x>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region I
Office of
Public Awareness
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston. MA 02203
December 1980
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR'S
ANNUAL REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
IN NEW ENGLAND
_
-------
Narragansett Bay...4:30 a.m.
Photo by Eric Klos
-------
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR'S
ANNUAL REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
IN NEW ENGLAND
1980
-------
Foreword from the Regional Administrator:
This is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's sixth annual report
on environmental quality in New England.
It covers air, surface and drinking water quality, solid and hazardous
waste management, pesticides, radiation, noise, toxic substances, the
Construction Grants program, enforcement and oil spills.
This year's report shows that we have continued to make steady progress
toward achieving our environmental goals. In some areas progress has
been dramatic, while other problems have proved more resistant to our
efforts and are demanding creative and innovative solutions at all
levels of government.
One area in which we have made dramatic progress is restoration of our
major rivers. Many waterways which less than a decade ago were too
polluted to support fish life or recreational activities are now clean
enough for swimming.
These improvements are the result of a massive expenditure of federal,
state and local funds on municipal water pollution control facilities—
more than two billion dollars in New England in the last decade—and
industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on treatment
facilities as well. The investments of the 1970's are now beginning to
pay dividends in cleaner water and these benefits will increase
substantially over the next few years.
At the same time, another water pollution issue—contamination of
underground drinking water sources—has become prominent in our region,
and indeed throughout the nation. One quarter of all New England
communities rely on groundwater as a primary drinking water source, and
in our region the incidence of groundwater contamination has almost
doubled in the past year. I view this issue as a very serious public
health and environmental problem and in the next year we will be working
with the six states to develop innovative strategies to prevent
groundwater contamination in the first place, and to protect the public
from its effects.
We have seen improvements in air quality in the last few years.
Decreases in all of the major pollutants have been recorded, but we
still have some major problems that must be dealt with. Our principal
problem involves the auto related pollutants carbon monoxide and ozone.
In most urban areas, public health standards for these pollutants are
violated on a regular basis.
By 1982, the three southern New England states will have in place
automobile inspection and maintenance programs. These will help
identify polluting vehicles and will require that these vehicles be
repaired. Inspection and maintenance programs have been effective in
other parts of the country and we feel that they are essential to help
us meet our clean air goals in New England.
-------
Another air pollution issue of the 1980's will be the impact of energy
programs on air quality. We are particularly concerned about the
impacts of coal conversion, the construction of new coal burning power
plants and the burning of higher sulfur content fuel. All of these
activities have the potential to add to our air pollution problems.
Therefore, we will review each energy proposal very carefully, will
insist that latest control technologies be used, and will in no instance
allow a project to move ahead that will result in violations of primary
health standards.
However, increased sulfur loadings, even below the standards, can
contribute to acid precipitation which in turn can lead to acidification
of lakes, and loss of fish and wildlife habitat. A great deal of
research is underway to examine the entire acid rain problem, and
federal regulations are also being reviewed to determine how they can be
altered to deal more effectively with the acid rain problem. Solving
this problem will particularly require close cooperation among federal
and state governments.
Hazardous waste management and mismanagement will also be high priority
items for the next few years. In the past year, EPA has finalized
comprehensive regulations establishing a "cradle to grave" management
system over the hazardous waste stream.Priorities for the 1980's will be
to locate areas in New England to safely treat and dispose of hazardous
waste; to undertake vigorous enforcement against those who illegally
dispose of hazardous waste, and to locate areas where hazardous waste
may have been disposed in the past and to undertake clean up where
appropriate.
Before we look in more detail at the progress we have made this year and
at our directions for the next year, I would like to mention a major
change in the way this Agency will be doing business in the future.
Most of EPA's legislation envisions that the states will take over
environmental protection programs as soon as they have the necessary
legal authority, institutional framework, and resources. Many programs
have already been delegated to the states, and State/EPA Agreements have
been developed and signed by all six New England states. These
agreements establish common environmental priorities and identify
resources available to solve problems.
