x>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region I
Office of
Public Affairs
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR'S
ANNUAL REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
IN NEW ENGLAND
•L^»
EPA
901
1976.1 ••+•
w^&£%&-*
•r. «v «• - --r -• C. i*
<••? ^v»* *—'"'» -
..»^c->-... -Y: Jw""i>ftiA.^».Ay
-------
". ••vironmftn.ta.l
*ry. Room 2404
M Street, S.W.
DC 20460
PJf«SU«i
-------
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR'S
ANNUAL REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
IN NEW ENGLAND
1982
-.'•V
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
library, Room 2404 PM-211-A
4O1 M Street, S.W.
Washington.. DC 20460
-------
Foreword from the Regional Administrator:
This is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's seventh annual
report on environmental quality in the six New England states.
It covers air, surface and drinking water quality, solid and hazardous
waste management, Superfund, Construction Grants, pesticides,
radiation, toxic substances, enforcement, permits, oil and hazardous
materials spills, and delegation of these programs to state
governments.
In the past, this foreword has been used to highlight particularly
striking examples of environmental improvement in the last year. This
year, however, these improvements are adequately emphasized in the
various program sections, and I believe that there is a concept— one
that cuts across all program areas and that will be very important to
the future of environmental protection activities in New England—that
we ought to discuss here. That concept is the so-called "new EPA".
This is a term that has been bandied about quite freely in the last
year and I am always somewhat baffled by it. I always point out that
the new EPA is also the old EPA, with the continuing goal of
protecting public health and the environment. But at the same time,
the old EPA has a new way of doing business—enphasizing leaner
budgets, results instead of procedures, and extensive public input.
First, the so-called new EPA, like every other federal agency, is
going to have to learn to live with a leaner budget and fewer people.
However, I believe that through thoughtful reorganization and
streamlined management we can continue our major missions. To be
sure, a reduction in resources means that we will have to be much more
careful about how we spend our money, but I am confident that we can
meet this challenge.
Second, EPA is going to have to manage for environmental results. In
the past, this Agency has tended to be more process-oriented than
results-oriented. In the future, we need to identify current problems
and anticipate future ones. We need to identify barriers to solving
these problems and develop ways of overcoming them. In short, we must
be able to demonstrate that our actions do in fact contribute to
improvements in environmental quality.
Third, EPA will continue to have a vigorous and efficient enforcement
posture. We will select enforcement actions very carefully with an eye
toward maximum environmental benefits.
Fourth, we will delegate environmental protection authorities to state
governments that are able to assume them. Most federal laws clearly
state that it is the intention of Congress for states to assume
environmental protection responsibilities as soon as they have the
necessary legislative and administrative frameworks in place.
Certainly it is reasonable to expect that the level of government
closest to the public it serves can do the best job of recognizing
local problems and developing solutions with local interests in mind.
-------
Fifth, EPA is working on a continuing basis on a comprehensive
regulatory reform package of legislative and administrative
initiatives designed to eliminate unnecessary paperwork, red tape and
procedural requirements. I would point out, however, that we intend
to continue to meet our statutory obligations and to make progress
toward our public health and environmental goals, and that regulations
necessary to achieve those results will be inaintained and streamlined.
Sixth, we will improve the scientific base on which EPA regulations
are predicated. The Administrator has established a policy of peer
review for scientific research performed by or for EPA, and in the
future, there will be no public release of scientific data until they
have undergone this rigorous review process. This Agency simply
cannot afford to have its regulations and programs based on anything
less than the best scientific data.
Finally, we intend to improve relations with the general public,
business and industry, and professional associations as well. We
cannot afford not to cooperate with each other, to share our
experience and expertise, and to invite participation at all levels of
program and regulation development.
I am confident that working in partnership with the states, in concert
with our varied constituencies, with a new emphasis on results, we can
achieve the benefits of clean air and water and a high quality
environment for all of us.
Lester A. Button, P.E.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword from the Regional Administrator
Air Quality
Table 1: Number of Stations Violating National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Figure 1: AQCR's Containing SO2 Violations
Figure 2: AQCR's Containing TSP Violations
Figure 3: AQCR's Containing CO Violations
Figure 4: AQCR's Containing O3 Violations
Figure 5: Northeast Corridor Regional Modeling
Project - June 24, 1980
Figure 6: Northeast Corridor Regional Modeling
Project - June 25, 1900
Figure 7: Northeast Corridor Regional Modeling
Project - July 15, 1980
Table 2: Pollutant Standards Index
Figure 8: TSP, S02/ 03, CO Values, Bridgeport, CT
Figure 9: TSP, S02, CO, 03 Values, Hartford, CT
Figure 10: TSP, S02, CO, 03 Values, New Haven, CT
Figure 11: TSP, SO2, CO, OB Values, Bangor, ME
Figure 12: TSP, SO.,, CO, 03 Values, Boston; MA
Figure 13: TSP, SO2, CO, 03 Values, Springfield, MA
Figure 14: TSP, S02/ CO, 03 Values, Worcester, MA
Figure 15: TSP, S02, CO, O3 Values, Providence, RI
Figure 16: TSP, SO2, CO, 03 Values, Manchester, NH
Figure 17: TSP, S02, O3, CO Values, Burlington, VT
Page 1
-------
Superfund
Table 3: Superfund Activities at Priority Sites
Table 4: Superfund Activities at Non-Priority Sites
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Toxic Substances
Pesticides
Radiation
Surface Water Quality
Table 5: Water Quality Summary in New England
Table 6: Clean Lakes Projects
Table 7: 208 Grant Awards
Construction Grants
Figure 18: Federal Support Committed for Wastewater
.Treatment Facilities in Region I
Drinking Water
Table 8: Drinking Water Supplies Contaminated by
Organic Chemicals
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills
Figure 19: 'Percentage of Oil Spills Transportation
and Non-Transportation Related
Page 7
Breakdown of Spilled Materials
Enforcement
Figure 20: Number of Major Air Pollution Sources
in Compliance
Table 9: Status of Major NPDES Permittees
Figure 21: Hazardous Waste Inspections
Permits
State Delegations
Table 10: Status of Delegation in Region I
Page 9
Page 11
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 23
Page 25
Page 29
Page 30
Page 35
Page 38
-------
AIR QUALITY
Introduction
The Clean Air Act places primary responsibility for the
prevention of air pollution on state and local goverrunents.
The Act includes a strong mandate for the Environmental
Protection Agency to conduct research, establish and enforce
adequate standards and regulations, and support state and
local control activities to meet the environmental goals set
by the Act. These goals are prescribed by two types of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): primary
standards to protect public health and secondary standards to
protect public welfare, as measured by effects on vegetation,
materials and visibility. Standards have been set for total
suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,
carbon monoxide, ozone (smog) and lead. Controlling
emissions to attain and maintain the standards is achieved
through two inajor types of activities. 1) State
Implementation Plans (SIP's) control pollution within each
state, primarily by prescribing specific emission limitations
,and control actions for types of pollutants. These plans are
developed by the individual states and approved by EPA. 2)
National emission standards are established nationally for
new motor vehicles and selected new stationary sources of air
pollution.
Although this basic structure probably will not change, the
Clear Air ^ct is up for Congressional review and there
probably will be some significant amendments to the Act. As
we go to press, the final form of the amendments is not
decided, but the Reagan Administration has enunciated eleven
basic principles which it hopes will guide discussion of the
amendments and will result in continuing progress toward our
national clean air goals. Tnese principles are:
1. The nation
cleaner air.
should continue its steady progress toward
2. Statutes and regulations should be reasonable and should
be related to the economic and physical realities of the
particular areas involved.
3. The basic concept of the health-based primary standards
in the Clean Air Act should be maintained. Cost-benefit
analysis should not be included as a statutory criterion in
setting these standards, but standards should be based on
sound scientific data demonstrating where air quality
represents real health risks.
-------
4. Secondary
federal level.
standards should also continue to be set at the
5. The current program for the prevention of significant aic
quality deterioration should be maintained for the protection of
park and wilderness areas. In other areas, protection should be
based on uniform technology requirements for pollution control.
6. States should be accorded a full partnership in implementing
the nation's standards. The federal government will monitor
state achievement of national health and welfare standards.
7. A more effective hazardous pollutant program should be
established to allow, for the first time, efficient control of
the serious health hazards posed by airborne toxic pollutants.
3. Research on acid deposition should be accelerated.
9. (Deadlines for achieving primary air quality standards should
be adjusted to reflect realities in particular areas.
10. As suggested by the National Commission on Air Quality,
automobile standards should be adjusted to more reasonable
levels.
11. Pollution control standards for new coal-fired plants should
be based on uniform emissions standards. Environmental
protection should be the criterion.
New England Air Quality
Table 1 lists the number of air quality monitoring stations in
each tlew England state which have recorded violations of
NAAQS. The most widespread air pollution problems in New
England concern ozone, carbon monoxide and particulates.
Sulfur dioxide standards are violated only in the vicinity of
certain large point sources in northern New England and there
are no monitored violations of the nitrogen dioxide standard.
Sulfur dioxide levels may be expected to increase as New
England states relax sulfur emission limitations to allow the
use of less expensive higher sulfur fuels. However, in no
case will EPA allow pollutant levels to rise above the NAAQS
that protect public health and welfare.
There are widespread violations of the primarily mobile
source-related pollutants, ozone and carbon monoxide.
Attainment of these standards at many locations is not
expected until 1987. For particulates, attainment of the
secondary standards is uncertain in many areas.
-------
An additional problem, acid deposition caused pritnarily by
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in New England
and elsewhere, is contributing to the acidification of New
England waters. On a regional level, this issue was
highlighted in four state/EPA agreements calling for a
cooperative effort among New England's interstate water and
air pollution control organizations to develop reports and
recommendations on the problem and to coordinate
monitoring. More than $20,000 nas been allocated for this
purpose in FY 81.
Nationally, EPA has committed more than ?9 million in FY 82
for an accelerated research effort. The President's
proposed budget for acid deposition for fiscal year 1983 is
$11.4 million. The three major areas of uncertainty toward
which these research funds will be directed are
1) transport, transformation and acid deposition processes,
2) the effects of acid deposition and 3) assessments and
policy studies,
Control Programs in Non-attainment Areas
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require that standards
be attained by the end of 1982, and states were required to
submit SIP's for non-attainment areas in 1979. However, the
Amendments recognize that some areas will be unable to
attain ozone and carbon monoxide standards by 1982, and
provide that in those areas, attainment of standards is to
be as expeditious as possible but in no case later than
1987.
SPA has approved the 1979 SIP revisions to attain standards
for all criteria pollutants in non-attaianent areas in all
six New England states. In addition Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire have been
laying the groundwork for the 1982 SIP revisions which are
necessary to address serious carbon monoxide and ozone
problems and ensure attainment of these standards by 1987.
Northeast Corridor Regional Modeling Project
EPA and various state, regional and local agencies have
undertaken an intensive modeling and monitoring effort to
better understand the transport of ozone and its precursor
pollutants along the eastern seaboard and to develop control
strategies. The ambient monitoring portion of this study
was conducted during the summer of 1980 and involved data
collection by several state agencies and EPA contractors.
Here in New England, the states of Connecticut,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire were primarily involved.
However, all states participated in the gathering of ozone
data. While it is impossible to summarize all the ambient
and meteorological data in this report, Figures 5 through 7
point out that maximum ozone levels on a single day in New
England can vary greatly, and that levels in southern New
§ngland are considerably higher than those in northern New
nqland.
-------
Otherfederal Programs
In addition to the national standards, nationally applicable
emission levels are prescribed for pollutants deemed
especially hazcirdous, and apply to both new and existing
sources. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) have been established for emissions of
asbestos, beryllium, mercury and vinyl chloride from a
variety of sources. The 1977 Amendments also require that
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for all new major
stationary sources be established by 1982. As of July 1,
1981 standards for 33 categories of sources had been
promulgated. In addition, the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program (PSD) established a mechanism for
managing the air quality impacts associated with emission
increases in clean air areas.
EPA has delegated some authority for the NSPS and NESHAPS
programs to all six states in Region I. Maine and Vermont
have received approval of their PSD programs and are now
issuing permits, and EPA is working with the other states to
help them adopt PSD programs.
Inspection and Maintenance
Three states in New England—Connecticut, Massachusetts and
Rhode Island— are required to adopt inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs to control emissions of carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons from automobiles. Under the I/M
program motor vehicles must be periodically inspected to
assess the function of their exhaust emission control
systems, and vehicles which exceed established emission
standards must undergo mandatory maintenance. Connecticut
will have a centralized, contractor-operated program which
is scheduled to begin on December 31, 1982. The
Massachusetts program will be a decentralized program with
inspections to be performed by private garages and gas
stations, and is currently planned to begin on April 1,
1983. The Rhode Island program is currently in operation
and was the first decentralized program in the country.
Monitoring
A network of monitoring stations throughout the New England
states provides data on the progress toward meeting the
NAAQS in nonattainment areas. During 1980, the six states
monitored levels of total suspended particulates, sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone and lead.
EPA is actively involved in overseeing state implementation
of comprehensive regulations for air quality surveillance
and reporting. Adherence to these criteria should promote
uniformity of siting and produce ambient data of higher
quality. All sites which are part of the national
monitoring network must be reviewed and approved by EPA.
With the exception of lead monitoring networks, which are
being reviewed, the Agency has approved all of the
monitoring networks in the New England states.
-------
Energyand Air Quality
EPA's energy activities have focused on approval of plants
converting from oil to coal-firing and using higher sulfur
fuels. Approval has been granted only to those activities which
the Agency has determined will not cause or contribute to
violations of air quality standards.
After the 1973 energy crisis, Congress passed legislation giving
the Department of Energy authority to prohibit the use of very
large aiDunts of oil and natural gas at fuel burning facilities.
These prohibition orders, which require the concurrence of the
governor of the affected state, essentially mandate coal
burning. To ensure the maintenance of clean air, EPA is
responsible for studying facilities which have received
prohibition orders to determine the earliest date by which they
can bum coal and still comply with all air quality standards.
Facilities with prohibition orders are eligible to request
Delayed Compliance Orders (DCO's) from EPA. These orders allow
coal to be burned before the compliance date set in the
prohibition order, if certain conditions are net, including
protection of the public health standard.
In November, 1979, EPA issued a DCO to New England Power Conpany
for two of the three units at their Brayton Point plant located
in Somerset, Massachusetts. The plant finished its coal
conversion process in 1981, and is currently conducting emission
tests to demonstrate compliance with state standards. Test data
show that sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions have
decreased from pre-conversion levels.
Converting Brayton Point to coal will create a savings of 12
million barrels of imported oil per year with a savings of $169
million each year.
In November, 1981, EPA issued a DCO to Northeast Utilities
allowing their Mt. Torn plant in Holyoke, Massachusetts to
temporarily exceed the state particulate emission limitation
until final construction of all necessary pollution control
equipment, scheduled for December 1983. The Mt. Tom plant is
now burning coal. The company is required to monitor both its
emissions and the ambient air around the plant to ensure no
violation of the national air quality standards which protect
public health.
The savings for the Mt. Tom conversion equal 1 million barrels of
imported oil per year and $35 million annually.
