Planning for the impacts of Guam energy facility expansion a preliminary assessment

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

PLANNING FOR THE IMPACTS OF GUAM
ENERGY FACILITY EXPANSION

A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
BUREAU OF PLANNING
GOVERNMENT OF GUAM
sp, W@ 1w, IRV, AGANA GUAM

PREPARED BY,

WALTER F. PINCKERT AND ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
- AGANA,GUAM
TJ I NOVEMBER 1978
163.25
G8
P-61
1978
I
Ax
09

This study was funded in part by a grant from the-
U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone
Management, Washington, D.C.

I- @.
I-S
I
I
I
I
I I P\
I
""n
I rl@@
I
ll-@
I
r@
I %
1 @21
b

'A
N

I@z
I
I
.91

Table of Contents

Page
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . iii
List of Tables . . . . . I. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1v
Chapter

I INTRODUCTION

A. The Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Guam Program Objectives .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
C, Methodology . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

D.. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

EXISTING SYSTEMS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

A. Production Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

B. The Distribution System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

C. The Refinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

D. Bulk Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

SELECTED IMPACTS OF ENERGY FACILITIES

A. Thermal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

B. Erosion and Sedimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

C. Oil Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

0. Dredging and Filling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

E. Economic/Social Impacts . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 59

F. Visual Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

IV MITIGATION MEASURES FOR IMAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Thermal Ef-l"luent . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 65
B. S02 Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

V MEASURING THE IMPACTS; A METHODOLOGY FOR CEIP

ENERGY FACILITY ASSESSMENT

A. Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
B. Environmental Planning Factors . . . . . . . . . . . 91
C. Social Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

VI REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

A. Overview . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
B. Air Quality . . . . .. . . . o . . . ... . . . . . . 106
C. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

VII GENERAL CONCLUSIONS,-CEI MATRIX, FUNDING

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. General Concl usions . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 114

B. CEI Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

C. Funding Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 124

APPENDICES

1. Central Terminal Station (CTS): OTEC-Ongoing Studies 130
2. Islandwide Power System - Approximate Averages for
Peak Demand (KW), 1971-1978 . . . . . . . . . 140
3. Maps - Power Hardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
4. Federal Participants in the Corps of Engineers
Permit Review Process . . . . . . . . . . .. . 150
5. CEIP Interviews . . . . . . . . . . : * * I * * * 1 154
6. Letters and Data 8heet Sent to Interviewees . . . . 159

List of Figures

Figure Page

1. Major Energy Facilities, Apra Harbor and Vicinity . . . . . 6

2. GORCO - Block Flow Diagram . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . 22

3. Future Location, GIAT Fuel Storage . . . . . . . .. . . . . 37

4. Tanguisson SSP Thermal Plume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5. Piti Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

6. West Piti Say . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . 43
7. Guam Average SO 2 Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
8. Guam Average NO 2 Emissions . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 51
9. Guam Average Particulate Concentrations o . ... . . . . 51

10. Wet Type Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Schematic o 67

11. Dry.Type Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower (Colorado) . . . . 69

12. Major Process Variations for Use of Lime or Limestone
for Removal of SO' for Stack Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Existing Generation Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 9

2. Available Power for Future Land Growth . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. Approximate Peak Demand Fluctuations, 1971-1978 12

4. Figuring New Plant Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 13

5. Summary of Pole Hardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

6. Summary of Proposed Distribution Facilities . . . . . . . 20

7. Summary of GORCO Refinery Production Capacity . . . . . . 21

S. Summary of Esso Bulk Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

9. Summary of Mobil Bulk Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. Summary of GPA Bulk Tankage . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 31

ii. GORCO Crude and Product Bulk Storage Facilities 33

12. Product Flow - Major GORCO-Pipelines . . . . . ... . . . . 34

13. Effluent and Related Data Cabras and Piti SSP . . . . . 41

14. Tanguisson SSP Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45

is. Sedimentation Impact on Coral Species Diversity . . . . . 48

16. Approximate Composition #T6 Residual Fuel Oil . . . . . . . 48

17. Summary Guam Ambient Air Quality Standards 50
18. S02 Episode Frequency Based on Wind Rose Data . . . . . . 51
19. Latest Summary of Port Oil Transfer Operations . . . . . . 52
20. A Selection of SO, Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
21. Recreational and Historic Resources Potenti.ally Subject
to Energy Facility Expansion . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 97

22. CEIP Funding Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

23. Approximate Cost Estimates for Selected Public Facilities. 119

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I I.. Introduction
I
I *
I
I
I

1. Introduction

A. The Program

The Coastal Energy Impact Program was created by amend-

ments to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 and

signed into law July 26, 1976. The purpose of the-CEIP program

is to '-'provide grants and credit assistance to Coastal States

and communities to help.them deal with the impacts of coastal

energy development." (FR 43-37, 2/23/76)

Guam, by virtue of having an active program under the
CZMA, qualified as a recipient for funding under Section 308(C)

of the Act for the purpose of Planning for the Consequences of

Energy Facilities.

Such grants shall be used for the study of,
and planning for any economic, social, or
environmental consequence which has occurr 'ed,
is occurring, or is likely to occur as a
result of the siting, construction, expansion
or operation of such new or expanded energy
facilities. (Sec. 308(C) CZMA)

B. Guam ProgramObjectives

1) Examine selected impacts o.f energy facilities upon

the community;
2) Determine immediate and in-place plans for expansion

of existing energy facilities and the probable

impacts of such expansion;

3) Discuss, as far as possible, projected plans for

expected development of new energy facilities and

the probable impacts of such expansion;

4) Develop method for evaluation of major impacts from

new or expanded energy facilities;

5) Generally discuss the pertinent sections of the regu-

latory process relative to the expansion and impacts

of existing and devel.opment of new energy facilities;

and

6) Recommend strategies available under CEIP for

ob taining further federal funding.

C. Methodology

Evaluation of energy facility expansion was based on a
range of."decision making" factors. Information available indi-
cates that expansion of energy related facilities will occur in

the.near future.

These include electrical generating unit(s), the size of

which will depend on load projection estimates, expansion of

refinery capacity for production and storage, the establishment

of a la-rg er petroleum reserve capacity for the island, signi-_

ficant upgrading of transmission lines, and retirement of the

remaining 11.5 MW units at the Piti steam power plant and the

pow er barge "Inductance." Other aspects of energy deyelopment

are not as certain. For example, the development of an exten-
sive Central' Terminal Station facility (CTS) has been proposed

as has the development of an "alternative" power production
method utilizing Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) prin-

ciples rather than oil fired steam plants. Enlargement of off-

loading, and storage facilities for the GORCO refinery as well

as Mobil and Esso facilities are possible, but not certain as

to timing.
2

Discussions with individuals involved with the develop-

ment as well as assessment of resultant impacts provide the

foundation for this study, while review of numerous scientific,

economic, and social documents provide the depth.

Such a wide range of considerations preclude an exhaus-

tive examination of any individual project, however, sufficient

detail is provided to construct policy decisions regarding the

advisability or inadvisability of further investigation of a

given course of action.

In addition to impacts of energy facility development,

the regulatory fr amework relative to Guam's' resources is dis-
cussed. The thrust of present energy development must result
in an accept able resolution of seemingly conflicting national

and local goals: economic growth for maintenance of an accep-

table living standard; conservation of scarce natural resources

for future generations; reduced dependance upon foreign petro-

leum resources, and e nvironmental protection, particularly of

coastal waters.

0. Scope

Three statements of local and national policy set the

limits to this study:

Agencies should "include in the decision-making
process appropriate and careful consideration
of all environmental effects of proposed actions ...
(and to) avoid or minimize adverse effects of
proposed actions and restore or enhance environ-
mental qua-lity-as much as possible .... 11

Fed. Reg. Vol 40 7#72 @16815
Section 6.100 re
National Environmental Policy
'Act of 1969

"It is ... the public polic y of Guam ... that a
high quality environment be maintained at all
times ... and that environmental degradation of
land, water, and air... should not be allowed."

P.L. 11-91
GEPA Enabling Legislation

"The national objective of attaining a greater
degree of energy self-sufficiency would be
advanced by providing Federal financial assistance
to meet.state, and local needs resulting from new
or expanded energy activity in or on the coastal
zone.11

CZMA Amendments of 1976
P.L. 94-370
Section 302(i)
Congressional Findings

Guam is faced with An especially difficult resolution

of apparent conflict between those policies calling for a mini-

mization of adverse enviro nmental impacts and those recognizing

the need to expand energy facilities. Many persons feel that

national policy and resultant local policy has been set without

special consideration being given to the many attributes which

set Guam apart from the 'average' locality for which regulations

were developed.

Others think that extenuating circumstances are not suf-

ficient to warrant special consideration, and which, in the

long-run,theoretically pay for themselves. It is not an impos-

sible task to arrive at solutions satisfying the major part of

the range of policy directives.

The need for electric power, however generated, is not

going to disappear. It will increase and will be more expen-

sive as new technologies are developed and older technologies

are required to adhere to "accepted" environmental standards.

This study examines the need for major energy facility

And development, the means for achieving those needs and the

factors necessary for arriving at a selection of alternatives
providing the best mi x of sol uti ons to meet envi ronmental , eco-

nomic and social considerations. -

This study is concerned only with major facility expan-

sion. For example, the various diesel power plants smaller than

5 MW are not considered to have significant negative impacts and
are not addressed except for inclusion in calculating system-

expansion. Generally, the diesels are small,.uneconomical, high

maintenance, and used only in times of forced outages.

1 OTEC Sit-eT

IMobil Tank Fa I
rm

rare vL.LA.4:c

Cabras SSP Fuel Tank-

"N
----- -- JR:L@j PO@qer"Plant
CORCO Ofiloa@di 9
lFacilities

iti Channe
T uelin2 Wh a.--.(-,: s Pi eline C ssin

.3 i @np
Gorc tel
Ea s emten'It
Figure

Maiar Energy Facilities,'
Apra Harbor and Vicinity

-S'C- 8 L

of qO00,vec
y

of 4 A
too

V77 P Y $1 WT. TCINQ

Lot-.439
508-43 Acres
GORCO

ICA

-Existing.Systems and Future Developments

II. Existing Systems and Future Developments

A. Production Facilities

The greatest impact of energy facilities on Guam to date

has been from generating units. *The newest additions to the Guam

power system were the two 66 MW Cabras units which do not meet

the definition of new or expanded facilities acco-rding to the

July 26, 1976 date established CEIP rule and reg-ulations.

1. Existing Plant Capability

Progressions developed in the Bureau of Planning's 1976-

1977 report.Future Pow er Production and Transmission Alterna-

tives, (Pinckert-1977) provided estima.tes."for the optimized capa-

bility of new plants to meet future demand. For the purposes of

this study, more exact definition of ass-umptions was prepared

with cooperation from the Guam Power Authority. The capacity of

existing pl ant was stated as "available for normal operationsil

rather than nameplate capacity to accurately -reflect capability

of the system to.meet demand. Several Navy diesel units pre-

viously not indicated were included as available for emergency

purpos-es even though their reliability is questionable.

Tabl e I : Existing Generation Capabili'ty

I MW 1 Megawa'tt = 1000 Kilowatts

UNIT NAMEPLATE AVAILABLE FO R
CAPACITY NORMAL OPERATION

Cabras SSP 132 MW 132 MW
2x66MW* units

Tanquisson SSP 53.0 MW 50.5 MW
2x26.5MW units

Piti SSP 67.0. MW 44 MW
2722-9 _Wu n i- t s
2xll.5MW units

Inductance Power
Barge 28 MW 25 MW
lX78MW Steam Unit

Tamuning Di'esels 8 MW 6 MW
4xZ.OMW units

Dede-do Di'esels 8 MW 6 MW
4x2.OMW units

Navy Diesels N/A 10 MW

System Total: 273.5 MW

A further breakdown of system capability makes allowance for main-

tenance and forced outages, while current demand has been revised

upward from 150 to 160MW to reflect latest demand statistics

available.

Table 2: Mai ntenance Outage Plus Forced Outage, Minus
Current Demand Equals Available Power for Fu-
ture Load. Growth

System Total 273.5 MW

Less: Maintenance Outage
(Largest Unit) 66 MW

Less: Forced Outage
(Next Largest Unit) 25 MW

Total Rema ining 182.5 MW

Less: Current Demand 160 MW

Remainder to Meet Projected
Load Growth 22.5 MW

A derived equation will express the 'relationship between expected
increase in demand, current demand, and the tine period of that

inc.rease. The variable here is the rate of demand increas e. La-

ter discussion of actual peak load demand will narrow the range

of these growth figures:

160 (I+y)n 160 = 22.5 where

160 = Current Demand
y= rate of demand increase (..1%-6%)
- n = tine period of increase
22.5 =*MW currently remaining to meet
projected growth

solving for n
(,+Y)n 1 .40625
nlog("t-t.y) log 1.140625
n log 1.140625
log (1+Y-T

It was assumed that y would not exceed overall population growth;

therefore, the range for this annual increase was set between 1%,

and 6%, and the equa tion solved for n. The result is the time

at which the 22.5MW available for projected growth will have

reached the point (0) where a new plant should go on stream.

(y) Assumed Annual
Demand Increase 6% 5% 4.5% 4% 3.5% 3% 2% 1.5% 1%

(n) Number of Years
When New Plant
Should Go On
Line 2.3 2.7 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.5 6.6 8 13

2. Annual Demand Increase Narrowing the__Choice

Demand increase is based on peak demand. GPA maintains com-

plete records of peak demand (See Appendix 2). Unfortunately,
both the oi 1 embargo of 1973 - 1974 'and the devastating effects

of Typhoon-Pamela in May of 1976 make estimates of annual peak

demand increase difficult.

The embargo, w,hile actually lowering KW demand for several

mo*nths, had the overall impact of slowing increase in demand for

an extended period. This would account for the rather slow

growth in 1974 and 1975. Typhoon Pamela, an event which experts

predict on the average of one in seven years, devastated large

segmen ts of the distribution system as well as causing damage to

generation equipment. While Guam can expect continuous and ra-

ther- steep increases'in the cost. of fuel oil over the coming

years, natural disaster occ.urances should not be depended on to

keep demand growth down. Recent transmission system improvements

will improve the system's ability to withstand typhoon damage.

Table 3 Approximate Peak Demand Fluctuations - 1971 - 1978
Source: GPA

% INCREASE OR
YEAR PEAK DEMAND-MW DECREASE FROM
PRECE-DING YEAR

1971 123
1972 .131 6.6
19731 142. 8.5
1974 145 1.8
19752 148 1.9
1976 142 (3.7)
19773 148 4.0
1978 155 4.7

'71 '78 Avg. increase 3.4%
171 178 Total increase 26.0%
Eliminating Boom and Bust Years 3.8%
Assumption 3.0%

l.- Direct effects of Arab oil embargo appear to have
affected KW demand significanlty f or nearly. three
-months, and reduced demand growth for much longer.
2. Typhoon Pamela in May, 1976, substantially re-
duc-ed demand for nearly three months.

3. FY 1978 figures put actual demand at 150 MW, month-
ly, averages significantly higher than previous
years. Although 160 was used in above equation
155 seems to be a reasonable estimate for FY 19;8.

Reserve rat.io should remain at approximately the largest plus the
next largest unit as insurance against load-shedding, or service
interruption during emergencies. (66 + 25 = 91 MW)

With these new assumptions, the capacity of the new plant can

be estimated:

* NPC = 160 (j+
,y)n + RP + RG - EP
= 160 (.I4y)n + 36.5 + 91 - 273.5 where

* NPC = new plant capability (MW)
160 existing demand (.MW)
y % of annual demand increase
n time period of increase Plus a period of 5
years when an additional plant must be added
RP Retired Plant
RG Reserve Generation
EP Existing Plant
Table 4- Figurinq'New Plant Capability

y n VALUES NEW PLANT
(in percent) (in years) SUBSTITUTED CAPABILITY

6 2.3+5 160(l.07)7.3 -146 99MW
5 2.7+5 160(1.05)7 87_ 146 87MW
4.5 2.7+5 160(l.0451 -146 82MW
4 3.0+5 160(1.04)8.4@146 76MW
3.5 3.8+5 160(l .035@ 8 -146 71MW
3- 4.5+5 1600.03) -5-146 66MW
2 6.6+5 160(l.U2'1 ' b-146 55MW
1.5@ .8.8+5 160(l .015 13 8-146 5OMW
1 13.0+5 160(1.01)@8 -146 45MW

3- Conclusion

New plant capacity of similar size to one of the Cabras

units should immediately enter preliminary planning stages.

4. Other Factors Consi'dered

While planners and economists do not foresee a boom of 68-

73 proportions, the general feeling given in recent months is

cautiously optimistic that Guam can expect a general rise in

economic activity in the next 3-5 years. While national econo-

mists predict-longer term strength of the US economy with some

immediate problems, expected population growth together with a

slowly recovering econom y should keep power demand increases in

the 2.8 to 3.5% range in the next 3 to 5 years. Recent publica-

tion of the Gross Island Product of Guam (Calendar Years 1972-

1976), the fi.rst such study avail able, tends to support this con-

clusion. The GIP, an overall indicator of the production of

goods and services on the island is an excellent measuring-stick

for the level of Guam's economic activity. Despite a decline

from the 1973 and 1975 highs, the 1976 GIP reflects steadily in-
creasing Pe*rsonal Consumption and Government expenditures, which

make up the major demand sectors on the GIP product side. It is

unfortunate that the 1977 figures could not be included in the

study since the post-typhoon investment sector has improved con-

siderably, as well as the value of Travel and Tourism to offset

increasing deficits in the net exports sector of trades and ser -

vices. Although.correlation is qu estionable, it is interesting

to note that overall peak electric demand only declined between

FY 1975 and 1976 (Typhoon Pamela), regaining the 1975 level in

1977, and is projected to reach the highest levels to date in 1978.

Population will also continue to increase although at a de-

clining rate. The Bureau of Planning's population estimates,

show, conservatively, an approximate doubling of the civilian

population by the year 2000, with a military-p lus-dependants

figure remaining steady at approximately 22,000; the total for

2000 being in the 170,000 range. The 1970 census mid-range pro-

jection was considerably higher with growth rate decreasing from

a 1970-1975 high of 4.48% to 2.56% in the mid-1900's, with a to-

tal population of 240,000 projected for 2000.

As major new generating capacity is added, units in the pre-
sent system already*near or past economic operation should be re-

tired. This comprises some 51MW of generating capacity including

Piti units- 2 and 3, and the power barge Inductance.

B. The Distribution. System

1. Existing System and Present Activities

Like the i.sland generating plant, distribution re-

sponsibility is also part of the Navy/GPA power pool agreement.

Navy with only 25% ofthe system's generating capacity, controls

the load-dispatching of power to island customers. GPA is ex-

pected to assume this responsibility in the near future..

The distribution system s major elements include

115 KV and 34.5 KV lines connecting the various generating units

with 115/34.5 KV substations, transformers, and 13.8 KV lines-

from which individual facilities (homes, stores, etc.) draw power.

Present Activity - Typhoon Restoration

Primary and secondary transmission facilities were

severely damaged by Typhoon Pamela. Most activity presently.ta-
king place on the lines (poles) is part of-the typhoon restoration

, ission f
projects. The main objective of restoration of transn a-

cilities is to increase resistance and to minimize damage in fu-

ture natural disasters. Approximately $24 million will be expen-

ded in the next 2-3 years specifically for replacing damaged por-

tions of the power and telephone -system grids with typhoon-resis-

tant, components. This "pole hardening" effort is being coordi-

nated through the Officer in Charge of Construction (OICC) of

the US Navy.
Table 5 : Summary of Pole Hardening by Contract Package, Fund Distri-
bution, Party Responsibility and Approximate Cost

(In Millions of $)
RES PONS I BLE, NAVY NAVY GOVGUAM AF AF AF APPROXIMATE TOTAL COST
PARTY P115 P118 F-255 (X) (Y (Z) DT. CONTRACT AWARD

Contract Pkg.
and Number

J Package
(0207) X X X. X $9.991; 9/77

J Package
change orders n/a. n/a n/a n./a--- n/a

J-2 Package
(0280) X 4.285; 9/78

115 KV Package
(0273) X CX) 4,984; 6/78

34.5/13.8 KV Pkg.
(0228) W +3.000; Est 12/78

Note:(X)indicates major responsibility Total Project Cost:
and funding level +$24 million
X indicates secondary participa- (includes cha-nge orders and other
tion and funding level miscellaneous costs)

Summary of Contract Pack ages - ongoing pole-hardening projects
"J" Package - (Total Cost: $9.991 million)

13.8 KV Lines

GPA Agana Heights substation' to Fena pump station
Marine Drive to NSO fuel farm
Pit! substation to Naval Hospital
Agana substation to Barrigada
Route 8 to Barrigada booster

34.5 KV Lines

Orote power plant to Piti substation
Marine Drive to Polaris Point
Piti substation to Adelup Point
Adelup Point to Agana substation
Agana substation to Marbo substation
Marbo subs*tation to Andersen and Harmon substations
Marbo substation to Harmon substation

"J-2" Package (Total Cost: $4.285 million)

13.8 KV Lines

Orote power plant to SRF substation
Jct. Rts 5 and 12 to Bona Springs
Marine Drive to Black oil tank farm
Marine Drive to cold storage substation
Nimitz substation to Adelup reservoir
Route 3 to FAA
Potts Junction to Ritidian Point
Andersen gate to ammo. gate

34.5 KV Lines

Orote power plant to cold storage substation
(Cancelled) Marbo substation to Andersen substation

Summary of "115 KV Package (GovGuam-GPA)
(Total Cost Est..: $2-3 million)

34.5 KV Lines

Tamuning substation to Marine Drive
Barrigada substation to NAS (.Rt 10/8 Jct) substation
(Cancelled) Y-Sengsong to Potts Junction
(Cancelled) Apra Heights substation to Inarajan
Apra Heights substation to "'til funds run out"

13.8 KV Lines

Agana substation to Jct. Routes 10 and 4
Route 10 to Barrigada substation
Medical Center of the Marianas to Tamuning substation
Guam Memorial Hospital to Tamuning substation
San Vitores Road to northern half of Marine Drive
Y-Sengsong Road CJct. at 3 and 2) to Jct. at.R@ute 3
(S. ee Appendix 3, for maps.)

