F FWIFIMT TO
       L:QI I1O\! U  II U
                    DF  FEDEOAI
          PETOSTS T©
250^000 BARREL/DAY
                          ^  MAINE
        RE© 3
02203

-------
INTRODUCTI ON
For the sake of economy, the appendices to the DEIS
will not be reissued in FEIS form unless major changes were
made. Consequently, this Volume III of the FEIS only con-
tains additional material to Appendices A, F, and G, and
new Appendices K, L, M, and N. Furthermore, Appendix J is
reproduced in its entirety due to additional material supplied
by the Federal Energy Administration.

-------
SUPPLEMENT TO APPENDIX A

-------
4 .__ -
IIt TPATIV! 5ERVICE
25 2 9I
iii GUALIYY CO% POL
2S *31
L O QUALIFI 1POL
IlI I i
AT*fl QUALITY O I*OI.
2*9 2 3I
(A3ORATOAY SE*VICES
219•3I i
OIL POLLUTiON COr1T Oi.
2993 527
GI0UL OF ICU:
$ C ITRAI. S E9T
A.’4c0a .I’.9I
4I4,;
IS COhZ R SS3TP iT
3 TLMiQ j 4IOI
is ss*
4 MAIY S1 IET•
‘PuI7VE ISLE )41 1
543fl7
:ILPOU.UT ,0 1 CC $TROL
I cC I AL3 RUT
73613$
,IL S 1LL ‘ TS OYLY
IOLLFRE I i
TIW*S ENV!PL”.ME$ITAt
£ :S;A’$CE SE 9vICE
9 251$
0I .L 6 E) 9 5C3 *3 $912
)
)
)
AIR EMISSION LICENSE
Findings of Fact and Order
either alone .or in conjunction with existing emission
applicable. ambient air quality standards.
is rnceiving best practical treatrnent. -
to be used is both reliable in conforming to design
expected operating characteristics, and dependable
• ,“
- STATE OF MAINE
O ’ rtrn2rit of Emñronm3nt2l P ot cticn
MAI* OFHCI PAY *UILO$ ’ G I4O pIf3L S’REE A1,C..STA
SAIL AOOMS$ SriTI M3US6. A USTA G4 34
PIITSTO CC>2AN? OF NEW YORK
250,000 Barrel/Day Oil Refinery
Eascport
Mter review of the air emission. license application, public hearing
testinony records for both site selection and Environmental Impact State—
ment, site selection findings of fact and order, Enviror. ental Assess-
ment Report and staff research, the Board finds the following facts:
The Pittston Company of New York proposes to construct a 250,000 barrel.
pet: day Oil Refinery and Marir .a Terminal at Eastport, and must meet the
following criteria before a license may be granted:
• 1. The emission will not violate applicable emission standards
or can be controlled so as to not violate th applicable emission
standard.
2. The emission
• . will not violate
• 3. The emission
4. The equiprnent
specificaticn and
• in performance.
EMISSION ST)SDARDS :
Au equipment will rneet emission standards.
A. Boilers 1,2 & 3 are proposed by the applicant to meet New
$ource Perfor:nance Standards for Particulates, 502 and NOx. The applicant
proposes to meat the S02 requirement by burning .3%S fuel. Stack sampling
and/or monitoring will be required to dernonstrate NSPS compliar.ce as
• required.
• ,I B. Sulfur Recovery unit will be federally required to meet proposed
NSPS for refineries to include tail gas scrubbing. •The applicant propo es
to meet these standards. • -
• C. Sludge ir.cinerator will be federally required to meet SPS.
The applicant proposes to meet these standards.
• D. Storage tanks: The storage tanks for all raw materials and
products associated with the refinery will be selected and designed in -
accordance with vapor pressure equiraments as specified in the “Fedar 1
Standard of Performance of Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids”.
Eurtharmore, as required by statute, volatile organic compounds with
vapor pressures ecual to or in excess of 1.5 pounds per square inch ab—
solute pressure (psia) but less than 11.0 psia will be stored in tanks
equipped with a floatIng roof, a vapor recovery system or their equivalent.
Products with vapor pressures less than 1.5 psia will be stored in cor:
WILLI*M . AOM$S. 2R.
OO’I S;I .E R
Zn

-------
IITTSTON CC -IPANY OF NEW YORX
“FIndings of Fact and Order
Page 2
tanks. Products with vapor pressures in excess of 11.0 psia will be stored in
totally enclosed ‘prassure vessels of the bullet or spherical shape. • All pur:ips
and compressors handling oil screams will be provided with mechanical seals speci-
fically designed to prevent leakage of oil and hydrocarbon vapors. The state is
required to ensure that the New Source Performance Standards are enforced.
E. Finished product transport will be alost exclusively by tankers and
barge with a po sibilicy of limit:a.± rail and tank truck transport in the future.
The Board has received evidence that vapor recovery from tanker and barge
transport is at this time not feasible due to safety requirements of the Coast
Guard for loading’ and off loading of volatile fuels and that any approvable
recovery system will be at least three years in the future. The Board notes its
concern that the amount of hydrocarbon (BC) vapor lost in loading and off loading
procedures can represent approximately one half of the anticipated BC emissions of
the entire refinery. The Board also notes recent federal requirements for states
to develop standards aimed at reducing rates of current BC emissions. Currently
there are no state BC- standards.
F. Process venting and leakiz ig: The Board notes that new valves and pumps
designed specifically to. reduce BC emissions currently available for ref merits
represent the best, state of the art for BC emis ion control but the Board also
notes that unless’ properly installed and checked, such valves and pump seals
may not functiøn as designed and even properly installed may deteriorate over a
period of time unless a good preventative maintenance and inspection policy is
adopted and adhered t3. There is also concern over these emissions since they
represent ove 1/ of all BC emissions from the refinery.
ANB.IE.NT AIR QUALITY : Existing
‘Sampling at the proposed site indicates there are no current problems with SO 2 ,
Particulates, or NOx. However, BC and Ozone levels recorded indicate a
potential problem for both pollutants.
Ozone violatiorts.w re recorded during an extended monitoring program during the
summer of 1976 and represented approximately 5% of the time of sampling data
taken during the fall.of 75 showed no violations. The interaction of BC, NOx and
sunlight in the foimation of ozone is a very complex and controversial issue.
The refinery will, be emitting both NOx and BC, ,however, ozone will not be expected
to form for approxImately 10—15 miles downwind. Meteorology associated with the
ozone violations ’ how winds out of the South to Southeast as being the days of
concern apparently due to transport of the ozone from more urbanized areas to the
south. Formation of ozone under these conditions would expect to take place in
other than Maine territory and would be out of the jurisdiction of the DEP. The
Board does note ihat only a limited amount of data has been taken and since there
is considerable’ controversy on the ozone problem, recognizes the value of gaining
more information on those parameters that go into ozone creation both before and
after the establishment of any source the size of the proposed ref incry.
Non—methar.e hydrocarbon violations were shown to take place during the first
72 hours of reported data during the fall of 1975. The state of the art for
hydrocarbon detection is such that there is considerable question in the accuracy
of those results, both due to the possibility of equipeent warm—up time error and
to the technique used. There is no acceptable method approved by EPA for fic3

-------
. ITTST0N C0MPA :Y OF NEW YORK
Findings of Fact and Order
Page 3
monitoring either for methane or non—methane NC although data obtained using
the sane method does relate trends of concentration.. At this time DEP does not
feel there is significant information to consider the area as having HC violations.
The Board does note its concern on the need of more data on HC and on the require-
ment of continuIng monitoring to show tredds as related to ozone formation and
NC concentrations both before and after the refinery establishment.
AMBIENT AIR QUALI Y : Expected
Ozone violations are not expected to increase due to the emissions of the
refinery. Nonicoring to insure there are no increase in violations and to
record trend should be performed.
•EC: Data to date is not adequate to determine if.RC violations will occur.
There is no federally recognized monitoring equipment that is satisfactory at
this time, however, monitoring for trend and ozone formation should be performed.
NOx: No violations are expected, however, due to the interaction with HC
to form ozone, m nitoring should be performed.
Particulate: No violations are expected, however, short t rm monitoring to
determine point source and fugitive dust impact should be performed. Non Signi-
ficant Deterioration increments for particulates are expected to be met.
SO 2 : No violations’ of ambient air quality are expected from modeling data
however, monitoring to corroborate model output should be performed. Non Signi-
ficant Deterioration increment of 100 icrogra per cubic meter for 24 hr. $02
ambient air, quality standard will not be met if a tail gas scrubber is not used
on the Claus sulfur recovery unit.
- Sulfates: Sulfates are due to become a primary pollutant in the near future.
No sampling has been required to date and there is no way to determine the existing
concentrations or the effect the refinery has without actual monitoring.
*
Non Significant Deterioration: The Board notes the on Significant Deterio-
ration requirements for S02 and Particulates as promulgatcd by EPA December 5, 1974
and amended June 12, 1975, as 40 CFR 51.21 are not required to be enforced by state
regulations or by the St ate Implementation Plan (SIP), however, th Boazd recognizes
that these requirements were adopted using the latest state of the art for particulates
and S02 control, and finds that in this case, Non. Significant Deterioration require-
ments should be required under Best Practical Treatment.
BEST PRACTICAL T?SEATMENT
A. Number 1, 2 &3 boilers are rated at 247 millioci BTU per hour, 3 million
less than the 250 million ETU per hour that would require New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS), however, since each boiler is close in size to 250 million B U
per hour and since the total of all three is 741 and hence would have a significant
impact on the environment, far in excess of the amount that would require a single
unit to rneet the NSPS, the Board finds that Best Practical Treatment (3PT) in th.N

-------
£ITSTON CC !P NY OF NEW YOPJ
Findings of Fact and Order
Page 4
case is represented by each boiler being required to meet the NSPS for particulates
and NOx. Since .3% Sulfur fuel is readily available and produced on site, the
Board determines that fuel no more than .3% sulfur would be required to meet BPT
for the boilers.
B. The sulfur recovery unit as.—proposed includes a tail gas scrubber to
reduce the SO 2 emission to 102 lb. per hour. This type of equipment would be
required under proposed NSPS and represents the current state of the art for SO.,
càntrol. This control will also be required if the source is to stay within the
allowed non signifIcant deterioration increment for additional SO 2 to the area.
The Board recognizes the tail gas scrubber when properly designed and maintained
represents BPT in this case.
C. The sludge incinerator is rated at 48T/day, 2 tons under the size that
would require NSPS. •The Board determines dt e to the nature and amount of the
sludge being incinerated, NSPS can be met using current state of the art emission
controls and that emissions greater than NSPS would not represent EPT. The use
of an electrostatic precipitator to meet NSPS as proposed by the applicant repre-
sents BPT. Sludge .sampling should be performed to deterr .ine heavy metal concentra-
tion that may be expected in the stack gas.
D. Storage ranks at the refinery will be required to meet NSPS. Control
equipment will be required according to the vaporpressure of the fuels contained.
SPS represents BPT for these tanks.
E. Finished product transport and loading will not receive vapor recovery
regardless of vapor prassue5 involved. The Board would normally consider vapor
recovery systems as. BPT for product handling but realizes from a safety stand-
point that’at present such systems are not feasible for tanker and barge loading.
BPT for these MC emissions is represented by the applicant providing space available
for recEovery equipment and by being prepared to start installation of recovery
equipment from bath a financial and engineering aspect when safe vapor recovery
systems are available in the future.
F. Controls for process venting and leaking of MC through the use of
reliable and prop r1y engineered components as proposed by the applicant represents
the current state of the art for MC control, however, the Board finds that this
technology must b couplcd with an aggressive scheduled maintenance program to
include possible .monitoring of valves and pumps to ensure they have proper
sealing qualities. The Board realizes that a very small number of the valves
and pumps account for the majority of the MC emissions and feels quite strongly
that they can be identified and controlled through intensive maintenance. A
program of this nature in conjunction with a ient air monitoring is required to
realize BPT.
The Board finds that proposed equipment is both reliable in conforming to design
specifications and expected operating characteristics, and dependable in perforc ance.
Based ‘ n the above findings, the Board determines that all, conditions for an air
emission license can be met and hereby orders the Commissioner to issue such air

-------
‘ITTSTON CONP.ANY OF NEJ YORK
ir dings of Fact arid Order
‘age 5
mission license to Pittston Campany of New York subject to standard conditions
iUS the following special conditions:
(e) For number 1,2 and 3 boilers the applicant shall meet the New Source
‘erformance Standards as given in 40 CFR Part 60 with the exceptioi , that sulfur
n the fuel shall not exceed .3 S by weight.
(f) All process heaters of fuel burning sources with a heat input of greater
han 150 million BTU’s per hour shall be stack sampled for particulate and NOx as
Jer methods according to 40 CFR Part 60. Results to be submitted to the Department
)f Environmental Protection within 60 days of reaching planned operating rate but
lot later than 150 days after initial startup of source involved.
(g) Any combustion of fuel or waste product greater than. .3% Sulfur by weight
shall be recorded and submitted to the DEP on an annual basis showing percent sulfur
and rate of combustion.
(h) Records.of all flowing shall be maintained.
(1) The sulfur recovery unit shall meet the proposed New Source Performance
Standard as adopt d arid amended for units of this type to include the installation
of a tail gas scrubber.
(j) The sludge incinerator shall meet the Ne Source Performance as per 40 CFR
rart 60 regardless of firing rate and shall meet the limitations of the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants as per 40 dR Part 61. Sludge and
ash shall be ánal zed for heavy metal concentrations in a manner and frequency as
determined by the Commissioner.
1
(k) The fuel storage tanks shall meet the New Source Performance Standards
as per 40 CFR Part 60. . All storage vessels for volatile organic compounds (VOC)
with a vapor pressure 1.5 psia or greater but less than 11 psia shall have a
floating roof tank, a vapor recovery system. or their equivalent. Storage vessels for
7 OC under 1.5 psia vapor pressure shall have a cone roof tank or equivalent.
Storage vessels fcr VOC of 11. psia or greater shall be bulletor spherical shaped.
(1) All loading.and off loading facilities of product with a vapor pressure
greater than 1.5 psia shall be designed to include space and in ’rallation capabilities
for vapor recovery systems, at a later date when such systems have been safely
developed. The applicant shall begin instal1at on of vapor recovery systems
within 90 days of the Board’s determination that approvable and safe systems have
been developed and they shall be constructed and operated as rapidly as is practical.
(ri) The ap licant shall develop and submit to the DEP for approval an acceptable
maintenance progra t aimed at Hydrocarbon emissions at least 180 days prior to start
up. The program will include perimeter or “fence line” ambient air sampling to
be performed for start up and on a yearly basis thereafter. Individual valves will
be leak checked and corrected on a start up basis and when valves of the fence line
Llonitoring indicates a need as datermined by the Commissioner. A yearly repor:
detailing air quality maintenance items performed and surveys made shall be s :b—
viittcd to DEL’ along with a report of any con ro1 equipment down—time and the rate
of pollutants emitted during that down—time.

-------
ITTSTON COMP$ NY OF NEW YOR}
Findings of Fact and Order
Page 6
(n) The applicant shall develop and maintain an air monitoring program one
year from date of expected start up aimed at monitoring locations where the
greatest i pact of the refinery will be felt. The program must meet the approval
of the Caz missioner and will be required to meet all quality assurance and audit
programs as specified by DEP and may require further sample analysis if deemed
necessary by the C imissioner. Parameters expected to be monitored include but
are noc limited to NOx (both NO and NO.,), particulate, SO 2 , MC (methane and non
methane) and Ozone with a minimum of three monitoring sites. Sulfate monitoring
or analysis may be..required if conditions warrant. Meteorology and background
information are required and- may include but is not limited to a meteorological
station capable of monitoring temperature, direct sunlight, humidity, wind speed
and wind direction.
(o) Applicant shall submit detailed design on all air emission control
equipment and control programs to DEP at least 180 days prior to start of construction.
(p) Loading.ánd off loading of all tankers and barges shall be accomplished
in a manr.cr to reduce HC emissions to a minimum and in a safe and practical method
acceptable to both.the Board and the U. S Coast Guard. Realizing that related
to loading procedures are being currently studied by the Coast Guard and other
groups, the applicant shall submit for DEP approval a loading and unloading
procedural progral aimed at minimizing air pollutants within 180 days of any
product loading or unloading.
DONE AND DAIEDIN AUGUSTA, M UNE THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 1977.
BOARD OF ENVIRON IENTAL PROTECTION
By_______________________________________
William R. Adams, Jr., Chairman

-------
STATE OF MAINE
D rt i of En ’Iron r ta
— -I
- -. — — IiA IG1 ZI: a&, P”AL I l U *
f4, er * t Z & IAfl hch .U A 4,J3
1L.U .M L3I W 1.
Z 3 281 1
The Pittston Company ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER
Eastport ) WASTE DISCHARGE LICENSE
Maine )
C T’O i’ursuant to the provisions of Section 414—A, Title 38, Maine
Revised Statutes, upon application by The Pittston Company
for a license to discharge treated wastewaters from an oil
QAU1 8C X refinery to Tidewaters of Eastport, Class SA, the Board of
- Enviro=ental Protection has considered the proposed character—
istics and mode of treatment for the proposed discharge and the
water quality of the proposed receiving waters, including other
discharges thereto, and finds the following facts:
I8LCfl,C!S
The applicant has proposed treatment systems which meet or ex—
C’L 1 ceed standards for best practicable treatment.
The applicant has stated that the requested dIscharges as re—
17 vised during the public hearing will not lower the quality of
the receiving waters.
37
Based upon these findings the Board concludes that the conditions
r e not of the proposed license will satisfy the requirements of law for the
issuance of a waste discharge license, in that
tI PCtTt O LT
A. The prcposed discharge so licensed, by itself, or in combination
with other discharges, will not lower the quality of the receiving
‘ IL waters below the minimum reguirenents of their classification.
f!) lO4 ll E
B. The proposed discharge as licensed, will receive the best practtca
treatr ent.
Therefore, the Board grants the application of The Pittston Company
to discharge treated refinery process wastewaters to tidewaters of
Eastport, Class SA.
DONE AND DATED AT AUGUSTA, 1AINE, THIS ________DAY OF NAY, 1977.
BY:___________________________________
William R. Adams, Jr., Commissioner

-------
Department of En ’èrc aunen.t. l Pi-oteci ion
SLto of M i e
WASTE I) NU I.’t (. F JACE 1 CLI TrFLrATE
Augusta, Maine O13 3
LICENSE V -O
Renewal Ferua y2 ,1982
EXPIRES
11PITISTQ _CQ A L
May 25, 1982
is hcrc-by granted a waz e dischargc licer.Ee certificate from the SLate of Maine, Department of
Environrnenta1 Protection according to the provisions of Maine Revised Statues rnended, Title
38, Section 414, to discharge treated wastew ! s _____________________________________
from a refinery co p1ex
Ident ify Source
Eastport
Washington
Mw tlctpsflty
County
to Tidewaters of Eastport
Body of Water
Subject to the tttachcd conditions.
Given under our hrnd and seal this ____________
Sbn.harr . f tJrin’re
day of
Class SA
BY: ________________________
C r n1s,kw ,er
DEPART liNT OF ENVIflONMENTAL PflOTEC ION
Initial L25_,j9 7
k- \OO

-------
c u. cO :DlTIo :s
1. All discharges shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of
this lict.nse; any ch;in zes in production capacity or proccss modifi—
cat ons which result in changes in the quantity or the character—
istics of the discharge must be authorized by cr1 additional license
or by modifications of this 1i ense; it shall be a vIolation of the
terms and conditions of this license to discharge any pollutant not
Identified and authorized herein or to discharge in excess of the
rates or quantities authorized herein or to violate any other con-
ditions of this license.
2. The licensee shall permit the Department of Environmental Protection
Staff upon the presentation of proper credentIals:
a. To enter upon licensee’s premises where an effluent source is
located or in Thich any records are required to be epc under the
terms and conditions of this license.
b. To have access to and copy any records required to be kept un-
der the teras and conditions of this license.
c.. To inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required
in this license; or
d. To measure and/or sample at any intake, process or cooling effluent
stream, wastewater treatment facility, and/or outfall.
3. This license may not be transferred to the llcensee’s successor or
assigns.
4. This license hall be subject to such monitoring ‘requirements as nay
be reasonably required by the Department of Environmental Protection
including the iast llation, use, and mainrainance of monitoring equip-
ment or methods (includinc, where appropriate, biclogical monitoring
methods). The li:ensee shall provide the Department of Er.vircnmental
Protection wIth periodic reports on the proper Department of Environ-
mental Protection reporting form of monitoring results obtained pur-
suant to the monitoring requirements contained herein.
5. This license does not preclude obtaining other required ‘Federal, State,
or 1unicipal permits and does not authorize or approve the construction
of any onshore physical structures or facilities or the undertaking of
any work in any navigabLe waters.
6. The issuance of this license does not convey any property rights in
either real or personal property, or any exclusIve privileges, nor does
it authorize any’ injury to public or private property or any invasion
of personal rights, nor any infringc nent of Federal, State or local
laws or regulations.
7. NothIng in thi,i lIccn c shall be construed to relieve the licensee from
civil or cr mina]. penalt t s for noncomplIance, whether or not ueh non—con —
pliance is due to factors beyond his control, such as accident, equipment
breakdown, labor disputc, or natural disaster.

-------
It SPECI. L CONDITIONS
1. EFFLUENT LfltITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIK1 MENTS
During the period beginning facilities start—up and lasting through license expiration the licensee is
authorized to discharge process wastewaters from outfall 001.
Mi nirnum
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Daily Daily Daily Ave. Daily Measurement Sample
Ave. Quantity/ Max. Quantity/ Quantity/ Quantity/ Frequency Type
Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration
Flow 1.0 MGD 1/Day Continuous Recordii
BOD 5 100 lbs. 175 lbs. 10 mg/I. 20 mg/i 1/Day Composite
Suspended
Solids 100 lbs. 300 lbs. 12 mg/i 35 mg/i 1/Day Composite
COD 500 lbs. 1000 lbs. 50 mg/I 100 mg/i 1/Day Composite
Oil & Crease .50 lbs. 125 lbs. 5 mg/i 15mg/i 1/Day Composite
Phenols 0.5 lbs. 1.0 lbs. .05 mg/i .1 mg/i 1/Week Grab
Ammonia 25 lbs. 100 lbs. 3 mg/i ii mg/i 1/Week Composite
Sulfides 2.5 lbs. .3 mg/i 1/Week Composite
Total Ctiromiuin .05 lbs. 0.5 Lbs. .006 mg/I. .06 mg/i 1/Week Composite
Hexavalent
Chromium 0.5 lbs. .05 mg/i 1/Week Composite
Fecal Coliforin 15 coionies/l00 ml i/Week Crab
Bacteria sample
Aluminum 0.5 lbs. .06 mg/i i/Week Composite
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements above shall be taken prior to discharge to Broad Co
The pH shall not be lass than 6.0 or greater than 8.5 at any time.
(a) The effluent shall contain neither a1vjsab1eo1i iecn foam nOr fi.oating solids at anytime.
(b) The effluent shall not contain materials in concentrations or combinations which are hazardous or toxic to
aquatic life; or which wauld impair the usages designated by the classification of the receiving waters.
(c) Th discharge shall not cause visable discoloration so as to impair the usages dasignated by the classifi—
cation of the recciving waters.
(d) The discharge shall not cause turbidity in the rcc iving waters which would impair the usages designated by
the classification of the receiving waters..
(a) Notwithstanding specific conditions of this license the effluent must not lower the qualIty of the receivim
waters below the minimum require,mencs of their classificatIon.

-------
II SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. EFFLUENT LiMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning facilities start—up and lasting through license expiration the licensee is
authorized to discharge process wastewaters and contaminated runoff water from outfall serial number 001.
Minimum
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations - Monitoring Requirements
Daily Daily Daily Daily Measurement Sample
Ave. Max. Ave. Max. Frequency Type
Quantity! Quantity/ Concentration Concentration
Flow 2.2 MCD 1/Day Continuous Recordir
B OD 5 185 lbs. 370 lbs. 10 mg/i 20 mg/i 1/Day Composite
Suspended Solids 220 lbs. 640 lbs. 12 mg/i 35 mg/i 1/Day Composite
COD 920 lbs. 1850 lbs. 50 mg/i 100 tug/I 1/Day ComposLte
Oil & Grease 100 lbs. 275 lbs. 5 mg/i 15 mg/i 1/Day Composite
Plicuols 1.0 lbs. 2.0 lbs. .05 mg/I .1 mg/i I/Week Grab
A onia 60 lbs. 185 lbs. 3 mg/i 11 mg/i 1/Week Composite
Sulfide 6.0 lbs. .3 mg/i i/Week Composite
Total Chromium .2 lbs. 1.5 lbs. .006 mg/i .06 tug/i 1/Week Composite
}texavalent Chromium 1.0 lbs. .05 mg/i 1/Week Composite
Fecal Coliform Bacteria 15 coionies/100 ml sample 1/Week Crab
Aluminum 1.5 lbs. .06 mg/i — 1/Week Composite
The above license conditions shall be in effect only during periods when contaminated stormwater is being
iischarged to and treated in the process wastewater treatment system.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements above shall be taken prior to discharge to Broad Ci
The pit shall not be less than 6.0 or greater than 8.5 at any time.
(a) The effluent shall contain neither a visable oil sheen, foam, nor floating solids at any time.
(b) The effluent shall not contain materials in concentrations or combinations which are hazardous or toxic
to aquatic life or which would impair the, usages designated by the classification of the receiving water.
(c) The discharge shall not cause visable dlscolor eioni so as to ir pa ’ir the usages designated by the classifi—
cation of the receiving waters.
(d) The discharge shall not cause turbidity in the receiving waters which would impair the usages designated b
the classification of the rcceiving waters.
(e) flotwithstanding specific conditions of this license the affluent must not lower the quality of the receivi
waters below the minimum requl rements of their classification.

-------
I I SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQIJIREM.ENTS
During the period beginning facilities start—up and lasting through license expiration the licensee is
authorized to discharge process and bal1ast wastewaters from outfall 001.
Minimum
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Daily Daily Daily Daily Measurement Sample
Ave. Quantity/ Max. Quantity/ Ave. Max. Con— Frequency Type
Concentration Centration
Flow 3.2 MCD 1/Day Continuous Recording
LOD 5 565 lbs. 1055 lbs. 25 mg/i 40 mg/i 1/Day Composite
Suspended Solids 475 lbs. 900 lbs. 20 mg/i 35 mg/i 1/Day Composite
COD 4900 lbs. 9600 lbs. 185 mg/i 360 mg/i 1/Day Composite
Oil & Grease 200 lbs. 400 lbs. 10 mg/i 15 mg/i i/Day Composite
Phenols 1.5 lbs. 2.5 lbs. .05 mg/i .1 mg/I. 1/Week Grab
Ar monia 75 lbs. 275 lbs. 3 mg/I 11 mg/I 1/Week Composite
Sulfides 75 lbs. .3 mg/i 1/Week Composite
Total Chromium .2 lbs 15 lbs. .006 mg/I. .06 mg/i. 1/Week Composite
lLe>:nvalent
Chromium 1.3 lbs. .05 mg/i 1/Week Composite
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria 15 colonies/lO0 in]. sample 1/Week Grab
Aluminum 1.5 lbs. .06 mg/i — 1/Week Composite
The above license requirements shall be in effect only during periods when ballast water is being discharged
to and treated in the process wastewater treatment system.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements above shall be taken prior to discharge to Broad Co’
(a) The effluent shall contain neither. a visable oi1 sheen, foam, nor f1oa ing solids •at any time.
(b) The effluent shall not contain materials in concen€rat ons or combii ations which ar hazardous or toxic to
aquatic life; or which would impair the usages designated by the classificatiàn of the receiving waters.
(c) The discharge shall not cause visable discoloration so as to impair the usages designated by the classifi-
cation of the receiving waters.
(d) The discharge shall not cause turbidity ±n the receiving waters which would impair the usages designated by
the classification of the receiving waters.
(e) Notwithstanding specific conditions of this license the effluent must not lower the quality of the receivin
waters below the minimum requirements of their classification.

-------
II SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. EFFLUENT LilILTATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning facilities start—up and lasting through license expiration the licensee is
authorized to discharge process, contaminated storm runoff and ballast water from outfall 001.
Minimum
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Daily Daily 1 ai1y Max. Measurement Sample
Ave. Max. Ave. Quantity Frequency Type
Quantity Quantity Concentration Concentration
Flow 4.4 MCD 1/Day Continuous Recording
BOO 650 lbs. 1250 lbs. 20 mg/i 35 mg/i 1/Day Composite
Suspended Solids 395 lbs. 1240 lbs. 20 mg/i 35 mg/i 1/Day Composite
COD 5320 lbs. 10,500 lbs. 150 mg/l 290 ing/l 1/Day Composite
Oil & Grease 250 lbs. 550 lbs. 10 mg/i 15 mgI] 1/Day Composite
Phenols 1.5 lbs. 2.5 lbs. .05 mg/i .1 mg/i 1/Week Grab
A ::;onia 75 lbs. 275 lbs. 3 mg/i 11 rng/l 1/Week Composite
Sulfide 7.5 lbs. .3 mg/i 1/Week Composite
Total Chromium .2 lbs. 1.5 lbs. .006 t: g/l .06 ing/l 1/Week Composite
lk:xavalent Chromium 1.3 lbs. .05 mg/i 1/Week Composite
Iccal Coliform Bacteria — 15 colonies/100 ml sample 1/Week Crab
Alunlnum 1.5 lbs. .06 mg/i — 1/Week Composite
S mp1cs taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements above shall be taken prior to discharge to Broad Coy
The above effluent limitations shall be in effect only when ballast water and contaminated stormwater runcff are
being dischargedto and treated in the process wastewater treatment system.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 or greater that’. 8.5•at any time.
(a) The effluent shall contain neither a v sable oil sheen, foam, nor floating solids at any time.
(b) The effluent shall not contain materials in concentrations or combinations which are hazardous or toxic
to aquatIc life; or which would impair the usages designated by the classification of the receiving waters.
(c) The discharge shall not cause visable discoloration so as to impair the usages designated by the classifi-
cation of the receivLn waters.
(d) Ti dis uarge shall not cau c turbidity in the receivIng waters which would impair the usages designated by
the classification of the receiving waters.
(e) Notwithstanding specific conditions of this license the effluent must not lower the quality of the receivin
waters below the minimum requirements of their classification.

-------
II SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. EFFLUENr LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning start of facilities construction and lasting through completion of
construction, the licensee is authorized to discharge sanitary wastewaters, storm water runoff from
outfall 002.
Minimum
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring, Requirements
Daily Ave. Daily Max. Measurement Sample
Quantity Quantity Frequency Type
Concentration Concentration
1. Sanitary wastewaters
Flow
BOD 30 mg/i 45 mg/i
Suspended Solids 30 mg/i 45 mg/i
Focal Coliform Bacteria i5coloniesIlOO ml Daily Grab
sample
Settleable Solids 0.1 mi/i Daily Grab
2. Storm Water Runoff
(All discharge points)
Flow — — i/month Estimate
Suspended Solids 50 rngfl 100 rag/i 1/month Crab
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements above shall be taken prior tà discharge to Broad C
The pU shall not be less than 6.0 or greater than 8.5 at any time.
(a) The effluent shall contain neither a visable oil sheen, foam, nor floating solids at any time.
(b) The effluent shall not contain materials in concentrations or combinations which are hazardous or toxic
to aquatic life; or which would impair the usages designated by the classification of the receiving waters
(c) The discharge shall not cause visable discoloration so as to impair. the usages designated by the classifi-
cation of the receiving waters.
(d) The discharge shall not cause turbidIty in the receiving waters which would impair the usages designated b:
the classification of the receiving waters.
(e) Notwithstanding specific conditions of this license the effluent must not lower the quality of the receivi
waters below the minimum rec uirements of theit classification.

-------
II SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1 EF FLU E T LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning facility start—up and lasting through license expiration the licensee
is authorized to discharge stormwater runoff from outfalls 004 and 005.
Minimum
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Daily Measurement Sample
Max. Quantity! Frequency Type
Concentration
Uncontaminated
Runoff
Flow — — —
TOC 35 mg/i 1/Month Composite
Oil & Grease 15 mg/i 1/Moz th Grab
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken prior to mixing
with other wastewater stream.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 or greater than 85 at any time.
(a) The effluent shall contain neither a visable oil sheen 1 foam, nor floating solids at any time.
(b) The effluent shall not contain materials in concentrations or combinations which are hazardous or toxic
to aquatic life; or which would impair the usages designated by the classificat .on of the receiving waters
(c) The discharge shall not cause visabl.e discoloration so as to impair the usages desigttated by the classifi-
cation of the receiving waters.
(d) The dIscharge shall not cauge turbidity in the receiving waters which would impair the usages designated b:
the classification of the receiving waters.
(e) Notwithstanding specific conditions of this license the effluent must not lower the quality of the receivi!
waters below the minimum requirements of their classification.

-------
II SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1 • EFFLU1 NT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning facilities start—up and lasting through license expiration the licensee is
authorized to discharge ballast water from outfall serial number 006.
Mm imurn
________________________ Discharge Li i1tatior.s Monitoring Requirements
Samples taken in compliance with the above monitoring requirements
any other wastewater stream. *
The p11 shall not be less than 6.0 or greater than 8.5 at any time.
shall be taken prior to mixing with
(a) The effluent shall contain neither a visable oil sheen, foam, nor floating solids at any time.
(b) The effluent shall not contain materials in concentrations or combinations which are hazardous or toxic
to aquatic life; or which would impair the usages designated by the classification of the receiving waters.
(c) The discharge shall not cause visable discoloration so as to impair the usages designated by the classifi-
cation of the receiving waters.
(d) The dIscharge shall not cause turbidity in the receivine waters which would ic air the usazes desiznated by
the •class ficat ion of the receiving waters,.
(e) Notwithstanding specific conditions of this 1ic nsethe effluent must not lower the quality of the receiving
waters below the minimum requirements of their classification.
Effluent Characteristic
Daily
Ave. Quantity!
Daily
Max. Quantity!
Daily
Max, Quantity/
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Concent ration
Concentration
Concentration
Flow MCD
1/Day
Manual
BOD 5
465 lbs.
880 lbs.
50 mg/i
1/Month
Composite
Suspended
Solids
375 lbs.
600 lbs.
35 mg/i
1/Month
Composite
COD
4400 lbs.
8600 lbs.
470 mg/i
1/Month
Composite
Oil & Grease
150 lbs.
275 lbs.
15 mg/i
1/Day
Grab

-------
B. SCHEDULE CF CO L1ANCE
1. The licensee shall achIeve cot pl1ance with the effluent limitations
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
tons t ruc tion.
c. Report completion of construction of refinery and wastewater
treatment facilities.
ci. Subi iit final plans for all wastewater 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 reiiaery facilities.
2. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the
above schedule of com liance, the licensee shall submit a report
of progress or, in the ceae of specIfic actior.s being required by
identified dates, a written notice of compliance or noncompliance.
In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of non—
cOmpliance, any remedial actions taken, and the probability of
meeting the next scheduled reguirem nt.

-------
3. Treatment Plant Operator
The Trcat! cnt Factlity must be operated bya person holding a Grade
1, II, II I, iv , 3 VI certificate pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A., SectIon
4175.
4. Disinfection
Disinfection shall be used to reduce the concentration of fecal coliforn
bacteria to or below the level specificd in the “Effluent Limitations arid
Monitoring Rcçuirerient” Section of this llccr.se. If chloriri .ticn is used
as a means of disinfectIon, a minimum detentica time of 15 minutas in an
approved contact chamber shfll be provided at all times. The total chlorine
residual in the effluent shall at no time cause any demcnBtra: b1e barn to
açuatic life in the readying waters. At no tIne sh ].l the tct. i ch]ori:;e
residual of the effluent excee. 1.0 /l as m aserLd by the Orctoj d .
Method .
5. Wastewater Treatment and Sampling FacilitIes
a. The licensee shall collect all waste flows designated by the De.partent
of Environmental Proceotion as requirin; treatment and dIscharge them into
an approved waste treatment facility in such a manner as to maximize rer.oval
of pollutants unless authorization to the contrary is obtained frcm the D c —
partnent.
b. The licensee shall at all times maintain in good working order and cp
erate at maximum efficiency all wascewater treatment and/or control facilities.
c. All necessary waste treatment facilities will be installed and operatIonal
prior to the discharge of any wastewaters.
d Final plans and specifIcations must be.subnitted to the staff of the De-
partment of Environmental Protection and approved prior to the constructiot
of any treatment facilities.
e. The licensee shall install flow measuring facilities of a design approved
by the Department of Environmental Protection.
f. The licens e must provide an outfall of a design approved by the Department
of Environmantal Protection which is placed in the receiving waters in suah a
manner that ma::inum mixing and dispersionof the vastewacers will be achieved
as rapidly as possible.
g. AU sanitary wastewaters shall be treated in a sand filter of a design
approved bythe Department of Environmental P.rotection Staff.
h. The licensee shall record and forward to the Department Staff, dates and
times during which ballast water and/or contaminated stormwater are being
discharged to and treated in the biological treatment syste n.

-------
6. MonitorIng and Rcportin 3
a. Rcpresenr tive Sampling
Samples and measure.m nts taken as required herein shall be
representatIve of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.
b. Sampling and Analysis
The sampling, preservation, handling, and analytical methods
used must ccmfcrn to the following reference methc ds. However,
different but equivalent r.i thods are allowable if they receive the
prior writc n ipproval from the Department of Environ enta1 Protection.
(1) Star.dard ethods for the Exanination of Water and Wastewaters ,
14th Edition, 1976, Ac erican ?u 1ic Health Association,
1015 18th Street, N.W., WashIngton, D.C. 20036, or latest edition.
(2) Annual rock of St indards, Pnrt 31, at r L2 , A.mericar. Society
for Testing and acer!als, 191b aee Street, Philadelphia, Penn—
sylvania 19103, or latest cdition.
(3) Methods for Chemical nalvsis of Water and Wastes , April, 19Th.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Technology Trans—
fer, Industrial Environ iental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45268, or latest edition.
c. Reporting
(1) - -The results of the above rnonicor ng requirements shall be
reported dn reporting forms in the units specified at a frequency of
not less than
sxxxxx cx cx x kx nthl ’
(2) •Any reports or records of monitoritla activities and re-
sults shall include for all samples: (a) the date, exact place,
and time of sampling; (b) the dates and times analyses were per—
formed; (c) who performed the sampling and analyses; (d) the an-
alytical techniques/methods u ed, including sampling, handlin;,
and preset atlon techniques; and (e) the results of all required
analyses.
d. All reports shall be signed by:
(1) In the case of corporations, by a principal executive officer
of at least the level of vice president, or his duly auth .rizeJ repre-
sentative, if such representative is responsible for the overall operation
of the facility from which the dischurgi. dcscrLbcd In the reporting form
originates.
(2) In the case of a partnership, by a general partner or duly
authori:ed representative.

-------
(3) In the casa of a sole proprictorshL , by the proprietor or
duly authorized rcpresentativc.
(4) In the ca -e of a nur.icipal, State, or other public facility,
by either a principal executivt officer, ranking elected off icL.ul, or
duly authorized enpio’jae.
— . ..• ._ , .,. r. ..
1_i I - Q LL .. t I ..- . :.%L._r
ing facilities should be directed to:
ATTN: Division of Llcensiri and rent
Division of Indus ” t rvices
•DivisIon of ‘ .... c!j’a1 Services
Depar tofEn;i:cr.rental Protection
7. Non—Compliance. Notification
a. In the event the licensee Is unable to comply vith any of the
conditions f this license due, among other reasons, to:
1. breakdo . ’a of waste treatment equipment (biolog al
nd physica1—che ical syste ns including, but not
1im ited to, all pIpes, transfer punps, compressors,
• collection por.ds or tanks for the segregation of
• treated or untreated wastes, ion exchange columr.ns,
or.carbon absorption units).
2. accidents caused by error or negligence, or
- •3. ocher causes such as acts of nature,
the licens e shall notify the Deportment of Environmental Protect or
as soon ashc Cr his agents have kno cledge of the incident.
b. WithIn five (5) days of becoming aware of such condition the
licensee shall provide th Department of Environmental Protection i
writing, ghe following information:
1. A descrIption of the discharge and cause of nonconpliance an
2. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
or, it not corrected, the anticipated ti the nonccrpliance
isexpected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce,
eliminate and prevent recurrence of th t noncomplying discharge.
8. Change in Discharge
Permanent elimination of a discharge should be brought to th attontion
of the Department of Environmental Protect ic-n vithin 15 days by a special
written notificnticn. A written report should be ub: ittei if there have
been any nodificotiiii fri the waste colh’ ction, treatment, and disposal
facilities; changes in oper itional procedures; or other significant activIties

-------
._,4 4 4LL4; whtch alter the vo1u e, natur ,
or frcquar cy of the dischcrges or otherwise concern the conditions
of this license.
9. Transfer of 0 ner;htp
In tl-ie event of any chan ,e In control or ownership of the
facility which is the source of the licensed discharge, this
license 1 upon such transfer, shall be void and the new owner
shall be reçuired to obtain a new license for the discharge.
The licensee shall notify the succeeding owner or controller of
the existance of this license by letter, a copy of which shall
be forvarded to the Departr ent of Environmental ?rotectLcn.
10. Records Retention
All records and information resulting from the monitoring
activitIes required by this license including all reccrds of
analyses perfcr ;ed and calibration and maintenance of instru—
mentation and recordings from continuous monitoring and instru—
mentation shall be retained for a mi: itnum of three (3) years or
longer if r qucsted by the Departent of Euvirom ental Protection.
11. Other Naterials
Other materials ordinarily produced or used in the operation
of this facility, which have been specifically identified in the
application, may be discharged at the maximum frecuency and max-
imum level identified in the application, provided;
a. They are not
(1) designated as toxic or hazardous under the pro-
visions cf Sections 307 and 311 respectively, of the Fed-
eral. Water Pollution Control Act; Title 38, section 420
Mai. .e Revised Statutes; or other applicnble State Law, or
(2). known to be hazardous or toxic by the licensee
b. The discharge of such taterials will not violate applicable
water quality standards;
c. The discharge shall not contain concentrations of mercury,
or mercury compounds, whether organic or inorganic, or mercury
ions more than said concentrations permitted by >1.R.S.A. Title 38,
Section 420.
12. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, trash rack cleanings, filter backwash, or other
pollutants removed from or resulting from treatment or control of wast
waters shall bu dispo ;cd of in a manner approved by the Departt ent of
Environmental Protection.

-------
13. gy ass of Waste Treatnent Facilities
The diversion or bypass of any disch ’.r;e from facilities
utP.izcd by the l1cen c to itairitaln cc pUancc with the terms
and couditions of this l ccnse is prohthLtcd, except (1) where
unavoidable to prevent loss of life or severe property da agc,
or (2) where excessive storo drainage or runoff would dana e
any facilities ncces ary for co pllance with the terns and
conditions of this license. The licensee shall i urcdiately
notify the Departnent of Envir r.iental Protection in writing
of each such diversion or bypass in accordance with the pro-
cedure specified above for reporting non—compliance.
14. Emergency ActIon——ElectrIc Power Failure
In order to maintain compliance with the effluent limit-
ations and prohIbit oas of this license, the licensee shall
either:
a. In accordance with the Implementation Schedule contain d
in this license provide an alternative power source suffi-
cient to operate the wascewacer control facilIties;
or, if such alternatIve power source is not In ex .stence,
and no date for its implementation appears in the Inpia—
entation Schedule,
b. Halt, reduce or otherwise control production and/or all
discharges upon the reduction, los , or failure of the
prii iary source of power to the wastewater control faci—
lities.
15 Spill Prevention and Conta noent
The licensee shall within six (6’) nonths of the effective
date of this license submit to the Departaent cf Environmental
Protection a spill prevention plan. Said plan shall dclir.eate
methods and measures to be taken to prevent and or contain any
spills -of pulp, chemicals, oils or other containments and
shall specify t eans of disposal and/or treatn ent to be practiced.

-------
DEFIH IT1 O’:S
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS LJCEISE T UE 1OLLQ II1 G DEFIHITIO LS SHALL APPLY
A. Crab_Sar le: An individual sa plc collected in a period of less than
15 i inutc .
B. CoiositeS rnle: A sample consisting of a minimum of eight qrab Sam-
ples co(les c i at reoulur inter.’al over a normal operating day (unless
otherwise specified) and co :bineJ proportional to flow, or a sample con—
tinously coflected proporticnal to flow over a normal operating day.
C. P L 1i i! y _For_Concer.tratiori: The maximu:n value not to be exceeded
by any C0 i)0 1tC or grub suu;plc.
fl, Daily Maxi ’ br Q’jantit’, : The maximum value not to be exceeded dur—
Thg any day.
E. Daij verocieForCenc itr .tion: The value of a composite saniple or
The mean v . itm oi the unilysis of the specified nT;:nher of sa plcs coll-
ected at rc u1ar intcrvals over a normal opera irig day.
F. Daily Averaciebor( u.intity: The total disch jrcie by weight durinq a
‘ridar :ot2th divideti by the number of days in the month that thc
facili tY was. opcratiin;; Where less than dai y samplinqi s required
b ’ jti • iCCh C i _ u i i V d ei u4 U I • (JO IltiI IiL •_ C L I I.. I II U b
the sur ;natjon o( all the rneasu -cd daily discharqes by weiqht divided
by the rtudcr pf days during tnc calendar month when the measurements
were made.
: The totiil discharge by weight during a calendar week
divided by •tnc nu:rber of days in the week that the foci U ty was oper-
ating. Where less than daily san Dling is required by t is license,
the weekly average dicchorqc shall be deter ;incd by the um: ation of
all the nI2asure doily dischar cs by weight dividcj the rwr ber 0
days during the calendar week when the measure ro:its were i ade.
H. nth1 ’1 vera’ e: The tot 1 discharge by weiciht during a calendar n’ ’nth
divided by •ttu nu: ber of d vs in the month that the focil i ty was oper-
ating. Where 1 e s than daily s mpl i ng is requi rcd by this licensee,
the IflOfl Lilly 1VIr lqe di ch.tr9e Iw I be (icterE I fl’. (t by the sun:mijti on 01 all
the inea .iirecl d i 1 y d i eh .:rqe; by :n I gli I div idud by the numhcr of days
dun rig tIu cal etidar titouth when the .nieasuren:cn ts were ma (IC.
1. Average: The arithmetic average.

