental Deta, June 1 i3 Common Name Comment Common Loon Throughout the area from late summer to aping. Red-throeted Loon Pre•ent in small numbers throughout the ares in winter. Red-flecked Grebe preeent In modenie number. throughout the area to winter. Horned Grebe Abundant from fall to spring In all the ares. Fulmar Bare-occasIonal.. One seen oft Lubec In December. 1968. Leach’. Petrel Occaaionat in fag in more open parts of the bay. Greet Cormorant Winter resident, common. Doubel-crested Cormorant Common summer resident. Canada Gooee Common in migration in Lobec. aping and fall. Occasional In winter. Brent Common in spring migration it Liabee, one winter sighting. Mallard Winter resident in very email numbers with Black Deck.. Black DUCk Abundant winter resident. Green-winged Teal Common spring migrant. Blue-winged Teal Common spring migrant. Greeter Scaup Uncommon winter resident in coves north of Eastport. Common Goldeneye Common winter resident. Barrow’. Gctdeneye Uncommon winter resident In coves north of E.etport. Bafflehead Common winter resident. O Id.qusw Abundant winter rssident. Rar1e iin Duck One fall sighting off north end of Deer Island. Common Eider Uncommon winter resident on seaward side at Campobslio. White-winged Soot.r Common winter resident. Surf Seater Uncommon winter resident. Common Softer Rare winter resident. Red-breast.d Mergan.sr Common winter resident. Bald Eagi. Regular visitor to intertidal sane in all the area. Semipalmted Plover Atamdant transient on Lubec flats In fall. Black-bellied Plover Common tranaient an Lebec flats In fill. Whimbrel Uncommon trsnjlent on Lubec fiSts in fall. Spotted Sand$per Common summer, breeding resident. Greater Yellowing. Common transient on Lebec fiat. In fall. Lesser Yellowing. Uncommon transient on Lebec tiM. in fall. Knot Uncommon transient on Lubec flat. in fall. Purple Sandplp.r Common winter resident, north end of Campobetio. Whlte-rnmpsd Sa per Common transient in fall In all the ares. least Sandpiper Abundant transient in fall In all of the ares. Dentin Common trusatent in fall in all the area. One winter r.oord in Easiport. Short billed Dowltc)mr Oocs .lonal in fall In Lubec. Semlpalmat.d 8an tpsr Abundant In fall in all areas. Western S.ndptpir RSre transient in fall on Lnbec flat.. Hudsonisa Qodwit Rare fall transient on Lubec flats. Ssnderiing Uncommon fall transient In an areas. Curlew Sandpiper Rare. two fall sighting, on Lebec flat.. Rudi Nrn.tune Common transient In fafi In all areas. Had Phedarope Rare, passes between Grand Msnsan and Quoddy Reed In fall migration. Northern Phelarops Ab snt transient in fall off Eaaiport. Glaucmia Dell Occasional In winter In harbor.. Iceland Gull Winter resident in harbor.. Occasicesily In high aimbers wIth to 102 seem in Eaatpori dock areas. iCumlien’s subspecies has been seem. Great Black-backed Gull Resident. Herring Dell ResIdent Ring-blUed Gull Uncommon winter resident. Laughing Gull Rare summer visitor to Eaatport. Bomapartee Gull Abundant fall migrant, occasional winter resident. B1ack-le ed lUUiwsks Abundant winter resident of bay. Mack-heeded (lull Uncommon winter resident oft Eastport. Little Gull Rare fall and winter visitor bit seen every year and increasing. Franklin’s Gull Two sighting, by New Baunesiok Museum in 1971. Ivory Gull Clue sighting In Eastport, jaaisry 1-18, 1971. Sabths’a Gull Clue .tgtatug off Deer Island in summer of 191--no loformatice is known. Common Tern Summer resident. Arctic Tern Summer resident. Black Tern Rare visitor to b.y. Razorbilled Ant Uncommon In winter between Eaatport and Deer Island. Sometimes numerous around north end of Campobello In winter. Think-billed Murre Uncommon in winter, same status as Rasoxinli. Dovckle Uncommon to occasionally sbendant in all arsel In winter. Blank Guiflernat Resident In small numbers, most common between Treat Island and Lubec and West Quoddy Read. Puthn Rare In winter, two sightinga oft Ea.tport 196$, 1970. • Key to ( s.r,adcee • Ahamleid-sme every trip to the ares. . Occaaionel-seen 10% of the time. • C” . e,pe”i. ” to be seen every trip. . Rare—seen once a year or less. • Uncommon—sees 50% of time. • Refsreecsu 11110(11 Report Jane 1973i Oneerver, Wm. C. Tcwn.end. ------- APPENDIX (3 ------- A MODELING STUDY FOR PITTSTON REFINERY AT EASTPORT, ME . Report By: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I, Boston, MA 02203 Date: October 13, 1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS G-2 II SHORT-TERM ANALYSTS G-3 Methodology G-3 Input G-8 Results G-9 Special Topics G-16 III LONG-TERM ANALYSIS G-22 IV REFERENCES G-24 Note: The numbers in this report were based on emission rates calculated by the Pittston Company. In performing its final review of this facility, EPA adjusted the emission rates to comply with EPA’s Technical Air Pollution Manual AP-42. Therefore, numerical differences between figures In this Appendix (Volume ffl and the text (Volume Ifl are not indicative of inconsistancies. G-1 ------- I, INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS This report presents the diffusion analysis that was per- formed in order to help evaluate the impact of the proposed Pittston Refinery upon air quality. Specifically, the objective was to determine the plant’s maximum expected contribution to ambient concentrations of S02, TSP and NOX for the time periods of 2k—hours, three hours and one year. Section II details the short—term analysis (2k—hour and three hour concentrations) and Section III the long—term analysis (annual concentrations). Maximum plant impacts, as shown in Table I-i, are estimated to be: TABLE I—i. MAXIMUM PLANT IMPACTS 3—hour ug/m 3 2k—hour ug/m 3 Annual ug/m 3 SO 2 3k 1 67’ 3 TSP 3 1 1 NOX 139 27’ 2 wStacJc downwash may increase these figures to: SO 2 88 or higher; NOX 36 or higher. ------- II. SHORT—TERM ANALYSIS Methodology The methodology used was to first estimate expected one— hour concentrations and to then convert these to concentrations for the longer averaging times via multiplication by a suitable fraction. For averaging time of greater than one hour, the maximum concentration will be reduced from the maximum one—hour concentration even under fairly steady meteorological conditions due to the natural meander of the wind direction with time and normally observed diurnal and synoptic variations in other meteorological parameters. The fractions used are: 2 1 4—hour 0.25 3—hour 0.8 These factors are supported by substantt l data col ected around power plants in Kentucky ] -, Massachusetts , and Ohio , and are in line with the recoinmendatio is of the EPA Guidelines for Re- viewing New Stationary Sources ’. Also, the experience of Region I in other modeling exercises indicates these factors to be suitable. - The model used to calculate the maximum one—hour concentra- tions is a modification of the EPA model PTMTP5. This model was developed by the EPA Meteorology Laboratory at Research Triangle Park (RTP), Morth Carolina and it is representative of state—of—the—art techniques when on—site meteorological data are insufficient or unavailable. Computations employ the steady— state Gaussian plume equation and sigma dispersi9n coefficients as discussed in the well known Turner’s Workbook° . As des- cribed by Turner, the turbulence typing schem used (six c asses, A through F) is based on the work of Pasquill’ and Gifford The model is best suited to a rural environment (which Eastport is) and gently rolling uncomplicated terrain (see section below on topography). The modificatIons made by Region I involve vertical wind shear and topography, both of which are discussed later in this report. Plume is calculated by the well accepted Brlggs’ formu1as. 9 ] UJ Calculations were performed by the model only for the pollutant SO 2 . Because concentrations are directly propor- tional to emission rates and NOX concentrations via multiplica- tion by the ratio of TSP or NOX emission rate to the SO 2 emis- sion rate. 6 -3 ------- Maximum short—term concentrations from elevated point sources are likely to result from one of the following types of meteorological conditions: (1) Coning . Coning occurs with an atmosphere of neutral stability (class 0 in Turner’s Workbook). The plume is shaped like a cone with a horizontal axis. It usually accompanies cloudy, windy conditions. However, in the analysis to follow, six windspeeds from 2.5 to 15.0 rn/sec were investigated. (ii) Trapping . Trapping occurs when the upward disper- sion of the plume is inhibited by a stable inversion layer aloft. The mixed surface layer is normally of neutral stability (class 0) or slightly unstable (class C), and the windspeed is light. However, in the analysis to follow, six windspeeds from 2.5 to 15.0 rn/sec were in- vestigated. All trapping computations were performed with stability class C because this class yields higher ground level concentrations than class D for elevated point sou rces. The height of the trapping lid was always set equal to the effective plume height (stack height plus plume rise) in order to maximize the effects of trapping and hence ground level concentrations. (iii) Looping . Looping occurs when the atmospheric boundary layer is very unstable (class A), thus creating large thermally induced vertical eddies that can envelope the plume and bring it to the ground. Looping normally occurs on warm days with clear skies and light winds. In the analysis to follow, a single wlndspeed of 2.5 rn/sec was investigated for this meteorological condition. (iv) Fumigation . Fumigation occurs when a stable sur- face inversion layer (class E or F) into which the plume Is initially emitted is destroyed from below. When this happens, the pollutants, that have accumulated in the upper portion of the surface layer or above it because of the poor dispersion conditions associated with a stable atmosphere are rapidly mixed downward resulting in high ground level concentrations. Three mechanisms exist for the destruction of the surface inversion from below: a. Burning off of a noctural radiation inversion by solar warming of the ground surface after sunrise. b. Advection from a stable environment on or near a large body of water to an unstable inland environment. ------- c. Advection from a stable rural environment to a turbulent urban environment. Obviously, in the Eastport area, only the first two types of fumigation are possibilities. High concentrations caused by these fumigation conditions normally persist at any one point for very short periods of time (generally less than one hour). Because of this, these fumigations have negligible impact on maximum 2L _hour concentrations and probably very little impact on maximum three—hour con- centrations. Therefore, these conditions were ignored in the calculations of maximum expected short—term concentra- tions. However, they are discussed in more detail in a later section. Looping conditions are relatively infrequent in northern temperate climates because of the necessary combination of very strong solar insolation and light winds. There- fore, in the analysis to follow, the maximum 2k-hour con- centration was taken to be the greater of the two maxima generated under coning and trapping conditions. It is likewise doubtful that In the Eastport area a looping condition could persist long enough to affect the maximum three—hour concentration. However, the maximum three—hour concentration was taken to be the largest of the three maxima generated under looping, coning and trapping conditions. Frictional effects near the earth’s surface normally causes he windspeed to increase with height. As discussed by Turner, 0 the transfer of momentum in the atmosphere is related to stability. When the atmosphere is more unstable, increased vertical motions transfer the momentum deficiency due to eddy friction losses near the earth’s surface through a deeper atmosphereic boundary layer. This causes the windspeed to in- crease more slowly with height than with more stable conditions. WIrxlspeed is a critical parameter for diffusion calcula- tions. Increased windspeed means greater dilution of the plume and lower ground level concentration; it also means lower plume rise and higher ground level concentrations. These two opposing factors combine to yield a critical windspeed which maximizes concentration. This is the reason for investigating a range of surface windspeeds under coning and trapping conditions. It is also the reason why Region I modified PTMTP to allow a user option on an exponential Increase of wlndspeed with height. ------- For tall stacks (the proposed refinery stacks are 300 feet) the windspeed at the plume level can be significantly different from that at the ground. After DeMarrais, 12 the vertical wind shear adjustment takes the form UU 0 ( .)P where u = wlndspeed at ground (anemometer) level (about 7 in), rn/sec H = stack height, m P = an exponent that depends on stability as follows: Class .A B C D E. F P .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .30 The above relationship is also used in EPA’s Cilmatological Disper- sion Model ’ 3 and has been used in other point source modeling exercises conducted by EPA 1 s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ’ at RTP. In real life, the vertical wind shear contains much tem- poral and spatial variability. However, the lack of on— site meteorological data indicated the following course of action. Calculations were performed both with and without the wind shear option, and the greater of the two values was used in the estimates of the maximum expected plant Impacts. Topographical influences represent an aspect of diffusion modeling that historically has been difficult to deal with. The interaction of complicated terrain with the diffusion process Is still pretty much an unknown. It was previously stated that PTMTP Is most applicable to gently rolling uncomplicated terrain. For the most part, the Eastport area could be classified in these terms. There are no major mountains or valleys to be dealt with. However, there are many isolated hills within the expected sphere of the refinery’s impact, i.e., within a radius of approximately 20 km. On Eastport Itself there are several hills that rise 100 to 150 feet above the elevation of the proposed refinery site. For those cases where the elevated terrain is lower than, but relatively close to, the plume’s effective height (elevation of stack base plus stack height plus plume rise), or higher than the effective height, the plume will Interact with the terrain induced airflow patterns in a manner that is often quite com- plicated or unpredictable. Under certain conditions, the plume may impact against an elevated receptor whereas for other con- ditions It may tend to ride up and over the obstacle. ------- Fortunately, the above scenario Is not the case with the proposed refinery (as will be shown in the section presenting the results). There are two simple topographic adjustments that can be done in the case where the effective plume height Is signifi- cantly higher than the elevated terrain. The first method shall be referred to as the Tower Method. This assumes that an elevated feature Is akin to a tower pro- truding upward into the plume. This method is most appropriate If the terrain is relatively flat adjacent to the source but rises sharply at some distance away (as with an Isolated hill). The topographic adjustment Is aóhieved by Inputting a non—zero value for Z (equal to the regeptor height) in the Gaussian plume equation as given by Turner. The Tower Method does not allow for the increased plume eddy reflections from the elevated terrain that actually occur. To do this, one can (so to speak) move the ground upwards by subtracting the receptor elevation from the effective plume height and then performing a flat plane analysis. This method will be referred to as the Plane Displacement Method. It is most applicable when the terrain rises sharply rather close to the source and then levels off quickly (I.e., a step—rise in the terrain as with a plateau). All else being equal, the Plane Displacement Method yields a higher concentration than the Tower Method by a factor of between one and two. The original PTMTP model Included the Tower Method. Region I modified PTMTP to include a user option on the Plane Displacement Method. For the sake of comparison, both of the methods were used In the analysis to follow. Because of the uncertainties involved in the analysis, the concentrations generated with the plane displacement technique were used in estimating the plant’s maximum impacts. This technique has been used in other point source modeling exercises conducted by EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,1 RTP, and Is also recommei ided In EPA’s Guidelines for Reviewing New Station- ary Sources. As described in the preceding paragraphs, several con- servative assumptions were made in the selection of those meteorological conditions to be Investigated and in the selec- tion of methods of calculation to be used. Two other conserva- tive assumptions were made. First, it was assumed that removal of pollutants from the plume by such processes as photochemical reactions, washout—rainout or deposition could be ignored. Second, it was assumed that the two stacks were located at the same geographical point I.e., the stacks’ separation distance (0.25 ian) was Ignored. Hence, only downwind centerline concentra- tions were calculated. As previously suggested, all these con- servative measures were felt to be justified because of the lack ------- of actual on—site meteorological data, as well as the margins of error inherent to any Gaussian plume calculations. Input Emissions Data : emission rates: (two stacks combined) 302 14,040 lb/hr = 509.014 g/sec NOx 1,632 lb/hr TSP 214.7 lb/hr stack height: 300 ft = 91.414 m stack diameter: 22 ft = 6.71 m exit velocity: 36 ft/sec = 10.97 in/sec exit temperature: 400 deg F 477.59 deg K Meteorology : Coning: stability class D (neutral) surface windspeeds (rn/see): 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5, 15.0 mixing height = 5,000 in (unlimited vertical mixing) Trapping: stability class C (slightly unstable) surface windspeeds (rn/see): 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5, 15.0 mixing height set equal to effective height of release Looping: stability class A (very unstable) surface windspeed = 2.5 rn/sec mixing height 5,000 m (unlimited vertical mixing) In the plume rise calculations, the ambient temperature was always set at 293 degrees K and the ambient atmospheric pressure to 960 mb. Plume rise calculations are not very sensitive to these parameters ------- Downwind Receptor Distances (30 distances): Coning: 1.0 to 30.0 km by 1.0 km increments Trapping: 1.0 to 5.0 km by 0.25 km increments 5.0 to 7.0 km by 0.5 km increments 7.0 to 12.0 km by 1.0 km increments 12.0 to 20.0 km by 2.0 km Increments Looping: 0.1 to 2.0 kin by 0.1 km Increments 2.0 to 5.0 km by 0.5 km increments 5.0 to 10.0 km by 1.0 km increments The above receptor distances were chosen to get a reason— ably accurate fix on maximum concentrations and the distribution of concentrations with distance. Separate computer runs were made f or coning, trapping and looping conditions, both with and without wind shear for a total of six computer runs. The input to the computer runs that in- cluded topographic adjustments will be discussed In the next section which also presents the results. Results Without Topography . Table 11.-i presents the results without topography. All concentrations are one—hour average SO 2 maxima with respect to downwind distance. The effect of wind shear in Increasing concentrations Is obvious in most cases. For coning, when wind shear is included, maximum concentrations of 56 to 57 ug/m 3 occur for windspeeds of 10.0 to 15.0 rn/sec at downwind distances of 5.0 to 7.0 km. For trapping when wind shear is included, maximum concentrations of 2146 to 249 ug/m 3 occur for windspeeds of 7.5 to 12.5 rn/sec at downwind distances of 2.0 to 3.0 km. Note that for trapping, a surface wlridspeed of 15.0 rn/sec without shear yields the same maximum (2149) as a surface windspeed of 10.0 rn/sec with wind shear. It seems reasonable to assume that the latter meteorologi- cal condition is more likely to occur than the former. Also, as previously discussed, trapping Is more likely to occur with a light windspeed of perhaps 2.5 rn/sec. For this wiQdspeed, with wind shear, the trapping concentration Is 161 ug/m . A hefty margin of safety is, therefore, indicated in using the value of 2149 ug/m 3 as the maximum. ------- TABLE il—i. WINDSPEED DISTANCE TO PLUME HEIGHT CONCENTRATION METEOROLOGICAL CONDITION (m/sec) MAX (kin) (in) (ug/m 3 ) Looping — no wind shear 2.5 1.0 711 295 Looping — with wind shear 2.5 0.8 571 339 Coning — no wind shear 2.5 30.0* 711 3 Coning — no wind shear 5.0 30.0* 401 25 Coning — no wind shear 7.5 18.0 298 36 Coning — no wind shear 10.0 13.0 246 44 Coning — no wind shear 12.5 10.0 215 49 Coning — no wind shear 15.0 9.0 195 53 Coning — with wind shear 2.5 30.0* 417 24 Coning — with wind shear 5.0 13.0 254 42 Coning — with wind shear 7.5 9.0 200 52 Coning — with wind shear 10.0 7.0 173 56 Coning — with wind shear 12.5 6.0 157 57 Coning — with wind shear 15.0 5.0 146 56 Trapping — no wind shear 2.5 10.0 711 116 Trapping — no wind shear 5.0 5.5 401 178 Trapping — no wind shear 7.5 4.0 298 215 Trapping — no wind shear 10.0 3.25 246 234 Trapping — no wind shear 12.5 2.75 215 245 Trapping — no wind shear 15.0 2.5 195 249 Trapping — with wind shear 2.5 6.5 462 161 Trapping — with wind shear 5.0 3.5 277 223 Trapping — with wind shear 7.5 2.75 215 246 Trapping — with wind shear 10.0 2.25 184 249 Trapping — with wind shear 12.5 2.0 166 247 Trapping — with wind shear 15.0 2.0 153 238 *Concentration still increasing with distance In summary, we have the following maximum SO 2 concen- trations, all calculated with wind shear: ------- TABLE 11-2. MAXIMUM SO 2 CONCENTRATIONS Flume Concentration, height, in ug/m 3 With Topography . Topography was handled in the follow- ing manner. Topographic maps of the Eastport area were examined and prominent hills noted. The area of examination was within a 20 km radius of the proposed site. For each hill, the approxi- mate azimuth and distance (kin) from the proposed site, as well as the elevation (ft mal), were entered in Table 11—3. The elevations were then rounded off to the nearest 100 feet and the distance according to the following distance scale: 0.2 to 1.0 km by 0.2 km increments 1.0 to 3.0 Ion by 0.25 Ian increments 3.0 to 7.0 km by 0.5 km increments 7.0 to 14.0 km by 1.0 km increments 114.0 to 20.0 kin by 3.0 km increments. Where a distance fell towards the middle of an increment a dis- tance range bounded by the endpoints of the increment was noted. Table 11—3 lists the rounded off elevations and distances. Note that Eastport is on Moose Island. All told, 47 hills were recorded. Of this, most are in the 100 to 300 foot elevation range. However, there were several hills in the 1400 to 500 foot elevation range, particularly on Campobello Island. Separate computer runs were made for five elevations (100, 200, 300, 1400, 500 ft msl) and f or both topographic methods previously described (tower and plane displacement), for a total of 10 runs. Because the elevation of stack base will be in the neighborhood of 50 ft msl, the actual receptor heights input to the model were 50, 150, 250, 350, 1450 ft msl. In each of the 10 runs, the three meteorological conditions listed in Table 11-2 were input. These are the conditions that gave the maximum concentrations without topography. The 30 receptor dis- tances that were input are those defined by the distance scale Wind speed, rn/sec Distance to maximum, km Condition Looping 2.5 0.8 . 571 339 Curving 12.5 6.0 157 57 Trapping 10.0 2.25 1814 2149 ------- TABLE 11—3. Location Azimuth Distance Elevation Distance Elevation (km) (fEmsl) (km) (ft msl) Moose Island 2 2.0 200 2.0 200 35 0.8 190 0.8 200 110 1.8 178 1.75 200 130 2.0 126 2.0 100 175 1.5 173 1.5 200 345 1.7 144 1.75 100 Campabello Island 65 8.7 105 9.0 100 70 8.2 160 8.0 200 100 7.4 250 7.0—8.0 300 100 8.5 450 8.0—9.0 500 100 8.9 300 9.0 300 110 7.4 300 7.0—8.0 300 110 8.5 400 8.0—9.0 400 110 8.8 500 9.0 500 145 8.3 200 8.0 200 Deer Island 0 5.9 100 6.0 100 0 6.5 100 6.5 100 0 7.0 100 7.0 100 15 6.1 220 6.0 200 25 6.9 260 7.0 300 25 11.1 260 11.0 300 25 11.5 260 11.0—12.0 300 25 13.3 240 13.0 200 35 4.8 220 4.5—5.0 200 30 6.5 260 6.5 300 35 7,4 270 7.0—8.0 300 30 10.2 260 10.0 300 St. Andrews 350 17.6 50 11.0—20.0 100 Mc Master Is. 25 16.0 320 14.0—17.0 300 Lubec 160 6.3 60 6.0—6.5 100 W. Quoddy Head 160 11.7 170 12.0 200 Seward Neck 190 4.6 180 4 5 200 Black Head 210 6.9 220 7.0 200 West Lubec 210 12.6 230 12.0—13.0 200 Cobble Hill 225 7.8 240 8.0 200 Crane Mtn. 235 16.0 270 14.0—17.0 300 Pughole Mtn. 230 18.5 386 17.0—20.0 400 ------- TABLE 11—3 (Continued) Location Azimuth Distance Elevation Distance Elevation (kin) (ft msl) 7km ) (ft msl) Grove Point 250 3.7 150 3.5—4.0 200 Littles Mtn. 240 12.8 200 13.0 200 Leighton Neck 270 9.3 140 9.0 100 Mt. Dorcas 265 14.1 190 14.0 200 Hinckley Pt. 270 15.8 230 14.0—17.0 200 E. Leach Pt. 290 5.9 210 6.0 200 E. Leach Pt. 300 5.6 225 5.5 200 Pigeon Hill 320 5.4 200 55 200 Porcupine Mtn. 300 100 328 10.0 300 Ironworks Mtn. 300 15.2 290 14.0—17.0 300 above. Once again, these distances were chosen to give good spatial resolution in the downwind direction. It was previously stated that the topographic adjustments employed here should not be used unless the plume’s effective height Is significantly greater than the receptor elevation. From Table 11—2, the effective heights of interest here are 1,873, 515 and 6011 feet. These are all at least 65 feet (20 m) greater than the receptor elevations. input. Table 11—4 lists those concentrations that were calculated to be greater than the previously computed maxima without topo- graphy. For those hills that fell towards the middle of a dis- tance increment, the concentrations for the two bounding distances were averaged. The coning condition was most affected by the topography of th Eastport area. The maximum under this condi- tion is 1311 ug/m 3 (with the plane deplacement method) compared to a previous maximum without topography of 57 ug/m 3 . The looping condition results in a ne maximum of 1126 ug/m 3 compared to a previous maximum of 339 ug/m . The figures for trapping are 269 versus 249 ug/m 3 . It should be noted that the topographic adjustments did result In some very high concentrations for ------- TABLE 11—4. LOOPING CONING TRAPPING 399* 57* 249* LOCATION EL AZ DISTANCE TOWER PLANE TOWER PLANE TOWER PLANE Deer Island 100 0 6.0 58 72 Lubec 100 160 6.0—6.5 58 71 Deer Island 100 0 6.5 70 Deer Island 100 0 7.0 68 Campabello Is. 100 65 9.0 58 Leighton Neck 100 270 9.0 58 Moose Island 200 35 0.8 344 426 Moose Island 200 110 1.75 72 261 263 Moose Island 200 2 2.0 92 268 269 Grove Point 200 250 3.5—4.0 72 134 Seward Neck 200 190 4.5 71 127 Deer Island 200 35 4.5—5.0 71 124 East Leach Pt. 200 300 5.5 68 114 Pigeon Hill 200 320 5.5 68 114 East Leach pt. 200 290 6.0 66 107 Deer Island 200 15 6.0 66 107 Black Head 200 210 7.0 61 94 Cobble Hill 200 225 8.0 83 Cainpabello Is. 200 70 8.0 83 Campabello Is. 200 145 8.0 83 Deer Island 300 30 6.5 73 131 Deer Island 300 25 7.0 68 121 Deer Island 300 35 7.0-8.0 65 112 Campabello Is. 300 100 7.0—8.0 65 112 Campabello Is. 300 110 7.0—8.0 65 112 Campabello Is. 300 100 9.0 89 Deer Island 300 30 10.0 78 Porcupine Mtn. 300 300 10.0 78 Deer Island 300 25 11.0 69 Deer Island 300 25 11.0—12.0 65 Campabello Is. 400 110 8.0—9.0 61 110 Campabello Is. 500 100 8.0—9.0 62 118 Campabello Is. 500 110 9.0 108 *Max without topography EL = Elevation (ft ael) AZ Azihuth Distance is in km 3 Concentrations are 1—hour SO 2 averages (ug/m ) ------- certain elevation — distance combinations. Fortunately, these combinations do not exist in the Eastport area. There are also some higher hills (600 to 700 ft) in the 20 to 30 km distance range from the proposed site. However, these would not affect the predicted maximum concentrations because by the time the plume travels that distance it is quite diffuse and dilute. Maximum Plant Impacts . The one-hour maxima under the three meteorological conditions investigated, for SO 2 , are: Looping 26 ug/m 3 Coning 1314 ug/m 3 Trapping 269 ug/m 3 After the above numbers were calculated, new information came to light. Incinerator exhaust gases will be vented to one of the two stacks. This will increase the SO 2 emission rate by 1,6 lb/hr, TSP by 6.0 lb/hr and NOx by 100 lb/hr. The new emission rates are: 140141.6 lb/hr new S0 2 /old °2 = 1.000 14 TSP 30.7 lb/hr TSP/SO 2 .0076 NOx 1642.0 lb/hr NOX/S0 2 = .4063 The minimal increase in SO emissions leaves the above concen- trations essentially unchanged. The Incinerator exhaust will in- crease slightly the volume flow and temperature of the stack gases. Plume rise would, therefore, be somewhat higher than those cal- culated so that the above concentrations are slightly conservative from this point of view. Using the methodology previously outlined to convert to three—hour arid 24—hour concentrations for all three pollutants, the plant’s maximum expected impacts are calculated to be: TABLE 11—5. MAXIMUM EXPECTED IMPACTS Pollutant Three-hour (ug/m 3 ) 2 1 4-hour (ug/m 3 ) SO 2 3141 67 TSP 3 1 NO 139 27 ------- Special Topics* Fuini ation . In a previous section, fumigation was list- ed as one of the meteorological conditions that can cause high short—term concentrations. Although fumigation was ignored in calculating maximum plant impacts, the two types of fumigation that can occur In the Eastport area are further discussed below. (j)* Nocturnal Inversion Breakup Fumigation . Radlational cooling of the ground surface at night, under clear skies and with light winds, can cause a surface temperature in- version as the lowest layers of the atmosphere are cooled from below via conduction. After sunrise, when the ground is being warmed by solar radiation, the upward transfer of sensible heat from the ground to the atmosphere will eliminate this inversion. Pollutants that were previously emitted into the stable Inversion layer will be mixed vertically when they are reached by the thermal eddies caused by surface heating. This results in high ground— level concentrations. This fumigation process was first described by Hewson. 