E G
0 IM
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REPORT
REGION I
May 1983
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"DRIVING FORCES"
AT WORK IN NEW ENGLAND
To assess current and emerging environ-
mental problems in New England, one must un-
derstand the region's unique demographic, so-
cial and economic characteristics, or "driving
forces," which influence how the area's natural
resources are used and affected by human ac-
tivity. The region can be understood Sest in the
context of the five most critical "driving
forces" discussed in detail in this part of the
EMR: Population, industrial Mix, Energy, Land
use, and Recreation and Tourism, (page 2)
Population—New England's population is
growing. Expected population growth in the
next few years is estimated to be 0.5% per year
compared to an expected national growth rate
of 0.9% per year. While most of the region's
growth is occurring in the rural northern
states, none of the states have lost population
over the past 10 years. The region's population
is also shifting from metropolitan to non-
metropolitan areas, (page 2)
industrial mix—New England experienced
one of the earliest shifts from a heavy manu-
facturing industrial base to a services and light
manufacturing high-technology economy. The
high-technology industry has significant impli-
cations for the region's industrial base and en-
vironment. High-tech facilities tend to be small-
er, more geographically dispersed throughout
the region, and lower volume chemical uses,
but users of a greater variety of both common
and exotic chemicals. The high-tech industry
also supports a substantial secondary high- and
medium-tech industrial sector and significant
research and development activities in the
region, (page 3)
Energy—Since the second oil crisis in 1978,
New Engenders have used their costly fossil
fuels more efficiently, aggressively pursued re-
newable sources of energy, switched from con-
ventional to renewable fuels, and reduced
overall energy consumption dramatically.
(page 5)
Land use—The presence of farming and
open land provide New England with the rural
aesthetics that have always made the region
appealing. Although farming is only a small part
of the regional economy it provides valuable
indirect lifestyle and cultural characteristics
which attract high-technology and service ori-
ented industries. For the first time in over one
hundred years the area devoted to farmland
actually increased and the area of forest land
decreased, reflecting a shift of population to
non-metropolitan areas, increased develop-
ment in rural areas and absolute population
increases, (page 7)
Recreation and tourism—Recreation and
tourism are significant sectors in northern New
England economies and are noteworthy por-
tions of southern New England economies. This
sector attracts other industries to the area and
influences the general population's attitude
towards New England environmental quality.
(page 7)
INTER MEDIA SECTION
Toxic substances—Toxic substance con-
tamination in New England is a complex, inter-
media problem with serious environmental,
economic and potential public health impacts.
Toxic substance contamination presents the
Region with sensitive public relation and com-
plicated technical issues, especially when the
displacement of toxic pollutants across envi-
ronmental media occurs as a result of remedial
and clean-up actions at hazardous waste sites.
(page 12)
Long range transport of acid deposition
and toxic metals—Acidic material and toxic
metals are deposited in New England mainly
because of long range transport. The result is
acidification of fresh water ecosystems, a re-
duction in visibility and an increase in human
exposure to toxic metals. New England and
eastern Canada are particularly vulnerable to
these pollutants because the bedrock and soils
have low buffering capacity, (page 14)
New Bedford Harbor—New Bedford Harbor
and the surrounding environment is exten-
sively contaminated with PCBs. Technicplly and
environmentally the New Bedford situation is
extraordinarily complex. Multi-media contami-
nation and exposure pathways include:
ambient air, surface and ground waters, soils,
sediments, food chain, and industrial plant
sites. New Bedford is a National Priority List
(NPU site for Superfund action, (page 18)
Ground water contamination—Approxi-
mately 20% of New England's population
depends on ground water as their sole or prin-
cipal water supply; and 77% of the region's
water supplies rely upon ground or combined
ground and surface water sources. Sixty-two
community water systems in New England are
known to have one or more wells contami-
nated by organic compounds. All 38 Superfund
NPL sites have known or potential ground
water contamination problems. AS a result,
ground water contamination is one of the
region's most significant environmental
problems, (page 19)
-------
Ground water contamination source: solid
and hazardous waste disposal—Leachate
from land disposal facilities entering the
groundwater poses an actual or potential
danger because of tne nature of tne wastes
which typically have gone into these facilities.
Many land disposal facilities have accepted or
are currently accepting hazardous wastes from
small quantity generators, in addition,
commercial and household wastes deposited
in land disposal facilities often contain small
quantities of hazardous materials (insecticides,
paint, dry cleaning solvents, paint remover,
etc.) which, in aggregate, can be significant.
Disposal facilities designated to handle haz-
ardous waste, which are required to monitor
ground water, are virtually all unlined. Even
where hazardous wastes are not a concern,
leachate can cause odor, taste or other water
quality problems in a previously suitable
drinking water source, (page 20)
Ground water contamination source: un-
controlled hazardous waste sites—New
England has 38 sites on the National Priority List
(NPL) developed for Superfund. The ranking
process used to develop this list assesses
groundwater as one critical pathway. All 38 NPL
sites have known or potential ground water
impacts, (page 21)
Ground water contamination source: non-
point sources—Although not as dramatic as
industrial lagoon, landfill or uncontrolled site
contamination, non-point source contamina-
tion is the most pervasive threat to ground
water quality in New England. Contamination
of individual wells and public water sources by
road salts, septic effluent and leaks from un-
derground storage tanks is widespread in the
region, and the potential for future problems
with these diffuse, hard-to-regulate sources is
enormous, (page 22)
Ground water contamination source: na-
turally occurring contamination—Arsenic
and radon, two naturally occurring substances,
are appearing in public and private water
supply sources in New England. Elevated levels
of gross alpha radiation, another emerging
ground water contamination concern, are ap-
pearing in some regional public water supplies.
(page 24)
Energy issues—New Engenders responded
to rapid rises in oil prices in the 1970s with
dramatic conservation measures, diminished
consumption rates and shifts to alternative,
cheaper and more available fuel sources. These
changing behavior patterns pose environmen-
tal problems for the region, (page 24)
Energy: coal conversions—Region I has a
number of oil burning utility powerplants that
have converted, or are planning to convert, to
coal. These conversions can cause a variety of
temporary and permanent air and water im-
pacts, (page 27)
Energy: sulfur relaxations—The rising cost
of,oil has caused many states to seek relax-
ations in their sulfur in fuel regulations to allow
industries to burn lower cost, higher sulfur oil.
These relaxations will cause an increase in S02
emissions, (page 28)
Energy: hydroelectric power develop-
ment—The development of hydroelectric
power on breached or new dams involving sig-
nificant diversions of streamflow and/or in-
creased impoundments, can create conflicts
with competing uses of these water resources
—such as anadromous fisheries, inland cold-
water fisheries, white water recreation and
protection of scenic river systems, (page.29)
Energy: fuelwood—wood is an increasingly
popular fuel for residential heat in Region I yet
there is little definitive data on the magnitude
and importance of potential air pollution prob-
lems posed by wood burning emissions.
Throughout New England, as many as 50% of
the owner-occupied households are now using
wood for heat, causing an increase in a variety
of criteria and non-criteria emissions, (page 30)
Energy: miscellaneous energy impacts-
Higher energy prices have generated interest
in a variety of other energy related projects.
Miscellaneous energy sources addressed in this
section include—waste oil, synthetic fuels,
coal-oil mixtures, and purchased power.
(page 3D
WATER SECTION
Status and trends—Dramatic progress in re-
storing rivers and lakes occurred in New
England in recent years, in 1982, some 66% of
the region's major rivers and streams met the
fishable/swimmable (Class B) standards of the
Clean water Act, while in 1976 only 52% of New
England's waters met this standard. More than
S2.5 billion of federal, state and local funds
were expended over the last decade to con-
struct municipal water pollution control facil-
ities in the region. New England's water supply
and delivery systems continue to provide high
quality drinking water. While violations of fed-
eral standards occur, progress is being made by
targeting efforts at persistent violators, (page
35)
Point source pollution—Municipal and in-
dustrial point source discharges have histor-
ically been responsible for a significant portion
of the violations of water quality standards cri-
teria for bacteria and dissolved oxygen, and for
chemical pollution. Despite significant im-
provements in the region's water quality in the
past few years, more than one-third of New
England's major stream miles and coastline
waters do not meet the fishable/swimmable
-------
goals of the Clean water Act. Since the areas
with remaining violations pose the most com-
plex water quality problems, additional im-
provements will be more difficult to achieve
and will be more costly. The 1982 EPA Needs
Survey estimates that S5.8 billion of additional
construction grants funds are required to con-
struct the remaining wastewater treatment
plants and interceptor sewer projects needed
in New England, (page 40)
Combined sewer overflows—Most major
cities in New England have combined storm
and wastewater sewer systems. During periods
of high precipitation, the sewers overflow and
discharge untreated wastewater into rivers,
lakes and coastal waters, combined sewers
represent a difficult and important water qual-
ity problem for the Region since they prevent
the full attainment of the water quality stan-
dards and beneficial uses of many water
bodies, (page 44)
Nonpoint source pollution—Nonpoint
sources of pollution impair high quality drink-
ing, fishing and recreation waters in New
England. Lakes, streams and reservoirs are
especially vulnerable to these sources of pollu-
tion. Although nonpoint problems are general-
ly localized or sporadic in contrast to gross,
widespread point source pollution loadings,
they are nonetheless significant, (page 45)
Filliing of wetlands—Our nation's wetlands
are an irreplaceable natural resource. Although
wetlands comprise only approximately 3% of
this country's surface area, they are essential to
the survival of our fish and wildlife populations
and ere increasingly recognized as important
in maintaining water quality. Two-thirds of the
commercial fish species harvested on the At-
lantic coast depend on coastal estuaries and
wetlands for food and spawning grounds, and
at least 76 threatened and endangered species
require wetlands for habitat.
Despite their value and relative scarcity, our
wetlands continue to be destroyed at an alarm-
ing rate. There are tremendous pressures from
developers to build on coastal islands and in
wetland areas. The unregulated discharge of
dredcied and fill material results in impairment
of water quality and habitat loss. Of greatest
concern to the region are the recently issued
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "nationwide
perm ts," which exempt large geographical
areas from regulation and increase the poten-
tial for further wetlands loss, (page 47)
Lake eutrophication—Lakes are among
New England's most valuable aesthetic, recrea-
tional and economic assets. Many of the lakes
in New England are showing signs of accelerat-
ed, man-induced eutrophication. (page 49)
Exploratory oil and gas drilling on Georges
Bank—The second round of Georges Bank leas-
ing for oil and gas drilling was delayed by court
action on March 28, 1983. As soon as legal
proceedings on Sale NO. 52 are completed, EPA
will proceed' expeditiously with issuance of
NPDES permits for operational discharges. The
complexity of the existing permit procedures,
heightened public interest, and the need to
consider all relevant information and research
when making permit decisions makes the per-
mit issuance process time-consuming and
difficult, (page 49)
Ocean dumping—New England coastal
waters have been used for disposal of dredged
soils, industrial and chemical.wastes, and low-
level radioactive materials. Presently ocean
dumping is limited to dredged soils, increasing
pressures to dispose of other materials at sea
and an apparent emerging national policy
change to consider this alternative will subject
the New England's coastal and ocean waters to
greater environmental risk, (page 51)
Quality of drinking water—Continued
maintenance of New England's high quality
drinking water is threatened by resource re-
ductions and increased occurrence of unregu-
lated contaminants. The New England states
have indicated that at current funding levels
they will be unable to continue to effectively
implement all aspects' of their drinking water
programs, in some areas of New England drink-
ing water has been rendered unsuitable for
consumption because of organic chemical con-
tamination. Since these organic chemicals are
not covered by federal standards it is difficult,
if not impossible, to correct the problems
through enforcement actions, (page 51)
Boston Harbor—The Metropolitan District
Commission (MDC) operates two out-moded
and over-loaded primary treatment plants
which discharge 450 million gallons of waste-
water and 90 dry tons of digested sludge to
Boston Harbor every day. in addition, the local
tributary combined sewer system overflows
untreated wastes at 110 locations along the
Harbors edge. This wasteload obviously has
negative effects on water quality and inhibits
full recreational and economic use of the
Harbor, (page 53)
Narragansett Bay, Rhode island—upper
Narragansett Bay, Rhode island has suffered
from man-made pollution problems since the
1800s. industrial wastes from metal platers,
chemical industries and oil terminal activities,
municipal wastes and 120 combined sewer
overflows have all contributed to current pol-
lution levels. The cumulative effect of these
pollutants resulted in the degradation, i.e.,
high bacterial and suspended solids levels and
very low dissolved oxygen levels, of the upper
five miles of a 15-mile estuary, (page 55)
-------
Salem Harbor (South Essex Sewer District),
Massachusetts—The South Essex Sewer Dis-
trict (SESD) operates a primary wastewater
treatment plant that is designed to treat 41
million gallons per day of flow from the five
surrounding communities of Salem, Beverly,
Peabody, Danvers and Marblehead. The treat-
ment plant discharges into the Salem Harbor, a
Class SB watercourse used for fishing, swim-
ming and recreational boating. The plant has
been shut down since 1980 because the ash
produced by incinerating the waste sludge
contained high levels of hexavalent chrome, a
hazardous material. The untreated discharge
has flowed into the Harbor for over two years
and is causing serious environmental problems.
(page 56)
Housatonic River, Massachusetts /Con-
necticut— The Housatonic River suffers from
two critical but distinct water pollution control
problems: 1) phosphorus-induced algae growth
problems in the river impoundments; and 2)
PCS contamination of river sediments and re-
sulting high concentrations of PCBs in the
River's fish and aquatic life systems. Both prob-
lems have adversely affected the recreational
potentials of the river and have caused eco-
nomic losses. These problems are particularly
complex because they involve an inter-state
stream. The ultimate impacts of some of the
pollution sources are not experienced in the
originating state but are often most serious far
downstream, in another state, (page 57!
LAND SECTION
Status and trends—Hazardous waste is
rapidly becoming the most important environ-
mental issue in New England. The region's geo-
logic, industrial and political characteristics
complicate the clean-up of abandoned and un-
controlled hazardous waste sites, the manage-
ment of operating TSD facilities, and the
planning for future use and disposal of all
hazardous materials, including radioactive
wastes and pesticides. There are approximately
5,200 hazardous waste handlers in Region I.
Sixty-five percent of the TSD facilities in the
region are required to conduct ground water
monitoring. (RCRA, page 62)
New England has 38 uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites on the Superfund National Priority
List; the second highest concentration of NPL
sites per square mile of any Region in the
nation except Region II. There are currently
over 700 hazardous waste sites in the regional
site inventory. (CERCLA, page 65)
New England generates approximately 13%
of the nation's annual total low-level radio-
active waste and disposes all of it outside the
region. Local opposition to siting a radioactive
waste disposal site within the region is
organized and strong, which will make com-
pliance with the siting requirements of the
Low-Level Radioactive waste Policy Act diffi-
cult. (RADIATION, page 67)
improper use and disposal of pesticides may
result in serious environmental problems in
New England. A recent survey of wells in
eastern Maine indicated that two-thirds of the
tested wells were contaminated with aldicarb;
and about 10% of the contaminted wells
exceeded the EPA Drinking Water guidelines of
10 ppb. (PESTICIDES, page 67)
Siting of new hazardous waste facilities-
inadequate hazardous waste management
capacity in Region I may have both environ-
mental and economic impacts, when the cost
of shipping waste out of the region is high,
some firms may be tempted to dispose of their
wastes improperly to save money. Firms which
behave responsibly may be hurt by high trans-
portation costs, resulting in a competitive dis-
advantage. New England's many small gener-
ators are especially vulnerable to this threat. If
the region is not served by an adequate
network of hazardous waste facilities, firms
making decisions on where to locate plants
may not select New England, (page 67)
Small quantity generators of hazardous
waste—When EPA promulgated the hazardous
waste management regulations in May 1980, a
decision was made to exempt generators that
produced less than 1,000 kg/month from most
of the regulations. For waste considered to be
acutely hazardous the exclusion level is 1
kg/month. While the 1,000 kg/month exemp-
tion may be appropriate for most hazardous
waste generators, it may not be appropriate
for smajl quantity generators, which are highly
concentrated in some areas of New England
(page 70)
Abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous
waste—New England's strong industrial base
has generated millions of tons of hazardous
waste since the turn of the century, in the past,
disposal practices were haphazard and subject
to little regulation. Only during the past several
years have we come to realize that these
disposal practices result in significant haz-
ardous waste contamination problems that
may affect human health and contaminate the
environment, (page 71)
Pesticides residue in water—Residues of
pesticides have been found contaminating
some ground water supplies even though they
were applied properly. For example, aldicarb
residues in the wells of eastern Maine suggest
that environmental and soil conditions existing
in the area may favor residue- accumulation.
Additional monitoring may, demonstrate that,
although properly applied, other pesticide
uses can contribute to harmful residue accum-
ulations, (page 74)
VI
-------
Pesticides classifiction—some pesticides
uses chat were cancelled because of adverse
environmental impacts are still available for
use by the general public. Because these uses
were not classified "restricted use," their wide-
spread availability and possible misuse appears
to be a source of increasing public concern and
potential health risks, (page 74)
Low-level radioactive wastes—Low-level
radioactive .wastes are generated as a by-
product of a variety of commercial processes.
Both an increasing amount of waste generated
and c shortage of disposal sites make this an
important emerging problem in New England.
(page 75)
AIR SECTION
Status and trends—Available data suggest
that overall air quality in New England is contin-
uing 1:0 improve. However, Region I is becom-
ing increasingly concerned with non-criteria
pollutant problems, including indoor air pollu-
tion and hazardous air pollutants. The results of
a five year air quality trends study (1977-1981)
for four criteria pollutants indicates significant
improvements in Total Suspended Particulates
(TSP) levels, no general change in Sulfur Dioxide
(SOj) levels, significant decreases in Carbon
Monoxide (CO) levels and fewer violation days
for 02:one (Os). (page 78)
indoor air pollution—A number of studies
have pointed to indoor residential air quality as
a cause of adverse health effects. A variety of
common sources may contribute to the prob-
lem, but there is insufficient information avail-
able to characterize the degree of risk to the
general public and very little legislative author-
ity to allow EPA or states to help solve the
problem, (page 80)
Nonattainment areas—Region I has a
number of areas that have been designated as
primary or secondary nonattainment as a
result of a violation of one or more National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
sources of these violations vary from pollutant
to pollutant and from state to state, including
interstate transport of pollutants in some
states, (page 83)
Emissions from significant violators—Al-
though the vast majority of major stationary
sources of pollution are complying with air
pollution control requirements, a small per-
centage remain delinquent. These violators
constitute approximately 5% of the major
source inventory at any given time. The most
important of these sources are classified as
'significant violators' since they either are
emitting greater than 100 tons per year of a
criteria pollutant and are located in a non-
attainment area or are violating a PSD, NSPS, or
a NESHAPS standard. Their continued non-
compliance creates a potentially serious public
health problem as we'll as a major resource
drain for the federal and state agencies (EPA,
DOJ) involved in pursuing corrective action.
Region I identified certain management and
resource problems which affect our major
source enforcement effort, (page 85)
VII
-------
CONTENTS
PREFACE i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii
PART I/OVERVIEW 1
"DRIVING FORCES" AT WORK IN NEW ENGLAND 2
Population 2
industrial Mix 3
Energy 5
Land use 7
Recreation and Tourism 7
PART II 9
INTER MEDIA 11
TOXIC SUBSTANCES : 12
LONG RANGE TRANSPORT OF ACID DEPOSITION AND TOXIC METALS 14
NEW BEDFORD HARBOR 18
INTRODUCTION TO GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION ISSUES IN NEW ENGLAND 19
Ground Water: Solid and Hazardous waste Disposal 20
Ground water: uncontrolled Hazardous waste Sites 21
Ground water: Non-Point sources 22
Ground water: Naturally Occurring contamination 24
INTRODUCTION TO ENERGY ISSUES IN NEW ENGLAND 24
Energy: coal Conversions 27
Energy: Sulfur Relaxations 28
Energy: Hydroelectric Power Development '. 29
Energy: Fuelwood 30
Energy: Miscellaneous Energy Impacts 31
WATER 33
STATUS AND TRENDS 35
Surface water Quality—Fresh water 35
Marine and Coastal Area water Quality 37
Drinking water Quality 38
SIGNIFICANT WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS IN NEW ENGLAND—GENERIC 40
Point Source Pollution 40
Combined Sewer Overflows 44
Nonpoint Source Pollution 45
Filling of wetlands 47
Lake Eutrophication : 49
Exploratory Oil and Gas Drilling on Georges Bank 49
Ocean Dumping 51
Quality of Drinking Water 51
SIGNIFICANT WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS IN NEW ENGLAND—SITE SPECIFIC 53
Boston Harbor 53
Narragansett Bay, Rhode island 55
Salem Harbor (South Essex sewer District), Massachusetts 56
The Housatonic River, Massachusetts-Connecticut 57
-------
LAND :. 61
STATUS AND TRENDS 62
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 62
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 65
Radiation 67
Pesticides 67
THE SITING OF NEW HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES 67
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 70
ABANDONED AND UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE 71
PESTICIDE RESIDUE IN WATER 74
PESTICIDE CLASSIFICATION 74
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES 75
AIR 77
STATUS AND TRENDS 78
Criteria Pollutants 78
Non-Criteria Pollutants 80
INDOOR AIR POLLUTION 80
NONATTAINMENT AREAS ' 83
EMISSIONS FROM SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS 85
PART HI/APPENDIX 37
LIST OF REFERENCES 88
INTER MEDIA 90
SOURCES OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTAMINATION IN NEW ENGLAND 90
SECONDARY SOLID WASTE IN REGION I FORECAST BY RESIDUAL ACCOUNTING MODEL 103
WATER 104
STATUS OF WATER QUALITY 1982 104
Connecticut 104
Maine 104
Massachusetts 105
New Hampshire 105
Rhode island 105
Vermont • _. 106
PRIORITY LAKE RESTORATION PROJECTS IN NEW ENGLAND ." 106
GLOSSARY OF WATER TERMS AND ACRONYMS 107
LAND 108
AIR 111
-------
PART I /OVERVIEW
-------
"DRIVING FORCES" AT WORK IN NEW ENGLAND
To assess current and upcoming environmen-
tal problems in New England, one must first
understand the region's unique demographic,
social and economic characteristics or "driving
forces" which influence how the area's natural
resources are used and affected by human acti-
vity. A quick look at these forces reveals that
the region, although geographically compact,
has complex natural and social systems that
make its environmental problems far from
simple to manage.
New England is an area of marked contrasts.
The southern states of Rhode island, Connecti-
cut and Massachusetts are among the most ur-
banized in the country (surpassed only by New
Jersey), yet fully three-quarters of the region is
forested. The northern states of Maine, New
Hampshire and Vermont retain a largely rural
character and have relatively low population
densities. Dramatic contrasts also exist in pat-
terns of personal income. Fairf ield County, Con-
necticut contains some of the richest commu-
nities in the country, while many areas in
northern Maine are among the nation's
poorest.
Despite these contrasts, New England exhib-
its a stronger sense of regional identity than
any other federal EPA region. New Englanders
share a closely linked history and many com-
mon economic, cultural and political bodies
which together make the region politically co-
hesive. They also share a jealously guarded
sense of local autonomy which makes issues
such as hazardous waste facility siting a thorny
problem.
AS the nation's oldest urbanized and industri-
alized region, New England has often realized
environmental, social and economic problems
earlier than other parts of the country. Today,
for example, New England's municipal infra-
structure (sewers, water lines, treatment
plants, etc.) has aged and is in need of repair
and upgrading. The region also lost its original
industrial base to foreign competition during
the early and middle part of the century, in an
effort to recover from its loss, New England
shifted to high-tech and service industries fast-
er than other regions, with these changes have
come adjustments in residential and business
settlement patterns, energy demands, and ex-
pectations for environmental quality.
The region can be understood best in the
context of the five most critical "driving
forces" discussed is detail below:
1. Population 4. Land Use
2. industrial Mix 5. Recreation and Tourism
3. Energy
POPULATION
New England's population has grown more
slowly than the nation's population as a whole,
but the region is growing nonetheless. This
pattern is expected to continue over the next
few years with the region gaining approxi-
mately 0.5% per year compared to an esti-
mated national growth rate of 0.9% per year
(Figure A).
FIGURE A
ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH FOR
N.E. AND U.S. 1971-80
n
Legend
3) N.I.
1=1 U.S.
1971 1972 197] 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 I960
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census. Census of Population and Housing. 1980
Most of the nation's population growth has
occurred in the rural northern states—New
Hampshire's population is about 16% larger to-
day than it was in 1970, Vermont grew 14% and
Maine 12%. The heavily urbaninzed southern
states of Massachusetts, Connecticut and
Rhode island have remained almost constant in
population size. None of the states, however,
have lost population over the past 10 years.
TABLE 1
PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION
IN NON-METROPOLITAN AREAS
(1970-1980)
% of Total
Population in
Non-Metro
Areas % Change
1970 1980 1970 to 1980
New England 20.9 t23.4 +2.5
United States 24.4 *25.2 +0.8
-------
New England's population is also shifting rap-
idly from metropolitan to non-metropolitan
areas Table 1). This shift is due partly to greater
growth in non-metropolitan areas vs. metro-
politan areas (Figure B), but also to an absolute
movement away from some of the region's
older cities (e.g., Worcester, Massachusetts).
Some of the urban exodus is offset by the
receni: resettlement of the urban core of cities
such as Boston, Portland and Providence, but
the predominant trend is clearly toward less
urban.zed areas. This pattern is expected to
continue over the next few years.
FIGURE B
POPULATION GROWTH FOR IM.E. AND
THE U.S. - 1960-1980
.,10
>«*:^'
41° fllO ,»&0 .fft
" X^* XV <•*•
.**
<.&•
j.f'V19
Source: U.S Bureau of Cansua. Census of Population and Housing. (380
The .triplications of the shift toward non-
metropolitan areas are threefold: 1) aban-
donment of decaying infrastructures; 2) in-
creased construction of new roads and infra-
structures; and 3) new and altered air pollution
problems. AS people move out of older cities,
less capital remains for needed repairs to aging
sewer ;md water systems. The result is often
persistent water pollution problems. On the
other hand, new roads and infrastructures are
needed to accommodate new development in
low population density centers. Finally, with
more diffuse settlement patterns and longer
commutes, air pollution will probably spread
over a larger geographic area, without dimin-
ishing in total volume. A concern for the imme-
diate and near future is that existing air quality
monitoring stations are located in high popula-
tion density areas only, unless stations are
established in new, lower density areas, the
region may be showing a false improvement in
overall air quality.
INDUSTRIAL MIX
New England experienced one of the earliest
shifts from a heavy manufacturing industrial
base to a services/light manufacturing high
technology economy. This transition, which
occurred since the end of world war II, created
2.2 million new non-agricultural jobs in the
region.
While the lion's share of these new jobs are in
service industries, the number of jobs in dur-
able goods manufacturing increased as a pro-
portion of total manufacturing employment
by 51 percent (Figure C). This reshuffle of manu-
facturing jobs occurred in response to the larg-
er shift to a new high-tech economy.
FIGURE C
NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT IN
NEW ENGLAND (1976-1981)
The decline in non-durable manufacturing
jobs was absorbed by the growth in the service
sector, which increased from only 15 percent
of the region's gross employment in 1947 to a
dominant 29 percent in 1981 (Figure D). Figure E
illustrates that although contracted, New
England's manufacturing industry continues to
account for a larger share of totaj regional
employment than it does nationally.
FIGURE D
DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT BY
INDUSTRY IN N.E.. 1947 AND 1981
i "•
•5
1
1947 1981
Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics
-------
FIGURE E
NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT FOR 1981
h€W ENGLAND
UNTO) STATES
Soura: Anthony J. Ferrara, Structural Charge in N«w England. 1947-1981. (Boston: U.S.
Oioanment of laeor. BLS. [1982111. p. 23
Nurtured by the strong educational institu-
tions and research facilities in New England the
non-manufacturing sector, particularly ser-
vices, knowledge, and information industries,
claims 73 percent of the gross non-agricultural
employment. This part of the regional econ-
omy has experienced impressive growth
throughout the post-war period and has added
to its employment rolls every year since 1947.
(Table 2)
TABLE 2
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH IN
NON-MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRIES-NEW ENGLAND
(1947-1981)
Industry Sector
TRADE
(whlsale/retail)
FIN/INSUR/
REAL ESTATE
SERVICES
Percent
Change
Employment
Change
+ 97% +580,000 jobs
+ 166%
+ 237%
+ 213,000 jobs
+ 877,000 jobs
A traditionally significant northern New
England heavy industry, pulp and paper, has
also experienced similar growth patterns. The
industry has hedged its future growth on the
development of fewer larger and more effi-
cient mills, and the modernizing of older ones.
The result has been a 30 percent increase in the
production of standard cords in the last five
years.
The new and modern jay and Scott Paper
mills in Maine are examples of the industry's
commitment to investment for continued
growth. The Jay Mill is the largest lumber mill in
the country and the second or third largest in
the world.
The post world war II economic transition in
New England has other significant dimensions.
During this period the region experienced:
1) growth in the number of smaller volume in-
dustrial facilities and a decline in number of
larger volume ones; 2) diffusion of new high-
and medium-tech industrial facilities through-
out rural New England, breaking the historic
pattern of dense industrial concentration in ur-
banized areas; 3) decreases in aggregate quan-
tities of chemicals generated in region and at
the same time an explosion in the use of new
chemicals and manufacturing processes relat-
ed to high- and medium-tech industries; and
4) dramatic expansion of secondary high- and
medium-tech manufacturing industries, includ-
ing electronic and electrical equipment, instru-
ments and fabricated metals (Figure F).
FIGURE F
NEW ENGLAND
MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT
Jun« 1981
Uiic. Uonul. Ind
4.9*
The transition to services and high-technol-
ogy manufacturing is expected to continue
throughout the decade (Table 3). Strong eco-
nomic performers, including medical and busi-
ness services, tourism related industries, elec-
tronic and chemical production will continue
their growth patterns. Development of widely
dispersed smaller industrial and service facili-
ties will continue because the growing econ-
omy will require expansion, and workers seem
to prefer the rural lifestyle in New England.
-------
TABLE 3
INDUSTRIES PROJECTED TO GROW MOST RAPIDLY
IN THE UNITED STATES, 1978-1990
(Minimum 1978
Industry Group
1. Health Services
2. Business Services
3. General Merchandise Stores
4. Banking
5. Hotels and Lodging Places
6. Restaurants
7. Machinery, Except Electrical
8. Miscellaneous Retail Stores
9. Miscellaneous Professional Services
10. Food Stores
11. Chemical and Allied Products
12. Insurance
13. Electrical/ Electronic Equipment
14. Fabricated Metal Products
National Employment
Projected
1978-1990
Employment
Growth
64%
57
46
45
45
29
29
27
26
26
24
22
22
21
of 1 Million)
June 1381
New England
Employment
474,000
204,000
122,000
103,000
56,000
300,000
217,000
136,000
69,000
166,000
45,000 •
125,000
218,000
143,000
Rank of
Regional
Employment
2
6
14
17
32
3
5
11
24
7
39
12
4
10
Meanwhile, older, larger, and urban industrial
facilities will be abandoned or converted to
other uses, i.e., housing, commercial, and retail
services.
These patterns of growth have several signif-
icant implications for the regional environ-
ment and public health.
1. Although the total volume of industrial
pollution is likely to decine, the incidence
cf contamination will be more wide-
spread.
2. The introduction of new chemicals and
manufacturing process, many exotic, can
lead to problems that are beyond the un-
derstanding and capabilities of current
environmental protection technology.
3. Past problems created by the once domi-
nant non-durable manufacturing sector
r=main even though the industry is in
cecline.
4. The needs of a continuously expanding
high-technology industry demand strong
sjstained research and development ac-
tivities, investigations into new frontiers
of science may pose environmental prob-
lems, e.g., biotechnology research and
radioactive materials related research.
5. Growth in the economy is likely to come
from the development of new, at first
snail, companies scattered throughout
tie hinterland. Many of these industries
will generate small amounts of hazardous
waste and as a result escape the current
federal RCRA regulations. Although the in-
dividual amounts'of waste may be small,
the aggregate can be substantial and may
pose serious air and water pollution prob-
lems as well as threaten public health.
6. Larger, more efficient paper mills that are
increasingly using coal, wood wastes and
spent pulping liquors may create point
source air pollution problems.
ENERGY
Since the second oil crisis in 1978 New
Engenders have used their costly fossil fuels
more efficiently, aggressively pursued renew-
able sources of energy, switched from conven-
tional to renewable fuels, and reduced overall
energy consumption dramatically. Significant
declines in energy consumption were accom-
panied by equally remarkable economic
growth.
Total energy use in New England dropped by
6.5 percent between 1978 and 1980 (US de-
clined only 2.3 percent), while real personal in-
come increased by 4.2 percent. Moreover,
there was a dramatic shift from conventional
energy resources to renewables, which
increased by 17 percent (Table 4).
New England's ability to both reduce gross
energy consumption and expand economic
capacity dispels the commonly held beliefs
that there must be a direct relationship
between economic growth and energy con-
sumption. The growing regional economy,
dominated by high-tech/light manufacturing
industries and services is likely to continue to
-------
TABLE 4
GROSS ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN NEW ENGLAND
1978 and 1980
1978
Sources
1) CONVENTIONAL
— petroleum
— natural gas
— nuclear power
—coal
— purchased electricity
2) RENEWABLE
— wood products
— hydro-power
—other renewables
GROSS ENERGY
CONSUMPTION
Trillion BTU
3146.4
2530.7
267.0
301.8
23.6
23.3
178.4
114.1
62.6
1.7
3324.8
% of Total
94.6
76.1
8.0
9,1
0.7
0.7
5.4
3.4
1.9
0.1
100.0
1980
Trillion BTU
2914.2
2266.4
285.0
241.8
53.7
67.3
195.6
141.5
49.3
4.8
3109.8"
% of Total
93.7
72.9
9.2
7.8
1.7
2.1
6.3
4.6
1.6
0.1
100.0
expand with only modest growth in energy
consumption.
Renewable energy sources in New England
provided 195.6 trillion British Thermal units
(BTUs) in 1980, up 10 percent over 1978. wood,
hydropower, biomass, solar and wind systems
are projected to increase significantly in the
region by 1985.
in 1971, less than one percent of the total res-
idential space in the three northern New
England states was heated by wood. While in
1980, over 25% of this space was heated by this
renewable resource. Further, indications are
that wood consumption increased another 5
percent just in 1981.
New Englanders are better conservers of en-
ergy compared with other Americans. Be-
tween 1978 and 1980, per capita consumption
of energy in New England declined by 7 per-
cent to 252 million BTUs/capita, only 75 percent
of the national average. Part of the reason for
this dramatic decline is due to the increase in
cost placed on consumers that already pay
higher than national average energy costs, and
the decline in heavy industry. "Tighter" insu-
lated homes, more energy efficient cars and
higher relative growth of lower energy using
high-tech and light manufacturing, and service
industries also contributed to falling demand
for energy.
New England is more dependent on petro-
leum than the U.S. However, oil's share of the
region's total energy demand dropped 80 per-
cent in 1974 to 72.9 percent in 1980. Although
natural gas and coal are proportionately less
significant, the region's reliance on these
sources is growing. Natural gas consumption
grew 7 percent between 1978 and 1980, and
now accounts for almost 10 percent of the
region's gross energy use (Table 4).
1980, and now accounts for almost 10 percent
of the region's gross energy use (Table 4).
Consumption of coal, which was declining up
to the mid 1970s, rebounded by the end of the
decade. Coal consumption more than doubled
between 1978 and 1980, and now accounts for
1.7 percent of the region's gross energy use
(Table 4).
Conversion of electric utilities and industrial
plants to coal has intensified. Since 1976, four
oil-fired electric utility power plants were con-
verted to burn coal. Recent projections indi-
cate that another six converions are likely by
1985. if the six new conversions occur.-then ap-
proximately 30 percent of electric power
plants in New England will be burning coal by
1985.
The major regional shift from petroleum to
wood and coal consumption, and lower resi-
dential demand resulting from conservation
measures have three implications for public
health in New England: 1) exacerbation of com-
bustion related environmental problems;
2) sludge and ash disposal problems from com-
bustion of solid fuels and 3) indoor air
pollution.
Despite declines in demand for electricity,
the proportional increases in the consumption
of coal by regional electric power plants may
cause additional air pollution problems (e.g.,
TSP and S02), and exacerbate current ones.
Serious new air pollution problems have devel-
oped in New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine as
a result of increased residential wood and coal
-------
burning. Of particular concern are polycyclic
organic materials (ROMs) including carcinogens,
emitted in relatively large quantities from
airtignt woodstoves.
Disposal of ash, from wood and coal combus-
tion, will become an increasingly significant
environmental management problem as coal
consumption increases. Proper disposal of this
toxic waste is required to prevent future water
contamination and public health problems.
Finally, increased wood and coal combustion
and more tigtttly sealed and insulated homes in
New England have created serious indoor air
pollution problems. Poor installation and con-
struction of some coal and wood stoves result
in leaks of harmful pollutants in homes. Struc-
tures, designed to reduce air exchange, effec-
tively contain increasing levels of harmful
smoke that combine with other indoor sources
to create potentially serious public health
hazards, other sources of indoor air pollution
include poorly vented gas stoves and hot water
heaters, radon gas emissions from rock founda-
tions, emissions of formaldehyde from build-
ing and furnishings, and smoking.
LAND USE
The presence of farming and open land pro-.
vide New England with the rural aesthetics that'
have always made the region appealing. Al-
though farming employs less than one percent
of the region's workforce it is vital to the long
term social and economic health of the region.
Although New England is unlikely to be agri-
culturally self-sufficient again, farming pro-
vides many values that contribute to the rural
character of the region. The intangible lifestyle
and cultural characteristics have attracted the
high-tech, lower polluting industries that in-
creasingly form the base of the regional econ-
omy, if farming and open land disappear, the
economy may suffer tremendous long-term
negative consequences.
The amount of active farmland and the num-
ber of part-time farmers are increasing. From
1870 to 1970, New England's farmland continu-
ously declined. However, historic changes oc-
curred in mid-1970s when the total area of har-
vested cropland actually increased (Figure G).
Over 75 percent of New England is forested.
until about 1970, as farmers abandoned their
farms, trie amount of forested land increased.
However, after 1970 the amount of forest land
in New England dropped as farms were re-
couped and the number of forests cut for de-
velopment increased.
Absolute population increases and move-
ment to non-metropolitan areas quickened the
reduction of forest land. Although over three-
quarters of the region is forested, forest land
losses are important because they occurred
FIGURE G
AREA OF HARVESTED CROPLAND
IN NEW ENGLAND
1942 19*9 1952 1959 1964 1966 1971 1979
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census. Con jus of Agriculture. 1978
mostly in the fringe areas around urban
centers.
in addition, land development has occurred
unevenly throughout the region. For example,
southern New Hampshire, southern Maine and
Chittenden county, Vermont have suffered se-
vere loss of open land to residential and busi-
ness land development while much of north-
ern Maine and New Hampshire remain rural
and undeveloped.
Loss of farmland and open space near cities,
loss of wildlife habitats, more rapid runoff
problems, loss of aquifer recharge areas, and
aesthetic and lifestyle changes are all problems
related to land use in New England and are sig-
nificant for long-term environmental planning.
RECREATION AND TOURISM
Recreation and tourism are very important
industries in the three northern states and con-
stitute noteworthy portions of the southern
states' economies as well. These • industries
attract other industries into the area and influ-
ence the general population's attitude towards
New England environmental quality.
in terms of gross product, recreation and
tourism are second only to durable products in
New Hampshire and Vermont and to forest
products in Maine. Tourism also supports
important seasonal economies at Cape Cod,
Massachusetts and shore communities in
Rhode island and Connecticut. The U.S. Census
of selected industries shows a strong increase
in dollars collected from lodging recreation re-
ceipts in New England (Figure H). Likewise,
records of tourist dollars spent in Massachu-
setts and Vermont coroborate a steady growth
in the market. (Figure I)
Recreation and tourism's indirect contribu-
tions, however, are far more important to New
England's overall economy. The presence of
commercial (e.g., skiing, boating) and non-com-
-------
FIGURE H
LODGING. RECREATION RECEIPTS:
NEW ENGLAND
FIGURE I
TOURIST DOLLARS SPENT,
MASS AND VT
1967
1972
mercial (e.g., parks, forests) recreational op-
portunities as well as scenic areas and country
charm have helped attract high-tech and ser-
vice industries into the region. Since these in-
dustries are not dependent on geographic
proximity to raw materials, they have the
luxury of locating where their executives and
employees can take advantage of life style
amenities which New England has to offer. The
growth of these companies throughout the re-
gion has helped offset some of the local im-
pacts of national unemployment problems.
Finally, recognizing the economic and social im-
portance of the region's environmental qual-
ity, most New Englanders feel very strongly
about preserving that quality.
-------
PART II
-------
INTER-MEDIA
ero mm
KEVIN PSOYAK - Biueoerry Hill scnool, Longmeadow, Massachusetts • Grade 4
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Toxic Substances
Toxic substance contamination in New
England is a complex, inter-media problem
with serious environmental, economic and
potential public healtn impacts. Toxic
substance contamination presents the Region
with sensitive public relation and complicated
technical issues, especially when the displace-
ment of toxic pollutants across environmental
media occurs as a result of remedial and clean-
up actions at hazardous waste sites.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Provide resources for regional toxicoiogists
to evaluate toxic related health effects in
every medium. Provide guidance on
evaluating health effects of monitored
ambient levels.
• Provide adeduate funding to states to con-
duct appropriate surveys and analyses of
toxics in water.
• Develop allowable tcxic contamination sedi-
ment concentrations for various water uses,
and develop options for funding the clean-up
of contaminated sediments that impair uses.
• Develop guidance for "site-specific criteria"
and develop national criteria information
that will assist states in their site-specific
work.
• Direct and/or sponsor research on the health
effects of commonly detected organics and
their possible synergistic effects. Other re-
search should address bioassay techniques
and procedures for developing control
strategies and permit limits, based on
bioassays.
• Develop federal regulations and/or guidance
to control or eliminate organic contamina-
tion in drinking water, without the involve-
ment of the federal government, there is no
consistent program to protect the public
from exposure to toxic organics. Develop
Health Advisories for: a) organics that are
frequently found in contaminated drinking
water; and b) dermal exposure to organic
compounds in drinking water used for
bathing.
• Develop control measures for: a) the use of
septic tank degreasing agents; and b) the
installation and maintenance of under-
ground petroleum products storage tanks.
Monitoring underground storage tank leak-
age must be included as the part of the main-
tenance program.
12
• Act as a regional clearinghouse for the
exchange of air toxics information and
activities.
• Provide more complete guidance on proto-
cols for ambient air toxics monitoring. Allo-
cate resources to the Regions to respond to
monitoring requests.
• The proposed process for evaluating and con-
trolling air toxics does not provide immedi-
ate guidance or provide assistance to states
for evaluating and controlling toxic air pollu-
tants. Guidance should be developed to pro-
vide assistance to states in dealing with
chemicals which are not currently regulated
at the federal level.
Regional Actions
• Establish a multi-media toxics integration
mechanism in Region rthat will coordinate
toxics activities in all divisions.
• Act as a state clearinghouse for the exchange
of air toxics information and activities.
• Provide technical assistance to state Health
Advisory Programs.
• Provide contaminated source treatment
technical assistance.
• Provide technical and resource support to
states in gathering information on toxic sub-
stances in water and sediments.
• Provide technical assistance to states on
bioassay procedures and coordinate work-
shops in the region.
Other Actions
• States should commit laboratory support for
the investigation of contaminated problems.
• States should continue to set aside adequate
Section 106 arid 205(j). grant monies, and state
funds to identify toxic substance problems
and develop priorities and programs for
abatement.
• States should establish funding sources to
"match" EPA funds for sediment cleanup.
• States should develop bioassay priorities and
programs to supplement traditional water
quality chemistry surveys.
• The region should develop a network of toxi-
coiogists to share information, experience
and ideas.
DISCUSSION
Background
Although there are a variety of terminol-
ogies, regulatory approaches, and interpreta-
tions of toxic substances, the goal of all
programs is to control these substances and
protect public health and the environment.
Toxic substances are addressed in a number of
national environmental laws, including:
-------
• Clean Air Act — authorizes EPA to research
and set standards for hazardous air pollutant
emissions (NESHAPS).
• Clean water Act — prohibits discharge of sig-
nificant pollutant amounts into the navigable
waters of the united states.
• Safe Drinking water Act — authorizes EPA to
set maximum contaminant levels for public
drinking water systems.
• Federal insecticide Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act — authorizes EPA to regulate
registration, treatment, disposal, and storage
of all pesticides, including labelling
requirements.
• Toxic Substances control Act — authorizes
EPA to obtain data on health effects of
chemical substances and to regulate the
manufacture, use, and disposal of a chemical
substance or mixture when warranted.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act —
controls hazardous waste from point of
generation through treatment, storage, and
ultimate disposal via transportation mani-
fests, recordkeeping, and reporting.
• Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act — authorizes
EPA to clean-up abandoned and uncontrolled
hazcrdous waste sites that threaten public
health and the environment.