-------
DCO to New England Power Company
plant in Salem, Massachusetts to
particulate emission limitation
all necessary pollution control
Like Mt. Tom, the Salem Harbor
to conduct rronitoring during the
In February, 1902, EPA issued a
allowing their Salem Harbor
temporarily exceed the state
until final construction of
equipment, schedaled for 1985.
plant also will be required
interim DCO period.
The Salem Harbor conversion will produce a savings of 2.9
million barrels o: oil a year and over 546 million annually.
The utilities which own the West Springfield and Somerset
Station plants .n Massachusetts and the South Street plant in
Providence, RI have also initiated discussions with EPA and the
states concerning burning coal at these stations.
In 1981, Region I worked with Massachusetts and Connecticut to
develop regulations which encourage reduced consumption of oil
and conversions to alternate fuels without jeopardizing air
quality standards. The Massachusetts regulation allows
industries planning to convert to an alternate fuel, such as
coal, or those planning conservation measures, to burn less
expensive high sulfur fuel oil for a period not to exceed thirty
months. The savings gained from burning the less expensive fuel
will provide sore of the capital needed to implement these
conversions or conservation measures. The Connecticut
regulation allows industries which conserve energy through
implementation of a wide variety of efficiency Treasures to burn
higher sulfur fuel, provided that the total sulfur dioxide
emissions from the plant do not increase.
pollutant Standards Index
The Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) structure includes all the
pollutants except lead for which primary standards have been
set. PSI is primarily a health-related index as shown by the
descriptor words: "good" "moderate" "unhealthful" "very
unhealthfuL," and "hazardous" (see Table 2 ). Since the
breakpoints used to separate these descriptor words are somewhat
arbitrary, it is not possible to establish a shaqj demarcation
between any two descriptor words on the basis of health effects
data. Therefore, the PSI is designed for daily reporting of air
quality to advise the public of potentially acute, but not
chronic, health effects, and should not be used to rank cities.
Proper ranking of air pollution problems in different cities
should not rely solely on air quality data, but should include
all data on population characteristics, daily population
mobility, transportation patterns, industrial composition,
emission inventories, meteorological factors, and the spatial
representativeness of air monitoring sites. The number of
people actually exposed to various concentrations of pollutants,
as well as the frequency and duration of their exposure, should
also be considered.
Figures 3 through 17 list the 1976 to 1980 Pollutant
Standards Index for four pollutants in ten metropolitan areas in
New Big land.
-------
o
oo
U
(-3
m
u
2
3
o
CO
O
EH
CO
Cn
O
a
DJ
CQ
S
*
CO
a
EH
CO
EH
M
pj
O
EH
2
U
M
CQ
E
O
M
EH
2
EH
rH
X
2
<
y
W
E
-H
U
t
"D
^j
CO
T3
C
(0
4-»
CO
m m in
\ \\
0 O O
CO CO OO
\\ \
o o o
f" r- r-
\ \ \
O CN 0
I—I rH -H
CN CN CN
\"*x \
o o o
o o o
^J" ^3* ^J*
VX1 vx vx.
O CN rH
rH rH I— |
rH rH iH
\\. \
O O O
ro co ro
g g g
\\ \
CT^ Cn C7^
333
o in o
oo ^o o
ro ro
iH
*
* >i
>1 J>4
>i U CD
^
ft CO 10
r4
rH 3 r4 4->
CO O 3 fD
3 re o I-H
c a: 3
c ^s* o
< CN ro -r-i
4J
CN ^
O ro
CO ft.
CO 00 CO rH rH CN
SS*HSVSX \ \ \
rH O CN O O O 1
r- r- r-
rH rH rH CN CN CN r-
\\\ x, \ \ X
rH O CN rH O CM C
r- r- r-
CN CN CN «sj- rr CN
\\\ \\ \ |
rH rH ro ro O CN
O
CN J3 \£> rH 00
co co ro in in \ ,— i
\\\ \\ c \
O O in CO rH rH O
co co ro co co
g g g 6 g co
\\\ \\ e e
tr> Cn CTI cr> en £X \
333 g g Ot CT
rj
in o o o o CN
r- VD in M ^r rH o
CN r— 1 • O
0 rH
*
>1
* Ll
>i (3 * * *
^1 rJ 'O I>1 >1 ^>~i >•
Li CO C i-f i-J ^-4 JH
H >-) rH
«3 O O 33 3 cfl
3 33 EC O 0 O 3
C K EC K C
*
C
o
•H
4J
CO
O
•H
O
c
CQ
-H
O
C
X O 'D
o; c -H W -M 4J
CO C 10 -H
JH O C
(P -H U-l 0
> 4-> O g
(0 (0
4J ij 4-»
4J W 0) O
W .G C
Q; iw g
.C O 3 W
DI C -H
*H ^4
J2 CU rH 4J
XJ ro C
TJ g 4-J CO
C 3 0 ••->
O C 4J 3
O rH
O CJ O rH
co x: x; o
4-> 4J £4
0)
J3 W CO W
4J -H -H -iH
&
CO X >i EH
(0
CD .•
rH >1
: C \
D !X 1
f ^^
!*
-------
AQCR'S (STATE PORTIONS) CONTAINING S02 VIOLATIONS IN 1980
VIOLATIONS
NO VIOLATIONS
] NO DATA
FIGURE 1
-------
AQCR'S (STATE PORTIONS) CONTAINING TSP VIOLATIONS IN 1980
VIOLATIONS
NO VIOLATIONS
NO DATA
FIGURE 2
-------
AQCR'S (STATE PORTIONS) CONTAINING CO VIOLATIONS IN 1980
VIOLATIONS
] NO VIOLATIONS
NO DATA
FIGURE 3
-------
AQCR'S (STATE PORTIONS) CONTAINING O3 VIOLATIONS IN 1980
VIOLATIONS
NO VIOLATIONS
NO DATA
FIGURE 4
-------
Northeast Corridor Regional Modeling Project,
Highest Hourly Ozone Concentrations for Study
Sites - June 24, 1980 (values in parts per billion)
253
FIGURE 5
-------
Northeast Corridor Regional Modeling Project,
Highest Hourly Ozone Concentrations for Study
Sites - June 25, 1980 (values in parts per billion)
FIGURE 6
-------
Northeast Corridor Regional Modeling Project,
Highest Hourly Ozone Concentrations for Study
Sites - July 15, 1980 (values in parts per billion)
139
FIGURE 7
-------
cc
O
cc
O
^ (0
cc ^
«l
LU S
Q LU
Gl
sfi
^j- n
J—
_j _ j
< UJ
3 >
O UJ
a: ~*
^
X UJ
UJ 3
H
u
2"«i 6
o w £
go 2j
•E 12 8 S
All persons should rema
keeping windows and do
All persons should minir
physical exertion and av<
w
•sT ^
J 0, —
"* m ®
C 5 «
« a —
Premature death of
Healthy people will
adverse symptoms
normal activity.
.£ c "J5 o
•2 ess
S 0 « 3
Elderly and persons with
diseases should stay ind
avoid physical exertion. 1
population should avoid
activity.
Q)
(A •
n re -Q
2 H -o S
0 otJ
o .« e c
Premature onset ol
in addition to signil
lion of symptoms a
exercise tolerance i
persons.
S
o
Q
QC
rsi
I
t 1
; i
a =-
_c 5
* tn
tfl
Elderly and persons with
heart or lung disease sh<
indoors and reduce phys
activity.
ul _
E-- o
£ m (o c
~ I
cc |3
X
z
i £
0>
0
n
r-o §
Persons with existing he
respiratory ailments shot
physical exertion and ou
activity.
£
.El*
«,2 =
I|!
c- *
E •> J=
>. * =
W • 1C
^
3 g
i r
i i
> C
j ^
P
3 §
•J r
1 !
5 C
r h
i i-
! ^
; i
5 C
C
T
1 U
) tt
•) C
•J C
M *•
? C
B If
3 i
3
i °
\
> 0
^ ^ ^ 00 CO W
£
? S
> U
c
1 u
4 h
1 C
o
Jf co to ci CM r^.
(-
2
>
: c
) c
5
CO
O
< _ Z z 1- <" <
c5 « 1 5 < z
zx u, 5 ^ 5 o
0 S S
35 ui
c
c
M
1 C
> c
) ^
e
c
<"
; i
,
J g
J T-
0
o1"
^p
u
> S
5 <=
-------
Bridgeport, CT
PSI
200*
150.
100-
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
:TSP: City Hall
:SO2: City Hall
: CO: State Street
: 03: Derby
Particulate levels for 1976--1980 were moderate, although violations to secondary ambient
air quality standards were recorded in 1976. Secondary particulate violations were also
recorded at other sites in the Bridgeport area in 1976, 1977, 1979, and 1980. Sulfur
dioxide levels have decreased from moderate to good for this period. Carbon monoxide
levels have decreased from unhealthful to moderate. Ozone levels, except for 1978 and
1979, have been very unhealthful. In 1978 and 1979, ozone levels were unhealthful.
The general terms which describe the air quality (good, moderate, unhealthful, very
unhealthful, and hazardous) are defined in Table 5. It should be noted that the pollution
levels chosen on this chart represent second maximum daily averages and are not
representative of average population exposure but rather of the maximum pollution levels
for the year.
-------
Hartford, CT
PSI
200 - •
150- -
100 ' •
50 - •
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
= TSP: Library
= SO2: West Street
= CO: 1976-1978-Old State House; 1979-1980-Asylum Street
= O3: 1976-1979-Enfield-Elm Street; 1980-Stafford-Shenipsit State Forest
Particulate and sulfur dioxide levels ,vere moderate from 1976 to present. However,
violations or exceedences of secondary particulate standards were recorded in 1976-1980.
The carbon monoxide data continues to show that air quality levels are unhealthful.
Ozone levels remain unhealthful.
The general terms which describe the air quality (good, moderate, unhealthful, very
unhealthf'jl, and hazardous) are defined in Table 5. It should be noted that the pollution
levels chosen on this chart represent second maximum daily averages and are not
representative of average population exposure but rather of the maximum pollution levels
for the year.
f'IGURF 9
-------
New Haven, CT
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
= TSP: Clinton School
= SO2= State Street
= CO: City Hall
= O3: 1976-1978-Hampden; 1979-1980-State Street
Participate and sulfur dioxide levels were moderate from 1976 to present. However,
violations of the secondary particulate standards were recorded in 1976 and 1979 at
several sites in the New Haven area. For carbon monoxide, except for 1979 and 1980, the
levels have been unhealthfui. During 1979 and 1980, CO levels were moderate. Ozone
levels remain very unhealthfui.
The general terms which describe the air quality (good, moderate, unhealthfui, very
unhealthfui, and hazardous) are defined in Table 5. It should be noted that the pollution
levels chosen on this chart represent second maximum daily averages and are not
representative of average population exposure but rather of the maximum pollution levels
for the year.
FIGURE 10
-------
Bangor, ME
200« •
150- •
100- »
50- •
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
= TSP: Central Street
= S02: Central Street
= CO: Central Street
= 03: Cape Elizabeth
Particulate levels during this period were moderate. However, at this and other sites in
the Bangor area, violations of secondary particulate standards were recorded in each year.
Sulfur dioxide levels have decreased from moderate to good. Carbon monoxide levels have
shown a decrease over this period from very unhealthful to moderate. Ozone is measured
in the Bangor area; however, the State's maximum ozone site is at Cape Elizabeth where
levels >vere unhealthful.
The general terms which describe the air quality (good, moderate, unhealthful, very
unhealthful, and hazardous) are defined in Table 5. It should be noted that the pollution
levels chosen on this chart represent second maximum daily averages and are not
representative of average population exposure but rather of the maximum pollution levels
for the year.
FIGURE 11
-------
Boston, MA
200- •
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
g=TSP: 1976-1979-Kenmore Square; 1980-Southampton Street
=$02= Kenmore Square
= CO: Kenmore Square
= O3: 1976-1979-Fellsway and Route 16
I I =O3: 1976-1977-West Newbury; 1978-1980-Georgetown
At Kenmore Square, participate levels have been moderate; however, violations of
secondary particulate standards have been recorded at this and other sites in the Boston
area for the period 1976 to 1979. Particulate levels during 1980 were moderate. Sulfur
dioxide levels have remain unchanged and are moderate. At Kenmore Square, which is a
middle scale site, carbon monoxide levels have shown a decrease over this period from
very unhealthful to unhealthful. Maximum ozone levels in the Boston area remain
unhealthful.
The general terms which describe the air quality (good, moderate, unhealthful, very
unhealthful, and hazardous) are defined in Table 5. It should be noted that the pollution
levels chosen on this chart represent second maximum daily averages and are not
representative of average population exposure but rather of the maximum pollution levels
for the year.
FIGURE 12
-------
Springfield, MA
PSI
200- •
150 • -
100-
50- •
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
= TSP: 1976-1979 - Taylor Street; 1980 - 59 Howard Street
= SOg: East Columbus Avenue
= CO: East Columbus Avenue
= O3: 1976-1979- Amherst; 1980-Worcester
At the Taylor Street site, particulate levels have been moderate, although secondary
particulate standards were violated in 1976. Primary particulate standards violations
were reported at other sites in the Springfield area during 1976 and 1977. Secondary
particulate standards violations were reported at other sites in the Springfield area during
1973, 1979, and 1980. At the Howard Street site, particulate levels remain moderate,
although secondary particulate standards were violated at this site. For sulfur dioxide,
the levels have been moderate. Carbon monoxide levels have decreased but are still
unhealthful. Ozone levels in the Springfield area are unhealthful.
The general terms which describe the air quality (good, moderate, unheaJthful, very
unhealthful, and hazardous) are defined in Table 5. It should be noted that the pollution
levels chosen on this chart represent second maxirnum daily averages and are not
representative of average population exposure but rather of the maximum pollution levels
for the year.
FIGURE 13
-------
Worcester, MA
PSI
200 • •
150 - •
100 - •
50 •
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
; TSP: Front Street
:SO2: New Salem and Washington Streets
: CO: New Salem and Washington Streets
:C>3: New Salem and Washington Streets
At the Front Street site, paniculate levels have been moderate during this period. During
1976-1978, secondary particulate violations were recorded at this site. Primary NAAQS
violations for participates were recorded at the New Salenn site for the period 1976-1978.
Secondary NAAQS violations for participates were recorded at the New Salem site during
1979 and 1980. Sulfur dioxide levels were moderate for this period. The carbon monoxide
has shown a decline since 1976 from unhealthful to moderate. Ozone levels remain
unhealthful.
The general terms which describe the air quality (good, moderate, unhealthful, very
unhealthful, and hazardous) are defined in Table 5. It should be noted that the pollution
levels chosen on this chart represent second maximum daily averages and are not
representative of average population exposure but rather of the maximum pollution levels
for the year.
FIGURE 14
-------
Providence, Rl
PSI
200 - >
150- .
100 - •
50 • •
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
= TSP: Westminster Street
= 502= Dyer Street
= CO: Dorrance Street
= O3: 1976-1979-Attleboro, MA; 1980-North Eastern, MA
Participate levels at the Westminster Street site have been moderate; however, violations
of the secondary participate standards were reported in 1977 and 1980. Additional
violations for both primary and secondary standards have been reported at other
Providence sites for all years during this period. Sulfur dioxide levels are moderate.
Carbon monoxide levels are still unhealthful. Ozone levels remain unhealthful in the
Providence area.