15 The high coricentratio s normally persist f or 15 to 30 minutes. Scriven 1 ° discusses some theory and observa- tions which indicate, for an open area like Eastport, a fumigation concentration of double the maximum ground level concentration without fumigation. Since the duration of the fumigation is about 30 minutes, it seems reasonable to assume that the maximum concentration averaged over an hour during a fumigation period would essentially be the same as worst case concentrations previously calculated. Using a method outlined by Turner, 6 the maximum one—hour SOT, fumigation concentration was estimated to be 300 ug/m 3 . Th s Is in the same neighborhood as the maximum previously calculated. (II) Sea (or Lake) Breeze Fumigation . In evaluating the effects of an air pollution source along a coast line, sea breeze fumigation should be considered. In the absence of large scale winds strong enough to overwhelm small scale local circulations, the difference in temperature between the air over the land and the air over the water during the day may give rise to a breeze from the sea, with the colder air over the water moving inland as a blunt noised wedge, displacing warmer air over land. Cooling from below produces a temperature Inversion In the air over water. As this air moves inland, heating from below builds an unstable layer from the ground up, a layer *?41 ch of the discussion in this section is based on the submittals of Dean Francis Davis, Consultant to Enviro—Sciences, Inc. ------- which grows deeper as the air moves farther inland. Pollu— tants from a tall stack near the shore line are emitted into stable air aloft and carried inland with the sea breeze as a concentrated plume. At some point Inland, the plume intersects the deepening thermal internal boundary layer, and intensive downward mixing (fumigation) occurs. Sea breeze fumigation also differs from radiation inversion breakup fumigation in that the latter Is a short—lived event while sea breeze fumigation has the potential to persist as long as the sea breeze circulation continues. Such characteristics as the persistence, direction and speed of the sea breeze and depth of the mixing layer will vary with land and sea temperature differences, local topographical conditions, the large scale pressure gradient and the orientation of land and sea masses. General characteristics can be deriv d from studies such as those by Lyons and Cole, ] - 7 LyOnS, 0 Rayner et.al. ’ 9 and Lyons and Keen 20 . They show a typical cell to develop on about 35 percent of the spring and summer days. The height of the inversion near the coast line is about 500 to 1,000 meters, and the Internal boundary layer Is broken up about 8 to 10 km inland. Maximum sea breeze winds in the middle of the boundary layer are 5 to 7 rn/sec. The duration of the sea breeze is from late morning until evening. The Corlolis acceleration causes the wind direc- tion to shift as much as 10 degrees per hour so that it becomes more nearly parallel to the coast before ending. There are no sea breeze frequency statistics available for Eastport, but Biggs and Graves 21 have generated a formula for an index which determines the occurrence of a sea breeze in terms of the midday average inland wind speed and the difference between land and water temperatures. Application of this formula to extrapolations of general meterorological and sea conditions near Eastport would Indicate the existence of a sea breeze on about 35 percent of the spring and summer days. Experience of meteorolo- gists who are familiar with the Eastport area (Houghton et.al. 22 ) indicate this would be a reasonable estimate. The onset of the sea breeze in that area Is observed to be 11:00 a.m. to noon with the end coming an hour or so before sunset. A conservative model for making a quantitative estimate of’ the maximum concentrations resulting from sea breeze fumi- gation has been developed by Lyons 1 °. Applying this model to the Eastport refinery with a wind speed of ------- 6 rn/see, a plume height of 300 meters, a sulfur dioxide emission rate of 14,OLIO lb/hr and stability class D, the maximum ground level concentration would be about 350 ug/m at distances 6 to 8 km downwind. This is considered to be a 10 minute concentration, so when extended to one hour the fumigation concentration is less than the previously calculated maximum concentrations without fumigation. Furthermore, the fumigation spot moves rapidly, changing its location several km/hr or more as a result of plume meander, thermal internal boundary layer variations, wind direction arid speed shear and regular Coroilis veering. Concentrations expected from sea breeze fumigation will generally be less than for the case of siin le, onshore gradient flow on a warm, sunny day. Lyonsd3 found that monitoring the fumigation spot was difficult because of Its small size and rapid transpositions and oscillations. So, in spite of the fact that fumigation concentrations can be high, they are of so short duration arid so sporatic that they cause comparatively low dosages. Therefore, any prolonged elevated concentrations from sea breeze fumigation are beyond the realm of reasonable probability. Downwash . Mechanical turbulence generated by a building or a stack, when combined with high winds, can create a downwash in the wake of the building or stack which could lead to high short term ground level concentrations. (i) Building Downwash . It is generally accepted that if the stack is at least 2.5 times the height of the highest nearby building, then the effect of building downwash is eliminated. This rul of thumb was first proposed by Hawkins and Nonhebel 2 and is often cited (e.g. see references LI and 6). Since the stacks at the proposed refinery are 300 feet high, and the highest building Is approximately 30 feet high, building downwash is not a factor to be considered in this analysis. (ii) Stack Downwash . It is generally accepted (e.g. see reference 25) that when the windspeed Is equal to or greater than the exit velocity of the stack effluents, the turbulent wake around the stack itself causes downwash. The proposed refinery stacks have exit velocities of 11.0 rn/sec. This Is the critical windspeed at the top of the stack. To determine the critical windspeed at the ground, the wind shear law previously discussed Is used. Stability class A B C D (E&F) Critical windspeed (rn/see) 8.52 7.Lt8 6.59 5.79 5.09 ------- Stabilities A, B, E and F do not occur with windspeeds greater than the critical windspeeds listed above. How- ever, this is not true of stabilities C and D. To get an estimate of the likely frequency of occurrence of down— wash, the STAR distribution for Portland, Maine, which was used in the long—term analysis, was used as follows. The frequencies of occurrence of stabilities C and D and windspeed classes 4, 5 and 6 (average windspeeds of 6.93, 9.61 and 12.52 rn/see) were summed over wind direction. TABLE 11-6. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE Windspeed class (rn/see) 6.93 9.6i l2.52 Sum Stability C 1.5% 0.1% 0.0% 1.6% Stability D 20.1% 3.0% 0.7% 23.8% The total estimated frequency of occurrence of stack down— wash is 25.1 percent. Though not very high, this frequency is certainly significant. It is an extremely difficult problem to estimate the impact of this downwash on maximum expected ground level concen- trations. From Table 11—6 above, it is likely to be a significant factor only under coning conditions (Stability D). PTMTP was run for SO 2 under the following conditions: surface windspeeds of 7.5, 10.0, 12.5 and 15.0 m/sec, with wind shear, with unlimited vertical mixing, stability D and exit velocity of zero. The last condition eliminates plume rise completely (i.e., effective height of release equals stack height). The extremely turbulent and unpre- dictable nature of downwash precluded any consideration of topography. It is probable that at the proposed site, topography would be of minor influence under stack downwash conditions. Table 11—7 below presents the results for the downwash run and the previously calculated results for no downwash (from Table II—?). ------- TABLE 11—7. Windspeed rn/sec No downwash With downwash Distance to Concentration max ( lan) 1—hour (ug/m 3 Distance max (km) to Concentration 1—hour (ug/m 3 ) 7.5 . 9.0 52 3.0 353 10.0 7.0 56 3.0 265 12.5 6.0 57 3.0 211 15.0 5.0 56 3.0 176 The tab1 shows a one—hour maximum SO 2 concentration of 353 ug/&. This is less than the figure upon which the previous estimates of maximum three—hour concentrations were based (1426 ug/m 3 ) but more than the figure upon which the previous estimates of maximum 214—hour concentra- tions were based (269 ug/rn 3 ). Table 11—8 below compares the estimated maximum 214—hour concentrations with and without downwash. TABLE 11—8. MAXIMUM 214 HOUR CONCENTRATIONS Pollutant Without downwash With ug/n1 3 ug/m 3 downwash SO 2 67 88 TSP . 1 1 NOX 27 36 Considerably less confidence can be placed in the above figures for downwash than In those for the no downwash case. It may be that the effects of downwash have been underestimated in the figures above. S tion . Stagnation episodes can also cause high short—term concentrations. These episodes occur when a large atmospheric high pressure system stalls and remains stagnant for several days. The sinking air In the system gives rise to what is known as a subsidence Inversion. This is an elevated inver- sion that acts as a lid to the upward dispersal of pollutants as ------- with the trapping condition previously discussed. The trapping that occurs in an episode is compounded because the mixed layer below the lid Is very poorly ventilated. Pollutants accumulate In this layer over several days. Climatological data developed by Holzworth2 6 27 show that such episodes have a greatest frequency of occurrence over the Sdutheastern U. S. and In the Western U. S. from the Rockies to the Pacific Coast. In the Eastport area episodes are very rare and do not merit further consideration. ------- III. LONG—TERM ANALYSIS’ Annual concentrations were directly calculated with a modified version of EPA’s Climato].ogical Dispersion Model (CDM). This model is well documented in a User’s Guide. ’ 3 The modifi- cations made by Region I are computer techniques oriented and do not affect the physics of the model. CDM was developed by the EPA Meteorology Laboratory at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. It computes long—term concentrations (seasonal or annual) using a joint frequency distribution (called a STAR dis- tribution) of stability (classes defined as with PTMTP short—term analysis), six windspeed classes and 16 wind directions; and a form of the Gaussian plume equation that eliminates crosswind variations in each 22 ,5 degree wind direction segment (sector averaging, see TVrner° or the User’s Guidel3). Also used are Briggs 9 ’ 10 ’ 1 - plume rise formulas and an exponential vertical wind shear law (see discussion of wind shear in the short—term analysis). CDM does not account for topographic variations. However, topographic influences normally have much less affect on long— term concentrations than on short—term concentrations, and need only be a concern when the terrain is severe. As previously dis- cussed In the short—term analysis, the terrain in the Eastport area is not severe, and should not be an important factor In the long—term analysis. CDM was developed for an urban atmosphere which is generally more unstable than Its rural counterpart. It requires a special STAR distribution called DAY—NIGHT STAR, and further adjusts this input distribution internally so as not to allow the occurrence of stable atmospheric conditions. Obviously, Eastport Is a rural place. However, because ground level concentrations from elevated point sources are greater for the unstable and neutral atmospheric conditions (which the model allows) than for stable atmospheric conditions (which the model does not allow), CDM is likely to overpredict for a rural environment, and concentrations thus generated can be considered to be conservative estimates. A STAR distribution was not available for the Eastport area. Of those that were available, It was decided that one from the Portland, Maine National Weather Service Station would be most suitable. ‘The computer runs for the long—term analysis were performed by Dean Francis Davis, consultant to Enviro—Sciences, Inc. ------- The input emission rates were (lb/hr): Stack 1 Stack 2 SO 2 3,141 10 600 TSP 12.35 12.35 NOX 816 816 The rest of the emissions input - were the same as for the short— term analysis except that the distance (about 0.25 Ian) between the stacks was accounted for, and an exponential decay term (discussed in the User’s Guide) 13 with a half—life of three hours was Included In the runs for S02. This decay term is meant to take Into account the gross effects of all removal processes for SO 2 . Pollutant removal is normally more important to long—term concentrations than to short—term concentrations. The half—life used is considered to be a conservative value. No pollutant removal was included for the TSP or NOX computer runs. Two receptor grids were used. The first is a 14 lan by 1! km grid with a grid increment of 001 lan 0 This grid covers Moose Island only. The stacks were located at grid coordinates of (1.0, 2.0) and (1.16, 2.20) kilometers. The second grid used a 2 Ian grid increment extendIng 50 km In all directions from the stacks. The maximum annual concentration for SO was found to be 1.05 ug/m 3 at 6 km north of the stacks. The maximum concentra- tions for TSP and NOX were well below 1 ug/m 3 . The small in- crease in emission rates due to the addition of the Incinerator exhaust gases (see short—term analysis) would have a negligible effect on the calculated concentrations. Because of some of the uncertainties discussed above (particularly lack of meteorolo- gical data in Eastport) and because of the possibility of down— wash (see short—term analysis), it Is suggested that the con- centrations below be considered the maximum plant impacts on annual concentrations: SO 2 3 ugim 3 TSP 1 ug/m 3 NOX 2 ug/m 3 ( 2.3 ------- REFERENC ES 1 Montgomery, T. L., 1971, “The Relationship Between Peak and Mean SO 2 Concentrations”, Conference on Air Pollution Meteorology, American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massa— chusetts ( pr1l 5—9, 1971). 2. Mills, M. T., 1975, “Comprehensive Analysis of Time— Concentration Relationships and the Validation of a Single— Source Dispersion Model, Final Report”, EPA Contract No. 68—02—1376 (Task Order No. 5), GCA/Technology Division, Bedford, Massachusetts (March 1975). 3. Mills, M. T., and R. W. Stern, 1975, “Validation of a Single— Source Dispersion Model for Sulfur Dioxide at the J. M. Stuart Power Plant, Final Interim Report—Phase I”, EPA Contract No. 19, GCA/Technology Division, Bedford, Massachusetts (July 1975). 14 Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 10: Reviewing New Stationary Sources, EPA— 1 450/1 —714— 011, OAQPS No. 1.2—029, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 197 1 L 5. Turner, D. B., and A. D. Busse, 1973: User’s Guide to the Interactive Versions of Three Point Source Dispersion Programs: PTMAX, PTDIS and PTMTP , EPA Meteorology Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Preliminary Draft). 6. Turner, P. B., 1970: Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates , EPA Office of Air Programs Publication No. AP—26, Research Triangle Park, Nortfl Carolina. 7. Pasquill, F., 1961: “The Estimation of the Dispersion of Windborne Material”, Meteorol. Mag., 90, 1063, p. 33. 8. Gifford, F. A., 1961: “Uses of Routine Meteorological Observa- tions for Estimating Atmospheric Dispersion”, Nuclear Safety, 2,L , p. l 7. 9. Briggs, 0. A., 1969: Plume Rise , USAEC Critical Review Series TID—25075, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 10. Briggs, 0. A., 1971: “Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise Observation”, Proceedings of the Second International Clean Air Congress, edited by H. M. Englund and W. T. Berry, Academic Press, New York, p. 1029. ------- REFERENCES (Continued) 11. Briggs, 0. A., 1972: “DIscussion on Chimney Plumes in Neutral and Stable Surroundings”, Atmos. Environ., 6, p. 507. 12. DeMarrais, G. A., 1959: “Wind Speed Profiles at Brookhaven National Laboratory”, J. Meteorol., 16, p. 181. 13. Busse, A. D., and J. R. ZImmerman, 1973: User’s Guide for the Climatologica]. Dispersion Model , E?A R14 73 02 14, EPA Technical Publications Branch, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 14. Tikvart, J. A., and C. E. Nears, 1976: “Applications of the Single Source (CRSTER) Model to Power Plants: A Summary”, Proceedings of the EPA Conference on Environmental Modeling and Simulation, edited by Wayne R. Ott, Cincinnati, Ohio (April 19—22, 1976), p. 701. 15. Hewson, B. W., l941t: “Atmospheric Pollution by Heavy Industry”, md. Eng. Chem., 36, P. 195. 16. Scriven, I L A., 1969: “Variability and Upper Bounds for Maximum Ground Level Concentrations”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., 265, p. 209. 17. Lyons, W. A.., and H. S. Cole, 1973: “Fumigation and Plume Trapping on the Shores of Lake Michigan During Stable Onshore Flow”, J. Appi. Meteorol., 12, P. 14914, 18. Lyons, W. A., 1975: “Turbulent Diffusion and Pollutant Trans- port in Shoreline Environments”, Lectures on Air Pollution and Environmental Impact Analyses, American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts (September 29 — October 3, 1975), p. 136. 19. Rayner, 0. S., P. Michael, R. M. Brown and S. SethuRamsan, “1975: StudIes of Atmospheric Diffusion from a Nearshore Oceanic Site”, J. Appi. Meteorol., 114, p. 1080. 20. Lyons, W. A., and C. S. Keen, 1976: “Computed 2 1 4—Hour Trajec- tories for Aerosols and Gases in a Lake/Land Breeze Circula- tion Cell on the Western Shore of Lake Michigan”, Sixth Con- ference on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts. 21. Blggs, W. 0., and M. E. Graves, 1962: “A Lake Breeze Index”, J. Appi. Meteorol., 1, p. 14714. ------- REFERENCES (Continued) 22. Houghton, H. G., D. Kent and A. Bemis, 1976: Personal Corn— inunication to Dean Francis Davis, consultant. 23. Lyons, W. A., undated: “Detailed Field Measurements and Numerical Models of SO 2 from Power Plants in the Lake Michigan Shoreline Environment, Final Report for Wisconsin Electric Power Company”. 21 1. Hawkins, J. E., and 0. Nonhebel, 1955: “Chimneys and the Dispersal of Smoke”, J. Inst. Fuel, 28, p, 530. 25. Recommended Guide for the Prediction of the Dispersion of Airborne Effluents , Second Edition, 1973, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, N. Y. 26. Holzworth, G. C., 19714: “Meteorological Episodes of Slowest Dilution in Contiguous United States”, EPA—65O/ 4—7 1 l—OO2, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 27. Ho].zworth, 0. C., 1972: “MixIng Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States”, EPA Office of Air Programs Publication No. AP—lOl, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. ------- Secondary I pacts Assumptions 1. There will be 900 homes coming into Eastport and they will all be located in West Eastport (see attached figure). 2. Pollutants are emitted through home heatir g plants and car travel. 3. Short term impacts are only worth considering. 4. Tcmperature for one day stays at 0 degrees. (Maximize home heating emissions.) 5. Cars travel 10,000 miles per year on average. 6. 1.5 cars per family. 7. Wind blows in one direction f or 6 out of the 24 hours (multiply hourly concentration estimates by 0.25). 8. Stack height of home heating plant is 10 meters. 7. Burn 0.18 gallons of fuel oil per household per degree day. 10. AP—42 emission factors apply (0.3 percent sulfur fuel). ------- COMMUNITY FACILITIES . 3 ECoi4D/ EY -tL a-t , c4s — C.,. Ci”’ ø .e. C,.. UC ENO : 4 V )’4. • I •U ‘a p n fl SiUiv* • IS (iS C Ol!, (. $(&PC61C,IsGL u. r* cr(&.3 13 f (.C AiI .A 5#..s.a. M.S*... Dil 0 0.., / V N.,,’, CtW1 M S ( i%I Ii($$ OI$I IC•T C.. .. C.,. C.’. I • ------- SECONDARY IMPACTS so 2 AP—42 emission factor 144 S lb/b 3 gal S — content of sulfur in fuel oil — 03 percent - emission factor 144 (0.3) lb/b 3 gal. — 43.2 lb/b 3 gal from previous calculation: (10.5 lb gal/day) (43 gal) — 450 lb/day or (18 lb/hr) SO 2 total emissions — 18 lb/hr + 0.9 (cars) lb/hr cars — 19 lb/hr SO 2 emissions total 2.4 gm/sec APPROX. SAME R!SULTS HC 1 lb/b 3 gal emission factor AP—42 (10.5 io gal/day) (1 lb/10 3 gal) = 10.5 lb/day 10.5/24 lb/hr HCh ses + 17.1 lb/hr 17.5 lb/hr lIC emissions total cars 2.2 gm/sec. NO 18 lb/b 3 gal = e.f. (18 1b/10 3 gal) (10.5 gal/day) = 190 lb/day = 25 lb/hr N0 emissions total 3.2 gm/sec. ------- EMISSIONS TSP use 0.18 gal oil/household °day from Rapid Survey Technique U.S. HEW October 1966 0 assume for worst case short term that temperature of air — 0 all day or 65° day for Eastport area, assume 900 hours ( 0.18 gal oil ) (65 °day) (900 household) = 1.05 x i0 gal/day (house °day ) AP—42 emission factor — 2.5 lb TSP iO gal oil 2.5 lb (1.05 x 10 gal/day) — TSP emission per day 1O gal Q p — 26 lb TSP/day (c .14 gm/sec.) ------- - Worst Case Impacts (Occur at Edge of Development) SO 2 concentrations are proportional to emission rates • concentration based on 1 gm/sec • 19 lb SO 2 /hr x 454 gm/lb x 1/3600 hr/sec x 7.6 ug/m 3 x 0.25 .4’ correction factor 4 ug/m 3 a small value TSP 4.8 lb TSP/hr x 454 x 1/3600 x 7.6 x 0.25 — 1 ug/m 3 NO 25 lb N0 /hr x 454 x 1/3600 x 7,6 x 0,25 6 ug/m secondary impacts are very small!! ------- AREA IMPACTS ( Use Turner’s Area Source)* Use — sf4.3 where s — 3.0 or 1.8 1 try s — 3.0 1cm first -i J 3 i’ ___ ___ _________ ___ - ___________ I - ___ -,x’ )IE_-_i.b___ )) -—x•.—— Bk — ‘a” 54 Lç ( P. J £ ‘ 300 0 L ‘lao . 93 L - x 0 J t o 6’J when x 0.9 1cm, x 1 8.9 km 750 nt 55m ed value x ‘ 6 ?jm/sec (“ex [ (l0/55) 7+ exPE_½ (lOf55 ! 2 (750in)(55 m) l/’ij’(750)(5S) exp (—½ (100/552)) 7.6 ug/a 3 * Turner, D.B,, “Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates”, AP’-26, 1970 --3z .. ------- 5= f.8 -.._ 4.3 3. 1.800 x a 420 a 4600 meters x 1 1500 Ian + 4600 in 6120 m. !7d — 540 a x 1500km- ?Z 88m = 1 m/sec - expr-½ (10/88)27(6.65 ‘i;• (540 a) (88 in) L X 6.6 ug/in 3 about the same results 1+ —i ‘ C j 7 4L,/4 ------- NSPS REQUIRI1E TS Fossil Fuel—Fired Steam Generators Assume: #5 fuel oil 269 MMBIU/hr. 7.944 lb/gal 150,000 RTU/gal ash content — 10 lb/rn gal Fuel Gas Combustion Device, i.e., process heaters, boilers and ftm res, etc., used to combust fuel gas. 0.10 lbf*IBTIJ 202 opacity except 40Z allowed for 2 mi.;utes in any one hour Will burn #5 fuel oil which, for use in power boilers, results in average emissions of .0) lb/MMWflJ Requires a continuous opacity montt,r; weekly test oi ash c’ntent in full. Requires deter— min.itiott of S content of fuel; weekly deter- mination of heating value of fuel; daily record of fuel feed. 0.3 lb MMZTU f or oil fired boilers. Requires continuous monitoring of H 2 S lit fuel gas unless exempted under 6O.104(b) or continuous monitoring of SO 2 in fuel gas dis- charged to atmosphere unless exempted under §60.104(a). Proper operation of boiler and close temp- erature control over operations. Requires a contin— uous NOX ironiror. * Control will vary for different assumptions. Facility Standard Particulates Sulfur Compound Nitrogen Compounds Hydrocarbons Control and Standard Control and Standard Control and Standard Control Monitoring* Monitoring* Moflitorlng* and Mon- o.a it, so 2 f *IBTU for oil fired boilers Must burn fuel oil ti/sulfur content less than 0.752 by weight. 0.1 gr sulfur recovery unit dscf. ti/certain _________________ exemptions for upset conditions. Continued ------- NSPS REQ TREMENTS (Continued) Ye sel must I.i e qu1p I w/.i I Io.it in roof or vapor recovery. Must maimtain a file of type of petr i1euin stored; datea of stora ;c; typical R 1d vapor press ure of petro1eu stored; avcra e monthly storage tec peratureS an true vapor press ure under certai conditions. facility Standard Control and Monitoring* Particu3. tes Sujfur Compound N trog&nCompuunJs d, oëa boii ‘etroletsa Storage teuels As 5u e: 78 iinnH 1.S psia) vapor pressure S?O rm Hg (31.1 pai.i) Standard Control and Standard Control and flonttoring* Monitorin Standard Control and Mon- ttorimg* Vc cels to ! equipped Wi I lo.it.ing roofs Control will vary for different assumptions. ------- Mateorological of Ozcne Data I • Intro& tion : The syncçtic aituaticze (abi s heric weather ccuUtic s as they exist sinultaneously over a large area) accxz’ç anying tie occurrence of high oz e centratia s at Eastpart, Maine, have been examined. Tentative c c1usi s regarding transport are presented. This evaluaticti has been carried out as part of tie E wirc*irenta]. Tn iact Study oczxI rted for tie siting of a hydro-skhmdng refinexy at Eastport, Maine. II. Badgrc z 1 : Hourly oz e entraticris were neasured at Eastport, Maine during tie period July 2, 1976, to Angust 19, 1976. 1e days a which tie maxii un ozcie cczx ntratia s reached exceeded .10 are r ted be . Date TJIIE Ozcne Ccz centratic*i (PW ) July 12 0100 0.105 July 20 2100 0.116 August 5 1900 0.096 August 13 0100 0.095 August 14 0100 0.107 III. Syx ptic tharts : Syx ptic charts are available for this period: these oczeist of e thart per day for tIe 0700 neteorological r orting period. ------- IV. Syr ptic Situations : ¶Ii ee are described be1 for the five days . a. July 12 : Maxinun occurred at 0100 urs. A warn front is a roacthing Eas ort during July Li. By 0100 l irs, July 12, it is estiz iated to be 200 miles south of Eastport. Maxinun surface telatures at Eastport on July 11 are esti.nated at 75 degrees Fahrenheit. (Xxioenlzaticns r nairEd elevated ar .08 n all of July 12 and into the early heurs of July 13. 1 wann LiCut occ1iti d to fonn a closed circulation on July 12 and 13. It is speculated that the ozone 1 Af i air a oca anying the wamn fruit kept f1c into the area, borne by the wis s of the 1c* pressure cell . b. July 20 : ) xiimzn occurred at 2100 Iy,ura c ii this day, ozone cono trations rose to a maxini of .15 pçin, a high valt for even izany urban areas. i July 20 a fast noving cold f nt is a çroaching Eastport. At 2100 urs it is about 200 miles to the s t. The front passes Eastport after 0700 I tws on July 21. cza concentrations then ease rapidly. rise and fail of oz o centraticr s is consistent with a band of oz - 1 air preceding the cold fj out . c. i t 5 : ?b,dnun occurred at 1900 lx*irs. At 1900 irs a slc*Q-noving active North to Scuth-oriented cold fzCEt is within 150 muse of East1 o t . Oz ocnc,entrations renain at levels arcxuxl .08 n iitil 0800 l rs cm Aupast 6 and t1 i gradually decrease. This progression of ozor onnoentrations is also cxmaistent with a picture of a band of ozone l tiAn air preceding the xld fj.iit . ------- d. A*. ust 13 and 14 : ?bxiiai occurred at 0100 bours c*i both days. se b , days are considered as cx oocurreix e because a cold front to the st of Eastport dondriated tbe situations for both days and did rxt pass until z E tise during At ust 15. ‘fl progression of ozc ocmoentrations is generally consistent with tbe oc* ts previcAisly i iticned. V. Other Fronts : In viB of the above findings, it is interesting to ask: “Are frontal passages always associated with high ozone values?” ana r is a o itional “No.” Fcur f xzita1 passages occurred witbout concentrations reaching .10 n. In all but a case these e cceptia is can be adequately explained by special conditions. VI. C luaiona : progression of ozone c entrations with tine on the days cited is consistent with a picture of ozone transport preceding a wann or cold front. ------- SET 1573 01 0676 LARSEN ANALYSIS ON AMBIENT SULFUR DIOXIDE AND PARTICULATE MATTER NEAR EASTPORT, MAINE Prepared For: Enviro Sciences, Inc. 114 Cayuga Avenue Rockaway, New Jersey 07866 June 1976 SCOTT ENV IRONMENTAL. TECHNOLOCY, INC. Plumsteadville, Pennsylvania 18949 ------- SET 1573 01 0676 10 INTRODUCTION Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. was retained by Enviro Sciences 1 Inc. to monitor specified air pollutants and meteorological parameters at the site of a proposed refinery near Eastport, Maine. Scott report SET 1523—01—1275 described the test program and presented data on total hydrocarbons, methane, ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, wind speed and direction, and temperature and humidity. At the request of Enviro Sciences, Inc., Scott performed a Larsen’ analysis on the air quality measurements of hourly sulfur dioxide and daily particulate measurements, and related these measurements to their respective primary air quality standards. 2.0 LARSEN ANALYSIS ON HOURLY S02 MEASUREMENTS Measurements of hourly SO 2 concentrations were performed during the ten—week period from September 20 to November 29, 1975. During this period, a total of 1679 valid hourly observations were recorded. For the purposes of the analysis, all concentrations measured as zero parts per million were assumed to be the minimum detectable limit of 0.001 ppm. The attached computer output lists the raw hourly data (in parts per billion), the natural log of the measured data and the respective plotting position frequencies. For the hourly measured data, statistics on the geometric mean and geometric standard deviation are presented on the basis of: (1) raw data as measured (2) the maximum observed concentration (3) data for the 0.1% and 30% plotting frequencies 1 Larsen, Ralph I., “A Mathematical Model For Relating Air Quality Measure— monte To Air Quality Standards”, Office of Air Programs Publication No. AP—89, EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. S I SCOTT INV$ROP4MENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. ------- SET 1573 01 0676 For data gathered on a limited basis, such as in this test pro— gram, the analysis based on the maximum observed concentration is often the best estimate for projecting expected annual maximum concentrations. The analyses based on the 0 lZ and 30% plotting frequencies is also useful, especially in establishing log—normality in the distribution of the data. The attached graph shows the log—normality of the data based on the 0.1% point, 30% point and the geometric mean. The primary ambient air quality standard for sulfur dioxide based on an averaging time of 24 hours is 140 ppb. Extrapolating the maasured data to averaging times of 24 hours shows that the annual maximum concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year is only about 6.7 ppb, which is well below the annual standard set for this pollutant. 3.0 LARSEN ANALYSIS ON DAILY (24 HOUR) PARTICULATE MEASUREMENTS For the ten—week period between September 20 and November 29, 1975, 69 valid observations of 24—hour average particulate concentrations ( pg/rn 3 ) were recorded. All concentrations measured as less than one microgram per cubic meter were assumed to be 0.1 pg/rn 3 . The analyses was similar to that performed for so2 concentrations, except that 1% and 30% frequency points were chosen In this case. The attached graph indicates the log—normality of the data and the analyses shows that the maximum 24—hour concentration not be be exceeded more than once per year is about 23.1 pg/rn 3 which is veil below the primary annual, maximum standard of 150 pg/rn 3 for particulate matter.. k i1 SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TEcHNOLOGY. INC. ------- L*RSEN ANALYSIS 04 SO2 HOURLY DATA At EASTPORT,MAINE SET 1573 01 0676 STATISTICS ON MEASURED DATA ARITHMETIC MEAN 1.41572 ARITHMETIC. STND 0EV • 1.16918 LOG MEAN .20755 LOG STND 0EV a .44017 GEOMETRiC MEAN 1.2306f, GEOMETRIC STND 0EV — 1.55298 HAXI’ IUM ORSERvEO CONCP4TRATIDN a • GEOMETRIC M AM a. 1e08034 PLOTTING REOtJEMCY a . Ø3357 • GEOMETRIC STNO 0EV a 2.08620 ... (O.1Z) UPPER PERCENT POINT DATA a 13.010 • GEOMETRIC MEAN a .59242 t30t) LOWER PERCENT POINT DATA a l.aoo . • GEOH TRIC SIND 0EV — 2.71736 1.ARSEPI ANALYSIS O J 502 HOURLY DATA AT EASTPORT,MAINE ANALYSIS BASED OW MAX. PLOTTiNG POSITION (N N—CONTINUOUS ANALYSIS) FOR AvERAGING TIME OF 24 HOtp4Sl GEOMETRIC M(AM a 1.18759 GEOMETRIC STNU 0EV • 1.80917 . MAX 1. HOuR CONC NOT TO BE E?.CECDF.O MORE THAN ONCE PER YEAR • 17.82743 MAX 24 H UR CONC NUT TO BE EXCEEDED MOPE THAN ONCE PER yEAR • 6.78099 ANALYSIS BASED ON GEOMETRIC MEAN AND 6(OMETRIC SIND DEY FOR ALL DATA FOR AVERAGING TIME OF 24 HOUHS GEOMETRIC MEAN a 1.29252 GEOMETRIC STNt) 0EV 1.4?597 MAX 1. HOUR CONC NOT TO EXCEEDED MORE THAN ONCE PER YEAR • 6.59088 MAX 24 HOUR CONC NOT TO BE EXCEEDED MOPE THAW ONCE PER YEAR a 3.66733 ANALYSIS BASCI) ON UPPER AND LOWER PERCENT POINTS FOR AVERAGING TIME OF 24 HOUF4S GtO’4C1P!C MEAN 2 .80368 GEOMETRIC STNO 0EV a 2.23871 MAX 1. HOUR CONC NOT TO BE EXCEEDED MOPE THAN ONCE PER YEAR a 26.77919 MAX 24 HOUR CONC SNOT TO BE EXCEEDED MORE 1 )44W ONCE PER YEAR 8.58379 (, -44- ------- LARSEN ANALYSIS ON DAILY PARTICULATE DATA AT CASTPORT,MAINE STATISTICS O4 MEASURED DATA SET 1573 01 0676 ARITHMETIC MEAN a 9.49565 ARITHMETIC STND 0EV • 6.63889 - --.—- — -- LOG MEAN • 1.98578 LOG STND 0EV • . 8046 GEOMETRIC t4E4N — 7.28471 GEOMETRIC 5TMD 0EV • 2.226 56 ft NØIMUM ORSERVED COP4CENTRATIDN • 33.8ôe • GEOMETRIC MEAN • 7.86966 PLOTTING FM OUENCY • .008696 ‘ GEOMETRIC STND 0EV.. 1.84576 (12) UPPER PERCENT POINT DATA • 33.800 . GEOMETRIC MEAN • 8.40703 (3Ø) LOWER PERCENT POINT DATA • 11.500 GEOMETRIC STNO 0EV a 1.81882 LARSEN ANALYSIS 3M DAILY PARTICULATE DATA AT EASTPORT,MAXNE . . --..———.- . . . . .. — .. - ANALYSIS BASED ON MAX. PLOTTING POSITION (NDN-CONTJNUOUS ANALYSIS) FOR AVER4GIN( TIME OF 24 HO MS: GEOMETRIC MEAN 7 .%96 . GEOMETRIC STNU 0EV 1.84576 MAX 24 H3UR CONC NOT T3 BE EXCEEDED MORE THAN ONCE PER YEAR • 23.19891 ANALYSIS BASED ON GEOMETRIC MEAN AND ...... .. . . ... GE’)MCPIIC STND 0EV FOR ALL DATA FOR A ER4GIN& TIME OF. 24 HOuRS: GEUMETRI.C MEAN • 7.28470 . . — . GEOMETRIC STNU 0EV = 2.22656 MAX 24 H UR CONC NUT TO BE EXCEEDED MORE THAN ONCE PER YEAR • 29.72751 ANALYSIS RASEO ON UPPER AND LOWER -- - -- .. -- - - .i.. —..- _. -.. — - PERCENT POINTS FOR AVERAGING TIME OF 24 HOURS: GEO ’ETPIC MEAN = 8.40703 . . . . . GEOf4ETRIC STND DEV = 1.81882 MAX 24 H3UR CONC NOT TO BE EXCEEDED MORE THAN ONCE PER YEAR • 24.14681 c +.sT ------- SET 1573 01 0676 ,1 t ¶0 03 00 0 .0 Ifl 30 7 1 10 I 1.. I I - - - - ;E TLEE ±E EEE E _ __ 1 J \L ’ : :L;: - H _ __ 4d____ ____________________________ OS 07 01 0C - —1 -—--‘—-—- - — -- — I __L_ ____ - ____ 7o _ _ __j’A J: H—H - 4’ jJ L IEEE ‘ ‘4 S 4 ) c ‘I 7 W . • 1 — .i 44i __ _±Ti T?4 ii 1_i ___ ‘ ‘h - i -; ill .!iJ I. •.j 1••• ’ i ii ’ — L _______ _ ___.LL_L ______ 0.I 0. I_ .. ,_ .. I . - 0.3.. 44- A S 04 1 I, 1 C, 4 ’ - —I 1 Ei T t_1 i ij LiL.I:. :L4L. 1! ii± 1 iL . - l — U r : ‘ 0.’ -r! ft ‘ 2 ill F l E : : J 1 ;!! • • “ “• - - :- - • . - - - - -L1 - - l 1 _ t i l ; _I.f:f..i I ; _________ :J. H1l: rf: ; .‘ ____ ii n r1 j: L’irr ___ ‘ :i _ ! 1!!I 1 _____________ $0- 0O1 •0$0.1 0.2 0.0 a i I LI 30 ) 40 II aio oo tTET L±t L.L_ n iT LLi. ‘n- -t . . I : Hflh1 . - !T - IiLLLLLjti J ‘I 1111111 I o$.i sa.. - I.., - ------- AIR QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAMS • September 20 to November 29, 1975 • July, August and September 1976 SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. Pluasteadvilie, Pennsylvania 18949 ------- AIR QUALITY MONITORING NEAR EASTPOR , MAINE SET 1523 02 0276 February 19, 1976 1.0 INTRODUCTION Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. was retained by Enviro— Sciences, Inc. to monitor specified air pollutants and meteprological parameters at the site of a proposed refinery near Eastport, Maine. The monitoring was performed by Scott during the ten week period from September 20 to November 29, 1975. Scott iechnical personnel conducted all of the project tasks including selection of sampling points, set up of instrumentation, daily calibration and maintenance and data reduction. Periodic visits to the monitoring site were made by representatives of Pittston Oil Company, Enviro—Sciences, Inc. and the Environmental Pro- tection Agency’s Region I Office in Boston, Massachusetts. - 2.0 SAMPLING SITES AND TEST PROCEDURES 2 • 1 SELECTION OF SAMPLING SITE A large house, formerly a doctor’s office and residence, located on a lane 300 feet west of County Road was selected as the monitoring site. The house was less than one mile northwest of down- town Eastport. It was located in that section of the proposed refinery closest to the residential section of Eastport yet it was far enough removed from individual stationary and line sources of pollution so as not be be unduly influenced by them. The two major stationary sources which contributed to the pollutant concentrations measured at the site were a fish meal plant to the southwest and the municipal dump to the west. 2.2 TEST PARAMETERS AND INSTRUMENTATION The parameters monitored and the instrumentation used for measuring each parameter are summarized below. flIT r,.Ivsnopllai ,nAL TFCI4NO øry, INC. ------- -2- SET 1523 02 0276 Parameter Instrument Total Hydrocarbons Beckman Model 108A Hydrocarbon Analyzer Methane Varian Mode]. 