Authorizing legislation and EPA regulations
address the control of toxic substances in
specific environmental medium, even though
it is clear that a single source of toxic
contamination impacts multiple media. (Table
A-1 on page 90 of the Appendix)
Many solutions to toxic contamination simply
transfer the incidence of impact from one
medium to another without solving the net
pollut.on problem. For example, a regional
high-tsch industry recently requested a water
discharge NPDES permit, in the past, the com-
pany spilled several chemicals on its property
that migrated into the ground water and were
headed toward a nearby stream. The company
proposed to pump the ground water out,
aerate it to volatilize the organic chemical con-
taminants, and then discharge the water to the
nearby stream.
Although aeration is a highly efficient
method of removing organics from.water, the
facility abuts a residential area. Thus, both EPA
and the state agency are highly concerned
about potential health effects of the toxics
emitted in the ambient air. The Region is also
concerned about what impact trace amounts
of toxic pollutants in discharge water will have
on the nearby stream and its uses.
past Responses
• Controlling toxic substances — This has
generally been environmental medium speci-
fic. The response is usually implemented by
the medium which has the greatest or the
most obvious impact. The assessment of
specific toxic pollutant impacts has been con-
ducted on a case-by-case basis.
• NESHAPS and NPDES — Under the NESHAPS
program, EPA has listed 7 pollutants and set
emission standards for four of them. Twenty
additional pollutants are actively being ass-
essed for health effects. The NPDES Permits
program is a means of regulating discharged
toxic pollutants via effluents guidelines.
• Monitoring — AS noted in the background,
Region I has conducted a small number of
ambient monitoring studies for non-criteria
pollutants. Monitoring or investigation of a
contamination problem, especially in the
case of drinking water, is generally prompted
by public inquiries.
TABLE 1
RECENT
AIR MONITORING ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO AIR TOXICS
SITE
1. Upjohn Chemical Co.
North Haven, CT
2. Ceiba Geigy Co.
Cranston, Rl
3. Londonderry Landfill
Londonderry, NH
4. Gilsen Road Site
Nashua, NH
COMMENTS
Major report now under-
going peer review.
One day VOC screening
study.
One day VOC study.
Intensive one year VOC
study.
5. Interstate Uniform Co. One day VOC study.
Nashua, NH
6. Picillo Farm
Coventry, Rl
7. New Bedford, MA
8. East Woburn, MA
9. Nyanza Chemical
Ashland, MA
10. Londonderry Apts.
Londonderry, NH
11. General Electric
Pittsfield, MA
12. Kement Landfill
E. Windsor, CT
13. Norwalk Harbor
Norwalk, CT
14. McKin Site
Grey, ME
One day VOC study.
PCB and VOC
monitoring.
Year long VOC study.
Monthly VOC and
mercury sampling.
One day VOC study.
Short-term PCB study.
One day characterization
of vented gases.
One day VOC study.
One day VOC study.
1:
-------
• Asbestos — The asbestos school inspection
program has been one EPA's most compre-
hensive programs to eliminate a toxic sub-
stance transmitted by air.
• Support for State Programs — Recently,
Region I has begun to support state hazard-
ous air pollutant programs. Part of this sup-
port consisted of 2 workshops on the regu-
latory and technical aspects of hazardous air
pollutant control. For regional programs,
support includes providing technical assis-
tance, such as health advisories, and recom-
mendations for treatment techniques to the
states, in several incidences, the Regional
Office has also provided laboratory support
for the investigation of problems associated
with toxic pollutants.
Barriers to Overcome
• Lack of standards — without specific
guidance or standards, regions and states
cannot establish any kind of comprehensive
regulatory program to control air toxics.
There are also insufficient health advisories
and guidance for the assessment of organic
chemicals co-existing in drinking water. Cur-
rently, there are no criteria for toxic sub-
stances in sediments.
• Lack of information — There is insufficient
information available to assess the extent of
the air toxics problem (number and kinds of
sources, extent of emissions, severity of
health effects, etc.). This is particularly critical
for states that are attempting to develop
priorities for new air toxics programs. There
is also a lack of adequate data on extent and
severity of toxic substance contamination of
surface water and associated sediments.
Much of the data available for the assessment
of exposure is chemical specific. Data on the
possible additive or synergistic effects of
chemical and multi-chemical exposure by dif-
ferent routes are not available. Where data
does exist, such as bioassays, the impediment
may be insufficient understanding and use of
bioassay techniques in establishing the
nature of the tpxicity problem and appro-
priate site specific criteria.
• Lack of Resources — Air media workload
models do not provide sufficient resources
for a regional air toxics program. There is also
a lack of technical expertise and staff in the
federal, state and local agencies to cope with
contamination problems associated with
toxic substances, in some incidences, where
resources are available, there exists lack of
coordination between programs.
Expected Environmental Results
An increased understanding of the toxic pol-
lutants problems in the various environmental
media and provision of additional resources
will have two impacts. AS monitoring and data
14
analysis improves, it will appear as if the toxic
pollutant situation is worsening since new
problem areas will be discovered and publi-
cized, while this information will be trouble-
some, it is the necessary first step in counter-
acting decades of improper toxic waste dis-
posal into the environment. State initiatives
under the new water quality standard regula-
tions, particularly concerning water quality
criteria development, will provide scientifically
based and defensible NPDES permits and
restore water uses. In addition, reduction of
toxic pollutants is expected in the ground
water and air media as specified barriers are
overcome.
improved assessments of contamination
problems will result as the agency conducts
more research and issues more guidance. This
may also result as internal coordination
betwen program activities strengthens.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Long Range
Transport of Acid Deposition and
Toxic Metals
Acidic material and toxic metals are
deposited in New England mainly because of
long range aerial transport. The result is acidifi-
cation of fresh water ecosystems, a reduction
in visibility and an increase in human exposure
to toxic metals. New England and Eastern
Canada are particularly vulnerable to these pol-
lutants because the bedrock and soils have low
buffering capacity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Accelerate the completion of the National
Acid Rain Assessment Plan (NARAP)
• Develop a regulatory framework to address
acid rain.
• Establish direct liaison with the regions and
the state environmental agencies, universi-
ties, and research community. Translate re-
search findings into control strategies and
actively solicit research concerns for integra-
tion into the national program.
• Devise a national and regional strategy to
reduce acidic and toxic metal deposition
through a reduction in S02and NOx emissions.
• Develop an interim policy to limit the in-
crease of SO? emissions while a permanent
national strategy for acidic and toxic deposi-
tion is being developed.
• Strive for more equity in SOz emission regula-
tions among the states.
« Provide for additional legal remedies for
states to deal with interstate pollution.
Regional Actions
• Coordinate with HQ in developing the acid
rain control program.
-------
• Recommend strategies to relieve local contri-
butions to acidic and toxic metals deposition.
• Maintain familiarity with acid rain research
conducted under provisions of the NARAP.
inform interested state and local personnel
of research results that can mitigate acid rain
impacts.
• Supply trend data to EPA HQ which can pro-
vide a basis for further judging the effective-
ness of national strategies.
• Support state acid deposition programs in
negotiating the Sections 105 and 106 grants
by participating in the Northeast Acid Rain
Task Force, and by exchanging technical
info.'mation among states, the region, and
HQ.
DISCUSSION
Background
This section discusses two related problems
involving the long range transport of atmos-
pheric pollutants into New England. The first,
acid precipitation, has generated a great deal
of publicity and recently has been the focus of
major public and private research efforts. The
second, long range transport of toxic metals, is
in the early stages of research, and little is
known of its impacts.
Acid Deposition Transport — Acid deposition
is one of the most significant environmental
problems in Region I. it results from the trans-
formation, transport and removal of gases and
particles either through wet (rain or snow) or
dry deposition processes, its major constitu-
ents are sulfuric and nitric acids created from
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. These gases
are converted to sulfates and nitrates over a
period of from several days to weeks as they
are carried by prevailing wind patterns. See
countour maps of concentrations of critical
pollutants on page 97 of the Appendix.
in Eastern North America, sulfur compounds
(primarily from mid-west utility coal combus-
tion and Canadian non-ferrous smelters) con-
tribute nearly 60% of the acidity in precipita-
tion while nitrogen compounds from motor
vehicle:;, industry, and power plants make up
about IQ%. The relative contribution of nitro-
gen has been and is expected to continue to in-
crease significantly. Although numerous
studies throughout many parts of the world
have shown that transport of these pollutants
does occur, information is not sufficient at
present to quantitatively link specific upwind
emissions sources in the mid-west to down-
wind receptor points in New England.
Numerous acid precipitation monitoring
activities sponsored by federal, provincial and
state governments are underway, supple-
mented by projects of university and industry
researchers. Typical results from these studies
show that the Northeastern U.S. and Eastern
Canada receive large amounts of acid
precipitation.
The abundance and acidity of precipitation,
bedrock geology, soils and water chemistry are
all important when assessing the relative sensi-
tivity of an area to acidification. High levels of
precipitation subject the area to high loadings
of atmospheric pollutants. Rain, with an aver-
age pH of 4.1 to 4.3 (40-50 times more acid than
"normal"), is occurring in all the New England
states. TO compound the problem, the buffer-.
ing capacity of the bedrock and soils is low in
much of New England, the Adirondacks, and
the Canadian Shield. This type of terrain cannot
handle the current acid deposition loadings.
At the present time transport has two well
documented effects in Eastern Canada and
New England: acidification of freshwater eco-
systems and a reduction in visibility, other, less
well documented effects include impacts on
terrestrial ecosystems .(especially high-alpine
forests), increased corrosivity of water sup-
plies, and potential links to human health.
impacts on Freshwater Systems — A
region-wide survey of headwater lakes and
streams shown on page 97 of the Appendix in-
dicates that every New England state has at
least some areas that are extremely sensitive;
and except for Vermont, very few areas that
are not sensitive. Separate lake surveys in each
of the New England states confirm the region-
wide survey.
The following examples are typical of the
problems that are occurring throughout New
England.
• Acidic lakes (pn less than 5) occur in every
New England state. For the majority of these
lakes, organic acids are believed to be respon-
sible for this acidity.
• Acids which control the pH in the Hubbard
Brook experimental forest streams-and else-
where are sulfate and nitrate, rather than the
usual-weak carbonic or organic acids, other
evidence indicates that the major strong
acids in some acidified lake waters are the
same mineral acids (sulfuric and nitric) found
in acid precipitation.
• Studies in the white Mountains of New
Hampshire and the Adirondacks of New York
indicate that soil leaching and mineral wea-
thering by acid precipitation lead to com-
paratively high concentrations of dissolved
aluminum in surface and ground water.
• The present rate of acid deposition in Maine
lakes (average 4.4 pH) could consume all of
the bicarbonate alkalinity in less than 20 years
(assuming a typical lake has a depth of 10
meters, an average bicarbonate alkalinity of
10 mg/1 and minimal additional buffering
capacity of the watershed.).
• A study of remote lakes in New Hampshire
-------
shows that chose lakes have experienced sig-
nificant decreases in alkalinity and pH over
the past 40 years.
• in Vermont, 17 lakes sometimes drop below
pH 5:14 of these are termed "critically acidi-
fied" and are showing negative alkalinity; an-
other 22 are "endangered," with alkalinity
less than 2 mg/L; another 60 are "potentially
susceptible," with alkalinity less than 10
mg/L.
• in a study of three Maine rivers, significant
acidity was measured in spite of an abnor-
mally small snowpack during the winter of
1980. Even though spring snowmelt was not a
major hydrologic event, the pH of two major
rivers declined to 6.0 (from a summer value of
over 7.0). The pH of a small tributary de-
creased to less than 5.0. All sites had very low
alkalinity at this time, so that any major
increase in acid, as from melting of a heavy
snowpack, could have severe consequences
for salmon fry in these streams.
• Water column sulfate levels in Quabbin Reser-
voir in Central Massachusetts have increased
from 1 mg/L in 1970 to 7 mg/L in 1979.
• A rise in sulfate concentration of 2 to 3 mg/L
has been noted in a large reservoir in Rhode
island from before 1965 to the present.
As a result of this acidification, the abun-
dance, production and growth of bacteria,
algae, fish, and amphibians has been reduced
and sensitive species have died off. Valuable
commercial and recreational fisheries have
been lost in certain areas, and more wide-
spread losses are anticipated if acidic precipita-
tion continues.
Examples of typical impacts on fisheries
follow.
• Headwater tributaries of at least five Atlantic
salmon rivers in New England are apparently
already sufficiently acidic to affect the sur-
vival of salmon fry (the most sensitive stage).
• Native brook trout in Maine have ceased
reproducing in small lakes over 2,000 feet in
elevation.
• A survey of seven alpine New Hampshire lakes
in 1980 documented the absence of fish in
stocked ponds with critically low PH.
• Fifteen years ago, the need for liming certain
stocked trout ponds on cape cod was recog-
nized in late winter and early spring.
Although natural population of yellow perch
were able to cope with springtime drops in
pH, acid sensitive trout were not able to
survive.
• Declines in spotted salamander populations
have been witnessed in eastern Massachu-
setts; egg mass mortality increased as pond
pH decreased. Embryonic mortality of both
spotted and Jefferson salamanders in con-
junction with acidification was noted in the
Connecticut River valley of Massachusetts.
Visibility — Another well documented
effect of transport is the regional reduction in
visibility. The transport of fine sulfate particles
reduces dispersion of light. This haze is further
aggravated by the naturally high relative
humidity of the region.
Examples of these problems follow.
• Visibility reduction in the Northeast is
strongly linked to regional episodes of high
sulfate concentrations, especially during the
summer.
• in non-urban locations in the Northeast, long
term studies have shown that visibility has
decreased 10-40% between 1953-55 and
1970-72, with 25-60% reductions occurring
during the summer. These results are sup-
ported by another study showing a 10-20%
decrease in northern New England's summer
visibility during the same period (a reduction
in visibility from 12 to 8 miles).
Terrestrial impacts — Preliminary studies
have demonstrated effects of acid deposition
on soils which could in turn affect forest
growth, some scientists feel that certain soils
may experience at least a short-term benefit
from the addition of anthropogenic nitrogen
compounds deposited from the atmosphere
(and some agricultural soils might benefit from
the addition of sulfur compounds). However,
scientists in both the U.S. and Canada are
concerned about the potential loss of forest
productivity resulting from prolonged
nutrient leaching, and the accumulation of
certain toxic metals from atmospheric
deposition.
Some observations on declines in forest
productivity and accumulation of toxic metals
in soils and forest ecosystems are as follows:
• Atmospheric sulfates overwhelm the natural
leaching processes of some New Hampshire
soils, causing perhaps a threefold increase in
the natural rate of nutrients and aluminum
leaching.
• The accelerated leaching of Ca, Mg, K, Mn, and
Zn has been documented along a transect
running from southern Vermont to the caspe
Peninsula, and correlates positively with the
acidity of precipitation in the area.
• Morbidity of red spruce (50 percent) and a
decrease in Vermont forest productivity over
the past 14 years have been associated with
acid and metal deposition. Lead, copper, and
zinc increased by 50 to 100 percent between
1965 and 1979. Higher increases were
observed in the higher altitudes.
• Research in Germany has associated damage
to 2Vz million acres of Central European
forest to impacts of acid deposition on the
productivity of forest soils and on plant
tissues.
16
-------
waiter Supplies — Acid rain also has the
potential for dissolving harmful elements in
soils and the water supply distribution system.
An EPA-funded study of the northeast has
found that many surface and groundwater
supplies are highly aggressive and capable of
dissolving metals from lead and copper dis-
tribution systems if not treated. Metals from
water supply sources have not been shown to
pose health risks. One potential exception con-
cerns persons undergoing kidney dialyses, in
which case high aluminum levels may be of
concern.
Transport of Toxic Metals
in addition to sulfates and nitrates, a variety
of other materials reach New'England through
the mechanism of long range transport. There
has been growing concern over the transport
and deposition of toxic metals into New
England, but little information is available on
the extent of the problem or potential
impacts.
Until recently, chemical analysis methods
could not accurately measure toxic metal con-
centrations that often are in the range of
billionths of a gram per cubic meter. This has
hindered research into the transport of toxic
metals. Approximate concentrations of the
metals are listed in Table A-4 in the Appendix.
The distribution of two of the trace metals are
depicted on page 98 of the Appendix.
Historically, the rate of metal deposition has
been low because of the low volatility of most
meta s. However, high-temperature anthropo-
genic processes (smelting and fossil-fuel com-
bustion) have substantially increased the rate
of emission of some metals, increased emis-
sions have produced increases in metal concen-
trations in the atmosphere most notably silver,
cadmium, copper, antimony, selenium, zinc
with smaller increases expected for chromium
and v/anadium.
Although actual data on these metals in
atmospheric deposition are limited, the
monitoring data available support these
expectations. Zinc, lead, copper, manganese,
silver, arsenic and vanadium are 30 to 200 times
more concentrated in rural, continental areas
than at remote areas such as the South Pole.
Other metals, antimony selenium, chromium,
and nickel, have concentrations that were 10 to
30 times greater in rural areas than in remote
areas.
Only lead and mercury are currently found in
some precipitation at levels greater than the
drinking water standard. Cadmium, copper,
mercury, lead and zinc can be present in
precipitation at levels higher than standards
deemed safe for other organisms.
Past Responses
• EPA has led an interagency National Acid Rain
Research Program, outlined in the National
Acid Precipitation Plan. From FY i960 to 1983,
EPA funding has increased from S5.6M to
S12M and the total federally funded program
from S11M to S22.5M. Key documents in ass-
essing the problem and proposed solutions
are in the EPA-ORD "Critical Assessment Docu-
ment" and the "US-Canada Memorandum of
intent on Transboundary Air Pollution."
• Region I has been working with the states
and interstate agencies under state-EPA
Agreements on acid rain related issues and
has been participating in the Northeast Task
Force on Acid Deposition (state air and water
directors and interstate air and water
agencies).
• Region I has been furnishing information to
the states, research community, and the pub-
lic from the National Acid Rain Research Pro-
gram, and, in turn, has been conveying inter-
ests and concerns of New England states to
the National Research Program.
• The Region has encouraged and funded state
programs to monitor acidic deposition and
the condition of surface and ground waters.
Barriers to overcome
• The Clean Air Act does not address long-range
transport phenomena.
• Manpower and funding are limited. Author-
ity, funding, and grants are available mainly
for research, not operating programs.
• Transport and deposition crisscross inter-
national boundaries, without respect for the
separate control programs and costs and
benefits to sovereign nations.
• interregional differences over costs and
benefits pose equity issues and forestall
consensus.
Expected Environmental Results
• Reduce total ambient concentrations and
deposition of sulfates, nitrates, and toxic
metals, improve overall visibility and reduce
adverse impacts on aquatic and 'terrestrial
ecosystems and health risks.
TO cite some attempts to estimate some
dollar costs mitigated, a study done for EPA
estimates the benefits from acid deposition
control to Minnesota and the 30 states east of
the Mississippi River to be approximately $5
billion per year. These costs include: materials
• $2 billion, forest ecosystems - S1.75 billion,
agriculture - $1 billion, aquatic ecosystems
-S250 million, health and water supply $100
million.
• The New England River Basins Commission has
estimated the cost of damage to aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems and materials in New
England and New York from acid deposition
to be S250 to $500 million per year, if other
secondary, future, a"nd less quantifiable
effects are included, the total may be as
much as $2.5 billion per year.
17
-------
18
• Reduce global atmospheric risks, posed by
cumulative pollution such as changes in glo-
bal atmospheric temperature.
• improve international relations.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: New Bedford
Harbor
New Bedford Harbor and the surrounding
environment is extensively contaminated with
PCBs. Technically and environmentally the New
Bedford situation is extraordinarily complex.
Multi-media contamination and exposure path-
ways include: ambient air; surface and ground-
waters; soils; sediments; food chain; and indus-
trial plant sites. New Bedford is a National
Priority List (NPL) site for Superfund action.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Provide typical program support for Super-
fund site.
Regional Actions
• Finalize the RAMP and submit funding alloca-
tion request to Headquarters. The final RAMP
should be completed in April, 1983.
• conduct remedial investigations and the
feasibility study (Rl/FS), during the summer of
1983.
• commence remedial actions at selected sub-
sites in the summer of 1984, based upon RI/FS
results.
• Take appropriate enforcement actions
against responsible parties if they do not
voluntarily participate in the Superfund
process.
• initiate a multi-faceted Community Relations
Program to maintain the Agency's credibility,
and to inform and involve the public in
planned actions. A successful program should
minimize opposition to selected remedial
alternatives, or at least allow the agency to
anticipate opposition and address areas of
concern before they become problematic.
• continue operation and development of
data management system developed for
New Bedford Harbor.
Other Actions
• Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering (MA DEQE) will coordinate
the actions of other state agencies involved
in the New Bedford cleanup.
• MA DEQE will take the lead in resolving
operational problems at the New Bedford
Sewage Treatment Facility.
DISCUSSION
Background
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were used
by two electrical capacitor manufacturers, the
Aerovox company and Cornell-Dubilier incor-
porated, in New Bedford, Massachusetts over a
period of time spanning several decades up
until the late 1970's. AS a result of poor disposal
practices, PCB contamination in the New
Bedford area is widespread.
Upland sites of contamination include Sulli-
van's Ledge and the New Bedford Municipal
Landfill, which received approximately 500,000
pounds of PCBs, mainly as reject capacitors.
(Figure A-L on page 98 of the Appendix) PCBs
were also directly discharged by the compa-
nies to surface waters resulting in high concen-
trations of PCBs in sediments. (Figures A-M and
A-N on pages 98 and 99 of the Appendix) Sedi-
ment concentrations in the Aerovox mudflats
range from 500 ppm to over 1000 ppm, with a
reported maximum value of 190,000 ppm.
Historically, the New Bedford wastewater
Treatment Facility received PCB contaminated
waste from the companies via their waste-
water discharges to the plant. Currently, an
estimated 200 to 700 pounds per year of PCBs
are being discharged from the Clark's point
outfall because of residual contamination in
the sewer lines. An unknown additional
amount is contributed from 27 combined
sewer overflows which discharge to the
Acushnet River and Buzzards Bay.
AS a resuit of direct and indirect discharges
of PCBs into the estuary, elevated levels of PCBs
in fish tissue have been reported. This led to a
fishing ban being imposed on over 18,000 acres
of the harbor. The Food and Drug Administra-
tion (FDA) has set a maximum limit of 5 ppm in
fish for human consumption. Migratory fish
taken from the area have levels as high as 16
ppm and bottom feeding fish, excluding eels,
up to 57 ppm. Lobster samples have been
reported as high as 51 ppm in the inner harbor.
The closing of large areas of commercial
fisheries has had an adverse impact on .the local
fishing industry. Other adverse impacts include
delaying proposed harbor development proj-
ects, delaying planned maintenance and devel-
opmental dredging projects, loss of recrea-
tional potential of the harbor, and possible
public health and welfare effects. There is also
concern for the presence of heavy metal con-
taminants in the New Bedford area. Although
little is currently known about their occurrence
and distribution, the history of heavy metals in
the area parallels that of PCBs and will, there-
fore, be included in future Superfund
investigations.
Past Responses
• Negotiated a Consent Agreement with
Cornell-Dubilier Electric (CDE) to take remedial
actions at their facility., CDE has completed
the major tasks outlined in the Agreement in
a timely fashion.
-------
• Negotiated a consent order with Aerovox
incorporated to characterize their site, sub-
mit a plan for on-site remedial actions, and
implement the plan. Aerovox has submitted
the plans for remedial actions, which are cur-
rent:ly under EPA and MA DEQUE review.
• Conducted a comprehensive multi-media
field investigation in the New Bedford area to
more clearly delineate the problem areas. .
Barriers to Overcome
• Given the extent and complexity of the site,
the time needed to investigate and imple-
ment remedial actions will probably exceed
the average for other superfund sites, it is
likely that the implementation phase may
not be complete when the comprehensive
Environmental Response compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) expires in 1985.
• There could be significant political and com-
munity relations problems in selecting
disposal sites for highly contaminated
dredge spoils, should dredging become a
selected remedial alternative. The Massachu-
setts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering has informally indicated that
there are no acceptable upland disposal sites.
TO date, the community has been silent on
this issue, however, if dredging is selected, it
is expected that community interest'will
intensify.
• A recent report by the State of Massachusetts
estimates that remedial actions at New
Bedford may cost 5130 million. Given the
reduirement for fund balancing in CERCLA, it
is possible that some remedial alternatives
will exceed the resources available in
Superfund and state matching funds.
• The problems of environmental complexity,
timing, and to some extent funding can be
overcome by dividing the area into specific
sub-sites which can be independently man-
aged. Each sub-site can have milestones for
remedial investigations, feasibility studies,
implementation and funding allocation re-
quests, while completion of all remedial
actions taken under this strategy will take
several years, the agency will be able to
demonstrate steady progress towards an
overall "cleanup" of the area.
Expected Environmental Results
A successful resolution of the problems in
the New Bedford area will have many positive
effect:; on the area including:
• Protecting the health and welfare of the
public.
• The return of commercial fishing to some of
the PCB impacted areas.
• Commencing previously proposed main-
tenance and developmental dredging
projects.
• Restoration of the recreational potential of
the harbor.
INTRODUCTION TO GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION ISSUES
IN NEW ENGLAND
New England's principal ground water
resources are contained in glacial deposits of
stratified sand and gravel situated primarily in
low lying areas adjacent to lakes, streams, and
swamps. These "aquifers" are irregularly dis-
tributed throughout the region, are relatively
thin (usually less than 200 feet thick), and are
characterized by considerable variation in their
size and potential yield. Because they are com-
monly overlain by less than 30 feet of per-
meable sandy soils, they are readily replen-
ished by rainfall and surface runoff and, in
turn, feed water into fractures in the underly-
ing bedrock and contribute to the level and
flow of nearby lakes and streams.
A substantial number of small public and pri-
vate water supplies obtain water from frac-
tured bedrock aquifers, which are especially
difficult to monitor and reclaim once
contaminated.
Approximately 20% of New England's popula-
tion (nearly 3 million people) depend on
ground water as their sole or principal source
of water supply. Moreover, 2,026 community
water systems (77%)-utilize ground or com-
bined ground and surface water sources. Near-
ly all individual and non-community (e.g.,
motel, restaurant, factory and campground)
supplies rely solely on ground water sources.
Historically, ground water quality in the
region has been considered excellent. Despite
localized problems with iron, manganese, and
corrosivity, underground sources have been
the preferred choice for homes, businesses,
and small communities seeking a high quality
source at modest cost. Over the past 10 years
however, there has been steadily mounting
evidence that New England's shallow aquifers
are vulnerable to contamination, initially by
fertilizers and highway deicing salts, and more
recently to a broad spectrum of potentially
carcinogenic synthetic organic compounds.
TO date, 62 community water systems in New
England (Figures A-o and A-T on pages 99-101 in
the Appendix) are known to have one or more
wells contaminated by organic chemicals, and
several of these have lost a substantial portion
or all of their available supply. Although some
monitoring of non-community and individual
supplies has been done, insufficient data are
available at this time to assess the magnitude
of contamination in these systems.
Major sources of ground water contamina-
tion in New England are grouped into the fol-
lowing four categories:,
• Solid and hazardous waste disposal;
• uncontrolled hazardous waste sites;
• Non-point sources (road salting, septic sys-
-------
terns, and underground chemical storage);
and
• Naturally occurring contamination (arsenic,
radon, and gross alpha radiation).
The contamination incidents caused by these
sources vary considerably in the frequency of
occurrence, duration, extent, and potential to
harm human health, in all cases, however, once
the resource is contaminated, it is both diffi-
cult and expensive to reclaim and may never be
restored to its original condition:
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Solid and
Hazardous waste Disposal
Leachate entering the ground water poses
an actual or potential danger because of the
nature of the wastes which typically have gone
into land disposal facilities. Many land disposal
facilities have in the past accepted hazardous
wastes from small quantity generators, in addi-
tion, commercial and household wastes often
contain small quantities of hazardous materials
(insecticides, paint, dry cleaning solvents, paint
remover, etc.) which, in aggregate, can be sig-
nificant. Disposal facilities designated to handle
hazardous waste, and which are required to
monitor ground water, are virtually all unlined.
Even where hazardous wastes are not a con-
cern, leachate can casue odor, taste, or other
water quality problems in a previously suitable
drinking water source.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• strengthen locational standards for land
disposal facilities. Current regulations do not
address the conditions and uses, or potential
uses, of underlying aquifers, under the cur-
rent RCRA regulations, it is possible to site a
land disposal facility above a drinking water
source.
• increase research on solid waste leachate
characteristics and their potential threat to
human health and the environment because
sanitary landfills may pose a substantial
threat to ground water. Design standards
should be developed to ensure ground water
protection.
• Strengthen delisting regulations. Current
regulations do not require testing for all haz-
ardous constituents (HO in a waste before
reaching a deiisting decision, under current
regulations wastes containing environmen-
tally significant concentrations of HCs may
still be delisted. These wastes may then be
disposed of in sanitary landfills.
• Consider banning certain wastes from land
disposal facilities when they are found to be
non-biodegradable or otherwise remain
harmful over long periods of time. Since all
wastes will eventually be released into the
environment from these facilities, persist-
ently hazardous wastes should not be land
disposed.
State Actions
• States should act to protect the ground
water where federal regulation is absent or
deficient.
DISCUSSION
Background
As defined by the Resource conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), there are more than 1,000
solid waste land disposal facilities in New
England which are or have been used primarily
for the disposal of municipal, commercial and
industrial wastes. One hundred and sixty-three
sites, roughly 90% of those inventoried, were
identified as "open dumps" in an EPA-funded
Open Dump inventory (ODD conducted in the
late 1970s. Of these, 23. in New England were
identified as having ground water problems.
This number is deceptively low because some
states did not include ground water in their
inventory since monitoring data and enforce-
able state ground water regulations were
unavailable.
Many additional landfills may contribute to
ground water contamination because: a) some
Region I landfills are located in abandoned
gravel pits. The bases of these sites are usually
within a few feet of the water table. Other
landfills are rn equally unsuitable locations over
fractured bedrock; and b) because nearly all
these landfills are unlined. As a result, little or
nothing exists to prevent leachate from
migrating into ground water aquifers.
There are about 100 hazardous waste land
treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) facilities in
Region I that are required to monitor ground
water, virtually all existing hazardous waste dis-
posal facilities are unlined. This makes some
degree of ground water contamination likely.
There are several known cases of storage facili-
ties causing ground water contamination, e.g.,
solvent reclaimers with spill problems.
Past Responses
Many of the ground water degradation prob-
lems are the result of inexperience and lack of
information:
• Government officials and the public were not
aware that wastes placed in a land disposal
facility undergo reactions that affect the
potential release of materials to the environ-
ment, common engineering practice relied
heavily on a design objective of keeping the
facility dry rather than limiting adverse hy-
drogeologic situations. '
• Facilities were often sited without regard to
ground water flow. The state-of-the-art for
20
-------
collection of these data was not fully de-
veloped, and the costs of gathering the data
were high.
• Virtually no facilities were designed and
built with liners or leachate collection sys-
tem:;. Leachate collection and treatment
technology is currently under development.
• Existing poorly sited facilities were often used
beyond their design capacity because
expanding them or siting new facilities is
costly and often politically unpalatable.
• Developments in air and water programs
created pollution control residues (sludges)
that are dumped in land disposal facilities
without comparable environmental controls.
Barriers to Overcome
• Ground water clean-up operations are
extremely costly and involve technology
which is often not well known or developed.
in addition, there are no financial require-
ments that ensure that the facility operator
will nave funds to pay for the clean-up.
• The scope of a hazardous waste facility per-
mit in accordance with the federal RCRA
regulations is not always broad enough to
address all the hazardous materials which
may threaten ground water (e.g., waste oil,
materials recycled for "beneficial use," PCB's,
etc.).
• Regulations provide for the use of "Alternate
Concentration Limits" (ACL). These are site-
specific limits proposed and justified by the
owner/operator to obtain a RCRA disposal
permit which allow a discharge of hazardous
constituents to ground water. Evaluation of
ACL':; by EPA and the states will be complex,
resource intensive, and potentially subject to
strong public opposition.
• Some existing hazardous waste disposal facili-
ties may be located in saturated zones, e.g.,
belcw the water table. After the facilities are
closed, long-term ground water contamina-
tion may continue. A leachate plume could
persist for a very long period, may extend
over great distances and do significant
dan-age.
• some waste streams could fall outside the
scope of a RCRA permit (i.e., be delisted)
because they are not "Extraction Procedure
Toxic". However, leachate from those wastes
may exceed the National interim Primary
Drinking water Regulation levels. This could
be interpreted by the public as inconsistent
behavior by EPA.
• whether or not Superfund sites receive RCRA
permits for on-site treatment and disposal is
sure to cause considerable public reaction.
• At present, there is virtually no EPA oversight
or financial support of state solid waste pro-
grams. The phasing out of Subtitle D grants
means that there is no federal financial incen-
tive and seriously limits resources available
for effective and consistent solid waste man-
agement in the states. The likely effect of this
resource reduction will be that most landfills
in New England will continue to pose a threat
to ground water quality.
• Even when an old, substandard dump is
closed, problems can persist. Many landfill
sites may be as dangerous as uncontrolled
sites covered by Superfund, since we do not
know what was disposed or the extent of
contamination, in fact, many municipal land-
fills are on the Superfund priority list.
Whether these sites will be promptly cleaned
up is questionable since municipal sites re-
quire at least a 50% cost match by state and
local governments. Capping is often not
effective because the facility base is below
the water table or sufficiently impermeable
cover material is not available.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Uncontrolled
Hazardous waste Sites
New England has 38 sites on the National
Priority List (NPU developed for Superfund. The
ranking process used -to develop this list ass-
esses ground water as one critical pathway. All
38 NPL sites have known or potential ground
water impacts.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Aggressively pursue research into health and
environmental impacts of the hazardous
wastes most commonly found in ground
water (usually volatile organics).
• Establish criteria on levels of contaminants in
ground water which should trigger super-
fund involvement.
• A national inventory of types of contami-
nants found in ground water should also be
established and priority compounds
identified.
• Establish clear policy on the use of CERCLA
funding to provide either temporary or
permanent alternative water supplies when
primary drinking water is contaminated.
• Establish a national technology transfer pro-
gram for ground water investigation and
restoration.
Regional Actions
• Establish a regional inter-media coordination
team to better utilize expertise in various
program areas dealing with contaminated
ground water. The functions of this team
could include: establishment of ground
water clean-up goals; technology transfer;
assessment of risk; and gathering informa-
tion from state and local governments.
21
-------
DISCUSSION
Background
Under the Superfund program, New England
is addressing the most critical problems asso-
ciated with abandoned wastes: contaminated
water supplies, soil, air, and surface and ground
waters. Because of its glacial geology, New
England has soil types especially susceptible to
the leaching of hazardous wastes through the
surficial geology to the bedrock layer. The soil
tends to have high porosity and little coher-
ence. Coupled with soil types that have a predi-
lection towards absorbing liquid hazardous
wastes, the ground water table (subsurface
water) tends to be high in New England. This
feature allows foreign materials such as spent
solvents and other industrial contaminants to
quickly penetrate the soil layer and reach the
ground water.
Contaminated water supplies present one of
the most serious threats to human health at
uncontrolled sites. A primary focus of Super-
fund is to identify the most serious sources of
contamination and to mitigate the hazard.
Past Responses
• Fourteen of the thirty-eight Superfund NPL
sites have contributed to contamination of
drinking water supplies.
• A 20-acre slurry wall and clay cap has been in-
stalled at the Sylvester site in Nashua, New
Hampshire to limit further ground water con-
tamination. A treatment system will be in-
stalled to treat the ground water within the
contained structure, using Superfund
monies, municipal water has been extended
to many area homes with private wells.
• A 9-square mile hydrogeologic study of
woburn, Massachusetts assessed the contami-
nation of an aquifer which once supplied two
major municipal wells. Feasibility studies on
aquifer restoration are underway.
• Ground water contamination plumes have
been studied at more than half of the NPL
sites, including:
Solvents Recover/, CT
lndustriplex-128, MA
Re-Solve, MA
Silresim, MA
Croveland wells, MA
w. R. Grace. MA
wens c & H, MA
wintnrop Landfill. ME
McKin, ME
Sylvester. N.H.
orati & Goss, N.H.
Dover Landfill, N.H.
Auburn Road Landfill, N.H.
Picillo, RI
western Sand & Gravel, Ri
Davis, Rl
Peterson • Puritan, Rl
Forestdale, Rl
L & RR, Rl
Pine St. Canal, VT
22
• Emergency water supplies have been pro-
vided at Londonderry and Milford, New
Hampshire.
Barriers to Overcome
• There is widespread lack of understanding of
clean-up technologies and the degree of
clean-up attainable in an aquifer restoration
program.
• Data currently available on health effects of
many hazardous compounds is insufficient to
set standards for clean-up and/or aquifer
restoration.
• Public response to utilization of drinking
water containing any level of hazardous con-
taminant is usually negative. The public does
not trust government's ability to establish
"how clean is clean" criteria.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Non-Point Sources
Although not as dramatic as contamination
from industrial lagoons, landfills, and uncon-
trolled sites, contamination from non-point
sources is by far the most pervasive threat to
ground water quality in New England. Contami-
nation of individual wells and public water
sources by road salts, septic effluent., and leaks
from underground storage tanks is widespread
in the region, and the potential for future
problems with these diffuse, hard-to-regulate
sources is enormous.
RECOMMENDATIONS.
Headquarters Actions
• Broaden the scope of current ground water
monitoring programs to include identifica-
tion and tracking of non-point source con-
tamination problems.
• Provide increased flexibility in the expendi-
ture of ground water program funds to
enable the states to address non-point
source problems.
• Expedite release of the proposed Ground
water Protection Policy to support states cur-
rently engaged in ground water strategy
development.
• Commit additional resources to increasing
public awareness of non-point source con-
tamination problems.
• Support additional research on improved
technologies for highway deicing, subsurface
waste disposal and underground storage of
chemicals.
Regional Actions
• utilize program grants to expand state
laboratory and data management capabilities
in support of broader ground water monitor-
ing efforts.
• Encourage state ground water programs to
direct additional attention and resources to
identifying and alleviating non-point source
contamination problems.
• Encourage states that do not have compre-
hensive ground water protection to develop
them in cooperation with local officials and
interested citizens.
-------
State Actions
• Seek timely delegation of federal ground
water protection responsibilities to unify
ground water authority in the state program.
DISCUSSION
Background
in Massachusetts alone, 78 public water sup-
plies currently exceed the State drinking water
standard for sodium of 20 milligrams per liter
(mg/l), and several contain levels above 100
mg/l. The majority of these supplies are
obtained from ground water sources. The
number of individual wells in New England con-
taminated by road salts is unknown, however
the problem is common enough in New
Hampshire that a special unit is maintained in
the Si:ate Department of Transportation to
replace wells rendered unfit to drink by high-
way deicing salts.
Even less information is available on the num-
ber of wells contaminated by the improper
design, location, and maintenance of residen-
tial arid commercial septic tanks. Problems
with tastes and odors, elevated nitrate levels,
and the presence of organic chemicals used in
cleaning agents or septic tank additives occur
freauently in areas where homes and/or busi-
nesses are located close together over a shal-
low water table and sandy soils.
in the past two years, 18 incidents of gasoline
contamination involving eight community
ground water sources and over 75 private wells
have been reported to Region I. Even trace
amounts of gasoline can render a source
aesthetically undrinkable and expose water
consumers to organic constituents such as
benzene, toluene, and methane derivatives.
it should be apparent from this discussion
that very little data are available from which to
judge the full extent of non-point source con-
tamination in New England, state water system
supervision programs routinely monitor the
quality of public (community and non-commu-
nity) ground water sources and respond to
some of the larger-scale problems reported by
local officials and property owners. But very
few individual supplies are tested regularly,
and it would appear that a large number of
incidents either go undetected (e.g., low level
sodium or septic contamination) or are settled
locally (through a Board of Health order or
private legal action) without ever coming to
the attention of state or federal officials.
Past Responses
Because road salting is under the direct con-
trol of state and local governments, some pro-
gress h;js been made in eliminating this source
of contamination. AS people have become
more aware of sodium's adverse health effects
and elevated levels have, been found in some
community water supplies, pressure has in-
creased on state and local highway depart-
ments to be more careful in storing and using
deicing salts.
All six New England states have taken steps to
cover or relocate storage piles situated near
public water supply sources and have modified
roadside drainage patterns, salt/sand ratios,
application rates and procedures, or spreading
equipment to reduce the amount of salt
getting into underlying aquifers. Research into
alternative deicing agents has been con-
ducted, but no cost-effective substitute for salt
has yet been developed for widespread use.
Several states and regional planning agencies
have used water quality management planning
funds to assist local officials in identifying and
protecting water supply aquifers, with
somewhat mixed results. The insistence of
drivers and highway officials on maintaining
bare pavement during stormy weather and a
general lack of appreciation for the possible
impacts of salting on local water sources con-
tinue to hinder progress in many areas in New
England.
Efforts to control contamination from septic
systems and underground storage tanks have
begun more recently and moved more slowly
than those directed at salt contamination, in
large part, this is due to local concerns about
the legal and political ramifications of
imposing restrictions on land use and private
property rights.
Five New England states (Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, Rhode island, and Vermont)
have used EPA funds to map aquifers and
recharge areas, and Connecticut has adopted
legislation controlling underground storage of
chemicals. Regional planning agencies in all six
states have offered assistance to local officials
in the form of technical information and
model zoning by-laws and health ordinances.
To date, however, only a small number of
forward-looking communities have imple-
mented and enforced these protection
measures.
Barriers to Overcome
The causes of non-point source problems
outlined above have a great deal in common.
Certainly New England's glacial geology, i.e., its
shallow water tables and generally permeable
soils, is an important factor, as is the tremen-
dous increase in automobile ownership and
use over the past 30 years, with its direct
impact on road maintenance procedures,
suburban growth, and demand for petroleum
products. But the underlying cause of each of
these problems is a widespread lack of under-
standing of the region's, geologic limitations
and a failure to recognize that many small dis-
charges over a period of time will someday
create a problem of sizable proportions.
23
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Naturally
Occurring contamination
Two naturally occurring substances, arsenic
and radon, have appeared in public and private
water supply sources in New England with suffi-
cient frequency and at sufficient concentra-
tions to qualify them as emerging ground
water contamination problems. Elevated levels
of gross alpha radiation in some public supplies
are also a matter of increasing concern to state
health officials.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Support research into the nationwide occur-
rence of arsenic and radon in public and
private ground water supplies and the poten-
tial impact on public health.
• consider including a maximum contaminant
level for radon in the Revised Primary Drink-
ing water Regulations.
• Reevaluate the validity of the primary drink-
ing water standard for gross alpha radiation
when violations are not attributable to the
presence of radium.
State Actions
• investigate the occurrence of arsenic, radon,
and gross alpha radiation in public and pri-
vate supplies where geologic conditions are
suitable for such contamination.
DISCUSSION
Background
During 1981, Region I cooperated with the
State of New Hampshire in a study of arsenic
levels in over 1300 public and private water sup-
ply wells in nine New Hampshire communities.
Although very few community water sources
were found to be contaminated, 10-12% of the
smaller individual sources tested contained
arsenic in amounts greater than the 0.05 mg/l
national drinking water standard. Some levels
ranged as high as 0.37 mg/l, more than seven
times the standard. High concentrations of
arsenic occurred predominantly in deep bed-
rock wells, appeared to be randomly distri-
buted throughout the study area, and were
also observed in two Massachusetts towns
more than 40 miles away. The source of con-
tamination was determined to be arsenic bear-
ing minerals occurring naturally in bedrock
fractures supplying water to the affected wells.
From 1978 to 1980, researchers at the uni-
versity of Maine-orono conducted an extensive
study of the occurrence of radon-222, a radio-
active gas, in public and private ground water
supplies throughout the state. Data collected
from 2,000 water samples showed levels in pub-
lic water supplies ranging from 200 to 11,000
pico-Curies per liter (pci/l) and in individual
home supplies from 20 to 180,000 pCi/l, values
two orders of magnitude greater than any pre-
viously reported in the United States. These
high levels are of concern because radon is a
human respiratory carcinogen, and it has been
shown that up to 95% of the radon gas in water
used for showering, dish washing, and clothes
washing is lost to air in the home.
Both of these problems result from the
mineral composition of bedrock into which
water wells have been drilled. Arsenic occurs in
association with sulfide minerals, such as pyrite
and pyrrhotite. Radon is associated with peg-
matites found in certain granite formations.
Because these contaminants have been re-
ported in ground water supplies at several loca-
tions outside New England and because similar
geologic conditions are found throughout the
country, additional study of both problems is
warranted.
The occurrence of gross alpha radiation in
concentrations exceeding the 15 pCI/l national
drinking water standard is also a problem of
unknown dimensions in New England ground
waters. The State of Maine has reported at least
six community water supplies exceeding the
limit, and New Hampshire is believed to have a
similar problem. Limited testing has been done
to identify the radionucjide(s) causing the con-
tamination without success — though radium,
uranium, and radon have been ruled out as
possible sources. Preliminary evidence indi-
cates this level of gross alpha exposure may not
significantly affect the health of individuals
consuming the water. Because considerable
trouble and expense is involved in replacing
wells which exceed the standard, EPA should
re-evaluate the validity of the 15 pci/l limit
when a violation is not related to the presence
of radium, and consider modifying the stan-
dard in the Revised Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.