The general terms which describe the air quality (good, moderate, unhealthful, very
unhealthful, and hazardous) are defined in Table 5. It should be noted that the pollution
levels chosen on this chart represent second maximum daily averages and are not
representative of average population exposure but either of the maximum pollution levels
for the year.
FIGURE 15
-------
Manchester, NH
PSI
200 - *
150 ' •
100«•
50 • >
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
I I =TSP: Merrimack Street
= TSP: Health Department
= SO2: Merrimack Street
= CO: 1979-1980 - Elm Si reet
= O3: 1976-1978-Merrimack Street; 1979-1980-Spring Street
Particulate levels were moderate, although the secondary particulate standards were
exceeded at the Health Department in 1976 and at other sites in 1978, 1979, and 1980.
Sulfur dioxide levels remained moderate. Carbon monoxide values are unhealthful. Ozone
levels at this and other sites in southern New Hampshire are unhealthful.
The general terms which describe the air quality {good, moderate, unhealthful, very
unhealthful, and hazardous) are defined in Table 5. It should be noted that the pollution
levels chosen on this chart represent second maximum daily averages and are not
representative of average population exposure but rather of the maximum pollution levels
for the year.
FIGURE 16
-------
Burlington, VT
PSI
200- •
150- -
100- -
50-•
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
= TSP: 1976-1979-S. Winooski Avenue; 1980-39 Pearl Street
= SQz'. S. Winooski Avenue
-CO: S. Winooski Avenue
= O3: 1976-1979-S. Winooski Avenue; 1980-Spear Street
At the S. Winooski Avenue site, which does not meet siting criteria, in general the
particulate levels are moderate; however, in 1977 and 1980, both annual primary and
secondary particulate 24-hour standard violations were reported. This may have been due
to construction in the area. In 1979, there were violations of the secondary standard. At
Spear Street in 1980, the particulate levels were moderate. Sulfur dioxide levels are good.
Carbon monoxide levels have shown a decline, and currently levels are moderate. Ozone
levels are noderate.
The general terms which describe the air quality (good, moderate, unhealthful, very
unhealthful, and hazardous) are defined in Table 5. It should be noted that the pollution
levels chosen on this chart represent second maximum daily averages and are not
representative of average population exposure but rather of the maximum pollution levels
for the year.
FIGURF, 17
-------
SUPERFUND
On Dece;nber 11, 1980, the President signed into law the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 {CERCLA), commonly known as "Superfund". Ihe Act
provides legal authority for EPA to take enforcement action to
require responsible parties to clean up uncontrolled hazardous
waste disposal sites or be subject to cost recovery action to
reimburse EPA for the cleanup. In the event no responsible
party can be found, the Act authorizes EPA or the states to
take emergency containment measures (removal actions) and
permanent cleanup (remedial actions). The Act created a $1.6
billion fund to pay for such cleanup efforts, 86% of which
comes from an excise tax on oil and industrial chemicals with
the remainder from general tax revenues. The Act also requires
notification of spills of hazardous :naterials and notification
by owners, operators, transporters and others of the locations
of past hazardous waste disposal sites.
Region I and the six New England states have been leaders in
implementing this new program, principally due to the active
effort EPA anc: the states began in 1980 to deal with the
problems of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Even prior to
the passage of Superfund, the "Jew England states had begun to
identify, investigate and clean up such sites, using state
enforcement action and, in some cases, special appropriations
or special purpose bond issues to pay for the cleanup.
Throughout 1980, EPA actively supported these efforts with
technical assistance, direct federal enforcement under other
federal statutes, and emergency cleanup or containment efforts
using the so-called "311 fund" of the Clean Water Act designed
to control spills of oil and hazardous materials into surface
waters. As of December 11, 1980, funds for hazardous material
emergency response were transferred to CERCLA while oil-
related emergency response remains with the 311 fund.
Under Superfund, EPA can provide an immediate response to an
emergency situation at any site to contain a threat to public
health and the environment. However, in order to conduct a
complete cleanup (remedial action) the site must be included
on a National Priority List identifying to the extent
practicable the 400 highest priority sites in the country.
Each state may designate its highest priority site which
ensures inclusion in tne initial 100 sites on the list.
Inclusion on the National Priority List is only a first step
in making a site eligible for assistance under CERCLA. Each
site must then be evaluated to determine whether federal or
state enforcement action to secure private cleanup is
warranted. If not, decisions must be made as to the extent of
further investigation and feasibility study, the development
of cost-effective solutions, design and construction of the
remedy, and whether EPA or the state (under a cooperative
agreement) will take the lead in site cleanup.
-------
EPA's major task in the uncontrolled sites area in 1981 was
the identification and ranking of potential sites for
inclusion in the National Priority List. By the end of 1981,
the Region I log included 775 sites. For twenty of these
sites information for ranking was developed, and thirteen New
England sites were included in the National Priority List of
115 sites which was issued in October 1981. The thirteen
sites and their status at the end of 1981 are described in
Table 3.
Region I believes the New England states, as a result of their
early efforts to address hazardous waste problems, have
developed the capability to assume the lead role at most sites
and has, as a matter of regional policy, encouraged the states
to assume responsibility for site cleanup under cooperative
agreements or grants. In August, 1981 New Hampshire received
the first CERCLA cooperative agreement in the nation for $2.3
million for further feasibility studies, design, and
construction at the Sylvester site in Nashua, New Hampshire.
In December, 1981, negotiations were concluded for the second
such cooperative agreement for nearly $5 million to be
awarded to Rhode Island for the Picillo site at Coventry,
Rhode Island. Applications are being processed for similar
agreements for Western Sand and Gravel, Burrillville, RI;
Davis Liquid, Smithfield, RI; Resolve, Dartmouth, MA; Ottati
and Goss, Kingston, NH; and Keefe Environmental Services,
Epping,NH.
Additionally, Region I has carried out extensive activities
including geohydrologic studies, drum removal, enforcement,
etc. at many other sites not on the priority list. Table 4
briefly summarizes these activities. As of December 1981,
EPA had obligated $13.9 million in CERCLA and 311 funds to
respond to uncontrolled sites in New England.
Other activities in 1981 included:
1) continuing removal (emergency) actions at five sites where
such actions had been started under Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act. These sites are Picillo's Pig Farm, Coventry, RI;
Ottati and Goss, Kingston, NH; Keefe Environmental Services,
Epping, NH; Sylvester's Hazardous Waste Site, Nashua, NH; and
Mottolo's Waste Site, Raymond, NH. The Mottolo site is the
first New England site and one of the first in the nation at
which clean up has been completed. About 1700 waste-filled
drums and 200 tons of contaminated debris and soil were
removed from the site and hauled to a legal landfill. The
work cost about $750,000, about $100,000 less than EPA's
original estimates.
2) continuing federal enforcement action under other laws
such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and
3} responding to public concerns at many sites where harmful
effects were suspected.
-------
Site Naire
1. Keefe Environmental,
Epping, NH
2, Industriplex-128..
Woburn, MA
3. Nyanza,
Ashland, MA
4. Charles George
landfill,
Tyngsboro, MA
5. Picillo Farm,
Coventry RI
6. Ottati & Goss/
Kingston Steel Drum,
Kingston, NH
TABLE 3
SUPERFUND A~£IVTTIES AT PRIORITY SITES
Funds Allocated
Activity Removal Remedial Other State
Lagoon, Drum, Tank
Stabilization $1,000,000
Disposal of Immed-
iately Hazardous
Wastes
Voluntary Drum
removal by Generators
(State effort)
Negotiating Co-oper-
ative Agreement
Site Security 5 50,000
Geo-hydrologic
Investigation $ 99,500
Extent of Contami-
nation Study being
developed $ 450,000
Negotiations ongoing
with former site
owner
Voluntary Geohydro-
logic Study by Site
Owner
Compliance with State
Consent Decree for
Site investigation and
Remedial Action
EPA site investigation $ 5,000
Drum Excavation $ 983,300 $1,400,000
and Disposal
Geohydrologic Study $ 280,000
Co-operative Agreement $5,000,000
Drum Stabilization $1,000,000
and Disposal
Geohydrologic Study
Case filed by Dept. of
Justice? to require
Remedial action
-------
TABLE 3 (Cont'd)
Funds Allocated
Site Name
7. Davis Liquid,
Smithfield, RI
8. Laurel Park Land-
fill, Naugatuck, CT
9. Resolve Inc.
Dartmouth, MA
10. Sylvester. Nashua- NH
11. Western Sand & Gravel,
Burrillville, RI
12. Winthrop Landfill,
Winthrop, ME
13. Pine Street Canal,
Burlington, VT
Activity Removal
Co-operative Agree-
ment Application
Geohydrologic Study
State Enforcement
Negotiating Co-oper-
ative Agreement
Negotiating Co-oper-
ative Agreement
Engineering, inter- $ 470,000
ceptor wells,
recharge system
Drum Removal, Fea-
sibility Studies
Co-operative Agree-
ment
Lagoon Excavation $ 450,000
& Disposal
Hydrcgeolog ic
Studies
Co-operative Agree-
ment being negoti-
ated
Extent of Contami-
nation Study Planning
Extent of Contamination
Study Planning
Remedial
$ 960,000
Other
State
$ 100,000
$ 105,000 $ 130,000
$2,300,000
$ 265,000
$ 450,000
EPA Contractor on Board
-------
TABLE 4
SUPERFUND ACTIVITIES AT NON-PRIORITY SITES
Site
1. Motollo,
Raymond, NH
2. W. R. Grace,
Acton, MA
3. General Electric,
Pittsfield, MA
4. New Bedford
Harbor, MA
5. Johns-Mansville Corp.,
Nashua, NH
6. Solvents Recovery
Southington, CT
7. Abandoned Landfill
Springfield, VT
8. Auburn Road Landfill,
Londonderry NH
9. Rigby Brook,
Clinton, MA
10. Landfill & Resource
Recovery North
Smithfield, RI
Activity
Region I conducted Drum excavation and disposal
which was completed in January 1982 at a cost
of $876,000.
Consent Decree negotiated by EPA and DEQE with the
company requires extensive studies and remedial
action. Feasibility study underway.
Consent Order negotiated by EPA and DEQE with the
company requires a comprehensive investigation of
the PCB contamination of the Housatonic River and
evaluate remedial options. Study underway,
EPA and DEQE have continued extensive sampling
efforts to characterize the PCB contamination
throughout the harbor and shore areas. Addition-
ally, we have jointly initiated enforcement
proceedings against two responsible parties.
EPA and the state have reached an agreement with
the company relative to disposal of waste asbestos
at six sites in Hudson NH.
A federal civil action has been filed seeking in-
junctive relief to abate hazards caused by improper
disposal of various hazardous wastes.
EPA and VT AEC have provided extensive testing of
private water supplies threatened by groundwater
contamination from the landfill.
The Region is completing an extensive geohydrologic
study to determine the extent of groundwater con-
tamination.
The Region and DEQE have conducted comprehensive
soils testing throughout the area to attempt to
learn the cause of death of many ducks suspected
of being poisoned by toxic metals. The investi-
gation is ongoing by Massachusetts Department of
Public Health.
The Region has provided extensive sampling, ana-
lytical, and quality assurance support to RI DEM
in attempting to determine the extent of contami-
nation of groundwater (if any) caused by the State
and the Town.
-------
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) has
three basic objectives: to abate open dumping of solid waste, to
regulate hazardous waste from cradle-to-grave, and to stimulate
resource conservation and recovery programs. EPA and the New
England states are in the early stages of implementing RCRA.
Hazardous Waste Management
During 1981, the regional office authorized the states of
Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire to
operate the Phase I RCRA programs. The state of Connecticut has
submitted a complete application and will be authorized in 1982.
The Phase I program involves implementation of a cradle-to-grave
tracking system for hazardous wastes called the manifest,
standards for generators and transporters, and basic operating
and management standards for existing hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities. The effect of the
authorization decision is that the state regulatory requirements
function in lieu of the federal requirements in New England.
In January of 1981, EPA issued the initial Phase II standards for
permitting hazardous waste storage, treatment and incinerator
facilities. These standards were effective in July of 1981 and
represent the initial phase of EPA's permitting requirements. In
February of 1981, EPA promulgated temporary regulations for new
land disposal facilities. These were issued to accomodate the
development of new landfills in advance of final land disposal
standards which will be issued this year.
The states of Vermont, Massachusetts and Maine have begun
developing permitting standards substantially equivalent to those
developed by EPA. It is anticipated that the remaining New
England states will begin developing permit regulations this year
and that all New England states will apply for the permit phase
of the program late this year and early next year.
In the period preceding authorization of the state permit
programs, EPA and the states will enter into cooperative
agreements to coordinate the calling and review of permit
applications from existing hazardous waste facilities and will
continue this process until the states receive Phase II
authorization.
-------
In 1901, EPA and the states initiated the permit review process
for new hazardous waste facilities. Siting of new facilities
continues to be a major concern to state agencies. The states of
Connecticut, Maine' and New Hanpshire passed legislation designed
to facilitate the interaction between the potential hazardous
waste facility developers and local communities.
The six New England states have continued their cooperative
efforts to implement a uniform tracking system for hazardous
waste movement. In November of 1981, the state of Maine, with
financial support from the other New England states, began to
develop an automatic data processing system for the New England
manifest. The objectives of the effort will be to design and
implement a data management system which will allow the states to
exchange information concerning interstate movement of hazardous
wastes.
Solid Waste Management
RCRA requires that each state prepare a solid and hazardous waste
plan. With technical and financial assistance from EPA, each of
the New England states has prepared and adopted a plan. EPA is
presently reviewing each of them to determine whether or not they
conform to RCRA.
The New England states also received federal support for
conducting the Open Dump Inventory. The Inventory classifies
existing solid waste disposal sites according to federal criteria
which define environmentally acceptable land disposal practices.
In May 1981, EPA published the Inventory conducted by the states
in 1980. A total of 163 sites were listed for not meeting one or
more of the federal criteria.
10
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
In Region I, activities implementing the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) enphasize interface with industry and the
public, enforcement of the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
rules, providing technical assistance for detection and
abatement of asbestos exposure hazards and providing chemical
health hazard assessments. The program provides a central
source of information on EPA's chemical regulatory authorities,
chemical toxicity and chemical production sites within the
region.
Asbestos
The fibrous minerals Known as asbestos, used in over 3000
products and applications, have entered the environment in both
occupational and non-occupational settings. "Hie lung disease
asbestosis, and some cancers of the lung, abdomen and other
parts of the body have been clearly related to asbestos
exposure.
The Region I toxics program provides technical assistance and
guidance to state and local school officials, health agencies
and public and private building owners for detection and
evaluation of potentially hazardous asbestos conditions. EPA
has provided training for state officials and training and
assistance in contract specifications and asbestos removal
procedures to contractors and architects in all New England
states.
All six New England states have school asbestos inspection and
hazard abatement programs. Schools in more than 100 New
England school districts have spent a total of seven million
dollars for asbestos hazard abatement. In addition, a number
of private non-school building owners have initiated asbestos
control procedures to reduce the risk of human exposure.
PCB's
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) were manufactured in the
United States from 1929 to 1977. PCB's were, and continue to
be, used primarily as cooling and insulating fluids in
electrical transformers and capacitors.