1220—1 Gas Chromatograph Ozone McMillan Electronics Model MEC 1100—ZR Ozone Meter Nitrogen Oxides Scott Model 125 Chemiluminescence N0 Analyzer Sulfur Dioxide Meloy Laboratories Model SA 185—2 Sulfur Gas Analyzer Wind Speed and Direction Meteorology Research Model 1053 Vector Vane System Temperature and Rumidity Bendix Hygrothermograph 2.3 LOCATION OP S LING POINTS AT TEST SITE The sample line inlet for methane, total hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides was located on a 20 foot mast, 40 feet to the north— northwest of the house. The sulfur dioxide and ozone monitors had separate sample lines positioned 12 feet above ground, approximately 20 feet north—northwest of the house. The particulate samplers were set up on a concrete pad 5 feet above the ground and 30 feet north—northwest of the house. They were housed in standard shelters used for hi—volume samplers. The wind set was located on top of a 50 foot mast attached to the southwest corner of the house. The Hygrothermograph was placed in a shelter 2 feet above ground, 25 feet north of the house. A small ridge north of the house with a crest approximately 80 feet above ground level at the house probably had an influence on the wind data when northerly winds were prevalent. The wind set was placed near the house rather than on the hill so that it would depict actual meteorological conditions at the air sampling site. 2.4 ANALYTICAL METHODS Air for total hydrocarbon and methane analyses was sampled through 1/4 inch ID Teflon tubing by means of a Teflon—faced diaphragm pump. The air was filtered prior to flowing through the instruments. rnu rpJvI nwMcwTAI TFCHNO1fl( Y. iNC ------- —3— SET 1523 02 0276 Much of the flow was bypassed, and the actual flow to the instruments was held constant at reco ended rates. The total hydrocarbon analyzer was zeroed automatically at hourly intervals with hydrocarbon—free air and calibrated twice daily with a gas standard of 4.96 ppm. methane in hydrocarbon—free air. The chromatograph used for methane analysis sampled air at 15 minute intervals. It was calibrated twice daily with the same gas standard used• for total hydrocarbons. -. The chemiluminescence nitrogen oxides analyzer was provided with air samples by the same system as the hydrocarbon analyzer. It was likewise zeroed automatically at hourly intervals and calibrated twice daily with gas from a high pressure stainless steel cylinder containing nitric, oxide in nitrogen. -. The sulfur dioxide analyzer had its own built—in sampling pump. The sample was drawn through a 1/4 inch ID Teflon line at a controlled flow rate. Calibration gas was provided by the SO 2 calibrator accessory which contained an SO 2 permeation tube in a constant temperature oven. Calibration was performed automatically ‘at six-hour intervals using a gas containing 93 parts per billion sulfur dioxide. The instrument was zeroed before and after each calibration by use of the instrumeat’s electronic zero control. The chemiluminescence ozone analyzer also had its own internal sampling pump and Teflon sampling line. It also had a calibration accessory which provided a known concentration of ozone for calibration. The instrument was calibrated manually with air containing 400 parts per billion of ozone at least twice daily. The ozone instrument was zeroed automatically at hourly intervals with charcoal filtered air. The two high volume samplers . were controlled to sample air from midnight to midnight on alternate days through use of a timer. The glass fiber filters were preweighed after desiccation in Scott’s Plumstead— yule laboratory. They were then transported to the site and mailed back to Plumateadville for reweighing after use. Flow rates were checked with calibrated orifices. I mI SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. ------- .4— SET 1523 02 0276 The wind direction was set with a compass initially and after each time the wind set had been taken down for maintenance and replaced on the mast. The wind speed was checked daily with a turbine vane type air flow meter. The Hygrotherinograph readings were checked daily by use of a sling psychrometer. All data were recorded using appropriate strip chart recorders. 2.5 DATA REDUcTIoN Hourly average gaseous pollutant concentrations were computed from manual chart readings of the ambient air, span and zero calibration traces • Non—methane hydrocarbons were determined as the - difference between the total hydrocarbon and methane concentrations for corresponding hourly periods. Particulate loadings were obtained from filter weights and sample flow rates. The wind speed and direction and temperature and humidity were read as hourly averages directly from the strip charts, which had scales in engineering units. The wind direction data ias corrected for the 200 difference between magnetic north and true north at Eastport. 3.0 RESULTS The pollutant concentration and meteorological data are presented in Tables 1 through 9. The data shown are hourly averages for the period beginning at the designated hour. All time is prevailing local time. Particulate loadings are presented as daily averages. The nitrogen oxides concentration was generally below the sensi- tivity of the chemiluminescence instrument. Early in the program, concen- trations of 0.002 to 0.003 ppm were noted for short intervals. Coloriutetric analyses performed on 3—hour bubbler samples collected at the end of the program indicated similar concentrations. We have concluded that the nitrogen oxides were less than 0.005 ppm for all hourly intervals. rt i COT1 ENVIRONMgNTAI 1(CHNOLOOY, INC. ------- —5-. SET 1523 02 0276 The various tables, parameters and units are listed below. Table Parameter Units 1 Total. Hydrocarbons Parts Per Million Carbon 2 Non—Methane Hydrocarbons Parts Per Million Carbon 3 Sulfur Dioxide Parts Per Million 4 Photochemical. Oxidants Parts Per Million (Ozone) 5 Total Suspended Particulates Micrograms Per Cubic Meter 6 Wind Speed Miles Per Hour 7 Wind Direction Degrees True 8 Temperature Degrees Fabrenheit 9 Relative Hu {dity Percent SCOTT ENV*RONMEP4TAI TECt$NOLOGY INC. ------- TA3LE 1 Ea.tpurt. Maine September 1975 Total Hydrocarbons (pp -C) flour . Day 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 30 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Avg. 20 1.74 1.86 1.98, 1.87 1.89 1.92 1.83 1.53 1.84 1.85 1.84 1.85 1.85 1.76 1.78 1.80 21 1.78 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.71 1.70 1.73 1.71 1.73 1.78 1.73 1.74 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.70 1.70 1.73 1.75 1.76 1.75 1.74 1.73 1.6 22 1.72 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.76 1.76 1.78 1.78 1.85 1.82 1.87 1.78 1.80 1.75 1.78 1.73 1.78 1.77 1.83 1.80 1.80 1.78 1.81 1.51 23 1.81 1.85 1.81 1.91 1.94 1.91 1.88 1.94 ‘1.95 1.88 1.86 1.88 1.87 2.00 1.83 1.76 1.76 1.85 2.18 2.01 2.07 1.97 1.82 — 24 1.76 1.79 1.83 1.84 2.03 1.96 1.82 1.90 3.84 1.79 1.81 1.75 1.74 1.74 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.76 1.75 1.69 1.70 1.70 1.68 1.73 23 1.69 1.71 1.73 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.70 1.68 1.75 1.70 1.69 1.66 1.67 1.64 1.66 1.66 1.63 1.67 1.67 1.65 1.65 1.67 1.67 1 7 26 1.67 1.63 1.65 .1.63 1.63 1.67 1.66 1.67 .1.70 1.70 1.70 1.68 1.67 1.64 1.67 1.68 1.67 1.70 1.72 1.68 1.70 1.68 1.68 1.66 27 1.65 1.65 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.61. 1.63 1.71 — 1.89 1.78 1.69 1.74 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.66 1.69 1.75 1.71 1.69 1.69 1.74 1.71 28 1.68 1.69 1.69 1.69 — — —. 1.64 1.65 1.62 1.62 1.62 — — — — — 1.71 1.66 1.66 1.65 1.66 1.66 1.66 29 — — — — — — — 1.69 1.66 1.64 1.84 1.69 1.64 1.67 1.64 1.67 1.64 1.59 1.59 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.73 1.64 30 3.89 1.69 1.64 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.73 1.73 3.76 1.70 1.84 1.89 1.76 1.70 1.71 1,67 1.67 1.66 1.67 1.69 1.69 1.66 1.63 1.61. ------- TABLI 1 (Contini*d) astport, fla .a. Oetob.r 197$ Total Hydrocarbons (p75—C) flours Day 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 1]. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Av 1. 1.74 1.77 1.70 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.68 1.69 1.68 1.66 1.70 1.76 1.76 1.83 1.87 1.87 1.97 1.87 1.82 1.76 1.76 1.77 — — 2 — — — — — — 1.75 1.67 1.73 1.73 1.72 1.67 1.66 1.63 1.63 1.70 1.6 1.65 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.66 3 1.65 1.66 1.66 1.70 1.67 1.67 1.67 162 1.61. 1.56 1.64 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.66 1.69 1.64 1.63 1.61 1.63 1.63 1.65 1.63 4 1.66 1.66 1.68 1.68 1.66 1.68 1.68 1.70 1.64 1.59 1.62 1.62 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.62 1.62 1.57 1.61 1.59 1.59 1.58 1.57 1.37 3 1.57 1.39 1.58 1.60 1.60 1.62 1.62 1.63 1.63 1.65 1.66 1.63 1.66 1.63 1.65 1.64 1.65 1.71 1.66 1.63 1.63 1.64 1.64 1.66 6 1.70 1.6$ 1.6$ 1.64 1.63 1.64 1.64 1.68 1.69 1.71 1.79 1.74 1.68 1.67 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.60 1.60 1.64 1.66 1.64 1.62 1.63 7 1.62 1.64 1.64 1.63 1.64 1.63 1.63 1.39 1.59 1.59 1.58 1.56 1.58 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.58 1.59 1.62 1.61 1.61 1.60 8 1.62 1.64 1.64 1.62 1.65 1.63 1.6] 1.56 1.60 — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62 1.59 1.62 1.62 1.64 1.64 1.64 9 2.64 1.67 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.39 1.59 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.59 1.58 1.55 1.56 1.57 1.57 1.59 1.60 1.60 1.57 1.38 10 1.59 1.59 1.60 1.61 1.63 1.63 1.62 1.60 1.62 1.61 1.62 1.60 1.60 1.62 1.60 1.87 1.65 1.64 1.65 1.72. 1.64 1.74 1.76 1.68 11 1.68 1.63 1.61 1.58 1.63 1.71 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.64 1.63 1.60 1.59 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.59 1.59 1.61 1.70 1.68 1.68 1.66 1.66 12 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.63 1.64 1.62 1.62 1.60 1.39 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.63 1.61 1.61 1.51 1.35 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.54 13 1.55 1.31 1.37 1.54 1.54 1.55 1.33 1.56 1.58 1.59 1.55 1.55 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.36 1.60 1.60 1.62 1.61 1.59 1.59 1.59 14 1.61 1.62 1.60 1.61 1.39 1.60 1.64 1.67 1.70 1.73 1.76 1.73 1.67 1.63 1.65 1.63 1.61 1.58 1.58 1.64 1.59 1.62 1.63 1.64 1.3 1.64 1.63 1.64 1.62 1.62 1.64 1.73 1.67 1.65 1.62 1.63 1.62 1.62 1.63 1.62 1.58 1.61. 1.55 1.63 1.67 1.62 1.69 .1.70 1.66 16 1.67 1.66 1.66 1.69 1.75 1.66 1.67 1.71 1.71 1.82 1.77 1.66 1.65 1.65 1.67 1.61 1.64 1.62 1.61 .165 1.65 1.63 1.60 1.61 17 1.63 1.64 1.60 1.61 1.63 1.64 1.60 1.60 2.61 1.59 1.57 1.36 1.57 1.39 1.57 1.39 1.61 1.62 1.67 1.68 1.59 1.61 1.59 1.62 18 1.67 1.63 1.63 1.62 1.59 1.63 1.39 1.57 1.36 1.61 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.57. 1.57 1.55 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.58 1.58 1.59 1.59 1.58 19 1.58 1.57 1.39 1.57 1.61 1.58 1.39 1.55 1.56 1.38 1.55 1.54 1.54 1.35 1.55 1.55 1.54 1.56 1.56 1.52 1.55 1.56 1.55 1.35 20 1,35 1.53 1.33 1.53 1.54 1.56 1.52 1.55 1.37 1.57 1.56 1.56 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.57 1.56 1.56 1.63 1.59 1.59 1.61 1.61 1.59 22 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.60 1.60 2.55 1.60 1.61 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.63 1.65 1.60 1.58 1.38 1.59 1.56 1.59 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.67 22 1.69 1.71 1.66 1.67 1.66 1.66 1.67 1.69 1.66 1.63 1.65 1.63 1.61 1.61 1.60 1.63 1.65 1.65 1.61 1.61 1.60 1.59 1.58 1.61 23 1.61 1.61 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.63 1.65 1.62 1.63 1.65 1.65 1.62 1.63 1.63 1.62 1.65 1.62 1.70 1.70 1.65 1.67 1.67 1.65 1.67 24 1.63 1.64 1.64 1.65 1.65 1.68 1.65 1.64 1.72 1.74 1.66 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.67 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.69 1.74 1.72 1.66 1.69 1.70 23 1.69 1.12 1.66 1.66 1.62 1.62 1.74 1.74 1.70 1.66 1.64 1.63 1.67 1.60 1.59 1.62 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.56 1.57 1.56 .1.56 26 1.56 1.59 1.37 1. 56 1.57 1.59 1.56 1.56 1.54 — — 1.56 1.54 1.36 1.56 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.54 1.37 1.57 1.57 27 1.60 1.60 1.63 1.61 1.61 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.59 1.37 1.59 1.39 1.62 1.62 1.63 1.62 1.62 1.64 1.69 1.66 1.64 1.61 1.62 1.64 28 1.65 1.62 1.62 1.63 1.62 1.62 1.61 1.61 1.66 1.64 1.64 1.63 1.62 1.60 1.60 1.62 1.59 1.64 1.71 1.66 1.64 1.38 1.59 1.64 29 1.59 1.62 1.61 1.59 1.58 1.38 1.38 1.58 1.62 1.69 1.62 1.60 1.61 1.62 1.60 1.60 1.63 1.64 1.62 1.63 1.62 1.62 1.61 1.60 30 1.60 1.64 1.65 1.65 1.64 1.64 1.65 1.65 1.62 1.61 1.59 1.59 1.61 1.56 1.61 1.61 1.58 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.58 1.58 1.60 1.58 31 1.58 1.56 1.58 1.58 1.38 1.55 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.57 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.57 1.59 1.62 1.38 1.61 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 ------- TABLE 1 (Continued) Eutport, Maine November 1975 Total Hydrocerbona (ppm—C) floura Day 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 1 1.56 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.62 1.62 1.74 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.69 1.67 1.61 1.61 1.62 1.58 1.59 1.59 1.58. 1.61 2 1.66 1.61 1.65 1.68 1.73 1.69 1.72 1.73 1.80 1.72 1.69 1.68 1.65 1.66 1.64 1.61 1.64 1.66 1.65 .1.65 1.65 1.66 1.64 1.63 3 1.65 1.68 1.69 1.73 1.69 1.77 1.80 1.83 1.79 1.86 1.84 1.82 1.71 1.75 1.8]. 1.86 1.98 1.97 1.94 1.90 1.86 1.87 1.88 1.86 4 1.87 1.97 2.00 1.91 1.83 1.74 1.71 1.75 1.77 1.73 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.61 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.75 1.67 1.69 1.71 1.69 1.69 1.66 5 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.56 1.55 1.55 1.56 1.59 1.63 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.62 1.62 1.60 1.62 1.58 1.55 1.55 1.57 1.35 1.57 6 1.55 1.62 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.53 1.56 1.56 1.57 1.56 1.55 1.55 1.57 1.55 1.55 1.56 1.60 1.67 1.58 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.62 1.63 7 1.60 1.62 1.61 1.59 1.57 1.56 1.57 1.61 1.69 1.67 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.64 1.66 1.76 1.66 1.66 1.80 1.70 1.64 1.61 1.58 1.5$ 8 1.90 1.69 1.71 1.65 1.60 1.61 1.61 1.63 1.60 1.63 1.65 1.63 1.57 1.57 1.65 1.57 1.53 1.58 1.54 1.32 1.52 1.53 1.53 1.54 9 1.54 1.57 1.59 1.60 1.64 1.61 1.61 1.62 1.64 1.64 1.59 1.59 1.58 1,61 1.6]. 1.59 1.60 1,67 1.63 1.63 1.61 1.6]. 1.62 1.61 10 1.61 1.61 1.60 1.60 1.58 1.60 1.58 1.60 1.60 1.59 1.59 1.61 1.59 1.59 1.55 . 1.55 1.54 1.54 1.55 1.59 1.60 1.56 1.35 1.56 11 1.56 1.35 1.33 1.53 1.36 1.56 1.36 1.53 1.63 1.61 1.61 1.65 1.54 1.35 1.52 1.54 1.54 1.56 1.54 1.59 1.60 1.59 1.60 1.60 12 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.63 1.60 1.61 1.64 1.57 1.57 1.56 1.57 1.57 1.57 1,56 1.59 1.61 1.60 1.60 1.58 1.55 1.56 1.57 13 1.36 1.56 1.55 1.54 1.55 1.52 1.52 1.56 1.57 1.55 1.50 1.52 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.52 1.50 1.53 1.51 1.53 1.59 1.54 1.50 1.49 14 1.48 1.46 1.45 1.45 1.49 1.49 1.52 1.56 1.55 1.53 1.51. 1.50 1.57 1.67 1.62 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.62 1.62 1.63 1.63 1.62 1.59 15 1.57 1.57 1.37 1.37 1.38 1.57 1.53 1.37 1.55 1.55 1.53 1.55 1.53 1.56 1.57 1.56 1.58 1.56 1.54 1.57 1.58 1.58 1.38 1.59 16 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.58 1.58 1.59 1.58 1.58 1.54 1.55 1.55 1.54 1.32 1.54 1.54 1.56 1.59 1.60 1.57 1.58 1.58 1.56 1.56 1.56 17 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.58 1.57 1.57 1.39 1.62 1.62 1.59 1.37 1.60 1.6]. 1.58 1.59 1.59 1.62 1.57 1.59 1.39 1.37 1.56 1.58 1.58 18 . 1.59 1.56 1.59 1.56 1.64 1.63 1.66 1.67 1.67 1.63 1.67 1.62 1.59 1.56 1.58 1.67 1.61 1.58 1.36 1.56 1.59 1.56 1.56 1.36 19 1.55 1.53 1.56 1.55 1.56 1.53 1.36 1.36 1.55 1.53 1.56 1.53 1.53 1.54 1.54 1.56 1.55 1.56 1.56 1.561.55 1.36 1.55 1.57 20 1.55 1.35 1.53 1.34 1.54 1.55 1.58 1.60 1.59 1.60 1.57 1.56 1.57 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.57 1.56 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.61. 1.59 21 1.59 1.56 1.37 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.39 1.61 1.63 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.67 1.66 1.67 1.68 1.66 1.66 1.63 1.62 1.62 1.60 1.56 1.37 22 1.53 1.55 1.55 1.53 1.53 1.55 1.56 1.59 1.60 1.59 1.58 1.59 1.59 1.56 1.59 1.59 1.53 1.59 1.56 1.54 1.53 1.54 1.53 1.56 23 1.55 1.56 1.54 1.57 1.56 1.57 1.59 1.38 1.57 1.58 1.59 1.60 1.60 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.60 1.57 1.60 1.63 1.60 1.60 1.60 24 1.60 1.60 1.58 1.60 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.56 1.61 1.62 1.58 1.58 1.56 1.58 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.54 1.31 1.48 23 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.48 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.50 1.52 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.57 1.57 1.59 1.56 1.56 1.57 1.58 1.57 1.56 1.56 1.57 26 1.56 1.57 1.57 1.56 1.56 1.57 1.59 1.60 1.60 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.60 1.60 1.59 1.61 1.60 1.61 1.58 1.56 1.56 1.59 1.61 1.58 27 1.58 1.60 1.61 1.57 1.57 1.37 1.6]. 1.60 1.61. 1.61 1.58 1.37 1.58 1.60 1.58 1.56 1.54 1.56 1.57 1.58 1.56 1.34 1.52 1.52 ‘3 1.53 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.53 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.60 1.57 1.59 1.57 1.62 1.60 1.61 1.63 1.67 1.64 1.64 1.63 1.60 1.59 1.57 29 1.59 1.59 1.62 1.60 1.59 1.60 1.37 1.58 1.60 ------- E.astport, Maine Septenber 1973 TA3LH2 Non—Methane Rydrocarbona (Parts Per Million Carbon). Hours Day 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 3.4 15 16 3.7 18 39 20 20 .21 .31 .42 .32 .33 .35 .28 .30 .30 .31 .30 .30 .30 21 .23 .21. .20 .20 .22 .17 .39 .18 .19 .23 .23. .20 .20 .18 .18 • .34 .18 .19 .20 .18 22 .17 .3.9 .20 .20 .22 .20 .2] .22 .27 .26 .28 .24 .25 .20 .22 .20 .23 .23 .28 .25 .26 23 .21 .24 .20 .30 .33 .31 .29 .33 .36 .31 .30 .32 . .30 .41 .23 .16 .17 .24 .43 .28 .39 24 .11 .20 .23 .23 .42 .34 .22 .28 .24 .21 .22 .17 .17 .16 .17 .17 .18 .19 .18 .34 .14 25 .3.4 .3.6 .17 .14 .13 .15 .1.5 .13 .18 .15 .14 .3.2 .12 .10 .12 .13 .11 .12 .13 .1.0 .11. 26 .14 .11 .12 .12 .11 .13 .13 .14 .3.6 .17 .17 .15 .14 .11 .13 .15 .15 .17 .18 .16 .18 27 .14 .13 .13. .12 .1]. .09 .10 .17 — .33 .24 .13 .21 .17 .17 .18 .15 .17 .21 .17 .14 28 .14 .15 .16 .13 — — — .09 .10 .08 .07 .07 — — — . — — .14 .10 .13. .10 29 — — — — — — — .14 .12 .09 .27 .13 .09 .12 .10 .13.12 .10 .12 .13. .10 30 .16 .12 .09 .13. .10 .10 .12 .13 .13 .11 .23 .21 .17 .12 .14 .10 .08 .07 .07 .08 .08 21 22 23 Ai’ .. .22 .23 .26 .30 .16 .18 .15 .19 .24 .26 .24 .23 .34 .21 — .29 .15 .14 .17 . .21 .32 .13 .12 .33 .15 .16 .14 .14 .16 .20 .18 .17 .11 .10 .10 .11 .07 .14 .17 .12 .06 .06 .03 .20 ------- !utpo t, Mains October 1975 TA3LE 2 (Continued) Non-Methane Hydrocarbon. (Part. Per Million Carbon) Day 1 2 3 6 3 6 7 $ 9 10 11. 12 13 14 13 ‘ : I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Avg. .13 — — .12 .08 .07 .10 .10 .06 .01 .08 .08 .03 .02 .02 .07 .07 .08 .09 .07 .08 .06 .07 .10 .06 .06 .05 .05 .07 .07’ .08 .06 .05 .03 .04 .06 .17 .19 .14 .09 .10 .09 .09 .08 .02 .02 .01 .05 .06 .05 .04 .04 .07 .08 .08 .08 .12 .13 .10 .08 .08 .05 .06 .10 .06 .05 .07 .06 .04 .05 .04 .05 .03 .02 .02 .03 .07 .06 .03 .03 .08 .09 .07 .06 .04 .04 .06 .07 .09 .09 .11 .08 .10 .12 .13 .10 .03 .02 .02 .08 .04 .03 .03 .02 .07 .07 .09 .01 .04 .04 .07 .06 .06 .05 .06 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 .08 .10 .09 .04 .03 .03 .01 .08 .08 .07 .09 .13 .13 .20 .21 .22 .27’ .21 .17 .12. .11 — — — — — — — .18 .10 .14 .14 .15 .10 .07 .06 .07 .12 .10 .09 .07 .06 .09 .10 .10 .13 .10 .09 .11 .07 .06 .02 .07 .07 .06 .08 .07 .09 .11 .07 .06 ‘.05 .07 .10 .10 .12 .11 .09 .10 .11 .13 .08 .04 .06 .06 .07 .08 .06 .05 .02 .04 .03 .04 .03 .02 .03 .03 .04 .05 .06 .03 .06 .07 .08 .08 .07 .08 .07 .08 .08 .09 .14 .10 .08 .07 .11 .08 .07 .07 .08 .08 .07 .10 .11 .13 .21 .16 .10 .10 .12 .12 .11 .05 .03 .08 .09 .07 .08 .09 .08 .08 .07 .08 .06 .05 .05 .04 .02 .03 .03 .04 .03 .04 .04 .04 .05 .07 .06 .08 .07 .03 .07 .08 .06 .02 .04 — — — — ‘ — — — .06 .07 .04 .06 .06 .09 .11 .06 .07 .06 .06 .01 .09 .09 .07 .05 .04 .04 .04 .05 .02 .03 .03 .03 .04 .06 .05 .05 .05 .07 .08 .08 .06 .06 .07 .07 .07 .C5 .06 .07 .06 .30 .10 .09 .1]. .15 .10 .12 .10 .08 .06 .08 .12 .09 .10 .08 .07 .07 .05 .04 .06 .07 .07 .05 .06 .06 .13 .11 .08 .08 .09 .09 .08 .07 .08 .06 .07 .06 .06 .04 .04 .03 .05 .08 .07 .06 .03 .01 .01 .02 .03 .04 .01 .00 .01 .02 .02 .03 .05 .02 .02 .04 .05 .04 .03 .04 .06 .07 .08 .10 .05 .06 .06 .07 .05 .03 .08 .10 .12 .15 .15 .13 .11 .08 .10 .07 .06 .04 .05 .08 .06 .07 .07 .08 .06 .06 .07 .12 .09 .07 .06 .07 .07 .06 .07 .07 .05 .07 .02 .08 .11 .08 .11 .11 .10 .13 .13 .12 .12 .14 .14 .19 .16 .10 .08 .08 .09 .06 .07 .06 .03 .07 .07 .07 .09 .06 .07 .08 .08 .05 .05 .06 .05 .03 .02 .04 .05 .03 .04 .07 .01 .11 .10 .05 .11 .09 .08 .07 .05 .08 .05 .03 .03 .07 .05 .04 .04 .03 .04 .02 .04 .03 .03 .04 .05 .05 .05 .07 .04 .07 .05 .06 .02 .03 .04 .02 .01 .02 .02 .02 .01 .01 .02 .03 .00 .02 ‘.02 .01 .02 .00 .01 .03 .00 .02 .04 .03 .03 .03 .02 .01 .00 .02 .02 .03 .09 .03 .06 .04 .04 .03 .05 .04 .02 .05 .06 .08 .07 .08 .09 .10 .07 .06 .06 .06 .04 .07 .10 .08 .09 .10 .07 .08 .08 .09 .09’ .10 .08 .06 .07 .06 .05 .03 .04 .06 .08 .08 .03 .06 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .08 .09 .10 .07 .07 .08 .08 .06 .08 .07 .07 .10 .08 .13 .12 .07 .08 .07 .07 .08 .08 .09 .11 .10 .09 .14 .15 .10 .09 .09 .09 .10 .08 .08 .09 .10 .13 .12 .12 .14 .11 .11 .08 .07 .16 .17 .14 .10 .08 .08 .10 .06 .05 .07 .06 .05 .06 .05 .02 .02 .04 .03 .02 .02 .04 .02 .02 .01 — — .02 .01 .01 .02 .00 .0]. .00 .01 .01 .02 .05 .03 .07 .06 .05 .08 .08 .09 .03 .03 .04 .05 .07 .08 .09 .07 .08 .09 .12 .10 .09 .10 .08 .01 .11 .08 .09 .07 .07 .10 .08 .08 .07 .07 .05 .04 .06 .06 .08 .11 .09 .05 ;04 .06 .06 .04 .03 .06 .03 .06 .07 .11 .07 .05 .05 .07 .06 .05 .08 .07 .05 .08 .07 30 .03 08 .10 .09 .09 .10 .10 .09 .08 .06 .05 .04 .06 .03 .06 .07 .05 .07 .06 .07 .04 .04 .05 .05 .07 31 .04 .02 .03 .03 .04 .02 .04 .03 .03 .03 .02 .01 .01 .01 .02 .04 .06 . .08 .05 .07 .06 .05 .04 .04 .04 ------- tA3LE 2 (Continued) Esstport, Mains Novenber 1975 you—Methane Hydrocarbons (Parts Per Million Carbon) Day 1 2 3 4 3 6 00 .02 .07 .03 .11 .04 .02 01 .04 .04 .06 .18 .04 .08 02 .04 .06 .06 .13 .03 .02 03 .05 .08 .10 .11 .04 .03 04 .04 .11 .08 .13 .03 .02. 05 .03 .09 .12 .09 .03 .02 06 .03 .31 .15 .07 .02 .03 07 .06 .10 .16 .10 .03, .02 08 .01 .3.4 .13 .08 .03 .03 09 .07 .11 .11 .05 .05 .03 10 .12 .09 .10 .04 .08 .02 Hours 11 3.2 - 13 14 .10 11 .10 .08 .08 .07 .05 .03 .09 .04 .ó5 .07 .05 .03 .01 .02 .05 .06 .05 .07 .02 .03 .02 .03 . 13 16 .08. .03 .03 .05 .09 .15 .02 .02 .08 .03 .03 .06 17 18 .03 .06 .06 .06 .3.3 .17 .15 .08 07 .03 .12 .05 19 .04 .05 .35 .10 .02 .04 20 21 22 .04 .04 .04 .06 .07 .05 .12 .14 .14 .11 .31 .10 .02 .03 .01 .03 .03 .07 23 .05 .06 .13 .08 .03 .08 Ave. .06 .07 .11 .08 .04 .04 7 .06 .07 .07 .05 .04 .03 .03 .07 .14 .13 .12 .11 .10 .09 .08 .18 .12 .11 .22 .13 .10 .07 .05 .05 .09 8 9 10 11 .32 .03 .06 .03 .16 .04 .06 .03 .17 .06 .03 .03 .11 .06 .05 .00 .06 .10 .04 .03 .07 .08 .03 .04 .08 .07 .03 .04 .11: .07 .04 .03 .09 .09 .05 .08 .12 .09 .05 .07 .13 .06 .04 .07 .11 .06 .06 .12 .03 .05 .07 .07 .06 .04 .03 .02 .10 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .06 .07 .02 .01 .04 .04 .05 .03 .12 .09 .00 . .02 .03 .03 .01 .08 .05 .06 .01 .02 .01 .07 .06 .07 .07 .04 .02 .07 .07 .06 .02 .07 .03 .07 .08 .07 .04 .03 12 .07 .07 .06 .06 .07 .10 .08 .08 .10 .06 .05 .04 .05 .03 .04 .03 .05 .07 .06 .07 .06 .04 .04 .05 .06 13 14 15 16 .07 .01 .08 .07 .06 .00 .06 .06 .04 .00 .07 .06 .06 .00 .07 .07 .05 .02 .07 .08 .03 .03 .08 .07 .02 .05 .06 .06 .07 .07 .07 .06 ‘ .06 .03 .06 .04 .06 .03 .06 .04 .01 .01 .05 .04 .02 .00 .01 .02 .01 .08 .16 .12 .03 .06 .06 .05 .03 .01 .02 .03 .03 .01 .16 .15 .07 .05 .05 .07 .03 .02 .14 .13 .05 .03 .09 .07 .03 .12 .07 .07 .08 .04 .01 .13 .13 .12 .08 .08 .08 .08 .06 .05 .00 .08 .09 .04 .03 .07 .06 .06 17 18 19 20 21 .0, .03 .02 . .02 .05 .03 .03 .02 .02 .02 .06 .06 .03 .00 .03 .07 .04 .02 .01 .04 .07 .11 .03 .02 .04 .17 .10 .02 .03 .03 .08 .13 .03 .06 .07 .11 .14 . .03 .67 .08 .12 .16 .03 .06 .10 .10 .11 .03 .07 .10 .08 .3.4 .02 .04 .11 .09 .10 .09 .10 .10 .08 .06 .07 .02 .02 .01 .01 .03 .04 .04 .03 .12 .13 .12 .13 .09 .13. .13 .10 .02 .02 .03 .04. .11 .12 .08 .09 .06 .05 .03 .03 .04 .03 .10 .10 .09 .04 .03 .04- 09 .08 .07 — .07 .06 .03 .03 .02 .02 .02 .06 .04 .07 .08 .07 .03 .08 .02 .06 .06 .04 .08 .08 .02 .04 .08 22 .02 .02 .02 .00 .01 .02 .04 .06 .07 .07 .05 .06 .06 .04 .06 .07 .06 .06 .03 .01 .00 .01 .01. .03 .04 23 .02 .03 .02 .04 .03 .05 .06 .04 .04 .05 .06 .06 .07 .06 .06 .03 .03 .07 .06 .08 .10 .07 .08 .07 .06 24 23 .06 .02 .06 .02 .03 .03 .06 .01 .04 .02, .05 .04 . .05 .01 .04 .02 .03 .03. .06 .06 .07 .06 .06 .07 .04 .06 .07 .07 .07 .08 .06 .07 .09 .07 .06 .04 . .07 .07 .02 .06 .02 .01 .00 .06 ‘.04 .04 .00 .04 .05 .03 26 .03 .03 .04 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .04 .06 .05 .05 .07 .06 .06 .04 .03 .03 .05 .07 .06 .0 ?. 27 28 .04 .01 .06 .00 .06 .00 .04 .01 .03 .03 .03 .01 .05 .01 . .05 .00 .06 .03. .06 . .06 .05 .04 .04 .06 .07 .05 .05 .04 .08 .07 .03 .01 .07 .08 .02 .03 .11 .09 .04 .09 .03 .01 .00 .08 .06 .06 .00 .06 .04 .03 29 .04 .05 .08 .06 .06 .07 .05 . .03 .06 . .06 ------- TAM.! 3 Eastport. Mains Septeciber 1975 Sulfur Dioxide Concentration (Parti per Million) Hour . Day 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ave. 19 .003 .006 .005 .004 .003 .002 .002 .002 .0034 20 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .001 .00]. .002 .0017 21 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .003 .002 .001 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .00]. .001 .001 .003 .002 .002 .002 .001 .0016 22 .00]. .001 .001 .00]. .001 .00]. .001 .001 .001 .001 . 03 .003 .003 .003 .002 .002 .003 .003 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .002 .0017 23 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .003 .005 .002 .003 .002 .002 .002 .002 .004 .002 .002 .002 .006 .012 .013 .007 .005 .004 .003 .0037 24 .00]. .001 .002 .001. .002 .001 .001 .003 .001 .002 .001 .002 .002 .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .002 .0016 25 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .001 .002 .002 .002 .003 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .003 .003 .0017 26 .003 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003 .002 .001 .00]. .003 .005 .005 .002 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .001 .0018 27 .00]. .001 .001 .003. .001 .001 .002 .002 .00]. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .003 .004 .002 .0014 28 .003 .002 .002 .00]. .001 .00]. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .00]. .001 .001 .003. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .0013 29 .001 .001 .002 .001. .001 .002 .002 .002 .003 .004 .001 .002 .002 .002 .001 .002 .002 .001 .001 .003 .002 .002 .003 .010 .0022 30 .008 .002 .001 .001. .000 .002 .001. .000 .000 .000 .00] .012 .003 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 — — .013 .013 .001 .0030 ------- tastport, flame TA3LE 3 (Cant inusd) Da7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 13. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 — .007 .001 .007 .001 .001 .001 .004 .003 .005 .005 .005 .003 .003 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .005 .007 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001 .00]. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003. .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003 .002 .001 .000 .000. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000w .000 .000 .001 .001 .001. . .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .0Q1 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .00]. .001 .001 .001 .001. .000 .002 .002 .001 .001 .000 .001 .000 .000 .001 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .002 .003 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .010 .003 .002 .001 .001 .004 .003 .001 .009 .005 .001 .001 .004 .001 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .00]. .001 .00]. .001 .002 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 October 1913 Sulfur Dioxide Concentration (Parts per Million) Roura 00 01 - 02 03 04’ 03 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .003 .004 .004 .004 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .002 — — — .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .001 .003. .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .003 .003 .005 .003 .005 .003 .003 .005 .003 .003 — .002 .001 .00]. .001 .001 .002 .001. .002 .001 .001 .00], .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .00], .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001. .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000 .003 .00]. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .00]. .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .00]. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000 .001 .000 .000 .001. .001 .001 .000 .000 .001 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .001 .001 .00]. .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .00]. .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .001 .002 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001’ .001 .001 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .OOt .001 .001 .001 .001 23 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .00]. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 24 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001 .002 .003 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 23 .00O .000 .001 .001 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 26 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 27 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .001 .001 .002 .003 .oo3 28 .001 .001 .00]. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .004 .006 .001 29 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 30 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 31 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .00]. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 Av. .0023 .0026 .0024 .0012 .0016 .0004 .0010 .001.0 .0011 .0012 .0006 .0003 .0001 .0006 .0006 .0007 .0010 .0009 .0012 .0003 .0009 .0011 0011 .0006 .0002 .0007 .0020 .0020 .0002 .0010 .0010 ------- TABLE 3 (Continued) Eastport, Maine November 1975 Sulfur Dioxide Concentration (Parts per Million) Hours Da7 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 Avg. 1 .001 .00]. .003 .002 .001 .001 .006 .002 — .004 .004 .003 .003 .003 .004 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 — — — .0023 2 — — — — — — * .001 .001 .001 .003. .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .001 .001 .0009 3 .001 .001. .002 .001 .001 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003 .002 .004 .002 .002 .004 .001 .001 .008 .001 .001 .001 .001 .0018 4 .001 .001 .001 .00l .003 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .0009 3 .00 .001 .003. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .0010 6 .002 .ó02 .002 .003 .004 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003. .001 .001 .003 .001 .0015 7 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .007 .009 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 . .004 .002 .002 .002 .002 .obi .001 .ooo .000 .0019 8 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .0001 9 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .001 .002 .0004 10 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .004 .004 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .001 .001 .003. .0012 11 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003. .000 .000 .001 .001 .002 .001 .002 .001 .002 .002 .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .0011 12 .001 .002 .002 .003 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .003 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003. .001 .002 .001 .002 .001 .0014 13 .001 .002 .001 .000 .001 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .C00 .000 .000 .0004 14 .000 .001 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .003 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003 .004 .002 .001 .001 .0010 13 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .0010 16 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .003 .003 .002 .001. .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .002 .001 .0016 17 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .00]. .001. .001 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .0015. 18 .001 .001 .001 .002 .003 .002 .003 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .003 .000 .001 .00]. .000 .001 .0013 19 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .0010 20 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .001 .000 .001 .000 .001 .00]. .001 .0009 23. .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .004 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .0010 22 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .• 7 23 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .003. .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .002 .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .0013 24 .002 .001 .001 .001 .006 .011 .007 .005 .004 .003 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .004 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .0023 25 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002. .0010 26 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .00]. .002 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002. .0012 27 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .008 .004 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .001 .000 .0014 28 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003. .