Thus for the next few years, this Agency will be in a period of
transition. It is our hope that a stronger federal/state partnership
will result, with day to day project management taking place at the
state level and review and oversight activities at the federal level.
This distribution of responsiblity should result in the programs being
administered closer to the problems they are designed to solve and to
the people they are intended to serve.
I am confident that working together in this way we can secure the
benefits of clean air and water and a beautiful land for all of us.
William R. Adams, Jr.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword from the Regional Administrator
Air Quality Page 1
Table 1: Number of Stations Violating National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Figure 1: New England Air Quality Control
Regions (State Portions)
Figure 2: AQCR's Containing SO2 Violations
Figure 3: AQCR's Containing TSP Violations
Figure 4: AQCR's Containing CO Violations
Figure 5: AQCR's Containing O~ Violations
Table 2: Pollutant Standards Index
Figure 6: TSP, SO2, O-,, CO Values,Bridgeport, CT
Figure 7: TSP, SO2, CO, O3 Values,Hartford, CT
Figure 8: TSP, SO2/ CO, 03 Values, New Haven, CT
Figure 9: TSP, SO2, CO, CL Values, Bangor, ME
Figure 10: TSP, S02, CO, Ou Values, Boston, MA
Figure 11: TSP' S02' CO' °3 Values' Springfield, MA
Figure 12: TSP, SO2, CO, 0., Values, Worcester, MA
Figure 13: TSP, SO2r CO, O, Values, Providence, RI
Figure 14: TSP, SO2, CO, Oj Values, Manchester, NH
Figure 15: TSP, SO2, 0.,, CO Values, Burlington, VT
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Page 5
Table 3: Distribution of Technical Assistance
Panels Projects (FY 79 and 80)
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites Page 8
Pesticides Page 9
-------
Radiation Page 10
Figure 16: Emergency Planning Zones Around
Nuclear Power Facilities
Noise Page 11
Figure 17: Communities with Active Noise
Control Programs
Figure 18: States with Quantitative Stationary
Noise Source Regulations
Figure 19: States with Quantitative Motor
Vehicle Noise Regulations
Toxic Substances Page 12
Surface Water Quality Page 14
Table 4: Water Quality Summary in New England
Figure 20: New England Water Quality
Summary 1976-1980
Table 5: Summary of Water Quality by State
Figure 21: Section 314 Clean Lakes Funding
Table 6: New England Clean Lakes Projects
Figure 22: 208 Planning Agencies
Table 7: 208 Grant Awards in New England
Shellfish Page 18
Table 8: Selected Maine Shellfish
Areas Reclaimed
Construction Grants Page 19
Figure 23: Federal Support Committed for
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Drinking Water Page 21
Table 9: Drinking Water Supplies Contaminated
by Organic Chemicals
-------
Enforcement Page 26
Figure 24: Number of Major Air Pollution
Sources in Compliance
Figure 25: Rate of Compliance with Water
Pollution Regulations
Oil and Hazardous Materials Page 28
Figure 26: Percentage of Oil Spills
Transportation and Non-Transporta-
tion Related
-------
AIR QUALITY
Introduction
The Clean Air Act places primary responsibility for the prevention of
air pollution on state and local governments. The Act includes a
strong mandate for the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct
research, establish and enforce adequate standards and regulations and
support state and local control activities to meet the environmental
goals set by the Act. These goals are prescribed by two types of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): primary standards to
protect public health and secondary standards to protect public
welfare, as measured by effects on vegetation, materials and
visibility. Standards have been set for total suspended particulates,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone (smog) and
lead. Controlling emissions to attain and maintain the standards is
achieved through two major types of activities. 1) State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) control pollution within each state,
primarily by prescribing specific emission limitations and control
actions for types of pollutants. These plans are developed by the
individual states and approved by EPA, and 2) National emission
standards are established nationally for new motor vehicles and
selected new stationary sources of air pollution.