Discussion

The pole-hardenin g projects are by far. the most extensive

activity occurring in any sector of the power.grid. By defini-

tion of "new or expanded coastal energy activity", pole-hardening

can be considered an "energy facility whose ... replacement, in
whole or pa rt, takes place after July 26, 1976." (931.20-FR43-

37 at 7753) However, when the definition of significant ly af-

fected" (931.14) is applied, there appears to be little or no

additional demand placed on the island's public facilities in

terms-of natural resources, or o verall economic and social sectors.

Since the vast majority of the poles and lines are located

on existi,ng rights-of-way, and the action of pole-hardening is
essentially the replacement of wood Ctermite-pronel poles with

prestressed concrete, the negative aspect is simply that the ex-

isting objectionable blockage of land-to-sea views will be perma-

nent. -It is doubtful, in our opinion, if sufficient argument

could be put forth that "public access" in a visual sense has,

therefore, been additionally impaired. Economic assessment of

.this impact, in terms of dollar value, would be an interesting

but possibly non-productive exercise.

Following initial damage assessment from Pamela, the feasi-

bility of underground line-placement was discussed with the Navy.

Conclusions based on a 1OX cost differential and the fact that

typhoon funds could not be used for "upgrading" facilities seemed

to preclude underground placement unless the Government of Guam

could foot the entire bill. A conservative summary for "coastal

lines" whose path had unique features worthy of protection would

include:

J package 35.4 KV line from the cold storage substation
to Agana substation

GPA package 115 KV line from the Agana substation to
Harmon substation

GPA package 13.8 KV lines for: MCM, GMH and San Vi-
tores

The Government did not have., at that time nor presently, the

funds to even consider such an undertaking.

2. Future Develoement - GPA Proposed Major Capital

Improvements, Transmission

A number of improvements and additions to present

distribution facilities have been proposed. As most of these

are tentative plans, GPA officials are not able to predict which

alternatives will be adopted.

As presented, the list proposes some $45 million

for transmission facil ities over the next 22 years. Develop-

ments up to 1986 are the most important given expiration date of

CEIP, and totals approximately $21.5 million.

Lack of Available Studies

This listing was obtained from the Gov Guam Bu-

reau of Planning. The only readily available written verifica-

tion of such projects appears on "systems" maps in GPA annual re-

ports, and GPA map "Feeder Line G-PA-Distribution, Island-wide

Power System," dated January 1, 1976. Commenting on the impacts

of projects based on such information is s peculative at best.
Table 6 Summary of Proposed Distribution Facilities GPA

(START) YEAR FACILITY PROPOSAL ESTIMATED COST
0978 dollars)

1979 Dededo substation $ 80,000
*Dispatcher Control Center 2,000,000
1980 Pipeline (stor *age-Cabras Plant 100,000
**Tumon substation C22.4 MVA) 280,000
Apra substation (10/12.5 MVA) 40,000
Talofofo substation (10/12.5 MVA) 46,000

1981 34.5 KV Talofofo-Merizo Line 500,000
Merizo substation (10/12.5 MVA) 650,000

1982 *Adelup substation C10/12.5 MVA) 650,000
*Pagat substation C10/12.5 MVA) 6509'000

1983 34. 5 KV Pagat-Marbo Line 300,000
*Agat substation (80 MVA) 2,500,000

1984 *115 KV Agat-Apra Jct Loop Lines 2,500,000
*Talofofo substation (50MVA) 2@0009000

1985 *115 KV Apra Jct-Talofofo Lines 32000,,000

1986 *Chalan Pago substation 700,000
*34.5/13.8 Chalan Pago/Barrigada Lines 1,500,000
*Yigo substation (112 MVA) 4,000,000

Notes: MVA = MegaVolt Amperes = 1000 (KVA Source: GPA
or KiloVolt Amperes)
= Total cost distributed over
or more years; indicated year shows start of project
= Includes cost of temporary facility

C The Refinery

The GORCO refinery is located on an irregularly shaped

piece of land of 508.43 acres in Agat.

Rated at 29,500 bbl/day until 1977, recent completion

of the JP-5 (commercial jet fuel) unit raised the capacity of the

refinery to approximately 35,000 bbl/day.

Table 7 Summary of GORCO Refinery Production Capacity-Approximate

CAPACITY
PRODUCT (bbl/day)

LPG 700
JP-4 12,000
JP_5 5,000
Diesel 6,000
Residual 12,000
Asphalt 250

Source; GORCO

The crude fractioner is the refinery's basic unit. Crude is hea-

ted and then passed through the fractioner where it reaches boil-
ing temperature.. At various temperatures and pressures, lighter
products are drawn off (LPG, distillates), the residual and as-

phalt being drawn out the bottom. After passing through several

treatment processes, the final products are piped to respective

storage facilities. The existing plant does not have a cracking

unit and does not produce gasoline.

No firm details were available on specific expansion

plans. Officials did mention that the Small Business Administra-

tion raised the ceil ing on the definition of "small refiner" to

50,000 bbl/day from 30,000 bbl/day; therefore, it could be ex-
21

pected that'GORCO will continue '%-.o expand to 40.,000.bbl/day, in
the near future, and eventually to 50,000 bbl/day.

Figure. G L) AM OIL ANO REFINING COMPANY, INC,

BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM Source: GORCO

FUEL GAS

VAPORIZER

T-;CATi.,jG LPG
700 E/O

PG
ST RA,3a
4 &16

S TA 8 (L I Z E

(Turbine Fuel
JP-4
12, 000 EI0

STORA
1'0 V. a

4uuu Ail)

CRUDE C14ARGE DISTILLATE (Diesel)
C..RUDE @5.ooo 8/0
CRUOE DISTILLAT.71
STORAGE STORAGE
1,200 me

CRUDe

FRACTIONATOR
RESIDUAL FUEL OIL
12';000- 8/0
FUEL OIL
Treating phalt STORAGC
250 B/D -0-skstora&e 760 %IFJ
F
:L GAS
Ur
1@1 @R LPG
q@'T if; C A T 1=11 G 0@
7 0 EI/O

Present demands on public facilities are small,

although GORCO is the private sector's largest power user. Ci-

ting water availability as a major constraint to expansion, the

general manager was uncertain as to how the problem will be

solved. One well is presently in operation on the premises from

which water is treated, used in the refining process, cleaned

and aerated, then flows into the Navy sewer system. One 24"

Navy-owned water main provides* water for the fire-protection
grid. Although the Public Utility Agency of Guam (under coopera-

tive use agreement with the Navy) receives payment from GORCO for

piped water used, the line itself is Navy property, as is the

source of the water, Fena Reservoir.

Discussions with Navy officials indicated that they

eventually see an end to this cooperative agreement and that

"PUAG should meet the civilian community's water needs" and not
the Navy. 'Some 2.5 million gallons per day are soTd to PUAG by

the Navy. The bulk of this is for the Agat-Santa Rita area

where the refinery is located. It appeare d that the Navy fore-

sees a continuation of a split system whereby Navy will meet its

own needs. Officials did not care to elaborate on potential

water-sources and referred to current studies by Barrett and As-

sociates as perhaps providing answers.

Fire protection at the GORCO refinery is felt to

be sufficient on-site although coordination is maintained with

GovGuam and military units. Foam or light water capability, as

well as the firewater loop and sprinkler systems are GORCO-run.

Most employees of the plant have been extensively trained in

fire fighting methods. The foam unit trailer has a 1,500.gp-m
rating and all light product tanks have foain-protection capa-

bilities. Insurance requirements, it was stated, are exceedingly

vigorous and no additional burdens on local fire facilities were

seen as.resulting from expansion plans.

The GORCO facility is extremely well screened from

public rights-of-way, and does not impinge upon surrounding land

uses., Atmospheric emissions are well within federal EPA and lo-
cal standards. The general manager did not foresee any problems

with future expans ion meeting environmental protection standards,

except in the case of wetlands on the property which comprise a

high eprcentage of the 20% of GORCO property considered "unde-

velopable".

D. Bulk Storage

Alarge percentage of bulk storage tanks are located on
federal p.roperty. According to military sources, it is not ex-
pected that expansion of military bulk storage facilities will
place additional demands on Guam's public facilities.

Bulk storage facilities where major expansion might

place additional demands on Gov Guam include:

- Esso Eastern Inc. CCabras Island@

- Mobil Petroleum Co., Inc. (Cabras Island@

- Guam Oil and Refining Co. (Cabr-as Island and AgatJ
- Guam Power Authority CCabras Island, Tanguisson)
- Guam International Airport Terminal (Tamuni.ng)

1. Esso Eastern Inc. - Existing Facilities

Esso tanks are located on approximately 6 acres

of Tand leased from the Guam Economic Development Authority.

Table 8:- Summary of Esso Bulk Tankage

CAPACITY
TANK GALLONS BARRELS PRODUCT

1,389,631 33,086 Gasoline
MOGAS97

#2 1,200,521 28,584 Gasoline
91 Octane
Unleaded

#3 283,872 6,759 LSADO
(low sulphur
Diesel

#4 .2,131597 50,752 Jet Fuel AA-1

#5 2,130,932 50,736 Jet Fuel AA-1

#6 406,905 9,688 Gasoline
91 Octane
Unleaded

Source: Esso East.Inc.

Esso does not own or control off-loading facili-

ties but works under cooperative agreement with GORCO. In the

event of tanker scheduling conflicts, Esso maintains a secondary

agreement for use of Mobil Petroleum Company's facilities adja-

cent to the Mobil storage tanks.

2. Esso - Future Development

Of the approximately 6 acres being leased from

GEDA, 3 are in use, 1 has been subleased to GORCO deballasting

facilities, and 2. remain available for future expansion. This

appears adequate for the foreseeable future.

Dema-nd for jet fuel is the major component of

Esso operations with gasoline a distant second. Alternately

known as AA-1, Jet A-1 JP-1, or DPK Cdual purpose kerosene),

the Esso jet fuel bulk ta.nks were designed to serve more than

existing demand. The TWA pullout from the Pacific area further

decreased demand for jet fuel, and allows the present reserve

margin to be sufficient for some-time.

Recent discussions with CAB indicate that ad-

ditional airline service for Guam appears to be possible in the

near future. Should this occur, according to Esso's General

Manager, it is certain that the demand f or jet fuel will in-

crease significantly and most probably would mean the cons.truc-

tion of an additional 50,000 bbl tank on unused portions of the

Esso land-lease from GEDA.

The primary public facility concern if this and

other expansion should occur, should be fire protection, as the

Government of Guam has no capability for dealing with oil or

petroleum product fires. Of secondary concern relative to need-

ed public facilities may be oil spill containment, where again

GovGuam has no capability. In both cases,-it was evident that

the Navy and Coast Guard would be heavily relied upon in the

event of a disaster.

No problem was seen by the general manager inso-

far as -meeting land-use and environmental r,.egulations for future

facility development. As new facilities probably will be for

bulk fuel storage, Federal Spill Prevention Control and Counter-
measures (SPCC) as well as GEPA water quality standards can be

easily met with present construction standards. Dikes surround-

ing the tanks are designed at 120% of tank capacity, and sho-uld

be sufficient to contain a rupture. Recently installed on the

volatil e fuel tanks (gasolinel, the so-called "ultra-float" sys-

tem provides a floating seal which prevents vapor build-up be-

tween the top of the liquid and the tank roof, thereby eliminat-

ing a potential fire hazard.

3. Mobil Petroleum Company, Inc.

Mobil's bulk tankage is located on approximate-

ly 11 acres of land on Cabras Island, 5 of which are under
long-term lease from Guam Economic Development Authority (on

harbor side of road), the balance of 6 acres is leased on a

5-year renewable-lease from the U. S. Navy.

Table 9: Summary of Mobil Bulk Tankage - Cabras Island

TANK CAPACITY
NUMBER GALLONS BARRELS PRODUCT

3 756,000. 18,000 Auto Diesel Oil
5 2,604,000 62,000 Premium Mogas
7 1,764,0.00 42,000 Jet A-1
8 1,314,600 31,300 Not in service
9 1,260,000 30,000 Diesel
10 1,764,000 42,000 Auto Diesel Oil
11 1,344,000 32,000 MP
12 6.30,000 15,000 Indust.Fuel Oil
13 126,000 3,000 Slop
14 315,000 7,500 Avgas (100/1310)
16 117,600 2,800 Asphalt S51
17 315,000 7,500 Asphalt AP-3
78 2,604,000 62,000 Unleaded mogas
19 2,604,000 62,000 Jet A-1
20** 1,764,000 42,000 MR

Source: Mobil Petroleum Company, Inc.

Missing numbers indicate tanks removed from service

Tank 7120 replaced older tanks dismantled after typhoon
damage (See Section 4).

Offloading is carried out on the Mobil fueling pier near the tank

farm. The pipelines are such that the products can be taken from

or distributed to GORCO's and Navy's fuel piers as well as the

GORCO refinery. Recently, over $100,000 was spent improving

the pier facility; however, no additional requirements were

placed on public facilities. Permits were all reviewed and

approved by the appropriate authorities.

Mobil also leases and operates the present Guam

Airport Authority's tank farm at the air terminal.. By agree-

ment, Esso and SOCAL. al-so use the facility. The present ar-

rangement is a lease agreement with Guam Airport Authority

subject to renewal in March of 1979.

4. Mobil' - Future Development

The Cabras Island terminal will not be under-

going any major development in the next 5-7 years., according

to the.general manager. Up to 1986, the only new facilities

will-be replacements for those tanks which have ended their

practical service life.

The Marianas Yacht Club will be allowed to con-

tinue operations on Mobil land until such time as they are able

to find a suitable per-manent site. When tank #20 was built,.

to replace typhoon-damaged tanks, certain waivers were made

with adjoining-GORCO and Esso facilities, to allow construction

near the latter's property lines such.that the Yacht Club

would not be disturbed.

Mobil does not see any great change in leasing

and development policies until the final decision is made about

relocation o.f the present ammo wharf at Hotel Wharf, as all the

Mobil facilities are within the e-xisting blast zone.

Mob.il's present facility at the'airport will be

dismantled at the time that the GAA-owned and Lockheed-run

facility comes on li ne. Mobil and Esso will simply Provide

the fuel to the Airport Authority.

The.general-manager did not foresee 'any signi-

ficant additional demands on public facilities as a result of

Mobil activities. This could be somewhat qualified by'disc,us-

sion of Government of Guam responsibilities, if and when the

ammo wharf is moved. It.was felt that present fire protection

and oil-spill contingency.plans are more than adequate, given

the exemplary manner in which.present operations by all petro

leum importers are carried out.

Again, it was stated that Mobil facilities meet

all. federal standards and that no problem is seen with meet-

ing land-use and environmental requirements in tank placement

or pier maintenance activities.

S. GPA - Existin2 Facilittes

GPA's major bulk storage facilities are locatednear

the eastern end of Cabras Island. Two major tanks are loca-

ted on land acquired from the Navy; the land has ample room for

two additional tanks of the same size. Two day-storage tanks

located on the Cabras Power Plant site were originally designed

for Residual Fuel Oil #6- for burning in the Cabras boilers.

Upon completion of the two large storage tanks

which can feed the boilers of both the Navy Piti plant and the'

Cabras plant directly, one of the day-storage tanks is used for

the storage of low-sulphur fuel in the event of an "emergency

episode This "episodic contingency plan" was initiated as

an interim measure to satisfy EPA air-pollution, State Imple-

mentation Plan (SIP).

Table lb:. Summary of GPA Bulk Tankage

CAPACITY
TANK GALLONS BARRELS PRODUCT

#1 Cabras 4202000 10,000 #6 Residual
Fuel Oil

#2 Cabras 920,000 10 000 Low Sulphur

#3 Cabras 1T,281,200 268,600. #6 Residual

#4 Cabras 11,281,200 268,600 #6 Residual

#5 Tanguisson 4201.000 TO,000 #6 Residual

6. GPA Future Development

Assuming that no major new generating facilities

are developed except at the Cabras Island site, two additional

tanks will be needed at the time a 4th Cabras unit goes into

operation. This date is uncertain at present, but will unques-

tionably be post-1986.

Presently, the large storage tanks can be served

directly from GORCO's Agat ref inery or the GORCO fuel wharf. A

pipeline is being considered in the near future which would con-

nect the large storage tanks directly to the Cabras boilers. An

additional one or two tanks of the 10-20.,000 bbl. size are being

considered for on-site storage of low-sulphur fuel.

New equipment including both pipelines and heat-

ers may be-required if any of the.generation units are required

to burn low sulphur fuel, or if the price of low sulphur fuel

becomes,competitive with the price of mid-eastern crude.

7. GORCO - Exi-sting Bulk Storage and Pipel'i*ne

Facilities

Crude and-.product storage occupies the major part

of the developed portion of Guam Oil and Refining Company's Agat

complex. (See Table. 11 : GORCO Crude and Product Bul k Storage

Facilities, which follows.)

GORCO owns and maintains its own off loading fa-

cilities on approximately 3 acres of GEDA-leased land to the com-

mercial port. The fuel pier offloads 10-15 tankers in the 40-

80 thousand gross ton class, comprising 70-80% of the port tank-

er's traffic. Esso maintains a joint use agreement with GORCO

for the use of offloading facilities. GORCO is presently leas-

ing the two large GPA storage tanks.

Pipelines

Although both Mobil and Esso facilities,can be

serviced from the GORCO pipeline network, the main lines consist

of two 24" and two 16" pipes which connect the fuel pier to the

Agat refinery via the Piti channels, and Marine Drive easements.
(Se e Figure 2 . ) I

It is these lines which prevent development of the

inner Piti. channels for a keelboat harbor-of-refuge or marina use,

since at low tide only craft of shallow draft can safely pass over

Table 11: GORCO Crude and Product Bulk Storage Facilities

TANK CAPACITY
N'UMBER PRODUCT GALLONS BARRELS

12-1901 Crude 18,900,000 450,000
1902 Crude, 18,900,000 450,000
1903 Crude 12,600,000 300,000
1904 Diesel/Marine 12,600,000 300,000
1905 JP -4 8,400,000 200,000
1906 JP-4 8,400,000 200,000
1907 JP-4 .8,400,000 200,000
1,908 JP-4 2,310,000 55,000
1909 JP-4 2,310,000 55,000
1910 Residual Fuel Oil 1,680,000 40,000
1911 Residual Fuel Oil 1,680,000 40,000
1913 Crude/Turbine/Slop 840,000 20,000
1916 Distillate 42,000 -1,000
1919 Nayy Distillate 2,310 55
1922 JP-5 12,600,000 300,000
1923 Crude 12,600,000 300,000
1924 Jet A-1 2,100,000 50,000
1925 JP-5 2,100,000 50,000
1926 LPG 210,000 5,000
12-1204 A LPG 21,000 500
1204 B LPG 21,000 500
1204 C LPG 21,000 500
1927 OFM 840,000 20,000
1928 JP-5 1,260,000 30,000
1929 OFM 420,000 10,000
193.0 JP-5/DFM 420,000 10,000
1931 Naphtha 840,000 20,000
1917 Water 840,000 20,000

Approximate Total Tankage: 3,127,500 bbl.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

1932 Crude 21,000,000 500,000
1933 Crude 21,000,000 500,000

the crossing. At the time of construction, pipes adhered to all

permit requirements according to the.general manager.

Table 12: Product Flow -Major GORCO Pipe lin es

APPROXIMATE
LINE PRODUCT FLOW RATE* ROUTE
(BBL/HR)

1. 2419 Crude. 3-12,000 Cabras-Refnry
2. 2411 RFO #6 7-12,000 Refnry-Cabras

3. 7611 JP-4 5,000 Refnry-NFD

4. 1611 Multi-Produ ct Varies All Points

Pumping rate depends on capacity of ship's pumps

8. Expansion - Bulk Storage, Pipelines, Deballasting

Bulk Storage

No specific plans for major new expansion of GORCO

bulk storage facilities are available at the present time. Two

500,000 bbl... storage tanks have received the necessary permits

and construction is underway.

GEPA records show GORCO permit applications for

nine 500,000 barrel tanks dated 5/30/75. GORCO officials indi-

cated this development was considered as a result of projected

retirement,of aging storage facilities*on foreign soil including

Japan and the Philippines. The project is still considered

viable and may be revived in the next few years, although the

number of tanks may be reduced to six or less.
App'ro-ximately 20% of GORCO's land is considered
7
unusable due to wetlands and steep slopes. Officials indicated

that expansion mo,st probably will be within the ap.proximately

500 acres of GORCO land holdings.

It is fairly certain that additional product tank-

age will be increasing as refinery operations expand from the pre-

sent 35,000 BPD capacity to 50,000 BPD in the not-distant fu ture.

Specific plans are not available as to the nature of product tank-

age expansion.