INTRODUCTION TO ENERGY ISSUES IN
NEW ENGLAND
New England's energy situation has changed
dramatically since the early 1970s when aggre-
gate energy consumption was projected to rise
at 4.4% per year and when almost 80% of the
fuel for that energy came from oil. The rapid
rise in oil prices during the 70s had a severe
impact on New England since almost 80% of its
oil was imported, principally from OPEC
sources.
New England has responded by both
reducing its energy demand and by switching
to less expensive sources of fuel. Studies
conducted to date indicate that conservation
is occurring far more rapidly than previously
expected. Between 1978 and 1980, gross
energy demand declined 6.5% from 3325
-------
trillion BTU's to 3110 trillion BTU's; during the
same period, real personal income increased
by 4.(5%. Coal, wood, hydropower, and otner
non-oil fuels began contributing larger
percemtages of the energy supply. For
example, residential and industrial wood use is
estimated to nave increased by 24% between
1978 and 1980. Where it has not been possible
to eliminate the use of oil completely,
consumers are obtaining government
approval to switch to lower-cost high sulfur oil,
coal-oil mixtures, or "refined" oil.
Of particular importance is the change that
has occurred in the pattern of electricity con-
sumption, in the early 1970s annual growth
rates for electricity consumption were 7%.
(Figure A) in contrast, electricity sales in 1981
totaled 77,959 million kilowatt hours, an
increase of less than .5% over 1980 and 1.1%
more than in 1979. The peak demand in New
England occurs in winter, and the 1981-82
seasonal peak occurred in January with a
demchd of 15,702,000 kilowatts. New England's
generating capacity of 21,653,000 kilowatts
provided a reserve margin of 38% of the peak
load. This reserve margin is much greater than
in the early 70s.
FIGURE A
NET ENERGY GENERATED IN NEW ENGLAND
FIGURE B
AVERAGE COSTS OF FOSSIL FUELS
CONSUMED
m
z
legend
a COAL
S. OIL
O e*5
1971 1972 197] 1974 1979 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Energy sources for generating electricity
have also changed. (Figure C) in the early 70s,
oil accounted for between 68%-72% of the
electricity generated, in 1981, it had dropped
to 53.6%. Nuclear power's contribution in-
creased from 14.4% in 1971 to over 30% by
1981. Coal contributed about 10% of the elec-
tricity generated as the 70s began. That figure
dropped by more than half as many plants
switched to oil, increased and then dropped
again as a number of plants received tem-
porary variances to burn coal during the OPEC
oil embargo, and then began increasing again
in the late 70s as units began permanent con-
version to coal, in 1981, coal supplied 5.8% of
the fuel used by electrical generation, other
fuel sources include hydro (about 6%) and gas
(about 1%).
FIGURE C
ELECTRICITY GENERATED IN NEW ENGLAND
IMO 1942
1946 1948 1770 1972 T974 1976 1978 T9SO 1982
Legend
i .U.1..H
increased fuel costs account for a large
measure of this decreased demand, in 1971,
the cost for oil, the primary fuel for electrical
generation in New England, was 54.3 cents per
million BTU. By 1976, those costs more than
tripled to 186.7 cents and by 1981 they were
510.9 cents. Costs of other fuels also increased,
but at a much slower rate. (Figure B) Current oil
prices are leveling off or decreasing somewhat.
197J 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
t£«B
2 ""«_»_'»
I "UM'-l
Several initiatives may change the future fuel
mix even further. These include:
More Coal conversions — The trend toward
increased reliance on coal will continue as
more public utility units receive approval to
-------
reconvert. Four plants (nine units) have already
converted and another six or so may follow.
Higher Sulfur Oil — One related trend is for
utilities to seek relaxations to burn lower cost
high sulfur oil. For some units, this is a first step
towards a coal conversion.
Purchased Power — New England imports
about 5% of its electrical power from Canada.
This amount is almost certain to increase in
coming years. Hydro-Quebec and the New En-
gland Power Pool have entered into a pre-
liminary agreement for sales of 33,000 gigawatt
hours over 11 years, starting in 1986.
Nuclear — New England currently has seven
operating nuclear units with a combined ca-
pacity of about 4,400 MW. Although a number
of proposed units have been cancelled in
recent years, 3 more are planned to be on line
before 1990.
Alternative Fuels — A variety of incentives
have fostered interest in alternative fuels,
including hydropower and synfuels. The rela-
tive contribution of these fuels in the future
will depend greatly on the price of oil. The
synfuels industry, for example, has all but
ended in New England, any resurgence of activ-
ity in this area will depend on higher oil prices.
Although all activities directed toward
Activity
1. Coal Conversion
2. Sulfur Relaxations
3. DCS Exploration
4. Hydropower
Development
5. Wood Combustion
6. Miscellaneous
TABLE 2
ENERGY ACTIVITIES IN NEW ENGLAND
Description
Conversion of power plants from
oil to coal. About 10 plans with
up to 3 units each possible.
Relaxed sulfur emission limits for
either individual sources or
source categories. Some states
have linked these relaxations to
energy conservation measures.
Exploration for petroleum in the
Georges Bank area by a small
number of exploratory rigs.
Potential for oil or gas develop-
ment.
Renovation of old dams or con-
struction of new dams to gener-
ate hydropower. Generally less
than 5 MW.
Residential and industrial use of
wood as a substitute for other
fuels.
Use of waste oil, coal oil mix,
construction of new transmission
lines, peat combustion, etc.
Impacts
Air: Possible short term increases
in'TSP before new control
equipment is installed. Increases
in SOj emissions for plants
burning low sulfur oil. Increased
fugitive TSP emissions.
Water: Possible contamination
from ash disposal, particularly
with plants using wet sluicing
systems.
Land: Increased solid waste from
ash disposal.
Air: Increased S02 emissions.
Water: Possible impacts on fish-
eries and benthic organisms from
discharges. If developed,
possible impacts from chronic or
acute oil spills.
Water: Possible reduced flows
from diversions or impound-
ments.
Air: Increased paniculate, CO
and organic emissions.
Water/Land: Impacts from in-
creased logging.
Various
26
-------
energy consumption and production have sig-
nificant environmental impacts, Region rs ac-
tivities have been limited to the areas dis-
cussed below. However, changes in other
patterns of energy use may have significant
impacts as well (for example, see indoor air
pollution section, page 80).
Table 2 provides an overview of some of the
more important environmental impacts of
energy use.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Coal Conversions
Region I has a number of oil burning utility
powerplants that have converted or are plan-
ning to convert to coal. These conversions can
cause a variety of permanent or temporary
impacts to the air and water. The region does
not have adequate resources to oversee these
conversions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• CAA Revision — Evaluate the need to recom-
mend that the current Clean Air Act deadline
of December 31, 1985 for delaying compli-
ance under a DCO be extended to permit con-
versions beyond that date.
• sulfur variability — Develop a sound and
manageable policy for regulating sulfur emis-
sions from coal burning that takes into
account the sulfur variability of coal.
• Resources — Provide adequate resources for
regional issuance and oversight of coal con-
version orders.
DISCUSSION
Background
Approximately 40 fossil fuel electric utility
powerplants in New England together have a
generating capacity of over 12,000 MW. Until
recently, almost all burned oil, although many
began service as coal burning units. The rapid
rise in oil prices in 1973 and 1979 forced many
utilities to consider switching back to coal as a
primary fuel. Although oil prices are now pro-
jected to remain stable for the next few years,
the price of oil is still about twice as much as
coal, and the financial incentives for conver-
sion are still large.
Non-economic factors also play a role in con-
verting plants from oil to coal. Since 1974, the
Department of Energy has had the authority to
issue conversion orders to utilities with coal
capable plants. The current conversion pro-
gram is essentially voluntary, but DOE still
prepare:; an environmental impact statement
on the conversions for which it issues orders.
Conversion to coal raises a variety of environ-
mental, engineering, and financial problems.
One of the main environmental impacts is the
large increase in TSP emissions caused by coal
combustion, emissions that must be reduced
to allowable levels by installation of electo-
static precipitators. Large amounts of fly ash
are generated which must be stored and dis-
posed of and can impact surface and ground-
water quality. Burning coal can also increase
sulfur dioxide emissions, particularly if the
plant had been burning a a low sulfur oil.
utilities must address other engineering
issues such as coal unloading, storage, and
handling, and any boiler modifications that are
required. Although these modifications can be
expensive, the cost savings to consumers in the
form of lower fuel adjustments can be large as
well. New England Power company estimates
that conversion of its Brayton Point plant is •
saving about $169 million and 12 million barrels
of oil per year.
EPA's review of these conversions is deter-
mined by whether or not the projected emis-
sions using coal exceed the SIP emission limits
that apply to oil burning, if a plant can convert
"in compliance" with no emissions changes
greater than current limits allow, no EPA air
review may be required. Many utilities,
however, have decided to take advantage of a
provision in the Clean Air Act that allows EPA to
grant a Delayed compliance order (DCO) to cer-
tain converting plants. A DCO allows these
plants to temporarily exceed emission limits
while they are burning coal and before new
TSP control equipment (an electostatic precipi-
tator) is installed. Table 3 provides an over-
view of these emission changes in the plants
most likely to convert.
Past Responses
• EPA has issued 4 DCO's for New England
powerplants. The largest plant to convert is
the New England Electric Power Company's
Brayton Point plant in Fall River,
Massachusetts, which received a DCO in 1979.
Three of Brayton's units, with a total capacity
of 1150 MW, are now burning 2.5 million tons
of coal/year. Both TSP and S02 emissions are
averaging well below regulatory limits.
Barriers to Overcome
• The most significant barrier to successfully
processing and overseeing these conversions
is the lack of regional resources. There are in-
sufficient resources both for issuing orders
and for enforcing their conditions once
issued.
Expected Environmental Results
• Air — DCO's can result in significant short-
term increases in TSP emissions. The limited
experience so far shows that these emissions
can decrease significantly below regulatory
limits once new control equipment is in-
stalled. S02 emissions should average about
27
-------
TABLE 3
COAL CONVERSIONS IN NEW ENGLAND: EMISSIONS INVENTORY
(TONS OF EMISSIONS/YR.)
PLANT
Name lUnit »)
Town/ State
Brayton Point (1.2.3)
Somerset. MA
/
Salem Harbor (1.2.3)
Salem. MA
Mt. Tom (11
Holyoke. MA
West Springfield 13)
West Springfield. MA
Canal ID
Sandwich. MA
Mystic 14.5.61
Boston, MA
Somerset 17,8)
Somerset. MA
Bridgeport Harbor 13)
Bridgeport. CT
Schiller (4,5.6)
Portsmouth. NH
South Street 1121. 122)
Providence. Rl
OIL
Allowable Emissions
SO, TSP
100.950 5.006
30,709 1.523
13.803 684
11.204 566
52.604 2.609
18.234 1,389
20. 105 997
17.124 3,114
15.213 2,168
7,789 706
. OIL
Actual Emissions
SO, TSP
68,077 -1.608
19,272 494
10.576 286
4.787 72
31.005 515
7.536 342
11.982 747
NA 273
6,643 NA
2.971 68
COAL
During OCO
Expected Emissions
SO, TSP
(16.4301 13,4661
—8 months only
-Units 1 + 2 only
16.994 2.624
10,192 1,353
-
- -
-
NA 4.056
-
-
-
COAL
Post DCO
Expected Emissions
SO, TSP
59.080 597
16,994 1.163
10.192 279
-
-
-
NA 811
_
-
-
23
the same for chose plants that had burned
high sulfur oil. Converted plants that had
burned low sulfur oil will emit more S02.
water — Runoff and leachate from coal piles
and ash disposal operations can degrade local
ground and surface water quality. These im-
pacts can be reduced by collecting and
treating runoff and by installing dry ash
handling systems. Ash will still require
disposal in landfills.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Sulfur Relaxations
The rising cost of oil has caused many states
to seek relaxations in their sulfur in fuel
regulations to allow industries to burn lower
cost, higher sulfur oil. These relaxations will
cause an increase in S02 emissions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Priorities For Modeling — Develop national
priority categories of sulfur relaxations based
on their severity, and allow regions to model
those relaxations accordingly. This would per-
mit regions to concentrate modeling re-
sources on the most significant relaxations.
• Resources — Provide regions with adequate
resources for processing sulfur-related SIP
revisions.
• Regional Rulemaking — Allow regions to
approve proposed rulemaking notices and
minor final rulemaking notices for sulfur
relaxations. Allow regions to handle all SIP
revisions in attainment areas (for other pol-
lutants as well). This would shorten the time
for approving relaxations.
• Quantify Emissions — For all sulfur
relaxations, quantify actual and allowable
increases in S02 emissions. Require all
relaxations to be compatible with the acid
precipitation policy (see page 14).
Regional Actions
• Track actual and expected emission changes
resulting from sulfur relaxations. Ensure sul-
fur relaxations are consistent with national
acid rain policy.
DISCUSSION
Background
The most widespread response to increased
oil prices has been for industries to seek relaxa-
tions of state sulfur in fuel regulations. These
relaxations (in the form of revisions to State Im-
plementation Plans) permit industries to
switch from low sulfur oil to cheaper high
sulfur oil. while still expensive, the price of high
sulfur oil has remained significantly below that
of low sulfur oils (Figure D). Although these re-
-------
laxacions require a modeled attainment dem-
onstration that shows ambient standards will
not 6e violated, the result is still an increase in
S07 emissions from affected sources.
FIGURE D
AVERAGE NUMBER 6
RESIDUAL FUEL OIL PRICES
i-
23-
Z
o
1
CJ 20
I.OX SULFUR
1975
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
New England's sulfur regulations vary both
among states and among industrial categories
and geographic areas within states. Massachu-
setts, for example, has a number of distinct sul-
fur enission limits. The metropolitan Boston
area has the most restrictive limits, allowing 1%
S for sources larger than 2.5 billion BTU/hr (typi-
cally, a large power plant with a large stack),
and .[>% S for other sources. Outside the metro-
politan area, large sources are allowed 2.2% S
oil while smaller sources are allowed 1%. There
are also individual emission limits for certain
specific sources.
A number of changes to these regulations oc-
curred in recent years. Some recent revisions
and estimated changes in S02 emissions are
shown on page 101 in the Appendix. Because
these changes are revisions to state implemen-
tation Plans, they all require regional and Head-
quarters EPA review and approval.
Two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut,
have received generic approval to process sul-
fur relaxations to encourage energy conserva-
tion. A third state, Rhode island, is considering
a similar measure. One other common variance
has been for power plants to receive sulfur
relaxations as a first step towards a coal conver-
sion. For example, EPA is reviewing a proposed
revision for two Boston Edison plants that
would allow them to burn 2.2% S oil. This would
be about equivalent to the sulfur emissions
from 1.5% sulfur coal. Similar types of source
specific and generic sulfur relaxations can be
expected in the future.
Past Responses
• in the past, the region has processed a large
number of SO, relaxations.
Barriers to Overcome
• unnecessarily duplicative SIP processing re-
quirements.
Expected Environmental Results
• Maintenance of the S02 NAAQS. Uncertain
local impacts on acid precipitation.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Hydroelectric
Power Development
The development of hydroelectric power on
breached or new dams involving significant
diversions of streamflow and/or increased
impoundments, creates conflicts with other
competing uses of water resources, such as
anadromous fisheries, inland coldwater
fisheries, white water recreation and
protection of scenic river systems.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Develp general policies and criteria for
minimum streamflow release downstream of
hydroelectric projects.
Regional Actions
• Seek development and maintenance of
streamflows adequate to attain and maintain
the assigned water quality classification.
• Ensure a stream environment adequate to
support stream uses.
• Protect the public investment in wastewater
treatment facilities by ensuring flow condi-
tions compatible with the design of these
facilities.
• Request site specific instream studies when
necessary to determine appropriate flow.
Other Actions
The developer of a hydroelectric project
should:
• Provide fish ladders to transport fish around
dams.
• Provide screening and changes in turbine
design.
• Aerate impounded water before it is released
downstream.
• Release impounded water at various levels to
downstream receiving waters to improve
dissolved oxygen levels downstream.
• implement land management practices
within the impoundment watershed.
• Evaluate alternative sites for constructing
hydro facilities with careful analysis and
preplanning.
DISCUSSION
Background
Hydroelectric power has become a major
source of energy in New England. The Federal
-------
Power Act was enacted to establish firmly the
principle of federal regulation of water power
projects and to set forth a national policy on
the use and development of water power on
public lands and in navigable streams, it author-
ized the Federal Power commission, now the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
to issue licenses to construct and operate
hydroelectric facilities in surface waters over
which congress has jurisdiction under its
commerce powers.
A study of hydropower expansion conducted
by the New England River Basin commission
(NERBC) identified 320 existing or breached
dam sites in New England which could be retro-
fitted to generate hydroeiectricity at an esti-
mated cost of S.125 per kilowatt hour or less.
These sites, the most economically attractive
alternatives from an inventory of over 10,000
dams, were analyzed using a computer model
which assumed site development would be
privately financed at an interest rate of fifteen
percent. Estimates of the total generating
capacity which could be developed at these
320 sites ranges from 300 to 600 megawatts and
would save 4.5% of current oil consumption.
The study also identified 44 sites, at which no
dams currently exist, where power could be
generated for an estimated cost of S.115 per
kilowatt hour or less. This estimate of gener-
ating cost, however, does not include the cost
of transmission lines and makes various
assumptions. The estimate of total generating
capacity which could be developed at the 44
sites ranges from 270 to 475 megawatts and
would save an additional 3.5% of currrent oil
consumption for a total savings of 9%.
Past Responses
• EPA has required, except as limited by inflow,
that all structures capable of modifying flows
be required to provide, immediately below
the structure, a minimum instantaneous flow
equal to the seven consecutive day mean low
flow with a ten-year recurrence (7Q10).
• A site specific instream study was recom-
mended where project review indicated that
a long-term flow of 7Q10 may have significant
water quality impacts.
Barriers to Overcome
• LOSS of diversity and stability of aquatic life
indigenous to streams on which projects are
located.
• Accelerated eutrophication and depletion of
the level of dissolved oxygen of impounded
waters.
• Release of colder impounded waters with
lower level dissolved oxygen downstream to
receiving waters affecting its prescribed
state water quality standards.
• Periodic discharges that alter downstream
flows, providing insufficient water to assimili-
30
mate or dilute previously permitted waste-
water discharges.
• Entrapment of sediments behind the dam in
areas with high erosion making the hydro fa-
cility economically infeasible.
• inundating hundreds of acres of wildlife habi-
tat by impounding water.
• Altering the existing recreation activities of
the area.
Expected Environmental Results
• Preserve or enhance the productivity of a val-
uable wildlife habitat elsewhere to offset
wildlife losses at an impounded site. This
could be accomplished either through acqui-
sition or purchase of conservation
easements.
• Maintain nursery and spawning habitats up-
stream of the dam site and allow both up and
downstream migration of fish.
• Maintain fresh water fisheries in the im-
pounded area and downstream of the
project.
• Enhance the recreational uses and aesthetic
values by providing canoe portages and ac-
cess to the river.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: FuelwOOd
wood is an increasingly popular fuel for resi-
dential heat in Region I yet there is little defini-
tive data on the magnitude and importance of
potential air pollution problem caused by
wood burning emissions. Throughout New
England, as many as 50% of the owner-occu-
pied households are now using wood for heat,
causing an increase in a variety of criteria and
non-criteria emission.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Complete the residential source assessment
program, research wood stove emissions and
finish development of stove emission factors
for ERA'S Compilation of Air Pollution Emis-
sion Factors (AP-42)
• integrate the source assessment findings
into area source emissions estimates and pro-
gram guidance.
• Develop strategies to mitigate or prevent
ambient degradation due to fuelwood
emissions.
• Provide coordination and guidance to state,
. university and other research efforts by com-
mitting to a permanent contact for stove re-
search in ERA'S R&D organization.
Regional Actions
• Maintain familiarity with ongoing federal,
state, and university research and coordinate
responses to public requests.
• Evaluate particulate monitoring information
to determine if seasonal or chemical trends
-------
may implicate residential stoves as a signifi-
cant air pollution source.
• Provide information to tne public on operat-
ing techniques that improve stove combus-
tion efficiency and decrease emissions. Use
information developed for wood stove edu-
cation programs in Massachusetts, New
Hampshire and Maine.
DISCUSSION
Background
Odors and blue morning haze have alerted
many New Englanders to potential problems
resulting from the change to native grown
fuelwood for home heating. The Vermont
Energy Office estimates that between 1976 and
1981, the sale of Number 2 heating oil declined
42 percent (approximately 73 million gallons)
while wood sales rose 149 percent. This trend is
not limited to rural areas; Massachusetts wood
use rose 16 percent between the 1977-1978
heating season and the following one, when
815,000 cords were burned. Some early studies
have been done at Dartmouth College which
examine this growth trend.
Several criteria pollutants are emitted by
wood stoves, and the signficant ones include
carbon monoxide and particulates. One of the
organic particulate components, chemically
identified as polycyclic organic materials (ROMs)
is of special concern because POMS are known
carcinogens (see Emissions from Residential
woodourning Stoves in Appendix, page 102). To
date, no ambient standards violations in New
England have been traced to residential wood-
burning emissions, but with an average cost
saving of nearly 60% over conventional resi-
dentijil fuels, wood burning will be a source of
air emissions in the years to come.
Past Responses
• EPA, various universities, states and consul-
tant:; are studying stove emission and moni-
toring techniques, and emission reduction
strategies. The most comprehensive analysis
was completed under contract by Monsanto.
• Region 1 has supported state efforts in this
area, in November 1981, the Region co-spon-
sored a one-day workshop on stove impacts.
Barriers to Overcome
• The latest research shows another trend in
our most densely populated areas, an in-
crease in the use of coal. Because coal's emis-
sion;; are acidic, and coal has a smaller volume
and more convenient distribution network
than wood, it may ultimately surpass wood as
a significant polluter.
• it is difficult to accurately evaluate or com-
pare the emissions, impact, or effects of
operating variables of small combustion
equioment like stoves.
• Even if specific problems are attributed to
stoves, regulating equipment, in private
homes, will be difficult.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Miscellaneous Energy impacts
Higher energy prices have generated inter-
est in a variety of other energy related proj-
ects. There is limited information now available
on the scope of these activities and the magni-
tude of their impacts.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Continue to fund research on emerging ener-
gy-related problems. Coordinate research on
the impacts of contaminated fuel and heat-
ing oil, and give results more rapidly- to
regions and states.
• Provide resources for regions to respond
quickly to newly developing energy related
problems.
DISCUSSION
Background
Other energy-related activities are discussed
briefly below.
• waste Oil—State air agencies and the general
public have become increasingly concerned
over the potential of home heating oil and
residual fuel oil to become contaminated
with heavy metals and toxic organic com-
pounds. These oils could be burned in ineffi-
cient boilers and released contaminants into
the ambient air.
Sources of contamination include waste
crankcase oil, improperly rerefined oil, and
any liquid toxic waste that can be blended
with oil (such as PCB's). No statistically sound
sampling program to test this oil has been
conducted, but preliminary "spot" samples
have found high levels of lead and chlorinat-
ed organics.
• synthetic Fuels—until recently there was ex-
tensive interest in synthetic fuel develop-
ment in New England. This interest has not
completely dissipated, but the recent drop in
oil prices combined with generally weakened
demand for energy make any plant construc-
tion in the near future unlikely.
The synfuels facility most likely to be con-
structed in New England is the EC&C coal gasi-
fication project proposed for Fall River,
Massachusetts. The project would gasify high
sulfur coal using the westinghouse process
and produce methanol and electricity. The
magnitude of the emissions would depend
on the final size of the facility.
• Coal-Oil Mixture—A few boilers that cannot
be economically converted to coal have been
considered as candidates for coal-oil mixture.
-------
COM is a liquid mixture of coal and oil that has
the advantage of reducing oil consumption
and not requiring coal handling facilities.
Ratios of coal to oil vary, but most analyses
assume less than 50% coal.
COM could cause major increases in TSP
emissions that would have to be reduced
with additional TSP control equipment.
• Purchased Power-Transmission Lines—New
England utilities are negotiating with Canada
to purchase large amounts of power from
the Hydro-Quebec project. New England cur-
rently imports about 3,700 GWh/year, and
Hydro-Quebec and the New England Power
Pool have a preliminary agreement for sales
of 33,000 CWh over 11 years beginning in
1986.
Because existing transmission lines are not
adequate to transport this large increase in
north-south electricity transmission, new
lines would have to be constructed in north-
ern New England. Depending on their route,
these lines will affect land uses, water quality,
and wetlands.
• Peat Mining—some consideration was given
to mining peat resources in Maine as an alter-
native energy source, including an applica-
tion to the Synthetic Fuel Corporation for
assistance to establish a peat mining
operation.
if these plans are realized, peat mining will
have severe adverse impacts on the wetlands
from which they are taken.
32
-------
WATER
"rf^r*•:•"- :--'.-i*Ar- •'•"••• r"--^>^--;r .;:.:•;.-• •-
_- V I •• - . -"- ..': . • •' • •• - TL-* !- .-O—-^ . - - -
\ >»_|_.-C-.-^_y__->r.;~»---w^r—rfv=-v-~ - •-".. |-"'~"|N-- --"V
S cSrceS^Bi-1T^.
".. i^i'.-^vvi;-'''* i^-?-;
—w.vT*?«'«- r^X^^-x —i
sssswr"
.• •*~-^->-''*-~^~~-r- '-'iT-X7-' • •'•'
* --=-.r--;io.-.,j--:-;.-; rvT" •.-•-••
5SS^g^R^5^
rr-rNsS»v. £:>.:?•*-.
TREVAR AKIMS • Indian island school, Old Town, Maine • Grade 2
-------
STATUS AND TRENDS
Surface water Quality—Fresh water
A goal of the federal Clean water Act is to
restore 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 water.
Standards of water quality are established by
the states according to the category of use for
the surface water involved. Class A waters are
suitable for water supply without treatment
other ':han simple disinfection. Class B waters
are suitable for swimming and fishing, and
Class C waters can be used for fishing, but not
swimrring. By these definitions, only Class A
and Class B waters meet the national fishable/
swimmabie 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. Maine and Vermont
are currently in the process of modifying their
standards. The changes are designed to
strengthen the existing provisions of each
state's standards. They-include measures to
ensure that recent water quality criteria for
toxic substances published by EPA are con-
sidered in state pollution abatement
programs. Connecticut has also expanded its
water quality monitoring program to continue
investigations of sites suspected of having
toxics problems.
AS of 1982, 66% of New England's major
stream areas met the fishable/swimmable
goals of the Clean water Act. Some 4,982 miles
of the total 7,544 miles of major river main-
stems and tributaries assessed were suitable
for fish ng and swimming. This represents an
upgrading of 1,222 stream miles since 1976
(Region rs base data year) when only 3,760
miles or 52% of the region's waters met the
goals of the Clean water Act. Although only the
major river mainstems and tributaries were
assessed for purposes of this Report, most of
New England's thousands of miles of smaller
upland tributaries also now meet the fishable/
swimmabie standard.
The major sources of information on the
water q jality of the nation's streams and lakes
are the; states' water Quality inventories,
required biennially by Section 305(b) of the
federal Clean Water Act. information from the
six New England states' latest 305(b) submis-
sions of 1982 was assessed in order to present a
region-wide picture of water quality. (See Ap-
pendix beginning at pages 104-106, where indi-
vidual state data are presented)
Point source water pollution problems from
municipal discharges 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 of
municipal wastewater treatment facilities
have been built, are under construction, or are
coming on line. Nearly all of the major indus-
trial dischargers in the region treat their
wastewater. AS more and more municipal and
industrial discharges are controlled through
these programs, we expect to see continued
water quality improvement in New England.
Traditionally, water quality has been mea-
sured against the Class B, fishable/swimmable
goal. Local, state, and federal water pollution
control agencies have worked vigorously
towards maintaining and improving this high
standard of water quality in New England
rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds.
FIGURE A
NEW ENGLAND WATER QUALITY
SUMMARY 1976-1982
5
i 10-
<
X
Z 10-
s
V
%l
Legend
•JC. •*'«
D Hit
s: -no
• nai
A majority of the region's waterbodies meet
water quality goals, and the water quality prob-
lems that remain are increasingly complex and
costly to solve. Therefore, states are reassess-
ing their waterbodies to determine both the
attainability and costs of achieving the
fishable/swimmable goal. This assessment may
result in the determination that the
appropriate use for some waterbodies may be
to provide for uses other than fishing and
swimming. Since a significant portion of New
England's stream segments are already desig-
nated for other uses, we have shown the
stream miles meeting the applicable state
35
-------
Mainstem
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
NEW ENGLAND
TABLE 1
WATER QUALITY SUMMARY IN NEW ENGLAND
and Major Tributary Mileage Meeting or Exceeding the Fishable/Swimmable Goals
of the Clean Water Act
Miles
Assessed
963
2,444
1,611
1,309
329
888
7,544
Miles Meeting Class "B" Fishable/Swimmable Goals
1976 1978 1980 1982
Miles
481
1,603
348
584
211
533
3,760
56%
67%
20%
44%
64%
61%
52%
Miles
519
1,656
556
691
211
594
4,227
60%
70%
32%
52%
64%
68%
56%
Miles
556
1,718
772
702
217
635
4,600
65%
72%
45%
53%
66%
72%
61%
Miles
675
1,863
781
791
217
655
4,982
70%
76%
48%
60%
66%
74%
66%
Change in
Percentage
80-82
+ 5%
+ 4%
+ 3%
+ 7%
0%
+ 2%
+ 5%
76-82
+ 14%
+ 9%
+ 28%
+ 16%
+ 2%
+ 13%
+ 14%
NOTE: 1. These figures represent major stream miles assessed or managed by the states. This a only a small portion of the total stream miles, most of which do
not have water quality problems and meet Class B Fishable/Swimmable water quality standards.
2. Since the stream miles assessed varied from year to year, there are some discrepancies in comparing past figures to the 1982 "miles assessed."
36
water quality standard as well as the miles
meeting fishable/swimmable standards in the
"Status of water Quality" tables contained in
the Appendix to the EMR. The "Water Quality
Summary" table and Figure A show the histor-
ical progress of water quality towards the goals
of the Clean water Act.
What follows is a brief summary of current
water quality conditions and problems in each
of the six Mew England states. Tables in the Ap-
pendix describe the current water quality
status, the identified problems and sources of
the problems.
Connecticut — Of the 963 freshwater stream
miles inventoried in Connecticut, 675 or 70%
meet the fishable/swimmable goals of the
CWA. This represents an improvement of nearly
200 stream miles since 1976 when 56% of the
major stream miles were suitable for both con-
tact and non-contact recreation. If all Connec-
ticut freshwater streams (including small
upland tributaries) were assessed, over 90%
would meet Class B standards.
The water quality problems that remain in
Connecticut are primarily the result of com-
bined sewer overflows, municipal wastewater
discharges requiring greater than secondary
treatment, industrial waste discharges requir-
ing more than "best practical treatment" (BPT),
and pollution from nonpoint sources, other
localized water quality violations exist due to
such problems as polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCS) contamination of sediments in the upper
Housatonic River.
Maine — Seventy-six percent of Maine's 2,444
miles of major streams meet the fishable/
swimmable standard. This percentage repre-
sents 1,863 stream miles in Maine, which has
both the most miles of streams in New England
and the highest percentage meeting the CWA
goals, in the years between 1976 and 1982,
Maine has documented significant water
quality improvements in the Penobscot River,
Haley Pond, Rangeley Lake, the Saint Croix
River, and numerous coastal areas. Atlantic
salmon and other fish have returned to several
rivers, and many previously polluted streams
are now supporting swimming and other rec-
reational uses.
Since all major municipal and industrial
discharges in Maine are receiving the equiv-
alent of secondary treatment, the largest pol-
lution problems have been abated. 'This fact,
combined with recent reductions in the
Federal Construction Grants program funds for
wastewater treatment facilities, has slowed
the previous dramatic improvements in water
quality. Present and future pollution
abatement efforts will be aimed at the more
complex problems, such as combined sewer
overflows from the older urban areas,
agricultural and other nonpoint sources of
pollution, and the State's water quality limited
segments, which require more than the tech-
nology-based treatment specified in the Clean
water Act to meet water quality standards.
Massachusetts — Approximately 48% of
Massachusetts' 1,611 major river miles now
meet or exceed the fishable/swimmable stan-
dard. This percentage represents a dramatic
improvement over 1976 figures, when only
20% of the State's waters met Class B water
-------
quality standards. Although Massachusetts still
reports the lowest percentage of major stream
miles meeting the fishabie/swimmable goals
within i:he region, the State's waters have con-
sistently demonstrated the highest rate of im-
provement in the region.
in addition to delays in completing the con-
struction of wastewater treatment plants,
complex water quality problems caused by
combined sewer overflows, inplace sediments,
nonpoint source pollution, and low stream
flows prevent the attainment of water quality
goals in numerous stream segments. For exam-
ple, heavy metals are present in the sediments
of the Blackstone River, and PCB's contaminate
sediments of the Houstonic and Hoosic Rivers
and marine sediments in New Bedford Harbor.
Studies are currently underway to address
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
efforts.
New Hampshire — Sixty percent of New
Hampshire's 1,309 miles of major streams meet
or exceed fishabte/swimmable standards. This
reflect; over 200 miles of upgraded stream
miles s nee 1976 when 44% of New Hampshire's
waters were suitable for swimming as well as
fishing. However, major streams represent only
9% of the state's identifiable stream mileage, if
total stream mileage, including upland streams
were assessed, approximately 96% of New
Hamsphire's waterways would meet or exceed
Class B standards.
As in the rest of New England, the majority of
New Hampshire's water quality improvements
have teen accomplished by the treatment of
municipal and industrial pollutant discharges
and the separation of combined sewers in the
cities. Further control of pollution will be
accomplished by continuing these efforts. As
stated in New Hampshire's 305(b) report for
1982, ' the resolution of many of these prob-
lems hinges on the construction Grants
progrs.m, state resources, and local resolve."
Rhode island — Sixty-six percent of Rhode
island':; major stream miles and 91% of the
State's estuarine areas meet the Clean water
Act fishabie/swimmable standards. Rhode is-
land's water quality monitoring program has
also indicated various degrees of water quality
improvement at stations located on the
Branch River, Blackstone River, Pawcatuck River,
and f:ry Brook. These improvements are
associated with improved treatment at up-
stream pollution sources. Major combined
sewer overflows and urban runoff problems in
Providence, Pawtucket, and Central Falls con-
tinue to cause conform 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 dis-
solved oxygen and coliform problems as a
result of combined sewer overflows and mu-
nicipal and industrial discharges.
Vermont — Seventy-four percent of
Vermont's 888 major stream miles are now suit-
able for both fishing and swimming. Steady im-
provements to water quality have been
achieved in Vermont since 1976 when 61% of
the waters met Class B standards. Ninety
percent of the State's total stream mileage,
including smaller upland streams, is fishable/
swimmable.
Continued upgrading and construction of
wastewater treatment facilities and implemen-
tation of best management practices to con-
trol nonpoint source pollution from construc-
tion, silviculture and agriculture have resulted
in further improvements to Vermont's water
quality. Most of the industrial discharges
receive adequate treatment and thus are not a
source of significant water quality problems.
Untreated or inadequately treated municipal
discharges and industries violating their pre-
treatment limits before discharging to
municipal treatment facilities are the major
causes of water pollution problems. Continued
abatement of municipal wastewater pollution
will be accomplished through further facilities
construction which is dependent upon the
availability of local, State and Federal funds. En-
forcement actions will be directed against pre-
treatment violators to bring them into
compliance.
MARINE AND COASTAL AREA
WATER QUALITY
Since ocean-related issues are not within the
immediate purview of EPA, the Agency has
limited data on marine water quality. Even
among agencies more directly concerned with
oceans and marine activities, monitoring
typically is restricted to special studies on
specific geographic areas. A general assess-
ment on ocean water quality off the New
England coast can be drawn from information
on shellfishing, ocean dumping, 30Kh) waivers,
and outer continental shelf (OCS) activities.
Each of these issues is discussed later in this
EMR.
Based on available information, one may
conclude that:
• water quality along the immediate New .
England coastline has improved where new
37
-------
or upgraded wastewater treatment facilities
fWWTF) have been constructed.
• Some harbors will remain polluted despite
secondary treatment and even tertiary treat-
ment because of complex urban runoff, com-
bined sewer overflow, and municipal/
industrial discharge problems, or because of
the presence of many small residential or
boating waste discharges.
• Although past ocean dumping of dredge
spoils and other industrial wastes has not
resulted in noticeable environmental prob-
lems, scientific uncertainty about the long
term effects of such practices merits careful
attention to continued ocean dumping.
Plumes from such sources also represent
significant problems.
• Disposal of sewage sludge through outfalls or
deep water dumping may be harmful to the
marine environment.
Shellfishing, clams, mussels, quahogs, etc.,
has been an important economic activity in
(Mew England for hundreds of years. New
England's coastal water quality has improved
over the past 10 years as evidenced in the
reopening and/or reclamation of many pre-
viously closed shellfish harvesting beds. This
improvement is due primarily to a) the con-
struction of new and upgraded municipal
wastewater treatment plants upstream of es-
tuaries and b) abatement programs controlling
individual domestic and industrial discharges
at or near shellfish beds. Despite improve-
ments, however, trouble spots still remain,
particularly near large cities. Complex pollution
from urban runoff, combined sewer overflows,
industrial and municipal sources, commercial
activities, etc. will prevent some shellfish beds
from ever reaching the federal Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) recommended commer-
cial harvesting standards (70 total coli-
forms/100 ml.), regardless of secondary
treatment, other problem areas could be
further improved, at least to the point of con-
ditional and depuration harvesting, if WWTF
construction plans and abatement programs
are pursued, and if pump stations are up-
graded and storm and sanitary sewer separa-
tion can be accomplished.
water quality along the immediate New
England coastline has improved where new or
upgraded wastewater treatment plants have
been constructed. For example, New Hamp-
shire, water quality monitoring has shown an
improvement in tidal water quality over the
past 10 years. Most of this improvement is due
to the construction of new or upgraded
WWTFs particularly in Great and Little Bays
(Class 8 to A), the Piscataqua River below the
Cocheco River (Class C or less to B or better),
and the lower tidal portion of the Piscataqua
33 River around Portsmouth and New castle.
Connecticut officials have expressed con-
cerns about chemical buildups and plumes in
Long island Sound, a body of water that is com-
paratively enclosed. These officials have urged
that, because of the fact of such enclosure, the
Sound should be considered and treated
differently from an environmental manage-
ment standpoint than other, more open ocean
coastal areas of New England.
DRINKING WATER QUALITY
EPA's involvement in drinking water quality
derives from the federal Safe Drinking water
Act (SDWA), which is designed to assure that
water supply systems serving the public meet
the EPA-established minimum national stan.-
dards for the protection of public health. A
joint federal/state program exists to assure
compliance with these standards and to pro-
tect underground sources of drinking water
from contamination.
All six Region I states- have been granted
primary enforcement responsibility under the
SDWA. The Regional Office assumes an over-
sight role and provides technical assistance in
support of state program efforts.
As a general matter, the New England popula-
tion enjoys drinking water that is of high
quality, but violations of national standards do
occur.
There are in New England some 2,609 com-
munity water supply systems providing water
to more than 11 million people. Although in the
Region there exist many more non-community
than community systems, the size of the
population served by the non-community
systems is substantially smaller than that
served by the community systems.
The discussion and tables which follow are
limited to community water supply systems.
This is because data is available for community
systems and because the non-community sys-
tem program has not been fully implemented.
Table 2 lists the number of community sys-
tems in the Federal Reporting Data System
which violated any MCL for fiscal years 1980
through 1982. it is evident that the vast major-
ity of systems do not have any contaminant
violations. This indicates that, in general,
sources of water supply and delivery systems
are providing high quality water to the public.
Except for turbidity and conform bacteria
parameters, the remaining violations occur in
many fewer than 1% of the total number of
community water systems. There are no appar-
ent trends noted with respect to these viola-
tions.
There was a slight increase from FY 80 to 81 in
the total number of water^ystems with one or
more violations of coliform standards, but
from FY'81 to FY 82, this figure decreased.
There was a significant decrease in turbidity
-------
TABLE 2
PERSISTENT VIOLATIONS* BY COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
Yuar
FY80
FY81
FY82
Number of Systems in Violation
Total Number Coliform Turbidity
of Systems MCLf M/RTt MCL & M/R MCL M/R MCL & M/R
2582 41 125 21 14 48 0
2572 33 50 37
2609 23 95 14
10 40 0
8 25 0
'Persistent Violations — 4 or more months in violation or more than one quarter in violation
tMCL - maximum contaminant level
rtM/R - monitoring and reporting
violations from FY 80 to FY 81, and no signifi-
cant change was noted from FY 81 to FY 82.
Since most of the coliform and turbidity viola-
tions occur sporadically and infrequently in a
given system, and because it is therefore felt
that such violations are not indicative of a long-
term water quality trend within a particular
system, the EPA Office of Drinking water has
focused its attention on the persistent violat-
ors of rhese two MCLS. Those systems that are
in violation for four or more months or more
than one quarter are considered to be per-
sistent violators. These systems are most likely
to have serious problems in the source of the
supply, treatment or distribution systems or in
operation and maintenance. These problems
result in the delivery of poor quality water to
consumers.
Table 3 lists the number of systems which
have persistent violations for conforms, tur-
bidity, and monitoring and reporting (M/R) in
FY 80 through 82. An important point to be
made regarding this data is that there appears
to be '.significant decreases in most violation
categories during this period. Coliform MCL vio-
lations declined from 41 to 23. Because the
monitcring and reporting violations fluctuated
during these fiscal years, it is difficult to con-
clude v/hether there is a significant decrease.
Turbidity MCL violations were reduced from 14
to 8 and monitoring and reporting violations
from 48 to 25.
Table 4 shows the percent of systems by
state w th persistent violations (MCL and M/R)
during f^ 82 for conforms and turbidity. Rhode
island stands have no persistent violators, while
the data for Connecticut, Maine, and Massachu-
setts reveals very low percentages of viola-
tions. Vermont and New Hampshire have, re-
spectively, over 10% and 19% of their systems
in persistent violation of the coliform regula-
tions. Turbidity violations show similar
pattern:;.
Table 5 illustrates the problems encountered
in northern, rural New England states whose
TABLE 3
COMPLIANCE WITH MAXIMUM
CONTAMINANT LEVELS OF
NIPDWR* FOR COMMUNITY WATER
SUPPLY
SYSTEMS
Number of Systems
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate
Selenium
Silver
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2. 4-D
2,4,5 -TPSilvex
Total Tirhalomethanes
Turbidity
Coliforms
Radium-226
Radium-228
Gross Alpha Particles
Beta Particles
Photon Emitters
in
FY80
2
• o
1
3
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
266
0
0
0
0
0
•NIPDWR — National Interim Primary Drinking
tOata from the Federal Reporting
Data System
Violation^
FY81
4
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
27
277
1
0
• 3
0
0
FY82
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
220
0
0
0
0
0
Water Regulations
populations are often served by small systems.
The great majority of violations occur in the
small systems serving populations of between
25 and 500 people. Of a total of 120 systems in
persistent violation of the coliform standard,
99 are in systems serving fewer than 500
people. The greatest number of systems with
39
-------
TABLE 4
FY82
PERSISTENT VIOLATIONS FOR COLIFORMS AND TURBIDITY BY STATE
Total Number Percent of Systems in Violation
State . of Systems Coliforms Turbidity
Connecticut 685 . 0.2 0.2
Maine 380 0.7 0.7
Massachusetts 636 0.9 0.3
New Hampshire 409 19.3 2.9
Rhode Island . 113 0 0
Vermont 386 10.8 3.6
NEW ENGLAND
2609
5.6
1.3
Population Served
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001-100,000
Greater than 100,000
TOTAL
TABLE 5
PERSISTENT VIOLATIONS BY SYSTEM SIZE
Number of Number of Systems in Violation
Systems Coliforms Turbidity
1805 112 17
392 17 13
187 2 2
212 1~ 1
13 00
2609
132
33
40
turbidity violations occurs in the next larger
population group (i.e. 501-3,300). This differ-
ence is a reflection of the fact that the smallest
systems tend to use ground water to a greater
extent, and groundwater sources, unlike
surface waters, are not subject to the turbidity
MCL it should be pointed out that the data in-
dicate that the very large systems serving over
100,000 persons have no persistent violations
of either the turbidity or conform MCLs. These
large systems benefit from the economies of
scale and can afford the treatment facilities
and trained operators needed for the system
to be consistently in compliance with drinking
water regulations.
SIGNIFICANT WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
IN NEW ENGLAND — GENERIC
This part of the water Medium section of the
EMR discusses the most significant water
quality problems in New England on a generic,
or problem category, basis. The discussions
which follow address both significant causes
of pollution (i.e., point sources, nonpoint
sources, combined sewer overflows) and spe-
cific kinds of problems (i.e., filling of wetlands,
lake eutrophication, ocean dumping).