New England Air Quality
Table 1 lists the number of air quality monitoring stations in each New
England state which have recorded violations of NAAQS. The most
widespread air pollution problems in New England concern ozone, carbon
monoxide and particulates. Sulfur dioxide standards are violated only
in the vicinity of certain large point sources in northern New England
and there are no monitored violations of the nitrogen dioxide standard.
Sulfur dioxide levels may be expected to increase as New England states
relax sulfur emission limitations to allow the use of less expensive
higher sulfur fuels.
There are widespread violations of the primarily mobile source-related
pollutants ozone and carbon monoxide in all large urban areas and
certain other areas. Attainment of these standards is not expected
until at least 1987. For particulates, attainment of the secondary
standards is uncertain in many areas.
An additional problem, acid precipitation caused primarily by sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in New England and elsewhere is
causing acidification of New England waters. At present, there is no
control strategy directed at this problem, but data collection efforts
and control policy analysis are being undertaken by the states and EPA
on a cooperative basis.
-1-
-------
Control Programs in Non-attainment Areas
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require that the standards be
attained by the end of 1982. States were required to sutroit SIPs for
areas classified as non-attainment in 1979 to achieve that end.
However, in recognition of the problems some areas will have in
attaining the standards for ozone and carbon monoxide, attainment of
these standards is to be as expeditious as possible, but in no case
later than 1987. Such areas are to submit additional plans in 1982.
EPA has approved SIP revisions to attain standards in non-attainment
areas in Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Proposed
approvals were published for Rhode Island and Connecticut and final
approval of these revisions is expected scon. Each provides for
further regulation of emissions from existing stationary and mobile
sources, and for review of proposals for construction of major new
pollution-emitting facilities. In addition, the three southern New
England states have been laying the groundwork for the 1982 SIP
revisions which are necessary to address serious carbon monoxide and
ozone problems and ensure attainment of these standards by 1987.
Other Federal Programs
In addition to the national standards, nationally applicable emission
levels are prescribed for pollutants deemed especially hazardous, and
apply to both new and existing sources. National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants have been established for emissions of
asbestos, beryllium, mercury and vinyl chloride from a variety of
sources. The 1977 Amendments also require that New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for all new major stationary sources be established by
1982. In addition, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program
(PSD) establishes a mechanism for managing the air quality impacts
associated with emission increases in clean air areas.
All six states in Region I have been delegated some authority for the
NSPS and NESHAPS programs. Maine and Vermont have received approval of
their PSD programs and are now issuing permits and EPA is working with
the other states to help them adopt PSD programs.
Inspection and Maintenance
States which need extensions until 1987 to attain the carbon monoxide
or ozone standards are required to adopt inspection and maintenance
(I/M) programs to control the emissions of carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbons from automobiles. Under the I/M program, motor vehicles
must be periodically inspected to assess the function of their exhaust
emission control systems, and vehicles which exceed established
emission standards must undergo mandatory maintenance. There are three
states in Region I which are required to have I/M programs:
Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Connecticut will have a
centralized, contractor-operated program which is scheduled to begin on
-2-
-------
December 31, 1982. The Massachusetts program will be a decentralized
program with inspections to be performed by private garages and gas
stations and is scheduled to begin on January I, 1982. The Rhode
Island program is currently in operation and was the first
decentralized program in the country.
Monitoring
A network of monitoring stations throughout the New England states
provides data on the progress toward meeting the NAAQS in non-
attainment areas. During 1979, the six states monitored levels of
total suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide and ozone. Connecticut also monitored ambient lead, and other
states are developing lead monitoring networks.
EPA is actively involved in overseeing state implementation of
comprehensive regulations for air quality surveillance and reporting
promulgated in 1979. Adherence to these criteria should promote
uniformity of siting and produce ambient data of higher quality. All
sites which are part of the national monitoring network must be
reviewed and approved by EPA. The Agency has proposed the approval of
monitoring networks in all New England states except Connecticut.