P i p e 1 i n e s

No specific plans are available for e_xpansion of

pipelines. GORCO officials,.aware of impending EPA air-quality

standards, are in discussion stages of a low-sulphur pipeline

from the refinery to Cabras. Additionally, there is a possibi-

lity of a pipeTine from Commercial Port to the proposed GIAT

storage facilities. Planning for these.developments is in pre-

liminary stages.

The two 24" and 16" lines crossing the Piti

channels will probably have to be moved in the future, according

to GORCO officials. It is uncertain as to who will pay for this

rather expensive undertaking, since, as mentioned, construction

was in accordance with federal and loca'l requirements in 1969.

'Deba I las@ting

As the refinery's capacity increases, there will

be an additional demand for deballasting facilities to accommo-

date additional tanker traffic. Each tanker arrives with 40-

50,.000 bbl. of'salt water in the holds; this must-be processed

and discharged "free of oil" or less than 10 parts per'million.

Existing deballasting facilities are being.up-
graded, however, for additio nal land will be required. GORCO

would prefer acquiring Navy land for this purpose, but is also
planning for a location adjacent to the large GPA storage tanks.

One preliminary plan ind-icates an impounding basin and setting ba-

sin on GPA property behind Tank ..'rl. Area. required is about 1.5

times the size ofthe diked area of one .268,600 bbl. storage

tank. A lagoon rather than tank system is envisioned.

9. GIAT Guam International Air-Terminal_,

New Tankage

As part or air-terminal improvements, new-bulk
storage facilities will be located just off Route 16.. Exist--
ing tankage will be dismantled at the time the Lockheed-super

vised project is completed. Tankage for the GIAT-owned site is

presently designed for 3 x 10,00.0 bbl. tanks and one 15,000 bbl.

tank. It was the opinion of the Lockheed consultant that faci-

lities including water, fire-protection, and public safety were

sufficient as the storage area is a self-contained unit a nd

must meet stringent federal regulations.

pigure
j_: Future L@cation, GTAT Fuel ra e

7
GO @

1 4 /1// -7

7
KEY-.- -7
APRON RELATMME LEASE LOTS.

AIRPORT--RELATED USE'LEASE LOTS.

AIRPORT AND CCMNITY RELATED USE LEASE LOTS.

FUEL STORAGE AND DELIVERY LEASE LOIS.
Source:GIAT Master 1E
ROUTE IOA AND ROUTE 16.
Plan, 1977

AIRPORT SERVICE ROAD.

UTILITIES, SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMEru5;

% . .......
Z

-A

t 'I

Source: Uog Marine
Laboratory
Figuri@ 4 Diagrammatic Representation of Tanguisson SPP Thermal Plume

I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I III. Selected impacts. ofIEnergy Facilities
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

III. Selected Impacts o-f Energy Facilities

A. Thermal

Studies carried out before, during and after construc-

tion And subsequent operation of both the Tanguisson and Cabras

steam power plants indicate the specific nature and extent of

thermal effluent 'on two rather different near-shore and rela-

tively shallow marine environments. Results conclusively show

that thermal effluent as a result of power plant operations has

altered many aspects of the marine environment. The studies'

recognition of the importance of biological variability resulted

in detailed observations of the "before environment," thereby

narrowing the cause of observed changes to power plant operation.

1 Piti Channels

While overall' generalizations are sometimes mis-
leading, impact studies of thermal effluent in the Pit.i channel
area seem to indicate that damage is confined to relatively

restricte d, already greatly-altered areas (Amesbury et al, 1977),

and have not been of*major significance in terms of a continuous

and increasing threat to the overall quality of the marine envir-

onment within Apra Harbor.

Construction activities associated with the
building of Cabras Power Plant have probably
had a more serious and lasting impact to date
than have plant operations. (Marsh, Chernin,
Doty, 1977)

the most serious recorded environmental effect ...
was caused by unnecessary and careless operation
of a bulldozer on the Piti Reef (Marsh, Doty, 1975)
(Marsh, Gordon, 1974)

It should also be noted that temperatures an Ti-dal
Flat B exceeded 340C over a wide area as was the
case for Tidal Flat C. These high temperatures
likely resulted from solar insolation rather than
the influence of power plants. (Marsh, Doty, 1975)

Power plants impose a more constant temperature on
the outfall area than otherwise would occur. This
more constant temperature is in the upper part of
the natural range ... (Marsh, Gordon, 1974)

Reinforcing 1975 observations - operations of the
Cabras Plant were not expanding the areas enclosed
within specific isotherms- beyond pre-existing con
ditions, when onT the Piti Plant was operating.
(Marsh, Doty, 1977)

Piti channel and Commercia l.Port areas have greatly
altered by dredging, land filling, and construction.
(Pinckert, 1978)

Table 13: Effluent and Related Temperature Data'- Cabras and Piti SSP

Plant Combined Effective Approx. Max. Delta T Actual Monthly Averag-
Operating Capacity Effluent Flowl (Design)l Mean 2 Intake vs Outfall
Temp. Temperature

Piti 44. MW 64,000 gpm 5.6"C 30.8'OC 1.60C
SSP (100F) (87.40F) (2.90F)

Cabras 132. MW 120,000 gpm 5.6-8.30C 32.OOC 2.80C
SSP (10-150F) (89.60F) (50F)

Inner Channel Ambient Apra
Tidal Flat Harbo@ Temp.
TemperatureS3 Range

Flat A
29.5-32.50C
(85.1-90.5.'o F)

Flat B
[email protected] 27.2-29.40C
(83.3-92.30F) (80.9-84.90F) 1. Marsh/Gordon (1974)
2. Marsh/Chernin/Doty (1977)
Flat C 3. Marsh/Gordon (1973)
28-33.60C 4. Emery (1962)
.(82.4-92.50F)

vACtiT
SEAPLANE CLUB
RAMP
0 1 2 3 4 5 CABRAS
SCALE Im A 100) ISLAND
COMMERCIAL, PORT
A

Oil

'k. Buoy
BLACK.11 FACI LTY

ACTUAL LOCATION OF
BUOYS I & A OFF MAP

BUOY
REDA
Buoy
RED 4

CL
,UPPER pill C"A",

'K,

z
LOqE,Vk TIDAL FLAT C

>
eORAL RY- ANNF
I , _ 2,@ - Ir
- - - -JQqRN
W

I CORAL
TIDAL FLAT
SEE 190
iwzr

Figure 5: Major features of the area affected hy the effluents of the Piti and C
Inputs of Iwater from the power plant outfalls ari--, indicated'by arrows.
filled to provide the construction site for the Cabras Power Plant.

pEEF

10"E
ALGAL WEST- PITI E

U: REEF
UJ; COfAL ZONE FLAT
LA:
C,
I
AT/
A.RE
rD
CABRAS
IIDW@
ISLAND
I %A SAND & RUBBLE
_.@: - ZONE
'D\V'C -11@ 4-
IN.
VO
4:r- .0r, P\,)tl
-or,,

REEF
FLAT SANTOS
CABRAS ISLA D PARK
POWER PLANT

to
HOOV
BEACH uso n

PITI POWER
PLANT

Figure 6 West Piti Bay showing th e major features in the area of the Piti and
The location of the aamaged area was determined in conjunction.with

2. Cabras Island/Piti Channel Area Summary
The sum total of the data r*eviewed seems to indi-

cate that while the power plants certainly add a hazard in

terms of increased temperature to the Piti Channel area:

- the overall impact is not significantly greater
than the impacts of natural solar insolation; and

- the significance of the impacts are further reduced
given the extreme alteration of the Piti Channels
from past development; and

- expected development to the west of the Piti Channels
adjacent to the commercial port will continue to
severely alter "natural" conditions of the area.

- despite power pl.ant thermal intrusion, Piti Channels
and lagoon frequently used recreationalareas for
fishing, picnicking, and heavy weather boat anchor-
age.

Conclusions to the effect that "anything goes" inso-

far as continued development of energy facilities on Cabras

Island should not be infer-red here. It should be noted that the

causeway built to the island obstructed the natural flow of

water through the Tepungan Channel, thereby arti ficially estab-

lishing an area subject to solar insolation to a greater degree.

It was probably more coincidence that location of the power

plants and their heat plumes took advantage of this situation

whereby heate d effluent has a less-than-usual impact on. the

environment. Given this situation together with expected devel-

opment in the port area, it would.seem reasonable to conclude

that future energy facilities would not significantly increase

the present impacts. However, extreme care should be taken by

the developer of future fac ilities not to exacerbate this mar-

ginally acceptable situation.

3. The Tanguisson Experience

Located on the north-east coast of Guam, the GPA/

Navy Tanguisson power plant has been under observation since
operations commenced in October 1971 (unit #1) and December

1972 (unit

Table 14: Tanquisson SSP Data*

Capacity Approx. Max. Mean Intake Mean Outfall Mean Max. Reef Flat Ambient Ocean
Effluent Flow Temp. Range Temp. Range Delta T Temp. Range Temp. Range

50.5 MW 35,000 gpm'' 26.9-29.511C 32.5-37.OOC 70C 30-330C 27.6-29.30C
(80.4-85.10F) (90.5-98.60F) (12.60F) (86.0-91.40F) (81.7-84.7"F)

*Note: Data from same sources a's Table 1.

Unlike the Cabras Island/Piti Channel location, the

Tanguisson plant was built directly adjacent to the narrow fringing

reef and within a beach strand e nvironment. Thermal effluent has

directly affected a sig nificant portion of reef. By c oincidence,

during the period of June-September 1968 the coral-eating crown-

of-thorns.starfish (Acanthaster Planci) devastated the area sea-

ward of the. reef front zone killing over 95% of reef building

corals. Thus, the study could not be based upon actual observed

kill, but rather on observed re-growth patterns in effl.uent-

affected vs. non-effluent *areas.

The overall conclusion is that the Tanguisson thermal
effluent is responsible'for the destruction of some 20,000 m2 of

the coral reef commu*nity. While other factors such as biofouling
treatment (since discontinued) played a part in initial biota

damages, "There.is no doubt that the thermal effluent from the

Tanguisson power plant is responsible for the death of herma-

typic (reef-building) corals along the reef margin," (Neudecker,

1976). Not limited to coral impacts, "Fishes that are charac-

teristic of the reef flat (many are territorial species) aban-

doned the plume area. The same was true for crustaceans and

echinoderms." (Jones, et al, 1973).

Generally speaking, upper tol erances for corals is

30' - 33C. At 4*C above summer ambient temperatures (28.5*C),

eighteen species of reef corals died within 6 - 14 days, at

VC above ambient, in 6 days or less. While corals are reset-

tl.ing in the Aca.nthaster-dev astated areas outside ofthe tempera-

ture plume, "...there is no evidence of coral resettlement in

the reef margin area within the influence of the effluent."

Neudecker (1976, 1977) specifically investigated the growth of

coral transplants in and near Tanguisson effluent, as well as

the effect of coral removal on the rest of the community. Con-

clusions indicate that the obvious is true, "When corals die,

many species closely associated with them either die or move

to a more favorable area." (Neudecker, 1977). Furthermore, the

long term possibility is that "...,biogeochemical and physical

erosion ... will result on the reef platform opposite the power

plant." (Jones, et al, 1973).

The good news is that the area of kill does not

appear to be expanding and is directly proportional to the

generating capacity of the plant, and unless the generating capa-

city is increased or additional toxic chemicals are introduced,

the kill area should remain stable. (Neudecker, 1976).

Erosion and Sedi'mentatior,

Effects of erosion and sedimentation are a constant

threat with large scale onshore or nearshore energy facility

development, particularly in areas having significant amounts of

eroded and weathered volcanic overburden. The best example of

such impacts, although not related to energy, was caused by

improper and poorly timed site preparation on steep slopes of the

Nimitz Hill housing estates. Resultant sedimentation caused

a. massive coral kill in Agat Bay. Energy-related projects of

similar and greater magnitude have been discussed, but no defi-

nite plans are available.

Several-studies are available addressing the impacts of

siltation and sedimentation on the marine environment. The

most recent, Sedimentation Studies at Fouha and Ylig Bay,

(Randall, Birkland, 1978) was designed to scientifically assess

the effects of sediments on reef systems.. The natural gradient

of coral growth, was compared with the gradients of suspended

sedimentation to determine a cause/effect relationship. Once

gradient values are established, with further model develop-

ment, they could be applied to different reef environments to

predict sedimentation impacts due to increased input from land

and coastal development. The following table is derived from

the above study.

Table 15: Summar y of Sedimentation Impacts on Coral Species Diversity

INDICATORS EFFECT

Time Area Sediment Number of Substrate
Load Species Coverage
6 weeks 4.4 cm2 1 6 grams over 100 12 %

30 40 grams less than 10 2 %

Source: (Randall, Birkland, 1978)

In effect this study conclusively supported previous

observations that,"alteration of coral diversity follows a simi-

lar gradient of high to low levels of sedimentation ......

(Basline Study, p. 25). To date initial construction has had

the greatest impact as far as site and surrounding area impacts.

There is no record of continuing siltation or erosion caused by

energy facility operation.

B. Atmospheric Emissions

l.. General

Guam's major power plants use 7#6 Residual fuel oil
for-firing boilers. Resultant emissions include sulfur oxide*s,
carbon oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulates.

Table 16: Approximate Composition, 1#6 Residual Fuel Oil As Presently Fired

Carbon 87 83 %
Hydrogen 9.5 %
Sulfur 2 2.5 %
Ash .01 %

Note: "Low Sulfur" crude -
contains only trace sulfur.
48

The major concern on Guam is sulfur dioxide given

its well documented impacts as a pollutant. Unfortunately for
Guam, SO2 regulations are based for the most part on major
population centers in the continental U.S. where sulfur oxide

and other emissions directly and negatively affect people,

buildings and biota surrounding the source. Except for infre-
quent episodes, most S02 drifts with the prevailing winds over

the ocean, falls into the water and is absorbed by natural pro-
ces.ses. When prevailing winds direct S02 emissions toward popu-
lated areas, the power plant contingency plan goes into effect

based on sampling station readings inland from the Cabras

lsla@d Plants. The boilers are switched to low sulfur fuel
until the winds switch.to a more favorable direction. Under
such a system, sul fur oxides have essentially no effect on Guam's

envi ronment.

Guam's standards are contained in the Guam Air

Quality Implementation Plan which is currently under revision

from 1974.

NSPS or New Source Performance Standards apply to

the Cabras Plant since construction began after August of 1971.

New stacks for the Piti Plant are nearing completion which will

exhaust gases at a higher level. Tanguisson seems to be accept-

able'at present, pending outcome of enforcement discussions.

2. Emission Standards

Pertinent standards include sulfur oxides, particu-

late matter, and nitrogen oxides.

Table 17: Selective Summary of Guam's Ambient Air Quality Standards

Indicators Sulfur Oxides Particulates Nitrogen Oxides

Annual Mean 60mg/m3 (0.02ppm)2 60mg/m3 (0.02ppm) 100mg/m3
24 hr. max.1 365 (0.12ppm) (geometric mean) NA
I hr. maxl 1300 (0.5ppm) NA NA

I
4 hr. max 650 (0.25ppm) (8 hr) 360mg/m NA
1 Permitted once a year Source: GEPA
2 Micrograms per cubic meter
PPM = parts per million

During 1975 1977, the ambient level of sulfur

oxides (measured in the vicinity of the Cabras and Piti plants)
measured 13 micrograms/m3, far below the 60 micrograms/m3

National Standard'

Nitrogen oxide concentrations are well within EPA

standards a nd should remain so if the trend over the past 3 years

contin-ues.

Power plant.operations do not contribute signifi-

cantly to the relatively.high particulate concentrations season-

ably evident on Guam as 1AF6 RFO does not produc:e significant

amounts of fly-ash or particulates. Of greater importance is

the coral base of approximately 50% of Guam, and the fact that

particulate readings are only taken in the area of intense

particulate-producing activities. An extremely heavy concen-

tration.of large, fast moving*trucks over roads in poor repair

on coral-base Cabras Island.is probably the main producer of

particulates.

Table 18: S09 EOi-@odd 'Frequency Based on Wind Rose Data

Wind Wind
Direction % of time Direction % of time
(from) (from)

N 1.4 S 2.7
NNW 1.2 SSE 3.9
NW .7 SE 7.9
WNW .7 ESE 21.0
V4 W .7 E 26.5
WSW .6 ENE 19.9
Sw .9 NE 7.4
SSW 1.7 NNE 2.4

Probable S02 Episode, 6.5% (US Navy)

F-i-gure 7: Quam- Average @SO2 EMIAsions
(EPA Requirement = 60 nij/=j,Xvg./yr.
40
Source: EPA
w 30
20

(Qrtrs) 1 2 .3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
M 1975 1976 1977

Figure 8: ..Guam-Average-NOy--Emissions-
-MA-.Re-qu=e?nent-pp--100-.'mg/m3 Avg./yr.
20--
Source: EPA

10.-

(Qrtrs.)l 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Figure 9: Guam Average Particulate Concentrations
(EPA Requirements - 60 mg/m-3 Avg./yr.)
03200
Source: EPA
A 15JD

100
Source,* EPA

1-4
-w ,

a .'4 1 2 3 4 1 2 -3
(Qr-trs

C. Oil Pollution

1. Off Loading Operations

Tankers entering Apra are in the 100,000 DWT (dead

weight ton) range or below given the anchorage's limited bottom

depth, maneuvering room, facilities., and tankage requirements.

Most tankers are in the 40-80,000 gross ton category. Approxi-

mately 4 ships per week a n the long term average off load at

GORCO, Mobil and Navy Facilities; 10-15 per month-(70-80%) are

GORCO/Mobil tankers, the balance being Navy and ESSO. National

figures of polluting incident s in and around U.S. waters indi-

cate Guam spills totalled 216 barrels in 1977, too small an

amount to contribute to a percentage of the national total.

(U.S. Coast Guard, 1978).

Table 19: Latest Summary of Port Oil Transfer Operations

Period Barrels

1977
4th Quarter 6.7 million

1978
Ist Quarter 5.13 million

1978
2nd Quarter 5.6 million

Source: U.S. Coast Guard

Coast Guard figures show 111 ship transfers and

9 barge transfers (44,000 bbls) took place in the 2nd quarter

of 1978. These together with the 100-p-lus transfer operations

in the first quarter of 1973 resulted in 12 very minor spills,

most of which were simply sheens.

The Apra Harbor marine environment has not been

exposed to impacts of significant oil pollution. Bottom sedi-

ments and marine organisms are free of petroleum derived hydro-

carbons.

2. Spill Impact

Tropical waters because of relatively constant

stresses are more vulnerable to large-scale spills than temperate

or arctic marine systems due to the latter's adaptability to

change. A recent NOAA National Marine Fisheries Bulletin stated

that while it is not possible to predict the environmental im-

pact of a spill, se veral factors govern the overall impact:

- type of oil spilled
- how much
- physiography of the area
- weather conditions at the time
- biota of the area
- previous exposure of the area to oil
- season
- exposure to other pollutants
- treatment of the spill

A tanker grounding within the harbor would pro-

bably be at low speed and would suggest that a maximum accident,

the entire cargo being lost, probably would not occur. The

physiography of the harbor is such that while several wetlands

may be affected, bottom sediments are mostly unconsolidated and

not particularly rich with plants, clams, mollusks and other

bottom dwellers. However, heavy oils or crude reaching the

bottom would remain for an extremely long time, before natural

oxidation occurred.

Compared to the richness and diversity of other

portions of*the fringing reef, Apra Harbor does not have exten-

sive coral growth. Some of this has alre ady been exposed to

significant amounts of sedimentation. The fact that the har-

bor has not been exposed to large amounts of hydrocarbon pol-

lutJon means that those organisms directly affected.would pro-

bably be devastated.

Depending on the location of the spill, prevailing

winds from easterly directions would encourage suspended pol-

lutants to move in the direction of the harbor mouth. As well

as fouling bottoms and shorelines adjacent to and along the

drift of a spill, prevailing northerly swells at the harbor

mouth may result in additional heavy fouling a-t Orote Point.
Surface movement away from the S'asa and Atantano River wetlands

or the eastern end of the harbor would be aided by the "doni-

nant westward outflow of water in the area on both ebb and

flood tides." (Marsh et al , 1977

Estuaries are particularly susceptible to the

impacts of oil pollution where the kiTling of bottom-dwelling

plants and animals generally loosens bottom sediments causing

both erosion and movement of the pollutant to new areas. Major

effects of spills in other locations has been destruction of

bottom vegetation, wildlife and birds, foulin g of beaches,

rocks, harbor facilities, moored boats and the devastation of

biologically productive shallow water bottoms. Locally, im-

pacts would not be critical once floating oil left the harbor and

sank in the deep waters immediately adjacent to the harbor

entrance. The deep ocean bott oms off the coast are not particu-

larly suitable for marine resource exploitation, nor do they

appear to pl ay a significant part in the maintenance of the

shallower water biota. A port consultant stated that a large

spill within the harbor could be more easily contained than in

other locations since the inner harbor could be effectively

separated from the outer harbor and that water turbulence would

be minimal under normal conditions. If an incident could be

dealt with in a relatively short period of time, much damage

can be completely avoided.

The Coast Guard, the Port Authority, and officials

of Mobil, ESSO, GORCO, OPS and Navy feel that extensive dis-

cussion of "maximum accident scenarios" such as these are

slightly alarmist in nature. Even with substantially increased

tanker traffic it was felt that traffic control measures,
highly efficient inspection and 'supervisory operat.ions, the

ability of the Coast Guard's contingency plan to deal with

a spill situation, and the relative ease of spill containment

in Apra Harbor significantly reduces the spectre of an all-out

ecological disaster.