The most significant surface water quality
problems in New England, on a generic basis,
are:
• Point Source Pollution
• Combined Sewer Overflows
• Non-point Source Pollution
• Lake Eutrophication
• Filling of wetlands
• Exploratory Oil & Gas Drilling on
Georges Bank
• Ocean Dumping
• Drinking water Quality
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Point Source Pollution
Municipal and industrial point source dis-
charges have historically been responsible for
a significant portion of the violations of water
quality standards criteria for bacteria and dis-
solved oxygen. Chemical pollution, too, is
traceable to such discharges. These point
source pollution problems are being ad-
dressed by two major elements of the Clean
water Act (CWA) — the construction Grants
program and the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, it
is because of federal and s,tate efforts in these
programs that we have witnessed a significant
improvement in the Region's water quality
over the past few years.
-------
Despite these successes, more than one
third of New England's major stream miles and
coast ine waters as yet do not meet the fish-
able/swimmable goals of the CWA. The areas
still needing clean up pose the more complex
water quality problems, and make further
water quality improvements more difficult
and costly. The EPA 1982 Needs Survey esti-
mate:; that S5.8 billion of additional construc-
tion grants funds are required to construct
the remaining wastewater treatment plants
and interceptor sewer projects needed in
New (England.
FIGURE B
NET OBLIGATIONS OF
EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FOR WASTE
WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION
Recommendations
Headquarters Actions
• wcrk with Congress to increase funding for
the Construction Grants program over a
longer period of time, in order to deal with
the remaining costly and difficult municipal
pollution problems.
• Provide an aggressive operational and man-
agerial program for municipal treatment
plant operators and managers so that the
considerable investments that have been
made are protected. Provide sufficient
staffing and funds to the Regions to carry
out the program.
• Puolish National Municipal Policy and Stra-
tegy for enforcement of POTW statutory
requirements.
• Decide soon whether the "Final Policy for
Second Round issurance of NPDES industrial
Permits" will be continued in FY 84, and
advise Regional EPA Offices.
• Maintain the effort to promulgate effluent
guidelines on time until all are completed.
• Make final decisions on NPDES permit regu-
lation revisions as soon as possible and
publish the regulations. The proposed.
revisions will allow faster permit processing
and reduce paperwork.
• Expedite development of a national policy
on uniform approaches to biomonitoring in
NPDES permitting to assure that testing
requirements are technically valid and legal.
Regions should be consulted as policy is
being developed.
• continue national research efforts to deter-
mine toxic pollutant levels that are compati-
ble with various water uses.
• Develop guidance and technical assistance
on use attainability studies in order to
evaluate pollution abatement options and
in order to make sound decisions on
competing water uses.
• Provide national coordination and guidance
so that the regions and states can develop
the most effective and cost efficient water
quality monitoring networks.
• Place national emphasis on industry co-
operation in water quality monitoring
activities.
Regional Actions
• Review the Construction Grants priority lists
to ensure that beneficial water quality and
public health are emphasized in projects.
• Ensure that water quality standards,
priority water bodies, and construction
grant priority lists are coordinated and
mutually supportive.
• Provide treatment plant operation and
management training to states and selected
municipalities.
• Aggressively mediate interstate and inter-
municipal problems to ensure decision-
making is not based upon political pres-
sures. Management of funding could be
used as leverage.
• issue the 49 industrial permits included on
the priority list for FY 83. These include dis-
chargers of toxic priority pollutants and
those for which national effluent standards
have been finalized.
• Continue the Environmental Services Divi-
sion's (ESD) program of bioassay testing of
discharges from different industrial pro-
cesses to develop data on acute toxicity of
industrial process effluents.
• Continue development of regional/state
approach to toxics evaluations in receiving
waters through the New England interstate
water Pollution Control Commission's Toxics
Management workgroup. State and EPA
staff should carry on their evaluations of
bioassay and biomonitoring methods to
determine suitable procedures for identify-
ing toxics problems and find potential
solutions.
41
-------
• continue delegation efforts. EPA Region I
has made significant progress towards dele-
gation of the NPDES permitting authority to
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and
Rhode island.
• Pursue the Region's vigorous inspection and
enforcement program to assure high de-
gree of compliance of municipal and indus-
trial facilities with the implementation
schedules and effluent limits contained in
their NPDES permits.
• Continue an active Spill Prevention Control
and Countermeasure (SPCC) inspection and
enforcement program to develop and im-
plement oil spill prevention and control
measures.
• Assure that State Water Quality Standards
are consistent with attainable water uses
and the pollution abatement efforts neces-
sary to achieve them.
• Coordinate and assist in monitoring and
wasteload allocation activities to assess
water quality problems and evaluate alter-
native pollution abatement options.
• Assure that effluent and water quality moni-
toring surveys are coordinated to most
effectively assess water quality problems.
other Actions
• States should develop Construction Grants
priority lists giving emphasis to potential
water quality improvement criteria.
• States/municipalities should aggressively
enforce on-site disposal regulations to les-
sen the demands for construction grant
funding.
• States should assume responsibility for
NPDES permit programs wherever possible.
• States should maintain a high level of field
presence to help assure treatment facility
compliance with permits.
• States should take the lead in enforcement
actions wherever possible.
• States should coordinate pollution
abatement activities to attain and maintain
designated water uses.
• water quality standards and classifications
should be reviewed and refined where
necessary to provide for attainable water
uses.
• water quality monitoring programs should
be continued, and adjusted where
necessary, to provide accurate measure-
ment of the status of water use attainment
and degradation, including the impact of
toxic pollutants.
• Coordinate, with FDA, hydrographic efforts
with respect to discharge sources and treat-
ment facilities. This will help pin-point clos-
sure lines and plumes, and determine dilu-
tion rates/distances.
DISCUSSION
Background
Because of the importance of water to daily
life, New Englanders settled along streams and
rivers and adjacent to sheltered bays and har-
bors. Major population and industrial centers
used these waters for a variety of conflicting
uses, including recreation and wastewater dis-
posal. As a result of these pressures, water
•quality rapidly deteriorated.
BOD, suspended solids and bacterial stan-
dards for fishable/swimmable waters are the
most common CWA parameters violated in New
England. These violations have affected over
2,500 miles of New England's coastline and
streams. Both municipal and industrial point
sources contribute, in some cases, the sheer
amount of wastewater, even though treated,
makes real improvement difficult when the
discharge is to a water body with a low assimili-
tative capacity.
Many municipal wastewater treatment
plants are not being operated, maintained, or
managed in the most effective and efficient
manner. The Region and the states have no
mechanisms to comprehensively address this
situation except when non-compliance with
'NPDES permit conditions can be proven. Many
facilities were over-designed, resulting in
unnecessary sewering and unused treatment
capacity. On-site wastewater treatment
options, which would have resulted in smaller
direct discharges, and thus, less water quality
impact, were not adequately emphasized.
Toxic or "priority" pollutants, found primari-
ly in industrial effluents, are being recognized
as causes for water quality impairment in
many areas of New England (see the "Toxics"
intermedia Section). As water quality monitor-
ing and analysis techniques for these para-
meters- improves, we are gaining .a better
knowledge of the nature and extent of the
impact of toxics in water quality.
States have developed water quality stan-
dards and classified their waters as to the
goals, in terms of quality and uses, that the
waters should support. As states bring gross
point source pollution under control, they are
reviewing original standards and criteria to
ensure a balance between additional cleanup
costs and attainable uses.
"First round" NPDES permits issued to indus-
trial dischargers between 1974 and 1977 have
expired and are now being reissued. The
emphasis in second round permitting is to
identify and control priority pollutant dis-
charges which are impairing water use or
causing other kinds of major water quality
problems. Second round'permitting will also
require treatment consistent with national
technology-based treatment standards.
-------
Past Responses
• The planning, design and construction of
wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF)
have been funded by a combination of
local, state and federal sources. The federal
Construction Grants Program, mandated by
the CWA, authorizes grants to cover at least
75 percent of the cost of necessary WWTF.
• This year EPA Region I obligated S128.3
million for the planning, design and con-
struction of WWTF throughout New England
(see Figure B on WWTF construction). This
amount includes funding for the construc-
tion and/or upgrading and expansion of six
wastewater treatment plants. Twenty
treatment plants were completed in this
fiscal year.
• Since 1973,140 new and/or upgraded waste-
water treatment plants funded by EPA,
state and local communities have become
operational in this region at a cost more
than S2.5 billion.
• The CWA Amendments of 1977 called for
management for 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 al-
locations to fund program management
activities. This delegation of authority
allows the states to be responsible for day-
to-day project management and EPA to
perform an overview and program manage-
ment role.
• Another important amendment to the CWA
called for increased funding (85%) for inno-
vative and/or alternative projects. Since the
inception of the innovative/alternative pro-
gram in 1979, 59 communities have been
awa'ded grants. The total project costs as-
sociated with the innovative and alterna-
tive portions of these projects is $114
million.
• Revisions have been made to the Construc-
tion Grants Program to minimize burden-
some requirements, project delays and high
cost;.
• Many of the water quality problems posed
by industrial discharges have been abated
by t:he construction of industrial waste-
water treatment facilities. These actions are
required by Section 402 of the CWA, and
enfcrced by the issuance of NPDES permits
which specify construction schedules and
effluent limits for treated discharges.
• The authority to administer the NPDES
program has been delegated to Connecti-
cut and Vermont. Efforts to improve condi-
tions for delegating permitting authority to
other states have been made by means of
regulatory proposals to streamline the
permit program and provide the states
with more flexibility in how they meet the
requirements for delegation consistent
with the Clean water Act.
• Through major efforts to inspect permitted
facilities and to undertake enforcement
actions where necessary, Region I has been
able to maintain a high level of compliance
by the permitted facilities.
Barriers to Overcome
• The state and federal priority setting pro-
cesses for construction grants have never.
been able to settle on whether efforts
should be expended on the large, often
more complex water quality problems first,
or on the more numerous, smaller, less com-
plex ones, in general, small town facilities
with relatively minor problems received
construction grant funds, while those situa- ,
tions that involved the more complex issues
were not given sufficient attention.
• Politically motivated decisions concerning
treatment facilities' planning have often re-
sulted in inappropriate actions; i.e., two
individual treatment plants when one re-
gional facility should have been built. This
"home-rule" philosophy is often a barrier to
achievement of water quality goals.
• Engineering firms, and state and regional
personnel, are reluctant to promote new
technologies which often would be cheaper
and result in smaller direct discharges. The
traditional, high cost, capital intensive,
infrastructure-related alternatives tend to
be favored.
• A lack of adequate funding at federal, state
and local levels is always a problem. This is
true not only for capital expenses, but in-
creasingly for operations, maintenance and
routine replacement of wastewater
facilities.
• Regional NPDES permitting resources remain
at levels significantly below those necessary
to reissue expiring and expired permits.
• Although EPA seeks to delegate the NPDES
permitting program to the states, we have a
large backlog of expired permits.
• There is a need to refine technical ap-
proaches to evaluating the biological impact
from toxic pollutant discharges so that ap-
propriate discharge control levels may be
established.
• Financial and other resources necessary to
develop and implement suitable monitoring
and analytical activities are not readily
available.
Expected Environmental Results
• As efforts continue in the Construction
Grants Program, the NPDES permit program
and in monitoring activities designed to
identify and assess water quality, we will
43
-------
44
make progress in dealing with the problems
discussed in the water Quality portion of this
EMR. we can expect water quality to be en-
hanced and maintained, and an expansion of
opportunities for higher level beneficial uses
of New England's water bodies.
• If more states in the Region assume NPDES
permitting authority and gain additional ex-
perience in administering the construction
grants program, EPA staff will be able to de-
vote more time to providing the states with
specialized technical support in joint efforts
to evaluate and solve remaining water qual-
ity problems in the region.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Combined Sewer Overflows
Most major cities in New England have com-
bined sewers. During periods of wet weather,
the sewers overflow and discharge untreated
wastewater into rivers, lakes and coastal
waters, combined sewers represent a difficult
and important water quality problem for the
Region since they prevent the full attainment
of the water quality standards and beneficial
uses of many water bodies.
Among the serious adverse economic and
environmental impacts of combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) are the following:
a. CSOs result in the closure of shellfish har-
vesting areas, they can cause the closure of
areas for swimming and other recreation uses
and they can aesthetically degrade water
bodies. New Haven Harbor, the lower Connecti-
cut River, Narragansett Bay, Boston Harbor, the
Charles River, Portland Harbor, Lake Champlain
and Lake Memphremagog are among the
waters where higher uses are precluded or
limited because of CSOs. The impact of
precluded uses is often quite substantial since
the areas most commonly affected are urban
where use pressures are most intensive.
b. CSOs prevent final clean up of major rivers
and river segments. Oft-times river clean up has
proceeded to an advanced stage—major
wastewater treatment facilities have been
completed, but CSOs produce water quality
problems. The Merrimack River is such an exam-
ple. Although much effort has gone into treat-
ing discharges into the River, combined sewer
systems in Lawrence, Lowell and Haverhill,
Massachusetts and in Nashua, Concord and
Manchester, New Hampshire impede the at-
tainment of clean up. The estimated cost of
dealing with these overflows is S650 million-
based upon the 1980 Needs Survey, in order to
achieve fishable-swimmable and/or aestheti-
cally acceptable water quality in the River, cso
controls are required.
The total cost of combined sewer control in
New England estimated by the 1982 Needs
Survey to Congress is S4.5 billion.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Establish as a federal priority the control of
combined sewer overflows.
• Advocate increased federal funding to imple-
ment a CSO control program.
Regional Actions
• Accelerate municipal programs for the oper-
ation, maintenance and construction of facili-
ties to control or eliminate combined sewer
discharges.
State and Local Actions
• Accelerate municipal planning for combined
sewer control.
• Provide increased state and local funding to
implement combined sewer control
programs.
DISCUSSION
Background
New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport (CD, Provi-
dence (Ri), Boston, Springfield, Worcester (MA),
Concord, Manchester (NH), Portland, Bangor
(MB, and Burlington (VD, are among the major
cities in New England that have combined sew-
er systems that discharge overflows into ad-
joining water bodies—rivers, lakes and coastal
waters, in northern New England a small num-
ber of smaller communities are also served by
CSOs. Many municipalities have taken limited
remedial action to reduce the frequency of the
CSOs and several communities have eliminated
the overflows by means of sewer separation.
past Responses
• Connecticut: Approximately ten communi-
ties (including Hartford, West Hartford,
Bridgeport, Greenwich, New Haven and Stam-
ford) have combined sewer systems, Most of
these communities have engineering studies
completed or near completion. Several of the
smaller communities are proceeding with
phased separation of their systems. The
recommended alternative for the larger sys-
tems has been separation, but because of
high costs and capital expenditures, water
quality improvements will have to occur over
many years.
• Maine: About fifty communities in Maine
have combined or partially combined sys-
tems. Although the majority of the systems
are small communities with partially com-
bined systems, perhaps fifteen of the larger
communities nave widespread combined sys-
tems, in a small number of communities, lim-
ited remedial separation.to reduce overflows
has been accomplished in conjunction with
the construction of basic wastewater sys-
-------
terns. On a statewide basis, an accurate as-
sessment of the range of the problems and
determinations of alternative control
measures have vet to be developed.
• Massachusetts: Approximately forty muni-
cipal.ties (including such major population
centers as Boston, Springfield and Worcester)
have combined or partially combined sewer
systems. Several small- and medium-sized
communities are putting separation pro-
grams into place, but definitive studies on
the larger systems have only just begun.
Alternative control approaches for these
larger systems must be evaluated.
• New Hampshire: Approximately forty com-
munities have combined or partially com-
bined systems, in many smaller communities
separation of the systems has been deter-
mined to be the most appropriate solution,
and separation projects are underway, in
several of. larger cities separation has been
selected as a remedial alternative, in part,
because of deteriorated existing systems.
However, limited financial resources and
questionable federal eligibility have slowed
the pace of separation projects. Alternative
engineering solutions for control of com-
bined sewers will be required in light of
funding limitations.
• Rhode island: Three major cities (Newport,
Pawtucket, and Providence) have combined
systems that require control programs. Facili'
ties in all three cities are in the advanced
stages of facility planning. Alternative control
systems are being evaluated at the present
time. (See Section on Narragansett Bay).
• Vermont: All of the larger municipalities and
a number of smaller towns, representing
approximately sixty communities, have com-
bined or partially combined systems with
overflows. Remedial action on combined
sewers has generally been limited to inflow
reduction programs in conjunction with
basic wastewater facilities upgrading.
Because of funding limitations, no major
step:; have been taken to deal with combined
sewers.
Barriers to Overcome:
• Federal, state and local governments have
focused their attention on the task of provid-
ing basic collection and treatment of waste-
watcirs. The control of combined sewers has
been given secondary priority primarily due
to the limited concern placed on them by
federal statutes, regulations, guidelines and
procirams. This reduced priority has resulted
in limited implementation of programs to
reduce CSOs.
• The technology for control of overflows,
within a reasonable financial framework, is
available. The application and implementa-
tion of the technology is a critical factor.
• The primary barriers to solution of the prob-
lem are federal, state and local governmental
priority for control of the overflows and
governmental financial resources to con-
struct the required CSO control systems.
Expected Environmental Results
• control of CSOs, when implemented in com-
bination with other basic water pollution
control measures, will result in reclamation of
the desired uses along the major rivers and
many miles of the coastline in New England.
• Shellfish beds may be opened; swimming and
recreational areas can be fully utilized; fish-
ing, canoeing and general use and develop-
ment of the rivers and coastal areas will be
substantially enhanced; the aesthetic quali-
ties of the water will be restored.
• Since the New England economy is so closely
linked to the environmental quality of the
region, significant economic benefits will
accrue as a result of the completed cleanup.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Nonpoint Source Pollution
AS illustrated in the state-by-state summaries
of water quality, nonpoint sources (NPS) of pol-
lution impair high quality drinking, fishing and
recreation waters in New England. Lakes,
streams and reservoirs are especially vulner-
able. Nonpoint problems are generally local-
ized or sporadic in contrast to gross, wide-
spread point source pollution loadings.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• involve national organizations and associa-
tions to reach the diversity of agencies in-
volved in controlling the sources of nonpoint
pollution.
• involve sister federal agencies administering
appropriate programs (agriculture, forestry,
construction, and transportation).
Headquarters /Regional Actions
• Provide national and regional leadership,
guidance and technical assistance, with "last
resort" back-up enforcement.
• Furnish model legislation, guidance and tech-
nical assistance to build up state-local-private
sector capajpility.
• Support states and localities in back-up
enforcement.
Regional Actions
• Encourage state water quality management
agencies to involve sister agencies and to
furnish them water quality information.
Other Federal Agency Actions
• Shift priorities to focus funds that are avail-
45
-------
able to address water quality and related en-
vironmental quality.
State and Local Agency Actions
• Encourage individual users and operators to
adopt and implement best management
practices (BMPs) to minimize water quality
degradation from potential pollution-gener-
ating activities.
• Strengthen education and technical assis-
stance for BMP implementation.
• Strengthen state and local regulatory pro-
grams through permits and licenses.
DISCUSSION
Background
All types of NPS pollution occur throughout
New England, certain sources appear more
rural in nature, while others are more persis-
tent in urban areas. The major sources of non-
point pollution can be categorized and de-
scribed as follows:
Urban runoff: The runoff of rainfall and
snowmelt from paved areas, rooftops and
lawns of developed areas can cause water
problems in receiving waterbodies. Runoff
from these surfaces carry sediments, nutri-
ents, pathogens, toxics and debris into
streams, ponds, water supply reservoirs and
estuaries. The most severe urban runoff prob-
lems are concentrated in southern New
England because it is more developed and
more highly urbanized.
Construction activities: improper construc-
tion practices at particular sites cause erosion
and sedimentation in streams and lakes, in a
few instances, heavy construction in urban
areas accelerates runoff of nutrients and toxic
substances. Overall these problems are concen-
trated in urban centers of southern New
England, in southern New Hampshire and
Maine, and in the Burlington Champlain valley,
Vermont. They occur in areas undergoing rapid
urbanization and large-scale construction for
highways, airports, shopping malls, commercial
areas and new industry. Large-scale construc-
tion has caused erosion and sedimentation in
streams and ponds valued for their fisheries/
recreation water quality, critical water supply
reservoirs, and sensitive wetlands, estuaries,
and spawning areas. To a much lesser extent,
improperly maintained town road ditches have
caused some problems.
Not only does silt and, in some instances,
toxic runoff from construction practices
directly impair critical waters, sensitive aquatic
ecosystems and prime recreation/aesthetic
values, but they also are passed on as silt/toxic
loads that successively settle and shift with the
currents for years to come. Once silt settles in
the stream, it disrupts the hydrologic equi-
librium—accelerating bank scouring, erosion,
and flooding.
On-site waste disposal systems: All of the
major cities in New England are served by cen-
tral sewerage systems; however, many sub-
urban and rural communities continue to rely
on individual subsurface disposal systems.
Approximately 35% of the region's population
utilize subsurface systems to dispose of their
domestic wastes. Although land application
systems are often the most effective and eco-
nomical alternatives for waste treatment, they
can create water quality problems in both
ground and surface waters if they fail.
Agricultural activities: Although agricultur-
ally-related pollution is relatively minor in New
England compared to municipal and industrial
point sources, it poses significant water quality
problems in critical areas. This can occur where
animal waste handling, cropping practices, and
pesticide/herbicide applications degrade high
quality waters prized for their recreation, fish
and wildlife, water supply and aesthetic values.
Forest management activities: On a scat-
tered basis, especially in northern New
England, improperly designed logging roads
and skidding practices likewise impair high
quality uses.
Past Responses
• Rural Clean water Program (RCWP), Small
watershed Projects (PL566), and Agricultural
Conservation Program (ACP) fund agricultural
and forestry BMP implementation for critical
watersheds.
• USDA (SCS) delivery system of technical assis-
tance to local level, coordinated through
State Soil and water Conservation com-
mittees.
• National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) funds
selected projects to study stormwater runoff
problems and alternative solutions.
• Local adoption of urban runoff pollution con-
trol ordinances; assistance and backup from
State water Pollution Control Agencies.
• section 201 of the CWA is available for the
planning, design, and construction or rehabil-
itation of small-scale on-site wastewater
treatment systems.
• State and local health codes promote soils/
site evaluation, proper installation, and ade-
quate operation and maintenance of on-site
wastewater disposal systems.
• A National Prototype Project and Training
Project has studied water quality impacts of
forestry and disseminated BMP information.
• State foresters, with assistance and backup
from the state pollution control agency, work
with operators to utilize BMPs.
Barriers to Overcome
• The diffuse, intermittent nature of NPS
sources make it difficult to recognize their
water quality impacts and mount effective
abatement strategies.
-------
• The diversity of management agencies re-
quires coordinated efforts to develop and
implement pollution abatement measures.
• Simple preventive measures are readily
sligited or overlooked.
• Since BMPs usually involve changing in-
gra ned habits and operations, long lead
times are often required in the adoption
process.
• Local autonomy and lack of regional/national
consistency make BMP adoption less
effective.
• Diminishing support funds make abatement
efforts more difficult to implement.
Expected Environmental Results
• Pollutant loads from nonpoint sources can be
expected to be reduced by BMP implementa-
tion, thus minimizing the water uses now
impaired, particularly in otherwise high qual-
ity streams and lakes. BMPs will prevent
degradation of existing high quality waters,
providing insurance against costly, disruptive
incidents and need for expensive remedial
measures.
• urban storm runoff: Significant reduction in
sediment, nutrients, and metals in urban
runoff.
• Construction: Reduced erosion and sedi-
mentation of streams, ponds and estuaries
during residential, commercial, and highway
construction.
• On-site wastewater disposal: Prevention of
pollution to wells, aquifers, streams, and
ponds currently contaminated or threatened
by improper on-site disposal.
• Agriculture: Reduced soil erosion and sedi-
mentation and reduced phosphorous load-
ings and lake eutrophication.
• Forestry: Decreased erosion and sedimenta-
tion into lakes and streams from improper
forest management activities, especially
logging roads and skid trails.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Filling of Wetlands
Our nation's wetlands are an irreplaceable
natural resource. Although wetlands comprise
only approximately 3% of this country's sur-
face area, they are essential to the survival of
our fish and wildlife populations and are
increasingly being recognized as important in
maintaining water quality through the filtra-
tion and uptake of sediment, nutrients, and
pollutants. They also act as natural flood stor-
age a'r=as and, along the coast, provide a buffer
against storm damage and erosion. Biologi-
cally, wetlands are among the most productive
and diverse ecosystems on earth. TWO thirds of
the ccmmercial fish species harvested on the
Atlantic coast depend on coastal estuaries and
wetlands for food and spawning grounds.
Many river and lake fish species depend on in-
land lakes and wetlands, wetlands provide
habitat and food for furbearers such as musk-
rat, otter, mink, racoon, and beaver. At least 76
threatened and endangered species require
wetlands for habitat.
Despite their value and relative scarcity, our
wetlands continue to be destroyed at an alarm-
ing rate. There has been tremendous pressures
from developers to build on coastal islands and
wetland areas. The unregulated discharge of
dredged and fill material results in impairment
of water quality and habitat loss. Of most con-
cern is that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has recently issued several "nationwide
permits" which exempt large geographical
areas from regulation and increase the
potential for wetland loss.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Rather than exempt large geographical areas,
the Corps could issue general permits for
those minor activities that commonly occur
in these areas. Conversely, they could retain
the present regulation but condition the
exemptions to exclude projects with a signifi-
cant potential for impact (e.g., the exemp-
tion could authorize a maximum amount of
fill such as 1,000 yd3 in wetland areas). Corps
conditions already prohibit the discharge of
toxic material into these exempted areas. An
additional condition concerning project size
would allow closer review of those proposals
with a potential to cause significant habitat
loss. EPA could negotiate with the Corps to
structure the nationwide permits in a more
environmentally acceptable manner.
If negotiations with the Corps are unsuccess-
ful, EPA could consider initiating 404(c) veto
proceedings against selected Corps nation-
wide permits. (This section of the Act allows
the Administrator to veto permits issued by
the Corps which would have an unacceptable
adverse impact.)
Regional Actions
• work with the New England Division of the
Corps to design appropriate regional condi-
tions on nationwide permits.
• Develop procedures with the New England
states so that we are informed of significant
activities occurring in exempted areas.
• Actively encourage the Corps to exercise its
discretionary authority in cases that have the
potential for significant habitat loss.
• instigate 404(c) predesignation actions to
safeguard especially valuable wetlands in
exempted areas.
• Actively encourage New England states to
assume 404 program delegation.
-------
• Provide assistance to New England states to
review their programs for adequate regula-
tion of freshwater wetlands.
Other Actions
• The New England states shall insure that their
programs adequately regulate areas
exempted from federal regulation.
• The states should actively consider assuming
the 404 program delegation.
DISCUSSION
Background
Despite their value and relative scarcity, our
wetlands continue to be destroyed at an alarm-
ing rate. Over 40% of the nation's original wet-
lands are gone; in an older, more densely popu-
lated region such as New England, the loss has
probably been greater. Although considerable
attention through the years has been focused
on chemical water pollution and water quality
standards, this is only one aspect of the more
general problem of wetlands protection.
undoubtedly, the most critical problem asso-
ciated with wetland deterioration is loss of
habitat. Direct habitat loss usually results from
dredging or filling operations, indirect loss can
occur from changes in wetland hydrology or
isolation of an area from the full ecosystem.
Development activity can increase chemical
loads and may also result in increased public
exposure to health risks posed by mosquitos as
disease vectors.
Other values not as readily apparent are lost
when wetlands are filled. For example; nearly
8,500 acres of wetlands in the Charles River
Basin in eastern Massachusetts absorb an
average annual flood which would otherwise
produce damages estimated at over S17 mil-
lion. According to the Massachusetts Audubon
Society, these same wetlands have a waste
treatment capacity estimated at Sl7,000/acre
per year, wetlands such as these also provide
real, if difficult to quantify, aesthetic and
recreational benefits.
Past Responses
• in response to the concern over the loss of
wetlands, congress enacted Section 404 of
the Clean water Act to regulate these dis-
charges, in addition, many states developed
their own programs to regulate and monitor
the problem. The combined implementation
of the state and federal programs in New
England has drastically reduced the unneces-
sary loss of our coastal wetlands. This is parti-
cularly true in Massachusetts and Rhode
island; a slightly higher loss of coastal wet-
lands continues to occur in Connecticut.
Overall, the national 404 Permit Program per-
mits the destruction of 300,000 acres of wet-
lands per year. Region I, due in part to its
small size and long history of settlement,
accounts for well under 5% of this annual
loss, in fact, within the last two years fewer
than 750 acres of wetland filling has been
allowed under all individual permits
combined.
• Significant problems remain with regard to
our inland wetlands, however. These areas
are unprotected or not as well protected
depending on the particular state program.
The federal (404) program jurisdiction
reaches to "all waters of the U.S." However, in
1977, the Corps of Engineers — which admin-
isters the program — issued regulations
which authorized fills in isolated wetlands
less than 10 acres, and wetlands above head-
waters ("headwaters" is defined as the point
where flow of a stream is 5 cfs). in 1982, the
Corps expanded this exemption by removing
the 10-acre size limitation.
• For the New England region we estimate that
approximately 35% of the inland wetlands
were covered under .the 1977 exemptions
and an additional 30% were exempted under
the 1982 rules. The effect, then, is to leave
only 30% of the inland wetlands subject to
federal regulation. The National Wildlife Fed-
eration stated in their August 10, 1982, con-
gressional testimony that, "the environmen-
tal impact of the nationwide permits will be
immense.. .over 48,469 acres of the 87,942
acres of waters in Rhode island currently
regulated by Section 404 [will be] unpro-
tected." Although the figure may be much
higher, we can state, with certainty, that
over 50% of New England freshwater wet-
lands are no longer individually regulated
under Section 404.
Barriers to Overcome
• Little information is available on the precise
environmental impact of these exemptions
since there are no reporting or application
requirements.
• The Corps appears unwilling to consider
making significant meaningful modifications
to the nationwide permits of most concern.
• Use of 404(c) is very resource intensive for the
Agency.
Expected Environmental Results
• Environmentally acceptable nationwide per-
mits would serve to insure that development
in these areas avoids or minimizes degrada-
tion of water quality and habitat loss.
• Significant increase in the preservation of
wetlands with concommitant benefits to
man and wildlife.
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Lake Eutrophication
Lake;; are among New England's most valu-
able aestnetic, recreational and economic
assets. Many of the lakes in New England are
showing signs of accelerated, man-induced
eutrophication.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Advocate continued financial assistance for
the states to develop and implement lake
management programs.
• Provide technical publications and financial
support for the annual lakes management
conference.
• Serve as the clearing house for technical pub-
lications involving state-of-the-art techniques
for lake management.
Regional Actions
• Continue oversight of regional clean lakes
management programs.
• Provide technical assistance to the states on
lake management as needed.
State and Local Action
• Attempt to obtain adequate state and local
funding for lake restoration projects. A suc-
cessful example is Massachusetts' recently
enacted Clean Lakes program that provides
state funding for diagnostic and restoration
efforts.
DISCUSSION
Background
Lake:; are among New England's most valu-
able 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 treat-
ment plants and nonpoint sources — and sedi-
ments can contribute to excessive growth of
aquatic weeds, thereby reducing a lake's ability
to maintain its full recreational potential.
Many of the lakes in New England are show-
ing signs of eutrophication. For example, Maine
shows 30 problem lakes, New Hampshire 50,
Vermont 55, Connecticut 100, and Massachu-
setts 1,030.
Past Responses
• in 1975, a Clean Lakes program was initiated
under Section 314 of the Clean water Act to
provide for federal participation in lake
rehabilitation and preservation programs.
• This program provides funding for lake diag-
nostic studies at 70% federal share and imple-
mentation activities at 50% federal share. A
breakdown of funds obligated to date in New
England is as follows:
Connecticut S1.110,135 New Hampshire 5297,686
Maine 51,889,577 Rhode island 574,200
Massachusetts 54,456,303 Vermont 5456,506
• The New England states have expressed con-
cern over EPA's intention to terminate the
Clean Lakes program. The states feel that the
cost of lake management program is too
large for the states to assume. A preliminary
list of priority restoration projects for each
state and an estimated cost of cleanup
appears on page 106 of the appendix.
Barriers to Overcome
• Lack of adequate financial resources to
restore impacted lakes in New England.
• Lack of national commitment to lakes restor-
ation program (i.e., financial and technical).
• Need for information exchange on state-of-
the-art lake restoration techniques.
Expected Environmental Results
• upgrade lake water quality to provide for
swimmable/fishable uses.
• increased recreational potential of clean
lakes is important to New England economy.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Exploratory Oil
and Gas Drilling on Georges Bank
The second round of leasing areas of Ceorges
Bank for oil and gas drilling was delayed by
court action on March 28,1983. AS soon as legal
proceedings on this Sale NO. 52 are completed,
EPA will need to proceed expeditiously with
issuance of NPDES permits for operational dis-
charges. Permits cannot be issued beyond July,
1984, unless they incorporate Best Available
Treatment (BAT) technology economically
achievable. BAT is either established by national
guidelines or by the permit writer's best pro-
fessional judgement. As a result of new regula-
tions, general permits should be issued for
Outer Continental Shelf (DCS) activities when-
ever possible. Rulemaking procedures for
general permits require extensive review
within and outside of EPA in Washington. The
complexity of the existing procedures coupled
with the high public interest and the need to
consider all applicable information and
research in permit decisions makes the permit
process complex and time-consuming.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Although significant steps have been taken
to expedite general permit review, the
process remains lengthy and very complex.
HQ should continue to consider the following
alternatives as means of reducing the com-
plexity and time to issue final general
permits:
— waiver of OMB review at the draft and/or
final permit phase;
— Reconsideration of general permits as rule-
making, thereby not requiring publication in
-------
50
the Federal Register at draft and final stages
and no formal OMB review;
— Development of a written position on gen-
eral permits as permits or rules, and the ap-
propriateness of allowance for formal
administrative appeals of permit decisions.
• Development of BAT effluent guidelines for
the oil and gas extraction category should be
maintained in its high priority status so per-
mit writers can have draft and final guide-
lines available as soon as possible for permit
development. This will aid in developing
nationally consistent permits, where
appropriate.
Regional Actions
• EPA Region I staff should develop a mutually.
agreeable format with states for EPA's Coastal
Zone Management consistency certification
to the states accompanying general NPDES
permit issuance.
• Region I will continue with information analy-
sis and drafting of a general NPDES permit
and Ocean Discharge Determination for OCS
Lease Sale No. 52 in coordination with states,
MMS, and Headquarters until the Lease Sale is
held and areas to be explored are known.
DISCUSSION
Background
under OCS Lease Sale No. 42, exploratory drill-
ing for oil and gas began on Georges Bank in
July, 1981, and is now suspended because of
lack of commercially important finds of oil and
gas. A total of eight wells were drilled by five
different companies.
The next sale, NO. 52, scheduled for March,
1983, has been delayed by a federal court
ruling. The area under consideration in Sale No.
52 includes the sale NO. 42 area, deeper tracts
along the continental slope and some off the
continental shelf. Planning is also underway for
sale NO. 82 tentatively scheduled for February,
1984. The Sale NO. 82 area under consideration
extends from thirty miles offshore of New
England to beyond the continental shelf.
Since the issuance of individual permits
under sale No. 42 and in other Regions, EPA
policy and regulations have required issuance
of general permits for OCS drilling wherever
possible to reduce dupiicative application
requirements and the paper workload in issu-
ing numerous identical permits. However,
general permits are considered formal rule-
making which subjects them to review by
numerous Headquarters offices and OMB. Com-
pleting this process for draft and final permits
will be resource intensive and time-consuming
for Region I in issuing a general permit(s) for
the next lease sale.
in the Georges Bank area, permit develop-
ment is of great public interest. Development
of the next permits will also be of great inter-
est as evidenced by the multiple party law suits
filed to halt the Lease Sale itself, within the
Region, the process of analyzing Georges Bank
Monitoring Program results, other research
and coordination with other agenices and the
public will be extensive and time-consuming.
Therefore, any measures to reduce EPA Head-
quarters or OMB review of permits will aid in
timely permitting.
At present, there are no BAT effluent guide-
lines for the oil and gas extraction industry
category which specify technology to be
applied to control discharge of heavy metals.
without these, permits cannot be issued
beyond July, 1984. unless permit writers do so
based on their Best Professional Judgement.
This places a great technical burden on permit
writers and can lead to inconsistency between
regions.
Past Responses
• In responding to regional comments on
general permit guidance and a proposed
Memorandum of Understanding with Depart-
ment of interior on IMPDES permitting the
outer continental activities, Headquarters
offices explained that they established proce-
dures to "fast track" procedural reviews
within EPA and were seeking to do the same
with OMB.
• To address the requirements for BAT treat-
ment of toxic pollutants by July, 1984, the
Effluent Guidelines Division is developing BAT
and new source performance standards for
the Oil and Gas extraction category. These are
scheduled to be developed by summer, 1983.
Barriers to Overcome
• To issue timely, appropriate NPDES permits
for the next lease sale on Georges Bank the
following should occur:
— EPA Headquarters needs to find ways to
further reduce the time required to issue
general permits;
— Effluent Guidelines needs to complete the
extensive effort of developing BAT and
new source performance standards;
— Region I needs to complete all technical
background work for general and indi-
vidual permits, if appropriate, for areas
leased under the next lease sale at the time
the sale is held so that permit coordination
and issuance can proceed expeditiousiy.
Expected Environmental Results
• if these recommendations can be realized
further NPDES permitting of operational dis-
charges during exploratory oil and gas drill-
ing on Georges Bank should be completed in
timely fashion with all appropriate permit
conditions. The permits should meet EPA's
requirements under the CWA and associated
regulations for permits which do not allow
any unreasonable degradation of the marine
environment.
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Ocean Dumping
New England coastal waters have been used
for disposal of dredged spoils, industrial and
chemical wastes and low-level radioactive
materials. Presently, ocean dumping is limited
to dredged spoil. Increasing pressures to dis-
pose of other materials at sea and an apparent
. emerging national policy change to consider
this alternative will subject the Region's coastal
and ocean waters to a greater environmental
risk.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Action
• Headquarters, the Region and the coastal
states should cooperatively work toward
development of regulations which are pro-
tective of the ocean and coastal environ-
ment, and consistent with national policy
direction.
Regional Action
• The Region, the states and EPA Headquarters
should begin to identify broad ocean areas
which may be acceptable for ocean disposal
of non-dredged materials in order to channel
potential discharges to the most environ-
mentally compatible areas.
Other Action
• Research into the effects of ocean disposal
• should continue.
DISCUSSION
Background
Approximately 75% (or 19 million cubic yards)
of the total amount of material dredged in
New England between 1971 and 1980 was dis-
posed in open waters off New England's coast.
Of this total, 3,280,843 cubic yards were dis-
posed at two EPA approved interim sites over
the past four years. The demand for disposal at
these and other open water sites is expected
to continue and possibly increase over the next
decade because of the need to maintain and
enhance regional harbors and ports.
The potential amounts of non-dredged ma-
terial which may be proposed for ocean dis-
posal is unknown. Two potential sources of
non-dredged wastes, sewage sludge from
South Essex Sewer District and MDC Boston,
alone, contribute over 100 tons/year to the
ocean environment. The long term environ-
menta. impacts of dredge spoil disposal on the
marine1 environment are still largely uncertain
since extensive testing at and near disposal
sites has. not been conducted. No major
problems have been detected along the New
England coast to date.
Past Responses
• The Clean water Act prohibits ocean disposal
of sludge. Section 30Kh) waiver regulations
specifically exclude sludge. The Marine Pro-
tection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, how-
ever, does regulate the disposal of materials
discharged from barges and ships beyond
the coastal baseline and establishes environ-
mental criteria used to determine whether a
material can be disposed at sea.
• Current EPA ocean dumping regulations have
greatly reduced possible environmental risks
of disposal by controlling the nature of
materials deposited at sea. All spoils must be
tested for toxicity, likelihood of bioaccumula-
tion, etc. before they can be dumped, if the
material does not meet EPA criteria, permis-
sion to dump is denied or, if the material is
conditionally acceptable, the material must
be "capped" or covered with less contami-
nated material. Todays dredge spoils are also
likely to be "cleaner" than in previous years
because of the construction of new and up-
graded POTWs.
• EPA's ocean dumping regulations are under-
going revision to comply with a court deci-
sion which required EPA to more fully con-
sider the environmental and economic
consequences of alternative sludge disposal
options before rejecting an ocean disposal
option.
Barriers to Overcome
• There is a need to expand our present knowl-
edge of the impacts of material disposal in
the marine environment, and to appropri-
ately condition our regulatory framework
based on the extent of present knowledge.
Where the impacts of ocean disposal are ill
defined, the regulatory framework should
provide appropriate safeguards which would
ensure that ocean disposal could not be
utilized.
Expected Environmental Results
• Continued protection of the ocean en-
vironment.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Quality of Drinking water
Maintaining the high quality of New
England's drinking water is resource intensive.
The Region I states have indicated that under
current funding levels they are unable to
continue to effectively implement all aspects
of their drinking water programs, it is often
difficult to bring persistent violators of drink-
ing water standards into compliance, in some
areas of New England drinking water has been
rendered unsuitable for consumption because
of contamination by certain organic chemicals.
Since these organic chemicals are not covered
by federal standards, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to correct these problems through
enforcement actions.
51
-------
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region Total
TABLE 6
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
Total PWS
4424
3022
2102
1399
•632
1691.
13,270
IN NEW ENGLAND
Community
685
380
636
409
113
386
2,609
Non-Community
3739
2642
1466
990
519
1305
10,661
52
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Provide guidance on ways to continue the
effective implementation of the drinking
water regulations in a period of reduced
resources.
• Research and develop cost-effective meth-
ods of treatment for small water supply
systems.
• Develop regulations and guidance for the
control of organic chemical contaminants.
Regional Actions
• Provide guidance to the states in dealing
with persistent violators by developing
innovative and effective compliance
strategies.
• Provide guidance and assistance to states in
assessing their individual program needs.
• Assist the states in developing an improved
drinking water surveillance program with
emphasis on data handling, sanitary surveys,
non-community program, laboratory quality
assurance, and technical and administrative
matters.
• Render technical assistance to the states by
issuing health advisories and advising on
treatment techniques, especially with
respect to organic chemical contamination
problems.
Other Actions
• initiate regulatory reforms giving the states
flexibility in terms of repetitive monitoring
requirements presently applicable to certain
contaminants that are already regulated
under the NIPDWR.
• states should develop effective compliance
strategies to bring all their water systems
into compliance.
DISCUSSION
Background
under the authority of the SDWA, EPA has
promulgated National interim Primary Drinking
water Regulations (NIPDWR) which apply to
public water systems (PWS). These regulations
specify maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for
inorganic and.organic chemicals, turbidity,
bacteria, and radionuclides. in addition, the
regulations require periodic monitoring of
public water supplies for the specified con-
taminants, and public notification if any of the
MCLS are exceeded.
in Region i, there are 13,270 public water sys-
tems. (Table 6)
Of these public water systems, approximately
23% use surface water sources and 77% draw
from the ground water. Fully 80% of New
England's population is served by surface
water, and 20% by ground water sources.
in New England, there are now 2,609 com-
munity water supply systems providing water
to over 11,000,000 people. Although there are
many more non-community water supply sys-
tems, the population 'served them is sub-
stantially less than that served by community
water supply systems.
While the reporting data indicates that from
FY 80 to FY 82 there was a decrease in the num-
ber of violations of the conform and turbidity
MCLs, much work still needs to be done. And,
there is a pressing need for innovative and ef-
fective compliance strategies so that we may
bring more water systems into compliance
with the drinking water regulations.
One of the activities state water supply agen-
cies engage in to protect the public health is to
conduct sanitary surveys of water supply sys-
tems, particularly those that have been in viola-
tion in the past. A sanitary survey is an on-site
review of the water system's source, facilities,
equipment, and operation and maintenance to
determine the system's capability of producing
and distributing safe drinking water on a con-
sistent basis. Sanitary surveys, however, are re-
source intensive. For this reason, some states
are reluctant to conduct them in the face of
other pressing problems. The major concern
voiced by all of the New England state water
supply officials is their inability to continue to
effectively implement all aspects of their drink-
ing water programs with current funding
levels.
Another resource-related impediment to
meeting current water supply standards is the
cost of acquiring new sources of water supply
or building new water treatment plants. Never-
-------
theies:;, several states in New England are now
offering grants to assist water systems develop
new supplies and plants. Priority should be
given 1:0 tnose systems unable to meet current
drinking water regulations.
water supply program responsibilities have
increased as federal and state funding has
decreased. States are being forced to limit or
eliminate important activities such as technical
assistance to public water systems, sanitary sur-
veys and the non-community system program.
inadequate funding, then, is an important
reasor why water supply problems persist in
New E.igiand.
Past Responses
• All six New England states have been granted
primary enforcement responsibility to assure
compliance with regulations.
• The f-PA Regional Office has assumed an over-
sight: role and provides the states with
specialized technical assistance.
• The Regional office has served as a focal point
for states' annual compliance data and for
generating trends and program priorities.
