[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
PE"iROLEUM STORAGE FOR NEW HAVEN 'HARBOR: WATERFRONT VS. INLAND '.01 -N Pl el- TP 692.5 @l DY OF THE FEASIBILTY OF LOCATI N GNEW T48 1980 N G @01 E U MSTORAGE CAPACITY OR RELOCATI ING TANK FARMS All- !NLAND SITES NEW HAVEN CITY PLAN DEPARTMENT JUNE., Cx- PETROLEUM STORAGE IN NEW HAVEN HARBO/ WATERFRONT VS. INLAND New Haven City-Plan Department June, 1980 This document was financed in part by a Coastal Energy Impact Planning Grant received through the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraton of the U.S. Department of Commerce under Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and was prepared in cooperation with the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. Executive Summary Under a Coastal Energy I ,mpact Planning Grant, the New Haven City Plan Department studied the feasibility of locating new petroleum tank farms or relocating existing waterfront tank farms to inland sites to free up valuable waterfront land for more intensive uses. While adequate petroleum storage is essential to the local and regional economy, tank farms do not require waterfr *ont sites and in many places including New Haven, are located inland. Alternative uses of scarce, attractive waterfront land are more productive in terms of tax revenues (the average assessment per acre for tank farms was $134,500 in 1978, compared to $170,000-$212,000 in two City industrial areas and $1.6 million for a proposed waterfront condominium development); employment (tank farms employ an average of only 2.7 people per acre, compared to over 17 in an older industrial area); and amenities to the City and region. An inactive use occupying 80 acres of prime waterfront land with unattractive structures, tank farms not-only preclude use of their sites for more active and/or water dependent uses, but detract from the overall appearance of the harbor, reducing its desirability for non-industrial and recreational boating use, especially in the Quinnipiac River area. The idea of inland tank farm development is not new. In New Haven, 26% of the storage capacity is located at inland sites through private action, and the Long Island Sound Study recommended in 1975 that New Haven's remaining waterfront storage be relocated inland to the extent feasible. The Connecticut Coastal Management Act (P.A. 79-535), passed by the General Assembly in 1979, contains a policy specifically discouraging the siting of new tank farms in the coastal zone, giving localities the power to deny approval for such uses. New Haven Harbor is a major petroleum port playing a vital role in supplying a large market area covering Connecticut, Western Massachusetts, Southern Vermont and Long Island. New Haven is the second largest New England port in terms of petroleum product (as opposed to crude oil) handled, receiving an estimated 64 million barrels in 1979 at 11 ship and barge terminals. Of 60 million barrels received in 1977, the last year for which a breakdown by product is available, 12.9 million (22%) were heavy residual oil, 19.8 million (33%) were distillate oil (diesel and #2-#4), and 24.6 million (41%) were gasoline. On their way to end users, these products were stored in 209 tanks with a total storage capacity of 10.4 million barrels. Of these, approximately 4.8 million barrels (46%) are located on prime waterfront land in three areas: the East Shoreindustrial area on both sides of Interstate 95 (2.8 million bbls; 49 acres), the Belle Dock area on the West Shore (1.5 million bbls.; 17 acres), and in Fair Haven on both sides of the Quinnipiac River (545,000 bbls.; 14 acres). This study projects a leveling of petroleum throughput volumes over thL- next twenty years based on a review of several government petroleum demand projections and discussion with industry sources and government officials. Although many authorities feel that demand will actually fall due to price increases, fuel switching and conservation efforts, the leveling trend was used in this study to provide a margin of safety in estimating future facility requirements. State and Federal policy encourage maintaining and expanding reserve storage capacity. Future petroleum storage capacity-needs depend on desired reserve capacity and intensity of facility use as well as on end use demand for petroleum products. It is clear from botli historical experience and industry inter- views that the present storage capacity could handle consi- derably more product or conversely, the same product receipts could be handled with less storage capacity used more efficiently (in 1973, 9% more product was handled with a storage capacity at least 7% lower than at present). Relocation alternatives ranging from 170,000 to 4.8 million barrels are explored in Sections V-IX. A maximum program to relocate all 4.8 million barrels of waterfront storage capacity occupying 80 acres of prime waterfront land to an inland site or sites, whether by private, public, or joint action, would be extremely costly, somewhere in the neighborhood of $55-60 million including land, construction, and a pipeline to a waterfront terminal. Relocation of just those tanks not in the east shore port area would cost $27-30 million and free up 31 acres of waterfront land. The least ambitious relocation programs would not require any new construction because the throughput of these smaller facilities in less industrialized areas could be handled easily by other terminals. The cost of a relocation program would be offset by several factors. On the private side these include the lower operating cost associated with a larger, centralized, E-2 modern facility; the gain from using less valuable inland land and selling waterfront acreage; the lower property tax burden if located in outlying towns; and the tax advantages associated with new business investment, particularly deprecia- tion deductions and investment tax credits. On the public side, these include the possibility of increased tax revenues; more active and water dependent use of the harborfront and the spillover effects of increased land values and develop- ment potential in the vicinity of the tank farm sites and throughout the harbor; and lower risk of large oil spills or catastrophic fires from the old tank facilities. Relocation of waterfront storage capacity could be accomplished through private action, direct public inter- vention (public or quasi-public development of new facilities, public acquisition), or regulatory approaches such as zoning or coastal site plan review. Many professionals with an interest in the harbor and even several terminal operators felt that eventually modern, consolidated, inland tank farms would be the most efficient method of petroleum storage and distribution. However, given the high cost of new tank farm development, wholesale relocation of waterfront petroleum storage capacity appears to be unattainable at the present time. The lesser scale relocation programs, however, have a better chance of success. The smaller facilities up the Quinnipiac River are located in areas which are ripe for conversion into more intensive, compatible, and people- oriented uses. These facilities have the lowest tax yield of all the tank farms, averaging $95,000 in assessed value per acre compared to $134,000 overall. In light of these findings the study concludes that: 1. Although technically feasible and operationally advantageous, Large scale relocation of waterfront tank farms through public intervention would not be economically feasible or cost effective at this time. Over the long term as existing waterfront tank farms deteriorate and the combined cost of operating numerous smaller terminals increases, inland development would gain in relative attractive- ness and become more feasible. The City should encourage the State to create a quasi-public petroleum storage development entity to create inland storage areas if and when the economics of the proposition improve. E-3 2. The City should, however, develop a long-term policy for inclusion in its Municipal Coastal Program which specifically prohibits development of any new storage capacity or expansion of existing terminals on the waterfront except under extreme circumstances. This policy could be implemented through the City's powers under state zoning enabling legislation and the Coastal Management Act. 3. The policies of the Municipal Coastal Program should guide the private market in appropriate reuse of waterfront parcels now occupied by tank farms should those facilities,be phased out. 4. The City should seriously consider the acquisition and phase-out of smaller tank farms on the Quinnipiac River in or adjacent to the Quinnipiac River Historic District. Reuse of this land would not only provide for higher tax-yielding development,' potential public access areas, and other people- oriented uses, but would also greatly enhance the land values and ambience of the entire area. 5. As long as New Haven remains a regional petroleum storage center, the City should seek some means of compensation for the burden of low tax-yielding tank farm uses. This could be accomplished by an inventory tax on the oil stored. E-4 PETROLEUM STORAGE IN NEW HAVEN HARBOR: WATERFRONT VS. INLAND Executive Summary Table of Contents Page Preface I I. Introducation 2 II. The Petroleum Industry in New Haven Harbor 4 A. Overview 4 B. operations and Throughput 5 1. Overall Operations 5 2- Residual Oil and Asphalt 8 3. Distillates 8 4. Motor Gasoline 9 5. -Other Products 10 C. Receiving and Storage Facilities 10 1. Receiving Facilities and Usage 10 2. Storage Facilities and Usage 13 3. Tax and Employment Productivity 16 D. Institutional Arrangements and Forces 17 E. Regulatory Programs Affecting Tank Farms 19 III. Projected Demand for Petroleum Storage Facilities to Serve the New Haven Harbor Market Area 20 A. Petroleum Product Throughput Projections 20 B. Storage Capacity Needed to Meet Future Demands 25 IV. Waterfront Revitalization -- Potential Alternative Uses for Waterfront Land Occupied by Tank Farms 27 A. Context 27 B. Potential Alternative Uses, by Area 29 C. Benefits of Alternative Uses 38 V. Alternative Petroleum Receiving and Storage Scenarios for the New Haven Harbor Market Area 39 A. Policy Framework 39 B. Scale of Proposed Relocation 40 C. Operational Alternatives 42 VI. Alternative Inland Sites for Tank Farm Development 47 A. Locational. and Site Requirements of Tank Farms 47 B. Potential Tank Farm Sites in the New Haven Harbor Market Area so 1. South Central Connecticut 50 2. Hartford Area 52 VII. Costs New Tank Farm Development or Relocation 53 A. Capital Costs 53 1. Relocation 53 2. New Development 53 B. Operating Cost 55 VIII.Institutional Alternatives 56 IX. Conclusions and Recommendations 59 X. Sources Tables 11-1 Petroleum Receipts and Shipments in Major New England Ports and New York, 1.977. 11-2 Estimated Petroleum Storage Capacity in Connecticut, 1975. 11-3 Receipts and Shipments of Petroleum Products, New Haven Harbor, 1967. 11-4 Estimated Valque of Petroleum Products Received in NewHaven Harbor. 11-5, New Haven Harbor Petroleum Receipts, Selected Years, 1961-1977. 11-6 Petroleum Receipts and Shipments, New Haven Harbor, 1977-1979. 11-7 Ranking of Five Terminals Serving the Highest Number of Ships and Barges, September, 1.978 - August, 1979. 11-8 Ranking of Companies by Storage Capacity, with Estimated receipts and Shipments, 1978-79. 11-9 Petrol 0qequm Storage Capacity , by Product, New Haven Harbor, 1979. III-1 Petroleum Throughput Projections for New Haven Harbor Derived-from Available Sources. IV-I Possible Waterfront Land.Uses for Developed Shore. front. Areas. IV-2. Comparson of Tax and Employment Benefits of Alternative Land Uses. V-1 Petroleum Storage Capacity by Area, New Haven Harbor, 1.979. VI-1 Potential Inland Tank Farm Sites VII-1 Estimated Cost of Tank Farm Components. VII-2 Estimated Cost of Developing New Inland Petroleum Storage Facilities. Maps I-1 New Haven Harbor-Channels II-1 Waterfront Petroleum Storage Tank Farms, New Haven Harbor II-2 Harbor and Inland Petroleum Storage Areas and Pipelines, New Haven Harbor II-3 Approximate Market Area for Petroleum Products Received in New Haven Harbor IV-1 Generalized Land Use in Areas Surrounding Tank Farms Iv-2 Quinnipiac River-Historic District V-1 Tank Farms Grouped by Area, New Haven Harbor VI-1 Potential Inland Tank Farm sites Figures II-1. Flow of Petroleum Products through New Haven. Harbor, 1977 Preface The City of New Haven is in the process of developing a plan for its coastal area under the provisions of the recently enacted Connecticut Coastal. Management Act (P.A. 79-535). This report deals with-one of the major uses of waterfront land in the-harbor area: petroleum receiving and storage facilities, a1so known. as- tank. farms. Throughout,this study, the tank farm issues have been explored in the over-all. context of the City's harbor planning program. Present and potential. land uses have been evaluated for consistency with the planning objectives which guide the overal.l.planning effort and the formulation of alternatives in this report. These objectives include.: 1. To stimulate and.plan for-the,maximum pos'sible use and-reuse of'the waterfront. New uses should be developed wi thin the.context of a coordinated plan which de-signate.s particular waterfront areas for particular use&; 2- To expand and enhance public access to the water- front throughout the harbor, whether-through public-open space or,through private commercial deve lopment;@ 3. In waterfront industrial areas to reserve scarce land to the fu.1-lest-extent possible for water-depen- dent or water-related industrial uses. Uses-with the.highest employment per acre and tax assessments per acre.should be sought, and measures should be taken to promote more intensive use of underutilized parcels of land.in-the furtherance of these objectives;- and. 4, To protect natural,coastal resources by ensuring sound development practices through the coastal site plan review process. An ancillary objective of this report is to provide information on the operation of the petroleum distribution system in this region whi.ch will assist pol.icymakers and the public in evaluating energy policy options. I. Introduction The New Haven City Plan Department sought and received a Coastal Energy Impact Planning Grant under Section 307 of the-Federal-Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to determine the feasibility and desireability of locating new or relocating exi.sting petroleum tank farms on inland sites. The goal of- such a project would be to free up scarce, valuable water- front land for more intensive and/or people-oriented uses while simultanteously increasing the overall desireabi.lity of@ the harbor by removing vi,suAlly-unattractive structures. In the process of'looking at-New Haven's tank farm operations, this study re-examines the recommendations in.the 1.975 Long Island Sound Regional.Study of, the New England River Basins Commission that waterfront tank farms be relocated to inland sites wherever possible and evaluates the feasibility and economic impact of the State coastal,pol.i.cy of discouraging coastal. siting of new tank.farms-(Connecti.cut Coastal Management Act., P.A. 79-535, Sec. 2(b)(1)(E)). Several coastal planning efforts in Long Island Sound. and el,dewhere as wel.1 as extensive private-sector exp .erience now suggest.that present day pipel.ine.technology obviates the need.for-waterfront tank farms-. The presence of: two ma.jor-in,land tank.farms receiving petroleum products through- New Haven Harbor-, representing 26% of the.storage capacity associated with the Harbor,, demonstrates,tha-t-in.land-storage- i-s not only-ope.rationa.lly feasible but is considered economical.ly feasible by petroleum marketing companie.s. In fact-, numerous examples of private development.of inland tank farms can be found along the Hudson River, on.Long Island, and at ports such as Port Everg-lades, Florida.. The coastal management literature discusses the many conflicting demands being placed.on-waterfront land, and considerable public attention has been focused on urban wa-terfront revi.tal.iz-ation recently, both nat-ional.ly and in New Haven.. Port:.-related., commercial., and residential reuse projects in Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, and Baltimore have demonstrated that tremendous public benefits and-private profits can flow from ambitious harbor redevelopment plans which create unique people-oriented environments, taking f.u.11-advantage of waterfront amenities and siting. In some instances, these projects have been combined with port and industrial developments as wel.l. In carrying out the study objectives, this planning report explores: 1. The demand for petroleum storage capacity in the New Haven market-area.now and over the next 20 years; -2- 2. The employment and tax revenues associated with the tank farm uses compared to those generated by alternative uses; 3. Al-t-ernatives to the present practice of locating and expanding petroleum storage facilities at the water's edge; and 4. The.practical.ity of, providing incentives for the relocation of existing storage capacity to or the provi.sIon of. expanded.capacity-at inland locations, including possible operational. changes and institu- tional forms which might be needed to accompli-sh this-. The study is based-on detailed personal. interviews with each terminal,operator; interviews-with others in the petroleum industry; assembly of data.from,a variety of'local, state and federal-sources; and review of the.literature on petroleum company ope-rations and coas@tal- s1t-ing- of- energy facilities.. The feasibility of tank farm relocation depends to some extent on its impact-on the operating prof-its of the companies which.own and.manage the tanks. WhIle s,ome of the.te-rminal operators- were helpful in. a general. way, most were. under-- standably reluctant to provide information whi.ch would allow detailed asssessment of the impact of various tank farm reloc@ation schemes-on either-profitability or pri.ces:. Several.of'the mult-1-national. oil. companies refused to provide any information about their operations whatsoever.. To the extent estimates-of: impacts on price or profit were attempted., they are based on hypothetical. situations. This report-wi.11-not-.consider the question of chemical storage facilities in any detai.l.. New Haven Terminal (NHT) has,chemical.storage tanks with a capacity of'4-31.,000 barrel.s at, its waterfront site., and. DuPont has two. small. sul.furIc acid, tanks at. its barge terminal on. the: Qvinnipiac- River. NHT., the large-st chemical terminal in New England., handles at. least-- nine different chemkcal.s@ for four- principal, and several other-firms-and each chemical.has its associated hazards and storage requirement7s. Relocation of these facilities would require a number of dedicated pipelines which do not appear to be economical.ly feasible given the volumes received. -3- CORPS OF fMqMf!g@ 194-11 AIR 2 H y t- CHANIL' WCHANNEL JPS [A -- OF E ENA, 1, 0AN IA Cott k WAN 0 q ip 8 OR 00 4;'CefAt@NEL ML '6'ANCJl0RAGE fST ov p tAA 162 Co A""T MA 6, 1, FT. KELSVI mo k py. qQgT" 1@0 MIR FT- N E W!%T IND LT. "4d Sp if!v !"p LT- NM L 0 M 6 -11% 1 5 L A N 0 9 y lye MCW "AVI. LT - H !-I NEW HAVEN HARBOR C, 'ANNEL COA$TAI '@1ENERCyYWPACTFIANNINPP New Haven Citv Plan Denartment June. I II. THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY IN NEW HAVEN HARBOR A. OVERVIEW New Haven Harbor, a major petroleum port in New England handles about 15% of New England petroleum products receipts and 50% of Connecticut receipts (Table II-1). In 1977, New Haven handled more petroleum products (as opposed to crude oil) than any New England port other than Boston and was the fifth biggest handler of clean products on the eastern seaboard. With about half the petroluem storage capacity of the state (Table II-2) New Haven is the major petroleum storage and distribution point for a market area extending throughout Connecticut, western Massachusetts, and southern Vermont and New Hampshire (Map II-3). An extensive network of facilities and supporting services has grown over the last 50 years to serve this market which until recently had been expanding repidly. Table II-1 PETROLEUM RECEIPTS AND SHIPMENTS IN MAJOR NEW ENGLAND PORTS AND NEW YORK, 1977 (IN THOUSANDS OF SHORT TONS) Port Foreign Domestic Total Imports Exports Receipts Shipments Portland, ME 13,272 -- 4,351 646 18,269 Boston, MA 6,119 1 15,017 2,427 23,564 Providence, RI 797 -- 6,350 352 7,498 New London, CT 58 -- 1,226 1,044 2,328 New Haven, CT 1,661 33 7,405 1,009 10,108 Bridgeport, CT 690 -- 2,085 88 2,863 New York, NY 25,303 107 63,320 32,749 121,480 1 Includes "local" receipts. 2 67% of petroleum receipts and 92% of petroleum imports at Portland are crude petroleum destined for Canadian refineries via pipelines. This trade has declined considerably since 1977. Sourse: U.S. Army Corpos of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 1977. 4 BENEDICT .7'Acres 0 Bj) 115,00.., me. H A 16 A T, OA e St. Dix Se ices'. (30, 2. Acre 60 'Bbi /1 29 kNICO so; 7.9., Acres;. Ic .0 TEX-'ACO' 0 BbIs- es- r 3"A.Acres7i 52' OB S., 85,000, Bblls@ WYATT' '"0' @'MOB,IL- GETT It 3, 1.2.8; Acres. . i -Acr A V.9, es, 11,455,001;@Bbls 49' Is. - - ----- GULF 90'000: Bb 8.2"Acres', 588,,00,0: BbIs.. @1 T-. A@,.D. JONES- 01 4*.7'Acres@ 44 ARCO 465-,G BbIv- 14.3,Acres@ 782',000 BbIs-. 110, IEW HAVEN TERMINA.L, Acres 00; j 1:5,000 BbIs. f EXXON PIER EXXOt\ 38.0. Acr MAP 11 1 STORAGE CAPACITY IN 1,839,,000:.Bblis. WATERFRONT PETROLEUM TANK FARMS, NEW HAV EN HARBOR COASTAL. ENERGY IMPACT PLANNING-GR jW. Actes New Haven City Plan Department 000 BbIs. Scale: I 1000' June, 191 i -@?- U. 1. PIER OK. FAI HAyg AS S N RON ENTAL S C --ELMCQ G Ic (0) AC.0 '.9p'!L WYATT G @E TT TT YY' GULF T. A. D.JQNF-$ see FEW HA ARCO 78, bbls NEW HAVEN TERM 114AL 0 T; 9' Q EXXON PIER 00 MAP 11 - 2 STORAGE CAPACI /-EX. NON-WATERFRONT PETRO, NEW HAVEN HARBOR I's 9,00'"o COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT New Haven City Plan DepartMq U. 11. Scale: I"= 1000' U. L PIER - :@: @. :, @:@ @: .,!-@ . . -:1 :1- .- ...... I . ....-I-1.'. 1-1--...".11 1-1--.1- 1-1-1. ,--. .. -- -...@.. I,':, 11 , -. 1-.@ 1. - -....., @ @.. 1. - I @ . :I -. @. 1, - :.." @---- 1.@ ..I.... : .. -. -- .:.:: :: '' ,..::. -:._:: ... '' - - ... -..,..:,.,:::::.@:..-.,,.@,::@..,; @.."'. -, ". " .II -4 -... II .. ::: ,.,:.,.I .@ "@:,::@:; 1: @ 1,I : ,... ... @.....47 . .. [email protected] . - -....F. ....'...., 1: .- . ....I..... @. I @-. @ @. @ i:-...-1 .1, ,.. - -@1: ,. .1 :, .s :i:@:::. @@:@:.@,@@::::@:::,: :@:::i:@.- ; - 11-@[email protected]. I 1. ..... -, .. ..- .. @-. , [email protected]@@, .. .I ,....... . III ,::@: ., .I ,,: - ,@@@.@. @.. ,: .. @:, ,:@ ,;::.@@:..' ::::. .::,i..@,@.: I.@... - @,.. @. - [email protected] ,..@.:-,-.1, @,:.:... [email protected]..,...1 ..-:.1 11 .1..-.@ 11 ...@... @::.I .. : - ::I'. ..: @ , ! @.. ..-..1I...,@I.@.@.... .. ,@ .1-. .. @ 111,.--,...-.1 , @. , - .. ..., .1 .1 .: @.. .1 @ 1. i;.-:@:,-. II. . @ ,I.. ,,..,-@., I.@-.. - "I...@.., .;@:.-.. -.. .. .. ... @ . ,.. ,:.::.. ....II-.,@..@ I..::. @. : ,, :@. ,:. .::. @ I @. '......-.:- @, -. .%...... ...... ...-I -... .:: .1 I......I... ,".. , @ -. ,[email protected], 11.@, .- @.. ...::: ::@:i::.:.,:- :: :: .: . @_: ., . ,:: ... ". .:.::,:::.. :[email protected].....@@1, .1...I:., ''....,:. ,@ ,I .. I. . - [email protected].@. @.. ,@ : .@ .. I.-. I1. @@::@@;@ %,... . ..I .. ..I.. .1-I..:: : ::, ...,.... .. :-..@: .:::.., .. ..1,@, @ @.... I. II...-I.@., @,::-:: :::.::: ,: ::; :[email protected] ... .. .- I-::-.::-,.::,:@:.-. .,.,:. i:: -.@ . ..: :: :,.:....: M:@ @ [email protected]. - @..I. -.. I.1.1- :@@- . ,'. --..1. , @.: :, . ,:: @.@:@ ... @ ..,11 -.... - -::-:1:.i;: .11-1 -... -.I.- -],-::::X@@;::,::..:.: :'', @,F , ''... . .. .......- . -. .: @::: :.,:::.. .::.:: @. ... I - I...I.: @: : - . -- @ .... . . , .. .. .. . .1. . [email protected]:.:_.::..::: ..@I.. -I. @.@.. @@ @ ......" .,II... I..I.:,::: ,I :,...11.@. ...- . @., I I-, . @.-I..I@ ..1.1 I :.., ... @. . ..@@..--:: ..1. @. ... @,.@- @ - @. -.. .1 ---: , .,.@.,, .@I @@:@:,:;@:@;@.@:::@@.@@:.@@@..:@:@@@:...:@.,......'' .. .., I,I----@@.. dd-- ..@, I ,:@:@ - @,.-@;: @. .- @--...--... -.... .. @[email protected].. -.1- @.:.-.-, @... I.. - ...- @-1.,,@ :... I..'' .- .--.... ...... @ -..: :..I@ [email protected].. Ii.".1 ., .. @.-:: @,.:: : -.@,:::..-.,:.....:: --@-. .1I... - - II": @..:@@.. ". ,:- . @. .....I411111.. - ........ -'.:,:...:,:, ::::::.:: ..,::: - .:.:::! -'. - .. . .. . ,[email protected].. ...-I...., @ 1"....:.I@II . . ,.. ,. ..: @.:.. .. ... 11I- I-.@ @ -...-- I. ..@.. .- ., ,-@ @ . @ ,, I @. @... -....@.. - --:-:@.::. .. -@I...: .:... '....... I'll :,- .@. :.-... ...'! '. :-:@:-:,.::.::- '.....'. @. . ,, .,:: @.. ... .. -&'- ., -:*::::.:::@:@.::. ,II.-::@ @::,::-. @:::@, .. ...I-,@ . @ @@ ,@ ..... . -- 1-:..- @....1-1 -1- .-@- .I @ @ ., -.....'. .., ...'.. @:.::!-.- .., --,;.:@ ::.,@...:::..@:", , I - .. 1. .. I , II@-: , ..:.....' .... ; ...., I...@. ..,.@.. .. @ I.. .. I..... ... ... ..,II.,. ":.:: ,--::@;@i::.@@:@@:::::@. :::.1. ..: @::::@ i.:::..:::@:.,.: @::...., ,- ::..I1. - 1.I. 'I."... .. I... I I...... .'-i : - @--@.. . -'..,..:.:-:- - @:.,.,.@::@@@,@:@..@,::,@@'.]:@.'.. ..I...I ,... @.''. 11 ...-F.-l- @.... -:-.:, 7@:,@ @:: .. I. .. ... @. I I-- -11-11 .: .....I I I.... . I... - ., -.1- ---. - ....1. ..1 1. -@. -.. .- I., ,". . @- .. I.. .. -1'. @. I. . @... @.... I... 1.1- -- .. I,-.1. -, - --. -.......,.".*- --.: I.: -:: @:;@':... [email protected] - I-- ..... - .@'- -: @'.... ---.- -..- .1.-.:, -::,;::_::.;,.:. -:-'. -_:._X .: ':,.,::;:!j:j, .@I-- . . @... 1. - -: I@.. -.....::: ..: @::::._: --.-'....... .., . ..-.1 .. ''.111 ..''. .. - I...": . I - -1-1 @... .. ---,@@.. @, I.. 1. :: @; I.... .X ..:1:,;::::,:,..-d ::---:@ .... ....1..1 ... - ---- .... ...I-1.1-1-1 .....--..@I....: @::@ -......:': . .. .. ... . . .... 1. . .-.---.1... . :- @.1-----:,::--... .--....-.-. -. -::,:, .-- @ @... .. -... ".''., .... -... @.".....,.,.:,..:.:.:..,.:,.,..,.........:.:.:.....::".:,@..::::@ .. . 1, ..... . I.. - -- -,- @.. : :-.- -::, @ -:-, @:::@:::::::::@::::::::::::: . --... . -, - @. I ---. @.. .1.1. --.. , v "............- I -.. --- :: I.. -.. ---- . - -. . .,., -.'-.,.--- @ .. @- :.-: .. @. . ..@ ...... . I - . @, ---. @'".. I .I I - -. I... -...''. . [email protected].... .. -.1. I-- -..... ......I*::. :....--..-, -.: . ... .. X:::::.j;.".:: ,. ...-- I...... , ,.1 I @,-.. -...@- -@ ..::: I... . I . ... . @. @ ,. I I @ I.,- - @. @ . -.....'....., , I @. I I1.11,I.. @ 1. .. --..:..,.. 1. ..1- ::@@ :@@::@:.:,:!.j: @:: ,:, i::]@@..@ i ...:: @ @:;-.; 6 @. --- -... @ .I @. -- .1 .1. I... @ ,... ... -.::: %,... -. ;,[email protected]..., @... 111111- @.:. ..:@ ,. ,1 1. 1.@. .. ,- -.1 .-- -, 1. -1. 1. . -:.-- .::::.:::.:::;::". ...11-1 -.11. -I @..1-....1. - II-.--...... ::::-@i],::, ;.:. -I .1-1- . 1.@.: 1:- . ,::.: . 1. -1:.:::.1 --::l @.::@v @.-*@:.:@:.@@..::@::::@;@i:@;@:@::@@:@@..,.. .....-11 . I...I... . ... ..: ... :-: ....:. @..@'1::,:::: ... :.:.: *:.,.::.:,,::.. -@ 4.1- -1.-.-w- ..... - @@. :.:..-.@:..-,.:- 1..I@.....'... @ . , @.....,..,.",@...@@....."...,...".@.,@.,.,.,@.I.@ ...-I .@: @,@:@:::@ - j@j...... -.1-1 ... . .. -..1...%......--.- ...... . ...Ala. I--- I.... ... @. ..-:.;::-::::;:::--. I0 a.. mons. ..::.:-.:-:@: @::::[email protected]@.@::@'',..,.:,.:.:.:::..:",...",.''.:,:@......@:0, . :...":,@,.:: . .I.1... 1. '. . :- )6A- 6:6 socom; : W..@@ @I I11- 1. -- @,@.,: F,::::X:,: . 1. @.. .V.@ I'', .::::::::,:*:@:::,::::::::::::,.:::::::,..::@.@.::::..:.:.::::,:..::::@: .-.--::: ., , :, . .. --... 1. -.1 , -,. ::...- -...''.. . @..... -. ... I.... I.- 1. .1 I . @..1 -1- . -------- ...... :@ ........ ,...'.,.@@.:.....,."...@...@....,....''.,. . ... - .