-------
STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONM NTAL PROTECTION
AUGUSTA. MAINE 04330
BOARD ORDER
— — -.
IN THE MATTER OF
OF ‘ “
THE PITTST0 COIPAUY )
Eastport, t’iashington )
PIER FACILITIES, DREDGING )
#03—1466—29210 ) FINDINGS OF FACT A fl. ORnER
On August 5, 1976, the Pittston Company submitted a Wet1 nds
application for their pier facilities at the proposed refinery.
in Eastport. Tne application involved the construction o two
piers, one for the unloading of crude oil, and a second for
loading of tne refined products. Also included was a large
area for dredging. The application was sent out to review,
review comments were received and then the appli cation was
held at the applicants reQuest until a suitable future date
for a Public Hearing could be arranged.
In April of l 77, the applicant’s prefiled testimony was
received substantially revising the wetlands application by
relocating one pier and considerably expending the area to be
dredged. At a special meeting of the Board on April 26, 1977,
it was concluded that the applicant had sufficient title, right
and interest, in the submerged lands affected to proceed with
processing of the application to a point short of lic&nse issuance.
Evidence was taken at •a Public Hearina in Machias on May 2,1977.
Based upon consideratitn of the application and related materials
submitted with it, the record of the public hearing on May 2 l977
and the exhibits there submitted, the portions of the transcripts
of the Site Location hearings relevant to the various issues
concerning oil spills in the vicinity of the two piers, and
the Coastal Ietlands statute, 38 M.R.S.A. 471 et. seq., the
Board finds ’ the following facts:
1. The project will not unreasonably interfere with existing
recreational and naviqational uses. The potential inter-
ference resulting from the length of the two piets was
significantly. reduced by their placement. The main channel
will still have adequate width to handle present and
reasonably anticipated future vessel traffic in addition
to tne vessel traffic associated with this project.
However, the location of service facilities for the
tugboats and wor boats has not been indicated and may
require another wetlands application if another pier is
proposed.
2. The project will not cause unreasonable soil erosion. The
dredqingof the 1.4 million cubic yards will cause siltation
in tne arcas of the two pi.erS and at the point of unloaiing
on shoreline. The applicant presented credible testimony
indicating that the percent of fines was low and the grain

-------
• - .r’ J -2- MaY 25, 1977
ffU 3 1466-2921 J
size large which would reduce the effects of siltation. There
were no olans submitted which showed the actual dimensions
of the sand and clay disposal areas , nor were cross-sections
of the dike submitted. No plans or details were submitted on
the oroposed channel and wei r system which is to be uced
for dewatering and removal of sediment from the anticipated
temporary runoff from the dredqed spoils.
The project will not unreasonably harm wildlife or freshwater,
estuarine, or marine fisheries. Pittston presented evidence
to show that there were no commercial species in the locations
of the dredging for the two piers and that oroperly placed
charges should not harm fish greater than 20 feet away. The
appl i cant indicated that when herring were demonstrated to be
in the area, blasting would be suspended and that a marine
biologist would be consulted as to when to set off the charges.
The pro.iect will not unreasonably inter.fere with the natural
flow of any waters. -
There is reasonable assurance that the activity will not
lower the Qualj -ty of any waters or violate applicable
Water Qual i tv Standards. Evidence was introduced indicating
that the perceflt of fines and grain size of the material
should cause-only a short term period of siltation. The
barges used to handle the dredged materi als should be such
that no additidnal siltation is allowed during transport
from the dredging areas to the unloading areas.

-------
The Pittston Company - .3— May 25, 1977
#03-1465-29210
THEREFORE, the Board approves the application of the Pittston
Company to COfl rUCt two piers, one for the unloadiny of
crude oil and t be 1985 feet lonq and located in Broad Cove
and the other for the loading of refined products and to
be 1875 feet ion; and located in Deep Cove, and to dredce
approximately 1.1 million cubic yards of materials from hese
two locations stated above to insure adequate depth for the
docKing of ships, subject to the following conditions:-
1. Wetlands c.onstructi on will not beqin before all pertinent
ëonditions delaying Site Lozation construction have been
app roved b, tneCor imis si one
.2. Prior to construction, the Pittston Company, will subnit
for review and approval of the Commissioner, the following:
a Dimensions of the temporary di ed are s which are to
be used for dewatering of the sand md clay dredged
spoils.
b. Cross-section of the dike showing the types of
materials which will be used.
c. Plans and details showing the location and cross-
section of the proposed channel and weirs.
d. Plans showing location of service facilities for
tugboats and workboats.
e. A copy of the specifications which will be used
during construction of piers and diked areas.
3. Pittston will consult with a marine biologist to
determine the most suitable time for detonation of charges
so as not to interfere with herring or any other valuable
species in the area.
4. Pittston will use barges for hauling the silt and cla/
which will n t allow any seepage durina transport from
dredging areas tO unloading area.
5. Pittston will read and abide by all the terms of the
Bureau of Publ.i.c Lands Lease.

-------
The Httston Company —4- May 25,1977
#03-1466-20210
DONE AND DATED AT AUGUSTA, MAINE THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 1977.
BOARD OF ENVIRON 1ENTAL PROTECTION
bY: ____________________________________
Wi11ian R. Aaa s, Jr., Chairman
PLEASE NOTE ATTACHED SHEET FOR APPEAL PROCEDURES

-------
Suppt iian- io A u irnx F

-------
TABLE 2.3
MARINE BIRDS OCCURRING IN 1}!E STUDY AREA.
Gavia immer immer (Common Loon)
Gavia stellata (Red-throated Loon)
Colymbus grisegena holboelli (Holboell’s Grebe)
gColymbus auritus (Horned Grebe)
Podilymbus podiceps podweps (Pied-billed Grebe)
Thalassogeron chiororhynchos (Yellow-nosed Albatross)
Puffinus griseus (Sotty Shearwater)
i Puffinus gravis (Greater Shearwater)
Fulmarus glaciahs (Atlantic Futmar)
Oceanodroma leucorhoa (Leach’s petrel)
Oceanites oceanicus (Wilson’ Petrel)
Moris bassana (Gannet)
Phalacrocorax carbo carbo (European Cormorant)
Phalacrocorax auritus auritus (Double-crested Cormorant)
Ardea herodias herodias (Great Blue Heron)
Butorides virescens vtrescens (Eastern Green Heron)
Nycticorax nycticorax hoactli (Black-crowned Night Heron)
Botaurus lentiginosus (American Bittern)
I Ixobrychus exilis (Least Bittern)
Branta canadensis canadensis (Common Canada Goose)
Branta bernicla hrota (American Brant)
Anas platyrhynchos (Mallard)
Anas rubripes (Black Duck)
Dafila acuta tzitzihoa (American Pintail)
Nettion carolinense (Green-winged Teal)
Querquedula discors (Blue-winged Teal)
Nyroca mania (Greater Scaup Duck)
Glaucionetta clangula americana (American Golden-eye)
Charitonetta a!beola (Buffle-head)
Clangula hyemalis (Old-squaw)
(Sómateria mollissima dresseri (American Eider)
Melanitta deglandi (White-winged Scoter)
Melanitta perspicillata (Surf Scoter)
OidemIa americana (American Scoter)
Mergus serrator (Red-breasted Merganser)
Porzana carolina (Sora)
Charadrius melodus (Piping Plover)
Charddrius semipalmatus (Sem ipalmated Plover)
Oxyechus vociferus vociferus (Killdeer)
Pluvialis dominica dominica (American Golden Plover)
Squatarola squalarola (Black-bellied Plover)
Arenaria interpres morinella (Ruddy Turnstone)
Actitis (Spotted Sandpiper)
Totanus melanoleucus (Greater Yellow-legs)
Totanus flavipes (Lesser Yellow-legs)
Arquatella maritima (Purple Sandpiper)
Pisobia melanotos (Pectoral Sandpiper)
Pisobia fuscicollis (White-rumped Sandpiper)
Pisobia minutilla (Least Sandpiper)
Pelidna alpina sakhalina (Red-backed Sandpiper)
Limnodromus griseus (Dowitcher)
Ereunetes pusillus (Semipalmated Sandpiper)
Crocethia alba (Sanderling)
Phalaropus fulicarirus (Red Phalarope)
Lobipes lobatus (Northern Phalarope)
Stercorarius parasiticus (Parasitic Jaegar)
Larus hyperboreus (Glaucous Gull)
Larus leucopterus (Iceland Gull)
Larus marinus (Great Black-backed Gull)
Larus argentatus smithsonianus (Herring Gull)
Larus philadelphia (Bonaparte’s Gull)
Rissa tridactyla tridactyla (Atlantic Kittiwake)
Sterna hirundo hirundo (Common Tern)
Sterna paradisaea (Arctic Tern)
Alca torda (Razor-billed Auk)
Uria aalge aalge (Atlantic Murre)
Uria lomvla lomvia (Brunnich’s Murre)
Alle alle (Dovekie)
I Cepphus grylle grylle (Black Guillemot)
Fratercula arctica arctica (Atlantic Puffin)

-------
Phocoenidae
New Jersey to
Baffin Bay.
Center of popula-
•
tion in approaches
to Bay of Fundy
and inshore Gulf
of Maine
Coastal and in-
shore waters
Not known
Numerically
d o m i n a n I
cetacean
P/U)COeJla
pizocoena
Harbor porpoise
Delphinidae
New York to
G r e e n I a n d
Especially corn-
mon n New-
loundland
Pelagic (winter)
and coastal (sum-
mer)
No estimates.
Most common
whale seen in
Cape Cod Bay.
Schools of up to
300 on Georges
Bank
Frequently
seen
G1ohi ’Iza!a
,neI i&na
Pothead.
Pilot whale
Name
Range
Habitat
Abundance
Dominance
Balaenopteridae
Equator to pack
ice. Population
centered between
41°2 1’N and
57°00’N and from
coast to 200 m
contour
Pelagic, but enters
bays and inshore
waters in late sum-
mer
7,200
Dominant
large whale;
one of most
common Ce ta-
ceans
Balaenoptera
physalus
Finback whale
Balaenopteridae
Chesapeake Bay
to Baffin Island in
summer; eastern
Gulf of Mexico,
northeast Florida
and Bahamas in
winter
Pelagic, but may
come closer to
shore than do
other rorquals (ex-
cept humpback)
Less than46,000
Reported less
often than fin-
back, but
sightings are
routine
Balaenoptera
acutorost rota
Minke whale
Balaenopteridae
Caribbean Sea to
Arctic
Pelagic, but
breeds in shallow
water near warm-
water islands and
comes close to
land during migra-
tions and feeding
1.200
c
R o u t i n c I y
seen. hut may
he reduced
from past
abundance
Megaptera
novaeanglwe
Humpback whale
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE OF WHALES OF THE GULF OF MAINE
Western North
Common:

-------
Name Range Habitat Abundanve [ Dominance
F Historically Common: -
Balaenidae
New England to
Davis Straits and
Newfoundland.
Occasionally as
far south as
Florida
Pelagic and
C 0 a S t a i
Sometimes comes
inshore
Severalhundi-ed
Much re-
duced from
former im-
portance. Not
common now
Elth( ,fQen(I
glacialis
Right whale
[ Ocasional: —
—
I
Delphinidae
Cape Cod to Davis
Strait. Occasional-
ly seen in Gulf of
Maine
Pelagic or coastal.
S o m e t i m e S
S c ho o I S w i t h
potheads
No estimate
Usually not
important by
numbers, but
large schools
may appear
occasionally
Lagenorhvnchas
(ICUZZIS
White-sided
dolphin
Delphinidae
Massachusetts to
Davis Strait, but
ranges farther
north than L.
acutus. Not corn-
mon south of
Labrador or New-
foundland
Offshore or
coastal
No estimate
Apparently
minimal
Lagenorhvnchus
albirostris
White-beaked
dolphin
Name
Range
Habitat
Abundance
Dominance
Delphinidae
Jamaica to New-
foundland. Widely
distributed. May
be most abundant
dolphin in world
Seldom found in-
side 100 m con-
tour, but does fre-
quent seamounts
and other offshore
features
N o e St i m ate.
Probably more
common than
available records
indicate
Not known.
Po s s i b I y
Phocoena is a
competitor
De/phinis
de/phis
Saddleback dolphin
Delphinidae
H a h a m a s t
Arctic. Rare in
Gulfof Maine
Mainly pelagic and
oceanic, however
does approach
coast
,
No estimate. Ap-
parently not seen
as commonly as in
more northerly
areas
M a b e
somewhat
m ore c 0 m -
mon than re-
ports would
suggest
OrciflUs Or(a
Killer whale
lRare:
I
Delphinidae
T r o p i c s t o
Greenland, but
most common
from Florida,
West Indies, and
Caribbean to New
England
Usually close to
shore and near
islands. Enters
bays, lagoons,
rivers
Noestimate

Rare. Perhaps
Phocoena is a
competitor
Tursiops
franc atuc
Bottlenose
dolphin

-------
t .J
I i
Name
Range
Habitat
Abundance
Dominance
Delphinidae
South from
Massachusetts.
Range poorly
known
Warmoffshore
waters. Habitat
poor lyknown
No estimate
P ° ° I Y
known. Ap-
pa cent I y of
minimal im-
portance
Grampus griseus
Gray grampus
Delphinidae
C a r I b be a fl to
Greenland
Pelagic in tropical
and warm waters
No estimate
Minimal
Sienella
coeruleoalba
Striped dolphin
Monodontidae

St. Lawrence
River and Gulf to
Arctic. Rarely as
far south as Long
Island Sound
Prefers estuaries
a n d s hat low
waters
l,000in Gulf of St.
Lawrence. No
other estimate
Rare
Deiphinapieras
leucas
Beluga
Balaenopteridae
Mexico to Arctic
Pelagic, does not
usually approach
coast
1,570 off Nova
Scotia
Poorly known
flalaeno ptera
borealis
Sei whale
Name
Range
Habitat
Abundance
— Dominance
Balaenopteridae
Balaenoptera
musculus
•
From about 35°N
toward pole

Pelagic. deep
0 C e a fl. 0 C -
casionally near
land in deep-water
areas, such as St.
Lawrence River
Several hundred.
P r e - w h a Ii n g
p o p u I a t 1 o n
estimated at 1,100
Minimal
.
Blue whale
Physeteridae
Equator to 50°N
( f e m a I e S &
juveniles) or Davis
Strait (males)
Pelagic, deep
ocean
Estimate 22,000
inhabit North
Atlantic Ocean
Rare visitor.
May be more
important on
o I f s h o r e
banks
P1,yse(er
catodon

Sperm whale
Physeteridae
Florida and Texas
to Nova Scotia
.
Pelagic in warm
ocean waters
No estimates.
u all y C 0 n -
sidered rare
Minimal
Kogia hre ’keps
Pygmy SJ) TTh
whale
Ziphiidae
Rhode Island to
Davis Strait
Pelagic in cold
temperate and
sub-arctic deep
water
Poorly known.
Between 260-270
taken annually in
North Atlantic
Ocean. 1968-1970
Minimal
h’vperoodon
ainpullalits
Northern
bottlenose
whale
I

-------
14 Whale Occurrence Summary
I
Name
Range
Habitat
Abundance
Dominance
Ziphiidae
Northern Florida
to Nova Scotia
Poorly known
.
Extremely rare.
No estimate
Minimal
Mesopiodon
t7ZITUS
True’s beaked
whale
Ziphiidae
Bahamas to Nova
Scotia
Probably pelagic
in tropical and
warm waters
Extremely rare.
No estimate
Minimal
Mesop/odon
densirostris
Dense-beaked
whaIe -

-------
72 Seal Occurrence Su,nmarv
SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE OF SEALS IN THE GULF OF MAINE
( amily 1
Species
Western North
Atlantic Range [ 1 Habitat
u__and Distribution
Abundance in
J Estimated
Gulf of Maine U
(Dominance in I
Relative 1
Gulf of Mai )
mmon Name
Phocidae
Labrador to Maine;
scattered colonies
to New York. Oc-
casional strays to
Carolinas
Inshore resident of
bays and estuaries,
Breeding, sunning.
and resting on half-
tide ledges
6000+ in Maine
waters; 5000-6000
Canadian Mar-
itime provinces
Common
Phoca vijulina
concolor
Harbor seal
Phocidae
G u 1 1 o f S t
Lawrence to Coast
of Newfoundland;
S. to Massachu-
setts. Dispersal out-
side of breeding
season
Remote coastal
ledges of Maine and
sand shoals near
Nantucket
18,000 in Maritime
province waters;
100+ seasonally
in Maine; breeding
colony of 10-15 at
Nantucket
Occasional in
U.S. Gulf of
Maine waters
Halichoerus
grypus
Gray sea)
Phocidae
N. Atlantic and ad-
.
jo i n t n g A r C t C
waters
Pelagic, breeding on
pack ice: migratory
Pagophi/us
groen!andicu.s
Harp seal
Name
Range
Habitat
Abundance
Dominance
Phocidae
S. Greenland and
Baf fin Island to
G U 11 0 f S t .
Lawrence
Pelagic, breeds on
drifting floe ice
Occasional stray
Rare,
accidental
Cvswphora
cristaig
Hooded seal
Odobenidae
Ellesmere Island to
Barrow Strait, S. to
Hudson Bay and
Hudson Strait
Remains in near-
shore waters of re-
moteislandsorice
Rare visitor
Rare,
accidental

,
Odohenus
rosmorus
ros marus
,__Walrus
0
}

-------
TABLE 2.1 INVERTEBRATES OCCURRING IN ThE STUDY AREA.
raw I ULUIt
Peridinium diverg t;S
Ceratiuxn tripos
C. fuscus
C. furca
Gonyaulax tamarensis
Dinophysis norvegka
Distephanus specu turn
Tintinnopsis campanula
1. ventricosa
Cyttarocylis denticulata
Stenoseniella joergensen
PORIFERA
Leucosolenia botryoides
L. cancellats
Scypha ciliata
lsodictya palmata
I. deichmannae
Haliclona oculata
If. cansliculata
M icrociona pro hf era
M ycaiccarm Ia ovulum
Hatichondria panicea
H. bowerbanki
Pelhina sit lens
Suberites ficus
Pohymastia robusta
Cliona cetata
C. vastific;t
Plocamionida sp.
lophon pat lersoni
Sphaerotylu,s borealis
CNIDARIA
IIYDROZUA
Corymorphn pendula
I Fuphysa anuata
Tubutaria )uynx
1. crocea
1. couthonyi
T. indivisa
T. spectahltiM
1’. tennella
Hybocodon prohifera
Acaulis primarius
Myriothela phrygia
Sarsia tubulosa
Syncoryne mirabilis
Clava leptostyla
C. squamata
Cordylophora Iacustris
Rhizogeton fusiformis
Podocoryne borealis
I P. carnea
Hydractinia echinata
Bougainvillia carolinensis
B. superciliaris
Dicoryne conferta
D. flexuosa
Rattikea octopunctata
Cata blema vesicariu m
Leuckartiara octona
Eudendrium album
B. capihlare
E. dispar
B. rameum
B. insigne
E. ramosum
B. tenue
B. cingulatum
Camps nutaria gelatinosa
C. flexuosa
C. amphora
C. gigantea
C. groenlandica
C. integra
C. neglecta
C. verticillata
C. volubilis
Gonothyraea gracilis
G. loveni
Obetia articulata
0. comm issuralis
0. dichotoma
0. flabetlata
0. longissima
0. geniculata
Clytia edwardsia
C. jolinstoni
Phiahidium bicophorum
P. languidium
Calycella syringa
Opercularella lacerata
0. pumila
Tiaropsis mutticirrata
Halopsis ocellata
Staurophora merteni
Ptychogena tactea
Melicertum octocostatum
Rhacóstoma atlanticum
Aequorea albida
Hebella pocillum
Lafoea fruticosa
L. dumosa
Lafoea gracillima
Gammaria abietina
G. graciii
Filehium serpens
Halecium halecium
H. labrosum
H. muricatum
H. articulosum
H. beani
H. curvicaule
H. gracile
H. tenellum
Sertularia pumila
Abietinaria filicula
A. abietina
Hydralimanla falcata
Sertularella polyzonias
S. tricuspidata
S. rugosa
Thuilaria lonchitis
T. plumulifera
T. similis
T. latiuscula
T. argentea
T. tenera
T. thuja
T. cupressina
T. immersa
Diphasia tamarisca
Li fatlax
0. rosacea
Schizotricha gracihlima
Antennularia antennina
A. americana
Aglantha digitale
Physahia physalia
Stephanomia cara
Stephanomia sp.
Lensia canoidea
Agalma elegans
SCYPHOZOA
Lucernaria quadricornis
Hahiclystus salpinx
H. auricula
Craterotophus concolvulus
Halirnocyathus lagena
Pelagica noctiluca
Cyanea capilata
Phacellophora camtschatica
Aurelia aurita
A. limbata
ANTHOZOA
Alcyonium digitalum
Gersemia rubiformis
Duva multiflora
Edwardsia elegans
B. sipunculoides
Halcampa duodecimcirrata
Tealia felina
Bunodactis stella
Actinostola callosa
Stomphia coccinea
Metridium senile
Haliplanefla liciae
Cerianthus borealis
Bolocera sp.
CTENOPHORA
Pleurobrachia pileus
Mertensia ovum
Botinopsis infundibulum
Bolina alata
Beroe cucumis
PLATYH ELM INTH ES
Plagiostornum album
Monocelis sp.
Procerodes littoralis
Foviella affinis
Uteriporus vulgaris
Discocehides ellipoides
Stylochus etlipticus
Notoplana atomata
Monoophorum triste
RHYNCHOCOELA
Lineus socialis
L. ruber
Micrura affinis
M. leidyi
M. dorsalis
I Cerebratulus tacteus
Amphiporus frontalis
A. groenlandicus
A. lactifloreus
A. angulatus
A. puicher
A. bioculatus
A. caecus
A. ochraceus
Tetrastemma candidum
Oerstedia dorsalis
ASCHELMINTHES
Synchaeta johanseni
Trichocerca stylata
T. curvata
Priapulus caudatus
Pontonema vacillatum
ENTOPROCTA
Pedicellina cernua
Sagitta sp.
S. elegans
S. maxima
-fl

-------
— . S..
S. serratodentata
Eukrohnla hamata
Alcyonidium potyoum
Flustrclbdra hispida
Bowerbankia gracilis
Triticella pedicellata
Crisia eburnea
C. cribraria
C. denticulata
Idmonea atlantica
Tubulipora Liliacea
Oncousoecla disaitoporides
Lichenopora hispida
L. verrucarla
Aetea angulna
Eucratea loricata
Membranipora sp.
Electra pilosa
Callopora craticula
C. Uneata
Bugula simplex
B. turrita
Dendróbunia murvayana
Tricellaria gracilis
T. peachil
T. ternata
Caberea dish
Cribrilina annulata
Ftippothoa hyalina
II. hippopus
Schizopordila sp.
Microporella ciliata
Turbicdllepora canaliculata
Eacharella im mersa
Parasmittina jeffreysi
Porelia smitti
P. concinna
Rhamphostomella costata
R. scabra
Palmicellaria skenci
Cryptosula pallasiana
Myriapora subgracila
Aeverrila setigera
Diaporoecia harmeri
Tegetla arctica
AmphiblestrUin flemingii
Scrüpar&a ap.
SchizomsrrelLa auriculata
Tegella unicornis
Barentais discreta
PHORONIDA
Phoronis sp.
BRACHIOPODA
Terebratulina septentrionafis
MOLLUSCA L (
APLACOPHORA
Crystallophrissofl nitidulum
AMPHINEURA
lschnochlton alba
I. tuber
Tonicella marmorea
GASTROPODA
Puncturella noachina
Acmaea testudmalis
Lepeta cacca
Calliostoma occidentale
Solanelta obscura
Margarites olivacea
M. helicina
M. costalis
M. grocnlandicus
Moellerla costulata
Lacuna pallidula neritoidea
L. vincta
Littorina obtusata
L. saxatills
L. Littorea
Hydrobia minuta
Alvania carinata
A. castanea
A. arenaria
A. areolata
Onoba (Cinguta) aculeus
Skcneopsis planorbis
Turrltellopsis acicula
Tachyrhynchus erosa
Epltoniuiu greenlandicum
E. multistratum
Trlchotropis borealis
T. conies
Crucibulum striatum
Crepidula fornicata
Aporrhals occidentale
Nat ica clausa
Lunatia immacu1ata
L. heros
L. trisertiata
L. pallida
L. groenlandica
Marcenina g1abra
Vetutina undata
V. laevigata
Thals lapillus
1. lapilus var. imbricatus
Boreotrophon clathratus
Mitrella lunata
M. dissimiis
M. rosacea
Buccinum undatum
B. totteni
Neptunea decemcostata
Colus stimpsoni
C. pygmaeUs
Nassarius obsoletus
N. trivittatus
Admete couthouyi
Ptychatractus ligatus
Pleurotomella packardi
Lora pleurotomaria
Oenopota turricula
0. elegans
Diaphana minuta
Cyhchna alba
Philine tima
Spiratefla retroversa
Clione limacina
Acanthodoris pilosa
Onchidorus fusca
0. diademata
0. aspersa --- _______
Polycera dubia
Dendronotus frondosus
D. robustus
Doto coronta
Coryphelta rufibranchialis
C. pellucida
C. salmonacea
Eubranchus exigua
Cuthona concinna
Tergipes despectus
Acolidia papillosa
Turbonilla bushiana
Trophon sp.
SCAPHOPODA
Dentalium entale
PE LECYPODA
Solemya borealis
Nucuta proxhma
N. tenuis
N. delphinodonta
Nuculana tenuisulcata
N. minuta
Yoldia sapotilla
Y. myalis
Y. thraciaeformis
Y. limatula
Mytilus edulis
Musculus discors
M. niger
M. corrugatus
Modiolus modiolus
hi. demissus
Crenella glandula
C. faba
Chiamys hslandicus
Placopecten magellanicus
Anomia simplex
A. aculeata
Astute undata
A. subacquilatera
A. quadrons
A. borealis
A. castanea
Venericardia borealis
Arctica islandica
Thyasira gouldii
Cerastoderma pinnulatum
Clinocardium ciliatum
Mercenaria mercenaria
Gemma gemma
Pitar morrhuana
Spisula solidissima
Mesodesma arctatum
Macoma baithica
Ensis directus
Mya arenaria
hi. truncata
Hiatella arctica
H. striata
H. gallicana
Cyrtodaria siligua
Zirfaea crispata
Teredo navalis
Pandora gouldiana
Lyonsia hyalina
L. arenosa
Periploma papyratium
P. leanum
P. fragilis
Thracia truncata
T. conradi
Cuspidaria glacialis
CEPHALOPODA
hex ilecebrosus
Lollgo pealei
BathypolypUs arcticus
ANNELIDA
POLYCHAETA\
Phyllodoce maculata
P. groenlandica
P. mucosa
Paranaitis speciosa
Mystides borealis
Eteone trilineata
E. heteropoda
E. longa
E. flava
4

-------
TABLE 2.1 (continued)
Eumida sanguinea
Eulalia viridas
E. bilincatu
Tomopteris helgolandica
Aphrodita hastata
Laetmonice filicornis
Antinoefla sarsi
Lepidamctria commensalis
Lepidonotus squamatus
Gattyana cirrosa
Hart mania moorel
Harmot hoe imbricata
H. extenuata
H. oerstedi
H. nodosa
Pholoe minuta
Dysponetus pygmacus
Glycera capitata
G. dibranchiata
G. robusta
Conlada maculata
Ophioglycera gigantea
Ephesiélla minuta
Sphaerodorum gracilis
Nepthys bucera
N. incisa
N. paradoxa
N. ciliata
N. discors
N. caeca
Aglaophamus circinata
Autolytus prolifer
A. cornutus
A. alexandri
A. prismaticus
A. fasciatus
Autolytus
Sphaerosyllis erinaceus
Parapinonosyllis longicirrata
Exogonehebes
E. verugera
E. dispar
Amblyosylils finmarchica
Streptosyllis varians
Syllides longocirrata
Eusvllis blomstrandi
Syilts cornuta
Gyptis vittata
Microphthalmus aberrans
Nerds virens
N. diversicolor
N. pelagica
Capitefla capitata
Notomastus latericeus
Arenicola marina
Scalibregma inflatutn
Polyphysia crassa
Nicomache lumbricalis
Praxillella praetermissa
P. gracitis
Rhodine loveni
CJymenella torquata
C. zonalis
Ophelia glabra
Travisia carnea
Ammotrypane aulogaster
Sternaspis scutata
Spio filicornis
S. setosa
Scolecolepis viridis
Streblospio benedicti
Pygospio elegans
Prionospio steenstrupi
Polydora ligni
P. websteri
P. quadrilobata
P. ciiata
P. gracilis
P. concharum
Lao nice cirrata
Aricidea quadriobata
A. suecica
Apistobranchus tuilbergi
Onuphis conchylega
Eunice pennata
E. oerstedii
E. vivida
Lumbrineris latreilli
L. fragilis
L. tenuis
Ninoc nigripeS
Arabella iricolor
Dritonereis magna
Euphosine borealis
Spinther citrinus
Naineris quadricuspida
Scoloplos armiger
S. acutus
S. fragilis
S. robust us
Cirratulus cirratus
Chaetozone setosa
Tharyx acutus
T. similis
Ledon leidyi
1 Dodecareria concharun
Cossura longocirratus
Owenia fusiformis
Myriochele heeri
Pectinaria granulata
P. gouldii
P. hyperboea
Ampharete acutifrons
A. arctica
Samytha sexcirrata
Asabellides oculata
Melinna cristata
Sabellides octocirrata
Amphitrite ornata
A. brunnea
A. affinis
A. cirrata
A. johnstoni
Trichobranchus glacialis
T. roseus
Terebellides stroemi
Nicolea venustula
Pista maculata
Polycirrus eximius
P. phosphoreus
P. medusa
Artacama proboscidea
Thelepus cincinnatus
Flabelligera grubei
F. affinis
Pherusa plumosa
P. affinis
P. aspera
Brada granosa
B. inhabilis
B. setosa
B. villosa
Diplocirrus hirsutus
Haplobranchus atlanticus
Fabricia sabella
Euchone rubrocincta
Chone infundibuliformis
Sabella crassicornis
S. pavonina
S. zonalis
Potamilla neglecta
P. reniformis
Myxicola infundibulum
Fitograna implexa
Spirorbis borealis
S. spirillum
S. granulatus
Protula media
Microserpula sernula
Serpula vermicularis
OL IGOCHAETA
Peloscolex benedeni
Cliteliio arenarius
Enchytraeus albidus
SIPUNCULA
Phascolosoma gouldil
Phascolion strombi
ARTHROPODA
PYCNOGONIDA
Nymphon stromi
Achelia spinosa
Tanystylum orblculare
Phoxichilidium femoratum
Anoplodactylus lentus
Pycnogonum littorale
Pseudopallene circularis
CRUSTACEA
Podon leuckarti
P. polyphemoides
I P. intermedius
P. finmarchicus
Evadne nordmanni
E. spinifera
Calanus finmarchicus
C. hyperboreus
Rhincalanus nasutus
Nannocalanus minor
Mierocalanus pusillus
Paracalanus parvus
Pseudocalanus minutus
Aetideus armatus
Gaidius tenuispinus
Euchirclla rostrata
Euchaeta norvegica
Scolecithrix danae
Sco1ecithricelI minor
Centropages hamatus
C. typicus
Temora longicornis
T. stylifera
Eurytemora americana
E. herdmani
E. hirundoides
Metridia longa
M. lucens
Pleuromamma robusta
Candacia armata
Anomalocera patersoni
Acartia bifilosa
A. clausi
A. longiremis
A. tonsa
Tortanus discaudatus
Ectinosoma neglectum
Microstella rosea
Harpacticus chelifer
H. gracilis
H. littoralis
H. uniremis
Zaus abbreviatus
Z. goodsiri
Z. spinatus
5

-------
TABLE 2.1 (continued)
Alteutha oblonga
Tisbe furcata
Thalestns gibbs
T. longimana
Halithalestris croni
Dacty1opus tisboides
D. vulgaris
Paralhalestns jacksoni
P. pygmaea
Diosaccus tenuicornis
Ameira parvula
A. curviseta
Cletodes buchholtzi
Leimia vaga
Nannopus palustris
Laophontc discophora
L minuta
L. trilobata
Platychclipus littoralis
Tachidius littoralis
Oithona plumifera
0. similis
Oneaca conifera
Sapphirina gemma
Monstrilla canadensis
M. dubia
M. helgolandica
I Caligus rapax
Lepas fasc cularis
• L. anatifera
Balanus balanoides
B. balanus
B. crenatus
B. improvisus
Neba ha bipes
Leptocuma minor
Mancocurna
Eudorella truncatula
Cam pylaspis rubicunda
Lamprops quadriplicata
Diastylis quadrispinosa
D. sculpta
Leptostylis longimana
Oxyurostylis smithi
Leptochelia filurn
J.. rapax
L. savignyl
Gnath a cenna
Cyathura polita
Ptilanthura tenuis
Caiathura branchiata
Cirolana concharum
C. polita
Aega psora
Limnoria lignorum
I Chiridotca coeca
C. tuitsi
Idotea balthica
I. phosphorea
I. metahica
Edotea tirloba
E. montosa
Jaera marina
Janira alta
Munnospsis
Munna fabridli
Pleurogonium rubicundum
Eurycope mutica
Bopyroides hippolytcs
Phronima sedentaria
Parathemisto gaudichaudii
P. compressa
Hyperia galba
Acanthonotozoma serratum
Ampelisca macrocephala
A. abdita
Haploops tubicola
Ampithoe rubricata
Leptocheirus pinguis
Unciola irrorata
U. inermis
Apherusa glacialis
Calliopius laeviusculus
Corophium volutator
C. era ssicorne
C. bonnelli
C. insidiosum
Erichthonius
Dexamine thea
Eusirus cuspidat us
Gaznmarus duebeni
G. tigrinis
G. oceanicus
C. lawrencianus
G. nucronatus
‘C. setosus
C. annulatus
Marinogammarus finmarchicus
M. obtusatus
Amphiporcia Iawrenciana
Pontoporcia femorata
Priscillina armata
Hyale plumulosa
• Isehyroceros anguipcs
Lafystiidae Latystius sturionis
Anonyx debruyni
A. nugax
A. liljeborgi
A. sarsi
Itippomcdon serratus
Orchomenella minuta
Tmetonyx nobilis
Casco bigelowi
Macra danac
M. loveni
Melita dentata
Bathymedon obtusifrons
Monoculodes edwardsi
M. intermedius
M. tesselatus
Westwoodilla coecula
Paramphithoe puichella
P. hystrix
Gammaropsis melanops
Photis macrocoxa
Podoceropsis nitida
Protomedeia fasciata
Harpinia crenulata
H. propinqua
Phoxoccphalus holbolli
Stenopleustes gracilis
S. inermis
Dulichia porrecta
Pontogeneia inermis
Stegocephalus inflatus
Metopa groenlandica
M. alden
Orchcstia platensis
0. gammareUa
0. grillus
Hyale nilsonni
Syrrhoe crenulata
Tiron spiniferum
‘Aeginella spinosa
Aeginina longicornis
Caprella linearis
C. unica
C. septentrionalis
Mayerella limicola
Erythrops erythropthalma
Mysis gaspensis
M. stenolepis
M. mixta
Neomysis americana
Praunus flexuosus
Meganyctiphanes norvegica
Thysannoessa Inermis
Palaemonetes pugio
P. vulgaris
Eualus pusiolus
li. fabricii
Spirontocaris spinus
S. phippsii
Lebbeus groenlandicus
I L. polaris
L. zebra
Dichelopandalus leptocerus
Pandalus montagui
I P. borealis
Scierocrangon boreas
Crangon septcmspinosa
Homarus americanus
Pagurusacadianus
P. pubescens
P. longicarpus
P. arcuatus
Hyas araneus
H. coarctatus
Pelia mutica
Libinia dubia
• L. emarginata
Cancer irroratus
C. borealis
rnqnntlc
ECHINODERMATA
HOLOTHUROIDEA
Psolus fabricii
P. phantapus
Cucumaria frondosa
Steroderma unisemita
Thyone sp.
Leptosynapta roseola
Chiridota Iaevis
Molpadia oolitica
Caudina arenata
ECHINOIDEA
Strongylocentrotus
droebachiensis
Echinarachnius parma
STELLEROIDEA
Ctenodiscus crispatus
Ilippasteria phrygiana
I Solaster endeca
S. papposus
Pteraster militaris
Henricia sanguinolenta
H. eschrichti
Asterias forbesii
A. vulgaris
Urasterias lincki
Leptastenias littoralis
L. tenera
Stephanasterias albula
I Gorgonocephalus arcticus
Ophiura sarsi
0. rubusta
Ophiacantha bidentata
Ophiopholis aculeata
Amphipholis squamata
6

-------
TABLE 2.1 (continued)
, I ! EM [ CFIORDATA
ENT1 ROPNEUSTA
SaccagIossu kowalewskyi
Stereobalanus canadensis
{ CHORDATA
ASC1D ACEA
Distaplia clavata
Amaroucium glabrum
A. stellatum
A. pallidum
A. spitzbergense
Didemnum a bidum
D. candidum
Ciona intestinalis
Chelyosoma rnacleayanum
11 Asc idea callosa
A. obliqua
Polycarpa fibrosa
Dcndrodoa carnea
Styeta partita
I Cnemidocarpa maUls
Botryltus schtosseri
Boltenia ovifera
B. echinata
Halocynth ía pyriform is
Molgula citrina
M. retortiformis
M. griffithsii
M. arenata
M. manhattensis
M. provisionalis
M. complanata
M. siphonalis
Dostrichobranchus pUutaris
TUAL! ACEA
Salpa fusiformis
tasis zonaria
LARVACEA
Fritillaria borealis
Oikop!eura labradoriensis

-------
List of Salt Marsh Locations
(over 5 acres)
Location Acres
Northwest Baily’s Mistake 10
Northwest Quoddy Head 46
South Woodwary Point 12
South Lubec Neck 14
North End Sewards Neck 10
North of West Lubec 24
South end Morong Cove 27
Nat Smith Marsh 18
West of Duck Harbor 16
Northwest Duck Harbor 17
Hardscrabble River, North of Meadow 27
Boyden Stream Marsh (Little River) 35
SOURCE: Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game
r cto

-------
—-Total species composition and mean number of the d.Dit inant copepods per 100 rn. 3 of water in different seasons in each
of the coastal Gulf of Maine areas, (W) western, (C) central, and (E) eastern in 1967 and 1968
1967:
Cozmnon species (>50/100 rn.’): 1
Calanus finnarchicus . ... . . .
Centropagçs typicus
Pseudocalanus rninutus
Temora longicorri.is
Oithonaspp
1968:
Cor ion species (>50/100 rn.’): 2
Calanus fininarchicus
Centropages t )rpicus
Centropages haratus
Pseudocalanus ninutus .
Temora lonFicornis
Acartia ) .ongirenis
Calanoid spp. imtsature..........
Oithona spp
Acartia clausli
Eurytemora herdr ani .
Tortanus discaudatus
2,0)1)
500
94
85
50
7,327
3,832
1,468
763
644
153
152
134
89
78
71
330
2
13
3.1
18
4,891
0
0
16
17
0
0
34
0
0
0
322
35
16
2
4
2,627
3
0
39
<1
0
0
0
0
0
0
148
23
I
2,563
84
CI
38
0
C
C,
C.
0
C I
C.
10,543
0
133
2
0•
59,295
91
475
1,247
913
342
1,538
1,210
0
89
244
2,985
0
7
0
0
5,207
0
33
246
18
240
42
1
0
0
56
226
0
3.9
0
<1
152
<1
0
23
2
6
0
<.1.
1
0
0
5,528
62
1,616
400
137
2,256
2,413
141 .
1,114
635
0
0
0
0
5
14
1,565
105
395
324
40
1,069
79
596
504
763
351
354
33
93
760
22
1,309
0
3.78
4
7
2,274
72
64
1,451
625
80
9
5
33
42
181
518
5,377
394
159
362
700
26,170
1:489
21
137
15
0
174
23
0
117
82.3
14,634
2,338
77
657
18
0
100
25
0
106
217
1,055
3 133
‘ 51
‘ 120
‘ 25
0
5
16
9
160
‘ Less numerous species (<50/100 rn. 3 ) and no. 1100 mn. 3 , in l96 , were: Acartia longiremis , 34; Metridia lucens , 29;
herdmnani , 21; Acartia clausi , 14; Centropages hamnatus , 14; Tort nus discaudatus, 6; Calanoid spp. iixmnature, 3; and Paraca1an
arvus , 2. Species representing a mean of less than 1 per seaso:. in each area were: Metridia longa, Acartia spp. innature,
Cyclopoid spp., Euchaeta norve ica , Harpacticoid app., and Ano!nslocera attersoni .
2 Less numerous species (<50/100 zn. 3 ) and no./100 in. 3 , in 1961, were: Metridia lucens , 41; Acartia spp. inanature, 11; Metridia
longa , 3. Species representing a mean of less than 1 per seascn in each area were: Euchaeta norvegica and Harpacticoid spp.
Values adjusted to Gulf III equivalents for the smaller copqod species collected in the bongo samplers in autuimn 1966.
Number/lO0 rn. 3
ID
32
53
5
5
217
274
2fl
89
17

-------
LEGAItE AND ) IACLELLAN; QUODDY PLANKTON AND }IERRING FOOD
Seasonal ‘ ariaton in numbers of zoopLinkters in the Quoddy Region.
(Data for 1937 and 1938 comI incd; Iic ures arr percentages of the total occurrence
of the pecie ’. each ca on heini 1 iven equal weight.)
Form Spring Summer Autumn Winter
Acartia clausi 13.59, 69.62 14.99 1.79
Aglantha digitale 23.61 7.36 17.21 51.83
Aurelia aurita 7.30 19.79 72.71 0.18
Balanus balan ides nauplii 75.96 24.03
Calanusfinmarclzicus 2.86 4834 23.03 25.76
C&i s rafiax 2.46 27.06 70.50
Crab zoca 11.22 85.84 2.90 0.03
Cladocerans (Podon, Erudne) 1.53 95.57 2.91
Centropages Iypkus 0.33 4.40 91.03 4.25
Chant Iimac na 15.10 43.43 2.02 39.42
Diastylis spp. 32.63 18.62 38.20 10.56
Euckaeia corvegica 6.86 51.98 9.16 32.00
Euphauslids 20.97 59.42 15.31 4.2&
Euphauslid eggs 5.48 94.52
Euryternora herdrnani 2.16 93.02 2.81
EuiJ.ernislo corn pressa 9.33 28.16 57.98 4.31
Fritihlaruz and Oiko pleura 8.70 73.91 ... 17.40
Harpacticoids 6038 10.12 20.97 8.34
Hydroids (floating) 12.74 47.53 29.90 9.80
Lzmacina retroversa 79.77 14.24 4.76 1.22
Me l ridia lucens 20.02 35.60 12.48 31.91
.llytilus edulis (larvae) 13.89 23.14 62.96
Nereid larvae (trochophores) 2.21 46.03 51.77
‘erci virens 36.95 46.77 14.55 1.76
Oiikona sirnilis 2.82 59.32 34.18 3.67
Pisces (lartac) 25.56 70.61 0.87 3.01
Pisces (eggs) 32.31 56.03 11.01 0.66
Pleurobracizia pikus 1.19 89.66 6.94 2.21
Pseudocalanus minutas 8.42 91.17 0.23 0.15
Satitia ele-gans 12.06 32.41 13.56 21.96
S1r I anornia cara 23.91 24.78 2.38 46.94
Ternora longicorui.c 0.38 4433 55.18 0.09
TomoMcrjs (atherj,,a 14.90 9.83 4.00 71.27
Tortaniss discaudalus 3.73 71.74 23.21 1.30

-------
Variation in relative density of zooplankters, by number, in the 4
parts of the Quoddy Region. (1).tta fur 1957 4nd 1958 combined; igures are per-
centages of the suni of the average yearly densities for the 4 areas.)
Form
Cobscook
Bay Passages Outside
Passama-
quoddy Bay
Acarti4 (14U0
36.18
18.65
32.98
12.18
ilglantha digilale
9.20
28.67
.
25.81
36.33
ilztrelio anrila
11.08
14.86
19.54
54.50
BoJ.cnus balanoides nauplii
28.03
23.38
29.30
17.08
Ca1anusfinma chicus
4.78
44.24
36.26
14.71
Caligus rapcx
50.82
14.76
18.04
16.40
Crab zoea
23.52
46.74
13.83
15.90
Cladocerans (Potion, Evadne)
17.60
...
6.74
75.67
Cent ropages lypicus
4.49
11.03
23.77
60.72
Clione limacina
1.21
37.89
20.47
40.42
Diostylis spp.
10.75
56.63
32.63
...
Euchoeta norvegiaz
3.21
67.51
.
27.16
2.12
Euphausiids
Euphausiid eggs
34.75
...
26.33
...
23.47
...
15.43
100.00
Eurytemora I:erdmani
21.66
32.25
23.82
22.26
f ztthcmisfo corn pressa
32.52
28.92
9.63
28.91
Fritillaria and Oiknpleura
78.27
...
21.74
...
Harpacticoids
H droids (floating)
Linzacina retroverso.
14.88
11.27
10.23
46.80
40.68
12.21
30.15
39.71
14.04
8.18
8.33
63.49
Mefridia lucens
3.74
41.49
48.89
5.89
Mytilus edulis (larvae)
Nereid larvae (trochophores)
Nereis virens
14.81
23.84
24.75
24.07
16.56
43.22
52.78
43.05
27.32
8.33
16.56
2.74
Qithona similis
...
24.76
2.82
72.31
Pisces (larvae)
Pisces (egg )
Ple, robradzia pileus
Pseudocalanus rninutus
26.78
29.45
17.32
3.55
37.12
3.57
30.71
49.03
26.81
18.07
•21.36
39.03
9.34
48.92
10.61
8.3t
Sagitla elegans
Sic pb&nomia raro
Ternaro longicornis
Tomopteris cal .herina
Turtanus discaudatus
8.70
2.61
17.43
5.28
48.37
35.78
7.63
12.02
56.73
17.19
24.68
13.10
27.02
23.65
11.74
30.83
76.67
43.53
14.34
22.63
All species
7
33
28
32

-------
A PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF TIlE
MARINE AND FSUUARINE INVERTEBRATES
OF tIAIIJE
Lee F. Perkins and Peter F. Larsen
Marine Research Laboratory
Departri ent of Marrie Resources
West Boothbay Harbor, Maine O 575
19/5
ç c

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the following people for their
contributions to this checklist: E. H. Shenton, The Research Institute
of the Gulf of Maine; A. P. Stickney and R. 1. Dow, Maine Department of
Marine Resources; Dr. R. E. Knowlton, George Washington University and
TRIGOM Summer Institute in Marine Science; Dr. C. R. Gilmore, Nasson
College; Dr. W. H. Gilbert, Colby College; Dr. N. A. Mienkoth, Swarthmore
College; Dr. M. Shick, University of Maine, Orono; Dr. A. C. Borror and
Dr. S. A. Croker, University of New Hampshire; Dr. J. A. Kingsbury, Cornell
University; P. Canger, University of Scranton; 1. C. Alexander, Central
Maine Power Company; Dr. S. S. Labreque, S. D. Warren Company; Dr. M. H.
Pettibone, U. S. National Museum; Dr. E. L. Bousfield and Dr. K. O’Clair,
Canadian National Museum; Dr. L. Gosner, Newark Museum; and Dr. J. Simon,
University of South Florida. We would especially like to thank Phyllis
Carnahan for her cooperation and patience in getting the checklist through
its final stages.
We are also grateful to the following people for reviewing the check—
list A. P. Stickney and R. 1. Dow, Maine Department of Marine Resources;
E. H. Shenton, The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine; Dr. W. H. Gilbert,
Colby College; Dr. D. Dean, University of Maine, Darling Center; and Dr. S. E.
Knowlton, George Washington University.
This work was partially supported by-funds made available to the Coastal
Planning Group of the Maine State Planning Office under the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972.