• The Regional office has provided technical
and administrative assistance in program and
compliance/contamination issues.
Barriers to Overcome
• insufficient funding to support all aspects of
the drinking water program.
• High cost of acquiring new sources of water
supply or building new treatment plants in
order to meet current regulations.
• insufficient resources to assure proper con-
struction of new water systems.
• insufficient laboratory capabilities and high
cost of analytical work.
• insufficient guidance and regulations to cope
with emerging organic chemical contamina-
tion:; problems.
Expected Environmental Results
• with emphasis on persistent violators,
improvement of the water system com-
pliance is expected. Given the limited fund-
ing, all of the states' efforts will be assessed in
order to assure resources are not being
directed toward less important issues than
protecting public health. The EPA regional
office will also give priority to assisting states
in these areas:
— Bringing systems into compliance with
drinking water regulations
— Developing the appropriate laboratory
capabilities and support.
— in addition to trihalomethane regulations,
establishing an approach for controlling
organic chemicals in drinking water.
SIGNIFICANT WATER QUALITY
PROBLEMS IN NEW ENGLAND —
SITE SPECIFIC
This portion provides a more detailed des-
cription of some of Region rs more significant
site specific water quality problems.
Severe pollution in Boston Harbor and Narra-
gansett Bay caused by inadquate urban waste-
water treatment systems and combined sewer
overflows adversely affect two of New
England's most important water resources. PCB
contamination has severely affected the recre-
ational and fishing potentials of the Housatonic
River in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and
New Bedford Harbor in Massachusetts, com-
bined municipal and industrial point sources
have caused major problems in Salem Harbor,
Massachusetts.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Boston Harbor
The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC)
operates two out-moded and over-loaded pri-
mary treatment plants which discharge 450
million gallons of wastewater and 90 dry tons
of digested sludge to Boston Harbor every day.
in addition, the local tributary combined sewer
system overflows untreated wastewater at
some 110 locations along the Harbor's edge.
This wasteioad obviously has a negative effect
on water quality and inhibits full recreational
and economic use of the Harbor.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Accelerate 30Kh) waiver review process and
commit to a schedule for a tentative
decision.
• investigate whether 30Kh) waivers could be
granted for an extended period in instances
where substantial capital investments for
extended outfalls are necessary.
• Pursue regulatory reforms to address "big
city" funding problems through the use of
set-aside or carryover accounts.
• Clarify Agency policy on ocean dumping of
sludge.
Regional Actions
• Place MDC under a legally-enforceable
schedule.
• Create an internal ad-hoc task force to track
MDC progress and to communicate problems
on a regular basis to senior management.
• Accelerate review of MDC projects and
develop time-based project objectives.
• Begin to develop strategy for fast-track
review of a potential "second round" waiver
application. ,
Other Actions
• Region/MA DWPC — develop baseline water
5!
-------
quality profile of Boston Harbor including
compilation of existing information and
identification of data gaps.
• MDC — improve operation and maintenance
of treatment facilities to increase compliance
record and restore credibility with the
public.
• MDC — accelerate investigation/decision on
ocean dumping of sludge in order to resolve
existing uncertainty over MDCs intentions.
• Executive Office for Environmental Affairs
(EOEA) — support adequate budget for MDC
activities.
• EOEA — pursue special marine CSO funding, at
state and federal levels.
• EOEA — pursue reforms to allow set-aside/
carry-over funding discussed above.
• MDC — re-examine timing of sewer system
relief projects in relation to treatment plant
improvements.
• MDC — accelerate development of com-
posting as a partial alternative for sludge
management.
• Public and political factions must be per-
suaded to accept certain levels of impacts
from the construction, operation, and main-
tenance of facilities in order to implement
necessary system improvements.
• State Legislature — assure adequate funding
and evaluate other funding/organizational
mechanisms to assure wastewater treatment
facilities are properly funded.
• Member communities such as Boston, Cam-
bridge and Somerville should work closely
with the MDC to correct the CSO problem.
DISCUSSION
Background ~
The MDC is a Massachusetts state agency that
provides wastewater treatment/collection to
43 greater Boston communities with a service
population of over 2 million (about 40% of the
state), it operates two primary treatment
plants (Nut island-1952, Deer lsland-1968) and
two Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) treatment
facilities (Cottage Farm-1971, Prison Point-1981).
in addition, the tributary combined sewer
system overflows at some 110 points along the
Harbors edge.
The treatment plant, sludge, and CSO dis-
charges all have an impact on water quality to
some degree. The pollutants in these dis-
charges include conform bacteria, floating
materials, oil/grease, suspended/settleable
solids, biochemical oxygen demand, nutrients,
and heavy metals.
A Nut island (Ni) Site Options Study is essen-
tially complete, it is intended to resolve the fu-
ture of Nl plant in light of Deer island (Di) needs
and 301(h) waiver possibility, in its draft report,
MDC recommended upgrading (i.e., good pri-
mary) Nl at its present location as opposed to
abandonment and replacement with a pump
station only (the draft EIS recommendation).
Lack of a decision on the MDCs waiver applica-
tion has probably indirectly slowed the prog-
ress of this study. Winthrop and Quincy gener-
ally oppose full plants at their respective loca-
tions and would like to spread the burden to a
neutral site such as Long island, which Boston
strongly opposes.
The approximate costs (including sludge
management) for the major options are as
follows:
Primary/Harbor Discharge S320M
Primary/Ocean Discharge S660M
Secondary/Harbor Discharge S760M
The Nut island Site Options Study is currently
under EPA/MA DWPC review, it is anticipated
that some short-term improvements will be
under construction by the summer of 1983.
A sludge management study is also essen-
tially complete. The recommended plan calls
for construction of three incinerators at Di to
handle the primary sludge at a cost of about
$70 million, in addition, MDC has found that a
sufficient market exists to warrant construc-
tion of a demonstration composting facility on
Di, and construction should begin this summer
with about a 15-month duration for construc-
tion/operation/evaluation. At the present
time, composting is only being carried as an
adjunct to incineration.
There has been strong public pressure to use
the Long island as a neutral and remote site for
an incinerator. The MDC is hoping an ocean dis-
posal option will be available. A report is under
EPA/DWPC review but progress is slow due to
pessimistic outlook.
All four CSO (inner Harbor, Charles River,
Dorchester Bay, Neponset River) facility plans
are complete and have been reviewed by EPA.
Recommended plans are phased and varied
with a total estimated cost of about S280M.
Although this element of the MDCs plan has
the most broad-based support, it does repre-
sent a substantial investment and as such the
first group of projects may be limited to low
cost/high benefit proposals in beach areas
only. Some minor portions of the Neponset
River plan have gone to design and are about
to go to construction, but on the majority of
the project EPA is simply waiting for the MDC
and MA DWPC to submit completed environ-
mental reviews. Reaching agreement on ulti-
mate responsibility for CSO correction (i.e., MDC
vs. member communities) could be an obstacle
in the future.
There are 8-10 projects'ongoing to deal with
various interceptor/pump station problems
throughout the MDC system. A few of these
54
-------
have gone onto design. The aggregate cost of
the improvements will probably exceed S100M.
Although these projects are straight forward
and their need is readily justified, the feasibility
of their implementation comes into question if
the Dl/lMl plants are not upgraded, since the
projects will obviously deliver more flow to the
plants at the expense of the harbor
communities.
The Boston water and Sewer Commission is
making excellent progress on their capital
improvement program. Over the last two
years, EPA has contributed approximately $40
million in support of rehabilitation/replace-
ment of Boston's main interceptor system with
almost an equal amount planned for the next
two years. This work will address the problems^
of coastal dry weather and low level wet"
weather overflows as well as in-land sewer sur-
charging/flooding.
Past Responses
• An MDC "Master Plan" has been undergoing
refinement for 8-10 years.
• Seventeen separate Step I grants have been
made but none of the projects has gone to
construction yet.
• Two Environmental impact Statements have
been issued with both concluding that more
studies are warranted.
• Multiple advisory committees, task forces,
and tracking operations have been created
to bolster progress, input, and interest.
• Numerous schedules have been negotiated,
violated, and renegotiated.
Barriers to Overcome
• Lack of decision on 30l(h) waiver application.
• State construction grant allotment in-
adequate to cover MDC needs in a timely
fashion.
• Lack or EPA policy on ocean dumping of
sludge.
• No consolidated/current document on
harbor water quality.
• MDC track record in operation and mainte-
nance is weak.
• The public and many elected officials are
unwilling to accept any impacts associated
with potential projects.
• Resolution of CSO correction jurisdiction and
responsibility between MDC and member
communities.
Expected Environmental Results
• Water quality improvements will occur,
depending upon the level of program
implementation and 30l(h) waiver decisions.
• Elevated dissolved oxygen levels, improved
aquatic environment.
• Reduction in conform levels, elimination of
beach closures, reopening of shellfish beds
for commerical harvesting.
• Elimination of nuisance conditions and
aesthetic problems.
• Reductions in water quality standards
violations.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Narragansett
Bay, Rhode Island
Upper Narragansett Bay in Rhode island has
suffered from man-made pollution since the
1800s in the forms of industrial wastes from
metal platers, chemical industries and oil
terminal activities, and from municipal wastes
and 120 combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The
cumulative effect of the pollutants has re-
sulted in the degradation of the upper five
miles of a 15-mile estuary, as illustrated by high
bacterial and suspended solids levels and very
low dissolved oxygen levels. At certain times of
the year dissolved oxygen values of zero have
been reported in certain spots of the Bay.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Continue a strong and well-funded combined
sewer overflow program until the CSO
problems are abated.
Regional Actions
• Employ Region-developed conservative sub-
stance and coliform dispersion model for the
Upper Bay. The model can be used for the de-
velopment of pretreatment, NPDES permit,
and use attainability programs for facilities
discharging into the Bay. It should ultimately
be used to predict water quality impacts
from specific pollution abatement strategies
dealing with CSOs and point sources. Through
allied funding by Sea Grant and the National
Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration
(NOAA), data is being generated and incorpo-
rated into the model to improve its capa-
bilities.
• Consider Region I funding of a field sampling
program to develop pollutant loading func-
tions from CSOs and storm sewers as they
relate to land use and rainfall. This can be
used in the dispersion model discussed above
to assess pollution abatement benefits.
Other Actions
• increase federal support of marine research.
Funding of this work will make possible con-
tinued refinement of the data base for the
dispersion model.
DISCUSSION
Background
There is presently a very large hardsheU clam
fishery in the Upper^ pay which is being
adversely affected by sewage from the
Providence area. The estimated value of the
resource is several millions of dollars per year.
55
-------
56
There has also been a loss of contact recreation
areas, most notably in the towns of Warwick
and Cranston, which are the most densely
populated areas of the state.
Aesthetically, Upper Narragansett Bay is quite
valuable. The shoreline right up to the Port of
Providence is dotted with private homes,
condominiums, parks, abandoned lighthouses,
saltmarshes, and tranquil coves. The presence
of raw sewage and greaseballs as far as seven
miles south of Providence in past years has
detracted greatly from the aesthetic value.
As plans for CSO corrections, STP upgradings,
nonpoint source controls, sunken refuse re-
moval, park development, and waterfront
redevelopment are completed, the upper Bay
will be not only an economic resource but an
aesthetic focal point in the state.
Past Responses
• A combination of federal 201 construction
grant funds and state money over and above
the required matching funds have resulted in
the upgrading of the major pollution source
in the upper Bay. Renovation of the Provid-
ence sewage treatment facility is near
completion.
• Over the past twenty years, the University of
Rhode island has been conducting research
on the estuary through funding from EPA,
NOAA, and Sea Grant Foundation. The data
base resulting from these investigations has
helped to establish a priority for pollution
abatement.
Barriers to Overcome
• institutionally, there are no barriers to over-
come. Citizens have expressed their over-
whelming commitment to cleanup the Bay,
as witnessed by the recent 2 to 1 passage of
an $87 million bond issue to make money
available for cleanup activities in the Provi-
dence metropolitan area. Although the bond
issue will provide a great amount of money
for pollution abatement, it represents less
than 33% of what is needed.
Expected Environmental Results
• With the total cleanup of the upper Bay,
primary impacts would include: increased
commercial shellfishing and finishing, and
increased contact recreational use of the
miles of beaches presently closed to bathing.
• Secondary impacts would include increased
property values, a broader tax base and the
incentive for recreational development of
the Upper Bay.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Salem Harbor
(South Essex Sewer District),
Massachusetts
The South Essex Sewer District (SESD)
operates a primary wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) that is designed to treat 41 mil-
lion gallons per day of flow from the five sur-
rounding communities of Salem, Beverly,
Peabody, Danvers and Marblehead. The plant
discharges into Salem Harbor, a class SB water-
course used for fishing, swimming, and recrea-
tional boating. The treatment plant has been
shut down since 1980 because the ash pro-
duced by incinerating the waste sludge was de-
clared a hazardous material — due to the high
level of hexavalent chrome that is created dur-
ing incineration. The untreated discharge is
causing serious pollution problems in Salem
Harbor. The District has received a tentative
decision on their 301(h) waiver from secondary
treatment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Regional Actions
• Development of joint EPA and state com-
pliance schedule requiring SESD to bring the
plant back on line and eliminate raw dis-
charge of sewage to Salem Harbor.
• Review and approve RCRA permit to be ready
if construction of ash detoxification facility is
deemed necessary.
• issue IMPDES permit with 30Kh) waiver.
• Determine if interim alternative sludge dis-
posal options exist and then develop compli-
ance schedule for implementation.
State Actions
• MADEQE should continue to work with EPA
and SESD to bring plant back on line.
• MADEQE — assist in coincineration feasibility
study, starved air operation, and all other
options.
Other Actions
• SESD will pursue interim sludge disposal
alternatives.
• SESD will determine feasibility of coincinera-
tion with l\J.E. Power and starved air opera-
tion of the incinerators.
• SESD will be ready to construct ash detoxifica-
tion facility if no other options are feasible.
DISCUSSION
Background
The WWTP is a primary system with mech-
anical sludge dewatering and incineration
followed by landfilling the ash. The facility
services a population of 120,000 plus a wide
variety of industries. The plant was fully on
line in January, 1979 but has been shut down
since February 4,1980, when the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Quality Engin-
eering (MADEQE) declared the ash hazardous.
The ash contained high levels of hexavalent
chromium. SESD receives the chrome waste
from 18 tanneries. The tanneries discharge a
non-hazardous trivaleni! chromium into the
sewers, but is converted to hexavalent when it
is burned in the incinerator. Although the
-------
WWTP sludge is non-hazardous, there is no
available disposal site at present which could
handle the sludge volume generated prior to
incineration.
Past Response
EPA and the state have been working with
SESD to find a solution to the problem.
Presently there are no hazardous waste dis-
posal sites in New England. The District's con-
sultant has designed an ash-detoxification sys-
tem and an application has been made for a
RCRA permit, needed prior to construction of
the detoxification facility. The permit is
presently being reviewed by EPA. The District is
also evaluating the feasibility of ocean disposal
of the sludge and coincineration at the coal
burning New England Power Plant, adjacent to
SESD.
Barriers to Overcome
• State imposed taxation limitation (Proposi-
tion 2va may limit'local financial participation
in project.
Expected Environmental Results
• SESD wastewater treatment plant will meet
NPDES limits.
• Degradation of Salem Harbor will be
eliminated.
• All beaches in Salem Harbor will be swim-
mable ;at all times.
• Area previously closed for harvesting of
clams may be reopened.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
The Housatonic River,
Massachusetts-Connecticut
The Hojsatonic River suffers from two criti-
cal but distinct water pollution-control prob-
lems: Phosphorus-induced algae growth
problems in the river impoundments, and PCB
contamination of river sediments and the
resulting high concentration of PCB in the
river's fish and aquatic life systems. Both prob-
lems have adversely affected the recreational
potential of the river and have caused
economic losses. These problems are parti-
cularly complex because they involve an inter-
state stream. The ultimate effects of some of
the pollution sources are not uniquely felt in
the originating state but are often most
serious far downstream in another state.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Develop options for the funding of remedial
actions required for the correction of con-
taminated instream sediments.
• Continue to support research into the human
health effects of PCBs and PCDFs in the
aquatic environment.
Regional Actions
• Continue leadership of interstate pollution
control efforts through the SEA working
Croup on the interstate transport of pollu-
tants to foster cooperation between states.
• Arrange for increased participation of New
York and Region n in the study of phos-
phorous loading to Housatonic Basin from
the Ten Mile River.
• After review of CE's Housatonic River PCB
study, EPA will have to review and modify the
Administrative Order with CE to include the
study of possible remedial actions.
State Actions
• Confine state/EPA cooperation in resolving
complex interstate waste pollution issues.
DISCUSSION
Background
water pollution is a serious problem in the
Housatonic River and its tributaries, the Still
and Naugatuck Rivers, primarily as a result of
inadequately treated municipal and industrial
wastes and combined sewer overflows. These
discharges not only affect river segments
immediately downstream of disposal sites but
also contribute phosphorus, which accel-
erates eutrophication, to run-of-river lakes
used for recreation (such as Lakes Zoar and
Lillinonah). waste discharges in Massachusetts
and possibly in New York adversely affect the
quality of the Housatonic River in Connecticut.
PCBs have been found in the water column
and in the bottom sediments of the Housaton-
ic River from Pittsfield, Massachusetts south to
Derby, Connecticut.
The existing water quality classification of
the Housatonic River was downgraded from
Class B to Class D when it was discovered that
PCB concentrations in Housatonic River fish ex-
ceeded limits set by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). The PCB concentration
varied from more than 40 ppm to less than one
part per million in fish. The FDA limit is 5 ppm.
in 1977, the Connecticut Department of Health
placed a health advisory on eating fish from
the Housatonic. PCB contamination will pre-
vent 109 miles of the Housatonic (nearly the en-
tire main stem) from meeting the 1983 fish-
able/swimmable goals of the CWA.
PCB discharges from the major source, the
General Electric Company (CE) in Pittsfield, have
been stopped; however, PCBs continue to
enter the river from landfills, storm runoff, and
contaminated sediments. Also PCBs .migrate
with river sediments and are transported from
Massachusetts to Connecticut. Both Connecti-
cut and Massachusetts have issued health no-
tices warning people not! to eat fish taken from
the Housatonic River; the Massachusetts health
warning also included frogs and turtles.
57
-------
Past Responses
• in 1979, the EPA established a working Croup
on interstate Transport of Pollutants, com-
posed of representatives from Massachu-
setts, Connecticut, and New York, to help re-
solve interstate water quality problems. For
the Housatonic basin the Croup has coor-
dinated pollution control efforts for phos-
phorus and PCBs. The Croup assumed
responsibility for the development of a com-
prehensive and coordinated strategy for re-
solving the problems of PCB contamination
and for identifying resources available
through various agencies to help it carry out
its work.
• PCBS — in May 1981, EPA and the State of,
Massachusetts negotiated an agreement with'
CE relative to PCB contamination of the
Housatonic River. Pursuant to this agree-
ment, CE completed in December 1982 an in-
depth study of the Housatonic River as an
integrated assessment of the environmental
intrusion of PCBs into this system. The CE
study, combined with studies conducted by
the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts,
and EPA, are now undergoing an extensive
technical review process. The result of the
studies and the coordinated review process
are intended to: 1) identify the magnitude
and extent of PCB contamination of the
Housatonic River System; 2) describe the ef-
fects of PCBs on Housatonic River fish and
wildlife; 3) identify the potential human
health effects of PCB contamination; and 4)
develop a remedial action plan, if necessary.
1983 will be a critical period in determining
the next stage of effort relative to PCBs in the
Housatonic River.
• PHOSPHORUS — Connecticut has investi-
gated nuisance algae conditions in the three
major Housatonic impoundments — Lake Lilli-
nonah, Zoar, and Housatonic. These studies
indicated that the Housatonic River was a
major source of phosphorus to the lakes and
that Massachusetts discharges constituted
about one-half of the phosphorus discharged
to'the Housatonic River at the beginning of
the lakes. The CT DEP recommended that
Massachusetts should go forward with plans
for phosphorus control at Pittsfield and CE,
the two largest phosphorus sources in Massa-
chusetts.
Massachusetts' water quality surveys found
continuing phosphorus induced water qual-
ity problems below Pittsfield. While CE had
cut its phosphorus by 50%, Pittsfield was not
operating its phosphorus removal system
and was still discharging large amounts of
phosphorus. Eutrophication problems were
identified in the Sheffield meanders (about
40 miles downstream of Pittsfield and 10
miles above the Connecticut state line) as well
as woods Pond. At that time, the MA DWPC
concluded that phosphorus from the Pitts-
field treatment facility was the likely cause of
the problem but that the relationship
between Pittsfield's phosphorus and the
Housatonic's eutrophication problems were
not fully understood.
Resultant bluegreen algal blooms inhibit
recreational uses of Connecticut's lakes as
well as cause dissolved oxygen depletion. The
CT DEP, with the aid of EPA, performed algal
assays on Lake Lillinonah, the most upstream
recreational impoundment. These studies
confirmed CT DEP's suspicions that phos-
phorus was the limiting nutrient for the nui-
sance algae. Based on this information and
the phosphorus loading data calculated
earlier, CT DEP and FMC Corporation con-
ducted a two-year study of phosphorus
removal at Danbury — the largest Connecti-
cut point source of phosphorus. This study
showed that phosphorus removal was tech-
nically feasible on a large scale and concluded
that Danbury should seasonally remove phos-
phorus. Further, the study recommended
that additional data be collected on the
Massachusetts sources, particularly Pittsfield,
since phosphorus removal from only the Con-
necticut sources might allow nuisance condi-
tions to continue. Massachusetts and Con-
necticut both agreed that before Pittsfield,
or any other source of phosphorus in
Massachusetts, could be ordered to remove
phosphorus, that the benefits of this removal
would have to be firmly established.
CT DEP urged EPA and MA DWPC to study the
phosphorus transport from Massachusetts into
Connecticut and to develop regulatory actions,
where necessary, to control this nutrient and
hopefully the eutrophication problems in
Connecticut. During the summers of 1981 and
1982 joint water quality surveys of the
Housatonic River from its headwaters in
Massachusetts through Lake Lillinonah in
Connecticut were conducted by EPA, Massachu-
setts and Connecticut. During the 1981 survey,
Pittsfield did not remove phosphorus as
opposed to the 1982 survey which was run with
phosphorus removal at Pittsfield. These "with"
and "without" surveys will be the basis of a
phosphorus limitation in the Pittsfield permit
which is to be issued in the Spring of 1983.
Recent studies of the Housatonic identified
significant short term phosphorus loadings
emanating from the Ten Mile River in New York
during summer rainstorms. The CT DEP, NY DEC
and EPA Region I are presently planning studies
to evaluate point and non-point phosphorus
sources in the Ten Mile River Basin.
58
-------
Barriers to Overcome
• Lack of agreement between CT DEP and MA
DWPC concerning effects of Massachusetts'
sources of phosphorus on Connecticut's
eutrophication problems.
• insufficient data on, and understanding of,
the point and non-point sources of phos-
phorus in the New York portion of the
Housatonic Basin.
• incomplete scientific knowledge on the
human health effects of PCBs.
• Potential for requiring very expensive
remedial actions for PCBs in sediments.
Expected Environmental Results
• Control of nutrient loading to Housatonic
River will reduce eutrophication of instream
impoundments. Improved clarity will in-
crease recreation potentials of basin.
• Removal of Health Advisory on Housatonic
River fish will improve recreational potential
for basin and will have positive economic
benefits.
59
-------
60
-------
LAND
l^a^jsmip^
^P^S^^^^^®^^SS|^fSM
i^^S|^^^SS^S^S2SS^fcMH^^
^^sffe^^
*i*s££*1#1fc£^^
9^^^^^
.-- -• - '~-*?:SL*i=p«**v j-^Tr
r^gj^tg!^^
T&i?^^^!^ -^
"''-J^'-^^»-^3iri?:^^>»^>"r •^=2i*^-O^>J=^v-»ivu^-- - -tT^-- .'•>.•-:..> /sV.
T1MMY KOSKELA • Woodstock Elementary School, Bn/ant Pond, Maine - Grade 5
-------
62
STATUS AND TRENDS
Hazardous waste is rapidly becoming the
most important environmental issue in New
England. Responses to this problem are charac-
terized by the geological, economic and emo-
tional as well as environmental and technologi-
cal concerns that challenge environmental
managers.
New England's geologic deposits and topog-
raphy were heavily influenced by the last
cpntinental glacier. Large meltwater lakes
deposited fine silts and clays that formed
extensive shallow aquitards. Extremely high
yield aquifers in many areas were created by
the abundant sand and gravel left behind by
meltwater rivers. Glacial till comprises the
majority of the deposits having substantially
lower yield aquifers.
Ground water contamination is a significant
and complex problem in New England since the
region is peppered with small drainage areas
and has generally heterogeneous soil types.
This makes it difficult to determine ground
water flow directions, in addition, fractured
bedrock created by the glacier provides a net-
work of cracks through which contaminants
easily migrate from shallow surface aquifers
into deep and broad regional aquifers.
New England's high precipitation rate en-
hances leachate generation from water infiltra-
tion and runoff through landfills and into
ground water. Ground water contamination in
New England is particularly significant since
approximately 77% of the region's community
water systems rely upon ground water. More-
over, all 38 New England National Priority List
(NPU sites have documented, or potential,
ground water contamination problems.
The tremendous post-world war II growth in
the generation of chemical waste as a by-
product of industrial processes left a legacy of
over 700 potentially hazardous waste dumps in
New England. The region's strong high- and
medium-technology, and support manufactur-
ing 'industries, generate ever-increasing
amounts of hazardous materials each year. Un-
like other parts of the country, New England
does not have a few large, centrally-located
petrochemical plants that generate hazardous
waste, instead, the industrial landscape is char-
acterized by many small facilities scattered
throughout the region. New England's histori-
cally dispersed and small company manufactur-
ing base complicates the detection of aban-
doned sites and the public management of
operating treatment, storage and disposal
(TSD) facilities.
The high cost of waste transportation and
the long distances to disposal sites outside the
region clearly increase facility operating costs,
may inhibit continued manufacturing growth
and increase the risk of transportation-related
accidents. Yet, residents of New England towns
remain adamantly opposed to siting TSD facili-
ties in, or near, their communities.
Another economic concern is the states' abil-
ity to provide the financial match and opera-
tion and maintenance costs associated with
the federal superfund program. When com-
pared with other states on a per capita basis,
New England states have roughly comparable
levels of tax revenues, but they have higher
levels of direct expenditures and substantially
higher levels of long-term debt.
Hazardous waste is one of the leading public
concerns in New England. Local and regional
news services regularly carry site specific or
related hazardous waste stories in almost every
newspaper issue and television and radio news
broadcasts. The Boston Globe, the region's
leading newspaper, carried a seven page piece
on regional and national hazardous waste
problems, "The Poison Around Us", in its
Tuesday April 12,1983 issue.
intense public concern is also illustrated by
the citizens action groups organized at almost
all of the 38 NPL sites in New England. These
groups are emotionally concerned about the
health related effects, i.e., cancer, resulting
from contamination in their neighborhoods,
and the public policy response.
Technological advancements in contaminant
identification and quantification have eclipsed
the development of ground and surface water
treatment technologies as well as our under-
standing of the health implications of exposure
to hazardous materials. Although we are able
to measure a myriad of chemicals at the parts
per billion levels, and even parts per trillion,
similar advancements in our ability to assess
the impacts of these chemicals on public
health has not kept pace.
RESOURCE, CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
There are approximately 5,200 hazardous
waste handlers in Region I that comprise the
regulated community subject to federal con-
trol under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). A' hazardous waste
handler is anyone who generates, transports,
or treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous
wastes. The figure below shows the distribu-
-------
tion of these sources among the Region I
state:;.
FIGURE A
RCRA NOTIFIERS IN REGION I
SEPT. 30, 1982
VT
3.1%
All New England states have Phase I authoriza-
tion from EPA to manage the RCRA program in
lieu of the federal RCRA program. Phase I
authcrization enables each state to directly
administer the manifest system, which pro-
vides "cradle to grave" tracking for hazardous
wastes. Phase I authorization also gives states
the lead in compliance activities.
in New England, 65% of the treatment,
storage and disposal (TSD) facilities are required
to have ground water monitoring, we believe
that only 38% of these facilities are complying
with this requirement. It is difficult to be pre-
cise about the compliance rate at this time
because inspections have not been conducted
at every facility in the region. However, facility
inspection is the Region's highest priority RCRA
activity for FY 83 and FY 84.
State Program Authorization
Each Region I state is now in the process of
obtaining Phase II authorization which will give
them the lead in facility permitting. The Phase
II authorization process has been keyed to the
promulgation of Phase II hazardous waste regu-
lations that establish: 1) technical standards for
permitting hazardous waste treatment, stor-
age and disposal (TSD) facilities; and 2) general
permitting procedures and requirements.
Technical standards for TSD facilities have
been issued in stages corresponding to facility
types: Component A includes the use and man-
agement of containers, storage and treatment
in tanks, surface impoundments, and waste
piles including location, closure and post-
closure care, and financial responsibility;
Component B covers incinerators; and Compo-
nent C covers land disposal.
Phase II authorization is being carried out on
a component by component basis, with some
states applying for all three components;
others for only one or .two, at present. New
Hampshire is the first Region I state to receive
Phase II authorization. They were authorized
for Components A & B on March 31, 1983.
Phase I and II authorization requires state
programs to be "substantially equivalent" to
the federal program. Draft final authorization
guidance requires the state program to be
"fully equivalent" to the federal program, it is
still a matter of some uncertainty how this and
other requirements for final authorization will
be interpreted. Region I has identified some
issues which may impede the final authoriza-
tion process. Two of these concerns are out-
lined below:
• Draft final authorization guidance precludes
the use of any variance and waiver provisions
by the states which would render the state
program less stringent than the federal pro-
gram. At least three states in New England
however, have variance authorities created
by state statutes that may be problematic.
• Draft final authorization guidance indicates
that state siting laws must be examined to
establish their consistency with the federal
program wo CFR I23.32(b)l. The test of con-
sistency as described in the guidance applies
to "state provisions (e.g., state siting laws)"
which prohibit storage, treatment, or dis-
posal facilities for reasons which have no
basis in human health and the environment.
Some New England states have siting statutes
which may allow for the prohibition of
hazardous waste facilities for reasons other
than health or the environment.
Another factor which may impede final
authorization relates to resources. It has been
proposed by EPA that as states receive final
authorization they also accept full funding
responsibilities for RCRA. Region I has received
indications from all six of it's states that they
would probably refuse final authorization if
they were forced to bear the entire cost of
implementing RCRA. in their view, RCRA is an
EPA program for which the federal govern-
ment should continue to provide a major share
of funding.
Facility Permitting
Beginning in FY 82,'Region I and the states, in
a cooperative effort, formally initiated calling
in'hazardous waste facility Part "B" permit
-------
TABLE 1
PART B APPLICATIONS CALLED AND RECEIVED
Applications Called
Applications Received
Applications Withdrawn
Storage and
Treatment
58
35
30
Incinerators
8
1
1
Land Disposal
13
2
0
applications. As the process began, EPA had the
lead (i.e., federal permits were being pro-
cessed). The states will be responsible for the
permit decision process after Phase II authori-
zation. EPA will continue to assist' in and over-
view the permitting effort.
As the three components of the facility regu-
latons were promulgated, Part B permit appli-
cations of corresponding facility types were
called: first, storage and treatment facilities,
then incinerators, and finally, land disposal
facilities. Due to resource constraints, only a
portion of all facilities can be permitted in each
year. Given current resource and work effort
assumptions, it should take approximately 12
to 16 years to permit all eligible, currently exist-
ing, facilities.
The table above shows Region I's progress to
date in calling and receiving Part B applications:
Compliance
During FY 82 Region I continued the Subtitle C
compliance effort initiated in FY 81 for the re-
maining unauthorized states. The following en-
forcement statistics show EPA's efforts for
both fiscal years: .
Inspections conducted
Letters of Deficiency issued
§3008 Complaints issued
§3008 Final Orders issued
§3008 Penalties assessed
§3008 Penalties collected
The level of state inspection and enforce-
ment activity increased from FY 81 to FY 82, as a
result of states assuming the lead after receiv-
ing Phase I authorization from EPA. The follow-
ing state statistics, on a regionwide basis, bear
this out:
FY81
178
28
11
3
157,350-
5,100
FY82
115
25
50
26
155,675
73,500
Inspections conducted
Enforcement actions initiated
FY81
519
182
FY82
1,384
428
It is more difficult to establish a compliance
rate for RCRA than for air and water, in the
latter two programs, there has been a long
history of compliance and virtually all major
facilities have been inspected by EPA or the
states on numerous occasions, in contrast,
RCRA facilities are now being inspected for the
first time relative to their hazardous waste
handling procedures. Many facilities have yet
to be visited.
To establish an indicator of compliance with
RCRA regulations, a compliance rate was deter-
mined based on the number of facilities
inspected rather than the number subject to
RCRA requirements. This analysis indicates that
in FY 81, 77% of the facilities were in com-
pliance, while FY 82 only 64% of the facilities
had no violations.
The compliance rate presented includes as
violators only those facilities violating the RCRA
regulations, governing material handling prac-
tices. This violation rate includes only the
serious violations which carry with them the
potential for environmental harm (Class I viola-
tions). The Class I violations compliance rate is
indicative of the degree to which industry
manages wastes properly and implements
measures necessary to minimize the likelihood
of harm to public health or the environment.
Although the compliance rate has declined
from FY 81 to FY 82, this is due in large part, to
the closure and groundwater monitoring regu-
lations which became effective in late FY 81
and early FY 82, respectively. EPA inspectors
have found that these regulations are among
the ones most often violated. Non-Class I
requirements which are violated frequently
include the provisions for personnel training
and for the development of contingency plans.
EPA has found that the electroplating industry
seems to have the most trouble complying
with RCRA. This may be the result of this type of
facility being both a hazardous waste gener-
ator and a TSD facility, subject to closure and
ground water monitoring requirements.
Regulatory Concerns ''
The RCRA regulations (40 CFR 261) inade-
64
-------
quately address certain situations that pose
signif cant environmental threats. Below are
Region I's concerns with these regulations:
• Location standards — existing and new
facilities may obtain a permit even though
they are located above sole source aquifers
or have bases below the water table;
• underground tanks and UlC wells are not
subject to ground water monitoring regu-
lations even though they are likely sources
of ground water contamination;
• Decisions to delist a waste, i.e., remove it
from being subject to hazardous waste
regulations, are based upon the presence
and concentration of constituents listed in
40 CFR 261 Appendix vn and not the more
complete list/in Appendix vm. AS a result,
delisted wastes, which are subject to lesser
ervironmental regulation, may cause sig-
nificant ground water contamination by
leaching Appendix Vlll constituents;
• Small quantity generators of hazardous
waste may conduct on-site disposal with-
out a RCRA permit even though the total
accumulated waste may become
environmentally significant, in addition,
ground water monitoring is not required at
these facilities; and
• The present regulatory exemptions for re-
cycling facilities allows characteristic
hazardous wastes to be placed in surface
impoundments without any ground water
monitoring. In at least one instance in New
England a lined surface impoundment
failed and an environmental release
occurred.
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND
LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)
The passage of CERCLA in 1980 enabled the
Agency to pursue the clean-up of hazardous
wastes in the environment through a provision
other than the enforcement of the imminent
hazard provisions of RCRA, or the correspond-
ing provisions of the Clean Air or water Acts, or
the Toxic Substances Control Act. CERCLA pro-
vides the necessary enforcement authority to
induce private party action; provides an eco-
nomic deterrent via treble damages should a
source fail to comply with a CERCLA clean-up
order; and allows the Agency to act in the
event of a release or threat of release of a
hazardous substance to the environment,
thereby addressing the hazardous waste only
limitat on RCRA presented. Further, in terms of
effecting a site remedy, the Agency can now
rely on the powers given it by CERCLA, as well as
requiring compliance with RCRA's interim
status and/or permits process, in order to
develop an integrated comprehensive clean-
up strategy.
The task of identifying uncontrolled sites is
complicated by the fact that many have been
inactive for years, or are now paved over, built
over, or simply forgotten, with the passage of
CERCLA, a mechanism by which we and the
states can locate areas of past disposal activity,
and then begin to evaluate their impact on the
environment, was made available. Section
103(O of the Act required notification by any
person knowledgeable about any area where
historic disposal may have occurred, in Region
I, 413 103 (c) notice calls have been received to
date.
The states' role in the implementation of
CERCLA is not limited, however, to one of assist-
ing EPA in the identification of problem sites
and initiating enforcement action to induce
private party clean-up. The Act requires that a
state provide a financial match for federal
monies spent at a site (a 10% match at privately
owned sites, and a 50% match at publically
owned sites), and also that they assume the
operation and maintenance costs for all sites
addressed using Fund monies. Obviously, these
costs can be tremendous.
When compared with other states on a per
capita basis, New England states have some-
what larger direct state expenditures, roughly
comparable levels of tax revenues, and sub-
stantially higher levels of long-term debt.
Although some of the states, most recently
Massachusetts, have enacted their own Super-
fund to provide the necessary matching
monies, state assumption of the financial
burden resulting from the matching share
provisions of CERCLA remain a problem that
must be addressed.
New England has the second highest concen-
tration of National Priority List (NPL) hazardous
waste sites in the nation. There is one site in
every 1,753 square miles in New England. Only
Region 2 with a density of one site in every 653
square miles has a higher concentration. More-
over, Rhode island (1 site/202 square miles) and
Massachusetts (1 site/589 square miles) have
higher concentrations of hazardous waste sites
than any other states except New Jersey (1
site/120 square miles) and Delaware (1 site/257
square miles). Every state in New England has a
hazardous waste site on the NPL.
Region 1 has made progress in implementing
the Superfund program in New England.
Region 1 spent the second largest amount of
CERCLA funds to remedy the regional hazard-
ous waste problem. The distribution of sites
and percent of the regional total of Fund
monies spent is as follows:
6£
-------
TABLE 2
SUPERFUND EXPENDITURES IN
NEW ENGLAND
Percent of
Number Fund Monies
of Sites Spent
14 11.1
7 42.9
6 42.4
4 0.1
5 3.4
2 0
State
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Maine
Vermont
There are currently 700 hazardous waste sites
in the regional site inventory, including the 38
NPL sites. The environmental impact of these
non-NPL sites must be assessed and the appro-
priate response action determined. To date,
the Region has performed preliminary assess-
ment of approximately 50% of the sites which
comprise our inventory, and have conducted
site inspections at approximately 20% of the
sites assessed. The Region intends to vigorously
continue this program of site identification
and assessment, using either contractor re-
sources or state agency resources under a one
FY 83 grant from EPA. In any event, one of our
goals for this fiscal year is to achieve a com-
plete understanding of the scope of the haz-
ardous waste problem in New England, not
merely as it is limited to effecting remedies at
our NPL sites.
As an indicator of the progress being made
toward implementing the Superfund program
in Region I, the following table presents our
enforcement efforts at those sites on the
National Priority List:
Sites on the List
Enforcement Potentials Assessed
Notice Letters Issued
Enforcement Actions Initiated
Enforcement Cases Settled
Private Party Clean-ups
Cost-recovery Actions Taken
38
23
165
8
5
5
1
66
For each of the sites where Fund financed
cleanup is intended, the Agency prepares a
document known as a Remedial Action Master
Plan (RAMP). These are essentially planning
documents which also serve as site manage-
ment tools. The document describes the prob-
lem potentially posed by the site, suggests an
approach to better define the problem and
discusses alternative remedies which will
address the problem and comply with the
national contingency plan. Each RAMP costs an
average of $25,000 and takes eight to twelve
weeks to prepare. Of the 38 sites on the NPL, 19
have had RAMPs prepared and an additional 7
others are in process. The remaining 12 sites
are either already undergoing cleanup or will
have RAMPs prepared by responsible parties.
By way of summarizing the Region's progress
in implementing the remedial portion of the
Superfund program:
/of
NPL Sites
26
10
8
2
Site Status
RAMP completed or in process
RAMP unnecessary or will be
prepared by responsible party
Superfund monies obligated for
either an RI/FS or remedial action
Part of the remedial clean-up com-
pleted—Nashua, New Hampshire
and Coventry, Rhode-Island, and
such work is underway at a third
location —Epping, New Hampshire.
In addition to those sites where long term
remedial action may be undertaken, the
Region receives citizen complaints and refer-
rals, and responds to situations where emer-
gency conditions may exist. From 1981 to 1983
calls such as these have grown from 570 to 700
per year, attributable, perhaps, to heightened
public awareness and increased media focus on
the hazardous waste disposal problem
throughout New England. During this same
time period, our program for on-scene
monitoring of remedial actions has grown
from 17 to 50 sites; for off-scene monitoring
from 150 to 215 sites; and for immediate
removal investigations from 4 to 9 sites.
Clearly, the task of implementing the Super-
fund program is a difficult one and the
demands placed on the Region have and will
continue to escalate. Nonetheless, progress is
being made. Eight of the 38 listed sites have
had funds expended on them and the remain-
der of sites are undergoing RAMP develop-
ment, enforcement case development, or have
feasibility studies underway. Regional re-
sources are now being expended on non-listed
as well as NPL sites to prepare the necessary
documentation to submit these sites as candi-
dates for the NPL or to refer them to other
programs or the states for action.
in addition to the day-to-day site work for
both listed and non-listed sites, the Region has
attempted to initiate, with our states, a better
exchange of information about the program
and technical approaches at specific sites. A
two-day conference was held in March, 1983, at
which all six New England states participated
and shared programmatic experiences. This
type of exchange needs to'happen on a regular
basis so that current guidance can be discussed
and program innovations passed along. -The
-------
closing remarks at the conference by one of
the State Program Directors (in paraphrase)
was fiat New England needs CERClA and the
technical resources that EPA provides in order
to clean up the most serious sites in the region.
Moreover, the states need.a state-level pro-
gram to address those sites that will never be
NPL candidates, but cannot be ignored, and
should rightly be cleaned up with state
resources.
RADIATION
There is a variety of source categories that
generate low-level radioactive wastes, with
industrial applications and nuclear power
generation (exclusive of spent fuel) by far pre-
dominant. Types of industrial applications in-
clude radio-pharmaceutical production, pro-
duction of radioactive gauging equipment,
and contaminated hardware and materials.
Nuclear wastes include anything associated
with the power production process other than
spent fuel, which is a high-level waste; a signifi-
cant future disposal problem in this regard will
develop as older nuclear reactors are decom-
missioned and decontaminated (it is estimated
that decommissioning New England's oldest
reactor, Yankee Rowe, will result in approxi-
mately 18,000m3 of waste, greater than the
total amount of waste currently disposed in
New England annually).
Recent developments have heightened the
public awareness to the emerging problem of
low-level radioactive waste disposal. In the
mid-1970s, migration of radioactive elements
detected on-site at three of the six existing
low-level waste sites; in late 1979, packaging
and transportation incidents led to the
temporary closing of two other locations, in
December, 1980, Congress responded to these
concerns through enactment of the Low-Level
Radioactive waste Policy Act, which estab-
lished, among other things, that:
• low-level waste can be best managed on a
regional basis — states may enter into con-
tracts to carry out this policy; and
• such contracts may restrict the use of re-
gional disposal facilities after January 1,1986,
by excluding wastes generated by states out-
side the region.
As required by law, New England will soon
have to dispose of its radioactive wastes either
at the state of origin or within the northeast
region (which includes four additional north-
eastern states). This disposal problem is a
serious, concern for New England, since we cur-
rently generate approximately 13% of the
national and annual total of low-level radio-
active waste and dispose of it in its entirety
outside the region, in 1982, a Massachusetts
referendum voted favorably that public ap--
proval is a necessary part of the facility siting
process. If this is any indication, public opposi-
tion to any proposed low-level radioactive
waste disposal facility will, as is the case with
new hazardous waste disposal facilities, be a
consideration to which we must address
ourselves.
Nuclear power provides approximately 29%
of the region's electrical generation and sup-
plies approximately 8% of New England's total
energy need. There are seven operating nu-
clear power plants in New England and three
under construction with a combined net elec-
trical generation capacity of 6.5 Cw. Eighty
percent of these plants are located in three
states — Connecticut, Massachusetts and New
Hampshire.
PESTICIDES
Proper application of pesticides may result in
contamination of ground water. Aldicarb resi-
dues have been found in two-thirds of the
wells sampled in eastern Maine over the past
three years. Approximately 10 percent of the
wells sampled contain residues of aidicarb that
exceed the EPA Drinking water guidelines of 10
PPb.
Other applications of EPA registered pesti-
cides may appear as residues in some under-
ground water supplies. The unique soil and
climatic conditions in New England, especially
those that combine porous alluvial-type soils
with cold, wet soil temperature conditions,
may retard anticipated chemical degradation
and thus, aggravate local contamination prob-
lems. Greater EPA emphasis on pesticide resi-
due monitoring to determine the existence of
unique residue situations would help to avoid
additional contamination. Monitoring of resi-
due from pesticide use would also provide use-
ful data for more definitive registration.
Other pesticides now have few remaining
uses following orderly concilation. Some of the
remaining chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides
are purposely added to soil to protect homes
and other buildings from termite damage.