-* @::::::.. @:-I.:,::@:.:::@:::@@:::@,@:::I.,::::::::@:,:.! , ,::-:::-::::::::::::::..::,::::::::,........."..:..... ..-... @ I @ 11-1.1-... -.111 I . . ... ....... @I.I-@. @-, .@::@::."...:::::@.,@"''''@%''. .:_::::_:.::::::::: 1_::7 ... - 1". ...",.:''::::,::.:::,::.,....:.::., :::::,: ,-:. @: @. @ @... - .1I..1. , 1- -.-. ::, ,:.!.:..: @...@:. -.I@ ..I...--"..... --..--..-.-- .11. . . .... -1... @ 1-.1."'"..."', I-, '''. .,. . -.. . 1..@.. @. @......@-." @, ]@ j::,.::x,:::,@:@.,:::,, j::::z-_,.:@:-::@::: .X........ .@@ i::::j! I': -@.::.::@:'-4.-':, :..: ,:.. :@ ::: ,:. -.:-:-:: - - .1,11....1--l-4 - .....- .. .::::@....... * "......'....b: . :- @. @::]::,:..-::::.;-.1. .--- -.1-1-11. @ .- -1 .I,. I-- @ .1.1 ..@@@@:::ii:@.,..::..::@@@@@@@@@@@@]:@:@l::@@::@@: :: - , -.. ...: @..@... .. .. .:..---;..., .%.@..,.@...@@:...:::::::::::::::: .0..'......'-.1 - I :,@@@.@,:. :.:::. .: :..@'........,.......,:,:,.:..@.".:@:::::::::::,::::.::::,:"..:.:@@ :@i:.@@@;: @*1 .... .I , . @......1.1. @:::@:.@::@::.:::..:..@.,...,.@.,,..@:".,.. 1. .. -......:-.-.-. . -. ., -...... -...-'..@.@- @.I., 1:: , .- ... ---@f -:1.-.--- :@:.%:::@:.:.::::::":: -.. .11.1.@ 1:-.:-:1: @. -.@:*.@:.::@@_:::::..::_ ,@ , "...'..1. . :- @.. - -.@. @.. ,-..- -... : @!.. ::,.:, ---- ... I @ - - --.---.."@::... I ,. I... , -::-.--.-..1- ......... @ % :.-, I-1.%...--1.. 1-11::, @.1:.:.:::,@,:.::.:..:::,:.",...-@-..:,[email protected] .1 @- .F...''.1'....'.. @...., .... . .. ::::::::.-..."'.- ....-..::::::._:-- - -.. "......-.2---, 1-.1. ...@...@:::.::@::@:@.@:1,:,:::,@:@::@,:@:]::.@*:..:,@@.:....,.. ...... ... ....... I... -:1::..:.,:-...1 ---- - .. .....'', .1 - ,1 I @ -@ , .-:. - @::.::.::::::,::.:::::::..@.''....,[email protected]@, I. @...,.,...@@...'@::,::::::;:::,....@...........@.......'@.".. .- , .. ...I.- .. 1. -- - 1. ..-'..1- -.. @- @...---,::.:..,::- IL .1. -@., @.. -..-1..-.-..1..1.- *@@@:@:-@.@@. -.:@@:,@-.-.. ;-- -,@:@ ... :,::. ..::% ::@@::@@::. I.... .. ..----,----.I-1- @..,.,@.::,::::!!: -.:@. ,."... I-.... -- I. ...@ ... - ''.., - " : ".:,.. @.. I... ::@@::@:,@:.- .: @, : :.i .....@-.."..''.., :::..::: , .'. .- .....-..@ I'l- .: @i@@ ,:..@ .:@:]@@:- -...... .....1-1,".... ..,.Ii:.@@i@::@@:@:@@::@@@@@@@l:.::@::@::@:..@ @.@:: , 1::.. . :::@-..'......'..'... .--.-,-.'1.% -1.,@,@,::::i..::@::@:::@...]:::@]:"I 1:..::@:: ... -.1..... 11 I ..-.. @... I....... .-..- .1. @. . [email protected].., , - ::::::@.. .j:j . ........ - -....--.....,- ....-..---...--. .. ...I::, @@ , I :-s-- ..... ..F..-.-::.-: ..@...@...,......,..@t.:,.:.:::::]:@:@@::@.@:@::,@...]@@:@'..@@:,@.:.,@ ... ......... I..@..":.::::::..,........@"......,.,. . @..'....''. ..... @.. @ @... .... @. - ., .....,. .I - ---... ..., - -. .I I... . 1:4 . ..... .- . .-- :@ @ @:@: ::x.:@:.@:. @:.@I -11-1---l........, i---.. .. -... @:-.,::.: - ,:....,..@...."....@'.@,.-....:: ..... -..-.,@.@%,.@'I.Il..@.....,....,,......,.,.:.::,.@ I..:@:@:]@x::::,:::. ..... -:,: .. .. 1-1. I I.-: :,:- ...:..,[email protected].@.,.....@.@..,....,."::@:::....:.:..:.:::@:::.::,::::::,::::....,.,., ...I I.I. ''..@...., :.... - -.. ,-.:... .::::_::::. @ -.. II.I - @-,-- .... ".@....,.@..,...@....,..,..'@..::.::.@::"...IL,.:::::::::@:@.@,:,@.:.::..''@,@.,@.,..,@I -.:.: -.:,:,::::-.-:%-F.-.-.` .. .... I.. @ @: -.j:,:.*...,@,:.::::@::::::@.:,:..:.::.: @@.@,.@:.@:::@@.@::.,:.@..:::@,::: @":..:.-::,. -:,::,::: - -.. .. .1 - .-.:@.... -:4.........I.- ----...--- -I.-.:- -:.: -,...-- -: @--- ,-.. - .. @ -11---11. I-- @.. - .-I- .1. .- -1-, .. ::,@: .1...- .,... -."...I.I., ,-.--:- @I...@...... 1.@ % @... . .... ..1:::-:.:.:.:.'.@:@::. @@, ,. :: -.--..:..;.:.. .--:- -:@@, ..,. -I., -... - . ,. @ ...-.-: . ....... @.@-: ,::., @: -%X ,":.:.. -..'. .:::@@.:::: .-;.- @... .....,,:._.:.',.- , ....1.1. ..--1.%-...-.-..% ...'..,, @:.. .::.::: ... .I1-1- .....'..-I.".. @,-..@. ...- I.. .... .... I!- -X -.1 -... ...- I.. - .-:::.: @:.:, *..:- - .. .. I I .1 ... --- @ I,@],@-.@:::.@@@@@:@i@.,]@@:i:l@@@:,@:@:...@@:@:@, ):: @::j:::.: . -............'........."..., .......... .... . .. .:.:1.-.1-X-.. -...;...: ,. ......... .-.. .1 % %.... - @....., , " " -...,I. -,:, : I.. .:::%:.:. .-..'1-..-.1.....1.. I-, -b-4-1.1- ....:.:.:. ..:.: ..- - -@.: , ''. I .- .-1:!::::::::.@::,:,:::.. .:,:::::.:;:::::":::::: t .. . .......I........ :;: ,. :::.. ,.:.,::: ,@: : @.,: :@:-,:-,:. W, . . . .......... :...:.:,.-::,:. ,-:%:::::::,:@: @:]:,:@: @:] @:@:.: f: -......-..."--..-' -.-I., @... .1 @.. ---.. --::;:::X::,:::._o:_:. ..-d.---.. --... - 1. I-- ...'...'.., --.:X::. @ @ ,- @.... @.. - I @ -.- @. .1-..: - .-...- ....... ,@..@":....,.:::::.....:.::::."..@."...,:.,..:..@@-- ,.::--:_ .. ..... 11 :@.:::::::@:@::.@:.:!;::.:.::..::::,.:.:. .... - -:..", -..:: - -":::: .. . ....... @. -'- - -:- ... -.1- .6---. - -%-.@:@:@:-.::@i@@A\ I 1. @. .@ .. .-- @. ---:, @:.:" @::.::.::.: J.: .. @:]: .'1..--...-.-.. ...%......... ...- -....X.- .1-1-1 - - I... -. -.... @ . ,::.I-, -.. %--.- -@."%......--- -:. ..--@:.@:@-:::-- .:, - @.. - --'.... .. .@@:I,:::.- .,:,::: --,@@.-. @..i I -.... 1. - I.... -- - -'...-I..... @ -.1 *.-..-. .-.- @- - .1. I--- - .-I., ::-:-:@@-@::-.11. ,.,....@.."..@....@...................'@..'@..'@.,..@.@'..,.. .:: !,::.,: -- -'...''....-% . @, - -.-1 ..1 * .. . .:: - 1, .--- .@. '1-1. - . @ ---.@:-::: @,::@,@,I... ''. -.1.1. 1. @..... - I @ @ -... .... . ...-....... .-:-1--d-1 .. ..... @. - .... .. ...... A] @. .1 . .1 @ --- .I.- @ .. - ...''.'....@@ @ .... ..::_ .. :@ ---.- - -....1.11- -.:.-:-:-;-::--:.. --- .-,.- .1.11 .... - @@::::::::.:.:.:.-,. -1- . .@ I I,:,:., @:_::::::,::: -::::::; @......,.:..::,::@::.;b:::@@@...,.,,,,@,,....@@.,..@.,,@@.....,.,..,....@.,,....,.,.,,,..,, .,.,..--,.- -..... -. , --.-...--- : :: -.11, @I@ 1. I..... - -.1.1 -:- -,e.::., --I.I... .... .. ......@....,. ,.@I.... @ -.-.,.,..-,..I --.. @ -.1- --. @.@. ... @ I... 1. I-, ...- .1 1. '--., I'@ .1 ... ,::::,:I::@:.:::::::@@:.::.:::@::::::.::@..'- :::.:::.:: --.1-1.. .: ::::::..::::,.-.- '-:: ..:,:-::.:,:::- . -... I @:, .I I-- @ 1-1- .... ...-..-.1 @...,."'..... , , '':. ,. - . . @.,::. - :-:,::::,: @:,:::@ @:; ,......,.- -.@..::- -@ :-. @I @,:@@::@@@@@@@@@:@::@@@@@i@:i@-.@. .- .,@ --l'......,-.... 1--111 -:-' .. @. -.1.1-1....- .... 1. 1.I.@,I I - @ I... @ ,.'.. -: ::::., --.... ... -I I- .. I.. A: I.. -1 -... , -1.,.'. , - :*.@...,.@.@:@:..'@:::::.:@'..:,..:.::. 1. 1-1-1- ... .. --.. -:-:::.:::_,.. 11 ''..".. ....,-.I'... . -1.11. . :-l" . - ... - .... -- .-...... @ :::@:@::v@@:@].@@. 1@:: @ i@@,::@@z:::::@... -.-.... ............ - --... . 1.1-11'..-..........@.@,@.,@...@.:.:::,.."".".''...,... . ...., :@l:,::,::::::...'@l.,.":::@::@:@:,: _:.:::. -.1 ,. I I-..--.2-1. . ---::;:,:::::@:::s .''...': :,::,:::.::,. -.:-:.@@::: -.. 1. - @... ....".-I., , . ---- ,, @ @: @:]::@::@:@ @]::@ i::@@i@,@,@:@:@@::@: a., - * "...`,::-::: @. I.......". @ .......I.-I. I---.:::.. . .1-1-11-1......-- -.d-::: - .. I ... , ..--,*- @,:...:,:-.-.1:::_: ,#,.,.,:,@...._ --...--- .... .......... .... * - , - @ ''. 11, -1. .:@. .-.-.1-1:- .::.::,.:,::;:]:::@.:::::,.:.,@i,:..:..: .::,. . @,,.@@@@@@.@@@@;@-.@@i@@@.-!.i:@i@@:@@@@@..@@@@:@@.@::@@ :@,::,@,.,.,:..,@%..@....,..,..,:. -14 .--.@ ....... @-. lx '.... ,:::,::@@@@@:,j:].::@:@j:@@@@@@@@,@@]@.@@@:ii]]@@i::@@:@@@:@:. ,:: X:p.:i .1 - I---- .....@.... .. ..--l-I...-b. ---. :@:@x:@::: @@,::.:::;:,... @. 11.1,.- ..... ....... .:.:.:.. :-@::. I I.. - 11 .11. -1.. @ @. I,.... 1. -- .:: @... .,:::-@. -:@. ... ...'%.1..-.....F'..- ,:::::.@:::.:.@. :::i.:.:,::..@.:,.::!::::::::,:::::::@.,::-:,.::......-- ... . -... - I...-.@@@@@.@@;@@:::@:@:@@@::@:@:@::@:@:@@@;:@:],:@:::@:@ i@::.-. -.......- ...... .@--.,,.---@-:.-.,:;:.:.:_:@: . ,. ,@ I -.--.- @ I-- @@@.:@@@:@@@@:@@@@.;@@:@@:@':@@@@:,@l;@@@@@.. .. I.....1. --11-1- , :::''::,::,::::::@.:::::,@::::::,:: I -.-'1,..1... --....-@.. .--::::: 1- -I- ..@@,.::.::,@:.@@:@:.,@l:..:::i@@:::@:@:i@::@::@:].i@.:::.@:...:.,::.:,.".:.@.,.,@.@..,..:@. [email protected].@....,..,..,....@.@...@...@. 1.1-. .-I.. '.-....,...-.-. ...........1-1-1-.....- I.. I.... @..''. @]:@:::@::@@:::i:::::.@ .... 11 ... ..:::.::@ - ...'.4''.- .,...,..,.......,..,..@.@....@.... .@ :::::-.:,::::::,::,::::@..,:@:,@..:...:,.:,:::::..:.i.;.,:@:,.,....,.,. .... . -...:::.-. @...... - @. @.. ::...:,:.:.:;::, --....@I...... .-1-....1.-..1-. -'i. .. I.. .... -.1-.-1..--.,. ... I-- -1. - @....... -,::-.:::,-':@.:,:_ 1F.. ::::,@::::::::@]i::,@:]:.@f::::,.:::::@:::::..:,. ...'........-I...- t I.... ---.- ,,* ..'@@.:@:.;i.:.;:::::::::::,.:.:,:.@,@.:.@:::::::@:; .1@..@'...:::::::::":::@::.:.@::.:],:",.,.,:: :.-- -:::..:@x ....:.: .......... -., . "I.F.- - .. :::::::::.:1... -11-1 ,-: . . I -11. -1.1 .-.. :.:,::..@:@::......::..:.'::,..::::@: *.'..,..`..-.. @:`:@i]:@:@.,i:@i@@i.... -::-.: --.. @":]@:@:]@:@:..:@:@:::::@:...@'...:i@@i::@@@@::. 1. -...'.... @-.....-@ .... : .i]:@:::@,@:,@@- ..:::. ............... ---.I.. - --.. ::,jj::::_:::-:::: @:.. --.@, ,@'.-- --..-..- ,.,@..- ... --, - j:::;::::::::@ @_:,i,;:::@@, :,::::.@::...- -:...-..-@ . ..]@:.. .',, @ 1. ..,.,...@'...,.....",.,..,..@@.@.@:.:.i@@*@.**@:.::@,.::@,]:@@@,@:@]::@@]@@.*.]@i. . ... . .. ., :-., .... _..,._-__ .,:. .. , :-.::: --:: .:. -:::,:- ..:@-.@@.':@:L-:;- :::::., - *...-..... .... -, :j:: ..: ::;::..:::i:...:::..:::@:@:...i:@..,:,:@:@...@::..::@ -.- -... .- : '... --- ... ... .':---.----., - -.. @. ,.... - ,:::,:.:,.-,:,x..., -- ]@:]:@@:i*@'i'@,@i:i::@@.::@::::::::,::::,::;.:..,..,., .. .... . .. - *-- .....@.....@. .. ... .. %::@:,@@:@:@i:@@.:@:::@:@..:::.@.:.,:.. .- .@@@@@@@*,.:@@..:@@@@::.:i:@@@:@...@@@@:.,.,.@@@:@@@@::,::::.:: ... :.-. .... .... .1;::::: - . . .1-11. I 1. -.1-.11.1. .,....::: :,.:: -::.:.:,::.:. ..."@.....-.--. --.--.......-.. -..-. .. ............. -@ -...:..--..:j::@:@j:.::1: @A@:::, ..@'....".@.@...@l".@.."......,...@@I :::,: : @,.. *''. :::::-::@@,.@:, @ .....".@.@@.@'....''....,.''@....@.,......@@:@@:@:@@@:.i@@@@@],:@::@i:@@@,@@ @]@]:@]@i] - @., a .. 1%. @:@@:::@::..::@'..@@@.*.:,i.,..@@@.-i..]:@@@@:::. - ; 11 ,. ---: @:-::::..:::,!: ..: @::.-.: ..... .. .. 1-1.1-1. .1.1: ........'... . ... ---"... @'....@.,.,..."....,...,....,...@,,@.@.....,. Ct@.::.::@:::@:.:::;:::.::::::::::--- @:: ..... ......-...-...-..:.::: -:::X,:.:.:.: . ... ... .1 @.-:::- -:1 .-:.-..@:@]@..@i@.,.,@@.".@@...'..i'..@:@'-.@@'..-@@@.., - ''...''..-2-.. @ @ @@ - [email protected].:::.. ...''. ,.: ..,.,.,.....@..,....@...'@.,..@..'@ ::-@: *: @:::i @--:@-]@@ @i@@ AIN e:::::::::::::@,@@@'.i@.".@:@..:@:@@.@@@@l'...@@:,..]:@i@.@@;@@@....'@.,..-..@]@...,.I:..,.]:@'@@.'I , - * 1. .......-.. . ... :::: - "",:....::::.@@'..@@.......:,@@..:,:..:::::: I... .1-1 :.:,:...:;::: -..- ::: : @:@i::. @- ,:::.: ... ...... ...... -- :::,::..*:::::,:.@::::::::::::@::::::::@i'.::,.::@@@::,@,::::::::::;..::::::.::::- -...:.".. - I. I @-1-1 .......... :: 'Fo'..- . .... .... ... --, . @@ .@.@:.:...@,@:::@....:@@.j:@@-@:::@:@[email protected]:::_::_.:,::.-. , - --.. FAw.......I @::: - -- - ...::.V-. .--@. ......@...... ....-.%[email protected]:!:: ....@.,@.I...''..@....,....@.:.:.,.::::'':::::.:::::::::::.:::,:. @**-.... I.. - .: .I...., -.- ,.-I... - - -. ..@. .:.:::.:@:::i::@.@.:::::@...,.,...;. -...... :::.7:.-;. ---- . ... .... ::- ..,....-..-- -. -- @. 11- .11 I-,. .- 1-1- @ :1--..,..-.:-x .-I.- ...,,@:..... 1 I.- I........ '.,.,.,.@ ....... . .. I. 1. ... ,::,:1:: .. @ ....... .. @". -... -.-,.- @''. -- , , -.. * *@ ....-:, -11 @. .1.1.1 .--.... --..-.-.-%--.. ..- . "-... ........ --.----------' -... @''''. .-.','%[email protected]%..-- @.......-...-..'@, ......... .::@-.- .:,::: 11 --.... .... .. ..........-I.- ...... . I.....@... .:::::::::@..:::::::,:::::!:::::::.: -::-.............,-....... ... ....----1,....1 :-:.::;::: .:, :: ..... I :-- ... -::.o..-.:-.--. -111.1 @... -..........-I ...... -- ..... I... ., 1. :: ...,...,..-.1 ...... . .... - -:. . .@:!@@:@!@i@:: :.:.:.:,:. --. . ., ....... . . ...-I.. I--.,[email protected] "..".. . ..-... @@.,@''..:::,::::::@:*.@:@@@:@@@@.@@:@:@:@@@@@. -.... @..''. - : .@@"....."..",",.@@'..,.@,.,@.. -. , , ,@@...@@@@@@@-.@:@..:@@@:@'@.l@@..',:@@..@:..,. ,...-....,__._,._, ":--,'. I-' @.... .. 1. ---: .1. ..@@..;:@:.@:@ ...::::: :.:,.::.::.: . :;. @-... @.-,.-.,.. @.fl@@:J, @. I.-, -b.- @-- ..'v ........... .......... -... ,. :.---.......@... .]:,.::":::."i@.,:@]@@l:.@@::...::..,]:::I:i@.@:..,..:@..:: .1 ............. @...".,..........,..@.@..@,@......,..'',...@'.....I --,.--....,., .1...-.::::::: - ,.@:@::::i@i@@l::@@@@@@:::@:@@]@@i@@]@i@i@@@@@@@@:@@@t:@@:@@@@:..:.,.,.@@ .... @-- -X: ..:* -.:..-%.:.....-- ..... I.....II ,::@@ 1-- - . - .... -.1 ...I...I...... 1.11 ...;. . ....... ......'...'% ... ........Z: -.... -, ....: ,.:-:. ..X:::.::::- " :-:., ,:, x:x@. . - ., -, .-- ...- @I....- :: @. ....-...... ... .-.-. x,@@:@:@::::@. @:1 @@:@:@@@.:@@] @@:.@'. ..,.-...-...'1,..-1'..., I .-.....1- @... ..,...-:@. -- @1.1.@....,.,@@'.......@.@j.@.,@@,@'..I... I - .:::::,..:::.@:::::@..,:::@..,:@:.:.,.:@@.'..@.@:::::::- .. --.1....., . .... I --.. -.1... 1. @ - 11,--@ ::@:@::::.!: :,:::---....,...... @. .. . ...... ---. @.... @ I...-.... I.... -@........'.."...'... . @@:@@;@@:--:**:*- .. ...... ,:.:::.:::: ::o@-: I @. ""..,.@.,.@...@...@'...,..."@'...,...'@@........ .:@:@:-... 1.1- ... .''....''.- I@--..'--- -.... ......'-.4 .'1,,--%,-... @..,.....,.,.@...,........,.@.:..:.....I*- * *-.. -.-*:::: @.. ..1- ............@...... I I......,... 1. I.... :..::::.::::@..:::@@@:@..:@..@.:i:: ---- - -.-.. .I... . -..- ... . .... --- .... --.@@........-.... 1-- @::::@:,:::::::...@@:::@::@::..:@:@[email protected]@::@:,..,..@...@.,.,.,....,.@.,@........@@-.@.@.....'@[email protected]..@...@,.@....,...'@.- @.-.-.. ,....,.ER GMT::. :::-:::*...,.......'@.@....@...,...,..,....."..........F .1 -- ...-...... .@... "'...,.M.... @i@@@i!i@@@@@@@@@@!@@l@:i:@@@;@@@@@:@:@@@:@@::@@:@@::@.. .1. :: @.-.--.- I.I...1-1-....., - -.1-.1- - - ,.. -... ... %-, I.I...-.1--, .... -.....'.'. : :--- ...,..@....,...'':*'@@@@@@:.@@@.::@.@@@.*.i@i@:@@.- - o X.,.......-1.1-1-1-F..'',---..1.1-.-.......1 .: V..'... . ,.- -.--l. -X.:: - .--.@- .., .. .......-'....-.---- .. ....@..... .... @@.,..,..".,,,@.@.@@:::::..::!:::::::,@:::.::::..,I,,.,,.,...@.@,.,.@ I1.1- -- ---'-1---.--::- -.--..-.1 @j:@:: - -t: ::,:::@:@:::.:@i..::j:.:-.]:j.::::.:@@.::::::]:::..@.:. --.1- --, I-- ..... . -....-..... .... .... - -. 1- -11.1-.. @ ''...'.'..-..,.-@, : @:: @ . I@. @".. [email protected] ., @ :-.-.....-. -::. @@,@i@@:i@ :@- -...... 1. .. :: -..,........-....@........ 1.@ -@ I ..- --% -:,:::::: ''...........'...'... ........@..@'....,...,....,...::.@.; .. .. .. ,X....F., ... :::. .i@:@;..:@.*@:@.@l@:@:.,.:i.,:@@@@:@-.1@@..:@...*@:@@::A@@,:::]@,.''..@...'@ *...-4..:-._-.-... ._ .... " @."...... -- .--.t -.-.-..,.,.'1- -: . - .. -1 1-1. :,:-,.- 11 ....I,,-:,:@. -.- --... --- ..... I.... I , - 1. - I...I. ...... .1..:.... I.... -..:...:-:.:,:@. -- ''... 1, '- ... 1. . .. - @:=.@..:..*:::....:]@@@@i.,.@:@..:@'..@@@..:@@.@:@@@.@:::..., I.. ... ---;:: :: ..... .. - @. .... --.-1-..----- .. .........,..@........,.@...'@.......,.,.,.,@...@ ..........@.... .... .@.@ @:.:.'-X.- -.1--.- , -,. ;::;:@::..-, .1, @@..@@'...@'.......''...@'..,.....@...,[email protected] ......... ...- ...-- [email protected]...... I., '-..1..-..'1.1....1.1 ... .................-. ....... ... ..:. ----..--.---.-...- , 41-@....... .. 1. @....... .. ::.@:.@:,@:@,..:@:,::@.@@,:..:,:@@...:@@::A, . ::: X::@ ..]@@...".."..,'..---,. @[email protected] (-:,..:-.". ..... ...-... .. @. [email protected] : ..--...-..,:.:"::. . ., I.-NEWH -1- : ': -...:..::.-..1- .11. ....I.I..... ...@: .*=@.@:.,..@..@@i,@@@.@-@@@...@@@]@@@..@@@..,.@:ii@@@...@,:..,:::,..,..... *..1- 1". -*- I...., 41*@-%: @i@ i@]@@@@@i@.:@@@@@@];@@@@i@i@!@@@:@@@@ @@ @@@.... I I..... 1- ... ...-.... ..I.1:-:;-:-:;.-.._@...... :.:.,.. .... - - -, .@..,.@[email protected]..,..'@..,..'@@,.@...,...@..@.....@.'.....--.- ::...: , AIAPS041RIE'*.1@.",...,.,...",...."."...'@..,.,.,: -:: --... @-....., ... .-'.'1,.,.,%-. -,-::::-::. *.:. ::::.@,]:::::: ,..::::.::.. .. ----"@.. .: - ,* *,@ ,.1 -.. @ - -@.. I,.-... ...... :1 .=,.:,.*@i:@..::,.@*@:::.@:@,*.::..@:@::@@:@:@:.-.@....:@:.@.".-"@..:.....,.. -.. ..... ..... I..'@..."..".".......,..@.,.,.,.,..,.,[email protected]...'@.I..'@'.....@,@,.@..@..,.@.. . - --.-, .- .:.:.,:.::. I. . ..... @....:,@..:,:.;::.:::..:.:,:...... ..... -.1-1. 11 - I ....@ I.M......-I.........1-- -....... [email protected]%. .."....@...::::::::.i:::@@:@i@::@i@@:@@@:@i@@@@@@i@@:@::@@::I::.@..*,...@......,.@.'@....@@...@@.,j.,..,2...".......@.,.:@@:@:.,@@:.:.i@.@.::@::@@]@..:i@:.,..@.:@l..@'..,.".."@'.......'@.,@1.1@'.1.@".,..il..@..,.:.,:.:: -1-1- .''.....,.- I.-I-1- -..- . [email protected]@.. -11. @ @....... .. ,..... _... ....- ...... .-. --..-: , . -........... ........... ..... -.- .... -.11.1- -.1--l ... -.1 . ..... .-... 14@:@: -:.:.:.:.j:-:..--- . ...... @'..@.@,2,@@....,.@.......,.@.....,... ..''..,..@.",.@...."@...,.,.,.,.. .... 1. ... ::::.:.::::: - I ... ..- -,% ..,.........,....@@....,.@...".... I...... '-..-...@'... .1,1--, .-I .....-I.. @. @..... -.1.1.4.1-1- .........I@ - @ --:: . . . - ...........I....@"...,.".....@...."''..'@ .. -. I. .1-1 I...... - :'; ... ,. .'..'',-, -@::,i:@@:@:::@:@j:@:@::.X.,...'@...,......,.,@......,.@.,..@..@......@,@I .''.....- .-I...'....'. -1..,..----... .1.-....-....... .... .. -- *,.,.....-.-. @ .-F.I., I... -.-... @.... ...I.----.-.., ''..,.,...@....@..,....@.@.,@@..,......,....@'..@..,.,...,..,....... --X::-.::w:::-.-:::x.:-. '' , -x:i:@@;@i*@:-::@*: '.@. ..... .. ..... . ..@@:.:@@]@,@@:@:.]:Z::... ...:. --..-.-.-._--. @. .. @....... ...., .1-0 ... --.-...--.. ''......, 1. ''.....,....,@...,.,@".@"''.''.... ..........,..,.,.,..'',...",..''@@.I. .."%..%@.....-.-..@.. . @ .X....., ...... ---... ...'...'... ...... @ ... x@X..:,::::::::::@:..:x ---.- - -11.- ....1.11. @.,.........,."...."@.",.,..@......@...:@:::.,:::@.:::::..:::..:::::::,F:.@:,::......'@@[email protected] ... - -.1-1.'.... - @. -... -'....".,.-, ......- -.....--...... . ::: .............'.......... ... ,....,:-:,I--.............'..@-@@ @ ..... 1. . ........ . ...... . .@ ;:- :::@:: ...... - -.1-1.:: f.::.:::::::.::,: ::::_:,::: ,@ ..-.- .......... - I..., I @. 1. @.... .X - -.1 I ..,.:.:.:":::::O.::::::::@.:::::.::.,::::.@ ... -- .. ... -..."..'-- . ........ ..,.......'@.. .. ..........'...'..'.....@. . I... :.:.:.. "... -..-..--- 4 @...... --. @......,...,.,.@..,....,.,.,@..,....@.. . @..........@..... ... %.1 : ,:::: ..:, . ... .. @.. .. ,. @... 1. 1.... .. .. .. - ----.- - -:::- @::- ..... ... ..-.- ....I...... @:. * -.-' -X..,- ..,.@.'@..'@..,..@'...@..:..::::: -, ..'-* [email protected] ::],@@@.@:@:@:@@@@i!@@@@:@@:@@@@@::@:@:@.@@@ .... .@- - %. @:.,::::....-.@..:...:.:.,..;.@.@ ......---. . ..... : :,:::::-::, @:: #::::::::- -::::::::-,::::@:w,:..@...... ... . , . ::- , @. ,. . ."........1. .--, @ ,.-....-......-.-.. ........''. @.@.@..@.@,.,...@...........@..@'I.I..,.,.....@:,:. II .- - - -.... 10.--.. ,-. @@...... -1-1... .I.I.. . ....@... -.1- .... ..... I-- ... 1.1-1-1.11--l- .... .- -..-...F.41.@-.. -.... 1..I-- 2...''.''.2 --'...,-.. -@ I @ I 1. @. I '...'. ... :::::::*::::.,...--.: ..... :-:.:.:- . . ......... - .. .----,..-1..-..-. .. @ -. 1.1--.1. -.1. 1. -- .. .... @ I......." ........... --....@...........@... ...'... I.. I - @. ..... ...... .-I, -.-..-,.,@'.--: - , @... ...... -1 ....-.... . .. -.. @ -....... .% @ @ -.... @ - :::: -......----- -- -.--l-I..... ............ --...@...,..---.,. @--, . - I. --. ... - @....-..- I I ,::::::: -- -, ...., Z:: ..@,.::::@:@@.:i.:@::@..::....:.:*..*::@::@: ;:::::.:@,:::::@:,.:::::,.::::;:,::@@ -...,F.1...-- .,@...,..;...,....,:,I:::::,::.:.:...::..:::..@.."..,.,.@.,@%.@... .- ---........ ".....,.-I.I.I.- . A---.. ..-. .- ,:.::::::: I-. .. :.:-:- .....@.... ;$:::::.:i:@@::@:@:@:]j:]::@:.@@@@:@@:@:::@:::.,.]@,.:::. .. ..... :..:::. a.::.:::::. @::::::.,.::!:::.::::,::::::::::., - * @::@w ... @..:,...::@..i:@'..'@.:@]@i:]:.@.,@:@...'@:@@:,.,.@..."...,... @,.".. @....@ ........ - ,.."...@..'@..,...@.,...@...,...@@ .... -- ...@.@'...@@... - .d...., @@R:UTLAND,.: .:: ...,-...... .I.. .1, b - I :-::-.:@::- .:;,: -.-.--'-,..-... . .. -.....,...-. ,@ ... ....--....-.,@..- ... ... -11-1-- -.-. -. 1. @..@:..=:.,.:.*.,:'.,*.:..::::::.:@:..:@:,.:@.@@:.,:::::::.:::: ..:,.::.:::,@:F :::::,.%:@@@,:,@...@,@.,....@@'....,...@.@, ----....., ... 1.1 ,,@... ......- -... ---l... -. ,@ -qL:::::!:..:.::::::::.,]:@:.@..,.:...:..::.::::.i.@.. -..-...,...-.%....1 %.: .1-1.1. I @.-,; @. 11 I II I:."'',.....'@,.,.,.,.,..,...,..''. ---.... @--.2- ..... - - [email protected] ... ---@:. :."a, . @...-.... ..--.-. @,.-.,-- ,, ,:: -::::::*.-..... ..'..'". --... %1'1..'@'. -...-.1-1...... @--.. . @ @ @ I -. -- .... 1. -.-- .... @. ... . .... @.I.... , .1. @. ....".- . @,..""."..'@l"..."..@,.@'...@@[email protected]..'@ll.,@@ @... . .. .. ::::::::: I -::::::.::.- -!::-,.,.,:.;:::: ....F., -.1--"......, I ..I.I.. .......- , .,@@'...".@."..,.......,...,...", ,@.=::. .-.1 .-.,N@::::,:::::@.......,.,....,.....,.@...,."...,."I ....".....@..%".@.,@@@@..,....@'.."@.@@,@%@@,@I,@w @::,::::::@::@:::,..::::::@..:.,.:,:::.1----.- .:::::: ,:. ..."@.,@.@....,..,.,....'@,.,.@...,...,.,.",.@.@ 1. --::::::::.--::.-..1...1 . .... ... .... . .... -::]@:@]@:@::@@@, '::@,f- .."...@..",,.,.@,.,.,.....@..'@ - ...."'..''. - ::@:@,.:::::@ . ., -:.: :::.-.1"..'...."'..., , @ ..:.@,:.:.:.:.@.....'@......".. ,:...".."@.I.:::@::X.::@:,:::i..:::i:::@:@:@:..@i..:::i:]:@:@l:i:.....@ .:: -. -.- ----@-%....::-...- .... @. ''. .--.. ...... @.::=:::::::::]::I,..::::::@..:@:j::,.@:@.,::j:.:@:]@:@...........,....@.@......"........@"..'@..,....@".@@'.....''...@.@. @@..".@.@@..W,::,.,:;@@..::@:@:::::"::@:::@:@::::@@@@,*.:;@:@!:@@@@i@:@@@:@@@:,;!@@@@@@@@@@:@:@@t:@@@::!!@@@j@: .. ...... ... I....., ....-... - ...,. .........'........ ...I.... ,. .. 1-1-1- -- - -......... . ....... I --..... I - 1-1.4%. ....,,".... -!@ @ @ ---- ....-... .-1..,.,.,-.-- . ...... ..@..::..:::::.::::::,@:1:.*,[email protected] -...''.- .I......"........, . - @. ,14..--1-1- .... ...-. @... .. .... :. 1.-.. ..... A.'', .- -.... :;:,;:::.::.1 .. F : F @11.1... @ -1.- `..:-..-.`:,:-::;:::.::;.:-:..::.. -.''. .. @. -.."'....'. -...-- .....:-::-::1:.:,*: ..:- ,:.:,:.,.,@..@,,@.,.@...,.:@::@:@:@ :@@:@@@@@@@i@::@],@@@!@@!@@@!@@@@!:@@@:.;@@!%@@@i,@ ,::::::...::::::::.,::::::::.::::.::..::.:@::.:.:@:@:@@ ......,.-- : @ .:::.... .. @ .----` I.''.."..,.. -1-1.1 ...... ---, I:- -----,.-..--..-. -::: - - -, , , . ..::..:.:.:.::.::::,::::::@@...@.....'@@..@..,...,[email protected]............. -:::.1-.. -.1-111I.- ...--4. ......@. . ., - 1-1.11.1. 1 - , -.. 1...-.-.1..'--1 ..,..-....-..@'.-%-. @...,...@@.@.@...,.,.,......,.@.......@ .....1-- .. .-... - ,...-.....- ........ 11 -.::X,::.,- . .......--: .1 ....... @@",...,..."@...".....@..,.:.. .. -.1'.. I):::i:::::-::- 0::::: ...., 1-1-1. -...... I... 11 ...I... I...,.:::.:::::,:.:.:::@:":::;.: . ...... ... @ - @ -. ::: -@ ... -... - --.,--, ,--- @I.''..,.,..'@..'@...,..'@..'@....'@....,.@... .-.!:.,X--....:... :. .. ..- I,@@....'..-.,.,.'-, ....... ....'.. -@ @.... [email protected]...... I . :....."...@.......""...@....@@..... -- ..... - -:::@:.:.. -1':..--.-.-.. ...., .-.1--.- .. @ --.- I.... . .. .- . ''..:..:...:@'@.,@.,@..@...@.@,@.@..@..@'...@..@'......@ .... .. -.1 I.I...,..,...,.....................@..@ ... , @ .-....'@..',..@ ......-..:1.- . ;:-:::.:X . ..-...-..-..-:- -....1-1 .... ,.,.,..@,.@.,...@@,.,..,.,.,....,.@@. --- ... ...2......, ... %-w. ....,[email protected] ..:.. ,! .'.....'......- ....@ - @-- . ..... -.. - --.-.-. ".,. --,,..,..--. --:@:- .. -., .. ...... --: ...... @-.---- ..-- ,.. - ---- ...@... -- ............ -...-..;-...--.... .....@@....,..@....,.....,...@."..., @... -....,.....: ....-............. -... I.. @. @..... -..-----.1 . .- -.1.... I 1..... - . .. @.............. -.-... %, -.1...I.X..... 1.1--.1-1- - .-,%1,%.-.1' 1-1, 1. - @... .. . .... .... . . ..... - I .1.1 ... ..:......%,.: ....... @..,..'@....''......@...,...,....@ ... ..... I-%, .......... -.-...q:,...,-.....(-: ... 1- .........- .1 --% ..., ... .....@.@....@..."....@.@.@..@...'@...@....@l%-,-.-.....@........@...,@.@....@.,[email protected]............,..,., ::.1. -X::-XX-..-:@ ... I.I.- .... I - , --@.....@.... . .... @... .1 ...........-........ .. - - -...... @@...@....,.."@%"..,..,.@..@@'.....,...@..."@.:.@..@@..,.........@,.@.,.......................@"......@.,@ ..-I.."..-.............. .I.I..... .-- - -. ..... .@.......... -- ....- ....-.... ...,...,.%-........,%. ..'@'.-...'.'-....., %--- .- ..--:.:.:..:.:@:.:.:. @@.,.,..,.,..,%,,@..'@.....,.@.@.....,...:,:.... .@t'.........''@.@...".......@.@.,@,,@...@-.,...,..@ ..... ......----..-- . ,.... ...j@,:.:..:-.:.::-::::.. ..: ......... 1-1-1-11 ..... ..... .@. ...... .-- - ,.'...- .................. 0@ --.-o ........ - -@ "....-I ... -- ... @.@..@.,.@@.....,.,......@.....@....,.,.,.,...,.,..@ . ..... --...1......,....,..,'- .......... @.... -.....1- ......@......@.... .. .-.1--'. --- --. -, ... --.4--'...'.*-..... 1-1- @-... .,,. - ..... .::;::::.:;.::::::....:...........@'.......,...- -...... :@:@.%,]!::@::::@:@::;@::@@@:@:@:i:: -...'@::::.:.:.,.,..:@.:''@.:::.:::- - -- - - - ....,....... " --.-.,..-...- - .1- @.,@.......,..'@.""..@'..".....@.,@.,:.:.:.- ", -,..@,- ........ ,,-....-...%,-.. ....... ..qq. . .. . ..............,..@..@..@.@..@......@'........@.......,.''.,. --,y-.- ..- .: .............. :, ..'... --.: ....-.....-...... ...... . .... I.. . ...- ...... . ......I... I--, .... .. .1.1. .......@...... .,- ....- ......I........ .......,.....q.- .. w. :-.....- ... @ ...,.....,%,..@.@...@..@'..'@@,.,. .''...-...........@....... I........,:. %. - ::::. -.1.1'.@... -.@ .. - -%I.-I-1-- ...... @."............,.........@...........,..........@..',@.,.....: ::::s::-.------..- ,...@'...@.......@.@".....@.@...,..,. - b..-,...,.....-:,1 ..... ...,I... , @.... .-.... -.-@ ......,-...... . - ---.,......:..!... ... [email protected] . ...... ......--l- .............. .@. -..., %- . ,..:.:[email protected]............,..,..@..,........@.........''....."..%"@.@ ... ....'... --- ..'....-.... :.;1'.:. ".--j@ .... .....@.... ---. ..... d @... @ ....'... .... ,. .....--:::;--.. ..- ..... -- -...:.:X-..::@ ..:..*@i i*@:@:: -.:::;:.-:-.:.;:::::::@ ... ... I..........."....... @@@@@:@@@*iii@i@@@@@@@@@@@i@@@@@ -.......X.. ..................... -- . .........@..........@........@[email protected][email protected]... --. %:., -..-.:@-:.--- - -- - ::::::::.,...,...,.,...".."..."..".@.,..............@...,..".".@@. -X .:.::. ......'' -1 I-.- .-...@-...."@. I....@.............. @: - - X; --4- -.- "...@..,....@'....,.......,........,...,.,...,..'@'..,.. ...,...,....,.......,......,.....,...,..@...". . .....1.,.,..-%.-.-,.- ....... .. [email protected].@.....@.......,...,;@@@@;@@@@@ ....... I.I@.@..@..,....,.......@'..,....'@... ...-I...'..."I'l -.- : ...'....'................'.... @....... - * *- -- @. .....1-1.1-.1 .. ....... '':: -"i@@.@:.:@@.--@:@. [email protected]...... : .:@.: ... -.. -... ''."....,.......@...''..@'....@...........@..,-...... @.!@@:F:@@ix@111L . ...... ..,:..,..",.@@'...'@...@...''..,.', .1. .... --.. . ,:,:-: ...I.................. ... --%O... ...........'X.... @..-.- .... ........'@.- ,@'.1'.@..,.,.,@..."@..........,.@., ': I.....: - @..... --..- -.."x -..-,-..',.-:, .. , -..... ......-, - -.-- -@ -!. ........ .. ...... - -.."..,.@ol.@.@.."..,...,...,.....@'......,.,......,....@'...,..,....,..:;..,::i:::i:::...:::..,.::::...:::::@,::::..@::g..:::::.:::@:::', @.... - ,.-.@.....%[email protected] -....., @.......,....-.. I 1. I - I. 1. @ I. -..,.@.... .:: .-...,.......'@ ......@...... . ........ , @..... . ......... .@......,....@.......@'.....@......@...@... -.I..... ............. ...... - I... I............. ,........-..,.....,.-. .@@.@.@........,..@..,....@@.:.:........I .... -.11-1-1-1-1....'-.1. ... I-- ......@.... @. @. _ @...... @.:....... @. @.. .......... ., - ..1.1- .... -1- ...,..",.,.,..@'.......,.......@.@ . .....@....... . ............. - -.- @.. @ , I @. @... -;.. @-......@.... :::,::::::::::::::::::::@:.:::::::I::::,.:, .:::::. -.-:-.X:..- ....... 11 ...