Energy and Air Quality
EPA's energy activities have focused on approval of plants converting
from oil to coal and using higher sulfur fuels. Approval has been
granted only to those activities which the Agency has determined would
not cause or contribute to violations of air quality standards.
After the 1973 energy crisis, Congress passed legislation giving the
Department of Energy authority to prohibit the use of very large
amounts of oil and natural gas at fuel burning facilities. These
prohibition orders, which require the concurrence of the governor of
the affected state, essentially mandated coal burning. To date, six
New England power plants have received such orders. They are Salem
Harbor, Brayton Point and Mt. Tom in Massachusetts; Norwalk Harbor and
Middletown in Connecticut; and Schiller Station in New Hampshire. To
ensure the maintenance of clean air, EPA is responsible for studying
the facilities which have received the prohibition orders to determine
the earliest date by which they can burn coal and still comply with all
air quality standards. Facilities with prohibition orders are eligible
to request Delayed Compliance Orders from EPA. These orders allow coal
to be burned before the compliance date set in the prohibition order,
if certain conditions are met, including protection of the public
health standard. EPA issued a DCO to Brayton Point in November, 1979
for two of its three converting units. All units will be in compliance
when the plant finishes its coal conversion process in 1981. Northeast
Utilities has requested a DCO for its Mt. Tom Station in Massachusetts.
The utilities which own the Salem Harbor and Schiller Stations have
initiated discussions with EPA and the states concerning the burning of
coal at these stations.
-3-
-------
Region I is working with Massachusetts and Connecticut to develop
regulations which will encourage reduced consumption of oil and
conversions to alternate fuels without jeopardizing air quality
standards. The Massachusetts regulation proposes that industries
planning to convert to an alternate fuel, such as coal, or those
planning conservation measures, would be allowed to burn less expensive
high sulfur fuel oil for a period not to exceed thirty months. The
savings gained from burning the less expensive fuel will provide some
of the capital needed to implement these conversions or conservation
measures.
During 1979, EPA has approved several revisions to state sulfur-in-fuel
regulations. By demonstrating the maintenance of air quality standards
through the use of air quality monitoring data and mathematical
modeling techniques, many sources have been allowed to burn less
expensive higher-sulfur fuel oil.
Pollutant Standards Index
The Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) structure includes all the
pollutants with the exception of lead for which primary standards have
been set. PSI is primarily a health-related index as shown by the
descriptor words: "good," "moderate," "unhealthful," "very unhealthful,"
and "hazardous," (see Table 2). Since the breakpoints used to separate
these descriptor words are somewhat arbitrary, it is not possible to
establish a sharp demarcation between any two descriptor words on the
basis of health effects data. Therefore, the PSI is designed for daily
reporting of air quality to advise the public of potentially acute, but
not chronic, health effects, and should not be used to rank cities.
Proper ranking of air pollution problems in different cities should not
rely solely on air quality data, but should include all data on
population characteristics, daily population mobility, transportation
patterns, industrial composition, emission inventories, meteorological
factors, and the spatial representativeness of air monitoring sites.
The number of people actually exposed to various concentrations, as
well as the frequency and duration of their exposure, should also be
considered.
Figures 6-15 list the 1975 to 1979 Pollutant Standards Index for four
pollutants in ten metropolitan areas in New England.
-4-
-------
TABLE 1
Number
of Stations Violating
National Ambient Air Quality
so2
STANDARD
Annual Primary
24 Hour Primary*
3 Hour Secondary*
Particulates
Annual Primary
24 Hour Primary*
24 Hour Secondary*
CO
°3
»1
8 Hour Primary*
1 Hour Primary*
1 Hour Primary*
Annual Primary
80 ug/m3
365 ug/m3
1300 ug/m3
75 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
150 ug/m^
10 mg/m3
40 mg/m3
0.12 ppm
100 ug/m3
CONN.