While the potential to contaminate under-
ground water supplies is very low from such
use, these chemicals are not classified
"restricted use", which would limit use to per-
sons properly trained in pesticide application.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: The Siting Of
New Hazardous waste Facilities
inadequate hazardous waste management
capacity in Region I may have both environ-
mental and economic impacts. When the cost
of shipping waste out of the region is high,
some firms may be tempted to dispose of their
wastes improperly to save money. Firms which
67
-------
behave responsibly may be hurt by high
transportation costs, resulting in a competitive
disadvantage. New England's many small
generators are especially vulnerable to this
threat, if the'region is not served by an ade-
quate network of hazardous waste facilities,
firms making decisions on where to locate
plants may not select New England.
what constitutes an adequate regional haz-
ardous waste handling network? At present
not enough data is available to get an accurate
picture of current hazardous wastes handling
needs in Region I. Predicting future needs
presents an even greater problem.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Make data, analysis, and resources available to
states and regions to help assess the need for
facilities.
• Strengthen facility permitting regulations
and compliance activities to engender
greater public confidence in EPA's and the
states' regulatory programs.
Regional Actions
• Assist states in analyzing hazardous waste
facility needs by providing data or allowing a
portion of the RCRA grant to be used for this
purpose.
• Assist states in strengthening their per-
mitting and compliance capabilities.
Other Actions
• States should, both individually and in co-
operation with neighboring states, analyze
their need for facilities in terms of number,
type, and location.
• States should strengthen their permitting
and compliance capabilities and continue to
reaffirm their credibility with the public.
• States should develop siting procedures
which provide the means for all interests to
be fairly addressed.
DISCUSSION
Background
There is general agreement among federal
and state officials, industry, and environmental
groups that Region I needs additional capacity
to store, treat, and dispose of hazardous
wastes, what is less clear is what the social and
political process should be to select, finance,
and, most difficult of all, site or expand treat-
ment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities. As
more data are collected from hazardous waste
handlers through the manifest system and the
biennial reports a clearer understanding of the
type, size, and general location of facilities
which would best suit the needs of Region I will
emerge.
Facilities sited and operated in accordance
with RCRA will undoubtedly serve the interests
of the region. Lack of adequate TSD capacity in
the region can add to the cost of doing busi-
ness in New England for many firms and may
particularly hurt small ones due to high trans-
port costs. The presence of sufficient legal TSD
capacity may reduce the amount of illegal haz-
ardous waste dumping to some extent. (Most
illegal dumping, however, is expected to be
prevented by implementation of the manifest
system.) in general, these facilities can add to
both the Region's environmental and
economic health.
While these facilities clearly serve the general
public, proposed new TSD facilities face stiff
local opposition. Although almost everyone
agrees that they are needed, virtually no one
wants one next door.
Past Responses
A study completed by Booz-Allen Hamilton in
December 1981, estimated the amount of
waste generated in New England and the
region's capacity to manage that waste. The
study estimated hazardous waste generation
on an industry basis using assumed rates of
generation specific to each type of activity.
Booz-Allen Hamilton estimated that approxi-
mately 580,000 wet metric tons of hazardous
waste would be disposed of at off-site facilities
in Region I. Off-site waste management capa-
city in Region I for 1981 was characterized in
this study as small (an estimated 218,000 wet
metric tons) and limited to relatively few tech-
nologies. The shortfall of 362,000 wet metric
tons, while large, is of uncertain significance.
The impact of this capacity shortfall is miti-
gated by the presence of a variety of facilities
in nearby Regions II and ill.
The states in Region I are in the process of
implementing a regional automated data pro-
cessing system primarily to handle data gener-
ated daily by the manifest system. Combined
with federally required biennial reports, and
annual reports which the states require of
generators and TSD facilities, the regional sys-
tem will provide a more reliable picture of the
amount of waste generated, transported, and
managed in New England. These data should
provide the means to define more accurately
the extent and significance of regional TSD
capacity shortfalls.
Barriers to Overcome
There is general agreement that additional
TSD capacity is needed in Region I. However,
there has been a great deal of local resistance
wherever new facilities have been proposed.
Even with new, and often quite sophisticated,
state hazardous waste siting laws and strict
federal and state environmental laws and regu-
lations, developers in( legion I have en-
countered fierce resistance to siting proposals
by citizens and officials of the proposed host
68
-------
and abutting communities, in order to be suc-
cessful in siting a facility, its public and private
sector backers must address the many valid
concerns of those who feel they are at risk.
The potential adverse effects associated with
the hazardous waste facilities include:
Physical Impacts
• Traffic — increased traffic from waste haulers
and employees of the facility, increased pos-
sibility of traffic accidents and spills, in-
creased wear on local roads.
• Noise — increased noise levels created by
facility construction and operation and by
operating traffic.
• Air — Emissions from incinerators, fugftive
dust f'om landfills.
• Odors — Emissions from the transport, pro-
cessing and storage of wastes.
Economic Impacts
• Property values — Decreased property values
in the immediate vicinity of a facility and
along routes traveled by transport vehicles.
• Real estate development — Restricted or
foregone real estate options resulting from
actual or perceived physical impacts and risks
associated with a facility.
• Public service — increased expenditures for
highway maintenance, for fire and emer-
gency spill response, and for facility inspec-
tions and monitoring.
• Tax revenues — Lost revenues resulting from'
property value declines and foregone real
estate development.
Social impacts
• Community image — Identification of
"dumping ground" for wastes, may have
other effects as well, such as changes in the
quality of life and the movement of
population.
• Aesthetic — Conflicts in visual fit with setting,
and changes in visual identity, particularly
from incinerators.
Risks and Uncertainties
• Ground and surface water discharges — At
and around the site during and after opera-
tion; and offsite from transport spills.
• Fire and explosions — Present risk at the site
during and after operation and disposal, and
offsite from transport spills.
• Public health — Present risk of long-term un-
known adverse effects from accidents and
long-term exposure.
in addition to the above factors, there may
be other barriers to facility siting. They may
include uncertainty concerning the amount of
hazardous waste to be managed, the absence
of geologically suitable sites for land disposal
facilities in New England. Good land disposal
sites should have a deep water table and clay-
rich sediments which will promote attenuation
of many hazardous constituents. New England
has very few such sites, in addition, New
England has a high level of precipitation which
can promote leaching of hazardous constitu-
ents. There are also the potential difficulties
(both technical and bureaucratic) in obtaining
TABLE 3
SITING INCENTIVES EXAMPLES
Impact Issues
Truck Traffic
Aesthetic Impact
Ground-water
Impact Risk
Loss of
Wildlife Area >
Property Value
Decline
Uncertainly About
Potential Damages
Compensation Examples
Improve or partly maintain roads;
provide traffic light(s)
Offer direct cash payments to affected
individuals/groups
/
Provide liability insurance (provided for
in RCRA)
Provide fund for endangered wildlife
Provide land value guarantees and
direct payment
Provide performance bond liability
insurance (provided for in RCRA);
emergency response fund; provide
tipping fees to community
Incentive Examples
Completely maintain roadways
Build an aesthetically pleasing
park
Develop additional water supplies
Build additional recreation area
Buy and provide additional
property to affected residents
Purchase or provide guarantees or
backing of municipal bonds
Donate to local charitable
organizations
Provide free disposal service to
local industry ,
•
Clean up existing waste sites
69
-------
the necessary local approvals and state or
federal permits.
Most states in Region I have recently passed
laws which are being used by developers to site
hazardous waste TSD facilities. These laws often
include provisions for negotiating compensa-
tion and incentives to the host or abutting
community. (See Table 3 previous page)
70
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Small Quantity
Generators of Hazardous waste
when EPA promulgated its hazardous waste
management regulations in May 1980, a deci-
sion was made to exempt generators who
produced less than 1,000 kg/month from most
of the regulations. For waste considered to be
acutely hazardous the exclusion level is 1
kg/month. While the 1,000 kg/month exemp-
tion, may be appropriate for most hazardous
waste generators, it may not be appropriate
for small quantity generators, which are highly
concentrated in some areas of New England.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Continue research and analysis to determine
the most appropriate small generator exemp-
tion level(s).
• Consider the problems of states with large
concentrations of small quantity generators
as well as the potential competitive advan-
tage of firms in states with higher exemption
levels.
State Actions
• States with 1,000 kg exemption levels should
reconsider the appropriateness of this level if
they have high concentrations of small quan-
tity generators.
DISCUSSION
Background
EPA originally set its RCRA exemption level at
1,000 kg/month for the following reasons:
• The overwhelming majority of hazardous
waste was estimated to be generated by a
relatively small number of large manufactur-
ing operations such as chemical plants. EPA
decided to focus its resources on the 9% of all
generators (those who generate more than
1,000 kg per month) who produce about 99%
of the total waste stream nationwide. A 1,000
kg/month exemption therefore reduces the
administrative burden while capturing nearly
all of the waste in the system.
• The exemption benefits small firms that
usually do not have the in-house capability to
properly interpret and comply with complex
regulations.
• Exclusions based on degree of hazard were
determined to be impractical given the cur-
rent state of knowledge.
• Small generators are still required to send
their wastes to state-approved facilities for
handling municipal, industrial or hazardous
wastes. EPA made the assumption that small
amounts of hazardous wastes mixed with
large quantities of non-hazardous waste
would be sufficiently dilute to minimize
environmental risks.
The 1,000 kg/month cutoff was assumed by
EPA to be temporary. EPA is conducting a
two-year study of the number and types of
small generators, the types of waste
produced, and how the wastes are handled.
under a proposed amendment to RCRA, EPA
• would promulgate rules for generators of
between 100 and 1,000 kg/month and would
distinguish between classes and categories of
generators in this range.
State hazardous waste regulations can be
more stringent than federal regulations. Four
states in Region I have set their exclusion levels
below the federal level:
Rhode Island )> 0 kg/month
Massachusetts )> 20 kg/month
New Hampshire )> 100 kg/month
Vermont > 100 kg/month
in general, states subject their small quantity
generators to less burdensome administrative
requirements than those who generate
greater than-1,000 kg/month. For instance, in
Massachusetts a licensed transporter is allowed
to prepare the manifest (describing and track-
ing wastes shipped off-site) for small quantity
generators. Nevertheless, small quantity gener-
ators must adhere to the more environmen-
tally significant requirements such as sending
their wastes to state-approved treatment, stor-
age or disposal facilities.
Barriers to Overcome
The variability of small generator exclusion
levels from state to state could present a
potential economic competition problem for
firms selling products in the same geographical
market. A firm which is below the exclusion
level of one state could have a competitive
advantage over a firm of similar size in a neigh-
boring state with a higher exclusion level.
Small generator exclusions also present the
potential for environmental damage, wastes
generated by firms below exclusion levels may
end up in municipal landfills. If there is a large
concentration of such firms in an area, the pos-
sibility of serious contamination is significant.
Federal support is no longer provided to assist
states and localities in managing solid waste.
Therefore, federal regulations allow a portion
of the hazardous waste stream to escape the
federal system. While the amount of wastes in-
-------
volved nationally is believed to be minimal,
concentrated local impacts may be great.
Given the relatively large number of small
generators in New England, the regional
environment may be seriously impacted.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Abandoned and
Uncontrolled Hazardous waste
New England's strong industrial base has
generated millions of tons of hazardous waste
since the turn of the century, in the past, dis-
posal practices were haphazard and subject to
little regulation. Only during the past several
years have we come to realize that these dis-
posal practices result in significant hazardous
waste contamination problems that may affect
human health and contaminate the
environment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Establish a policy of maximum de-centraliza-
tion of CERCLA. Regional Administrators
should have the authority to approve
remedial actions. Establish specific dollar
categories and activity types that require
headquarters concurrence.
• Establish clear policy on emergency response
actions.. Delegate the maximum authority
possible to the Regional Administrator to
determine when an emergency exists.
• Establish clear enforcement policy on respon-
sible partly notification, multiple generator
searches, cost recovery, and active vs. in-
active facilities.
• Provide clear guidance to regional site man-
agers that: a) outlines their authority under
co-operative agreements and contracts; and
b) defines what constitutes allowable costs
under CERCLA. .
• Eliminate the need for cost sharing on
remedial planning activities.
• Evaluate the expansion of the current
REM/FIT contract which is presently in danger
of exceeding its first year contract funds.
• Establisn program policy on municipal land-
fills than incorporates the cost match criteria
and addresses the continued use vs. closure
issue in response to leachate problems. Per-
haps, a portion of the Superfund can be
specifically targeted for municipal landfills.
• Evaluate the need for trained state personnel
to carry out CERCLA provisions and develop a
funding mechanism that would enable states
to hire critical staff, other than through
Section 3012 of RCRA.
• Establish a comprehensive technology
transfer program for Regions and states.
Sharing hazardous waste site investigation
and treatment technology, and experiences
can reduce the number of mistakes made in
the field.
• Develop specific criteria on the acceptable
degree of final clean-up that can be used at a
site before the feasibility study is conducted,
i.e., respond to the "how clean is clean" issue.
This could take the form of technical mono-
graphs similar to the interim effluent guide-
lines used originally in the NPDES Permit
program.
• Conduct a comprehensive review of the
National Lab contract. The capacity of this
contract and the analysis turn-around time
are critical to the conduct of the remedial in-
vestigation feasibility studies.
Regional Actions
• Provide management of National Priority List
(NPL) sites consistent with the National Con-
tingency Plan (NCP) to assure that necessary
remedial activities are taken in the shortest
possible time.
• work with state agencies to develop informa-
tion and legislative packages to insure ade-
quate state cost sharing.
• Assist states to develop management plans
for implementing Superfund within existing
resource constraints.
• Provide training and additional.program sup-
port to the states.
DISCUSSION
Background
Region I has been actively building an inven-
tory of possible hazardous waste disposal sites.
From public information, state inventories and
notifications received as required by the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation and Liability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund"),
the Region has identified approximately 700
potential sites where past disposal practices
need to be assessed.
Recently, EPA published a proposed National
Priority List (NPL) of sites needing investigation
and clean-up. There are 38 sites in New England
on this list. The remaining sites will undergo in-
vestigation during FY 83 and FY 84. The Region
expects to assess the potential hazards at each
site by the end of FY 84.
All 38 New England NPL sites have docu-
mented or potential ground water contamina-
tion hazards, and 18 have documented or
potential surface water impacts. This is espe-
cially significant in New England since the
regional geology is characterized by a high
water table, highly porous soils and fractured
bedrock, which combined to create a serious
leachate problem, in addition, some wastes
have characteristics that cause them to float
along the water table'»while others sink and
may travel for thousands of feet from the dis-
posal site through the regional aquifer.
71
-------
The 38 NPL sites have a number of contamina-
tion sources, including: lagoons, landfills,
drums, piles, sludges, sediments, and leach-
fields. Contaminants include volatile solvents,
pesticides, heavy metals, Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs), oils and sludges, and other
contaminants. (Chart A-A on pages 108 and 109
of the Appendix)
Region I has an active emergency hazardous
waste response program, in FY 82, the Region
received over 680 notifications of various haz-
ardous waste spill types. Regional personnel
monitored, on-site, over 40 clean-ups by
private parties, initiated five federal emer-
gency removal actions and conducted one
longer term planned removal, in the second
quarter of FY 83 the Region initiated five emer-
gency removals, equal to total initiated last
fiscal year.
Past Responses
• Obligated over $21 million (includes S2 million
of Clean water Act Section 311 emergency
funds) for the investigation and clean-up of
Region I sites since 1980. (Figure B)
FIGURE B
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE
SITE EXPENDITURES - REGION I
$ in Millions
FIGURE C
SITE INVENTORY - EVENT STATUS
0.4
1.9X
L»g«nd
rr\ tint •••p«n»«
D t«m«*«l (C/n«rl)
CD C*nlrwt S«r».
ZD SM. JII(C*«)
CD Mefl Lob C»nlr.
72
• Screened over 430 site notifications. (Figure C)
• completed over 380 Preliminary Assessments
of the 700 sites in the regional inventory.
• Applied the National Hazard Ranking Model to
67 sites resulting in 38 Region I sites on the
first National Priority List.
• Entered into a consent decree with the W.R.
Grace Company in Action, Massachusetts to
clean-up their chemical lagoons and landfill
and study clean-up of the aquifer which had
supplied 40 percent of Acton's water. This
was one of the first consent decrees under
Section 7003 of RCRA.
• issued one of the first Section 106 consent
orders under CERCLA to stauffer Chemical
L«g«nd
S3 r«M Sltai
•=] P«'J
=5 srs
No. of Pof»nriol Sift]
Company for remedial investigation and fea-
sibility study of the industriplex site in
woburn, Massachusetts. Phase I of the study
has been completed at a cost of over one mil-
lion dollars.
• Issued the first remedial action co-operative
agreement for construction in the country
for a slurry wall and cap at the 20 acre
Sylvester site in Nashua, New Hampshire, con-
struction work and ground water treatment
pilot studies are complete.
• Under co-operative agreement, the State of
Rhode island has completed removal and dis-
posal of more than 10,000 buried drums at
the Picillo site in Coventry. Region i's emer-
gency response team successfully carried out
an innovative on-site detonation of many
shock sensitive laboratory materials which
_could not be transported.
"•'Completed a planned removal at the Keefe
site in Epping, New Hampshire in which over
400 drums of highly dangerous packs and
other chemicals were improperly disposed.
The EPA mobile carbon absorption unit from
Edison, New Jersey, has completed its fifth,
and final, pump down of a million gallon
chemical lagoon to prevent overflow at the
site. The State of New Hampshire, under a co-
operative agreement, has begun disposal of
another 4000 drums, and studies on the lag-
oon disposal. Negotiations with over 130
identified waste generators are being con-
ducted by the Region.
• completed clean-up of the Motollo site in
Raymond, New Hampshire with the excava-
tion and disposal of over 1600 drums.
• Provided emergency water supplies to por-
tions of Londonderry and Milford, New
Hampshire.
• Removed over 200 drums during an emer-
gency response at Derby, Connecticut that
were exposed by river flooding.
• Performed an emergency response at the
-------
Baird-vicGuire chemical site in Holbrook,
Massachusetts. This ongoing response
included shoring up lagoons which threat-
ened several water supplies, providing site
security and conducting a groundwater
study. A Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) is
also underway.
• Required site owner to remove over 500,000
gallons of contaminated waste oils from the
PSC Resources site in Palmer, Massachusetts.'
• Received 19 draft and final Remedial Action
Master Plans for the 38 priority sites. Eight
additional RAMPS are underway.
• Completed an in-depth air study using the
latest technology at the Silresim site in
Lowell, Massachusetts in response to resi-
dents' complaints of adverse health effects.
The study showed that potentially harmful
levels of solvents were being emitted from
nearby industries and not the site.
Barrier;; to Overcome
• Current technologies are insufficient to deal
with the variety of problems that may be
encountered at an uncontrolled site, in-
cluding: techniques for cleaning aquifers, the
stability of slurry walls in contact with a
variety of wastes, and techniques for dredg-
ing and disposing of PCB contaminated
sediments.
• Limited information on the health effects of
many hazardous wastes, especially the cancer
risk factor, and limited ability to translate
worker exposure (8 hour) standards into a
continuous contact neighborhood situation.
• Setting target levels for "acceptable" degree
of clean-up is critical as we enter into more
feasibility studies. Guidelines on risk,
property values, and final disposition of
"cleaned-up",sites are nearly always com-
peting with the degree of clean-up.
• innovations in analytical techniques enable
investigation of a myriad of chemicals to the
part per billion, and even part per trillion,
level. However, because our ability to under-
stand the precise health effects of these
results is limited, it is difficult to use this
information when making decisions on
appropriate levels of clean-up.
• The public and EPA focus on "hot" pollutants,
such as dioxin and, a related chemical, diben-
zofuran. Decisions such as the "buy out" of
Times Beach, Missouri influence public nego-
tiations at other sites throughout the coun-
try. Citizens demand to know if these "hot"
pollutants exist at the site near their homes,
and if so when EPA plans to relc:ate them.
• Most municipal landfills in New England con-
. tain hazardous waste. The future tradeoffs
between clean-up of these sites and the need
for municipal refuse disposal is a critical
emerging issue.
• Superfund does not provide program imple-
mentation funds to state environmental
agencies. As a result, many state agencies
borrow staff from other programs, such as
RCRA, to manage their hazardous waste
clean-up programs.
• Superfund requires significant cost sharing at
clean-up sites, especially municipal landfills, it
is believed that the 50 percent cost share
requirement for municipal landfills may
effectively preclude them from being
cleaned because states have limited re-
sources to devote to these expensive pro-
jects, in addition, as the Region's clean-ups
move from the study phase to the remedial
phase the cost sharing pressure on the states
increases.
• The current policy of cost sharing on reme-
dial planning activities has created extensive
delays in many projects. While states struggle
to enact funding for their cost share, provide
staff, and enter into contracts or co-
operative-agreements to insure their 10 per-
cent or 50 percent match, remedial planning
is delayed several months. This is especially
critical in Region I where the timing of proj-
ects must coincide with the weather
conditions.
• CERCLA must be extended beyond its planned
expiration date of 1985. if we are to complete
remedial planning activities, the Act must be
extended. In addition, the funds currently
available are insufficient to clean up dump
sites on the existing priority list.
• There is currently significant confusion on
when to take an emergency action (immedi-
ate removal). The long turnaround time for
funding approvals in quick response situa-
tions is impeding our ability to react and is
jeopardizing our public credibility.
• The Superfund program is far too central-
ized. For example, every funding decision is
made by the Assistant Administrator. To
operate more efficiently, the agency should
decentralize the decision making process.
• There is no clear policy on multiple generator
negotiation and timely settlement with
responsible parties. Delays caused by duplica-
tive Headquarters' review of extensive
regional negotiations damages the region's
negotiating position and enforcement
credibility.
• There is little guidance available for EPA site
managers. Million dollar contract approval,
voucher approval and co-operative agree-
ment oversight decisions are made by site
managers with little guidance on allowable
costs, project manager authority, etc.
• It is Region I's experience that contamination
at the uncontrolled and abandoned sites is
generally more widespread and more exten-
sive than originally estimated.
73
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Pesticide
Residue in water
Residues of pesticides have been found
contaminating groundwater supplies even
though they have been used properly. For
example, aldicarb residues in the wells of
Eastern Maine suggest that environmental and
soil conditions existing in the area may favor
residue accumulation. More monitoring may
demonstrate that other pesticide uses are con-
tributing to'harmful residue accumulations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Support residue monitoring of pesticides
that are likely to migrate to groundwater
supplies, soil and climatic conditions favor-
able to pesticide residue and accumulation
migration, especially for degradation resis-
tant pesticides, should be considered in the
development of a more comprehensive
monitoring effort.
• Amend labels or cancel uses when monitor-
ing data and/or experimentation indicate
groundwater contamination.
Regional Actions
• Provide oversight of significant agricultural
pesticide use and coordinate findings with
other regional programs.
• Alert Headquarters to unusual pesticide use
situations and conditions persisting in New
England in which undesirable residue accu-
mulations might be likely to occur.
Other Actions
• state agencies and cooperative Extension
Services should provide use information and
information on encountered and/or anti-
cipated problems to the EPA.
DISCUSSION
Background
Samples of water taken from wells in the
potato growing area of eastern Maine have
revealved the presence of Aldicarb, a systemic
insecticide. Approximately 110 domestic wells
were sampled over a three year period. Sixty-
nine had measurable aldicarb levels dppb or
more), and 12 exceeded the 10 ppb limits pres-
cribed by EPA drinking water guidelines.
Since this discovery, the State of Maine, EPA
and the pesticide producer have each taken
steps to reduce further contamination of
underground water supplies. The response in-
cludes changing label use directions, restrict-
ing use to certified applicators and requiring
prior notification by the user of intended use.
However, the states' ability to monitor pesti-
cide use and determine the presence of un-
wanted residues is severely limited by available
resources.
74
in addition, the accumulation of pesticides
following application may be of greater signifi-
cance in New England than in other areas of
the country. Anticipated chemical degradation
may be retarded by the cold, wet climate and
porous alluvial-type soils that characterize the
region, especially the three northern states.
Past Response
• A draft National Monitoring Plan (NMP), which
would have measured the presence and per-
sistence of active ingredients and harmful
degradation products in the environment,
prepared several years ago remains to be
finalized.
• Specific and limited pesticide monitorina
already conducted by Headquarters were
designed to provide information otherwise
unavailable but necessary for decision
making.
Barriers to Overcome
• Finalization of a National Monitoring Plan
would make the states a partner in measur-
ing the movement and accumulation of
pesticides in the environment.
• Utilization of existing pesticide enforcement
support laboratories would significantly
reduce the start up costs associated with a
major monitoring effort.
• Recognition that pesticide monitoring
should be assigned a much higher priority
than in the past. The utilization of data gener-
ated by the monitoring effort should benefit
both the registration and enforcement pro-
grams in their efforts to protect public
health and the environment from unreason-
able exposure risks.
• Resources needed to develop and implement
an NMP, which would provide baseline data
to assess environmental results, are unavail-
able. In addition, state funding needed to
support the NMP state/federal partnership
are also not available.
Expected Environmental Result
• The identification of pesticide residue prob-
lems unique to the region and the accumula-
tion of data useful to registration process.
• Establishment of a pesticide residue data
base that could be utilized to measure pro-
gress in protecting the environment and
more quickly identify potentially harmful
effects.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Pesticide
Classification
Some pesticide uses that were cancelled
because of adverse environmental impacts are
still available for use'by the general public.
Because these uses were not classified "re-
stricted use", their widespread availability and
-------
possible misuse appears to be a source of in-
creasing public concern and potential health
risks.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• Draft regulations to permit classification of
preserved use as restricted use.
• Require, as a condition for negotiated settle-
ment, the classification of non-cancelled uses
as restricted use when cancellation action is
based upon anticipated adverse effects and
where changes in labeling require strict
adherence during use.
Regional Actions
• Support Headquarters requirement for re-
stricted use classification and provide
documentation.
Other Actions
• State pesticide regulatory agencies should
support restricted classifiction and deny
state registration of pesticides with unclassi-
fied use.
DISCUSSION
Background
under FIFRA, the EPA has the ability to cancel
the use; of a pesticide where there is evidence
that it may adversely affect human health or
the environment: However, some of these
pesticides are still available for specific uses,
even though most uses have been cancelled.
Remaining uses may have no availability restric-
tions. Apparently, the public finds it difficult to
understand how some uses can be cancelled
while others remain available without further
restriction, save label changes. Certified appli-
cators who are trained to carefully apply
restricted use pesticides appear to have similar
objections.
This concern is demonstrated by an increase
in the number of inquiries received relating to
chlordane, and more recently aldrin, uses.
. These nquiries suggest possible past misuse
and abuse by both the general public and
professional applicators. Some inquiries raise
serious allegations of injury to health that are
believed to be attributable to a pesticide
misuse.
Because EPA cannot provide the kind of regu-
latory relief the public expects, citizens are
turning to the state and local officials for
answers and protection. As a result, three New
England states classified chlordane as restric-
ted use, and considered an outright ban on
some uses.
Past Responses
• Encouraged individuals using products con-
taining a pesticide to strictly follow the use
prohibitions and precautions directions on
the label, regardless of its classifiction status.
• Responded generally to specific inquiries
about use safety since EPA has not prepared
any substantial answers.
Barriers to Overcome
• Lack of satisfactory response to inquiries con-
cerning the continued use of exempted
products leads the public to question the
integrity of the registration process, espe-
cially when an active ingredient is shown to
have harmful effects and yet remains avail-
able for general public use.
• we need to restore confidence in our ability
to protect the public from perceived and real
adverse effects. Failure to develop an infor-
mation source that provides factual informa-
tion about the safety and persistence of
pesticides used in the home and workplace
enhances public confusion and anxiety.
Expected Environmental Result
• Classification of remaining uses for cancelled
pesticides as restricted use would limit appli-
cation to trained and certified applicators.
More restrictive use classification should
reduce the prospect of abuse and misuse,
and substantially reduce the likelihood of any
unreasonable adverse effects to man or the
environment.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Low-Level
Radioactive Wastes
Low-level radioactive wastes are generated
as a byproduct of a variety of commercial proc-
esses. Both an increasing amount of waste
generated 'and a shortage of disposal sites
make this an important emerging problem in
New England.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• issue final standards for low-level radioactive
waste disposal sites on or ahead of the
proposed March 1985 schedule. Promulgation
of these regulations is important to the
northeastern states, which must locate a low-
level radioactive disposal facility in the area
by January 1, 1986. To expedite review of
these regulations, HO should make the tech-
nical bases for the standards available to
regions and states as they are developed.
DISCUSSION
Background
Low-level radioactive waste is generated as a
byproduct of nuclear power generation, medi-
cal and industrial applications and weapons
research and production. Four recent develop-
ments point to low-leyel waste disposal as a
growing problem: •
(1) in the mid-1970s technical problems caused
three of the six existing commercial low-level
75
-------
76
waste sites to dose (West valley, New York;
Maxey Flats, Kentucky; and Sheffield, Illinois). A
fourth site in Beatty, Nevada, closed recently in
response to strong political pressure.
(2) in late 1979, packagaing and transportation
incidents led to the temporary closing of the
Hanford, Washington site.
(3) in December 1980, in response to these in-
creasing concerns, congress passed the Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (Public Law
96-573). This act established three basic federal
policies: . .
• each state is responsible for ensuring that
adequate disposal capacity is available for the
low-level radioactive waste generated within
its borders;
• since low-level waste can be most safely and
efficiently managed on a regional basis,
states may enter into regional compacts; and
• a compact may restrict the use of its regional
disposal facilities after January 1, 1986, by
• excluding wastes generated in states outside
the region.
(4) There has been resistance in some New
England states to siting the new low-level
radioactive waste disposal sites that will be
needed after 1986. in the 1982 Massachusetts
elections, citizens voted in favor of a refer-
endum that would require general public
approval before any new disposal site is
approved.
These institutional, political and technical
problems are significant for New England since
the region currently disposes of about 12,000
cubic meters of waste per year, approximately
13% of the national total. (Figure D) Moreover,
all of this waste is currently transported out of
the region.
New England's low-level radioactive waste is
generated by a variety of sources, industrial
applications and nuclear power generation
(other than high-level spent fuel) generate the
greatest amounts in the region, industrial
source categories include radio-
pharmaceutical production,, production of
various types of radioactive gauging
equipment, and contaminated hardware and
materials. (Figure A-c on page 110 of the Ap-
pendix) Medical and academic activities contri-
bute a significant, but smaller amount.
Nuclear wastes include anything other than
spent fuel. A significant emerging nuclear
waste disposal problem is decomissioned and
decontaminated reactors. The oldest reactor in
New England, Yankee Rowe, will be replacing
reactor components in 1983 and is slated for
decommissioning in the 1990s. Decommission-
ing will result in approximately 18,000 M3 of
waste, more than the entire amount currently
disposed annually in New England, other
reactors will be decommissioned in 2010 and
beyond.
FIGURE D
LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
DISPOSED BY STATE
10000-,
Legend
G3 1979
OH 1980
S3 1981
CT
MA NH
STATE
VT
in addition to volume, it is important to con-
sider the radioactivity (measured in curies and
half-lives) of the waste generated in Massachu-
setts, the largest generator of radioactive
waste in the region. Table A-1 in the Appendix
shows the type of radionuclides generated.
Regional industry produces about 95% of the
total curie content of the shipped waste, most
'of which is gaseous tritium used in radio-
pharmaceuticals.
Past Responses
• EPA currently has a limited but important role
in the siting process. It has the authority
under the Atomic Energy Act to set emission
standards that waste disposal sites must
meet. Final standards for low-level disposal
sites are expected in FY 85. The Nuclear Regu-
latory commission must then promulgate
specific performance and operating stan-
dards to meet those standards.
Barriers to Overcome
• As required by law, New England's radioactive
waste will eventually have to be disposed of
either within the state of origin or within the
northeast region (which includes four other
northeastern states). Although there are a
number of waste treatment options available
to reduce the volume of waste and render it
more stable — including incineration, physi-
cal reduction, drying, absorption and solidifi-
cation — waste disposal sites will still be
required.
• Approving low-level radioactive waste dis-
posal sites will be a difficult technical and
political problem. A gre*at deal of public resis-
tance, e.g., 1982 Massachusetts referendum,
should be expected.
-------
AIR
Lp^%^^i*p£
IL, - ;$>.i2t£~z-V.•5-'^*.^rt^
JENNIFER DewiTT • Brancroft School, Andover, Massachusetts i Grade 4
-------
STATUS AND TRENDS
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS —
AMBIENT LEVELS
For the past decade, the main objective of
EPA and state air programs' has been attain-
ment and maintenance of the National Ambi-
ent Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These seven
standards are designed to protect both public
health (primary standards) and welfare (se-
condary standards) and serve as mandatory
goals in areas with violations of those stan-
dards (nonattainment areas). Each state must
have a State implementation Plan (SIP) which
shows how the NAAQS will, be achieved and
maintained.
The following graphs, based on data from
the SAROAD monitoring network, show five
year trends for four of these pollutants in
selected urban New England areas. These cities
were chosen because they were representa-
tive of existing conditions and sufficient data
were available. Seasonally adjusted trend lines
are shown for TSP, S02, CO, and QJ. These trend
lines are based on a statistical program that
produces monthly means for each site, per-
forms a linear regression and tests for signifi-
cant trends. They provide an overview of major
changes; more detailed data is published in the
"1981 Annual Report on Air Quality in New
England." Data on 1982 air quality will be avail-
able in the fall of 1983.
FIGURE A
FIVE YEAR TREND
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
»1
n
Primary Annual Standard
• — - — 6o«ton. MA
—— - MjncrtMIt'. NH
t. fil
\in 1979 I960 1961
78
TSP levels have shown significant improve-
ment in four of the five cities shown. The
analysis of Boston's data shows no statistically
significant trend for the past five years.
FIGURE B
FIVE YEAR TREND - SULFUR DIOXIDE
Primary Annual Standard
20-
19
19
= — r---^^-"-T^II
77 1976 1979 i960 1961
6o»i(xt. MA
— — — Fall fliver. MA
The data shows no general trend in SO? levels
throughout New England. Three cities show
decreases. Levels in Fall River, Mass.,"have been
increasing. The analysis of Boston's daca shows
no statistically significant trend for the past
five years.
FIGURE C
FIVE YEAR TREND - CARBON MONOXIDE
Bnageoon. CT
of. ME
---- Boston. MA
- — ••- Providence. Ri
.............. Burlington, VT
All of the cities analyzed showed a signifi-
cantly decreasing trend in CO levels. This has
held true throughout the region. No site in
New England showed increasing CO levels. Note
that while this graph shows annual averages,
the CO standards are set for 8 and 1 hour
averaging times.
Because Ozone depends more on meteorol-
ogy than any other pollutant, no clear trend is
discernible in this graph of the number of days
standards have been violated. For all cities,
there were fewer days showing violations in
1981 than in 1977.
-------
FIGURE D
FIVE YEAR TREND - OZONE
. CT
Ponlvtd. ME
Boston. M»
SohngMd. M»
Prawdmct. Rl
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS — EMISSIONS
Anthropogenic sources of these pollutants
vary greatly from large point sources to small
point sources to mobile sources. To estimate
the amount of emissions each source contri-
butes, states maintain emissions inventories
for the National Emissions Data System (NEDS).
NEDS contains emissions estimates for both
point and area sources. Point sources are those
large enough to require an individual permit.
Area sources include both clusters of small
emission points (such as a housing develop-
ment) and mobile sources. For both types,
NEDS contains emission estimates based on
standard emission factors rather than actual
emission tests.
The following pie charts, based on the NEDS
data base, show emissions estimates in 1980 for
TSP, SO? and Volatile Organic Compounds
(reactive Hydrocarbons that form Ozone).
FIGURE E
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
TSP emissions in New England totaled over
600,000 tons in 1980 according to the NEDS data
base. By far the largest cause of these emis-
sions were area sources such as construction
sites and transportation. However, large point
sources, such as powerplants, contribute a
greater percentage in certain areas.
FIGURE F
SULFUR DIOXIDE
Rl
10,510
1.5%
Tons/Year
New England SO? emissions totaled over
690,000 tons in 1980. Unlike TSP, point sources
emit the largest amount of SO?, especially in
industrialized states. Most of these emissions
result from sulfur in fuel used for industrial
heating or generating electricity. These emis-
sion estimates may understate SO? emissions
because of the recent trend towards higher
sulfur fuels.
FIGURE G
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Tons/Year
Tons/Year
-------
For comparison, SCh emissions in Ohio (the
largest source of SCh) were estimated to be
2,781,032 tons.
While not a criteria pollutant, VOCs are regu-
lated because they can form Ozone. Most VOCs
originate from exhaust gases from mobile
sources, but point sources can contribute sig-
nificant amounts as well. Chemical manufac-
turers, degreasers, and dry cleaners are typical
types of voc sources. Based on NEDS, VOC
sources in New England emit more than 1.1 mil-
lion tons.
NON-CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Recently, there has been a slowly growing
concern over non-criteria pollutants. Problems
such as indoor air pollution, hazardous air
pollutants, and acid precipitation do not fit in
the regulatory framework established by the
Clean Air Act. Although these emerging prob-
lems are all very different, they do share some
common characteristics.
• Lack of Standards. There are no ambient
standards for most of these pollutants and only
a limited number of emission or performance
standards. This lack of regulatory control has
made it difficult for EPA and states to establish
programs to control these pollutants.
• Lack of Information on Sources. While
there is a relatively good data base on ambient
concentrations and emissions of criteria pollu-
tants, there are large gaps in our information
concerning sources of non-criteria pollutants.
This hinders EPA and state ability to determine
the scope of impacts or set priorities among
source categories.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: indoor Air
Pollution
A number of studies have pointed to indoor
residential air quality as a cause of adverse
health effects. A variety of common sources
may contribute to the problem, but there is in-
sufficient information available to characterize
the degree of risk to the general public and
very little legislative authority to allow EPA or
states to help solve the problem.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• More Research — Fund more research
through ORD to determine emission factors,
indoor concentrations, control strategies,
and health effects from indoor air pollution.
• More Resources — Consider indoor air pollu-
tion when developing workload models.
• Develop Guidelines and Strategies —
Develop guidelines for acceptable levels of
concentrations of indoor air pollutants, in
conjunction with this, HQ should work with
regions to develop strategies (such as in-
creased public education) to reduce the
problem.
• Legislative Authority — Seek legislative
authority to deal with specific indoor air pol-
lution problems.
• Radon Detection — Develop an accurate and
inexpensive detection device for indoor
radon levels which could be loaned to home-
owners or renters for 1 to 2 weeks. A state
agency could then provide analysis and dose
interpretation. Since indoor radon levels are
so highly dependent on a wide variety of fac-
tors, there is the need for a method to deter-
mine levels on a case by case basis.
• Asbestos Research — Examine asbestos
levels in home air contributed by use of
home vaporizers in areas having significant
levels of asbestos in their water supply
distribution system. Asbestos fibers could be
dispensed into indoor air upon evaporation
of atomized water containing asbestos. (A
grant that was to have investigated this
potential problem was cancelled.)
Regional Actions
• Increased Public Information — Increase
capability to respond to public requests by
providing more complete information on
health effects and techniques to mitigate
potential problems. '
• Support State Efforts — Encourage state
efforts to survey the extent of the problem
and develop control strategies. This support
could be in the form of specific SEA issues,
grant outputs, workshops and coordination
of technical information.
DISCUSSION .
Background
Although almost all of EPA's air pollution
control efforts thus far have been focused on
ambient concentrations, concern has been
growing in the research community and in the
public over the total human exposure to air
pollutants, including those found indoors. Peo-
ple spend most of their time indoors, and
those segments of the population who are
most susceptible to health risks (the old, the
infirm, and the very young) spend essentially
100% of their time indoors, in spite of the
limited information available, public concern
over health effects from indoor air pollution is
evidenced by the number of public inquiries
reaching the regional office.
New England is particularly susceptible to
this problem. The region is heavily dependent
on high cost oij and has* cold, severe winters
(see energy section pp. 24). The average ex-
penditure on energy per household is higher
80
-------
than any other part of the country (Table A-1,
page 111, appendix). This combination of
dependence on high cost oil plus the colder cli-
mate has given New Engenders a strong incen-
tive to insulate their residences to limit
indoor/outdoor air circulation and to avoid
heat loss. A side effect of this can be increased
concentrations of air pollutants. At the same
time, there is also an incentive to switch to
non-oil fuels. Some of these, such as wood, coal
and kerosene, may contribute much more to
indoor air pollution than oil or natural gas.
The kinds of pollutants under consideration
are vared (see Table 1). They include pollutants
found both indoors and outdoors and pollu-
tants that are found mostly indoors. They
range t:rom pollutants that have been tradi-
tionally regulated under the air program, such
as carbon monoxide, to a variety of organic
compounds that have never been individually
regulated and about which little is known. Also
included are radon and asbestos.
unlikfj outdoor concentrations which are
generally stable over all but the shortest time
periods, concentrations of indoor air pollu-
tants can vary considerably depending on in-
door activities (see Figures A-A and A-B on page
111, appendix).
Use o-: a wood stove, gas stove, oven cleaner,
vacuum cleaner, or other commonplace device
can significantly affect indoor concentrations.
Smoking is another obvious source. It is also
clear that correlations between indoor and
outdoo" concentrations are generally weak,
and thus ambient air quality cannot be used as
an indicator of indoor air quality. Table A-2 on
page 11:2, appendix lists recent research studies
done to monitor indoor concentrations.
The Following describes a few specific
sources of concern in more detail:
Radon — Recent studies show that a sizable
fraction of public exposure to ionizing radia-
tion is from inhalation of radon decay products
in buildings. Radon is a radioactive gas that is
formed by the decay of radium, a naturally
occurring element found throughout the
earth's crust. Radon itself decays into short-
lived decay products which can attach them-
selves to respirable particles and be deposited
in the King.
Sources of radon in buildings include soil,
construction materials, and tapwater when it is
supplied from groundwater in radiumbearing
aquifers. New England is particularly suscep-
tible to radon exposure because of the preval-
ence of granite bedrock (see map on page 113).
A recently completed survey shows Maine and
Rhode island ranking among the states with
the hignest radon readings in water from
drilled wells.
TABLE 1
AIR POLLUTANTS BY
SOURCE LOCATIONS.
Pollutants Sources
Group I — Sources Predominantly Outdoor:
Sulfur oxides (gases, Fuel combustion, nonferrous
smelters
Photochemical reactions
Trees, grass; weeds, plants
Automobiles
Suspension of soils or
industrial emissions
Petrochemical solvents,
natural sources,
vaporization of unburned
fuels
particles)
Ozone
Pollens
Lead, manganese
Calcium, chlorine,
silicon, cadmium
Organic substances
Group II — Sources
Nitric oxide, nitrogen
dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Particles
Water vapor
Organic substances
Spores
Group III — Sources
Radon
Formaldehyde
Asbestos, mineral and
synthetic fibers
Organic substances
Ammonia
Polycyclic hydro-
carbons, arsenic,
nicotine, acrolein,
etc.
Mercury
Aerosols
Viable organisms
Allergens
Both Indoor & Outdoor:
Fuel burning
Fuel burning
Metabolic activity, combustion
Resuspension, condensation
of vapors and combustion
products
Biologic activity, combustion,
evaporation
Volatilization, combustion,
paint, metabolic action,
pesticides, insecticides,
fungicides
Fungi, molds
Predominantly Indoor:
Building construction
materials (concrete, stone),
water, soil
Particleboard, insulation,
furnishings, tobacco
smoke, gas stoves
Fire-retardant, acoustic,
thermal or electric insulation
Adhesives, solvents, cooking,
cosmetics
Metabolic activity, cleaning
products
Tobacco smoke
Fungicides in paints, spills, in
dental care facilities or
laboratories, thermometer
breakage-
Consumer products
Infections
House dust — animal dander
81
-------
Although a statistically sound sampling
program has not Deen conducted, available
monitoring data suggest the problem is wide-
spread and, in some cases, may be causing
serious health risks. For example, one Maine
residence has been shown to have radon
exceeding 100 picocuries per liter, considerably
above the level allowed in uranium mines, it is
not unusual for Maine houses located in areas
underlain by granite bedrock to have levels
between 2 and 4 PCi/1.
Residential wood /Coal Combustion — As
discussed in the energy section (see page 24)
New Englanders are rapidly switching to alter-
native fuels for residential heating. The most
commonly used fuel is wood, but both anthra-
cite and bituminous coal have made a resur-
gence as well. For'example, in Massachusetts,
homeowners used 16% more fuelwood in the
winter of 1978-79 than they did the year
before, and 33% more than they did the winter
of 1976-77. The following table of Residential
wood energy use in New England (excluding
Rhode island) highlights fuelwood use from
1976-80.
TABLE 2
RESIDENTIAL WOOD ENERGY USE
THOUSANDS OF CORDS
(New England exlcuding Rhode Island)
Heating Season 1976-77
Heating Season 1977-78
Heating Season 1978-79
Heating Season 1979-80
2046
2488
2765
3224
wood and coal burning produces a variety of
combustion byproducts including polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, NO?, CO, SO? and
others. Monitoring these pollutants, determin-
ing emission factors, and evaluating health
effects is still in the research stages. Making
definitive assessments of these factors is com-
plicated by the wide range of variables that can
affect combustion (stove type, fuel type,
method of operation, etc.). Refer to the energy
section for specific emission factors.