@.. . ...... .-@ -- -.....@.......... .... ... @.@..... @..@'........,........@'........@@.......'@'..........,.,...... -.....@... .... ...@.... . . ...... @. @I.... " . .:: ...:: . ................ . ...... .- -... .. - @.. .... @ @..... ..@.., 11- .... ...."..'....--- @-.'--.- -: @:., .. .:::,...-..q...,%.: -......- ''....- .... ..... @ .:::.::,*@*.-,::-.@.. ..:@:@::.:::::::@::.:@.,::.,:..::.,::..,::I -......... ..F. ..:.::...:,:::::,:...@....'@..,.."...@.,.,.. ..... .1. . I -V!:: i*. , .': ,-'......"...".. @... - : - -@.@'.." . @.@. I..... .-, ,...."..-%... -....@..."....--,.- * * .. ........... ... -,-.....@::,* ** ,.:...--.., --.. .:::: .... ::::..::@..@:.::.::.::,.:...:.:@I .... I......''...@@...,..,.......,.....j'.@......,..,..'@...... I-- .. .... @....... @... .- % @. --... ..'@....'@..@....,.,.,...,....@..@..,.,..,....,..,::@ :::::::.. ::: - .;... ....@... -...,..-.,.-..,..@ ... .............. .. .@.. [email protected] .:..:..-,.,..:.,...@,.,..,.,..",.."..,.....,...@...."..,.",..........@,@....... X.- . @ .- ::::. @ ''............- ................ -- ': [email protected] . I'% ,, @.. ...%-- -... -.1 -,.--...- .. .1 ... ..,:. ::,j:::::@: ----.. --, -1-11'.. I- -%.:@;:@::.-----. ....- .1.-.:--.--.:-::. .,.... I-- .1 1-.-.1--.1-.... .1. --l-I... @I1.@... .......... .- 1. @. @: I.... I ......... I.: ,: 11 @ -....4-..1 ... ... @,.:.@@!@@i@::@:i@ @@.@i@:@@i @@@: @@; @@!@@;@:@... ::-:::@ 1. @ .Aft;@:@..-- - ,*: - , , ,--..- ................ .. ...........@... .. "... -.-.--- - --,- ... .- .. 1-01.1 .::@X::X: :@:1'.j:.:.1:..:---- .:.:@!,::@:.,.,.@'...,..''...@...@ ...---,--,,- @. -.11''. ... .. 1..1. @... I -1-1. @ I I--"* @'..i @.:.M..:...:::@::::...,::..::.@".:::,.::@:::@..,::..::. .--.,-.-..%, . @.'.....,....,..@.....'@....,.,.@I - I I.. @. --., ,.'--. . @. . , . . -1 .I.---%--.. -.....-@@... @:. .., -,. @. ...,.@...'@....",......,...",@ .....1.1.11.1 I.I........."...,.."..,..@'....,...'@,,@..",..@@.@,@ .... ..-..'.....--.-......1 "..... I....@., 0-, -.. ...,@.@.....,.:. . .... -... ....-...... ....... ... .I- ,.....I... 1. ''......-I., ..... - -..... I-. -...I......-... ... -I.. -.1. .@;.X'...":: -.... ...- -11--..-......-....@'. ................. @%",...@'...- - @. -.1. I @... ... !@::-@@@: [email protected]::t -... - @..1. ...'' ... -.@...@.@,.@....'@......,...'@@...'@.......,...'@......."...@. ... :@l:.@%[email protected]@-...@..............,....,.:, : : .: ...''......".",-:@. @'. -1. I. ..... . ,. :,::::::::. @ :::X , . --@ .. ........ @ -,:@i@@: -!;i@. -!.-' - @..:@ .MANC'HESTERI! @:@ . .@.@:.*.,@@ ,:@ I-:.1....@ .. @ @::i@@@:@ii@:@@@ :,-- 111s.-I......- ... ... - : I,-, .... .. -.- ...... FF.- ...... 1-1-1-1- .... .11 ..@.@,.@.@.@....."..,.@.....@...@..'@.1,@..........,....,.-.1-1- ... ... I @. -.............@ ....., ..... :.:..:.: ... ..:::--. I .......@. .:: .. - @... @. @... ..... - .. I -- ... -`.-.,-.'....-... -.2-.-I ...-...... -'.@@I .. @. 4.1.1- . --..... @",......"...,..,....,.......'@..,....,.. .:.. %.:.:.. ..,.."....,..'@.;.,......@.@.................''...,..,...,.,...,.@....@ ... ...... --.-@..... -1. I'@[email protected]...@......,....,..,.,..''..,.,. . .. .:: .,-...--- ..:41-1.1--.1.... .,@..-.- 1"......... - ... ... @:....::,:.:@:.:..,..:,....:.:.....@ . ..... -.,:"..:-:..,:.:- - . @... .. ..... ......@.... ..... @ ,... - - - ". @... -....'..".." .. . .., -': -:-- -.1- ... @ - -.. @ - @ 0-1 ...I... ,:-.::::- -. :.X.: ...@.... :::: %:- -".."..." @: "..".., "....".- .. 1. I I.. %. ,....: 'X.....: @. -........ @. -.1--.4...)1. -.-.'1,.-.,., ,-1 1. -1-1......'.... - . .....'....'.. .....1. ..q....-. I @.. . .. ..... -1 .... .. .- -.... - I ..@..@.@.....@......@......'@@.@...,.'',:: ... .-.----.. .... . -.- -: -............. ......@......@.....@..... -'.....'-.@-'.....: - :: :-: ::::::::.:::: ::::.- :::..:;::%. ..1. ... .....''..- ..... '.....::1:::::-::: :::: :::: : @: %, .,..% -:.--:.. ."...", .... -.-..... !::[email protected].@... - --*@ -, ,* -. . .. . ,::::::: ... @.:.:,:..@..@......@@.@.....@@..,....... . -.1-1-1... .....1--l- --l-1- -@- .. .... I::.....::: , .. ", - --... .....-I.. ---1-.--...---..-.1..,. -1 V.. I-.., ---.,.-...:q @ @ .1 -.1.1 .. .. .. :.......,......,.....-@..:..-..-.-@-...,[email protected][email protected],.-.-@@ ..........@.....@........ .:_..I* -1-1 .. -..........,... ..: I @.............. .... _::::: --;X: .I.--@--' - - :: -:..-,%. ;.::: -- - - -.: Of." B-RATTLEBOR@1 ..:...:;.::,..:-x.:--' .........-..-::::@ &@I - @'.@.:11.,,..@.@.,:.:.:................'@..@....@...@..,...'@....@..'.....@...........@...,.....I .....-......I............ @@-I. - - - . '...-...... I..,...,....'@..@....@'...,.,.."...,."[email protected]...@@I .. ..... 1. -.- ::-:.:-@ -. -.1 I-- ... %-....... ...@...@.... --- -- .... @ -- @.1 ....... .. 1.", ",.@ @ .::::@:::::;:@'O.::..:::::::].::::,:@:::,-:@,::::@: 1. . , ....,.. ... X:@.,.'. -. @... ...@ ..@::.@:::,@@:..::..,::.@:...;:;.,:..,:..:::@........@..,........ @.......@...,@.I.@'...@.@........@.........,[email protected]..@..,.,@.@...@..".......@... ..., ...'....'.., .."...", :,..: @@ @,:i @,@.:@@;:.@::@:@:@:.,::-:_. .1 . ....... @.-:: I................ - @. -.. -.. @... -,: @:- ...- ': - -.J@:::::.@: @:@::@::-::::@_::. 1. :, -:@----:- ... -.. @.. % - @, @... _.. .. : '::.. -- @...@... . @ @. ----.- I.... @..I... ... .. . . ..... -.. - ..:.@-, ......@....@..... .----.- -...@....... -.1--.1-1- -..@'..,....--..-......... .:,!@:@:x:.::@: ::,:-,.."..."........,..@'..@...,......,.@.@..".",@.,@@". '-.-..-,,-- 1. . I @-..... - I... ....... --l'... 11- @. --...... ::::::::I- @.. :@- -...'........'..".. .,.,:@@:..::..:::::..:::::::.::.@.@@ ... @... --. ,.. - @ -.. ,. .1... .... ..:1....--1.@--- . , @- .--.1-1-1.1".*-1 @ @ -. .. -:...:.-.:..:: X_ .. .- I..... @.I, , .11; ..... -2 .1@@.,@.@.@,.@.,....,.@.@@''....,:I :. 1- @. - ,:::. '.--.... ..., ......-.- @ ... @..... .. ;-.@,...... ,@ I - @ , 11 I I-- .:.:. -. -.. @ .. .. ii .@..@:@@'...@:@.,.:"...:@..7@i...@.@.@@.@@.....@..,.,...ALBA@NY'..@...'...,..I..''........'@..:. @-. @... ......,.@l@:@iii@@!l@@@li@@iii@@@...... . . ......- ........'''... - -........'...-- . ...... -......''...'........ , .W.-.4- ., ...I... 1. .. - , @.-...- I... @.. @. @:i MASSACHUSETLTS@ , , I.. ': @: .... . .-.... I--@ - -....- ..1. .11, , , :X --.,,'.. ..... @............... - @ @ ,. , . "''.. ........-.2'., @ @..... -..... :: X: : ..:::::,: ... --;-I :- ---.- .... . [email protected]...... . ..... @::...-.-..-.. @@@@@@:@:@@@@i@@@:@i@@@@:@@::@@@@@@:i@@@:@@:@:!::::@]@ ......"..".....,.......'..: . ...... ---. @.. .. ...... . i:@@::?N..:@:@::@:@::.@:::..,@:@::.:@.@'.. .--... --.1-- ... - I. @....,......, @. ..., --.- -- ...-...--.1.@ :... @. - :,%. ... . .....@.... .---.- , .I- .. .. -... . - -.*.::I:- ...:......-........"..."... ... ........ @- ........ .. @,. :- @:@:: ,\ ,: -1 ... ---. . -;::X:::: - --.,--..-... -11 ....... . . ..... .@::-.:,.:::,@...@.: ..:.- .-@-. ..... ...%%'.. ... .: @ @@:, :-: @::::;::::.-::.. ....-I .. .... [email protected] -.., .@. -1 ........'...,","'. I ....., .--........-..,@....- ... @ I .... I. --...,.. ...--..-.....1-. - .. :4..: ......... . -.4 ...... .. -.:-::.:::: - -. ........-.... I ..- ... .... ...... @ ...;. . --x:,:.:.4,.w .: .-----.- ... %---.- --..- -.. ..-,-, ...@.......... -.1.. ..........'.....'...... - I... @. I.. I..... :.:..':.....:[email protected].. %V..F............I., :.;:@.. - .1.1 ...@;:::..:.:: : x4d- . . . . . ................. @.."..."%......".,@.%."@.@'...,.@ ....... . .. --1.. ,@, , .: 4-..,..,:::.-::x:..;..!: ... :., .......................-... O'...@[email protected].....@@..@'..@.@,.@..@..""::- ......... - .:: :::. .::: .:.::.:::::: ":: - I.........-... --- -... ....-... %-, ..,".."I.I.. I--.:::.:::: -.... ... . ....@[email protected]...... ..'..'... @...............@@.,..:.:..:,:@: ,....,.....:.:....:::..:....,:.: .... ::"....,..,.@..'@,..,.:;,....@........@@. -.1 . ..... ...I..:''%....@...@@..@.@"..............I .... ..... ......... . ''. ..... -.1- .... --. -... ... .......@... [email protected] ..... ;:@.'- !,..:]@:::.,.i::":i::::::::@.:@@l:::.i:i:@:....:::..- .0 @[email protected]@-.@......,...,.@@........@..@'..%@....'@..,....@....@@.@...:,.: ...-:-.... @,@:@@::::::@:@]:@::::::i::::::"::,:@*7 .. .. . .... .. ..I--..--.. .. :.:.:. :::::::.,-:;:. : :....'@......@....,...,...........,.....@....... ....-,@....:- ....I..... ...., .... ... .. @ - @:,:@:=@..:i@i:i:...:@....::,..]@:..::@.'-.:@i@@@@@@@@@@@.:.......@..",.@'. @.......@@..-,..@...:..,.......@[email protected].. ... @@ . ......... I @. .-,----@ .,-- ...I..... . ...,:...."...@..@.......,.......,.......".@,,@..,...,.@. .:.;.,.-:.:.:..]::@.:, .- - - - --.... @......@.......... --- ......@...... - - ... ...'' - -,..*. :: *ii@:::::.::.:::__. I-- ...@.... .....1-1. ... .11. .... .....1.1.1-'... I.II.......... I..... . ::@.@im:..:..]".'@.,.,.,:::@:@:..::"..@..,:@:i:i:.":@.::% ......... - I..... @.. @. . ...... .-.,.--,.-. .......- ......... ... ..:. - ... -. -1. [email protected]..,.."......,.''@.",.........,...."....'@."@%.,..,.. .. -.1- . .@:::::::!::::::::i:@:::::::::::::,::]:. .... --- ......... -- .....-.1,e....... .. ...------ ........ I.''. @.... .1 .....@-. . @:=@'.@:@.'@:'..:@*,:@..,::@.,::@..;:@@:@@..@@i@:::@@::..:.@ .: ;. @::.,...@,.@".......@..,..........@,.@......,..@........ .,:.*::.:.,:::::,.:::..,::::::::..:::::.:::]::::::... I... ... .. --- -I [email protected]..... .- - .. . .:,..".........@.....,...'@'...'@:..,:.."....@......@@,:..@......@ . . .... . ... ......... ... -- ..... 1. -... .- .- @@. @% ... @1.:---.:.--- ... .:-- : @..:.: .::::,.::::@.1,@.."@.".".''.- - @ .......- ...... ....:::.:@::::@.:::::::@@:@.::..:::..,:@..::.,.:@ .wz -.--- ... .- I @ ..., ......, -... ... . -. .. ........0.....@... %-.-, @. --- --- ..... --:; ....@.@,@'..@,.,.,@.@,.,...@..,...]@i@i,@:@:i@ -.X @:::::;::: .-- .... .......... @-...- .--- .......... .. @. I. .. @... I.. . 1. .. @.. . .....: ...... X@..,......:.::..- -, ....@. ... ..... ...,-.'-i@i-'.ii@ BOSTON - . -. ... .. %:@:.-',@.......... @-:.:, ::::::::::,:::.:::::::,:::,::,:::::,: ...".@,.,..,..,.@..,...,...'@.@ ...@'..,.,...@..@.@,.,......@..@ .-!I'.il ..- -, :- -.-_@..:.:.:--. [email protected].@..",.,.:.@".:::.::::@.I.". .- ''......,-...".1 . ....... - ..1.. @.... ... .. ... .::: .%.-.....-. -.. .:@:.:..:.,.....,.,.,..@,@l"..'@.@.,.@.. ..... : ::::- *@ ''.,......@,,@..,.,...@..,.''..@@..@@'....,."@@'.....@ .... 1.@'.1.@'...@,.@..'@..'@.@.,.@@...,...I ...I::.--..-, - 1.1, .... @... % ....X-- ....@..... @:`-: ...... - - - ---- - ..''.@@@ .-,.---..-.-..- ,- @........ .. @...... -.1- . ......... .@. %---.- -..,- ....@......... --- ..... :: @.. @..., ... 1.- .......... @:.:,:.j.:.:.@. ..,..."..,......,.....,...@.,..@ ,-.--@ ,%-...........,..T..-.:... oq- @%-..:@.--. @.:.''.''[email protected]....'@..:@.1l.::::.:.,.@I 11 .... .. . @@]:@.::@] @ i i@ x X @1@ WGRCESTER@ .,..:,::::.::.:::@:.::.:::".:,::......".,...,.,..,..'@... .:%i":..:,..::,@@..:.:-.:::;...:::.::,:.:...@.,...,.,.,......@[email protected]...@.@..@.@.@[email protected]: ::.:: :: - - - -- I..-__... ._. .1@[email protected]...@....''.,@.@@,.,..".O:@.@..@.@ ............... ...... .. 111-1.. - 1 -......I... I.I....,..,.@..'@...........@...,....@ ........ ... ---,--.-. - .@@l.,@..@.@..@,.@..'@.@.....@..,.......,..."..I ....... . :@.-,,.: .:.;.:.::..::.. I -.1-1.1- ...-.---.- .....@..... ........ .''.@.@.........@.....,.@.@...,.@.... .:.. .......-...@-.... @ -.....-, .:.::. @.. ...., ............... .".,@.I...,..,.@.,...."%,.@..@.,.,... 1..- ...... ,.,M:*..;::@:::::*.:::::::.:'..:::::.,:.!:.,.,....,.....,..,.@.@ 1.1, -, @...... ,.... ... :: .. ..-,.., .- '.....'...'... -'...'., ,.-'....-..- -.-@ .... . .. ..... --1 .... @. @. @. ..-... - @ @@ @... - - -1. @-@......@...... - .. @. .....@....... ..I... 1. @..-I...'.-'.. -1 .... I-- ... ... ..- .... @. 1. ,.. @. @....I... -@.:,-- ..... -1-1- .- -1-1 ....@..... .-...... 1. - 1. I @. - .... I. @ . .......-... -.1 ..... -.-.- ... ..... .... @ @.. .....-@... .. ......I...-........ ..... .....@.........@.. ..... . -- - -.- .. .... - , - -.1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1.-...@ .,!@.=:.@.:@:i]:i:@:@.@.'@:@::@,:@.,.,::@:::.@::..:,::::::: - -I-X: :: ...... @,.:-- .10-1 .............. @.,..,........,[email protected]'...@.....''...@.......,.% ...... ... .. . I.....-.........-. .. ...... I... - @........... .................. @ @... ... :-:.,;.:.:..: . .......... @ ...:... .----.--,-..-.. ,. @@ ... I-. I.. [email protected] -....- --.".....'.......- ... ..I........... ..".....- @.:::.M:.::::::.:..::::::,.::;..: @. ,.:::-: @.......@.. ...@..... .... -..@.. ...@...... @....- - - 4 ... ..... .... : , :- .......-%.-.-..:. -.::::: -:. ': ...@. ........... ...... .....@ 1. @ -.... 1. -1. ... 1-I.I.-I- . ... ... . ... -... @. : --.....".-- I.. 11 .. .... ...I.... .. .........._. .... ..@..... ,.... .....''..- .. .-:,...... I... -1 ...@.. .. ... --- .... 1.11.1.1... @........ ... . .. .... -.1. ....1.1-. * **** - ,. .-, .::::..::: :::: 7. .- ,-, ".@..,......@.@.........''...,.@..@.@ ;.@:@*..Iw....- @. -.. @.. I I dl--, I.. I - I 1. .-.1-.1.. ., 1- SPRINGFIELD -, - 1, 1. --F........''...I., -1-1- I....".........'' .. . . -. .- ... .. - , @... .... . ......@.. ........ .1 ...I.... . .. .1 .-- ... I .1 ...@... @. -.. @........,...,.@.@@@,@....@.@"..@.@,.,.. - .1. .... .1 I I @.. --... 1, @ ---.. 1. - @. -.1 - . 1-11- -1-1-4- ..---.-::q.!q-- . -.1 ........ .. .. @ -.--.--1 - 1. , @-.... .....- ..... .. @...., . .- .. ...... ...... I.. -...I.- .1-4 ..."...I., %-..-,.. I.-- ... ---... -1. ,.- .",..''@"".....,....,......,..,[email protected]....,.@@ .1- - @ - - -::@ --.-.--.'.,,-'..--, ..... ... ......,.F.- - -...........-@ . .. - . --- - . - -. @, I -.11 ... I.I..@ .-.:.,@ @-X,. I @.... .. '... @..... ........... . . .... ." .1... -.....@... .1-1- - .. 1. --..@'.. @........ ......... -... 1-I.-I., ...... .......,- @.......... .. .. ... .I- .1 ... 1-1-1. I... .@ --. --M.,@@ -L .1 1.4- ..''.. - I... 1. 11 :1.. ..-....I... @. -. . ....... .11 . .I :::@; ....@..... .... :.:.:.:-@- :"::-':,:,N W*Y0.RK:-.;:-: --.1--.", .. I .6 .... @...11.11.--- ...-N .-I.Cm.- --...": -.@ .Y:.: . . ...... @-": ,.b-, @ @ @.:: ..... -....." . @....@..... . .. @ .. ,. -..'1-1'--... UT-%,.jF.@ -. I @: @:::: @:::..:::::.:.::::j:::::::,j: . -.".."@....--. I.... .. I -...., ., I..II..... .. I.. ...w. - :, @ .- --- [email protected]. @11 ---- - ".1"c:@@i 4; ooe@l @. I.J., ......... ....... -% .... .. @..-.-......'- ,., I. @i-.-.: .... :..:..@ ........ ....... .d. @..... .. . 1. @ @ - - . .-,[email protected].,... '...'. @ .., I.::::] @. ..-., .... I I.... . .. 1. [email protected]: . @.....I....... @ .. ....... ....-- ... .. @ .. @. ....-I... -..-- ............@............... I''... .. 1. .. , ---. @..... - -.1 - ....... .-.. -.--....:-1- -- --- ... @ '-....-... ,-1--.1 .. 1. .... @...., 1. @ - I -:--.....,@-.@ @'';..--.,.,,.. .:.. i :-:::,:::1: ..... -- @- "'..'..''.....,".- -...........I* * *- -.V. -.1@@........ . .. ... -.... @.. ........ @.. 0. @ .I .. .......-.... ......-, 1-1. -1-1.1. ---.1- - - -... - -.... -...,..::@ ... ::.:@- ...1.1-1.1.1.1 1-1- 1. I @ - I @.... ..@. . .... ........ .11.11 @:.1, V..-.- I @.., .........".- -:- I. ... .- 1. . ..:,. -,: 1. I.. @.. @. .1s No.- ..,.........,.@.....@....,.@."....@.@.@............@.......@..@ ...I...I. @*::: @:.. @..@'....,.@,.@..@..",........@'..@@.@....'@.@@@''1.1.,.......@.@[email protected] ....... .@ @............ I..-...,:, : :.. ..... .1 -..--- .1. ::::.. .@:-::.. -1--l-': ............ ..... ,. . .. I.,. . @. @. ..... ..@.... ..@... I ..I @.- - --.- .............. 1. @.. I. .. @ -.1.1, ..... -% @--@. -.1-........'....-::. @-- ,...@@@.,...,.,.,.......@,.@...,..@ ...... [email protected] ...... -1-1- @ I I-- 1.I... 111. 1. @ @ -..--.,....----1 ......@... ... .1. -..- ....... --1--- -.- ... I...HARTIF RD, . -..@,.-...- .......'%.- 11%.. .. -.-....- ....... -.1-1-1-1.1- .. ...... .... ::: @ @::]:::: i::: ci@: @ @:: @:@@: @ @],@ * - .@...@.. I... I.,........- 141.....@.,.@@,.,.@ . :... ----.'-. @.. ... 1". .."...'.... %.'1,..-,..... ... ..@.. .."'..1-1-1-1-4. .1-11 .. .... I....,.@.............@....@........,....I ... --,.,%....-- .-.....-."....I.: ...... .... ......- ::::.- ,. @..'@.",.@'...'@.@''........'@...@,@..,.@.@,.@.........., @.,- ... %''. @.@....,@.,,.@,@,,@,,@..,.....,.,@,.@.......@ I -:@....:....... .@ .1 ..- --....-I..'' @-.1- ....... .-........ . - .. . . - ..... -:::. ,.: ... @ ,: ,::--1- -.....I.I.. ...@,.... --..-::@:@@: @:@,:,N-.,:@,,]:@:.::]:@@i;:@@.:@@@@@@:@@@@@., ''..............,.."@...........:::!::::.::,. .@:j::::,.::.:-.,:::::@ I...@.:-:1:1-.... -.'. @'. .I... I,.- @.. ..@,%'....,.,.,@.% -- @. @ - @ -..--...-..,..1-@I-- ... 1. .---.... -.1-1-1- ..-.-j--- ... - 1. @. I @ I , %. -1. @ . 2, 1. -1- - I-- I-- ,...........@...... ''...... .. @ , . [email protected],..- @. .... , .@---..... %., I-- I. @....@.... -. - -:-::::::::::"@!:, .: .. ... ....... ..-@.@@..,...--.- ... 1.1%. -1-1.1 -111-1....-:::!,@@;,:::,.: @:.: .1.;:_:::.:: . : -,''..."..'.. .- -- @,... ,, .I..", "...,-.1.- .: @ ,:::: ..-, .,.-.- @ --.- ... - -............ @ ..1--d- I..,.,., @...---.- @ @. @. ......@'.:.@ ..:.._.x.,..:... .1 ... --d-v.... -...... % - --- .1 @..@@.I..."..,.@.@,@."."".... @.@..,...'@.I.@....,...."...@.,@'. @., ........ I.... ...'...1.1".. -.1'.......-:1-11...... .1-1.-...-,.@. , @..F. -..-..d.-..- ... -%-.---....@'....@..'@@.I -@... . . ..... '... -.1 .... .1 .. . ..... -.11-.1-- , :.1 11 ------- ... ...... .@: ,: .--l-2--d- I-- -11 I ----....... .....-., .... .... . ..,. -....-..-- 1, --.1. ...... ...@.... @.""@.,@'..@,.@@'..@..,......@...,..'@..".,..'@[email protected].. -@ V, -- .11- ... ...-.-........@'.-. -... :': ::.:...,..,.@.,.,@@..,.@...'@....'@@,@,.,....@@,@..''@.@.,:::::::.::::::,.:7,::::.::::,:@:.....@.."..@.",.,@'.."@. . @-.. 6''. , :,.i_:.::.-..,.j.:-.:- .-, ... ---." ..'@- .. :.:,:.:!::::::::::-, ....-I....-. .. ... @lki@:.:@:.@:]:::::::::i::::@:@:,., - -1-1 -.. I*1. 11.1,I ----... - I -.... .. --:::::-:':.. -... .::.q." @- %-... %-.-...-.-1-- 1-1.1 I @ %-.1 @.. 11--.1-1- ...'.. .... ...... .,. .,I.... I... ...., ::: ... I.''. --..@.:-: @::,::.:: @ .. 0----- -.--:%::1. @-V -, @ --l-I......'' .1. - - I - - :.., @ ---.. --.....1.%... ....1---.. ..... @... -.1. .. .-.1. ---- - - - I. I .. -.... .... ..... -.. .1 - I -1- .1 - .. I---- [email protected] I..,.... ,...-- I... .-.@- .. @..... I... @ I...,...,...@l:.:,:.:,:...:::::::: ,......,*LINE: ........,..'@....@."..@...'@..'@.I"I .1- -.1-,.- 1. .- .. ..... @''.... --...- -.... --.I... 1- -@- I --...-.---- I'@.@....,...'@.."..'@...@..@@..,.....''@.J E-T ., .. @- @ I I-.1 --.- .... ..- @. - ....''I.- - :::-:.:-::::q-;:... .. -- @ - :: @-. @.I. II 1 ..: ... ... ...... .... -- .::: - . --. I @--- ---....-. .1 ......I...... ...-...-... 11 .1.1 ... 1. I.. . .. I .. ., @. @!,-.. --,.- ! , - , -,- --- --... .. . 1. .. .... .- .11 @....1. - -.1. I , ,. - @ @I -1-1. .. ::: : - ::--`-.-- .... %,.,...,..@...@.,...,..,.@.@'...@...'@....,...,..."..'@%.@..,...I'PIPELINE: .@', . . ''. ..."..wI -.... .. .- .- . . @....-1.I.1- .11.1.@... - --....'. .....- .. . ..... --...- .. I@- --. .. ... -..... ., -- -1 - I-, , @@-. .....,.,- - ---..-.,......- .- -......... .."..-.... I'@. ..'V... .1 .....'......-I... -- @.. .- -1-111- @ .1 ... 1-11-1- -.L .1... - ...... .- .1. ... .. .. - -...... . ..@...... .--.1I- @.- . .11.1 , - -.. -.-- ... 11 -.1- -.I ,.. .- - ,. ---.-1- ...... , :..::: ,. : : .--. @....@. @. @ [email protected] 1. -..i..........,.....''.."@:@...'@'. @: --.. -.- .:.-::"::,:,::-::-.": -....-I.. ''I.I.-..- -1-1- ... ,,&. .- I --.-...-...--1. @. @ 1,1- -::: -@. .. I.- @I I@- - .I :M .: @:-.:-v:- - .. :. -:::,:---- ,@!@, i@@:::@@@ i@@;@@,@). . -.-- --.."... @:,.. -- 1.1.1'... ..1- @ I I @ @.... @. .@.@'. 1- .@, ... - - @...,.1. 1-1, -.-... - @ -- @ I1. ,1. -.. @@@i::i;:@-,.. .... . @. I..... .... .1 -,.. .-" --.1 q-1.1 @.., :::;::::::::.:::;j:@::::,:A@. @.. @ ... .... -I .1. .''....- .1........ @ . ., - ,,. , 1. .1-::::@:441h @:@:::@@:@.::--... I.I..'.1-- @:!@@@@::@@@@@!:,@@@!@@@@@@@@@:@i@@@@.@@@@'. . @ -. t@ptop .---.:-- ::::@::@:i:@:@:::::@:@::.:, -. .- ...- @ , @ a I--. I ....., @:@:]:@:@::::@@:;@:,@:@:@:@@@@@:@@@@@]@@:@.:@@@@:::. .1 ,:...-.. @@ -. @: @ .1-m-%- - @ -:.,o,!.:-.-. NEW HAVEN 11 .1 1-.@ I --.1'. - - .1-1- . ... @ , 1. I''. I , ...- I.... -.4'...., 1141,@4'..@:-- @.'- -.-.1--.... I... , @... - .. @@ I. ., .1 =@ . @ ... @. -.. ..:.'::I . .. , .: ..:.: ,:... . 1. I -.1 I . . I @, @. -@... @@ : :".... 1-1. -I. .@@::: @@ @:: I.: i: -..- .-.1 I.., ..1.1.1 .... .. .... q.-.:..:- ... @ @q@d : :, , .. - @; : ,@:.,:..,:.:.:@,'@..,.@@...,.@,[email protected]..@.''.''..@-.@ . .... I .. . . ,@ @ @@ , - @ . " , " '-.4,:.,:.:,..-... i: . @. ::: -,- I -1.1'' 1-1. , ,,,..; :.:a.::: -:- - [email protected]... .1 -.-..@-.. -::,%,i. @:.@:@:@::. @.: 1,----.. -.1--l-I.. I.... .-I ......... 1, ..1 , . ,.. ...-.. . ':--..'-, @... - .-I@.. . 'I@@ll.@....,.:".@::@.,.,..,.,.,..,.., @, @ ,@.,-@ ... - @ ::.%@ ...,:,-, :,7:::,:4 @ @: :-.1 : @ : . .1 . - .. -.1 ..... 11. .. :4:,--.-.%--.. -,-.111-1 "@.... ...... .. . . . ,:. - - .1.1 @ --%%, - :: @..., ,I...1-1,11- I...... .a . : :-@ -.1'........-I . ,, .. I.-I. ...... . . @ @ -... .1 ''.- . , 1, -- - @ ....,._- I 1. "-14,- -....- ---.., I.. ___'...-- _:::_:::: . - , - --... I -.1- ..... -, - ,..... . ". , @,:. -. _F: , .:.. ,:.:.:::.:..::.:@.:, ...''.1- I ..:,... -..@ .:,:@@ .....@-, I... I...'.."..1. 1. ...- I.. -,-- :::,_F. , 7%% :@: @,:.i@, -@::@:@:@ @: ie--...@1Z .; I.''. .11..', ..1-1- . .... 1. -... @ -- I@. @...... V - I.. ...... . @ --@@:- dIv-:..- :: , -. 1:,,:-:@@:-@'.@..: I.. .1@ -:.: -.. , - @ @ . @:,:.-.- - 11.1.- I.%,@II I... .....- -1-1-1 .....,@ ;:! , .- - - - - @ . -II:- I I..... .. . .. .. . -I @I ....1.1- -... ....'.... II. -I...'' 11 .1 . ,. -'.I- - - .. . .1 - ... @,d::.:**w,::-....@ -.---,-. .-...--...-..,.. 11 @X . -1-1. .. -, , .. -11 . .. ... @.. :.- . -1. . . I. - -.1-11- ,@.,@:@,: ,. . @ - @ @ I,0-:. . , I. I.. -.. :''. - -,. . ... - , , : @..:: --.- @-.--.. @.11'. I :,:@:%:_. ,: .:: @1''.. @ @@.. 1.I I,:1- @::.: .....I..- - -q-1 1. . -.. I.. I. .. @. - -11 I.1 I -.1 - .-I... -@, .1.1. -1-1. -... @ .-.- I.. I @ @ .- I .@I . . - .....I.... .. I -. -I@.... - ,@ @ ... -1 .. I- I @ I- :I--@ .-- I:-@. -1-1 , .1, .. , - 1@.@ @. .1 @ I .1 1 - 11 I I I.. .. . . ,. ,. .. 1. 1. 1.I@.. , -... I I . I I I @ -- 1. I.''. :..... .@ . .1... .11o........-:- I... ;.- ......-:,: :::::: !_, ::: :@ 1: : ... @ I @ @ I... @:::@-,: .1 .. - @. I- @.. . I. -...... - @ I... ..- - [email protected] I - . U11 1 @@.,.. 1. @:] @:: j:: @:::I@.:: :-%1--...-. .. -.1..-...1.------ [email protected]@[email protected]@--.----.- .---.- 11''...LONOV ISLAND @_ :.@:: I ... - I @.....- ... - .. @.. -@. .: 1. II - -1 @. 1. . - @.,III @II .11. 1. @ --. :::: - @....1 . .1-1-,.:: :[email protected] - . @ -..II.. -I.. .- @ - ...:@: @ -.1-1 I., -- ,..11. .@ @I-.. -, .. I @ I11 1. .. - @ ....MAP 11 --3 1. @.. . .@.. @-@ @. @.. - - @ .. -@.. @.@I ..I .II. ...1 -,. 11 I ... @...PETRO LEU M'PRO DUCT'MAR KET AREA, I II . .. I .. .. .@. .I - . . I . I I I. @ ... .1 . --.. NEW HAVEN HARBOR @@fq . . @ @ I , I , . @ r.M! I . .I - .1 I.::, ::.:,: .I.. @ ... . I I .... .@ ...@ . ... . .II ?..@ @..@I .I I .I@I @I I .. .. @.I I I@... .I.I @@ .@.@I .11I. .I,1..- @ .@I II... I..II ,I@ @.1. I@ ..1 . - . @... I ICOASTAL.ENERGY IMPACT PLANNING GRANT . ..- -- @.. -.... .-@., .. -. .1 - I. -.. I-- 1. .@ -.-. @I11 1 ....:.:..-.-.-- ... .I@.. .I. . - .. @@.... -. .. . @ - I - 1. .,New Haven City Plan Department ...I@, .1 ....I. .. . @I.. .I . .. . . @.1 @@ I I@ @.. @ I.1. SLcale: June, 198*0 .I I.@ II-11I .1 . . . .. I. .II @ III .@ 1. 1.. . .. Table 11-2 Estimated Petroleum Storage Capacity in Connecticut., 1.975 (barrels x-1-000) New Haven as Percent of Product New Haven Conn. River State State Total Total. % Total. % Total % Gasoline 2.,3.88 2.3 679 1.8 4,,320 2.0 55. 3 Kerosene 70 1, 7 90 2. 1,057- 5 66.3 Distillates 5,339 51 1,719 47 10,588 50 50.4 Residual 2,000 19 1., 19 4. 32. . 5,384 25 37.1. 1.0,4.2,8 1.00 3,682 100 2.1, 34.9 100 48..8 Source: Connecticut.Energy Advi.sory Board, 1.97*5. The dominance of-the local. petroleum business by a small number of majors (even Wyatt, an independent., buys most-of'its products from Exxon.) is-an important factor in any local-or-state planning for the-harbor area... With va-st capital re:sources, and extensive control over al.l. phases of production and marketing, the majors are not constrained by the same market financing forces which govern local businesses. Agreements among majors doing busines-s in New Haven-may reftect corporate deals involving numerous facilities through- out the nation would rather than-objective market conditions in New Haven. B_ Operations and.Throughput 1. General. In. 1.977, the la.st year- for which. inf.-ormaton on receipt by product are.avail.abl.e., petroleum terminals in New Haven received 60.1 million barrel.s of petroleum products primarily from the Gulf- area and.Carribean refineries by ship and from New Jersey and mid--Atlantic refineries by barge. The major products were motor gasoline (24.6 million barrel.s) di,sti.llate.s for-heating oil. and transportation (19.8 million barrel,s) and heavy residual oil primarily for utility and industrial uses (12.9 million barrels). Lesser quantities of jet fuel., kerosene, naptha and asphalt were a1so received (Table 11.3). Figure II-1 provides a schematic presentation of the flow oill-petroleum products through the regional distribution system. FIGURE 11 1 FU)W'OF PETIU=l PRODUCTS THMUGH MI HAVEN HAPBOR 1977 (millions of barrels) Rail Pipeline Truck UI* Clean Products 0 14.0 28.0 0 Residual Oil 2.0 0 4,0 3A- NEW-HAVEN HARBOR PETRDIELE TERTMAIS Clean. Product storage: 7-9 Residual. oil. storage@:, 2-3 WMER IMCEIVED BY SHIPPED BY. W= Clean Products 46.4 4A Residual Oil 12:_9 3.5 Residual oil, burned by United Illuminating at their Harbor Station Source: u. S. Anry Corps of Engineers, waterborne Cam-erce of the U. S.; New Haven City Plan Department survey. Table II-3 RECEIPTS AND SHIPMENTS OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, NEW HAVEN HARBOR, 1977 (BARRELS X 1000) Received Shipped % of all % of product Product Barrels Receipts Barrels Received Total Gasoline 24,551 40.9 1,794 7.3 26,345 Jet Fuel 1,549 2.6 170 11.0 1,719 Kerosene 553 .1 47 8.9 578 Naphtha 533 .1 9 1.7 542 Distillates 19,833 33.0 3,000 15.1 22,833 Resodual 12,858 21.4 3,523 27.4 16,381 Asphalt 203 .3 24 11.8 227 TOTAL 60,058 100.0 8,567 14.3 68,625 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 1977. After discharge into tankage on the waterfront or inland, the products are either shipped out by barge to other coastal or river terminals (8.0 million barrels), shipped north on the Jet Line pipeline (about 13 million barrels of clean fuels), shipped north by railroad tank car (about 2.0 million barrels of residual oil), or distrubuted directly from tankage to retailers and end-use customers throughout the market area by truck (37.1 million barrels). Approximately 64 million barrels of petroleum products were recieved in 1979, having a total estimated value of over $1.63 billion at last 1979 prices, assuming that roughly the same proportion of each product was recieved in 1979 as in 1977 (Table II-4). Product throughput statistics show a leveling off of receipts in recent years after nearly continuous growth for the last 20 years (Table II-5). After growing at an average annual rate of 5.0% per year from 1961 to 1973, receipts dropped by 12% from 1973 to 1977. The exception to this trend was moter gasoline. This leveling is attributable to increasses in prices, which have spurred conservation and fuel swithching and to a slowing of population and economic growth rather than to a drop in the harbor's share of the regional petroleum market. 6 Table 11-4 Estimated Value of Petroleum Products Received in New Haven Harbor 1.977 1.979 Ave-rage Estimated Average Product Receipts Price Value Receipts Price value (bbl.sx.1.000) $ 1. / 7bb 1) _('@x 1-0 ) (bbl.sxl.000) (T/-bbl) ($x-1.0) Gasoline 24,551 16-1.3 $16 6 .. 