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .002 .002 .003. .0o .2 ‘9 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 30 ------- TM].! 4 Eastport, Maine September 1973 Ozone (Parts per Million) Day ifours 0 A, . 00 0]. 02 03 04 03 06 01 08 09 10 11 12 13 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 20 .009 .010 .010 .010 .011 .013 .009 .011 .010 .007 .007 .008 .006 .008 .010 .013 .010 21 .014 .016 — — — — — .014 .010 .010 .010 .009 .010 .012 .013 .013 .014 .018 .015 .011 .013 .014 — — .012 22 — — — — — — — — .004 .007 .012 .015 .016 .018 .020 .021 .020 .022 .019 .020 .020 .020 .020 .020 .017 23 .023 .025 ,.028 26 .028 .025 .022 .013 .014 .018 .017 .018 .019 .023 .025 .027 .027 .020 .020 .016 .017 .015 .013 .012 .021 24 .012 .010 .007 .006 .003 .006 — .004 .010 .013 .013 .017 .018 .016 .014 .010 .007 .007 .001 .009 .008 .007 .008 .010 25 .009 .009 .008 .008 .007 .008 .008 .007 .006 .007 .009 .010 .011 .012 .015 .014 .011 .010 .008 .010 .009 .009 .009 .008 .009 26 .008 .011 .011 .011 .009 .010 .012 .012 .003 .006 .008 .008 .009 .010 .010 .011 .010 .010 .005 .007 .006 .009 .010 .011 .009 27 .011. .012 .012 .012 .012 .012 .012 .009 .010 .001 .000 .000 .001 .001 .003 .003 .003. .003 .003 .003 .007 .007 .006 .003 .006 28 .003 .003 .002 .003 .003 .006 .006 .004 .004 .005 .008 .011 .011 .011 .010 .011 .010 .006 .010 .011 .010 .009 .008 .007 .007 29 .006 .007 .009 .010 .010 .009 .010 .003 .007 .011 .013 .016 .018 .020 .016 .014 .013 .016 .016 .015 .016 .015 .015 .012 .013 30 .013 .013 .011 .011 .010 .008 .008 .009 .009 .012 .013 .022 .019 .016 .019 .020 .020 .020 .014 .011 .008 — .008 .010 .013 ------- TABLE 4 (Continued’ Eastport, Maine October 1975 Ozone (Parts per Million) Day Uours Avg. 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 .013 .013 .014 .015 .015 .012 .013 .010 .006 .010 .018 .028 .032 .041 .045 .045 044 .044 .040 .043 .043 .047 .049 .029 2 .048 .048 .048 .068 .043 .042 .038 .031 .021 .023 .029 .031 .029 .025 .023 .021 .012 .014 .018 .015 .010 .010 .012 .0t 6 .027 3 .011 .012 .013 .016 .018 .019 .020 .018 .014 .017 .018 .018 .018 .018 .020 .021 .022 .024 .021 .022 .023 .023 .023 .021 .019 4 .020 .019 .018 .017 .017 .016 .015 .016 .011 .012 .013 .015 .015 .016 .017 .017 .018 .017 .013 .014 .013 .016 .016 .016 .016 5 .017 .018 .018 .017 .017 .015 .015 .016 .014 .016 .019 .021 .020 .020 .020 .021 .020 .016 .017 .019 .019 .018 .017 .018 .018 6 .017 .019 .021 •.024 .027 .028 .028 .027 .020 .025 .026 .023 .026 .025 .027 .027 .029 .032 + 3i) .027 .030 .027 .024 .022 .026 7 .020 .018 .014 .014 .014 .014 .016 .017 .015 .019 .020 .020 .021 .021 .022 .022 .023 .022 .021 .021 .014 .018 .018 .018 .018 8 .018 .018 .018 .018 .015 .015 .017 .015 .012 .012 .015 .017 .018 .017 .017 .016 .019 .016 .019 .020 .020 .020 .020 .022 .017 9 .021 .020 .020 .020 .020 .020 .019 .018 .016 .013 .016 .017 .018 .020 .020 .022 .019 .019 .011 .008 .011 .011 .022 .021 .018 10 .021 .020 .019 .017 .016 .011 .013 .014 .016 .017 .020 .022 .022 .024 .025 .016 .020 .020 .019 .018 .020 .018 .018 .018 .019 11 .018 .016 .016 .017 .015 .015 .011 .012 .019 .022 .022 .024 .025 .025 .027 .O 7 27) .026 .025 .012 .014 .017 .021 .022 .020 12 .022 .023 .023 .023 .022 .037 .017 .018 .017 .018 .019 .019 .019 .020 .020 .012 .014 .018 .020 .020 .020 .018 .018 .017 .020 13 .017 .016 .016 .016 .017 .017 .012 .016 .016 .017 .017 .016 .016 .016 .016 .014 .014 .009 .011 .013 .016 .014 .013 .013 .015 14 .012 .009 .009 .011 .010 .010 .011 .011 .007 .010 .012 .016 .018 .019 .018 .019 .021 .020 .019 .007 .013 .014 .016 .015 .014 15 .014 .012 .012 .013 .014 .013 .013 .011 .017 .012, .013 .016 .018 .018 .018 .017 .012 .008 .010 .012 .015 .016 .016 .012 .014 16 .012 .012 .008 .011 .011 .012 .012 .011 .017 .014 .014 .012 .011 .015 .017 .015 .006 .008 .008 .008 .008 .008 .008 .008 .011 17 .006 .001 .006 .006 .008 .009 .012 .012 .005 .009 .010 .011 .012 .013 .013 .015 .016 .008 .010 .011 .010 .008 .009 .006 .010 18 .006 .006 .007 .009 .010 .010 .012 .016 .016 .011 .013 .014 .014 .015 .013 .014 .014 .010 .011 .012 .012 .012 .011 .010 .012 19 .011 .011 .012 .003 .009 .004 .007 .009 .010 .011 .013 .013 .015 .015 .015 .013 .014 .015 .012 .014 .017 .018 .017 .019 .013 20 .018 .018 .019 .019 .020 .021 .022 .022 .011 .020 .020 .020 .020 .018 .020 .018 .019 .016 .016 .013 .015 .013 .013 .012 .018 21 .012 .012 .012 .014 .015 .014 .016 .014 .010 .010 .010 .014 .018 .019 .021 .022 .022 .023 025 ’ .019 .023 .023 .024 .024 .017 22 .022 .021 .022 .021 .020 .018 .017 .018 .013 .014 .016 .017 .021 .022 .024 .023 .022 .014 .014 .017 .018 .019 .019 .019 .019 23 .019 .018 .017 .017 .014 .015 .013 .007 .012 .013 .014 .014 .015 .016 .017 .018 .018 .010 .010 .003 .007 .011 .007 .012 .413 24 .007 .003 .004 .003 .005 .003 .008 .012 .005 .010 .015 .017 .017 .019 .020 .019 .019 .017 .019 .019 .018 .018 .017 .018 .013 25 .018 .017 .017 .017 .016 .015 .015 .014 .013 .016 .018 .019 .020 .021 .021 .020 .019 .020 .014 .019 .019 .021 .022 .023 .018 26 .023 .025 .026 .026 .026 .025 .009 .012 .014 .016 .016 .016 .016 .019 .018 .019 .018 .013 .012 .013 .013 .014 .015 .015 .017 27 .013 .014 .014 .013 .012 .012 .008 .010 .011 .016 .021 .022 .022 .023 .021 .020 .017 .014 .012 .016 .015 .013 .012 .016 .015 28 .015 .012 .008 .010 .013 .012 .008 .009 .009 .015 .017 .018 .019 .018 .021 .019 .019 .013 .010 .011. .015 .017 .013 .015 .014 29 .015 .016 .017 .015 .015 .016 .015 .013 .012 .008 .010 .013 .015 .017 .020 .016 .014 .009 .014 .016 .009 .010 .012 .011 .014 30 .009 .012 .011 .014 .019 .016 .017 .015 .010 .011 .011 .011 .016 .014 .014 .015 .015 .012 .012 .013 .015 .015 .015 .015 .014 31 .015 .015 .016 .016 .017 .017 .018 .017 .017 .017 .019 .020 .020 .022 .022 .022 .022 .017 .017 .019 .019 .019 .018 .017 .018 ------- 7.432.! 4 (Continued) Ea.tport, Mains llovesber 1913 Osone (Parts per Million) Day Hours Ave. 00 01 02 03 04 03 06 07 08 09 1.0 3.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2. .017 .017 .017 .013 .018 .018 .018 .021 .020. — .020 .020 .021 .025 .02fi .030 .031 .033 .031 .026 .029 .029 .027 .024 .023 2 .020 .018 .017 .013 .014 .014 .013 .015 .013 .014 .016 .016 .019 .021 .021 .021 .018 .016 .010 .013 .014 .013 .013 .016 .017 3 .018 .020 .023 .026 .021 .026 .020 .016 .018 .010 .017 .024 .026 .026 .019 .016 .010 .012 .010 .009 .014 .018 .021 .023 .03.9 4 .018 .013 .014 .013 .013 .016 .016 .014 .013 .012 .014 .016 .020 .023 .023 .024 .023 .021 .021 .020 .018 .018 .020 .023 .018 3 .023 .024 .023 .024 .024 .022 .023 .022 .020 .014 .016 .016 .019 .020 .019 .021 .021 .01 .019 .021 .021 .021 .020 .020 .021 6 .020 .021 .021 .021 .020 .020 .017 .018 .020 .020 .022 .022 .022 .023 .023 ..02 .020 .012 .019 .018 .020 .020 .018 .022 .021. 7 .022 .023 .023 .021 .019 .018 .016 .014. .007 .013 .017 .021 .022 .023 .023 .022 .023 .026 .019 .020 .022 .026 .028. .031 .021. S .033. .033. .033 .035, .035 .033 .b42 .032 .029 .032 .031. .029 .026 .027 .027 .025 .026 .025 .019 .022 .023 .023 .020 .019 .028 9 .020 .021 .020 .018 .018 .013 .017 .016 .012 .013 .015 .017 .019 .022 .022 .020 .013 .013 01S .016 .015 .013 .015 .014 .017 10 .015 .015 .013 .013 .013 .012 .014 .013 .013 .016 .017 .017 .018 .020 .021 .021 .022 .022 .020 .021 .017 .021 .023 .023 .018 11. .023 .022 .022 .023 .022 .020 .019 .018 .018 .013 .020 .023 .022 .022 .024 .024 .019 .019 .01.5 .019 .019 .017 .017 .020 .018 12 .021 .021 .020 .021 .022 .018 .021 .023 .020 .023 .026 .025 .026 .026 .027j .025 .015 .016 .020 .024 .023 .023 .023 .023 .022 13 .022 .022 .023 .024 .024 .024 .026 .023 .022 .023 .023 .025 .025 .023 .024 .023 .023 .025 .022 .020 .018 .022 .023 .020 .023 3.4 .020 .01.9 .017 .01.2 .01.1 .010 — — .014 .018 .020 .022 .015 .01.5 .018 .023 .022 .015 .021. .021 .022 .012 .012 .013 .017 15 .015 .016 .016 .016 .011 .038 .017 .018 .017 .018 .017 .018 .018 .019 .019 .018 .019 .012 .016 .018 .017 .0t7 .017 .018 .03.7 16 .018 .018 .017 .017 .016 .014 .017 .016 .013 .017 .016 .018 .020 .019 .019 .017 .012 .011 .013. .013 .013 .013 .013 .013 .016 17 .012 .013 .013 .014 .013 .011 .010 .010 .009 .013 .010 .010 .015 .017 .018 .018 .010 .012 .014 .014 .014 .014 .015 .015 .013 13 .014 .013 .013 .014 .015 .015 .014 .014 .018 .021 .023 .028 .03 .033 .034 .031 .028 .012 .016 .018 .016 .01* .021 .019 .020 19 .019 .019 .01* .03.7 .018 .014 .016 .011 .014 .012 .018 .019 .020 .020 .020 .020 .023. .015 .017 .018. .018 .019 .019 .020 ..018 20 .019 .019 .020 .020 .020 .020 .016 .018 .017 .020 .021 .021 .021. .021 .023. .020 .020 .020 .021. .019 .018 .01.7 .012 .015 .039 21 .016 .016 .016 .013 .016 .018 .017 .014 .015 .019 .019 .018 .020 .024 .034 .036 .035 .035 .035 .039. .037 .036 .033 .035 .023 22 .036 .035 .038 .033 .032 .027 .019 .013 .012 .014 .014 .014 .014 .014 .014 .012 .012 .012 .012 .015 .019 .020 .018 .019 .020 23 .019 .018 .017 .018 .018 .020 .020 .019 .017 .019 .020 .022 .022 .022 .023 .022 .021 .015 .012 .021 .014 .018 .018 .020 .019 24 .019 .020 .020 .021 .018 .03.7 .018 .019 .018 .015 .019 .020 .020 .021 .022 .018 .018 .019 .020 .020 .020 020 .019 .019 .019 25 .021 .021 .020 .021 .022 .023 .021 .020 .020 .020 .014 .016 .03.1 .018 .017 .018 .017 .013. .015 .016 .019 .03.9 .019 .020 . .01.9 26 .022 .022 .021 .021 .020 .020 .019 .020 .016 .016 .017 .018 .020 .021 .020 .016 .020 .011 .012 .018 .019 .016 .014 .014 .018 27 .014 .015 .013 .015 .014 .016 .018 .017 .03.1 .017 .039 .019 .018 .019 .018. .023 .022 .016 .020 .023 . ‘023 .025 .023 .023 .019 28 .022 .017 .016 .016 .016 .016 .016 .016 .016 .012 .013 .013 .013 .014 .013 .015 .014 .008 .009 .010 .010 .013 .014 .014 .014 29 .015 .014 .012 .013 .014 .013 .017 .019 .020 .020 .016 ------- SET 1523 01 1275 TABLE 5 Eastport, Maine Particulate (Micrograms Per Cubic Meter) September 1975 October 1975 November 1975 22 17.9 1 23.4 1 24.9 23 11.7 2 21.8 2 11.9 24 11.7 3 11.2 3 33.8 25 12.2 4 10.7 4 17.8 26 12.2 5 3.8 5 8.0 27 1.1 6 16.4 6 4.9 28 4.5 7 8.4 7 25.3 29 11.5 8 .13.8 8 8.7 30 13.3 9 7.3 9 13.3 10 8.5 10 6.6 11 5.6 11 10.2 12 12.0 12 6.3 13 <1.0 13 10.7 14 10.7 14 9.4 15 4.5 15 7.6 16 9.3 16 5.2 17 3.8 17 12.9 18 7.1 18 8.4 19 6.3 19 4.5 20 8.9 20 1.4 21 8.7 21 24.0 22 19.1 22 4.5 23 1 4 23 5.3 24 8.0 24 4.9 25 3.8 25 4.0 26 3.6 26 1.4 27 4.9 27 10.7 28 <1.0 28 2.5 29 8.0 29 2.1 30 10.7 31 4.2 SCOT? ENVIIOPIMtNTAI. TECHNOlOGY. IPIC. ------- TAStE 6 t stport, Mains S.ptenber 1975 Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour) Day flours 00 01 02 03 04 03 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 19 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 20 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 4 21 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 22 3 3 2 2 3 3. 4 3,3 5 7 7 6 8 6 6 5 3 5 4 — — — — 23 — — — —: 2 2 3 3 5 3 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 24 2 — 1 — — — 1 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 1. 1. 4 2 — 1 1 — 1 25 — 1 3 4 4 3 — — — 6 8 8 7 3 4 4 4 5 5 7 7 7 6 7 26 6 5 7 7 7 6 7 7 8 7 7 7 8 9 9.8 6 6 3 4 3 3 6 6 27.6 7 6 4 3 .2 1 2 2 2 4 7 4 2 .22 3 2 2 3 2 1 — — 2$ — — — — — — — — — — 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 29 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 30 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 22 3 4 5”6 1 7 — — — — 5 3 3 4 ------- TAIL! 6 (Continued) Zaitport, Main. October 1975 Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour) 26 6 27 — 28 — 29 — 30 2 31 6 — —. — — 3 3 4 9 9 8 5 6 6 6 6 — 4 3 7 — — 2 3 — — 5 6 — 3 3 4 7 6 6 6 7 — 6 6 flours 11 12 7 — — 3 4 4 7 6 3 3 5 5 6 7 3 4 7 7 4 4 7 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 76 4 4 7 6 6 4 1 1 3 3 1 1. 4 2 2 2 12 1]: 3 4 6 3 2 2 6 6 3 3 7 8 12 11 10 8 12 13 3 3 1 3. 6 3 4..4 4 3 3 3 6 — 3 6 66 S 4 4 22 23 7 7 3 4 9 10 2 3 4 4 3 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 4 9 9 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 4 2 3. 7 7 13 12 2 3 10 $ 3 3 2 0 5 Day 00 1 4 2 6 3 3 4.9 3 3 6 3 7 4 8 2 9 2 10 4 11 3 12 3 13 8 HH 17 2 —4 18 0 19 8 20 12 21 3 22 6 23 5 24 1 25 — 01 02 03 04 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 $ 6 7 7 2 3 2 1 4 5 6 6 4 3 4 4 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 — 6 7 6 7 7 4 3 3 3 .3 5 .4 4 5 6 6 3 2 1 0 2 2 3 3 1 •1 2 .4 7 10 4 3 12 11 11 13 4 6 7 6 7 7 6 6 3 3 4 4 1 2 2 3 — 3 3 — 7 7 7 6 05 06 07 08 09 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 6 4 35 4 1 2 12 2 7 7 8 8 8 4 4 6 1 6 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 1 1 1 2 3 — — 1 3 4 12 10 12 10 13. 4 •4 4 4 3 3 5 5 3• 7 4 5 5.5 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 23 3 3 7 8 12 13 7 8 8 10 12 14 12 10 3.0 10 6 8 7 7 — 5 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 4 3 5 4 3 3 — — — 5 4 3.0 4 6 8 1 2 2 5 5 6 5 5 6 3 3 .4 9 7 10 S 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 5 5 11 12 15 3 3 2 10 13. 10 4 5 S 2 3 3 5 5 7 13 12 12 13 13 14 11 10 9 — — 7 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 6. 5 — — 13 14 7 7 2 2 7 7 6 7 5 6 7 7 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 S 13 13 3 4 12 10 5 6 .5 10 6 6 10 9 12 12 5 4 7 7 6 7 4. 4 7 6 1 8 7 1 2 2 7 8 8 6 5 3 7 7 7 7 7 8 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 5 4 4 5 4 3 13 12- 12 3 3 3 9 9 8 5 4 2 9 9 8 6 6 4 9 8 6 13 12 12 9 9 9 7 9 10 4 2 2 4 2 1 6 6 7 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 6 8 3 3 7 8 3 3 5 5 6 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 10 9 3 3 3 4 3 3. 4 4 2 2 9 8 11 1.4 7 5 12 10 4 3 1 1 .4 3 — 4 4 5 3 3 2 — . 1 .1 2 8 3 5 7 4 6 5 5 3 3 4 6 4 5 3 2 6 6. 6 5 6 4 4 3 2 2 ------- TA3LE 6 (Continued) Ea.tport, Maine 00 01. 2 2 9 $ 4 3 3 S 9 12 4 3 7 7 6 6 a a a a a — 13 15 1.4 6 1 3 1 2 1 10 11 7 3 4 3 06 07 08 5 8 12 6 6 7 6 4• 3 7 7 8 8. 6 7 3 3 4 3 4 4 12 11 10 a a a a — S a — a S S S a S S a .e S a - • S S S S a S — a — — a 6 6 9 9 7 3 3 2 5 3 0 2 3 6 7 7 6 8 9 9 8 Wind Speed (Mile. Per RouT) 09 10 15 18 16 1 6 4 4 6 5 11 8 7 7 S S 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 9 10 — a — — — — — a — — 0 $ - S 3 a — — a a — a S — S — a a - — a — — S 7 8 7 10 11 12 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 4 6 8 4 6 1 9 10 8 — — — 11. 12 13 14 15 16 15 17 18 18 18 .3 5 4 3 1 3 4 4 .2 1 6 8 7 3 3 4 5 5 4 4 4 6 5 3 3 S 7 7 6 6 9 10 — a — a a — — - — S S 5 — S — — S — 10 12 15 13 16 2 2 3 3 2. 4 .2 2 2 2 6 7 10 10 13 10 8 11 8 7 17 1$ 19 18 3 3 1 1 4 3 4 4 2 2 6 6 • a a a S S — 9 a a — S o a — a a — a — 1’ 19 1 1 13 4 20 21 22 23 12 13 11 9 5 5 S S 3 4 6 6 2 3 4 6 6 6 5 4 2 3 46 5 5 4 S e a S a — a. — o S a S — — a S S — a — S. — S — a — a S a a a November 1973 ROUT ! 02 03 04 05 2 3 2 3 9 7 8 6 4 5 6 7 3 4 7 5 10 8 10 7 6 3 4 4 7 7 7 7 7 10 11 11 — a a a • — a a a a a e S — a a a a a ‘S S a a S S — S a a a 5 5 — a a S — a • a a a a a S S S S a a a • Day 1 2 3 4 S 6 7. I 9 10 15 16 ‘7 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 19 16 4 1 3 S 1 6 a a S a — S S _ S 1. a — - a a — 3 a — — S 10 S 1. 6 7 21 16 19 14 12 11 1 1 3 4 5 .6 1 1 1 1 0 0 18 22 20 16 11 8 4 2 2 5 .5 3 ------- TAILE7 E..tport, Maine Septenber 1915 Wind Direction (Degree. True) Day 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 3.8 1.9 20 21 22 23 19 200 200 180 190 200 190 190 200 180 180 20 170 170 120 3.10 100 100 100 60 90 120 150 180 180 200 190 180 90 110 90 80 160 170 210 200 23. 210 210 200 200 180 210 190 1.90 190 200 200 150 150 150 105 140 150 160 170 200 190 190 200 180 22 1.90 190 190 230 260 270 280 290 280 270 280 280 270 270 270 260 250 240 250 270 — — — — 23 — — — — — — — — 170 190 1.60 200 210 190 210 220 220 210 210 200 210 200 190 220 24 240 200 220 250 120 60 50 40 40 80 90 80 60 40 50 50 40 40 40 50 50 70 70 80 25 70 60 60 60 50 50 40 40 50 60 60 60 70 90 120 100 50 40 40 40 40 50 30 60 26 60 60 40 30 70 80 90 80 80 80 90 80 70 70 70 70 80 70 70 80 140 190 190 180 21 190 200 200 210 210 170 200 130 3.20 140 80 40 100 140 130 60 60 130 130 140 180 190 210 60 28 70 250 260 190 190 190 190 190 180 320 320 330 330 330 320 320 260 290 320 320 310 310 310 310 29 310 310 310 310 310 290 300 300 300 300 300 280 270 270 270 280 - - iSO 260 230 260 260 260 240 250 30 240 220 220 230 230 230 220 210 210 180 180 200 200 190 190 — — — — — 220 220 240 240 ------- Vntpnt. sict: : 1223 7 ( tM.sd) tad Man Ia (Dqrsa ins) I n t 00 01 03 03 04 60 06 07 N 09 10 ii i i 13 14 is a 17 18 19 30 21 23 *3 I no no no no no no no no too 170 170 160 iio iso 210 10.210 no uo no no no 340 3$ 3 nonoasnoaionononososono- - 250 200 230 310 320 310 310— a a 330 3 a 330330320210n02802 103i0320310320502n2 1 027023023023023o 2 6o2602603 7 0 4 270 no 290 200 350 *io so no 320 32. 320 310 no 330 no 310 310.330 no 330 o 3 70706060 80330 330330 75230260200220240 230 240230 240230260230230230 6 230 230 *30 3$ no no no 330 3$ 240 230 230 240 no 230 230 260 no U0 no 290 so no no 7 31J330310 3$a — a 330 330 330 330 330 335 320 - - - 320310300330330330 . 4 3$a 320so260370n0n030029oso210no2302302102 2 022022022o220160100 70 sosonoso310330330330330no2 2 0no 702502102802902902101,01007030 10 40 40 290 31t 290 10 no 360 370 40 30 30 200 220 200. 130 170 110 110 130 170 so no no . 31 200*000no161301301 7 0h104 7 0160130160170119 1 30170100110130 50700050 •i2 10704040*30404040303030303040404040404040301020 13 10 10 10 0 20 50 $0 100 70 70 70 iso no no no no no so no no no no 320 no 14 320 320 330 330 320 no 310 210 .270 360 270 285 no no so 310 no so so 310 so no no is no no no no no 270 220 290 310 so no no no so so so so no no no uo 2o so an i 190 no i so in **o 70 100 100 no no so no no no us so so so 210 260 280 no 210 so it 330 no 310 no no 40 290 no no 3*0 320 320 no no no no no in too 210 iso i so is a 1$ 130 130 130 100 90 90 70 60 30 40 40 40 30 30 30 20 20 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 i i 303040 2 2020303040403030607070706030404040303060 70757070607070706040607040603030306060603050.330310 a nono no no so no no 2702703*270 270 270 270 So no 240 240240240 240 230 noan a nonosnnonono no no no nononono nb2nisouso 40220290 nononono 23 noanno 270 nsnonoa7o27onono 0330 330 330.270 300 320 320 300 330 340 10 220 a 300 no so as 330 20 40 60 100 170 130 so * 10 no 220 220 220 220 220 210 200 300 220 220 23 no 210 210 210 200 as 210 220 220 no 340 2* 200 190 in iso iso iso in 150 150 230 no no a i so in in iso in so no no no no no no sao 330 no no no so so so as no no no 27 280 290 so 310 310 310 330 3* 340 40 200 160 340 7.30 160 140 170 200 220 230 230 no no 330 21 260 260 no 230 230 230 270 240 220 210 130 190 in 200 no 200 190 200 210 200 230 230 230 210 29 n0nono240u0no23022o19020026oi30130140130140 120160190250250 10 20 30 3 30 40 30 10 30 10 0 0 20 30 30 310 310 10 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 31 3403403 1o340340340340340340340 0340330320320310%0300300 1 80290 300290 2*0 . ------- tABLE 7 (Continued) Zastport, Maine I overaber 1913 Wind Direction (Degree. True) Day Eours 00 01 02 03 04 03 06 07 08 09 3.0 13. 3.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3 300 300 300 260 270 220 220 190 200 200 210 210 210 130 130 120 130 130 130 130 120 13.0 3.20 3.30 2 130 130 130 150 110 180 180 180 180 190 180 340 190 190 380 190 230 320 330 320 320 330 340 350 3 350 340 60 60 60 80 100 130 3.30 100 110 150 160 150 40 70 90 70 90 70 70 80 80 90 4 3.00 90 90 70 110 150 140 130 130 130 140 160 170 180 180 180 170 150 160 160 150 120 120 130 3 130 120 130 150 160 160 160 160 150 — — 3.80 170 180 190 190 160 160 180 200 210 210 210 210 6 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 220 220 220 210 190 180 170 3.90 3.40 150 140 3.40 130 3.30 120 7 130 110 110 120 130 140 130 120 120 140 140 13.0 100 100 120 120 130 130 13.0 90 70 70 80 8 100 100 110 110 110 120 120 120 110 120 11.0 110 110 100 110 110 100 100 100 13.0 110 110 130 130 9 120 110 120 13.0 140 160 160 3.60 170 170 — — 170 210 210 220 230 240 240 240 250 260 250 250 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 a a — a — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — S — 12 13 14 — — — — — — 120 — — — — 210 — — — — — 15 — — — — — — — — — 210— — — — — — — 1$ — — — — — 5 — — — — a a, — 280 a — — a — 5 17. — .. — — — — a a — — — — - — 20 0 0350340340350 0 o 20 20 10 20 20 20 10 10 20 20 20 30 20 20 30 20 20 — — — — — — 3.9 — — — — — — — — 40 40 40 30 40 40 40 40 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 30 — 140 130 120 120 20 20 30 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 40 140 120 21 100 3.10 120 120 3.30 330 130 120 110 120 120 130 130 140 170 180 190 200 200 190 190 190 190 200 22 190 190 190 200 210 220 250 260 260 250 250 260 260 260 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 23 260 260 260 260 260 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 280 280 290 290 310 340 0 20 40 0 70 50 24 40 50 40 30 30 30 30 40 50 50 60 70 — — 60 60 50 50 30 ‘40 50 40 40 40 25 30 30 30 30 30 40 50 60 60 50 — — — — — 20 20 20 20 0 350 340 340 350 26 350 330 330 340 340 340 340 340 230 230 240 260 230 260 260 260 250 — 30 50 40 170 350 350 27 340 50 50 20 0 70 90 90 80 70 90 90 90 80 100 110 90 100 3.30 3.50 190 200 120 270 28 33.0 33.0 320 320 320 320 320 320 330 330 320 320 330 320 320 320 330 320 330 340 340 340 340 340 29 340 330 330 330 330 330 340 340 340 ------- —, n 1sp n 1375 ‘ —a $ T sntur. Øqrsa PSet.LQ S q * 0401 04 03 00 N 00 07 N 07 10 11 22 13 14 13 14 27 10 15 20 21 22 23 20 32 32 32 32 33 33 53 53 50 37 35 35 01 01 50 35 57 57 57 37 37 51 57 5750 21 50 50 35 35 35 55 30 1. si so so a a n un ot so so so n sv si son 33 37 37 37 51 31 53 33 37 33 03 53 07 a a a a 01 30 30 35 34 3* 35 3330 23 55 34 U U 34 34 54 34 54 54 54 54 54 U 55 U 35 35 34 34 54 34 54 3434 24 54 34 33 33 33 53 U U 34 34 34 54 U U 34 54 34 54 34 33 53 33 32 3233 i i. ss sa sa so so a a a a sa U so St a a so so is so n i3 32 32 3233 • 20 33 U 3* 33 33 34 54 54 34 53 35 55 34 34 34 35 50 30 30 57 57 55 50.3555 27 00 50 N 35 30 37 37 31 55 01 35 Si N 01 03, 00 55 35 55 50 30 50 50 3730 20 31 37 57 37 37 37 30 35 53 10 30 10 02 03 N 03 04 53 55 50 so so so 335$ 20 52 31 53 • a is so 31 30 I I 00 N 72 73 73 73 71 07 02 53 50 37 30 UN . so u s, n sa a a a n so 03 N 05 N N N 03 01 50 30 50 30 34 30 5330 ------- TABLE 6 (Continued) Eastport, Maine October 1975 Temperature (Degrees Fahrenheit) Day flours Avg. 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 55 55 55 35 54 54 34 56 56 56 59 61 63 66 68 66 61 59 57 57 57 37 37 56 38 2 56 56 55 54 55 55 56 56 57 38 59 60 61 63 63 60 58 56 53 55 52 49 47 45 56 3 45 44 41 39 38 37 36 36 40 43 47 30 32 54 53 55 54 50 47 67 47 48 50 52 46 4 32 51 50 30 50 49 47 47 51 53 54 35 57 38 38 38 37 54 50 48 46 46 43 44 31 5 42 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 39 45 48 50 53 54 55 55 34 30 46 43 43 43 44 45 43 6 47 48 50 52 52 52 52 53 56 38 57 58 39 38 57 57 57 56 56 53 55 52 51 50 54 7 50 50 49 48 47 46 44 43 44 46 48 50 52 53 54 53 51 48 44 42 39 39 38 37 46 8 37 37 36 36 36 37 38 40 41 43 46 49 32 55 54 53 52 50 47 45 43 41 39 39 44 9 37 36 35 34 32 32 32 32 36 41 45 48 52 54 56 56 54 51. 44 40 37 36 39 39 42 10 39 38 36 33. 30 29 29 31 37 41 45 47 50 53 36 53 52 48 43 42 41 41 40 39 41 1]. 39 38 37 38 40 41 41 45 50 53 54 55 57 59 56 34 52 51 50 50 50 50 50 50 48 12 50 50 31 51 51 51 50 50 30 51 52 53 53 54 54 53 33 54 54 53 53 54 54 54 52 13 53 53 32 32 51 51 50 49 48 48 48 49 49 50 50 49 49 49 49 49 49 48 47 46 30 14 46 46 43 45 45 45 46 46 48 50 33 56 61 63 62 63 62 60 55 51 48 46 45 45 51 15 43 44 44 45 46 47 47 47 48 49 49 51 55 56 57 56 54 52 31. 50 49 49 50 49 50 16 48 48 48 47 47 46 46 41 47 48 50 50 52 54 57 53 53 52 48 47 47 47 47 47 49 17 47 47 46 46 46 43 45 44 45 46 30 53 34 53 55 57 55 32 47 46 46 46 .6 45 48 1$ 45 45 46 46 47 67 46 46 46 43 44 43 43 42 41 41 41 41 41 • 41. 42 42 41 61 43 19 42 42 42 41 40 40 41 42 44 46 48 49 50 51 51 50 49 48 47 47 46 46 46 47 46 20 46 46 46 45 45 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 46 45 45 43 45 43 45 45 43 45 45 43 46 21 44 44 43 43 43 43 43 43 45 47 52 54 54 54 53 34 52 50 49 49 49 48 49 49 48 22 49 68 49 48 47 46 46 47 49 50 32 53 57 60 39 57 54 52 49 49 49 48 44 4450 23 43 42 41 41 40 39 38 41 45 48 52 54 56 57 58 59 57 53 48 47 46 45 42 42 47. 24 . 43 42 41 40 39 39 42 .. 43 46 . 50 54 36 57 36 57 56 54 51 48 48 47 47 47 47 48 25 47 46 44 46 45 45 46 48 52 57 63 65 66 66 64 63 59 56 55 33 56 57 57 57 55 26 57 57 37 57 57 56 56 56 57 58 57 56 56 56 57 57 56 50 47 47 46 45 45 44 54 27 42 41 39 38 37 36 36 43 51 34 56 51 57 57 35 52 46 45 43 42 41 41 41 41 45 28 39 38 37 37 37 38 41 43 51 54 56 58 58 58 57 54 49 48 48 67 48 47 46 47 48 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 49 50 52 54 55 58 58 57 55 53 52 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 30 52 51 50 48 48 47 46 45 44 46 42 40 38 38 37 37 37 36 36 36 36 35 35 34 41 31 34 34 34 33 34 34 34 34 37 38 38 39 41 41 41 39 37 35 34 33 3]. 30 30 28 33 ------- 1..tpnt, lttn P&.t 1373 $ SutfuasO 7 nttsrs Øspa, VaWabslt) 1 17 S 00 01 0* 03 01 05 06 07 N 03 30 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 36 9.33 23 2* 23 1 3.7 *t 37*7 i OU 33 37444$ 43 430300 04030 4304* 2 43 41 4746 4646 46 460.3437 36373737 362 47 464650 3 i i * is a isø 30.305* U 60634463 6134.31 43303* 4 , s 50 a 30 a 30 30 5* 5* an is is 5* a 53’ $5 35 51 a’ a son 39 3* 69 60 a a so a 33 34 50 is is a .46 45 $3 n so, a 6 31 34 30 34 32 3* 33 3436 31 a 43 43 45 43’46 is it a a a 7 43 is i sa a a a a 415759 6306361 iisi 3* 5*3*5* 5 34 54 3053US$ 56 37573333 37573737 573757. 335356 I 33 54 54 so’ s* a a a n so ss 57 fl 4 64 30 36 54 30 46 50 10 46 45 43 41 39 39 30 43 4$ 43 50 50 30 50 50 0 0 50 47 47 47 31 50 5* 5455 .514 0 47 47305334 533$ 5656 U 5147 lid 30 1* 40 30 37 33 36 33 54 37 42 44 46 0 51 52 50 47 46 45 47 40 43 13 41 4646464546 46 47 4S30 55 33 US$56 565655 535351 14 51 33 30545252 33 ‘31535353 56535453 33525* 414753 ss: a 46 so 43 a 44 43 it is nanso 30 a 37 30 40 40 31 a so a 45 43 4* 41 4*434343 a 40 39 43.4240 33 so a sf3037 37 36 37 37373737 30,33 37046 45474746 454643 an a 15 30 37 30370 a is 41434750 33333056 Son 46 41 3t is ‘15 ‘37 37 373756% U 33373043 44434544 433037 3736 so . 39 36 30 30’ 3 0 36 30 30 30 30 37 57 37 37 37 36 30 ‘36 33 30 30 fl 3 * 31 fl 303337 30 a is is 45464130 323353 55530 22,33 U US$3354 5* 43454645 45454747 464645 333246 23 24 is 31 *7 33 27 23303030 29 31 3230 *9 33 *133134 30 33 36 37 33563737 37 37 ss 30 37 3031 36 U 31 Uflfl 33 2933 * 9 a n* son 31 31* * 3* 3*52*32 523231 * fl * 6 3* si 3 1*3030 31 *3*3233 343333* 323131 it as as nas it a n’,n *3334 353730* s o a 44 315037 a 40 40 373730% 56 36373043 01424141 393757 375730 29 37 37 30303035 33 3434 Is * 31 43 45 0,49 5046 41* a” 3250 ‘5335 3*5* 3 1’51 4643 4545 .5430 5251 *37 3737 43 44. 3030 3036 3454 433, a a 30*3 560 4343 404$ 4646 3737 37,33 son 3355 son *4 ’ 4540 4516 54% 5130 37% son “3, 43 a 3037 33% 34% 3334 *7’27 3330 ,31 .’31,31’fl s_son 46 47 45 50 363333% ------- TAfiLE 9 Eastport, Maiss Septenber 1975 ReiRtive Rumidity (Per Cent) Day flours 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 20 too too too too too too too 100 100 94 88 80 80 78 98 98 96 96 96 100 100 100 100 100 21 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 94 92 8* 86 90 94 100 100 100 100 100 22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 — — — — — 34 40 48 56 66 80 86 86 84 23 84 86 90 94 98 100 100 98 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 24 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 96 92 94 96 98 100 100 96 96 100 100 100 100 25 100 100 100 100 100 96 92 86 82 78 70 68 66 66 60 62 68 78 94 100 98 98 100 100 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 27 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 28 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 92 82 14 66 62 60 60 58 60 74 80 98 100 100 29 100 98 98 96 98 100 100 100 82 68 56 50 42 38 36 34 34 40 48 62 76 7* *2 86 30 90 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 94 86 84 58 50 50 50 52 66 86 100 100 100 100 100 100 ------- Eastport, Mains 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 October 1975 TABLE 9 (Continued) Relative Humidity (Per Cent) flouri 12 82 74 36 • 44 38 82 26 46 32 32 44 100 98 72 36 94 52 100 90 100 82 70 52 13 14 78 66 64 58 36 34 40 38 36 36 80 90 22 20 44 .44 26 22 30 26 40 38 100 100 96 98 64 44 28 20 98 92 54 54 100 100 76 74 100 100 82 80 60 58 48 44 15 62 56 34 36 36 94 20 44 22 24 44 100 98 42 18 70 50 100 74 100 74 62 42 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 100 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 92 78 78 $0 84 76 72 68 64 60 54 46 38 78 84 100 100 98 94 100 100 96 64 50 46 62 66 70 70 76 86 92 98 96 82 58 42 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 88 74 68 72 96 98 88 78 76 62 60 56 52 44 36 34 35 62 68 74 76 84 82 78 74 66 60 52 50 52 60 64 66 68 74 76 70 64 48 40 50 48 34 60 70 74 82 86 86 74 56 42 100 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 78 58 54 82 76 76 78 86 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ‘100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100’ 100 100, 100 100 100 96 90 38 64 70 68 66 64 66 68 68 64 46 42 82 88 90 94 94 94 96 98 100 98 96 94 80 80 78 76 78 76 70 72 68 64 70 62 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 94 88 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 94 100 100 100 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 88 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 86 68 56 100 100 100, 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 74 , 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 , 96 84 68 70 80 84 92 96 100 100 92 62 40 28 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 94 90 68 64 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 94 90 100 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 94 90 84 74 68 62 56 46 40 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 68 88 100 100 100 100 100 100 66 74 80 84 88 86 76 76 34 42 ‘ 66 76 94 84 82 80 36 36 40 46 52 58 60 60 48 42 50 62 80 88 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 92 100 100 20 20 24 28 40 46 50 56 46 44 42 42 42 44 46 48 22 20 24 32 44 50 60 50 34 42 5$ 74 80 88 100 100 56 60 74 78 80 86 92 94 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 •100 100 38 32 24 26 34 42 48 50 18 20 30 36 34 60 72 76 64 58 62 72 82 84 84 82 46 68 80 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 , 100 82 92 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 92 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 84 89 100 100 90 94 98 100 38 40 56 66 72 76 90 100 52 52 66 64 64 64 82 96 100 100 100 100 70 66 66 70 82 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 78 76 62 0 46 40 58 62 Fvfl 62 60 62 24 24 26 30 50 74 90 94 100 100 100 100 60 60 46 52 94 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 82 76 76 82 94 100 100 100 100 lOt) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 94 90 *4 84 96 100 36 34 30 28 28 32 36 38 40 42 44 46 ------- • 25 26 27 28 29 TABLE 9 (Continued) Novenber 1973 Relative Humidity (Per Cent) Hours 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 58 62 64 66 80 76 70 64 58 50 46 46 46 96 86 76 74 72 72 72 72 70 64 50 44 42 90 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 94 76 56 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 94 82 72 50 54 46 40 40 42 46 50 44 44 42 40 42 •42 58 60 62 62 64 66 72 68 68 62 54 48 44 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 66 54 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 88 80 58 66 70 82 92 94 96 98 98 70 62 58 58 58 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 62 48 42 78 80 82 86 88 92 96 100 68 60 50 44 40 82 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 74 74 66 60 60 60 58 62 64 58 52 42 36 68 66 70 72 78 82 88 90 88 82 38 52 48 84 92 96 94 92 90 94 100 100 84 68 60 34 86 94 96 100 98 98 98 100 98 86 70 56 42 60 66 68 68 74 78 82 84 74 62 50 42 38 52 52 52 52 54 54 54 54 56 56 36 56 54 Eastport, Maine Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ‘13 16 —4 15 16 17 18 19 20 48 56 40 38 50 48 42 30 38 38 40 38 56 64 100 100 44 34 64 68 38 34 40 40 100 100 100 100 38 40 44 42 48 46 30 28 36 34 54 56 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 60 68 74 76 76 76 88 98 94 36 36 42 62 68 74 76 82 86 54 62 78 92 100 100 100 100 100 30 34 42 50 54 56 38 38 58 38 40 62 42 44 62 42 46 30 36 38 44 56 64 74 74 74 82 74 84 90 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10 ) 100 100 100 100 100 100 34 40 32 64 76 80 82 76 84 66 68 72 78 88 88 8 100 100 34 36 42 44 52 70 70 74 80 44 54 62 68 70 76 82 84 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 96 78 74 76 74 42 40 42 46 50 54 58 - 62 66 46 46 48 60 70 74 70 72 76 48 56 62 66 74 76 76 80 84 28 30 38 42 44 52 62 62 60 32 36 44 30 54 52 52 52 32 56 58 60 62 64. 66 70 70 72 21 78 82 22 100 100 23 58 56 24 58 60 88 88 96 90 82 100 100 100 100 100 60 66 64 60 60 68 64 68 76 78 80 78 82 100 100 98 54 54 52 78 76 76 90 94 100 100 88 •66 50 46 46 40 34 30 70 62 58 34 100 100 100 100 100 100 44 42 44 46 50 32 28 26 26 30 36 40 36 36 36 54 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 96 94 90 90 88 88 86 86 88 88 92 100 100 98 94 92 92 94 • 94 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 92 . 88 84 8 88 88 88 88 90 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 98 96 92 98 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 86 72 72 70 70 72 80 88 96 100 100 100 90 88 88 86 86 84 80 80 78 72 64 60 100 100 100 100 54 38 58 58 46 50 52 .58 100 iod 100 100 ------- AIR QUALITY MONITORING NEAR EASTPORT, MAINE • .