-------
PREFACE
During the preceding century several investigators have cataloged
and described the invertebrate fauna of selected areas f te M ine coast.
Principal among these are Verrill (1873) in Casco Bay, \Jebster and Benedict
(1835) at Eastport, Kingsley (1901) also in Casco Bay, and Procter (1933)
in the Mount Desert Island region. Since the passing of the era of descriptive
oiology, much of the interest in the invertebrate biota of the Maine coast
has been perpetuated. This is especially true in the Cobscook 3ay, Sheepscot
River and Isle of Shoals regions. This work and other projects along the
coast have been fragmented, however, and there has been no significant effort
to collate all of the material collected into a comprehensive volurie that
would be useful to investigators all along the Maine coast.
At the initiation of the State Planning Office and the Department of
i arine Resources, and at the encouragement of TRIGOM, to summarize inforoat ion
on the distribution and abundance of the marine and estuariric macroinverteLirates
of Maine, the authors undertook to produce an annotated checklist that would
be useful to planners, educators and the genera! public, as well as to the
scientific community. The popularity of an earlier checklist of marine irivc ’rte—
brates, principally from the Brunswick region (Knowlton, 1971) provided the
impetus for the construction of a more detailed list encompassing the entire
Maine coast. The present document is a first cull of the recent data (since
19140) and is offered as a preliminary report for use while the lonqer, complete
form is in preparation.
Data for this report were derived from several sources. The open
scientific literature was thoroughly searched. Gray literature, such as
environmental base! me studies and progress reports on research projects, was
used. In addition, interviews were conducted among all colleges and universi-
ties, research groups and private citizens known to have a biological interest
in the Gulf of Maine region. TRIGOM’S Directory of Marine Research Facilities
and Personnel in Maine, 3rd Edition (19714), was useful in this phase of data
gathering. The bibliography is divided into two sections, one for literature
avai lable through routine channels and the other for manuscripts, to en3phas i /c
the diverse nature of the data sources.
This checklist, therefore, contains information derived from unverified
student reports, as well as from extremely accurate scientific c:ontributions.
There are, however, surprisingly few suspicious identifications and, at this
hoint, we are not questioning any of them. As work on this undertaking con-
tioucs . ‘e expect to be able to remove these few probable misidentificatir,n ,
with confidence that we are not suppressing a significant range extension. In
the cantine, the user should remenber that all of the species included ar not
riqorously dncu- eoted.
The Ta ta Planninq roJp of t;c t aine fm3te Planninu Office has divirhd
‘inc .e,tline into I I planning re iOflS. We ave fol .;ed this cnv ntiUn
to aLe this CuntflbUt iOn of di r ct Use to the plomers, as a ross way of
Li” cribing si ’cies’ di trihution, and as a oans of highliyating aras where
hore iyh surveys have not ;sccol4pl i shed. Fol lowing the naoe of dch poc ins
.ckiist arc 1- ed the rru .’i ’rs f the r ’OicnS in oHieh tH peci ’s
III
c ckc 0

-------
presence has been reported since 19 40. In the bibliography, the region(s)
in which a piece of research was undertaken are listed following each entry.
The regions are outlined in Fly. 1 and the ná es of included towns are as
fol lows:
Region 1. Upper Penobscot Bay — tlorthport, Belfast City, Searsport,
Stockton Sprir’rgs, Prospect 1 Frankfort, Bucksport, Orland,
Penobscot., Castine, Brooksville, and Islesboro.
Region 2. Knox Region - Friendship, Cushing, St. George, South
Thomaston, Thomaston, Owls Head, Warren, Rockland City,
Rockport, Camden, Lincolnville, l4orth Haven, Vinaihaven,
and Mat inicus Plantation.
Region 3. East Penobscot Bay — Isle au Haut, Stoninyton, Deer Isle,
Sedgwick, Blue Hill, Brooklin, Swans Island, and Long
Island Plantation.
Region 4. Cast Hancock County - Cranberry Isles, Southwest Harbor,
Mount Desert, Bar Harbor, Trenton, Surry, Ellsworth City,
Township 3 Southern Division, Hancock, Lamoine, Franklin,
Township 9 Southern Division, Township 10 Southern Division,
Sullivan, Sorrento, Township 7 Southern Division, GouIdsl . ,oro,
and Winter Harbor.
Region 5. Lincoln County - Southport, Boothbay Harbor, Boothbay,
Westport, Edgecomb, Wiscasset, Dresden, Ama, Wewcastle,
tJobleboro, Waldoboro, Dar 1 iariscotta, Bremen, Bristol, and
South Bristol.
Region 6. Western Mid—Coast - HarpsweI1, Brunswick, Topsham, Botjdoinham,
Richmond, Perkins Township, Woolwich, Bath City, West Bath,
Phippsburg, Arrowsic, and Georgetown.
Region 7. West Washington County - Steuben, Cherryfield, Milbridye,
Harrington, Columbia, Columbia Falls, Addison, CentervHie,
Jonesbord, Jonesport, Deals, and Roque Bluffs.
Region 3. Central Washington County - Whitneyvi I le, Marshfield, M ohia-
East Machias, Machiasport, Marion Toonship, Whiting, nd Cutii r.
_J. j 9. East Washington County — Trescott Toonship, Edmunds Tov nshi ,
Dennysville, Pe;ibroke, Calais City, Robbinston, Perry, East-
port City, and Lubec.
Region 10. Curiherland—Greater Portland — Scarboro, Cape Lli;a etii, Thtj h
Portland City, Port land City, Faioith, CL ’ riii d, .it .
and Fr eport.
R . y ion I I . Sout iern i ne — i t tery , El jot, South 5 r i cL, York, I is,
K.r . hunk, Uorth ‘ r i. i’ purt , L : . urt , Hd r fut d C
‘O City, : nd Old 3 [ : -od : ..
V

-------
BAR
HARBOR
\
I. UPPER PENOBSCOT BAY
2. KNOX REGION
3. EAST PENOBSCOT BAY
LU B EC
4. EAST HANCOCK COUNTY
5. LINCOLN COUNTY
6. WESTERN MID-COAST
7. WEST WASHINGTON COUNTY
8. CENTRAL WASHINGTON COUNTY
9. EAST WASHINGTON COUNTY
10. CUMBERLAND -
GREATER PORTLAND
II. SOUTHERN MAINE
__
, I
N
4
t
1
A
STO L
CITY
HARBOR
SACO
CITY
Figure Planning regions as desIgnated by the Coastai PlannIng Group of the Maine State Planning Office.

-------
The phyla, and the higher taxa within each phylum, are arranged
in phylogenetic order following Gosner (l97 ). Within the lowest taxon
above the generic level, however, species are listed in alphabetical order
for the convenience of non-specialists.
We believe that many more than the 767 invertebrate species listed
here are inhabitants of the Various habitats of the Maine coast. We would
appreciate receiving additions and corrections to the checklist so that
subsequent editions may be more complete.
Peter F. Larsen
West Boothbay Harbor

-------
COI’ITEN I -S
Phylum Porifera
Phylum Cnidaria
Class Hydrozoa 2
Class Scyphozoa 3
Class Anthozoa 3
Phylum Ctenophora
Phylum PlatyhelmFnthes 5
Phylum Rhynochocoela 5
Phylum Aschelrninthes
Class Priapulida 6
Phylum Entoprocta 6
Phylum Chaetognatha 6
Phylun Bryozoa 6
Phylum Brachiopoda 8
Phylum Mollusca
Cl. iss !kplacophora 8
Class Polyplacophora 8
Class Castropoda
Subclass Prosobrancha 8
Subclass Opisthobranchia 10
Class Scaphopoda I I
Cl iss Bivalvia 11
C iss Cep?; flopoda
ç oo

-------
Phylum Anrielida
Class Polychaeta 114
Class Oliyochaeta 2O
Class l3irudinea 20
Phylum Sipunculida 20
Phylum Arthropoda
Subphylum Pycnogonida 21
Subphylum Chel icerata.
Class Merostomata
Subphylum Mandibulata
Class Crustacea
Subclass Ostracoda 21
Subclass Cirripedia 21
Subclass tlalacostraca
Order Nebaliacea 21
Order Curnacea 22
Order Tanaidacea 22
Order Isopoda 22
Order Arnphipoda 23
Order Mysidacea 25
Order Euphausiacea 25
Order Decapoda 25
Class lns cta
Order Col L;hola 27
P v I un cl i a
Class 1olothurodca 27

-------
Class Ech no dea 2/
Class Stelleroidea
Subclass Asteroidea 27
Subclass Ophiuroidea 28
Phylum Hemichordata 28
Phylum Chordata
Class Ascidiacea 28
Bibliography
Available Literature 30
Manuscripts 3

-------
PHYLUM PORIFIRA
llorn )cc 1 jciea
L’-’u oso le 2ia sp.
J,eucosolenia bo tr joides
F trni ly Heterocoel i dae
Scypha .
Scypha ciliata
i [ ):;in :;j rIliIe
)rclcr i-: rfit )1 L
y Ha I i ‘ ;irr I dae
hi is’ 1 Pc (2
Or’cbr laji I si i or lila
ijfl ii y [ u ;uIac i (Ion i dae
fsodictya deichinannac
Tsodictya pairnata
F;iin y Ualiclonidae
Ilaliclona canaliculata
ilaliclona oculata
losci erlda
CrnCi on 1 (] 1P
Micrc’cina L’roZiJ’era
i’ami ly Myxi i dae
l ’;i ni ly Mycai idae
Mycale ItlifluixI
M7je(2Z(?(a1’rn (2 ovui.wn
Urdor Ia ich,rid r i 1a
I y ha I IC h()fl (!r I (J tC
IklliC* ()fldrla
I/a lichondria bowerbanki
i/al ichondria panicea
Pellina sitiens
r er Axinellida
Family Axineiiidae
C 1ad crjce i,enti Z-abrum
Cr 5er - adr :meriQa
Family Suberit iae
‘? /O5 t -( i’bas t 2
S: ber’it s sp.
Sulie’ri ;es
Tz chcs t :P1a so 1
Fa1’ ily’l
5, 7,8,9, 11
9,11
5,6,8,9
9,11
.5,7,9,11
9, 10
9,11
11
I,, 11
5,;,]]
•1) 9, /7
3,5,7 8 /1
,
rQ
0,
C1a s Cal carea
Fami ly
Rej ion
( )rder I )( (‘I
F j j ly
S
9
9
5, 9
7, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 1?
lop non n i j1’i cans
Myxi 11(2 i?i’40tafi3
5
A
5, ; , 12
11
-, ;., ; , •l’ , 1 :7
F )
,

-------
PHYLUM CNIDARIA
Class 1!ydrozoa
Order Athecata
Family Hydridae
Protohydra sp.
Family Corymorphiidae
Corymorpha pendu la
Family Tubulariidae
Tubularia sp.
Tubularia crocea
Tubularia larynx
Tubularia pectabi us
Family Acaulidae
Acaulis prü’iarius
Family Corynidae
SarBia tubulosa
F tff 1 y Fenriariidae
Pennaria tiarella 5
Family C]avidae
Clava leptostyla
Cordy lophora lacus tris
Family iiydractiniidae
1iydr wtinia sp.
ilydractinia echinata
Family Sougainvil liidae
Bougainvillia sp.
Bougainvillia carolinensis
Family Eudendri idae
Eudendrium sp.
Euderzdrium alb’ n
Or Ier Limnomedusae
Family Oiindiidae
Gonionemus vertens 5,9,11
urder Thecata
Fami ] y Campanu 1 ar I dae
Campanularia sp.
Car panularia amphora
C inpa nu lana wig u la ta
Cairqanularia flesuosa
C7,y ia sp.
Clytia johnstoni
Eu opeila caliculcAta
Obe 1 ia
Ohelfa
:‘ 7(2
‘ ic
ii dae
(‘c • i •‘i 7 a !1”’’ J
/
I (. 7
I ,.t -.
c-i 1 c4
Fegion
2
8,9,11
5, G, 9
4,9,11
9, 11
9
5
7, 11
4,5,7,8,9,11
1, 5
9
4,5,8,9
11
5
5,9,11
11
sp.
(i Jfl717SL(PcA L iS
4,8,9, 11
4, 11
11
4,9,11
11
5
11
5, 11
5, 11
A p Q 77
r
9
11

-------
$
Regi m
Family Aequoreidae
Aequorea aequorea
Farriily flertu]aridae
Abietinaria sp.
ALiietinar a abz etina 5,9, 11
Diphasia J’aZ lax 9
Ilydrailmania falcata 9
Sertularella tricu8pidata 5,9
Sertularia . p. 4, 5, 6, 7, ?c 7 ?!
Sertularia puniil-a
Thuiaria sp. 5
Thuiaria argen tea 9
Thuiaria cupressina 4
Thl4iariQ sirnilis 9
; i y 1’! umu 1 an dae
hi2otricha ! cneila 71
pi r I)h ra
‘w i Jy Fkiys’n ecta.e
Stcphano”?ia sp. 9
. cy u zOa
ri -r : t ui reuusae
Fami I y El eutherocarpi dae
Ha icly tus aw’icula 8,9, 11
Baliclystus solpinz 5,8,9
Lucernaria quadricornis 5, 8,9
Fajni ly Cleistocarpidae
Craterolophus convolL’ulus 9
Thaumatoscyphus atlanticus 5
C.rcler ‘emaeustorneae
Family Cyanidae
Cuanea artica 11
C’yanea capillatc1 3,4,5,9
Fai ily Ulrnar$ñae
Aurelia aurita
ES Anth zoa
ic 1 Ccto ora1 Ti Ia
- Ie ! i i ;acea
! y Ayni1iae
Al lcm iuln dicit- tum
: p ’t ei ciae
G i mic 2iifoi-mis
ot.iar a
( i r -t ni ;j $a
e At,!en r1a
• T?),’ :
ii te

-------
4
Region
Family Actiriidae
Bolocera t tediae 5, 20
Bw’iodactis stelia 7,8,9
Tealia felina 5,7,8,9,12
Family Actinostolidae
Actinostola callosa 9,22
Stor-rpizia coccinea 9, 10
Family liormathi idae
Act nuage rugosa 22
Family ?letridiidae
Metridium sp. 4,6,7
Metridiwn senile 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11
Family Aiptasiormorphidae
lialiplanell.a luciae 3,5, 7,9,11
Family Diadumenidae
Diodumene leucolerja 7,12
Order Ceriantharia
Family Cerianthidae
Ceriantheopsis americanus 5
Ceria 2t1us sp. 5
Ceric zn thus borealis 9, 10
PHYLUM CTEPIOPHORA
Class Tentaculata
Orler Cydippida
Farni ly P1 eurobrachi idae
Pleurobrachia pileus 9,11
Order Lobata
Family Bolinopsidae
Bolinopsis infundibulurn 4,5,9,21
Family Mnemiidae
Mnemiopsis leidyi 5
Class Nuda
Order Beroida
Family Beridae
& r)c cucurnis 11

-------
c
PHYLUM PLATYHELMINTHES
egion
Class Turbellaria
Order Acoela
Family Proporidae
Childia fusca 11
Order Alloeccoela
Family Monocelidae
I4onocelis sp. 5,6,72
Order frichladida
Family Procerodidae
Foziella sp.
Foviella aff’inis
Procerodes littoralis
Family P del1ouridae
Bdelloura sp.
Bde 1 loura candida
Order P l yc1 ad Ida
Family Leptop Lanidae
Euplana gracilis
Notoplana atomata
PHYLUM RHYNCHOCOELA
Class Anopia
Order Paieonemertea
Family Caririomidae
Carinoma tremaphoros
Family Cephalothricidae
Procepha lothrix spira us
Order }Ieteronemertea
Family Lineidae
Cerebratulus sp.
Cerebratulus Lacteus
Cerebratulus luridus
Cerebratulus Triarginatus
Lineus sp.
Lineus arenicola
Lineus hi color
jv: us duhius
LL eus ruber
LI-n IS SOC 111. -S
Mi. .ruPa c ;finis
!.ifo ’ura (2 ib1.da
! ra
r 1 ) . o7 i 2
O der fl p
; I b F i -r rcst.yl I f -ra
• —!i ’c i ie
7
11
5, 11
5,9,12
11
5
11
4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
:ii
7,21
4, 11
1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
10
4
4
-7
-L
5
10
4,5,6, 7,8,9,11
10,11
4,11
5,11
9,10
71
/7

-------
Region
Family Anphiporidae
Arrrphiporus sp. 4,9
Arirphiporus angulatus 5,8, 9, 11
Arnphipor’ s bioculatus 5,9
Araphiporus caecus 9
Amphiporus c ’uentatus 5
Amphiporus griseus 7
Amphiporus groen landicus 7
Airiphiporus ochroceus
Arriphiporus tetrasorus 11
Family Tetrastemrnatidae
Te tras ternrna candidw7l 5,9, 11
Tetrastenma vittatum 5
PHYLUM ASCHELMINTHES
Class Priapulida
Halioryptus sinulosus 10
Priapulus caudatus 5,9,11
PHYLUM ENTOPROCTA
Family Pedicellinidae
Pedicellina cerrn a 5,12
PHYLUM C1IAETOGNATHA
Sayitta sp. 9
PHYLUM BRYOZOA
( ass Gy nnIaei ata
Crier (‘tenostomata
Farily Alcyoniiiidae
AIcn,onidw’a pol oum 5
r ily Fiustre] óridae
Fl stre1lid,’c s . 8,9
Fiustrel lidra ispida 7,8, 9, 11
Famiy es cu ar oae
Bc r2 ai .kia sp. 8, 9
3 2 2 iia 9: 2c lis s, ii
S:- ?: :i’z iirii i a l.a 11
- . i ia f mi liar is J 2
cIer ‘yc
F ”i •iv Cr
5,9
( . “: ? 4, 5, J

-------
-7
Region
Family Tubul ipori dae
Tdmonea atlantica 11
Tubulipora flabellata 11
Tuhulipora liliacea 5,9
Family Oncousoeciidae
Oncc’usoecia diastoporides 1?
Family Diaperoeciidae
Diapc-roeci -a harmeri 5
Famfly Li chenopuridae
Lichenopora his pida 5,9, 11
Lichenopora verrucaria 9
Order Cheiiost ’:nata
Suborder Anasca
F tmi 1 y Sc- rupari i lae
?z pj tea loricata 5
1i !f )t-a op. 5
Pa!’I i 1y Minbrau r I dae
Merihranipora sp. 5, 8,9
L’ .iJni ty ;i t ctri iae
El€ tra sp. 6,9
Eleotra moriostachys 5
Electra pilosa 5,7,9,11
Fanily Calloporidae
Caiiopora sp. 9
Callopora aurita .9
Tegella unicornis 7
Fa ’J ly Bugulidae
Bugula sp. 4,8,9
Bugula simplex 5,9,12
Bur ula turrita 5,9,11
Dendrobean a rnurrayarsa 9
Family Sc’rupocellariidae
Caberea elZisii 5,9
Family Cribrilinidae
Cribrilina punctata 5
Th .r)urcier Pscophora
F tr ily iippcthoidae
Hip;othoa op. 5,9
pcthoa hyaZina 5, 7,9, 12
p ridae
C . tthuiosa 11
-.i y
• f u 7 - s; . 9
u’, c’2’niS 4,5,71
. ‘; L;i iae
9, 22
°P
- I
- ,.i.. - . a
ç-

-------
PHYLUM BRACH OPODA
Class Articulata
Order Terebratulida
Family Cancellothyrididae
Terebratulina Sep tentriona us
PHYLUM MOLLUSCA
Crass Aplacophora
Order Crystallophrissonoidea
Family Crystallophrissonidae
C rystaZlophrisson nitiduZum
C ‘ass Polyp lacophora
Order Jeoloricata
Family Ischnochitonidae
Lschnochiton alba
Ischnochiton ruber
Tonicella sp.
Tonicella rrnorea
Family Chaetopleuridae
Chaetopleura apiculatii
Family l4olpaliidae
Ariricula i)estita
Class Gastropoda
Subclass Prosobranchia
Order Archaeo astropoda
Family Fissurellidae
V-todora cayefleflsi6
Puncture 1 La noachina
Family Aemaeidae
Ac,rvjzea testudinalis
Family Trochidae
CaZ liostorria occidentale
Margo.ritea costalia
Margari tes groen landica
I4argarites Izelicina
Moe ileri.a costu1 ata
Order l4esogastropoda
Family Lacirnidae
Lacuna sp.
Lacuna paliidul-a
LQCU 242 vincta
Far ily L,ittorinidae
Lit ’.orirza sp.
t tcnina irro ata
—Litt-c r ina Zittorea
Lit -oi n i L b l4S( ta
L it iii ia sc :atiiuS
F ni 13’ 1 : te
p.
:

Region
4,5,7,9,20,12
5,10
5, 7, 8,9, 22
2,4,5,7,8,9,21
11
7,8,9,20,22
ii
‘5
10
5,8,9,20
2,2,4,5,6, 2’, 8,9., 10,22
9,20
9
8,9
5,8,9,10,21
9
11
9., 10
4,5,8,9,10,22
5,6, 20,12
4
1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8,9, 10, ]]
3,4, , C, 7,8,9,10,11
1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,22

‘-., -, -
5,0,70,11
5
I C
,

-------
9
9
9
9
5,9,11
6,9, 10, 21
9
9
9
3
2, 5
2,4,5,6,7,9,10,21
2,5,6,8,9,10,12
7,8,0
9,10,11
9,11
1,5,9,10,11
3, 5,9,10
1,4,5,6, 7,9,10,11
2,4,5,8,9,10,11
8, 9
11
5, 9
5
5,7,9,20,12
5,8,9,10,11
5,2,8,9,10,11
10
5
1,2,4,5,6,1 2, ii
73
• ‘
11
Region
Family Eissoidae
Alvania arenaria
Alvania areo2-ata
Alvania castanea
Cingz4la aculeus
Family Skeneopsidae
Skeneopsis planorbis
Family Turritellidae
Turn tel lopsis acicu la
Family Epitoniidae
Epi ton ium green landicurn
Family Trichotropi dae
Tnichotropis conica
Family Caiyptraei dae
Crepidula sp.
Crepidula convexa
Crepidula fornicata
Crepidula plana
Crucibulun striatum
Family Aporrhaidae
Aporr iais occidentalis
Family Natici Iae
Natica cZausa
Polinices sp.
PoZinices duplicaras
Polinices heros
Polinices triseriata
Far!Iily Lwaellar idae
Marsenina glabra
Velutina sp.
Velutina la ’vigata
Velutina undata
Ori)ei N. )j2i t ropoda
1ti i y Murici(Iae
Boreotrophon cZathra1 us
Thais (Nucella) lapillus
Urosa ipins in rt’a
Famni ly cc lumbellidae
Mitrella dissiniilis
Mitre 1 La lunata
.- Family Buccinidae
8Z4CC ?2UTh z ndi2 tan?
Colus sp.
Colus py Jr7ic1eus
Co’uc s
ì ej’taiiea L7t . • i’ ’cs t ’1.a
!‘aini y 1 eriid .e
B ? 4 sycon pza7.7n4 .at .uJrZ
Fain ly :a ri i dae
s 7 ’rz:4s p.
:; - s c us
• • s t a a

9
1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
4,5, 7,9, 10
9
5, 6
1,2,3,4, 5,6, 7,8,9,10,11

-------
I0
Fegion
Family Turridae
Lora cancellata
Lora p leuro tornaria
Lora sea laris
Lora turricula
ubciass Opisthobranchia
Order Cephalaspidea
Family Diaphanidae
Diaphana minuta
Family Retusidae
Acteocina (Retusa) canaliculata
Act eocina (Ret usa) obtusata
Family Scaphandri dae
Cylichna alba
Cylichna occulta
Family Atyidae
Raininoea so1itari a 4,5
Order Saco lossa
Suborder Elysiacea
Family Elysiidae
Elysia chiorotica 5,11
Order Thecosomata
suborder Euthecosomata
Fami ly Spi ratell I dae
Spiratella leseuri 10
Order Gymnosomata
Family Clionidae
Clic’ne liniacina 9
Order Nudibranchia
Suborder Doridacea
Family Okeniidae
Ancula gibbosa
Family Lame]] idorididae
Aianthodori8 pi losa
Onchidorus aspersa
Onchidorus diademata
One hidorus fusca
Onchidorus grisea
Family Polyceridae
Polycera dubia
Sub.rr er Deridronotacea
Family D ndronc tidae
Dendronotus sp.
A nthono tU8 frondosus
D n rono tus mbUS tus
F t!a ly .&iui ae
Dcit-O c )1onata
3ul) r(ier he l i ii t ea
F i.mi ly C ryphe1lidae
C.:.! 4 he 1 L .a sp.
-; 77. pe Z 4 -da
.‘ - Jl-’.:.( 14f t): .!I ?(2L7_s
c ; : Ia s: i1’. .ac a
c-
4
9
5
9
‘5
5,10
5
2,5,10
3
9
5,8,9,11
.5,7,8,9,10,11
.5,11
4,5,7,9, 11
7
5,9, 11
4
4,5,7,8,9,11
9
5,9, 71
5,9
9,12
; , 0,9,11
7, c, 9

-------
11
Family Eubranchidae
Eubranchus exigua
Fasni ly Cuth nidae
Cu thona concinna
Emb le tonia fusca to
Tergipes despectus
Family Aeolidiidae
Aeolidia papillosa
Families of Uncertain Status
Family Fyrarnidel 1 idae
Odostomia sp.
Odos tomia bisutura us
Odostornia gibbosa
Odes tomia trifida
P p’ miidelia fusca
Turboni 1 la bus hiana
Turboni 1 la interrupta
Sub lass Pulnioriata
Order I3asommatc’phora
Faini ly Fl] obi idae
Melampus bidentatus
Ovatella myosotis
c phopuda
Family Dentaliidae
Dentaliuin sp.
Deutolium ental-e
C’ass f iialvia
I a.;s Pri onodesniata
(,r er -rotciLranchia
F ur ij ly I4ucul idae
Nucu 1(1
Nucu lu
Nucu la
ilucu la
Nucu la
Family Nuculanidae
Iluculana pernuic
lJuculana tenuisulcata
Yo Idia
lo
)‘ idia
Yo idia
Yo 1db
Yoldia
ass Pteri uicrohia
C r ier ri j.’ it i ia
Fa’ i ly ttf’(i i &
5
5
10
5
5,20
9
‘5
5,6
5, 10, 11
3
5,10
2, 3, .5, 11
5
3,5,10
2,2,5
5,10
2, 5,11
10
2
1, .5,9, 20
5
or
L ,
1,3,5,20
Begion
9,21
9,21
11
9,11
4,5, 7,8,9
op.
annula ta
do iphinodonta
prosi ma
tenuis
Sr.
tiifla to
limatula
‘ i: a? is
sapoti 7 -la
t7aciaef i”.’:is
• z. rL2
I (,‘

-------
1?
decussata
faba
gZ.anduia
derniss us
rnodio lus
8p.
borealis
castanea
e 1 liptica
striata
subaequi7 atera
undata
is landica
5,10
10
2,5,9
1,2,4, 5,9, 10,11
1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
11
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
5,9
1,3,4,5,9,,2O,11
3,5,8,9,11
1,5,7,8,9,10,12
5
1,3,8,9,20
5,8,9
9
2
.3,5,9
2,3 ,5,9,10 ,11
2,2,3,5,9,10
10
10
10
2,5,9
2,5,20
10
ii .-
Region
8,9
9
5 ., 11
5
Order Pteroconchida
Family Mytilidae
Crenelia
Crene 1 la
Crenella
Modio lus
Modiolus
Musculus sp.
Musculus discors
Musculus niger
M jtiZus edulis
Family Ostreidae
Crassos trea virginica
Ostrea edulia
Family Pectinidae
Chlamya islandicua
Placopec ten rrsage 1 lanicue
Family Anomiidae
Anoniia aculeata
Anomia svnplex
Subclass Teleodesmata
Order Heterodontida
Family Astartidae
Astarte
As tarte
As tarte
As tarte
A starts
As tarts
,4starte
Family Carditidae
Cardita borealis
Family Arcticidae
Arctica
Family Leptonidae
Xellia suborbicuZari
Family Montacutidse
Montacuta ap.
!4yaelLla ap.
Family Turtoniidae
Turtonia ap.
Family Lucinidae
Lucino,r’a ap.
Family Thyasiridae
Thyasira sp.
Thyasira gouldii
Thyasira insignia
Family Ungulthidae
piplodonta verri lii
F:Lr Ii ly C irdi I thte
C ’,wtodcr m2 p.
‘ tod ;ia ; i iU14’ltUfl7
(‘.‘ :?Zc’ 2!k. 4177 f7. 7 z-’i turn
2,3,5,6,9,10,11
2
10
2
17
7,9, 30,11
5,9

-------
‘.3
egion
Family Venerjdae
Gen na ge’iria 1, 4,5, 6,9, 10
Mercenaria rnercenaricj 3,4, 5,6, 10, 11
Pitar morrhuana 3,5,20
Family Petricolidae
Petricola pholadiformie 4,5,6
Faintly I4actridae
Mulinia laterahe 5,6
Spisula polynyma 1
Spisula solidissima 1,5,6,10,11
Family Mesodesmatidae
Mesodesina arctatum 1,11
Mesodesma deaurata 10
Family Tellinidae
Macorna ep. .4
Macoma baithica 1,4,5,6,7,9,10,11
Macama calcarea 10
I4acoma tenta I
Tellina agi.lis 1,4,5,6,10
Family Solenidae
EflS-z.8 directus 4,5,6,8,10,11
Siliqua COstata . 5
Family Myidae
Mya arenaria 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7,8,9,10,11
Mya truncata 5,9,10
Family Hiatellidae
Hiatella sp. 5
b’iatella aretica 1,4,5,7,8,9,11
Riatella striata . 2, 5,9
Family Pholadidae
Zirfaea crispata 3,5,9
Family Teredinidae
l’eredo nava lie . 5,11
Subclass Ariomalodesniata
Order Eudesinodontida
Family Pandoridae
Pandora glacrLa lie 2,5
Pandora gouldiana 5,6
Family Lyonsiidae
Lyonsia arenosa 2,5
Lyonsia hyalina 1,5,9
Family Periplornatidae
Periploma fragilis 1,2,5
Periplorna papyratiwn 5,20
Family Thraci idae
Thr acia cv zradi 5, 10
Th acia rnyo1 sis 5,10
Order Septibranchida
Family Cuspi tri idae
Cz.4sFidaria sp.

-------
s Cephal poda
subclass Coieoidae
Order Teuthidida
Family Orimastrephidae
Ille-x illecebrosus
Family Loliginidae
Loligo pealei
Order Octopodida
Family Octopodidae
8a thy po Zypus arc ticus
Ciass Polychaeta
Order Archiannelida
Family Dinophilidae
Dino hitus sp. 5,11
Order Phyllodocida
Family Phyllodocidae
Eteone ap.
Eteone fiava
Eteone heteropoda
Etecne lac tea
Eteone longa
Eteone trilineata
Eulalia bilineata
Eulalia viridis
Eunida rnaculosa
Eumida sanguinea
) t jstides borealis
Paranaitis speciosa
Phy 1 lodoce sp.
Ptzy 1 lodoce arenae
Phy 1 lodoce groen landica
Phyllodoce r zculata
Phy 1 lodoce mucosa
Fazni ly Tomopteri dae
Tomop tens he igo landica
F’ami ly Aphroditidae
Aphrodita has tata
Family Polynoiuae
Antinoellf2 earsi
Cat t ana ep.
Cat tyana c 1’rus’
1iai r,ot-hoe
:; .21 n70 t hoe
hoe
iia1 t•7 . .) thoe
1! j:,ot zoe
‘4
PHYLUM ANMELIDA
Region
4,9,11
4, 5
7, 11
1,5,7,10
5
1,5,9
1,5,6,10,11
1,2,5,7,8,10,11
2, 5
1
4,5,9,11
10
5
9
1,11
5
1, 5
1,4 ,5 ,7,9,10
1,2,4,5,8, 10, 11
2,4,5,10,11
9
3,11
2
5
A C
6 . , , J , (J ,
1,4,5
21
1,2,5,10,11
1,4,5,7,8,9,10,11
2,4,5
2 0, 1 1
Bp.
aj iy.el 7ae
-x
pr,.r J t a
nodosa
ot rs t”di
— k\(o

-------
l egion
Barrriothoe spinulosa
Hartmania moorei
Lepidame triii cornmensa 1i8
Lepidonotus sp.
Lepidono tus squarnatus
Lepidonotus sublevia
Family Sigalionidae
Pholoe minuta
Sthenelais lirnicola
Family Chrysopetalidae
Dyspone tue pygmaeus
Family Glyceridae
Glycera
Glycera
Giy c ra
Glycera
Glycera
Family Gon I adi dae
Goniada maculata
Goniada norvegica
Family Sphaerodoridae
E’phesiel la rninuta
Family Nephtyidae
Aglaophamus sp.
Aglaophamus circinata
A jiaopharnus verrilii
lie ph ty6
llephtys
tic ph tys
Ileph tys
i iephtys
Neph tys
lie ph tys
Nephtys
Neph tys
Family Syliidae
Amblyosy 1 lie finmarchica
Autolytus sp.
Auto lytus alexandri
.4uto lytus cornutus
Auto ljjtus fasciatus
Auto lytus prismaticus
Auto lytus pro lifer
Brania clavata
us’qi lie b1,’is ti mii
Fxoa one sz.
Ex ...’q one die par
Exc.gonc hebes
E.c ’qone ruaera
5 12.

2
2, 5
.9, 11
4,5,6
2,2,4,5,7,8,9,10,11
5
2, 2,4, 5, 10
5, 21
5, 9
10
4,5, 6,11
1, 2, 5, 10
1 ) 4 5 6 7 9 10
, , , ,
5,10
1,5,10
3
5,9
1, .5
5
10
4,5,6,10,11
1,5,6,7,9,10,11
1,2,4,5, 7,8,9, 10,11
2,4,5,6,8,9,20
2,5,8,10
1,2,3,4,5,9,20,11
5,20
9
1,20
5,9
.5, 10, 11
5
5,12
S
5,8,21
5
5
5, 10
5
20
. 5
sp.
americana
capita ta
dibranchia ta
robusta
ap.
bucera
caeca
ciliata
discors
incisa
longose tosa
paradoxa
picta
1

-------
I’,
Streptosyllia varians
Syllis cornuta
Syllis gracilis
Family Hesionidae
Gyptis vittata
Microphthalmus sp.
Microphtha Zmus aberrane
Mictophthalrzus sczelkowii
Family Pilargidae
Ancis trosy itis groen landica
Family Nereidae
‘Vereis ep.
Nereis arenaceoden ta ta
Nereis diver ico br
llereis grayi
Nereis pelagica
:;ereis succinea
Nerei8 virens
Platynereis iriegabops
Order Capitellida
Family Capitellidae
CapiteiZa capitata
lie teromas tue ep.
Heteromastus fi liforrnie
i /o tomas tue ep.
ilo tof Th28 tuB C Zongata
Not omas tue latericeus
i/o ton7a8 tue luridJAs
Family Arenicolidae
Arenicola marina
Family Scalibregmidae
Polyphysia crasea
Sca libregizn inflatwn
Family Maldanidae
Asychia ep.
Asychis cape nsis
Clyirienella 8p.
Clymenelkz collaris
Clyrnene 1 la torquata
Clyrnenella zonaliB
Ma idane sarel.
Maldanopsis elongata
iVicomache sp.
Nicomache lz nbrica lie
Praxillella sp.
P vixilleila graciiis
Praxi lle 7 la prae ’rr issa
‘Pr 2xiZlella ornata
Rhodine
Rhodi e
Fnc,Ji!w
9
2, 5,9
2
9
S
5, 9
5
5
1,4,5,6,20,11
1,5,10
1 ‘) 9,10
, , “, ‘-‘3
2, .5
2,2,4,5,6,9,10,11
5, 6, 10, 11
1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
I
1,2,5,10
4
1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10
10
10
9
1
4,5, 7,8,9,11
2, 5
2,5,10
1
5
5,10
10
1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
1,5,9,10
1,5,10
1,2,4,5,6,10
I
10
5
5,20
S
S
5
2,10
Region
sp.
a tenuata
love rzj

-------
17
1 egi on
Family Opneli idae
Ammo trypane auloyaster 1,2,5,9
Anvnotrypane fimbriata 11
Order Sternaspida
Family Sternaspidae
Sternaspis sp. 3, 5
Sternaspis fossor 1, 2,5, 10
Sternaspis soutata 5,10,11
Order Spionida
Family Spionidae
Di pio ucinata 10
Laonice cirrata 2,5,10
Polydora cp. 1,5,10
Polydora aggregata 4,5
Polydora caulleryi 1,5
Polydora ciliata* 2,4,5,6,9,10
Polydora cammensali8 S
Polydora concharum 5
Polydora gracilis 10
Polydora ligni 4 1,4,5,9,10
P0 lydora quadrilobata ‘ 5,9
Polydora sociaiis 5,10
Polydora websteri 4,5
Prionospio sp. 5,10,21
Prionospio ehler8l. 10
Prionospio ma Zmgreni 1,5
Prionospio plumosa 10
Prionospio steenstrupi 1,5,10
Pygospio elegans 1,5,9
Scolecolepis viridis 1,5,9,20,1)
Scolelepis squamata 2,5,9
Spio 8p. 10
Spio filicornis 5,10
Spio pettiboneae 10
Spio setosa 1,5,6,7,9,10,11
Spiophanes sp. 2
Spiophanes borabys 5, 6,10
Streblospio benedicti 1,5,10
Family Paraonidae
Aricidea sp. 5
Aricidea jeffreysii 1,5,10
Aricidea quadrilobata 5,10
Ar -i cidea suecica 5,10
Paraonis sp. 10
Paraonis fuigens 1, 5,6
Paraonis gracilis 5,10
Paraonis lyra 10
4 l ;mij:;:;en ( 9i’ ) equates Polydora ligni Webster to P. ciliata (Jihrist.un).

-------
Region
Family Apistobranchidae
Apistobrancthus tulibergi 1,5
Family Chaetopteridae
Chaetopterus sp. 2
Order Eunicida
Family Eunicidae
Eunice pennatcz 9,10
Marphysa sanguinea 10
Family Lunibrinereidae
Lumbrineris ap. 5
Licnbrineria brevipea 2., 3,5,10
Lumbrineris coccinea 2
Lwnbrineria latreilli 2,10
Lwnbrineria fragilis 1,2, 5,9, 20
Lwnbx’t.neri-a tenuis 1,2, 5, 6,9, 10
Ninoe nigripea 1, 2,3, 5, 9, 10
Family Arabellidae
Arabelia iricolor 1,5,6,9
Th’iionereia ep. 3
Drilonereia longa .3,10
T)rilonerei8 ?7 9flj 9,10
Family Dorvilleidee
Stauronereis caccus 5
Stäuronereia rudoiphi 5
Order Amphinomida
Family Euphrosinidae
Euphrosine armadillo 5
Order Arielida
Family Orbiniidae
1Jaineri e quadricuspida 2,5,9,10,11
Orbinia sp. 2
Orbinia ornata 11
Orbinia 6b 2fll. 11
Scolopios sp. 5,6
Scoiopios acutus 1,2,5,9,10,11
Scoioploa armiger 2,5,10
ScoZoplo fragi lie 5,6,9, 10, 11
ScoLoplos risert 10
Scolopio robustus 1,2,5,9,10
Crder Cirratulida
Family Cirratulidae
Cauller7 ella 8p. 5
Chaetozone setosa 2
Cirratulus ap. 5
Cirratulus cirratus 5,10,11
Cirratulus jmindis 1,21
Cossura ap. 2,5
C’orsura ior.jocirJ’ata 1,10
Do iecaceria con charum 10
Tharyx ap. 5,10
T aryx acutus 9,10,11
v - ‘ zo
/1

-------
Region
rit r l)\.Jr 1j j
Fani I ,‘ ( werj I I dae
M riochele sp. 3
M jriochele heeri
Owenia sp.
enia fus iforrnis
Orier Terebellida
Family Pectinariidae
Pec t maria
Pectinaria
Pee tinaria
Pectinaria
Family Amp areti dae
Arnpharete sp.
Aiapharete acutifrons
Arn .Juicteis extenuata
uirnpnicteis gunneri
A nol)o thrus gradi li
,lsabellidea 81).
AsabellideB oculata
ilypaniola grayi
lie linna cristata
lie linna elisavethac
Sczbellides sp.
Sabe 1 lides octocirrata
Scwrythella elongata
Swrrj the 1 la se cirrata
Fainl ly Terebel1i ae
Aniphitrite sp.
Amph i trite aff in is
Amphi trite brunnea
Amphi trite cirra ta
Aniphi trite johnc toni
Arriphi trite ornata
Snop iobranchuo sanLjuvneus
Wico lea venustula
Pista rnaculata
Pista paZviata
Polycirruo sp.
Polycirrus eximius
Po lycirrus medusa
Terebel lides str’oemi
The 7 epus cincinna cuo
Trichobrz7 ci1uC s;.
Trichobren3 uS -, ida us
Crder Flabel] i erida
Fanj y F] ibe] I i eridae
i2 :ri•USa
Jo s a
j-:j.c,rj ‘ - lc a
sp.
gouldii
granu lata
hyperborea
2,5,10
10
5,10
1, 5
1,2,5,9,10,11
1,5,9
1, 5
1, 2, 3,5
1,2,5,10
I
1,10
I
3 ‘•, 0
1
1, 10
1, 5
3
5
5
10
10, 11
10
4,5,11
9
4,6,9
8,9
6, 7,8,9, 11
7,8,9,11
11
.5, 10, 11
10
11
5,7,10
5,7,0
10hZ
_L,
1,5,9,11
5
2,3,5,10
.9
5

-------
Region
Diplocirrus hirButuB 1,2,5,10
Flabelligera affinis S
Pherusa sp. 6
Pherusa affinia 1,5,7,9,10
Pherusa arenosa 5
Pherusa piwnosa 1,5,11
Order Sabellida
Family Sabellidae
Euchone elegans 10
Euchone rubrocincta 5
Fabricia sabelZa 5,7,9,11
!lyxicola infwidibulum 3,5,8,9,11
Potamilia neglecta 1,2,5,10,11
Potamilla reniformi8 5,7,9,10,11
Sabel la crassicOrnia 5,9,11
Sabella microphthaima 10
Family Serpulidae
Pi Zograna imp lexa 9
IjydrOide8 ap. ii
Hydroides dianthua 5,9
Spirorbie ap. 6,7,8,9,10, 11
Spirorbis borealis 4,5,6, 7,8, 9, 11
Spirorbi8 spirvllz n 7,9,11
Family Unknown
Aniphiglena a. f. mediterranea 10
Intertoe sedis #1 & #2 10
Laoname kroyeri 10
Malacoceros ep. 10
i&znayunkia op. 1,5
Therochaeta op. S
Class Oligochaeta 1,4,5,10
Order Plesiopora
Family Naididae 1
Family Enchytraeidae
Ench jtraeua albidue 9
Family Tubificidae
Clitellio arenariua 4,5,6,7,8,9,11
Class Hirudinea
Order Rbynchobdellae
Family Piscicolidae
Piscioola rapax 5,11
Platybdella ap. 1
Trachelobdella op. S
PHYLUM SIPUNCIJIA
Golfingia ininuta 5,11
Golfingia procera 10
Pha col ion atroinbi 5,10
r;W scolop8is gouldii 9,11
-

-------
2!
PHYLUM ARTHROPODA
Region
Nyi phon i dae
Nyrnphon
lJyrnphon
Family Arnrnotheidae
Ache ha spinosa
Family Tanystylidae
Tanys ty hum orbiculare
Family ?hoxichilidiidae
Anop lodacty lus hen tus
Phoxichi hidiwn sp.
Phoxiclzi hidiwn femoratwn
Family Pycnogonidae
Pycnogonwn littorale
Family Palleriidae
Call ipa 1 lene breviros tris
Subclass Cirripedia
Order Thoracica
Suborder LepadomorPha
Family Lepadidae
Lepas sp.
Lepas anatifera
Suborder Balanomorpha
Family Balanidae
Ba Z42flU3
Ba 1 anus
Ba lanus
Ba janus
Ba lanus
Balanus
Balanus
Ba lanus
SubchiSS flalacuStraCa
crieS LeptoStraCa
• r(, r i( r I hy I I tr Ida
()‘dt 1 ItE)1i I ,Lee’i
‘r i es Euinal acos traca
‘ tip r i ier Fe ‘—ac:tri da
1, 5
5
5
9,11
9,11
9
5,9,11
7, 9
5
1,4,5,6
7
2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
4,5,7,8,9,11
4, 5, 10, 11
7,11
5,6
1,5,7
c- ‘ -z
Subphylum Pycnogonida
Class Pantopoda
Family
sp.
gros sipes
ubphy]um Chelicerata
Class I4erostornata
Order Xiphosurida
Family Limulidae
Limulus polyphe’nus
Subpiiylum Ilandibulata
Class Crustacea
Subclass Ostracoda
Order Myodocopida
Sarsie 1 La zos terico La
3,4,5,6
5
5
9
sp.
amp hitrite
ba lanoides
ba 1 anus
crenatus
eburneus
1zarri ri
imprOVisUS
/Jcixz 1 i -a
11

-------
Region
Order Cuinacea
Family Bodotriidae
CycZaspie var1 -an8 S
Maneocwmi stellifera 6,9,11
Leptocwna minor 5
Family Leuconidae
Eudoreiia sp. £
Eudore ha eimirginata 5,10
Eudorehla hispida 5
EudorelZa truncatula 5,10
L’udorehlopsis deformis 5
Leucon americanus 5
Family Diastylidae
Dz.aatyhis sp. 1,5
Diastylis polita 5
tfl.aetyZis quadri spinosa 1,5,10,11
Diaetylia scuipta 5,10
Leptostyli wirpullacea 10
Oxyuroetylis 2nn.thi 5
Order Tanaidacea
Family Paratanaidae
Leptochelia ap. 10
Leptochelia rapax 5
Leptochelia Bavignyi 5
Order Isopoda
Suborder Gnathiidea
Family Gnathiidae
Gnathicz sp. I
Suborder Anthuridea
Family Anthuridae
Cyathura sp. 5,11
cijathura polita 2,5,10
Suborder Flabellifera
Family Cirolanidae
Ciro lana concharwn 5,9
Family Limnoridae
Li nnoria hignorun 5, 11
Suborder Valvifera
Family ldoteidae
Chirido tea coeca 6,9
Chirido tea tuftsi S
Edotea ap. 1,9
Edotea montosa 10
Edo tea tn loba 1, 5, ?, 9, 10, 11
Erichsonella a1.t. nuat.a 10
Idotea sp. 5,6,10,11
rdotea baltica 1,4,5,8 ,9,20,11
- Idotea phosphorea 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, Ii
ubirder Asei 7ut.a
Family Ta’ iridae
T era ,r,anina 4 1,4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11
*T,icludes sit I st three component species in Maine: Jaera aibiJ’ ons,
tl. j ! 1 ioset $ and J. iirachii suta.
F- A

-------
23
Region
Suborder Onoscoidea
Family Oniscidae
Philoscia vittata 5
Family Ligididae
Ligia oceanica 11
Order Amphipoda
Suborder Hyperildea
Family Hyperiidae
Hyperia galba 4
Parathernisto compressa 9
Suborder Gammaridea
Family Ampeliscidae
Arnpelisca sp. 1,5,10
Arnpclisca abdita 1,4,10
Ampelisca aequicornis 5
Ampelisca agassizi S
Ampelisca declivitatus 10
Arnpelisca mcwroc ephala 1,5,10
Ampelisca spinipes 1,5
Ampelisca vadorwn 5
Byblis sp. 5
Byblis serrata 5,10
Rap loops spinosa 1
Haploops tubicola 10
Family Ampithoidae
Ampithoe sp. I
Arnpithoe longimana II
Arnpithoe rubricata 1,5,9,10
Arnpithoe valida 5
Cyrnadusa conrpta 1
Family Ar issidae
Argissa sp. 2
Argissa typica 5
Family Call iopidae
C’alliopius laeviusculus 1,5,7,9
Family Cor phiidae
Corophiwn sp. 1,5,9,10
Coro phi urn acherusicwn S
Corophium bone lii .5
Corophium crassicorne 1, 5, 20
Corophium insidiosuin 1,10
Corophium lacustre 1,5
Corophiwn volutator 1,5, 7,9, 10, 11
EpichthOfljuS rubricorniS 5, 10
lj; ( toia Cp.
F un i y ( .‘:t!!;i ri dae
(2 j( O bi jcLowi :,, is
C immcrUS ! • 1, 4, 5, 1;, 7, ii , 9, 11
A. • i .t; z and A. v dui uin.