3. Oil Spill Contingency Plan

The Marine Safety Office (MSO) located at the

Commercial Port has recently completed drafting of Guam's Oil

Spill Contingency Plan. The MSO, as established by Federal

law, has authority vested in the Captain of the Port dealing

with:

- fire protection a.nd prevention
- storage control
- entry control
tug standby
- bi-annual ship inspections
- yacht documentation
- .1 i censi ng
- charter boating.

The contingency plan itself contains listings of

all equipment available through private as well as Federal

and local government sources and outlines procedures for noti-

fication and mobilization of equipmen t and manpower in the

case of a spill. The Coast Guard emphasized that the cleanup

is the responsibil ity of the pollutor, and Coast Guard parti-

cipation should not be in actual cleanup operations except

under extraordinary circumstances, where the responsible party

would be assessed for the costs. The Oil Spill contingency

funds can be used for cleanup and prevention purposes pursuant

to amendments to the Clean.Water Act, effective 28 December 1977.

The Coast Guard estimated that in the event of a major spill

the national regional strike force established under the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act could be operating on Guam

within 10 days.

Spill prevention regulations dealing primarily

with vessels cover a range of potential pollution sources

including hoses, drip pans, ship-to-shore communications, opera-

tions manuals, ship transfer operations, investigations of haz-

ardous substances and cargo sampling. No ship is allowed to

offload until an inspection is completed . Proof of a valid

insurance (FMC) certificate is mandatory-

D Dredging and Filling

.The best Guam documentation of energy-related dredging

and filling activities is contained in Marsh and Go rdon's

"Marine Environmental Effects of Dred ging and Power Plant

Construction in Piti Bay and Piti Channel, Guam" (1974). Fur-
ther study of major dredging/filling impacts has been carried

out during construction of the Agana Boat Basin and Sewer
Treatment'Plant, .the Northern District Wastewater Outfall, in

small projects including OHL's dock/groin on Cocos Island,

and various bridge construction activities.

Review of these studies indicate:

- area of impact is generally limited to t he area
actually dredged and/or filled;
- turbidity and sediments place a temporary stress
on surrounding areas, but not necessarily lethal
if, (a) reasonable precautions are taken and
(b) natural flushing of the affected area is not
interfered with;
the use of silt screens and (when possible) operation
timing to coincide with tidal and climatic condi-
tions can reduce temporary stress significantly.

Other than damage caused by an errant bulldozer,

"...the Piti reef flats which were disturbed by dredging in

Tepungan Channel have returned more or less to their origi-

nal state," and " ... most of the fine silt deposited on the

reef flat has been now swept away, a nd the substrate appears

much as it did before." (Marsh, Gordon, 1974).

It appears that the major caveat to dredging and fil-

ling operations is the necessity of the operation, and if

necessary, the extent of the operation. As far as energy

facilities are concerned, the record is good on both counts

in addition to the fact that extensive new dredging and fil-

ling operations of the marine environment do not appear immi-

nent. Possible exceptions could be port expansion activi-

ties which may include parts of the GORCO docking area, and

additional outfall related work which could result from EPA

actions requiring effluent control mitigation measures. Suf-
ficient area adjacent to the existing Cabras Units Cbuilt on

reclaimed.land) was provided through the foresight of the

project engineer to avoid future dredging and filling activi-

ties. Tepungan- Channel was al so designed to be able to serve

additional plant capacity.

Shoreline stabilization and channel maintenance on the

Tanguisson plants did not cause long-term impacts outside of

the actual construction area.

Should GORCO or other entities decide the location

of pipelines crossing the Piti Channels be altered, a dredging

will be required, but impacts should not be of major impor-
tance given the already greatly altered (man-induced) marine

environment.

In conclusion, it appears that required dredging and

filling operations directly related to energy facilities have

been carried out in a fairly responsible manner, and.aside from

one major avoidable incident, have not caused impacts greater

than expected.

E. Economic/Social Im2acts

The economic and social impacts of availability'of a

dependable source of electric power has been widespread and

penetrating. A drastic change in the short run would be detri-

mental to the island's lifestyle.

Guam would be more susceptible to increasing costs of

energy if it were not for the presence of the GORCO refinery
on island. Without such a fa ci lity,' civilian supply of genera-

ting plant fuel (Residual 71r6) and others would be more at the

mercy of international marketplace fluctuations, as well as

a good deaT higher in price and less-certain in availability.

Operation of many projected bases of Guam's economy,

(tourism, light manufacturing) are energy dependent with the

possible exception of agriculture. Lifestyle, particularly

in the area of hou sing and related domestic amenities, is

increasing its dependence on electric consumption. Block con-

crete houses with little emphasis on good insulation, natural

ventilation, and increasing reliance on total and constant

air conditioning will hasten spending of larger proportions

of disposable income on energy.

It is true that a vigorous conservation program

would slow the demand for power, and thereby postpone the

need for future production facilities. This will call for

programs stronger than public information. Even if recently

passed National Energy Legislation does not provide adequate

incentive for persons to conserve power and fuel consumption,

the rising prices brought about by deregulation of petroleum

product prices may force a change in attitudes. It is hoped

by economists that price deregulation will make alternative

energy sources more competitive with petroleum.

How does all this affect Guam? Guam imports all of

its petroleum, most of which comes from the Persian Gulf. Pro-

jected energy facility expansion will continue to be based on

petroleum unless a significantly increased effort on the part
of Govern'ment of Guam is made to attract afternative power

production methods such as OTEC and to strongly encourage con-

servation practices. Studies carried out by Mobil and British

Petroleum mark 1990 as the year when demand for crude begins

to outstrip production. Only 12 years remains until that date,

during the course of which Guam's population, industry and

overall demand for power continue to rely on petroleum. Accor-

ding to the Mobil study, desire of oil-exporting nations to hold

production below capacity could advance the shortage era to

as early as the mid-1980's. (Petroleum Encyclopedia, 1977).

Generating plants must be designed such that fuel supplies can

be guaranteed for the life of the plant, usually 30 years.

A Chase Manhattan Bank subsidiary predicted that world-wide

petroleum consumption will grow at 3% per year, and starting

in 1980 crude prices will grow at 2% faster than inflation

and increase steadily in the 1980's as the world productive

capacity is reached. Presently GORCO pays between $12.00 to

$12.80 per barrel for Persian crude. This is up from $2.59

per barrel in January of 1973. Of equal concern has been the

eroding position of the U.S. dollar as the oil-price yardstick.

Abandonment of this could mean that OPEC countries may not even

accept U.S. dollars as payment for oil, although Saudi Arabia

has assured the U.S. that it will continue.

The economics of Guam's industries and businesses

must plan the continued escalation of energy costs, and the

people. of Guam in their.'domestic situations must recognize

that continued increases in power dependency, etc. may even-

tually erode quality of life on the island. Recent GPA

expansion plans indicate that all expansion will be self-

financing, eg. long term bonds issued on the future-pay back

of customers.. The penalties for an economy and social

structure based on petroleum derived energy have been inter-

woven -with Guam's relatively urbanized lifestyle. Unfortu-

nately, these costs cannot be offset by the CEIP program as the

.burdens are not being caused by increasing costs of public

facilities resulting from energy facility expansion, but by

the very reliance on a diminishing resource in the fac e of

a world-wide demand increase.

F. Visual Impacts

Like the countenance of an ugly duckling, th e appear-

ance of most energy facil.ities appeals mostly to its creators.

Power generating units are large and unattractive as are trans-

mission lines and bulk storage tanks. Guam's master planning

effort in land-use and parks and recreation have addressed loca-

tional and profile considerations for energy facilit ies. With

the possible exception of location of certain transmission

lines, Guam's bulk storage, refining, and production facilities

are fairly well separated from areas of highl y conflicting use.

Even though the Cabras and Piti plants are highly visible, it

is.an area which is primarily commercial/industrial in nature,

and whose use has not significantly prevented multiple use and

recreational use from occurring. A notable exception could be
Bechtel's port master plan which placed a Cproposed) "boatel"

within the property lines already designated for future e-xpan-

sion of power-plant bulk storage facilities. Others include
the placement of high visibi*lity transmission lines through
the middle of residential and conservation (open space) areas,

and the construct-ion of lines and access roads across wetlands.

Often situations like this occur as a result of the lack of

lead time-planning.

The GORCO refinery, even when expanded to its projec-

ted 50,000 bpd size, is one of the best camouflaged operations

on the island, and demonstrates the beneficial aspects of good

siting, further wetland intrusion notwithstanding. Double

rows of power poles on either side of Marine Drive are unfor-

tunate visual blights, however, until some as yet undiscovered

source can provide approximately 10 times the construction

funds for underground pl acement, they will remain.

Certain power personnel favor scattered power-pTant

sites of the Tanguisson type as one solution to visual and

locational difficulties, while others prefer location of pro-

duction facilities in one spot with easy access to f'uel and

support facilities as the best means of solving pollution as

well as concentrating visual impacts in a particular area.

Suggested use of plants and shrubbery to mask such
'unattra@tive facilities as busbars (at port entrance) and

village substations is not favo-rably received from most power

people based on defined responsibilities.. We would suggest

that this type of activity should originate at the community

or island-beautification level for facilities not subject to
newer more st"ring.ent siting contro'ls.

I
I.
I
I
I
I
I;
I
I
IV. Mitigation Measures for Major Environmental Impacts
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

0
R

IV. Mitigation Measures for Major Environmental Impacts

This cha pter will briefly discuss a number of methods

available to mitigate some of the more controversial impacts

associated with electric power production. It is not the

intent of this discussion to specifically recommend that such

methods be employed on Guam, but rather to inform decision

makers of the options available if it is decided that effects

or present and proposed energy facilities are unacceptable.

A number of methods available are not suitable for either

economic or resource-availability reasons. Whil e it is the

responsibility of the industry or agency to adhere to

environmental standards, and to the maximum extent possible
not degrade ambient nat ural conditions*, the costs (including

environmental) of such control measures must be passed to

the consumer if the Power Authority is to maintain an

operational efficiency anywhere near break-even.

A. Thermal Effluent

1. Cooling Water

The pur.pose of cooling or circulating water in

steam power plants is to condense steam exhausted off the

turbine. Cooling water required for this purpose increases

in temperature 10 to 15'F. About 100 lbs. of cooling water

is needed per pound of steam condensed. A cooling water supply

is thus required which is 100 times larger than the flow rate

of steam exha usted to the- condenser In the past, cooling

water demands were met by simply locating a power plant

adjacent to a readily available and abundant water supply.

However, significant environmental damage occurs as a result

of heated effluent raising ambient temperatures of receiving

water beyond the tolerance of organisms within the plume.

2. Atmospheric Coolinq

Methods for reducing hot water effluent impacts

can be divided into 2 major groups; atmospheric cooling

(towers, lagoons) and modified intake or outfall structures.

For plants less 200/MW capacity, mechanical or

induced (i-d) draft cooling towers can be employed. The

concept of cooling towers was developed to serve areas with

limited water supplies whereby cooling water follows a more-

or-less closed system between the condenser and the heat

transfer mechanism, the tower or lagoon. A portion of the

heated cooling water in the lagoon system or wet type cooling

tower is lost through evaporation. Fresh water used in

atmospheric cooling systems because of the obvious problem of

sa.lt residue in evaporation p.rocesses.

3. Wet and Dry Type Mechanical (Induced) Draft
Cooling

a. Wet Type (Fig. Hot cooling water from

the main condenser is fed into a distributing "header" (0),

falls through holes in a pan onto a dense framework of wooden

slats (C) below. The water is broken up into small droplets

and creates a thin film over the surf ace of the slats. Air

drawn in through side louvers (A) by means of large i-d fans

(B). The draft carries away vapor created by evaporation
as the droplets fall @rom.slat to slat. Cooled water falls to

collecting basin at base of,tower. About 75/O'-of the cooling

takes place through'evaporation and the remainder by heat

transfer (conduction) to the-air.

Np-

Figure 10: Wet Type Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower

Humidity is an extremely important consideration, along with

air temperature._ The primary performance factor is how close

the cooled water temperature in the collecting basin can

approach the wet-bulb temperature of cooling air entering the

tower. The higher the relative humidity the less efficient

the evaporation and heat transfer rates of the tower.

Advantages:

effly-ent impact: cooling tower would eliminate
heated effluent impacts on the
Piti channel & Tanguisson reef-
front areas.

dredging: eliminates the need for dredging
of intake and outfall channels.

Disadvantages:

space: a rough estimate for Cabras
cooling towers for 3x66MW units
might be as much as 3 times the
area occupied by the present
2x66MW units.

fresh water: Salt wat er cannot be used in wet
type cooling because of salt
residue resulting from evapora-
tion processes. Water require-
ments would be approximately
equal the amount of steam ex-
hausted by the turbine. At
average daily rate this "make-
up" water would amount to some
20 gal/MW or 1.3 million gallons
per day. Based on an estimated
1-978 island wide capacity of
some 30 million gallons per day
from.all sources, cooling for
just the existing 2x66MW Cabras.
pTants by this method might
require as much as 4.3% of the
island's total water production.
Compared to the salt water
requirement of some 138.2
million gallons per day (over
100 times the fresh water
requirement), this appears
quite small, but when considered
in terms of limited fresh-water
resources, it is far from a
workable solution.

-cost: The cooling towers alone are
roughly estimated to have a
price tag which could approach
20/00 of the total cost of power
plant with an ocean water
cooling sy'stem, not counting
additional land requirements.

efficiency: With an annual average relative
humidity of at least 66% every
month, with night time levels
commonly at 84% year round, and
with air temperatures rarely
68

falling below 72'F, Guam is not
an ideal location for i-d
cooling.

visual/other: High profile, blocklike
structure, large steam plumes.
Plumes contain bio fouling
chemicals and others con-
centrated in the evaporation
process.

noise: Like a squadron of helicopters
at 200 feet.

b-. Dry Type,: A "dry type" mechanical or induced
draft cooling tower works on much the same principle as an

engine radiator. Without going into detail, the costs of such

a system given the hardware requirements would be much higher

than the wet-type, and even less efficient. This limits the

ability of the plant at theoretical maximum (which is
impossible to attain) to cool hot condenser water to dry-bulb

or actual temperature is 85*F, this is the theoretical minimum

temperature to which the water can be cooled; under actual con-

ditions t he water could be cooled only to 92-95'F.

----------

T@. .
M I @M"@794

No. 4 cooling
Fig. Public Service Company of Colorado, Cherokee Unit
tower, iso,oco gpm., 35o-mw unit.
(Photograph by Public Service company of Colorado)

Advantages:

effluent impact: dry-type cooling tower, like
the wet-type would eliminate
heated effluent impacts on
the marine environment.

water demand: the dry-type tower is a closed
system running on nearly pure
fresh water. Elimination of
direct atmospheric cooling
means the need for "make-up"
water is eliminated for all
practical purposes.

Disadvantages:

space:. lower efficiency of dry tower
would require more space than
wet-type tower.

cost: dry cooling tower cost could
approach 30% of the total
plant cost.

efficiency: efficiency of a dry type tower
on Guam would limit cooling
to 7-10OF above ambient air
temperature.

existing
equipment
write-off: same as wet-type

noise: same as wet-type

visual impact: approximately the same
structure, steam plume is
absent.

power consump-
tion: hi gh

4. Lagoons/cooling Ponds

A lagoon or cooling pond like the towers, serves

as a heat sink which transfers thermal energy developed during

the plant cycle to the atmosphere via thermal radiation, or

conduction, and by evaporation. This is not a new concept

having been actively investigated since 1927.

Factors for consideration include solar and

atmospheric radiation, amount of condenser water (hot) entering

the lagoon, ambient pond temperatures, amount of rainfall, pond

inflow or makeup water, relative humidity, shape and depth of

the pond, wind speed, of,inflow and outflow geometry, and

number and type of induce d heat and exchange aides such as

aerators and agitators.

Limiting factors are space amount of solar radi-

ation, makeup water, and depth. Studi es have shown that

shallow water temperatures on Guam often equal or exceed out-

fall temperatures due to solar heating. Area required for

ponds without captial intensive sprays on agitators vary

between 1 and 4 acres per megawatt of production capacity. As

these estimates are based on plants in temperate climates

having cold winters and constant, relatively low water inflow

temperature, Guam area requirements would probably be closer

to the 3-5 acre range. For Cabras island, the existing

2-x66MW plant plus the proposed unit would require almost 100

acres of pon ding basin of +15 foot depth, while required

watershed to supply the basin is ten times that much.

Wi.th ad.dition of mechanical agitators or sprays

the area could be reduced, but the capital investment could

easily double the cost of the installation. Unless parts of

the harbor itself are used in combination with increasing

inflow with perhaps additional tide-gated culverts from the

Tepungan channel, the cooling pond approach does not seem

particularly attractive. For an area such as Tanguisson,

a cooling pond would create major difficulties since the entire

pond would have to be dredged or excavated, and inflow or

makeup water is absent except for peripheral lens seepage.

"In one recent estimate, cooling ponds
would be expected to increase generating
costs by perhaps 15100, and dry-towers
perhaps 30%, with evaporative towers in
between. In terms of billings to the
public, installation of those heat
dissipation methods could increase the
retail rate from 5 to 10 percent."
(Reitze, 1974)

5. Modified Intake/Outfall Structures

a. By-pass cooling

Direct pumping of intake water to the outfall,

effectively by-passing the plant itself could halve the Delta T

if pumped at the same rate as the intake inflow. According to

GPA sources, this would probably be the least expensive method

of lowering the temperature differential, but would require

a mixing basin large enough and deep enough to achieve pond

mixing.

EPA officials are uncertain at present as to

enforcement procedures of the 1.5'C Delta T required by water

quality standards. I.t may be that bypass cooling installations

would actually cause greater permanent damage to the reef

system than the hot effluent from the Tanguisson plant does

now. If mitigation measures. were required, it is possible

that halving the existing differential might be acceptable.

To meet the 1.50F (0.90C) range presently

required from the existing Tanguisson differential of

6.6*C-7.6'C, a volume of mixing water equal approximately

eight times the present 35,000gpm or 280,000gpm is needed.

In addition to excessive cos-t, it-is probable that significant

enlargement of the intake channel would be required as well

as an excessively large mixing pond. The cost of such an

installation would be high, perhaps in the $7-8 million

.range.

A small er installation, such as one halving

the existing temperature would require additional pumps of

the same capacity as existing intake pumps, a mixing pool

adjacent to the outfall, and either an induction system or a

mechanica 1 mixing system. Minimum size of the pool would be

in the 100'x40'xl5' range. Mechanical mixing would probably

be more effective than an induction system and might require

2 or 3 large propellers or other agitation machinery. Such

an installation is roughly estimated to increase station

service power requirements from +1.5% up-as high as 3 to 3 1/2%.

This means that busbar power or power available to consumers

(as well as station revenue) would decrease by as much as 2%.

For a location such as Tanguisson, the

environmental impact could be that a greater area is destroyed

than is presently effected by heated effluent. In addition,

unlike equipment life itself, the shore structures, channels

and intake pipes would be permanent, existing long after the

plant has ceased operations. Over a period of years, this

additional cost would be considerable. Construction costs

alone could reach $4 million.

b.. Intake Modification

It is uncertain at present Whether or not a
deep outfall would meet EPA requirements since.the temperature

diffe,rential would-ac tually increase directly proportional to
the depth even though actual'impact on marine organisms may

be substantially lessened.

If deep ocean outfalls would not be acceptable,

a deep intake line could lower the temperature of intake water

sufficiently to meet EPA requirements. This would be an

expensive and technologically innovative approach since no

intake channels or pipes in the world reach to depths even

approaching what would be required at present flow rates.

For example, one alternative discussed involved

the placement of two 42-inch pipes to a depth of 500 feet at

a 45'0 slope directly off the Piti intake channel at Cabras

Island. Cooling water could be drawn in at approximately

250C (77*F), which is 5*C. (91F) cooler than the ambient

surface temperature of 300C (860F). The exit temperature of

the effluent would be in the 29-30"C (860F) range, thus,

meeting EPA standards. Over 2700 feet of 43-inch pipe would

be required; 2 x 750' to reach a 500 foot depth, and an addi-

tional 2 x 600' to run from the end of the channel to the plant.

Four additional pumps approximately the same

size as the existing pumps could be arranged in a connected

double-y configuration such that both condensers could be

operated (at a reduced rate) for maintenance and cleaning.

Open channels would not be practicable given atmospheric

heating effects, thus, as-indicated above, the pipes would have

to be run the entire length of the intake channel.

The-cost of such an undertaking would be

extreme. Given the fact that nothing of a similar nature has

been attempted, it can be assumed that actual costs would

exceed estimates based on conventional construction practices

and equipment. It is not possible within the scope of this

study to accur ately cost the project.

B. S02 Removal.

1. Low Sulfur Fuel

The simplest method for eliminating SO2 emissions,
though presently most expensive in terms of fuel cost, is to
burn low sulfur 'fuel rather than the present relatively high

sulfur (2-2.5%) residual fuel oil. GPA has already looked

into this alternative based on a continuous survey of a

la.rge number of companies asked to submit bids for low sulfur

fuel'. This investigation is a part of the ongoing District

Court deliberations. Latest results are outlined.in a May 12,

1978 report. Out of the companies asked, only one, GORCO,

submitted a proposal to supply low sulfur fuel.

Based on present cost, a minimum of $11 million

would be added to fuel costs alone during the first year. In

addition, GPA would have to provide guarantee deposits of

an estimated $6.6 million. These figures do not include the

cost of new equipment such as pipeline heaters required as

a result of a high paraffin content of the low sulfur crude.