0/12
0/12
0/12
1/37
1/37
7/37
4/7
1/7
9/9
0/20
MAINE
0/51
5/51
1/16
0/69
0/69
14/69
1/2
0/2
V7
0/9
Standards*
MASS.
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/41
0/41
6/41
3/8
0/8
12/17
0/4
N.H.
0/18
1/18
0/8
1/28
0/28
4/28
4/5
0/5
0/4
0/13
R.I.
0/4
0/4
0/4
1/12
1/12
1/12
1/2
0/2
1/2
0/2
VT.
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/j.l
0/11
2/11
0/1
0/1
0/1
-
COMMENTS
x/y: x is the number of stations in violation
y is the total number of stations
This pollutant is not monitored in the state
* Unless the second highest average exceeds the NAAQS, there is no violation.
-------
NEW ENGLAND
AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGIONS
(STATE PORTIONS)
AHOOSTOOK
INTRASTATE
0081
CHAMPLAIM VALLEY VERMONT
INTERSTATE INTRASTATE
(iw)
- -
MEBBiMACK VALLEY • SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTERSTATt
121)
CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS
INTRASTATE
(118)
ToripQLITAN PROVIDENCE
INTERSTATE
< 120)
N£» JERSEY Ntw rORK CONNECTICUT
INTERSTATE (43)
E ASTERN"conn EC TICUT
INTRASTATE
(41)
FIGURE
-------
AQCR'S (STATE PORTIONS) CONTAINING SO2 VIOLATIONS IN 1979.
VIOLATIONS
NO VIOLATIONS
NO DATA
FIGURE 2
-------
AQCR'S (STATE PORTIONS) CONTAINING TSP VIOLATIONS IN 1979.
VIOLATIONS
NO VIOLATIONS
NO DATA
FIGURE 3
-------
AQCR'S (STATE PORTIONS) CONTAINING CO VIOLATIONS IN 1979.
VIOLATIONS
] NO VIOLATIONS
NO DATA
FIGURE 4
-------
AQCR'S (STATE PORTIONS) CONTAINING O3 VIOLATIONS IN 1979.
VIOLATIONS
NO VIOLATIONS
NO DATA
FIGURE 5
-------
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF PSI VALUES WITH POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. DESCRIPTOR WORDS
GENERALIZED HEALTH EFFECTS, AND CAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
INDEX
VALUE
— 300—
— SO-
AIR QUALITY
LEVEL
HARM
.•rucnfseucv •
— WARNINO —
-60% Of NAA01-
POLLUTANT LEVELS
TIP
124-houfi.
jig/M3
— 6»—
*Mtfl_.
— 7Sb —
«0j
(24-hour).
PB/m3
—1600 —
i HI lift .
_0 —
CO
(frttowl,
mg/m3
— *7.i —
— 14J)-»—
_ 10.0 —
*V A
— .0——
03
iVhowl.
Iig/m3
,__ HAH r. _.
— 235 -
•••120 "•
— _0~~
NO]
IVhourl.
j>I/m3
HEALTH
EFFECT
DESCRIPTOR
VERY
UNHEALTHFUL
UNHEALTHFUL
MODERATE
GOOD
GENERAL HEALTH EFFECTS
Primilutt dMlh at ill end elderly.
Haallhy ptapl* «ill ••ptiwnc* tA-
ttru lympiami ttui •HfCl UMM
iwnul Mluily.
Ptimatw* enui ol Mrtwn dnwitt
in Mtdilion lo iiflMhMM «ggr*M-
lion ol lympiomt and dtciMUd
•••tclii lotowtc* M lw«Hhv pwwiu.
Signrtkanl «gvi>«iion ol tymplomt
MM! dtciuitd IMICIM loldinct in
ptt toni with h«wi w lunj diu«w,
with widnpri«d lympiomt M llw
iMalihy populiiwn.