Although PCB's have not been manufactured in this country since
1977, most of the PCB's marketed in the United States are still
in use in closed systems which do not permit any detectable
human exposure to the fluids.
11
-------
The Agency is working closely with utility companies and other
users of equipment containing PCB's to ensure compliance with
PCB disposal and narking regulations. (See Enforcement).
The regional office provides technical support to the New
England Public Power Association to help the utilities meet
EPA's requirements for labeling, inspection, storage, and
disposal of transformers containing PCB's.
Region I was one of four regions that invited a state to submit
a proposal for federal funds to establish a PCB inspection
program. As a result, EPA and the State of Connecticut entered
into a cooperative enforcement agreement that enhances both the
state's and EPA's efforts to reduce the risk of harrc to human
health and the environment from PCB exposure.
12
-------
PESTICIDES
The Federal Pesticides Act provides for 1) Registration
(premarket clearance) of pesticides to prevent unreasonable
hazard to human health or the environment, 2) Classification
of pesticides for general or restricted use, 3) Certification
of users of restricted-use pesticides, 4) Informative and
accurate labeling of pesticide products, and 5) Enforcement to
ensure proper pesticide practices.
The Act calls for EPA to delegate two responsibilities—
applicator certification and use enforcement—to states which
are determined to be qualified.
All six New England states have met qualifications and have
certified 9,716 private applicators and 8,591 commercial
applicators. EPA provides funding to support ongoing state
programs for initial certification and for recertification. As
of September 1981, over 5,000 private applicators had been
recertified.
The second delegation provides for primacy for pesticide use
enforcement. Since June 1981, all six New England states have
qualified. The Agency supports the state efforts through
cooperative enforcement grant agreements. This funding has
assisted the states in expanding their enforcement staffs by
twenty members and has provided resources and equipment for
the analysis of 1,342 samples collected for enforcement
purposes.
The Maine pesticide enforcement efforts under delegation
helped to ensure that guidelines issued by Maine specifically
for the 1981 spruce budworm program were met. The guidance
provided for extra label directions for safe pesticide use
specific to Maine forest conditions, greater protection of
human health, and avoidance of contamination of lakes,
streams and ponds. Over one million acres of forest were
sprayed aerially, and compliance with use requirements was
good.
13
-------
RADIATION
Region I worked with the states and other federal agency
members of the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) in
revising state, local and federal agency Radiological
Emergency Response Plans (RERP). The regional Radiation
Program participated, as official observer and evaluator,
in a full-scale exercise of the Maine RERP, and provided
the EPA critique of the exercise. The Radiation Program,
at the request of the Massachusetts Bureau of Radiation
Control, developed an accident scenario for the Pilgrim
Nuclear Power Station to enable the Bureau to conduct a
test of its field monitoring and accident assessment
capabilities. The actual test was observed and a critique
provided.
A revised New England Interstate Radiological Assistance
Plan, mandated by the New England Radiological Health
Conpact, was prepared and adopted by the New England
Radiological Health Committee. This revised plan is now
incorporated as part of all .state and utility RERP's. The
Radiation Program has assumed responsibility for the
collection, maintenance and dissemination of emergency
radiological equipment inventories within the six state
area, and prepares and distributes at least annually
updated copies of the personnel rosters and state
radiation laboratories' emergency capabilities.
EPA also served as a member of a subcommittee established
by the New England Radiological Health Committee to review
the technical literature, and develop reconunended
permissible levels of radon in well-water supplies to be
used by the state radiation programs in dealing with the
problems created by the high levels found in scattered
individual home supplies throughout New England.
14
-------
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Introduction
The goal of the federal Clean Water Act is the restoration of
the nation's waters to a quality which provides for the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and
provides for recreation in and on the water.
State water quality standards are established according to the
category of use for the surface water involved. Class A waters
are suitable for water supply without further treatment except
simple disinfection. Class B waters are suitable for swimming
and fishing, and Class C waters can be used for fishing, but not
swimming. By these definitions, only Class A and Class B waters
meet the national fishable/swimmable goals of the Clean Water
Act.
During 1981, three of the New England states—Connecticut, New
Hampshire, and Rhode Island—made significant revisions to their
water quality standards. The changes were designed to
strengthen the existing provisions of each state's standards.
They also include provisions to ensure that recent water quality
criteria for toxic substances published by EPA can be considered
in those states' pollution abatement programs. Connecticut has
also initiated an ambitious program to visit sites suspected of
having water pollution problems from discharges that contain
toxic substances. At these sites, biological studies are
conducted and water quality criteria to protect the aquatic life
are developed.
Although the major thrust of water pollution control efforts
nationwide has been to restore polluted streams to fishable/
swimmable condition, a crucial element of an effective water
quality management system for New England is the preservation of
those waters which are currently of good quality^New England
has an abundance of priceless clean lakes and estuaries whose
quality must be protected and preserved to maintain their value.
A major part of our future water quality management activities
must be directed toward preserving the recreational and
aesthetic potential of these resources.
Current Water Quality Conditions and Progress
As of January, 1980, 67% of New England's major stream areas met
the 1983 fishable/swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act. Four
thousand five hundred sixty two (4,562) of the total 7,486 miles
of major river mainstems and tributaries assessed were suitable
for fishing and swimming. This represents a 5% improvement in
stream quality since 1978 and an 11% improvement since 1976 (see
Table 5).
15
-------
Only the major river mainstems and tributaries are assessed in
this report. Most of New England's thousands of miles of smaller
upland tributaries which are not assessed in this report now
meet the fishable/swimmable standard. In 1981, EPA began a
study of how to better assess the quality of streams.
Although New England has experienced a steady improvement in
water quality since 1976, only 82% of the region's major streams
are projected to meet the fishable/swimmable goals by 1983.
quality problem areas where clean water goals
by 1983 have been identified in all six New
Congress, facing these realities, has extended
to the Clean Water Act compliance deadline for
Critical water
cannot be met
England states
the amendments
municipalities to July 1, 1988 .
Point source pollution problems from municipalities are being
addressed by two programs - the Municipal Construction Grants
Program and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth
of municipal wastewater treatment facilities are under
construction or are coming on line. All of the major industrial
dischargers in the region have been issued enforceable NPDES
"cleanup" permits. As more and more municipal and industrial
discharges are controlled through these programs, we expect to
see an acceleration of water quality improvement.
Following is a brief summary of water quality conditions in each
of the six New England states. The water quality projections
made for 1983 are estimates only and are based on conditions
that existed as of January, 1980.
Connecticut
Of the 861 major freshwater stream miles inventoried in
Connecticut, 556, or 65% meet the fishable/swimmable goals of
the Clean Water Act. This percentage represents a 5% increase
since 1978 and a 9% improvement in water quality since 1976. If
all Connecticut freshwater streams including small upland
tributaries were assessed, 93% would meet Class B standards.
Approximately 83% of Connecticut's major stream miles will meet
the fishable/swimmable criteria by 1983.
Maine
Seventy-two percent of Maine's 2,349 miles of major streams meet
the fishable/swimmable standard. This percentage represents an
improvement of 2% since 1978 and 5% since 1976. In the years
between 1978 and 1981 Maine has documented significant water
quality improvements in the Penobscot River, Haley Pond,
Rangeley Lake, the Saint Croix River, and numerous coastal
areas. Approximately 88% of Maine's major streams will meet or
exceed the fishable/swimmable criteria by 1983.
16
-------
Massachusetts
Approximately 45% of Massachusetts' 1,715 major river miles now
meet or exceed the fishable/swirnmable standard. This percentage
represents a 13% increase since 1978, and a 25% increase in
clean water since 1976. Although of the New England states,
Massachusetts still reports the lowest percentage of major
stream miles meeting the fishable/swimmable goals, the state's
waters have consistently demonstrated the highest rate of
improvement in the region.
Approximately 60% of Massachusetts' major stream mileage will
meet the fishable/swimmable criteria by 1983. This projection
takes into consideration delays in completing the construction
of wastewater treatment plants. In addition, special complex
water quality problems caused by combined sewer overflows, in-
place sediments, nonpoint source pollution, and low stream flows
will prevent the attainment of water quality goals in numerous
stream segments. For example, heavy metals are present in the
sediments of the Bladcstone River and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's) contaminate sediments of the Housatonic and Hoosic
Rivers and the marine sediments in New Bedford Harbor. Studies
are currently underway to improve these situations and the
Commissioners of the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering, along with the Regional Administrator of
EPA, have given the highest priority to the PCB cleanup.
New Hampshire
Fifty-three percent of New Hampshire's 1,320 miles of major
streams meet or exceed fishable/swimmable standards. This
percentage represents a 1% improvement since 1978 and a 9%
improvement since 1976 when only 44% of the state's major
streams assessed met or exceeded fishable/swimmable standards.
However, major streams represent only 9% of the state's
identifiable stream mileage. If total stream mileage, including
upland streams were assessed, approximately 96% would meet or
exceed Class B standards.
Rhode Island
Sixty-six percent of Rhode Island's major stream miles and 92%
of the estuarine areas meet the fishable/swimmable standard.
17
-------
Rhode Island's wa-:er quality monitoring program has also
indicated various degrees of water quality improvement at
stations located on the Branch River, Blackstone River,
Pawcatuck River, and Fry Brook. These improvements are
associated with improved treatment at upstream pollution
sources. Major combined sewer overflows and urban runoff
problems in Providence, Pawtucket, and Central Falls cause
coliform and solids violations in the Providence River,
Woonasquatuck River, and Narragansett Bay.
Large municipal and industrial discharges coupled with minimal
assimilative capacities result in dissolved oxygen problems in
the Pawtuxet River and Mashapaug Brook. The Blackstone River and
Mount Hope Bay have dissolved oxygen and coliform problems as a
result of combined sewer overflows and municipal and industrial
discharges.
Approximately 73% of Rhode Island's major stream miles will meet
the fishable/swimmable criteria by 1983.
\fermont
Seventy-two percent of Vermont's major stream miles meet the
fishable/swimmable standard. This represents a 4% improvement
since 1973, and an 11% improvement since 1976. Ninety percent
of the state's total stream mileage, including smaller upland
streams, is fishable/swimmable. By 1983, about 95% of the
state's major stream miles will be fishable/swimmable.
Clean Lakes
Lakes are one of New England's most valuable aesthetic,
recreational, and economic assets. Eutrophication, or
accelerated aging, threatens the usefulness of many of New
England's lakes and impoundments. Pollutants — particularly
nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen from municipal
wastewater treatment plants and nonpoint sources — and
sediments can contribute to excessive growth of aquatic weeds,
thereby reducing a lake's ability to maintain its full
recreational potential.
Many of the significant lakes in New England are showing signs
of eutrophication. For example, Maine has thirty problem areas;
New Hampshire fifty; Vermont 55; Connecticut 100; and
Massachusetts 1,030.
18
-------
In 1975, a Clean Lakes program was initiated under the Clean
Water Act to provide for federal participation in lake
rehabilitation and preservation programs.
This program provides funding for lake diagnostic studies at 70%
federal share and implementation activities at 50% federal
share. Over $6.5 million in federal assistance has been used to
fund projects in the New England states. The federal funding
through December 31,1981, for each state is:
Connecticut - $ 696,633
Maine - $1,849,777
Massachusetts - $3,211,303
New Hampshire - $297,686
Rhode Island - $ 74,200
Vermont
- $456,506
While most of the clean lakes projects in New England are not
complete, early results of several projects are promising.
Major recreational uses have been restored to Morse Pond,
Wellesley, MA; Nutting Lake, Billerica, MA; Annabessacook Lake
in Maine; and Lake Bomoseen in Vermont. Table 6 describes some
of the Clean Lakes restoration projects in New England.
Congress has appropriated an additional $9 million for FY 1982
to assist in completing existing lake restoration projects.
Recreation and Open Space Opportunities from Wastewater
Treatment Projects
Region I has led the way in helping the states, localities, and
consulting engineers/architects to design recreation and open
space opportunities into the water pollution control program.
As a result, the municipal construction grants program is not
only cleaning up our waters, but also is helping to develop the
recreational uses and public benefits associated with our
investment in clean water.
Today at Lowell, MA, a family can stroll, walk, or bicycle along
pathways built on top of the interceptor sewers recently
constructed along the banks of the Merrimack River. The
pathways lead from the heart of the Lowell National Historic
Park in downtown Lowell along the facades of the historic
textile mills into rural riverscape. When the interceptor
system is completed, these paths will connect with state parks
and forests,scenic promentories, and miles of shoreline. All
this has been accomplished through skillful planning, design,
and construction and, at no extra cost, by substituting a
smooth concrete surface for a portion of the traditional rip-
rapped surface. The water pollution control program and a
cleaner Merrimack River have been keys to Lowell's revitalization.
19
-------
Families are also enjoying walking, bicycling, picnicking,
and nature study along buried sewer lines beside Fuller
Brook in Wellesley, MA, and the Aberjona River in
Winchester, MA.
Citizens of Marshfield Village, VT, are now enjoying
community gardens, an access road, parking, and landscaping
at their new wastewater treatment plant beside the Wincoski
River. Here, the Village officials, the project engineer,
and contractor together worked out a few simple changes in
the final contouring, landscaping, and parking.
With EPA assistance, Massachusetts has just completed a
statewide project to integrate recreation and open space
opportunities into the municipal construction grants
program. The project developed and tested ways to
coordinate facilities planning and recreation/open space
planning. Local officials, citizens, students, and
regional planners all screened the recreation potential of
wastewater treatment projects and waterways in each city
and town in the Commonwealth. Nineteen projects have been
recornmended for follow-up to achieve more widespread
assistance from the water pollution control program.
Section 208 Water Quality Management Planning
As point sources of water pollution are brought under
control through the municipal construction grants and NPDES
permit programs, nonpoint sources of pollution have an
increasingly significant impact on water quality. Section
200 of the 1972 Clean Water Act authorized EPA to
administer an areawide waste treatment management program
designed specifically to deal with nonpoint sources of
water pollution. The so-called "208" planning programs were
designed to control complex water quality problems
including urban runoff, agricultural and silvicultural
runoff, septage management, on-site wastewater management,
and lake eutrophication. As of December, 1981, more than
$22.7 million in 208 grants have been awarded to the
sixteen designated areawide planning agencies and to the
six New England states to prepare these 208 water quality
management plans (see Table 7).
Most of the initial areawide 208 plans have received state
certification and EPA approval. Several of the 208
agencies have already been successful in implementing
strategies identified by 208 plans, and those strategies
are now resulting in actual water quality improvements.
Although no funds were provided for 208 grants in fiscal
year 1982, the 1931 Clean Water Act amendments do provide
for continued water quality management planning under
Section 205 (j), and funding for this activity is
anticipated in the amount of 1% of each state's
construction grant .allocation.
-------
In addition to planning for the elimination of nonpoint
sources of pollution, such as agriculture and urban storm
runoff, the 208 programs are helping to preserve and
protect the quality of the region's groundwater resources.
These efforts have focused on identifying high priority
groundwater areas, identifying threats to groundwater
aquifers, and developing and implementing aquifer protection
regulations.
Following are some examples of recent 208 activities:
Connecticut
During the past year, Connecticut's 208 program has been
developing various procedures to mitigate the water
pollution impacts of road salt, fuel leaks from underground
fuel taaks at gas stations, and improper disposal of
septage. A program was developed to require the 3,000
licensed gasoline service stations to follow specified
procedures to prevent fuel leaks from underground tanks.