-------
Region
Ga, ’Dr rus annulatus 5,7,21
Ganuaarus lawrencianus 1,20
Gai’ rnrus iocusta 1,4,5,7,10,11
Gcvi narus inucronatus aS
Cammarus oceanicus 1,4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
CwaIrK2ruS palustris 11
Ganvaarus setosus 8
Canv zrus tigrinus .5
14arino ,zammarus sp. 9
l4arinoyaiinarus fizvm2rchicus 4
lrlnogaiiraarus obtusatus 4
Melita sp.
t•felita dentata 1,5,20
Flelita nitida 5
Family ilaustoriidae
i/au8torius Bp. 5,10
Pontoporeia femorata 1,5
Family Hyalidae
Allorchestea littoraije I
1/yale sp. 5
F/yale prevoatii 5,11
Family Ischyroceridae
Jasea ep. 5,9,10
Jassa falcata 1,5
Family l ysianassidae
Anonyx corffpactus 10
Anonyx lilijeborgi 5
Anonyx nuga.r 1,9
1/ippo aedon propinguus 10
Lysianopsis alba I
OrchoinoneiZa ep. I
Orahc ,iw,nejZa minuta
Orchc rione 1 la pinguis 5,12
TryphoBa pinguia 1
Family Oedicerotidae
Monocul.odea ap. 1,5
Honoculodee interrnediua 5
Family Paramphithoidae
Paramphithoe ap. 5
Family Photidae
Leptocheirus pinguis 1, 5,9,10
Photi ep. 9,10
p; ,tis rrv croco 10
Photi8 reinhardi 10
Podoceropsis 8p. 2
Family Phoxocephal idae
llarpinicz sp. S
Rarpinia propinqua 5,10
Parapho ua spinosus 1
Pho ocephalus sp. 1
Phox cephalus holbolli 1,5, 10
4 ’u rieId reports G. iot usta as being “ uropean exc]usively.”

-------
25
Region
Family Pleustidae
Stenopleustes inerrnis 10
Farni ly Podoceri dae
Dulichia sp. 5
Dulichia rnonacantha 10
Dulichia porrecta 1
Paradulichia typica 5
Family Pontogeneiidae
Pont oQ eneia i.nernn s
Family Ste ocep’na1idae
Stegocephalus inflatus 1
Family Stenothoidae
Stenothoe sp. 5
Family Talitridae
Orchestia sp. 6,10
Oruhestia garnrnarella 7
Orchestia grilZuB S
OrcheBtia platensis 1,4,5,7
Orchestia uhieri 11
Talorchestia longicornis 1,4
Family Tironidae
S rrhoe crenulata 10
Suborder Caprel lidea
Family Caprellidae
Aeginella longicornis 4,5,9,10
Caprella sp. 5,9
C’apre 1 la linearis 5, 7, 8., 11
C aprella penantis 5,9
Caprella septentrionalis 9,11
Mayerella lirnicoia 10
Order Mysidacea
Family I4ysidae
Erythrops erythropthaiim2 . 1
Meterythrops robustus 1,5,10
I4y3i8 gaspensis 4,9
l4ysis mixta 9
Mysis stenolepis 1,4,5,9,10,11
Neoraysi_s americana 1,5,10
Praunus flexuosus 1,4,5,9,11
Superorder Eucarida
Order Euphausiacea
Family Euphausiidae
Ileganyctiphanes norvegica 11
Order Decapoda
Infraorder Caridea
Family Palaemonidae
Palaemonetes pugio 6,9,10
Palasmonetes vulgaris 9

-------
1 e g ion
Family Hippolytidae
Eualua fabricii 5,9,11
Eualus ga-T mardii 5
EualuB pusiolus 5,7,11
Lebbeus jraen landicue 5,9,22
Lebbeus pol-aris 9
Spirontocaris spinus 5
Family Pandalidae
Pandalue borealis 5, 20,11
Pandalus montagui 5,9,10, 12
Family Crangonidae
Crangon ep. 6
Crangon septenispinosa 1, 4, 5, 6, 7,9, 10, 11
Scierocrangon boreas 8,9
Infraorder Astacidea
Family Nephropsidae
Ron zrus a7nerl.canue 1, 2,3,4,5,6, 7,8, 9, 10, 11
Infraorder Anomura
Superfamily Pa.guroidea
Family Paguridae
Pagurua ep. 4,6,11
Pagurus acadianus 1,4,5,8,9,11
Pagurue l ongicarpua 5,7,9,20,21
Pa gurus pal licarie 1, 7
Pa gurus pubescens 4,5,9,11
Family Lithodidae
Lithodes nhrzia 5, 11
lnfraorder Brachyura
Section Oxyrhyncha
Family Majidae
Hyas ep. 3
Hyas araneus 4,5,9
Hyas coarctatus 7,8,9
Libinia ep. 7
Libinia dubia 9, 12
Libinia emarginata 8,9
Section Cancridea
Family Cancridae
Cancer ep. 1,6,10
Cancer borealis 4,5,6,8,9,10,11
Cancer irroratus 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
Section Brachyrhyncha
Family Fortunidae
Carcinus n, enas 1, 4,5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Family Xanthidae
zicopanope 8ay2 5
Rhitlzropanopeus harrl-Bii 5,11
Family Geryoni ae
Ceryon quinquedens 11

-------
27
Region
Class Insecta
Subclass Apterygota
Order Collembola
Anurida raari ti,ncz 6’, 10, 11
PHYLUM ECHIT400ERMATA
(1] aSs iU utliurcii dea
Order I)endrc,chi roti da
Family Psolidae
Psolus fabricii 4,5,9,11
PsoluB phantapus 8,9
Psolus valvatus 10
Family Phyl lophoridae
Have lockia scabra 5
Pentarnera calcigera I
Family Cucu.rnariidae
Cucwnaria sp. 12
Cucurnaria frondosa 4, 5, 7,8,9, 1?
Order Apodida
Family Syriaptidae
Leptosynapta sp. 4
Leptos jnapta roseola 9
Fami]y Chiridotidae
C”rziridota laevis 4, 5, 7, 8,9
Order Molpadilda
Family Caudinidae
Caudina arenata 5,11
Class I!c}iinoidea
Order Echinoida
Family Strongylocentrotidae
Strongy locentrotus droebachiensis 1, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Order Clypeasteroi da
Family Echinarachnidae
Echinarachnius parraa 1,4, 5,6, 7,8,9, 10,11
Class Steuleroidea
Subclass Asteroidea
Order PaxiUosida
Family Goniopectinidae
Ctenodiscus crispatus 3,5,10,11
Order Valvatida
Family Goniasteridae
ilippasterl-a phrygiana 8,9, .71
Order Spinulosida
Family Sc, steridae
Solaster enaeL a 4, 5,8,9,10,11
Sc las tei’ pap posus 5, 8, 9, 11
Fainfly Pt.erasteridae
Pt. .n aster miZitaris 9

-------
28
Region
Family Echinasteridae
Rerzricia spp. (sanguinolenta) 3, 4, 5,6, 7,8, 9, 11
Order Forcipulatida
Family Asteriidae
As teri..as ap. 1, 3, 6, 10, 11
Asterias forbesii 1,4,5,6,8,9,10,11
Astei ias vulgaris 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,20,21
Leptasterias ap. 7
Leptasterias littoralis 8,9
Leptasterias mullen 9,22
Lepasterias tenera 8,9, 11
:Subclass Ophi.uroidea
Order Phrynophiurida
Family Gorgonoãephalida
Gorgonooepha lus aroticus 5,8,9
Order Ophiurida
Family Ophiuridae
Ophiura sp. S
Ophiura robuata 5,11
Ophiura sarsi 5,21
Family Ophiacanthidae
Ophiomitrelia clavigera 20
Family Opliiactidae
Ophiopholis ap. 6, 7
ciphiopho lie aculeata 2, 4, .5,8,9, 10, 11
Family Amphiuridae
Am’phipholis squaim zta 1,3,5,7,8,9,10,11
PHYLUM IIEMICHORDATA
Class Enteropneusta
Family Harrimanli dae
Saccoglossus kowalewskii .5, 7,9, 11
StereobaZanus cadensi& 5
PHYLUM CHORDATA
Class Ascidiacea
Order Enterogona
Suborder Aplousobranehia
Family Polyclinidae
Amarouciurn ap. 2,5,8,9
Amarouciurn glabrzon 4,7
Ainaroucium pellucidurn S
Amaroucium 8te hat urn .5,9
Family Did mnidae
Didemnum albidi.cn 4,5,8,9,11
Dideuinwn candidurn 9
;u1x rtIer P Li ebobrunchia
Family Cionidae
Ciona intestinaiis 8,9,10

-------
29
Region
Family Ascidiidae
Ascidia callosa 4
Order Pleurogona
Suborder Stolidobranehiata
Family Styelidae
Botryllus schiosseri 5,9,11
Dendrodoa carnea 3,4,5,9,11
Styela partita 4,9
Family Pyuridae
Boltenia echinata 4, 5,8,9, 11
Boltenia ovifera 4,5,7,8,9,10,11
Bal -ocynthia pyriforrais 3,4,5,8,9,10
Family Molgulidae
Bostrichobranchus pilularis 5,10
Molgula p• 5,8,9
Molgula arenata 4,9
Molgula manhattenais 4,5,9,11
Molgula retortifor’nis 4
Molgula siphonalis 4

-------
30
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AVAILABLE LITERATURE
Anderson, J.M., A.C. Borror, 1. Bush, O.H. Hewitt, J.M. Kingsbury, class
and staff. 1973-71 +. Checklist of the marine flora and fauna of
the Isles of Shoals. Pamphlet of the Shoals Marine Laboratory,
Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York. 26 pp. Region 11.
Ayer, W.C. 1971. Some aspects of amphipod distribution in the Penobscot
River (Maine) estuary. Unpub. M.S. thesis (Zoology). University
of Maine, Orono. 79 pp. Region 1.
Bilyard, G.R. 1974. The feeding habits and ecology of ElentaZiuni entale
stinipsoni, Henderson (Mollusca: Scaphapoda). Vel iger 17:126-138.
Region 5.
Blake, J.A. 1971. Revision of the Genus Polydora from the east coast of
North America (Polychaeta: Spiondae). Smithsonian Contributions
to Zoology #75, Washington, D.C. 32 pp. Regions 1,4,5,9.
Borel, H.G., G. Conrad and C. Wilde III. 1963a. Faunal survey. Bull.
Mt. Desert Is). Biol. Lab. 1963:26. Region 4.
__________ and H. Khouw. 1963b. Breeding seasons of local marine
invertebrates. Bull. Mt. Desert Is). Biol. Lab. 1963:27-28.
Region 4.
Borror, A.C. and B. Cadbury. 1966. Subtidal animal communities of
Muscongus Bay, Maine: a brief sun nary of fifteen years’ dredging
results at the Audubon Camp of Maine. Maine Field Natur. 22:107-112.
Region 5.
ousfield, EL. and D.R. Laubitz. 1972. Station lists and new distribution
records of littoral marine invertebrates of the Canadian Atlantic
and New England regions. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
5! pp. Regions 4,5,8,9,11.
Bradley, W.H. 1957. Physical and ecologic features of the Sagadahoc Bay
tidal flat, Georgetown, Maine. In Ladd, H.S. (ed.) Treatise in
Marine Ecology and Paleoecology, II. Paleoecology, Mem. Geol.
Soc. Amer., 17:641—681. Region 6.
Burbanck, tJ.D.. 1959. The distribution of the estuarine isopod Cyathura sp.
along the eastern coast of the U.S. Ecology, 40:507-511. Regions
5,11.
Clark, L.D., Jr. 1971. Reproduction and population data of four species
of mysids (Crustacea: Mysidacae) at Belfast, Me. Unpub. M.S. thesis
(Zoology), University of Maine, Orono. 33 pp. Region 1.

-------
31
Croker, R.A. 1972. Checklist with habitat notes of some common inter-
tidal, estuarine, and nearshore invertebrate animals of New
Hampshire and Southern Maine. Jackson Estuarine Laboratory,
University of New Hampshire, Durham. 25 pp. Region Ii.
Davis, J.D. 1963. A study of the arctic wedge clams Mesodesma
deaurat-ura (Turton) and Mesode8ma arctatwn (Conrad) of the
northwestern Atlantic. Unpub. Ph.D thesis. University of
New Hampshire, Durham. 144 pp. Regions 1, 10, 11.
Dan, D. 1970. Water quality benthic invertebrate relationships in
estuaries. Project Completion Report A—Oll-Me. Maine Water
Resources Center, Orono. 31 pp. Regions 1,5.
_______ and D. Schnitker. 1971. Report of the studies related to
dredging in Belfast Harbor, Maine, and deposition of spoil south
of Isle au Haut. Ira C. Darling Center, Ref. Number 71—13. 33 pp.
Regions 1,3.
______ and K.P. Mullen. 1973. Benthos. Fifth Annual Report. Environ-
mental Studies. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. Vol. (1:128-148.
Region 5.
Frank, G.W. 1953. A tidal zone investigation of Stover’s Cove, So.
Harpswell, Me. Unpub. M.S. thesis, University of Maine, Orono.
2 vol. 241 pp. Region 6.
Frings, H. and M. Frings. 1953. Notes on invertebrates found at
Salisbury Cove, Maine in July 1952. Bull. Mt. Desert Isi.
Biol. Lab. 1953:141. Region 4.
Gnewuch, W.T. and R.A. Croker. 1973. Macroinfauna of northern (Jew
England marine sand. I. The biology of Mancocuma stellifera,
Zimmer, 1943 (Crustacea: Curnacea). Canad. J. Zool. 51:1011-1020.
Regions 6,11.
Gosner, K.L. 1971. Guide to Identification of Marine and Estuarine
Invertebrates, Gape Hatteras to the Bay of Fwzdy. New York: WI I ey-
Interscience, a Division of John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 693 pp
Haedrich, R.L. 1972-1973. Environmental study in the vicinity of Cousins
Island (for Central Me. Power Co.), Part III — Fishes. Marine
Environ. Services, Hanover, (Jew Hampshire. August 1972, pp. 12—17,
November 1972 pp. 11-16, March l 73 pp. 10-15, June 1973 pp. 14—21.
Region 10.
Haefner, P.A. 1967. Hydrography of the Penobscot River (Me.) estuary.
Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 24:1553-1571. Region 1.
__________ 1963. Occurrence of i’lysi$ jaspensis (0.S. Tattersall)
(Mysidacea) in the Gulf of Maine. Crustaceana 114:219—220.
Region 4.

-------
____ M. Mazurkiewic2 and W.D. Burbanck. 1969. Range extension
of the iJorth American estuarine isopod Crustacean, Cyathura polita
(Stirapson, 1855). Crustaceana 17:314—317. Region 1.
__________ 1972. The biology of the sand Shrimp Crangon septenispinosa
at Lamoine, Maine. J. Mitchell Sci. Soc. 88:36—42. Region 4.
Hanks, R.W. 1964. A benthic comunity in the Sheepscot River estuary, Me.
USFWS Fishery Bull., 63:343—353. Region 5.
Flyer, R.R. 1963. A classification of intertidal habitats in Maine. Unpub.
M.S. thesis (Wildi. Manag.) University of Maine, Orono. 120 pp.
Region 1.
Kingsley, J.S. 1901. Preliminary catalogue of marine invertebrata of
Casco Bay, Maine. Proc. Portland Soc. Nat. lUst., 2:159—183.
Knowlton, R.E. 197). Preliminary checklist of Maine marine invertebrates.
TRIGOM Publication I (April). I I pp.
Kyte, H.F. 1955. A resurvey of Sullivan Flats, Morgan Bay and Medomak
Cove shore study areas. Unpub. M.S. thesis, University of Maine,
Orono, 2 vol. 322 pp. Regions 1 ,5.
Lavoie, M. . 1952. The Polyclada of New Hampshire, Maine and the Maritime
Provinces. Unpub. M.S. thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham.
80 pp. Regions 2,4,5,9,11.
Mills, El. 1963. A new species of AnrpeZiaca (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from
eastern North America with notes on other species of the genus. Can.
J. Zoo. 41:971-989. Region 10.
Moroney, J.F. 1973. A study of the macrophytes and benthos in the Lower
Penobscot River. Unpub. MS. thesis (Wildi. Manag.) University of
Maine, Orono. 120 pp. Region 1.
Hormandeau Assoc. 197 4 a. Study of the Presumpscot River estuary and adjacent
shoreline, Portland and Falmouth, Maine: A Potential Spoil Disposal
Area. Technical Appendix 1l-A-2, Document I I. 97 pp. Region 10.
______________ )974b. Preliminary examination of potential dredge
spoil disposal sites beyond the 3-mile limit, Casco Bay, Maine.
Technical Appendix 1 1A-4, Document II, 122 pp. Region 10.
_____________ l974c. A dredge spoil disposal site beyond the 3-mile
limit, Casco Bay, Maine, recently designated for study and consider-
ation. Addendum to Technical Appendix ll-A-4, Document II. 143 pp.
Region 10.
Noyes, G.S. 1970. The biology of Ajlaopisaimas 8p. (Polychaeta: Nephtyiidae)
from Maine. Unpub. M.S. thesis, University of Maine, Orono. 70 pp.
Regions 1,5.

-------
33
O’Brien, F.X. 1972. Some aspects of the biology of a brooding starfish,
Leptasterias littoralis (Stimpson) 1853. Unpub. Ph.D. thesis.
University of New Hampshire, Durham. 84 pp. Region 9.
Pettibone, M.H. 1963. Marine polychaete worms of New England Region 1.
Aphroditidae through Trochocl-,aetjdae. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 227,
Part I, Washington, D.C.
Procter, W. 1933. Biological survey of the Mt. Desert region. Part 5.
Marine Fauna. Wistar Instit. Press. 402 pp.
Rasmussen, E. 1973. Systematics and ecology of the Isefjord marine
fauna (Denmark). Ophelia 11:1-495.
Read, CR. 1972. The salt pond. Oceans 5:10—23. Region 3.
Rosewater, J. 1956. An illustrated key to the intertidal marine shelled
gastropods of New Hampshire and adjacent coasts. Unpub. 14.5. thesis,
University of New Hampshire, Durham. 51 pp. Regions 2,5,6,10,11.
Rowe, G.T. 1972-73. Environmental study in the vicinity of Cousins
Island, Part II — Benthic Biota. (for Central Maine Power Co.)
Marine Environmental Services, Hanover, N.H. August 1972 pp. 9ll,
Nov. 1972 pp. 8-b, Mar. 1973 pp. 8—9, June 1973 pp. 12-13.
Shenton, E.H. and D.B. Horton. 1973. Literature review of the marine
environmental data for Eastport, Maine. TRIGOM Publication 2A.
Vol. I and II (June). 130 pp. (15 appendices).. Region 9.
Shorey, W.K. 1973. Macrobenthic ecology of a sawduct-bearing substrate
in the Penobscot River estuary (Maine). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada
30 (4):493-497. Region 1.
Stickney, A.P. 1959. Ecology of the Sheepscot River estuary. Spec.
Sci. Rept. USF&WS Fish., (309): 21 pp. Region 5..
Swan, E..F. 1956. Isopods of the genus Ligia on the New England coast.
Ecology 37:204-206. Region 11.
lopping, F. and J. Fuller. 1942. The accomodation of same marine inverte-
brates to reduced osmotic pressures. Blo. Bull. 82:372-384. Region 7.
Treuting, HR. 1950. An ecological study of Mya arenaria, 1. in Medomak
Cove, Me. Unpub. M.S. thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,
1I.J. 108 pp. Region 5.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1974. Winter Harbor small boat
navigation project, Final Environmental Statement, Hew England
Division, Waltham, Mass. 35 pp. Region 4.
United States Dept. of the Interior. 1970. Effects of strip-mine discharges
on the marine environment, Cape Rosier, Me. Federal Water Quality
Administration, Northeast Region. New England Basins Office, Needham
Heights, Mass. 84 pp. Region I.
c- ‘

-------
314
Verrill, A.E. 1873. Explorations of Casco Bay by the U.S. Fish. Comm.
B. Uatural History. Proceedings of the American Assoc. for
the Advancement of Sd. Portland Meeting. pp. 3 4O395.
Webster, H.E. and J.E. Benedict. 1887. Annelida Chaetopoda from
Eastport, Maine. Rep. U.S. Fish. Corvn. ( 1885):707-755.
White, G.C. 1972. Establishing a quantitative ecological base in
the Penobscot Estuary using benthic macroinvertebrates. Unpub.
M.S. thesis (Wildi. Manag.) University of Maine, Ororio. 102 pp.
Zink, R.t4. 1952. Certain aspects of the ecology of Venus and Mya at
Morgan Bay and at Bunganuc, Me. Unpub. M.S. thesis, University
of Maine, Orono. Vol. I & II. 339 pp. Region 6.
MAIIUSCR I PTS
Alexander., L.C. 19714. Data in support of alternative effluent limita-
tions pursuant to section 316(a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 for the new combined discharge
for units 3 and 4 of the William F. Wyman Station, Yarmouth,
Me. Unpub. report of the Environmental Studies Dept., Central
Maine Power, Augusta, Maine (July). 85 pp. Region 10.
Arndt, H.E. 1968. Effects of heated water on a littoral community
in Maine. S&SFproject 3-l4—R—l (Dept. of Biology, Bowdoin
College, Brunswick, Maine). 11 pp. Region 10.
Barlow, J. 19149. Biological survey at Sullivan, Me. Geological—
Biological Survey. Unpub. report. Maine Dept. Sea and Shore
Fisheries, File, Augusta, Maine. 66 pp. Region 14.
Borror, AC. 1968-69. Checklist of the marine fauna and flora of
the Muscongus Bay, Lincoln County area of the Maine coast. Unpub.
list. 6 pp. Region 5.
Chase, G.L. 1967. An ecological survey of the littoral zone of Ft. Point
Cove, Sandy Point, and lamoine Beach, Me. University of Maine
unpub. manuscript. 19 pp. Region 14.
Chewonki Camp
Kulik, B. 19714. Intertidal and subtidal invertebrates of the
waters surrounding Chewonki Neck. Unpub. report. 17 pp.
Region 5.
Colby College, Waterville, Me.
Carnack, E. and E. Ernst. 19714. Zonation of polychaetes at
Bedroom Cove in Sagadahoc Bay. Unpub. report. 5 pp. Region 6.
Isaacson, 0. and 0. Sexton. 19714. Mud and sandy environment
diversity study of Bedroom Cove and Sagadahoc Bay. Unpub.
report. 15 pp. Region 6.
Maurer, HR. 1972. Zonation of Littarina at Sagadahoc Bay.
Unpub. report. 7 pp. Region 6.
ç o

-------
35
Palmer, S., C. Majdalariy and R. Jones. 19714. A preliminary survey
of the marine benthic community at the R.J. Peacock Canning Co.
Unpub. report (TRIGOM contract). 29 pp. Region 9.
Canaros, A. 1952. The preliminary report of the biology of Stover’s Cove,
S. Harpswell, Maine. For the Biological-Geological Survey of 1952.
Unpub. report Maine Dept. Sea and Shore Fisheries. 18 pp. Region 6.
Heinig, C.S. 1973. Preliminary summary of biological survey. Report
Number EIR 235. Environmental improvement Dept., S.D. Warren Co.
58 pp. (mimeo). Region 10.
Kyte, M.A. 1973. Report on site selection and the characteristics of a
dumping site for dredging spoils from Rockland Harbor, Maine.
Unpub. report. Maine Dept. Marine Resources, Augusta.. 12 pp.
Region 2.
_________ 19714. Site selection and study of ecological effects of
disposal of dredged materials in Penobscot Bay, Maine. Unpub.
report. Maine Dept. Marine Resources, Augusta. 45 pp. Region 2.
Larsen, P.F. 1975. Resurvey of Hank’s work on the Sheepscot River, Maine.
Unpub. annual report. Maine Dept. Marine Resources, Augusta. 43 pp.
Region 5.
Nasson College, Springvale, Maine.
lists of species collected by Dr. C.R. Gilmore and students at
various locations. Unpub. 55 pp. Regions 5,7,9,11.
Southern Maine Vocational institute, South Portland, Maine.
Biden, C. and 0. Sait. 1971. Report on population study of
Onchidorus aspersa on Siegel’s Reef. Unpub. report. 28 pp.
Region 10.
Spencer, L.T. 1973. Species lists by habitat with relative abundance.
Unpub. notes. 14 pp. Regions 8,9.
Stickney, A.P. 1953. Notes on fauna found in mud flats and sandy beaches
at various locations. Unpub. 4 pp. Regions 5,7,11.
____________ 1956—1959. Seasonal variations in the biota of a small
estuary. Unpub. manuscript. 514 pp. Region 5.
Taxiarchis, L.N. 19148. Preliminary discussion of the biological phases
of Stover’s Cove, So. Harpswell, Maine — Investigation for the
Biological-Geological survey. Unpub. report, Maine Dept. Sea and
Shore Fisheries, Augusta. 227 pp. Region 6.
______________ 1953. Survey of the littoral zone of York County, Maine
with respect to commercial productivity. Maine Dept. Sea and Shore
Fisheries, Gen. Bull. No. 2. 13 pp. Region Il.
c- \ D t

-------
_____ ____ 1954. Survey of the Venus population of Morgan Bay.
Unpub. report. Maine Dept. Sea and Shore Fisheries, Augusta.
18 pp. Region 4.
TRIGOM sunwner institute in marine science
Alexander, B. 1974. Sagadahoc Bay. Unpub. report. 11 pp.
Region 6.
Anonymous. 1973. Cape Rosier field trip. Unpub. report.
7 pp. Region I.
Blaisdell, B.G. 1971g. Sagadahoc Bay. Unpub. report. Region 6.
Brun, B. and S. Farmer. 1973. Thermal pollution-Cousins Island
field trip. Unpub. report. Il pp. Region 10.
Demson, U. 1974. Field trip to Cape Rosier. Unpub. report.
6 pp. Region I.
Fiori, M.J. 1971*. TRIGOM research at Cousins Island. Unpub.
report. 9 pp. Region JO.
Fusco, A.C. 1974. Back Cove. Unpub. report. Region 10.
Haas, L.A. and M.C. Dunlay. 1973. Bailey Island field trip.
Unpub. report. 8 pp. Region 6.
Kane, K.H. 1971*. The Scarborough marsh - a detritus ecosystem.
Unpub. report. 1* pp. Region 10.
King, W. 1974. Scarborough marsh. Unpub. report. 9 pp.. Region 10.
lenz, D.J. 1974. Jordan’s Beach field trip. Unpub. report.
Region JO.
e
tough, J.A. 1974. Bailey Island. Unpub. report. 9 pp. Region 6.
Lueck, W , and K. Miller. 1974. The fouling of the Presumpscot
River estuary. Unpub. report. 5 pp. Region 10.
Ouellette, M. 1974. Bailey Island field trip. Unpub. report.
2 pp. Region 6.
Pease, R.F. )97l . Back Cove field trip. Unpub. report. Region 10.
Pfau, W. and M. Xominz. 1973. Back Cove field trip. Unpub. report.
6 pp. Region 10.
Rogers, 0. and U. Wallace. 1974. Hydrography of a small area of
the Penobscot estuary. Unpub. report. Region 1.
Sinnett, C. 1973. Penobscot estuary study. Unpub. report. 32 pp.
Region I.

-------
Smith, M.R. and C. Conlon. 1973. The Presumpscot River estuary.
Unpub. report. 8 pp. Region 10.
Smith, R. and C. Searles. 1973. Bloodworm and sandworm population
study. Unpub. •report. lI pp. Region 5.
Tomlinson, S.G. and G.M. Burzycki. 1973. Scarborough marsh workup.
Unpub. report. 8 pp. Region 10.
Watkins, W. 1973. Biddeford Pool field trip. Unpub. report.
9 pp. Region 11.
Williamson, D. and J. Beal. 1973. Sagadahoc Bay. Unpub. report.
5 pp. Region 6.
Zaugg, A.C. 1974. Cousins Island, pollution effects on the marine
environment. Unpub. report. 7 pp. Region 10.
Ziller, F. 1974. Cape Rosier-Callahan Mine trip. Unpub. report.
Region 1.
University of Maine, Orono, Me.
Lists of species collected by Dr. M. Shick and students at Lamoine
Beach (Animal ecology-Zo.156). Unpub. 15 pp. Region 4.
University of New Hampshire
Lists of species collected by Dr. N. Mienkoth and students at
various locations in Washington County. Unpub. 7 pp. Regions 8,9.

-------
SUPPLEMENT TO APPENDIX G

-------
This appendix details the supplementary efforts
taken by the EPA, Region I in order to estimate expected
maximum ground—level concentrations of air contaminants
for comparison to applicable ambient standards. These
efforts were required as a result of certain design
changes adopted by the Pittston Company in order to satisfy
the EPA that ambient standards, including the Class I
increments applying to Campobello International Park,
would be met. The changes included the use of a single,
high exit velocity stack instead of two lower exit
velocity stacks; and the burning of 0.25% (instead of
0.3%) sulfur oil in process heaters and boilers.

-------
DATE: :January 10, 1978
SUBJECT: Diffusion Analysis for the Proposed Pittston Refinery at Eastport, Maine
FROM: Marvin Rosenstein 444 —
Systems Analysis Branch
TO: Warren Peters
Air Branch
As requested in your informal memo to me of November 22, 1977, attached is a
report on a new diffusion analysis for the proposed Pittston Oil Refinery at
Eastport, Maine. The inputs to the analysis were based on the emissions calculated
in your memo and Pittston’s submittal of November 17, 1977, as verified by our
telephone conversations on November 23, 1977.
After the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) in August of this past
year, a review of my previous analysis for the Draft EIS (transmitted to you on
September 3, 1976) convinced me that all PSD increments would be easily met with
the possible exception of the Class I increments applicable to the Roosevelt
International Park on Campobello Island. AIthough- dhe source design has been
changed several times since that analysis was done, the above conclusion has been
supported by all subsequent analyses, including the present one. Therefore, the
attached report only addresses the question of meeting the increments at the
International Park. It is concluded that these increments will be met for the given
source design. -
Only the most recently proposed source design, as indicated above, is directly
addressed in the report. Due to the time constraints upon us, I do not present
results from the previous modeling analyses, including those done after the passage
of the CAAA which indicated that the increments would not be met without a
change in source design. However, I do plan to write a separate report detailing
the history of our modeling efforts on this project and the apparent conflicts that
had arisen with Pittston’s consultant over the previous source design.
cc: W. Stickney, Director, Environmental and Economic Impact Office
V. Descamps, Regional Meteorologist, Air Branch
L. Gitto, Chief, Systems Analysis Branch
EPA Fo.m 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
G-83

-------
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and S’n n ry of Results
II. Source Design
III. Worst Case Analysis
IV. Sequential Analysis
V. CD ? ’! Analysis
VI. Comparisons of the Three Modeling Analyses
VII. References
G-84

-------
I. Introduction and Summary of Results
Three modeling analyses were done. The first is called a “Worst Case Analysis”.
This used the EPA model PTMTP and assumed worst case meteorology to yield
estimates of maximum 1-hour, 3-hour and 24.-hour concentrations. The second is
called a “Sequential Analysis”. This used the EPA model CRSTER and six years of
observed meteorology from - the Pojtland, Maine environs to yield estimates of
maximum and second high 1-hour, 3-hour, and 24-hour concentrations, as well as
annual average concentrations. Last, the EPA model CDM was used to calculate
maximum expected annual average concentrations.
Table I presents a summary of the numerical results along with the applicable PSD
increments and NAAQS. All increments and standards are met.
G-85

-------
Table 1. Sutmnary of Results, ug/m 3
Annual
Maximum md High Maximum 2nd High Maximum 2nd High
24—Hour 24—Hour 3—Hour 3—Hour 1—Hour 1—Hour
S02
PThTP
CRSTER
CDM
Class I PSD
Primary NAAQS
Secondary NAAQS
.19
.09
2.00
80.00
4.9
3.0
2.2
5.0
365.0
15.6
14.3
11.4
25.0
1300.0
19.5
25.3
20.8
TSP
PTMTP
CRSTEB
CDM
Class I PSD
Primary NAAQS
Secondary NAAQS
.05
.02
5.00
75.00*
1.3
0.8
0.6
10.0
260.0
150.0
4.0
3.6
•
2.9
5.0
6.5
5.3
NOX
— PTMTP
CRSTER
CDI4
Class I PSD
Primary NAAQS
Secondary NAAQS
.29
.14
100.00
7.4
4.5
3.3
23.4
21.5
17.1
29.3
38.0

31.2
___________
* Geometric Mean
-2-
G-86

-------
II. Source Design
All emissions are from one stack. The following source parameters were modeled:
SO 2 emissions 1109 lb/hr = 139.86 g/sec
TSP emissions 283 lb/hr = 35.69 g/sec
NO emissions 1664 lb/hr = 209.85 g/sec
stack height 300 feet = 91.44 m
stack inside diameter 23.5 feet = 7.17 m
stack exit velocity 72.2 ft/sec = 22.0 rn/sec
stack exit temperature 400F 477.59 K
The actual computer runs were done only for SO 2 . Results for TSP and NO were
calculated by multiplying the SO 2 results by the ratios of TSP and NO emissions to
SO emissions. -
283 1664
TSP: iT = .255 NOX: 1109 = 1.500
In the Gaussian plume equation, utilized in one form or another by all three models,
calculated concentrations are directly proportional to emission r te. Scaling
concentrations by emission ratios is, therefore, justified if one can neglect removal
and conversion processes such as transformation of SO 2 to sulfates (which are TSP),
NO-NO 2 reactions, deposition, gravitational settling, washout, etc. Since the
receptors of interest are in the range of only 5 to 11 km from the plant, travel
times are probably short enough such that these effects can be safely ignored.
Furthermore, any attempt to include such processes would make the modeling
exercise quite a bit more complicated. In fact, reliable parameterizations for
many of these effects are not yet available due to uncertainties involving reaction
rates and other parameters. Given the short source-receptor distances, it was felt
such an attempt was not justified.
-3-
G- 87

-------
Table 2. Maximum 1—Hour Concentrations, ug/1n 3
For SO 2 , U sing PT? ’!lP
Stability
Windspeed
rn/sec
- No Trapping (l)
With Trapping (2)
.
C
C
C
C
C
C
2.5
5.0
1.0 .
10.0
12.5
15.0
9.8
15.1
15.2
13.4
11.6
10.2
19.5
30.0
30.8
Z8.4
25.9
23.8
D
D
D
D
D
D
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
- 15.0
0
2.3
6.1
7.9
8.7
9.
0
4.5
12.1
15.8
17.4
18.3
A
2.5
2.9
——
D ( )
D (3)
D (3)
7.5
10.0
12.5
65.0
- 48.7
390
65.4 -
49.1
39.3
(1) Mixing Depth = 5000 t
(2) Mixing Depth = Effective Plume Height except for Downwash
where it is 200 m
(3) Plume Rise = 0 for Downwash
-4-
G-88

-------
ill. Worst Case Analysis
The Worst Case Analysis consists of two steps. First, a maximum 1-hour
concentration is estimated using assumed meteorological conditions. Next, this
concentration is scaled to estimate maximum 24-hour and 3.-hour concentrations by
multiplication by suitable scaling factors based upon observed peak to mean ratios.
The model used was the Region I version of the EPA model PTMTP.O, 2 )* This
model uses the steady-state Gaussian plume equation and dispersion coefficients as
discussed in Turner’s Workbook , and Briggst(4 5 6) plume rise equations. Only
centerline concentrations were calculated. The nearest point of approach of the
Park to the stack is about 5.2 km. The furthest approach is about 11.2km. Thus,
receptor distances input to the model ranged from 5.5 to 11.0 kin at 0.5 km
increments.
The Region I version of PTMTP differs from the EPA velsion in UNAMAP 2 in that
options have been added to include vertical windspeed shear and a plane
displacement technique for elevated receptors. With these options ineffect, a 1-
hour calculation by PTMTP is equivalent to a I—hour calculation by CRSTER. Both
of these techniques are discussed in the CRSTER User’s Manual and in my
previously submitted analysis for the draft EIS. 8 A review of that analysis
convinced me that topographic influences were minimal in the Eastport area.
Therefore, all PTMTP runs in the present analysis used a flat plane assumption.
However, the wind shear option was included for all runs. The height of the stack
is likely to make this an important meteorological factor.
Candidates for worst case meteorological conditions include the following:
trapping, coning, looping, fumigations, and stack downwash. These conditions are
all described in the draft EIS analysis, as well as building downwash which is shown
to be not applicable to the case at hand. It is also explained in the previous
analysis that fumigation conditions are of such short duration that they are highly
unlikely to threaten 3-hour and 24-hour standards. Fumigations are ignored in the
present analysis. Looping is also described as a short duration condition in northern
climates that could possibly be of concern only for the 3-hour SO 2 standard.
* Superscripts in parentheses refer to reference numbers.
G-89

-------
Trapping conditions are achieved by inputing to the model a mixing depth that is
equal to the calculated effective plume height. The model assumes perfect
reflection of the plume at the mixing depth height. This is certainly a conservative
assumption, especially when setting the lid height equal to the plume height. In
reality, part of the plume is likely to penetrate the lid and be lost to ground level
receptors.
Table 2 presents a sUmmary of. the maximum 1-hour concentrations. Six
windspeeds from 2.5 to 15.0 rn/sec have been considered, along with two Pasquill-
Gif ford stability classes. Stability C represents slightly unstable conditions
whereas Stability D represents neutral conditions. The input looping conditions
consisted of stability A, very unstable, and a windspeed of 2.5 rn/sec. Coning is
represented in the table by non-trapping stability D conditions.
As discussed in the Draft EIS analysis and according f!o Briggs, if the ef flux
Froude number is greater than about 1.0, stack downwash may be a problem unless
the exit velocity is greater than about L5 times the ambient windspeed. In the
present case the Froude number has a value of about 10.9. Considering only
stability class D because of the high winäspeed required for stack downwash, the
design exit velocity of 22 rn/sec will be greater than 1.5 times the ambient
windspeed for surface windspeeds of less than about 7.5 rn/sec. (For stability D, a
windspeed at a stack top of 300 feet is equal to about twice the windspéed at an
anemometer height of 20 feet using the windshear law referenced above). The exit
velocity wil be less than the ambient windspeed for surface windspeeds of greater
than about 11 rn/sec. it is, therefore, possible that stack downwash may begin to
affect dispersion at surface windspeeds of greater than about 7.5 m/séc, and may
have significant effects at surface windspeeds greater than about 11 rn/sec.
in Table 2, stack downwash concentrations are thus calculated for windspeeds of
7.5, 10.0 and 12.5 rn/sec. The downwash effect is simulated by setting the plume
rise equal to zero. This is a rather conservative assumption, particularly for
receptors that are 5 to 10 km from the stack. It is likely, that even if the plume is
downwashed under high windspeeds close to the stack, it wiU achieve some rise as
it is transported beyond the influence of the low pressure wake behind the stack.
-6-
G-90

-------
As shown by Descamps, U8) a study of available climatological data indicates that
those windspeeds necessary for stack downwash at Pittston have a low enough
frequency of occurrence to warrant ignoring this condition. In addition, Briggs
states that exit velocities in the neighborhood of 50 to 60 feet/sec (the design
velocity is 72 feet/sec) are sufficient to overcome downwash in most cases. In
fact, he states that exit velocities much higher than this may be detrimental to the
rise of a buoyant plume because they are accompanied by more rapid entrainment
of ambient air into the plume. Th refore, stack downwash will not be considered
any further in this analysis. Maximum 1-hour downwash concentrations are
included in Table 2 as previously described for the sake of completeness. It is
unlikely that such concentrations will occur.
The scaling factors used in this analysis are the same as those used in the Draft EIS
analysis. For the 24—hour concentration, it is 0.25; for the 3.-hour concentration it
is 0.80. Mills 9, 11, 12, 13) has extensively reported on observed peak to mean
ratios at five power plants in the eastern United States. Table 3 is reproduced
from reference 11. The scaling factors are the inverses of the peak to mean ratios.
According to Mills, the peak 1-hour to peak 24-hour (3-hour) ratio over a year’s
time should occur between the 50th and 95th percentile values. Values of 4.0
(inverse of 0.25) for the 24-hour case and 1.25 (inverse of 0.80) for the 3-hour case
are thus in good agreement with the restricted data set of Table 3. In addition, the
Revised Volume X of the Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and
Analysis (14) suggests values of 0.40 ÷ 0.2 for the 24-hour case and 0.90 + 0.1 for
the 3-hour case. The document suggests that the given values be adjusted
downward within the specified limits “if the stack is relatively tall and there are no
terrain or downwash problems”. In summary, I believe that the factors of 0.25 and
0.80 are reasonably conservative according to the best information available.
-7-
G —91

-------
Table 3. COMPARISON OF PEAKTOMEAN RATIOS FOR COMPLETE AND RESTRICTED
DATA SETS
Complete data set Restricted data seta
50th 95th 50th 95th
Averaging percer tilg percentile percentile percentile
Plant name times of ratios of ratios of ratiosb of ratios” of r tiosb,e
Canal 1-3 hourC 1.50 1.02 1.89
1-24 hourd 5.37 1.69 8.25
Stuart 1-3 hour 1.55 1.00 1.58
1—24 hour 5.95 1.93 7.70 2.7
40 Muakingum 1 -3 hour 1.74 1.00 1.73 ‘ l.l5
l-24 hour 6.65 2.38 6.90 —3.7
Philo 1-3 hour 1.77 1.04 1.89
1.24 hour 6.98 2.47 7.79 3.8
Paradise 1-3 hour 1.63 1.00 --
1-24 hour 2.4 4.00 -- --
Restricted to peak-to-mean ratios whose peak values exceed the value of the
9th percentile of the 1 hour concentrations.
bpercentiie values given in terms of cunulative percent of ratios greater than
the given values.
Cpeak 1-hour to average 3-hour ratio for measured minus background SO 2
concentration.
dPeak 1-hour to average 24-hour ratio for measured minus background SO 2
concentration.
eThese values were estimated from the. app opviate figures in Vc’lume 1 of this
series.
From Mills - , 1977 p xii

-------
It is apparent from Jable 2 that the worst case 1-hour concentration to be
considered for both the 24-hour and 3-hour cases should come from the block under
trapping conditions and C stability. Previous experience dictates that these
condtions are most likely to occur with light windspeeds. In fact, Volume X
recommends a windspeed of 2.5 rn/sec for evaluating this condition. Also,
Descamps 8) has shown from climatological summaries of radiosondes that these
trapping conditions are probably reasonable worst case conditions. The maximum
estimated impacts for 502 are théref ore as follow:
1-hour 19.5
3-hour 15.6
24-hour 4.9
—9-
G- 93

-------
IV. Sequential Analysis
The Sequential Analysis consisted of running the EPA model CRSTER. This model
uses the brute force approach of calculating hour-by-hour concentrations over an
entire year and averaging every three hours (0-3, 3-6, etc.) and every 24 hours
(midnight to midnight). As previously discussed, a 1—hour calculation with CRSTER
is equivalent to a 1-hour calculation with the Region I version of PTMTP with wind
shear and plane displacement options in effect. The model is well documented in a
User’s Manual and other EPA publications. (9,10,11,12,13)
The receptor network consisted of 180 receptors located at the intersections of 36
radials (10, 20 , etc.) and 5 user specified ranges. The ranges were chosen to give
good spatial coverage of the Internatignal Park. Topography was also a
consideration in choosing ranges. It was decided to include topographic variations
as a check on the flat plane assumption in the worst case analysis. The input
ranges were 5 76, 7.09, 8.09, 8.78 and 11.16 km. As indicated in Figure 1, the Park
is roughly located between I 30 and 150 azimuth from the stack. This results in a
network of 15 receptors representing the Park. The receptor heights were read
from topographic maps and in some cases these were adjusted in order to take into
account the most prominent topographic features of the Park, most notably for Fox
Hill. Stack base elevation was assumed to be 50 feet MSL.
As described in the User’s Manual, stability is calculated using Turner s(17)
objective scheme. Windspeed is input as observed except that a minimum of 1.0
rn/sec is used when calms are observed. Wind direction is randomized by adding a
random number between -4 and +5 to the observed wind direction. This is done to
eliminate the bias introduced by the fact that wind directions are only observed to
the nearest 10. Maximum and minimum daily mixing depths are calculated by
HolzworthjJl6) scheme, and interpolated to hourly values as discussed in the User’s
Manual.
-10-
C— 94