Mild •ggriHlion ol lymplomt in
luKtplibli pwioni. with unuiion
tymp(onu in tht hialihy popula
lion.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
1
AU pwuini tttould itnMin indowi.
h«tpui« MundoMi iifid duoii cloud.
AU puioni ihould minunii i phyu-
ul •ifiiNMi and ««oid uaHic.
Elderly Mid pctioni with witting
ditMiM iliouid tuv mdoo>i
-------
BRIDGEPORT, CT
200
100
1975 1976
[~~] = TSP: City Hall
t-»i = 03: Derby
[ | = CO: State Street
1977
1978
1979
FIGURE 6
-------
HARTFORD, CT
300
200
PSI
1977
1978
1975 1976
= TSP: Library
= SO2: West Street
= CO: 1975-1978—Old State House; 1979—221 Asylum
| | = O3: Enfield—Elm Street
1979
FIGURE 7
-------
NEW HAVEN, CT
300
200
PSI
100
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
= TSP: Clinton School
= S02: State Street
= CO: City Hall
= 03: 1975-1978 —Hampden, 1979—State Street
FIGURE 8
-------
BANGOR,ME
200
PS I
50 -
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
= TSP: Central Street
= SO2: Central Street
= CO: Central Street
= 03: Cape Elizabeth
FIGURE 9
-------
BOSTON, MA
PSI
100
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
= TSP: Kenmore Square
= SC>2: Kenmore Square
] = CO: Kenmore Square
| | = 03: Fellsway and Route 16
. ~J = O3: 1976-1977—West Newbury, 1978-1979—Georgetown
FIGURE ID
-------
SPRINGFIELD, MA
300
200 -
PS I
1975 1976
= TSP: Taylor Street
= SO?. East Columbus Avenue
= CO: East Columbus Avenue
= 63: Amherst
1977
1978
1979
FIGURE 11
-------
WORCESTER, MA
300
200
PSI
100
1975 1976 1977
= TSP: Front Street
I = SC>2: New Salem and Washington Streets
fc/V| - CO: New Salem and Washington Streets
| ] = 63: New Salem and Washington Streets
1978
1979
FIGURE 12
-------
PROVIDENCE, Rl
300
200
PSI
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
= TSP: Westminster Street
= SO2: Dyer Street
= CO: Dorrance Street
= 03: Attleboro, MA
FIGURE 13
-------
MANCHESTER, NH
200
PSI
100
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
| 1 = TSP: Merrimack Street
= TSP: Health Department
= SC>2: Merrimack Street
^x^j = CO: Merrimack Street
: ~~] = 63: Merrimack Street
FIGURE 14
-------
BURLINGTON, VT
200
PSI
100
1975 1976
= TSP: S. Winooski Avenue
= SO2: S. Winooski Avenue
= 63: S. Winooski Avenue
= CO: S. Winooski Avenue
1977
1978
1979
FIGURE 15
-------
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) has three
basic objectives: to abate open dumping of solid waste; to regulate
hazardous waste from cradle-to-grave; and to stimulate resource
conservation and recovery programs. Both the Region I Office of
Environmental Protection Agency and the New England states are in the
early stages of implementing RCRA.
Hazardous Waste Management
On February 26, 1980, EPA promulgated final regulations requiring
anyone who handles hazardous wastes to notify EPA, and requiring
generators and transporters to establish a manifest system designed to
track hazardous wastes from point of generation to ultimate disposal.
On May 19, further regulations were promulgated which 1) identify what
constitutes a hazardous waste, 2) establish Phase I requirements for
owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes, 3) establish a permit program for hazardous waste
facilities, and 4) establish requirements for state hazardous waste
programs authorized to operate in lieu of EPA's regulatory program.
Proposed waste streams were added to the list of hazardous wastes on
July 16, 1980 with further additions to the hazardous waste list
expected. Technical standards for hazardous waste facilities which
will provide a basis for issuing hazardous waste permits will also be
promulgated soon.