There is also a question if importation of crude

priced some 35% higher th an existing fuels would be in line

with present national efforts to reduce U.S. expenditures on

imported petroleum.

GORCO, having submitted the sole bid, is continuing

its investigation relative to low sulfur fuel logistics and

equipment problems. If present trends continue, it is

reasonable to expect the price of high sulfur crude to begin

to approach that of low sulfur crude, thus making the in-

stallation of expensive scrubbing equipment questionable

as the price differential decreases.

This situation bears close scrutiny, an.d would

support the adoption of a wait-and-see attitude rather than

a buy-equipment-now approach.

2. Seawater Scrubbing

GPA is actively pursuing the appl ication of
innovative technology for S02 controls, if required. Based
on the principle that the natural alkalinity of seawater can
be used for the absortion of SO 2 without the myriad of problems
caused by lime scrubbing and"other 'Methods, Guam is felt to be

an ideal location for this process. Although the processes are

slightly different, similar systems have been used on Australian

zinc smelters since 1949, and on London's Battersea Power Station

since 1934.

Generally speaking, an ocean water scrubber is a
short-circuit of the natural S02 cycle. The objective is to
transfer S02 from the atmosphere, where it is considered a
serious problem, to the sea where its affects are mostly
diminished. This short circuit eliminates airborne S02 and
whatever little acid deposition would occur on Guam.

The immediate concern should be the effects of

increased S02 in a volume of seawater:

1. The sulfur content of the water is
increased by 20%;

2. The absorbed SO occurs mainly as sulfite
at first but sl8wly reforms to sulfate
using 0 in the receiving waters. This
effectNely lowers the COD or chemical
oxygen-demand.

3. The ph of the seawater is lowered from
it's usual level of 7.5-8.5 to 6.

4. Other elements, including 'Crace amounts
of nickle and vandium are.collected in
the seawater scrubbing process.

The main problems here are the lowered COD and

011. Sulfur content per se does not appear as a main concern

although details are lacking. The simplest method of

replacing oxygen is aeration. An aeration basin would be

required a part of the scrubber together with a substantial

mixing with ambient seawater or passage through an alkaline

bed for restoration of ph. An aeration basin capable of hand-

ling a 120,000 gpm flow with a retention time of about 30

minutes is estimated to have a size of approxi'mately 200' x

150'x 15'.

Costing (without site specif'ic details) came to

approximately $4.7.million for the two existing Ca'bras plants

as of April '78. Construction time was estimated at 17-23

months. Direct costs pe r year were estimated to be in the

$1.3 million range.

Because' of the s-ystem's ability to collect trace

heavy metals in the process, as well as the increased sulfur

content of the water, direct transport to the open sea is

strongly suggested. This is mostly to prevent buildup over

extended periods of time of elements which could have

detrimen-tal effects on receiving waters not subject to

constant and high-volume mixing.

3. Other SOP Removal Systems

A number of process, more than 50 and their major

variations, are commer cially available for sulfur dioxide

removal. Despite claims to the contrary, all appear to have

significant operational, environmental, and capital costs.

This section will briefly discuss, some of these methods but

cannot recommend the adoption of any particular system given

the extreme complexity of environmental engineering and

capita 1 considerations involved. Material has been taken from

various papers and technical documents presente d;at a USEPA/

Control Systems Lab sponsored Symposium on Fuel Gas Desulfuri-

zation held in late 1974 in Atlanta, Georgia. The complete

conference papers a re in the Guam EPA library. Sources are

credited only when materIal is taken directly. Despite the

age of the material, few really new processes appear to have

shown promise with the notable exception of seawater scrubbing.

4. Brief Discussion of Selected Systems

a. Direct Oxidation - Contact Sulfuric Acid

This process basically passes the flue gas
through a fixed catalyst bed where sulfur dioxide (S02), in
the presence of oxygen, is converted to S03 and then absorbed
by sulfuric acid in an absorption tower. Monsanto has deve-
loped a modification of the process such that the "strong S02
is not required, but rather will operate on the dilute S02

concentration in plant stacks. The modification however is

based on the fact that the stack gas enter the process at high

temperature (8500F) or be heated to that temperature. The

Cabras plants have a stack gas temper ature in the 300'F range.
The Monsanto process (cat-ox or catalytic oxidation) would

be required for these plants, meaning extensive and expensive

plant modification, in addition to handling and disposing of

su.lfuric acid. Star-tup and operational problems have pre-

vented efficient operation of some pilot projects.

b Absorption/Stripping

Sodfum Base Scru*bbing (Wel'l'man-'Lord Pro-cess)

Flue gas is absorbed into a solution of

sulfite, bisulfite, and sulfate, converting some sulfite to bi-
sulfite and some of the abso rbed SO2 to sulfate. Pure gaseous
so is aerated in the scrubbing process and can be further pro-
2 i
cessed to liquid S02. sulfur, and sulfur-ic acid. Sulfate
formed in the process must be removed as purge (.or waste) to-

gether with thionates and thiosulphates. Although the process

itself is relatively simple, and the scrubbing agent is re-cre-

ated during the process, the main disadvantage is with the con'
taminates resulting, a'nd their dispo.sal. Further research is

underway for improving the system. Odor, of course, is another

major problem in any processes creating sulfur as a by-product.

Ammonia Scrubbi n g

Also called the Ammoniu-m Bisulfate Regenera-

tion Process, this system uses an ammoniacal solution rather than

sodium to absorb SO from flue gases, and to regenerate the'scrub-
2
bing agent. Acid is added to the final solution to produce ammo-
nium sulfate, a fertilizer, and evolved SO 2 is used in the pro-
duction of sulfuric acid. Again, the scrubbing agent must be im-

ported and the products exported; the system requires large amounts

of power, the chemicals are explosive, and the equipment expensive.

c. Wet Lime/L.imestone'Systems

Limestone Scrubber-

Fl.ue gas is contacted to a slurry of

water and finely-ground li-mest one. Scrubber discharge goes part-

ly to settling pond where solid sludge settles, overflow from

pond or part of scrubber discharge is recycled to scrubber.

Li'me Scrubber

The same as above, except that lime

is used rather than limestone.

d. Dry Limestone Injection

Pulverized limestone is injected directly

into the power plant boiler, similar to wet limestone/boiler in-

jection, above. Rather than pass thro.ugh a slurry scrubber, how-

ever, the limestone calcined to lime reacts at high temperature
with the SO2 and excess 02 in the boiler and f orms calcium sul-
fate which is removed as a solid by..mechanical precipitators.

Problems include low removal efficiency, boiler plugging and de-

graded precipitator performance, resulting from higher dust

loading. Guam's power plants are not equipped with-electrosta-

tic precipitators, as fly-ash is absent from boiler fuel, for

all practical purposes. Precipitators are used on coal-fired'

plants.

e. Other Processes
Other processes such as s crubbing flue gas

with a soluble alkali and producing an insoluble product such

as calcium sulfite are being inve stigated. Such a process has

the advantage of high efficiency, and elimination of scaling, cor-

rosion and plugging problems, The process known as "double alkali

scrubbing" regenerates the scrubbing agent with another insoluble

alkali such as lime. For Guam, disadvantages would still be

waste disposal and alkali import.

Table 20 A Selecti'on 'of Sul'fur Oxi'de Control' Methods

PROCESS PRODUCT PROBLEMS

1. Direct oxidation Sulfuric Product difficult to han-
Contact Sulfuric Acid dle; expensi-ve to trans-
Acid Cnodified port; hard to store;limi
Cat-ox process) ted local market;*stack
gas heating required;
@questionable reliability

2. Absorption/Strip- Strong High energy consumption;
ping: so2 limited S02 market;sul.-
Ammonia Scrub- fate and polythionate/
ber thiosulfate disposal-re-
Sodium Sulfite/ quired; expensive
bisulfite

3. Di rect Reduction Sulfur Strong SOZ and low 02;
Natural gas expensive intermediate
Coke processes; high secon-
Hydrogen dary emissions

4 Wet L.ime/Limestone Calcium Waste disposal; equipment
@Scrubbing Sludge plugging, scaling; sec.on-
dary pollution; Guam lime
not suitable

(Arthur G. McKee and Company, 1974)

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I V. Measuring the Impacts

A Methodology_for_CEIP Energy Facility Assessment
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I

9AS TO STACK

STACK
GAS
SCRUBBER CaCO3
PUMP SETTLER
'r&qK

C3SO3+ CZS04
TO WAST.1

OF LJ!,'.,ESTO"
METHOD 1. SCRUEBER ADDITION AE

GAS ro sua

STACK
C2COj GAS sc.Rues"
CALCMER FUMP SETTLER i

'Cao
CaS03 +CZS04
TO AS175

METUOD 2. ZC8UVPER APOIT14W OF LIME

GAS TO STACX

CZO CTAS

BOILER SCRUBBER
SAMER
CaCQ3

C3503 C3504
TO WAST E

MUN-00 3. MUR INJECTION
L :ER

pump
W4

FIGURE 12. Malor Process. Variations For Use Of Lime or,_Limestone For
Removal of S02 From Stack Gases

V. Measuring the Impacts - A Methodology for CEIP Ener.U
Facility Assessment

Methods for evaluation of impacts by major facility develop-

ment range from the U.S. Department of the Interior's "Monster

Matrix" to EPA's Environmental Impact Statement. While the lat-

ter must be prepared as a matter of ca use, a method for evalu-

ation of a range of impacts by energy facility development is
needed for CEIP and othe'r decision-makers.

For the purposes of this study, a number of "Planning fac-

tors" have been derived to consider the most essential economic,

environmental and social impacts of'proposed energy facility

development. Compliance to existing comprehensive plans is

a factor considered on a case-by-case basis and is not treated

as a separate factor.

A. Economic

l.- Government fiscal condition: Ne t external change.

Employment: Long term, short term, % change.

3. Land values: Changes in a) Surrounding use

b) Right-Of-ways

c Aesthetics, poll'ution

B. Environmental

4. Air quality: Change in ambient conditions.

5. Water quality: Change in ambient conditions.

6. Audio-electromagnetic: Change in ambient noise and

electromagnetic radiation levels.

7. Open space/green areas: Change in existing vege-

tation.

8. Rare and endangered species: Changes in number or

types.

9. Wildlife,'vegetation: Major changes in existing

abundance or diversity.

10. Disaster: Susceptibility of expanded facility to

natural disaster.

C. Social

11. Landmarks: Cultural, historic or scientific land-

marks destroyed, significantly altered, or made

inaccessible.

12.. Recreation: Destruction, or change-in "usability"

or pleasantness of recreational facilities.

13. Transportation: Change in duration or severity of

congestion.

14. Housing:..Change in locational demand for nearby

housing' units.

15 Education: Change in demand for schools, specific

courses, student density.

16. Community self perception: Number of people

whose community living conditions will be signi-

ficantly altered.

17. Shortages: Improvement of living conditions

caused by previous shortage of energy such as

brownouts or forced outages.

A. Economic Impacts

The economic controversy which always accompanies

major investment in new energy facilities is as much a part

of Guam's power industry as in any other region. While cer-

tain aspects of plant selection and economics of alternative

choices are mentioned in sections of this study, the major

economic impact" considerations will revolve around addi-

t1onal public facilities required as a direct result of new

or expanded system components. These "externals" or secon-

dary costs are the major focus of t he economics section si.nce

the major objective is..to ascertain what part of the public

sector is going to bear the cost burden of these new public

facilities, if any. We are assuming that plant costs, method

of financing, and general economic well-being of the Guam

Power Authority and other private sector participants will be

handled as a matter of course. We are only interested in new

public facility costs, not in recommending internal fiscal

policy of the energy industry.

Factor 1. Net Change in Local Fiscal Conditions

"Net change" involves computation of expected revenues

less operating expenditures, less capital expenditures in pub-

lic facilities outside of the energy facility itself.

Revenues

rdeally, revenue projections for assessing external eco-

nomic impacts for-energy development would include a facility's

effect on real property revenues (increasing or decreasing

tax base directly attributable), changes in income-based reve-
nues (income and sales tax dir ectly attributable), expected

changes in population unit revenues (new federal funds gener-

ated by the facility),-and increased revenues from public utili-

ties.

Operating Expenditures

The term operating expenditures here should not be con-

fused with annual- operating costs of the plant itself such as

fuel, labor, maintenance, supplies, etc. Operating expendi-
tures here include additional costs in* public facil ities

require-d including, for example, new sewer or water lines, pub-

lic safety measures (additional police or fire protection),

relocated recreational amenities, new roads, possible upgrading

of public transportation. Although change in "educational

institutions" has been included under planning factors, it is

doubtful Jf energy facility development will directly result

in demand for a new school or library.

Capital Expenditures

Factors include total cost, percentage of total cost

allocatable to-energy facility expansion and method of financing

by the agency responsible. The latter is especially important

since, other than planning and environmental grants, the major

form of aid offered by the CEI program consists of loans and/or

bond guarantees.

Present forms of financing public facility expansion
include general revenues from tax receipts (Government of Guam
general fund), federal grants, user charges through revenue
bonds (bonds issued on the basis of expected revenues), or

general obligation bonds for those facilities not paid with

user charges.

CEIP loans or bond guarantees could substantially reduce

the financial risk to th e Government of Guam of new public

facilities by underwriting the responsibility of loan or bond

payment if such obligations will be dependent on future (and

sometimes uncertain) revenues. It is.important to take advan-

tage of every penny of support available as this sort of assis-

tance can help to reduce the lag between public infrastructure

investment and new revenues from new development.

Factor 2. Employment

Changes in the labor market attributable to major new

energy development will include temporary increases in short

term A&E,. construction and related trades. A greater number of

long term plant personnel, both supervisory and opera tions,

will comprise the major long term impacts. A few public sec-

tor jobs, particularly in the public safety fire/emergency area

may also result. Important for Guam is the origin of this

labor and whether it will provide a primary local benefit or

merely short run benefits in terms of increased spending of

temporarily increased payrolls. The overall result will, hope-

fully, be a slight decrease in the unemployment rate.

Factor 3. Changes in Land Values

Land value changes usually accompany major energy faci-

lity development. On Guam, areas for expansion are usually

adjacent to existing facilities, which, for the most part, are

surrounded by federally owned or controlled lands. This sub-

stantially reduces or dampens any spectacular dollar changes in

land values. In a case such as Tanguisson Power Plant, although

scenic and recreational value of the area may have been reduced,

further commercial an@d industrial developmen-t and increasing

earning capacity of the land would not be in accordance with

existing community needs or objectives.

For example, the Navy's Guam-land-use plan indicates
the return of certain lands at Cabras Island (at fair market
price) to the Government and private sectors. Given its loca-

tion adjacent to t he port, as well as existing nearby energy,

availability, it is doubtful that additional plant capacity at

Cabras would substantially increase the land value.

Power transmission corridors can reduce the value of

residential, tourism, recreational, or natural areas if impro-

perly or carelessly sited. At best, they may increase the

taxable potential of the land because of possible commercial/

industrial development. This is particularly true of power

transmission corridors following transportation and other

utility corridors. It is often difficult on Guam to gauge such

impacts given the often artificially high land values to begin

with, as well as sporadic nature of control over development

exercised by enforcement agencies and regulatory commissions.

Application of Economic Planning Factors

Because design specifics are not available, economic fac-

tors are generally discussed on a case-by-case basis in ChapterVII.

dealing with some of the more promising developments which might

qualify Guam for CEIP funds. At the time specifics are avail-

able, more detailed anlysis will be possible.

B. Environmental Planning Factors

Factor 4. Changes in_Water Pollutants

Generating facilities, to date, have been responsible

for the major percentage of energy-related water quality im-
pacts although storage tanks and pipeli'n'es have t.he greatest

potential. Thermal effluent, suspended and dissolved solids,

toxic chemicals, dissolved oxygen and a range of petroleum

products, and construction debris constitute the major con-

siderations.

Heated effluent and dredging/filling activities in

the past have had the greatest impact on the quality of

coastal water. While negative impacts can be accurately

assessed at the relatively isolated Tanguisson plant, quality

of receiving waters adjacent to the.Cabras plant are affected

by other activities including commerc ial port ship operations,

previous dredging, and natural processes such as significant

solar water heating of shallow reef flats, tend to lessen the.

overall impact of additional facilities. "Reduction of

quality" in receiving waters is generally based upon expected

change of existing marine environment as a major index- This

could be extremely problematic with a land-based as opposed to

floating, "spar-type" OTEC facility. Introduction at the sur-

face of large amounts of extremely cold water (43-44'F) could

completely alter the existing regime, even if mi-xed with the

heated effluent from conventional plants. In terms of produc.-

tivity potential, the cold, nutrient-rich water has incredible

possibilities; it is yet an untested case as to whether EPA

would consider cold waters with a more than 1.5*F (0.9*C)
Oel*ta T.- to be unacceptable as is apparently the case with the

hot-water effluent. A-floating OTEC plant would avoid this

potential impact.

A major risk in development of energy. facilities is the

threat of oil pollution. This is particularly true of major

storage facilities which may require an increase in tank.er traf-,

fic ei ther through Apra Harbor or near the reefs of Guam (Agat

Bay). According t.o almost all sources, the probability of such

an accident approaches 100% over a period of 20 years in areas

of,medium to heavy tanker traffic. Typhoons and earthquakes in-

crease the risk for such an event.

Factor S. Chang es in Air Quality
SuT fur oxides (S09) are the main pollutant of petro-

leum-fired steam plants on Guam. The fuel used to fire the Piti,

Tanguisson and Cabras steam plants is a #6' residual fuel oil
with a maximum sulfur content of 3.51/0, and produces an S02 stack

emission in excess of federal and local ambient standards,

which are the same as National Standards.

Although the ambient levels are below the minimum

national standards, the problem is with stack emissions. The

low ambient levels together wi'th completion of the new Piti
stacks, and operation of the "emergency episode plan" (e.g.

switching to low sulfur fuel when winds blow stack gas land-

ward) may be acceptable'to National EPA until the situation is

resolved through the courts.

Factor 6. Audio and Electromagnetic Radiation
Audio quality could be defined as the extent to which
noise levels change as a result of increased activity and

reduces the desirability of surrounding land areas for particu-

lar uses. While not a major problem in the Cabras Island com-

plex, expansion of the Tanguisson and other sites could.result

in an unacceptable audi o level for surrounding recreational

uses. Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) has recently been found

to produce severe health hazards over long periods of time.

This definitely is a consideration in the location of future

high voltage transmission lines adjacent to residential areas,

educational institutions, and other facilities in which people

consistently congregate.

Factor 7. Open Space/Green Areas

A rather straightforward indication of impact is the

amount of land area required for expansion or new development

which would directly result in a reduction of existing or poten-

tial open space and/or gree n areas. Submerged lands are con-

sidered as open space. Related environmental factors are rare

and endangered species (8), wildlife, vegetation (9), and

disaster (10) .

Factor 8. Rare and Endangered Species

Recent stop-work. orders on massive utility projects

demonstrate the importance of rare and endangered species in

the siting of major facilities. While not expected to present

major problems for Guam in terms of limited applicability of

the National Endangered Species listing,' thought should be

given to species endangered at the local level. Local endan-

gered spe cies will be considered in this study's evaluation

of expected expansion, and hopefully will be afforded more pro-

tection with designation of critical habitats as areas o-f

particular concern under the CZM program.

Factor 9. Plants and*Animals, Changes in Abundances
and Diversity

Marine fishes, corals, algae, etc., are considered

together with terrestrial wildlife and vegetation. Past faci-

lity development has resulted in minor to major changes in

both the marine and terrestrial regimes. A number of studies

provide a basis for projecting impacts. While it is impossible

to predict the effect of, for example, an increase of 5% of

heated effluent to individual species in an area already affected,

it is possible to use a linear expansion to predict the area

of additional impact.

Factor 10. Disasters, Natural and Manmade

Guam is subject to frequent typhoon and earthquake haz-

ards and related secondary impacts such as flooding and

slumping. In addition, several analyses*have been carried out

dealing with such things.as maximum accidents at hotel wharf

ammunition dock and n-uclear accidents. For the purposes of

this study, war or nuclear events are not considered for obvi ous

reasons, however given the frequency of natural events, both
the facility itself and siting considerations are of major impor-

tance in e-stablishing a susceptibility factor for expanded energy

facilities. The major question here would be, "Is the facility

adequately protected?" For CEIP purposes, investment in public

safety facilities is of prime importance to minimize the-risk

to the persons in the immediate-area. Additionally, adequate
respons e mechanisms to major.spills resulting from disasters.

is vital.

Factor 11. Recreation

A number of recreational resources ranging from swim-

ming beaches and tourist destinations to potential storm refuge

boat anchorage, national park, and major marina are located

adjacent or very near to existing and potential power genera-

tion and bulk storage facilities.

Most of the island's major critical areas with respect

to fragile natural resources, major population centers, and

cultural and historic sites should be relatively safe from

severe locational impacts of present and future power and energy

facilities. What areas do face potential damage can be pro-

tected with a modicum of common sense planning.

Parks and recreation officials did not feel that any

major recreational or historic resources would be directly

threatened by expected energy facility expansion. Provision

should be made, it was stated, for continued access to beaches,

anchorages and other areas on Cabras Island presently used by

the public. Provision for future development should include

plans,for boating anchorages in the inner Piti channels, especi-

ally alteration or addition to transfer pipelines presently

limiting access to the channels. Conc ern was expressed rela-

tive to the Agat Bay - Asan - Pi-ti offloading and bulk storage

concept as well as any major expansion of th e Tanguisson power

pTant complex. Historic sites such as Inarajan Village, and

scenic vistas including Pago Bay, Talofofo Bay and the Facpi

Point to Nomna Bay coastal area were singled out as being par-

ticularly susceptible to poorly located generation, power pole,

or other development. The Department of Parks and Recreation

has prepared specific guidelines for transmission facilities.