- • Ozone Concentrations July, August & September 1976 • • S September 17, 1976 Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. Plumsteadville, Pa., 18949 ------- OZON! (Parts Par lUllLon) t .tjii.rt . 1tfte . JuIy 1976 ‘ 00 02. 02 03 06 05 06 07 .08 09 a 2.0 ii Hours 12 1.3 14 1.5 1.6 1.7 3M 19 20 21 22 23 Avg. .027 .030 .031 .030 .029 .031 .031 .028 2 .026 .025 .024 .022 .022 .020 .022. .018 .01.7 .017 — — .027 .026 .025 .024 .023 .020 .020 .015 .017 .01.9 .017 .014 3 .017 .01.8 .01.5 .016 .015 .013 .015 .01.7 .01.8 .03.5 .019 .037 .060 .063 .067 .067 .042 .040 .047 .042 .032. .032 .023 .01.1 S o .011 .033 .036 .006 .034 .040 .003 .032 .037 .003 .032. .031 .005 .024 .022 .005 .022. .023 .002 .020 .021 .001. .017 .031. .007 .018 .030 .01.3 .018 .031. .019 .019 .036 .027 .030 .027 .030 .042 .044 .032 .029 .049 .036 .032. .050 .038 .032 .033 .041. .033 .047 .041 .032 .056 .043 .032 .061 .046 .032 .064 .042 .023 .060 .039 .028 .067 .036 .034 .072 .036 .040 .030 7 .080 .082 .071 .059 .066 .079 .081 .084 .089 .092 .085 .087. .088 .088 .085 .078 .069 .066 .063 .062 .060 .055 .053 .045 . 3 9 7.0 .043 .030 .028 .036 .027 .024 .036 .029 .02.6 .035 .032 .0C9 .033 .031 .008 .029 .032 .008 .026 .036 .009 .027 .037 .01.1. .021 .037 .01.3 .01.9 .031 .01.6 .025 .028 .019 .027 .030 .039 .042 .023 .024 .029 .046 .026 .029 .053 .029 .028 .051 .030 .027 .052 .033 .025 .061 .032 .028 .057 .029 .029 .040 .030 .026 .043 .031 .021 .038 .031 .030 .033 .038 .023 024 .040 ‘.1 .036 .031 .030 .052 .028 .028 .040 .Q49 .052 .062 .068 .068 .075 .082 .087 .089 .081 .076 .080 .078 .072 .073 .056 .3.06 2 .112 .105 .1.00 .095 .093 .092 .092 .090 .088 .081 .071 .065 .067 .072 .075 .074 .073. .073 .076 .077 .075 .077 .074 .083 I 13 iS :, • i 19 20 2 : 23 2 : . 2 5 24 . 25 2 3) 37. .084 .040 .013 .009 .066 .018 .022 .060 .130 .018 .021 .025 .029 .009 .047 .060 .015 .01.9 .038 .082 .038 .01.6 .011 .064 .016 .021. .057 .116 .01.8 .029 .023 .026 .01.0 .043 .060 .01.4 .01.8 .039 .079 .033 .014 .01.0 .060 .017 .020 .058 .106 .019 .023 .023 .021 .011 .038 .060 .03.3 .016 .034 .078 .032 .01.4 .009 .063 .013 .020 .054 403 .&l8 .021 .021 .019 .011 .040 .060 .01.1. .016 .032 .081 .032 .016 .008 .057 .010 .023. .049 .091 .014 .020 .020 .017 .011 .039 .059 .01.1. .012 .031. .032. .031. .017 .009 .053 .010 .025 .042 .076 .012 .022 .022 .014 .010 .038 .053 .010 .010 .032 .080 .032 .017 .009 .049 .012 .029 .033 .063. .013. .020 .024 .011 .010 .042 .046 .009 .01.3 .032 .077 .035 .017 .010 .046 .017 .027 .027 .048 .03.2 .014 .027 .010 .010 .046 .039 .01.0 .01.5 .029 .065 .036 .018 .012 .045 .025 :026 .029 .043 .017 .011 .030 .012 .01.1 .047 .029 .01.2 .017 .026 .058 .037 .019 .014 .042 .024 .029 .038 .043 .019 .014 .030 .012 .014 •Q49 .018 .014 .021 .025 .057 .032 .020 .020 .039 .024 .031 .037 .048 .020 .017 .029 .011 .01.9 .049 .020 .013 .025 .023 .055 .052 .031 .034 .021 .021. .022 .026 .037 .031. .027 .027 .032 .033 .043 .052 .049 .046 .021. .023 .030 .033 .024 .020 .012 .017 .021 .025 .031 .052 .021 .021. .019 .023 .027 .024 .026 .029 .051. .038 020 .03]. .030 .025 .034 .060 .038 .025 .033 .018 .019 .026 .053 .021 .020 .020 .030 .052 .041 .022 .035 .030 .012 .037 .073 .039 .027 .034 .018 .021 .022 .059 .020 .020 .018 .029 .052 .037 .02]. .039 .031 .020 .040 .070 .042 .026 .036 .023 .022 .023 .063 .020 .020 .022 .030 .051. .026 .02]. .043 .027 .030 .045 .067 .042 .027 .038 .031 .024 .029 .064 .01.9 .021. .030 .031. .049 .019 .019 .067 .022 .034 .051 .080 .041 .028 .039 .037 .025 .030 .059 .03.9 .022 .033 .031 .047 .018 .018 .069 .023 .033 .056 .095 .043 .029 .040 .034 .024 .032 .058 .020 .022 .033 .029 .045 .O]. .019 .077 .022 .033 .057 .116 .044 .029 .040 .027 .024 .033 .062 .018 .020 .024 .028 .042 .017 ,017 .08 ]. .022 .032 .059 .152 .636 .626 .037 .020 .024 .032 .066 .01.6 .01.9 .019 .027 .043 .018 .012 .083 .023 .032 .059 .162 .033 .019 .033 .03.7 ?019 .035 .062 .01.3 .020 .016 .019 .041. .03.6 .001, .033 .025 .030 .059 .134 .032 .021. .032 .018 .018 .061. .662 .01.4 .021 .025 .021 .043. .03.5 .009 .016 .019 .026 .060 .133 .037 .026 .029 .025 .013. .01.7 .063 .01.5 .020 .031 .017 ------- OZONE (Parts Per Million) ; rrt, Maine U It 1?6 y H OUtS 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21. 22 23 Avg. 1. .01.7 .014 .012 .009 .011 .008 .008 .009 .013 .022 .028 .030 .032 .033 .033 .032 .030 .‘ 2R .028 .033 .033 .032 .030 .02 2 .021. .015 .014 .014 .013 .010 .009 .009 .010 .012 .014 .018 .021. .023 .025 .024 .023 .024 .025 .028 .022 .021. .025 .027 3 .025 .026 .022 .01.9 .018 .01.8 .017 .014 .015 .020 .024 .031 .038 .037 .036 .036 .039 .038 .040 .045 .046 .039 .038 .040 3 .039 .033 .034 .039 .039 .040 .037 .038 .038 .039 .039 .038 .036 .037 .041 .047 .054 .062 .070 .070 .072 .072 .074 .066 5 .035 .048 .043 .035 .034 .030 .026 .024 .024 .032 .041 .044 .050 .052 061 .069 .074 .089 .096<.0S0’.030<.030 .0 O<.08O 6 c.O8O <.080 <.080 <.080 <.080 <.080 <.080 <.080 <.080 .065 .067 .065 .061. .057 .056 .056 .055 .034 .026 .016 .003 .009 .013 .009 7 .007 .009 .009 .009 .010 .010 .011. .014 .016 .017 .018 .020 .022 .026 .029 .028 .025 .021. .02]. .019 .01.9 .021 .022 .021. .024 .026 .023 .020 .019 .013 .019 .01.9 .019 .020 .021 .018 .019 .020 .022 .023 .023 .022 .022 .021. .023 .024 .026 .023 9 .021. .020 .018 .019 .020 .019 .014 .011. .009 .010 .010 .012 .01.2 .013 .015 .018 .020 .021. .020 .020 .022 .022 .022 .026 1.0 .026 .026 .027 .027 .025 .024 .022 .020 .020 .020 .020 .020 .020 .022 .026 .028, .034 .040 .045 .05]. .065 .076 .074 .343 1.1. .032 .023 .024 .027 .028 .024 .021. .020 .01.9 .019 .018 .020 .024 .027 .028 .029 .033 .035 .036 .036 .033 .034 .036 .032 1.2 .018 .021. .021. .024 .01.4 .007 .006 .007 .006 .009 .014 .019 .031 .046 .048 .046 .046 .053 .066 .073 .075 .072 .076 .086 1.3 .095 .095 .090 .086 .082 .079 .072 .072 .074 .064 .051. .033 .055 .054 .052 .051 .050 .050 .054 .064 .059 .060 .057 .078 1.4 .107 .102 .076 .066 .049 .054 .053 .048 .042 .033 .023 .024 .032 .041 .043 .050 .054 .056 .053 .046 .044 .047 .051 .046 15 .047 .047 .046 .045 .033 .015 .01.2 .012 .012 .010 .009 .009 .01.1 .016 .022 .019 .018 .017 .018 .01.3 .016 .01.5 .012 .013 1.6 .01.6 .030 .026 .021 .016 .023 .035 .023 .021. .01.5 .022 .023 .026 .031 .035 .037 .039 .041 .046 .047 .046 •fl3 .031 .024 1.7 .021. .022 .020 .01.8 .016 .01.7 .015 .014 .013 .012 .01.2 .012 .016 .01.7. .025 .026 .026 .029 .030 .03]. .029 .021. .010 .007 1.3 .023 .029 .024 .021. .01.8 .016 .015 .018 .023 .027 .029 .030 .031 .031 .031. .030 .030 .029 .025 .022 .01.9 .1)25 .027 .029 1.9 .030. .029 .029 .019 .011. .011 .01.8 .020 .023 .027 .030 .033 .034 .033 .033 .033 .033 .034 .029 .022 .020 .01.5 .011. .009 20 .008 .01.1. .01.2 .013 .01.0 .015 .008 .01.2 .013 .022 .027 .034 .049 .044 .045 .042 .039 .042 .046 .035 .037 .011 .01.2 .C27. 21 .036 .031. .032 .029 .030 .032 .028 .029 .038 .043 .051 .055 .060 .060 .034 .054 .051 .051. .050 .048 .044 .039 .034 .033 22 .034 .032 .029 .031 .026 .021 .017 .014 .018 .023 .031 .041 .042 .048 .048 .044 .043 .049 .050 .049 .043 .1)42 .044 .041 23 .037 .039 .044 .043 .040 .041. .042 .046 .050 .046 .040 .033 .031 .029 .029 .030 .033 .038 .040 .040 .039 .038 .036 .033 24 .032 .029 .027 .021 .020 .021 .021. .022 .022 .024 .026 .028 .032 .033 .033 .034 .033 .034 .037 .038 .036 .030 .031 .030 25 .030 .031. .030 .029 .027 .026 .023 .022 .028 .033 .035 .036 .035 .037 .039 .040 .034 .032 .027 .026 .022 .015 .01.1 .008 6 .010 .034 .033 .036 .039 .029 .024 .023 .020 .019 .01.8 .019 .020 .01.9 .018 .019 .022 .023 .026 .025 .023 .023 .025 .026 27 .025 .022 .021. .022 .022 .023 .025 .026 .027 .027 .025 .029 .032 .037 .044 .049 .043 .047 .052 .057 .060 .061 .057 .052 23 .046 .042 .040 .041. .041. .039 .041 .040 .039 .036 .035 .032 .044 .046 .050 .049 .068 .046 .067 .047 .049 .050 .047 .043 29 .042 .043 .041 .038 .035 .033 .031 .030 .030 .029 .029 .028 .026 .027 .026 .028 .032 .037 .037 .037 .036 .032 .029 .029 33 029 .026 .031. .027 .024 .020 .016 .014 .011 .010 .010 .011 .013 .01.5 .017 .01.7 .015 .01.6 .016 .01.6 .017 .016 .01.7 .016. 31 .017 .01.6 .018 .019 .020 .021. .021 .019 .021 .020 .019 .027 .028 .024 .020 .020 .021. .021 .022 .02]. .028 .029 .026 .026 ------- OZONE (Parts Per Mi ] .1io i) Ea.tport, Maine . Septe.ber 1976 Day (ours 00 01. 02 03 04 03 06 07 08 09 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Av 1. .024 .022 .020 .016 .01.7 .017 .019 .024 .037 .041. .042 .044 .053 .070 .081. .094 .098 .094 .091 .084 .078 .080 .082 .078 2 .073 .076 .074 .069 .054 .043 .033 .016 .01.2 .011. .011 .010 .009 .01.1. .012 .014 .015 .01.3 .012 .009 .008 .007 .lV)6 .006 3 .008 .009 .010 .010 .011 .008 .006 .008 .012 .01.3 .013 .014 .01.6 .019 .020 .023 .026 .025 .026 .025 .024 .023 .020 .015 4 .01.4 .012 .010 .013 .011. .013 .018 .021 .022 .023 .029 .033 .033 .035 .033 .033 .033 .041. .043 .043 .039 .037 .033 .030 5 .032 .031 .033 .032 .034 .037 .038 .037 .036 .038 .039 .043 .043 .0h2 .047 .050 .05]. .052 .047 .042 .039 .033 .034 .030 6 .024 .018 .018 .014 .013 .014 .011. .01.0 .010 .007 .0 6 .008 .012.01.4 .015 .013 .01.3 .01.3 .014 .012 .012 .011 .010 .011 7 .011. .011 .012 .012 .011 .010 .009 .009 .008 .006 .006 .011. .013 .017 .020 .021 .022 .020 .020 .019 .020 .019 .018 .018 8 .01.8 .01.6 .017 .016 .015 .015 .01.6 .018 .019 .018 .020 .013 .012 .01.2 .01]. .013 .01.3 .017 .020 .023 .021. .020 .014 .008 9 .01.3 .013 .014 .01.3 .C1.6 .016 .01.6 .014 .011 .010 .010 .012 .016 .019 .021 .026 .028 .032 .030 .023 .021 .020 .020 .020 1.0 .018 .015 .017 .014 .010 .013 .012 .017 .01.9 .018 .01.9 .022 .025 .024 .028 .031. .033 .036 .037 .033 .031 .030 .028 .029 1! .031 .032 .032 .032 .032 .033 .034 .036 .036 .029 .031 .031 .030 .030 .030 .031 .029 .030 .031. .031 .032 .033 .033 .037 12 .038 .039 .041 .041 .039 .038 .034 .028 .023 .022 .01.7 .01.2 .019 .022 .022 .021 .023 .027 .029 .028 .026 .021 .022 .022 13 .021 .020 .020 .019 .020 .020 .020 .020 .019 .01.7 .01.7 .01.9 .020 .022 .023 .024 .023 .023 .031. .030 .031 .033 .032 .031 14 .032 .032 .033 .034 .036 .037 .033 .035 .034 .036 .040 .056 .059 .061. .063 .063 .065 .065 .068 .070 .045 .048 .063 .063 15 .062 .041. .017 .060 .067 .071 .047 .064 .053 .045 .048 .045 .042 .044 .047 .048 .047 .043 .044 .047 .034 .01.9 .01.8 .026 16 .031 .033 .0$4 .027 .020 .01.9 .018 .017 .018 .018 .01.9 .013 .016 .014 .013 ------- APPENDIX H ------- NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT PITTSTON REFINERY EASTPORT, MAINE Prepared for: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I Prepared by: A. Hicks, EPA Noise Branch G.A. Russell, Consultant to EPA September, 1976 ------- SUMMARY This report addresses the possible noise impact resulting from the proposed construction of a 250,000 BPD capacity oil refinery in Eastport, Maine. A brief overview of the noise impact assessment process is presented with particular atten- tion given to the EPA assessment criteria. The results of a 24 hour noise survey conducted to define the existing noise climate are presented and interpreted in terms of the LEQ(24) and LDN noise level indicators. The noise levels expected during the construction and operation of the proposed facility are examined and compared to the existing noise levels The extent of the noise impact is evaluated and measures to mitigate the projected impact are briefly discussed. Major conclusions reached in this study are: 1) LEQ(24) levels will increase an average of 10 dBA in the vicinity of the site if the refinery is constructed. 2) LDN levels are expected to increase an average of 14 dBA in the vicinity of the site if the refinery is construction. 3) Construction noise levels will be comparable to those projected for continuous operation of the refinery. 4) Relatively few (about 15) receptors will be heavily impacted and these particular receptors could be pro tected to some extent by appropriate noise abatement measures. ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY LIST OF FIGURES v LIST OF TABLES .vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 OVERVIEW OF NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3 2.1 Characteristics of Community Noise 3 2.1.1 Magnitude Characteristic 4 2.1.2 Frequency Characteristic 2.1.3 Temporal Characteristic 8 .2.1.4 Directional Characteristic 13 2.2 Noise Criteria 14 2.3 Assessment Methodology 20 3.0 EXISTING NOISE CLIMATE 22 3.1 Measurement Considerations 22 3.2 Measurement Methodology 24 3.2.1 Manual Sampling Technique . 24 3.2.2 Automatic Sampling Technique 29 3.3 Results of Noise Survey . 29 4.0 PREDICTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT NOISE LEVELS 37 4.1 Noise Contours, Normal Operation 37 4.2 Estimated Noise Levels, Normal Operation 41 4.3 Construction Noise Levels 47 5.0 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 51 5.1 LEQ(24) Noise Impact 51 5.2 LDN Noise Impact 53 5.3 Construction Noise Impact 54 5.4 Impacted Receptors 55 111 2. ------- Page 5.5 Qualitative Assessment of Noise ImpaCt 56 6.0 MEASURES TO MITIGATE NOISE IMPACT 58 BIBLIOGRAPHY 60 APPENDIX A A-i APPENDIX B separate volume ;44 •1’.’ ------- LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2-1 “A” scale frequency weighting char- acteristic. 7 Figure 2-3 Typical outdoor and indoor dBA Noise level. 9 Figure 2-3 Histograph of manually sampled SPL readings, 100 readings taken at location 3, start time 76/08/03/02/50. 11 Figure 3-1 Site map with measurement locations for existing noise survey superimposed and existing LEQ(24) levels indicated. 23 Figure 3-2 Sketch of measurement location 1. 26 Figure 3-3 Sketch of measurement location 2. 26 Figure 3-4 Sketch of measurement locAtion 3. 27 Figure 3-5 Sketch of measurement location 5 27 Figure 3-6 Sketch of measurement location 4. 28 Figure 4-1 Noise contour map with measurement loca- tions superimposed and projected refinery noise levels indicated 38 Figure 4-2 Hourly variation in existing noise level indicators, location 1, with projected refinery noise level superimposed. 42 Figure 4-3 Hourly variation in existing noise level indicators, location 2, with projected refinery noise level superimposed. 43 ------- Page Figure 4-4 Hourly variation in existing noise level indicators, location 3, with projected refinery noise level. superimposed. 44 Figure 4-5 Hourly variation in existing noise level indicators, location 4, with projected refinery noise level superimposed. 45 Figure 4-6 Hourly variation in existing noise level indicators, location 5, with projected refinery noise level superimposed. 46 vi ( 4-- ’ ------- LIST OP TABLES Page Table 2-1 FHWA Design Noise Level/Activity Relationships (taken from Reference 7). 16 Table 2-2 HUD External Exposure Standars for New Construction (taken from Reference 9). 18 Table 2-3 EPA Identified Noise Levels Requisite to Protect the Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (taken from Reference 10). 19 Table 2-4 Relative Impact Due to an Increase in LEQ(24) or LDN. 21 Table 3-1 Measurement Locations. 25 Table 3-2 Summary of Computer Recorded Data, Location 1. 30 Table 3-3 Summary of Computer Reduced Data, Location 2. 31 Table 3-4 Summary of Computer Reduced Data, Location 3. 32 Table 3-5 Summary of Digital Acoustics Recorded Data, Location 4. 34 Table 3-6 Summary of Metrosonics Recorded Data, Location 5. 35 Table 4-1 Noise Contour Distances for Other Refineries. 39 Table 4-2 Noise Contour Distances, Pittston Refinery, 250,000 BPD Capacity, Level Ground Propaga- tion 40 vii : ------- Page Table 4-3 Estimated Hourly LEQedBA Noise Levels with Both Refinery and Other Community Noise Sources Operating. 48 Table 4-4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels (taken from Reference 14). 49 Table 5-1 LEQ(24)-dBA Noise Impact at Five Measurement Locations. 52 Table 5-2 LDN-dBA Noise Impact at Five Measurement Locations... 54 Table 5-3 Tabulation of Impacted Receptors. 56 viii ------- 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The study described in this report was conducted to determine the environn :ntal noise impact resulting from the proposed construction of an oil refinery in the town of East- port, Maine. This report has been prepared as a background document to be used by the U.S. EPA Region I in the preparation and promulgation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed project. The proposed project involves the construction and opera- tion of an oil refinery, storage facility and oil transport system on the site of the currently defunct Eastport Airport. Major noise considerations associated with the project are the increase in noise levels at nearby residential receptors during normal operation of the refinery and the possible noise impact during construction of the facility. The noise impact study considers only two possible actions: build and no-build. In addition, the future noise climate under the no-build option is assumed to be identical to the existing (1976) noise climate. That is, if the refinery is not built the noise levels in the community are assumed to remain at their present values. The noise impact can then be quantified by a comparison of existing levels against those projected for the refinery under normal operating conditions. This report addresses the noise impact within the fol- lowing format: Section 2 gives an overview of the noise impact assessment process and discusses several assessment criteria. Section 3 describes the methodology used in . 1+ -i ------- 2 measuring the existing noise levels and gives the results of the measurement program. Section 4 discusses the projected noise levels during construction and operation of the proposed project. The extent of the noise impact is discussed in Section 5 and possible measures to minimize the anticipated noise impact are briefly discussed in Section 6. 4...to ------- 3 2.0 OVERVIEW OF NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT This section provides some very general background infor- mation on the nature of community noise and is intended to be an aid to the nonexpert reader. The material presented is, of necessity, cursory in nature and the reader interested in a more detailed presentation should refer to the sources listed in the BIBLIOGRAPHY Section.- The “Report to the President and Congress on Noise” (l)* and “Community Noise” (2) are particu- larly useful as introductory reading. 2.1 Characteristics of Community Noise Noise is usually defined as “unwanted sound.” The term “unwanted” suggests that noise is subjective in nature, and that what is noise to one person may be a pleasant or at least not unpleasant sound to another listener. The second term in the definition implies that noise is basically an acoustic phenomena. Acoustic signals or airborne sounds are small and rapid flucutations of air pressure about the mean atmospheric pres- sure (29.92 in Hg, or more appropriately 10 N/rn 2 abs.). As acoustic signals propagate through the air they exhibit four general characteristics: (1) The magnitude of the fluctuation. Subjectively the magnitude of the pressure fluctuation is perceived *Numbers in parenthesis indicate references listed in the BIBLIOGRAPHY. ------- 4 as the loudness of the sound. (2) The rate at which the fluctuations take place or the frequency of the fluctuations. Different frequencies of oscillation are subjectively perceived as dif- ferent tonal qualities or differences in pitch. Rapid frequencies of oscillation are sensed as high pitched sounds and the lower frequencies are sensed as low pitched sounds. (3) The temporal nature of the fluctuation. Most envir- onmental noise signals change with time, both in the short term (minute to minute) and in the long term (hour to hour and day to day). The manner in which these temporal variations occur can in some degree influence the subjective annoyance of a given noise signal. (4) The directional nature of the sound as it propagates from the source to the receiver, Because we have two ears we hear sterophonically and have a very acute sense of directional perception. Because of their importance in the measurement and assess- ment of noise levels it is helpful to consider each of these general characteristics in somewhat greater detail. 2.1.1 Magnitude Characteristic The magnitude characteristic of an acoustic signal is measured in terms of its decibel (dB) level. The decibel scale is logarithmic rather than linear with 0 dB corresponding ------- S to the approximate threshold of hearing (2 x 10 N/rn 2 ). When an acoustic signal is expressed in decibels the numerical dB value is referred to as a sound pressure level or SPL, the word “level” denoting that the decibel scale is being used, Be- cause of the logarithmic nature of the dB scale, SPL values cannot be added in the usual manner. For example, if chain saw A and chain saw B each produce a SPL of 70 dB at a given microphone when operated singly, then operating A and B simul- taneously will produce a combined SPL of 73 dB and not 140 dB as might be expected. Similarly, 10 chain saws, each of which produced 70 dB when operated individually, when all are oper- ating together would produce a sound pressure level of 70 + 10 80 dB. And going from 10 to 100 chain saws would only increase the noise level an additional 10 dB to a SPL of 90 dB. This rule for adding sound pressure levels can be summarized as “increasing the number of identical contributing sources by a factor of 10 corresponds to raising the SPL’ by 10 dB.” In general, when a listener moves away from a source of noise, the magnitude of the noise level sensed by the listener is reduced. If the source of noise acts as a “point source,” for example a parked truck with its engine idling, the reduction in noise with distance follows the spherical spreading law, i.e. a six dB reduction in SPL with each doubling of the distance (-6 dB/DD). If the noise source acts as a “line source,” a heavy and constant flow of traffic on a very long and straight roadway for example, the sound signal spreads ------- cylindrically and only produces a 3 dB reduction with each doubling of distance from this “line source” (-3 dB/DD). 2.1.2 Frequency Characteristic The frequency of a particular sound signal is measured in cycles per second or hertz (Hz) with the range of audible frequencies extending from approximately 30 Hz to about 15,000 Hz. The human ear does not, however, respond equally to sounds of different frequencies. Hearing is most acute in the mid- frequency range with considerably less sensitivity at the lower frequencies and a decrease in sensitivity at the very high frequencies. The change in hearing sensitivity with frequency follows what is called the “A scale” characteristic illustrated in Figure 2-1. Most of the sounds heard in a typical community do not consist of a single frequency but rather they contain a broad band or spectrum of different frequencies. While the detailed frequency spectrum of a given sound can be measured and the spectral content can be used to rate the subjective “loudness”. or “annoyance level” of the given sound, this approach is seldom used in community noise measurements. The method com- monly used consists of passing the measured microphone output voltage through an electrical filter which has a frequency re sponse characteristic identical to that of the A scale characteristic shown in Figure 2-1. The filtered signal is then measured on a meter calibrated to read in dB and the resultant dB value is said to be the “A weighted sound pressure ------- 0 31.5 125 500 Frequency, Hertz a w U, C a U, •0 -10 -20 -30 -40 2000 8000 - 1 - 3200 Figure 2-1 “A” scale frequency weighting characteristic. ------- 8 level” or the “SPL in dBA.” The letter “A” in the “dBA” abbreviation indicates that A scale filtering has been employed in the measurement. The use of A scale weight.ing in making community noise measurements has two significant advantages: 1. It is easier and more convenient than measuring the complete frequency spectrum of a given noise. 2. A scale measurements of different types of sound show a good correlation with actual human response to these sounds (3). Essentially all the measurements used in this study were taken with A scale weighting. To give the reader some indication of what the measured dBA values mean, Figure 2-2 shows the dBA levels of some typical indoor and outdoor sounds. 2.1.3 Temporal Characteristic While a single dBA measurement can adequately describe a steady sound at a given instant in time, most community noise levels are changing with time in a quasi-random or stochastic manner. The temporal variation of typical community noise levels is due to the multiplicity of noise sources contributing to the total noise signal at a particular microphone location. Typical contributions include traffic, industrial activities, human activities, wir.d, birds and other sources. While these contributors may collectively produce a total sound which is relatively constant from moment to moment, over a time frame of several hours both the natural and the man-made noise sources can be expected to change their individual noise ------- COMMON OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL COMMON INDOOR F4OISE LEVELS (dBA) t UkS LEVtLS 110 Rock Band Jet Flyover at 1000 ft 100 Inside Subway Train (New York) Gas Lawn Mower at 3 ft Diesel Truck at 50 ft Food Blender at 3 ft Noisy Urban Daytime 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 ft Shouting at 3 ft Gas Lawn Mower at 100 ft 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 ft Connercial Area Normal Speech at 3 ft Heavy Traffic at 300 ft 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Small Theatre, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library Bedroom at Night Quiet Rural Nighttime Concert Hall (Background) 20 Broadcast and Recording Studio 10 - Threshold of Hearing 0 Figure 2-2 Typical outdoor and indoor dBA noise level. ------- 10 outputs. In addition to these slowly changing background noise levels there are also many short duration but identifiable events such as horns honking, aircraft flyovers, trains passing, dogs barking and other such phenomena which contribute to the total noise signal. Since these multiple sources combine in a quasi-random manner the total sound signal itself changes with time in a stochastic manner. To describe the changing SPL it is there- fore necessary to employ some type of statistical analysis of the time varying SPL signal. While several types of statisti- cal indicators are commonly used in community noise studies, almost all such indicators are based on a bar-chart or histo- graph representation of repeated SPL readings. Typically what is done is to set up a solind level meter at a single microphone location and to record the A weighted SPL at fixed intervals in time (e.g. every 10 seconds) until a predetermined number of dBA readings are obtained. These readings are then plotted as a histograph, such as that shown in Figure 2-3, and various statistical indicators are read directly off the histograph or computed from the sampled readings. Some commonly used indicators include the following: (1) LMEAN = arithmetic mean of the sampled values. (2) Ll0 = the SPL value which is exceeded 10% of the time during the period of observation. (3) L33 = the SPL value which is exceeded 33% of the time during the period of observation. ------- 11 30 — S 20 — a) 0 a) ‘ .4 U o 15 0 0 4J a) U ‘.4 0) 10 5 — 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 22 24 26 28 Sound Pressure Level, SPL, dBA Figure 2-3 Histograph of manually sampled SPL readings, 100 readings taken at location 3, start time 76/08/03/02/50. ------- 12 (4) L50 = the SPL value which is exceeded 50% of the time during the period of observation. It should be noted that L50 and LMEAN are, in general, not equal. (5) L90 = the SPL value which is exceeded 90% of the time during the period of observation. L90 is usually taken to be indicative of the background or ambient noise level. (6) LEQ = the level of a constant SPL which, over the same time period, carries the same acoustical energy as the sampled SPL signal. Mathe- matically this relationship can be expressed as (4): LEQ N 2 1 p.c 10 E 1 1=1 p where N = total number of sampled readings p (t) = RMS pressure of the sample p 0 = 2 x 1o N/rn 2 . (7) LEQ(24) = same as LEQ except the observation period is taken to be 24 hours. (8) LDN = same as LEQ(24) except that a 10 dB penalty is imposed on the SPL values during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. ------- 13 Numerical values for the first six of these particular indi- cators calculated from the histograph shown in Figure 2.3 are as follows: LMEAN = 23.7 dBA L1O=26 dBA L33 = 25 dBA L5O = 24 dBA. L90=21 dBA LEQ = 24.1 dBA 2.1.4 Directional Characteristic The fourth characteristic of propagating acoustic sig nals is the directional nature of the sound as it travels front source to receiver. Typical directional effects include the reduction of noise levels due to barriers between the source and the receiver, excessive echos in hard-walled rooms, and in- creased noise levels due to reflecting surfaces (other than the ground) close to the measuring microphone. Most of these and other directionality effects can be minimized by selecting measurement locations which are free of nearby reflecting sur faces and barriers. It is therefore not normally necessary to consider these directional effects in measuring community noise levels. Directional effects are however of extreme importance in the design and analysis of effective noisà reduction barriers. Barrier walls, berms, and other sound blocking structures all exhibit a crucial dependence on the geometry of the particular ------- 14 situation in which they are used. 2.2 Noise Criteria There are three general impacts which noise can have on people: (1) A subjective impact producing annoyance and mild or strong dissatisfaction; (2) An impact causing task or activity interference, e.g. speech, sleep or learning interference; (3) A physiological impact ranging from slight startle up to permanent and irreparable loss of hearing. A thorough review of these noise impacts can be found in Re- ferences 5 and 6. It is important to recognize that the problem of corre- lating an actual measured community noise level to any of the above listed impacts (e.g. what dBA level causes permanent hearing loss?) is an extremely difficult one, The difficulties stem from two major areas. First there is the problem of quantifying the noise level due to the amplitude, frequency, and temporal variations which can be expected intypical com- munity noise signals. Secondly, there are all the problems associated with establishing a quantitative description of a basically subjective response in humans. For these reasons there is no completely satisfactory criteria for evaluating or predicting the subjective effects of noise on people. There are however some general relationships which can be cited as an aid to understanding the response of humans to ------- ‘S environmental noise: (1) Except in controlled laboratory experiments, an increase of one dB in the A-weighted noise level can- not be noticed by an average listener. (2) Normally, a 3 dB increase in A-weighted noise level would be barely noticeable. (3) A 10 dB increase in A-weighted noise level would be sensed as a doubling of loudness by an average listener. In addition to the above general relationships, several more specific noise assessment criteria can be found in regula- tions and guidelines adopted by various government agencies. Of interest to the present study are the assessment criteria used by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development (MUD), and particularly that used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The FHWA noise standards (7) are intended to be applied to new highway construction projects and quantify noise exposure in terms of a single peak hour LiD noise level. The use of the single hour L10 indicator has been adopted by the FHWA as this particular measure has been found (8) to correlate closely with the subjective response to highway traffic noise. The FHWA standard specifies “Design. Noise Levels” for various land use categories where the highway should be designed to have a peak hour impact less than the appropriate Design Noise Level. The Design Noise Levels for various’ .and use categories are suinmar- ized in Table 2-i. As indicated in Table 2-i, an exterior Ll0 ------- iesign Noise l avals - ‘ DAY Activity L ( Cateqoru eq “ 10’” Description of Aotivit Cateçor A !/ 5? 80 Tracts off land whiah serenity and cuict (Exterior) (Ext arica”) are of es raordinary eignif .canoa and Bez’Ve an important public need and where the preea ’vaticn of those qualitice is essential if the area is to continua to 85PV8 its intended purpose. Such areas could include amphitheater’s, particular parks or’ portions of parcB , open epaoes, or historic districts which are dedicated or recognized. by appropriate local officials for aotivit ea requiring special qua lities of serenity and quiet. 87 . 