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) is currently seeking regulatory authority to
implement this program. The 208 program in conjunction
with Connecticut DEP, has developed a manual that outlines
procedures for the proper siting and design of septage
disposal facilities, in order to implement these programs,
the Connecticut 208 program and the Connecticut DEP are
conducting workshops and are working closely with the local
communities.
Maine
The Agricultural Exemption law was passed by the first
regular session of the 109th Maine Legislature in response
to a need identified by the Maine statewide and areawide
200 programs. It exempts agricultural operations from
prosecution for discharge of erosion related pollutants
provided the agricultural activity is conducted in
accordance with an approved conservation plan. During
1981, regulations impleTienting the law were prepared by the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection, reviewed by
the agricultural community, submitted to public hearing,
and adopted by the Board of Environmental Protection.
Massachusetts
The 208 program is providing financial assistance to the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
(DEQE) to develop septage disposal policies and guidelines.
In December 1981, the Commissioner of DEQE signed the
Massachusetts Septage Disposal Policy. The Policy calls
for cotreatment of septage at wastewater treatment
facilities as the preferred disposal method.
21
-------
New Hampshire
New Hampshire's 208 program was responsible for instituting
statewide sedttent and erosion control program regulations.
As enacted, all commercial, residential, and industrial
developments near water or that are greater than 100,000
square feet in area are required to have a permit based on
detailed plans for both construction phase and post-
construction phase runoff control. Logging activities are
also permitted based on appropriate best management
practices.
Rhode Island
In November 1980, Rhode Island citizens approved an $87.7
million bond to accelerate pollution control in Upper
Narragansett Bay. In 1981, a state/regional sewer
authority was set up to manage this program and the
necessary modeling and water quality sampling is underway
with the aid of 208 funds to document treatment needs as
well as water quality benefits. As the result of a 208
initiative, the Governor set up a task force which rewrote
and strengthened the requirements for siting and installing
on-lot septic systems. An interesting aspect of these
regulations is the requirement that developers evaluate the
cumulative water quality impact of septic systems when they
develop two or more lots.
Vermont
Vermont has undertaken the following programs as a result
of 208 funding: wetlands inventory, wasteload allocation
procedures, low flow requirements from hydroelectric
operations, scormwater runoff assessment and policy, and
rural sewage manuals.
22
-------
0 o
M r-l M
•HAW
£ ID *J
£ id
>i W 3
b i-t
« b C
A f. -t
•d*10
E-f D^ O
c x:
u -H *J
0 TJ
^1 «
•O H i5
£ <0
<0 H O
°
0 B> 0
+^ C r-t
W -H A
* »i
•H 0 E
is3
to
0
g
c
1
«r*
c?,
"s.
f
Y3
•U
a
•H
b
a
E
m
a>
IB
U
C
-H
4J
0
Al
V
n
0)
2
a
i
B>r-
c
«
u
C
0> CO
1
a
4
JO
»••
Q
c
•^
£
„
r-
£
m
a
-H
X
(0)
CO
B
a
0
•H
•H
„
U
B
0
iH
•o
n 0
0 B
•H H
£ n
M
0
-P
a
4J
n
dp dP dP dP dP *P
cn m in cn CM «-
CM «-
dP dP dP dP dP dP
T
,*>***>*
to r- o ••? TT «-
in to CM ^* to to
«- n eo TT .- PI
co o ^f co *• **?
^ VD o m N in
^
O o f*1 vD ^T ^
VO f*» CM ^ VD vO
in vo CM n »— M
»™ in o «- ^ M
in vo v to CM in
*
^
*> •§ S
8 5 2 2 S ^
*™ r-«J fl ^ IO U)
•—
+
^
in
o
in
o
•^
c*^
CM
in
o
CO
en
^
w
^
^
in
Tf
CT^
t—
*
*
VO
to
in
to
00
^
..
0)
|
*
•o
0
a
•fl
u
0
-8
(0
0
s
CO
on
i
U)
en
O
4J
O
u
o
0
o
o
CO
cn
4J -O
0 *J
u
n 0
• e
o •
0 o<
o
(0 p£
u
•O 3
c C
o u
*J 0
* g
h O
- e
*J C 4i r- X
B-H 0
m i 3
•H *O 3 0
*> 0 X 4J Z
U W U C
0 cn ic o ^
c 0 a E 0
c in in n TJ
8m n) 0 C
<8 £ > 3
•- CM
w
-------
a
i
CU
5
L
O €-1
CJ g
h-l
i
£">
^^
§
1
1
1 TOTAL I
1
1
RESTORATION TECHNIQUE '
1
EQ
Ed
J
2
2j
J
•
"
&
m
N^
OJ
ON
CO
"1
r^"
S
1
Selective dredging of
263,000 cu. yds. of sediment!
from those areas where suf- I
ficient organic sediment
exists to promote growth of |
; large aquatic plants. A j
nonpoint source loading
abatement program for the
lake watershed,
i
tQ OJ
E _C <3 W
Q -U O £ -
O iJ U CD •
— > 0 C C 3 ^ CO
u in (0
(U M > O O u-i
*D T; o — t o iJ
• iH O '^ (0 d1!' O
S -Q -u c .c o tn
<5 tg cj U c^i
j^ T3 3 4-1 .i-t Vfl
{q c c1 x x: 01 -H
t^ re r^ O 2 ^ O>
0)
EH (Q
^ j
y e
UJ C
1 ^
*
^s^
S
r~
o
in
"
CO
S
1
1 Restoration includes imple- I
mentation of conservation 1
i practices; local land use I
, controls; comprehensive
information, education, and I
I public participation pro-
1 grams; water quality
1 monitoring; and project
1 coordination.
I
1
I W KJ •
•^ C M -^ *W O g
0 13 O ^ -C > -R xl
c u -w c ••-< o
w x; c to ui —i in
d> W w H3 10 Sj *t3
f5^ ^j ^ tfi O (U C O^
f^ CJ O flZ ~^ ^J CJ *""*
i-( x> O CD .C X <0
fTJ O *H O^ O tfl
a1 w u £ LI ca
ijaiw'D-iJOOC
{,
«5 U
sc ••-'
y
O 4-1
-------
a
g
I
in
ro
in
o
o
CD
O
O
CO
8
VD
DJ
B
1 (1)
oSuSl^J:?
T5 -U DI O <0
tt C G • C M 3.
O *0 EH 'O mf4 J-1 O1
T3 I C Cn C
•H C <"O O T5 O M
> O fti Ci O O
O -H (0 U 4J
Vj AJ d) ro O rtj
CL U AJ J= O3
3 -H J3 K U
•—I S-J S O 3 Q)
(D *J C W 'O O ^
tn w a) O 3 w (0
a p c o a-» 1~l
p o o S c c o
VJ CI 4J O -H -H >
a, vi -g o o
in 3 Ai & M
OJ E 4J ^ ij C Qj
.C ij 3
•M >i 3 -H -H ja
fO I Ti -H
to ff. tn - >Z
03 CO i-H JJ
(D O U
•H (3 VJ CTI W
u-l C OJ JS fl
•H -H (fl O U C
•C !T3 C -H O O
O W O
E T3 U
O
-U
W •»->
E PROB
ID OJ OO-H
w-pijjg
ij^j C
ftjajk
<1) -U 4-J U-j
•• (
4-1 IB
t/1
i >, c
S D1^ T! O
3c C-H
-
UOOJ
-
re
4J
y)
O
CU)
Srac
JC -
H flj M
Q T3(D-lJCrig3J3
owoja-uce
•-< JJ (fi C -H OJ
ij oazr-uujs
(DC---! (DOJ-4-J
>i
1 -O
ft -H
3O
tOO-P
DO'.
C
O
tQ
0
r-
rgvj
>Ji
O^H
C1
8)
3
65
-3
-------
a
oo
O
O
O
^
O
O
r-
a\
co
o
«
o
0
4J -H
Jj
W
C
(0
(0 *J 01
«w .«
O O ^
1
AJ O ---1
c & c
IH 4J (TJ
01
CO Of
<1» w
M U CO 3 0 r-H --
SO ,C 3 IJ ^ O W
CJIM.CTJ-UOO) C S
•-t 4J c; -•-< •<-* 4J m o> o
n m s ns s >j o
p c P ^ cr> i
(-> O u -t-> T) fc
G.-H en tn C C
•u c xj ^ O - ..
O O O O< W u-«
U -i-i-i-i C -tJ rd O
VJ -H
U-l rH
VH r-H
o g
H
•8
U)
tn
-------
S5
M
5
t-H
£-
?
CO
9
^
3
o
a
Q
1
L
i
(ESTIMATED (
1 B
1
i
f-j
Q
§
i
8
t— )
,s
8
n
1
1
1
1
1 LAKE PROBLEM
i
OI
3
i
£_,
(^
M
Q)
CU
I
§
o
in
r^
CO
«v
0)
(W
O
I
*J
S
•i-l
U-l
•H
4J
£
4J
00
a
i
i
i
1 Saltwater stratifica- |
£ 1
E o:
w w
5 "jj
<3C flB
c
W O T3
£3.8
1
Stormwater and high- |
way runoff carrying |
1 sediments and nutri- |
T3
p
m
~c
c
a
rmwater
nto !
S'H
w B
•§ ^
U 3
SJ§
-- * -H
-u x:
'S'g
(tj n}
"3 (0
0 C
£X -i-t
.5S
en o
C TO
O J3
§
•H
4->
(C
OJ
•H
W
(0
c •
'> c
L W
0) ffl
co J3
1 reduction of water 1
depths and encourage- I
ment of excessive 1
1 vegetative growth. |
t i
n
>
o
o
SO
r-
oo
to-
S ^J
(0 'U
S c o *o
T3 *^ x*
O S ^^
1§II
o J o
c o u
-H Q ^ CJ
jj O >
W O 4^
Q 4-) 0
Illl
1 Agricultural runoff |
! and individual sewage I
disposal system runoff j
have contributed a j
fr
x:
1
O
y
3
«3 -U
3 e o
O H2 VJ ^J
^.j ^j r" g
^li^J
o o o
0 w t5
C 4-1 -H S
fill
substantial aiTiount I
of nutrient to the |
Lake. The nutrient |
enriched Lake has an j
o JJ i
05 c a
5 i S
^_) (|_f
CT^ Cu i *
If 1
5 w
JN p
8^0 c
Cj
•r-( •" (5
••H C
U -^ iy
O i— l O
excessive vwed growth I
1 problem which has I
1 impaired recreational j
-H
•
-------
cu
6
I—I
<;
I
en
a
U
1
c
4J
8
|2
E
i
s
i
1 12/31/83
00
VO
fM
O
•H
v>
1
saline water from the 1
; remove hydrogen sul- 1
by precipitation with 1
to
CO
lJ
S
ic chloride; and aerate 1
om waters. 1
1
1
v> -u
S-l 4-1
QJ O
u-i £
a
*o ^ 5 c
g^S
million galL
saltwater in
kettle holes
Lake. The o
w o
"*" tr>
deficiencies
generated hi'
'3
ui
o
centrations <
I
10
•H
fides, ammon
phosphorus .
Conpleted
1
o
CO
VI?
£
v>
ical treatment for iron |
colloidal particle re- 1
e
Cl T3
JZ C
o nj
C^ "^
•H {Q
•c
8U-I
U-l
^ C
High nutrien
from urban r
•D
s
g.
S
S
1; harvesting; dredging;!
ic education; and re-
ing deciduous trees with!
Its
o; cr c
tn 3 *
sediments ha
suited in bl
algal blooms
w
0
S
CT>
U
S
O
E w
5 w Jj c c c J
tn g E .^ -H
^ 4J -M £ i-t tn ai
U CL O -H 3
U4 C W O "D O
•- o •«-! ai c c s-i
O C3 O *^ N
•rH VJ CJ 4J "*- M
4J 3 C U C O
U Vj Q) i-i JD CJ C
O J 4-> 3 O
BO M-l
S °
<-^ to •«. |
in c T3 o i O CJ O U
U CP C g ro
C C O 0) -^ 'D
Q d) > ^'O C 4J
O U >i (!) 13 C
>.! ITJ o x o) a
o^ d***"* o ** s
3 TO 3 C^ O '""' 'O O
^H ^j ^f1 »f-t 3 O O >r^
f) 4^ (0 f^ E CJ W 4-*
-------
§
is
CL
«g W
8 1
§
g
8
i
&
I
8
i [
§
cd
H
I-J
E-*
Q
tr
§
1
£)
g
§
3
|
i
B
g
0
§0
R
\
cs
J
f"1
o
00
iH
0)
*0
U)
o
(0
0
CO
iH
2
•i-i
4J
w
^J
1C
53
i
8
§
4-1
0)
-r-1
i~!
JJ
3
u>
•H
K
C
8
I
z
M
Vl
O
u
(^
o
x;
u
«
0
CD
^;
fs
S
^H
i— t
•r-(
5
^
«J
^
•r-l
"S
4-1
^H
3
W
i
>i
"§
5
4J
«,
w
^^
1
^
4J
C
•1-1
O
a
TJ
c
s
1
^H
J3
1
ca
3
ns
i-H
a
ccess
10
•r-i
1-1
3
a
«T
C
CO
(0
Jj
c
•H
'D
c
3
2
a>
U-l
Sj
a>
4-J
•H
•g
-r-l
4
i
iH
m
•
1o
J
«
^}
U-l
o
3
D
t3
£
?3
•H
-i-l
J->
|Q
2
u
0)
Wl
5
•H
»
•
en
•H
>
"S
(0
-------
g
z
in
9
w
EH
*H
^^
Du at
rH
CD
SM r-
E- at
rH
P-
JH P-
.14 a\
EL< at
rH
C at
00
at
CO
^
ro
CN
ro
to-
co
^*
00
^
«•
o
o
o
o
at
CN
V>
3
O
»
in
ro
T
VO
Oi
to-
o
o
0
0
VO
v>
o
o
o
CD
o
o
rH
to-
<»
3
-f-i
4J
U
O
o
o
in
rH
p-
00
VD
p-
in
in
CN
in
ro
CO
rH
co
VO
rH
co
,_!
^
at
rH
O
o
o
in
TT
o
•>H
o o o
O i-t O
o ro o
0 rH CN
O O p~ ro o
o o at rH o
O CN P* VO O
CN T •«*
ro o -H
CN O ro
in o p-
in VD CN
at
CO
co
p-
rH
8tN
ro
*, ^
CO CM
ro ro
0 0 O O O
o o o o o
O O O> rH O
o co p> a> o
p- oo O ro co
•-H fj
O .rH -H Jfi C.