The first requirements in the cradle-to-grave regulatory system include
EPA receipt of generator, transporter and treatment, storage and
disposal facility notifications by August 18, 1980, and Part A permit
applications from all existing facilities by November 19, 1980.
The New England states have made varying degrees of progress in
establishing state hazardous waste programs substantially equivalent to
the federal program. Maine passed an Act that enables the state to
protect the public and the environment from damages resulting from
discharge of hazardous materials. On July 1, 1980, Maine's regulations
for the identification of hazardous waste and for interim licenses for
hazardous waste facilities became effective. Maine has also proposed
rules for licensing transporters of hazardous waste, and for licensing
hazardous waste facilities, as well as standards for generators of
hazardous waste and hazardous waste manifest requirements.
On November 9, 1979, the Massachusetts legislature passed a Hazardous
Waste Management Act, expanding the state's authority to control
hazardous waste generation, treatment, storage and disposal activities
and the state is currently developing regulations to implement that
Act. In October the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering proposed interim hazardous waste regulations. The interim
regulations will ultimately be replaced by the comprehensive hazardous
waste regulations which the Department is currently developing.
-5-
-------
Rhode Island has promulgated regulations controlling transporters of
hazardous wastes which became effective in July, and has developed
proposed incinerator regulations, and storage and treatment regulations.
Vermont's comprehensive hazardous waste regulations became effective in
July, and New Hampshire and Connecticut are currently developing
comprehensive hazardous waste regulations which will control the
generation, transport, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous
wastes.
The New England Regional Commission (NERCOM) has initiated further
studies, assisted in part by an EPA grant for $50,000, to facilitate
hazardous waste management facility development in New England. This
six month effort examines siting criteria, compensation/negotiation and
institutional arrangements, and will produce various catalogues
describing physical layouts and operational methods of various
treatment, storage and disposal facilities needed in the region.
The states have also begun to respond to the problem of siting. The
Connecticut and Massachusetts legislatures have recently passed bills
to institute procedures for siting hazardous waste management
facilities. Massachusetts signed into law the Hazardous Waste Facility
Siting Act which requires that communities be involved in the siting
process from the very beginning. Connecticut recently signed into law
a bill authorizing the establishment of a siting approval board with
preemptive authority over local ordinances. New Hampshire, Maine and
Rhode Island have formed special task forces to study siting problems
and to make recommendations to assist future siting attempts.
Solid Waste Management
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act provides for teams of
personnel consisting of federal, state and local employees, and
technical consultants to EPA to provide assistance to federal, state
and local governments in solid and hazardous waste management. A
summary of the assistance given is provided in Table 3.
During the next fiscal year, state solid waste agencies will continue
to be responsible for conducting inventories of all existing solid
waste disposal sites. Sites will be classified according to federally-
established criteria which define environmentally acceptable land
disposal practices. All non-complying facilities will be put on
compliance schedules enforced by the state, requiring either upgrading
or closure. These classification criteria also serve as guidelines for
land disposal of sludge from publicly-owned wastewater treatment
plants.
Guidelines for the development and implementation of state solid waste
management plans were published last year. Each state is now in the
process of developing its solid and hazardous waste plan. All six New
England states have completed draft versions of their plans and are on
schedule to complete their plans by January 31, 1981 for EPA approval.
-6-
-------
Resource Recovery
Under the President's Urban Policy, EPA can enter into cooperative
agreements with local communities and can provide-up to 75 percent of
the planning costs for resource recovery facilities.
EPA entered into cooperative agreements with seven New England
communities last year, and planning activities in those communities
have continued throughout the past year. One of those seven
communities, New Britain, Connecticut was the first of 63 grantees in
the country to actually implement a resource recovery system. The
system provides for weekly curbside collection of recycleable
materials.