-------
FIG.. j
C..DM +CV S1tR
,4L .L.
l ’ s
4H

COM €c erm
(1d3)

-------
Six years of meteorology were run through the model, 1964 and 1970 - 74. The
model input was processed from hourly surface observations at Brunswick Naval Air
Station, Maine and radiosonde soundings at Portland, Maine. Brunswick NAS is
about 20 miles north of Portland. As discussed by Descamps(18), this data base was
judged to be the most representative one readily available in the format needed by
the model.
Because of the inherent limitations of the Gáussian plume technique, as well as the
limitations of available meteorological data (e.g. randomized wind direction and
interpolated mixing depths), the model is not expected to correlate well with
observed air quality data on an hour by hour basis. However, the developers of the
model feel it does reasonably well at predicting the frequency distributions of
observed air quality data. In particular, tI primary output of the model consists
of the calculated maximum and second high 24-hour, 3-hour and 1-hour concentra-
tions.
Mills(l0 I 1,12,13) has performed extensive validation studies of the model at four
power plants in the Eastern UnAted States. Tables 4, 5 and 6 are reproduced from
the User’s Manual which summarizes the validation studies. The tables indicate a
decent performance in estimating maximum and second-high I-hour concentrations,
but a marked tendency to underpredict maximum and second high 24-hour
concentrations, by a factor of about two or more. The only plant where the model
generally overpredicted was the Philo plant. The model should not have been used
here because receptor heights are at about stack height, and the plane
displacement assumption brealcs down under these conditions. The only plant in a
coastal environment (the other three are in Ohio) is the Canal Plant which is on
Cape Cod. Here the model underpredicted by the greatest amount out of the four
plants. It is readily admitted that Ohio and Cape Cod have different meteorolo-
gical and topographical conditions from those at Eastport, but not so different that
the validation studies can be ignored.
-12-
G-96

-------
Table 4
Geometric Means of the Ratios of Predicted to
Measured (less background) Second-Highest Concentrations
Plant 1-Hour 24-Hour
Canal .60 .20
Stuart .59
Muskingum River 1.01 .51
Philo 2.79 2.06
All Plants 1.23
From CRSTER User’s Manua1 , I 9 77,.p. F-28.
-13-
G-9 7

-------
Table 5. 1-HOUR CONCENTRATION DISTRIBUTION STATISTICS
FOR MEASUREMENTS AND MODEL VALIDATION RUN
‘3
(ug/m
Ninety-fifth Ninety-ninth Second
Percentilea Percentilea Hiahest Hi hest
Sampling b
Plant Station N pC N P N P M p
Canal 1 25 < 1 101 6 435 253 43 283
2 14 < 1 72 1 553 174 618 179
3 18 <.1 18 2 446 427 732 479
4 15 < 1 31 < 1 575 81 638 377
Stuart 1 140 <10 270 4Q0 685 1372 857 1393
2 d 80 <10 445 180 685 814 1014 948
3 74 26 200 240 1022 565 1153 1022
4 53 <10 180 130 750 515 883 541
5 28 c1O_ 80 <10 495 823 565 1219
6 48 <10 135 120 980 595 1053 693
7 d 33 <10 102 30 325 976 435 1000
t4uskingum R. 1 27 <10 150 160 857 980 925 1083
2 57 <10 270 150 786 1304 786 1310
3 130 <10 350 210 996 873 1179 933
4 72 <10 200 160 735 465 786 645
PhIlo 1 50 <10 170 98 525 1295 893 1639
2 37 40 163 222 735 945 891 1059
3 47 dO 163 920 745 4049 917 4593
4 27 <10 190 88 665 1945 695 1981
5 35 80 134 555 575 1279 675 1344
6 118 20 253 650 565 2369 595 2482
apercentile values given in terms of cumulative percent of concentration
less than given values.
bMeaSured concentrations with .subtracted background.
CPredicted concentrations.
d mp1ers were In operation for less than half the year. Data not
Included In subsequent analyses.
Ftom CRSTER User’s Manua1 , 1977, p. F-22.
G-98

-------
Table 6. 24 HOUR CONCEflTRATION DISTRUWTIOtI STATISTICS
FOR MEASUREMENTS AND MODEL VALIDATION RUN
(pg/rn 3 )
Ninety-fifth Ninety-ninth Second
Percentilea Percenti lea Hiqhest Highest
Sampling b — — ______ ______
Plant Station pC M P M P H P
Canal 1 32 4 52 14 66 16 75 29
2 15 <1 28 6 36 9 46 11
3 17 4 46 18 77 38 83 39
4 15 <1 44 2 63 4 75 16
Stuart 1 83 55 245 128 259 149 277 161
46 ?8 160 52 63 75 159 98
3 50 36 110 75 181 91 225 102
4 40 24 63 41 79 45 83 49
5 31 5 52 50 63 57 77 75
6 42 21 —135 46 147 69 195 83
7 d 45 23 69 60 69 73 77 120
Muskingum R. 1 32 32 100 69 133 81 170 97
2 55 32 100 80 131 82 . 137 91
3 98 31 130 58 165 73 227 74
4 52 24 95 41 109 45 115 47
Philo 1 45 29 134 139 132 133 133 147
2 35 39 60 69 67 86 110 104
3 44 143 92 368 127 471 132 541
4 41 47 60 111 62 165 158 220
5 23 81 78 207 87 222 94 226
6 65 107 121 217 121 282 138 356
apercentile values given in terms of cumulative percent of concentrations
less than given values.
bMeasured concentrations with subtracted background.
CPredicted concentration.
d ampiers were in operation for less than half the year. Data not
Included in subsequent analyses.
From CRSTER User’s Manual 7 , 1977, p. F—23.
- G-99

-------
The performance of the model described above can be explained by MilistU 1)
observations that the model shows some tendency to overestimate for stabilities A
and B, does well for stability C, and greatly underestimates for stabilities 0, E and
F. The maximum 1-hour concentrations are likely to occur under stabilities A, B
and C, but the maximum 24-hour concentrations are likely to be significantly
influenced by neutral (stability 0) conditions. Mills also notes that the model
greatly underestimated at one plant for the lowest mixing heights indicating a
possible tendency to underestimate during trapping conditions.
Tables 7, 8, and 9 present the maximum and second high calcualted 1-hour, 3-hour
and 24-hour concentrations for each receptor and each year. Table 10 èsents the
calculated annual averages for each receptor and each year. Table 11 presents the
maxima over all six years of the same concentrations as in Tables 7 through 10.
The maximum values for 502 over all 15 receptors are listed below:
Annual .19 ug/m 3
Maximum 24-hour 3.0 ug/m 3
Second high 24-hour 2.2 ug/m 3
Maximum 3-hour - 14.3 ug/m 3
Second high 3-hour 11.4 ug/m 3
Maximum 1-hour 25.3 ug/m 3
Second high 1-hour 20.8 ug/m 3
-16-
G—100

-------
1964 1972
1970 1973
1971 1974
TABLE 7. CRSTER RESULTS, ug/rn 3 502
FOR 1-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS
km 5.76 7.09 8.09 8.78 11.16
MAXIMUM
13
15.3 16.2
20.1 16.2
_22.5 15.4
16.0 16.0
19.7 17.4
21.0 14.5
15.3 16.1
18.4 16.9
20.2 13.9
14.7 15.7
17.5 16.3
16.9 14H-
12.3 13.5
15.0. 13.7
14.5 13.5
14 •
20.0 19.6
20.0 16.2
16.4 16.3
18.7 20.4
20.6 14.1
15.1 14.8
17.1 20.2
20.4 13.9
16.5 13.4
17.9 19.6
20.0 14.2
17.0 13.1
15.2 16.7
17.0 126
15.9 10.8
15
.
16.7 13.5
14.9 21.2
20.0 18.6
16.6 12.8
18.1 21.2
20.9 16.0
22.9 20.9
19.0 21.5
25.3 14.3
15.0 14.1
18.6 19.9
19.3 13.3
12.7 13.6
16.6 16.8
16.1 10.9
2ND HIGH
13
14.3 14.3
16.2 16.1
19.8 15.3
13.8 14.7
18.3 14.9
18.9 13.8
12.3 14.9
18.1 14.3
17.4 13.7
11.4 12.2
13.1 14.0
16.5 13.0
-—
9.9 10.5
12.3 12.3
14.5 10.9
14
..
19.7 18.7
19.9 14.9
16.0 16.1
17.0 20.0
19.3 13.8
14.5 13.5
15.1 19.7
19.2 12.6
14.0 12.1
16.0 19.1
18.8 12.3
14.5 12.6
13.0 16.2
16.0 10.0
13.7 10.2
,
15
-
16.5 12.7
14.8 19.6
19.3 17.0
16.3 12.2
15.1 17.8
17.1 14.9
.
18.1 14.6
16.7 20.8
20.3 13.7
14.7 12.8
16.4 16.6
14.4 12.8
12.1 13.2
15.2 14.0
11.6 10.8
—17—
G— 101

-------
TABLE 8. CRSTER RESULTS, ug/m 3 SO 2
FOR 3-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS
km 1 5.76 - 7.09 1 8.09 8.78 11.16
MAXIMUM
13
7.1 8.2
13.0 10.8
9.8 6.6
14.3 10.2
6.8 7.4
11.6 9.6
8.4 5.7
12.0 7.6
6.1 6.3
10.7 8.1
7.4 5.1
10.6 6.8
5.7 5.8
10.2 7.4
6.8 4.8
10.3 6.8
4.7 4.6
8.6 5.5
5.5 5.1
7.5 5.7 —
14
9.9 11.4
10.8 9.0
8.4 9.7
9.4 7.4
7.5 8.7
8.6 6.7
7.3 8.5
8.4 6.5
6.6 6.3
7.2 5.1
15
11.5 9.8
9.1 9.2
11.3 10.2
9.9 9.4
7.8 8.0
8.7 8.4
9.6 9.8
7.6 8.4
8.9 7.9
8.8 8.5
.3 6.6
7.2 6.6
7.5 - 7.1
5.5 5.9
6.1 5.1
2ND HIGH
13
7.0 LI
11.4 9.3
9.1 6.3
6.8 7.3
11.2 7.8
7.5 5.7
6.0 6.3
9.8 6.8
6.7 4.8
5.5 5.7
9.1 6.3 —
5.8 4.7
4.4 4.5
8.2 5.1
.5.1 4.5
.
14
9.7 8.0
9.0 9.3
10.1 8.7
9.3 7.1
7.4 7.7
8.3 7.1
8.8 6.7
7.0 6.8
8.2 6.1
8.5 6.7
7.0, 6.3
8.3 5.7
6.8 5.7
6.3 6.0
6.3 5.1
15
10.1 5.4
8.5 8.1
9.7 8.6
9.7 5.8
7.1 7.1
7.8 7.6
9.3 8.5
7.5 7.7
8.6 7.8
8.3 5.4
6.2 6.4
6.6 6.2
6.7 4.9
5.1 5.6
5.8 4.9
-18-
1964
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
G— 102

-------
1964 1972
TABLE 9. CRSTER RESULTS, ug/m 3 SO 2
FOR 24-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS
km J 5.76 709 8.09 8.78 11.16
—
MAXIMUM
13
1.1 2.0
2.5 1.9
2.3 1.6
1.2 1.8
2.2 1.8
2.2 1.5
1.1 1.7
2.0 1.6
2.1 1.2
1.0 1.6
1.9 1.5
2.1 1.1
• 1.0 1.3
1.7 1.3
1.9 1.0
2.0 2.2
14 2.0 2.1
2.6 1.3
1.7 2.0
1.8 1.8
2.4 1.2
1.6 2.0
1.7 1.7
2.3 1.3
1.6 2.0
2.0 1.6
2.4 2.1
1.5 1.9
2.2 1.2
2.0 2.1
15
2.2 1.6
2.2 1.8
3.0 1.3
1.9 1.5
1.9 1.5
2.6 1.1
2.1 2.6
2.4 2.2
2.6 2.0
1.6 1.4
1.6 1.4
2.2 1.1
1.2 1.5
1.4 1.4
1.7 1.1
2ND
HIGI-
13
0.9 1.8
2.1 1.5
2.0 1.1
0.9 1.8
2.1 1.3
2.1 1.1
0.8 1.6
1.9 11
1.8 1.0
0.8 1.4
1.8 1.0
1.7 1.0
0.8 1.1
1.4 0.8
1.3 1.0
14
15
1.9 2.0
1.6 1.7
1.7 1.3
1.7 1.4
1.7 1.6
1.9 1.3
1.6 1.9
1.7 1.4
1.5 1.2
1.6 1.5
1.5 1.5
1.9 1.1
1.5 1.8
1.7 1.3
1.4 1.1
2.0 1.8
1.9 1.7
1.9 1.7
1.5 1.8
1.9 1.3
1.4 1.6
1.3 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.8 1.0
1.4 1.7
2.2 1.0
1.2 1.9
1.2 1.2
1.2 1.1
1.5 1.0
-19-
G— 103
1970
1971
1973
1974

-------
TABLE 10. CRSTER RESULTS, ug/m 3 SO 2
FOR ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS
km
.5.76
7.09
8.09
-
8.78
11.16
13
.05 .09
.11 .07
.10 .07
.06 - .09
.11 .07
.11 .08
.05 .08
.10 .06
.10 .07
.05 .08
.10 .06.
.09 .07
.05 .07
.10 .06
.09 .08
14
.09 .08
.10 .06
.09 .09
.09 .08
.09 .06
.09 .08
.09 .08
.09 .06
.09 .08
.11 .10 .
.12 .07
.11 .11
.11 .11
.13 .07
.11 .11
15
.13 .07
.08 .08
.10 .10
.13 .07
.08 .08
.10 .10
.19 .11
.13 .12
.15 .15
.12 .07
.08 .08
.10 .09
.12 .07
.08 .07
.10 .10
-20-
I 964
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
G— 104

-------
TABLE!!. CRSTER RESULTS FOR SO 2 Ug/rfl
MAXIMA OVER ALL 6 YEARS
km
13
14
15
5.8 7.1 8.1 8.8 11.2
- ANNUAL AVERAGE
.11 .11 .10 .10 .10
.10 .09 .09 .12 .13
.13 -.13 .19x .12 .12
5.8 7.1 8.1 8.8 1! 2
RECEPTOR FIT (FT MSL)*
50 70 20
50 --- --- 90 100
50 20 150x
13
14
15
24-HOUR
MAXiMUM 2ND HIGH
2.5 2.2 2.! 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.4
2.6 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.2x
3.Ox 2.6 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.5
13
14
15
13
14
15
—
3-HOUR
MAXIMUM 2ND HIGH
13.0 11.6 10.7 10.2 8.6 11.4x 11.2 9.8 9.1 8.2
14 .3x 12.0 10.6 10.3 7.5 10.1 9.3 8.8 8.5 6.8
11.5 9.9 9.8 8.8 7.5 10.1 9.7 9.3 8.3 6,7
1-H
MAXIMUM
22.5 21.0 20.2 17.5 15.0
20.0 - 20.6 20.4 20.0 17.0
21.2 21.2 25.3x 19.9 16.8
OUR
2ND HIGJ-L
19.8 18.9 18.1 - 16.5 14.5
19.9 20.0 19.7 19.1 16.2
19.6 17.8 20.8x 16.6 15.2
x Maximum over all receptors
* Stack @ 50 FT MSL
-21- .
G— 105

-------
V. CDM Analysis
The CDM model Was run to calculate annual averages. This EPA model works off a
joint freqency distribution of stability, windspeed and wind direction, called a
STAR distribution. A distribution constructed from 5 years of hourly data 1960-
64, from Portland, Maine was used. As discussed by Descamps,U8) this distribution
was judged to be the most representative one readily available in the proper
computer format. The model also uses climatological values of mean afternoon and
morning mixing depths. Two runs were made. One used mean afternoon and
morning mixing depths of 1200 m and 600 m, respectively. These values were taken
from Holzworth. 0 6) The second run used values of 1400 m and 300 m. These were
taken from the report of Pittston’s consultant. The model is documented in a User’s
Guide. (15)
CDM uses a flat plane assumption and a vertical wind shear law similar to the one
used by CRSTER. It is discussed in the User’s Guide. The model also is set up to
run for an urban environment. Specifically, it does not allow stable conditions.
Obviously, Eastport is not an urban environment; The lack of stable conditions may
result in conservative estimates for receptors relatively close to the stack on a flat
plane, and underestimates for more distant receptors.
The receptor network is indicated in Figure 1. This network was taken from the
company’s report. In the grid used, the stack is at (X,Y) co-ordinates of (5, 10). The
grid spacing is 1.0 km. Table 12 presents the results of the two runs. The
maximum calculated annual average is .09 ug/m 3 for
-22-
G—].06

-------
TABLE 12. ANNUAL AVERAGES CALCULATED BY CDM, ug/m 3
(x,Y) HOLZWORTH PITTSTON
CO-ORDINATES MIXING DEPTHS MIXING DEPTHS
(8,5) .05 .05
(8,6) .07 .07
(9,3) .06 .06
(9,4) •.05 .06
(9,5) .07 .08
(9,6) .07 .07
(10,2) .06 .07
(10,3) .08 .09
(10,4) .08 .08
(10,5) .07 .08
(10,6) .07 .08
(11,2) .08 .08
(11,3) .08 .08
(11,4) .08 .09
(11,5) .08 .08
(12,2) .07 .08
(12,3) .08 .08
G—107

-------
VI. Comparisons of the Three Modeling Analyses
Table 13 presents the results for 502 for all three analyses. The CRSTER results in
Table 11 were ranked over the fifteen receptors for Table 13. The results for the
receptor corresponding to Fox Hill (ring 3, direction 15) have been noted because
the assumption of plane displacement is likely to be overly conservafive for
significant topographic features. Nevertheless, Table 13 indicates that it was
justified to ignore topography in the worst case analysis.
With regard to CDM vs. CRSTER, even if the above receptor is ignored, CDM still
underpredicts in comparison to CRSTER. However, the difference is not
significant in light of the very small absolute values predicted.
As for P1MW vs. CRSTER, the results compare favorably with the validation
studies. As previously discussed, in those studies CRSTER tended to do well for the
maximum 1-hour averages, but to underpredict considerably the maximum 24-hour
averages. The same relationship appears in Table 13 between CRSTER and PTMTP.
The ratios of the highest second high CRSTER. values to the worst case PTMTP
values are: -
I-hour 3-hour 24—hour —
1.07 .73 .45
Table 14 was derived by tabulating the meteorology for all hours listed in the
maximum and second high 1-hour CRSTER summary tables for the fifteen
receptors of interest. This table supports the relationship discussed above in that it
lends credence to the assumed worst case conditions in the PTMTP analysis i.e.,
stability C, windspeed 2.5 rn/sec and maximum trapping (effective plume height
equal to mixing depth). Bearing in mind that this table is biased by the manner in
which the hours were selected, 54% of the seventy hours tabulated correspond to
the type of severe trapping assumed in the worst case analysis. In fact, based upon
Table 14, it could be argued that the assumed conditions are not worst case, but
that a higher windspeed would have been more appropriate. However, the
conservative nature of the worst case trapping calculation justifies the condition
used.
-24-
G— 100

-------
RANK ANNUAL
TABLE 13. RESULTS FOR
SO 2 , ug/m 3
24-HR 24-HR 3-HR 3-HR
MAX 2ND HI MAX 2ND HI
1-HR
MAX
1-HR
2ND HI
I
.19x
3.0
2.2
14.3
11.4
25.3x
20.8x
2
.13
2.6
•
-
2.1
13.0
11.2
22.5
-
20.0
3
4
5
6
7
8
.13
.13
.12
.12
.12
.11
2.6x
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
2.Ox
1.9
1.9
1.9
12.0
11.6
11.5
10.7
10.6
10.3
10.1
10.1
9.8
9.7
9.3
9.3x
21.2
21.2
21.0
20.6
20.4
20.2
19.9
19.8
19.7
19.6
19.1
18.9
9
.11
2.2
1.9
10.2
9.1
20.0
18.1
10
.10
2.2
1.9
9.9
8.8
20.0
17.8
11
12
.10
.10
2.2
2.1
1.8
1.8
9.8x
8.8
8.5
8.3
19.9
17.5
16.6
16.5
13
14
.10
.09
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.5
8.6
7.5
8.2
6.8
17.0
16.8
16.2
15.2
15
.09
1.7
7.5
6.7
15.0
14.5
1.4
x FoxHill
CDM
.09
.
PTMTP
.
4.9 15.6 19.5
rr
G— 109

-------
TABLE 14. WORST CASE 1-HOUR CRSTER METEOROLOGY
TYPE
#
MIXING
RANGE
DEPTH(m)
MEAN
WINDSPEED(m/sec
RANGE MEAN
38
449 - 817
588
—
3.1 - 5.6
3.96
C-Ti: L< 500
2
449 - 459
454
4.! - 4.6
4.35
C-T2: 500 
-------
For the sake of completeness, it is interesting to note that the windspeed decreases
as the mixing depth increases for the stability C - trapping conditions, indicating
the role of thermal turbulence in producing these conditions. Also, 17% of the
hours tabulated corresponded to a stability C - no trapping situation with higher
windspeeds. Flere, the prevalence of mechanical turbulence is indicated. -27% of
the hours corresponded to a very unstable condition with light winds i.e. looping,
and lastly, there was one hour that corresponded to a severe trapping condition
with very windy neutral conditions.
-27-
G—111
-------
VII. REFERENCES
1. Turner, D.B., and Busse, A.D., 1973: User’s Guide to the Interactive Versions
of Three Point Source Dispersion Programs , EPA Meteorology Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Unpublished Draft).
2. Khanna, S.B., 1976: Handbook for UNAMAP , Walden Research Division of
ABCOR, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.
3. Turner, D.B., 1970: Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estim àtes , EPA
Office of Air Programs Publication No. AP-26, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
4. Briggs, G.A., 1969: Plume Rise , USAEC Critical Review Series TID-25075,
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.
5. Briggs, G.A., 1971: “Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise Observation”,
Proceedings of the Second International Clean Air Congress , edited by l-I.M.
- Englund and W.T. Berry, Academic Press, New York, p. 1029.
6. Briggs G.A., 1972: “Discussion on Chimney Plumes in Neutral and Stable
Surroundings”, Atmospheric Environment , 6, p. 507.
7. User’s Manual for Single-Source (CRSTER) Model , 1977, EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
EPA-450/2-77-01 3.
8. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Pittston Oil Refinery
Proposal-Volume III, Appendices 1976 , EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts,
p.G--1.
-28-
G— 112
-------
9. Mills, M.T., and Stern, R.W., 1976: Improvements to the Single Source Model,
Volume I : Time Concentration Relationships , Final Report, GCA/ Technology
Division for EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA-450/3-77-003a.
10. Mills M.T., and Stern, R.W., 1977: Improvements to the Single-Source Model,
Volume 2: Testing and Evaluation of Model Improvements , GCA/Technology
Division for EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA-450/3-77-003b.
11. Mills, M.T., 1977: Improvements to the Single Source Model, - Volume 3:
Further Analysis of Modeling Results, GCA/Technology Division for EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, EPA-450/3-77-003c.
12. Mills, M.T., and Record, F.A., 1975: Comprehensive Analysis of Time -
Concentration Relationships and Validation of a Single-Source Dispersion
Model, GCA/Technology Division for EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA-450/3-75-083.
13. Mills, M.T., and Stern, R.W., 1975: Model Validation and Time Cóncentration
Analysis of Three Power Plants , GCA/Technology Division for EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
EPA-450/3 -76-002
14. Budney, U., 1977: Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and
Analysis, Volume 10 (Revised): Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Impact
of New Stationary Sources , EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS No. 1.2-029R), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA-450/4-
77-00 1.
-29-
C— 113
-------
15. Busse, A.D., and Zimmerman, ).R. 1973: User’s Guide for the Climatological
Dispersion Model , EPA Technical Publications Branch, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, EPA—R4-73--024.
16. Holzworth, G.C., 1972: Mixing Heights, Windspeeds, 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.
17. Turner, D.B., 1964: “A Diffusion Model for an Urban Area,” 3ournal of
Applied Meteorology , 3, p. 83.
18. Descamps, V.1, 1977: Personal Communication.
-30-
G— 114
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE january 10, 1978
SUBJECT: Diffusion Analysis for the Proposed Pittston Refinery at Eastport, Maine
FROM: Marvin Rosenstein
Systems Analysis Branch -
TO: Warren Peters
Air Branch
Attached are the two additional analyses that you requested. The first addresses
short term impacts on areas other than Roosevelt International Park. The second
addresses the short term impacts of SO 2 emissions from VLCC’s at dockside. The
short term PSD increments for both Class I and Class II areas are met. Also, as we
have discussed, because of the magnitude of the short term values, in addition to
the previous modeled annual averages at the Park, it is obvious that the annual
increments will be met as well.
cc: W. Stickney, Director, Environmental and Economic Impact Office V
L. Gitto, Chief, Systems Analysis Branch
V. Descamps, Regional Meteorologist
EPA Fo..,, 1320-6 1Rc . 3-76)
G— 115
-------
I. Maximum Impact of the Stack on Areas Other than the International Park
The method of analysis was the same as that discussed in my previous report in
Section III, “Worst Case Analysis”. Table 1 presents the maximum 1-hour 502
concentrations with respect to the various, meteorological conditions modeled. This
table is an adaptation of Table 2 from my previous report.
Table 2 presents the maximum concontrations with respect to distance. It should
be noted that for the looping condition a finer receptor network than that indicated
in Table 2 was used. However, the maximum was at 1.0 km for this condition. As
indicated in the table, if looping resulted in a higher 1-hour concentration, this
concentration was used for the 3-hour conversion only. This is explained in the
previous report. Also, as discussed in that report, trapping normally occurs with
lighter windspeeds. Therefore, the right hand side of Table 2 was constructed by
ignoring windspeeds higher than 2.5 rn/sec.
Table 3 presents a summary of the results. Note that even if the unrealistically
conservative higher windspeed trapping conditions are used, the Class II increments
are easily met.
—1—
G— 116
-------
able 1. Maximum 1—Hour Concentrations, ug/m 3
For SO 2 , Using PTMTP
Stability
Windspeed
rn/sec
No Trapping (‘-)
Park All
With Trapping (2)
Park All
C
c
C
C
C
C
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12,5
15.0
9.8
15.1
15.2
13.4
11.6
10.2
9.8
15.1
18.0
19.7
20.4
20.9
19.5
30.0
30.8
28.4
25.9
23.8
19.5
30.0
36.0
39.3
40.5
41.4
D
D
D
D
D
D
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
0
2.3
6.1
7.9
8.7
9.2
0.3
4.6
6.7
7.9
8.7
9.2
0
4.5
12.1
15.8
17.4
18.3
0.7
9.2
13.2
15.8
17.4
18.3
--
A
-
2.5
2.9
-
.61.0
-
(1) Mixing Depth = 500 2 in
(2) Mixing Depth = Effective Plume Height
Park Maxiinrnn At Park Only
All = Maximum Anywhere
-2-.
G— 117
-------
Table 2.
aximum Concentration ug/m 3
Including Stability C Including Stability C
Trapping For All Windspeeds Trapping for 2.5 in/sec Only
Distance 1—hr 24—hr 3—hr 24—hr 1—hr 24—hr 3—hr 24—hr
502 SO 2 SO 2 TSP SO 2 SO 2 SO 2 TSP
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
61.0,10.8* 2.7 48.8 0.7
33.6,26.2* 6.6 26.9 1.7
38.6 9.7 30.9 2.5
41.4 10.4 33.1 2.7
40.3 10.1 32.2 2.6
38.7 9.7 31.0 2.5
36.3 9.1 29,0 2.3
34.8 8.7 27.8 2.2
32.9 8.2 26.3 2.1
61.0,10.5* 2.6 48.8 0.7
33.6,18.3* 4.6 26.9 1.2
19.6 4.9 15.7 1.2
20.9 5.2 16.7 1.3
20.9 5.1 16.2 1.3
19.4 4.9 15.5 1.2
18.1 4.5 14.5 1.1
17.4 4.4 13.9 1.1
16.4 4.1 13.1 1.0
PARK
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
30.8 7.7 24.6 - 2.0
29.4 7.4 23.5 1.9
28.4 7.1 22.7 1.8
27.3 6.8 21.8 - 1.7
26.0 6.5 20.8 1.7
24.7 6.2 19.8 1.6
23.6 5.9 18.9 1.5
22.5 5.6 18.0 1.4
21.4 5.4 17.1 1.4
20.5 5.1 16.4 1.3
19.6 4.9 15.7 1.2
19.2 4.8 15.4 1.2
16.3 4.1 13.0 1.0
17.2 4.3 13.8 1.1
17.8 4.5 14.2 1.1
18.2 4.6 14.6 1.2
18.3 4.6 14.6 1.2
18.3 4.6 14.6 1.2
18.7 4.7 15.0 1.2
19.2 4.8 15.4 1.2
19.5 4.9 15.6 1.2
19.5 4.9 15.6 1.2
19.4 4.9 15.5 1.2
19.2 4.8 15.4 1.2
18.6 4.7 14.9 1.2
17.8 4.5 14.2 1.1
16.9 4.2 13.5 1.1
16.1 4.0 12.9 1.0
15.2 3.8 12.2 1.0
14.5 3.6 11.6 0.9
13.8 3.5 11.0 0.9
13.2 3.3 10.6 0.8
12.6 3.2 10.1 0.8
18.6 4.7 14.9 1.2
17.8 6.5 14.2 1.1
16.9 4.2 13.5 1.1
16.1 4.0 12.9 1.0
15.2 3.8 12.2 1.0
14.5 3.6 11.6 0.9
13.8 3.5 11.0 0.9
13.2 3.3 10.6 0.8
12.6 3.2 10.1 0.8
*First Value for 3—hr Conversion
Second Value for 24—hr Conversion
-3-
-------
II. Impact of Emissions from VLCC’s at Dockside
Per our communication with Pittston’s consultant, the following source parameters
were used:
Note that where the consultant gave a range of possible values (temperature 250
- 320F, velocity = 80 - 100 ft/sec, stack height = 140 - 170 ft) a value was used
that would maximize ground level concentrations. Also note that the stack height
supplied by the consultant was with respect to water level. The value of 100 ft was
used as a mean topographic adjustment since the refinery stack base was assumed
to be at 50 ft msl.
The model PTMTP was run assuming that_the ship and refinery stacks were located
at the same point. This is a conservative assumption used to screen out those
meteorological conditions that would not warrant further investigation by means of
separating the stack locations. Downwind centerline concentrations were cal-
culated for the following sets of meteorological conditions (the vertical windshear
law was used in each case):
Looping: stability A, windspeed 2.5 m/sec, mixing depth = .5000 in
Fanning: stability F, windspeed 2.5 rn/sec
Coning: stability D, windspeeds of 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5 and 15.0 m/sec,
mixing depth 5000 m
Trapping:
1)
2)
stability C, windspeed 2.5 rn/sec
mixing depth = 701 in
mixing depth = 98 m
-4-
emission rate =
25 lb/hr
=
3.15 g/sec
stack height =
100 ft
=
30.5 in
stack diameter =
4 ft
=
1.22 m
stack temperature = 250F
=
394K
exit velocity =
80 ft/sec
=
24.4 rn/sec
C— 119
-------
Table 3. Summary of Results, ug/m 3
ALL TRAPPING LIGHT WIND TRAPPIN(
24-hr 3-hr 24-hr 24-hr 3 hr 24-hr
502 2 TSP TSP
Class II 91 512 37 91 512 37
Everywhere 10.4 48.8 2.7 5.2 48.8 1.3
Class 1 5 25 10 5 25 10
Park 7.7 246 2.0 4.9 15.6 1.2
-5-
G- 120
-------
Table 4. Maximum 1-Hour SO 2 , ug/m 3
No Stack Separation
Met
Condition Park All
Looping 3.0 64.6
Fanning 6.6 6.6
Trapping 1 20.3 20.3
Trapping 2 7.9 26.2
Coning -2.5 5.7 8.5
Coning -5.0 38 11.4
Coning -7.5 7.2 11.9
Coning -10.0 8.8 11.4
Coning -12.5 9.6 10.4
Coning -15.0 10.1 10.1
Park = Maximum at Park Only
All = Maximum Anywhere
-6-
G—121
-------
The first trapping height is the effective height of the refinery stack. The second
is that of the ship stack. Even though the refinery stack plume is assumed to punch
through the second lid and thus contribute nothing to ground level concentrations
under this condition, it was possible that the severe trapping of the ship stack
might yield a higher concentration than under trapping of the refinery stack.
All of the meteorological conditions have been described in my previous reports
except for fanning. This cot’dition -is characterized by a surface inversion which
results in stable conditions with poor dispersion. It can be important for low level
sources (generally less than 50 n) such as the ship stack.
Table 4 presents the maxima with respect to meteorological conditions and Table 5
those with respect to distance. As previously, when looping was a maximum two
values are presented for the 1-hour maxima. A summary of results is presented
below.
24-hr 3-hr 502
Class! 5 25
Park 5.1 16.2
Class II 91 512
All 6.6 51.7
It is obvious that all increments are easily met with the exception of the 24—hour
Class I increment at the Park under trapping I conditions. Table 6 presents the
maximum 1—hour concentrations for the ship plus stack case and the ship alone
case. This was done because the ship and refinery stacks have different source
configurations and thus can have maximum impacts at different downwind
distances and under different meteorological conditions. It is seen that while the
ship by itself can impact on the Park to the tune of 2 ug/m 3 on a 24—hour basis,
when combined with the refinery stack the ship contributes only 0.2 ug/m 3 to the
total maximum 24-hour concentration at the Park.
-7-
G— 122
-------
Table 5. Maximum 1-Hour SO2 ug/m 3
No Stack Separation
Ship & Ship
km Stack Alone
1.0 64.6, 26.2* 26.2
1.5 34.7, 24.7* 24.7
2.0 19.7 19.7
2.5 16.1 16.1
3.0 13.7 13.7
3.5 11.9 11.9
4.0 10.6 10.6
4.5 9.5 9. 5
5.0 9.2
5.5 10.4 7.9
6.0 12.7 7.3
6.5 14.8 6.8
7.0 16.5 6.6
7.5 17.9 6.6
8.0 19.0 6.6
8.5 19.7 6.5
9.0 20.1 6.4
9.5 20.3 6.3
10.0 20.3 6.2
10.5 20.2 6.1
11.0 19.9 -6.0
12.0 19.2 5.8
13.0 18.3 5.6
14.0 17.4 5.4
15.0 16.5 5.2
16.0 15.7 4.9
17.0 14.9 4.7
18.0 14.2 4.6
19.0 13.5 4.4
20.0 12.9 4.2
* First Value for 3—hr conversion
Second Value for 24-hr conversion
—
-8-
G— 123
-------
Table 6. Ship vs Refinery Stack, 1-Hour SO 2 , ug/m 3
No Stack Separation
PARK ALL
Total Ship Stack Total Ship Stack
Ship & Stack 20.3 08 19.5 26.2 26.2 0
64.6 36 61.0
Ship Alone 7.9 26.2
PARK = Maximum at Park Only
ALL = Maximum Anywhere
-9-
C— 124
-------
With regard to the maximum 2 -hour impact of 5.1 ug/m 3 at the Park, this does not
indicate a probable violation of the Class I increment because of the conservative
nature of the trapping calculation as discussed in my previous reports. Fiowever,
for the sake of completeness, the ship and refinery stacks were seperated. As seen
in Figure Ia (adapted from Figure 1 of the previous report), the ship stack was
assumed to be about 1000 yards to the southwest of the refinery stack. P1MW was
rerun for the trapping I condition using the grid network of the CDM analysis of
the previous report. The circles in Figure Ia represent the 17 receptors at which
predictions were made. Seven wind directions from 300 to 330 (see the figure) at
5 intervals were run. The maximum 1—hour concentration was calculated to be
19.9 ug/m 3 . Of this, 0.4 ug/m 3 was from the ship. This is half of the previous ship
contribution to the maximum total concentration without stack separation.
-10-
G— 125
-------
Iu
vj
I.