0 26,2,88 30-66 805.0 Jet- Fuel 1., 549 1,660 N.A. Kerosene 531 1.6.,13 8.6 569 2.9.40 1.6.7 Naptha 533 N.A- N.A. Distillate 19,833 15-41 305..6- 21,270 2.9-40 6-2-5.3 Oil. Residual 1.2,858 6-4.0 8.23 13,7'67 1.3-44 185-0 oil Asphalt. 2,03 N:..A,. N.A... 6-0,058 63.,55,4. 1,633.1. Source:. U-S. Department of Energy (prices); U.S. Army Corps-of Engineers (1977 receipts);.U.S.. Coast Guard and New Haven City Plan Department (1979@estimated receipts). Tab.le@ 11-5 New Haven Harbor-Petroleum Receipts S'e-lected Years, 1.961-1977 (in thousands-of'short.tons) Product 1,961. 1.963 19 6 5' 1968 1.9 73 1.975 1977 Gasoline 1.425 - 16-33 1899 1.8 5 7' 2 717 2,8641 3336- Di.sti.l.lates 2257 2210 2,54.5 32-51 3775 3.22.0 2998 Other Clean 3.38 2'29 381. 2.56 1.74. 352 384 Fqe1z, Residual. 1.5"413 19,37 2.23 & 2.6 73 34-08 2.1.2-4 2,160 Asphalt 3 7' 73 113 79 22 44 3 5' Other- 3 34 1 4 5 8 Total 5603 6116 7175 81,20 .10101 9"612 8913 Source: U.S.- Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne'C6mmerce of' the U..S. Each product.has different handling requirements, demand characteristics (seasonality, location), and economics of distribution, all-of which affect storage requirements. The products range-in gravity and viscosity from gasoline, which is highly volatile (7.44 bbls/ton); to home heating oil and deisel. fuel (6.61 bbls/ton), also known as middle --7-- distil.lates; to residual or- #6 fuel oil (5.95 bbls/ton), which must be heated to.be pumped (See Appendix A). The sections below discuss handling, demand, and dis- tribution characteri.stics'of each major product. Data on throughput by product and on di.str-ibution has been derived and cross-checked by using several sources: Waterborne Commerce of the United States, U.S., Army Corps of Engineers (1977 i,s latest available); U.S. Coast-Guard, Captain of the Port, Quarterly Statistics; State of'Connecticut,. Office of Policy and Management,(OPM); and company data when available. Z. Residual, OiIand Asphalt Of the 12.9 mi1lion barrels of residual oil received in 1,977', approximately 2 mi.l.lion were shipped north by rail tank car to Springfield, Massachusetts, and 3.3 million (2.5..7%) were shipped out by barge. As much as 30% of the total receipts were consumed.locally to generate electricity at. the. United. I.Iluminating Harbor- Station_ The rest (3.6 mi.11ion barrels-) was distributed.by tank truck to regional industries except for-a small. amount delivered by insulated pipeline to the.Simkins Company on East Street and the U. I. Engli.sh Station on the: MiIl River-.- Residual oiI, which i.s used- primarily for electric. powe-r-generation and industrial heating and process boilers, must be stored at a:temperature of at.least 1.30*F to keep it liquid enough for@pumping. This not.only raises handling costs due to requirements for-tank and pipeline insulation and heating plant operation, but limits locational flexibility due.to the high cost of insulated or heated pipelines required to pipe-it.. Wyatt, one of the four handlers of #6 oil in the harbor, requires rai.l.access for product distribution. The demand fbr-residual oil peaks in the winter-when the-demand for-industrial space heating and electric power, al.so peak.s, though.thi,s peak i.s less extreme than that for home. heating oil. (#2).. Asphalt arriving by ship or barge must also be heated for storage-, piping and handling. Wyatt is the only asphalt receiver in the harbor, bringing in 203,700 barrels in 1977. About 1.2% of- that was shipped out by barge and the rest by truck.. 3. Di.sti-l lates Distil.late receipts in.1977 were 19.8 million barrels. Distillates, over 90% of which is #2 fuel oil, are distributed mainly through the Jet Line Pipeline or by truck, about 45!@ through each. Diesel, #3 and #4 fuel oil account for about 7-.8% of. the distillate demand in the state. A small volume -.8- of the distillate oil, about 10%, leaves the harbor area on barges bound,for tong Island and several Connecticut harbors. About 60% of the distil.late going north by pipeline.is destined for terminals in the Springfield, Massachusetts area while 40% goes to Connecticut terminals, primarily in the Hartford area. These figures mean that New Haven Harbor supplied from 50% to 60% of the Connecticut middle distillate demand of 23.7 million.barrels in 1.977, with the exact percentage depending on the destination of oil leaving New Haven by barge. Di.stillate demand pe,aks during-the heating season from December through March.when 47% of sales-are made and.sales are twice what they are in June through September. Terminals in New Haven attempt to smooth out these peaks in their receipts and to avoid.running low during cold spel.ls by maintaining a large storage capacity. The objective is to have product on hand when demand.is high., but to avoid having full tanks at the end of the heating season. With. refining output of: distillates. varying seasonally by only 4-5%, the excess production in summer must be stored at some pointin the distribution system for sale during peak demand period.. The major oil rompanies store the. product at.the-refinery@, at regional centers, and at distri-, bution terminals such as New Haven. In the past, oil suppliers have had summer'-fill programs which offer fuel dealer-s 10 either a discount. on oil. delivered during the summer, months or, an interest.-.f.r.,ee. deferral. of-' payment on summer deliveries until.October-lst. The latter-program which-he1ped smooth out the peaks in deliveries has been hampered by price increases which have reduced the amount of oil that can be purchased under old credit limits by half.. 4.. Motor-Gasol,ine The, 24...6 mi.1.1-ion barrel.s of gasoline coming into New Haven supplied about. 70--75% of state demand in 1.977'. It is di.stributed. mainly by tank trucks that-. carry about. 170 barrels per-load (about 1.25,000 truck I.oads-annual.1y), with about 7% going out by pipeline and 7% out by barge. New Haven terminals of@most major oil companies serve the entire state and parts of New York and Massachusetts by truck. Of the approximately 1.6 million barrels going up the Jet.Line, most goes to Hartford area.terminals and none leaves the state. Gasoline handling is complicated by its high volatility making it highly explosive and easily vaporized. Elaborate safety systems and.procedures are required at gasoline storage tanks and truck-loading racks under fire safety and air-quality regulations. Air pollution regulations require floating tops on gasoline tanks and expensive vapor recovery systems on truck loading bays. These measures have led to dramatic reductions in the emissions of hydrocarbons, a major ingredient of photochemical smog. Eventually, each terminal and truck.loading bay wi.11 also have elaborate automatic foam fire suppression systems. 5'. Jet Fuel, Kerosene, and Naptha Lesser vol.ume,s of- jet fuel (1,548,84.6 bbls), kerosene (531,1.07 bbl.s) and.naptha (532.,705 bbls) were received in New Haven in 1.977.. Of' the jet-. fuel. received. 11% went out. by barge and al.most al.1the rest (1.38 million barrels) went north to Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks and the Pratt and Whitney Aircraft.factory in East Hartford via the Jet Line pipeline. Kerosene i.s used.primarily for-residential- space heating (4,3t) and.by industry (57%) according to State OPM data. About. 2.5% i.s shipped. via. Jet Line pipeline, a small percentage by bar.,ge., and, the. remaindex. by truck.. Naptha is combined with-motor gasoline in local tanks and.hand.l.ed.as gasoline from that point forward. C.'.. Receiving and Storage Facilities 1- Rece:iving Facilities. and. Usage At. pr-esent., the. harbor- has six berths for- petroleum tankers drawing approximately 35-38 feet at five:faci.litie.s, which.al.so receive barges.,. and,nine berths for receiving petroleum products exclusively by barge (Map 11-1).' This port. Is considered. a ma:.jor.- di.stribution center by the major- mult-i@-nationals, Mobil., Exxon, ARCO and Gulf., all of which maintain substantial f.aci.lit-iez in the harbor-, including the ability to rece-ive-deep draft ships (with-Mobil.using ARCO's pier). Getty and Texaco maintain smaller facilities, and the-remaining large:oil. companies using the harbor-have throughput arrangements.with.ot-her termi.nal.s-(AMOCO with Mobil., Tenneco and HESS with New Haven Terminal.). The largest independent., Wyatt Oil Company, operates a deepwater-terminal., the,only one on the west.shore of the harbor. Several other independents receive products through New Haven Terminal. Company, which does not take title to any products; two independents receive products by barge at their own terminals on the Quinnipiac River (Elmso) and in West Haven on the West River-Channel (Connecticut Refining). Two small tank farms on the Quinnipiac River operated-by small independents, Goodrich and Benedict, do not receive products by water. 'Two oil spill clean-up contractors -.1.0- operate out of the smaller tank farms in West Haven (Farnham Environmental Control) and on the Quinnipiac River (East Coast Environmental Services), both of which store some products as well. A range of vessels from small barges to deep draft oceangoing ships serve the harbor. According to Coast Guard data, approximately 1,314 barges (average 33,930 bbls..) and 234 ships (average 1.20,690 bbls.) used the receiving facilities to deliver or pick up petroleum products in a recent one year period. (September., 1.978 - August, 1.979, Table. 11-7).. The average. quarterly vessel. trips for the f.-ive busiest. barge and ship terminals in.their busiest q-uarte-rs was 60 barges and 1.8 ships, or a barge:about every 36 hours.and a ship about.every fIve-days. The total vessel. trips-in the harbor-in that overall busiest quarter (January-March.) were 395 barges and 54 ships, or-4-5 barges per day and.a ship a-bout every other. day (Tables 11-6 and 1.1.--7).. A noticeable shift from barges to ships in the second quarter of 1979 was presumably due to a. tugboat. strike@ during- that period. Ves-sel. unloading-rates.determine both the time required in port and.either the.surge storage requirements at dock s-ide or the pipeline and pumping capacity needed to move the product inland. A typical standard load barge of 32.7-.37,000 barrels takes 6-10 hours-to un.load-at-a,rate of about 3-6,000 barreIs per hour. A typical ship carrying 125-140,000 barrels can unload in. 7-1A, hour& at a. rate of' 10-18,000 bairre.l,s-. per- hour-. While, care. must be taken in interpreting this vessel f! trip data., it appears that..ew of the:terminals are used near- capacity at the.. moment... Company interviews revealed., however.-, that each company . prefers to maintain.an exclusive pier facility to guarantee berth availability when needed even though common berths could be used more intensively. If' 70% of. the- be.rth-days. were used, beyond. which scheduling problems. might occur-, -New: Haven Harbor could handle. 3,066 ve-s-sel.s per-year, some-mix.of'ships and barges, at existing pier and wharf facilities compared to a recent total of 1,548, an increase of-98%. In.the busiest quarter, using the same factors, 40% more vessels could be accommodated. These capackties-could be increased with more-efficient scheduling, but any major-increases in usage or any reduction in.the number-of terminalz through higher use of remaining terminals would require both physical improvements to the offloading and storage systems and increased cooperation among harbor users., Table 11-6 Petroleum Receipts and Shipments New Haven Harbor 1977-1979 Ships Barges All Vessels Period No. Barrels No. Barrels No. Barrels 1.9 77 Total, 1.977 6 8, 012. 673 1.978 1st Quarter- 20, 1.6 7, 3 5 6 2nd Quarter 1.5,067,356 3rd Quarter 15,961,460 4th Quarter 4-5 6,929,12.5 372 12,898,231 417 19F827,356 Total-, 1.978 71,017,804, 19-79 Ist,Quarter 54 7, 420, 4-24, 395 1.3,248, 932. 4.4-9 2.0,669,356 2nd Quarter 87 8,7-69@,033 205 7,733,255 2.92 1.6,5-02,288 3rd Quarter- 48 5-,,1.22-,113 3 42 10, 7-04,, 792 390 15,826,905 Total Year. 234* 1.8, 240 , 6 9 5 1, 3 14* 4 4:,.5 8 5-, 2 1.0 1, 5 4.8 7 2, 8 2.5, 9 0 5 *'Includes 4th Quarter, 1-978 Source: U..S-.. Army Corps- of@ Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the U-S, 1,977. U-S. Coast,. Guard, Group Long Inland Sound (1978-79 data. Table 11-7 Ranking of,Five Terminals Serving-Highest Number of Ships and Barges September@, 1-978. - August, 1979 SHIPS BARGES T'exminal. Year Busiest-. Terminal Year Busiest Rank Total Quarter Rank Total Quarter 1-+ 90 37 1*- 234 77 2. 5'3 1.9 2,* 225 88 3 4.5 12. 3 224. 60 t 28 1.3 t 124 45 5' 1.7 11. 5' 115 31 Average 47 1.8 Aver-age 184 60 +-two ship berths * capacity for two barges simultaneously Source: U. S. Coast Guard 2. Storage Facilities and Usage Petroleum storage facilities around the harbor have grown with the rising volumes of petroleum received in New Haven. In 1.979, 209 tanks, varying in size from under 1.0,000 barrels to 300,000 barrel.s, with a total .capacity of about 10.4 million barrel,s, were used to store these products. Capacity managed by waterfront and inland tank farm operators. ranges from 2.8 million barrels to 85,000 barrels (Maps II-1 and 11-.2, Table 11-.8) and.these facilities occupy a total of approximately 170 acres of land, about 80 of:them within. 1,600 feet of*the waterfront. Table 11-9 breaks down storage capacity by product. For planning,purposes, the tanks can be divided between clean fuel and residual oil f,acilities, each of which have special locational requirements and construction charac- teristics. While-tank,s can be switched among the clean fuels, primarily gasoline and #2 fuel oil, with some modifica- tions, residual oil. requires insulated and heated tanks. Although there i.s little data available on the condition of.the:tanks, conversations with regulatory agencies, main- tenance contractors, and.industry sources suggest that most of, the exi-sting tank,s, with a few notable-exceptions, are in good.condition.. The actual,life-span of a wel-l-maintained oil tank is well over'40 years. Some of- the old riveted tanks still in service on.the.East-Shore were erected as early a-s 191.7. Almost al.l. the tank@s, including all the largest one:s., are welded-stee-1 rather-than riveted, an indication of post-Wor'ld War I'I vintage. Of- the@15 tank facilities on the waterfront, 11 receive products by ship or-barge. Two are owned by oil spi.1.1 clean up contractor-s,. one of which uses its pier., and two are owned by local oil dealers who receive products by pipeline or truck.. Different companies use different storage strategies. While a major-can use a regional,terminal to store heating oil during the summer-that would otherwi.se have to be- stored somewhere else in its production and distribution system, the independent cannot afford to tie up the capital in inventory. The intensity of tank use-is measured by the ratio of annual product throughput to the total storage capacity. This throughput-storage ratio, also known as the numbex-of times the contents of a tank are "turned over", varies by company and product. While most companies would not-reveal throughput figures, approximations can be derived from Coast Guard and State.of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management data. -13- Table II-8 Ranking of Companies by Storage Capacity, with Estimated Receipts and Shipments, 1978-1979 Estimated Total Receipts and Company Capacity Shipments, 1978-79 (barrels x 1000) (barrels x 1000) 1. Wyatt Oil 2,455 16,360 2. New Haven Terminal 2,123 16,382 3. Exxon 1,839 5,719 4. Gulf 1,054 11,126 5. ARCO 3 782 6,891 6. United Illuminating 650 4,037 7. Mobil 494 7,534 8. Elmco 375 1,776 9. Conn. Refining 151 273 (West Haven) 10. Getty 90 1,187 11. Texaco 85 1,541 TOTAL 10,098 72,826 1 This data from the U.S. Coast Guard cannot be used to calculate actual throughput/storage ratios because it includes both receipts and shipments. In 1977, approxi- mately 10% of all petroleum trade represented shipments out of harbor. 2 Includes facility of subsidiary, TAD Jones, Inc. 3 United Illuminating maintains this storage capacity to supply it's Harbor Station generating facility. 4 Does not include 193,000 barrels of storage at four facilities which do not receive products by water. Source: City of New Haven, Assessor's Office; U. S.. Army Corps of Engineers; U. S. Coast Guard; private oil companies. Table 11-9 Petroleum Storage Capacity, by Product New Haven Harbor, 1979 (Barrels in Thousands) Waterfront Non-Waterfront* Total Tanks Capacity Tanks Capacity Tanks Capacity* Gasoline 34 965.5 15 1161.4 49 2126.9 Kerosene 101.1 2 110.3 9 211A jet Fuel 80.0 3 290.0 4 370.0 #2 Fuel Oil 82 1982.5 25 3034.4 107 5016.9 Sub Total, 124 3129.1 45 4596.1 169 7725.2 Clean Fuels 44 Fuel Oil 6 383.8 - 0- 0 383.8 #5 & 6 Fuel oil 13 1172.3 2t 650 15 1822.3 Asphalt 4 139.0 - -0- -4 -139A Sub Total 23 1695.1 2 -650 25 2345.1 Residuals TOTAL 147 4824.2++ 47 5246.1 194 10070.3t+ Includes Exxon facility Which is located 1,600 feet from the waterfront but is within the coastal flood hazard area and the coastal management area. + Storage tanks for United Illuminating Harbor Station. ++ Waterfront storage capacity at two terminals in West Haven not included in this study is 173,700 barrels of #2 fuel. Source: City of New Haven, Assessor@s Office; New Haven City Plan Department; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; private oil companies. -15- A higher throughput-storage ratio means a corresponding lower per barrel cost of operating a terminal, so there is an incentive to increase turnover rates. Estimated turnover rates for New Haven facilities range from a low of about 3.1 times per year to a high of 23 times per year, with the overall rate for clean fuels coming through the harbor of 6.65. The throughput-storage ratio for gasoline tends to be considerably higher than for #2 fuel oil because the annual pattern of demand is more even, resulting in lower peak storage capacity needs. Within the several terminals handling both #2 and gasoline for which data are available, this phenomenon is clear. This data clearly shows that on the whole the storage facilities are not being used to capacity at present. Almost every terminal operator felt he or she could increase throughput without building any new tanks. Conversely, the same or reduced throughput could be handled by fewer facilities than operate now with an overall savings in handling costs due to more efficient facility use. The principle constraint on more efficient facility use will be institutional -- potential savings will have to be high before companies will agree to share receiving and storage facilities. 3. Tax and Employment Productivity A major argument which has been raised against new tank farm development in other coastal areas and in favor of tank farm relocation to inland sites is the low tax and especially employment productivity of these facilites compared to alternative uses which could be made of the same prime waterfront site (Morell and Singer, 1979). The average employment per acre in New Haven waterfront tank farms is about 2.7, including operators, drivers, clerical, and management employees. For comparison, average employment per acre in an older industrial area of the City is 17, and rises to 23 when two large underutilized parcels in that area are not counted. In terms of real estate taxes, the returns from tank farms are closer to but still less than other industrial uses and considerably less than certain other uses. Whereas the average assessment per acre for New Haven tank farms is approximately $134,500/acre (not counting mercantile inventory taxes which apply to only two facilities and are being phased out), the average assessment per acre in our two sample industrial areas was $170,000/acre (older) and $212,000/acre (redeveloped). For comparison, a typical acre of residential land with improvements in a stable Westville area is assessed at about $235-305,000 per acre, and a new condominium development proposed for a 9.3 acre site at City -16- Point will have a projected assessment of about $1,61,7,,000 per acre. The assessment of the tanks does vary considerably by area, however. For instance, the average assessment for the smaller facilities on the Quinnipiac River is about $95,300/ acre while the average for four majors in the East Shore deepwater-area is $173,500 approaching the level of other industrial area.s. Even though an estimated $1.6 billion in products pas-s@ed through the tanks in 1.979, the City wi.11 soon be deriving no revenues from these activities. The contents of the tanks in all but two facilities are considered manufacturer's inventory and are not-.subje.ct to property taxes. The inventory in the remaining two facilities is subject.to mercantile inventory taxe.s which.will be.totally phased out by 1983. D.- Institutional Forces. The major oil. companies control seven of'the eleven petroleum receiving terminal.s in the harbor and 4.34 mil-lion barrel.s of storage, or 43% of: the total (Table 11.-.8). Any di.scussion of. public-or private action to bring about the relocation of'waterfront tank farms must consider the prevailing institutional fbrc-es.in the petroleum-industry locally and internationally. There are reasons why nine oil-companies, six. mult-i@-nationals and three local. independents each operate, their- own receiving and. storage terminal.s in- the: harbor- despite the apparent duplication of ef.fort -- they each seek security of access to the channel and control of 'storage capacity, suppl.i.e.s,.and operations at reasonable cost. Any- alternative arrangement must accommodate-these desires if it is to succeed. Oil. companies consIder-both cost.and non-cost factors in deciding optimal. terminal. and storage facility location and,configuration, both physical. and operational.. Fee simple ownership of-' f-ac:i,liti.e:s provides- security of access, which is more.difficuItto obtain through lease arrangements or throughputting arrangements at facilities the,company does notown. Control of'a.pier-f-acil.i.ty ensures that it will be available when needed,. even in peak receiving periods, providing flexibility of scheduling. Control over storage also increase.s-flexibil.ity and independence which makes up for higher operating costs associated with older-or less eff-icient facilities. This is especially true.with smal.ler independents who maintain storage facilities to ensure a.reserve supply, to enable speculation as oil prices increase, and to preserve indepen- dence from the majors or large terminaling company. -17- For'some majors which promote strong brand identification, the comingling of products of several companies which some- time takes place at multi-company terminals is unacceptable.. In some places, these concerns are addressed by having- injectors put company additives into the product at the loading rack. Most industry people admit privately that there is now very little difference among brands of a product. Comingling is hence increasingly accepted, especially when it leads to lower handling costs. Alternatives to individual fac-il1ties have been accepted andiused in numerous locations, including locally at New Haven Terminal. where several oi-l-companies lease tank space and/or purchase handling services, and on Long 1sland-where Northvi-Ile-Industries provides-a similar service. In sparsely populated areas of the mid.-wes-t- several companies often share terminalsl usual.ly coming-ling product, to reduce total travel time. required to serve. all retailers and customers. These examples demonstrate that joint or "union"'tank,farms and.comingled product.are accepted where circumstances favor such arrangements@.. Pexhaps-the maj,or*impetus toward such an arrangement is @he:cost.savings to be gained. Ope-rating a marine terminal is@expensive., 'and at.some,poi.nt as the expense rises a company will. choose to lease space and hire services of a terminal.ing company-rather-than continue operating a terminal. Anaggressive deve-lopment--and:marketing effort.by Northville Industries combined.with r1sing.operating costs led-several. companie-s-to close small. barge terminals, one.in Patchogue, and serve their-markets through Northville terminals and tanks. in the.case of Patchogue, and many other coastal areas, the-high price-off-ered.for their waterfront land was @n added inducement.to sell out. Both these forces --- increases in both operating cost and land values at older waterfront facilities -reinforce the trend toward more effIcient, c-entralIzed. facilities and. make less expensive i.nland.sites more attractive.. At@[email protected] this trend will apply to New Haven operators, and.which.one:s, remains..to be seen. New inland tank farms wil-l-have to offer-substantial savings to both undercut the cost of operating and overcome,the non-cost advantages of keeping an individual company terminal. Most of the data which could.al.low evaluation of the-se phenomena are proprietery and unavailable. Several. terminaL operators agreed that in principle tank farms are best located inland, under-stood why New Haven's harbor planning aspirations might include relocating storage tanks away from the water's edge, and even felt that larger, consolidated terminals with lower per unit handling costs are the way of the future. Yet each stressed that an advantageous resolution of the cost and security of access issues must come before their-companies would consider moving -several volunteered that if the City or State were to make it worth their while they would move immediately. Yet.most.beli.eved.the cost situation is not right and that sufficient.government incentives were not in the cards. E. Regulatory Programs Affecting Tank Farms Due.pr1marily to the haz-ardous.nature of the product, the activities involved.in the storage and handling of' petroleum products are strictly regulated at all levels of government (Appendix.B). Laws and regulations cover such activities as the transfer of oil from vessel.s (Coast Guard), the provision of air-qual,ity control, equipment for storage tank-s (DEP), thetrans,fer of petroleum products by pipeline (DOT) and minimum-areas required for diked areas around storage.tanks (Municipal. Fire Code). Where-inspections by publ,ic.agenci.es are-required by law., New Haven's petroleum bulk storage facilities are reportedly in compliance with appl.i.cable-conditions. Tank. farms are inspected by the.Coast.Guard on a semi-annual basi.s.. According to the.Off-Ice-of the Captain of the Port at- the. New Haven Coast- Guard station., the longest period of time-that a.violation could be outstanding at a particular- terminal. would. be six: months.., lf@ a. violation is found a company ha-s that.much time to submit to the Coast-Guard.the r.esu.l.t-.s of tests which prove compliance. has been achieved.. The,New Haven Fire Department conducts comprehensive monthly inspections and.routine weekly inspections of the tank farms to check.for-condit-ion of containment dikes, loading racks, and on-site fire-suppress-ion equipment. The Fire Marshal.'s Offi,ce.in New Haven reports strict-adherence to fire safety standards. The; only land- use regulations aff.ecting. tank. farms- are the:City Zoning Ordinance.,. which requires a special exception from-the Board of Zoning Appeals before a tank farm can be bui.1t.and re-stricts-tanks to areas zoned for heavy industry, and the recently mandated Coastal Site Plan Review. The State.requires the City to review all developments in the coastal area for this consistency with the goals and policies. of: the Connecticut Coasta-,l.Management.Act.