The following table provides an assessment of recrea-

tional and historic resources which are or may be subjected to

energy related impacts.

Table 21 Recreational and Historic Resources Potentially Subject
to Impacts of Energy Facility Expansion

Resource Control Existing or Impact or
Name and or Potential Potential
Location Ownership Energy Facility Impact;. Notes

NCS Beach GovGuam Tanguisson SSP
Navy & Private
Thermal and Air
North NCS Navy Tanguisson SSP Effluent, Pollution,
Beach Shore Structures, Oil
Spill (pipeline) Visual,
Noise
NCS Reef Navy
(submerged land) Tanguisson SSP

Puntan dos GovGuam Tanguisson SSP Potential Air Pollution
Amantes (extremely rare with
Dededo existing plant)

Glass Navy Cabras/Piti SSP; Air Pollution, Potential
Breakwater Esso, Navy, Mobil Access problems, spill
Apra Harbor GPA bulk storage (ship and/or pipeline,
offloading and bulk storage)
transfer opera-
tions; proposed
large scale bulk
storage

Hotel Beach Navy
Cabras Island

Marianas Mobil
Yacht Club Petroleum
(Private) (leased)
Cabras Island

Apra Harbor Navy Shoreline alteration,
Mangroves Sasa (submerged erosion and siltation
& Aguada River land) are possible with
Wptland_q -large-scale inland bulk
(Rhizophora sp.) storage complex; oil spill

Table 21: (continued)

Resource Control Existing Impact or
Name and or Potential Potential
Location Ownership Energy Facility Impact; Notes

Jade Shoals Navy Cabras/Piti SSP; Possible impact from
(submerged Esso, Navy, Mobil increased levels of
land) GPA bulk storage heated effluent; oil
-offloading and spill
transfer opera-
tions; proposed
large scale bulk
storage

Piti Channels Navy Possibl e OTEC Possible access problems
(adjacent to Impacts for proposed storm
Cabras SSP) (speculative) anchorage; oil spill

Luminao Reef Navy Possible cold water
(submerged effluent problems
land) (OTEC)

Orote Beaches Navy Only probable effect
1,2,3 GabGab would be from a major
Beach oil spill

War in GovGuam, Offshore super Visual, oil spill,
Pacific DOI tanker offloading shoreside facilities
Nat'l Park Private & mooring, bulk
Asan/Agat storage

Tipalao GovGuam, Offshore super Oil spill, shoreside
Beach to Private, tanker mooring facility construction
Facpi Point DOI .& offloading (facility very
(8 beaches) facilities speculative)

Scenic Hwys: GovGuam, 115 and 34.5 KV Possible visual impacts
Agat-Umatac Private lines & poles if lines are not properly
Umatac-Merizo planned
Merizo-Inarajan
Inarajan-Talofofo
Talofofo-Yigo Bay

Tabl e 21: (continued)

Resource Control Existing Impact or
Name and or Potential Potential
Location Ownership Energy Facility Impact; Notes

Historic Sites: Navy Cabras/OTEC Site disturbance;
Quarantine 250 yd West expansion improbable from
Station (1914) of Piti energy facility
Channel expansion

Inarajan Private 34.5 & 13.8 KV Possible visual impact
Village lines if lines not properly
planned

Facpi Point to GovGuam 115, 34.5, and Visual impacts with lines
Nomna Bay Private 13.8 KV.lines High potential for
Federal and poles; severe erosion, sedimen-
generating tation, visual, recrea-
facilities tional, thermal, dredging,
etc. impacts from
generating facility

C S o c i a 1

Factor 12. Landmarks: Cultural, Historic, Scientific

Any type of project has the potential of destroying sig-

nificantly altering, preventing free access, or otherwise

impairing landmarks. To date, this has not been serious inso-

far as energy facilities are concerned. The major problem in
the future is with transmission line'placement, development of

super-port type facilities adjacent to War-in-the-Pacific

National Park sites, and possible degradation of areas such as

Inarajan Historic District, or the entire southern coastal area.

Interviews with University of Guam Marine Laboratory staff and

local and national Fish and Wildlife personnel have indicated

that a strong tendency exists within the scientific community

to consider the coral reefs themselves as scientific landmarks.

This, in addition to fairly vigorous EPA water quality s.tandards

mea:ns that future impacts will be closely monitored.

Whether-or not the abovecategories are presently under

national recognition such as national natural landmarks or the

national historic register is rather irrelevant other than the

additional regulatory mus cle it provides. The fact that a site

or area is recognized on the local level is adequate to demand

special attention by developers.

Because a landmark may be altered is not in itself suf-

ficient to preclude development. The benefit of the facility

must be,weighed against such things as its rarity, importance

to the public, and distance to t.he closest similar example.

100

Landmarks:

Cultural/Historic

Inarajan Historic District
Quarantine Station, Cabras Island (1914)
War-in-the-Pacific National Park and specific sites
therein.

Scientific

Jade Shoals Apra Harbor
Apra Harbor Mangroves (between Polaris and Drydock Points)
Atantano and SaSa Wetland
Luminao Reef
NCS Reef Front
Facpi Point

Factor 13. Transportation

Major facilities can have major impacts on transporta-

tion patte rns. Such things as congestion, interference with

future rights-of-way by poles, lines, and transformers, increased

traffic flow, or elimination of existing access can all result.

Although major flow or congestion problems do not appear to be

a major expected impact on land, shipping flow could be substan-

tially increa-sed placing undue pressures an the Port Authority

and related Government of Guam services.

Factors 14 and 15. Housing/Education

Not considered to be of major importance, these two

factors nevertheless should be considered even if a remote

chance exists for additional public.facilities and/or educa-

tional curriculum changes. Since most residential areas are

located far enough away from expansion areas, there is little

impact expected, however in the Piti and.Agat areas, a major

101

development may cause some problems. It is expected that

the new Community College or the existing vocational programs

can take care of any additional curriculum demands caused by

energy facility development.

Given the size of the island, it is not expected

that new housing d-emand will result from the placement of

energy facilities.

Factor 16. Comm unity Self-Perception'

More of a value judgement than measurable impact,

a simple statement will be made based on the previous factors

as,to whether the total character of a village or community

will be significantly changed as a result of energy facility

development.

Factor 17. Shortages

Improvement of a vital service provides socialo@psycho-

logical benefits in that more reliable product results. Improve-

ment or expansion of different segments of the power grid will

have a proportionately different effect on elimination of power

or energy supply fluctuations or inconsistencies.

102

VI Regulatory Considerations

VI Regulatory Consideratidns

A. Overview

Guam, because of its smal 1 size,, insularity, and I imi -

ted per capita demand for power d.ue to lack of heavy industry,

is not subject to a number of pressures requiring an individual

energy industry regulation process. Department of Energy ap-

proval (formerly under the jurisdiction of the Federal Power

Commission) was not needed for construction of the Cabras I & 2

units since interstate transmission was not a factor.

1. Federal Permits

The primary mechanism for review and comment on

energy facility development having impacts on waters of the U.S.,

coastal and otherwise, is the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers per-

mit. Appendix q contains a comprehensive listing of those agen-

cies and persons.

2., Local Permits and Review

The process and authorities of local permit pro-

cedures have been discussed extensively in the Bureau of Plan-

ning's CZM 306 Document, and Barrett and Associates' recent re-

port, "Environmental Management Study". It is not the intent of

this report to repeat discussions of points already identified

in other studies.

Generally, difficulties in the regulation process

revolve around the need for:

a. Clarification of Building Permit, Clearing,
Grading Processes;

104-

b. SDRC/TPC/TSPC - Process clarification, un-
derstanding of duties, Relationship of Law,
R'egulations, Authority and Application of
sa:me;

C. Clarification of GEPA vs. Federal EPA En-
vironmental Impact Review Process including
coordination with Corps'of Engineers;

d. Improved Enforcement Procedures.
(Barrett and Associates: Environmental
Management Study, 1978)

3. Seecifi'city Deftnition

With additional guidance in the form of Resort-

Hotel, flood-plain and wetland regulations, in addition to ex-

isting erosion, emission and water-quality regulations, the on-

going task of process clarification should provide Guam with an

excellent regulation system for energy facilities.

One resolution needed, according to EPA, is the

definition of receiving water. It is difficult to apply-a regu-

lation specifying a 1.5* F delta T, if the exten't of a mixing

zone is not specifically defined. It it is.defined as immediate-

ly adjacent t o the outfall, then we can expect major effluent

requirements on existing new source and future facilities.

Emission controls will be. facing much s ame

type of review.

4. Nati'onal' And Territorial Interest

The CZM document, the Comprehensive Development

Plan and local regulatory processes rec ognize both the territori

a] and national interest in the development and siting of major

facilities.

105

5 Public Facilities Commission

The role of the Public Facilities Commission

(once operational) is uncertain at the present time' as to par-

ticipation in the regulation of energy-related matters.

6. APC's (Areas of*Particular Concern)

As additional areas of particular concern (APCs).

are established and regulations developed, major energy facili-

ties, like all developmen t, must adhere to the extent that local

regulatory bodies deem sufficient. Local regulatory commissions

must apply regulations in a manner consistent with the program

document and the guidelines under which federal funds are being

received.

B. Air Quality

1. Leqal Arbi tration

The process by which Guam shall come into line

with federal statutes is contained in the,island's State Im-

plementaion Plan (SIP). A series of legal actions in the form

of suit and counter-suits are seeking more exact process defini-

tion:

CA. 75-064 GPA vs. Administrator, EPA,
Russell Train

CA. 75-066 US vs..GPA

Results, to date, are not conclusive:

A compliance order was issued January 30,
1976. This initially set up the Emergency
Episode Plan and outlines other procedures
for GPA compliance.

An Interim Consent Order, on January 21,1976,
was changed by an Amended Interim Consent

106

Order on August 28, 1976, under District
Court Decision CA-75-066, and granted
relief from immediate compliance with New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for a
period of three years

Meanwhile, reports on various aspects of the S02 problem are sub-

mitted to the District Court every six months, while various pro-

posals are developed to seek a middle ground for Guam-oriented

compliance.

2. GPA Activities

To avoid installation of questionably useful and

very expensive scrubbing equipment, GPA has proposed additional

t-ime be given for investigation of innovative technology, sea-
water scrubbing, to solve the S02 problem, if the courts ulti-

mately decide Guam must adhere to stateside standards. GPA is

applying to the District Court for further amendments to prevent

assessment of non-compliance penalties based on innovative tech-

nology investigation. Concurrently, GPA is applying to GEPA for

a DCO (Delayed Compliance Order) to allow for non-compliance

with NPDES without penalties, pending studies on the process and

the environmental acceptability of seawater scrubbing. Three

years are being proposed to study seawater scrubbing, one for

determining the data base, and two for studies on critical

aquatic organi sms and extrapolation of laboratory results for

determining actual impacts.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 raised some

questions about Guam procedures. Specifically, Section 113(d)

(12) of the Amendments called into question the validity of

orders, particularly the Amended I.nterim Consent Order. In a sub-
mission to Honorable C.ristobal C. Duenas of the District Court

107

of Guam, GPA's attorney, Hogan and Hartson, raised the ques-

tion, however, both GPA and GEPA counsels subsequently agreed

that the validity of the Amended Interim Consent Order had not

been changed.

In other developments, several actions are being
proposed: Source Cr'ather than area) based data should
be developed for sulfur dioxide, relative
to terrain dispersion and model certifica-
tion information. Present measurenents do
not specifically test the stacks, but rath-
er the.general Cabras Island/Co,mmercial
Port area.

Develop and support legislation e_xempting
Guam from S02,regulations.

C. Water Quality

1. General

Point source di-scharges are required to adhere

to regulations promulgated by GEPA under the National Pollution

Discharge Elimination@Systems CNPOES). By authority of Guam Pub-

lic Law 9-76, the Water Pollution Control Act @Title X, Ch apter
II, Sec tion 9950.5 .[b], jel) of water-quality standards became

effective on September 25, 1975.. Section II of the regulations

established standards for:

microbiological requirements (fecal coli-
form)
pH
nutrient material
dissolved oxygen
- total dissolved solids
- salinity and currents
- suspended matter
- turbidity
radioactive materials
temp-eratu.re

108

toxic.substances
pesticides

Of major interest to the* power industry is Sec-

tion II b(9) of the regulations which states: "Water temperature
shall not be changed-more than 1.5' F C.9'CJ from natural con-

ditions." This applies to all surface waters excep't those "flow-
ing over the land (e.g., sheet runoff) or water confined in chan-

nels with intermittent flow". CSec I B.[21 Jc]).

Uniform application of these water-quality regu-

lations under authority granted to GEPA could force a reduction

of thermal effluent impact on Guam's coastal waters. The op-

posing argument, that Guam's encircling waters are a part of the

largest heat.sink on earth, thus diminishing the relative impact

of effluent, has more validity on Guam than in most places. The

fact remains that the entire cost of whatever thermal effluent

reduction measure is required will be passed on to the consumer.

It should, ideally, be left to the local authorities to weigh

the benefits of either approach and arrive at an equitable solu-

tion. The danger of such a resolution lies in the pencha'nt for

local governments, usually with recurring fiscal difficulties,

to Ignore the long- range impacts in favor of short-run capital

investment savings, and to reject any voluntary actions until the

situation becomes critical and expensive to redress.

Environmental policy makers, in the face of re-

stricted clean fuels availability and the parallel drive for re-

laxation of environmental controls, have failed to reach agree-

ment on the national level as to the.guidelines for compromise

109

which must occur. Guam EPA is caught in the 'Middle with the un-

pleasant task of forcing expensive effluent controls on plants

in locations whose actual impact is not s.ignificant at the is-

land's major production site. Until the definition of mixing

zo.ne is specifically addressed, and until (U.S.). Department of

Energy and Environmental Protection Agency policy makers decide

on the effect of changed'condi tions, the local dilemma will re-

main.

2. Additional Safeguards

Proposed areas of particular concern (APC's) un-

der the Tand-use planning effort,- building permit and SDRC/TPC/

TSPC process clarification, establishment of an adequate sea-

shore reserve, and active participation and review of submerged

Jands permits, and detailed review and comment within the Corps

of Engineers permit-review process provides a,more than adequate

regula tory framework for maintenance of water quality and pro-

tection of fragile resources. The EPA process will continue its

e-fforts to more specifically define the degree of flexibility un-

der the national mandate.

3.' Other Water-QUality Considerations

The preceding has focused on strict application of

controls relative to heated effluent. Application of controls

for other pollutants seems reasonable. Some questions may arise

if a seawater scrubbing sy-stem is contemplated on more than a

speculative level. It does appear that both GPA and GEPA are at-

tempting to reach an equitable solution to a difficult problem.

110

4. Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Amend-

ments (Oil Spills)

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972

provided new strength for controlling point source discharges of

oil and hazardous substances and generally replaced the Refuse

Act of 1899. A major weakness of the latter was lack of penal-

t i e s .

Generally, the FWPCA:

a. prohibits discharge of oil and hazardous
substances in U.S. waters;

b. gives EPA jurisdiction over inland spills;

c. requires an FMC (Federal Maritime Commission)
certificate for ships indicating type of
spill insurance (presently this is $120' per
gross ton, or + $14 million limit);

d. established revolving contingency funds
($20 thousand for Guam) for spills of un-
known origin, or as contingency monies for
sloppy cleanups by responsible parties;

e. established the national regional strike
force to mobilize experts at the site of
major spills;

f. established fines for spilling ($5000) and
not reporting spills ($10,000).

On Guam, the reaction to enforcement of FWPCA has been excel-

lent. In the first year 36 validations occurred, the second

year 19, and last year only 11 incidents occurred, as operators

and industry became more cognizant of stiffer penalties.

The Clean Water Act of 1977 strengthened the FWPCV

by broadening the definition of U.S. waters to 100 miles, making

offenders responsible for the restoring and restocking of natural

biota, and increasing the liability of onshore facilities from

ill

$8 to $50 mill ion. Additionally, if a third party were respon-

sible for a spill Ct.he ship's leasee), the.ow-ner can prosecute

for charges. The law also provided that the contingency fund

could be used to avoid a potential spill by offloading or pump-
ing tanks of vessels in troubl e'.*

112

V I I General Conclusions, CEI Matrix,

Funding Recommendations

VII. General Conclusions, CEI Matrix, Funding Recommendations

A. General Conclusions

1. Public facilities on Guam external to Guam Power
Authority have not and are not expected to be severely bur-
dened by expected expansion or development of new energy genera-
ting and transmission facilities.

2. Environmental quality and availability or access to
recreational areas has not been and should not be severely
affected by expansion or development of new energy generating
and transmissi-on facilities.

3. No in-place plans other than typhooh restoration
and very low impact power grid maintenance and development acti-
vities were in evidence during the course of this study.

4. Several projects in preliminary planning stages,
especially in the refinery and bulk storage sectors could place
significant pressures on environmental quality, recreation and
conservation, land, and the cost of future public facilities.

5. EPA-mandated control standards will be more pre-
cisely defined in the light of Guam's unique conditions.

6. Facility planning and open discussion of projected
activities is somewhat restricted among the energy sector's
various admi ni strators .

7.. Lack o.f emphasis on lead time planning creates
a fluidsituation whereby new ideas crop up literally over-
night. Proposals could surface any time which may substantially
increase Guam's funding eligibility.

B. CEI Matrix-Funding Possibilities

Energy Facilities iIn preliminary planning stages may
qualify Guam for CEIP funding, particularly planning monies.
The lack of in-place plans limits the availability of public
facility.CEIP aid, however it is expected that several major
projects will be on line prior to the 1986 program termina-
tion date.

The. following matrix indicates the source and possi-
bility of receiving such funds as a result of Drojected expan-
sion. A discussion of marginal and probable CEIP funding
poss.ibilities follows the matrix.

114

Table 22: CUP Funding Matrix

Keys: 1. + 66MW generating unit IV. Refinery Expansion
a) Cabras location
b) Other location V. Powerline Hardening & Expansion

II. Central Terminal Station VI. Pipeline Construction
(CTS)

III. OTEC Plant
a) Floating Spar CEIP Planning Funds (308(c))
b) Land Based 1. Negligible - No CEIP $
2. Marginal - Possible CEIP $
3. Significant - Probable CEIP $

Planning Factors I II III IV V VI
a b a b

Economic
1. Net change - Local
Fiscal Conditions
a. Revenues 1 1 3 2* 2* 1 1 1
b. Operating
Expenditures 2 2 2. 2* 2* 1 1 1
c. Capital
Expenditures 2* 3 3 2* 2* 2* 1 1
2 Employment
a. Temporary 1 2* 2* 2* 1 1
b. Permanent 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3. Land Values
Changes 1 1 3* 1 1 1 1 1

Environmental
4. Water Quality 2* 3* 3* 3* 2* 2* 1 2*
5. Air Quality 2* 3* 1 1 1 2* 1 1
6. Audio & Electro-
magnetic R d 2* 3* 1 1 1 1 1, 1
7. Open Space/Green
Areas 1* 3* 3* 1 2* 3* 1 1*
8. Rare and Endangered
Species 2* 3* 3* 2* 2* 3* 1 2*
9.. Plants and
Animals 2* 3* 3* 3,@ 2* 3* 1 2*
10. Disaster Suscepti-
bility 1 3* 3* 1 2* 1 1 1
11. Recreation 1 3* 3* 2* 2* 1 2* 2*

Social
12. Landmarks 1 3* 3* 1 1 1 2* 1
13. Transportation 1 1 3* 1 1 2* 1 1
14. Housing 1 2* 2* 1 1 1 1 1
15. Education 1 1 1 2* 2* 1 1 1
16. Community Perception 1 2* 2* 1 1 1 2* 1
17. Shortages 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

115

C. Funding Recommendations.

1. Generating Facilities (I on chart)

Planning is in preliminary stages, no specific plans

are available. Cabras location would reduce overall impacts as

land area and infrastructure are available and use is compatible

with surrounding uses. Al.so no additional dredge and fill would

be required.

a. Cabras Location, CEIP Funding Possibilities

(1) Additional Public Safety Equipment - fire

equipment.

objective: reduce fire hazards in Cabras

Island Energy facilities.

authority: Department of Public Safety

Chief Wusstig.

Rresent status:, Piti Station (GovGuam)

has a single basic structural pumper

Tocated 1/2 mile from Cabras and Piti

generating units, I mile from Mobil

and Esso storage facilities. No foam

unit is readily available. Perhaps

50-75% of the cost of additional units

could be attributed to petroleum stor-

age, offloading and electric generating

units.

116

presentstatus: no firm plans; planning

funds can be used for:

- operating expenditures: determine abil-

ity of DPS to operate an additional unit

at Piti , if needed.

- environmental: plan for generating unit's

as well as mitigation equipment's impact

air and water quality, marine environ-

ment (plants and animals and rare and

endangered-species).

CEIP funding: 308(c); primary source - the

fund. Procedures - same as with present

grant. Funds should be applied for when

design RFP's are requested, possibly

1983.

Amount: Undetermined; close coordination

should be established and maintained with

GPA such that CEIP studies do not over-

lap with GPA studies.

b. Other Locations for Generating Unit

(1) Public Facilities

An Agat or other location may mean a s ub-

stantial investment in water lines, roads,

and other facilities. Depending on speci-

fic location, funds under 308(d) (1), (2)

117

2-resent financing: OPS equipment is

wholly funded through general fund.