The small amount of work that has been
done on indoor impacts does suggest potential
adverse health effects. One two-week monitor-
ing study in the Boston area indicated that
indoor TSP concentrations during woodburn-
ing were three times that during nonwood-
burning periods, indoor Benzo-a-pyrene (a
known carcinogen) concentrations averaged
five times more than during nonwoodburning
periods.
Kerosene — Kerosene space heaters are
another alternative heating source widely used
in New England. An estimated 2 million units
were sold nationwide in 1982, and sales of 8to
10 million are projected by 1985. Early kerosene
heaters were both fire hazards and significant
sources of carbon monoxide. Although these
problems have been eliminated, kerosene
heaters can still be important sources of NO?
and, in some cases of so?. Estimated NO? and SO?
concentrations are shown on page 113, ap-
pendix.
As with other indoor sources of pollutants,
concentrations are exacerbated by "tighten-
ing" of residences for energy conservation.
Formaldehyde — Formaldehyde is an irri-
tant to the eyes and upper respiratory system
and has produced cancers in laboratory ani-
mals. Common sources of formaldehyde in-
clude urea formaldehyde foam insulation as
well as carpets, drapes, furniture, plywood,
panelling, wood smoke, tobacco smoke and
gas stoves. The potential for high indoor con-
centrations has been documented by the small
number of monitoring studies completed.
Past Responses
• Asbestos — The TSCA asbestos inspection
program has been EPA's most significant
response to an indoor air pollution problem
(see page 80). All schools are required to be
inspected for asbestos by June 1983. informa-
tion pertaining to asbestos processing is
being obtained under Section 8 of TSCA, and
a variety of asbestos source categories are
regulated by NESHAPS standards.
• Research — Although there has been little
-direct regulation of indoor air pollution, EPA
has conducted substantial research under
TSCA, the Clean Air Act, and RCRA that would
be useful in evaluating health impacts once
additional monitoring is done.
Barriers to Overcome
• Lack of Authority — Except for a few speci-
fic cases (like asbestos), EPA and most states
lack legislative authority to establish any.kind
of a regulatory program, under the Clean Air
Act, for example, EPA's authority is limited to
"ambient air" which has been interpreted to
include only outdoor air.
• Lack of Information — As noted above,
there is only sketchy information available on
emission factors for sources of indoor air pol-
lution, on indoor concentrations, on control
technologies or techniques, and on health
effects. Lack of information precludes estab-
lishing standards, setting priorities, and
implementing other aspects of a regulatory
program.
82
-------
• Lack of Resources — There are very few
resources chat can be directed toward the
problem of indoor air pollution. None of the
air media workload models, for example, in-
cludes indoor air pollution as a line item.
• Institutional Barriers — indoor air pollution
is difficult to deal with in part because the
problem is so diffuse and involves so many
individual homeowners. Furthermore, while
ambient air can be considered a "public
good", indoor air is a private resource, at
least in non-public buildings. The diffuse and,
to a great extent, private nature of the prob-
lem makes it difficult to devise regulatory
strategies, and suggests that emphasis
should be placed on public education.
Expected Environmental Results
• Reduced levels of a wide variety of indoor air
pollu'iants and resulting health benefits.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Nonattainment Areas
Region I has a number of areas that have
been designated as primary or secondary non-
attainment as a result of a violation of one or
more National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• NCRMP Modeling — Complete the NCRMP
modeling project to determine the effects of
the NY/NJ/CT ozone plume on ozone levels in
southern New England
• CO Emissions — Do not relax current auto-
motive CO emissions standards.
• New Nonattainment Areas — Re-evaluate
the current nonattainment areas sanction
policy that requires imposition of sanctions
immediately upon designation, and consider
allowing states to develop a nonattainment
plan before sanctions are imposed.
• Secondary TSP — update the secondary
nonattainment TSP policy and provide
regions with more adequate guidance for
developing secondary TSP attainment plans.
• 105 Grants — Recommend increases in 105
grant:s.
Regional Actions
• 107 designations — Review the 107 designa-
tion policy to ensure expeditious action on
ambient violations.
• Secondary TSP — Develop a policy that
responds to state requests, the current
Connecticut Fund for the Environment suit
concerning secondary TSP designation, and
the impending TSP standard revision.
DISCUSSION
Background
Region I nonattainment areas are shown on
maps in the appendix (page 114). While all pri-
mary non-attainment areas require some
investment of public and private resources to
bring them into attainment, some require
more resources than others. The clusters on
page 84 show high, medium, and low priorities
for assigning resources to Region I non-attain-
ment areas.
The sources of these violations vary from
pollutant to pollutant and from state to state.
Air pollution sources are categorized in a num-
ber of ways to include mobile sources, station-
ary sources, and area sources; they are further
broken down by the type of mobile source,
type of industrial process, etc. in addition,
interstate transport of pollutants can be a sig-
nificant contributor to violations in some
states. As required by the Clean Air Act, EPA
developed a policy to impose sanctions on
areas that were not in attainment by the end
of 1982 or had not received extensions.
General causes of violations for each pol-
lutant as well as proposed solutions and
barriers to solutions are discussed below. '
Ozone — Ozone forms as a result of a wide
variety of photochemical reactions involving
reactive hydrocarbon compounds that act as
precursors to its production. These com-
pounds, principally nitrous oxides and volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) are emitted by both
mobile sources and a number of types of
stationary source categories. Ozone nonattain-
ment areas cover wide areas, which reflect
both the dispersed nature of these sources and
the impact of long distance transport.
in the industrialized areas of southern New
England, Ozone is caused by both intrastate
and interstate sources. Emission inventories
for Massachusetts and Connecticut show that
mobile sources generate about half of the
VOCs that originate in those states with
stationary sources making up the rest, impor-
tant stationary sources of vocs include the
surface coating, gasoline marketing, and
chemical industries.
CO — in New England, CO violations are due
almost entirely to motor vehicle emissions.
These violations tend to be localized in areas of
heavy traffic such as overcrowded intersec-
tions. Reducing these ambient concentrations
involves both regional and national programs.
TSP (Primary and Secondary) — Unlike
Ozone and CO, Region I's primary TSP violations
can be attributed mainly to single sources, in
Maine and New Hampshire, large paper com-
panies are the main 'cause of violations, in
Worcester, Massachusetts, the problem was a
combination of area sources such as road
83
-------
TABLE 3
CLUSTER
and private
State
CT
ME
MA
NH
NH
Rl
CLUSTER
so will still
State
CT
ME
MA
NH
NH
CLUSTER
required.
State
ME
MA
NH
Rl
NONATTAINMENT AREA
1: Good possibility that attainment will be
PRIORITY CLUSTERS
achieved only by significant
investment of public
resources or won't be achieved by the required date.
Area Pollutant
Statewide 03
Lincoln TSP
Statewide 03
Nashua CO
Berlin TSP
Statewide 03
Date of
Last Violation
1975-1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
% Over
Standard
25% -68%
113%
38%
88%
55%
25%
2: High probability that attainment will be achieved by 1987, (or other required date) but to do
require public and private investments.
Area Pollutant
5 Countries CO
Southern ME 03
5 Counties CO
Manchester CO
Southern NH 0,
Date of
Last Violation
1980-1981
1978-1981
1977-1981
1980
1981
3: Attainment will almost certainly be achieved by required dates. Little or
Area Pollutant
Lewiston, CO
Bangor
Millinocket S02
Worcester TSP
Berlin S02
Providence CO
Date of
Last Violation
1979
1978
1980
1981
. 1980
1981
%0ver
Standard
T9%-77%
12.5%-
37.5%
5%-22%
41%
12%
no EPA involvement
% Over
Standard
25%
36%
7.7%
4%
85.7%
11%
84
sanding and inefficient, older, point sources.
Worcester is expected to be redesignated to
attainment in 1983.
Southern New England also has a large num-
ber of secondary TSP nonattainment areas.
These violations, many of which .were moni-
tored in the mid to late 70s, could be caused by
a variety of types of stationary and area
sources (such as road building or other con-
struction). Lack of resources and lack of a
clearly defined policy have prevented EPA or
states from developing secondary TSP attain-
ment plan. The region has recently been sued
for the failure to develop such a plan.
SOj — Like primary TSP violations, Region I's
small number of primary SO? violations a.e
caused by local single source problems, in New
Hampshire .and Maine all the sources of con-
cern are pulp and paper mills. Those areas cur-
rently in violation are expected to be redesig-
nated to attainment because of the installation
of new stacks and more efficient process tech-
nology. Lincoln, Maine may be redesignated to
nonattainment for S02 because of recent viola-
tions caused by a pulp and paper mill.
Pb — The New England lead violations have
been infrequent in the last five years. The suc-
cess of the lead-in-fuel program, coupled with
the closing of the few potential industrial
sources of lead emissions has produced what
may be region-wide attainment. In 1980, the
three northern New England states submitted
plans showing attainment and maintenance of
the lead standard. A recent suit by NRDC is caus-
ing EPA to exert pressure on the southern
states to make a suitable demonstration. Until
these plans are submitted, reviewed and
approved, however, EPA will not know for sure
the extent of New England's ambient lead
problem. •
-------
Past Responses
• VOC Controls — All states with Ozone non-
attainment areas must implement controls
on stationary VOC sources as part of the State
implementation Plan (SIP) by requiring them
to use Reasonably Available Control Technol-
ogy (RACT). Urbanized states (Connecticut and
Massachusetts) must use inspection and Main-
tenance of automobiles to reduce hydrocar-
bon (HO emissions. These actions will not, of
course;, reduce Ozone caused by interstate
transport from New York and New Jersey.
• CO Controls — States with CO problems have
undertaken several analyses of .specific prob-
lem intersections. Because there are more
intersections than monitors to record viola-
tions, states undertook a CO 'hotspot analysis'
to identify intersections that may violate
standards in 1987. For those intersections
that still showed modeled violations in 1987,
states were required to develop attainment
plans that would eliminate those violations.
These olans consist of a variety of transporta-
tion control measures. Depending on the
intersection, the plan might involve changing
traffic signals to improve traffic flow, adding
turning lanes, removing street parking, or
channelizing traffic.
• TSP Controls — Controlling TSP violations in-
volves installing appropriate TSP control tech-
nology. In Berlin, New Hampshire, the source
installed new steam boilers, constructed new
stacks, and paved roads, but violations have
still beien recorded. This problem may be
addressed in negotiations with the company
as part of enforcement of a consent decree.
In Maine, the state is developing an attain-
ment plan to control dust from sawdust piles,
the key source of the violations.
Barriers to Overcome
• Stationary Source VOC Controls — Controlling
stationary source VOC emissions is hampered
by the lack of good emissions inventory
information — there are a large number of
small VOC sources and specific controls can-
not be required until those sources are iden-
tified. For some sources, financial barriers
may hinder compliance.
• inspection/Maintenance — The inspection
and Maintenance programs in Connecticut
and Massachusetts are designed to reduce
both HC and CO emissions. Both states have
experienced start-up problems, in Connecti-
cut, a centralized contractor-based program
began on January 1, 1983 and was met with
opposition because of the required fees and
inconvenience, in Massachusetts, a decentral-
ized garage based program was delayed until
April 1, 1983, and there were a variety of
organisation problems in getting it started.
• Long-Range CO Trends — While current CO
controls should bring about attainment by
1987, the combination of a growth in auto-
mobile traffic and possible relaxed federal
standards on new automobiles makes the CO
situation in the 1990's uncertain. Currently,
automobile traffic in Massachusetts, for
example, is growing at a rate of 2.3% per
year, if CO emissions are increased in newer
cars, areas that show attainment in 1987 may
not be able to maintain those levels in the
1990's.
Expected Environmental Results
• Attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Emissions from
Significant Violators
Although the vast majority of major station-
ary sources of pollution are complying with air
pollution control requirements, a small per-
centage remain delinquent. These violators
constitute approximately 5% of the major
source inventory at any given time. The most
important of these sources are classified as
'significant violators' since they either are
emitting greater than 100 tons per year of a
criteria pollutant and are located in a non-
attainment area or are violating a PSD, NSPS, or
a NESHAPS standard. Their continued non-
compliance creates a potentially serious public
health problem as well as a major resource
drain for the federal and state agencies (EPA,
DOJ) involved in pursuing corrective action.
Region I identified certain management and
resource problems which affect our major
source enforcement effort.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Headquarters Actions
• 105 Grants — Consider increasing the
amount of 105 grant money available for
enforcement, especially inspections.
• Accountability System Milestones — Con-
solidate and reduce EPA guidance on defining
and proceeding against significant violators.
Consider establishing specific milestones for
action against individual significant violators
and tracking achievement of the milestones.
Regional Actions
• CDS — Continue to work with the states to
improve the capture, input and reliability of
data in the CDS system.
• Legal Resources — Review the adequacy of
legal resources currently devoted to enforce-
ment at EPA and in the states.
• State inspections — Support state efforts to
adequately train the state's regional inspec-
tors. Some state inspection offices have not
been provided with adequate technical or
policy guidance.
85
-------
FIGURE H
MAJOR SOURCES: TOTAL NUMBER
AND NUMBER IN COMPLIANCE
700-1
600-
NUMBER OF MAJOR SOURCES
— KJ G« *• O>
O O O O O
3 0 0 O O O
w
w
v^
.
I
!
Lege
C3 TOTAL *
CO IN COM
1 ^^
111 Li
CT ME MA NH Rl
STATE
VT
DISCUSSION
Background
The Compliance Data System (CDS) lists nearly
1300 major stationary sources in New England.
In addition, it appears that there are a substan-
tial number of sources, 4-500, not listed that
should be. Figure H above, shows the total
number of major sources (based on CDS) and
the total jjumber in compliance. Only eleven of
these major sources are currently classified as
significant violators. Five sources each are
violating VOC or TSP emission limits; the
eleventh source is a chemical manufacturer in
violation of a NESHAPS regulation. Many of
these eleven have been 'problem1 sources for a
number of years. Seven are located in Connecti-
cut (see page 114, appendix).
inspection of these sources and enforce-
ment against those in violation is both an EPA
and state responsibility, in negotiating our 105
grants for FY83 and in reviewing output
reports for progress to date, it is clear that our
states cannot meet the target of inspecting all
of their largest sources each year, in Maine, for
example, the state committed to inspect only
75% and appears unlikely to be able to meet
that target. They do not have enough staff to
conduct additional inspections, we cannot in-
crease their grant without decreasing another
state's and we cannot perform the inspections
ourselves.
Past Responses
• In 1982, EPA conducted 50 inspections, con-
centrating on major emission sources. These
sources were generally identified using the
CDS data base.
• Historically, CDS has been a problem for the
regional office and the states. Our input is
' improving substantially but requires continu-
ous emphasis. Currently we are getting con-
tractual help to identify additional sources.
Barriers to Overcome
• we have had substantial difficulty this year, as
have all regions and headquarters, with the
new "significant violators" system. Final, con-
solidated and concise guidance would help.
• State reluctance to use CDS — according to
the states, CDS provides no direct benefits.
• Substantial personnel resource problems and
the difficulty of getting additional resources
in times of fiscal austerity at EPA and the
states.
86
-------
PART III /APPENDIX
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
88
DRIVING FORCES
1. Dartmouth College, New England Regional Assessment
transcripts. Hanover, N.H. 1983.
2. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Research Department,
"Economic indicators". Boston 1974-1982.
3. "U.S. Census of Selected industries (1960-1980)". U.S.
Census of Selected Services.
4. Katz, R; Pawhik, L and Spencer, 8., "Energy in New
England—Transition to the 80's". Report to the New
England Energy Congress, 1981.
S. Ferrara, Anthony, J., "Structural Change in New England
Employment, 1947-1981". U.S. Department of Labor.
Boston 1982.
INTER-MEDIA SECTION
Energy
1. "Electrical Utility industry in New England, Statistical
Bulletin, 1981". Electric Council of New England.
2. "Electric Power Monthly". U.S. Department of Energy,
August, 1982.
3. "Energy in New England, Transition to the 80's". New
England congressional institute, June 22, 1981.
4. "The New England Energy Situation." U.S. Department
of Energy, Region I, 1978.
5. DeAngelis, D. and Hall, R. "EPA's Research Program for
Controlling Residential wood Combustion Emissions".
JAPCA, August 1980.
Acid Rain
1. "Atmosphere — Biosphere interactions: Toward a
Better Understanding of the Ecological Consequences
of Fossil Fuel Combustion". National Research Council,
National Academy Press.- Washington, D.C., 1981.
2. "US-Canada Memorandum of intent on Transboundar/
Air Pollution". Impact Assessment working croup 1,
Phase II interim working Paper, October 1981," Final
Report, January, 1983.
3: "The Debate Over Acid Precipitation: Opposing views,
Status of Research". U.S. General Accounting Office,
September 11,1981./
4. "To Breathe Clean Air1. Report of the National commis-
sion on Air Quality to U.S. Congress: Washington, DC,
March 1981.
5. Bridge, J.E. and Fairchild, P.p. "Northeast Damage
Report of the Long Range Transport and Deposition of
Air Pollutants". NEIWPCC: Boston, MA. April 1981.
6. Fairchild, P.P., Bridge, J., Fairsold, C., Ayer, W.C. and
Lapointe, "Acid Precipitation and the Long Range
Transport of Air Pollutants in Eastern Canada and New
England". Boston, MA, June 1982. Prepared for the
Conference of the New England Governors and
Eastern Canadian Premiers.
7. "Protecting Visibility". An EPA Report to Congress, EPA
450/5-79-008 OAOPS, Research Triangle Park, NC.
8. "The Potential Atmospheric impact of Chemicals
Released to the Environment". EPA 560/5-800-001
January 1981.
9. "Altshula, A.P. and McBean, G.A. "2nd Report of the U.S.
Canada Research Consultation Group on Long Range
Transport of Air Pollution". January, 1981.
10. Cowling, E.B. "Acid Rain in Perspective: The Path from
Research to Public Policy". Proceeding, Acid Precipita-
tion: The North American Challenge, Burlington, vt.,
October 25-28, 1982, published by Soil Conservation
Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa.
11. Haines, T.A., "Vulnerability of Lakes and Streams in the
Northeastern U.S. to Acidification from LRTAP".
Presentation at EPA Ecological Effects Peer Review:
Raleigh, NC, February 9, 1982.
12.. Potter, T. "Maine Environmental News", vol. 9, No. 7,
January 1983, Maine Dept. of Environmental
Protection.
13. NHWSPCC, "Past and Present pH and Alkalinity Data for
Selected New Hampshire Lakes and Ponds". New
Hampshire water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission, 1980.
14. Haines, T.A., "Acidic Precipitation and Its Consequences
for Aquatic Ecosystems: A Review". Transactions of. the
American Fisheries Society, 110:669-707,1981.
15. uirich, 8., Mayer, B. and Khanna, P.K., 1980. "Chemical
Changes Due to Acid Precipitation in a Loss Derived Soil
in Central Europe." Soil Science 103.
16. Crocker, I, Tachirhart, J., Adams, R. and Forester, 8.,
"Methods Development for Environmental Control
Benefits Assessment: Volume 7", Methods Develop-
ment for Assessing Acid Deposition control Benefits.
Prepared for U.S. EPA, 1981.
17. "The Economic Social Significant of Acid Deposition in
the New England, New York Region". New England
River Basins Commission, May, 1981.
18. Shaw, R.W., "Deposition of Atmospheric Acid from
Local and Distant Sources at a Rural Site in Nova
Scotia". Atmospheric Environment, 16: 337-348, 1982.
19. vogelmann, H.W. "Catastrophe on Camels Hump,"
"Natural History". November, 1982.
Toxic Substances
1. "Drinking water Supplies Contaminated by Organic
Chemicals in New England." Region 1, February 1983.
. 2. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
"Water Quality Surveys, 1979 • 1982".
AIR MEDIUM SECTION
1.- Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data Base
(SAROADS).
2. compliance Data System (CDS) Data Base.
3. Yocum, J., "indoor-Outdoor Air Quality Relationships: A
Critical Review", journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, 1982.
4. Ryan, P., et a/., "The Effects of Kerosene Heaters on
Indoor Pollutant Concentrations: A Monitoring and
Modeling Study". Presented at the 75 APCA meeting of
June 20-25th, 1982, v.4.
5. Bailey, Mark, et a/., "Wood and Energy In Connecticut".
USDA Economic Research Service, 1983.
6. Bailey, Mark, et a/., "Wood and Energy in
Massachusetts". USDA, Economic Research Service, 1982.
WATER MEDIUM SECTION
1. "State of Connecticut 1982 water Quality Report to
Congress". Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection, June 1982.
2. "Maine water Quality Status 1982". Maine Department
of Environmental Protection, 1982.
3. "Commonwealth of Massachusetts Summary of Water
Quality 1982". Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, June 1982. , '
4. "State of New Hampshire National water Quality
inventory Report to Congress". New Hampshire Water
Supply and Pollution Control Commission, June 1982.
-------
5. "The State of the State's waters — A Report to
Congress" State of Rhode island and Providence Planta-
tions, Department of Environmental Management,
April 1982.
6. "State of Vermont 1982 water Quality Assessment1.
Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation, 1982.
7. Fedenil Reporting Data System (PROS). U.S. Environ-
ments! Protection Agency, Office of Drinking water.
LAND MEDIUM SECTION
1. Booz-Allen Hamilton, "Hazardous waste Generation and
Commercial Hazardous Waste Capacity". December
1980.
2. Unitec States Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste, "inventory of Open Dumps". April 1982.
3. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Federal Register/Proposed Rules vol. 47, No. 251,
"National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency
Plan; The National Priorities List; Amendment".
December 30, 1982.
4. Cordian Associates, Inc., "Hazardous waste Regulatory
issues: Approaches for Classifying Hazardous waste; The
Effect;: of Small Generator Exclusions; Approaches For
Establishing Financial Requirements - Volume 1".
December, 1980.
89
-------
INTER MEDIA
SOURCES OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE
CONTAMINATION IN NEW ENGLAND
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Toxic substances handled at controlled and uncontrolled
solid and hazardous wastes disposal facilities in New
England may impact air, land and water, initially, the
environmental Impact appears to be one of land use. How-
ever, an examination of the actual constituents in disposal
sites and their potential transport routes, clearly indicates
that the problems impact not only land but also surface
water, ground water and air. (Table A-1)
TABLE A-1
INTER MEDIA - TOXIC SUBSTANCES
EnvlronBcntil Icpict
2) Municipal dlich«r|«t
Htrblclde & pctcleld*
•ppLleicloni
concialnitlon probltot
1} •artclon low«ri
3) lludftl (tr«i[a«nt
tr-produet)
t) c.rtxjn Miter.
Underground concilneri
1) lu.l t.nk.
2) atpclc canlu
InduitrlAl pljnt*
Chtalcil plantfl
Phcra«ctuclcal pl«nc.
Powtr plcaci
Spill.
•OU-- Drlnkln| Vnir
X
I
I
X
I
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
I
X
X
X
X
I
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
I
X
I
90
To date, there are approximately 1000 RCRA Solid waste
Land disposal facilities in New England. In addition, there
are 700 uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, 38 of which
are on the National Priority List. The obvious adverse
environmental impact at some of these sites is evident in
the stressed surrounding vegetation, which acts as a bell
weather indicator of ecosystem strain, instead -of
providing nutrients, the contaminated soil Is a source of
toxic pollutants for the plants, it is not uncommon to see
brown vegetation around a disposal site, e.g., Tyngsboro,
Massachusetts.
Run-off from a disposal site, or tributaries adjacent.to a
site, can carry toxic pollutants away from the site to rivers,
lakes, reservoirs and ponds, while contaminated sedi-
ments may not always affect the actual water quality, they
represent the second major water use impact. Sediments
contaminated with toxic substances will not support the
aquatic life at the bottom of the food chain and will impair
the aesthetic and primary water contact uses. Due to the
tremendous number of impoundments which trap
sediments, the contaminated substrate problem is
widespread and the cause of a significant impairment of
water uses in New England. This is confirmed by fish
studies conducted at the Housatonic and Sudbury Rivers
and the Framingham Reservoirs. Analyses of the fish from
the Housatonic River revealed elevated levels of PCB, while
elevated levels of mercury were detected in fish sample'd
from the Sudbury River and Framingham Reservoirs.
The discharge of toxic chemicals can be determined
through analysis of bottom sediments. Water samples pro-
vide an instantaneous "snap-shot" picture of conditions at
the time of sampling. Sediment analysis, on the other
hand, shows what has been discharged to Che river or lake
during the last week, last year, or even the last decade.
One sediment sample analysis can therefore yield data for
certain constituents that might take years of water
column or effluent monitoring to detect.
Toxic pollutants can also be transported from a disposal
site by means of leachate. Leachate contaminating the
ground water is an existing and continuing threat to New
England's water supplies, it is difficult to assess the
severity of these contamination incidents because: a)
states do not have consistent analytical capabilities; b) the
constituents analyzed vary from state to state; c) disposal
practices were never well documented; and d) investiga-
tions into the extent of contamination generally cease
when the well is closed.
FIGURE A-A
TOTAL NUMBER OF DRINKING WATER WELLS
CLOSED IN REGION 1
no-
te-
n-
70-
8 M-
i "'
u. «,.
JO-
JO-
n-
0-
«*ri
LEGEND
0 PRIVATE
CD COMMUNITY
0 NON-COMMUNfTY
1 jmK
— i
T!
if
f
lib
l[
jij
» gCFOR*. IfJy TtfT* t980'
n
^
1
^
nil
19BT t96Z'
The first incident of organic chemical contamination of
drinking water was reported in Region I in 1975. Since
then, more than 105 cities/towns have reported similar
contamination. (Figure A-A) A majority of these contami-
nated sites appeared to be located in less densley popu-
lated areas. Fifty-six percent of these sites were located in
towns with a population density of less than 500 people
per square mile, while only 26% were in towns with
greater than 1000 per square mile. (Figure A-B and A-O The
four population density maps (pages 95 and 96) selected
from a random sample of ten illustrate that most contami-
nation from hazardous waste sites occurs in less densely
populated areas of New England. The most common result
of such contamination is the closure of the community
and private drinking water wells.
Uncontrolled sites, i.e., disposal and illegal dumps,
accounted for 12 percent, and landfills accounted for 13
percent, of the organic contamination of drinking water
in the region. Figure A-D depicts the number of drinking
water wells closures attributed to hazardous waste sites.
One should note that the increased number of wells closed
in 1980 was a direct result of state and regional investi-
gatory programs.
-------
FIGURE A-B
RELATIONSHIP OF CONTAMINATED DRINKING WATER
SITES WITH POPULATION DENSITY IN REGION 1
ININE SITES WERE LOCATED
IN AREAS WITH A POPULATION
DENSITY BETWEEN 2000 AND
5383 PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE)
POPULATION ooarrt
-------
TABLE A-2
NEW ENGLAND SURFACE WATER "HOT SPOTS"
Tt*r »< AAdrdcil I*«wlt«
UeitiM fumr loarcii fro* l«dl«nt !*•*!•• C««*ntt
1. OulMlMU
ll*«r
(CenMctKut)
1. Fivtui*! U*IT
(lh«d« lll«M>
lt*
U*ir
(FUlfl*)
If SO
1. ) M)er tWTP
1. clMMlc*! cawnr
1. lo4w«trial
c «•*••!••
]. Induitflil
*e(l*ltl**
•«tt*ltl*«
*«k«Ta (WIT)
-irivalc •( 11.3 »p«
.t I.I4Q ppa
-eFil«r«b*iii«n« tt
1.) »(-
• c 11 M.
-f*«tUU^«U*»
CO>PMBd«
-000 it 160 *p»
-PCI 10 It 1C J.* PM
- M»
»»• \
-»rvo*I* it .1 •*•
-•r*«nle it I »M
•ffTiM «t 4.1 ffm
•flu*fi«(iMA* it ].f
»»•
-fCI 114« tt IV) »»•
-KB 11*4 •< 1 rvm
-l-*«ltr*fA«aal it
• »m
-rrMiiclt it 1 »*•
-C.l«« .( 14 „.
1. C*ncntrit(«M -.r.
1. TaiUltr 4*o«adt upon
h0K ihm eoawund 1* b«wtd "
(a th« MdtMnti.
*. rh«r« tr« «0-ud*
1. N*tleld«« ir* MB-u4«
1. Ea«tron.iit*l l-p*et*
• t (**••• ean<«ntr»tlofl»
tr* unkiwMi.
1. Tonlettr 4i»«nd« hov
th> cowvounrf It bo«rf la
llM MdlMBt.
Kl|fMr tomvtdM ItU*
1. l«l.<» of otfult*
•n4 la«r|jnlej 4**«ndt
n*M ho* tlMT 4f« bouod
t» MdlMfltl.
1. Oilorofen WT or «*T
Ml t- ut«r«llr •cearrlm.
1. Tbt* MfBnt *f Cb«
rt*«f !• th> IMTC* •!
drlnktai w«ttr (ot ttnrtl
1. roilcltr •( canttlt-
Hw (h»T «f* kaun4 tn
J. EB'IfMWfllll tMCII
ffM **dlMHI« 4«P«nd*
KM NOW tn«r ir« »M*d t*
••4lMnct.
toiltltT »r«klM ilK* th*
pr«doaln«nt cM»owt4i.
1. bi*tr»«**nt*l (•»•«!•
f..rt.
hl|h«r aMtriia 4l
•*n-u4«.
t. bl>l(MM*t«l tBMCti
• r* •»tinm.
upitro*.
«*n tlM uowit U*ebl«|
(tM l««lMntl.
3. b»tr*«M«tl !•»•«(*
• r* ««fr«*ilr Mfiha^M.
92
storage are responsible for an estimated 35 percent of the
drinking water contamination Incidents in New England.
Approximately one-fifth of these contamination incidents
are attributed to improper industrial discharges.
Even though the primary waste water treatment plant
impact is surface water discharges, there is also potential
for the release of harmful substances through air
emissions, industrial treatment plants that handle large
amounts of solvents have volatilizing organic chemical
problems as the waste water passes through the treat-
ment process. Such volatization may also occur during the
discharge stage. To date, volatile organic emissions from
these treatment plants have not been a problem, how-
ever the potential exists.
Several treatment plants in New England dispose of
sewage sludge by incineration, which may result in local-
ized toxic emission problems. TWO examples of these prob-
lems are: 1) chromium emissions from a sewage sludge
incinerator in South Essex, Massachusetts; and 2) possible
hazardous emissions from an incinerator in New Bedford
which incinerates PCB contaminated wastes. Municipal
Incinerators may also cause localized problems. Emissions
of cadmium and lead are suspected to be from printing
industry, wastes.
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
The obvious impacts of Industrial activities in New
England are in surface waters, both recreational and drink-
ing water sources, and in air. The major transport routes
for toxic substances in water are discharges, while point
and fugitive emissions are the main air sources.
On-site activities such as disposal handling and chemical
storage are also sources of contamination, in fact,
industrial activities are the predominant sources of the
contaminants in drinking'water. Thirty-three percent of
the contaminated drinking water sites in New England
were polluted by improper industrial discharge, disposal,
and handling/stoarge. (Figure A-E)
FIGURE A-E
NUMBER OF DRINKING WATER WELLS CLOSED
IN REGION 1 ATTRIBUTED TO INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES
40-
»
a-
»•
s-
LEGENC
0 PRIVATE
}
a COMMUNITY
» NON-COMMUNITY
~
I
\
1 P
rl ^,
%
y/
/y
y
I
\
i
TEAR
In New England, two-thirds of the drinking water
contamination from industrial activities occurs in urban
areas. Approximately 70% of the contaminated sites are
located in areas with population densities of less than 1000
people per square mile. (Figure A-F)
FIGURE A-F
RELATIONSHIP OF CONTAMINATED DRINKING WATER
SITES ATTRIBUTED TO INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES
WITH POPULATION DENSITY IN REGION 1
(THREE SITES ARE LOCATED IN AREAS
WITH A POPULATION DENSITY OVER
2000 PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE)
0 9M 7M «MO <2H> BOC TO!
POPUIATIOH Doemr o or PEOPU PER SOUA« MLQ
The detection of trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroe-
thane, and tetra-chloroethyiene are closely related to
industrial sources of contamination. Trichloroethylene is
identified more than half the time as the primary or one
of the primary contaminants at regional sites.
-------
industrial activities generate various air emissions that
adversely impact ambient air quality. Following are brief
discussicns of three sources of concern in New England.
Pharmaceutical Plants
Two Ni;w England states received complaints of odors
from residents living near pharmaceutical plants. Monitor-
Ing conducted In these areas indicated high levels of
organic compounds were present. However, controlling
air emissions from pharmaceutical companies is difficult
because most emissions are fugitive, and the industrial
processes often change daily.
Dry Cleaners
Not all the hazardous air pollutants concern is focused
on large industries using large volumes of organic sol-
vents. Tr ere are some concerns over dry cleaners that use
perchloroethylene (PERC). PERC, a colorless liquid of
moderate volatility, is widely used In dry cleaning of
fabrics and in degreasing of fabricated metal parts. Some
studies, Including a National Cancer institute bioassay, indi-
cate PERC may be carcinogenic. PERC Is currently under
assessment in the NESHAPS program to determine if it
should be listed as a hazardous air pollutant.
Miscellaneous
various, unregulated substances have caused consider-
able concern in New England, including chromium,
benzene phenol, ethyl acrylate, chlorine gas and styrene.
in response to public demands, ambient air and emissions
studies have been conducted at Upjohn in Connecticut,
Clba-Geiey in Rhode island and other locations in the
region. Public interest groups more frequently demand
air monitoring of toxic chemicals in hazardous waste
dumps, especially at sites that require immediate clean-
up. Large users of solvents, such as paper and fabric
coaters, printers, manufacturers of synthetic organic
chemicals (SOCMi sources) and perchloroethylene dry
cleaners are of considerable concern in the region, we
expect that the New England states will develop strategies
to identify sources of toxic chemicals and control them. To
accomplish these tasks, the states are requesting
considerable assistance from Region I In the areas of
health assessment, Inventory, control techniques,
ambient and source emissions monitoring, and quality
assurance.
in March of 1983, Region I conducted on-site monitoring
at the Silresim Chemical Corporation Superfund site in
Lowell, Massachusetts to determine if chemical emissions
were derectable in the neighborhoods surrounding the
site.-No significant emissions that could be traced to the
disposal site were found. However, the monitors detected
significant levels of toluene, dimethylformamlde, xylene,
dimethylamlne, benzene, and other organic chemicals
coming rrom two nearby industrial sources. As a result,
the state has ordered the Industrial sources to reduce
their emissions, we believe that similar tests in other areas
would produce similar results.
HERBICIDE AND PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS
Herbicide and pesticide use Is usually considered a multi-
media problem. Aerial and ground spray application tech-
niques ai'-fect the air quality in the target area and may
potentially affect areas downwind from the application
site. Depending upon the specific application site, surface
waters, both recreational and drinking water sources, may
be affected. The chemical structure of the particular
herbicides and pesticides determine the persistence, half-
life, and biodegradability of the compounds. Conse-
quently, certain herbicides and pesticides will persist in
the environment and may migrate into the ground water.
Agricultural areas have non-point source contamination
problem:; resulting from the use of pesticides and herbi-
cides. AS part of a September 1979 survey in Vermont,
sedimenis from eleven sites throughout the state were
analyzed for toxic contamination. Pesticides were found
in Lake Champlain at Spar Mill Say in greater concentra-
tions than other locations around the State and 000, DDE,
and DOT were all present at 130 ppb. Although the poten-
tial for ground water Impact also exists, it has not been
investigated.
in 1982, the state of Massachusetts elected to use the
pesticide Carbaryl as a means of controlling gypsy moths.
The state considered the multiple environmental impacts
(air, water, and land) as well as the significant economic
and'health effects impacts of the decision.
Twenty-six communities applied Carbaryl by aerial spray
and 87 communities used ground spraying In conjunction
with aerial spray as their application mode. There appears
to be no adverse environmental and economic impacts,
and no adverse health effects were reported. However,
the project created considerable public apprehension and
anxiety since citizens believed that they were exposed to
uncertain health and safety risks.
TREATMENT MEASURES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE AND
CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS
Thirty-eight of the 700 uncontrolled sites in New England
are on the National Priority List. Clean-up actions at these
sites are currently being investigated and designed. A
major concern in this region is water supplies that are
contaminated by leachate from an uncontrolled site. Since
this type of contamination is pervasive and frequently
there are no feasible alternative drinking water resources
the problem is especially significant.
Remedial actions designed to address and correct one
dimension of the problem, e.g., contaminated water
supply, may simply displace the hazard or toxic pollutants
from one medium to another.Table A-3 depicts the sources
of pollutants, the respective clean-up measure, and the
by-products or "new toxic pollutants" which might be
generated.
TABLE A-3
TREATMENT MEASURES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
AND CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS
Saurct* of Toxic U»4dl*l Bf-preducti 01«poi«l I En*lron»c«d
*• t« ligoon
i. 90 14 «nd
h* « dom
• • l •
i. So and
fit dew*
J. So «rwj
h« dou*
«•
a. So «n4
h* doui
io*»«r«
c«rbon (llt.t*
out
of ut*rltl
cipplni
landfill
Inclnintar
•p«nt carbon
• ittruli «nd toll
•ntf *oll un«tt.r.d
• nd Soil un«lt*r«4
fu»«* ind tluJ|i
1. opin duap
] . op«o du«p
2. ••cur<
l«BdMll
UruJf lit
1. .lr
••liiloni
2. optn du*p
Und
ground v«t«r
land
ground wttif
1 Und
1 «urf«et ««itr
J ftownd wattr
3 I round victr
* «ir
1 «lr
1 l.nd
1 «lr
I Und
1 .U
I liod
ASBESTOS
Asbestos is a potential health hazard for individuals
exposed to asbestos fibers used in insulation and fire-
proofing in schools and office buildings as well as workers
handling the material. The regional toxics office is focused
on the joint EPA/state program to encourage schools to
voluntarily inspect for and correct deteriorating asbestos
Insulation. .
On May 27, 1982, EPA 'published a final rule which
requires all schools to inspect for asbestos and post warn-
ings if it is found. The 6,600 schools In New England must
comply with this requirement by June 1983. until informa-
-------
94
tlon from this program becomes available, there is little
definitive information on the extent of the problem.
Asbestos is also regulated under the NESHAPS program
as a hazardous air pollutant, and a number of emission
standards have been promulgated for a variety of
asbestos source categories. An overlap between the air
and toxics programs could occur if changes required by
the school inspections result in an increase in asbestos
renovation and demolition. Such activity, regulated under
the NESHAPS program, could cause an increase in indoor
and ambient asbestos concentrations as the material is
torn out of buildings and disposed. Region I is consoli-
dating its asbestos regulatory functions into one office to
ensure consistency between the two programs.
POLYCHLORINATEO BIPHENYLS (PCBS)
One hundred and seventy-five million pounds of Poly-
chlorinated Siphenyls (PCBs), a stable and toxic chemical,
are estimated to be in use nationally as an insulating fluid
in electrical equipment, such as transformers and capa-
citors. PCS production is now banned, but continued use is
permitted under controlled conditions specified by
federal law. The amount of PCBs in New England is
unknown, although the region does generate 3.3 percent
of the nation's electricity — one indicator of the relative
magnitude of the PCB problem.
industries are required to maintain PCB containing
equipment to prevent leaks or spills. This equipment must
be properly labeled, and waste PCB must be disposed of
through incineration or other approved methods. To aug-
ment EPA's inspection for these requirements, the agency
initiated a pilot program granting states compliance
monitoring authority. Connecticut is one of five states
nationally selected for participation.
OTHERS
Though not well documented, there are other sources
of toxic substances that impact multiple environmental
media in New England.
a. Accidental and intended spills adversely impact nearly
all of the environmental media. Accidental spills include
over-turned cargo carriers of fuel, intended spills are such
things as truck washing and machine shops using solvents.
b. Underground containers, such as septic tanks and
gasoline/fuel storage tanks, and their respective locations
are land-use problems, improperly installed, maintained
or located underground containers pose soil and ground
water contamination problems. New England has several
community water supplies that were contaminated by
underground gasoline storage tanks.
c. The degreasers or cleaning solvents used to maintain
septic tanks account for 4 percent of the drinking water
contamination problems in the region. As one would
expect, septic tank degreaser problems are found only in
rural areas since septic systems are more likely to exist in
rural areas.
d. Leaks from gasoline and fuel storage tanks account
for 13 percent of the region's drinking water contamina-
tions. Approximately two-thirds of these sites are located
in rural areas and in areas with population densities under
1000 people per square mile. (Figures A-C and A-H)
Since the effects of toxic substance contamination is not
limited to one environmental medium, the control of
toxic substances cannot be accomplished through one
program or one set of regulations.
Toxic substances and their resulting contamination
problems pose financial problems for both public and
private sectors. The investigation of the potential con-
taminant sources, the clean-up of the contamination, the
maintenance of a sophisticated laboratory, the treatment
of the contaminated medium, and the search for alter-
native sources are all expensive parts of the solution.
In addition to monetary pressure, organics contamina-
tion may have adverse physiological and psychological
FIGURE A-G
NUMBER OF DRINKING WATER WELLS
CLOSED IN REGION 1 ATTRIBUTED TO
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LEAKS
fe »1
o
0
T9T7
LEGEND
o PRIVATE
= COMMUNITY
** NON-COMMUNITY
J
s
i
%
/,/
x^
j
1
1
i960'
19 8T
FIGURE A-H
RELATIONSHIP OF CONTAMINATED DRINKING WATER
SITES ATTRIBUTED TO UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
LEAKS WITH POPULATION DENSITY IN REGION 1
[ONE SITE IS LOCATED IN AN AREA
WITH A POPULATION DENSITY OVER
2000 PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE)
tzao ooe mo noo
popumrejN oocmr (t or PCOPLC PCT SOUAJTC MLQ
effects on the public. Public health implications from
chronic exposure to organic chemicals in multiple media is
difficult to assess, in fact, assessment of health effects
from one environmental source contains many unknowns.
One of the more difficult situations to assess is the
chronic exposure to low-level organic chemicals in drink-
ing water. Organic contamination in drinking water rarely
involves one single compound. The possibility of the
synergistic effects from co-existing chemicals needs
further investigation. Moreover, our knowledge of the
health effects of many organics found in contaminated
drinking water is limited.
water resources are not only used for drinking and cook-
ing but also for recreational, bathing, and washing
purposes. The health effects of using water contaminated
by organics for these purposes needs to be addressed.
Toxic substances accumulated in the sediments of our
water resources affect the aquatic ecosystem and the sub-
sequent food chain.
Outside air emissions, unlike occupational exposure,
introduce a multitude of chemicals in an "open" environ-
ment. Public health and terrestrial implications are diffi-
cult to quantify and the cumulative effects are almost
impossible to assess. Public awareness of and concern for
toxic air contaminants is growing rapidly.
-------
POPULATION DENSITY MAP
NORTH SMITHFIELD, RHODE ISLAND
!£iaa&jtsC!$ tf \ •
ag^Pgri EH\ :
i , a r?EKntefeiri g nA .
Density
Pooulation around Sit;.
Region Total = 621.000
Hi tnm 10 Mi1-s = 226.000
Hi tnm 5 Mi les =51.000
23B
Ed3t ing lien)
POPULATION DENSITY MAP
NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE
.7514
Oensity Ipeop 1 c
Population around Site
Region Total = 326.000
Hi tnm 10 Hi les = 149.000
Hi tnm 5 Ni les =75. 200
298
Easting Iknl
95
-------
476?
POPULATION DENSITY MAP
LONDONDERRY, NEW HAMPSHIRE
>2000
1000-2000
500-1000
200-500
100-200
50-100
25-50
<25
Density loeople/kn'l
Population around Site
Region Total = «11.000
'Hi tnin 10 Miles = 170.000
Within 5 Miles = 20.900
306
Easting [knl
POPULATION DENSITY MAP
TYNGSBORO, MASSACHUSETTS
302
East ing [knl
Density Ipeople/kn'l
Population around Site
Region Total = «7.000
Uitnin 10 «iles = 263.000
Within 5 1iles = 56.300
96
-------
FIGURE A-l
HAND-DRAWN CONTOURS OF AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF CRITICAL,
POLLUTANTS FROM THE SURE AND MAPS 3S
NETWORKS; AUGUST 1978-JUNE 1979. AFTER PACK (1980).
>vt««Cl CONLUll»IIONI|in>'l> ••»£ ')!• AM 'rt l>i. VMUli
TABLE A -4
APPROXIMATE MEDIAN CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS
IN THE ATMOSPHERE (NG M')
He til
*9
AJ
Be
Cd
Ca
Cr
Cu
Ha'
Hn
no
Mi
Pb
Sb
.1*
V
Zn
M~t.
0.01
0.2
~
0.1
o.os
0.3
0.2
O.S
0.4
0.3
0.36
1.0
0.2
0.1
1.0
O.S
Kuril
0.3
6
0.023
1.0
0.1
S.O
6.0
2.0
30.0
--
2
100
3
l.S
s
100
Urbin
1.1
23
0.14
2.0
10.0
40.0
100
20
ISO
2
30
2000
30
4.7
SO
1000
•Total Hg in «Lnospheric aetsureaent.