(See Sections IV and IX below). The table.in Appendix B outlines the various laws and. regulations as they apply to the receipt., storage and handling of liquid petroleum products. III. Projected Demand for Petroleum Storage Facilities to Serve New Haven Harbor Market Area A. Petroleum Product Throughput Projections 1.' Overview Barring any major shift in the petroleum product.distri- bution system for the region served by New Haven Harbor, the future level of petroleum receipts in the harbor will. be a function of regional demand f.or-the-se products. Demand in turn is related to price, changes in regional population and economic activity, weather., the success of'conservation efforts, and-fuel switching. Projecting demand for petroleum products is extremely problematic due both to uncertainties about price, supply, and taxes and to the fact that historic patterns of consumption and rates of change in consumption can not be used for projection.in this period of dramatic, non-linear-shifts in price and of stringent government programs aimed atconservation. Some of the-evolving replacements for petroleum, such as liquified coal, l.iquifi.ed.natura.1 gas, or pulverized coaL-oil mixtures@, share some of the physical characteristics and storage requirements of petroleum... These requirements must be anticipated to the extent possible in considering the overall- storage capacity picture.. For-the purposes of* this report the-se:products are vi.ewed.as possible substitutions for petroleum whi.ch- will have. little impact on the- total. demand for petroleum-like liquid- fuels. and their storage requirements. It is as'sumed that the high cost of these alternative technologies wi.1l.ensure continued and increasing incentives to conservation.. Coal or other-non-liquid forms of energy wil.1 impose other storage requirements which will have to be considered in harbor area land use management decksions, but wi.l.l.not.be considered in this report. Several recent attempts to project energy-demand in Connecticut or New,Haven Harbor-petroleum throughput have produced results which-diverge sharply (see Table I11-1). -20- Table III-1 Petroleum.Throughput Projects for New Haven Harbor Derived from Available Sources (Mi1lions of Barrels) Annual Annual Growth Growth Rate Rate Actual Proj-. from Proj. from S'tudy 1.9 7*7 1.990 1977 2,000 1990 GASOLINE Long-Isl.and Sound 24-.6 33A 2-A 2.6 Study (1975) U.S. Army Corps 24.6 3.0.5 1.7 39.5 2.6 (1976) Ct. of fice of Pol.... 24-6 191.1. -.2. .5 I.T. 1 -0-8 and Mgmt.- (1978) U.S. Army Corps 2.4.6 2,0-9 --1.. 2 Z6-4- 2.4 (1,979) DISTILLATE LISS 1.9-81 3 2- 2: 3.-8 - - ACOE (1976) 19-8 55-2 8-2 73.1 2-.8 OPM 1.9-8, 20.3 0-2 2,0..7 0.2. ACOE (1.979) 1.9...8 30-6 3.4 .32. 0 0.4 RESIDUAL L.ISS 1.2-9 26-1 5'. 6 - - ACOE. (1-976) 12-9 35,7 8.1. 4.21.6 1.8 OPM 12*-9@ 15-0 1-5, 14.0 -0-7 ACOE (1.979) 1.2-9 9.9 -2.0 1.3.3 3.0 sources: New England River Basins Cbmmi,ssion, Long Island Sound Study, People and the Sound:- Marine Transportation, 1975; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Draft Feasibility Study for Improvements to the,New Haven Navigation Project (1976 preliminary findings; 1.979 Draft Report);- Connect-icut,Energy Advisory Board, Connecticut Energy Outlook,, 1977-1979 (prepared by the Office of Poli.cy and Management), 1978. -21- 2.. Long Island Sound Study The-projections in the earliest of these studies, the marine Transportation Report.of the Long Island Sound Study (1975), prepared by the U.S. Army Corps'of Engineers, were made in the midst of the 1973-1.974 oil crisis using data from the period up to 1971. Population projections for the market area at that time were considerably higher then present.official projections, and the values of other variables used in projection., such as furnace efficiency and per household heating oi1consumption, led to high projections of-demand. The LISS cited data showing that,regional demand for@ the three principal commodities -- gasoline, distillate-, and residual -grew by more then 7% a year, compound rate, from 1.958 to 1970. Even though the planners dampened this rate to 4,4% annual.'growth to 1.990, they still had Sound-wide port-receipts rising from 171 million barrels in 1.971 to 321 mil.l.ion barrels in 1990, an 88% increase:. They felt-., however, that after 1990 depletion of"world oil resources would raise prices, lead.to development of alternative energy sources, and cause a-leveling off. of'petroleum demand-. New Haven receipts-we-re-projected to grow from 4.8 million barrels in 1.971 to 91-7 mil-lion in 1,990 (3.4% per- annum), with, an additional 44-mi.l.lion barrels of Connecticut.River shipments also diverted to New Haven. Actualaverage annual increase in. receipts from. 1.971. to 1.9-77 was 3.,0% per annum. These high projections to 1990 form the basis of. exten- sive LISS recommendations regarding product distribution, including-the construction of an off-shore unloading pier: oft New Haven, channeling of all Connecticut River shipments through New Haven to eliminate the need f,"or extensive river channel. maintenance, the construction of new pipelines from New Haven to Hartford (clean fuels) and Middletown.(re-sidual fuel.), and the-development of- the new inland tank farm sites along the pipelines to accomodate 8_6 million barrels of relocated and expanded storage capacity. The economi.c feasibility of most-, of these facilities is very sensitive to the-product receipt proje.ctions because project benefits are positively related to volumes of throughput'as project costs must be spread over the number of barrels received. 3. U.S.. Army Corps'of Engineers Feasibility Report,. 1979 The Army Corps recently released a new set of petroleum throughput projections for the harbor in a draft Feasibility Report on deepening the main shipping channel. The feasibility analysis is based on the transportation costs savings to be gained from transporting products in larger capacity ships -22- which.a.deeper channel can accommodate. The projected transportation cost savings are thus sensitive to assump- tions about product origin, percentage carried by barge versus deep draft ship, and.projected receipts. The new'Army Corps throughput projections are based on a model of energy demand in New England formulated by A. D. Little, a computer simulation of energy demand from the MIT Energy Labs, and documents of the Federal Energy Administration. These model.s di.saggregate demand into sectors (residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, etc.) and project demand ba-sed on the projected changes in activity level.s in each sector and assumptions about ene:rgy-usage in these activities. The ovexall-increase in petroleum product demand of 2.3% per annum. between 1.980 and 2000 obtained in this way was dampened by the Corp by adding the following assumptions for New England. For residual., six.additional nuc-lear-power plants would replace 65.4 million barrels per year, coal conversion of'old electric plants and the construc- tion of: new coal.-fired plants would replace a total of 1.9.5 mi.1l,ion barre1s., and a conservation ef-fort. would save 34 mil.lion barrel.s. For-di.stil.1-ate and gasoline, conservation efforts would result in a demand figure 25% lower than the model.. These changes br-ing the average annual rate of increa:se in demand-between 1.980 and 2,000 to ..37%., The:demands proje.ctions for-New Haven assume that the harbor-wil.l. receive-the same percentage of New England receipts in.thethree7main pr-oducts-as it.received in 1971 through 1.975 (on average). Table II.I'-.l ill.ustr-ates the re:sult,ing trends.. The-Army Corps says,that movement.-of petroleum products "in New Haven Harbor' wi1l continue the decline of 1.97-4-.76 up to 1,9.90.. A l.ook at the breakdown by product reveals that thkadecline is caused by a drop in residual projections. while ga.sol.ine and distillate. demand continues to rise.. Some.,error.,may be introduced in these figure-s by a-mi.stake of double counting products that are received and shipped out-via water. The figures used.re- peated.ly by the Army Corp report are total. tonnage which incl.udes both receipts and shipments-whi.ch amounted to 13% of' receipts in 197*6 (compare. Table B-1.1., p. B-45 in report to Table B-7, p. B-34). For some unexplained reason, these adjusted projections then show increases in the rate of growth afte-r-2000 despite statements as early as the 1.975 LISS Report referring to the leveling of demand after 2000 due to petroleum resource limitations. New Haven tonnage is projected to more than double between 2000 and 20.30, rising at.a rate of 2.38% per annum. Dampening of these assumptions to bring them into line with the 1.980-to 2.000 period would have consequences for the total. benefits to be gained from harbor deepening. --2.3- Although benefits discounted back 20 to 50 years from that time period are less significant than earlier benefits, the low di.scount rate of 6-5/8% the Army Corp was mandated to use in their analysis most likely overstates the distant future benefits to be gained from deepening. 4., Connecticut Energy Advisory Board The latest publi.shed set of comprehensive petroleum demand projections for thIs region are those of the 1978 Annual. Report of the.Connecticut Energy Advi.sory Board.. These projections, undergoing possible downward revisions at pre.sent, are-only available for-the State of Connecticut, which is not coterminus with the market area of the port. As detailed in Section II., as@much as 15% of the residual oil. and 25 to.30% of the.disti-l-late coming into New Haven is .not destined for-in-State use. However, the trends and rates-of change established after careful analysis of the Stat&--wide-energy demand can serve as fairly good guidelines for what.to expect in New Haven Harbor receipt.s., The ma.jor- out of' State area served by the port i.s Western Massachusetts, an.area displaying trends quite similar to Cbnnecticut-and subject to similar market.forces and regulatory-structures. Energy Board,projections are based on.a.mode,l. assembled by consultants in.1975, and later-refined., which analyzes energy usage by-sector ---residential, commercial, industrial., and transportation. Using techniques similar to the A. D., Little. model. di.scuss-ed above, energy usage is related to indi.cators- for- which. information is more readily available for instance., employment for commercial. uses-and number of housing units and type of heating systems for residential space heating. Energy consuming activities were projected using various methods-including analysis of historical- data, consideration of future trends, and.relationships among activities. For-the period 1.980 to 1.997, the Board projec- tions show-a drop in gasoline demand of 27%, ressuIting from mandated ef.`ticiency standards in new carz., increased price, and. a. variety of public conservation. programs-; a slight increase in di.stil-late demand of' 3%., less than the rate of increa-se in@the number of households-, a:decline in use attributable to conservation and fuel switching; and a drop in residual demand of 6%, linked to industrial conservation efforts and increased.reliance on nuclear power plants already schedul.ed for construction.. The-percent of State gross energy demand served by petroleum products is expected to drop from 74% in 1977 to 66% in 1997 due in part to more efficient cars and conserva-- tion, The contribution of nuclear-power is expected to increase from 1.6% to 24% over the same period. -24- If these OPM projection trends are applied to New Haven receipts between 1977 and 1997 the prospect is for a reduction in gasoline,receipts from 26.3 million barrels to 19.2 million barrels; a slight increase in distillate receipts from 22.2 to 22.9 milli-on barrels; and a drop in residual receipts from 16.4 to 15A million barrels. 5. Conclusion Discussions with industry sources and state energy planners and review of. recent literature all suggest that of' the available projections the OPM figures most accurately reflect the probable levels of petroleum receipts in New Haven.. If anything, the figures will probably be revised downward as prices continue to rise and efforts to develop and market conservation and alternative energy technologies are intensified.. For the.purposes of- analysis of storage needs in this report, the 1978 OPM trends will be adopted as guidelines even though further declines@in receipts are likely. One,specific project.is-not,accounted for in any of- .these-demand projections. Discussions with Jet Lines pip6-. line managers and Massachusetts official-s revealed plans to construct a new electric gene-rating plant at Westover Air- Force Base in.Chicopee whi.ch would burn distillate oil. brought-in-by pipeline from New Haven Harbor. The seasonal peaks.in oil.demand experienced.by the plant would be smoothed out-.through the-instal.lation of@ a-large storage-capacity in. both.New Haven (300,000 barrels) and Chicopee (3-4-00,000 barrel.s). The demand on the Jet Lines'pipel.ine would be constant at approximately 5,.000 barrels per day. This new demand of 1..8-2.0 mi1lion barrelz per year is taken into account in estimations of'future demand.f.or storage capacity. B.- Storage Capacity-Needed to Meet.Future Demands In estimating the total petroleum product storage capacity required over the next 2.0 years to serve the harbor-'s market area, factors such as security of supply and reserve level goals must@be considered.along with the day-to-day operational needs of the oil companies. Clearly, judging by past experience and experience in [email protected], the present and projected throughput levels could be accommodated by a reduced storage capacity, especially in distillate and residual fuel oi.l.s. While distil.late receipts declined 1.1% from 1.973 to 1977, storage capacity increased at least 8%, decreasing the ratio of throughput to storage from about 5 to 4.1. Over-the same period, residual receipts declined 19.3% while capacity increased 56%, de- -25-. creasing the throughput/storage ratio from about 17 to 9. Gasoline storage capacity has increased less over this period and the throughput/storage ratio has increased. Industry sources and state energy planners caution that the state's storage capacity, especially for heating oil, should be maintained or increased to ensure adequate supply in the case of a severe winter-, interruption of navigation in the harbor, a reduction or cutoff in supply, or some combination of these natural and geopolitical events. Given a probable decline in demand for heating oil, however, maintenance of' the current storage capacity for heating oil will mean an increasing level of reserve capacity without new additions. In the.area of'motor-gasol.ine, the state Energy Division is predi.cting a more significant decline in demand over the next 2,0 years, approaching 28%.. This would allow for reduc- tions in present gasoline storage capacity while still increasing.reserve storage... Gasoline tanks could also be converted to store t2 fue-1 oil. These predictions me-an that for -Ehe-purposes of this analys1s, any-change in the,location or-conf-iguration,of'the harbor-storage capacity-shou.1d accommodate approximately the existing storage capacity in order to increase reserve capacity as demand declines and to ensure adequate capacity in.the:event that- demand-does not.decline at the rates projected... Viewing the total. petroleum receiving and storage system, the storage capacity projected.to be sufficient and which wi1l be used for planning purposes is: Gasoline 2,1.30.,,000 barrels Di.st-il.late 5,02.0,000 barrel.s Kerosene and Jet. Fuel. 5.80,00.0 barrel.s Re:s;idual 2.,34.0,.000 barrel.s These,number-s should.be considered capacity goals rather than absolute requirements, however. If necessary and/or desirable, some of the present capacity could be phased out without serious consequences for reserves. -2.6- IV. Waterfront Revitalization -- Potential Alternative Uses for Waterfront Land Occupied by Tank Farms A. Context The only reason to consider a concerted program to di.scourage coastal siting of tank farms or to relocate existing waterfront tank farms would be to reserve or free up valuable urban waterfront land for other uses which yield higher employment, taxes, amenity values or all,three. Tank farms are essential to the local and regional'economy, but they do not require waterfront locations, they provide low levels of employment.and taxes, and they can detract from the amenity values of: the harbor area, especially when located in areas undergoing revitalization. The City of New Haven has already acquired.and phased out one smal.1 water-- front tank farm on the Quinnipiac River to make way for a waterfront park as part of the,Fair Haven Redevelopment and Renewal.Plan. Several. other- waterfront. communities, including Burlington, Vermont, Port Jefferson, Long Is-land., and Patchogue, Long I.s-land, have witnessed'the phasing out of tanks for other uses, usually new housing and open space., which conform to an overall waterfront plan of development. None of- the-se terminals were of the scale of those in New Haven, however, and only in the case of Port Jefferson was the storage capacity replaced.by an inland tankfa,rm linked.to a receiving terminal. at the waterfront.. In.other communities, such as those along @he Hudson.Rivex', tank farm development took place inland initial-ly.. A number of areas along the Ne *w Haven Harbor waterfront are undergoing signific-ant,revi.tal.ization through a combination of@ public initiative and private investment. Other areas have been identifIed.as opportunity areas for future redeve- lopment for industrial., commercial,, residential and recreational use:s. The City of New Haven's municipal coastal program w,i,1.1, seek. to reinforce. these. pos-itive. revitalization efforts through amendments to the zoning ordinance, creation of a comprehensive plan of.deve-lopment for the coastal. area, and coordinated public development initiatives. This coastal program will also provide the context for future development of' opportunity areas. The [email protected] of the coastal program effort will be to bring the harbor@back into the life of the City by bringing people to the water's edge for living, working, shopping and play. One rationale for thi.s emphasis is that the economic development and fiscal health of the City will depend-on the enhancement of the quality of life for all its residents, and the reclaiming of the-waterfront for people- oriented activities can increase the livibility of the City. -.27- While a discussion of possible new uses must look ahead over the five to 40 year,time-frame used in talking about relocation of tank farms, prediction of markets for specific re-uses of waterfront land is risky at best. Re-use plans must be geared to market realities while sti:iving for an optimal arrangement and mix.of land uses. Looking at ekperience in a number of large and small waterfront cities, one sees that the most successful urban waterfront projects are those of a scale large enough to be a destination in themselves. The rediscovery of the urban waterfront as an attractive environment fbr-l.iving, working, shopping and play in many East Coast cities is related.to a number-of. other trends which support potential re-use initiatives discussed here: a-dwindling supply of non-urban coastal land combined with the presence of large underutil.ized acres on urban water- fronts.; stricter-regulation of remaining natural coastal. areas, which may divert development toward the-urban coast; the increasing price and uncertain availability of petroleum products. wh.i.ch-over*the long term will.encourage,ce.ntraliz-a- tion in living.and working places and a renewed emphasis on nearby shopping and recreational opportunities; and the improvement in harbor-water quality, which.wi.11 accelerate with the-planned provision of. secondary wastewater treatment by the mid-1980's:., The.que:stion of appropriate waterfront uses was considered at.length.in the development of the State.'s Coastal Area Management Program., The State policies enacted in the-CCMA- encourage the reservation of developed waterfront.land for marine related.uses to the fulle-st-extent-possible, "including but not limited to commercial and recreational fishing, bo.citing and other water dependent.commercial., industrial and recreational uses" (Sec. 24b)(2.)(G'), P.A. 79-535). "Water dependent.uses" are defined as::- "Those uses and, f.ac.i.l.ities which. require direct acce-ss to, or-location in., marine.or tidal waters and.which therefore- cannot be located inland-, including but not limited to: marinas, recreational and.commercial f.-ishing and boating f,-acil.it-i.es, f"infish and shellfish processing plants, waterfront dock and poft facilities, shipyards and boat building-facklities, water based recreational uses, navigation aide,s, basins and channels, industrial. uses dependent upon waterbor'ne transportation or-req@iiring large volumes of cooling-or process water which-cannot reasonably be located or operated at an inland site and uses which provide general public acces to marine ot tidal waters." (Sec. (3)(1.6), P.A. 79-535.) Table IV-I lists possible waterfront uses for developed shorefront areas and provides an evaluation of their con- --2.8- sistency with CCMA policies and goals of the City's coastal planning efforts. Such a table should be interpreted with caution as uses which alone would be inappropriate might be acceptable or highly desireable as part of a larger planned development. Surrounding land uses are also an important factor@. The table is useful., however, in structuring thinking about waterfront development.in a preliminary way. An-examination of land uses surrounding the waterfront tank farm facilities (Map IV-1), suggests more intensive or more directly water dependent alternative 'uses to which the land.occupied by the tanks could be put. Below,. each area of the harbor is discussed in this context. B., Potential. Alternative Uses, by Area l... Quinnipiac River Area. Some of the most exciting waterfront revitalization in the City is underway in the area along the Quinnipiac River-, which has recently been de-signated a local historic district (Map IV-2). Under the Fair Haven Redevelopment and Renewal Plan, the New Haven Redevelopment Agency acquired a scrap metal. depot, a.smal.1 tank farm, and other industries along the Front Street waterfront to create a park along the river with sites for new housing behind.i.t.. The old.Quinnipiac- Brewery to the south is in the process of being,rehabilitated f-or residential, commercial and office uses. Along East Pearl. Street., just-we-st.of the waterfront, North Front Street,, and in-the-immediate area private homeowners are rehabilitating historic houses, sometimes with the assistance of, Neighborhood Preservation Program grants 'and loans. Considerable private housing investment is also occuring outside the renewal area., north of Grand Avenue and across the rive-r-in Fair-Haven Heights. Three small. tank. farm facilities with a capacity of 1.70,000 barrel.s are:1ocated on this area-of the Quinnipiac north of-_Ferry Street.Br-idge, none of them receiving product by barge (see Table.V"I.below). Al.so located here, at 400 Quinnipiac Avenue, is the pumping station of the Jet Lines pipeline. Significantly, the average total tax assessment per acre in-these facilities, $86,500, is very low compared to the East Shore tank farms or alternative uses. All the tanks Ike on land that could be redeveloped in ways which compliment public and private non-industrial renewal efforts in.the area.. -.29- Table IV--1 Possible Waterfront Land Uses for Developed Shorefront Areas (A) Waterfront Re latIve Consistency Land Water with CCMA Employment Tax Use Dependency Policies Density Yield Port very high very high low moderate Faci.l.i.ties Storage Tanks high low very low moderate (Chemicals) Storage Tanks moderate low very low moderate (Resid. Oil) Storage Tanks low low very low moderate (C-lean- FueIs) Commercial very high very high high moderate @Fishing General Man- none low (B) high high ufacturing Warehousing none low@ low moderate Electric high. high mode-rate@ very high Utilities Marina very high very-high moderate-low moderate. Park, moderate high (C') very low none Housing low low (C') very low high General. moderate, high (C.) moderatee-high high Commercial (A) This table provides only a general indication of suitability of land uses for waterfront siting. Compatibility with surrounding land uses, zoning, and particular details of a land.use and a-proposed site must-be considered in any case by case analysis@. (B) The exception to this would be those industries which require large volumes of*process water or receive or ship products by water. (C) The consistency of uses which provide general public access is high, so residential uses could be consistent if access is provided. _30- Table IV-2 Comparison-of Estimated Tax and Employment Benefits of Alternative Land Uses Tax Assessment Employment Use. Per Acre.(1,979) Per Acre (1979) Petroleum Tank,Farms 1,36,400 2.7 Manufacturing Firms, East Shore. South of 1-95 3.1.7,853 56 River Street Industrial Area 1.7-0,000 19 Redev@Ioped Industrial. Ar-ea 2.1.2,000 N.,A. New Waterfront Condominium Project. 1,6-00,OQO Older Sable Residential Area 300,000 est. Marinas 53,50 0 + 2_5 Park. 1, not including personal property tax assessment on pleasure boats. Source: New Haven City Plan Department based.on City Property Tax Records. Pos@sible complimentary re-uses of, these 5A acres of waterfront-include marinas, commercial fisheries, commercial uses such as shops or-restaurants, complimented by public access areas, and residential uses. 2- Inner-Harbor- a,. Present Character The inner harbor is the water area bounded by the Tomlinson, Chapel Street, and Ferry Street bridges and its adjacent land area,-most of which is zoned and used for industry with the exception of Quinnipiac Park at the con- -31- %X .... .... .. Q wr i EX 2l MAP, IV I GENERALIZED LAND USE ADJACENTTO WATERFRONTTANK FARMS, NEW HAVEN HARBOR Tank Farm Port Use. Industrial, Utilities, Scrap Commercial Residential Park Vacant COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT'PLANNING GRAI New Haven City Plan Department Scale: 1 1000' June-, 1980 ;icj no AV ront: Strett. ont. %rk, rA using, /Z/ A A 41 Already Phased,.()Ut',. 4zy Ail 14 bo, T/ B-re-wevryv ect: C 1/ -7, Commerd I/Residentid. We, AdApt buse.- Ij 1, rj C. 4-31 TANK kj ad MAP IV-2 0c;1 QUINNIPIAC RIVER 0 HISTORIC DISTRICT COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PLANNING GRANT New Haven City Plan Department June,1980 )Z.4: f., fluence of the Mill and Quinnipiac Rivers This area has a 16-foot deep federal channel and the lowest water quality of the.entire harbor, leading to intense odors in summertime at low tide. Barge access has been hampered in recent years by mechanical problems with the Tomlinson Bridge @Lnd rapid siltation of berths. The three major areas of the inner harbor are the western shore between Chapel Street and Forbes Avenue, location of a Suzio concrete plant and vacant land; the River Street industrial.area on the northern shore, which is the southern port of'penninsular Fair-Haven, an area of older buildings and firms employing about 550-600 people; and the southern shore, dominated by the recently vacated 34 acre U.S.. Steel, wire rope plant. The west shore being ,totally silted in, has no marine facilities. The north shore has two active barge terminal.s, Elmco receiving four- petroleum products-into 1.8 tanks (total capacity 291,400 barrels) and DuPont receiving sulphuric acid into two small storage tanks. The south.shore has a broken down dock with good-water on the northern part, the abandoned U.S. Steel barge dock, and two overlapping petroleum receiving piers operated by Mobil.and.Texaco. Mobil has made major invest-- ments in its 12-acre terminal (04,300 barrel capacity) recently, including extensive-air-and water quality control- equipment., a new of.11ce.and service building, and a new foam f - re suppression s *1 ystem. Texaco operates a considerably smal.le.r f.