70 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, (Exterior) (Ext crier) active sport2 .areas, and parka which ar not included in Category A and r9aid rLc a, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, • schools, ch’u’ches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 75 Developed lands, properties or aotiviti3 s (Exterior) (Exterior) tot included in Catagories A or B above. D For requirements n undeveloped lands sac paragraphs ha ‘ md o. 1 52 55 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting (Interior) (Interior) rooms, s&zools, c 1 zurches, libraries, hospit 1a, and auditoriums. J See Paragraph 8 for m9thod of application. / Either Or 2 eq (but not both) design noise levels may be used on a projcot . / Parka in Categories A and B include all ,uoh lands (public or private which are actually used as parks as well as those pubUc lands officially sat aside or designated by a governmental agency as parks on vhe data of publio knowledge of the proposed highway project. j/ See Paragraphs 8o, d, and ó for method of application. Table 2-1 0 ’ FHWA Design Noise Level/Activity Relationships (taken from Reference 7) ------- 17 noise level of 70 dBA (or an LEQ of 67 dBA) for the peak hour of the day is viewed as a limit of acceptability for Category B receptors. The HUD noise standards (9) are based on a 24 hour cumula- tive measure of the noise exposure rather than the single peak hour Indicator employed by the FHWA. The HUD criteria are given in terms of four categories of acceptability as indicated in Table 2-2. As shown in the table the HUD standards use “over 65 dBA for more than 8 out of 24 hours” as the cut-off point between acceptability and non-acceptability. The EPA uses still another approach to quantifying the acceptability of a given noise climate. This approach is care- fully spelled out in the EPA report entitled INFORMATION ON LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE REQUISITE TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY (10) and is summarized in Table 2-3. The EPA criteria, which in the strict sense is neither a regulation or a standard, specifies both indoor and outdoor levels for various types of receptors and also specifies both activity interference and hearing loss consideration noise levels. For the purposes of the present study the appropriate receptor category would be “Residential with Outside Space and Farm Resrdences” and the appropriate noise levels would be an outdoor LEQ(24) of 70 dBA for hearing loss consideration together with an exterior LDN of 55 dBA to protect against activity interference. ------- 18 CHART: EXTERt A1 U0 5t EXPOSURE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION SITES (Measurements and projections of noise exposures are to be r de at aoorooriate heiohts above site boundaries) ENERA1 EXTERNAL EXPOSURES AIRPORT ENVIRONS dB(A) CNR I NE ZONE *1 HACCEPTABLE Exceeds 80 dB(A) .60 mInutes . per 24 hours - . Exceeds 75 dB(A) 8 hours per 24 hours (Exceptions are strong1y discouraged and require a 102(2)C en\,ironmental statement and the Secretary’s approval) 3 C )ISCREILOUARY -- NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE E ce 65 dB(A) 8 hours per 24 hours Loud repetitive sounds on site 2 B • (f pprovaIs require noise attenuation mc4sures, the Regional Administrator’s concurrence and a 102(2)C envirormental statement) )1SCRE1IO! ARY -- NOR1iALLY ACCEPTABLE Does not exceed 65 d&(A) more than 8 hours per 24 hours CCEPTA LE Does not exceed 45 dB(A) mr re than 30 minutes per 24 hc urs 1 . A Table 2-2 HUD External Noise Exposure Standards for New Construction (taken from Reference 9) ------- 19 YEARLY AVERAGEE’ UIVALENT SOUND LEVELS IDENTIFIED AS REQUISITE TO PROTECT ThE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY — . Measure . H*uOQ. To Protect I Activity Hearing Loss , gain t Inter- Comidera- BothEf- ference tion fects(b) To Protect Activity )-iearin Loss Inter- Considera- Against BothEf- ference tion fects(b) Residential with Out- side Space and Farm Residences Lde Leq(24) 4S 70 45 . 70 55 Residential with No Outside Space L Leq(24) 45 0 45 . Commercial L. (24) (a) 70 70(c) (a) 70 70(c) Inside Transportation L (24) (a) 70 (a) Industrial 1 -cq(24X4) ($) 70 70(c) (a) 70 70(c) Hospitals L Leq(24) 45 7° 45 55 70 Educational . Leq(24) L,q(24 d) 45 70 45 55 70 55 Recreational Areas L 24) (a) 70 7 0 (c) (a) 70 70(c) Farm Land and General Unpopulated Land eq(24) . (a) 70 70(c) Code: a. Since different types of activities appear to be assoaated with different levels, identifi- cation Ma 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 leveb as a function of distance which allow satisfactory communication.) b. Basedonlowestlevel. c. Based only on bearing loss. d. An Lq $) of 75 dB may be identified In these atuations so long as the exposure over the remaining 16 hours per day as low enough to result in a negligible contribution to the 24-hour aven , i.e., no pester than an of 60dB. Note: Explanation of identified level for hearing loss: The exposure period which insults in hearing lose at the identified level Is • period of 40 years Rekn to energy rather than arithmetic merges. Table 2-3 EPA Identified Noise Levels Requisite to Protect the Public Health and Welfare with an AdeqUate Margin of Safety (taken from Reference 10) ------- 20 2.3 Assessment Methodology The above discussion illustrates some of the difficulties associated with quantifying noise exposures and determining if a given noise climate is environmentally acceptable. Of particular concern here is what assessment methodology should be used in this study. Because the proposed refinery would operate on a 24 hour per day, 7 days a week schedule it is appropriate to evaluate any noise impact in terms of a 24 hour exposure rather than a single hour exposure. That is, the peak hour FHWA criteria is really not applicable for this project. In addition, the pro- posed project concerns the introduction of a new noise source into an existing community rather than the construction of new housing in an existing noise climate. That is, the HIJD standards for new construction are also not directly applicable to the situation being studied here, For these reasons, to- gether with the fact that the EPA is the promulgating agency for the project Environmental Impact Statement, the EPA identi- fied noise levels are used as the primary assessment tool in this noise impact study. The EPA criteria summarized in Table 2-3 in effect gives only a single numerical evaluation, i.e. the noise level can give an LDN above or below the 55 dBA established for activity interference. A similar single number evaluation can, of course, be made for hearing loss considerations using the LEQ(24) level of 70 dBA. To provide a more quantitative comparison of before and after noise levels the present study also considers ------- 21 the magnitude of the estimated change in LEQ(24) and LDN brought about by the introduction of the refinery into the community. The extent of the noise impact produced by these changes will be evaluated according to the assessment scale given in Table 2-4. Although somewhat arbitrary in terms of what magnitude of change causes what impact, the magnitude of the change in LEQ(24) or LDN does provide a valid indication of the total noise impact at any receptor. Table 2-4 Relative Impact Due to an Increase in LEQ(24) or LDN LEQ(24) or LDN Increase, dBA 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 ------- 22 3.0 EXISTING NOISE CLIMATE This section describes the procedures used for a 24 hour noise survey undertaken to define the existing noise climate for the area adjacent to and in the vicinity of the proposed con- struction site. Techniques used in reducing the measured data to the various statistical indicators described in the previous section are also discussed. 3.1 Measurement Considetations The town of Eastport and the Eastport Airport site are located on Moose Island as shown on the area map of Figure 3 l. As indicated by the contour lines on the map, the town of Eastport is shielded from the airport site by a ridge running approximately down the middle of the island between the airport and the town proper. The acoustic shielding provided by this ridge plus the distance separation between the refinery and the town proper (approximately one mile) should with normal atmos pheric conditions, give enough noise attenuation to effectively make the refinery noise inaudible in the main sections of East- port. For this reason the measurement locations used were all situated on the airport side of the ridge as shown on Figure 3 . -i. Five measurement locations were used for the survey. 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. Con sideration was also given to providing microphone locations free of reflections from nearby surfaces. A brief description 1+—; I ------- scale in feet:. BM 8t 0f4 . / . \ ove - — - - Figure 3—1 Site map with measurement locations for - -- ,‘-. . existing noise survey superimposed and ill a ‘\ • j 3 - / existing LEQ(24) levels indicated. Grsve aad Bouldsqs I N\ \ ‘ ‘ 1fr T • r ; ,) ) , Kendal t Head ‘ St r -, ,-J• Quoddy, C Johnson - - Core N ‘ - -::....- ‘- j. \ 3b) \ - Mud ‘\ - ‘\ N. • a E ) ‘ Approxi a acoustic o.e - 8 Dog stand ry Y sets n .,L JToddHead - . N. •j_\ t\ \ 7; ; : f L % .. Grai.4 - : \ Marg,sRock (r // -. - • j..:: .- .. g Page Rock C, - tF . . AsTPoR ‘: iL ; -s -‘ -: - V •3o ‘Ouckrn.n Head ‘ ‘A \ Sh.ckfo,d I . & - . L.dg. - -I ..•- . 1. - -.... - I.IL - - ------- 24 of each measurement location is given in Table 3-1 and sketches are shown in Figures 3-2 through 3-6. 3.2 Measurement Methodology As indicated in Table 3-1, field data was collected using either a manual sampling technique or automatic data logging instrumentation. The instrumentation used for both types of measurement is listed in Appendix A of this report. All five locations were monitored concurrently starting at approximately 6 pm on August 2, 1976 (76/08/02/18/00) and running until about 7 pm on August 3 (76/08/03/19/00). Weather conditions during the survey were almost ideal, with mild temperatures and only a slight occasional breeze. 3.2.1 Manual Sampling Technique The manual sampling method was used exclusively at lo.$ cations 1, 2 and 3. The procedure consisted of recording the visually observed A weighted SPL on a portable sound level meter at 10 second intervals until 100 readings were taken, i.e. the sample observation period was slightly less than 17 minutes. Each of these three locations was sampled once every two hours over the 24 hour survey period. Calibration was accomplished with a B K Type 4220 Pistonphone at least once every two hours. In all instances the calibration checks indicated that the sound level meter was calibrated within + 1.0 dB. A typical field data sheet is included in Appendix A and all the manual sampling field data sheets are in Appendix B H 33. ------- 25 Table 3-1 Measurement Locations Location Description Measurement Technique 1 Residence on Rt. 190, in Manual sampling. backyard approx. 125 ft. from Rt. 190. 2 Vacant lot corner of Rt. Manual sampling. 190 and site boundary road, approx. 60 ft. from Rt. 190, 20 ft. from side road. 3 Open space, approx. 25 Manual sampling. ft. west of boundary road and 250 ft. from water. 4 Residence on road to Re- Digital Acoustics doubt Hill, approx. 250 automatic sampling ft. from Rt. 190, micro- instrument. phone on roof of house. S Residence on Rt. 190, by Metrosonics garden approx. 120 ft. automatic sampling from Rt. 190. instrument, Note: Ten minute traffic counts of Rt 190 at 76/08/03/18/25 gave 150 auto/hour and 0 truck/hour along Rt , 190. ------- Microphane location Garage _____ 25’ I ‘ , — — — a I a I ______ 100’ I , iI Semi-mobile ____ home _____ I semi-mobile home Rt. 190 Figure 3-2 Sketch of measurement location 1. High grass and ferns Rt. 190 Refinery site boundary road House Small s t ream —i Culvert Trees To refinery site 6’ wood fence Two 30’ trees Microphone location To efinery site 21 -. I 60’ Low grass Figure 3-3 Sketch of measurement location 2. ------- 27 ( . _ approx. 250’ to water Microphone location To refinery site 6’ to 10’ crabapple and other bushes Refinery site boundary road Figure 3-4 Microphone location House — 0 S .— a To refinery site Hummock 120’ Rt. 190 Figure 3-5 Sketch of measurement location 5. ‘ .1 -3’ A I . 25’ Sketch of measurement location 3. 0 p. a a I I I: I L i Garden Garage ------- 28 Microphone location Detail of microphone location Ii Garage Figure 3-6 Sketch of measurement location 4 House (20’ below house) Road to Redoubt Hill To refinery site ------- 29 3.2.2 Automatic Sampling Technique The automatic sampling and logging instrumentation used at locations 4 and 5 required no attention other than the initial setup and calibration. The Digital Acoustics instru- ment used at location 4 automatically sampled at a rate of 60 samples per minute and stored the sampled SPL values on a cassette tape together with time of day information. Subsequent playback and analysis of the cassette yields hourly LEQ, LlO, L50, L90, LMIN and LMAX values for each of the 24 hours in the survey time period. The Metrosonics instrument used at location 5 also auto- matically sampled at a rate of 60 samples per minute and provided hourly LEQ, Ll0, LSO and L90 values for each of the 24 hours. 3.3 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 program together with a sample computer output record has been included in Appendix A of this report, A significant feature of the data reduction program is that it calculates LEQ directly from the observed SPL readings. Com- puter output records for all measurements taken at locations 1, 2 and 3 are included in Appendix B. Results of the computer data reduction runs for the measurements taken at locations 1, 2 and 3 are summarized in Tables 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 respectively. In these tabulations ------- 30 Table 3-2 Summary of Con puter Reduced Data, Location 1 Starting Time LMEAN SIGMA L90 L50 L10 LEQ 76/08/02/19/50 40.8 4.9 35 41 48 43.4 76/08/02/22/19 35.4 7.7 26 33 47 43.0 76/08/03/00/00 28.1 7.4 20 26 39 36.2 76/08/03/02/00 22.2 5.4 19 21 28 29.4 76/08/03/04/15 30.2 5.7 25 29 38 37.8 76/08/03/06/03 40.3 6.6 33 40 50 45.4 76/08/03/08/12 39.2 7.5 32 37 50 46.7 76/08/03/10/05 42.6 8.9 31 43 52 51.7 76/08/03/11/ 55 41.0 9.1 30 39 52 48.7 76/08/03/14/22 46.1 5.4 39 45 53 49.8 76/08/03/16/08 45.9 6.4 38 45 53 51.1• 76/08/03/18/03 44.1 6.5 37 43 52 49.2 LEQ(24) = 47 dBA LDN = 49 dBA ------- 31 Table 3- Summary of Computer Reduced Data, Location 2 LEQ(24) - 5SdBA LBA Starting Time LMEAN 44.1 SIGMA 7.3 L90 35 L50 43 Ll0 54 LEQ 49•9 76/08/02/20/30 76/08/02/22/47 34.7 9.8 25 31 47 48.2 76/08/03/00/30 26.7 5.7 24 24 30 38.5 76/08/03/02/25 25.1 2.6 23 24 27 26.9 76/08/03/04/40 38.9 7.7 32 36 52 48.2 76/08/03/06/30 76/08/03/08/36 76/08/03/10/28 44.9 43.0 46.3 8.6 9.5 10.4 • 34 32 33 44 40 46 58 59 61 52.8 55.2 58.2 76/08/03/12/20 76/08/03/14/44 76/08/03/16/30 48.8 50.2 46.8 • 9.0 7.2 7.9 • 39 41 39 • 47 50 44 ‘ 60 60 59 61.7 56,2 54.1 76/08/03/18/25 49.6 8.6 40 48 62 56.8 ------- 32 Table 3-4 Summary of Computer Reduced Data, Location 3 LEQ(24) LDN = 43dBA 45 dBA f4-41 Starting Time LMEAN’ 26.8 SIGMA 5.0 L90 21 L50 25 L10 33 LEQ 30.5 76/08/02/21/17 76/08/02/23/15 22,1 5.1 18 21 27 29.3 76/08/03/01/00 20.7 4.2 18 20 25 24.3 76/08/03/02/50 23.7 1.8 21 24 26 24.1 76/08/03/05/07 37.4 4.8 32 • 36 44 41.1 76/08/03/06/53 35.8 4.3 31 35 41 39.3 76/08/03/09/00 33.8 5.3 29 32 40 • 45.1 76/08/03/10/52 33.5 8.5 25 31 45 42.6 76/08/03/12/45 39.5 3.3 36 39 44 41.8 76/08/03/15/06 37.8 3.6 34 37 41 40.9 76/08/03/16/56 76/08/03/18/47 44.4 42.1 3.4 3.4 • 42’ 40 44 41 46 45 49 ,0 45.1 ------- 53 LMEAN is the arithmetic average of the sampled readings, SIGMA is the standard deviation of the sampled readings, L90 is the dBA level exceeded 90% of the time, L50 the dBA level exceeded 50% of the time, and Ll0 is the dBA level exceeded 10% of the time. LEQ is the equivalent energy level, again in dBA, for the particular time period. It should be noted that the L90, L50 and Ll0 values in these tabulations are given to the nearest whole dB. This has been done because the field measured values (and thus the L90, L50 and Ll0 values) are only valid to the nearest dB. The extra 0.1 dB significance given to the LMEAN, SIGMA and LEQ entries is due to the averaging process involved in the calculation of these particular statistical indicators Tables 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 also give the LEQ(24) and LDN values for the particular measurement location associated with each table. These 24 hour statistical indicators were computed from the listed hourly LEQ values by a simple manual computation process an example of which can be found in Appendix A. Table 3-5 summarizes the data taken at location 4 with the Digital Acoustics instrument. LMIN is the lowest dBA level 1 recorded during each 60 minute interval and LMAX the highest dBA level recorded. The LEQ(24) and LDN levels given in Table 3-5 were obtained by a second 2k hour composite analysis of the cassette record. Table 3-6 summarizes the data taken at location 5 with the Metrosonics instrument. The LEQ(24) and LDN values given in Table 3-6 were also calculated manually by the technique shown in the sample calculation in Appendix A. wL47 ------- 34 Table 3-5 Summary of Digital Acoustics Recorded Data, Location 4 Starting Time LMIN L90 L5O Lb LEO LMAX 76/08/02/19/30 28 37 47 57 60.7 91 76/08/02/20/30 28 36 - 46 55 53.4 75 76/08/02/21/30 29 33 42 53 50.9 73 76/08/02/22/30 29 32 39 51 48.3 73 76/08/02/23/30 29 30 34 49 45.5 70 76/08/03/00/30 29 30 31 41 38.3 55 76/08/03/01/30 29 30 31 38 37.7 59 76/08/03/02/30 29 30 31 33 41.5 71 76/08/03/03/30 29 30 31 33 33.6 56 76/08/03/04/30 29 31 36 42 38.9 57 76/08/03/05/30 30 34 37 45 41.7 60 76/08/03/06/30 32 37 44 54 49.8 72 76/08/03/07/30 30 35 43 54 50.8 74 76/08/03/08/30 31 36 46 57 55.3 76 76/08/03/09/30 30 37 46 56 53.2 74 76/08/03/10/30 30 38 47 55 53.1 76 76/08/03/11/30 30 36 46 56 52.1 74 76/08/03/12/30 29 40 48 55 53.7 76 76/08/03/13/30 33 41 47 54 49 9 73 76/08/03/14/30 37 42 49 55 54.4 79 76/08/03/15/30 38 43 49 56 52.2 72 76/08/03/16/30 37 43 49 56 528 .76 76/08/03/17/30 37 46 52 58 54.7 73 76/08/03/18/30 37 45 51 58 54.1 72 LEQ(24) 53 dBA LDN = 54 dBA ------- 35 Table 3-6 Summary of Metrosonics Recorded Data, Location S Starting Time L90 L50 Ll0 LEQ 76/08/02/19/00 35 39 48 46 76/08/02/20/00 34 41 50 49 76/08/02/21/00 29 39 50 50 76/08/02/22/00 26 37 49 46 76/08/02/23/00 24 31 .47 46 76/08/03/00/00 23 24 36 38 76/08/03/01/00 24 25 35 38 76/08/03/02/00 24 25 27 34 76/08/03/03/00 24 25 27 33 76/08/03/04/00 25 34 42 40 76/08/03/05/00 29 33 44 44 76/08/03/06/00 34 41 52 49 76/08/03/07/00 35 42 53 49 76/08/03/08/00 35 43 54 .53. 76/08/03/09/00 33 43 54 53 76/08/03/10/00 32 42 53 48 73/08/03/11/00 31 41 53 52 76/08/03/12/00 35 40 50 49 76/08/03/13/00 35 . 40 49 48 76/08/03/14/00 36 41 49 47 76/08/03/15/00 38 42 49 48 76/08/03/16/00 36 42 52 48 76/08/03/17/00 37 43 51 47 76/08/03/18/00 38 44 51 48 LEQ(24) - 48 dBA LDN = 52 dBA ------- 36 The results summarized in Tables 3-2 through 3-6 give an indication of the existing noise climate in the proposed pro- ject areas. On the basis of the numerical values shown, the existing noise climate at the locations measured can be clas- sified as very quiet, particularly. during the late evening and early morning hours. The major noise source during daytime hours is traffic along Rt. 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 ------- 37 4.0 PREDICTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT NOISE LEVELS This section addresses the problent of predicting the future noise climate if the proposed project is built. Noise levels generated by normal operation of the refinery are discussed first followed by a somewhat more speculative projection of construction noise levels. 4.1 Noise Contours, Normal Operation The proposed refinery would obviously be a new stationary noise source introduced into a semi-rural, but existing com munity. As such, the noise impact imposed by the refinery on the community can be conveniently quantified by the use of noise contours such as those shown in Figure 4-1. The calculations necessary to generate representative noise contours are generally quite complicated for a large refinery. The physical dimensions, operating capacity, esti mated individual noise level, location, and propagation path for 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 refinery, plus the multiplicity of receiver locations which must be considered in order to construct the. contours, the calculations are quite extensive and somewhat repetitive. Because of the repetitive nature of the noise contour calculations they are often carried out using digital computer routines. Noise contour calculations are however, only as accurate as the information used as input in the computational process ------- ‘S. I Y’ ) •j ( Figure 1 i Noise contour map with measurement locations superimposed and pro,jected refinery noise levels indicated. -. ; . d Scale in feet -. \ ‘ “J J/1- C i. nc . - 2C’ O booc \ Cove \ • •- -•- -. . • . .:/I ______________________ C 0 s 7 . \ ...•. Gta e4 • • ‘ N - 1 i “ ZE . jfr sndaIl H..d ‘ I ‘‘ edoisbt L 7 \ ,ø r . 1_ . — - J • -. Quoddy \ - Johnson C Cove fl p ‘. ... • . . . .... \ .•, c . J • ..... . ) ,. . . \ T.yIdrPGbAt . % 50 ‘ ._ . . • , t )fr Dog island • O ..• Carry place ; r - .. . - .. . Clark Ledgi - , - “-C • • X . . __ G .s island s- - I — PT ->, - \ — ‘ ‘ . , ‘\\ L2 . / • ‘\i ,. P -J \‘N-W .- \--,\ •“ Ii . ‘ - ‘ ‘I * ‘ . I • - •c —- Todd Hoed ‘‘ -- .. . - ; ‘0 . -— 1. - “ ‘i .•• . I . . • ‘• . .. • — , ‘. . . 4 \ . . r oar4 Marg .sRock N - -‘ i — - ‘ ‘ - St$C age Rock ç — —- .. a..’ ASTPOP - f\ . - . , . - ‘ - .. . :..-. - - I- - - . ‘.1, ‘ ) — .., .. .. .- / a d . - 0 ?, \ e •.% _ . . /‘ \ J — ) .•. — - - . c., -. . Y - ” - - “Buckman H. i .‘ . Shacktord “ ¼ . ”. 4 j ( • Esty’ . * .bc .9 a ‘ ‘& . . crwwv .I .- ¼BPI I ‘a.- I .. Point ------- 39 Tn the case of the proposed Pittston refinery the detailed design information needed for the noise contour calculations was not available. Because of this lack of design information it was necessary to estimate the noise output of the Pittston refinery based on noise contours calculated for other refinery installations. In particular, two other installations were considered, Contour distances for those refineries were taken from pre- viously published studies (11, 12) with the results shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Noise Contour Distances for Other Refineries Refinery BPD 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Sanford, ME 250,000 2300 3000 Perth Amboy, NJ 150,000 1100 1500 - - Perth Amboy, NJ 250,000* 1400 1900 3500 *Scaled up from 150,000 BPD capacity according to BPD D 10 log BPD 2 ( ) It should be noted that the contour distances given in Table 4-1 are based on level ground propagation, i.e. acoustic shielding from ground terrain is not included in the tabulated values, ------- 40 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 assump- tion that no other noise sources are active in the community. For the purposes of the Pittston refinery, which is to have a capacity of 250,000 BPD (13), an average of the two 250,000 BPD figures given in Table 4-1 was assumed for both the 60 and the 55 dBA contours. This assumption, together with the scaling equation cited in the footnote to Table 4-1, gives the distances listed in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 Noise Contour Distances, Pittston Refinery, 250,000 BPD Capacity, Level Ground Propagation Contour Level, dRA Radial Distance, Feet 60 2,100 55 3,250 50 5,780 45 10,300 These level ground propagation distances, together with cor- rections for natural terrain shielding, were used to construct the noise contours shown in Figure 4-1. Detailed calculations of shielding corrections are given in Appendix A. w- q ------- 41 The measurement locations used for the existing noise climate surveyI ve been superimposed on Figure 4-1. The noise level given on Figure 4-1 with each measurement location has been interpolated from the noise contour lines. These noise levels thus represent the noise level expected to be produced by the refinery (under normal operating conditions) at these locations, assuming all other community noise sources to be absent. 4.2 Estimated Noise Levf is, Normal Operation As pointed out above, the noise contours represent the noise produced by the refinery with all other community noise sources inactive. This situation never exists in practice and it is therefore necessary to modify the levels derived from the noise contour map in some appropriate manner. In particular it was necessary to estimate the LEQ(24) and LDN noise levels at each of the five measurement locations. This was done by the quasi-graphical technique illustrated on Figures 4-2 through 4-6. Figure 4-2, for example, shows the hour to hour variations in LEQ and L90 for the existing (year 1976) noise climate at location 1. These hourly LEQ and L90 noise levels were taken directly from Table 3.2 and are assumed to represent the future noise climate at location 1 with the refinery not oper- ating. The constant noise level of 58 dBA drawn on Figure 4-2 represents the noise level of the refinery with all other sources inactive. This 58 dBA was taken from the noise contour ------- 60 - Constant 58 dBA from refinery _________ Nighttime _______ (for LDN) I I I I 1 22 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time of Day Figure 4-2 Hourly variation in existing noise level indicators, projected refinery noise level superimposed. location 1, with so 40 - — LEQ a f - I a) 0) ‘-4 0) In ‘ rI 0 z a L90 / / 1 / . . _ / ,.. / / 30 20 10 / / /1 I I ------- 60 50 40 ‘-I 0 .,-4 o z 20 . _______ Nighttime ________ 22 0 ;2 l 16 18 Time of Day 4 Figure 4-3 Hourly variation in existing noise level indicators, location 2, with projected refinery noise level superimposed. Constant 60 dBA. from refinery LEQ —— / — . •. .1 / / / L90 .1 ------- Constant 62 dBA 60 - from refinery 50 40 — 30 - / I 20 _______ Nighttime (for LDN) 10 I 22 00 02 04 06 08 I / / / F I I I I iO 12 14 16 I 18 20 Time of Day Hourly variation in existing noise level indicators, projected refinery noise level superimposed. location 3, with a a ‘-4 4 ) ‘ P4 0 z LEQ / / / 1 — / / , II. I — / / — —I——— % I Figure 4-4 ------- 60 Nighttime r . (forLDN) I --i-- I I I I 22 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time of Day Figure 4-5 Hourly variation in existing noise level indicators, projected refinery noise level superimposed. location 4,with “ Constant 59 dBA from refinery LEQ a -a -4 ) 4 ) 0 z 50 40 30 20 - 10 — L90 .4 — . 4 — — — — —— —.— — a 0 —— . 4 ’ .4 S ’ 1 .4 /_Il•____ .4 ‘a ------- 60 50 40• a) a. 0 ) “4 0 z 30 20 10 _______ Nighttime (for LDN) I I I 1 1 -- I I 22 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time of Day Figure 4-6 Hourly variation in existing noise level indicators, projected refinery noise level superimposed. location 5, with • Constant 54 dBA from refinery LEQ a — — — / / , S L90 % p. — — — a —a’ — % —— / — — . — a ’ I I ------- 47 map of Figure 4 -1. The dB sum of the existing hourly LEQ levels and the constant 58 dBA level is thus the hourly LEQ which can be expected at this location with both the refinery and other community noise sources active. These combined LEQ levels are tabulated in Table 4-3 for all five measurement locations. Also shown in Table 4-3 are the LEQ(24) and LDN for each location where these 24 hour indicators have been calculated from the hourly LEQ values according to the manual calculation procedure outlined in Appendix A. 4.3 Construction Noise Levels It is well known that construction activity is a signifi- cant source of noise and noise-related annoyance for many people. A detailed survey of construction noise carried out for EPA (14) estimates that between 14 and 35 million people are exposédto significant construction noise levels during a 12 month period in the U.S. Typical exposure levels for these affected persons range from 60 to 1800 hours per year depending upon the par- ticular situation. For the Pittston refinery heavy construction activity can reasonably be expected to continue for about 24 months such that nearby residents will experience varying amounts of noise ex- posure during this tim period. Typical levels of construction noise generated by individual items of equipment are listed in Table 4-4. As indicated 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 concurrently ------- 48 Table 43 Estimated Hourly LEQ-dBA Noise Levels with Both Refinery and Other Community Noise Sources Operating Time Loc. 1 Loc. 2 Loc. 3 Loc, 4 Loc. 5 Period LEQ(l) LEQ(1) LEQ(1) LEQ(l) LEQ(l ) 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 62 60 55 LEQ(24): 58 61 62 60 55 LDN: 64 67 68 66 61 ------- 49 Table 4-4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels (taken front Reference 14) Equipment Item Typical dBA Level at 50 feet 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 Hammer/Drill 89 Pile Driver 100 ------- 50 during a typical construction phase, the noise level would be 95 dBA at 50 feet. Neglecting ground absorption and acoustic shielding, and assuming spherical spreading (-6 dB/DD), this 95 dBA level becomes 65 dBA at 1600 feet, 59 dBA at 3200 feet and so forth. The construction noise levels estimated above (65 dBA at 1600 feet, etc.) are comparable to those calculated for normal operation of the refinery (see Table 4-2). Thus it is reason- able 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. s1 ------- 51 5.0 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT The extent of the noise impact of the proposed refinery on the existing community is examined in this section. The assessment is carried out primarily in terms of the EPA LEQ(24) and LDN recommended levels (10). 5.1 LEQ(24) Noise Impact Five measurement locations were used in the survey of existing noise levels. As these measurement locations were selected on the basis of representing nearby receptors in the community they provide a convenient and representative vehicle for comparing the before and after LEQ(24) noise levels. The LEQ(24) levels at these five locations without the re- finery in operation are listed in Tables 3-2 through 3-6. The projected LEQ(24) levels with the plant in operation are given in Table 4-3. A direct comparison of these “with” and “without” LEQ(24) values is given in Table 5-1 together with a qualitative assessment of the magnitude of the impact per the criteria defined in Table 2-4. As indicated in the tabulation each of the five locations is expected to experience an increase in LEQ(24) ranging from 6 to 19 dBA with an average increase of 10 dBA. That is, on a 24 hour energy basis, the refinery is projected to bring about a 10 dBA increase (averaged over S locations) in the noise level. With reference to the chain saw example used in Section 2.1.1, this 10 dBA increase is equivalent to a ten- fold increase in acoustic energy. The LEQ(24) indicator is ------- 52 heavily influenced by the peak noise intrusions over a 24 hour time period and normally influenced to a much lesser extent by the background (e.g. L90) level. A 10 dBA increase in the community LEQ(24) index, brought about by the introduction of a steady source of noise, must therefore be viewed as a sub- stantial noise impact. Although a substantial impact is pro- jected to occur with the introduction of the refinery, none of the five locations is expected to exceed the EPA recommended LEQ(24) of 70 dBA. Table 5-]. LEQ(24)-dBA Noise Impact at Five Measurement. Locations Existing Projected (without (with Increase refinery) refinery) due Qualitative Location LEQ(24) LEQ(24) to refinery Impact 1 47 58 11 moderate (more than twice as loud 2 55 61 6 moderate 3 43 62 19 significant (al- most four times as loud) 4 53 60 7 moderate 5 48 55 7 moderate average increase * 10 dBA Note: Per Table 2-3, the EPA recommended LEQ(24) is 70 dBA for hearing loss consideration. ------- 53 5.2 LDN Noise Impact Table 5-2 summarizes the before and after LDN levels at the five measurement locations in the same manner as Table 5-1 summarizes the LEQ(24) levels. The results shown in Table 5-2 indicate a more pronounced impact when viewed in terms of the LDN criteria. That is, the five location average increase in LDN is expected to be 14 dBA compared to a 10 dB expected increase in LEQ(24). This difference in impact can be attri- buted in this situation to the extra emphasis given to background noise contributions by means of the 10 dB nighttime penalty used in the LDN indicator. Of particular interest is the fact that, without 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 dBA over the EPA recommended level. The conclusion to be drawn is that, in terms of the LDN criteria, the refinery will introduce a very substantial noise impact on the nearby com- munity. Further evidence of this impact can be seen in the noise level versus time graphs of Figures 4-2 through 4-6, The difference between the existing hourly L90 levels and the con- stant noise level introduced by the refinery is readily apparent on these graphs. On Figure 4-2 for example, the L90 can go as low as 20 dBA without the refinery, but with the refinery operating the noise level at this location will not •4— .- ------- 54 f 1i belot; 58 di3A. This is certainly a noticeable change in noise climate from a very quiet nighttime background level to a constant and distinctly audible 58 dBA generated by the refinery. Table 5--2 LDN-dBA Noise Impact at Five Measurement Locations Existing Projected (without (with Increase refinery) refinery) Due to Qualitative Location LDN — LDN Refinery Impact 1 49 64 15 significant 2 57 67 10 moderate 3 45 68 23 significant (more than four times as loud) 4 54 66 12 moderate 5 52 61 9 moderate average increase = 14 dBA Note: Per Table 2-3, the EPA recommended LDN is 55 dBA for activity interference protection. 