FIGURE A-J
ALKALINITY OF HEADWATER LAKES
AND STREAMS IN NEW ENGLAND.
Extreme 3enjitivit>l p^TTI < 20 // GQ / I
[Moderate sensitivity) \77~K 20-200 fJ eq / I
(Low sensitivity) C3 > 200 fj C q / I
97
-------
FIGURE A-K
Average deposition Ig ha 'mo ') of Zn by precipitation from September
1966 to March 1967 as determined by Lazrus et al. 11970).
Average deposition (g ha 'mo ') of Pb by precipitation from September
1966 to March 1967 as determined by Lazrus et al. (1970).
Source: EPA 560/5-80-001 Jan 1981, The Potential Impact of Chemicals Released to the Environment, Ref 8.
FIGURE A-L
SOURCES OF PCBs IN THE NEW BEDFORD AREA
FIGURE A-M
PCBs LEVELS IN BOTTOM SEDIMENTS
(Upper Estuary)
.-•^ /' A). «">-"" \
NEW BEDFORD
REMEDIAL ACTION
MASTER PLAN
FIGURE
PCBi IN BOTTOM
SEDIMENTS
(LOWES ESTUARY)
NEW BEDFORD
REMEDIAL ACTION
MASTER PLAN
98
-------
FIGURE A-N
PCBs LEVELS IN BOTTOM SEDIMENTS
(Lower Estuary)
FIGURE A-O
KNOWN GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
. SITES IN MASSACHUSETTS
...'I*
FIGURE A-O
POTENTIAL GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
SITES IN MASSACHUSETTS
FIGURE A-P
KNOWN GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
SITES IN RHODE ISLAND
FIGURE A-P
POTENTIAL GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
SITES IN RHODE ISLAND
•jf Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
0 Publ.lc Water Supply Sources Containing Organic Chemicals
O Private Water Supply Sources Containing Organic Chemicals
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
i
Open Dumps
/
99
-------
FIGURE A-Q
KNOWN GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION SITES
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
FIGURE A-Q
POTENTIAL GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION SITES
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
FIGURE A-R
KNOWN GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION SITES
IN VERMONT
FIGURE A-R
POTENTIAL GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION SITES
IN VERMONT
NOTE: Due to a printing error the maps in Figures A-Q and A-R were inverted and
labeled incorrectly. Figure A-Q should be Vermont and Figure A-R should
be New Hampshire.
FIGURE A-S
KNOWN GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
SITES IN CONNECTICUT
FIGURE A-S
POTENTIAL GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
SITES IN CONNECTICUT
•^ Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sices
0 Public Water Supply Sources Containing Organic Chemicals
•O Private Water Supply Sources Containing Organic Chemicals
Hazardous Waste Treatment. Storage and Disposal Facilities
Open Dumps
00
-------
FIGURE A-T
KNOWN GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
SITES IN MAINE
FIGURE A-T
POTENTIAL GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
SITES IN MAINE
Unconcrolled Hazardous Waste Sices
Public Water Supply Sources Containing Organic Chemicals
Private Wacer Supply Sources Containing Organic Chemicals
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
Open Dumps
TABLE A-5
1982 SO2 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sl:ace
CT
ME
MA
MA
MA
MA
III
\T
Area/Facility
Sikorsky
Aircraft
Metro Portland
AQCR
Holyoke Gas &
Electric
ATF Davidson
Northeast
Petroleum
Polaroid
Kenyon Piece
Dye Works
Statewide
Size
192MM
Btu/hr
all
sources
229MM
Btu/hr
100MM
Btu/hr
45MM
Btu/hr
252MM
Btu/hr
104MM
Btu/hr
all
sources
S02 Emission Limits
Old Max
0.5X
1.5Z
l.OZ
0.55*
0.5Z
0.5Z
l.OZ
l.OZ
/
New Max
l.OZ
2.5Z
2.2Z
1.21*
l.OZ
2.2Z
2.2Z
2.0Z
Actual
Fuel
NA
2.5Z
residual
oil
NA
0.5Z
NA
NA
NA
Status
• of
Action
F-ll/12/82
F-l/8/82
F-2/10/82
F-4/13/82
F-ll/23/82
F-12/1/82
F-ll/10/82
P-7/29/82
F-l/8/82
Comment e
Boiler restrictions
Imposed
Revision submitted
In 1977
Capacity reduced
from 765KM Btu/hr
30-month variance
Over 50Z reduction
In oil use
Temporary variance
Temporary 1 yr.
variance - boiler
restrictions
Revision submitted
In 1975 - never
implemented by VT -
increase based on
1980 fuel use
S02 Change
(tons/year)
•Actual
NA
0
+ 536
NA
0
NA
NA
0
•Paper
+• 80
+ 10.0001
- 1,326|
+ 410|
0
+ 560
87
+ 1,700
•Actual S02 Impact: Emission
•Regulatory Change: Absolute
NA - Not available
changes from the actual source emission levels '
emission differences between old and new limits
-------
TABLE A-6
EMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL WOODBURNING STOVES
Average stack gas conditions
Wood burning
device
Fireplace
fireplace
fireplace
Fireplace
Baffled stove
Baffled stove
Baffled stove
Baffled stove
Nonbaffled stove
Nonbaffled stove
Nonbaffled stove
Nonbaffled stove
a Average burning
Wood burning rate.* Temperature,'1 Velocity, b Flow rate.1* HjO,1"
Wood type
Seasoned oak
Green oak
Seasoned pine
Green pine
Seasoned oak
Green oak
Seasoned pine
Green pine
Seasoned oak
Green oak
Seasoned pine
Green pine
rate during EPA Method 5,
kg/min
0.18
0.17
0.19
0.16
0.14
0.11
0.12
0.10
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.13
•C
152
207
236
207
307
300
378
247
384
240
304
305
m/min Nm'/min %
308 .6.5 3.8
347 6.4 4.2
367 6.5 3.8
332 6.5 0.5
184 1.5 13
117 0.9 11
146 1.0 15
213 2.0 11
128 0.9 11
89 0.9 4
109 0.9 11
111 0.8 15
Co,.c
%
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
7.7
9.2
14
9.4
• 14
11
11
9.9
0,,c C0.c
% %
21 0.07
21 . 0.05
21 0.04
21 0.04
13 0.7
11 1.1
4.4 2.8
11 0.9
5.5 2.3
9.3 1.0
8.4 1.6
10 1.5
POM. and SASS train operation.
b Determined for average EPA Method 5 data.
c Determined by Orsat and Orager tube.
Wood burning
device
Fireplace
Fireplace
Fireplace
Fireplace
Baffled stove
Baffled stove
Baffled stove
Baffled stove
Nonbaffled stove
Nonbaffled stove
Nonbaffled stove
Nonbaffled stove
Wood type
Seasoned oak
Green oak
Seasoned pine
Green pine
Seasoned oak
Green oak
Seasoned pine
Green pine
Seasoned oak
Green oak
Seasoned pine
Green pine
Panic-
lates
2.3(0.13)
2.5 10.191
1.8 (0.10)
2.9(0.21)
3.0(0.17)
2.5(0.19)
3.910.21)
7.0(0.511
2.5 (0.14)
1.8 10.13)
2.0 (0.11)
6.3 (0.46)
Condensable
organic!
6.3 10.35)
5.4 (0.40)
5.9 (0.32)
9.1 (0.67)
4.0 10.22)
3.8 10.28)
4.1 10.231
12 (0.88)
6.0 10.34)
3.3 10.25)
5.6 10.31)
10 (0.74)
Emissions, g/kg* l//g/jl
Volatile
hydrocar-
bon NO SO
X X
19(1.1) 2.4(0.131 b
1.9 10.14)
1.4 (0.03)
1.7 10.13)
0.4 (0.02)
0.7 10.05)
2.8(0.15) 0.5 I0.03)
0.8 (0.06)
0.4(0.02) 0.16I0.009)
0.3 I0.02) 0.5 (0.04)
0.2 (0.01) 0.24 (0.013)
3.0 (0.221 0.4 10.03)
CO
30(1.7)
22 (1.6)
21 (1.2)
15 (1.1)
110 (6.2)
120 (9.01
270 (15)
220 (16)
370(21)
91 (6.8)
150 (8.2)
97 (7.11
POM
0.025 (0.0014)
0.036 10.0026)
0.21 10.012)
0.37 10.020)
0.19 10.011)
0.32 10.024
a Units in g/kg refer to grams of pollutant per kilogram of fuel burned, with no allowance for moisture content.
b Blanks indicate no data were obtained
102
-------
SECONDARY SOUD WASTE IN REGION I
FORECAST BY THE RESIDUAL
ACCOUNTING MODEL
Introduction — The Residual Accounting Model
The Residual Accounting Model (RAM) was constructed to
meet the Agency's need for an easily accessible computer
model capable of predicting emissions of a variety of
pollutant:;. The data here represents the latest revisions to
the Model as programmed by the Mitre Corp for EPA and
U.S. Department of Energy.
The Problem
The Residual Accounting Model shows that between
base year 1975 and interim year 1985 annual secondary
solid waste tonnage (ashes and sludges) will increase 3V:
times in New England amounting to 4.6 million tons In
1985. By i:he year 2000, assuming compliance with air and
water quality standards, implementation of the "associ-
ated, primary pollutants" (a caveat basic to the output of
RAM) will result in a six-fold increase in Region l's annual
aggregated tonnage.
The Categories
Three categories of secondary solid wastes are:
1) noncombustible solid waste, (a) ash/dust particu-
lates (fly ash) captured by control processes primarily in
the wastestreams of coal combustion facilities and
cement plants; and (b) bottom ash, another coal combus-
tion residual,
2) industrial sludge, (a) sludges from various waste-
water treatment processes of industry; and (b) sludges
generated by the removal of sulfur oxides and particulates
from cornbusion stack gases using wet scrubbers, and
3) municipal sewage sludge, sludge generated by the
removal of organic matter and suspended solids by muni-
cipal wastewater treatment processes reported in dry
short tons.
Discussion
RAM d;ata shows that all types of secondary solid waste
will be generated in New England at a faster pace than in
the U.S. as a whole. The Model assumes that the conversion
of all federally designated oil to coal power facilities will
have bei?n completed by 2000. it predicts that 4.3 million
tons of fly ash (particulates) will have been captured
annually by the end of tne century. SO sludges will amass
at an even greater rate, growing from near zero levels in
1975 to over 2 million tons by the year 2000. Electric power
generation in New England will account for 82 percent of
the scrubber sludge, 75 percent of the bottom ash and
roughly half the captured particulates by the year 2000.
Together the tonnage amassed by the power Industry for
these secondary control wastes will amount to 3.9 million
tons or approximately 52 percent of all secondary solid
waste in Region I.
in addition to the electric' power industry, other
industries routinely contributing large amounts of such
waste, will continue to be a major part of the solid waste
problem. Producers of asphalt and tar mixtures used for
paving roads, parking lots and other purposes and also
manufacturers of roofing, siding and coatings from
asphalt are major contributors, in base year 1975, firms
accounted for 37 percent or 282,600 tons of the particu-
late dust/ash accumulations. During the period under
review 1975 to 2000, the Model predicts that secondary
solid waste annually generated by plants in these activities
will rise 3% times to roughly 2 million tons.
Facto-ies producing building materials, primarily
cement gypsum and other stone and clay products, are
the next largest industrial cause of secondary solid waste
problems in the Region, in base year 1975, plants in this
group amassed 170,000 tons of waste dust and sludge.
These wastes are estimated to rise only 35 percent over
the 25-vear projection period.
The last industrial category identified as a large gener-
ator of secondary solid waste in the Region is the pulp and
paper industry. New England paper manufacturers in 1975
generated 13 percent of the Region's total industrial
sludge or 30,700 tons. The Model anticipates that tech-
nology will improve further its productive efficiencies
through the year 2000, when New England's pulp and
paper industry will generate 86,100 tons or only three per-
cent of the Region's industrial sludge.
wastewater treatment sludge accumulations are out-
lined in the Figure below. Although the chart shows
marked increases in Industrial wastewater treatment
sludges, Model users are cautioned that this is the only
residual waste under review lacking complete coverage.
Nevertheless, portraying both municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment sludges on the same Figure, using
the same scale of measurement, reveals substantial
accumulation of sludges by Industry when compared witn
that produced by municipal wastewater treatment plants.
TRENDS IN SECONDARY SOLID WASTE
WASTEWATER SLUDGE:
INDUSTRIAL VS MUNICIPAL
REGION 1, 1975, 1985, 2000
Legend
3 MU»Kdl.VT
1973 1985 2000
INDUSTRIAL
1975 1985 2000
MUNICIPAL
Although municipal wastewater sludges are accumu-
lating at only one-fifth the rate of industrial sludges, the
anticipated completion and efficient operation of new
and existing wastewater treatment facilities in the Region
will result in collecting as much sludge over the 25 year
period according to RAM.
102
-------
WATER
STATUS OF WATER QUALITY 1982 State of CONNECTICUT
STATUS OF WATER QUALITY 1982 State of MAINE
11
Connect 1 cut Rl ver
Park River
Pequtbuch. River
HaugAtuck Rjver
ThAM«« River
French Rl ver
Qutnebauj Rtver
UllllMntlc River
ShetucV.«t River
Coaettl
Coi*t*l ^,
Eastern Connecticut
Co.at.l
P.-c.tuck River
158
12
71
50
107
6
42
27
18
96
98
35
10
963
HI lea Heel-
Ing Claaa B
Suluable"
Standards)
88
2
68
3
22
84
0
26
27
15
87
89
35
10
675
Ml lei Iteet-
Uater
Quality
88
2
68
3
22
84
0
26
27
15
87
89
35
0
675
7
1
Ml lea Not
Quality
70
10
3
12
72
28
23
6
16
0
3
9
7
0
0
288
Qual Ity
2.6
2.5.6
2.5.6
2.5.6
1 3 6
1.2.5.6
2.5.6
2.5.6
2,5.6
2.5.6
2.5.6
2.5.6
6
—
Source of Uater
Quality Problems
H - Hunlct|jal
1 - Industrial
CS • Combined Sewera
M.I.CS, NPS
l.CS.NPS
M.I
H.I. NPS
H.I CS NPS
M.I.CS. NPS
H.l.CS. NPS
H.I
H.I. NPS
M.NPS
M.CS.NPS
M.I.CS, NPS
H.CS.HPS
NPS
—
•*Water Quality
Problems:
1. Toxic or hazardous substances
1, Suspended solids, temp., pll
3. Nutrient enrichment
4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity
5. Oxygen depletion
6. CoHform bacteria
-
Including H.t in* tea
Androicoggln River
Lltlle AdrOBcoggtn
Nexlnacoc Rtwcr
MicMtia River
Sc . George* River
Sheepicot River
Union River
Kennebec River
Deid River
Kooie River
S«nd)r River
ScbjatlcooK River
fit.)
(..In .te*,)
Medomak River
Penobacot (EB)
Placataqulv River
Crooked River
St. Crol. River
Sc. John River
Allagach. River
Little Hadawaaka R.
Hachlaa River
Cooflefare Brook
SaUon Falla River
Saco River
Total Hllea
X Mllea Aaeeeaed
Kllea
112
IB
10
32
42
55
39
200
74
65
;o
98
99
48
43
It
40
16
102
61
42
52
154
69
100
62
41
46
43
32
25
36
ei
Tfli"
HI lea Meet-
ing Claa9 B
Standard!)
22
22
30
'31
41
55
37
115
74
59
70
44
0
38
31
38
34
34
36
102
36
42
42
109
69
72
60
41
46
43-
32
0
36
79
TS6T
761
Mllea Meet-
Quality
112
42
JO
32
42
55
39
200
74
65
70
44
99
48
j3
43
34
40
36
102
67
42
42
116
69
72
62
41
46
43
32
0
36
79
2TT5
921
Mile* Not
Quality
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
10
3D
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
2
T99
81
Quality
2,6
1.2.5.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2,6
2.3.5
2.6
2,6
2.6
2.6
2.6
J.5.6
2.4
2.5,6
2.6
l.*.6
2.6
Source of Uater
Quality Problem*
H ' - Municipal
I - Industrial
CS - Combined Severn
H.I ,CS
M.I.CS
CS
CS
CS
M.I.CS. UPS
CS
H.l.CS
M.I.CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
H.l.CS
H.l.CS
CS NPS
CS
M, 1
CS
-------
STATUS OF WATER QUALITY 1982 State of MASSACHUSETTS
STATUS OF WATER QUALITY 1982 State of NEW HAMPSHIRE
1
1
1
Klncludlng nalnaten
1
I Blackaione River
1
iBoaton Harbor Trlbu-
I tarle*
|C«pe Cod ••
1
ICharlea Rl*er
1
IChlcopee River
1
1
(Connecticut River
1
iDeerfleld River
1
Ifarvlngton River
1
(French 4 Qulnebaug
1 River
1
1 Rivera
1
iThe l.landi ••
1
InerrlnacV River
1
Inlllera River
1
1
iNorth Coaatal *•
1
1
I North River
1
(South Co.atal ••
1
1
ISuA.Co
1 ,
1 Taunt on River
1
1
tTen HI le River
1
lUeitfleld River
1
1 Tot.l HI lea
1
IZ of Hllea Aaae.aed
1
1 location.
1
HI lea
85
81
77
(58)
78
124
80
79
25
70
40
84
63
(26)
108
AS
106
29
(7)
34
7
(6)
89
171
23
106
1611
Hllea Heel-
ing Class B
Standarda)
36
11
69
(35)
62
87
61
67
25
25
22
(25)
33
26
B
5
(6)
26
0
(2)
26
50
4
72
781
481
Hllea Heet-
Quallty
36
11
69
(35)
62
87
*
61
67 r
25
25
12
22
54
(25)
33
26
a,
5
(6)
26
0
(2)
26
50
4
72
781
481
Hllea Hot
Quality
49
70
g
(23)
16
37
19
12
0
4}
28
62
9
(1)
75
22
98
24
(1)
8
7
(4)
63
125
19
34
830
521
Qual 1 ty
1 .2.3.
5,6
2.3.5.6
1.3.5,6
2.1.6
3.4.5.6
1.2.3.
5.6
1.2.3,6
1.2.6
1,2.3.
5.6
1 6
1,3,1,6
1,6
2.6
3.5.6
2,3.5.6
3.5.6
5.6
2.3.1.6
2.3.1.6
3.1.6
1.2.3.
4.1.6
'
2.3.5.6
2.6
Source of Water
Quality ProbleMa
H - Municipal
1 - Industrial
CS • Combined Sewera
NPS - Nonpolnt Source
H.l.CS.NPS
H.l.CS.NPS
H. 1 .CS.NPS
H.I, NPS
H.l.CS.NPS
H.l.CS.NPS
H.I.CS
H.I
H.I, NPS
H, 1 .NPS
NPS
H.I. NPS
M.I. CS.NPS
H.I.CS
H. 1 .CS.NPS
H.I. NPS
H.NPS
H.l.CS.NPS
H. CS.NPS
H.l.CS.NPS
H. CS.NPS
Androacoggln River
Connecticut River
Aahuelot River
Aamonoovuc River
Hcrrlajack Rlv«r
Concoocook River
Haehua River
IS. co River
1
(Total Mil..
1
1
It
339
76
62
21)
ioa
to
IB)
94
1309
Mile. Heel-
Ins Class B
Cri.hable/
Swlewable'
59
no
16
36
120
70
0
122
9*
791
Mile. Meet-
Ing Slate
Uater
59
1)2
36
36
123
70
0
122
91
796
Nile* Not
Heeling
Quality
19
207
40
26
112
38
10
61
0
111
Quality
2.6
2.1.6
2.1.6
6
2.1.6
6
1,6
J.I. 6
6
Source of Uater
Quality Proble»a
H - Municipal
1 - Industrial
CS - Combined Sewera
H.l.CS.NPS
M.l.CS.HPS
H.I.CS
M.CS
H . 1 . CS . NPS
H
H.I.CS. (ro« HA
H.I.CS, NTS
H, 1
_
STATUS OF WATER QUALITY 1982 State of RHODE ISLAND
(Including Halnate«
I Major Tr.tKJUrl.-a)
BUckecone Rlve'r
Hooaup River
Moah«8sucVv River
Pawcat ucV River
Salt Pond* (acrei)
Total Hllea
X of Mile* Aaaeased
"
Miles
Asseaied
89
25
17
in
117.000
acrea
329
Ing CUss 0
Sulm.ible"
Standards)
or Better
".B
21
8
9)
106.000
acrea
216
661
Ml leg Heet-
Uater
QiiAMty
Si andar Ja
76
25
IS
93
106,000
ac rra
271
8(1
Hllea Not
Qi.allty
St andards
13
0
2
22
1 1 .00(1
acrea
54
161
Quality
Prohlt>»
1.6
i.6
6
Quality Problems
H - Hunlc Ipal
1 - Industrial
CS - Cu*hlne<1 Sewera
NPS - Nonnolnt Source
M . 1 , CS
—
n.rs.NPS
«.l
H.S.I, NPS. CS
*Water Quality
Problems:
1. Toxic or hazardous substances
2. Suspended solids, temp., pll
3. Nutrient enrichment
t>. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity
5. Oxygen depletion
6. Collform bacteria
-------
STATUS OF WATER QUALITY 1982 State of VERMONT
PRIORITY LAKE RESTORATION PROJECTS IN NEW ENGLAND
BattenUM. U.lloom-
aac , Hooalc Rivera
Rl vert
Lake Chaaplaln
Trlbuttrle*
Hlaatquol River
Unollle River
Vlnooakl River
White RJvcr
Ottauqucchce. Black.
Riven
Went. Ullllap*
Saatona Rivera
Deerfleld Rivera
Connect Icut River*
Steveno, UelU
Val ta . Onpoapanooauc
Rivera
Pa a a ua pale River
Lake Heaphreaiagog ,
Black, Barton and
Clyde Rivera
Total Kllea
1 of Hllea Aaaeaaed
•Connecticut River ml
Total
47
44
85
23
93
97
116
69
61
86
34
—
17
47
67
sea
cage tabul
HI lei Meet-
Ing Claaa B
CFlshohU/
Sulmnable"
29
30
64
6
79
69
65
58
40
78
30
—
7
IS
56
655
74Z
ted In New Ha«
Hllet Heet-
Uater
30
42
79
1)
8}
97
99
63
SO
82
32
e
3J
63
776
871
pahtre Sectlc
HI lei Not
Qua! Ity
17
2
£
10
8
0
17
6
v 1J
4
1
9
14
t
112
131
>n.
i i i
Quality
5.6
6
5 6
2.3.5
5.6
5.6
2.3.5.6
6
I.*
6
6
2.5.6
1.4.6
5.6
2.3.6
Source of Water
rXialtty Probtena
H - Municipal
I - InduatrUl
CS • Conblned Sewera
H.I. CS
M.NPS
H.l.CS.MPS
I.CS.NPS
M.CS.NPS
M. I.CS.NPS
H.CS
M.l.CS
H .
H
H. I.CS.NPS
I.NPS
H.CS
H.CS.NPS
*Water Quality 1. Toxic or hazardous substances
Problems: 2. Suspended solids, temp., etc.
3. Nutrient enrichment
tt. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity
5. Oxygen depletion
6. Collform bacteria
ESTIMATED COST OF CLEAN UP
Connecticut
West Hill Pond
Middle and Lower Bolton Lakes
Silver Lake
Coventry Lake
Ball Pond
Highland Lake
Maine
Lovejoy Pond
Webber Pond
Three Mile Pond
Tooth Acker Pond
Togus Pond
Cochnewagon Pond
Echo Lake
Massachusetts
Spy Pond
Porter Lake
Pontoosuc Lake
Congairond Lake
Webster Lake
New Hampshire
Doors Pond
Crystal Lake
Hot Hole Pond
Northwood Pond
Kezar Lake
Rhode Island
Gorton Pond
Tiogue Lake
Olney Pond
Worden Pond
Wilson Reservoir
Slacks Reservoir
Vermont
Harvey's Lake
Lake Morey
Lake Iroquois
Lake 'Champlain
Lake Memphremagog
Lake St. Catherine
5 60,000
150,000
3,500,000
60,000
100,000
125,000
$ 100,000
400,000
400,000
75,000
100,000
200,000
100,000
$ 720,000
1,100,000
336,000
100,000
320,000
$ 125,000
60,000
55,000
45,000
60,000
$1,000,000
820,000
215,000
5,000,000
610,000
750,000
$ 200,000
400,000
250,000
1,000,000
250,000
250,000
-------
GLOSSARY OF
TERMS AND
ACRONYMS
REFERENCED SECTIONS
OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)
BAT — Best Available Treatment
BMP — Best Management Practice
BOD — Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BPJ — Best Professional Treatment
CT DEP — Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
CWA — Clean water Act
CSO — Combined Sewer Overflows
DO — Dissolved Oxygen
EMR — Environmental Management
Report
EPA — US Environmental Protection
Agency
FDA — US Food and Drug Administration
HO — Headquarters
MADECE — Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering
MADWPC — Massachusetts Division of water
Pollution Control
(Division of MADEQE)
MCL — Maximum Contaminant Level
mg/l — Milligrams per liter
MDC — Metropolitan District Commission
(Boston, MA)
M/r — Monitoring and Reporting
NIPDWR — National Interim Primary Drinking
water Regulations
NPDES — National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Program
OCS — Outer Continental Shelf
OMB — us Office of Management and
Budget
PCB — Polychlorinated Biphenyls
POTW — Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PWS — Public Water System
RCWP — Rural Clean water Program
SDWA — Safe Drinking water Act
SEA —State/EPA Agreement
SCS — Soil Conservation Service,
US Department of Agriculture
WWTF — wastewater Treatment Facility
106 Funding
201 Grants
301 (h) Waiver
304(b) Report
314 Program
402 Permits
404 Permits
Grants for Pollution Control
• Funding for the Construction
of municipal wastewater
treatment plants
Waiver of Secondary
Treatment for POTW
water Quality inventory
Report mandated by Section
Section 305(b) of CWA
Clean Lakes Program
NPDES Permits
Permits for Dredged and
Fill Material
10'
-------
LAND
CHART A-A
NPL SITE MATRIX
SITE NAME
LOCATION
TYPE OF
CONTAMINANT
Charles/George
Tyngsborough
Siliesim
Lowell
PSC Resources
Palmer
Resolve. Inc.
Oartmouih
Baird b McGuire
Holbrook
Wells G&H
Woburn
Nvanza Waste Dump
Ashland
W.R. Grace
Acton
Groveland G&H
Groveland
lndustriplex-128
Woburn
New Bed lord Harbor
New Bedford
Hocomoco Pond .
Westborough
Cannon Engineering
Plymouth
Cannon Engineering
Bridgewater
Sylvester's
Nashua
Keeie Env. Services
Epping
Ottati & Goss
Kingston
Tinkham Garage
Londonderry
Auburn Rd. L.F.
Londonderry
Dover Mun. L.F.
Dover
Somerswonh L.F.
Somerswonh
Beacon Heights L.F.
Beacon Falls
Laurel Park
Naugatuck
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
Canterbury
SRS
Southington
Old Springfield L.F.
Springfield
Pine Street Canal
Burlingtpn
Forestdale
Forestdale
Peterson- Puritan Lin.
Cumberland
LLRR
N. Smithfield
Picillo Farm Site
Conventry
Davis Liquid
Smithfield
Western Sand Er Gravel
Burriville
Winthrop L.F.
Winthrop
Sacco Tanning
Sacco
Pinettes Salvage
Washburn
F. O'Connor Site
Augusta
McKmn She
Gray
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
»
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9
0
•
•
•
•
•
0
o
•
•
o
•
0
•
•
O
e
•
•
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
9
•
•
0
o
•
•
•
•
•
o
0
^
_0_
_0_
_0_
O
o
©
e
0
©
o
e
9
O
e
O
0
®_
Q_
0
0
•
•
•
O
•
•
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
9
0
O
0
e
o
0
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
9
9
0
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
9
9
9
9
e
0
108
-------
POPULATION USING
GROUND WATER WITHIN
3 MILE RADIUS
SITE NAME
LOCATION
CURRENT STATUS
REMEDIAL
Charles/ George
Tyngsborough
Silresim
Lowell
PSC Resources
Palmer
Resolve. Inc.
Dartmouth
Baird & McGuire
Hoi brook
Wells G&H
Woburn
Nyanza Waste Dump
Ashland
W.R. Grace
Acton
Groveiana G&H
Groveland
lndusiriplex-128
Woburn
New Bedford Harbor
New Bedford
Hocomoco Pond
Westborough
Cannon Enginwrng
Plymouth
Cannon Engineering
Bridgewater
Sylvester's
Nashua
Keefe Env. Services
Hoping
Oitati & Goss
Kingston
Tinkham Garage
Londonderry
Auburn Rd. L.F.
Londonderry
Cover Mun. L.F.
Dover
Somerswonh L.F.
Somersworth
Beacon Heights L.F.
Beacon Falls
Laurel Park
Naugatuck
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
Canterbury
SRS
Southington
Old Springfield L.F.
Springfield
Pine Street Canal
Burlington
Forestdale
Forestdale
Peterson-Purhan Un.
Cumberland
LLRR
N. Smithtield
Picillo Farm Site
Conventry
Davis Liquid
Smithtield
Western Sand & Gravel
Burriville
Wimhrop L.F.
Winihroo
Sacco Tanning
Sacco
Pinenes Salvage
Washburn
F. O'Connor Site
'Augusta
McKinn She
Grey
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
o
•
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
////
•
•
•
•
•
•
o
•
e
•
•
•
•
o
•
•
•
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
A°/
•
10!
-------
FIGURE A-B
TABLE A-1
PRIMARY RADIONUCLIDES IN MASSACHUSETTS
WASTE WASTE STREAM IN 1981:
I odin, -US
*ho«pftorus-
RuDidtun
IndUa-lt!
Stroru ivjn-90
Hydrofltn-l
I Odin. -171
lndi-ja-192
B«r tun/L^-140
Coo.U-56
Co:.U-40
Crsiu«-t)4
Cclu«-l)7
Iron-li
1ron-H
[Odin*- 111
Stfontiur-89
Slront iuir-90
Hnc-H
1.4
7J.O'
<40.)
1
IX
'111.4
47
17
30
10.*
1.6
It
no
2641
in
))!
40)
Dtt*
q*ftn*
1 J . J y**r J
60 diy
y**ti
> d.n
10) d«y]
10 d«yl
11. 1 yxcl
JO a.VI
REGION I NATIONAL PRIORITY SITES - KEY
1. Pinette's Salvage Yard, Washburn, ME
2. F. O'Connor Site, Augusta, ME .
3. Winthrop Landfill, Winthrop, ME
4. Me Kin Site. Gray. ME
5. Saco Tanning Waste P'rts, Saco, ME
6. Somersworth Landfill, Somersworth, NH
7. Dover Municipal Landfill. Dover. NH
8. Keele Environmental Services, Epping. NH
9. Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum, Kingston, NH
10. Auburn Road Landfill, Londonderry, NH
11. Tinkham She, Londonderry, NH
12. Sylvester's Site. Nashua, NH
13. Pine Street Canal Site, Burlington. VT
14. Old Springfield Landfill, Springfield. VT
15. PSC Resources, Palmer, MA
16. Hocomoco Pond, Westboough. MA
17. W.R. Grace, Acton, MA
18. Charles George Land Reclamation Trust Landfill, Tyngsborough, MA
19. Silresim Chemical Corporation, Lowell, MA
20. Groveland Wells 1 (t 2. Groveland, MA
21. Industri-plex 128, Woburn, MA
22. Wells G & H, Woburn, MA
23. Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump, Ashland, MA
24. Baird & McGuire. Inc., Holbrook, MA
25. Plymouth Harbor Cannon Engineering Corporation, Plymouth. MA
26. Cannon Engineering Corporation, Bridgewater, MA
27. ReSolve, Inc., Dartmouth, MA
28. New Bedford Sites, New Bedford, MA
29. Forestdale-Stamina Mills. Forestdale, Rl
X. Landfill & Resource Recovery, North Smithfield, Rl
31. Western Sand & Gravel Site, Burrillville, Rl
32. Davis Liquid Waste Site. Smithfield, Rl
33. Peterson-Puritan, Lincoln/Cumberland Wellfield, Rl
34. Picillo Farm She, Coventry, Rl
35. Yaworski Waste Lagoon. Canterbury, CT
36. Solvents Recovery Services, Southington, CT
37. Beacon Heights Landfill, Beacon Falls, CT
38. Laurel Park, Inc.. Naugatuck, CT
FIGURE A-C
LOW LEVEL WASTE GENERATED IN
MASSACHUSETTS, BY TYPE OF GENERATOR
I
1
i
§
1
Lagan
^D Tfl7
tD rM
k
i V
GENERATOR TYPE
110
-------
AIR
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
ENERGY
TABLE A-1
CONSUMPTION AND EXPENDITURES APRIL 1979 THROUGH
ALL FUELS
HOUSf 4OU>
CMAMCTIIMiSncS
TOT At HOUS:-HOLOS
CENSUS REGIJN
NORTHEAST
NOftTH CINT1UL
SOUTH
WEST
URBAN/RUR'L
URBAN
RURAL
SM&A/NON-SUSA
SMSA
NOM-SM&l
ALA HtATING *NO
COOLING
OCGHEE 0*Y ZONCS
< ZXD COO VNO
>7000 HOC
< 2000 COO .WO
5600-7000 MOO
< 2000 COD .»NO
4000-549) HOO
< 2000 COO MO
< «000 HOO
> ZOOO COO INO
«««,
TOTAL
HOUSf HOLD
IMll-NI
77.4
17.2
20.7
24.9
14,7
SB0
20.7
53 4
14, t
17
21.3
20.2
175
11.9
TOTAL
AMOUNT
CONSUMED
IQUAO'N
ann
9.74
19
141
130
1.47
7.41
13«
BSB
in
94
3.X
1C
1S3
1.03
AVO
AMOUNT
HOUSf HOLD
(MIL'N
BTUI
120
148
IBB
u
100
130
113
131
114
141
ISB
139
93
08
TOTAL
IBIL'NII
83.2
I7.B
11 1
18.5
7.7
45.3
17.9
44.1
19.1
50
19.3
IBS
11.4
14
AVO
PER
HOUSf HOLD
IW
813
1033
924
744
537
797
04
030
733
S41
908
91ft
049
709
NATURAL
GAS
TOTAL
(QUAD**
BTUl
5.31
1.05
140
.91
M
4 00
a
4.15
1.10
52
115
1.37
81
48
TOT*t
17.0
43
7.8
3 t
2.0
117
11
14 1
2.7
1.7
7 2
40
18
"
ELICTWOTTf
TOTAL
IQUAO'N
BTUl
1C
.»
9
.97
.47
1.9
.30
1.4
.93
21
.3
.00
.9
44
TOTAL
3X0
08
18
110
4 4
11 8
10.0
21 3
11.2
2.0
83
83
7.3
11
KE
TOTAL
(QUAO'N
BTUl
1.71
1.03
31
a
.00
1 17
54
1.24
49
T9
9
.79
19
a
MARCH 1980
OIL ANO
OSfNf
TOTAL
10.7
6.5
10
1 8
8
7 «
3.3
7 8
19
i 2
34
4.9
l 0
3
LIQUID
PfTROLEUM
GAS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
CONSUMED
(OUAO'N
BTU
0.307
029
CS6
14J
037
001
240
104
203
032
053
075
073
075
TOTAL
IBIL'N II
100
a
to
SB
22
40
1 81
.*8
I 31
20
J7
50
49
50
FIGURE A-A
Q. 2
0
House with wood stove
Indoor
Outdoor
1
6
8
9
10
11
60
20
Oven sprayed
with cleaner
Indoor
Outdoor
Noon
6
Midnight
Moor
Patterns of household activity can have extreme effects on air quality in the home. In a residence with a wood stove (left), average levels of
benzo-a-pyrene (BaP) were significantly higher than those outdoors except on days 2, 6, and 11, when the stove was not in use. In another
case (right), a commercial oven cleaner caused levels of nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC) recorded in a kitchen to increase 16-fold in less
than 90 minutes. i
FIGURE A-B
12
Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday
8
Mooday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
The high air exchange rate in office environments where mechanical air-handling systems are used cuts indoor carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations to about the same levels recorded outdoors (left graph); indoor CO concentrations in all-electric residences are slightly higher,
although they still track the outdoor changes very closely. In contrast, the significantly higher CO levels in a residence with gas facilities (right
graph) do not closely follow changes in outdoor concentrations, being more dependent on indoor activrties,»such as cooking and heating.
Note thi! regular occurrence of sharp peaks afound the dinner hour.
Both From: "Ait Quality in the Home", EPRI Journal. Mar. 1382, pp 7
11
-------
TABLE A-2
CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF MAJOR U.S. INDOOR-OUTDOOR AIR QUALITY RESEARCH
Research
organization
Time
period
Pollutants
monitored
Location*
of structure*
Numbers and types of
building: monitored
Other features
TRC Environmental
Consultants1-3
General Electric Co." 1970-71
University of California
it Riverside"
California Institute of
Technology13
TRC Environmental
Consultants"'14
Harvard University Sii
Cities Study14
1969-70 CO, SO], total suspended
and toiling paniculate
cutter, particle liiing,
benzene-soluble and
lead content of
paniculate matter
CO, hydrocarbon!, toUl
suspended paniculate
matter, Pb in
paniculate matter .
1971 Total oiidant,
peroxyacetyl nitrate,
NO, NO,, CO, and
paniculate matter
Early Ozone, nitrogen oxide*,
1970s to CO, tracers
present
1973-74 CO, NO.
1975 to SO,, NO,, rwpirable
present paniculate matter,
sulfates, chemical
analysis of paniculate
matter for metals
Hart/ord, CT a/ea
CEOMET, Inc.4'17
197&-78
Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory"
1977 to
present
TRC Environmental
Consultant*1
1977-79
CO, SO,, NO, NOj. 0,.
NMHC, total and
respirable paniculate
matter, sulfates,
nitrates, metala,
aldehydes, ammonia,
asbestos fibers
CO. CO,. NO, NO,. O,
formaldehyde,
adelhydei, radon, total
and respirable
paniculate matter,
elemental analysis of
paniculate matter
CO. NO. NOj, Oj (under
subcontract to Xonics,
Inc.)
CEOMET, Inc.*-"
197S-79
CO, NO, NO,. CO,. Oj,
SO,, lota) and NMHC,
total and respirsbl*
paniculate mattar,
•ulfates, nitratea sod
BoP
New York,
Southern
California
Southern
California
Hartford, CT area
Portage, WI
Kingston, TN
Harriman, TN
Wstertown, MA
St. Louis, MO
Steubenville, OH
Washington. D.C.
Denver, CO
Chicago, EL
Baltimore, MD
Pittsburgh, PA
Various
locations
throughout
theU.S.
Garden Grove, CA
West Los
Angeles, CA
Upland. CA
Beaton, MA
8 private homes with
gas or electric stove*
2 non-air-conditioned
public buildings (I an
air-rights structure)
y2 air-conditioned
office buildings
2 high-rise apartment
bouses, an air-right*
structure
4 hospitals
1 iwimming pool
6 schools
1 department store
1 shopping mall
1 university building
2 private home*
Various types; moatly
university buildings
and houses
4 homes with fas-fired
stoves
Approximately 10
homes in each city
plus personal
monitoring situations.
3 experimental
dwellings
4 conventional
dwellings
1 school
6 spartmenta (high-
and low-rise)
2 mobile home*
1 hospital
Various types of
buildings and bouses,
usually in relation to
energy conservation
measure*
6 private homes with
and without gas
itoves, imoking and
fireplaces
IP residence! with jas
or electric itove* and
with or without
smoking occupants
2-office buildings
Data collected and
analyzed on a 12-h day/
night I
Extensive meteorological
and traffic survey data
were collected.
Structures represented a
range of ventilation and
air-cleaning systems.
This is on-going work and
consists of a variety of
different research
efforts and published
papers.
Laboratory study to
measure pollutant
emissions from ge_i-fired
•toves and heaters.
Inventory of other
indoor sources.
On-going program for
development of indoor,
outdoor and total
exposure of pollutants
in mpport of large
epidemiologies! study.
A large number of
published articles and
research reports have
been generated.
Literature search.
Development and
validatioB of indoor air
quality model.
Evaluation of episodic
release! of pollutants
indoors.
Extensive dati collected
on indoor air quality in
relation to sir exchange
rales. Measurement of
emiuioru from indoor
sources. Significant
efforts on measurement
methods development.
Pan of a larger program to
develop s model to
characterize total
human exposure to air
pollutanti. Study
result! thowed variation
in outdoor pollutant
levels between central
monitor and the home*
being itudied.
Persons) monitoring at 3
residence! Validation
of an indoor air quality
model. Evaluation of
intenonal indoor air
quality. Development of
mobility pitterru and
eiposu™ estimates.
112
-------
FIGURE A-B
Whero radon is likely to be found
Radon i:5 a naturally occurring
radioactive gas. Highest concentrations
are likelv to be found in water from wells
drilled irto granite bedrock. This map
shows such granite formations in New
England and a detailed explanation for
Maine based on testing done in the late
1970s.
£^j Sillimanite zone
Granite bedrock
Chlorite zone
85
Source: Dr. C. T. Hess, Department of Physics, University of Maine at Orono
GLOBE MAP BY DEB PERUGI
1100pCi/L 22,000pCi/L13,600pCi/L
wells tested
There are no federal standards for
radon, but Maine officials
recommend that homes with radon
water levels of more than 20,000
pCi/L be tested further for airborne
radon and possible correction action
be taken.
•Radon is measured in picoCuries. A
Curie is a commonly used measure of
radiation, a pico is one trillionth of a
Curie.
Source: The Land and Water
Resources Center, University of
Maine at Orono, and the Division of
Health and Engineering, Maine
Department of Human Services.
500
TABLE A-4
PREDICTED N02 FROM A KEROSENE HEATER
WITH R = 0.3, 1.0, AND 3.0 ACH
R-0.3
TABLE A-5
PREDICTED S02FROM A KEROSENE HEATER
WITH R = 0.3, 1.0, AND 3.0 ACH
1800
IUOO
o
a.
1000
600
200
R-3.0
11:
-------
FIGURE A-C
OZONE AND CO NON-ATTAINMENT COUNTIES
FIGURE A-0
TSP AND SULFUR DIOXIDE NON-ATTAINMENT COUNTIES
CO Non-Anainmant
Ozone Non-Attainment
Ncxi-An. lor both
S02 (Primary) N.A.
TSP (Primaryl N.A.
TSP (Secondary) N.A.
TABLE A-6
REGION I SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS
STATE
1. CT
2. CT
3. CT
4. CT
5. CT
6. CT
7. CT
8. MA
9. MA
10. RJ
11. RJ
CITY
Bridgeport
Waterbury
Union
West Haven
Plainfield
Croton
New Haven
Lawrence
Leominster
Providence
Providence
SOURCE
NAME/TYPE
Bridgeport East Side
Incinerator/Municipal
. Incinerator
Century Brass Prod-
uts Inc. /Brass and
Bronze Mill Products
Conn. Charcoal Co./
Industrial Charcoal
Production
Deitsch Laminating/
Fabric Vinyl Coating
Pervel Industries,
Inc./tlrethane Fabric
Coater
Electric Ooat/Sub-
marine construction
and overhaul
Mew Haven Terminal/
Gasoline and Chemical
Storage and Loading
Andrews Wilson Co./
Metal Furniture
Coating
Borden Chemical/
PVC Chemical
Produce ion
Narragansctt Improve-
ment/Asphalt Batching
Providence/Sewage
Sludge Incinerator
POLLUTANT
TSP
Fugitive
TSP
TSP
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
VCC
Vinyl
Chloride
(HESI1APS)
TSP
TSP
AUXWABLE
EMISSIONS
.4 lbs/1000 Ibs
flue gas
NA
3.39 Ibs/hr
3.8 Ib/gal of
coating
800 Ibs/day
3.5 Ib/gal of
coating
.67 lb/103 gal
3.0 Ib/gal
coating
. 0
10.7 tons/yr
23.9 tons/yr
ACTUAL
EMISSIONS
1.3 lbs/1000 Ibs
flue gas
NA
91 Ibs/hr
5.82 Ib/gal of
coating
935 Ibs/day
NA
1.45 lb/103 gal
Line 1:
5.95 Ib/gal
Line 2:
4.6 Ib/gal
Line 3:
X
10 tons
(1982)
26 . 7 tons/yr
31.3 tons/yr
COMO/TS
In violation of 1977 court
decree to shut ccvn.
Further lit. in process.
Referred to Justice
on 8/7/80
Case recently settled;
compliance expected by
6/1/83
Referred to Justice on
7/1/82. Settlement under
negotiation
Awaiting enforcement
action
State inspections deter-
mined nonccmpliance. EPA
involvement pending
Awaiting enforcement
action
t-!
State has enforcement
lead
Administrative Order
issued in 1979
Violating New Source Per-
formance Standards/liti-
gation ongoing
EPA is 'negotiating an
amended consent decree
that requires additional
OS* and incinerator
uograding
114
------- |