-acil,ity (3.3 acres, capacity- 85,100 barrel*s@). b:., Non-1nd.ustrial Use In 1,978,. Charles G. Hil.genhurst Associates of Boston, an ardhitecture.and planning firm with considerable experience in urban waterfront redevelopment., proposed in a draft report to the City that the inner harbor area be transformed into a commercial, and residential area.tak-ing full advantage of. the waterfront environment.. H1.1genhurst saw the River- Street area,&s,a natural. linkalongChapel Street between downtown and Wooster-Square to the we-st and the Brewery project and.Quinnipiac River Historic Di.strict to the east. Further-, they suggested that should U.S. Steel close its 'plant directly across the river, that site and its old buildings should be converted for residential, office, commercial, and recreational uses as well.. The@theory behind these proposals was that the strength and future of New Haven l1es in its expanding service economy and its regional commercial and residential role rather than in its declining industrial sector which is having difficulty competing with suburban industrial parks and other regions of the country. In this view, the old industrial areas of the inner harbor, with their waterfront location and charac- -32- teristic brick structures, offer the opportunity to create a unique environment which would attract private investment and people to the waterfront. Factors arguing against the Hilgenhurst proposal are: the shortage of' industrial land and buildings in the City for both large industries and smaller, new-firms to which urban locations are especially suited; the uncertainty of a market for non-industrial use of such a large area, which raises the possibility of conflict.between downtown and waterfront renewal goal.s; and the existence in the River S'treet area of'over.,5'00 jobs, many of which would be put in jeopardy by any large scale change in use. C.. Industrial Use Some business people and members of the.Port Develop- ment Council. of the Greater New-Haven Chamber of Commerce see-the inner harbor-area as a major opportunity area for marine-zelated industrial development-.. With a limited, amount of industrial land adjacent to Federally-maintained channels in the state, some,of these people view the inner harbor industrial land as a unique resource for local economic deve.lopment which should be-restricted to water related industrial.,use only. The problem with such a policy is that most water-,related industrial use:s, like bulk oil. storage, involve mechanized transfer and storage of.bulk commodities, use:s:whi-ch generate little empl.oyment or-capital investment compared to many other@industrial. or even non"industrial, uses. Another category of water-depen dent use is*large primary industries such as petroleum-refining, wood pulp mills, and chemical refining. Although some are fairly job intensive, they also require large site:s, produce myriad environmental impacts, and.are not economica-1.1y feasibl.e in New Haven. The:City. now has the di.scretionary power under-the coastal site. plan. review@ provi.sion-s of the- CCMA to deny- permits for waterfront proposals-which are not water dependent.. This al.lows evaluation of uses on.a case-by-case basis which would not be possible with an outright prohibition of non- water dependent uses. In response to low intensity uses of industrial land., the City is attempting to develop amend- ments to the Zoning Ordinance which would al.low discretion in permitting industr-ial uses based on employment and tax productivity. In balance, the most job and tax intensive industrial uses are probably non"water-dependent. -From data compiled on industrial location- criteria by the Fantus Company (sub- sidiary of Dunn and Bradstreet) for -the Port of New York,, specific operations were identified which might be attracted to New Haven's waterfront industrial areas (Fantus Co., New York, March, 1.979). The industries identified by Fantus were screened for-the particular characteristics of the New Haven Labor'Market Area both to single out strong candidates for New Haven and to eliminate industrial operations which might prove totally unsuitable.. The industrial categories identified with potential for the New Haven waterfront industrial. areas are: 1. Telephone, television, and cable tel.evis-ion*(CATV) hardware manufacturing and.distribution. 2. Fabricated wire products (closely related to #1). 3. Special.ized.and ornamental metal work. 4, Office.computing and business machinery -- manu- f.'acture and distribution.. 5. Single-use hospital. procedure kits -manufacture and distribution.. 6.. Electrical testing and.measuring instruments (as f.-or, automobilez, other- machinery). 7. Scienti.fic and precision instruments f-or-use in re;sea.rch and development. or- medical activities. 8.. Flavoring extracts and syrups manufacture.. 9.., Contract private brand food packaging. 10_ Converted and recycled paper products.. Each of these-industrial sectors has potential strengths in this area by virtue of Its-labor market characteristics or@linkages with strong industries in-the regional.economy.. None, however-1 are necessaril-y water-dependent. d.. Balancing Confl.icting-Visions In sum, the potential re.-uses of waterfront land in the inner harbor area-may be either industrial, if this area is maintained and upgraded as an industrial area, whet-her water related-or not., or non-industrial in line with the recom- mendations of the draft HIlgenhurst Report. If the industrial route is chosen, the 8.7 acre Elmco facility on River Street, supporting-about 50 jobs (5.7 per acre), could form the centerpiece of a River Street Industrial Park in which public infrastructure is improved for manufacturing firms in -34- the area and several additional underutilized parcels are also made available for new development. In a non-industrial scenario, this parcel occupies an equally pivotal position in the River Street area. Relocation of the storage capacity would not only make a prime develop- ment site available, but would also make a giant step toward improving public perceptions of the area ---the large, rusting, turquoise Elmco tanks are a prominent landmark greeting people entering New Haven over the-Quinnipiac Bridge. If the storage capacity of Mobil and Texaco were relocated, the combined 15.2 acre site could be incorporated in the re-use plan for the extensive U.S. Steel property. Under a non-industrial scenario, continuous public access from the Quinnipiac Bridge northeast to Ferry Street,could be provided, with.excellent opportunity for protected marina development with.ready access to the harbor-channel. Even under an industrial scenario, a-large part of the waterfront not requixed.for shipping could be reserved for a public open space for-employees and neighborhood residents. 3.., We:st Shore The,only New Haven tank farm on the west shore is Wyatt Oi1`s 1.7 acre-fac1lity which includes two deepwater berths, 2.2-tanks with a combined capacity of about 1.17 million barre1s, and'Ioading-bays,f'or-truck.s and rail tank cars (see" Map I'1-1). It has. about 1,500 f-eet. of water frontage on the south and east.sIdes and is bounded by Forbes Avenue to the north. This.site i.s adjacent to the Gateway Landing site, for which an ambitious $25 million commercial-office-hotel reuse project-has been proposed, and the Te 'Ietrack, a 2,200 seat closed-circuit TV'theatre offering live broadcasts of horse races.and paramutuel betting. Immediately west of the Wyatt site I.i.e.s the'East Street Sewage Treatment Plant which will be phased.out under-a new plan-for secondary treatment of all. municipal wastes. This would free up a key waterfront parcel. To the southwest is the site of the relocated Leon's Restaurant and the mile long expanse of open waterfront land a-long Interstate 95. This area, zoned for park and marine commer,cial, wil.l.eventually be developed for recreational and commercial uses which.wi.11 provide continuous, people- oriented waterfront development from Gateway Landing south to City Point. Arguments for retaining the Wyatt site in port-related --35- use are its deepwater channel access and the availability of reliable rail. freight service. The other deepwater port areas on the East Shore are hampered by the unreliability and limitations of the rail link across-the Tomlinson Bridge. Use of this-site for port-uses other than oil storage would be more appropriate from the standpoint of water-dependency even if these uses did not provide the employment and tax benefits of other uses. The U.S. Maritime Administration has shown that general cargo and container operations are far more labor-intensive.than bulk operations (U..S. Maritime Administration, Economic Impact of the U.S. Port Industry, August, 1978). lf, however-, it became feasible to reduce the water- front storage capacity, this prime site adjacent to non- industrial uses and reasonably close to downtown, Long Wharf, the proposed Union Station Transportation Center, and the intersection of 1-91 and.1-95" would make an ideal site for extension of the mixed use (commercial, office, residential., and public open space) waterfront development planned,for the rest of'the west shore. With a major-revamping of the Tomlinson Bridge, the East Shore industrial area.(described below:) could be developed as the working por1t district of the harbor, separated from the very.different uses of the west shore. 4-. East Shore Port and Industrial Area The. East Shore- Port. and, Industrial Area is bounded. by Interstate 95 on.the north, residential areas on the east, East Shore Park on the.south, and.the main harbor,channel to the-we,st.. With excellentaccess to the interstate highways, this area contains the largest concentration of petroleum storage tanks in the harbor, 4.8 million barrel.s (3.65 million barrels of clean fuels, 1.1 million barrel.s residual oi,l.),'located in seven facilities with 64 tanks. Beyond this, New Haven Terminal has 431,000 barrels of'chemical storage capacity in 22 tank.s. The NHT finger pier is al.so linked to 1.75 mi.l.lion barrels of c-lean fuels storage capacity on the New Haven/East Haven line-by two 16"'pipel.ines which allow-direct,pumping from ship to tank. This 255 acre area contains-the harbor's only general cargo terminal.facklities, at New Haven Terminal; six deep- water-ship berths; three fairly deep barge berths; about 25 acres of open storage area for lumber and steel; and 180,000 square feet of cargo warehouse space. The United Illuminating Company Harbor-Station occupies a 106 acre site, with 650,000 barrels of residual oil storage, on the southern end of the area. Exxon operates about 1.84 mil.lion barrels of clean fuel storage on a 38 acre site about 1,600 feet east of the waterfront and connected to its pier by 14 pipelines varying --36-. in diameter from 6" to 18". Getty, Gulf, TAD Jones (owned by Gulf), ARCO, and NHT operate receiving, 'storage, and truck loading facilities at the water's edge, occupying approximately 34 acres of land with a combined storage capacity of-1.6 mill-ion barrel.s for clean fuels and 685,000 bazrelz for residual fuel (at TAD Jones only) and #4 fuel oil (at NHT). Non-petroleum or port related businesses and one residence occupy only 3.1 acres of the area, but two manufacturing firms employ an average of 52 employees per acre. Significantly, the four tank farm facilities operated by-majors on the waterfront in the East Shore area south of 1-95 show considerably higher tax assessments per acre than the smaller facilities up the Quinnipiac River, offering $173,5_00 as opposed to $'95,300 for the latter. This higher, assessment is attributable primarily to the higher value of land ad.jacent to the deep water channel. The value of the docking facilities, the.higher-density of storage facilities, and the.condition.of the.tankz.. While these four- f acil.ities- yield 27% more tax revenue per-acre.than the average tank farm, they still yield 4.6% less than the manufacturing uses in their-immediate area.and r8% less than the uses in a redeveloped industrial. area.. Any di,scuss,ion of alternative uses of land occupied by- tank farms in this area logically turns toward expanded port or port..-.re:lated industrial use-. Possibl,e re-uses include additional generaIcargo storage areas, a Foreign Trade Zone encompassing warehouses and/or-manufacturing plants, and industries which either-import or export in large volumes or- rely on proximity to the water for other reasons (ship- building, barge building, or-industries using large volumes of*water for cooling and processes). Whil.e most forms of cargo storage are not.particularly intensive uses, they are more-water dependen@ than oil. storage in that-transporting general cargo to in.l.and.site.s would be prohibitively expensive. As a. regional, facility, a larger- port. would be. an economic deve-lopment incentive for-the-region even-if the City did not benefit from large infusions of taxes or-employment directly. This suggests that some form of regional or State support fbr such a facility would be appropriate. The.di.scussion of@non-water-dependent industrial pros- pects for-the-inner harbor area could apply equally in the East Shore as well except that the access to the main ship channel in this area makes it even more attractive for more water-dependent uses. The large public investment in the channel and the limited industrial land area are factors weighing against general industrial uses. -3 7*- C. Benefits of Alternative Uses Many land uses yield tax or employment benefits equal to or exceeding those from tank farm uses and would represent a considerable aesthetic improvement over tank faims. Table IV-2 compares the tax and employment benefits of a sample of alternative uses discussed above with those of tank farm uses. -38- V. Alternative Petroleum Receiving and Storage Scenarios for the New Haven Harbor Market Area A. Policy Framework In ligh t of the conclusions about projected storage capacity needs, several alternative scenarios-can be developed for meeting petroleum facility needs in the harbor while achieving or working toward-urban waterfront revitalization goals over the next 20 years.. While ideal.ly the entire waterfront storage capacity could be relocated in the near future to an inland site making 80 acres of prime waterfront land available for more intensive development, and thus transforming the face of the harbor-, realities of cost-and institutional. impediments make such.a.scale of relocation unrealistic. Clearly, some City and State policy and program on the issue of tank.farm location i.s.appropriate., however. The Connecticut Coastal Management Act of 1979 and the 1975 Long Island Sound Regional Study both recognized that tank farms are an inappropriate use-of prime waterfront land, especially .with the@development of pipeline technology. The,CCMA contains a.pol.i.cy which specif-i.cal.ly di.scourages siting of new,tanks in the coastal area (P.A. 79-535, Sec. 2(b)(l)(E)).. The Massachusetts and New York.State Coastal Zone Management Programs have adopted similar or stronger-policies. Over the. la.st 40 years, in the. absence of any clear City-policy on appropriate waterfront development in New Haven, tank farms have proliferated in several waterfront industrial. areas. With the passage of the CCMA, the City now has the clear opportunity to develop a binding, area- specific policy on coastal.tank farm development. This policy can become part of the.adopted municipal coastal- program which the City is encouraged.to draw up under the CCMA.. Once adopted, this program will guide all public and private deve1opment.in the coastal area.. A City policy and program addressing tank.farms could include a mix of regulatory measures, incentives, and public acquisition and/or development activities. While aimed primarily at more active use of water- front land, the City's coastal program must al.so ensure the smooth functioning.of the petroleum receiving and di.stribution system on which the region will continue to depend heavily for the next@20 years and beyond. If-a City policy were to impose costs on private oil companies which they might pass directly on to consumers, the City must be careful to weigh the public benefits such measures would reap in return. -39,- This section of the report considers a range of possible tank farm relocation programs, progressing from minimal to total, and looks at the operational implications, advantages and disadvantages associated with each. The discussion focuses on storage capacity rather than pier facilities. It is assumed that consolidation of petroleum receiving piers would be possible where necessary through -more efficient use of fewer piers. Several companies have joint use arrangements at present. If solid gurantees of access to joint piers could-be worked out, such an arrangement would be optimal from both a waterfront land use and operating and maintenance cost point of view.. The institutional mechanisms which could be employed to achieve the operational.alternatives will. be considered in Section V1II. As the scale of rel.ocation wil.1 in turn determine the operational-and institutional.requirements, thiz question is explored.first. B.. Scale of.Proposed Relocation Several scales of proje.cts can be considered, beginning with minimal relocation from strategic areas, which wou.ld advance ongoing redevelopment plans, to complete harbor-wide relocation whi.ch would free@-up land for major-new development initiative.s. For the purposes of this analysis, the tank farms-have been divided-into areal.groupings as li.sted in Table V-1- and. di.splayed on Map V-1.. The 3.81,800 barrel.s of- #4 fuel. oil storage have been grouped with residual. oil. tanks because #4.oi.1 cannot be shipped via a clean fuel pipeline even though heating-is not required to pump it. The range of. relocation efforts,could include: 1', Total-relocation of waterfront tank farms (areas 1., 2. and. 3; 79.9. acres). Clean fue1s': 1.1 operators@, 3,12.9,000 barrels. Re-sidual. fuels: 4 operatorst 1,695,000 barrels. (This excludes tanks owned by Exxon which are located about 1,600 feet back from the waterfront and residual oil tanks@owned and operated by the United Illuminating Company as an integral part of their harbor generating station,). -40- TAW V Petroleum Storage CaTity by Area New Haven Harbor, 1979* (barrels x 1000) CLEAN FUELS #4 AND RESIDUAL FUELS TOTAL Waterfront Area Acres Operators Capacity Operators Capacity Operators CapacijX 1. Quinnipiac River a. Above Ferry St. Bridge 5.2 3 170 -- -- 3 170 b. Peninsular Fair Haven 8.7 1 244 1 131 1 375 c. Total .13.9 4 414 1 131 4 545 2. East Shore Industrial Area a. North of 1-95 15.2 2 579 -- -- 2 579 b. South of 1-95 3-3.7 4 1,560 2 685 4 2,245 C. Total 48.9 6 2!139 2 685 6 2,824 3. West Shore 17.1 1 576 1 879 1 1, 455 4. Total Waterfront 79.9 11 3,129 4 1,695 11 4,824 (1c, 2c & 3) Non-Waterfront 1. Inland N/A 2 2,757 2 2,757 2. East Shore, Off Waterfront 1 1,839 1 650 4 2,489 4,596 1 650 4 3. ,Total 3 5,2 West Haven West River N/A 2 174 -- -- 2 174 Channel Total, New Haven Harbor 14 7,899 5 2,345 15 10,244 #4 fuel oil tanks are grouped with residual oil tanks because #4 oil cannot be shipped via a clean fuel pipeline even though heating is not required to pump it. Four of the five operators handling #4 or residual oil also handle clean fuels. the fifth, United Illuminating, receives residual oil for its own consumption. Sources: Assessor!s Office, City of New Haven; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; New Haven City Pra-nDepartment Survey. 41- -- I 1i '\ @s -.@AREAI "A it tl L -AR Nil IAC' I H@ EN -40 A -WE'S;T'SHORE IEW. HAVEN, HARBOR ARE0k. 2' E-J6T' SHORE NL INDUSTRIAL )kR'FJk MAP V-1 PETROLEUM STORAGE AREAS NEW HAVEN HARBOR COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PLANNING GRANT New Haven City Plan Department Scale: 1" 1000' June, 1980 40 2. Relo cation of all storage located along the Quinnipiac RiVer-'and the East Shore areas 1 and 2; 62.8 acres). . Clean fuels: 10 operators, 2,553,000 barrels. Residual fuels: 3 operators, 816,000 barrels. 3. Relocation of the East Shore tanks (area 2; 48.9 acres)., Clean fuels: 6 operators, 2,139,0.00 barrels. Residual fuels: 2 operators, 685,000 barrels. 4. Relocation of Quinnipiac River and West Shore Tanks (areas 1 and 3; 31 acres). Clean fuels: 5 operatorsi 990,000 barrels. Residual fuel-s: 2.operators,. 1,010,000 barrels. 5. Relocation of Quinnipiac River tankage, down to the Quinnipiac Bridge (areas land 2a; 2.9.2 acres). Clean-fuel,s: 6 operators, 993,000 barrels. Residual f;ue.l.s:- loperator, 131,000 barrels.. 6. Relocation of the Quinnipiac Rive-r-tanks above the Ferry Street Bridge, and the facility in peninsular Fair'Haven (area 1; 13.9 acres). Clean fuels: 4 operators, 414.,000 barrels. Residual. fuels: 1 operator, 131,000 barrels. 7. Relocation of only those Quinnipiac River tanks above.the Ferry Street bridge (area 1a; 5.2 acres). Clean. fuels: 3 operators, 170,000 barre Is. C. Operational.Alternatives One or a combination of the fol.lowing broad operational alternative could be used to limit expansion of waterfront @tank farms or to accomplish relocation without serious disruption to the petroleum distribution system: 1. Leave the storage system as is, letting private market forces determine the fate of waterfront tank farms; -42- 2. Prohibit.expansion of any waterfront storage areas; 3. Consolidate as much of the harbor's storag4@ facilities as possible in the East Shore industrial area and the existing inland tank farms areas; 4. Relocate waterfront storage capacity to a single site within the City; 5. Relocate storage capacity to a site which, though not within the City', is close enough to receive products directly from a barge or ship (this distance is limited by the cost of the pipeline and can increase with the scale of the facility and the throughput/storage ratio); and 6. Relocate storage capacity to sites to the north along the Jet Lines pipeline to Springfield. A di-scussion of theze-operational alternatives follows. I. Leave As- Is This could al. so be cal.led the:"no action" alternative, one which may possibly lead to reduction.in waterfront tankage.'through market forces. But this would not necessarily contribute to more active uses of'waterfront land, nor would it remedy the temporal. inefficiencies in the land market which delay-adjustments in use.to those uses which reflect current market.forces. Furthermore., if contraction in storage capacity were to occur in response to lowered demand, it.would not'necessarily occur@in the areas of highest priority from a waterfront planning standpoint.. 2.. Prohibit-Expans-ion of Storage Areas Given the petroleum throughput projections discussed above, the-exist-ing tank capacity on the harbor will be adequate to serve-its- market area for-the foreseeable future. .Discus-sions with terminal operators on the waterfront reveal that for most facilities existing tankage is adequate fot current and moderately expanded throughput. A City policy disallowing any netincrease in storage capacity or land used for tanks would thus be operationally feasible and guarantee that no additional waterfront land will be committed to tank-.farms. The main disadvantage of this approach would again be its general, non-site-specif-ic effect. A complication would be the interpretation of how such a regulation would apply to chemical tanks, whi.ch have many of the economic and -43- aesthetic characteristics of oil. tanks but are not as easily relocated to inland sites. This course of action could be implemented immediately through the.local coastal site plan review process of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (see below, Section VIII, Institutional Alternatives). 3. Consolidate Storage Functions in East Shore Industrial Area and Existing Inland Sites 2,824-,000 of@ the:4-,824,000 million barrels of water- front petroleum storage (58.5%) are located in the East Shore industrial area at present,(see Table VI, Map II-1.). Under this operational alternative, the petroleum tanks located outside this area would be phased out.either through regulatory means or by acquisition and the.current users serviced by-existing tankage and/or-additions to exi.sting tank'.f. arms on the East Shore and inland. operationally, much of:the.throughput from the Quinnipiac River tank farms (capac,ity-54.5,000; recent annual receipts of 1,776,000 barrel,s) could be handled by existing facilities in the East Shore:industrial area if management arrangements could be,worked out. As all. four operators currently either purchase from or-have throughput arrangements with deepwater terminal operators, much of the product in the Quinnipiac tank-s originates at.the harborside now.. An increase in the throughput/storage ratio in the-East-Shore facilities from roughly 7'..8 to 8_1 (le,s:s than 4%) would accommodate all the Quinnipiac River volume. This-consolidation would free up the. lowest tax.yie.-lding-tank farm land which also happens to -be in.some prime sites for more intensive uses, as discussed in Section.IV. Phasing out the older-terminals on the Quinnipiac River including Elmco would represent less of a problem than phasing out the residual. oil part of the Wyatt operation on the westshore.(involving 879,000 barrels of storage.for-#4 and.#.6 oil.s.and asphalt) which requires good rail access for product distribution, a boiler house-to heat the oil, and insulated tanks. If Wyatt were included in such a scenario, the-Toml.inson Bridge and East Shore rail system would have to be.totally revamped or new rail. access provided at existing inland tank farms. This would involve considerable new inve-stment.. 4., Relocate Storage Capacity to a Site Within the city While operationally and institutionally relocation of storage capacity within New Haven would be most desirable, -4-4- only one site has been located which is suitable for tank farm development (see Section VI). This site, approximately 18 acres adjacent to New Haven Terminal's tank farm on the East Haven town line, could.accommodate 1.3 million barrels of storage,-assuming a ratio of 75,000 barrels per acre. The few other vacant sites of sufficient scale were eliminated be.cause of soil conditions or because tank farms would not be an appropriate use in.their locations. Thus,new inland tank farm development within the City limits could'accommodate about 41% of- the exi.sting water- front clean fuels storage capacity, or 55% if Wyatt is not included. It could accommodate 27% of total waterfront storage capacity. 5. Relocate-Storage Capacity to a Site Outside the City whi.ch is Close Enough to Receive Product Directly from a Ship or-Barge Considering the dearth of City sites, thi-s is the.best approachto realizing the goal. of- large-scale relocation from an operational standpoint. Two major terminals, Wyatt and New Haven Terminal, have alr-eady located a total of 2.8 million barrels of storage capacity.at two inland locations in.Hamden and on the New Haven/East Haven town.line, respec- tively. New Haven Terminal currently has a capacity to pump directly of:f vessels to their@inland tanks, a di.stance,of 6,500 feet, at.a.rate of '1.0,000 barrels per@hour. This eliminates the need for waterfront tanks to accommodate the .surge of*product as it.i.s pumped from the vessel.. The cost of pipeline construction wi.l.l.increase with the di.stance from the waterfront. While operationally appealing, this-approach may face di.fficul-ties in gaining acceptance from surrounding towns, especially if a public or quasi-public entity is involved in developing an inland facility. Although most towns do not rej.ect tanks farms- outright, they may have reservations about-them or they may wish to reserve industrial land for more intensive uses.. The abundance of industrially zoned land.in.the inland.portions of thi.s region means a.ready supply for both tank farm and more intensive uses, however. 