Present federal funds can only be used

for communities of less than 10,000

persons, and then only for "minor"

.equipment.
CEIP fundj_nj: 308(d) (1), (2); primary

source, the Fund; Procedures - RuTes and

Regulations Section 931.48.

Amount: (OPS figures)

Basic Pumper - $92,000

Foam Unit, Crash & Rescue Unit

$110-125,000.

Action: Investigate ability of the

Department of Public Safety (DPS) to

receive federal loans, as well as estab-

lishing a repayment process. Obtain

more specific needs statement (e.g., pro-

jected CIP needs), and investigate im-

plications of Navy ownership of Cabras

Island. (See also planning funds below).

(2) Planning Funds - Cabras Location for

Generating Unit

objectiv determ.ine specific impacts of

designed generating facility.

118

cou'ld be applied for.PUAG has recently

been granted authority to obtain loans.

Table 23: Approximate Cost Estimates for Selected Public
Facilities (.Source: DPW; Barrett & Associates)

Facility Size Cost/Unit

Roads, Pavedl 2 Lane $ 70,000/1000 ft.

H- 20-24 Class 3 Lane $110,000/1000 ft.

60 tons 4 Lane $150,000/1000 ft.

(80 ton w/safety factor) 5 Lane $190,000/1000 ft.

6 Lane $270,000/1000 ft.

Water Lines 6 inch $30/ft'.

12 inch $40/ft.
16 inch $45/ft.

Notes: Road prices are in 1976 $ Units, add 15%/yr. for
approximate update (DPW)

2. CTS - Central Terminal Stati on (II on Matrix)

Discussion of the CTS concept appears in AppendixI

Probability of project realization to the scale envisioned is low,

however the economic, environmental, and social impacts are poten-

tially the largest of any civilian sector activity ever proposed

for Guam.

119

Planning funds under 308 (c), would be vital as

a first step should the project become a reality, thereafter

public facility loans or bond guarantees under 308 (d) (1) &

(2) would be probable. The U.S. Coast Guard commander indi-

cated that a sophisticated traffic control system is not pre-

sently needed due to low traffic flow, but with a full-sized

CTS facility, addftional studies would be necessary.

3. OTEC.(III on Matrix)

-As indicated in the CEIP matrix, a floating spar-

type plant would have a significantly smaller environmental

impact than a l'and-based plant.

A suggested use for 1979 CEIP funds allready allotted

under 308 (c) would.be:.

a. coordinating and evaluating all OTEC related

studies being carried-out relative to a Guam

location;

b. more intensive studies of alternative sites

for a land-based. and sea-based facility. An

investigation, "Locational Impacts of

Alternative OTEC Facility Sites" would be

appropriate at this time. These might include

Cabras I'sland, Agat Bay, and Cocos Island for

the spar-type plants. Focus of study might be

impact of shore-side support facilities for

120

the installation, and comparison to the

greater impacts of a land-based facility

of the type prop osed by TEPSCO.

4. Refinery Expansi .an -(IV on Matrix)-

a. Public Facil'ities

Noted in Chapter II was the fact that water

availability poses a constraint to refinery

expansion in the light of the Navy's desire to

end the cooperative water supply arrangement

now in effect for the Agat-Santa Rita area.

The GORCO well presently supplies 1.7 million
gallons per month (gpm) and the Navy lines

some 255,000-450,000 gpm. Even with the maxi-

mum demand, this constitutes only 1.1% of the

39 million gpm presently consumed by the commu-

nities of Agat and Santa Rita. This ratio will

decrease-in the future. Thus it appears that

propontioned energy facility contribution to the

cost of piped-in Northern-lens or Ugum Dam water,
(both schemes being 10 or more years in the

future), would be negligible.

b. Planning Funds

Planning funds might be applied to the study of

impacts of expanded tankage facilities relative

121

to planning factors 4, 5 and 7-9 as indicated

on the matrix. These funds should be applied

for when specific design plans are available,
again under 308 (c).

S. Powerline Hardening and Expansion (V on Matrix)

These projects being already underway, would be

difficult to change. An attempt might be made through coopera-

tion with the Navy and the Department of Parks and Recreation

to ensure that projected line hardening in the southern areas

do not interfere with land to sea vistas or Inarajan historic

district. If this is deemed necessary, a small portion of

already allotted 1979 CEIP funds might be used.

6. Pipeline Construction (VI on Matrix)

Present plans are still in discussion stages.

Planning 308 (c) funds might be used in 1980 to study impacts

on water quality, plants and animals, rare and endangered

species, and recreation for alteration of Piti channel pipes,

or low sulfur lines projected to run along existing easements

from Cabras to GORCO refinery. It should be remembered that

these projects will both require a COE permit, and studies, if

necessary, should not overlap.

122

I
I
t
I .
I
I
I
I
I Bibliography
I
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Bibliography

A. Books, Texts

D. L. Krenkel,Frank L. Parker (eds.), Engineering Aspects
of Thermal' Pollution, Vanderbilt University Press, 1969.

A. W. Reitze, Environmental Planning: Law of Land and Re-
sources, North American International, Washington, D. C.,
1974.

P. S. Scharnman, T. Muller, Measuring Impacts of Land De-
velopment, The Urban Institute, Washington, D. C., 1975.

B. G. A. Skrotzki, W. A. Vopat, Power Station Engineering
and Economy, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1960.

A. C. Stern, ed., Air Pollution, Aca demic Press, New York,
1968.

B. Government of Guam Reports, Studies, Documents, Papers,

Publications

Government of Guam, Department of Commerce (R. C. Krueger),
The Gross Island Product of Guam, 1978.

,Statistical Abstract, Guam, Volume 8, 1977.

Government of Guam, Guam Energy Office, Burke, A Prelimina-
ry Management Study of, he Guam Petroleum Storage System
and the Feasibility of the Establishment of a Guam Petro-
leum Reserve, 1976.

Energy Flow Charts, 1976, 1977.

Government of Guam,.Environmental Protection Agency, Guam
Water Quality Management Plan, 1978.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guide for
Guam, 1977.

Air Quality Implementaion Plan, 1974, 1977.

Guam Air Quality Implementation Plan, 1977.

Fourth and Fifth Annual Reports, 19.77, 1978.

124

Government of Guam, Fourteenth Guam Legislature, Report on the
Special Study Commission on the Guam Supertanker Port, 1978.

Government of Guam, Department of Law, Government Code of Guam,
Volumes 1-111, 1970.

Government of Guam, Department of Parks and Recreation, Outdoor
Recreation on Guam, 19-7.3.

Guam Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan,1977.

Government of Guam, Bureau of Planning, Comprehensive Develop-
ment Plan, 1978.

Land-use Plan, 1978.

Community Design Plans, 1973.

Overall Economic Development Plan, 1977.

Growth Policy for Guam, 1977.

Guam Coastal Management Program, 1978.

Flood Hazard, Wetlands, Rules and Regulations,1978.

Coastal Management Technical Reports, Vol 1, 1977.

Population Projections, 1976, 1978.

Interim Territorial Emergency Plan, 1977.

Coastal Planning Bibliography, 1978.

Adaptation and Adjustment to Hazard s on Guam:
An Analysis, 1977.

Government of Guam, Guam Power Authority, Annual Reports, 1973-1977.

Official Statement Relating to $17,50O,000 Re-
venue Bond Series B 1972 Issue.

,(Extract) Capital Improvement Needs Summary
Request,, FY 1979-2000.

C. University of Guam, Marine Laboratory Reports, Studies

University of Guam, Marine Laboratory, Annual Report, 19.76-19.77.

Contributions, Technical Reports, Environmental
Survey Reports, Miscellaneous Reports, and M. S. Theses, 1978.

125

... (Amesbury et al) Marine Environmental Baseline
Report, Commercial Port, Apra Harbor, Guam.
Eldridge, Dickinson, Moras, Marine Survey of
Agat Bay 1977.

Jones, Randall, A Study of Biological Impact
Caused by Nature and Man-Induced Changes on a Tropical Reef,1974.

Marsh, Chernin, Doty, Power Plants and the Ma-
rine Environment in Piti Bay and Piti Channel, Guam: Observations
and General Summary, 1977.
Marsh, Gordon, Marine Environmental Effects on
Dredging and Power Plant Construction in Piti Bay and Piti Chan-
nel, Guam, 1974.

Neudecher, Effects of Thermal Effluent on the
Coral Reef Community of Tanguisson, 1976.

Neudecher, Development and Environmental Quality
of Coral Reef Communities Near the Tanguisson Power Plant, 1977.

Randall, Birkland, Sedimentation Studies at Fou-
ha Say and Ylig Bay, 1978.

Randall, Lassuy (Extract), Preliminary Findings:
Delta T and Chemical Seawater Studies for OTEC, 1978.

Rupp, Larson, A Marine Environmental Survey for
the GORCO Deba1lasting Faci1ity Outfall, Cabras Island, Guam, 1972.

D. Miscellaneous Government of Guam-Sponsored Studies, Regu-
1ations

Barrett and Associates, Inc., Environmental Management Study, Fi-
nal Report, 1978.

Bechtel, Inc., Program for Development of Apra Harbor, 1977.

University. of Hawaii (Smith, Chave, Kam:), Atlas of Kaneohe
Bay, 1973.

Tokyo Electric Power Services Company, Ltd. (TEPSCO), Proposal
for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Plant in Guam Island, 1977.

126

E. Proceedings, Conferences

Proceedings: Fourth Annual OTEC Conference, Division of Solar
Energy, U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 1977.

Symposium on Flue Gas Desulfurization, Control Systems Labora-
tory-Sponsored), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta,
Georgia, 1974.

F. Reports, Studies, Miscellaneous U. S. Federal Government

U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Moore, Raulerson, Chernin, McMa-
kin, Inventory and Mapping of Wetland Vegetation in Guam, Tinian,
Saipan, Marian Islands, 1977.

Price, Cultural Resources Reconnaisance, Cabras
Island, Apra Harbor, Territory of Guam, 1977.

Permit Program, a Guide for Applicants, 1977.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Implementation Plan Re-
view for Guam as Required by the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1975.

Federal Interagency Committee on Evaluation of State Air Imple-
mentation Plans, Projected Utilization of Stack Gas Cleaning Sys-
tems by Steam-Electric Plants, Washington, D. C., 1976,

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, An Engineering-Economic
Study of Cooling Pond Performance, U.S. Government Printing Of-
fice, Washington, D. C., 1970.

U. S. Department of the Interior, R. W. Miller, Guam Needs Assess-
ment, 1978.

U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Renewable Ocean
Energy Sources (OTEC), Washington, D. C., 1978.

U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceans and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Effects of Oil
on Marine Ecosystems: A Review for Administrators and Policy Ma-
Makers, Seattle, Washington, 1974.

Office of Coastal Zone Management, Coastal Ener-
gy Impact Program, Administrative Procedures, FR Volume 43, Num-
ber 37, Washington, D. C., February 23, 1978.

127

G. Periodicals, Company Magazines,Reports

Babcock and Wilcox Company, S-team, Its Generation.and Us e, New
York, 1972.

Chicago Bridge and Iron Company CCBI), "Transshipment Terminal,
CBI News, Oak Brook, Illinois, September, 1977

Exxon Corporation, World Energy Outl'ook, New York, 1978.

General Electric Corporation, Steam Turbi'ne.Generztors, Con-
densing and Noncondensing Applications., Chicago.

H. Personal Corresoond ence and Intervi'ews
CSee Appendix 5 for listing.)

123

I
I
I
I
I , -
I
I
I
I .Appendix 1.
I ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Appendix 1

I. Central Terminal Station - Summary

11. OTEC - Ongoing Studies - Discussion

I. Central Termi'nal Station (CTS)

Conceived in response to rejection of a Palau location for
a so-called superport, interest generated in the 1"'4th Guam legis-

latu re for an alternative location for such a facility resulted

in a preliminary study, "Report of the Special Study Commission

on the Guam Supertanker Port".

Proposal

To establish a crude oil transshipment facility on Guam to

meet Japanese demand for "a more stabilized and secure source of

energy", by construction of a facility capable of storing a 90-

day crude supply for Japan.

Ra-tionale

VLC C & ULCC (Very Large Crude Carrier and Ultra Large Crude

Carrier) ship construction of the 250,000 to 500,000 deadweight-

ton (DWT) range has made use of traditional routing through the

Malacca straits impossible due to maneuverability and draft of

vessels. Supertankers must go further south and east to Lombok

strait between Borneo and Celebes. The traditional tanker route

has thus been shifted east of the Philippines, making a storage

130

facility feasible for Palau, the P hilippines or the Mariana

I s 1 a n d s

Requirements

A one-day demand of crude oil for Japan, 4.72 million bar-

rels, would require 7.5 tanks of a 629,000 bbl. capacity. One

of these tanks, approximately 2-1/3 times the size of the GPA

storage tanks, would require + 10 acres of flat land. An ini-

tial phase of a 20-day supply mentioned in the report would re-

quire 150 tanks and 1,500 acres of flat, geologically stable

land. The ultimate plan of 90-days' storage capacity would re-

quire 675 tanks on 6,750 acres of land. The fact is that no

suitable land area exists for such a massive development, with-

out substantially altering tremendous areas of steeply sloped,

geologically unstable, conservation-designated land. Details

for each potential location are discussed in the report.

Impacts

There are no positive environmental impacts possible under

this project Massive erosion and sedimentation, destruction of

wetlands, estuaries, rivers and associated wildlife and water ha-

bitats, visual pollution, s.ignificant demands on existing public

facilities Croads, water) and extreme'threats of massive oil

spills are a certainty. The fact that Guam is located in one of

the most active earthquake zones on earth, where strong earth-

quakes occur more frequent ly than in California, should raise a

flag of cautio n to massive development of steep volcanic slopes

as should the frequency of typhoons to siting of other energy fa-

cilities in flood-prone areas, without adequate wind and water

131

resistant as well as containment capabilities.

Of further interest is the fact that an Agat location for

the Cabras.generating units, as area with very similar geologi-

cal characteristics as the proposed CTS sites, was rejected due

to potential erosion problems,.geologic stability factors, and

associated engineering costs.

Economically, the project would mean a sizeable influx of

alien construction workers and very temporary benefits to local

industry. Gross receipts taxes are premature to project, since

some relaxation or grace period is common to attract such indus-

try in the first place. Additional permanent employment would

be marginally beneficial to the island; however, since the pro-

ject is foreign-owned, it can be assumed that personnel, except

in lower-skill jobs, would be from off-island. Such is the case

for a much smaller facility located on Bonnair in the Dutch An-

tilles, north of Venezuela.

Bonnai'r Faci'li'ty t- A Brief Comparison

The Bonnair transshipment facility, located just off the

coast of Venezuela, transfers Near East Crude brought in on su-

pertankers into 8,660,000 bbl. tanks, to smaller tankers for

transshipment to the U. S. The tanks, similar in size to those

projected for Guam are 272 feet in diameter and 68 feet tall.

"The island was selected for this facility also because it lies

well south of hurricane alley.. never has been struck by a hur-

ricane ... and the last severe tropical storm touched the island

in 1886." Four of the facility's 8-main tanks are located less

than 600' from the water's edge, on fla,t, geologically stable
* (Source: CBI News', 5/77) 132

land. Two supertanker berths lie approximately 500' offshore

and about 1200' from the tanks, themselves. Such conditions are

not even comparable to those on Guam.

Study Gaps

While the commissionis report establishes the rationale for

the project as the necessity of VLCC & ULCC's carrying crude oil

east of the Philippines, the opening paragraphs state that "con-

struction of berthing facilities for tankers in excess of 250,000

OWT could never be realized nor could accommodating activities

such as refineries Cetc.). ..be supported here. Later in the re-

port, a distinction between a transshipment facility and a CTS is

hinted-at but never discussed. According to port consultants and

the U. S. Coast Guard, the feasibility of such a project is very

questionable without the use of the large tankers.

CEIP Funds

Should further invest.iga tions continue on the feasibility

of the CTS, a large amount of CEIP planning funds should immedi-

ately be.utilized for impact investigation. Given the investment

even for initial phases as well as potential i-mpacts, a.good deal
of funding should be available under Section 308 Cc'). Applica-

tion should be made as soon as further studies are completed, gi-

Ying more than a speculative basis for the CTS.

133

II. OTEC - Ongoing_Studies - Discussion

Local OTEC Studies, ProJects

Two ongoing studies have been funded by the Guam Energy Of-

fice in addition to a recent series of proposals developing

through the University of California's Berkeley Lawrence Labora-

tory.

OTEC Data Sea-rch, R. Randall, UOG Marine Lab,

+$ll 000; by November, 1978

Purpose: Temperature le7els to 3,000 feet, water

chemistry, slope and bottom topography,

bottom substrate and ocean current study

review.

Comments: Preliminary partial summary of findings

available August, 1978, Dennis Lassuy
Cg.raduate student) assisting on project.

Siofouling Stu dies, Dr. C. Birkland, UOG Marine Lab

+$3700.

Purpose: Examine rate of slime formation, bacterial

growth, and calcium carbonate.disposition;

correlation of data with Guam biofouling

rate with other regions.

Comments: Slow start due to administrative financial

problems. In a related activity, a represen-

tative from Battelle visited Guam December 1,

1977, for initial DOE biofouling experimental

facility location.

134

The only results from this visit appear to be. a dis-

claimer by the Battelle representative that any commitments
were made to locate the facil ity here. C2/8/78)

Department of Energy (DOE)

DOE is actively involved in range of OTE'C feasibility stu-

dies. Federal funds continue to be awarded for technical, eco-

nomic, financial, legal, and planning aspects of OTEC develop-

ment, several criteria for which Guam more tha'n qualifies when

compared with other potential sites.

Two problems are evident in the securing by local firms of

DOE/OTEC.grants. One is concerned with.general ignorance on the-

part of W-ashington people and its contractors that Guam not only

exists, but should be a prime candidate for OTEC location. GEO

and GPA recognize this "low visibility" problem-and are investi-

gating methods of solution.

In fairness to the federal government, however, erroneous

impressions of Guam's potential could be partially attributed to

a questionably accurate report prepared by the U. S. Navy and

not coordinated with local expertise or Gov Guam (1975: "Suita-

bility of Guam from an Environmental Aspect as a Potential Site

for OTEC Plants") which stated essentially that OTEC plants on

Guam are not feasible due to adverse effects of cold effluent sur-

face discharge on warm water near-shore flora and fauna. The se-

cond problem may be that local A & E firms are simply not receiv-

ing RFP's from DOE. Often even the RFP's that do reach Guam are

several weeks late, making widespread distribution impossible.

Obviously, local conditions are best known by local firms, especi-

135

ally such things as economic, demographic, financial and social

conditions. Presently, increasing interest is being generated

for Guam, mostly because of i.rrefutable data i-ndicating site su-

periority over other locations. Lacki.ng is knowledgeable and vi-

gorous Washington, D. C., representation as well as a financial
commitment by Gov Guam to OTEC CHawaii recently appropriated
some $10 million for such activities).

DOE RFP's which have reached Guam, albeit rather late for

serious consideration include : -

1. RFP 4784406, Argonne Natio-nal Laboratory, for

"Design and Construction of an OTEC Seacoast

Test Facility". COnly 45 days to analyze, dis-
tribute, prepare and send proposals.). Action

letter sent to Argonne subcontractor indicating

inadequate time pe riod but a continuing interest.

2. RFP #ET-78-R-02-0019, DOE Chicago Operatfons Of-

fice, "Electric Utility System Planning Studies

for OTEC Power Integration". (.Extension to Oc-

tober 2, 19-78,.granted to Guam for RFP prepara-
tion.)

The latest development is that Fairchild's Stratos Division has

been awarded the contract and that Guam, through a contract

amendment coordinated by Dillingham Corporation, will be included

as a participant together with Hawaii and Florida. Further de-

tails should be available shortly through W. F. Pinckert and As-

sociates.

136

Berkeley Lawrence Laboratory - Department of Energy Re-

search - Four-Phase Study

Discussion:

Lawrence Laboratory has been contracted by the Depart-

ment of Energy to evaluate "Bio-ecol.ogical Concerns"

of OTEC development. Guam's involvement could be in

several increments:

1. Literatur*e Search CTentatively Approved - $10-

15,000): Exhaustive review of biological-ecologi-

cal data presently available which would be of

value for OTEC development. (UOG Ma-rine Labj

2. Data Collection: Based on literature search, es-

tablish program for "standard bi-monthly measure-

ments" for such things as temperature, chemistry,

and current variations and seasonality effects

Shipboard time wilT have to be contracted out

Effort will be made to utilize Guam expertise.

Proposal required by seventh month of Phase I.

3. Long-term Data Collection': Establishment and

maintenance of "augmented measurements" program.

Phase II data evaluated and ongoing monitoring

system established. This would continue even af-

ter plant construction.

4. Final Writeup : Sum total of data evaluated in fi-

nal form, probably would be the basis for plant

construction. Time frame uncertain.at present

time.
137

Tokyo Electric Power Services Company (TEPSCO).

One OTEC possibility involved the discussion of a Japan-

based firm to construct a plant on Guam. A very preliminary

discussion paper was prepared by TEPSCO for Ithe siting on Guam

of a cost of some $32 million for a land-based 4 x 2.5 MW plant.

Further discussions indicated that a DOE/GPA/TEPSCO coordinated

effort was not feasible under present plans. The current status

of the project is uncertain.