S* * c *
CO 2 < W
at
o
ro
at"
VO
0
«3*"
O O
rH O
ro o
CO (N
CN (N
CN ro
10- <»
*? 0
CO O
^^* {JU3
en in
rH .H
0> «.
co r*
o t-»
co r»
fN iTt
^T ro
W- «•
r- o
0 'X)
ro >O
tj" ••*
c/v -in-
o r>
O '"N
O — 1
O -H
C7% \D
rH CN
v> c/>
0 0
0 0
0 0
m o
O CN
•cj* ro
W> W-
O
o
o
in
oo
CN
W V>
13
4J
0)
^ £
O 'o
B to
c/> E
o o r- o co
o o in o ro
in in o o o
VOCN S CNrO
o o o o o at o
o o o o o in o
o o CN o o at in
*j* ro at p** in at at
CN LA pH (N rH CN CN
VD O ** O
««• in o o
•H CN at in
rH VD CN Ol
rH rH
o at CN o ^* oo ^*
m i*- VD o at co at
p» at o o ro ^ rH
vo at *r p» ro at CN
ro m f-t in ^r "*
CO ro CO P** C^
O rH O \O O
o at o ro p*
% ^ ^ ^ H
ro CN a> vo a
CN (N CN
ooooooooo
oooooo^roo
oooooooooo
r^ in *"O cTt rH p*- in in ro
rH*CN rH
8AJ X •
• 4J CJ >
CO > O to >i
"*H Q rH ^ SZ *O rH CO
f^ c^j (Q WO *D O ^ c
'J) U jC O -H O O ••-»
CJ'OO'3'30 «rH2aj
CQUUESSSIOWS
at
pH
rH
ro
CN
in
at
«•
m o
<^ o
O 0
VC (N
CN rH
in ,H
* ^
O O
VD O
VD O
*-t in
tn in
ro
to-
p^ in
P^ CN
m CN
••H at
ro rH
**3* rH
CO- tO-
P* 0
co o
r- o
VD O
vo in
to-
O CN
O CO
rH P-
^ ^
ro o
T CN
ro
CO- M-
0 0
^3 CD
0 0
S ro"
ro ro
to-
o
CO
CN
ca
CO
vo
v> «>
JS
** t/}
^ %
B ^
pr^ 5
13 OJ
0 0
0 0
in o
in rH
r-t CN
in o
P- O
co at
CN ^r
CN CN
O CO
0 -H
O CN
•• ^
in *r
rH '3'
O O
0 CO
ro CO
p> ro
CN m
s
t
•H
X
& 0
.*
00 U
0 rH
CO rH
vo at
0 •«!•
at o
o in
CN CN
to- p~
C/5- -
o in
0 CN
o oo
P* 00
VD CN
rH
to- w
O
O
O
O
o
m
o> to-
0
0
0
o"
oo
0> «•
0
0
0
P^
ro
to-
0 "8
uo S
CN
at
at
0
CO
CN
rH*
O
O
o
m
CN
rH
CN
at
Ot
o
rH
w
o
o
o
ro
rH
rH
«y>
o
o
o
o
m
0
o
0
o
in
to-
o
0
0
CN
rH
**
t/1-
to-
4J
Vermon
at
CO
at
ro
0
r-
CN
CN
to-
o
00
co
o
r-
"1
r-l
to-
0
o
0
ro
rH
rH
o
o
o
r-
m
to-
ot
CO
at
CO
o
ro*
v>
0
o
rH
>»
ro
CN
r-
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
The Construction Grants program is oiandated by the Clean
Water Act and authorizes grants to cover 75 percent (and in
some cases 85 percent) of the cost of needed wastewater
treatment facilities.
This year EPA obligated $222.1 million for the planning,
design and construction of wastewater treatment facilities
throughout New England (see Figure 18 ). This amount
includes funding for the construction and/or upgrading and
expansion of eighteen wastewater treatment plants. Twelve
treatment plants were completed in this fiscal year. Since
1973, 135 new and/or upgraded wastewater treatment plants
funded by EPA, state, and local communities have become
operational in this region. The benefits of these and the
many associated sewerage projects are evident in the number
of rivers that have realized significantly improved water
quality (see Surface Water Quality).
The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977 called for management
of the Construction Grants Program to be delegated to the
individual states. All six New England states have been
delegated this authority and are using up to two percent of
their construction grants allocations to fund program
management activities. This delegation of authority to the
states allows the states to be responsible for day-to-day
project management and EPA to perform an overview and program
management role.
Another important amendment to the Clean Water Act called for
increased funding (85 percent) for innovative and/or
alternative projects. Since the inception of the innovative/
alternative program in 1979, 47 communities have been awarded
grants which took advantage of this increased funding. The
total project costs associated with the innovative and
alternative portions of these projects is $95 million.
Although significant progress has been made toward reaching
the goals of the Clean Water Act, more work remains to be
done in order to meet the overall water quality goals of the
Act. The program has been criticized for its complexity, for
what some have called excessively burdensome requirements,
for project delays and for high costs.
23
-------
To address these criticisms, the Agency in 1981 initiated a
regulatory reform effort aimed at making the construction
grants regulations more flexible and less burdensome to the
states and grantees. Before this reform was completed
President Reagan signed into law the 1981 Amendments to the
Clean Water Act. It is anticipated that the regulations
resulting from both the reform effort and the amended Clean
Water Act will greatly simplify and speed up the construction
grants program. Some of the major provisions are: 1) There
will be an increased emphasis on state delegations. 2) Only
one grant will be made per project. A portion of the grant
may be used for planning and design costs. Previously, the
grant process provided three seperate grants for planning,
design and construction phases. 3) The innovative/alternative
program will continue. 4) Beginning in 1984, only
construction of treatment facilities and interceptor sewers
and correction of infiltration-inflow will be grant-eligible.
5) Beginning in 1984, the federal share of construction
grants will be reduced from 75 to 55 percent.
24
-------
FEDERAL SUPPORT COMMITTED
FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN REGION I
600
400
S3 300
200
100
(160)
(71)
- (29)
(54)
(32)
(51)
(25)
(45)
(43)
1973 1074 1979 1976 1977 1978 1979 I960 «81
•() Numtar of taclHtiM placed
FIGURE 18
-------
DRINKING WATER
The Safe Drinking Water Act was passed by Congress in 1974 to ensure
that water supply systems serving the public meet minimum national
standards for the protection of public health. Approximately 2569
conmunity and 9060 non-community water supplies serving about 95% of
the New England population are covered by these regulations. The public
water systems are distributed as follows:
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Total
PWS
4,058
3,046
1,989
1,109
631
1,596
Community
697
373
618
394
115
372
12,429
2,569
Non-Community
3,361
2,673
1,371
715
516
1,224
9,86U
Approximately 22 percent of public water systems use surface water
sources and 73 percent use groundwater. However, 81 percent of the
population is served by surface water and 19 percent by groundwater.
Drinking water standards, as prescribed by the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations promulgated under the Act, establish maximum
contaminant levels (MCL) for inorganic and organic chemicals,
turbidity, bacteria and radionuclides. In addition, the regulations
require periodic monitoring of public water supplies for specified
contaminants, and puolic notification if any of the MCL's are exceeded.
The violations recorded for FY 80 are as follows:
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL
MONITOR! MS/REPORTING
State
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
Turbidity
53
0
38
31
13
29
164
Bacti
32
43
72
145
13
135
445
Chem/Rad
0
1
0
5
1
0
7
Turbidity
9
3
0
453
8
99
572
Bacti
74
26
206
580
0
185
1,071
Chem/Rad
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
25
-------
The intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act is that states assume primary
enforcement authority as soon as they can demonstrate their ability to
enforce standards at least as stringent as the federal standards. All
six New England states have assumed primacy.
Organic Contamination
Nineteen percent of the New England population is served by public
groundwater systems. For this reason, EPA is very concerned about what
appears to be a rising incidence of organic contaminants in groundwater
in this region. Table 8 presents a picture of organic groundwater
contamination in New England. The number of sites where contamination
has been found has doubled since last year.
However, it is incorrect to assume that people living in the vicinity
of these sites are drinking contaminated water. In fact, many of the
contaminated wells were not in use as water supplies. In other cases,
alternative water supplies were provided to families served by
contaminated wells.
Arsenic Contamination
The occurrence of elevated arsenic concentrations in several public
groundwater supplies in New Hampshire was discovered during routine
chemical analysis. EPA was called on to provide information and
technical assistance to the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission on the source of this contamination. EPA assisted
in collecting water samples in Hudson and adjoining towns to try to
determine the extent of the arsenic contamination and also provided
analytical services for quality control determination. NHWSPCC
conducted additional arsenic testing of approximately 200 domestic
water systems in the Hudson vicinity, and approximately 10 percent
exceeded the national standard, ranging from 0.05 mg/1. to 0.37 mg/1.
In addition, Hudson and several other towns contracted with private
laboratories for an additional 1000 analyses of private wells.
Approximately 10 percent of these samples also exceeded the national
standard, ranging from 0.05 mg/1 to 0.62 mg/1. The national standard
for arsenic in drinking water is 0.05 mg/1.
In May 1981, EPA published a report summarizing the investigation of
arsenic sources in the groundwater of the Hudson area. It concluded
that the arsenic comes from natural sources in the bedrock of the area.
Since the source of the arsenic cannot be removed, EPA has conducted a
monitoring program to test the effectiveness of various home water
treatment units in removing arsenic from drinking water. Results of
this five month study show that four of the eight home treatment
systems tested were consistently able to bring levels of arsenic to
below the public health standard for drinking water. The systems were
reverse osmosis with an activated alumina cartridge, reverse osmosis
with an ion exchange cartridge, fractional distillation, and activated
alumina.
26
-------
Sole Source Aquifer Designation
The Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission has
requested that EPA designate the Cape Cod aquifer in Massachusetts
as a sole source.
The proposed designation as a sole source aquifer would establish a
review process to evaluate the potential for groundwater contamination
from federally funded projects within the area. This review process
would usually be incorporated into existing environmental impact reviews
with added emphasis on groundwater and water quality impacts. Projects
affected by the designation would include federally assisted highways,
buildings and sewage treatment facilities.
Following a comprehensive review of technical background materials
and public comment, the Regional Administrator has recommended to the
EPA Administrator that the Cape Cod aquifer be designated as a sole
source. This recommendation was based on the following factors:
1} The Cape Cod acuifer is the principal source of drinking water
supply for Cape: Cod. It supplies over 100 municipal wells and
15,000 private wells.
2) Alternative water supply resources are not reasonably available.
3) The Cape Cod aquifer, by virtue of its permeable soil characteristics,
is highly susceptible to contamination. Given the widespread use of wells,
the opportunity for contamination to create a significant hazard to
public health exists.
The EPA Administrator will make the final determination on the sole
source designation.
27
-------
Protection of Underground Water Sources
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program is now underway in New
England. Its purpose is to enable states to protect underground
sources of drinking water by controlling subsurface disposal practices.
The UIC program regulations recognize five classes of underground
injection practice:
1. Municipal and industrial wells injecting fluids beneath drinking
water aquifers;
2. Oil and gas production and storage wells;
3. Mineral and energy extraction wells;
4. Hazardous waste disposal wells injecting into or above drinking
water aquifers; and
5. All other injection wells, including heat pump and cooling water
return flow wells, drainage wells, recharge wells, salt water
intrusion barrier wells, and cesspools and septic systems serving
other than single family residences.
There are believed to be very few Class 1, 2, or 3 wells in New
England, but little is known about the impacts of Class 4 and 5 wells
on groundwaters in the region.
EPA has awarded the six New England states grant funding totalling
$706,919 for UIC programs for EY 81. These funds will be used to
support activities including identification of underground water
sources, inventory of injection practices, analysis of legal authority,
and development of rules and administrative procedures. In applying
for these funds, each state program has expressed its intention to
assume primary enforcement responsibility for the program during FY 82.
28
-------
CO
CN
00
OX
€
to
8-§
to -u
5 R>
fi|
01 S
2 6
R3 O
J2 Q
to M^
a o
o>
CO
V
•D
•3
S
4-1
•H
!
•r^
&
51
3
Source Contaminated
private wells
(public water being bro
c
•^
•H
fV
f
(0
r—t fl)
(Q M
f|
£
§
•H
C 'i'
OJ
H «•
Oi X
4-1 >U
H lic well
(well not in use; other
are being monitored)
c:
H
.-H
^j
£
|
^
(D
>i
chloroeth
H
iJ
~
"1
tj
0)
lu
i i
private wells and
industrial well
(connected to public wa
i-(
B
CO
l-l
ffi
•H
^J
^1
(^
CT^
|
O ^v
ffs
11
SE
ij
»«•
0) C
C 4"*
S3
(D
-H
11 private wells
(bottled water provided
gasoline station owner;
procedures on-going)
|
1
A\
C
0)
1
rachloroe
4J
a
*«.
fn
m
Jj
4J
•H
a condominium well
(well in use; being man
below SNARLe)
•D
01
H
M-l
' Q
fj
&
?
•H
3
TJ
H
•H
iJ
9
E
•H
i
iCJ
0
1
^H
H
H
8
>i*~>
CJ
8
*
H
V*
^
4J
(U
•H
Cfi
Ql
o
N
f*
S
-1
Colebrook Center Well f
(new well was drilled)
^
w
a
o>
H
B
?
H
t_3
^
3
rH
§
S
H
ft.
1
chloroeth
H
M
4J
c
g
4J
Lakeview HHP well
(well no longer in use;
homes connected to the
water dept.)
5**^
g
jQ
£•
fl
-------
4-1
§
(X)
•H
|a
*H M
>1 ^
4-1 4J
1-3,
8
(Q
1
n
§
S
•H
3
i-H
^
•H
4'
S-l •-
S M >i
Rswak emergency wells
(well now in service aft
not used for about a yea
neighboring water ccmpan
supplemented while well
was closed)
c
I
H
- 4
*O "3
oT u *
P 5 *
o IH J5
3,Ǥ
loroeth
n tetra
trichl
X
H ti I-H
Vj « -
4J O .H
:x
Durham High School suppl
(Activated carbon filter
in use)
_
3
t
a
H?
flj *pH
0) 3
H *
jy i
§8
£§
H -r-l
43
8
c
C -H
0) CO
Thiokol Delta Ind. well
(Delta Industries has be<
supplying bottled water ;
the well was discovered
contaminated )
3
tS
J
CO
a
1 CO
O -H
H 4J
4J -H
»5
fi\
01
^u
S
i
6
2
4J
JS
1-1 •«.
j
S s
Farmington Industrial Pa:
wells fl,2,3 & 4
(wells in use; below SNA
monitored monthly)
§
p
5
S
1
(0
•fH
4-1
"8
,H
rtj
0)
&M
S
1
4->
(U
private wells
(activated carbon units
installed )
0
3
i
i
s
i
w
cu
m
B
8
1
i
m
i-H
5 x
?fi
IS
2?
r
H
H
H
H
BH
s
1
(0
-------
i &
4-1 10
^ ^4
(0 4J
U-l tO
qj
U dJ
^"i 4)
11
c o
u »™^
T! £
^ O
4-* -H
(U k|
4-) 4J
CV -H
M tO
3~CM
U i-H -H £
fl) TJ 4->
J3$85,
^ 4) (0 (0
VJ W W Q
H ri in n
g .§ RJ O
S Sfi -—4J
3
0)
H
4
H
(C
H
lj
£
H
£4
^'
3
TJ
3
^4
tTl
k*
•r-f
ro
^
flj)
i
0
fn
^ irt
ft^
H 4J
* 4J
11 -U
S
0)
H
-1
?