6., Relocate Storage Capacity to Sites to the North along the Jet Line Pipeline to Springfield This is a major recommendation of the Long Island Sound Regional Study of 1975. Consolidating storage at inland sites in the Meriden or Hartford vicinities could replace coastal storage areas in New Haven, eliminate the need for petroleum barge traffic on the Connecticut River, and reduce the total distance which petroleum products must be trucked. _45- Operationally, this would prove an excellent opportunity if the Jet Line capacity were increased through the installation of additonal pumping capacity and the delivery of products to the pumping station at higher pressures. The Jet Line, which carried approximately 13.8 milli,on barrels northward from New Haven in 1978, is committed to expanding their capacity to 27.4 million barrels per year by 1982 and has the capacity to handle 90,000 barrels per day or 32.8 million barrels per year, a 240% increase over the present rate, using the same pipeline. more significantly, this capacity could accommodate a winter monthly peak of 2.7 million barrels, compared to a peak-monthly volume of approximately 1.8 million barrels in January, 1978. At this rate of pumping the Jet Line could transport up to 65% of New Haven Harbor clean product receipts as opposed to the 2.7% it handles now. The impact of this arrangement on the efficiency of products distribution would depend on the exact location of the inland tank-farm's. -While New Haven is a fairly central distribution point, communities along Interstate 91 from Meriden to Hartford are closer-to the large Hart-ford area market. various sites in the vi.cinity of,the Jet Line have been identified (see.Section VI). -46- VI. Alternative Inland Sites for Tank Farm Development A. Locational and Site Requirements of Tank Farms 1.- General Site Requirements Petroleum tanks farms have a number of general site requirements applicable to both coastal or inland situations. Additional criteria should be included when examining potential inland sites for the relocation of tank farms presently situated on the waterfront. According to industry sour ces, a potential petroleum storage facility site is assessed primarily from an operational point-of: view. A terminal optimization study is the.common met-hod of determining the most economical method of receipt and di.stribution. A dealer's cost is the sum of several factor-s, of which transportation of.the product is at once the most critical and variable. The total cost includes the "'laydown cost", or price of. getting the product to the.tank;- storage and handling, including tank maintenance, labor, insurance, etc.;- and the transportation cost to the dealer-"s market, which.depends upon the location of the market and highway and secondary road access to 'it.. Thi.s last factor is-especially important in Connecticut where 75% of the, total petroleum receipts are redistributed from primary marketing terminals by truck.. Rail access is a requirement for- some. terminaIs which. handle and distribute residual oil. From intervi.ews with operators in New Haven, it is, clear-that most companies find their present-waterfront locations more advantageous than inland sites from a develop- ment and operating cost perspective. Waterfront storage eliminates the need for long pipelines and allows easier control over receiving and distribution from a central offtce. The New Haven terminals have excel.lent highway acce-sa., excellent rail.access for the one terminal which .uses rail (Wyat,.t,),. and exi.sting tie-ins with the Jet Lines pipeline. The@strongest argument of*many terminal operators in favor of their waterfront locations is the exi,stence of facilities which are in.most cases paid for. Replacement of old storage capacity at currently inflated steel, as-sembly, and site preparation costs is extremely expensive (see Section VII). 'As most of the waterfront tanks are welded steel,, built since 1950, they have a long life expectency if properly maintained even though on paper they may have been totally written off. The nature of the product handled at a tank farm requires that the facility be located in an area zoned for heavy 7- industry. Some municipalities impose additional require- ments for the location of bulk storage such as buffer zones between storage areas and.residential areas. In New Haven, for instance, a special exception must be obtained for this use from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The BZA takes into account the following factors when considering a particular location: the nature of the proposed site, including its size and shape; the proposed size, shape and arrangement of structures; the resulting traffic patterns and adequacy of proposed off-street parking and loading; the nature of the surrounding area and the extent to which the proposed use.or feature might impair-its present and future development; and the proximity of dwellings, churches, school.s, publi.c buildings and other places of public gathering. Recently, under intense pressure from neighboring residents, the BZA denied a permit to build a large tank in an IH zone which already contains a number of tanks.. With the current escalating value.of petroleum products and the.controversy often surrounding -the major oil companies, security has become-an important consideration in site assessment. Proximity to a high crime area of a town would be. considered a negative feature of,,a proposed site. Whi1e,community acceptance is a'.factor in the site sele,ction of most any type of business, it is especial.ly important in the case of bulk stor-age,of'petrol.eum facilities be.cause of@ the-hazardous nature of the product, the large sc-a-le.of the.structures, and the-increased heavy-truck traffic-generated.by a.terminal's delivery system. The climate for tank f-arm development business in a town might al.so hinge on or-take into account the ratio of tax benefits- received from.this use-to the cost of providing comprehensive fire.and police protection as well.as maintenance.to heavily travelled roads. 2- Environmental. Criteria Environmental criteria must be evaluated in terms of impact upon the physical- landscape, the social.we-1.1-being-of the community, and the financial burdens associated with mitigating environmental impacts. . Petroleum bulk storage facilities should not be located in an area,which is.subject to coastal or-riverine flooding. Ideally, the topography of the site should be relatively flat. Although the effects of slope can be reduced by techniques such as terracing this increases development costs. Adjacent uses which are-incompatible with a tank farm, such.as residential, recreational or commercial deve- lopment should be screened to minimize adverse aesthetic impacts. Good soil properties were sited by terminal operators as a crucial site requirement. Stable, load-bearing soils are desirable both to prevent settlement problems and to hold down the cost of site preparation. According,to industry spokesmen, a site with unsuitable soil conditions can b4 stabilized by piling or surcharging, but often at a cost equal to or greater than the construction of the storage facilities themselves. 3. Access to Marine Terminal and Jet Lines Pipe-line An important criteria.mentioned by industry sources was convenient access to incoming and-outgoing waterborne trans- portaion. While pipeline technology obviates the necessity of:locating storage facilities on the waterfront, terminal operators-maintain that shoreside storage is needed to accommodate off-Ioading ships whose cargo discharge rate is higher than the pumping rate of exi.sting pipeline facilities. These are sometimes referred to as surge storage tanks. Operators must pay a demurrage cost for ships that are delayed at the terminal longer than 36 hours by other than natural causes.. The alternative to surge:storage tanks at the waterfront is a pipeline to an inland site which is capable of handling peak- unloading rates from ships, about 10,000 barrel.s per hour.- Reasonable.proximity to the,Jet-.Line pump station located a-t,4:0'0 Quinnipiac Avenue, is another requirement for an inland tank.farm, which serves areas up the pipeline. Products using the pipeline must be delivered to the suction side of the pumping station unless a new pump station'were buil,t, a project that might prove prohibitively expensive. A r-ight.of way to connect.a storage terminal to the Jet Line should,fol-low the most direct route while altering-the landscape as little a.s possible. A long right-of-way.which must go through heavily built@-up urban streets or very hilly topography could be prohibitively expensive.. 4.. Land Requirements There are no hard and fast requirements for the amount' of acreage needed to store and handle a given amount of product. Various sources have reported different acreage req@iirements: . 0 Petroleum Development in New England, a study by A., D. Little of potential development related to exploitation of outer continental shelf oil resources, recommends a ratio of I million barrels per 17 acres or approximately 60,000 ba-@:rel.s per acre. -49- 0 A port development report for New Haven Harbor prepared in 1968 by the consulting firm of Knight and Gladieux, Inc., recom mends a petroleum storage ratio of 50,000 barrels per acre. 0 A representative of Northville Industries on Long island suggested that one acre is needed per 33,000 barrels of #2 heating oil and gasoline. 0 The developed portion of New Haven Terminal, Inc.'s. inland tank farm on Peat.Meadow Road, stores about 75,000 barrels per-acre, including dicked area, access roads and loading racks. Various State regulations require minimum distances for setbacks from property lines and public buildings, diked areas around tanks, and minimum distances between tanks. The dedi.cation of individual tanks to specific products and/or companies may require a certain tank size, with the appropriate corresponding minimum di.stance requirements. Otherwise, the geometry of the site itself is a major deter- minant of the arrangement of facil.i.tes on the site and hence the:amount of land needed. One industry source reported that given these regulatory parameters and a regularly shaped site, the use.of-large-300,000 barrel tanks result in the- maximum number- of barrels per- acre-. Different options for- relocation. would carry differing land@requirements, To provide an inland storage facility to accommodate,the clean fuels storage presently on the water- front (3,1.2.9,000 barrel.s) would require 42 acres assuming a ratio of 75,000 barrels per acre.. The acreage.requirements and development-costs associated with each of the relocation scenarios of Section V*are explored more fully below in Section VII.A.. B. Potential Inland Tank Farm Sites in the New Haven Market-. Area 1. South Central. Connecticut,Region As one element of thi,s feasibility analysis, potential inland petroleum storage sites in the region were screened. As site location and characteristi.cs have a direct bearing on development costs and desireability from a marketing standpoint, site analysis was an integral,part of the study. The sites examined in some detail are listed on Table VI--1 (see also Map V1-1). Based on criteria discussed in Section VI.A., the ideal site would be at least 30 acres, have stable soil conditions, have good access to the interstate highway system and preferably -50- M.M M Meg M M M M M M M M Table VI-1 Potential Inland Petroleum Tank Farm Sites No. on Proximity 10 Map VI-1 !AyqIc!pa!I1y I-9callon Zone Rail Hig@way Access 4e! p9p Pipeline Soil Condl I ns Comments 14" Hsy@n/ Adjacent to NH Tank 26.6 Y" !-95 via Frontage Rd. Pipeline from NHT Part I Ir p r1l; Good highway access; adjacent !o East Haven' Farm an North ard East Induitrial Tank Farr" to pump Very poor large tank farm; connection to Jet station !n Place Line In place; possible community resistance; part I s wetlands. New Haven Between Russell St. and. 17 Light yes 1-95 via local streets or via NHT pipeline Fair Adjacent to existing tanks; flat Amtrak mainline IndustriAl now railroad crossing to pump station topography; screened from neigh- borhood by ridge; community r*- sistance pos sible. Zone change needed. 2 East Haven West o! praq!ey @1. Heavy Br dley St. Via !4"T pipeline Poo! Adjacent to existing tanks; area Yes 1-PS Og -I... and East of Amtr k main Industrial or no r If overpfs! !o pump oallIon designated.bulk storage In East. rv a Haven Plan of Development; poor $all$; ravine. 3 West Haven Mor an L qe !ridustrial Yes 1-95,g 91. Far from harbor and Jet Line .9 119 . . . .. 1 7. : I @ P . . 4 Hamden. East of State St., adiacent 5 Iniustrial yes 1-91 via Rt. 5 Connected via Varl!bli, Some room on Wyatt site; some to existing VVM! 41M Wy@!i pipa!lne! adjacent; t1dal wetlands restrict expansion. 5 NorO Haven Railroad proper!y pq!4 !qdustrial Y" 1-91 vi! sm!*"! F!- -4 mi- to Wif" Difficult to acquire land; of Sackett Pt. Rd. ooq o! Mon!qwg!g. Ay?. ;.p to pump station possible community resistance. 6 North Inters ction of Rt 17 25 Industrial No 5.7 mi. to 1-91 1.4 mi. for tie-Int Good Poor highway access; part of site i,anf.rd ;nd N.BranfoFtiflj. "Iyal jpqrt r s d! on Rt. 17 would need zone change. town line antial) 7 Wallingfo!o !4orth Plains Industrial 187 Inclustri I Yes 2.8 mi. I om 1-91 3.8 mi. f r tie-Int Goo Possible community resist nce; . . '. @ r ... . . . I . . 'o a. Park via Rt 68 Incompatible with adjacent uses. a Rocky 11!11 Adjacent to existing o9r- Manufac. yes 2 mi. to 1-91 Adilcen$ terminals Good Availability fnd exact size on. age of F.LRoberts and (ast-) turing Via Rt. 99 are coppec!ed known; In flood plain. 9 Portland End of Brownstone Ave. 25 Industrial yes 2 mi. to 1-91 Terminal 1.5 mi. Good Flat topography on site; needs Extension win Rt. 66 south Is connected access road to Rt. 66. !Maw plpo!lno would have to be constructed to receive p!pq4qj f@ jh!j sit! Iron% Vessels. Direct connection to Jet Line pipeline would be desireable. tThIs distance Is for tio4n to rocal a product . Distance It Jet Un PuMp f4!Iqp for a@!pmjq! 91 #pfod product to nort I cons or bi f rther NEW CA N - T-q- I-- UTH BLOOMIFIfLD HARTFORD !W AVON-, 11WESIr RARMPORD1 MANCHE ER BURLINGTON EAST' HARTFORD 'FARMPNGTON; GLAST&ON-SWAY L Wrawn M, -10AINi. JET LINE PLYMOUTH. I ROS E6L. OMWO C@ R 4'@ INGTON. 13ERUM; wftcmr 'AN(D' V PORM11- WXT E R- BU EASTHAMPTOP MffFN(D2N* CH 9AW H ZA A6 -M PROS Merl r Lr, 10 Mui IRHAM@ HAIZQAM@ I BETHANY' V @ UME, Pill 1411011IONZWORITH- CH&SMIgRk V HAMIDISIN, 14,00TH 1 WOODBRIDGE: 4 V V. V -ST NEWHAV.&N. EAST C. L 1, N Tt 0 N: HAV (D/ 02: ORANGE BRANFOR& MAP VI 1 POTENTIAL. INLAND PETROLEUM TANK FARM SITES WEST 1010 HAVEN COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PLANNING GRANT 3" T* New Haven City Plan Department 95' 0'(D TA N. K F@*ALR M SITES Scale: June,1980 LONG: ISLAND SOU N D rail. access as well-, and be in an industrially zoned area screened from adjacent non-industrial uses. Unfortunately, these same criteria apply to almost any industrial develop- ment which means that most such sites have already been developed. 'In New Haven, for example, the City went to great trouble and expense to prepare poorly drained industrial site for the G & 0 Company because no alternative sites within the City existed. Public subsidies were required to develop this site because a private company would locate elsewhere before footing the site preparation bill. The distance a new tank farm facility can be located away from the harbor is limited by the expense of constructing a pipeline and pumping system large enough to receive product directly off a ship. If. sufficient tank capacity were maintained at the waterfront for surge storage, the pipeline requirements would be-reduced. The first-possibility examined was the expansion of storage capacity at the two inland storage areas. Currently, additional capacity to store 250,000 barrels of petroleum products exists at Wyatt's inland tank farm on Benton Street in Hamden. New Haven Terminal owns land adjacent to their, inland tanks on the East Haven town.line upon whi.ch they could expand their-storage capacity by 900,000 barrels. 'The remaining 2.0 million barre1s of clean fuels storage on the waterfront would require approximately-37 acres, assuming a ratio of 75,.000 barrels per acre.. After-looking,for-avai,lable relocation sites within the borders of the City of.New Haven, where little vacant industrial land can be found, it quickly-became evident that sites outside the City would have to be considered. Only one City parcel-, land adjacent to existing storage tanks of'New Haven Terminal near Peat Meadow Road, was considered even remotely feasible@. Large open areas exi.st in the vicinity of the City landfill. off-Midd,letown Avenue, but.releases of explosive methane gas from the decomposing solid waste in the landfill would.pose hazards and the.soil. conditions are very poor.. A nearby major tract, known as.the "Warner Property", bounded by Route 80, Quinnipiac Avenue, the.Amtrak main line and Interstate 91, is zoned commercial, has poor soil conditions, and is being actively considered for more job intensive uses at.present. All other New Haven sites examined were too small for-a feasible scale of development. The South Central Connecticut region has a great deal of.vacant industrial land in its over 3,000 acres of industrial park.s and zones, although a limited amount would be suitable for tank farm development. The site search focused on areas along the Jet Lines Pipeline for access to t-he pipeline and proximity to product markets which these sites could offer. --51- After surveying all the towns bordering on New Haven and several along the Uet Lines Pipeline to the north', a list of ten potential sites for new tank farms was developed. This list is for illustrative purposes in the cost analysis only. It does not constitute specific proposals nor have all the ramifications of tank farm development on the sites in question been explored. While a tank farm development in any location may face some opposition on economic and environ- mental grounds, the site survey and analysis does suggest that appropriate alternatives to waterfront sites do exist within the region. The sites include the one in New Haven already mentioned, one in Hamden, two in North Haven, two in East Haven, two in West Haven,, one in Wallingford, and one in North Branford. 2. Hartf6rd.Are-a Another option would be to increase storage capacity near the pipeline in the Hartford*area-to serve a wider market from that point. Storage development costs would be comparable to those to the south with some variance in land costs. operationally, this option may become more attractive as the-cost of trucking products increases. Wh.i1e tanks- that. f ar inland. wou.1d. still. have to be served by-surge storage tanks c.loser-to the harbor-, their presence would-reduce reserve storage capacity needs in New Haven and hence have the potential to increase local throughput./ storage ratios and thus replace New Haven storage. Potential sites were identified in Rocky Hill and the Hartford-vi.cinity though none were examined in detail within the scope of this study. VII. Costs of New Tank Farm Development or Relocation A. Capital Costs 1... Relocation Most industry sources felt that.the physical relocation of existing tanks would not prove economically advantageous at this time. With labor and material costs involved in cutting apart the old tank, transporting it, and reassembling it on a.new foundation, the total cost would approach 60%-70% of that of a new tank. The end,result, for that price, is stil.1 an old tank with its associated risks and stresses of age, particularly in the original welds which are not guaran- teed by the moving contractor (the tank is cut in new places to make the move easier). New-Haven Terminal did actual.ly relocate three large tanks from the waterfront to their inland site in East Haven in the late 1960's, but construction costs and condition have changed.since that time. Recently NHT also purchased two smal.ler tanks from the City and moved.then in one piece from another waterfront site to their own. In this case, the size.of the tanks and the proximate-waterfront locations made,it feasible to move-them. Theref ore,. if major- new inland. f-aci-litiez were construc- ted,or an.exi.sting one expanded, the likelihood.is that.new tanks woul.d.be-us-ed. Thus cost analysis will be limited to new development.. Di.scussions of'relocation.refer to the storage capacity of tanks rather than the tanks themselves. Z. New-Deve-lopment, Beyond the cost.of:the-tanks themselve-s, a new tank farm development must include: concrete tank foundations; diked areas around the tanks capable of.containing the volume,of the largest-tank plus 1.0% of the volume of each additional tank within-the diked area;- s-ervice-roads and. truck or rail loading tracks.; pipeline connections from the tank to the product source and to the truck or rail loading racks; and aszociated.pumps and fittings required for moving @the product. lf-t6 oil or-asphalt is to be stored, a steam boiler house and tank and pipe insulation wil.1 be required. The tanks them-s elves are either floating-roof, required for gasoline, or fixed roof in the case of'heating oil.. Table VII-1 gives a cost breakdown in 1979 dollars of indivi- dual tank farm-components. The total cost of developing a new inland tank farm is the sum of site acquisition, construction, and pipeline costs. The cost figures developed.'in this study are rough -5 3- @estimates for purposes of general feasibility analysis. While more' detailed engineering and operational feasibility analysis would obviously be required to refine these concepts, the level of analysis and accuracy here is sufficient for prel.iminary-evaluation. The cost of acquiring waterfront tank farms was not calculated here. It was assumed that if relocation were accompli.shed privately, sale of the land would more than cover-tank demolition costs plus new site acquisition. If waterfront sites were acquired by a public entity, resale-or future lease revenues would offset these costs. Depending on the area under consideration, the spill- over benefits of tank farm removal, measured by increases in property values and hence tax assessments on adjacent land and structures,,cou.1d,be,consider-able. In the Quinnipiac River-Historic District vicinity in particular, the presence of aging tank facilities on the east bank reduces the value of land with a high, residential- and commercial potential on both sides of the river. Analysts of the component costs of the new tank farm development results in a figure very. close to the industry rule of. thumb of $1.0 per barrel of storage capacity which will thus serve for-analytical.purposes in this report.. Tot this must be added off'-site pipeline costs and new site acquisition costs. Table V11-2 detai1s a range of development costs involved. in accomplishing the levels of- waterfront tank farm relocation, outlined in-Section V.B. These highly generalized capital costs are provided to give an idea of- the magnitude of'the project.. The cost of the major relocation scenarious range from $2.5-60 million. More refined estimates would require more detailed site and pipeline right-of-way investigations. The:incIusion of residual "oil capacity in any relocation s!cenario increases the costs because the specifically designed dedicated pipe-lines required are more than'double the cost of clean fuel lines. Any of the first four scenarios could be accomplished for consider-ably less cost if only clean fuel.s were included. Table VII--@l Estimated.Cost of Tank Farm Components J.@. Basic Tanks 50,000 bbls 80,000 bbls 150,000bbls 300,000 bbls Cone roof (fixed) .$235,000 $335,000 $5-57,000 $1,025,000 Floating roof $294,000 $422,000 $680,000 $1,250,000 2., Site preparation $2.00,000 --$500,000 (depending on.site conditions)* (including floors and dikes) i. Pipe-line from waterfront (16") $85 -.12.0/ft. 4.. Pumps (2-4 needed depending.on routes) $1,000 - $5,000 each 5. Basic valves, interior piping $25/ft. El. Regulatory valves, fittings (2 per tank) $5,000 each 7. Old tank demolition and purging $19 - 24,000/t.ank El. Truck loading racks (4-6 per site.) $2.50,000 each 9. Vapor recovery units (1 per site) $30,000 each 10. Boilerhouse (if No. 6 oil or asphalt are involved) $140,000 11. Pumphouse and small office $ 50,000 12. Parking area and turnarounds $ 5"000 1-3. Tank insulation for-No. 6 oil and asphalt (150,000 barrel.a) $ 2.2,000 B... Operating Costs The replacement of-numerous, aging-waterfront tank farms and terminal.s with a consolidated inland terminal' would reduce total labor and operating costs for petroleum handling. Depending on the inland location, the transportation costs associated with di.stribution from more centralized locations may be reduced as well. Of@ interest here is the extent to which the savings in operating costs would offset the,high.cost of financing new tank farm construction. While the derivation of these figures is difficult due to the proprietary nature of the inf.ormation, there is probably a large gap between operational savings and the additional funds needed to support the new capital,debt.. --55- TABLE VII-2 FSTIMATFP COST OF DEVELOPING NiW INL"D PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITIES Stor;g9 P mppcity EstiMated DevelopMqpt Cost ($ x 1,000,000) Clean iuels Residual Fuels Total Waterfront Areas on Ne @kg" New Acres Acre 9@ Land Made New Tank Farm I ., v.-i .1 YY , - ;- -1-1.. 1 . 