138

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Appendix 2.
1 . I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Appendix 2

Islandwide Power System - - Approximate averages for

peak demand (K'IV) 1_972-1978

MONTH MTHLY QTRLY 6 MOS ANNUAL
AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE

1972

Jan 118,350

Feb 120,800 120,800

Mar 120,800

Apr 125,000 123,600

May 126,400 126,400

Jun 127,900 131,100

Jul 131,300

Aug 133,000 135,200

Sep 141,200 138,600

Oct 144,400

Nov 142,000 142)000

Dec 139,500

1973

Jan 134,900

Feb 134,700 136,500

Mar 140,000

Apr 144,700 140,800

May 147@200 145@000

Jun 143,200 142,200

Jul 146,600

Aug 146,300 148@300 143,600

Sep 151,900

Oct 151,800
Nov 151,100 147,000

MONTH MTHLY QTRLY 6 HOS ANNUAL
AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
1974

Jan 126,500

Feb 132,700 132,800

Mar 139,100 138,500

Apr 144,100

May 143,700 144.4300

Jun 145,000 144,800

Jul 142,900

Aug 149,600 148,400

Sep 152,800 151,100

Oct 156,600

N ov 154,600 153,700

Dec 150,000

............

Jan 143,300

Feb 141,000 143,300

Mar 145,600 146,800

Apr 147,500

May 153,200 1SO,300

Jun 1502300 147,500

Jul 143,600

Aug 144,100 145,900

Sep 150,000 148,200

Oct 153,900

Nov 147,600 1501500

Dec 150,000

141

I-IONTH MTHLY QTRLY 6 MOS ANNUAL
AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE

1976

Jan 146,000

Feb 143,000 144,700

Mar 145,000 141,200

Apr 146,000

May 143,000 137,700

Jun 119,000 142,200

Jul 128,800

Aug 140,200 138,900

Sep 1472500 143,300

Oct 147,000

Nov 149,000 147@700

Dec 147,000

1977

Jan 146,000

Feb 142,000 144,000

Mar 144,000 143,800

Apr 143,200

May 144,000 143,600

Jun 1432700 147,900

Jul 141,000

Aug 155,000 150,000

Sep 155,000 152,000

Oct 156,000

Nov 154,000 154,000

Dec 151,000

142

MONTH MTHLY QTRLY 6 MOS ANNUAL
AVERAGE 'AVER-AGE AVERAGE 'AVERAGE

1978

Jan 144,900-

Feb 141,800 144, 900

Mar 148@100

Apr 151,500 149,550 149,550

May 156,000

Jun 155,000 154,200

Jul 147,700

Source: Guam Power Authority

143

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Appendix 3.
I
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

St L

-4,

zp rx
1A17474YVII gY-,?M4V-.,AA)eNA

T
@5n

ffT.
oi- I.

A
-77

17:

ptW7 svp r 'JIAV'7 'T
.01
Vim
77 -

=V27r

N.
.2-R! :@Lfi

Z
4
-4 R,

, Mtt

cc
ftZA
2.7 r ru

VUTUBPZRH ZBnOa :c XICIRZCICTV

wl
@.A;E'131 Ir WI&IT I Liss" jr 14-
IL
T
A"S P., T" @ifl-
kq
_gv
5

WI I,j
Ll 50415,11 UP ;IR fiWA
VCI@
11AE

w% I
YU
In
.3p,

7:1
.51V
AM
@N

ii 1Y
j-g.,

A.
YX 4;11h ;Ali-.i Ar 0.

lip, I C"
M MW111111, ': j
PIT nYi
p 4;@ ENY'Orw 1@-,
APO
VP g7
wag
AS PZ
A t pi.
1
q 0_-
Aln
EN

40Y.Mi. "t,3vt, -i V1,4 I
11
wit

:,j. g
opvv.@ V@

,
OT
'. 0; , 1 .- . , . . -,,;, !

.0,
::tn
a
pgl

6 N

P
1@', Mw f
r

-40
1. 1,04 -SN", Kig?
P@

Mr
-:0Z,

,SOIL.
R '-R 14
16092

MR,
7;5_51sl
'ON
X't.7'i F Vt

BA42et
UA4

Z:: -
7!q,
.:";7 iT

AVASWAUVP 4 r,
@..Aq
z7
%

Z.V,

NE:E
M-
R_

-57
.It
.It
.It

C@r -mT;
hil

R
ZWM@
-aw
Y4
.1,4
Y4
-Y4
1: IM V Y: @'elVMef --,Y?4

. . . . . . . . . .

1 d7

v II!,
IT I
Its
fit

ICU
Y "Im,

AQ
1 .1 qg)g 1 4 t
X g"'I
ZV -up. K A
v
-M a

1 1-4,

1 14 5,
NX,

t4
N
51:
INE

v, 'A X

11 A

. . . . . . . . . .
...... .....

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Append.ix 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Appendix 4

Federal Participants in the Corps of Engineer's
'Permit Rd-,@ie-rw Process.

MENBERS OF CONGRESS

Honorable Spark M. Matsunaga, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510
United States Senator, P. 0. Box 50124,
Honolulu, HI 96850 ,
Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510
United States Senator, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm 6104
Honolulu, HI 96813
Honorable Cec Heftel, House of'Representatives, 322 Cannon House Office Bldg,
Washington, D.C. 20515
Representative in Congress, 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Rm 4104,
Honolulu, HI 96850
Honorable Daniel K. Akaka, House of Representatives, 415 Cannon House Office
Bldg, Washington, D.C. 20S15
Representative in Congress, 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Rm 5104,
Honolulu, HI 96850

FEDERAL GOVERN@ENT

IIQDA-<DAEN-CWO-tN)--WASH-DC---2Oal4
HQDA (DAEN-CWZ-G) WASH DC Z0314
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Kingman Bldg, Fort
Belvoir, Virginia 22060
Director, Defense Mapping Agency, Hydrographic Center, ATTN: INS12,
Washington, D. C. 20390
Defense Mapping Agency Depot, Hawaii, Hickam AFB, HI. 968@S3
Director, HQ USAF (PREV), Washington, D. C. 20330
Commandant, Fourteenth Naval District, Box 110 (Code 002), Pearl
Harbor, HI 96860
Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard District, 300 Ala Moana Blvd, 9th Floor,
Honolulu, HI 96850
Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard District, ATTN: Office of Aids to
Navigation, 300 Ala Moana Blvd, 9th Floor, Honolulu, HI. 96850
CommanAer in Chief, U. S.'Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, HI 96860
Commander, Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Pearl Harbor, HI 96860.
Commander in Chief, Pacific Air Force, Hickam. AFB, HI 96853
Regional Director, Pacific-Asia Region, Federal Aviation
Administration, ATTN: Planning/Appraisal Staff, APC-4,,;
P. 0. Box 4009; Honolulu, HI 96813
Regional Director, National Park Service, US Dept of the Interior, ATTN:
interagency Archeological Services, 450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36063,
San Francisco, CA 94102
Commander, Pacific Division, Water Quality Lab, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, HI 96860
Mr. Jerry Delli Priscoli, Institute for Water Resources, Department of the
Army, Corps of Engineers, Kingman Building, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060
Chief, National Park Service, Office of Archaeology & Historic
Preservation, 5113-L Street, Washington, D.C. 20240

..150

FEDERAL GOVERNM.E-NT (tont'd)

Director, National Ocean Survey, NOAA (C322), U. S. Department of
Commerce, Rockville, Maryland 20852
Director, Pacific Marine Center (CPM 101), National Ocean Survey,
NOAA, U. S..Department of Commerce, 1801 Fairview Ave, East,
Seattle, Wash-ington 98102
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Pacific Southwest Regional Office,
U. S. Department of the Interior, 450 Golden Gate Ave, Box 36063.,
San Francisco, CA 94102
U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 300 Ala Moana, Bl'vd...
Rm. 6110, P. 0. Box.50166, Honolulu, HI 96850
Regional Director, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service,
NOAA, U. S. Department of Commerce, 300 South Ferry St, Terminal
Island, CA 90731
Administrator, Western Pacific Programs Office, National Marine Fisheries
Service, P. 0. Box 3830, Honolulu, HI 96812
Regional Administrator, Region IX, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Permits Branch, E-4, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
Re.gional Director, Region 1, Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S.
Department of the Interior, P. 0. Box 3737, Portland, OR 97208
Area Supervisor, Division of Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm 5302,
Honolulu, HI 9681.3.
Secretary's Field Representative, Pacific Southwest Region, U. S.
Department of the interior, 450 Golden Gate Ave, Box 36098,
San Francisco, CA 94102
Chairman, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, National Park
-Service., Washington, D. C. 20240.
Chief, National Park Service, Arizona Archeological Center, U. S.
Department of the Interior, P. 0. Box 49008, Tucson, Arizona' 85717
Director, National Park Service, Hawaii State Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd.,
Sji4&;:_-e 6305, Box 561-65, Honolulu, HI 96850
Federal Inrormation Center, P. 0. Box 50091, Honolulu, HI 96850
Director,, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Kingman Bldg, Fort
Belvoir, VA 22060
Director, Office of Territorial Affairs, U. S. Department of the
fnter'ior, Washington, D. C. 20240
Resident firector, Federal Aviation Administration, Route 008,,
Finegayan, Guam 96912'
Commander,@U. S. Naval Forces, Marianas, FPO San Francisco 96630
Dept of the Navy, OICC NFECC, M. I., FPO San Francisco 96630
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Guam Station, Dandan,
Guam 96916
U. S. Public Health Service, Agana, Guam 96910
Manager, Bureau of-Land Management, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf
Office, U. S. Department of the Interior, 300 N. Los Angeles St,
Rm. 7127, Los Angeles, CA 90Q12
Only PNs for Summary of Permit-Actions -General Permits

151

FEBERAL GOVERNMENT (CON'T)

National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Route-8, Agana, Guam 96910
Small Business Administration, P. 0. Box 927, Agana, Guam 96910
U.. S.-Attorney's Office, P. 0. Box Z', Agana, Guam 96910
Guam Observatory, P. 0. Box 8001, MUO #3, Agana, Guam 96910
Commander, Anderson Air Force Base, APO San Francisco 96334
Commander, U. S. Coast Guird, Marianas Section, FPO San Francisco
96630
Commander, U. S.. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office, FPO San
Francisco 96630
Commander, Naval Air Station, FPO San Francisco 96630
Fleet Weather Control, FPO San Francisco 96630
Commander, Naval Magazine, FPO San Francisco 96630
Commander, Naval Station, FPO San Francisco 96630
Commander, U. S. Navy Public Works Center, FPO Sari Francisco 96630
Commander, Ship Repair Facility, FPO San Francisco 960630
Commander., Naval Supply Depot, FPO San Francisco 96630
Commander, Submarine Squadron Fifteen, FPO San Francisco 96630
Federal Highway Administration, Bridge Division - HNG-31, 400 7th Street,
S.W., Washington, D ..C. 20590, CPNs for Summ. of permit Actions & Gen Permits

152

I
I
I
1,
i
I
I
I
I Appendix 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Appendix , 5

'CEIP I'ntervi'ews

Party Date Subject

1. Guam Power Authority 8/2/78 OTEC and CEIP
Guam Energy Office
2. Mgr.-Guam Power Authority 8/3/78 GPA OTEC Participation

3. Mgr.-GORCO 8/4/78 Preliminary CEIP
Discussions

4. DRS. Tsuda, Amesbury,
Winter and Eldredge
UOG Marine Lab 8/11/78 Literature search,
Energy Facility
Impact Discussions

S. U.S. Coast Guard Seminar
Saipan 8/17, 8/18 Coast Guard Spill
Responsibilities,
6. Guam EPA Contingency Plans
Mssrs. Branch, Wong,
Pontemeyer, Cabrera 8/21 Preliminary CEIP
Discussions SO and
Water Quality iegu-
lations

7. Guam EPA
Pontemeyer 8/24 Air Quality Regula-
tion Revision Plans,
Problems with exis-
ting Systems

8. Mgr., Guam Power Authority 8/25 Delivery of Pre limi-
nary Projections

9. Guam Power Authority,
Mssrs. Smith, Benavente,
Cabrera 8/27 Transmission grid
expansion, SO 2 and
water quality pollu-
tion Economics Sales
and Peak Demand Data

10. U.S. Navy- OICC
Cmdr. Zimmerman 8/31 Power System Harden-
ings, Navy Contract
Administration, Navy
Transmission Facilities

11. Mobil Oil Corporation
Mr. R.S. Rideout 8/31 Preliminary CEIP Infor-
154 mation Requests

CEIP Interviews cont'

Party Date Subject

12. Esso Eastern, Inc.
MT. Bish Parmar 8/31 Preliminary CEIP In-
formation Requests

13. Guam Power Authority
MSSRS. Cabrera, Tablante 9/1 Detailed Discussions
on 115KV Lines, Plans
for Expansion

14. Esso Eastern Inc..
Mgr., Bish Parmar 9/5/78 Detailed facility
Expansion and Impacts
Discussion

15. GEPA, John Cabreza 9/5/78 Bulk Storage Infor-
mation

16. UOG Marine Lab
Dick Randall
Dr. J. Marsh 9/6/78 Detailed Discussion
on UOG/US DDE OTEC
Study Participation
Detailed discussion
on Cabras Plant Im-
pacts on Marine Envr.

17% U.S. Coast Guard
Ens. Burndett, MSO 9/7/78 Oil Spill Contingency
Plans, Port Tanker
Traffic Patterns,
Traffic Control and
Safety Requirements
Spill Cleanup, Regio-
nal Strike Force

18. Dept. of Public Works
Highway Planning, Benavente;
Highway Engineering,
R. Quijano. 9/11/78 Highway Construction
costs, coordination
with power line loca-
tion, joint use agree-
ments

19. Dept. of Parks and Recreation
Mr. Robert Cruz, Dave Lotz,
Gary Stillburger 9/11/78 Energy Facility Impact
on Recreation, Recrea-
tion Facilities,
Historic sites, Tan-
guisson/NCS plans,
compliance with NPDES
requirements

155

Party

20. DPW/PUAG
Mr. B. Dela Rosa
Mr. Joe Guitierrez 9/12/78 DPW Coordination
w/Navy hardening pro-
jects; waterline
costing, placement,
sizing and use by
Energy Facilities.

21. Department of Public Safety
Asst. Chiefs Mesa, Taijeron 9/13/78 Preliminary CEIP Dis-
cussion, Detailed
discussion of equip-
ment needs, oil ?ire
capabilities and bud-
geting for new equip-
22. GEPA ment.
Mr. R. Pontemeyer 9/15/78 Latest of So 2 strategy,

23. GEPA
Mr. J. Branch 9/16/78 GPA.thinking on water
quality standards and
effluent regulation,

24. Guam Airport Authority
Lockheed Fuel Consultant
Mr. J. Mazanti 9/18/78 Details on plans for
expanded fueling facil
ties at the Terminal,

25. Marine Int'l., Joint Ventures
Captain Tarr 9/21/78 Port Traffic Opera-
tions and increased
traffic due to possi-
ble energy facility
expansion,

26. Mobil Oil Corporation
Mgr. - Mr. Barney 9/22/78 Detailed facility
expansion and impact
discussion.

27. GORCO
Mgr. Mr. F. Cochran 10/22/78 Detailed facility
expansion and impact
discussion,
28. U.S. Navy PWC 10/3/78
Lt. Cmdr. Layman Navy Energy Facility
Power Consultant R. Duncan Expansion plans;
Chief Facilities Engineer power pool agreement)
water arrangements,

156

Party Date Subj'ect

29. GORCO
Production & Sales Mgr. 10/3/78 Chemical processing and
Frank Santos output data, water
availability expansion
of tankage.

30. Marine Int'l, Joint ventures
Mr. D. Reiss 10/17/78 CEIP and Port Operations

31. Dept. of Public Safety
Chief Wusstig 10/17/78 CEIP and fire safety
32. U.S. Coast Guard facilities expansion.
Captain of the Port 10/18/78 Traffic control systems
& possible CEIP parti-
cipation.

33. Barret and Associates
Scott Kvandal 10/18/78 Specific discussions on
Agat-Santa Rita water
consumptiom & GORCO
refinery, plans for new
water lines, costings.
34. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Frank Dayton 10/19/78 COB permit process,
CEIP and federal review
of permits,

157

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 6
1
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I

WALTER F. PINCKERT & ASSOCIATES To[: 477-7550
Engineers and Considtants Telex: 721-6181
P.O. BOX 2636. AGANA, G UAM 96910

-Subject:' Guam's Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP)

Dear Sir:

The Government of Guam, by virtue of having an active program
under the U.S Department of Commerce Coastal Zone Management
Program, is eiigible for funding under the Coastal Energy Im-
pact Program. Financial assistance is available to GovGuam
and its agencies in the form of outright grants, or repayment
assistance for such things as public facilities needed as a
result of new or expanded coastal energy activity, facility
impact planning, or unavoidable losses to coastal environmental
and/or recreational facilities.

The initial.study to be prepared by Walter Pinckert & Associates
is concerned with Planning for the Consequences of Energ Facil-
-ities. In order to qualify for future funding from the @1.2
C,
'billion allotted over the next 10 years,- it is-necessary to
identify specifically the type of energy facilitydevelopment
which will occur now and in'the future.

?'Energy activity" is defined to include not only power produc-
tion facilities, but pipelines., transmission facilities, refin-
ing E@nd-storage systems, deepw'ater ports, and associated equip-
ment and/or facilities.. To qualify as "new or expanded" such
facilities must be those whose siting, construction, expansion,
..initia'1 operation, or repl@Lcement, in whole or part, takes place
after July 26, 1976.
Themajor questions which we will be asking are:

1) What is happening now and what will be happening
in the next 10 years (1986) as far as energy
facility development is concerned.
2) What specific plans are available now. What level
of planning activity is presently be-ing carried out
and in the near future.
.3) What additional public'facil'ities 'do you foresee as-
being nec.essary as a result of planned expansion or
construction of these energy facilities.
1.59

What ate your siting, licensing or leasing policies
for additional land areas for new or expanded facil-
ities, if any.

.5) Do you foresee any great difficulties posed by envi@ron-
mental regulations insofar as-development of additional
facilities are concerned

It is recognized in Guam's new Land-Use Plan, Community Design
Plans, Comprehensive Development Plan, Port Master Plan, and
the Coastal Management Program that energy facilities will be
one of the most critical components of coastal as well as.
economic development for Guam. With proper planning Guam can
share the burden of future expansion with the Federal Government,,

The attached sheets provide some additional information relative-
to this program. We are furnishing the foregoing as advance
information on the CEIP program and shall call you by telephone
to arrange a mutually convenient date to discuss the implica-
tion of the program.in relation to your activities now and as
planned,in the future.
your cooperation.
'Thanking you for

Sincerely.,

WALTER F. PINCKERT

Attachments: a/s

160.

ATTACIU4ENT

General Information for CEIP, Coastal Energy
Impact Program

Note: The following information has been derived from the final
regulations of the U. S. Department of Commerce for the
Coastal Energy Impact Program. These are found in the
Federal Register, Volume 43, No. 37 of Thursday, February
23'p 1978.-

PROGM11 ASSISTANCE @ Four basic kinds of assistance are available
through the CEIP.

1. Planning Grants are available to Guam to help prepare for
the Zonsequences of all new or expanded energy facilities in the
Coastal Zone.' Since on Guam theentire island is considered to
be a part of the Coastal Zone all energy facilities qualify for
examination under a planning grant. Such things as physical
impacts and methods of amelioration, summation of natural and
recreational resources in the area of proposed expansion, and
location and scheduling of required new public facilities would
!be examples of subjects to be addressed under the present planning
grant. A specific example might be the location, design, construc-
tion, and equipping of a.fire station serving the special needs of
energy facility emergencies.

2. Credit Assistance may be available to Guam in the form of
direEt loans or guarTntees of loans or bonds. In the example
above, a new fire station may be nebded as a result of GORCO, GPA,
or oil company facility expansion. Although the community tax
base will eventually be expanded, there will be a lag between the
time the new fire station is needed and the time the actual
revenues from the facility are realized. The CEIP will provide
financial backing for Guam as it seeks to acquire funds through
borrow-ing so that public facilities and services can be provided
when needed.

3. Repayment Assistance*i%rould be available to Guam in the event
that it is not able to meet its .CEIP credit obligations because
revenues from energy facilities fail to materialize as expected.
This amounts to a guarantee that a community receiving CEIP
assistance will not sustain.a net fiscal loss from coastal energ
.7
activity. For example, suppose Guam expanded its sewage treatment
plant and has put in place new water and sewer lines to accomo-
date ex-oected additional infrastructure pressures as a result of
energy @acility expansion; however, conditions change so that
expected revenue is not realized. Thus the expected increase in
tax.revenue which had been counted on tocover the loan or bond
obligation which financed the public facility will not be forth-
coming. In such a case, the obligation can 'be covered from @CBIP
funds. The circumstances under which this could happen are:

161

1) If Guam had taken a direct loan from the CEIP, or had
utilized a CEIP guarantee; and

2) There is a change in scope of the energy activity such
that sufficient revenues do not materialize as projected.

Repayment assistance can consist of modification of credit terms,
refinancing, a supplemental loan, or a repayment grant.

4.. Environmental Grants could be available to help prevent,
-reduce, or repair Fa-mage to or loss of valuable env-ironmental or
recreational resources. If, for example, the siting of an
eneTg-y facility in the past resulted in the loss of or damage to
a public beach or boating facility, a community could use CEIP
grants to purchase access rights to a similar beac.h or boat
facility area.
CONPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL REQ.UIREMENTS Projects funded with
CEIP"funds must be carried out in compliance with relevent re-
quirements of other Federal laws, especially the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amended, the National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA), the Clean Air Act, and the Rivers and
Harbors Act.

162

iiiiimmiiililli@imii
3 6668 14109 7479