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
------- |