5.3 Construction Noise Impact The brief analysis of noise emissions during the construc- tion of the refinery (see Section 4-3) indicated that the 4 3 ------- 55 construction noise levels would be slightly in excess of those expected during normal operation of the refinery. The tempor- ary nature of the construction activity together with the lack of nighttime construction operations tends to somewhat alleviate the impact of construction noise in the community. Thus while construction noise will indeed be an impact on the community it will not be as severe as the noise impact resulting from the 24 hour per day operatibn of the completed refinery. 5.4 Impacted Receptors From the numerical values given in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, it is reasonable to conclude that noise emissions from the refinery will significantly impact nearby receptors. The number of receptors impacted can be 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. *Supplemented by an on-site count of receptors not shown on the USGS base map of Figure 4-1 . (4 —64- ------- 56 Table 5-3 Tabulation of Impacted Receptors Receptors Extent of Impact 5 single family residences approx. 60 dBA due to oper- on south side of Rt. 190 - ation of refinery 10 houses on both sides of 55 to 60 dBA due to Rt. 190 operation approx. 20 houses 50 to 55 dBA due to operation 45 to SO dBA due to operation 5.5 Qualitative Assessment of Noise Impact The introduction of a new noise source into an otherwise stable noise climate must necessarily increase the community noise level. The analysis carried out in the preparation of this report, and summarized in Tables 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 above, represents a quantitative assessment of what 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. how this disturbance will be viewed by the nearby receptors, and the community at large, is difficult to quantify on a approx. 50 houses refinery refinery refinery But ------- 57 numerical scale. The extent of the noise impact must also be interperted in terms of the relatively few (15 residences above 55 dBA per Table 5-3) receptors whIch are heavily impacted. These, and perhaps other, qualitative factors should be con- sidered, along with the quantitative evidence presented, in judging the environmental acceptability of the proposed project. ------- 58 6.3 MEASURES TO MITIGATE NOISE IMPACT On the basis of the projected noise impacts described above it can be concluded that the refinery will have a non- negligible impact on the nearby community. It is therefore appropriate to consider possible measures which might mitigate the anticipated noise impact. - One such measure would be the acquisition of all receptors projected to receive a ñoise.level above 60 dBA from the oper- ation of the refinery. As indicated in Table 5-3, there are only five such receptors and the acquisition of these re- ceptors should be possible at a reasonable expense. Re-zoning by the town should perhaps also be considered in those areas projected to receive noise levels above 50 or 55 dBA from the refinery. Attention to possible noise problems during the final design of the refinery and the incorporation of appropriate noise abatement measures where possible could result in a reduction of the noise emission levels from the refinery. Such a reduction could reduce the size of the projected noise contours by a factor of two and thus lessen the predicted noise impact significantly. One such noise abatement measure would be the installation of mufflers on the furnace and heat exchanger fans. Construction noise levels are also estimated to be high enough to warrant abatement measures. The scheduling of noisy construction activities to take place concurrently, proper ------- 59 routing of heavy trucks and other vehicles to and from the site, only running noisy equipment when necessary, and other noise control measures should be considered by the contractor. Attention to these and other construction noise abatement measures could provide a significant reduction in the antici- pated noise impact during this phase of the proposed project. ------- 60 BIBLIOGRAPHY .1. “Report to the President and Congress on Noise,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February, 1972. 2. “Community Noise,” U.S. Environmental Agency, December, 1971, NTID 300.3. 3. Botsford, J.H., “Using Sound Levels to Gauge Human Response to Noise,” Sound and Vibration, Volume 3, No. 10, 1969. 4. “Impact Characterization of Noise Including Implications of Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise Exposure,” Environmental Protection Agency Aircraft/ Airport Noise Study Report, NT1O 73.4, July, 1973. 5. “Effects of Noise cn People,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NTID 300.7, December, 1971. 6. “Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 550/9-73-002, July 27, 1973. 7. U.s. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Ad- ministration, Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, Vol. 7, Chapter 7, Section 3, May, 1976. 8. Miller, L.N., Shadley, J.R., Anderson, G.S., “Funda- mentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise,” Bolt, Beranek and NewAan, Inc. report prepared for Federal Highway Administration, NTID PB-222 703, June, 1973. ------- 61 9. “Noise Abatement and Control: Department Policy, Imple- mentation Responsibilities, and Standards,” U.S. De- partment of Housing and Urban Development Circular 1390.2, Change 1, August, 1971. 10. “Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 550/9-74-004, March, 1974. 11. “Project Description and Environmental Impact Assessment, New England Energy Co. Proposed Refinery, Sanford, Maine,” Document IV, Technical Appendix (Fluor Dwg. 450504-00-R- 906). 12. “Environmental Report on the Proposed Modernization of the Perth Amboy Refinery,” Vol. 1, prepared by Environ- mental Research and Technology, Inc., August, 1973, (Figure 4.4-12). - 13. “Environmental Assessment Report, Proposed 250,000 BPD Fuels Refinery and Deep Water Marine Terminal at Eastport, Maine, USA,” March, 1976, prepared by Enviro-Sciences, Inc., Environmental Consultants. 14. “Noise From ConstructionEquipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances,” U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency, December, 1971, NTID 300.1. N-la ------- APPENDIX A Page Instrumentation used A-i Typical data sheet A-2 LEQ(24) and LDN manual calculation A-3 Noise contour shielding calculations A-S Computer program listing un-numbered Sample computer output un-numbered ------- A-i Table A-i Instrumentation used for existing noise survey. Locations 1, 2 and 3 : B K Type 2203, s/n 209666, SLM with B IC Type 4131, s/n 97772 microphone (tripod, windscreen, but no cable). B K Type 2209, s/n 477841, SLM with B K Type 4145, s/n 485588 microphone (tripod, windscreen, and 10 m cable). Location 4 : Digital Acoustics Model DA-604 with GR 1560P5, s/n 24991, 1 inch ceramic microphone (gooseneck and windscreen). Location 5 : Metrosonics Model dB-602, s/n 1085, Sound Level Analyzer with GR 1560P42 Preamplifier (Xi0, 20 dB position) and GR 1971 electret microphone (tripod, windscrren, and cable). Calibration : B K Type 4220, s/n 210259 Pistonphone (123.8 dB) B I Type 4220, s/n 482644 Pistonphone (1240 dB). Miscellaneous : Stop watch, wind gauge, wet and dry bulb thermometers. ------- A- £ TEST NO: LOCATION c_._v. d .v v • c. -k 1 _ V p Ii S •: WEIGHTING: . .. . ri t ‘ ‘ L!z.v.w& i & wc ..i’\ vatr vm,g c b 4 % DLd! 4. Ci 4 OBSERVER: WEATHER: START TIME: (.-*%-b1-tD .‘ . .DYV 4 .-‘ . p ‘ STOP TIME: -ot- ’i. - L L ‘ 41. C u (. (p u (_ ç c L (_1, ‘¼1 ib (. a1 t C t ( p— t.t . (I . w (V . Ys £ — ç (p s- c .. d l . “ ‘kD C. ct.. Vt ‘ - ‘ ‘ 3 L . ( .o . 1. ( . ‘ ‘¼ 44 cD (. !‘¾ vt • ‘4D Y ‘ki ‘ ‘¼’¼ (p c t ¼D • j ’ b ‘p .¼S ‘ v l -t - c ‘ ‘ s t. Itt. . (‘ fl (.. WL C. ‘¼b DV — •%c w t U -bPs A\ ‘ D ( . . “ ‘ ø, 4S ‘ “ti “tD 7.).bl M METER USED:, ACCESSORI ES FAST/SLOW: CALIBRATION: COMMENTS: MICROPHONE: A \ tl °t 1 7 ------- A-3 Sample ! 1anua1 Calculation of LEQ(24) and LDN from Hourly LEQ Levels Consider the hourly tabulated in Table 3-2. assumed to represent the 10 dB penalty needed for the nighttime (22 to 07) LEQ values measured at location 1 and Each of the 12 measured values is time period indicated below. The the LDN calculation is added during hours as shown below: Time Period 19-21 21-22 22-23 23-01 01-03 03-05 05-07 07-09 09-11 11-13 13-15 15-17 17-19 24 Computed LEQ 43. 4 43.0 43.0 36.2 29.4 370 8 45.4 46.7 51.7 48.7 49.8 51.1 49.2 hour average ( p/p 0 ) 2 2.2 x 2.0 x 2.0 x 0.4 x 0.09 x 0.6 x 3 5 x 4.7 x 14.8 x 7.4 x 9.6 x io 12.9 x io 8.3 x S.5x LEQ+ Penalty 43.4 43.0 53.0 46.2 39.4 47 • 8 55.4 46.7 51. 7 48.7 49.8 51.1 49.2 ( PIP 0 ) 2.2 x 2.0 x 20.0 x 4.0 x io 0.9 x 6.0 x 4.5 x 4.7 x 14.8 x 7.4 x 9.6 x 12.9 x 8.3 x io 7.2 x Note that the 21-23 hour period is periods in calculating the 24 hour treated as two one hour time averages. LEQ(24) and LDN ------- A-4 can be readily per; LEQ(24) = 10 log (5.5 x lO ) 47.4 dBA LDN 10 log (7.2 x i0 ) = 48.6 dBA ------- A-S Noise Contour Shielding Calculations Referring to Figure 4 -1 it can be seen that the 60 and 55 dBA contours are drawn as circles with radii of 2100 and 3200 ft. respectively. The circular shape implies that no atten- uation due to shielding or ground absorption has been included for receptor distances out to 3200 ft. This assumption was used since almost all the land area within this radius is either at the same or greater elevation than the refinery site. The 50 dBA contour has been drawn at a radius of 5800 ft. to the west and south of the refinery site. The propagation in these directions would be mainly over water and thus no attenuation would be appropriate. In the direction of Eastport and Redoubt Hill the 50 dBA contour has been reduced to a radius of approximately 4000 ft. due to the shielding of the natural ridge running down the island. This reduction in radius is roughly equivalent to an attenuation of 3 dBA which was felt to be appropriate in view of the low Fresnel number in this situation. Assuming a wavelength of 5 ft. with a mean height differential of 20 ft. and a horizontal difference of 4000 ft. gives 1/2 path length difference = 2(20002+202) - 4000 = 0.2 ft. which in turn gives N = 2(0.2)/S = 0.08 radians. This value of Fresnel number corresponds to an excess atten- uation of about 5 dB (the minimum value) on the Maekawa thin ------- A-6 creen r rrve. ec e of edge effetts and grotmd reflections, both of which tend to reduce the attenuation, an attenuation factor of 3 dB was used in drawing ‘the contours. The 45 dBA contour has been drawn with about the same amount of attenuation as used for the 50 dBA contour. This was felt to be appropriate because .of the similarity in Fres- nel number for both contours. It should be recognized that the tolerance associated with the contour distance increases with the distance. This means that the greater contour dis- tances (such as that’ for the 45 dBA contour) are only approxi. mations at best. Detailed..attenuation calculations at these distances are therefore questionable and should be treated with caution. ------- 0900 PF G AP NOISF (INPUT,OUTPUT,TAP 60:INPUT, TAPt61 OUTPUT) C C SPL DATA EOUflTION FROEPAM T L C AND COt1PUTES LMEAN, L1Q, 150, 190, LEQ, ANn OTHER C STATISTICAL PARAMETERS. C C ThERE AIçE TWO VERSIOt{ OF THE DATA PF1NTOUT. THE C SHORT V RSI3N INCLUO S THE TEST CCP OITIOt S, THE C O SERVEO fl VALUES (SEqUEUCED AS BSERVEP AHO IN C ASCENDING OR R)s APW T’ E COMPUTED RESULTS 1 THE C LONG VERSION ALSO INCLUDES A HI TOG APH OF THE C OPSEkVEO VALUES. C C .A. RUSSELL ANP M.D. LEWIS Jl NE, 1975 C C 1C00 DIH NSION ) (3000) ,Y(3OièO) ,t..T(t ) ,FUN(9) ,LCC(9) ,OBS(9) ,WEA(9), IPIET (9) ,MIKE(9) ,ACC(9) F5(9) ,w(9),CALt9) ,CDPi(9),PPCf81) C C THIS SECTION CF TH PrOGrAM r aos THE INPUTS C TO THE COMPUTER C 1010 E O(6C,8Oj0)Ij,I2 102( 00 6290 IDS=111 102k 00 1025 3=1,3000 1026 X(J)=Q 0. 1028 Y(J)=0.0 1030 EAD(60, 020)PUN,LOC,08S,WEA, MET HIKE ACCsFS WCAL,COM 1040 f EAO(60,e03 ) (NT(J),J i,10) 1050 EAD(60,3040) U 1060 QEAO(6u, C50) (X(J),J=1,N) C - C THIS SECTION OF THE PrOGRAM PRINTS OUT THE TEST C CONDITION OATA. C - 1310 WRITE(bj,85 13) 1!11 WRITE(61,8511) 1320 WF&TE(61,8520) RUN,LOC,O8S,WE ,MET,MIKE,ACC,FS,W,CAL,COM 133C WRITE(61,853 i) (NT(J),J1,10) 1340 WRITE(61,854 ) N C C THIS SECTION OF THE PkO RAPl ARRANGES THE OBSERVED C 09 VALUES IN ASCEhDIPJG OFOEI, AND PRINTS OUT THE C O8SERVEO 08 VALUES AS O S RVED ANL AS SEQUENCED. C 2010 00 2030 JisN 2020 Y(J)X(J) 20.30 CONTIMIE 2040 M 4—1 2 53 00 2120 L1,M ------- 2060 CO 21 0 K1,. 4 2070 IF(Y(K).LT.V(K#j)) 2110,2080 20d0 YA=Y(k) 2090 Y(K)=yfK+1) 2120 CONTItJU 2130 K=1. 21k0 L=10 2150 M=N/lG+j 2160 00 2230 I=1,M 2170 WRITE(6j,855o)(x(J),J=K, ),(y(J),,J= , ) 2180 K K+i0 219) LL 10 2203 IF(NLT.K) GO TO 2240 2230 COMTINUE 2242 CONTINUE C C THIS SECTION OF THE FI OGRAM AFRANGES 1HE DATA C FOR THE HIST(GRAPH. C 2252 RNIN 2513 XL0 4=j9,5 252Z XHI=20.5 2530 11 2540 R=0.0 255 ” 00 2555 J1,81 2555 PER C(J) = 0.0 2556 KL W = 25b0 00 2660 J1 N 2561 IF(Y(J).LT.20.0) GO 10 2631 2562 IF(Y(J).GT.100.0) GO TO 2631 2570 IF(V(J).GE.XLOw.AND.Y(J).LT.XHI) CO TO 2640 2580 1=1+1 2600 XLOW=XLOW+1,O 2610 XHT=XHI+I.0 2620 R0.0 263 ) f O TO 2570 2631 KLOW = KLOW + 1. 2632 GO 13 2660 2640 +1 2650 PERC(I)=R/RN1 t0’i.( 2660 CONTINUE C C THIS SECTION OF THE PROGRAM CALCULATES TI4E ELAPSED C TiME AND TIlE SAMPLING RATE, C 3013 NELAP60 24 (NT(8)—NT(3))+60’(NT(9).N1( ))+NT(10)—NT(5) 3020 RN2NELAP 3030 SRRN I/RN2. C C THIS SECTION OF THE P .OGRAM CALCULATES THE MEAN C SPL ANO ITS S1ANDA D DEVIATiON. ------- C .VI0 SU =0.Q 32’C 00 3230 J t,N 3230 SLJII=SUM+Y(J) I 1 326a DO 327n J1,N 3270 SUPiSUH+(Y(J)—AvER). 2 3280 SIS=SOFI (SUM/(PNI-.1.Cfl C C IllS SECTION OF THE PROGRAM CALCULATES THE LEQ C LEVEL. C 351.0 SIJM=0.,3 3520 C 3530 J1,f! 3530 SUM=SUM+It .3 (y(J /j0.0) 35’+O EQL 23.C ALOGl0(SQkT(5UK)/5QRT(RNj)) C C THIS SECTION OF THE PIOGRA 1 CALCULATES THE 101, C LID, L33, L50, 190, AND 199 LEVELS. C 43 J:(1 N)I100 ‘. 1! IF(J.GE..t) GO TO ‘.020 ‘.014 0899=Y(l) .0l6 GO TO ‘.030 ‘.020 0699Y(J) 403t J:(I0 N)/10O 401.0 0693:Y(J) 4050 J(50 N)/100 1.060 DB50 Y(J) k ’i?0 J(6?#1)I100 40d0 D833:Y(J) ‘ .09C J=(90 N)/100 DBIJY(J) 4110 J=(99 N)/100 ‘.120 DBO IY(J) C C THIS SECTION OF THE P1 OGkAH CALCULATES THE C TtAFFj.C NOISE INO X (TNI), AND THE NOISE C P( LLUTION LEVFL (LNP). C ‘.51C TNI= ’ ..0 tDBj —O89G)+DB90. 3G.0 ‘.520 PNLEQL+2.56’SIG C C TUIS SECTION OF THE PFOGRAM PP P1TS OUT THE C COPIDUTED VALUES OF T E SINGLE NUMBER SPL C INDICATORS. C ‘.810 WkITE(61,8560) ‘.!20 W IT (6i,8570)AV R,N!LAP,SIG,sR,D1399,Y(t),t fl90,Y(N),OU5C,EQL, 10P33, PUL ,0810 ,TNI ,DB01 C C THIS SECTION OF THE P1’OtRAM PLOTS THE HISf 0— ------- C GF APH OF TH CBSERVc.O 03 VALUES. c 5010 IF(12.GT .1) GO TO 6290 5020 WRIT (6i,9gj0) 5040 DO 6180 11,5Q 5 1+! IF(T.LE.13.OR.r.GE,37) WRITE(61,9030) 5350 IF(I.EQ.j4) WRITE(oj,901.0) 0801 5660 IF(i.EO.15) WF IT (61,9fl5Q) 0310 5073 IF(I.EO.16) WFITE(6l,9063) 0833 5080 TF(I,EO.17) WRITEf€1,9070) 0850 5090 IF(I.EO,18) wkIT€(61,qC80) AVER 5100 IF(I,Ef),j9) WPITE(61,9090) 0 90 5110 IF(I.EO.?o) WF1TE(61,9100) 0899 5120 IF(I,Et .21) WRITEt61,9110) EQL 513C IF(I.EQ.22) WPIT (6j,9120) SIG 514C IF(I. Efl. 23) WFITE (61,9130) Siso IF(I.Efl.2.) WFITE(€1,9030) s1€ o IF(I.EQ.25) WRITE(61,9 15f1) 5170 IF(I,EO.26) wr ITE(61,g16o) 518C IF(I,EO.27) Wf IT (ó1,9170) 5190 IFCI. EQ. ) U iTE (61,9180) 5203 IF( I.EO.29) WRITE (61,9190) 5210 IF(I.EO.3r wFITE6 1,9200) 5220 IF(I.EQ,3j.) WPITE( 1,921O) 5230 IF(T.EO.32) WFITE(61,9220) 52’+O IF(I.Ee.33) WRITE(6j,9230) 5250 IF(I.EQ.3 1 +) WRITE(bt,9150) 5260 IF(I.EO.35) WI ITZ(61,9250) 5270 IF(I.EQ.36) WP. TE(61,9t7O) 52 0 (=51—I 5290 YK=K 5295 7K=YI(—0.5 5300 KJ:K/5 5313 KK KJ 5 5320 IF(K.EQ.KK) GO TO 5350 9330 Wc ITE(61,9260) 531+0 GO TO 5360 5350 WPITE(61,9273) K 5360 CONTINUE 5370 IF(PPC(1).Gt.7K) WRITE(61,9280) 5380 IF(PEFC(’).GE.ZK) WRITE(61,9290) 5390 IF(PE C(3).G .ZK) WRITE(61,9300) 5430 IF(PERC(Zi),GE,ZK) WRITE(6j,93 1t)) 5410 IF(PEPC(5).G .ZK) WRTT (61,9320) 5420 IF(PEFC(6).GE.ZK) W ITE(61,9330) 5 30 IFPE:Pc7.GE.ZK) WRITE(&1 93I40) s’ o IF(P RC(8).r .ZK) WRIT (61s9350) 51+50 IF(PEPC(9).G .ZK) WR TE(6j,9363) 5460 IF(PFC(t3).Gc.ZK) WPLTE(61,9370) 5470 IF(PEPC(11) .GE.ZK) WRITE(61,938 ) 5L. 30 IF(P PC(j2) .GL .ZK) WRITE(61s9390) iL ------- IF(PERC(13) .GE. ZK) IF(PEFC(1’.) .GE.ZK) iF(PEFC(i ).GE. ZK) TF(PERC(t6) .GE.ZK) iF(P R .(i9) .GE. 2K) tF(P RC(20) .GE.ZK) IF(P PC(21) .GE ZK) iF( P!c C(22) .Gt.ZK) iF(Pc PC(23) ,GE 4 ZK) IF(PE C(2 ) ,GE.ZK) IF(PERC(25) ,Ct.ZK) IF(PEPCt26) .Gt.7K) IF(P PC(27) .G€ . ZK) IF(P ?C(28) .GE.ZK) IFtPE C (29) .‘E.7K) LF(PERC(3C) .GE.ZK) IF(PEPC( 31) .GE. 2K) IF(PERC( 2) ,GE.ZIZ) tF(P ERC(33) .cEZK) IF(PESC(31.) .6E.ZK) 1F(PEF:C(35) , . ZK3 TF(P.PC(36) 1 GE.ZK) IF(PERC(37) ,G .ZK) IF(PEFC(3I ) .GE.ZK) jr(p f c(1q) .&E . ZK) IF(P RC(k0) ,GE.7K) IFrP .RC(4i) .GE.ZK) IF(P FC(42) .GE. ZK) IF(P 1 C( 3) .GE. 7K) IF(PERC(44) .GE.ZK) IF(P RCt1.5) . ZK) IF(Pt RCt1.6) .GE.ZK) IF(P F C(’7) .GE.Zk) TF(PQC(k8) .GE.7K) IF(P RC(49) .G .ZK) IF(PEFC(50) .GE.ZK) IF(PEFC(51) .GE. 2K) IF(PERC(52) .GE.ZK) 1F(PERC(53) .cE.zK) If t P RC(54) ,G 1 i.ZK) IF(P ( (55).GE. 2K) TF(P RC(56) .GE ZK) IF(PERC(5?) .5E.ZK) IF(PERC(58) .GE.ZK) 2F(Pc.N(59) .GE. 2K) IF(P RC(60) .GE.ZK) IF(PERC(61) .Gt.. 2K) IF( PEI C(62) .G .ZK) IF(Pc.FC(63) .GE. 2K) TF(Pc RC(6’e) .GE.ZK) IF(P .RC(65) .cE.ZK) WRITE (61,940 ) Wc ITE (61,91.10) WFa.TE(61 9 20) WRtTE(61,943 J) WR1TE(61,9460) WRITE (61,91.70) WRITE (6ls 91.80) WRITE(61 ,91.90) WRITE(61,9500) WRITE(61,9510) WRITEt6 I,952 ,) WPITE(61,9530) WriTE (61 9540) WRITE(6 1 ,9550) WRIT E (61,956 fl WFUTE(61,9570) W ITE(€l ,9580) WRITE(61,9590) WRITE(bt,9 ’00) WRITE(61 ,9btO) W .1 E(c 1,9620) WRIIE(bl ,9630) WRITE (b1 96k0) WRITE(61,9650) WF ATE(o1,9660) WRITE(61,967G) WRITE(61’ 9680) WRITE (61,9690) WRITE(61,9700) WRITE(61,9710) WRITE(61,9720) WRITE(€1,9730) WRITE(61,9740) WRITE(61 ,9750) WR ITE:c61,9 760) WRITE(6i,9770) WF ITE(61, 9780) WR ITE(61,9790) WRITEtE1,9800) WRITE(61 ,9810) W ITE(61,9820) WRITE(61,983 )) WRITE (61,981i3) WPITE(61,9850) W ITE(6i,98 O) WRITE(61,9670) WRITE(61,9880) WRIT E(61. ,9890) WRIT E(61,9900) WRITE(6l,9910) WRITE(f 1,9920) 5’. 9C 5500 5510 5520 555 ó 5560 557 5580 ., -, 5600 5610 5620 5630 5640 565C 5660 5670 5680 5693 570C 5710 5720 573 U 57 ‘.0 5750 5160 5770 5750 5790 5800 5810 5820 5330 5 40 5850 58 BC 5870 5880 5890 5900 5910 59 0 59• 0 59 i. 0 555 5.60 5970 5983 5990 6000 6r 10 ------- C WRITE(€j, 9939) WRITE(61. ,9940) WF]TE(6 1,9950) WRITE(f,j,9960) - I ‘- L cj1 -,r ) iF(PEF C(72).GE.ZK) W I1E(61,9990) IF(PERC(?3).GE.ZK) WRITE(61,i.0000) IF(PERC(7 ).CE.7l() WRITE(E1,joO1.E!) IF(PEF:C(75).GE,Z1() WFITE(6j,10026) IF(PEEC(76).GE,7 () W ITE(6l,i0030) IF(PEPC(77).GE.ZK) WR1TE( l,j3 1f ) IF(PERC 78) .Gt.ZK) WRITE(61,10050) IF(P€PC(79).GE,ZK) WRITE(61,10060) 1FPEFC48 n.GE.ZK) W”IIE(61,-10070) IF(PERC(81),GE.ZK) WRITE(61,1CO C) CONTINUE WF IT (61,9020) WF.ITE (61, 10090) WRIT (61, 10100) 00 626 J=1,81 IF(PEF C(J).LE.5O.O) GO 10 6260 KJ+i9 WF ITc(61,10110) K,PERC(J) C ON TIN tt E IF(KLOW.LT.1) GO TO 6263 WF IT (61, 10140) 1(10W C Li N TI N U E WRITE(61, 16115) WRITE t61 101?0) (NT(J) J1 ,5)sRUN WFITE(61,iCi3O) (P11(J) ,J=6,10) ,LOC CONT UE P IS SECTION OF THE PROGRAM CONIAINS THE FORMAT STATEMENTS FOk THE DATA INPUT. F OkHAT(213) FORMAT (10 (9A8/) ,9A8). FOPMAT (1 1I5) FO MAT(I5) FORMAT (IOFS.i) THIS SECTION OF TUE PROGRAM CONTAINS PIE FORMAT S1ATEM .NTS FOR THE C0MPUTEI PRINTOUT. FOP,IAT(’1I/f,T20, SPL DATA REDUCTION PROGRAt ) FO i1AT (/,i1Q,’TEST CCaNOITION DATA ) FORMAT(/,T15,’TEST NO ,9Ae ,/ ,T15 , L0CATION = •,9A8, 1/,i15, OBSERVEFS = ‘,9Ac,F,Ti5, WEATHER = ,9A8,l,T15, 2’ ’ .TEF. USEt = ,9A8,/,T15,HICROPHONE = ,9A8,/,T15, 3 ACCESSORIES = ‘,9A8,/,T15,FAST/!LOW ‘,9A8,/,T 15, WE IGHTING , 9A . /, T15 , CAL1i3kATION = ,9A6,I ,1 15, 5 C0MMENTS = ,9A8) IF(P.PC(66) .GE.ZK) IF(° FC(67) .GE.ZK) IF(P’RC(68) .GE, 7K) IF(PERC(69) .GE.ZK) 5f) 20 60 30 601.0 6050 6080 6090 6130 6110 6120 6130 6150 6160 6170 6190 6200 6?1C 622C 6233 62 1 .C 6250 6260 6261 6262 6263 6265 673 6280 6290 801C 80 20 8030 80 1 .0 8050 8510 8511 8523 C C C C C C C ------- $530 FO I14T(T15, ’START lIME = 2’SIOP TIHE = ‘ 12’/’12’I’12 ’I ’ 12 ’/’ 12) 851.C FORt.1AT(f/,Tj 3, ’o 35ERvED D VALUES, TOTAL OF ‘,t4, ’ REAOTNC ’, 1T75s ’OB VALUES IN OROERED SEflUENCE ’,l) 3.1.. 1) — 85T = •,F5,1,T5Q, ’€.LAPS O TIME ’,T65, 1’ ‘sI5 ’ MINUTES ’,/,T15, ’STO D .VIATIflN ’,T3Q, ’ ‘,F5.j,T50, 2’SAMPLING RATE,T65, = ‘,F5 t, ’ 5aMP/ti!P ,f,T15, ’L99 ’,T3Q, 3’ ‘,F5.1,T50, ’1p11p4 ’,T65,’ = v,F5x,/,Tj5, LqQ4,13Q, = 4F5.1,T5f3, ’LMAx ’,T65, = ‘,F5,j,/,T15,’L50 ’,130, ’ ‘,F5.1,T50, 5 LEQ 4 ,T65,4 ‘,F5.j,F,T 15, ’L33 ’,T30, ’ = ‘,F5,t,T5 J, 4 1NP 4 ,T65, ,F5.1, ’ LNP=LEQi2.56(SIGt4A)’, ,T1E,’LjØ ’,T3Q, 4 = 7150, ’INI ’,T65, ’ ‘,FS.l, ’ TNI=k.C(L10—L9 )+Lq —3o.0 ’,I,T15, ‘SF5.1) C C THIS SECTION OF THE PPOGFAM CONTAINS THE FORNAT C STATEP ENTS CESSARY FQ° THE PLOTTING OF THE C HISIGGRAPH OF THE OR ERVEO PATA. C 9013 FO MAT’1 ’/,Tj5, ’HISTOGRAPH OF OS!EkVEL) D Vi 1UES ’ ) 9C? FC riAT(1 6, ,,,,j••,• 1....1....1....1.. ..t....i... 1....1....1..., 9C25 FORMAT(T16, ’, ,TtQ1.,, ’) 9030 FOM&T(TjO, ’ ‘) 901.3 F( ’f4AT(T9 ’ P ’,TtlS, ’LOt = ‘,FS.t) 9050 FC PMAT(T9, ’ E’,1115, ’L10 ‘,FS.l) 9360 FOPMATfT9, ’ R ’,T115,’L33 ‘FS.l) 9070 FOkMAT(T9,’ C’,T115, ’L50 ‘,F5.i) 9380 F0MAT(T9, ’ E’,111E, ’LI4EAN = ‘,F5.1) 9090 FORIIAT(19,’ N ’,T115, ’L9r = ‘,F5.1) 9100 FOFMAT(19,’ T’ Tii5’L99 = ‘,F5.1) 9110 FORMAT(1115, ’LEQ = ‘,F5.t) 9120 FOPMAT(T9,* O ’,TlIS,’SIGMA = • F5,j) 9130 FORMAT(T9,’ F’) 9150 FORMAT(T9,’ 0’) 9160 FO Mi4T(T9,’ 99 9170 FOPtIAT(T9,* S’) 91 0 FORPIAT(T9, ’ E’) 919w’ FORfIATIT9, ’ R’) 9200 FOI’MAT(T9,’ V ’) 9210 F0Pl, T(T9, ’ A’) 9220 FORMAT(T9,’ 1’) 9230 FORMAT(T9,’ I’) 9250 FO 1AT(T9, ’ N’) 9260 FOFMAT(1H+,T 16,’. ’,T1O1., ’.’) 9Z7 FQRMAT(1H+,T13, 12,’ — ‘,T103,’ —•) 9250 FOR,IAT(IH+,T2C, ’X ’) 9290 FQR’44T(1H*,T21, ’X ’) 9300 FC?MAT(LH+,122,’X ’) 9310 FOFIIAT(IH+,T23,’X’) 9320 FC MATtjU+,T,4,4X.) 9330 FOFtMAT( IH+,T25, ’X’) 14481 — ------- 9340 FOk 4AT (1P4+,T?€,’x ) 9350 FCF”1AT(jH+,T27, x.) 9360 FO t1Ar(1H+,T28, X ) 9370 FORMAT(1H+,T’9,*x ) ‘— —j, a ) 9 .0o FOFTi4ATIH+,T32,.x;) 91.10 FO ?MA1(1f +,T33, x4) 9’+2c FO tiAT(1H+,T34,.x.) 91.30 FO AT(1H+,T35, X ) 91.1+o F0P ATjH+,T36,4x’) 9t 5Q FOPMAT(1H+,T37, x ) 91.60 FORMAT(1H+,T38,.X ) 91.70 FOFMuT(1H+,T39,fX ) 9’+80 FOF 4T(1H+,T4O,’X ) 91+90 FO ?MA1(1H+,T+l,.x ) 9530 FGR 4AT(jH+,T1 .2,4x4) 9510 FC 1 T(1H+,T1.3, X ) 9520 FOF11AT(1H+,T1+i,, x4) 9530 FORMATt1H+,T1.5,.x ) qci .rj FORMAl (1H+,TLi6,*X ) 9550 FCThAT(1H+,TL.7, X ) 9560 FO AT(1H+,T 1+8, X ) 57O Fo MAt(1H+,T.g, x ) 9580 FOkP4AT(jH÷,T5O, x*) 9590 FoAT(1H+,r5i, x ) 9600 FOrMATIH+,152,.X.) 9610 FO M4T(1M+,T53,’X ) 9620 FORMAT(1H+,T54, X ) 9630 FORMAT(1H+,T55, X) 96140 F AT(1M+,T56, X’) 9650 FOPMAT(1H+,T57, x ) 9660 FCFMAT(1H+,T58, x ) °670 FOPMAT(1H+,T59 ’X ) 9ô80 FO 1AT(1H+,T60, X ) 9698 FORr1ATt1H+,T6j, X ) 9700 FOFMATC1H+ T62s X ) 9710 FOFMAT(1H4,T63, X9 9720 FO ’t AT(1H+,T64, X’) 9730 FORMAT(IH+,T65,’x4) 971.0 FCRqATtjH+,T66, x9 750 FOFMAT(1H4,T67, X ) 9760 FO MAT(jH+,T68, 4 X ) 9778 FORMAT(1H+,T69, x’) 9780 F( MAT(1H+,T7t, X’) 9790 FOFMAT(tH+,T7i, X ) 9800 FO :.HAT(1H+,T72, X ) 9810 F0RMAT(1H+,T73, x ) 9820 FC !AT(1H+,T7k,’X ) 9830 FO MAT(1H+,T75, X ) 9840 FO AT(1H+,TT6,X’) 9 53 FORMAT (1H+,T77,’x ) q 6a FORMAT(1H+,T78, X’) ------- . •.. S — • a • .. ..,.. - . - ... HISTOGRAPH oc DISERVED DB VALUES . • . . I . a • . a — . ..— . —-—. .-- . . . . — • a • 101 = 55.0 ... . 110 • • 133 = 42.0 L5C 41.0 — ____ _ _ . - . L EAN 42.1 • 190 40.0 e p • L99 = 3.0 .-—-.. .--. .—--- ..--- —.- .-. LLQ 45•1 .. R — . SIGMA 3.4 - C . a .. —I.. N • . . 1 . . a. _ .__30. .. _ X . .. o • X a F. • X . . ——.. ___________..__.X.__.__.._............-.. ...—- .-.-.-.— .- o . X a 825 x .. - S .._..__ --—..-— .____.X ... - . . . .. a XX . . . R • . . XX V •... - .__. ..__._.._.Xx ... --- — . . . . . a A 20— XXX — T • XXX . I • — -. ...,._ .,._..__XXX . o • . XXX I N • XXX ..S. 15 - . .. -.. --...--. ...- — S XXX S S . XXX . S _.__.._._XXX — ....-- --. . . S. — • XXX a • 1• XXX - —— • - ____ _ _..XXx ..-..—.. . S • . XXXX . a S XXXX a.-.. — -,. -. . S — 5 . . XXXXX . — a XXXXX • __ . .. .. .. .._._______XXXXX X -. . . .. ..-- .. XxXXXXXX X X . S • . . XXXXXXXXXX XX X : •.I..•.1....1. 54.154 54 S•IIjISS•jS••aj 4 ••• .... 20 2 81 .3 50 1 ‘° “ ..m yr so .; -; Sau’ fl*S5, iv.’-: 0$ 0* O OO N rr.t _- STAFT TINE w 761 1, 3F1&l 7 TEST r O. RUM S3b, £ASTPORT* 1 REFINrRY SURVLY STOP TINE • 76! 1 1 Vt’ , 3 LOCATION B0oNt LoCAiIGN .OSE TO WATIR ‘4.-si ------- SRI t DATA REDUCTION PROGRAM lEST CONDITION DATA COMPUTED REEULTS LMEAN STD DEVIATION 199 190 150 133 I LOt 4 42.1 * 3.4 . 39.0 * 40.0 • 41.0 .. 42.0 5 45.0 * 55.0 ELAPSED TINE SAMPLING RATE LMIN IHAX Lc O LNP INI a 16 M!NUT ! 6.3 At4P/MIN * 39.0 • 59.0 * 45.1 * 53.7 30.C TEST NO . • RUN S—36, EASIPORT MAINE REFINERY SJRVEY LOCATION • BOONIES LOCATION, CLOSE CO WATEF. O8SERVE, S ‘E1EGUI7 AND CAR WEATHER = 6’. DcGREZS F, 38 MPH W t.O, CL Ai., METER USED = B AND K 2209, S/N ‘.778l j PERCENT REL HUM MICROPHONE • B AND K t45 , S/N ‘ .A5588 ACCESSORIES = 10 METER CAeLE, TRIPOD, WI’I(jSC E N FAST/SLOW = . . SLOW SETTI lG , . WEIGHTING a A SCALE WEICUTINC . CALIBRATION • 124.1 ON IPA PISTONPHONE AT END CF COMMENTS GULLS AND LAPPING WAVES GIVE ‘.0 TO 3 OBA, START TINE 76/ 8/ 3/18/ ”? BEAUTIFUL DAY TIME .s 76/ .8/ 3/19/ 3 . . .. OBSERVED DB VALUES, TOTAL OF 100 READINGS 43.0 44.0 ‘.3.0 ‘.8.0 43.0 41.0 4240 42.0 41, 41.0 42.0 42.0 55.3 42.0 42.0 ‘.1.0 ‘.0.0 41 . . 39.0 39.0 40.0 40.0 59.0 43.0 41.0 ‘.1.0 42.: 41.0 40.0 40.0 42.0 55.0 41.0 53.0 ‘.2,0 4i.c 42.0 41.0 ‘.1.0 42.0 45. 3 40.0 40.0 ‘ .!.(. 39.0 39.0 40.0 41.0 60.3 41.3 ‘.1.0 41.0 42, 40.0 40.0 41.0 40.0 48.0 46,0 40.0 40.0 4ej. .4i.0 43.0 40.0 61.0 43.0 42.3 ‘.0.0 46.0 4,.. •40.0 40. C 4 . 0 . 42.0 42.0 42.3 41.0 ‘.1.0 41. C 42.0 41.0 40.0 41.0 41.0 40.0 41.0 41.0 40. .1 DB VALUES IN ORDERED SEQUENCE 4t I 39.0 39.0 39.C 40.0 ‘.0.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 39.0 .. 40.0 40.0 ‘.0.0 ‘ .0.0 ‘.0.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 49.0 40,0 40 0 40.3 40.0 40.0 40.0 ‘.0.0 40 0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 ‘.1.0 41.0 41.0 41 ,0 41.0 41 3 . 41.0 . 4j.u 41.0 ‘.1.0 41.0 41.0 ‘.1.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41... 42.0 41.0 41 0 ‘.i.b ‘.1.3 .1 0 41.0 41.0 41.0 42.0 42 44.0 42. 0 42.0 ‘.2.0 42. 0 ‘.2.0 42. 0 42.0 42.0 42.0 43.3 42.0 42.3 42.3 ‘.2.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 ‘. .o 44.0 44.3 45.0 ‘.5 0 LMP=LEQ.2. 56 CSIO’IA) T 4Is’.. 0(Li0—L90) +(L90—30,3) ------- APPENDIX I ------- August 2, 1976 Irv Cohen, President Enviro Sciences Inc. 114 Cayuga Avenue Rockaway, N.J. 07866 Dear Mr. Cohen: Enclosed you will find two copies of the report I have prepared on the potential of the archaeological cultural resource on the Pittston Company property at East Port, Maine. If I can clarify any details of the report please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Rob Bonnichsen Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Quaternary Studies RB:gb Enclosure I-I ------- An Archaeological Evaluation of Property Owned or Optioned to Pittston Company of New York at East Port, Maine By Robson Bonnichsen Department of Anthropology and Institute for Quaternary Studies South Stevens Hall University of Maine Orono, Maine 04473 ------- An intensive archaeological survey and testing program was conducted on the property owned or optioned to the Pittston Company of New York during the weekend of July 25th and 26th. No prehistoric cultural resources were found during the survey. Furthermore, the archaeological site files for the State of Maine held at the University of Mains, Orono contain no records of prehistoric remains from the Pittston property. The landform of greatest archaeological interest is the rugged irregular coastline with its many small coves, some of which contain intermittent fresh water streams and clam flats. The entire coastline was walked on foot in search of archaeological sites from Carryingplace Cove, around Mathews Island, into Deep Cove, around Snackford Head and around Broad Cove. Three methods were employed on the survey. Vertical ex- posed banks along the shore were examined as were non-vegetated areas. Likely looking areas such as flats adjacent to where the small unnamed streams entered into the ocean were investi- gated through a test pit program. These small pits approximately fifty centimeters wide were excavated thirty to forty centimeters in depth. In addition to these t echniques residents who still live on the Pittston property were interviewed. However, the informants which were questioned had no knowledge of archaeolo- gical materials ever having been found on the Pittston property. The erosion rate of this section of the coast appears to be very ------- rapid — due to coastal drowning - probably from rising sea levels. If sites were once located in this area they may have already been destroyed by natural processes. The interior section of the property is a great deal more difficult to survey than the coast as it is heavily vegetated. Areas along existing roadways and the airport were examined in search of archaeological remains. However, all efforts were to no avail. Recommendations Due to the dense vegetation overburden, it was impossible to t onduct a systematic thorough investigation of the interior sectors of the property. It is highly unlikely that an archae— ological site will be found in this area, but if one should be discovered during construction an archaeologist should be con- tacted immediately. ------- APPENDIX J ------- 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 and other measures designed to reduce their consumption. In 1985 petroleum products will supply nearly 42 percent of U.S. energy needs, about the same proportion as in 1975. Due to increased overall requirements for energy, however, this will amount to nearly 2 million B/D more of petroleum products in 1980 -— an increase of 12 percent -- and nearly 4 1/2 million B/D more in 1985 -- an increase of 27 percent over 1975. Table 1 shows U.S. projected consumption by product for 1980 and 1985. TABLE 1 U.S. PETROLEUM PRODUCT DEMAND (MB/D) 1975 1980 1985 Gasoline 6714 7085 7539 Distillate 4009 5046 6314 Residual 2432 2553 2700 Other 3136 3605 4178 Total 16291 18289 20731 1/ For explanation of sources, see Page 12. ------- —2— DEVELOP ING U . S. REFINERIES National Policy . National energy policy in recent years has held as an objective the development of U.S. refining capacity sufficient to provide secure domestic supply of petroleum products. This was the intent of the Import License Fee Program which was adopted in 1973. When fully in place (May 1, 1980), the fee system was envisaged to provide refiners with an effective protection on petroleum products of $0.42 per barrel ($0.63 product fee less $0.21 fee on crude). New refining capacity in the U.S. also enjoys an additional $0.16 per barrel protection (total $0.58) for the first 5 years, due to the fact that 75 percent of the inputs to such capacity is exempt from the $0.21 crude fee. President Ford, in the State of the Union Message of January 1975, cited his energy program as envisaging the construction in the United States over the next 10 years of 3 O major new oil refineries.” Current policy is to provide domestic refining capacity to meet increased US. demands for petroleum. The Federal Energy Administration is now developing reco mmendatione to the President to raise, over the long run, the effective fee on product imports in order to provide a re effective incentive to location of new refinery capacity within the United States. 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 and the added expense of meeting environmental requirements associated with building and operating new refineries in the United States. Security Of Supply . The strongest argument for locating in the U.S. refining capacity sufficient to satisfy U.S. d mAnd is that it provides increased national security in the event of an embargo. As an industrialized nation dependent upon petroleum products, the United States is in the unique and vulnerable position of not possessing sufficient refining capacity to meet its own needs. Suffi- cient capacity means not only total volume, but also flexibility to accept diffe ent types of crude inputs and to supply the appropriate slate of product outputs needed in an oil supply crisis. Domestic refinery 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. ------- —3— In addition to providing flexibility, domestic refineries provide a degree of assurance of petroleum product supply for an extended period because of supply arrangements and storage systems associated with normal refinery opera- tions. Over and above supplies held in ordinary storage terminals, a typical refinery may have from 30 to 35 days supply of refined products and more than 10 days supply of crude oil in storage. 2/ In addition, steaming time for tankers from the Persian Gulf to the East Coast is about 30 days. Tankers at sea that are committed to specific East Coast refineries, therefore, provide further assurance of supply in an embargo. 