2
§
H
4J
R3
CX>
W
^
C
H
j^
0)
§
^
n3
^
i
0
6
H
S-i
4->
H
H
-t
private wells
(wells not used for drinking;
bottled water and neighbors'
water used for drinking)
j
i
^
%
-------
tr>
sl
M 4J
D f(f
0 c
U2 -H
ES
a; 5
*flj Q
J2 05
(E o
(Q
13
C
•H
J
1
t J
e
•H
•D
^H
(0
1
1
j3 cu
l|
u o;
•H O
i b
i-H
i— 1 -H
* M
M 4-1
g
4J
^^ ^^
13 C
•H -H
£ 5
rce Contaminated
1
W 3
| $~
-H 1 4-» CO
O _ >•
C!- 0 10
•H tB •
iC 'D 4J
3 CN cD O,
4J (U
<« * O U
4J W C Wl
4-» >-l C 0)
^ &l^§
^1
o^
H
T3
r-l
H
CQ
3
"g
H
2
?
x:
o
iH
4J
M
iH
i-l
rj,
» C
^ S?4J
to di^fc IH ro
!H 2^H §t
fl) •— ( O
0*^ 87
H i— 1 '*•<-*$>
si? IS
s
5
1 S
M D1
W "'"'
1 3
O t£
S1
•H
(u "Q
'•-* C
(4 10
4JJ2
to
3 T3
S JO
H
^ Si.
>1 U>
XT to
^•H M
(0 4J
4-t CQ
S
CU
— 1
^J
^
o
o
S
cu
4J
CM
'O ^* T3
CO v
& iH C
g 4-> rH -r-l
9 &i flj (0
CN QJ flJ 3 4->
0 C
<^J O^ ^4 6 "*~*
C CU p (5 i^^h
.H -H 4-1 Cl E J
* m c u-i a
J5 -H tT'S
to cq C 25
— 1 M O 4J -H W
rH -H 4J C CU
m -H W 4-1
CO 6 -H
H »-H rt fo i
M » 4J 4J D
iis §12
8
4-1
CQ
i
£
g
H
J^
fQ
^j
CO
8
H
J>
tj
flj
8
55
4?
^
e
S
cu
4J
C
5
^H
^H TJ
«1
X >
14 -H
m 4->
Cu 0
. *"
M — -
CU CT J-t
^H C 0)
H -rt 4J
10 CO — >4-(
g
g
^
CQ
•H
^J rm|
(C
iH -H
4-1 (Q
nQ 3
10 C
•H -H
8
cu
1
H
g
H
^
4J
4-» 4J
iler park well
stomers advised no
drink the water;
e type of treatmen
1 be installed)
<0 3 E ^H
14 0 O O -H
4J "- 4-> CD »
u
4J
to fc
CU. O VJ
'o D^-rH
(0 K
4« ^
o co u
CO <0
H -H
H a) a,
•H 0 -H
4-1 (0 C
'c M-4 c
5 S3
s
33
1
H
4J
H
H
^
H
^^
H
-H ffi
3 -H
OJS
H
St. well 13 (publ
11 not in service;
itored monthly)
§i§
i
4-1
?
H
i-t
i— 1
i
c*
U
tji i.
*W CO
(a 4J
c§
0)
^^
•H
cu u
3^5
?2§-
iSs
I
£
4J
n
,^
•H
4-1
1
IT")
8
TJrt
c
(0
^
ffl CU
sir
>14J
£3 (U
4-> O
oS
H CJ
C 10
ss
CO
^H
SI
5
5
H
&
C
o
£
^
r-|
4?
I
s
(U
1
o
^H CM
•H O
O M
|LQ Pi
rtment well
sidents advised to
ir water; new well
S.S5
(0 —4-1
I
|
H
-------
fN
00
I
O
•H
•8
I
4->
.C
s
I
^ O
0) UJ
5 -P -^
(4 (T5
3S2
(0 Q
"S
-r-l
ll <1> —'
(0 4J 01
U iH ^
1
$
- a
U
re
03 -H
at w c
5 H5-H 4J
^H C
O 3 M 01
0) 3
!°
Vj r
en-
V4-I
-------
s
5
*
£
§
fa
private wells
(resolved)
00
os
s
M
(U
+J
X
a
a
a
iJ
u
53
It
^3 aj
M -5
4J "O
D3
o
8
kl —
-
ro
to S
(0 X O
> o -u
4J
CQ
,3
(D
U -H
51
Cn -
1-a
* (0
s
s
ed
a
§
H
fc
2
SI
g
1
QJ
a
W (Q
0)
4J CO
rg -H
II
c8
1C C W
l-i Q O
3 O -H
i-g^
as*
^-t w
iH '
•H
(0
private
(0
i
-------
•0
8
n-t
1
s.
f H
two private wells
(one home on bottled water
other home is connected to
town water
landfill
c
H
CO 4->
c o
ro (0
c?1^
§3
tr f™
(0 fO
11 private wells
(town water lines were
extended )
|
f)
1
industrial waste
£
01
,-1
>,
.c
sl
(0 JS
§•§
CO
1*8
.* cL
Public wells #3,7,8 & 9
(80% of public supply)
(restrictions on water use
water purchased from other
new well site being develq
unknown sources
^
fi\
>1
£3
4J
0
3
F^
M
4J
VA Hospital wells
(using their emergency
source - MDC water)
"5
0
^n
1
V
truck washing
operation, septi
tank additives
fH
jg
JC+
•S
R
O
1-1
S
jj
H
3 private wells
(receiving water from
a tank truck)
S
CU
c
— 1
oil spill
illegal dumping
g.
£
B
J8
*• ^H
It
U-l 0)
w jq
O 4->
Sg
temporary closing of~~
surface water supply
S
• H
5
p__{
•H
m
8
-H
upstream source,
under investigat
E:
0)
^
f?
ii
b
r:
u
rH
il
1
CO O
•a c 4J
2 ^ ^
?
£
JJ
O
i
4J
H
Public well #7 (16% of loc
supply) and a non-communit
well
(on the HDC supply)
c
5
c
8
-------
fN
00
8-1
M 4->
3 (0
0 C
Probable S
of Contami
a
(0
S
industrial
discharge
"1
4J
.s
Eg
fQ
g
£
rO
E
*
Q>
C
«l
§ S
•-i C
^i C
5S
O »H
JC H
y "
S3
n
Source Contaminated
ued)
two private industrial wel
(new well was developed)
c
•H
4J
P
i
s
"i O
w o
C/2 C^
S 3
§
3
unknown so
tg
^ y_i
o p
rH 1-J
J5 0
O •— |
3-6
^^
Municipal well off Rt. 6A
{20% of local supply)
(increasing their purchase
of water from another town
3
3
4
a
a
10
industrial
discharge
gj
c
(0
s
8
(j
o
i
4J
H
H
-1
— 4J
•* >, 0
i— 1 01
ro 3 01
U-l
U O r<
rH OP 4->
n o oj
3 ro a
L •*—" »•••••
I
»
n
I
i
•4
5
8
IV
4J
industrial
discharge
S
OJ
c
s
x:
u
S
4-1
1)
^
^D
-1
Somerset Ave. well
(14% of town supply)
(town on conservation plan
new wells were being devel
before contamination was
discovered )
\
HI
yt
Gl
tfl
ffy
t7^
c a.
li
^
H
&
to
S
0
H
CN
0)
a
H
m
•f
r
5
S
U-l o>
(0 O 4J
?&!
source at ,
lot; seepai
hazardous '
occurred
V
s
§
>1
1
one private well
(water lines have been
installed )
_)
3
j
1
1
fl\
^
H
5
0
r?
D
Lt
4J
(N ">!
^-1
H 3
* W
01 0)
F— ^ '| I
!2
rH 0
12 0
P —1
Si «—•
2
3
>
^
H
Q,
previous S]
c
ft
c
* 5
ni o
p
5 c*
O 5^
H O
5 o
H iH
£•§
^^ ^n
H iH
1
-8
•» (D 3
S4-) O
to to
Public wells fl,2 & 3
(80% of in- town supply)
(wells are closed; well #1
might be put back in servi
new sources being investig
relying on an out-of town
a reservoir in Randolph)
v
1
3
—I
-------
0>
s
.8
a; o>
Pri
(so
dri
hyd
8
8
m
to
Oj «
«5 -H
•H
I-l U
4J QJ
SB
fes
0)
g1
5
indus
n the
I
I
^
m
o\
•H
§
•H
CO
Sil
C (0 3
H k TJ
|llc
3 4J -H
T3 M i-l 4J
S-H «
£ff|iJ
V )4 i-4
**i3
M ffl -H -H
CD
^
o
f"H
O
IB
U
0)
4J
T3 3
-1 QJ
OLJ *-^ 'n -H
•H >i 33
Qi p>i— 1 Q)
>M C 0> T3
E>^ O -H -H
s^ffsa1
-1 ON 3 ^ -H
3^-^15
Palmer
i
«
2
Q)
H
rH
C
i-4
H
T3
-o cu
-i — a
0) >1 -H —
«-l iH Gi W
4-| Qj Btk Q
— 1 5* Q) <1J -H
-1 tO Qtf-l 4J
01 & «H ffl
S rH 3 fH
O & Oi W
-H 3 C 14
~t D,-H >, 0)
fi^5?5
o o> o
S^^S'g
3 O (JJ
-------
Jjl
IS1
• T ^*
w Q
10 W
•H
s
•H
09 -H
i
0)
f
•6
8
a
°^
40 QJ
O C
O -H
a>
14
O
oa
0 t
55
0}
»
5T
1?
£
U
fi
(0
9
m
£3
a
•o
H
(0
O
(0
>
H
-------
I
0) C
N i (0
£ ^
•H
•H
4J
CO
*•».
8
•H
m £
iw
o
H W
Ol
C
•H
f*i .
6?
rH
'H
4-1
TJ
C
H
4->
0)
Q
^
0)
c
4J *O
^ -H
O i-i
M O
O -H
O
4^32
rH >, 0)
"i u o
rH £ -P
•H
2 private wells
(on bottled water: litigat
on going)
4-1
M
FO
S
U-l
o
rH
Q
Q.
CO
H
'D
rH 0)
(tj tD
E1 c
s &
0)
•H
C
&
"la
1 private well
(presently on bottled wate
i
S|
rH O
4J 0
*~H *C
* O
H 4J
U
•H
^3
aL^
private wells and trailer
affected (recommended for
monitoring due to low leve
contamination; plume may n
have reached wells yet.
&
"S
,°J
C»
S
4.3
H
CO
a;
rH
E,
P
*«
Q)
B*
C -H
O S-i
c o
Qj I-H
A U
H
fl)
ciT ^
(y J>i
3 1^1
H 4J
2 private wells
(using bottled water)
£
rH
H
z:
s
H
W
Lj
QJ
J_)
CO
8!
•H
CO
c
0)
I
o
H
c
"2
|_4
o
H
fl(j
CJ3 CO
RS
CO CO
8
(p
H
^i
5
0
c
o
B.W
-H 'O —
i{ Rj c «
•- S -H W rH
Pease Air Force Base
(Haven well)
(well presently in service
closed for approximately t
years; treatment plant wil
constructed on site; town
water when the Haven well,
three wells on base, was c
|
§
4-1
Lj
£
-------
8
w
i
o>
•g
•H
id
Is
3
CP4J H
t
Oi
0)
10 U)
J3 O
CO
QJ
4J
(0
OJ
,1
4J
•H ®
a'H —
1 o>
CP
T3 01
-------
a
CM
00
-g
)M
a
s
m
tJ
(1)
|
S-^a-g.-
o
H 4J
4J •<-<
fe
2
*j
0)
a
(
0*
H £|
n
CO
H &
•o S
flj HJ D>
15-a
R^&
8^4,
31
s;
tha
2 private we
(using a spr
toring of we
high; concer
6
H
iJ
WWW
•H ^H Xj -T
pH ^-1 (0
$$$,
»«
r
ral
pe
a
> QJ I)
^a*li
s
15
g
S
M
e
0>
N
H
-<
H
ti
0)
pr
(B
g
-------
OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLS
From July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1981, 402 oil spills and other
environmental emergencies were reported to EPA. Three hundred
twelve of these reports involved oil spills, and ninety
involved other environmental emergencies. Figure 19 shows the
distribution of products spilled and sources of spills.
In the same period, EPA responded on-scene to 57 spills, and
initiated cleanup activities using the Section 311 (Clean
Water Act) pollution fund in nine incidents. The 311 fund can
be activated when oil presents a threat to a navigable
waterway and the responsible party is unknown or unwilling to
undertake cleanup.
While the above numbers reflect the more serious spill events
that occur in New England, they are not indicative of the
total spill problem. For example, in the same period, 900 oil
spill incidents were reported to the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection. While many of these incidents were
minor events that did not reacn the water, the numbers more
accurately reflect the scope of the spill problem in this
region.
During the past year, the emphasis of EPA's emergency response
program has been investigation and in eight instances,
emergency mitigation and containment measures at uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites using 311 funds.
2y
-------
PERCENTAGE OF OIL SPILLS-
TRANSPORTATION AND NON-TRANSPORTATION RELATED
JULY 1, 1980-JUNE 30,1981
Transportation related
30.3%
Non-transportation related
69.7%
BREAKDOWN OF SPILLED MATERIALS
JULY 1,1980-JUNE 30, 1981
-#4 Oil—2.5%
Kerosene
1.2%-
Jet Fuel
.3%
#6 Oil
8.7%
#2 Oil
17.7%
Gasoline
16.6%
All other materials
7.7%
Diesel
3.7%
Hazardous
Materials
14.9%
Other Oil
Materials
26.7%
FIGURE 19
-------
ENFORCEMENT
Air
There are 1257 major sources of air pollution in New England. A
major source is one that has the potential to emit 100 or more tons
of a criteria pollutant per year. In the past year, EPA's
Enforcement Division has continued its program of field inspections
of air pollution sources in the region. Enforcement engineers or
private consultants under contract to EPA have inspected more than
170 facilities to determine their compliance status. The EPA
inspection program is designed to complement state programs, in which
nearly all major sources are inspected annually. Statistics for the
New England region show that since July 1, 1980 the number of sources
in compliance has increased from 1,127 to 1,171, and the number in
violation has increased from 28 to 48. The overall compliance rate
for major sources of air pollution is approximately 93 percent.
Figure 20 shows the compliance rates for FY 80 and FY 81. The
increased number of sources and decreased compliance rate is largely
a result of sources becoming subject to new regulations as the states
revise their implementation plans for achievement of air quality
standards.
One of the Enforcement Division's highest priorities this year has
been to review and enforce the new regulations that have been
developed by the states and subsequently adopted by EPA as revisions
to the State Implementation Plans. Other program activities
included an evaluation of individual state air enforcement programs
in the region to determine their effectiveness and consistency with
those of other states in the nation. An inspection program for
sources subject to EPA's asbestos demolition regulation and a program
to ensure that sources maintain compliance by installing continuous
emission monitoring equipment began last year and will be a high
priority in 1982.
Toxic Substances
The Enforcement Division has continued its program of surveillance
and enforcement of facilities subject to EPA's disposal and marking
regulations for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) under the Toxic
Substances Control Act. Approximately fifty facilities, including
electric utilities, solvent reclaimers and transformer service shops,
have been inspected for compliance with the regulations and seven
complaints have been issued where violations were documented. Six
cases have been settled to date and penalties totaling $30,100 were
collected for past violations.
An interim measures compliance program was initiated in the region
this year. The purpose of this program is to ensure that facilities
that use totally enclosed PCS equipnent, such as capacitors and
transformers, routinely inspect such equipment as a preventative
measure against the release of PCB's into the environment. (TSCA
bans non-enclosed uses of PCS's.)