, I
J. )
(1
(“
(I’3)
(1
,, ,l$’
-------
• i i I/i ‘)/ / :
i). I .j br Air Quality Modeling fOr Pjt1L u l e [ inery Lnvironineut.il
J!i )uCt St &tc:n nt (US).
I. Memo : Provide a summary account of the important al)plications
of clmiuatological data to the air quality modeling for this E1S.
2. hackground : Climatological summaries of various meteorological elements
arc needed for air quality modeling. The elements selected are dictated
by the modeling analysis used. In this case, three modeling analyses are used:
the Worst Case Technique and two standard air quality models, CRSTER
and CDM. As frequently happens, a climatology of the reqüiste quality and
content is not available for the facility site. This is true for Eastport, Maine
and data from other locations must be obtained and applied. Notice that
in subsequent tables that winds in the NW to NNW (310-335) sectors are singled
out for attention. Winds in this sector are important because these are the
wind directions that will carry refinery emissions to Campobello Park.
3. Introduction : This account covers: the climatology needed for the three
modeling approaches, the relevance of the climatology used in the model
to Eastport, and concludes with several observations on the modeling assumptions
used.
4. Worst Case Technique : As explained elsewhere (see Page ), the meteorological
conditions likely to cause violations of the SO 2 standards on Campobello
Island, i.e., the worst case concentrations are trapping and stack downwash.
Given these conditions, the climatology is examined to determine the occurrence
of such conditions.
G—)
-------
a. St. t-kI owi nv .t : l)ownwa .h has beet i CXI)lai tied and the cii t ical sur I uc
Wifl(l Speed caictilat ed for this phenoinciiøn, i.t’., 7.5 in/sec, (ref crence
page ). Ibis is a threshold speed; spccd equal to or greater than this
speed produce down vash, and conversely speeds less than this critical
speed do not produce downwash. A design stack exit velocity that would
completely eleininate downwash would entail impractical stack velocities.
The climatology is examined to determine the percentage of time that
wind speeds equal or exceed the critical speed. This is a measure of
the time downwash is possible. An indication of these percentages
is found in the following tables.
Table I Extract of wind direction and wind speed frequency data from Portland,
Maine wind summary as found in Portland Star Program.
Annual Summary
Wind Direction Central Speed of Wind Speed Class (m/sec) 7Critical Speed
7 9.5 12.5
(%) (%) (%) (%)
NW 1.53 0.21 0.0 1.74
NNW 1.75 0.27 0.0 2.02
Table 11 Data prepared from St. John, NB January wind summary. This is
the month with maximum frequency of NW winds.
Percent Total Time Percent Time NW Wind Speed is Percent Time NW Wind
of NW Winds 
-------
the I, btcs : I iow tlkt t the en t ical \Vil1(t peed I o cl v v.t h is tju tcd or exceeded
bet ween I .7/i and 2% of the Ii inc dun iii; the year for at I s t biIi t y c1as .cs.
For certain months, however, this pc (age rises to 3%, during luui.ury
for example as shown in Table I I. When only Stability Class 4 is considered,
however, aiinual perceillage drops from about 2% to 1%. 1 Similar monthly
J)ercentagCS arc not available. It is assumed, however, that a proportional
reduction would tal c place in the January frequency. This means that on
the avcragc 98.5 to 99% of the time downwash does not occur. Striving to
achieve 100% prcvention is both impracticable and, considering the uncertainties
in the modeling, not sensible.
b. Trapping : Worst case trapping conditions are found to be: (See page ).
Table III Worst Case Conditions
Stability Class of
Wind Speed Inversion Base Lapse Rate below
Wind Sector (m/sec) (m) hversion
NW TO NNW 2.5 500-800 C.
3!0 to 335•
To determine the occurrence and frequency of these conditions, reference
is made to Holzworth’s Inversion Study, Percentage Frequency of Temperature,
Relative Humidity and Wind for Portland, Maine for January 1960 to December
1964.
An appreciation of the existence of inversion conditions with “C” & “IY’
stability lapse rates beneath the inversion may be gained from Table A (a
table from Holzworth’s study so labeled in the files at this office).
G— 129
-------
l.ililc 1V Ii ‘i 0( f)O ( I ho I .SL ,(ft,) .()Ii(k’ ;, t h(.’ I)( t( :it Lgi’ I ii p i’nt y
of CISiOn I) 1 ,C i I th “:‘‘ ‘9)” L b lit y hip c ra tc i ln’low ii ic i i iver i-Ion
base. The fltlil ier t’jr indi:a (Cs percent of soundings wi ( I i given b v c and
the denominator indicates the percent vi lb “C” stability.
Period Base of Inversion 501—7)0 in Stability
0600E 1800E
“C” 19) 1 1
March/May 5.7/s 5•7I 4.1/o “1.1
June/Aug 3.1/s 3.1/2 2.6/a 2.6/4
Sept/Nov 5.110 5.1113 li.6/ 4.6/15
Dec/Feb 3.S/o 3.817 31 O
Annual 4.5/, 4.5/9 4.7/s
The table shows that inversions of the time of 500-700 m occur with seasonal excursions
reaching 2.6% to 7.3%. importantly, the table shows that “C” stability lapse rates
do not occur beneath these inversions. The most unstable lapse rate that does
occur represents D tabiIity, and the percentage of these lapse rates is displayed.
This tabulation means that the worst case condition is indeed conservative and
that violations will not occur even under the worst postulated conditions.
Table V Annual percent of radiosonde observations at times indicated with
characteristics as follows:
Characteristics
Wind Direction Inversion Base Wind Speed Class
310- .335(NW-NNW) 501-750 m 2.5—b rn/sec
Radiosonde Frequency
Sounding Time % of Observations Observations/yr.
(EST)
0600 .56
1800 .33 1.2
G— 130
-------
Ili’: (Lit.t in(h(: Ltcs a iniiiiiiu.uii of l)(’tw(_’n I arid 3 d ry . per ye.ir of ti .Il)l)iL)l
(:iidr th)fl at the gi\’Cl’l tires. It CdU he seen from lable \F tihit the :iunullaneoLi:;
O(:iirrence of I 1(’ relevant r teorologir’.tI COii(fi I 10115 occur cx l reinely jut reqirci it !y.
This fact corubi ned with [ lie results of Table IV lends additional credibility
to the staterneirl that the f)ostulatcd worst case conditions are conservative.
). CDM : This model uses as input the Day—Night STAR (Stability Array) for
Portland, Maine. A stability array consists of the wind direction and speed
frequencies for each of the stability categories. In a day-night STAR, the
array is modified to reduce the frequency of stable categories. This is done
because the model is meant f or urban areas where stable conditions are less
frequent.
The Climatological mixing depths are also entered in the model. The depths
are clirnatological averages for- coastal New England as tabulated by Holzworth.
The applicability of the Portland STAR to Eastport is noted in Paragraph
7.
6. CRSTER : This model uses as input surf ace and upper air data. Surface data
consisted of 24 hr/day surface observations from Brunswick Naval Air Station,
Maine and upper air data gathered at Portland International Airport, Maine.
These locations are 272 km and 304 km from Eastport, Maine respectively.
The applicability of this data to Eastport is discussed below.
7. Data Applicability : Although distant from Eastport, Portland & Brunswick
arc judged as having meteorological conditions representative of those at
Eastport, Maine. This judgement is based on several factors. These are:
similiarity in coastal locations and sourrounding terrain and in domination
by the same synoptic regimes. The latter similiarity is demonstrated by a
comparison of wind roses for nearby St. John, NB (70 km distant) and Portland.
Sec Figure 1. As can be seen the wind distributions arc about the same.
In tire important NW NNW directions the frequencies are very close. Other
evidence is also available to support the applicability of Portland & Brunswick
2
data to Eastport.
-------
\ltIiou ;li tin’ lflPt( ’OEOlUgi( .tt iIII)IIt (or the II O(k Iit 15 jtId 1 r(l aJ)j)li(.II)lC tO
Las(1xn t, (he question irisc ;: was data closer to La .tport av utablc? The
answer s no. l’ortl.u’id and Rruu:;wick data arc the only data iii computer
read)’ 1orin i 1. St. John’s sur lace data, for exaim mple, al though al ready com Ill)! led
by the Canadian Weather Service has not been prcpai’cd br computer input
and the time needed to make it ready would have delayed the ILlS prohibitively.
Portland upper air data, on the other hand, had to be used because it is the
closest upper air station to Eastport.
8. Conclusions : A brief account of the application of climatology to air quality
modeling for the Pittston Refinery at Eastport, Maine has been provided.
This account supports the following conclusions.
a. The worst case trapping meteorology postulated is conservative.
b. The Brunswick, Maine surface data and Portland, Maine upper air data
provide a representative climatology f or Eastport, Maine.
References
1. Persist Program compiled fOr Brunswick NAS. A computer analysis of wind
direction, wind speed stability.
2. Doty, S.R., & Wallace B.L., 1976: A Climatological Analysis of Pasquill Stability
Categories Based on ‘STAR’ Summaries , NOAA EDS, National Climatic Center.
G— 132
-------
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.
J—1
-------
—2—
DEVELOPING 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 30 major new oil refineries.N Current policy is to
provide domestic refining capacity to meet increased U.S.
demands for petroleum. The Federal Energy Administration
is now developing recommendations to the President to raise,
over the long run, the effective fee on product imports
in order to provide a more 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 Sup 1y . The strongest argument for locating
in the U.S. refining capacity sufficient to satisfy U.S.
demand 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 different 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 of f, because alternate sources of imported
crude oil are more readily available than alternate sources
of imported products.
J—2
-------
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 to35 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 w th 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.00 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 Mines, 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
commodity 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. In general, the net savings
in dollar outflow approximates the value added to crude oil re-
fined in foreign locations plus the marginal cost of shipping
products over crude to ports in the United States. For New
England this savings is equivalent to the difference between
the delivered cost of crude oil at Eastport, Maine and the
delivered cost of the equivalent amount of products at East Coast
ports such as Boston.
The factors and assumptions needed to calculate a net flow
of funds impact as a result of additional East Coast refining
capacity are reasc iably similar to those found in the Pace
Study. 3 Using information from that Study, the delivered
cost of- crude oil to Eastport Maine was compared with the de-
lievered cost of products from Curacao, the Bahamas, and
Rotterdam, Netherlands. See Table 2. These three foreign
refining centers are representative of probable suppliers
of East Coast markets if sufficient domestic refining capacity
is lacking. In order to simplify calculations, it was as-
summed that these three refining centers would share the East
Coast import market equally.
The Pace Company, ‘Determination of Refined Petroleum
Product Import Fees,” July, l9 76.
J—4
-------
COMPARISON OF PRODUCT COSTS
Total Delivered
Product Cost
*
(per bbl.)
Bahamas $17.78
Rotterdam 18.58
Curacao 17.82
Average 18.06
Delivered Crude Cost 16.02
(Eastport, Maine)
Difference 2. 04/bbl.
1980 dollars
Assuming that a 250,000 BPD refinery operates at 90 percent
of capacity over a sustained period, the daily output is
approximately 250,000 x .9 = 225,000 BPD, or 82 million barrels
per year. If this quantity were bought from the three foreign
refining centers instead of being refined domestically, the
difference in the outflow of funds would be 82 million barrels
x $2.04 or %167 million annually.
Six similar refineries would produce a new savings in dollar
outflow of $167 x 6 or approximately $1 billion annually.
A significant reduction in the price of oil products in
New England is unlikely to result from the construction of a
single refinery in the area. It is probable that, with
one refinery, product prices will either be unaffected or
will decline by less than 0.5 per gallon on the average.
The 0.5 per gallon figure represents the difference between
the cost to a Middle Atlantic refiner and a Gulf Coast
refiner marketing in New England. (This is discussed more
fully in the economic section.)
1—5
-------
Factors that would tend to reduce product prices are related
to the supply situation and market competition. A refinery,
by increasing the supply of products available to New England,
might cause some of the higher priced sources to be displaced.
However, the possible price reduction would probably be no
greater than the transportation cost savings between New
England and the closest market area. That is, output from the
refinery could also be sold in the Middle Atlantic region, so
refinery output prices to New England would not fall below
prevailing product prices in the Middle Atlantic minus
transportation costs.
An inducement to a new refinery to sell oil products for
less than the prevailing market price in New England would
be the potential to gain a larger share of the market.
The price shaving could be either temporary or permanent
depending upon the reaction of competitors.
Although some factors would encourage price cutting, others
would limit or offset its likelihood. As mentioned previously,
the Middle Atlantic and indeed the entire East Coast are
alternative markets for a New England refinery. In addition,
the refinery need only sell its output for slightly less than
the market price to gain entry. Finally, the refinery will
be seeking long-terms sales contracts and will therefore be
unlikely to price its product any lower than necessary.
Profitability by the first refiner may foster additional
refiner interest in New England. The siting of two or more
refineries in the region could alter the price situation sub-
stantially. If competition between refineries arises, and the
combined output of regional refineries more nearly meets
market demand, prices would be more likely to reflect the
full cost savings of their location.
Current Situation . Although a surplus of refining capacity
e tsts in islandrefining centersN 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 dcaestic demand. By 1975, however, demand for
petroleum products (16291 MB/D) exceeded the output of
domestic refineries by 1884 MB/D. 4/ The following
quantities of products were imported to make up this deficit:
Gasoline 184 MB/D
Distillate 289 Ma ID
Residual 1194 MB/D
Other 217 MB/D
For calculation, see Pages 13 and 14.
V
-------
—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 MR/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,
impOrtatiQn 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.
amount Of New Capacity Needed . / 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
5/ For method of relating refinery capacity to
demand, see Pages 12 and 13.
J—7
-------
—6—
capacity through 1980, as of now totals 2277 MB/D. 6/
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/I)),
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 14B/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 ni e 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. refineries 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
limtted, 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.
Prom FEA’s publication, Trends In Refinery Capacity
And Utilization (June 1976). That report includes,
Jii 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 discussion of scheduled capacity.
J—8
-------
—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 specif i-
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. 7/
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.
7/ “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—9
-------
—8—
Table 3 shows projected demand for petroleum products on
the East Coast in 1980 and 1985.
TABLE 3. 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 1,2, and 3, with the
following States: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
In 1975, as mentioned previously, refinery capacity on the
East Coast 8/ (1752 MB/D) was adequate to meet only 30 percent
of regional demand (5911 MB/D). The New England States,
with no refinery capacity, accounted for a little over 1/4
of this deficit.
8/ 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 PADD I.
J—1o
-------
—9—
Table 4 shows planned capacity in PADD’s I and III:
TABLE 4. 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
1985k 648 MB/D of new capacity in PADD III 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 5 shows projected petroleum demand by product for
New England in 1980 and 1985.
TABLE 5. 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
J—11
-------
— 10 —
If New England were to develop refinery capacity by 1985
sufficient to meet projected regional demand of 1521 MB/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 Nnon_attainmentl 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 1....
of this EIS, 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.
J—12
-------
— 11 —
SUMMARY 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. 9/ 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.
9/ 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 Refining Capacity And
Utilization , June 1976. —
J-13
-------
— 12 —
NOTES ON DATA AND METHOD
Data . U.S. and East Coast supply and demand data in this
8ection 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 Thi New England Energy Policy
Task Force , June 1976. These data were developed 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).
J—14
-------
— 13 —
U.S. petroleum product supply (14611 MB/D). 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/fl to provide
gross U.S. product supply of 14611 MB/fl. 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/fl figure in
the June 1976 edition of the Federal Energy Ac3ministration
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 most 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/fl for 1975 or 84.2 percent of capacity. 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
J—15
-------
Refinery output 12937
Natural Gas Liquids 1687
Product imports 1884
To a1 Supply 16508
Refinery runs consi5ted of:
1975 MB/D
Domestic crude and
Unfinished Oils 8383
Foreign crude 4094
12477
Supply was distributed as follows:
1975 MB/I )
Domestic demand 16291
Exports 204
16495
Stock change +13
16508
J-16
-------
15
ECONOMIC RATIONALE FOR EASTPORT REFINERY
The Pittston Company, through its subsidiary, the Metropolitan
Petroleum Corn pany, markets petroleum products extensively
throughout the Northeast area of the United States. It has some
35 terminals which it either owns or leases. These arelucated 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 corn-
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 arid the Middle Atlantic States, in that order 1
(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 Eastport 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.
J—1 7
-------
Table I
TRANSPORTATIOII AND REFINING ECONOMICS 16
250,000 BARRELS PER DAY CAPAC1
AT U.S. GULF AND EAST COAST LOCATIONS
Eastport, Maine Middle Atlantic Gulf Coast
A. Crude Cost -
FOB Ras Tanura 14.68 14.68 14.68
B. Crude Tansportation
YLCC’s at W.S. 48.9 X.34 1.33 1.41
50,000 DWT at W.S. 82 0.42
Total Transportation 1.34 1.75 1.41
C. Crude HandUj
Entreport Charges 0.36
VLCC Lightering 0.20
Total Handling 0.36 0.20
D. Delivered Crude Cost 16.02 16.79 16.29
E. Refinery Investments
Location Factor 1.20 1.20 1.00
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)0 0.08
Depreciation .0.71 071 0.59
Income Tax 0.82 0.82 0.71
Profit (10% A.T.) 0.82 0.82 0.71
Total 2.96 2.43
Plus Del’d Crude Cost 16.02 16.79 16.29
Total MFG Cost — $/Bbl Crude 18.96 19.75 18.72
— $/Bbl Product 20.26 21.08 19.98
6. Product Shipping Cost
Composite Cost 0.46 0.22
H. Total Delivered Cost
$/Bbl Product 20.72 21.30 21.09
.7-18
-------
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. 10% 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
J-19
-------
18
Table 3
DERIVATION OF COMPOSITE PRODUCT TRANSPORTATION COSTS
Movement Product BID Volume Composite S/B
Eastport to New York Mogas 24,787
#2F.O. 30,260 0.67 I
#5F.Q.. ‘ 48,200 0.615
/ I
LPG 7,669 .— 50.459
Eastport to Boston Mogas 24,787 0.30
#2F.0. 40,260 0.34 I
#5F.0. 48,200 O.3j_J
LPG 7,669 2. 1
.Gulf to New York Mogas 24,787 0.61*
#2F.O. 40,260 0.61*
#5F.0. 48,200 1.26
51.112
Gulf to Boston Mogas 24,787 1.26
#2F.0. 40,260 1.26
15F.0. 48,200 1.26
Middle Atlantic ____
Local Distribution LPG 7,669
Mogas 24,787 0.15*
f2F.0. 40,260 0.15*
#5F.0. 48.200 O.15**
$0. 218
Barging to Boston Mogas 24,787 0.30
#2F.0. 40,260 0.30
#5F0. 48,200 0.30
*Pjpe jfl 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
J-2 0
-------
19
Product transportation creates a severe debit for the Gulf location
casc. (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 comparies 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.
J-21
-------
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 ti ose used by the Pace Company - !
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 Qil . The crude oil chosen for the comparison was Arabian
Light API crude oil. The FOB Ras Tanura price of $11. 51 per
barre was escalated for general inflation to a projected 1980 price
of $14.68 per barrel.
This crude is referred to as the “marker’ t 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 Wor].dscale (WS) units. These are rates puJl;shed by the Association
of Ship Brokers and Agents (Worldscale) Inc.13! 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.
£11 “Determination of Refined Petroleum Product Import Fees, the
Pace Company Consultants & Engineers, INC., July 1976, for
FEA Contract, CO-05-60451.
121
—.J From Pace Study.
“Worldwide Tanker Nominal Freight Scale - - Worldscale,”
Revision of January 1, 1976.
J-22
-------
21
RasTanurato: 1976 1980 1980
( $/Long Ton) ( $ILong Ton) ( $/Bbl 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)± ilwhich 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 transshipment 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. /TLCC
lightering in the Gulf Coast area is estimated at $0. 20/bbl. 15 -
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) is . a, 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
Published monthly in The Petroleum Economist . See attached
Plot.
15,
1 From Pace Study.
1 Published by the Association of Shipbrokers and Agents
(U.S.A.), INC.
3—23
-------
FOREIGN FLAG SINGLE VOYAGE RATES* & AFRA**
_____ ( BASED ON WORLOSCALE RATES OF YEAR SHOWN)
i i ii iT 11111 1J I fill liii’ FT [ TrJTTTI I Till Ii I IT 11111 1 1l _ i1I1fTL 1 ’ T
SINGLE VOYAGERATES
J0 V. 1, 1968 AF RA WAS EXPAN OEO TO INCLUDE FOUR
GENERAL PURPOSE (16.5 .24.9 MOWT) 0
MEDIUM RANGE (25.0 .44.9 MOWT) A
LARGE RANGE 1 (45.O .79.9MOWT) 0
LARGE RA’ GE 2 (80.0.159.9 MDWT)
JAN. 1. 1914 AFRA WAS FURTHER EXPANDED TO INCLUDE:
LARGERANGE3 (160-319.9MOWT) a
EFFECTIVE NOV. 1, 1968 SEMIANNUAL FINDINGS WERE DISCONTINUED.
FINDINGS NOW OFFICIALLY ON A MONTHLY BASIS
1tTtrt1-tt
1t 1 44 f
f T ft
. . . .
F
r.
F l • Tt
1L L
Ti I I 1 1 1 fl
t1F 1
*
v ti fft 11 I - It
Tft hf t\L H
pHI;t
T’ i
__ ____ __
z.ua ‘ .