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 demonstrated during the Arab oil embargo. The Eastern States, which have refinery capacity to supply only 25 percent of their needs, were affected by product supply shortages sooner than other regions of the country with local refinery capacity more nearly commensurate with product demand. Although storage terminals could be expanded to provide the same number of days additional supply, the considerable added capital required for facilities and inventory with no foreseeable return on investment, makes this possibility unlikely unless required by law. Such a requirement would likely result in increased costs to consumers. Considerations related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Program also argue for the development of domestic refining capacity to meet essential U.S. demand. The cost advantage of storing crude oil over storing products is significant: $1.30 per barrel to store crude oil in salt domes on the Gulf; $3.00—$lO.0O per barrel to store crude oil or products in rock quarries or steel tanks elsewhere in the 2/ Crude oil and product inventories were calculated — from the U.S. Bureau of Nines, Mineral Industry Surveys, “Crude Petroleum, Petroleum Products, and Natural Gas Liquids.” Inventories are reported monthly. J- 3 ------- —4— United States. Crude oil is virtually the only petroleum coimnodity which can be stored in salt domes. Storage of crude oil, however, requires that the refinery capacity needed to supply refined products during a supply emergency be available. The best way to guarantee this availability is to have refinery capacity located in the United States. Economic Benefits . Further advantages to development of needed refining capacity in the United States are derived from the retention of investment and jobs in this country. Construction of a new 250 MB/D refinery in the U.S. will, in 1980, cost about $645 million in materials and labor, and employ 3000 workers for one to three years. Building new refinery capacity in foreign countries would thus result in loss of this substantial investment and source 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 pro- vided in associated industries and services. Location of refinery capacity in this country also has a balance of payments benefit. Because value is added to petroleum products in the refining step, importing products is more costly to the international payments position of the U.S. economy than importing crude oil. The balance of payments benefit of refining our petroleum products domestically is approximately equal to the value added to a refinery’s products in the refining step. Current Situation . Although a surplus of refining capacity exists in “island refining centers” of the world, the United States does not have sufficient refinery capacity to meet its needs. Until 1960, U.s. refining capacity was adequate to meet domestic demand. By 1975, however, demand for petroleum products (16291 MB/D) exceeded the output of domestic refineries by 1884 MB/D. 3/ The following quantities of products were imported to make up this deficit: Gasoline 184 MB/D Distillate 289 74B/D Residual 1194 MB/D Other 217 !4B/D 3/ For calculation, see Pages 13 and 14. ------- —5— The region with the most severe deficit of refining capacity is the East Coast, where 1975 demand was 5911 MB/D, while refinery capacity was only 1752 MB/D. To make up the deficit, domestic products were shipped by pipeline and tanker from Gulf Coast refineries and 1552 MB/D of products were imported from foreign refineries. East Coast product imports were 82 percent of total product imports, and repre- sented 26 percent of total product demand. This situation is even more pronounced for the New England States, with no regional refining capacity. New England consumed 1089 MB/D of petroleum products in 1975, all of which was either imported or transshipped from refineries in the Middle Atlantic or Gulf Coast States. New England dependence on foreign imported products was 31 percent in 1974. This situation came about on the East Coast because the Mandatory Oil Import Program (instituted in 1959) evolved in such a way that, while crude oil imports were restricted, importation of residual fuel oil was virtually unrestricted, with an allowance of 2900 MB/D by 1973 (maximum East Coast demand for residual in any year was 1735 MB/D in 1973). East Coast refinery development was limited by the restriction on crude oil imports, but other domestic refineries concen- trated on making products such as gasoline that were much more profitable than residual fuel oil. Meanwhile, imported residual fuel oil was priced even lower than imported crude oil, and seemed to have marked air quality advantages over coal, its principal competitor. xnount Of New Capacity Needed . 4/ As noted previously, current u.s. policy supports the development 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 4440 MB/D by 1985. Planned new 4/ For method of relating refinery capacity to demand, see Pages 12 and 13. ------- —6— capacity through 1980, as of now totals 2277 MB/D. 5/ Of this scheduled new capacity, 1790 MB/D is expansion of existing capacity and 487 MB/D is planned new construction. Expanded capacity includes both that which is firm (1090 MB/D), and that which is estimated on the basis of trends which indicate that historically 60 to 70 percent of new capacity has been provided by expansion of existing capacity (700 MB/D). This way of meeting new requirements may Continue nationally, to some extent, but, for reasons discussed below, is unlikely on the East Coast. However, assuming that all of the new capacity cited above is constructed, the United States will still need to build additional capacity totalling 2163 MB/D by 1985. This amounts to the planning, siting, and construction of the equivalent of 8-to-9 250 MB/D refineries in the U.S. over the next nine years, above the capacity already scheduled. Type Of New Capacity Needed . New environmental standards require the burning of low-sulfur fuels, particularly residual oil used by utilities and industry. Existing U.S. ref ineries were built largely to handle low-sulfur crude oil produced in this country and have sufficient capacity to produce only about 50 percent of our demand for residual oil. Since the supply of domestic crude is limited, any increment of crude oil to be refined must be imported, and would likely be predominately high-sulfur crude oil from the Middle East. Thus, new capacity, of an entirely different design, incorporating extensive desul— furization facilities, is required both to process high-sulfur crude and to produce low-sulfur products —— especially residual fuel oil and unleaded gasoline. 5/ From FEA’s publication, Trends In Refinery Capacity And Utilization (June 1976). That report includes, in addition, a 175 MB/D refinery scheduled for Norfolk, Virginia in 1979 about which there is increasing uncertainty, and the project here proposed for Eastport, Maine (250 MB/D). These two planned refineries have been excluded from the calculations used throughout the di cus j of scheduled capacity. J-c ------- —7-. SITING OF NEW REFINERY CAPACITY Two important factors to be considered in determining 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 than products to transport over long distances. This is true because products are more corrosive, product specifi- cations are difficult to maintain when product is being moved great distances, and, finally, because individual products do not move in sufficient volume to take advantage of the much lower—per—barrel cost of large tanker transport. 6/ 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 can receive crude oil from tankers and supply products to a market which makes up 40 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. 6/ “Economics of Refinery Location and Size,” by — Walter L. Newton, a paper given on April 7, 1966, at the Northwestern University Transportation Center. An illustration of the lower cost of moving crude oil instead of product is given in the economic justification section of this paper. J- 7 ------- —8— Table 2 shows projected demand for petroleum products on the East Coast in 1980 and 1985. TABLE 2 • EAST COAST* PETROLEUM PRODUCT DEMAND (MB/D) 1975 1980 1985 Gasoline 2223 2327 2453.8 Distillate 1715 2140 2660.4 Residual 1460 1637 1852.9 Other 513 899 1371.4 Total 5911 7003 8338.5 * Includes PIES Demand Regions 12, 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. In 1975, as mentioned previously, refinery capacity on the East Coast 7/ (1752 MB/D) was adequate to meet only 30 percent of regional demand (5911 ?IB/D). The New England States, with no refinery capacity, accounted for a little over 1/4 of this deficit. 7/ PIES refinery regions 1A and lB. These two refinery regions include the same States as are in PIES Demand Regions 1, 2, and 3, and are equivalent to PAD!) I. ------- —9— Table 3 shows planned capacity in PADD’s I and III: TABLE 3. NEW REFINERY CAPACITY SCHEDULED IN PADD’s I & III THROUGH 1980 (MB/D) PADD I PADD III Total New —0— - 450 450 Expansions 194 845 1039 TOTAL 194 1295 1489 Approximately 50 percent of PADD III capacity has been devoted to supply of East Coast markets in the past several years. Assuming that this same proportion of new capacity in PADD III is already planned to serve the East Coast in 1985, 648 MB/D of new capacity in PADD 111 plus 194 MB/D of new capacity in PADD I, a total capacity of 842 MB/D, is now scheduled to serve the East Coast. This leaves a require- ment for new capacity to meet increased East Coast demand by 1985 (2428 MB/D) of 1780 MB/D or the equivalent of approximately 7 new 250 MB/D refineries. Table 4 shows projected petroleum demand by product for New England in 1980 and 1985. TABLE 4. NEW ENGLAND PETROLEUM PRODUCT DEMAND (MB/D) 1975 1980 1985 Gasoline 341 350 361 Distillate 304 390 495 Residual 346 431 537 Other - 98 112 128 Total 1089 1281 1521 ------- — 10 — If New England were to develop refinery capacity by 1985 sufficient to meet projected regional demand of 152]. NB/D -- equivalent to approximately 6 new refineries with an average capacity of 250 MB/D —- 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 reduction in demand due to extensive conservation would contribute to reducing the level of imports (1884 MB/D). Environmental Restrictions . In the past, most new domestic refining capacity has been developed by expansion of existing refineries. On the East Coast, however, most existing capacity is concentrated in the metropolitan areas of New York and Philadelphia. Capacity has already been increased many times in these areas and possibilities for further expansion are severely constrained, both by environmental requirements and by lack of space. Under the Clean Air Act, standards are set for various types of emissions as a means of safeguarding health. Areas which exceed these standards are designated as non-attainment areas and new potential emitting sources are accepted in these areas only if they do not interfere with progress toward the attainment of standards. It is not as yet certain how the “non—attainment” provisions of the Clean Air Act will be finally implemented; they have, however, already posed significant problems for refinery siting. Although this is discussed in greater detail in Section & of this ElS, it is important here to note that, given the need for siting new refinery capacity on the East Coast of the U.S., it is reasonable to assume that those areas not now exceeding Clean Air guidelines for emission of hydro- carbons will be better candidates for new refinery capacity than those now designated as non-attainment areas. This means that new refining capacity for the East Coast will almost necessarily be constructed in areas which are now rural. Taking transportation cost considerations and environmental restrictions together with future East Coast, and particularly New England, demand for petroleum products, the construction of new refineries in rural coastal areas of New England is well supported, and may be crucial if expansions of refineries in non—attainment areas are not possible. ------- - 11 — SUMMA RY AND CONCLUSION 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 environmental 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. The East Coast and New England, in particular, provide large markets with insufficient local refining capacity to meet demand. Expanding or building new refineries in areas where they currently exist will be difficult because, although refineries contribute a relatively small amount to air pollution, the Clean Air Act requirements for review of new emitting sources place them in a defensive position in areas where ambient air quality standards are not being met. Thus, development of refining capacity to serve the East Coast and New England will either be severely constrained or will be moved to areas where environmental requirements can be more easily satisfied. 8/ The juxtaposition of the national need for new refining capacity and the national need for attainment of ambient air quality standards argues for locating at least some of that capacity in rural areas such as Eastport, Maine. The construction in New England of several new refineries between now and 1985 is justified by regional demand. In’ addition, new refineries, such as proposed for Eastport, Maine, would bring the region added security of supply in the event of an embargo, as well as economic benefits. The next section provides an analysis of the economic rationale of the proposed Pittston refinery. 8/ In the past 5—6 years, 11 new refineries proposed — for the East Coast, totalling 1265 MB/D have been cancelled because of opposition on environmental grounds. Trends In Refinin ,g _ Capacit And Utilization , June 1976. ------- — 12 — NOTES ON DATA AND METHOD Data . U.S. and East Coast supply and demand data in this section is from the following sources: For 1975: Actual figures from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Monthly Petroleum Statement . For 1980: Derived for this report using straight- line projection. 1980 demand is 45 percent of the difference between 1975 and 1985. For 1985: Forecasts of the Federal Energy Administration’s Project Independence Evaluation System (PIES), 1976. See attached description. East Coast imports from U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Industry Surveys . New England data is from Interim Report To The New England Energy Policy Task Force , June 1976. These data were develope& on the basis of PIES forecasts. See attached description. Method For Relating Refinery Capacity To Demand . Refinery capacity is a measure of the amount of crude oil a refinery is built to process per day. The maximum potential operating capacity for the average refinery is 90 percent of the capacity built to process crude. Because natural gas liquids are blended with processed crude oil to make products, the output of a refinery is greater than its operating capacity by the volume of natural gas liquids added. In addition, volumes of fuels increase as lighter liquid fuels are produced and the output of the refinery is further increased from its operating capacity by this amount, known as pro- cessing gain. Finally, some portion of petroleum product demand is met by direct sales of natural gas liquids. In order to relate refinery capacity to demand in 1975, the following process was used: 1975 petroleum product demand* (16495 MB/D) was reduced by imports (1884 MB/D) to obtain *Domestic demand (16291) plus exports (204). 4 — ------- — 13 — U.S. petroleum product supply (14611 MB/DY. Natural gas liquids, blended into refinery products or used directly as products (1687 MB/D), plus miscellaneous items (13 MB/D) were deducted to give refinery output of (12937 MB/D). Refinery gain of 3.7 percent (460 MB/D) was then deducted to give refinery runs, 12477 MB/D. Dividing this by .90 gives a built capacity of 13863 MB/D to provide gross U.S. product supply of 14611 MB/D. Since in 1975 U.S. refineries were operating at 84.2, rather than 90 percent of built capacity, actual U.S. built capacity in 1975 is derived by dividing 12477 by .842. This gives a figure of 14818 MB/D, close to the 14736 MB/D figure in the June 1976 edition of the Federal Energy Administration publication, Trends In Refinery Capacity and Utilization . In order to estimate the amount of built refinery capacity needed to meet new U.S. demand in 1980 and 1985, the ratio of built capacity (as derived above for 1975 at 90 percent operating capacity) to gross U.S. petroleum product supply (13863/14611 or .95 could have been used. This ratio, however, will increase with a proportionate increase in production of heavier fuels such as residual, for which domestic capacity is n ost lacking, because natural gas liquids, either in direct sale or as refinery inputs, are not substitutes for residual, and because processing gain is lower with the production of heavier fuels. Thus in the estimates, new refinery capacity was equated one for one with overall new demand for petroleum products. Calculation of 1975 U.S. Petroleum Product Supply . Assume an operating refinery capacity of 14,783,000 barrels daily for 1975. This is half way between the capacity on January 1, 1975 of 14,697,000 and the capacity on January 1, 1976 of 14,868,000 barrels daily. Refinery runs averaged 12442 MB/D for 1975 or 84.2 percent of ca acity. The lower yielding rate was a result of lowered demand caused by the economic slowdown, conservation efforts and higher prices for petroleum. The supply of petroleum products in 1975 came from the following sources: 1975 MB/D Refinery runs to stills 12477 Processing gain 460 ------- — 14 — Refinery output 12937 Natural Gas Liquids 1687 Product imports 1884 Total Supply 16508 Refinery runs consisted of: 1975 MElD Domestic crude and Unfinished Oils 8383 Foreign crude 4094 12477 Supply was distributed as follows: 1975 ! /D Domestic demand 16291 Exports 204 16495 Stock change +13 16508 4-t’f ------- 15 ECONOMIC RATIONALE FOR EASTPORT REFINERY The Pittston Company, through its subsidiary, the Metropolitan Petroleum Company, markets petroleum products extensively throughout the Northeast area of the United States. It has some 35 terminal s which it either owns or leases. These are located in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Montreal, Vermont and Ottawa. Pittston has traditionally purchased its oil from foreign and domestic sources. In view of its market area and the availability of deepwater sites on the New England coast, Pittston proposes to build a 250, 000 barrel- per-day refinery and terminal at Eastport, Maine. In order to demonstrate the incentives for constructing a refinery close to the New England market area, the Pittston location is com- pared with alternative sites in the Middle Atlantic States, and the Gulf of Mexico. In each case, we have assumed the same size refinery, processing the same crude oil, making the same slate of products, and supplying the same market. 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 / (See Table 1).Eastport has a $0. 37/bbl cost advantage over the Gulf location and a $0. 58/bbl advantage over a Middle Atlantic location. These differentials are based on delivered product costs in each case and do not reflect prices, or even the probable effect on prices. Consumer price performance will be determined by competitive factors. The cost differentials shown are simply location advantages resulting from the elements of raw material, transportation costs, refining costs and investments. The advantage for the Eas port location is largely due to transporta- tion, principally of crude oil. In the Gulf Coast, direct VLCC lightering was assumed, since it is known that this operation is being initiated there. The economics of the lightering operation 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 this location would be supplied through Caribbean transshipping, an activity already in extensive practice. Some lightering is presently being done in Delaware Bay, but this is not from VLCC’s and no further growth in this activity is foreseen. Table 2 contains sensitivities to certain potential cost variables. These include the effect of the Eastport terminal being limited to 150, 000 DWT vessels as opposed to 250, 000 DWT vessels. Sensi- tivity to other modes of crude oil receipt in the Gulf location is also shown. Note deleted. ------- Table I TRANSPORTATION AND REFINING ECONOMICS 1 25O OOO BARRELS PER DAY CAPACITY 6 AT U.S. GULF AND EAST COAST LOCATIONS Eastport, Maine Middle Atlantic Gulf Coast A. Crude Cost - $/Bbl FOB Ras Tanura 14.68 14.68 14.68 B. Crude Tansportation VLCC’s at W.S. 48.9 X.34 1.33 1.41 50,000 OWl at W.S. 82 ---—- 0.42 Total Transportation 1.34 1.75 1.41 C. Crude Handling Entreport Charges . 0.36 VICC Lightering 0.20 Total Handling 0.36 0.20 D. Delivered Crude Cost 16.02 16.79 16.29 E. Refinery Investments Location Factor 1.20 1.20 1.00 Investm nt-$MM 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 ] Salaries & 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 & 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 24 Plus Del’d Crude Cost 16.02 16.79 16.29 Total MFG Cost - $/BbI Crude 18.98 19.75 18.72 - $fBbl Product 20.26 21.08 19.98 6. Product Shipping Cost Composite Cost 0.46 0.22 1.11 H. Total Delivered Cost $/Bbl Product 20.72 21.30 21.09 ------- 17 Table 2 SENSITIVITY OF DELIVERED PRODUCT COST TO CERTAIN IMPORTANT ASSUMPTIONS $/Bbl Refinery Location Eastport, Maine Middle Atlantic Gulf Coast Base (Table 1) - 20.72 21.30 21.09 Variable 1. Eastport limited 21.00 21.30 21.09 to 150,000 DWT 2. Gulf Coast supplied by Caribbean Transshipping 20.72 21.30 21.47 3. Gulf Coast supplied by Superport & VLCC 20.72 21.30 21.26 4. 1O 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 ------- 18 Table 3 DERIVATION OF COMPOSITE PRODUCT TRANSPORTATION COSTS Movement Product B/D Volume Composite $/B Eastport to New York Mogas 24,787 $0.60 #2F.O. 30,260 0.67 #5F.Q,. ‘ 48,200 0.615 / LPG 7,669 $O.459 Eastport to Boston Mogas 24,787 0.30 #2F.O. 40,260 0.34 #SF.O. 48,200 0.31 LPG 7 669 2.211 .Gulf to New York Mogas 24,787 0.61* I #2F.0. 40,260 0.61* #5F.O. 48,200 1.26 I I— $1.112 Gulf to Boston Mogas 24,787 1.26 I 12F.0. 40,260 1.26 1 5F.0. 48,200 ____ Middle Atlantic _____ local Distribution LPG 7,669 Mogas 24,787 0.15* #2F.0. 40,260 0.15* #5F.O. 48.200 O. 15** $0.218 Barging to Boston Mogas 24,787 0.30 #2F.0. 40,260 0.30 #5F.O. 48,200 0.30 *pipeline rates. All other rates are U.S. flag tanker rates. For the Gulf, used AR 140 escalated to 1980 costs. For Eastport, used Chem Systems analysis for Pittston. Truck and Barge ------- 19 Product transportation creates a severe debit for the Gulf location case. (See Table 3 for breakdown of product transportatin charges.) 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. Pittston has a potential added incentive for the Eastport location if ar- rangements could be made with other compaiies for product exchanges. Theoretically, Pittston could deliver virtually its entire Eastport refinery outlet into New England with such an arrangement. The advantage could range up to about $0. 16 per barrel. Such an arrangement could 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 Northeast 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. Built into the delivered product cost is a 10 percent return on investment. This is included under refinery costs. 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. ------- 20 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS The economics of the Pittston refinery proposal were evaluated by comparison with the same size facility in three possible locations: Eastport, Maine; the Middle Atlantic Coast; and, the Gulf Coast. In each instance, the same amount of products were assumed produced and delivered to the same market. The same crude oil was charged as raw material in each case. With some exceptions, all costs and tariffs are based on 1980 using the following inflation rates: Year % Inflation 1976 5% 1977 7% 1978 6.5% 1979 6.5% These inflation rates were the same as those used by the Pace Companyi .W in a refinery location study. This study was contracted with Pace by the Federal Energy Administration to assist in determing proper im- ported product license fees. Crude Oil . The crude oil chosen for the comparison was Arabian Light ° API crude oil. The FOB Ras Tanura price of $11. 51 per barrel.L!iwas escalated for general inflation to a projected 1980 price of $14.68 per barrel. This crude is referred to as the “marker” crude in OPEC crude oil price schedules. It represents more than half of the Saudi Arabian crude oil production. Saudi Arabia has the largest reserves of the OPEC countries and the most spare producing capacity, making Arabian Light the logical marginal crude source for future imports. Transportation Rates . Foreign flag tanker rates are generally quoted in Worldscale (WS) units. These are rates pt j jshed by the Association of Ship Brokers and Agents (Woridacale) Inc._’ with offices in London and New York. Rates between various ports of the world are quoted at a certain reference level, namely, WS 100. WS 100 rates between points involved in this analysis are quoted below. 12/ “Determination of Refined Petroleum Product Import Fees,” the Pace Company Consultants & Engineers, INC., July 1976, for FEA Contract, CO-05-60451. 111 From Pace Study. “Worldwide Tanker Nominal Freight Scale - - Worldscale,” Revision of January 1, 1976. 1- 3..o ------- 21 Ras Tariura to: 1976 1980 1980 ( $/Long Ton) ( $/Long Ton) ( $IBbl Crude ) Houston 17.05 21.72 2.89 Philadelphia 16. 40 20. 89 2. 78 Eastport 16.14 20.56 2.74 Curacao 14.53 18.51 2.46 Freeport, Bahamas 16.11 20.52 2.73 Curacao to: Philadelphia 3. 02 3. 85 0. 51 Houston 3.12 3.97 0.53 Freeport Bahamas to: Philadelphia 2. 07 2. 64 0. 35 For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that VLCC trans- portation would be about 5 percent on a “spot” basis at WS 28 and 95 percent would be on a chartered basis at WS 50. This results in a composite rate of WS 48. 9 Our rates we based on trends in the Average Freight Rate Assessment (AFRA)i. /which publishes a rolling average of Worldscale rates for various size ships. The present over- supply of VLCC is expected to continue at least throught 1980, and we anticipate the current AFRA rates will continue for vessels of this size. In the Caribbean traiisshipment case, 50, 000 DWT tankers would be used to bring the crude into U. S. ports and these rates were assumed to be WS 82. Carribbean transshipment charges at the transshipping point are based on current handling charges, cargo losses, and demurrage charges all escalated to 1980 levels 141 VLCC lightering in the Gulf Coast area is estimated at $0. 2OIbbl. — U. S. flag rates are involved for product movement from the Gulf to the East Coast and for product movements out of Eastport. These rates are based on AR 140 escalated to 1980 for inflation. The American Tanker Rate Schedule (AR rates) i 9 , separately published rate which applies to U. S. flag vessels.- i In the move- ment of product from Houston to the East Coast, the escalated AR 100 rate is equal to $0. 90 per barrel. For movement from Eastport to New York or Boston, the rates used were developed 1 ”Published monthly in The Petroleum Economist . See attached Plot. 1 From Pace Study. 1 - -”Published by the Association of Shipbrokers and Agents (U.S.A.), INC. ------- FOREIGI\ FLAC SINGLE VOYAGE RATES* & AFRA** SINGLE VOYAGE RATES _ NOV. 1. 1968 AFRA WAS EXPANDED TO INCLUDE FOUR SIZE RANGES. b GENERAL PURPOSE (16.5 - 24.9 MDWT) • MEDIUM RANGE (25.0 .44.9 MOWT) £ LARGE RANGE 1 (45.0. 79.9 MOWI) 0 LARGE RANGE 2 (80.0.159.9 MOWT) A JAN. 1, 1914 AFRA WAS FURTHER XPANDED TO INCLUDE: LARGERANGE3 ( 6O.319.9MOWT) 0 - EFFECTIVE NOV. 1, 1968 SEMIANNUAL FINDINGS WERE DISCONTINUED. FINDINGS_NOW OFFICIALLY ON A MONTHLY BASIS _________ _____ t T I . -I.I- —$ -f t- tt t-t—t m-rr±fttf1tir ir j ,t—1—t—1—t—tlttttt 4 + -î t4r r1?Y 4 t AT VOYAGE LENGTH_—9000 MILES IL’ 1 i &A I 3.89 ;t Based on Mullion Index—Average for Month ‘Based on !..ondun T ”ker rokers’ Panel—Rate as of First of Month ‘Startin” 11/i 168 AF A Base Rate Same for All Vessel Sizes Worldacals W5 00 (BASED ON WORLOSCALE RATES OF YEAR SHOWN) W450 W400 W350 W300 W250 Wor ldscale W500 DJA fl tttH F ’ 4 r HH H 17t rtt i r1 W200 j:t i:t it ttttt iii W15O w100 ft tr rr iti • 4-i ;___ H 11 W50 AFRA BASE ’ RATE(SITON) W400 W350 ti444fl :W300 I Iii t r • W250 Ti -1 I W15O p _ 1 f• BASE JRATE (S/TON) t L r 1968 j 1959 1970 1971 T 1972 j 1973 •j 1914 1915 ] 1976 i 8.5O- ------- 23 by Chem Systems ir 1 p analysis they performed for the Pittston Company last year._. ! It appears that they conform lpsely with the AR14O rates. Houston to New York pipeline tariffsiUare based on current rates escalated to 1980. Refinery Investment . east coast location factor of 1. 20 reflects a Philadelphia location.— 1 The lack of any refinery construction in New England makes it difficult to assign an accurate location f3ctor to Eastport, Maine. A large construction firm which has had extensiv construction experience along the East Coast in building refineries and utilities has informed us that if a small refinery were built at a Maine location, the cost would only be 90 percent of an equivalent unit in the Philadelphia area. However, a 250, 000 barrel-per-day refinery is large enough to greatly over-extend any local skilled labor force. As a result it will be necessary to import labor from other areas. Under these circumstances, this firm feels the location factor would be equal to Philadelphia’s. The Chem Systems analysis contained a total fixed assets investment in the refinery and terminal facilities inflated to lj) dollars. This investment was adjusted to 1980 using a 9 percent— 2 - per year increase in refinery construction costs. Working capital was added to their investment at an amount equal to $700/B/D of capacity. The location factor for the East Coast of 1. 20 referred to the Gulf Coast was derived from the Pace Study. Refinery Operating Costs . Refinery operating costs were derived from the Pace study for the Gulf Coast and Middle Atlantic cases. They were modified by an economy-of- size scale curve published by W. L. Nelson in the January 15, 1973, edition of the Oil and Gas Journal . This curve plotted refinery size against cost factors using 100, 000 BID as equivalent to 1.0. A 150, 000 B/D refinery had an operating cost factor equal to .95 while a 250,000 B/D unit had a factor of . 90. The ratio of these factors were applied against refinery cost items except for chemicals, catalysts and depreciation. The latter was calculated separately. Chemicals and catalyst were maintained constant on a unit basis. Report - Chem Systems, INC. to D. K. Heeden, the Pittston Company, September 17, 1974. “Pipeline Rates on Gasoline and Petroleum Products,” Capital Systems Group, INC. The Pace Study. Chem Systems, INC. Report. ------- 24 Base wage rates for refinery employees are published in the National Petroleum Refiners Association’s booklet “NPRA Collective Bargaining Manual.” This shows relative wages in all refining areas of the country. These data were used in the Pace study to determine relative wage rates. Location and 1980 Base Wage Base Wage Productivity Wage Rate Location 1975 ($fHr.) 1980 ($fHr.) Factor ( $/Hr. ) Gulf Coast 6.85 9.01 1.00 9.01 East Coast 6. 99 9. 19 1. 14 10. 48 The East Coast numbers are based on the Philadelphia area. Since there are no refineries in New England, there is no information on what a refinery wage might be in that area. The U. S. Department of Labor publishes information on relative wages in various metro- politan areas. The latest information from the Handbook of Labor Statistics 1975 - Reference Edition is as follows: Skilled Maintenance Unskilled Plant All Manufacturing All Manufacturing Industries Industries Industries Industries All U. S. Metro- politan Areas 100 100 100 100 Philadelphia, Pa. 97 96 106 103 Boston, Mass. 97 97 92 92 Portland, Maine NA NA 89 83 Refinery personnel will be part skilled and part unskilled. Although Boston and Philadelphia are about equal on skilled labor wages, Boston is 11 percent lower on unskilled manufacturing wages. This is further accentuated by Boston’s having a be çr productivity factor of 1. 09 as compared with Philadelphia’s 1. 14.f iThe combined effect of these would be about a 10% lower labor cost for Boston which is equal to 1 /barrel. Data are incomplete for Portland, which is closer to Eastport. In view of the uncertainties, we have left the salary and wages and maintenance costs the same as in the Middle Atlantic area. W. L. Nelson, Oil and Gas Journal , July 30, 1976, page 134. ------- 25 ____ jJ Product Distribution . The product yield pattern expected from the 250, 000 barrel-per-day refinery follows: BID on Crude Imports Propane LPG Butane LPG Gasoline Regular Premium No. 2 Fuel Oil No. 5FuelOjl. Refinery Fuel Fuel Gas Sulfur 29,744 11.9 19,830 7.9 80, 520 32. 2 96,400 38.6 13,500 5.4 23.2 MMSCF/D 3, 700 B/D F.O.E. 454 Tons/D For the purpose of this analysis, delivery of the refinery product stream was assumed to be one-half to Boston and one-half to New York to comply with Metropolitan’s market pattern. The derivation of the composite transportation costs is contained in Table 3. LPG was assumed to be sold at the refinery gate and would bear no distribution cost except in the Gulf Coast case where it must all be moved by pipeline northeast to a terminal between Albany and West Point, New York before it reaches its first distribution point. In this case, the pipeline tariff for LPG escalated to 1980 was used. Other . Since all costs are based on the year 1980, it is assumed that the entitlements program, product allocations, and price controls have been phased out and are not considered in these economics. Customs duties or import fees have not been included in the delivered price of products. If included, each of the three cases delivered product prices would be raised by $0. O5/bbl. JJ’ “An Environmental Assessment Report,” Enviro-Sciences, INC., March 8, 1976. Product 2, 867 4, 802 1.2 1.9 ------- |