30
-------
TSCA regulations specify high temperature incineration as one method
of destroying P2Bs and EPA is required to review all proposals for
PCB incineration.
In September 1981 Northeast Utilities burned waste oil contaminated
by 200 to 300 parts per million of PCB at its Middletown CT power
station. The utility conducted a test program to assess whether or
not PCB's or other potentially hazardous materials existed in the
stack gases. Test results demonstrated that no PCB's or other
hazardous combustion by-products were present in the stack gas
emissions. A 99.997 percent destruction efficiency of PCB's was
achieved during the test burn.
General Electric conducted a test burn on its thermal oxidizer at
Pittsfield, MA from November 30 through December 3, 1981, and
submitted a final trial report to EPA in January of 1982. EPA
reviewed that report, and found that GE's method for incinerating
PCB's met federal standards, and, therefore authorized the Company to
incinerate PCB's.
In 1980 the SQKJHIO Company demonstrated a PCB destruction process
which showed the effectiveness of the process for converting PCB's
into environmentally safe compounds. In June of 1981 EPA approved
the process for use within the region. In February 1982 EPA granted
approval to a similar process developed by the Acurex Corporation of
Mountain View, CA.
Water
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program for industrial and municipal discharges is the primary tool
in the water enforcement program. Anyone who discharges into a
navigable waterway of the United States must obtain an NPDES permit
to do so. These permits prescribe strict limitations on the kinds
and amounts of pollutants that can be discharged. If an industry or
municipality cannot immediately comply with prescribed effluent
limitations, the permit contains an enforceable compliance schedule.
Permits are issued either by EPA or by states to whom EPA has
delegated this authority. In New England, Vermont and Connecticut
have NPDES authority.
The compliance rate for industrial and municipal discharges is
approximately 85%. This rate is based on a quarterly statistical
analysis done by the regional office and states.
31
-------
Continuing to iiiprove the level of municipal conpliance for both
construction conpletion and effluent limitations is the highest
priority of EPA's water enforcement program. The major tool in this
effort is the Municipal Management System. The system is a
coordinated effort among municipalities, their consultants, and state
and federal governments to identify municipalities not in compliance
due to construction delays, and to monitor and track their progress
through planning, design and construction. This integrated approach
will help eliminate delays and ensure adequate funding for needed
sewage treatment projects.
Hazardous Waste
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates the
generation, transportation and storage, treatment and disposal of
over 300 hazardous chemical wastes. The Act requires the use of a
classification and manifest system, and safe management of hazardous
waste. It requires that industries which handle hazardous waste
train their personnel in safety procedures and that they develop
contingency plans for fire, explosion and spills. Long term
planning, financial assurance and groundwater monitoring where waste
handling practices may have serious impact on the environment are
also required under RCRA.
Since November 19, 1980, the effective date of these regulations,
Region I has coordinated with the six New England states a strong
enforcement program consisting of industry inspections with special
emphasis on industries which generate large amounts of waste, or any
amounts of acutely toxic waste, or those which treat, store and
dispose of wastes.
During the first year, the RCRA inspections have uncovered a broad
range of violations. EPA has issued administrative orders in those
cases where violations pose potential threats to public health or the
environment. In some cases EPA has assessed penalties. By the end
of FY 81 EPA staff had conducted 182 inspections of industries known
to handle hazardous waste. Of these, 28 industries were issued
letters of deficiency for violations, and thirteen received
administrative orders with penalties totaling $186,850. To date,
eight of the thirteen administrative orders have been settled, and
five are pending settlement. Figure 21 shows the distribution of
inspections, demonstrating the regional office's priority for
industries which not only generate, but also transport, treat, store
or dispose of hazardous waste. The regional office has also
established procedures whereby joint EPA/Department of Transportation
inspections are conducted at priority facilities subject to
regulation by both agencies. Information is shared between the
agencies when independent inspections by one expose potential
violations of the other's hazardous waste handling requirements.
32
-------
The RCRA industrial inspection program has been delegated to five New
England states. At this writing the Connecticut delegation is pending.
As a result of the transfer of primary enforcement responsibility to
the state, EPA staff have assumed responsibility for assisting the
state staffs in building comprehensive and effective hazardous waste
programs. EPA staff continue to accompany the states on inspections
of the more than 3,000 facilities handling hazardous waste in New
England and perform the role of recommending and reviewing state
enforcement actions.
Uncontrolled Sites Enforcement
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act contains a provision which
addresses imminent hazards to public health or the environment from
past or present practices of treating, storing or disposing of solid
or hazardous waste. Under RCRA Region I has filed suit against four
industries: W.R. Grace Company, Acton, MA, for disposal of waste
materials in unlined lagoons and subsequent contamination of an
aquifer; Solvents Recovery Service, Southington, CT, for organic
chemical contamination of groundwater; Kingston Steel Drum/Ottati and
Goss, Kingston, NH, for a hazardous waste drum storage site; and
Johns-Manville Corporation, for improper asbestos disposal which
resulted in an air emission hazard in Hudson, NH. A settlement has
been reached in the W.R. Grace case while negotiations with the other
industries continue. In addition, the regional office currently has
a number of cases under development which involve endangerment to
groundwater and drinking water.
The W.R. Grace settlement requires the Company to conduct a
comprehensive groundwater study in the area of potential impact at
its Acton facility. The study will include sampling, analysis and
computer modeling to determine the extent of the contamination
problem and characteristics of the groundwater and underlying
aquifer. These data will be used to develop an aquifer restoration
plan, the objective of which will be to collect and clean the
contaminated groundwater, return it to the aquifer, and ultimately
restore the nearby drinking water wells to a usable condition. EPA
and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
(DEQE) have worked closely on this case and are jointly evaluating
all data and reports submitted by the Company.
33
-------
In July, 1981, the Administrator of EPA signed a consent order with
the General Electric Company (GE) of Pittsfield, Massachusetts,
concerning PCBs in the Housatonic River. This was the first
administrative order issued by EPA under Sections 3013 (Administrative
Orders) and 7003 (Imminent Hazards) of RCRA. After extensive
discussions with EPA and the Massachusetts DEQE, GE agreed to report
on past hazardous waste disposal practices, to identify possible
locations of continuing problems, to study PCB's in Housatonic River
sediments and fish, and to study alternative courses of remedial
action at Woods Pond, the principal known location of significant PCB
concentrations. The first phase of the order, past disposal
reporting, was completed in December, 1981, and the second phase, the
Housatonic River study, is progressing smoothly and should be
completed by the end of 1982. The Woods Pond study should be
completed in the spring of 1983. At that time, EPA intends to make
decisions concerning remedies for the Housatonic which will provide a
satisfactory restoration of the River by the mid-1980"s.
As part of an overall project to identify and evaluate the impact of
PCB's on the Housatonic River, the enforcement staff initiated an
extensive investigation to locate all likely contributors of PCB's to
the Housatonic River Basin in addition to GE. From this information
thirty potential sources were targeted for inspections. These
inspections have been conducted and the results are being reviewed
for possible enforcement action.
The highest priority of the uncontrolled sites enforcement program
over the next several years will be to fulfill its role under
Superfund by ensuring that Superfund monies are spent wisely, by
limiting their use to only those sites where no viable responsible
party exists, and by requiring such parties, when they can be found,
to provide the necessary cleanup. In those cases where the Fund is
used to initiate cleanup immediately and a responsible party has been
identified, enforcement action will be taken to recover the monies
spent and return them to the Fund.
34
-------
NUMBER OF MAJOR AIR POLLUTION SOURCES
IN COMPLIANCE
COMPARING 7-1-80 FIGURES TO THOSE OF 7-1-81
In Compliance
i
1980
1981
In Violation
1980
1981
1171
8 9
10 11
12
FIGURE 20
-------
04
in
CM
CO
00
CM T-
K CO
co co
C/>
UJ
UJ
Es
5 o>
2 X.
cell
MI CC
°-S
sag
18
^~ I
0=8
08
1«
Suj
U.DQ
°H
c/>o
1°
s
Iff
1-
z
O
s
oc
UJ
c
3
S
•d
c
CM
CO
^
c
_4
oc
3
S
•d
CM
CM
i
z
c
i
•d
in
in
JM
05
O5
<
s
^
3
S
1
0)
u)
en
UJ
Z
^7
i
c
i
•d
_c
T
r-.
in
CO
c
Z
O
0
^
S
T5
r*.
CO
CO
CD
CM O r- A
T- CO T- §
Z
^<
~
co in in co
T- CO T- •£
ca
3
o
en co CM «
JT*» V^l •*•
a-
^j
00 CO CM ^
CO 1- g
"5
•o
m ^r co w
CO O) a> .
r .5
(B C
3 «
ir-c
co r» co ... ,*t
CM r*. CM JJ U
•? 5
3 0
81
f^ 00 CM « V
£ o
CO U*
*• '
15
s s ? =^
^sl
'? OU CO
in r-- co c z ...
co r>> CM -T *• 2
"S w
*- O
• cl
is. 0 0 s ° *"
r- oo CM £ s ff-
u,^g
gig
S S » il |S
01
UJ
00
STATE
u
CD
-------
SL
>•
i—
^_
^^
-o
£
£
(0
1
(0
0)
g
.2
CL
I
n\
W
*«
(A
i
(A
"S
X
1
T^
£
xO
0s
N.
SS
CM
CM
g
^
1
1
£
o>
r
o
1
2
(0
k.
o
Art
Genera
0) U)
f.£
^^
*• "3
-------
PERMITS
NPDES and Pretreatment Programs
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System prohibits
the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United
States unless authorized by a permit issued by the EPA. These
permits define specific limits on the types and levels of
pollutants that an industry or municipality can discharge.
In 1981/ the NPDES permits issuance process was revised in
accordance with the promulgation of the Consolidated Permits
Regulations. (These regulations were established to
streamline procedures and requirements for permits issued by
EPA). In the past year, the Permits Branch sent out 916
applications, received 528 applications; and sent 234 notices
of complete application. These included twenty for
municipalities and 214 for industries within the six New
England states. There are approximately 2300 permits in
effect in this region for industrial and municipal point
source discharges.
In addition, EPA reviews and approves pretreatment programs
for publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities. Pretreatment
of industrial wastes to be discharged into publicly owned
treatment systems is necessary to prevent treatment process
upsets, sludge contamination, and water quality violation
{from pollutant pass-through) caused by industrial contributors.
In 1981, the regional office received proposed pretreatment
programs from seven municipalities in Maine, Massachusetts and
Mew Hampshire.
Hazardous Waste Permit Program
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires
anyone who owns or operates a facility where hazardous waste
is treated, stored or disposed to have a permit. RCRA also
defines a procedure for obtaining interim status which allows
existing facilities to continue operation until a final
hazardous waste permit is issued. Obtaining interim status is
a two step process; the first step is submission of a
notification of hazardous waste activity form and the second
is submission of permit application forms. There are two
parts to a RCRA permit application—Part A and Part B.
To date the regional office has received 4742 notifications
from hazardous waste facilities and processed 820 Part A
permit applications. EPA and the states have reviewed the
Part A's to establish tenative priorities for requesting Part
B of the RCRA application.
35
-------
In addition, the Permits Branch is reviewing applications for
new hazardous v/aste facilities. The regional office has
received applications from three applicants in Connecticut and
two in New Hampshire for permits to operate.
All of the New England states have the authority to administer
Phase I of the RCRA program.
Georges Bank Exploratory Drilling Discharge Permits
In 1981, Region I issued NPDES permits to nine oil companies
for operational discharges during exploratory oil and gas
drilling on Georges Bank off the New England coast. These
permits placed stringent requirements on the discharges,
requiring that no free oil be discharged, that no toxic
compounds be discharged and that drilling fluids be discharged
at a depth and rate to maximize dilution and dispersion in the
sea at the discharge point.
The permits also required that the Georges Bank Biological
Task Force Monitoring Program be carried out. The Department
of Interior is funding and implementing this program.
Sampling got underway in July 1981 and contracts for sample
analysis were awarded early in 1982.
As of December 1981 three drilling rigs were operating on
Georges Bank and it is expected that a total of four will
operate during 1982. All permit terms are being fully
complied with.
Status of Secondary Treatment Waivers for Coastal Cities
During 1981 EPA continued the technical review of applications
for waivers from secondary treatment. (Secondary treatment
provides 85% removal of BOD and suspended solids and is the
level of treatment generally required for discharges from
publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities.) EPA's review
contractor completed technical evaluations for applications
from the Massachusetts communities of Lynn, New Bedford and
the South Essex Sewerage District. The waiver task force will
prepare tentative decisions on these applications. Once
decisions are approved by EPA they will be announced to the
public as tentative decisions and a public review and comment
process will take place before the decisions become final.
-------
Also during 1981, EPA reviewed the Metropolitan (Boston)
District Commission's waiver application and determined that
additional information was necessary. Hie MDC was notified of
this decision and was given nine months to gather the
additional information.
Review of other applications will be conducted when decisions
on the larger communities applications are complete.
37
-------
STATE DELEGATION
The United States Congress has provided authority to EPA
to delegate program activities and entire programs to
state governments. The Agency feels that states are
ordinarily in a better position than EPA to make
appropriate judgments on environmental protection
practices within their own borders.
Thus it is the policy of Region I to aggressivly
delegate to states authority to manage environmental
programs to the maximum extent allowed by statute.
There are eleven delegatable programs under various
statutes. They are:
Clean Water Act
1. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
2. Pretreatment (for industries which discharge into
, publicly-owned wastewater treatment systems)
3. 404 Dredge and Fill Permits
4. Construction Grants Program
Safe Drinking Water Act
5. Public Water Supply (monitoring and notification)
6. Underground Injection Control (UIC) controls subsurface
disposal practices that may affect groundwater quality.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
7. Phase I Permits
Clean Air Act
8. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
9. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
f.
10. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS)
38
-------
Federal Pesticides Act
11. User certification and pesticides enforcement
These programs are in various stages of delegation.
Some are fully delegated to all New England states,
others are proceeding smoothly and should be fully
delegated by the end of this year, and in other cases,
there are significant barriers to delegation, The most
significant of these barriers are:
1. inadequate state technical capacity,
2. inadequate state enabling legislation, and
3. inadequate funding.
Region I will be working closely with states to remove
these barriers and get these programs fully delegated as
soon as possible. Some potential solutions to these
problems might include increased flexibility in
interpreting statutory requirements and a system of
incentives to move states toward accepting delegation.
The status of specific delegations in
England states is summarized in Table 10.
all six New
39
-------
STATUS OF DELEGATION IN REGION I
PROGRAMS
CT
MA
ME
NH
Rl
VT
NPDES
Pretreatment
404 Permits
205g
PWS
UIC
RCRA- Phase 1
NSPS
PSD
FIFRA
NESHAP
F
F
N
F
F
N(4/82)
N(11/81)
F
N
F
F
N(?)
N(?)
N
P(1/82)
F
N{4/82)
F
F
N(4/82)
F
F
N
-------
;. .;. ^nvirornientaJ. Protection Agency
Library, Room 2404 PM-211-A
401 M Street, S.ff.
~ DC 20460
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 1
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS O22O3
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA-33S
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE: USE. S3OO
------- |