F±F
Based on Mu !ion !nt!ex—Avcr .ge for Month
‘Baset! on ..t n’un T ’ ’er ‘o’u rs’ Panel—flate as of First of Month
‘ St’r’in” 1 1/1/U, AF A 3a e Rate Same for AU Vessel Sues
World scale
W500
SIZE RANGES.
Worldscale
W50 0
W450
W450
W400
W350
W300
W2 50
W200
W150
Wi 004
W50
AFRA BASE
RATE(S/TON)
—f .1
/
• +
FlArE.
I Y
TU I • ff : t
‘Ft :
H’:
10 r)
W3 00
W250
‘W200
Wi 50
Wi 00
W50
AFRA BASE
oRATE (S/TON)
j I WfH
II1
RI VOYAGE LENGTH — 000 MILES ’-
.rrI-” t+ . • .- .L1 i i
__________ 4.27 h1 ±L 3.89—h 1
‘‘ r 1A
i1i f
‘: •,
T
11 000 MILESj
It LI I t t
- 4.O1-4 4 5.20 - j s. 2 n 5 . 50 -L 1 . 7.624
.
—
______
r r
- LI1Iim
8.5O
1970 1971 1972 1913 1974 1 J!1
-------
23
by Chem Systems in .ap analysis they performed for the Pittston
Company last year. 12 ! It appears that they conform ç psely with the
AR14O rates. Houston to New York pipeline tariffs! ./are based on
current rates escalated to 1980.
Refinery Investment . east coast location factor of 1. 20 reflects
a Philadelphia location.— The lack of any refinery construction in New
England makes it difficult to assign an accurate location factor to Eastport,
Maine. A large construction firm which has had extensive 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 l9 7 dollars. This.
investment was adjusted to 1980 using a 9 percent 1 per year increase
in refinery construction costs. Working capital was added to their
investment at an amount equal to $700/B/D of capacity. The location
factor for the East Coast of 1. 20 referred to the Gulf Coast was derived
from the Pace Study.
Refinery Operating Costs . Refinery operating costs were derived
from the Pace study for the Gulf Coast and Middle Atlantic cases.
They were modified by an economy-of- size scale curve published by
W. L. Nelson in the January 15, 1973, edition of the Oil and Gas
Journal . This curve plotted refinery size against cost factors using
100, 000 B/D as equivalent to 1. 0. A 150, 000 B/D refinery had an
operating cost factor equal to . 95 while a 250, 000 B/D unit had a
factor of . 90. The ratio of these factors were applied against refinery
cost items except for chemicals, catalysts and depreciation. The latter
was calculated separately. Chemicals and catalyst were maintained
constant on a unit basis.
Report - Chem Systems, INC. to D. K. Heeden, the Pittston
Company, September 17, 1974.
“Pipeline Rates on Gasoline and Petroleum Products,” Capital
Systems Group, INC.
The Pace Study.
Chem Systems, INC. Report.
J—25
-------
24
Base wage rates for refinery employees are published in the National
Petroleum Refiners Association’s booklet “NPRA Collective Bargaining
Manual.” This shows relative wages in all refining areas of the country.
These data were used in the Pace study to determine relative wage
rates.
Location and 1980
Base Wage Base Wage Productivity Wage Rate
Location 1975 ($/Hr.,) 1980 ($/Hr.) Factor ( $/Hr. )
Gulf Coast 685 901 1.00 9. 01
EastCoast 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 13. 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
AU 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 bejfcr productivity factor of 1. 09 as
compared with Philadelphia’s 1. 14._JThe combined effect of these
would be about a 10% lower labor cost for Boston which is equal to
1ç /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.
L. Nelson, Oil and Gas Journal , July 30, 1976, page 134.
J-26
-------
25
Product Distribution . The product yield pattern ’ 1 expected from
the 2b0, 000 barrel-per-day refinery follows:
Product B/D on Crude Imports
Propane LPG 2, 867 1. 2
Butane LPG 4,802 1. 9
Gasoline
Regular
Premium
No. 2 Fuel Oil
No. 5FuelOil
Refinery Fuel
Fuel Gas
Sulfur
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. 05/bbl.
. .?i “An Environmental Assessment Report,” Enviro-Sciences, INC.,
March 8, 1976.
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 BID F. 0. E.
454Tons/D
J—2 7
-------
APPENDIX K
-------
SECTION 1 - EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME IMPACTS
Construction and operation of the Pittston refinery will generate signi-
ficant impacts on employment and income at the local, state, and regional
levels. In order to estimate the total impacts at each of these levels, it
is necessary to determine: a) the total amount of refinery—related expendi-
tures retained within each area; b) the size of the multiplier for determining
the amount of additional economic activity induced in each area; c) some
estimate, if possible, of additional government spending and private invest-
ment necessitated or encouraged by the refinery’s development and operation.
These amounts, like direct expenditures on the refinery, are also subject
to the multiplier effect.
The following analysis will treat construction and operation of the
refinery separately, due to differences in the scale and duration of the impacts
involved.
Washington County will be defined as the “local area” around the site.
There are two reasons for this: 1) detailed employment data is available
at the County level, since the County is a “labor area” as defined by the
Maine Department of Manpower Affairs; 2) the County is geographically large enough
so that all, or virtually all, refinery construction and operating workers can be
expected to have permanent or temporary residences within the County’s borders.
A. Construction Impacts
Construction of the Pittston Refinery is currently anticipated to
be at least a $650 million uridertakingL Much of this expenditure will not
beretainedwithin Washington County, the State of Maine, or even the New
England region, however. A large part of the refinery’s cost will be for
construction materials and services purchased outside these areas.
In order to estimate the economic impact of the refinery’s construction
on each of these areas, it is first necessary to determine roughly what pro-
portion of the total construction expenditures, for labor and non—labor
construction requirements, will be retained in each area.
1. Allocation of the Construction Labor Force and Its Earnings
Table 1 shows a breakdown for the likely sources of the peak
workforce needed to construct the refinery, as well as a breakdown
for the total man years of labor required. The discussion which follows
gives the basis for the estimates presented in the Table. For simpli-
city, the Table assumes that total man-years of labor will be allocated
in the same way as the peak labor force.
K—l
-------
Table 1
Anticipated Source of Labor for Refinery Construction
— Source
Area
Number of
Workers
Total
Labor
Amount of
(Nan—years)
Washington County
760
1063
Maine Outside of Washington
Co.
340
483
New England Outside of Maine
495
708
Outside New England
680
966
TOTALS 2275 3220
Pittston Company currently estimates that construction of the
Lefinery and its marine terWinal will require a peak work force of
approximately 2275 workers.’ The anticipated staging of this work—
force is not yet available in detail. flowever, Pittston anticipates
that the peak workforce will be required for a period of only ten months.
Examination of the limited amount of data available on workforce staging 3
Indicates that a total of approximately 3220 man—years of direct con-
struction labor will be necessary for building the refinery.
These estimates appear to be reasonable and even conservative in
light of data presented in the Arthu D. Little report on petroleum
industry c evelopment in New England. Arthur D. Little’s estimates of
the labor requirements for construction of a 250,000 barrel per day
high—fuel—oil refinery of the type planned by Pittston indicate a need
for an average annual workforce of about 1610 workers and a total of
4400 man—years of work.
A major source of the difference between the Pittston and Arthur
D. Little estimates appear to lie in their estimates of the length
of the construction periol. Arthur D. Little assumes a three—year
construction period, while Pittston anticipates only a 30—month constr c—
tion period, with most construction being accomplished over 24 months.
Pittston anticipates that it will be able to obtain about one—third
of its peak constructioq workforce (about 760 workers) within the
Washington County area.’ This estimate also appears to be reasonable
in light of current unemployment within the County and past experiences
with major conatructioü projects in rural and semi—rural areas.
First, it should be pointed out that construction workers are
accustomed to commuting long distances to work; fifty, sixty, and
even eighty mile (one—way) commutes are not uncommon. Such long
distance commuting was common during construction of power stations
at Wiscasset, Maine and Colson Cove in New Brunswick, Canada. 8
Similiar commutes have also commonly occurred during construction of
K-2
-------
nuclear power plants at various locations throughout the United States.
“Nearly all construction workers will commute to a distance of 50 miles
and consider the inconvenience as a requirement of their occupation.” 9
This willingness to commute makes it possible to draw upon a large
surrounding area for recruitment of construction workers. In the case
of the Pittston refinery, it should be possible to draw upon all, or
virtually all, of Washington County for construction labor.
The average annual number of unemployed in Washington County in 1976
was over 1600 individuals.’ 0 In terms of sheer number, there thus
appears to be a more than adequate supply of available labor to meet
construction needs, esteclally since it is only during the 10—month
peak period that the full 760 localworkerswill be needed.
It is possible to question whether a sufficient number of workers
with appropriate skills will be available to fill Pittston’s needs.
However, many of the jobs involved in construction of the refinery
require only a low skill level (e.g. ,laborer positions) and it is also
expected that worker training programs will have expanded the local
labor force available by the time construction actually begins.
Pittston Company itself has evidenced some willingness to pay for
additional worker training programs, should they prove necessary
Finally, past experiences with other major construction projects in
rural areas show that it is frequently possible to obtain high pro-
portions of local construction workers even in relatively sparsely
populated areas. Large power plants constructed in other areas of
the country have commonly drawn over 50% of their construction labor
needs from local areas. 12 While the refinery is likely to find it
possible to fill its construction labor needs, however, it is possible
that other areas of the local economy will experience significant
shortages of labor, at least during the refinery’s peak construction
period. Lower paying local jobs may find it difficult to compete
with the higher—paying opportunities available at the refinery.
The Arthur D. Little report estimates that about 30% of all workers
needed for construction of a refinery in New England would be imported
from outside New England. 13 Applying this figure to the Pittston
estimates of a 2275—man peak workforce indicates that about 680 workers
will be imported from outside the region during the peak period.
This leaves some 835 peak period workers who are anticipated to
come from inside New England, but outside Washington County. Forty
percent of this total (about 340 men) has been arbitrarily allocated
to the remainder of the state of Maine, and 60% (495 men) to other
states In New England. This appears to be a reasonable breakdown
which should avoid undue exaggeration of income and employment impacts
on the State of Maine.
In order to estimate total worker earnings from refinery construction
it will be assumed that refineryworkers enjoy the following annual wage
levels:
K- 3
-------
a) workers from Washington County are paid an average of $12,000/year;
b) workers from other areas are paid an average of $20,000/year.
The estimate for Washington County workers Is based on the fact that
average construction worker wages in the County in 1975 were just over
$9000 annually. 14 Inflation and productivity increases have probably
brought this above the $10,000/year mark currently. It is reasonable
to expect that the tremendous demand for construction workers on the
refinery should force wages up further, so that a $12,000 annual average
is not unreasonable.
The significantly higher rate of pay for workers drawn from other areas
can be justified based on three factors. First, wage scales are generally
higher In other areas (even in other parts of Maine) than they are in
Washington County. Second, and perhaps most important, the imported
workers will in general have a significantly higher level of skills
than will the local workers, many of whom will perform the low—skill
construction work.
These wage levels are also reasonable in light of prevailing union
and nonunion construction wage rates in Maine. Depending on type of
skill, nonunion construction workers In Maine currently earn from $4.00
to $6.00 or $7.00 per hour, while union workers earn from $7.00 to $10.00
or $11.00 per hour. There is reason to believe that the Pittston project
may be constructed using a mix of union and nonunion labor, even though
other major construction projects In Maine, such as paper mill construction
projects, have employed union labor almost completely. Recently, however,
some paper mill construction projects have begun to use contractors em-
ploying nonunion labor. In additon, other construction work throughout
the state frequently employs both union and nonunion workers)- 5 The
annual wage levels presented above are consistent with a local workforce
composed of lower—skill, predominantly nonunion individuals and an im—
ported workforce with higher skills and a high proportion of union members.
Based on these wage rates and on the man—year estimates presented
in Table 1, It is possible to estimate the total wages drawn by each
group of local or imported workers. These estimates are presented in
Table 2.
Table 2
Anticipated Wages for Refinery Construction Workers -
Source of
Workforce
Ma
of
n—Years
Labor
Annual
Wage
Total Wages
(in 000’s)*
Washington County
1063
$12,000
$12,750
Maine Outside of Washington
Co.
483
20,000
9,660
New England Outside of Maine
708
20,000
14,160
Outside New England -
966
20,000
.
19,320
TOTALS
3220
$55,890
* Figures are rounded in this column.
K-4
-------
To determine the amount of wages retained as income in each area,
it will be assumed that 100% of the wages of native workers, but only
10% of the wages of imported workers, are retained in each area. The
relatively low proportion of imported workers’ earnings retained is
based on two considerations: a.) most of the imported workers will
not bring dependents with them, so that a large proportion of their
earnings will be spent in their home areas rather than around the
refinery site; b.) much of the money which is spent directly by the
imported refinery workers will go for imported goods or services and
thus will not be retained as Income by residents of the areas under
discussion. This leakage effect will be especially severe In Wash-
ington County.
Table 3 presents estimates of construction worker wage retention,
based on the assumptions discussed the preceding paragraph, for Wash-
ington County, the State of Maine, and the New England region. It
should be noted that the totals presented in this table are cumulative:
that Is, the Washington County totals are contained within the State
totals, which are, in turn, contained within the New England totals.
Table 3
Anticipated Retention of Construction Worker Wages, by Area
(All figures in thousands)
Area
(1)
Na
Wages of Wages of
tive Workers Imported Workers
(2) (3)
Retained Wages *
Col.2 + (.1 x Col. 3)
(4)
Washington
County
$12,750
$43,140
$17,060
Maine
22,410
33,480
25,760
New England
36,570
19,320
38,500
* Figtires are rounded in this column.
ii . Retention of Non—Labor Construction Expenditures
The bulk of the cost of constructing the refinery will go
for items other than direct construction labor; materials, equipment,
design, etc. In view of the estimates for total costs and construction
labor already presented, the expenditure for items other than on—site
labor may total as high as $600 million.
It is unlikely that Washington County will receive any significant
portion of this expenditure. The County’s economic base is not capable
of providing the range of sophisticated materials and services which
the refinery will require. It will be assumed that Washington County
will receive 0% of non—labor construction expenditures.
Currently, there are no other petroleum refineries In New England
so that the region’s economy is unlikely toprovewell—adapted to pro-
viding the new refinery’s construction needs. Even in regions which
K- 5
-------
contain an extensive oil industry, such as Texas, significant leakages
of refinery construction expenditures to other regions are an ordinary
occurrence. 16 it would seem reasonable that New England should there-
fore directly receive oniy about 30Z of non—labor construction expendi-
tures. Additional leakages Out of the region (e.g., due to sub—contract-
ing for purchase of materials or services from suppliers in other regions)
are likely to reduce the total proportion of expenditures eventually
reaching New England workers as wages to only about 15Z) 7 Thus, we
wiU assume that non—labor construction expenditures ultimately retained
in New England total $90,000,000. This is still a considerable sum,
despite the high level of leakage assumed.
For simplicity, we will assume that Maine retains 1OZ of the amount
captured by New England, or $9,000,000.
Table 4 below shows the total direct income increase anticipated in
each area through retention of construction wages and non—labor construc-
tion expenditures. Again, totals are cumulative by area.
..
Area
Total Direct
Income Increases
Washington
County
$17,060
0
$ 17,060
Maine
25,760
$ 9 ,000
34 ,760
New England
38,500
90,000
128,500
iii. Reductions in Other Labor Income and Unemployment Benefits
The figures shown in column 3 of Table 4 indicate the total
additional income which should accrue to each of the three areas
examined as a result of retention of refinery construction expenditures.
‘As a result of two factors, however, worker non—replacement and loss of
unemployment benefits, this column somewhat overstates the net gain in
income which should be expected.
a. Worker Non-replacement
It appears likely that many of the construction workers
on the refinery will be drawn away from other jobs. Only insofar as
these workers are replaced by currently unemployed individuals will
some loss of current local or regional income be avoided. For example,
if a construction worker is employed on the refinery at $12,000/year,
but has left a $10,000/year job to do so, the net gain in regional
income is only $2000 per year unless the worker is replaced by an
unemployed individual.
Table 4
Anticipated Direct Income Increases, by Area
/A11 in thoj €1
Retained construction Retained Non-Labor
Worker Wanes Const. Expenditures
K-6
-------
A worker leaving his job for another position may not be replaced
for at least two reasons: a) his position may not really be essential,
so that there is no need to replace him; b) it may prove difficult or
impossible to find a replacement with suitable skills.
The second factor may prove highly significant within Washington
County during the refinery construction period. The demand for local
construction workers will be very high compared to that in more ordinary
times. It will undoubtedly prove necessary to attract construction
workers away from other jobs, and replacement of these workers may prove
very difficult, particularly during the peak construction period. It
would be reasonable to assume that during the peak construction period,
perhaps as many as 50% of the local workers will be drawn from jobs
where they cannot be easily replaced. Even if this effect is much less
severe during non—peak times, it would appear reasonable to assume that,
for the construction period as a whole, about 30% of the man—years of
work expended by local construction workers on the refinery could have
been spent on other jobs in the area. If we assume they would have been
paid $10,000 per year on these other jobs, the total loss of Income
within Washington County due to worker non—replacement is:
.30 x 1063 man—years x $10,000 per mañ—year=$3,190,000.
Since workers imported into Washington Cqunty will be drawn from
much wider areas where there is frequently high unemployment among
construction workers, it is unlikely that construction worker shortages
will develop in those areas. We will therefore assume that no additional
worker shortages will develop outside Washington County and that the
income loss due to construction worker non—replacement will be limited
to the $3,190,000 calculated above.
The first factor mentioned, non—replacement of redundant or non-
essential workers, is very difficult to estimate, since It is likely
to vary significantly depending upon economic conditions in different
areas. In order to allow for some accounting of this factor, we will
arbitrarily assume that 10% of the income obtained through retention
of non—labor construction expenditures is lost through non—replacement
of redundant workers.
Table 5 stimm rIzes the total anticipated losses of income, by
area, due to worker non—replacement. It should be noted that, as
before, the Washington County totals are contained within the state
totals, which are contained, in turn, within the New England totals.
Table 5
Anticipated Income Losses due to Worker Non—Replacement,
by Area, (All figures in thousands)
Area
Washington County
Loss due to const.
worker non—replace.
$3,190
Loss due to non—replace.
of redundant workers
0
Total
Loss
$3,190
Maine
New England
3,190
3,190
$ 900
9,000
4,090
12,190
K- 7
-------
b. Loss of Unemployment Benefits
When, as a result of new employment opportunities,
workers are drawn, directly or indirectly from the local or regional
pooi of unemployed, there is likely to be a loss of income from
government transfer payménis (unemployment compensation, welfare pay-
ments, food stamps, etc.). These payments frequently act as a
significant automatic stabilizer within a local or regional economy.
When employment Income decreases due to job losses, the amount of
transfer payments increases to reduce the net drop in income. A
reverse effect occurs when employment becomes more plentiful.
In the discussion which follows, the analysis of transfer
payment loss due to increased employment opportunities will be limited
to losses of unemployment benefits. This is for two reasons:
a) it is difficult to derive estimates of losses in other forms of
transfer payments, at least in an analysis of this scope; b) unemploy-
ment compensation will probably be more directly and significantly
affected by employment increases than will other forms of transfer
payments.
Table 6 below suwarizes rough estimates for the anticipated
loss of unemployment compensation benefits, by area. The method
of calculation used was based on anticipated salary levels, current
levels of unemployment benefits, and the percentage of the unemployed
receiving benefits. The calculations are not difficult, but would
prove lengthy to explain, and so are presented in SectIon 2.
Table 6
Anticipated Loss of Unemployment Benefits, by Area
(All figures in thousands)
Area
Loss Resulting from
Increased Const.
Worker Employment
Loss Resulting from
Other Increased
Employment
Total
Loss
Washington
County
$1,060
0
$
1,060
Maine
1,890
$ 1,460
S
3,350
New England
3,160
16,200
19,360
Table 7 simI RrIzes the effects of both types of losses on total
direct net Income, by area. It should be noted that the net income
increase constitutes only the net direct effect on Income of refinery
construction expenditures. Table 7 4oes not include the multiplier
effect on local and regional income, which will be dealt with later
In the discussion.
K- 8
-------
Table 7
Anticipated Income Losses Due to Worker Non—replacement
and Unemployment Benefit Loss, by Area
(All figures in thousands)
Area
Anticipated Gross
Income Increase
Worker Non-
Replace. Loss
Unemployment
Benefit Loss
Anticipated Net Direct
Income Increase
Washington
County
$ 17,060
$3,190
$ 1,060
$12,810
Maine
34,760
4,090
3,350
27,320
New England
128,500
12,190
19,360
96,950
iv. Other Income Impacts
En addition to income increases resulting directly from
refinery construction expenditures, three additional sources of income
impact should be considered, at least with regard to Washington County.
First, local government expenditures are likely to increase during
the construction period in order to provide for needed increases in
services such as police protection and education. A detailed analysis
of likely required increases in service expenditures is provided in
another section of this document. No attempt will be made, however,
to determine the impact of increased expenditure upon local income.
This is because the greatly increased property tax revenue from the
refinery, or even the anticipation of this revenue, may encourage
the City or County to undertake further expenditure increases in
order to improve the quality of existing services. The uncertainty
concerning the size of the net effect of the refinery’s construction on
total government expenditures would greatly reduce the accuracy of
any impact estimate undertaken.
Second, and an issue involving similar problems, is the effect of
any reduction in property tax rates during refinery construction on
the income of Eastport’s inhabitants. Again, a sound estimate of the
significance of such an impact would require knowledge of what is
unforeseeable at the present time. Specifically, Eastport’s future
decisions to Cut taxes or increase expenditures in the face of a
major increase in the property tax base.
Third, local income may be increased if additional private in-
vestment (e.g., in stores or other commercial facilities) is encouraged
by the refinery’s construction and its consequent Impact upon local
income and employment. The Arthur Johnson study mentions several
possible private commerf lal investments which might go forward if the
refinery were approved. 8 It is quite impossible, however, without
undertaking a very detailed investigation, to determine with any
accuracy the overall likely amount of such potential activity. It
would also be difficult to determine whether the new investment should
be attributed to construction of the refinery or to its operation.
K- 9
-------
While no detailed analysis of these three factors will be under-
taken, their existence should be noted. Should they prove significant
(and at least the first and second are likely to be of importance),
they would mean that the results of this analysis underestimated some-
what the actual income impacts to be anticipated. Inclusion of these
factors would be unlikely to bring about a really significant change
in the scale of the impacts, however. An increase of 10—15% in the
final income and employment estimates for Washington County should
prove adequate to account for the effects of these factors.
v. Multiplier Analysis
In order to determine the total income impacts on each of
the three areas being examined, the figures in the final column of
Table 7 (the anticipated direct net income increases) must be multiplied
by the appropriate factor to obtain a figure which includes both direct
net and induced income impacts.
The concept of the “multiplier” is based upon the idea that any
expenditure by a firm, government, or individual will lead to addition-
al expenditures by those receiving the initial outlay. For example,
if government undertakes a construction project, laborers will be
paid to perform the work. They, in turn, will spend their wages on
goods and services, thus giving employment to additional firms and
individuals who will in turn purchase additional goods and servies,
etc. The original expenditure by the government thus circulates
repeatedly through the economy, and the total of economic activity
thus generated is greater than would be warranted by the original
expenditure alone.
For this analysis, the values of the multipliers used will be 1.2
for Washington County, 1.45 for the State of Maine, and 1.7 for the
New England region. These values are smaller than can frequently
be found in studies of this type, but the,y are in line with the values
found in many regional economic studies. -’ The multipliers used here
attempt to take into account the important leakages which occur out
of any locality or region in the form of taxes, imports, and reduced
unemployment benefits. The derivation of the individual multipliers
de ’ived specifically for this project Is discussed in detail in Section 3.
Some additional comments on the use of multipliers are also
appropriate at this point. First, it should be noted that if there
is an initial income Impact of size I and a multiplier of size N,
then the value (I x N) Is the total income impact (the sum of the
direct and induced income impacts) not the induced Income impact
alone. The induced income impact is given by (M x I) — I (N — l)xI.
Thus, for example, if we have an Initial income impact of $1,000,000
and a multiplier of 1.5, the total Income impact is $1,500,000. The
induced Impact Is $1,500,000 — $1,000,000 = $500,000.
K-l0
-------
Second, it should be noted that this analysis will employ the same
multiplier in determining impacts for both the construction and operating
phases of the refinery development. A good case can be made that the
multiplier used for the construction phase should be smaller than those
ised for the operating phase. 2 ° The argument is that construction
involves short—term, rather than recurring expenditures. It is possible
that the local economy will be unable to adjust over the short time
available to the sudden infusion of income from a new source, so that
additional leakages of income will occur.
For two reasons, however, the construction impact multiplier used
here will not be adjusted downward to take this effect Into account:
a) it Is difficult to determine accurately how large an adjustment is
necessary; b) construction of the refinery is a fairly long undertaking
of between two and three years. Therefore, it seems likely that the
local economy will have time to make at least some adjustment to the
higher level of income available due to the construction.
Table 8 summRrizes the anticipated total income impacts due to the
refinery construction, using the multiplier values mentioned above.
Table 8
Total Income Impacts Due to Refinery Construction, by Area
(All figures in thousands)
Area
Net Direct
Income Impact
Multiplier
Induced
Income
Total Income
Impact
Washington
County
12,810
1.2
2,560
15,370
Maine
27,320
1.45
12,295
39,615
New England
96,950
1.7
67, 65
164,815
It should be noted that the income impacts listed are total,
not annual, impacts. These impacts will be spread out over at least
a three—year period, since the original income impacts will continue
to work their way through the economy even for some time after
construction is complete. It is possible to determine a rough average
annual impact by dividing the total impact by three. However, it
should be remembered that the actual income impact will be somewhat
irregular, since construction expenditures will have a significant
peak.
K-il
-------
vi. Employment Impacts in Washington County and Eastport
Based on the preceding discussion, it is possible to develop
rough estimates of the total employment impact likely to result in
Washington County from refinery construction.
As was discussed earlier, It may be estimated that 1,063 man—years
of employment will be provided for workers from Washington County
directly in construction of the refinery. Taking into account the
likelihood that some 30% of the local refinery workers will be drawn
from other jobs where they cannot easily be replaced, the net gain in
direct construction employment will still be approximately 744 man—
years.
In addition, it has been estimated that an additional $2,560,000 of
induced income will be generated within the County through the multi-
plier effect. Assuming that 90% of this income increase goes to wages
for workers In new jobs, pd given an estimated annual average wage of
$7,300 within the County, this additional induced income may create
an additional 315 man—years of employment.
The direct and induced employment impacts will be spread out, rather
irregularly over a period of at least three years. By far the most
significant employment impact will occur during the peak ten—month
construction period. On the average, however, given a total of nearly
1060 man—years of employment, construction of the refinery should
provide about 350 jobs per year. If we take into account increased
local government spending and additional private investment encouraged
or necessitated by the refinery’s construction, the above totals may
be increased somewhat. An average level of 85 jobs per year for
three years would appear reasonable.
The annual average unemployment rate for 976 in Washington County
was 11.5%, with 1,610 individuals unemployed. 2 Construction of the
refinery could thus be expected to reduce annual average unemployment
by about one—fourth for a period of three years, bringing the rate down
to between 8% and 9%. As mentioned, however, the most dramatic impact
will occur during the peak construction period, when it is likely that
a total of about 800 County residents will be employed directly or
indirectly, on refinery construction. For a period of a single year,
this would reduce the County’s average annual rate of unemployment by
about half. Significantly smaller declines in the unemployment rate
would occur before and after the peak period.
It is difficult to estimate the proportion of this employment which
may accrue to residents of Eastport itself. Eastport residents make
up approximately 7% of the total unemployed within the County. They
therefore could be expected to obtain at least this proportion of
refinery—related employment. However, a number of additional factors
may act to Increase this proportion: a) since the refinery will be
located in Eastport, Jobs viii be relatively more accessible to Eastport
residents than to residents of other areas in the County; b) most
increased local government expenditures during refinery construction
viii come from the government of the City of Eastport; c) similarly,
Eastport is likely to receive a high proportion of whatever amount of
imported construction worker wages are retained within the County.
K- 12
-------
Due to these factors, Eastport is likely to enjoy a high pro-
portion of the total employment generated by the refinery t s construction:
probably, at least 10% of the total and perhaps even 15%, for an average
of 35 to 55 jobs per year for three years. It it thus possible that up
to 100 members of the peak construction force will be drawn from Eastport.
B. Operating Impacts
i. Refinery Labor Force
During the refinery’s normal operation Pittston Co. currently
estimates that the refinery will employ about 300 workers with an annual
payroll of $3,000,000. These estimates appear reasonable and even con-
servative in light of employment estimates for similar refineries given
in other sources. 23 1n view of the high unemployment rate within Washing-
ton County, the County’s labor force should easily be able to supply the
200 local workers which Pittston has said it will recruit for the refinery.
About 100 workers, presumably those possessing skills not available lo-
cally, will be imported from outside the area.
ii. Refinery Operating Expenditures
In addition to workers salaries, the refinery’s operations will
also generate expenditures for a number of items necessary for the facility’s
operation. Specifically, these include maintenance, supplies, utilities,
and catalysts and chemicals. Since it is currently planned that the re-
finery will generate its own electric power 4 it is anticipated that ex-
penditures for utilities will involve only the purchase of needed water
supplies. Table 9 below gives Federal Energy Administration estimates of
refinery operating expenditures per barrel for each of the items men-
tioned above. Annual expenditures are based on a daily refining capacity
of 250,000 barrels.
Table 9
Adjusted FEA Estimates of Refinery Operating Expenditures
Expenditure Estimated Annual
per barrel Expenditure (250,000
Bb 1/day)
Maintenance
$.l6
$14,600,000
Supplies
.01
912,500
Catalysts/Chemicals
.12
10,950,000
Utilities*
Total
.01
$.30
912,500
$27,375,000
*Adjusted to allow for on—site generation of refinery electricity supply.
Electric costs ordinarily account for at least 90% of total utility cx—
penditures. (See Arthur D. Little, Petroleum Development in New England ,
Vol. 2, Table 11—15, p. 11—27).
Source: Federal Energy Administration estimates.
It is difficult to estimate what proportion of the total expend-
iture will be retained locally or regionally. Even in areas with well—
developed oil industries, however, significant leakages of operating ex—
K—13
-------
penditures very frequently occur. 25 Such leakages can be expected to be
especially significant in New England, which does not as yet have any oil
refining capacity.
It will therefore be assumed that while purchases for maintenance,
supplies, and utilities will be made inside the New England region,
catalysts and chemicals will be purchased outside the region. Further, it
is likely that many specialized refinery maintenance skills will not be
available within New England, so that a significant proportion of main-
tenance expenditures will have to be shifted to other regions of the
nation. Finally, a significant proportion of even those maintenance and
supply expenditures initially retained by New England are likely to leak
out of the region, e.g. through subcontracts.
It thus appears reasonable to assume that New England ultimately
may retain less than half of total refinery maintenance expenditures. There-
fore,an estimate of $.O8per barrel will bet ed53r the retention figure.
Fully half of this retained amount, or $04 per barrel may be
retained within the State of Maine, since the less technical skills and
equipment needed for refinery maintenance will probably be obtained as
near to the refinery site as possible. Similarly, it will be assumed
that Washington County will account for half of Maine’s total retention,
or an expenditure of $.02 per barrel. It should be noted that initial re-
finery operating expenditures within Washington County may well be higher
than $.02 per barrel; the $.02 figure represents only that portion which is
ultimately retained as income by County residents.
Table 10 lists the annual gross income Increases anticipated for
each of the three areas as a result of refinery salaries and operating ex-
penditures.
Table 10
Anticipated Annual Gross Income Increases from Refinery
Operation Expenditures and Salaries, by Area
Retained Annual
Total Annual
Annual
Total Annual
Expenditures
Operating
Salaries
Gross Income
per Barrel
Expenditures
*
Increase*
Retained*
Washington
County
$02
$1,825
$3,000
$ 4,825
Maine
.04
3,650
3,000
6,650
New England .08
* — Figures in thousands
7,300 3,000 10,300
iii. Reductions in Other Laboi Income and Unemployment Benefits .
As in the case of construction impacts, the gross income
Increase due to refinery operation must be adjusted to take into account
income losses due to worker nonreplacement and loss of unemployment
K-l4
-------
benefits.
a. Worker Nonreplacement
Operation of the refinery is not likely to place a sig-
nificant strain on the available labor force within Washington County. Un-
like the situation during the peak construction period, when a very large
number of local workers possessing specific skills will be required, re-
finery operation will require a smaller work force and one which can be
drawn from a much broader segment of the total labor force. We will there-
fore assume that there will be no labor shortage which would render it
difficult to replace workers leaving their current jobs to work at re-
finery related employment.
The only reason for worker nonreplacement will there-
fore be nonreplacement of nonessential or redundant workers who leave
their current positions for refinery related employment. Just as in the
analysis of construction impacts, it will be estimated that 10% of the
workers at new jobs created directly or indirectly by the refinery will
be drawn from other jobs where they will not be replaced. Therefore, it
is estimated that 20 out of the 200 local Washington County workers em-
ployed directly at the refinery will be drawn from jobs where they will
not be replaced. Assuming an annual salary of $1300, the annual loss of
income to the County from this source would be about $150,000. This will
be called the direct Income loss.
As in the construction impact section, it will be assum-
ed that 10% of all income generated by retained refinery expenditures is
lost due to worker nonreplacement. This will be called the indirect in-
come loss.
Table 11 below sun narizes the annual income losses due
to worker nonreplacement during refinery operation.
Table 11
Annual Income Loss due to Worker Nonreplacement,by Area
(All figures in thousands)
Direct Loss
Indirect Loss
Total Loss
Washington
County
$150.
$180.
$330.
Maine
150.
365.
515.
New England
150.
730.
880.
b. Loss of Unemployment Compensation
Table 12 below summarizes the estimated losses in un-
employment compensation which are likely to result in each of the areas
examined due to refinery operation. The calculations for the estimates
contained in the Table are contained in Se tiQn 2.
K-15
-------
Table 12
Anticipated Annual Loss of Unemployment Compensation
due to Refinery Operation, by Area
(All figures in thousands)
Loss due to Direct Loss due to Indirect
Refinery Em 1ovineiit Ernnlovment
Table 13 shows the anticipated net direct annual in-
come impact of the refinery for each area, after correcting for losses
due to worker nonreplacement and loss of unemployment benefits.
Table 13
Net Annual Direct Income Impact Due to Refinery Operation, by Area
(AU figures in thousands)
Annual
Annual Loss
Annual Loss of Net Direct
Gross Income
due to
Unemployment
Annual
Impact
Worker Non—
Benefits
Employment
replacement
Impacts
Washington
County
$4825
$330
$ 555
$3940
Maine
6650
515
850
5285
New England
10300
880
1510
7910
iv. Other Income Impacts
There are at least three additional factors which may favorably
impact upon income, at least in Washington County, during refinery oper-
ation. These factors are very similar to those discussed under “Addition-
al Income Impacts in the analysis of construction phase impacts.
First, local government expenditures, particularly in the City
of Eastport, are likely to be higher during refinery operation than they
were prior to the refinery’s construction. There are two reasons for
this: a) the Importing of 100 refinery operatives and their households is
likely to increase local service demands somewhat; b) the increased
property tax revenue generated by the refinery is likely to encourage in-
creased government, spending, at least within Eastport itself. Unfortun-
ately, it is Impossible to predict how much spending will increase due to
this factor, since the City will also have available the alternative of
lowering its tax rate. Therefore, no attempt will be made to quantify the
income impact which may result from higher government spending
Second, and a related point, is that a lower property tax would
increase the disposable income of Eastport ‘s inhabitants. Again, it is
impossible to predict with any accuracy the size of this Impact.
Total Loss
Washington County
$ 260
$ 295
$ 555
Maine
260
590
850
New England
260
1250
1510
I -l6
-------
Third, operation of the refinery is likely to encourage increased
private investment within Washington County, at least for a short period.
Perhaps the most significant item in such investment would be the cor truct—
ion of approximately one hundred housing units which would be needed,
directly or indirectly, to house the increased population resulting from
importation of 100 refinery operatives and their households. It should
be noted that, unlike government expenditures and property tax relief,
additional private investment would have only a short term, not a con-
tinuing affect. For example, after the housing stock has been increased
to accommodate the operatives’ households, the housing growth rate will
undoubtedly fall back to its original prerefinery level.
Although important, the effects of the three factors discussed
here are relatively minor compared to the major income impacts resulting
from refinery expenditures on salaries and operating costs. The total
effect of all three factors can be roughly approximated by increasing the
income and employment impact estimates for Washington County by about 10%—
15%.
v. Multiplier Analysis
Table 14 below lists estimates for the total annual income im=
pact of the refinery operation on each area examined, including income in-
creases induced through the multiplier effect. The multipliers used are
the saute for each area as those used in estimating the impact of refinery
construction.
Table 14
Direct, Induced and Total Annual Income Impacts
of Refinery Operation, by Area
Net Direct Multiplier Induced Annual Total Annual
Annual Impact* Impact* Impact*
Washington County $3940
1.2
$
790
$4730
Maine
5285
1.45
2375
7660
New England
7910
*F1
1.7
gures in thou
sands
5540
.
13450
vi. Employment Impacts on Washington County and Eastport
As has already been mentioned, operation of the refinery will
provide 200 jobs for Washington County workers; allowing for nonreplace—
ment of currently nonessential workers who change jobs, a net gain of
about 180 jobs can be expected.
In addition it is anticipated that Washington County will re-
tain as wages approximately $1,825,000 of the refinery’s annual operating
expenditures. Assuming that 90% of this total goes to support workers in
new jobs, and since annual wage levels in the County are approximately
$7,300 per year, this level of expenditure is sufficient to support approx-
imately 225 additional jobs. Again allowing a 10% job loss due to worker
nonreplacemeut, a net gain of about 200 jobs can be expected from this
source.
K-i 7
-------
Similarly, 90% of the induced annual income of $790,000 within the County
should allc i support of approximately an additional. 100 jobs. The effects of
worker nonreplacement have already been taken into account to some extent
in construction of the multiplier, so this total need not be adjusted.
This analysis indicates that operation of the refinery
should generate approximately 180 + 200 + 100 = 480 permanent jobs for
local workers. If an adjustment is allowred to take into account the
likely effects of increased government spending, property tax relief, and
private investment, the total should be increased to approximately 540
jobs.
Since average annual unemployment in Washington County was
just over 1600 in 1976, an employment increase of this magnitude should
reduce the County unemployment rate by one third.
Based on the same arguments presented in the construction
impact analysis, Eastport can be assigned approximately 10% to 15% of the
total jobs generated within Washington County. Thus, Eastport residents
are likely to obtain between 55 and 85 permanent jobs as a result of
refinery operation.
K-18
-------
SECTION 2 - CALCULATIONS FOR ThE LOSS OF ‘UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
DURING REFINERY CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
A. Construction
The following methodology was used to calculate the loss of unemployment
benefits resulting from increased employment opportunities in each area
examined.
1. Employment and income totals were adjusted to allow for the effects
of worker non—replacement.
2. Where the net number of man—years of work to be generated was already
known (specifically in the cases of construction work within Washington County
and the State of Maine), this number was multiplied by the annual average level
of unemployment benefits and by the proportion of unemployed receiving benefits
to obtain total benefits lost. Thus, based on data received from the Maine
Department of Manpower Affairs, weekly unemployment benefits in Maine and in
Washington County are, respectively, $60 and $50 and, of the total number of
persons unemployed, approximately 55% are receiving ;uch benefits. Applying
these figures to the estimated job gain of 744 man—years, loss of unemployment
benefits to the County due to increased construction worker employment is
($50 x 52) x .55 x 744 $1,060,000. The additional loss for the remainder
of the State of Maine is ($60 x 52) x .55 x 483 $830,000, and the total loss
for the State due to construction worker employment is then $1,060,000 +
$830,000 1,890,000.
3. The more complicated case of estimating the additional loss of employ-
ment benefits in the remainder of New England was dealt with. in a different
fashion. Based upon data from a number of New England state labor departments,
it was estimated that, on the average, about $0.20 in unemployment benefits
are lost for every $1.00 increase in income. (This point receives further
extensive discussion in section 3). Since construction workers’ wages are
roughly twice the average annual wage, an increase in construction worker in-
come generates only about half as many job opportunities as it would if the
Income increase were spread across all types of workers. Since only half as
many jobs are created, only half as many individuals can be removed from the
unemployment rolls as would ordinarily occur with a given increase in income.
Therefore, the estimated loss of unemployment benefits per dollar of additional
construction worker income should be approximately only $0.10. Applying this
factor to the increase in construction worker income outside of Maine, we get
a loss estimate of (.1 x $12,740,000) $1,274,000. The total loss of benefits
within New England is then approximately $1,274,000 + $1,890,000 $3,160,000.
4. To determine the loss of benefits from increased employment in non—
construction trades, loss estimates of $0.18 and $0.2Q per $1.00 of net income
increase were used, respectively, for Maine and for New England as a whole.
(The derivation of these loss rates is discussed at greater length in Section 3) .
This yields the following additional benefit losses:
* 1,063 man—years (Table a, p.4) x 0.7 (probability of being drawn from the
pool of unemployed in Washington County — p. 7).
K- 19
-------
a. Maine — (.18 x $8,100,000) $1,460,000
b. New England outside Maine — (.20 x $81,000,000) $16,200,000.
The results of all these calculations are summarized in Table 6 of
the text, which is reproduced below for reference purposes.
Table 6
Anticipated Loss of Unemployment Benefits by Area
(all figures in thousands)
Area
Loss Resulting Prom
Increased Construction
Worker Faployment
Loss Resulting From
Other Increased
Employment
Total
Loss
Washington County
Maine
New England
$ 1,060
1,890
3,160
$ 0
1,1460
16,200
$ 1,060
3,350
19,360
B. Operation
A very similar methodology was used to estimate the loss of unemployment
benefits during refinery operation.
1. Since the refinery will generate a net total of 180 permanent jobs
in Washington County, loss of benefits due to this factor can be estimated at
approximately ($50 x 52) x .55 x 180 $260,000.
2. Using loss factors of $0.18, $0.18, and $0.20 for Washington County,
Maine and New England, respectively, loss of benefits due to indirect unem-
ployment may be estimated as follows:
a. Washington County — ($1,825,000 x .9) x .18 $295,000
b. Maine — ($3,650,000 x .9) x .18 $590,000
C. New England — (($3,650,000 x .9) x .20) + $590,000 $1,250,000
K-20
-------
The results of these calculations are summarized in Table 12 of the
text, which is reproduced below for reference purposes.
Table 12
Anticipated Annual Loss of Unemployment and
Compensation Due _ to Refinery Operation, by Area
(all figures in thousands)
Area
Loss Due to
Direct Refinery
Employment
Loss Due
to Indirect
Employment
.
Total Loss
Washington County
Maine
New England
$ 260
260
260
$ 295
590
1,250
$ 555
850
1,510
K-21
-------
SECTICU 3 - DERIVATION OF MULTIPLIERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ThE STATE OF MAINE, AND NEW ENGLAND
I. The Regional Nnltiplier
The concept of the “multiplier” is based upon the idea that any expen-
diture by a firm, goverrunent, or individual will lead to additional expen-
ditures by those receiving the initial outlay. For example, if government
undertakes a construction project, laborers will be paid to perform the work.
They, in turn, will spend their wages on goods and services, thus giving em-
ployment to additional firms &nd invididuals who will in turn purchase addi-
tional goods and services, etc The original expenditure by the government
thus circulates repeatedly throughout the economy, and th total of economic
activity thus generated is greater than would be warranted by the original
expenditure alone.
This describes the action of the multiplier effect, but tells us nothing
about its size. The size of the multiplier is dependent on two factors.
First, there are “leakages” out of the economy of the area being studied.
These leakages reduce — during each successive cycle through the ec. iomy —
the size of the original expenditure effect. It is usually assumed &hat these
leakages effect a constant proportionate reduction of the expenditun impact,
so that the impact will be reduced to zero after an iitiiiite number cycles.
In reality, if the leakages are at all significant, the expenditure nfect
becomes negligible after only a small number of rounds.
The major forms of leakage out of the economy are:
a. Taxes — these siphon purchasing power away from consumers both directly,
though taxes on income, and indirectly, through taxes on property, goods, and
services.
b. Consumer saving — a small proportion of consumer’s disposable income
is not spent on consumption of goods or services.
c. Spending on imports — this item is especially significant at the re-
gional level, since a significant proportion of the goods and materials pur-
chased within a region are likel v to originate in other areas. The import
effect is Important in diffusing the impact of expenditures in one region over
other regions.
Second, there is the effect of an increase in regional income on the
levelof government transfer payments — e.g., unemployment compensation, wel-
fare payments — into the region. These transfer payments act as automatic
stabilizers on a regional economy. When unemployment within a region increases,
the level of transfer payments Increases, reducing the total drop in regional
income. When regional income increases, however, the level of transfer pay-
ments decreases. This reduces the multiplier effect of any increased expen-
diture within the region.
K-22
-------
II. Ceneral Form of the Multiplier
Total regional income is the sum of local consumption spending, local
investment spending, government spending within the region, and net exports
(this last term may be negative). Algebraically,
Y =C(Yd,T)+I+c+x_M(c(yd,T))
where
= disposable personal income
T = government transfer spending
C(Yd,T) consumption out of available income (disposable income plus
transfer payments)
I local investment spending
G local government spending
X regional exports
M(C T) ) = spending for imports out of total consumption spending.
The variables included in the expression for regional income can be for-
mulated as follows:
1. Disposable income, which is total personal income minus taxes, will
be taken to be a constant proportion of total personal income: d = aY.
2. Consumption spending will be taken as a linear function of disposable
income and transfer payments: C = b + c(Yd + T) = b + c(aY + T).
3. Spending on imports is taken as a linear function of total consump-
tion spending: N n + mc(aY + T).
4. As mentioned, the level of T is influenced by the levelof Y, so that
T = T(Y). Since T is a declining function of Y, T
-------
A numerical estimate of the multiplier can be derived on the basis of
estimates of these parameters.
III. Estimation of the Parameters
A. Washington County
1. National data from 1974 and 1975 indicate that Federal income
and payroll taxes are likely to take at least 14% of any increase in income
in the Washington County area. 26 In addition, the state of Maine imposes a
5% sales tax and an income tax with a sliding scale of 1% to 10% of income. 27
The average percentage of income taken by each of these taxes may be roughly
estimated at 2% and 3% respectively. The sales tax applies, naturally, only
to that proportion of income spent on taxable items. Since the Maine sales
tax applies to a variety of services and to most consumer goods except food,
it appears likely that one—third or more of consumer income, on the average,
would be subject to the tax. For simplicity, we will assume that 40% of in—
coma is spent on items and services subject to the tax, so that the per-
centage of income captured by the tax would be about 2%. Since the number of
low income individuals in Maine, and particularly in Washington County, is
substantial, the progressive nature of the income tax is likely to produce
an average tax toward the lower end of the sliding scale. An average rate
of 3% would appear reasonable.
The largest local tax, the property tax, is unlikely to impact signif 1-
cantly upon increases In regional income, since its revenue generation is
based on property values. While property values are likely to increase fol-
lowing increases in regional income, this will be a long—term phenomenon,
especiafly in light of the lags and delays in the property assessment pro-
cess.
The total percentage of Income captured by various taxes is therefore
approx-f’ te1y .14 + .03 + .02 = .19. Therefore, a = 1.00 — .19 = .81.
2. National data on consumer saving over the last 10 years 28 indicate
that consumption out of dispàsable Income fluctuates around the 9.3% level, so
that c = .93. For purposes of analysis, we are assuming that the average
and marginal propensities to consume are equal. This is a widely used practice,
since data on the marginal propensity may fluctuate significantly over time. 5
Further, any increases in regional income will probably be distributed widely
among different income groups with widely differing marginal propensities,
so that the use of average propensity will probably give a reasonable approxi—
ination of the proportion of additional income actually spent.
3. In estimating 3T, we will consider only the reduction in unemploy-
ment benefits which will Y result from an increase in regional income and
employment. This will be done for two reasons:
a.) in sheer magnitude, the change in unemployment compensation
will probably far out—weigh any changes which may occut in the
level of outlays from other government programs: e.g., welfare
or food stamps;
K—24
-------
b.) data on likely changes in these programs would be difficult
and time—consuming to assemble.
The analysis will also assume the increase in regional income resulting from
the multiplier effect will not be so large as to encourage more individuals
to migrate into the region or enter the labor force.
A value of T may be estimated based on the formula
= V U K
S
where
V = the negative of the current average weekly benefit under the
unemployment compensation program. The negative number is used
since we are seeking to determine the amount of compensation
lost to the regional economy.
U = the proportion of unemployed individuals receiving compensation.
S = the current average weekly wage in the area.
K = the proportion of increased regional income which is available
for generating new employment opportunities.
It is usual for K to be less than 100%, since some portion of increased
regional income is likely to go for higher business profits or higher salaries
(through either wage increases or more overtime) for existing workers, rather
than for creation of new employment opportunities. -
The formula above is designed to give a numerical estimate of the amount
of unemployment compensation lost per dollar of increase in regional income
from other sources. Assuming that workers for newly created jobs are drawn
from among the unemployed, then the amount of unemployment compensation lost
is given by the total number of man—weeks of work created by the increase in
regional income ( K dY )/s, times the proportion of unemployed receiving
unemployment compensation. (U) times the negàti’ e of the average benefit re-
ceived by those individuals leaving unemployment for the new jobs.
On a statewide basis, V - $59•43 9 Since the size of an individual’s
benefit is based on his previous salary, however, it is likely that the average
benefit in Washington County is lower than the statewide average. Since the
household income level in the County is only about 85% of the statewide income
level, we may assume that unemployment benefits are correspondingly smaller.
We will therefore estimate that for Washington County, V = .85 ($59.43) = — $50.
Currently, about 55% of the unemployed in the State of Maine are receiving
compensation. We will assume that this ratio- is also applicable in Washington
County, so that U = .55.
In 1975, weekly wages in Washington County for employment covered by the
State’s Employment Security Act were just under $140. This was probably some-
what higher than the average for all employment, since some jobs not covered
K-25
-------
by the Act were undoubtedly available at lower wages. Wages have probably
risen since 1975; we shall use S = $140, however, to take into account the
effect of including lower paying non—covered employment in our caculations.
We will assume that K = .90, so that most of the increase in regional
income will go into new job creation.
Give these values for the parameters, we have:
aT = V-U•K = — $50• .55. .9 =—.18
aY S $140
4. It is very difficult to obtain an accurate estimate of the
proportion of regional consumption expenditures which are spent outside the
region or on imports. For a region such as Washington County, however, N
should be very high. The area’s economy is not strong in consumer goods
manufacture, so it is likely that most retail goods must be imported. A
significant proportion of expenditures for housing and transportation - that
proportion which pays for fuel — may also be considered expenditures on im—
ports. Many service expenditures — e.g., a portion of expenditures for
vacations and education — are directed to areas outside the region. There
are innumerable additlonalleakages: for example, a significant proportion
of the money spent inside the region on movies is utlimately paid to firms
outside the region who rent the films.
In light of these factors, it is reasonable to estimate that about
852 of expenditures on retail goods and 652 of expenditures on services leak
out of the region. National data Indicate that approximately 57% of total
consumption expenditures are devoted to goods, while 43% are for services.
Then, we may estimate that N = (.85 x .57) + (.65 x .43) = .76. Calculations
will employ N .75.
Based onthe above parameter estimates, it is now possible to estimate
the multiplier for Washington County as:
1 1 =1.17
1 — c(l—m) (a + T ) 1 — .93 (1—.75) (.81 — .18)
Calculations will employ a value of 1.2.
B. The values of the parameters for the state of Maine can be similarly
estimated as follows:
1. As in the case of Washington County, we will use a = .81, since
we are dealing with the same set of taxes in both cases.
2. Similarly, we will again use c = .93, since this is based on
national data.
a T
3. In estimating aT, we will again use K = .9 and U = .55 (t’ is is
a statewide average). Since we assumed that benefits and galaries-
K-26
-------
V
were in the same ratio in Washington County as in the state as a whole, S is
also unchanged. Then )T = V U K = -.18 again.
3Y S
4. Although it is a much larger economic unit than Washington County,
the State of Maine must still import a very wide variety of of gôods’.and ser-
vices. Fuel, many types of food, and a very wide variety of manufactured re-
tail goods are not produced within the state and must be imported. Direct and
indirect leakages in the service sector are also likely to prove significant.
It appears reasonable, therefore, to assume that 60% of expenditures on re-
tail goods and 30% of expenditures on services leak out of the state. Then
N = (.60 x .57) + (.30 x .43) = .47.
Based on these parameter values, the multiplier for the state of Maine
may be estimated to be:
1 1 =l.4
1 — c(1—ra) (a + T ) 1 — .93 (1 — .47) (.81 — .18)
C. New England
The values of the parameters for the New England region can be estimated
in a similar fashion: The estimates here are very rough averages, however,
since six different states are Involved in the analysis.
1. We will assume that state and local taxes are not significantly
heavier than those in Maine, but that the Federal income tax will take a
slightly higher proportion of income than in Maine, since income in the other
New England states is higher than In Maine. Therefore, we will assume a = .79.
2. We will again use c .93.
3. Examination of unemployment conpensation data from the other New
England states indicates that T/ Y is slight]jr higher for the region as a
whole than for 1 inealb , in part because of the f ii ly high proportions of un-
employed receiving compensation In some states. We will therefore use T — .20
4. Like all other regions in the country, New England must import,
directly or indirectly, many of the goods and services utilized by Its popu-
lation. Conservative estimates in this regard would be that some 15% of service
expenditures and 30% of goods expenditures leak out of the region. Then
N = (.3 x .57) + (.15 x .43) .24
Then the multiplier for New England may be estimated as being:
1 1 =1.7
1 — c (1—in) (a + T ) .1 — .93 (1 — .24) (.79 —‘.20)
Y
K-27
-------
SECTION 4 — DERIVATION OF MUNICIPAL COSTS
A. Police
i. Construction Phase
The Eastport Police Department would require an expansion of
of the present force to a maximum of 5 additional officers. Based
on the Coimnunity of Woodland’s experience (related to the hiring of
additional police officers) during the construction of the Georgia
Paper Mill, it is estimated that a salary of $178 for a 40—hour week
would be required to fill the positions with trained men. Therefore,
the current payscale of $3.00 per hour would have to be increased to
approximately $4.50 per hour. If it were necessary to recruit un-
trained personnel, a salary of $168 would be required in addition to a
cost of $2,000 per man for sending these men to the training academy.
This training is a requirement during the first year, and the cost
includes academy fees, coiianuting expenses, etc. Aside from direct
salaries, it is assumed that an addItional 10 per cent of yearly salary
would be curred f or each new officer to cover the cost of fringe
benefits.
The present force is staffed with five full—time officers and one
dispatcher. It is likely that the salaries of these men would be kept
on par with the new of ficera. If this happened, the increased pay for
the present force per year would ameunt to roughly $11,000.
With regard to equipment, an additional marked patrol car would
probably be needed. The total purchasing price for the vehicle is
estimated to be $7,750. This figure would include the estimated price
of a medium-sized 1978 car ($5,500) and the installation cost of lights
($50) and radios ($2,200). Assuming that the city borrows money at an
interest rate of 82 for a three year period to finance this purchase,
the annual cost of the cruiser would be approximately $3,000. Further—
re, it is anticipated, based on the current price of gasoline in the
Eastport area (71 per gallon) and an expected usage of 40,000 miles
per year, that f ç1 expenses for the cruiser would be an additional
$3,300 per year. ’
It is also anticipated that the existing jail facilities of CaJ.ais
would be insufficient and prisoners would have to be taken to the County
Jail in Macbias. Two officers would be required for each trip to the
County Jail. A round trip between Eastport and the County Jail would
require an additional travel time of one hour. 32
If all pertinent costs are considered, it Is estimated that the
annual budget for police protection would increase from the present
expenditure of $55,000 to approximately $123,000.
ii. Operation Phase
It is not known at the present time whether the five additional
K-28
-------
police officers, hired during the construction period, would remain as
permanent members of the force. Assuming that all five men are retain-
ed, the cost for the additional salaries and benefits would amount to
approximately $51,000. (This figure is based on hourly wage increases
noted in the previous section, “ConstructIon”). In addition to this
cost, there is an additional cost of the salary increases that will be
paid to the existing force. This would result in an additional annual
cost of about $11,000 to be incurred by the City. Replacement of the
police vehicle every three years should add a constant annual cost of
$3,000. To estimate the cost due to fuel consumption of the additional
police vehicle, the present price of fuel was used. Furthermore, it
was assumed that the usage of the cruiser would remain the same (about
40,000 miles annually). Therefore, it is expected that the annual
fuel costs would be roughly $3,300.
If the additional officers expected to be hired during the construc-
tion phase of the proposed project are retained permanently on the force,
It is estimated that the annual budget for police protection would in-
crease from the present expenditure of $55,000 to about $123,000. On
the other hand if the force reverted to its original size (five officers)
it is expected that the salary increases (totaling $11,000) received by
these officers during the construction phase, would remain in effect.
Therefore, the annual police expenditures would Increase from a current
level of $55,000 to approximately $66,000.
B. Schools
i. Construction Phase
School costs are perhaps the single most important cost impact
to be dealt with in the analysis. Currently, school expenditures run
approximately $600 per pupil in elementary school and $950 per pupil
in high school. 33 It Is estimated that an additional 225 new students
would be added to the school system’s present enrollment. Since Pittston
has stated that the Company would provide temporary classrooms where
needed, capital expenditures will not be considered in this analysis. 3
Using a teacher/student ratio of 1 x it would be necessary to
add an additional 13 teachers to Eastport’s present teacher staff.
Based on an average salary of $8,500 per teacher, 3 the total cost in
salaries for the increased staff would be approximately $110,500 plus
15% for fringe benefits. It is likely that another custodian would
also be hired at an expense of $7,000 per year. 37 Furthermore, one
additional school bus, costing about $16,000 (this figure would in-
clude the purchase cost and operating enses of the vehicle for one
year) plus a driver would be required. If money to buy the school
bus is borrowed at an 8% interest rate, the annual cost of this purchase
is about $5,800. The cost of hiring a bus operator would amount to
roughly $7,000. Considering all of the above costs, the total addi-
tional expenditures for schools would be roughly $148,000. However,
it appears that roughly 90 per cent of the total school expenditures in
Eastport are paid for by the State of Maine from revenues generated by
the Uniform Statewide Property Tax. Therefore, assuming that the same
K-29
-------
ratio is maintained in the near future, it is anticipated that the
State would pay approximately all but $15,000 of the additional
school expenditures. 4 °
ii. Operation Phase
It is estimated that an additional 71 elementary school students
and 24 high—school students would be added to the school system’s present
enro1lment Based on the current enrollment (320 students) and capa-
city of 400 students of Eastport ‘a existing elementary school, the
primary school could absorb the additional students with little problem.
Lithough the high school is presently overcrowded, the anticipated new
high school students could be ccepted into the high school without ex-
panding the existing building. It is expected, therefore, that new
capital expenditure would not be required.
With regard to the teaching staff, assuming that 100 new students
were added to the existing student body, six additional teachers would
have to be added to the present staff, based on the 1:18 teacher/student
ratio cited in the previous section. Based on current t3achers’ average
annual salaries in the city, the increased staff would cost approximately
$59,000. Assuming that an additional custodian woeld be hired, an addi-
tional $7,000 expense could be expected. If it is again assumed that
roughly 90 per cent of the City’s total school expenditures is paid by
the State through its Uniform Property Tax, it is estimated that East—
port’s portion of the total school cost increase would be $7,000, as
the State of )( ine’ a portion would au mt to $59,000.
K- 30
-------
SECTION 5 — CASE STUDIES FOR HOUSING IMPACTS
A. Effects of Construction on Housing Supply
En order to determine how the housing market would be affected by
the construction of the Pittston Oil refinery, two projects with similar
characteristics were examined. These were the New Brunswick Power Commis-
sion Nuclear Power Generating Station, which is presently being constructed
in Point Lepreau, New Brunswick, and the Naval Communications Unit in Cutler,
Maine, completed in the 1960’s. In Point Lepreau it was discovered that
even though housing was readily available in the surrounding areas, approxi-
mately 75% of the non—local coustp ction workers are presently living in
the project’s temporary quarters. L With regard to the Naval Communications
Units, housing availability in Washington County at the time of the project’s
construction was very limited. Although detailed information on the settle-
ment patterns of the imported workers is not available, it is known that
the number of these workers and the number of beds provided in the temporary
housing facilities was gughly the same (as is the case for the project under
review in this report).’ Furthermore, the amount of existing available
housing in Washington County was the same as It is today. The experience
of the Cutler project was that majority of the imported workers utilized
the temporary housing provided.” 4 Those workers who did not choose to use
these facilities found lodgings in trailers provided throughout the country
by local citizens and developers.
B. Effects on Housing Supply due to Changes in the Property Tax
The case studies reviewed were the Pilgrim Power Plant Station in
Plymouth, Massachusetts 45 and the Millstone Power Plant constructed in
Waterford, Connecticut. The Pilgrim Power Plant Station began operating
in 1972. As a result of the anticipation of the plant lowering the munici-
pality’s tax rate, Plymouth’s housing stock increased dramatically by 38
per cent between 1965 and 1971. The Millstone Power Plant also began
operating in the early 1970’s. During the period 1965—1973, Waterford
experienced a more modest 11 per cent increase in Its housing supply be-
cause of the municipality’s half acre lot zoning ordinance. Consequently
the new residential construction was all one and two fainiliy homes and the
town was able to maintain its present low density character.
K- 31
-------
NOTES
1. A.F. Kaulakis, Vice President, Energy Development, Pittston Corp.
2. Ibid.
3. See Figure C—6 in Appendix C.
4. Arthur D. Little, Inc., Petroleum Development in New England prepared
for the New England Regional Commission, November, 1975.
5. Ibid., Vol. III, Table 1—12, p. 1—19.
6. Envrio—Sciences, op. cit. , Appendix C.
7. Response to Comm nt No. 126 to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
on subject of Pittston refinery; May 6, 1977; p. 4.
8. Ibid., p. 2; llarbridge Rouse, Inc., The Social and Economic Impact of
a Nuclear Power Plant Upon Montage, Massachusetts and the Surrounding
Area, November, 1976, p. IV—21.
9. Battelle Memorial Institute, State and Local Planning Procedures Dealing
with Social and Economic Impacts from Nuclear Power Plants , prepared for
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. January, 1977. p. 0—8.
10. Maine Dept. of Manpower Affairs.
Li. Response to Comment No. 126; p. 6.
12. Battelle Memorial Institute, op. cit. , p. D—9.
13. Arthur D. Little, Inc., op. cit. , Vol. III, p. 1—27.
14. Maine Dept. of Manpower Affairs.
15. Much of the Information in this discussion was obtained from Mr. Bill
Wadman of the Maine Association of General Contractors.
16. Ibid., pp. 1—21 to 1—25.
17. Ibid., pp. 1—21 to 1—25. This estimate is a very rough one based on
ez mInation of Arthur D. Little’s data for construction purchase re-
tention and indirect employment multiplers for Houston/Galveston,
Kansas, and New England.
18. Arthur Johnson, et al, Report on the Socio—Economic Impact of the
Proposed Pittston Project at Eastport, Maine , prepared for the
Action Committee of 50. December 3, 1976. Part III.
19. See the articles listed in footnote 1 of Appendix 2 of this report.
20. Barry C. Field, “Secondary Economic Impacts of Coastal Facilities”, sub-
mitted to the New England River Basin Commission, 1976. p. 5.
K-32
-------
21. Based on wage data from the Maine Dept. of Manpower Affairs.
22. Maine Dept. of Manpower Affairs.
23. Arthur D. Little, Inc., op.cit. , Vol. II, Table 11—10, p. 11—20; Anon.,
Refineries: Stimm ry of Requirements and Impacts , p. 6.50.
24. Response to Comment No. 126, p. 8.
25. Arthur D. Little, Inc., op. cit. , Vol. III, P. 1—29 to 1—34.
26. Statistical Ab* tract of the United States , 1976. See Table 396 and 398.
27. State of Maine Bureau of Taxation, Augusta, Maine.
28. The Conference Board, A Guide to Consumer Markets , 1976—77. Or see
Survey of Current Business , Part II, January 1976.
29. The following discussion is based on wage and unemployment data obtained
from the Maine Department of Manpower Affairs.
30. Mr. William Carding, Chief of Police, City of Eastport, Personal
Interview. June, 1977.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Mr. Philip Ross, Superintendent of Schools, City of Eastport, Phone
Conversation. July, 1977.
34. Mr. Irving Cohen, Enviro—Sciences, Inc., Phone Conversation. July, 1977.
35. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coninission, State and Local Planning Procedure
Dealing with Social and Economic Impacts from Nuclear Power Plants,
January, 1977. Table 10, p. D—17.
36. Mr. Philip Ross, op.cit .
37. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. Based on inspection of the Eastport Annual Reports, 1971—1975, and
information obtained by Mr. James Morris, Maine Bureau of Taxation,
Phone Conversation. July, 1977.
41. Mr. Philip Ross, op.cit .
K- 33
-------
42. Mr. Al Wark, General Construction Manager, New Brunswick Power Cominis—
sion—Nuclear P ier Generating Station, Phone Conversation. August, 1977.
43. Ibid.
44. Mr. Ronald Davis, Housing Manager, Naval Communications Unit, Culter,
Maine, Phone Conversation. August, 1977.
45. The Social and Economic Impact of a Nuclear Power Plant upon Montage,
Massachusetts and the Surrounding Area , Harbridge House Inc., 1974.
K- 34
-------
APPENDIX L
-------
PCIDIFICATION OF EMISSIONS
The complex problem of possible acid mist and acid rainfall formation
due to emissions from the proposed facility can only be addressed after
a review of the existing technical literature on the subject. The primary
types of acid that may be formed are sulfuric and nitric acids.
The origin of the sulfur is the elemental sulfur contained in the fuel
oil being burned in boilers and processed in the refinery. As the fuel
is burned, the sulfur is also oxidized, primarily into sulfur dioxide
(SO 2 ), which is emitted as a gas. Sulfur dioxide may be oxidized to
sulfur trioxide according to the reaction
SO 2 + 1/2 2 SO 3
At the very high temperatures found in boiler fireboxes, although the
rate of reaction is quite high, the equilibrium’ Is shifted toward SO 2 (1).
As a result, only about 1 to 2 percent of the total sulfur is in the form
of SO 3 shortly after the flue gas leaves the firebox (2, 3). However,
since SO 3 is far more soluble and reactive than SO 2 , scrubbers designed to
control SO 2 emissions will remove virtually all’ of the SO 3 formed in the
firebox.
In the atmosphere, at lower temperatures SO 2 continues to be oxidized both directly
(homogeneously) and catalytically (heterogeneously) (4). Oxidized metals such
as chromium, copper, iron, manganese, tin and vanadium, which may be present
in flyash, catalytically oxidize SO’), especially in the presence of
moisture (5). At relative humidities of up to 70 percent the oxidation has
been observed to proceed quite slowly, at the order of 0.1 percent per
minute. However, at higher relative humidities the oxidation proceeds at
the order of 1 percent per minute (6,7,8 ). Therefore, the possibility
of stack plumes containing SO 2 interacting with the frequent fog droplets
found near Eastport merits consideration.
Sulfur trioxide, being extremely hygroscopic, is readily converted to
sulfuric acid mist according to the reaction
SO 3 + n 1120 -3 H 2 S0 4 (n—i) H 2 0
Alkaline oxides such as those of calcium, magnesium, potassium,and sodium,
which may be found in flyash, may neutralize a small fraction of the SO 2 ,
SO 3 and H 2 S0 4 . In addition, carbonaceous matter, which constitutes smoke
and is also present in flyash, may to a small extent adsorb SO 2 and SO 3 .
The sulfuric acid mist concentration at any point is approximately propor-
tional to the SO 2 concentration and to the plume travel time, during which
a fraction of the SO 2 reacts to form H 2 SO 4 .
L- 1
-------
Even when sulfates are found in the atmosphere as a dry aerosol rather
than an acidic solution, they can be quite harmful to human beings upon
entering the lungs and dissolving. Numerous health—effects studies have in-
dicated that acid sulfate aerosols- are more irritating to respiratory tissue
than gaseous SO 2 at similar concentrations(5,9,lO,l1). While no air
quality standard for sulfates currently exists, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is studying all aspects of the atmospheric sulfate
problem in an effort to develop appropriate regulations. Once a sulfate
standard is promulgated, there will be a need to develop control strategies
which are cost—effective, and take account of the availability of various
fossil fuels.
Although reduction of SO 2 emissions will proportionately diminish the
potential atmospheric sulfate concentrations, numerous meteorological
influences and atmospheric chemical reactions affect the conversion of SO 2
to sulfate. According to Miller (12), five chemical mechanisms are most
important in the oxidation of SO 2 .
a. Direct Photochemical Oxidation of SO 2
In this process, SO 2 is oxidized directly to SO 4 without chemical
catalysis, but through the energy supplied by sunlight. The rate expres—
sion for this process is
d (SOt ) = ka • (SO 2 ),
where (S i ) and (SO 2 ) are the atmospheric concentrations of S0i?and so 2
respectively. ka is a sunlight factor and • = 10—2.
b . Indirect Photochemical Oxidation
In this process, SO 2 reacts with hydrocarbons (BC) and oxides of nitro-
gen (NOr) in the presence of sunlight. This may be considered as a non—
photochemical reaction between an ozone (03)—BC intermediate (formed through
photochemistry) and SO 2 . A rate expression for the indirect photochemical
oxidation of SO 2 is as follows (7):
d c 42 ) k (03) (HC) (SO 2 ),
where k = 10—1 ppm 2 min’ (SO 2 ). It was found later by several investi-
gators that such oxidation only proceeds when the hydrocarbon involved
is an olefin. Hydrogen distribution data for Los Angeles show that
olef ins comprise about 12X of the non—methane hydrocarbons.
c. Dry Particulate Catalysis
Most SO 2 oxidation reactions are greatly favored in most environments.
SO 2 oxidation can occur in dry air, however. Through dry catalysis, the
production of S0 4 2 occurs independent of time.
L —2
-------
The expression which c an be used to determine average daily SO 4 — 2
production through dry catalysis is as follows:
(so 4 2 24—hr. = .03(.46(Pb) ÷ l.7(Fe) +3.6(Al) + 2.4(Ca)).
This relationship exists assuming that only 3% of the particulate, by
weight, is catalytically active. A l concentrations in this equation are
24—hr. averages in micrograms/meter’. This process should only occur at
relative humidities below 95%.
d. The Aqueous Manganese Catalyzed Reaction
The rate espression used for this reaction was derived by Matteson:
d(S0 4 ) = k(Nn+ 2 ) 2
dt
where k is a constant which increases and decreases by a factor of 2 for each
50 C. temperature increase or decrease respectively, relative to 250 C. All
concentrations refer to the liquid phase.
Aerosol salts are hygroscopic and transfer from the s .lid to the aqueous
state at a certain relative humidity. (R.H.). For manganese, that level is 95%.
Ammonium sulfate, (NB 4 ) 2 SO 4 , becomes a solution at 80% R.H. Thus, an aerosol
containing (NH 4 )2 SO 4 and Mn+ 2 will be in solution above 80% R.H. and the catalyzed
reaction will continue. While pH influences this reaction, its effect is small.
e. Aqueous Phase Iron—Catalyzed Reaction
The rate expression for iron catalysis of SO 2 oxidation in water droplets
was drived by Freiberg:
—2 2
d(so, ) 1(0 (N11 ) j X (2(1—RH)) 3 X O2)air x (Fe)ajr
The units in this expression would be moles/meter 3 /minute. K, is a temper-
ature—dependent constant and there exists a dependence on pH and R I !. The
mechanism only operates at pH above 80%.
According to Miller (12), three of five mechanisms described above are mostly
responsible for the oxidation of SO 2 in contaminated environments. They are the
indirect photochemical reaction containing the 0 3 /HC intermediate, and the two
moist aerosol reactions catalyzed by Mn and Fe.
Results of a successful modelling effort for New York City in the summer
show that the HC/0 3 mediated reaction is responsible for more than 90% of the
predicted sulfate levels. The direct photochemical mechanism is responsible
for about 3% of the sulfate and the wet aerosol mechanisms comprise about 7%
of the sulfate contribution. On one particularly humid day, the wet aerosol
mechanisms contributed over 30% of the projected sulfate.
An experiment was performed by WAPORA on order to determine the rate of
oxidation of SO 2 in the plumes of coal—fired power plants as a function of
relative humidity. The data base for this experiment consisted of plume
observations taken at certain distances downwind of the plants, as part5of
studies performed by the TennesseeValleY Authority in 1960 and Brookhaven
National Laboratory in 1974. Upon analyzing the data to determine reaction
L-3
-------
rates, the relationship between relative humidity and reaction rate was
determined, as shown in Figure 1. The data used are shown in Table 1.
As can be seen, the reaction rate rises rapidly with relative humidity
near 70% and varies little at levels above or below it. This is characteristic
of an oxidation mechanism which takes place only in the aqueous state, which
occurred in these cases, only above 70% R.11.
In addition to the formation of sulfate aerosol and its corresponding sulfuric
acid mist, acid rainfall occurs In areas where there exists a high sulfate con-
centration in the suspended particulates which become condensation nuclei for
precipitation. In such areas, the precipitation which falls is acidic in nature.
There is much evidence that acidic precipitation occurs due to sulfur
oxides which are transported a great distance from their emission point
(4,13,14,15).
According to Cogbill and Likens (13,16), the northeastern United States has
an extensive and severe acid precipitation problem. Unlike a pH of 5.6, based
on a natural CO 2 eqilibrium, the analysis of recent precipitation samples reveals
a consistent pH of less than 4.4. It appears that some 64% of the acidity is
due to H 2 S0 4 , 30% to HNO 3 , and less than 5% to Rd.
Geographical analyses of the pH of precipitation over the eastern United
States in the mid—1950’s and the mld—1960’s are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
The pattern did not change substantially In that period, but the intensity
of acid deposition has been found to have increases. Analyses of prevailing
winds, reaction times, and precipitation—formation timd s indicate that this is
a large scale phenomenon, as is evidenced by low p11 values even in the most
rural reas of the Northeast.
Acid precipitatiàn has been shown to have widespread ecological effects.
It can adversely affect plants (13,17,18) animals and exposed non—living materials.
It can cause increased leaching of nutrients from foliage and alter leaf
physiology and hinder growth. and can cause chemical changes in the soil (19).
Acidification of lakes and streams can result, damaging aquatic ecosystems in—
cluding fish populations (20,21). These affects can be experienced hundreds of
miles from the pollution sources, making it very difficult to identify or control
each source.
To date there is considerable scientific evidence to indicate that acid
rains may have prolonged deleterious effects on the aquatic• communities
of certain susceptible freshwater lakes. The buffering capacity of a lake Is
determined by the geology of the watershed and the availability of a source of
the bicarbonate ion (HCO 3 ). Other factors such as the amount of precipitation
and the size of the watershed are also important.
As rain falls to earth it picks up a small amount of carbon dioxide from
the air. This CO 2 enters into combination with the water to form carbonic
acid (112c0 3 ). As the rainwater percolates thru calcareous rock, it can emerge
with very high concentrations of bicarbonate because the carbonic acid reacts
with slightly soluble calcium carbonate (CadO3) to yeild highly soluble calcium
bicarbonate (Ca(HcO ) 2 ). Therefore It is the availability of limestone or
other forms of calcium carbonate and the amount of surface runoff available
to percolate through these deposits that, by in large, dictate the buffering
capabilities of a lake.
Well—buffered lakes which are very high in bicarbonate are able to absorb
moderate amounts of a strong acid, such as sulfuric acid (1 1 2 S0 4 ), with relatively
L—4
-------
mE
N
c
0
4J
c - I
w
10 ______________
9 — —=- __- __1 —
- t:- -=-:::-- : : t--
- - Figure 1 — Rate of Oxidation of -
— - — — -.=— —=—-— -—-= =— = —=- — - — — -
_ SO2 in Coal Fired Power Plant —ji-E- _—Th E±—
: a Function of R ___________ ____
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Relative Humidity (%) “R.H.”
4
:3
rT -1 - -
R*t ___
- - - r Lj c___
—
— — - -———-————— .- 4—.
- __-_±1 -
- 1
• ——___
-! - — - t - - ----- — - • - -—••- -
- - -
- -
“ : tj - f - : -
____ -
2_
1_ .
9-
3 -
7
3-
2
1.
- --
- I -— — —i- - - - — — — — —-- —l
— -- 1- --± _ - E± - -= ___a-z i
- - - -F - -= - - -i
• - - - - - - - - -
- -
i- --- :i . 
: j - I -
- _ - - I - -
- —jjjJ4 :: 4.---
TTT1 - -- - _ - - — - - - - -
____ k = 1/6 exp ( RH - 70)1 5
- - 4. -- ------ -- ---- . - - -— -- --.- --———-- 4
:1.;1 r-- -- - - ---- - — - I i IEIITi 1 I
r’:
-- : t :
H — —- - -------1-——-- --- I
- T4 :-:i : ::
- —--—-.- r_ _ -
::1
- __ -
-: z : J1 1 1rt iii:iiJiii14 ::iiLiil::
-------
Table 1
Rate of Oxidation of 902 in Coal—Fired Power Plant Plumes
_____ Date Relative Humidity (% )
8—19—60 100
9—2—60 0
10—11—60 73
10—14—60 54
10—26—60 48
10—28—60 70
10—8—74 51
10—13—74 50
10—14—74 57
10—15—74 65
BNL 10—15—74 65
BNL 11—4—74 74
Data selected and evaluated so as to insure
From curve fitting, Reaction Rate (%/min)
Travel Time (mm) 0xida ion (%) Reaction Rate (%/min )
108 555 0. 1749
78 2.2 0.029
96 32.0 0.402
60 3.2 0.054
84 2.7 0.033
84 4.1 0.050
35 2.5 0.072
30 1.5 0.050
75 1.8 0.024
35 2.4 0.070
105 3.6 0.035
30 7.5 0.260
Study
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
BNL
BNL
BNL
BNL
Distance (1cm )
14.4
1.2 • 9
12.9
8.8
13.6
13.6
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
48.3
16.1
conservatism
. exp( Relative Humidity (7.) — 70)1/5
1/5
( BH-70 )
S0 as H 2 S0 4 S0, as SO 2 x (i — exp — Downwind Distance in km x exp 4
64 36 x Stacktop Wind in m/sec
)
-------
Figure 2
Predicted pH of Precipitation over Eastern United States
1955—1956
(
L—7
-------
Figure 3
Predicted pH of Precipitation over Eastern United States
1965—1966
47S
0 $0 0 O 0
19651966
L-8
-------
little change in pH. The strong acid reacts with bicarbonates to form the
weaker carbonic acid and carbon dioxide. However, lakes with very little
bicarbonate which are poorly buffered can be made very acidic by the addition
of even small amounts of astrongacid such as sulfuric acid.
The Adirondack Lake Region of New York has been widely studied for the
effects of acid rain on the biota. Recent surveys indicate that fish popula-
tions have been adversely affected by the acidification of approximately 75%
of the high elevation lakes. Table 2 (22) illustrates the chemical characteris-
tics of a number of Adirondack lakes.
Alkalinity is a measure of the bicarbonate concentration in water and
Is therefore a good indicator of the buffering capacity of a body of water.
Note the low alkailnitjes of the Adirondack lakes as compared to those alka-
unities recorded for lakes in New York’s limestone belt. This should immediate-
ly explain why these lakes are so susceptible to degradation by acid rains.
Figure 4 (22) shows the bicarbonate alkalinity of lakes in Maine. Notice
that the vast majority of lakes are listed as having extremely soft waters.
Soft waters are associated with very low concentrations of bicarbonate and
In this case extremely soft waters are listed as having a bicarbonate alkalinity
of less than 34 mg/i.
Figure 5 (22) likewise indicates that a large percentage of the fresh
water resources of maritime provinces of Canada are very soft water bodies.
Lakes then of these areas would also have low buffering capabilities.
In conclusion, it would appear that because of the low alkalinity and
subsequent lack of buffering capability that the lakes of Maine, New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia would be vulnerable to degradation by acid rains generated by
the proposed Eastport refinery.
Based on the foregoing discussion of the acidification of atmospheric
emissions, certain conclusions can be reached regarding the air pollution
potential of the proposed Pittston Refinery at Eastport, Maine. First,
the maximum predicted 24—hour sulfur dioxide concentration at a distance from
the refinery of 15 kilometers, assuming no reaction occurs, was 4.0 ug/i 3 .
Assuming astack—topwind speed of 15 kilometers per hour (which is conserva-
tively low, and corresponds to a plume transport time of 60 minutes) and a
relative humidity of 100% (which is conservatively high, though fog Is
common in the site area, and corresponds to the highest expected oxidation
rate of about 0.75% per minute, based on observations of coal—fired power plant
plumes), the 24—hour sulfuric acid mist concentration would be 25 ug/m
Since predictions of ambient SO 2 levels decrease with increasing distance,
and since the conversion to H 2 S0 4 increases with travel time and distance,
the predicted H 2 S0 4 level is representative of a very large area around the
refinery (but still quite conservative).
Much of the 2.5 ug/m 3 would probably actually be present as such salts
L-9
-------
Table 2
Chemical Characteristics of Representative New York Lakes
Conduc-
tivity
(micro- Alka-
Lakes pH mimi) linity
.4iutmdack League Club
2nd Bisby Lake
Canachagala Lake
East Lake
Green Lake
Honnedaga Lake
Jones Lake
Panther Lake
Pico Lake
Rock Pond
N.. A ppalacki. PIG4eSA
Canadice Lake
Canandaigua Lake
Caytiga Lake
Conesus Like
Otisco Lake
Owasco Lake
Seneca Lake
Silver Lake
aneate1es Like
.Veip Y .rk Lia.est..e Belt
Fayettevifle Green Lake 7.5
Onondaga Lake 7.7
Lake P1 1*
Lake Erie
P o nd
Oneida Lake
lake Ontario—I
Lake Ontario—2
Lake Ontagio—3
3.2 0.04 34 17
7.5 0.04 126 28
2.2 0.09 92 12
61.0 0.02 129 55
9.4 0.05 132 31
2.3 0.00 135 19
4.3 0.04 121 20
85.6 0.02 128 39
3.8 0.01 98 35
2.9 0.18 114 16
2.3 0.4
5.1 1.7
3.1 0.6
88 2.8
13.0 0.9
5.7 1.1
4.8 3.4
125 1.6
5.2 1.8
3.6 2.0
ppm
Ca Mg Na+X Fe H O 3 SO 4
6.3 24 3.0
5.5 21 1.5
3.9 39 10.0
5.4 17 2.0
4.9 30 0.5
5.8 25 3.0
6.0 39 11.0
4.3 38 0.0
6.4 31 6.0
CI NO 3
1.9 0.28 4
1.2 0.04 2
1.4 0.17 12
0.9 0.16 2
1.6 <0.04 1
1.3 0.08 4
1.5 0.04 13
3.0 0.40 0
1.9 0.06 7
l’osdou Park Po,sds
Bear Pond
Black Pond
Follenaby Jr. Pond
Long Pond
Wolf Pond
2.0 0.5
1.6 0.5
4.3 0.8
1.1 0.5
1.6 0.6
2.1 0.6
4.2 0.8
1.5 0.8
3.1 0.6
3.3 1.3
1.9 0.6
4.6 1.6
4.0 1.3
3.1 1.3
5.1 0.4 0.29
5.9 trace 0.08
4.6 1.2 0.38
6.4 trace 0.11
6.4 1.7 0.57
5.5 0.5 0.22
6.1 trace 0.34
5.8 1.8 0.55
5.1 0.7 0.39
39 10.0
22 3.0
47 14.5
40 7.5
35 2.0
1.8 0.09 12 6.0
1.3 0.11 4 6.2
1.2 0.30 18 6.3
0.9 0.72 9 4.8
0.1 1.22 2 3.9
3.9
5.9
5.8
6.0
5.3
7.0
8.1
7.7
7.4
7.7
7.3
7.5
7.1
7.5
7.3
0.01 1.21
trace 0.32
Uace 0.53
2.2 0.32
4.1 0.81
104
271
184
396
309
265
233
646
237
231
27.9
103.3
75.4
105.7
108.2
110.6
99.2
104.9
80.3
93.4
12
35
29
47
40
40
36
40
35
36
2.8
9.7
3.8
9.6
11.0
8.5
7.4
10.0
6.7
6.2
1960 157.4 400 62 14.6 0.02 192 1050 24 4.7
5010 106.6 472 13 538 0.28 130 167 14.60 11.0
7.1
31
104.1
41
8.1
11.5
0.47
127
26
20.0
2.3
7.1
431
95.9
47
9.7
23.0
0.22
117
52
38.0
2.8
7.8
238
65.6
31
7.2
4.9
0.10
80
42
4.3
2.1
7.9
306
92.6
38
8.0
10.4
0.05
113
25
23.0
0.7
7.2
lOB
40.2
14
3.4
4.1
0.10
49
9
4.8
0.6
6.9
459
98.4
.54
10.0
24.1
0.43
120
61
41.0
4.2
L—lO
-------
Figure 4
Bicarbonate. Alkalinity
in
New England Lakes
ss
T
sSs $ $
SS S S
s s
No
c/f-
Data
(HCO, in mg/L)
Titrated with acid
T Less thin 10 mg/I
Extremely wit
T 10—28
Calculated from salinity
$ L i i i than 34mg/I
S 34—56.5
T 28—84
Soft
Medium haid
S 56.5—130
T Mote than 84 fl4/I
T
•1
Kaid
S Mote than 130 mg/I
L-- 11
-------
Figure 5
Zonation of Maritime Provinces or anaaa
with Respect to Productivity of Fresh Waters
— -
‘ ______
L— 12
-------
ammonium and metallic sulfates (the ammonia being a natural atmosphereic
constituent, and metals such as iron, manganese, vanadium and zinc being
associated as reaction catalysts), which are respiratory irritants having
effects not unlike those of sulfuric acid mist itself (23,24,25,26,27).
For sulfuric acid/sulfate particles of the order of 0.3 urn in diameter (28).
an increase in respiratory resistance in laboratory animals of 0.072% has
been shown to accompany each 1 ug/m 3 of aerosol concentration. The Increase
in respiratory resistance corresponding to ‘2.5 uglrn 3 would therefore be
0.18%, which is probably negligible. Concentrations of the order of 100 ug/ni 3 ,
corresponding to increases would constitute a possible health hazard but are
not expected to occur due to the operation of the Pittston Refinery.
One factor that could possibly alter the foregoing conclusion is that,
for power plant plumes resulting from the combustion of high—vanadium oil,,
oxidation rates may be about one order of magnitude greater than they are for
coal—fired power plant plumes; however, neither sufficient reaction rate data
nor vanadium content data are available to warrant a more detailed exploration
of this problem.
A more likely effect of concern that may result from the Pittston Refinery’s
emissions of both sulfur and nitrogen oxides is the acidification of rainfall
and the drainage lakes in the region, which are known to be susceptible because
of their characteristically low pH levels and buffering capabilities. Although
it is true that the prevailing winds would tend to carry much of the atmospheric
emissions out to sea, it must also be recognized that there is a tendency for
the landward—rnoving air masses to result in rain, and this may be acidified.
Though its emissions of both sulfur and nitrogen oxides will be small in
comparison with those associated with large fossil—fuel fired power generating
stations, mitigating measures could be employed at the refinery in order to
minimize its contribution to the growing acid rain problem in the Northeast.
The burning of lower sulfur oil products (0.1% rather than 0.25%) for
plant steam generation could help locally, but if all the fuel oil is to
be burned in the Northeast by Pittston and its customers, nothing would be
gained regionally. Flue gas desulfurization by such means as wet scrubbing
is relatively simple where such low—sulfur fuels are burned, but is not generally
employed in such cases, results in environmental di ficuities (for example,
4yaste disposa’ and increased energy Gonsumption),. arid may not be a cost—effective
application of emission control technology.
L— 13
-------
FERENCES :
1. Danielson, J.A., ed., Air Pollution Engineering Manual , 2nd edition,
TJSEPAN0. AP—40, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1973.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors , 2nd edition, USEPA No.
AP—42, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1973.
3. Smith, W.S. and C.W. Gruber, Atmospheric Emissions from Coal Combus-
tion — An Inventory Guide , USEPA No. AP—24, Research Triangle Park,
N.C., 1966.
4. Wilson, W.E., et al, Sulfates In the Atmosphere — A Progress Report
on Project Mist , USEPA No. 600/7—77—021, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
(March 1977.)
5. Coffin, D.L., and J.R. Knelson, “Acid Precipitation: Effects of Sulfur
Dioxide and Sulfate Aerosol Particles on Human Health”, AMBIO , Vol. 5,
No. 5—6, 239—242 (1976)
6. Negherbon, W..O., Sulfur Dioxide, Sulfur Trioxide, Sulfuric Acid and
Fly Ash: Their Nature and Their Role in Air Pollution , Edison
Electric Institute No. 66—900, New York, 1966.
7. Foster, P.M., “The Oxidation of Sulphur Dioxide in Power Station
Plumes,” Atmospheric Environment , 3:2, Oxford (March 1969).
8. Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides , USEPA No. AP—50, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., 1970.
9. Freeman, M.D.,G. and L.T. Juhos, Effects of Oxidant and Sulfate Inter-
action on Production of Lung Lesions, IJSEPA No. 600/1—76—009, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., (January 1976)
10. Position Paper on Regulation of Atmospheric Sulfates , USEPA No. 450/
2—75—007, Research Triangle Park, N.C., (September 1975)
11. Health Consequences of Sulfur Oxides: A Report from CHESS, 1970—1971 ,
USEPA No. 650—1—74—004, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (May 1974)
12. Miller, S.G., “Analysis of the Mechanisms of Atmospheric Sulfate
Formation” presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association, Toronto, Canada June 1977.
13. Likens, G.E., “Acid Precipitation”, Chemical Engineering New
(November 1976)
14. Rud, L.E., “ The Long—Range Transport of Air Pollutants,” AMBIO , Vol. 5,
No. 5—6, 202 (1976)
L— 14
-------
15. Otlar, B., “Monitoring Long—Range Transport of Mr Pollutants: The
OECD Study,” AMBIO , Vol. 5, No. 5—6, 203—206, (1976)
16. Cogbill, C.V. and G.E. Likens, “Acid Precipitation In the Northeastern
United States,” Water Resources Research, 10:1133—1137, (December 1974)
17. Knabe, W., “Effects of Sulfur Dioxide on Terrestrial Vegetation,”
AMBIO , Vol. 5, No. 5—6, 213—218, (1976)
18. Tamm, C.0. “Acid Precipitaion: Biological Effects In Soil and on
Forest Begetation,” AMBIO , Vol. 5, No. 5—6, 235—238, (1976)
19. Maimer, N., “Acid Precipitation: Chemical Changes in the Soil,” AMMO ,
Vol. 5, No. 5—6, 231—234, (1976)
20. Schofield, C.L., “Acid Precipitation: Effects on Fish,” AMBIO , Vol. 5,
No. 5—6, 228—230, (1976)
21. Hendrey, A.P., et al, “Acid Precipitation: Some Hydrobiological
Changes,” AMBIO , Vol. 5, No. 5—6, 224—227, (1976)
22. Frey, D.G., Limnology in North America , The University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison, 1963.
23. Treon, J.F., F.R. Dutra, J. Cappel, H. Sigmon and W. Younker, “Toxicity
of Sulfuric Acid Mist,” Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational
Medicine , 1950.
24. Amdur, M.O., R.Z. Schulz and P. Drinker, “Toxicity of Sulfuric Acid
Mist to Guinea Pigs,” Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational
Medicine , 1952.
25. Thomas M.D., R.H. Hendricks, F.D. Gunn and J. Critchiow, “Prolonged
Exposure of Guinea Pigs to Sulfuric Acid Aerosol,” American Medical
Association Archives of Industrial Health , 1958.
26. Amdur, M.0., “The Respiratory Response of Guinea Pigs to Sulfuric
Acid Mist,” American Medical Association Archives of Industrial
Health , 1958.
27. Aradur, M.0. and N. Corn, “The Irritant Potency of Zinc Ammonium
Sulfate of Different Particle Sizes,” Industrial Hygiene Journal ,
1963.
28. Fuchs, N.A., Mechanics of Aerosols , Pergamon Press, 1964.
L- 15
-------
APPENDIX M
-------
Table Ni
Acadia National Park
(Seawail, Maine)
Nitrogen Dioxide Data
1976
24-hr. avq.
DATE NO 2 (ug/m )
1/1 5
1/13 11
1/25 10
2/5 6
2/18 8
3/7 6
3/25 3
4/6 13
4/18 22
4/30 17
5/24 0
6/29
7/11
7/23
8/4 6
8/16
8/28 6
9/9 4
9/21
10/3 3
10/15
10/27 3
12/2 5
12/14 15
12/26 16
N-i
-------
Table M2
Particulate (Micrograms Per Cubic Meter)
Eastport, Maine
February 1977 March 1977
1 26.2 1 22.4
2 26.3 2 11.9
3 13.0 3 17.4
4 19.3 4 15.0
5 19.0 5 15.2
6 14.4 6 10.5
7 12.3 7 16.1
8 10.0 8 14.6
9 7.8 9 33.3
10 31.4 10 39.6
11 30.0 11 57.6
12 30.1 12 20.6
13 22.5 13 22.1
14 14.0 14 15.0
15 15.4 15 22.7
16 34.8 16 12.8
17 11.7 17 42.0
18 15.9 18 22.0
19 14.9 19 28.6
20 3.4 20 34.8
21 22.0 21 20.3
22 20.3
23 14.3
24
25 35.2
26 25.5
27 11.6
28 14.6
M—2
-------
Table M2
Particulate (Micrograms Per Cubic Meter)
Eastport, Maine
December 1976 January 1977
19 14.5 1 10.6
20 17.7 2 8.3
21 19.2 3 14.4
22 20.3 4 19.3
23 15.3 5 16.9
24 18.5 6 10.0
26 22.8 7 12.5
27 44.9 8 12.1
28 15.3 9 26.5
29 9.9 11 73.4
30 15.9 12 14.9
31 14.6 13 14.1
14 7.4
15 14.6
16 44.5
17 15.7
18 11.2
19 25.1
20 16.2
21 9.0
22 8.0
23 9.8
24 11.7
25 19.1.
26 17.0
27 19.1
28 19.1
29 31.5
30 • 18.4
31 12 ,1
M-3
-------
Table
Eastport, MaIne January 1977 Sulfur Dioxide Concentration (Parts per Million)
Houre
Day 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 01 08 09 10 11. 1.2 13 14 s 1.6 1.7 1.8 .19 20 21 22 23
1 .001. .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .004 .001 .001
2 .001. .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002
3 .002 .001. .001. .002 .002 .001. .001 .001. .000 .000 .000 .001. .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .000 .000
4 — — — — — — - .. — — — .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .004 .003 .002 .002 .002
5 .003 .004 .007 .008 .006 .005 .004 .004 .003 .003 .003 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001. .001 .001. .001 .001
6 .001. .001 .001. .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001. .00]. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .002
7 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001
15 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001
1.6 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001. .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .003 .003 .002 .001 .001
17 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .002 .002 .003 .003 .003 .003 .002 .002
1.8 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .003 .002 .001 .001. .001 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001
1.9 .000 .000 .001. .001 .001 .001 .002 .003 .003 .003 .003 .OCZ .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001
20 .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001. .001 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001
21 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .001 .002 .003 .002 .002 .001 .001. .003 .005 .002 .001 .000 .000 .000
22 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001
23 .001 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001
2! .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001. .001.
25 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001
26 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
27 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001. .001. .002 .001 .001 .002 .001 .001
28 .001. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .00].
29 .003. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001
30 .002 .002 .003. .001. .002 .003 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001. .001 .001. .001. .002 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001. .001
31 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001
-------
Table N3
Eastport, Maine December 1976 Sulfur Dioxide Concentration (Parts per Million)
Hours
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
19 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .001
20 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003 .002 .002 .002 .003 .003 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000
21 .oot .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .000 .001 .001
22 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .009 .001 .001 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001
23 .001 .002 .002 .002 .003 .003 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
24 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .002 .001 .002 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001
25 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .003 .003 .005 .003
26 .004 .002 .002 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001
27 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .001 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001
28 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001
29 .001 .001. .001 .001 .002 .001 .001 .002 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .000 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001
30 .001. .001. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .000
31 .000 .000 <.003 <.003 <.003 <.003 <.003 <.003 <.003 ‘.003 <.003 .002 .001 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001
U i
-------
Table M3
Eaatport, M 1 February 1977 Sulfur Dioxide Concentration (Parta per Million)
Hour .
Day 00 01 02 0) 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
1 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001
2 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.ooi .001 .001. .001 .001 .003
4 .002 .004 .002 .002 .003 .002 .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001. .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001
S .001 .002 .001 .001 .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 .001 002 .002 .003 .002 .001 .001. .001 .001
23 OUT OF OPERATION From February 5 to
24 ).002 .002 .002
25 .uu —— _ .002
26 .002— p.002 .003 .005
27 .004 .004 .005 .004 .003 .002 <.002 -, <.002
28 <.002
-------
Table M3
Eastport, Maine March 1977 Sulfur Dioxide Concentration (Parts per Million)
Hours
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 (.002— _ _— .—— .__ .. <.002 .003 .002 .002 .002 .004 .003 <.002 .002 .003 <.002
2 <.002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .003 .004 .003 .002 .003 .002 .003 .003 .002 <.002 <.002 <.002 .002 .002 .002 .003 <.002
3 <.002 —-— --— — <.002
4 <.002— —-—-- —-——-——— ____________________________— <.002
5 .002 - ‘— ---— —
6 <.002 ----- —- - ---—-—- - <.002 .002
7 <.002 <.002 .002 .002 .002 .003 .004 .004 .003 .003 .002 <.002 <.002
8 <.002 - — -— <.002 .002 .003 .002 .004 .003 <.002
9 <.002 - —— — - —-—_________________________________________________________________
10 <.002-- --—-S _______— <.002 .002 .008 .004 .003
11 .004 .004 .003 .004 .002 .002 .002 .004 .003 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .003 .004 .005 .005 .004 .003 .002 <.002 <.002 <.002
12 <.002 - — ----- —-—- — — -- -— - <.002
13 <.002 - - —-—-—---——-- - —-—-——-- -——-- -—— -———-—______ — — — <.002
1.4 <.002- .•-----—-—--—-- — <.002
1.5 <.002 —-------——-— - -___________ — <.002
1.6 <.002 <.002
1.7 <.002 —— --—— — <.002
18 <.002 - ---—-- - --- -— -—- ———— ‘ <.002
1.9 .002- --.—--—--.—— •—, <.002
20 <.002 - - —-—- -—---—- ——--—————— <.002
21 <.002 --—— -- —-—-—— —> <.002
22 <.002 _ -.—— <.002
23 <.002 .__.__. > <.002
-------
Table M3
March 1977 Sulfur Dioxide Concentration (Parte per Million)
Houre
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
24 <.002 _______________________________________________________
25 .—.-_.__ - —____________________________________________
26 <.002 .. .. - .___ . .._________ __________________
27 <.002 ....- .-
28 <.002
29 <.002 - —-_— .-—•— —_ —-.-____
30 ---.--.—---—-—-____________ ______________ —
31 <.002 . .
Eastpott, Maine
<.002
‘ <.002
<.002
-. > <.002
<.002
<.002
) <.002
• , <.002
-------
Table M3
Eastport, Maine April 1977 Sulfur Dioxide Conceatration (Parts per Million)
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 <.002 - <.002
2 <.002 ——-----——-—-— —— -—-- ) <.002
3 <.002 --- - - --—- - - -—-—--—- > <.002
4 <.002 — - <.002
5 <.002 - -— ---—---—-- ————- - —i ’ <.002
6 <.002——-———- <.002
7 <.002 -- - —-——--——-—-— -- __________— ____—— —-——-— - - <.002
8 <.002 --• — ---•-—- - — -——-—-— —-———- —) <.002
‘ .0
-------
i I1.11 .I _. .1 .1.
FIGURE M l
EASTPORT 24—hr AVERAGE
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
CflN !!NTRATIONS (ug/M 3 )
9/22/75 tO 11/29/75
12/19/76 to 03/21/77
. .
t 1
“
. 4 f
y
—
4.
100
q
I
4,
4
2
10
9
8
7
6
4
3
2
8
1
4 -+ -
4 .
+
4.
.4..
• 4..
$4
• 4.4,
.4
.4..
I
-r
- +
f
+
I
-
“ 1”1TT!T Tn
•---- - -
+4.
jjj;
44
-4
.4
-f H
— H
r -t
n
•4• +• -. 4•
.. . -+ •.4 .. •,-
4.4
t
H i
• 4
• 4
LU
- 4- -44
::
:4::
.4
h
4
2
10
9
8
7
6
4
3
2
1
4 -+
-4
• .4. 4 _I • -
• .4
.4.
• 4.
fT H i
4t4L
: t;
-.4
-4
- I
4.4.
H
-4
: . L
.4 4
H
1 001 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1
n41.
- . H
- •
,/
T T
/
d 4
4 --
• •4 - .. •.••
•_ ii .i H
FT
•
FF T T T1Jf
.
4
t 4 • • •
TFJH H