1 @4, 11 1. . - 1-1 @ - . - Alternative Map Capacity Rpq4ired(A) Capacity Reqplrpq(A) Req4ired Available (@$10 /bbI) Land Pipeline Total 1. All Waterfront 1,2,3 3129 42-52 1695 23-28 65-80 80 48.2 1.6-2.8 4.4-9.2 54.2-60.2 Tanks 2. Quinniplac River 1,2 2553 34-41 q1Q. 11-14 45-57 63 33.7 1.1-2.0 4.4-9.2 39.2-44.9 and East Shore 3. East Shore 2 2139 29-36 685 9-11 38-47 49 28.2 1.0-1.6 4.4-9.2 33.6-39.0 4. Q4innipiac River 1,3 990 13-17 1010 13-117 26-34 31 20.0 .6-1.2 4.4-9.2 25.0-30.4 and West Shore 5. Qt!inniplac River 1,2a 993 13-17 131 2 15-19 29 11.2 .4-.7 1.2-2.6 12.84 4.5 Down to .1-95 6. Quinnipiac River 1 414 6-7 131 2 8-9 14 above Ferry St. and peninsular Fair Haven 7. Quinnipiac River la 170 2-3 2.3 .5 (P) above Ferry St. (A) Range based on 60,000-75@900. barrels per acre. (B) These facilities could either be phased out without advers Impact on the storag@ system or could be replaced by additional tanks at existing Inland tank farms at lower cost than new tank farm development. (C) Range based on range of acreage requirements and r ng@ of !plppd Industrial land costs of $25-35,000 per acre. (D) Alternatives 1-4 would require separate pipelines for clean and residual fuels. Pipeline costs are based on $75-100/foot for clean fuels pipeline and $200-250/foot for specially designed residual oil pipeline for a distance of 3-5 miles. VIII-Institutional Alternatives A. General Considerations The relocation of petroleum tank farms could be accom- plished through a range of institutional.and legal mechanisms depending on the level of relocation attempted and legislative preferences for one form over another. The less ambitious relocation scenarios discussed above could-be accomplished without major-new inland tank farm development. Estimates of future throughput demands and analysis of current tank farm operations have shown that the present facilities could accommodate the moderate increases in throughput which would accompany the phasing out of a smal-1 percentage of the harbor's storage capacity. This points to public acquisition as the most direct method of accomplishing the less ambitious relocation scenarios such as 6 or 7. Users of these smaller facilities would.then have to negotiate-direct throughput contracts-with other terminals to meet thel.r@supply needs. The more ambitious.the relocation program, the more complex are the institutional mechanisms required. Basic approaches involve-either-regulatory or direct intervention or a-combination of-the two.. Whatever-approach Is employed, its impact on the structure of the industry and consequently on prices must,be assessed.. Cbns-triction of the supply of storage facilities through public action could lead to artifical.ly increased terminaling charge,s, increased prices, or other related business practices which may be-possible due to the concentration of ownership and market power-in fewer, larger companies. Unless tied to some guarantee of access to alternative facilities, elimination of- the storage capacity of independent operators on the Quinnipiac River would limit the options for smaller fuel. oil. dealers and marginal-ly reduce competitive pressures on the-majors and larger dealers. B. Regulatory Approach 1. Zoning The City has the power to control the type and intensity of- land uses through zoning, including the power to prohibit certain uses altogether-and to implement a program for long term elimination of uses which do not conform to the Zoning Ordinance. The zoning regulations must have a clearly stated purpose of protecting public health, safety and welfare.. Zoning regulations and their enforcement or super vision must show some evidence of conformance with a compre- hensive plan for the municipality or district involved. Petroleum storage tanks are now permitted in New Haven by special exception in areas zoned for heavy-industry. The City could act to phase these uses out over time by amending the zoning ordinance to declare such storage tanks in one di.strict or throughout a large area a non-conforming use. This would iimit expansion of the use. The next level of regulation would be to require eventual phase out of the tanks,@giving the owners of the facilities a specified period of time, such as 20 years, to amortize their investment.in the facilities and remove the tanks. This approach to tank relocation has been adopted by the City of Burlington, Vermont, to further the redevelop- ment of its lakefront area. A similar approach has been used to phase out non-conforming uses in other cities and states, and.is specifically allowed by Connecticut law (Title 8, Connecticut General Statutes). The state courts, however, have held in most cases that a non-conforming use constitutes a property right which cannot be taken without compensation, even if'a suf-ticient-amortization period is allowed in the phase-out ordinance. This interpretation might be challenged successfully. % This long range policy would-be the least expensive approach to relocation' in terms of public resources and appreciates the.need f6r-companies to derive the benefits of their investments and to make long range plans for developing a1ternative-s to waterfront storage-capacity.. Simple,declara- tion,of. tanks as a non-confbrming use without the phase-out provision would prohibit expansion of these uses and engender le,.ss industry opposition. 2.. Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA) As mentioned above, the CCMA specifically directs local governments-: "'To di.sal.low the siting within the coastal boundary of new tank farms and other new fuel and chemi.cal storage facilities which can reasonably be located inland and to require any new storage tanks whi,ch must be located. within the coastal boundary to abut existing storage tanks or to be located in urban industrial areas and to be adequately protected against floods and spills." [Sec. 2.(b)(1)(E)]. The City must follow the detailed poli.cies in the CCMA when considering applications for special exceptions or building permits for projects in the coastal area. The mechanism for this process, called Coastal Site Plan Review, would put the burden of proof on the person proposing to. building a tank farm to demonstrate why their facility must be located within the coastal area. -57- This mechanism is specific to the coastal area, a specificity harder to achieve through amendment to the industrial section of the zoning ordinance without creating new districts. Itallows some discretion on the part of the board.or commission conducting thereview. The task of regulating coastal tank development will, be made easier if the-question of new tank development is specifically addressed in the City's municipal coastal program. This program constitutes a plan of development for the coastal area, designating allowable uses and establishing local coastal policies to supplement state policies as they apply to New Haven.. C. Direct Public Intervention Direct public intervention to accomplish tank farm relo-cation could take a number of. forms depending on the scale of relocation proposed. Possibilities include simple public acquisition and preparation for reuse for less extreme programs; development of inland,storage.areas by a public or quasi:-public entity as an inducement to relocation (or in conjunction with a regulatory or acquisition program); and a public-prIvate partnership in which the City joined with a pr-ivate.firm or firms in buying out.waterfront tank farms for reuse and/or in acquiring or developing common i .pier, pipeline, and.storage facil.itie.s. If; relocation of waterf.ront.tank farms,is embraced as an.important public initiative, it.would have to be determined through more in-depth study what.leve-1, of public action or inve:s'tment would be-required to induce private participation in the scheme. With access to lower cost financing and potential help in simplification of permit processes, the public sector could make an otherwise unworkable scheme financially feasible.. Public initiatives could al-so provide the impetus for,overcoming institutional barriers which are presently resulting in underut-il.iz@ed. facilities, waterfront siting, and perhaps higher product.costs for-consumers. -.58- IX. Conclusions and Recommendations New Haven is a vital petroleum port for Connecticut, supplying 50-60% of all state heating oil, and a large part of Southern.New England. The port is the fifth largest receiver of petroleum products on the east coast and the second largest in New England. While petroleum tank farms. are essential regional support facilities, they do not require a waterfront location, as demonstrated by two New Haven terminals and numerous terminals around the country. Current and historical data on storage capacity and throughput indicate that in general New Haven's petroleum receiving and storage facilities could be used-more inten- sivel.y by increasing the low annual turnover rates of the tanks. Petroleum throughput is expected to level and possibly decline over the next 20 years. ThIs means that either reserve capacity can be increased or that storage capacity can be reduced as receipts level and/or-decline. New Haven, like many-urban coastal cities, is just beginning to realize the potential of. its extensive water- front area. Ambitious waterfront revitalization projects and plans are underway in a,number of areas, and other areas of@fer-excellent opportunities for [email protected] or adaptive reuse.. IT waterfront tank farms in strategic areas could be 10 phased.out, alternative uses of prime waterfront land could generate considerably more.bene-f-its to the.people of the region in terms of jobs, taxes,. public access, and a higher quality of life.. While active citizen groups in several urban waterfront areas of New Jersey have banded together to halt construction of major new waterfront.tank farms because they would preempt these opportunities, there are few prece- dents for- actual, removal of tank farms with more than minimal capacities. Numerous people consuIted.in the course of this study felt that relocation of*wate-rfront storage capacity is desirable as a long-term objective. While this report has demonstrated that a range-of alternative uses for waterfront sites are more desireable from a societal perspective, there is serious question whether major tank farm relocation, costing $25-60 mi1lion would be economically feasible, although the data on operations which would allow a full analysi.s was not available for this study. A less ambitious level of relocation in areas where the tanks are non-conforming uses impeding non-industrial waterfront renewal may be worthwhile.. The least extensive waterfront tank farm phase- out scenarios discussed would not.require any new capacity development, would free up land in the upper Quinnipiac 0 -.59- River ad.jacent to areas with extensive new development and rehabilitation underway, and would involve the facilities yielding the lowest average tax assessment per acre. Any public action to encourage or force extensive relocation of petroleum tank farms away from the waterfront may be resisted,by private oil companies, especially if their operating costs are increased. However, even these companies stand to gain in some respects if some of the approaches suggested in this-report are adopted. For instance, development of inland storage facilities by a quasi-public corporation or-joint public-private action to serve a number of companies now located on the waterfront could have the effect.of increasing the efficiency and safety of storage operations. The project could be structured so that the oil companies derived investment tax credits and depreciation reductions as well. While oil.companies.devel.oping new facilities might be wil.ling to invest.consIderable additional.capital to use inland.sites if permit delays would be reduced (Singer and Morrell., 1979), the question in New Haven is one of relocation, not new development. As@there Is no pressing need or incentive for private development of inland storage areas to replace waterfront capacity, the public incentive to bring about relocation would have to go beyond.simply expediting permit procedures to include net operating cost reduction or other operational. advantages. Inland.tankfarm development is technically and'opera-. tional.ly feasible, as illustrated by the independent terminalling operation of New Haven Terminal and by inland-terminals in other-areas. Numerous sites.in the greater New Haven area, some,of which were analyzed in this report, would meet the requirements of inland tank farms. Management of an inland tank farm which serves a number of' companies would be modeled-on jointly-owned terminals in themidwe.st or*on private independent terminals in this area such.as Northvi.l.le on Long Island or New Haven Terminal in New Haven.. Oil companies are.increasingly willing to accept comingling of product at such f-aci.lities in the interest of operational efficiency. Based on extensive research of petroleum handling systems and-techn 'ology in New Haven and elsewhere and on di.scussions with terminal operators and oil company executives, thi.s report concludes: 1. While technically feasible and operationally advantageous, large-scale relocation of waterfront petroleum storage capacity is not economically feasible at the present -60-. time due to the high capital cost of new inland facilities and the balance of labor costs and other operating costs. Over the long term as existing waterfront tank farms deteriorate and the combined cost of operating numerous smaller terminals increases, inland development of a combined storage facility would gain in relative attractiveness and become more feasible. The City should encourage the State to create a quasi-public petroleum storage development entity to create inland storage areas if and when the economics of the proposition improve. 2. Even though large scale relocation is not feasible, the City should develop a long-term policy for inclusion in its Municipal Coastal Program which specifically prohibits development.of any new storage capacity or expansion of exi.sting terminals on the waterfront except under extreme circumstances. Such a policy would recognize the non.-waterdependent nature of petroleum storage fac:i-l.iti.e:s, support-City. objectives in harbor develop- ment and be'consistent with the State Coastal Management Act. It could be implemented through local powers granted under the state zoning enabling legislation and coastal management laws. 3. While prohibiting expansion of- existing or construction of.-new-water-front tank farms, the policies of the Municipal. Coastal- Program, should guide the private market-in.appropriate use.s.of all,waterfront land, e;specially land.now occupied by tank-farms should those facilities be phased out.. 4. The City should seriously consider-the near-town acquisi-- tion and phase-out of smal.ler tank farms on the Quinnipiac River in or adjacent,to the Quinnipiac River Historic Distr-ict.. Reuse.of thi.s land would.not only provide for-higher-tax-yie-lding development, potential public acce!ss areas-, and.other people-oriented uses, but would al.so greatly@enhance,the-land values and ambience of the entire area.. Acqui.sition of-the facilities above the Ferry Street.Bridge, none of which receive product by barge, would free up 5'.2 acres of land and probably cost on the order of $.8-1.0 million including land and tank-s. A.more complete investigation of the costs and be:ne-fit,s of this acquisition should be conducted. 5. As long as New Haven remains a regional petroleum storage center, the-City should seek some means of compensation for the burden of low tax-yielding tank farm uses requiring large public service costs which it shoulders for the region. While $1.8 billion worth of product may pass through the tanks around New Haven Harbor in a year, the City derives less jobs and taxes per acre from tank farms than from other uses and must support and maintain specialized fire fighting capacity to serve the tank farm area. On top of this'New Haven forgoes more intensive and water related harbor development on the 80 acres occupied by tank farms. Alternative means of achieving this compensation which merit further investigation.are: inclusion of the average inventory of al,l petroleum terminaling companies on the grand li.st.of the city or town in which the facility is located; adoption of a state-wide formula similar to that applying to tax-exempt property to compensate those municipalities who bear a disproportinate bur-den of regional petroleum storage facilities. -62- X. SOURCES Connecticut Energy Advisory Board, 1978'. Connecticut-Energy Outlook 1978-1979. Connecticut Energy Agency, 1975. Emergency Energy Plan for Connecticut. Connecticut, State of, DEP Coastal Management Unit., 1979. COastal.Policies and,Use Guidelines, Planning Report #30. Mann, Roy, Assoc iates, 1,975. Shoreline Design, Long Island Sound Study, Massachusetts, State of, Department of Community Affairs, 1.977. Planning and Developing Small Harbor Areas, November- 19 7 7'. Massachusetts, State of Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, 1.97"8.. Coastal Zone Management Plan. New England.Regiona-l Commission, 1975.- Petroleum Development in New England- (4 vols). New England River Basilns.-Commi.ssion, 1976. Estimates for New England: Onshore Facilities Related.to Offshore Oil and Gas Development.. New England River-Basins Commis's-ion., 1975. People and the Sound.: Marine Transportation.. Oil.and Gas@ Journal. New Haven,,' City of.. Redevelopment and Renewal Plans for Long Wharf, Hill, Fair Haven. Rhode Island., State' of, Department of Economic Development., 1.975. Prudence Island Fuel Tank Farm Feasibility Study. Singer, Grace, and David.Morell, 1,979. Al.ternative Energy Facility Siting Policies for Urban Cbas-tal Areas, Center f'or Environmental. Studies@, Princeton, University. U. S. Army Corps-. of Engineers, New York District, 1974. Alternatives ' for Providing Petroleum Supply for the Port.Jefferson Harbor, New York, Service Area. U. S. ]Nrmy Corps. of Engineers, New England District., 1976. Preliminary Draft Feasibility Report, New Haven Harbor. 1.979. Draft Feasibility Report, New Haven Harbor. Appendix A Petroleum Conversion Factors Table I Gravity and Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors for Petroleum Products and Water Pounds API. Pounds Barrels Product per Gal.lon Gravity per Barrel. per Ton Gasoline 6.4 52.5 268.8 7.440 Kerosene 7.0 36.8 294.0 6-803 #2 Fuel Oil. 7-2 32-1 302.4 6.614. #4 Fuel Oil 7.7' 21.5 323.4 6.184 #6 Fuel Oil 8.0 15-8 336.0 5.952. Water 8-.33 APPENDIX B - Regulatory Programs Affecting Tank Farms Law or Regulation Authority Activity Governed Federal 33 CFR Part 126 Handling of Explosives or Other Dangerous U. S. Coast Guard Specifies conditions of designation as licensed waterfront facility; Cargoes Within or Contiguous to Waterfront Dept. of Transportation regulates requirements to maintain status as designated facility. Facilities 33 CFR Part 154 U. S. Coast Guard, Dept of Transportation Subpart A - General Applies to each onshore and offshore facility, when it transfers oil in bulk to or from any vessel that has a capacity of 250 or more barrels of that oil. Sec. 154.120 Mandates C.G. inspections of the facility to insure compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Subpart B - Operations Manuals Requires manual of operations of facility and specifies contents for transfer facilities. Subpart C - Equipment Requirements 33 CFR Part 156 - Oil Transfer Operations U.S. Coast Guard, Dept of Applies to the transfer of oil to or from any vessel with a capacity of 250 Transportation or more barrels for that oil on the navigable waters of the United States or contiguous zone thereof. Section 156.120 Specifies requirements for oil transfer. Section 156.130 Specifies connections. Section 156.150 Requires declaration of inspection of transfer facilities and specifies contents of declaration. 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart K - Standard of Environmental Protection Performance for Storage Vessels for Agency Petroleum Liquids (New Source Performance Standards) Section 6 0.110 (1) Applies to each storage vessel for petroleum liquids (as defined in Section 60.111) with capacity greater than 40,000 ga11ons and commences construction or modification after 3/8/74. APPENDIX B - Regulator.' 'Tograms Affecting Tank Farms Law or Regulation Authority Activity Governed J (2) Has a capacity greater than 65,000 gallons and commences construction or modification after 6/11/73. Section 60.112 (1) If true vapor pressure of liquid, as stored, Is equal or greater than 1.5 psla but not greater than I 1 .1 psla requires floating root, vapor recovery system or their equivalents. (2) If true vapor pressure Is greater than I 1 .1 psia, requires vapor recovery system or its equivalent.. Section 60.113 Regulates monitoring of operations: type.of liquid stored, Reid vapor pressure, dates of storage, dates on which storage vessel is empty. 40 CFR Part 112 - Oil Pollution Prevention, Non- Environmental Protection Applies to owners or operators of facilities (as described In Section 112.1 (b) Transportation Relat!d Onshore and Offshore Agency. Pursuant to which due to location could reasonably be expected to discharge oil In Facilities Federal Water Pollution harmful quantities Into or upon navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. Control Act. Section 112.3 Specifies requirements and guidelines for preparation and implementation of Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans. Mandates periodic integrity testing of tanks. Section 112.7 (3) Specifies conditions of facility transfer operations, p4mplng and in-plant process (on-shore.) Section 112.7 (4) Mandates compliance with Dept. of Transportation regulations for tank car and tank truck load Ing/u n loading procedures. 49CFR Part 195 Department of Transportation Prescribes rules governing the transportation by pipeline In interstate Regulations for the Transportation Materials Transportation commerce of hazardous materials, petroleum and petroleum products. of Liquids By Pipeline Bureau Office of Pipeline Safety Subpart 0 Accident reporting Subpart C Design Requirements Subpart D Construction Subpart E Hydrostatic Testing Subpart F Operation and Maintenance Amendment 195-15 Docket PS-51 Department of Transportation Establishes precise and comprehensive requirements for written procedures Transportation of Liquids by Pipeline; Materials Transportation Bureau to be prepared and followed by operators of hazardous liquid pipelines for Procedures for Operations, Maintenance conducting pipeline operations and maintenance, and for handling emergencies. and Emergencies APPENDIX B - Regulatory Pr!"", ims Affecting Tank Farms Law or Regulation Authority Activity Governed 49 CFR Park 1300 Freight Tariffs Subject to Interstate Federal Energy Regulatory Governs the construction and f Iling of tariffs naming through routes and Commerce Act. Commission joint rates over the lines of common carriers b .y pipeline. U.S.Dept. of Energy Section 1300.61 Demurrage on Interstate shipments Requires carriers to file tariffs containing terminal charges, Including demurrage charges. State Connecticut Occupational Safety and Health Standards Promulgated by the Secretary Vol 1. General Industry Standards of Labor, U. S. Dept. of Labor; adopted by the Connecticut Labor Commissioner Section 1910.106 Flammable and Specification for design, construction and materials for storage tanks. Combustible Liquids 1b) (1) vi Provisions for Internal corrosion. (2) Installation of outside above-ground tanks - regulates location with respect to property lines and public ways, spacing between tanks, normal venting, emergency relief venting. drainageditches and walls. (5) Regulates supports, foundations and anchorage for all tank locations. (7) Regulates standards for strength testing; materials for piping, valves and fittings. General Statutes - Section 16-1 Connecticut General Provides that a pipeline company Is a public service company within Assembly the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission. Docket No. 10026 - Code of Standards Public Utilities Commission Requires pipeline companies within jurisdiction of the Commission to for Petroleum Pipeline (Division of Public Utilities comply with the Code of Standards for Petroleum Pipelines as published Control, Dept. of Business Code addresses Design,Construction, Testing, Operation and Maintenance Regulation) and complaints and Service Interruptions for purposes of insuring the health, safety and welfare of the public. Docket No. 780633 - Decision on Public Utilities Control Decision to allow mergir of Jet Lines, Inc. (a Connecticut Corporation) Application for Approval of Merger of Autbority (Division of Public with and Into New Jet Lines, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation) a wholly Jet Lines, Inc.Wlib and I nto Now Jet Utilities Control, Dept. of owned subsidiary of Buckeye Pipeline Co. (an Ohio-Corporation). Lines, Inc. Business Regulation) Merger Is intended to accomplish a liquidation for tax purposes under Section 332 of the Internal Revenue Code and to obtain the benefits of Section 334 (b)(2) of that.Code. APPENDIX B - Regulatory P rams Affecting Tank Farms Law or Regulation Authority AciivHy Govarned Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Connecticut General Assembly Identifies legislative finding and purpose. Title 16 - Public Utility Environment Standards Act. Sec. 16-509. Sec. 16-50; Definitions (2) "Facility" Includes a fuel transmission facility extending a distance of 1,000 ft. or more except a gas transmission line having a design capability of less than 200 lbs./sq. In. Sec. 16-50; Establishes a Power Facility Evaluation Council, prescribes duties. Sec. 16-50 c - Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Requires petition for declaratory ruling to decide whether Council has jurisdiction and whether application should befiled. Appliesto, facilities constructed after 4/1/72. Sec. 16-50 w Delineates jurisdiction of Council; Municipal regulation of proposed action. Sec. 16-50 z Acquisition of real property for transmission facility. Regulations. Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, Department o f Environmental Abatement of Air Pollution Protection Title 19 - Control of organic compound emissions Sec. 19-508-20 (a) For storage of volatile organic compounds In containers more than 40,000 gallons capacity, requires floating roof (for vapor pressure less than I I psla) vapor recovery system or equipment of equivalent efficiency. (b) Volatile Organic compounds loading facilities. Requires vapor collection and disposal system or equivalent for loading of liquid Into tank truck, trailer or railroad car with capacity In excess of 200 gallons. Also requires vapor-tight seal between loading arm adaptor and hatch. (DEP also has enforcement authority over requirements of EPA Regulations (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart K) which were In effect 11/6/75. General Statutes - Title 25 - Pollution of Water Department of Environmental of State by Chi Protection Water Resources Commission Section 25-54cc Empowers Commissioner of DEP to license all terminals in the State for loading or discharge of petroleum & chemical liquids or products from vessels and issue regulations for preventing discharge or spilling of oil, petroleum or chemical liquids or products Into the waters of the state. APPENDIX B - Regulat Programs Affecting Tank Farms Law or Regulation Authority Activity Governed Section 25-54 cc - I through 7 - Regulations Requires licensed terminal operators to f Ile with the Commission current for Terminals for Loading or Discharge of drawings of existing facilities; current operating rules Including procedures Petroleum or Chemical Liquids or Products for cargo transfers to or from vessels; a plan of action to contain and from vessels remove any oils from spilling Including list of available equipment; a statement on method of handling and disposal of mistellaneous waste oils. General Statutes - Title 29 - The Storage Use and Commissioner of State Regulations provide for the abatement of fire and casualty hazards, Transportation of Flammable Liquids Police damage to adjoining property where flammable liquids are stored, to the hazards Incident to the transportation, storage and use of such liquids. and to the design, selection of materials, fabrication, Inspeition, testing and installation of pipeline systems for transmission of flammable liquids within the state. "State Set-aside Program" Connecticut State Energy Requires terminal companies to file with Energy Office amonthly off Ice. Pursuant to Emergency estimate of volume of Petroleum fuel expected to enter the state Petroleum Allocation Act of through such terminals; 3% of estimated volume designated as "iet- 1973 aside" for cases of emergency or hardship. Municipal Code of ilia City of New Haven New Haven Board of Aldermen Title VI, Vol. III - Zoning Ordinance Section 42 - Use Regulations for Permits outdoor storage of fuels, chemicals or building materials Business and Industrial Districts (whether In tanks or other containers), except as incidental to other activities In I H District; Qualif led by SE (Permitted only by special exception under subsection 63D. Section 46 - Activities and storage In Subject to Use Regulations In Section 42 and Performance Standards outdoor areas in Business and In Section 48. Industrial Districts Section 48 - Performance Standards Establish maximum levels for various nuisance factors. for business and Industrial uses Section 63 Board of Zoning Appeals Specifies conditions taken Into account In granting special exceptions D. Special Exceptions Regulations of Ilia Department of Fire Conform to Fire Safety Code of the State of Connecticut Service of the City of New Haven I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 3 6668 14109 19771