. - 4 . 14 4. • -
4 PERCENT LESS THAN
INDICATED VALUE I
‘
-
I
- +
—
-
-
7 TTTJfl TTT

- +
L •
• -
±itii H1i.__
I
‘ .: I i HL L
li _I. LiH
1HL tJ
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
90 95 98 99
99.8 99.9 99.99
-------
—4—I•—
—f-
1_ L
H i
;t
.
, ; . - -:-:- —:--
, 4
4
—:--T- —:-T-:--
4 t-
_ 4 _;_
— .
‘,. ,. ,
: :
.
•
—t -1 • .•
I I U
1
;
i
- - 4 :
lit;
.-4- 4
It
: I1Ii i it : I J
—-

V J f f t
—p: :----- -
—. -—- — — —.— LL_= ?
t
-±{ -
jj -
. t
T I
i :
—p—
2
It
—
lii
0.0001 ____
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5
I t_
.
EASTPORT 24-hr AVERAGE
so 2 CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
9/20/75 to 11/28/75
H
th
.
: t ttl
: 4 :1t
.
:
-4
/
1
I I .: 1.
. _,I1_:I_ I .
fl— _-_
tY-- t ITitThff Ht
—4---— ..—-i- --- — -----
:__
-1
- - --
—4 --—
i’ ..
t*t
: jj
-I -
t
I
-
+
. - -
t-j’i
. -
_J
- PERCENT LESS THAN 4
- INDICATED VALUE
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
: 1
i I I
: r
. -1-
. i
I
:f t . •.
:1-.•t: . t i • 1
: : I
.f• ____,,_ _ T
- — - — I
- -

-- ---1-4
t’c 1
:
9T ..
1 _

. . .-
_ii

II ’
I

. =-4i
liii
at

. 1
F1 1.
Ii
- - .
U t
ftij .
IL
ti
99.8 99.9 99.99
0.01
q
8
7
6
4
3
2
0.001
9
8
7
6
4
3
0.0001
11
Ii
. 4-
: 1
FIGURE M2
. I -
:.I
I
12/20/76 to 02/05/77
4 I
3.
. 1
-4
.4
0.01
9
8
7
6
4
3
2
0 . eoi
9
8
7
6
4
3
2
L , -
. ‘ 4.
i I 1ii{11 Ii
4
tttt
. .
. . .
it
.1
- -
I I
I;
I-I -
I I
L L
,- -I
ii-
4 :1
r
— -I
1 2
- -- --11
_10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
2
go 95 98 99
-------
T i
T4 R±P
TI I L
3
:
i 1 E
li ’
BE
T
E31
. 1
t
!1H 1 1; ; $H
FIGURE M3
EASTPORT 3-hr. AVER IGE
SO , CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
V19175 to 11/29/75
12/19/76 to 2/28177
. r;
.4 44
-
4 4--.
; _7
. :
-c - --
r
U.
i

: - -
;i L:;
11 .
4.
. .+
.4
III .
ii
I4.
0.1
9
8
7
6
S
4
3
2
0.01
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0.001
1 ’
th
I44
-t 4
:
J.
I!’
—
4-.
1:1
ii
V
0.1
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0.01
9
8
7
5
4
3
2
i: -j -H

It

1I I t
rJ ftr’T
I —

TT


1T

—

7 IIFIEL
:t: ::: ;:: :

f
-f
-- -1
:: : 1:ii .__ 4. -
- -4. ..
4—4-
PERCENT LESS THAN
INDICATED VALUE
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1
1
/
/
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0.001
90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9 99.99
-------
- j • H
. 1± TI . -
. .
—— . - - -— FIGURE M4
I EASTPORT 1-hr AVERAGE
OZONE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
9/20/75 to 11/29/75
7/01/76 to 09/16/76
•I1+: • II 0.5
4
________ 3
1.0
8
7
()
0.5
4
3
2
0.1
9
8
7
6
0.05
4
3
2
0.01
—— - - -
; i .
4 : -
- - - H 1 —
t1ij. 14 ± 4 t 1 _
t .. ., . .
. . H • .. ,..t . , •. .
T .I T : + •i L
,- t r. : — - - -- 1 - - --——.. .
i r — ’-
1-r —— TE t -
+ - • — f+--
— -L

— 4H
I Tt 4 a
•- - •- -
.4 . . iI JJ —
. i -- -— -t- —— - r 4 .. . . - — —— -—t--..
- - T - ..::

±F H

I — -
j 1
f I •‘ • ‘
L . 1 H

— --—t— -—-- 4,
- ±





- —
.


i

:
.

t ± ti .
-t1-. —
4 ..,


- I
2
0.1
9
8
7
6
0.05
4
3
2
0.01
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
90 95 98 99
99.8 99.9 99.99
2 5 ’ 10
-------
1_
— f
—. :
,
I :_ 4:.i:

I
— FIGUREM5
EASTPORT 6-9 AM AVERAGE
1 NON-METhANE HYDROCARBON
CONCENTRATIONS (PPM AS CR 4 )
9/20/75 to 11/29/75
—.——-—.--
,
:L
tt1
- -- 4. . .
. S. _ •- • — _1 • — -- 1•
.. .-
. . . . . 4_4 +. . .
I - I ±
-- --t- -h 4
1<
14
V
. 4
, .

.
d
1.0
8
7
6
0.5
4
2
0.1
9
8
7
6
0.05
4
2
0.01
.-
.4_--,-4
tt
4...’.
EIE
f . -
. H
.4---’-
. ,.
r ki
4f
. : T
.,. . I
ttt
—
+
.,,.
/
_TT1r -T-J-
•‘t - . .tt
1•
t. it
:- i
. . . —. :
. : -- : :
:--t . •
i - 1
- --. - L :
i -.
-
.1 :
—
11:1. ¶•i
2 1:
-
1.0
8
7
F)
0.5
4
2
0.1
9
8
7
6
0.05
4
3
2
0.01
,
---—— ——
.
.

t T
PERCENT LESS
INDICATED VALUE

.


i

LL
J
iH
0.01 0.05 0.1 02 0.5
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
98 99
99,8 99.9
99.99
10
90 95
-------
ti
—
*;
: ;FFI:iL;
-t
——-
:
:::
4-
H
‘ Tt WI :i: = f TfliTi
I
= = =
—
1•11
FIGURE M6
EASIPORT 1-hr AVERAGE
NON-METHANE HYDROCARBON
CONCENTRATIONS (PPM AS CR 4 )
9/20/75 to 11/29/75
I 1
..i U
1-
lIliTtt
‘-F
--1
.L.V
9
8
7
6
0.5
4
3
2
U i
0.1
9
8
7
6
0
4, I
:i:
..
i tt i ‘1
1:

t-t
HH
± I LU ThI E t ; : -
ii tifl1t1’ T iU
U!
:t
-1-
1 -
1:f 1h
4
I -
-4-
t
: :‘ 1 : t
TE

t± f•I
f E fj
TI
-. - —
,ø
- . _ —
I
L I.
- L- :
i ! •f
- --I
4
3
2
ii
—4— —
1= i1i j 111 L IiI = ift ! fl
1.0
9
8
7
6
0.5
4
3
2
0.1
-9
8
7
6
4
3
2
0.01
1 I I
-
I-. - -.•1 -4-4-4 -
J H
+T
IIIIIIII II1IIIIIIII
0. 01.
H
I I - I
0.01 0 05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2
,-- -
i
-.- -1ffl i I ft± L
11
PERCENT LESS THAN
• . INDICATED VALUE
_LI_i_1 .UJJ I I 1111111 IllIllIllIll
5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
ILL lTi TT I
-t
4 ,’
- -
- -
II
ftf - L
i
llIIil I
90 95 98 99
99.8 99.9 99.99
-------
-
II
9
fl
T 1T
:
4—
•
+

.4
E

—
—
—4- -
i3
T.
*
¶ H
4 -4-f FIGURE M7
ACADIA NATIONAL PARK
ifi 24-hr AVERAGE NO 2 CONCENTRATIONS
FOR 1976 (ppm)
ITT
!W
—- I
B
p
.t
—
it ¶f
4 ‘H
- I
t
U I
-F
t
4
I .
HI j I+ . — . — f
m ’nnnmi
4. PERCENT LESS THAN *
INDICATED VALUE
±: JI! HI H1IT1 11’L
2 ‘ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
if
f1
f11flT HT .iiiI
:—± _ it
t :4 ;—4-----
t
Ff T
m
i±
.-1-- - - t -
j .
.L .
tH-
.4-, -
4-4.
4-
4
1—-
+
TTT
-4
T7
4:
t——---—
tH
‘ ‘ ‘• t -
t
t-t——— ---——
H
H
tt
+
90 95 98 99 99.R 99.9 99.99
D.1
9
B
7
6
5
4
3
: :i:
4,..
::
4
-t.
4
_+4.
_ .t-t :
-4....
-.4 .
2
il_i!- it ! ii 1 iii
1
ii
.-
t .
-h
3:; .
-3 I
‘ ‘I
a’
. I
- I
:
p
I
II
I
4 1
I
I?
ii
I
I 4
, 1
, I
/
0.01
9
8
7-
6
5
4
3-
-1’
1
+1
, I ’
; i
-4 f-4- -
4- ; -F-- -
+++ -
-
- II
TI
:; - v
- - —
0,1
9
a
7
5
3
.2
). 01
4)
7
6
5
4
-3
2
0 . 001
- H
2
-1:1
- 1:1
I . -
L]
Ii -
I 1.11
o.oo:
o.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1
I I II
4.
-------
APPENDIX N
-------
The following text on dredging was submitted to USEPA
by the Army Corps of Engineers to be included in the Final
EIS.
-------
Dred ’in z
The removal of approximately 1. 45 million cubic yards of bottom
materials will be required to provide berthing facilities. The proposed
dredged areas are located close to each of the tanker piers. It is not
expected that any dredging d1l be necessary in the channel or in the
approaches to the piers. If the project is built, small amounts of
dredging may become necessary when tug boat facilities become more
defined during the final design of the project. If tug facilities or
dredging become necessary, the Pittston Company will sub ait an additional
permit application to the Army Corps of Engineers for review and process-
ing. Any additional dredging for the tugs would be Email relative to
that needed for the tanker locations. It is not anticipated that
maintenance dredging will be necessary, but should infrequent removal
be required, it will be done mder the regulatory authority of the
Army Corps of Engineers. The dredge quantities and their respective
areas are 1i6,000 cubic yards over 8 acres in Deep Cove for the product
pier, and 1.11 million cubic yards over 63 acres in Broad Cove for the
crude carryin3 supertanker pier.
In total, it is estimated that 55 ,0O0 cubic yards of the materials
are loose granular materials and the remaining 692,000 cubic yards is
hard rock. The Broad Cove pier area would be dredged to maintain a
minimum depth of 75 feet below mean low water (r iv), while the Deep
Cove pier area would be dredged and maintained at depths between 1 5_50
feet miw.
1
N—i
-------
The major part of necessary dredging would be for the VLCC berthing
area in Broad Cove. Here, aDproximately 550,000 cy of material is
granular and 850,000 cy is hard rock. The percent of sediments for each
grain size is given in Table 111-16, while the sample locations are
shown in Figuxe 111-21. This information shows that the sediments in
the VLCC area are classified in a range that consists almost entirely
of granular to coarse arid mediizn sand. Approximately five percent of
the sediments, or less, consists of very fine sand or smaller particles.
The material to be dredged in Deep Cove consists of cy of
granular sediments and 42,OOO C 0 rock. The bottom sediments around
the product pier area are predominantly similar to ranular sand
composition found in the VLCC pier area in Broad Cove.
The bottom ecology of the proposed dredged areas has been presentrd
previously in the “Description of Existin 3 Environment”, and in the
appendix. The granular material will be removed by clam shell bucket
and placed into scows for subsequent land disposal. All bent.hic
organisms in the bottom sediments will be removed with the material.
Mobile epibenthic species such as crabs and lobsters may be able to
avoid physical removal by the dredge, thou: h injury is possible if
contact is r 1 ade. The sediments were found to be essentially clean
sand and the results were discussed with EPA. Due to the grain size
characteristics, lack of organic slit, and no evidence of toxic
materials, no elutriate test was required.
As dredging occurs sediments will become suspended and mixed in
the water and this is characteristically known as turbidity. If
2
N—2
-------
turbidity becomes excessively high organisms in the water and on the
bottom can be injured or killed. In the immediate dredge areas around
the piers turbidity will not, however, be the overriding impact. In
these areas all the granular materials will be removed along with large
quantities of rock exposing a rocky bottom instead of the original
sand cover. Organisms inhabiting the sandy bottom will be displaced in
favor of attached algae, lobster, some crabs and other organisms
preferring a rocky bottom.
The strong currents around the dredge area will carry turbidity in
a cloud-like plur e extending in a downstream direction. It is difficult
to detennine the exact amount of turbidity that would be created by
dredging, in. general silts and clays are carried and dispersed more
widely than are the heavier grain sediments. Rock and sand quickly
settle out or are carried a short distance downstream before settling.
The clay type particles, however, are lighter in weight and i ve a
proportionately larger surface area. They are affected more by
currents, and by Van der Waal!s forces to keep them in suspension.
The distance a particle travels, is basically dependent upon the
current’s speed and upon the size of the particle. Since the particle
size of the sediments is predominantly in the gravel to sand classification,
the settling times and distances are significantly less than for fine
particles such as silts or clays. The reversing currents dominated by
tidal action will help to contain the net displacenent of turbidity
movement.
The ecological effects of turbidity caused by dredging are not
3
N-3
-------
expected to be significant; the associated impacts will be temporary
in nature and short lived, existing only a short time after the
cessation of dredging.
Of the impacts to aquatic resources the main commercial invertebrates
such as lobsters and soft-shelled clams are very tole rant of high
turbidity levels. Sherk and Cronin (1970) have reviewed the effects
of sedimentation on estuarine organisms in an extensive literature.
survey. It has been found that soft-shelled clams, as well as hard
shelled clams, are active burrowers and are not especially vulnerable
to dama e from the amounts of’ turbidity and siltation associated with
dredging. Filter feeding benthic invertebrates, including bivalves,
take their food from the water column immediately above the bottom.
Heavy increases in turbidity may affect those animals in close proximity
to the dredging operation by causing damage to respiratory tracts or
by diluting food particles with sediment particles (Saila et al., 1972).
Such an occurence, however, is not as likely vith the larger grain
sized sediments where the selective feeding ability of many filter
feeders can limit the intake of inorganic solids.
The smaller sized sediments that are normally associated with
clogging of filtering and respiratory systems compose a very small
amount (less than 5 Percent) of the materials to be dredged. Of’ this
amount only a fraction of the material will be lost during dredging
and released into the water. In 19714, Bokuniew cz et al. conducte i
tests on the downstream effects of a dredging operation in New Haven
Harbor. The bottoni sediments were primarily silty and it. was estimated
14
N—4
-------
that about 2.5% of the solids were being lost. Though the turbidity
could be detected 1700 meters from the dredging accumulations were
not significant when compared to naturally generated turbidity. The
sediments at the proposed pier areas are coarse particles and loss of
material will be minimal in comparison.
Although some turbidity can be expected in eastern Coobsook Bay,
in Half Moon Cove, and the southern Friar Roads area, it is not expected
to be greater than that generated naturally during storns aM carried
off by the currents. The shallow areas and mud flats where clams are
most productive are also those areas that naturally have the highest
turbidity. No significant i ipact is expected to occur from turbidity
to those clamming areas to the north in Perry, to the propo .ed maricul-
ture project in Half Moon Cove, or to the Lubec area to i1e south.
mccc areas are greater than a mile from the dredge site. The sedimen-
tation will not adversely affect these beds or the spawning potential
of the area. The closest bed to the dredge area is shown as No. 140 on
Figure 111-23. This area is primarily valuable as a sport fishery area
only, and does not support a good productive commercial crop. No
adverse loss from this area is anticipated. The extreme daily tides
in the region would help to minimize any effects.
Lobster pounds are sufficiently distant from the dredge area and
should not experience any adverse impacts. Saila et al. (1968), exposed
lobsters to suspensionS of up to 3,200 ppm of estuarine silt for 2t
hours without mortality. Lobster pounds would npt be subjected to
concentrations this high for prolonged periods of time.
5
N-5
-------
Finfish in the dredge area will not be cignificantly hanned or
killed by the turbidity generated fron dredging. Rogers (1969) has
Studied several species of estuarine fishes to determine the effects
of exposure to suspended mineral solids. Tolerance limits for 2ti hours
rangei in value from more than 300 gr /liter to 50 gm/liter (50,000 ppm).
He found that da age to fish depended more on the presence of large
artic1es in suspension than the optical or visual turbidity of the
cuspension. Ritchie (1970) exposed four species of fish to the effluent
of a hydraulic dredge in the upper Cnesapeake Bay and recorded no lethal
factors. He also exa. ined the gills of’ 11 species of fish caught in the
disposal area and found no tissue damage. From this information, it
would appear that fi sh in the dredge area that are subjected to extremely
high sediment suspension of larger particle sizes could be injured,
but within short distances from the dredge the larger particles will
settle out and any 5.r pacts will be minimal.
Any harmful impacts to aquatic resources due to turbidity or other
dredge activities will be short term and temporary in nature. The area
around Eastport is not a prime spawning or nursing ground. Sedimentation
may temporarily affect the production and viability of phytoplankton
around the Eastport area. Disturbance of’ bottom sediments will likely
release small amounts of nitrogen and pnosphorus type compounds into
the ‘water. These compounds act as nutrients, or fertilizers, to stimu-
late phytoplankton growth. Unchecked, waters having high nutrients
become eutrophic and polluted. ! utrient levels will not be a proble n
since the strong currents provide e :’pie flushing rates and large volum S
6
N-6
-------
of water to minimize nutrient concentrations. Also as a balance, sedi-
mentation will reduce the amount of light available for plankton growth.
Sedimentation could also interfere with fish feeding on plankton.
This effect, however, is considered minimal since sediments will be
suspended for only short periods of time and the area is not considered
a prime feeding area. Fish are pri iarily migratory in this area, only
passing through while in transit to other locations. No long-term
disruption of the aquatic resources is expected from the dredging of
the loose granular sediments.
Aftt r the granular and loose sediments have been removed by clan
shell dredging approximately 850,000 cubic yards of rock will have to
be removed from the Broad Cove berthing area for the VLCC facilities.
An additional t 2,000 cubic yards of rock would have to be removed from
Deep Cove for the product tanker docking facilities. The rock will be
fractured by explosives, then removed and transported to land site
disposal areas by Large and truck. The materials will be stockpiled
for ubsequent use in construction.
The rock blasting is necessary to deepen an area alongside the
pres;nt deepwater channel for maintaining the pier facilities in loca-
tions having low current rates. Blasting and removal of the rock will
result in the elimination of the existing habitat in the proposed dredged
areas. In its place greater depths will be created and hard fractured
rock will replace the present sandy bottom. This alteration will be a
long-term impact without a compromising mitigation. The arep affected
7
N-7
-------
will be approximately 70 acres in size. The actual removal of this
bottom area from its present condition is the most significant long-
term impact of the physical dredge activities.
In actuality, an area greater than 70 acres wifl be disturbed.
In order to obtain the required depth in rock explosives will create
a blast crator sligntly larger than desired size and depth of the
proposed dredged area. Sinee only the blast area will be removed from
its present habitat condition, other fringe areas affected by the blast
vtll not be alTected long-term.
Vir ..uaUy no literature &ldresses sub-aqueous rock blasting and
its affect to aquatic organisms. A few experiments and observations
have been made for open hater explosions, but their applicability would
be speculative wuen compared to blasting rock where charges are drilled
into thc bottom.
In general, it has been reported that the effects to fish from open
water explosions is r J proportionately related to the size of the charge
(Cokt.r and Ho1li , i ,.5:). It is apparent and conceivable that the e .fects
of many small blasts would be simila ’ to the effects of a few large
detoLlations. The factors that were found to be important in the dai a e
to fish were the rate or speed of the pressure pulse generated by the
explosion and the peak pressure. For dynamite types of explosives,
abrupt shock waves attain nearly instantaneous maximum ii tensities and
would have lethal threshold peak pressures of +0 to 70 pounds per Square
inch (Hubbs and Rechnitzer, 1952; 13.5. Corps of Engineers - ? .Y. i)istrict,
1976).
8
N-B
-------
The propagation of the primary shock wave, negative pressure waves
and secondary, or reflective, waves is a complicated phenomena that is
highly dependent on the bottom characteristics -and topography. Hubbs
and Rechnitzer found that the peak pressure dissipated exponentially
with distance away from the blast. In addition, the detonation of a
small charge of dynamite does not necessarily result in lower fish kills
in proportion to the weight of the charge. The peak pressure does not
follow a linear relationship to the weight of the charge, but varies to
the one-third power of the charge size. This information supports the
findings that fish kills outside the mmediate blast area are normally
restricted to a few hundred feet (Alpin, 19147; Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory, l9 48; Gowanlock and McDougall, 19145; Coker and Hollis, 1950).
Coker and louis reported fish kills for large explosions to be generally
within 300 feet, but, recorded some mortality up to 600 feet from the
blast. The only applicable and significant finding on the blasting of
large quantities of rock has been reported on by Thompson (1958). In
a single detonation, many times l -ger than the Pittston Company would
use, nearly three million pounds of explosive was employed to clear rock.
It was concluded that the fish kifl.. was generally confined to within
one half mile of the blast.
It should be noted that the number of fish killed during an explosion
and reported on by trained observers, generally r .nged in the ten’s to
hundred’s of fish. Rarely was there a fish mortality above a thousand
and never was the kill considered massive or significant to the survival
of toe population.
9
N—9
-------
Damage to individual fish caused by explosions are mainly internal.
Fish with swim or air bladders are the most vulnerable to injury. Often
the strong and rapid c ripression and negative pressure forces cause the
air bladders to rupture. Blood clots, gill damage, and injury to the
abdcxninal cavity and organs are also co r.inon damages. (Coker and Ilollis,
1950; Fitch and Young, l 8; Alpin, l9l 7; Chesapeake Biological Labor-
atory, l9 48). Susceptibility of fish with air bladders also varies
according to the physiological structure of the fish (Fitch and Young,
19 B).
Most significantly it was found that the number of fish killed was
not propoitional to the size of the charge. For the most part, the kill
is governed by the quantities of fish present at the time of the blast.
During an explosion relatively fewer fish are killed th i woul i ot cr-
wise be expected and is probably due to the relatively small area
affected by the explosions. Since the waters around the proposed
dredged areas are not significantly active habitats, nor do they support
breeding populations of fish, nor are they primarily important to the
commercial fishery no long-term adverse impact will result to the fish
population or the people dependent on them. Neither is it expected that.
blasting will adversely affect productive shellfish beds in the region.
No damage to the herring in weirs directly to the east of Eastport is
anticipated. No affects are expected to occur in Half Moon Cove.
To ensure the protection of significant migrations of fish transiting
through the area the Pittston Company will be regulated under permit
from the Corps of Engineers to cease blasting operations during m pra-
10
N—1O
-------
tions. The company has expressed their willingness to work with biolo-
gists and local fisherman to determine the presence of such fish.
The Pittston Company will also be required to retain a seismologist
to record the vibrations from blasting at different inland locations.
This will help to ensure that no inland d age will be caused. Though
the noise of blasting will be heard inland, it should not, however,
create any disturbance or disruption sufficient to cause concern or
alarm.
In summary, blasting for rock removal will kill fish and bottom
organisms in the area of the explosion. The lethal range of the blact
is not expected to exceed two hundred yards, unless unusually large
amounts of explosives are used. Areas that are not altered but
experience benthic mortality will be repopulated quickly. No signifi-
cant affect to any commercial fishery is anticipated and no populations
of fish are expected to be significantly reduced or “scared off”. The
impacts associated with dredging and blasting are considered to be
te porary and short—lived in nature. The survival of aquatic resources
and the ecological integrity of the area will not be threatened.
DisDosal of Dredr ed Material
The disposal of all materials will be made to landsites within the
proposed Pittston refinery site. The dredged materials will be loaded
into suitable barges and transported to the shore. Here, materials will
be off-loaded into trucks and subsequently deposited n bermed stock-
piled areas. It is expected that all the dredged materials will be
11
N-li
-------
suitable for use in the construction of roads, found tions, dikes and
other base structures. Since the materials to be dredged are predominantly
sand, gravel and fractured rock they will be well drained so that run-off
froci the stockpiled areas will be minimal. The berrns around the stock-
piled area ‘will serve to contain the materials so that stirred sediments
will settle out prior to drainage. Drainage will be provided to keep
saltwater run-off into freshwater streams to a minir nn. The draina e
distance from the stockpiles to the shore IC short so as not to affect
inland areas outside the Pittston refinery site. cont ination is
anticipated of standing freshwater tod .es or sub-surface aquifers.
The stockpile areas are shown on Figure
12
N-i 2
-------
References
Aipin, J.A., 19147. The effect of Explosives on Marine Life. Ca1ifor ia
Fish and Game 33 (1): 23-27
Bokuniewicz, H., J.A. Gerbert, R.B. Gordon, P. Kaininsky, C.C. Pilbeax
and M.W. Reed. 1 9 7L . Environ enta1 Consequences of’ Dredge Spoil
Disposal in Long Island Sound, Phase III, Nov. 73-Nov. 7L 1 •
Unpublished report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fr a Dept. of’
Geology, tale Univ., New Haven, Coon.
Chesapeake Biolo icai Laboratory, l9 48. Effects of Underwater Explosions
on Oysters, Crabs, and Fish. CEL Publication No. 70:l_L 3 .
Coker, C.M., and E.H. Hollis, 1950. Fish Mortality Caused by a Series
of Heavy Explosions in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife
Management, l (u): 435—L 4 .
Fitch, J.E. arid P.R. Young, 19!.48. Use and Effect of Explosives in
California Fish and Game, 3 (2): 53-70.
Gowardoch, J.N. and J .E. McDougall, l9 .5. Effects fro the Detonation
of Explosves 01 Certain Mari:ie Life. Oils 1 (12): 13-16.
Hubbs, C.L. . and A.B. Rechuitzer, 1952. Report on Experiments Designed
to Deter’i. ne Effect of Uuder ater Explos ions on F s i L. fe
California F s and Game 33 (3): 333-366.
Rogers. B. 1969 Tolerance Levels of Four Spec es of Estuarine Fishes
to Suspended Mineral Solids. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Rhode Island,
Kingston, R.I. 6o pp.
Saila, S.B. T.T. Polgar ani B.A.Rogers, 1968. Results of Stud Les
Related to Dredj ed Sediment. Du pr ig on Rhode island Sound.
Proc. Ann. Northeastern Reg. Antipollution Coni’., 22 July 1968,
pp. 7l-{ 0
Saila, S.B. , S.D. Pratt, and T.T. Polgar, 1972. Dredge Spoil Disposal
in Rhode Island Sound. Univ. of Ritode Island, Marine Technical
Report No. 2, 28 pp
Snerk, .J.A., Jr., and L.E. Cronin, (1970). The Effects of Suspended
and Deposited Sedn’ents on Escuar ne Oi’ganisms: An Annotated
BibliograDh ’ of Selected Hefere ’ ces. Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory, iRI Ref. No. 70-19, bi pp.
N— 13
-------
t e ’ ctC S ! 3:I
J.A. 1 i r E D]’ cal ffects c t. e pple . oct; Exp1os o’
Pr c’ress : r of Pac ’c Coast. Stat.o:i, F : eres Res arc i
Board of Cana 1a 111:
U.S Corps o E’ i: eers — New York D:str:ct, April 1976. En ’ir nrn r ta1
Assess’ t nt of Unierwater Exp1os. or.s — Nay at on Pro ect, East
iver, Ne York -- Sp r Channel to Astoria Waterfront. Upubl:shei
report to 4.Y. Corps of Eu in ers prepared b the Ltre Corporation.
N-14
-------