Resource recovery in New England continues to progress at a steady pace
with the addition of a 110 ton/day facility in Durham, New Hampshire
serving seven New Hampshire towns, initiated by the Lamprey Solid Waste
Cooperative. The University of New Hampshire will benefit from the
steam produced by burning the solid waste. Construction of resource
recovery facilities is progressing rapidly in Pittsfield, Massachusetts
and Auburn, Maine with start-up expected early in 1981.
-7-
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANELS PROJECTS (FY 79 and 80)
STATE
FY 79
FY 80
FY 79
FY 80
FY 79
nADOnUnUbEji ib
FY 80
FY 79
NciW HAMfbrilKti
FY 80
FY 79
£uiUDl!j loLAWU "
FY 80
FY 79
VERMONT
FY 80
FY 79
NEW CTOiLAND
FY 80
TOTAL
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
1
3
2
2
2
10
RESOURCE
RECOVERY
3
I
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
19
LAND
DISPOSAL
1
1
2
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
1
1
1
1
4
TOTAL
6
6
5
5
2
4
7
35
TABLE 3
-------
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
As of raid August, 1980, EPA had listed 200 suspected uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites in New England. The Agency has two statutory
authorities under which to treat these sites. Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act prohibits discharges of oil or hazardous substances into
navigable waters of the United States. EPA, in conjunction with other
federal agencies, may direct removal of the hazardous substances to
alleviate the threat to public health. Section 311 authority has been
invoked in six cases in New England.
Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act empowers EPA
to bring suit against a source found to be causing an imminent hazard
to the public due to improper disposal of any solid or hazardous waste.
The Agency, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, has filed
three suits under Section 7003. The remaining sites in the EPA log are
being investigated by state agencies, and priorities for remedial
action are being established.
-8-
-------
PESTICIDES
The Federal Pesticides Act provides for 1) Registration (preraarket
clearance) of pesticides to prevent unreasonable hazards to humans or
the environment, 2) Classification of pesticides for general or
restricted use, 3) Certification of users of restricted use pesticides,
4) Informative and accurate labeling of pesticide products, and 5)
Enforcement to ensure proper pesticide practices.
The Act calls for two of these responsibilities—certification and
enforcement—to be delegated to the states. To date the six New
England states have certified 10,820 private applicators and 4482
commercial applicators. EPA provides funding to support ongoing state
programs for initial certification of new entries and recertification
after a maximum of five years. As of September 1980, nearly 4000
private applicators had been recertified.
Another delegation provides for primacy for pesticide use enforcement.
As of June 1980, all six New England states have qualified. The Agency
supports the state efforts through a cooperative enforcement grant
agreement. This funding has assisted the states in expanding their
enforcement staff by fourteen members and has further provided
resources and equipment for the analysis of 1250 samples collected for
enforcement purposes.
Last spring, the Agency responded to a special request from the Maine
Pesticide Control Board for assistance in carrying out an oversight and
surveillance of the 1980 spruce budworm spray project. At the
completion of the spraying, a total of 1.2 million acres of spruce/fir
forest located in northern Maine had been sprayed by 25 aircraft using
the insecticide carbaryl. Another 200,000 acres were sprayed with the
biological pesticide Bacillus thuringensis.
Eighteen Agency employees and one contractor provided on-site support
of Maine's enforcement efforts and two other New England states
provided an additional four persons. EPA's National Enforcement
investigations Center in Denver, the Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory and Pesticide and Toxic Substances Enforcement
Division also supported the project. The EPA enforcement effort
focused primarily on aerial monitoring of spray planes and TV recording
of in-flight spray operations, off-target detection and measurement of
spray drift, an operations audit of the handling, mixing, and loading
operations (container to plane), and a review of state aerial monitor
records for evidence of pesticide misuse incidents.
The EPA/Maine pesticide enforcement effort helped to ensure that the
conditions of an enforcement advisory opinion issued specifically for
the 1980 spruce budworm program were met. The advisory opinion
provided for extra label directions for safe pesticide use specific to
Maine forest conditions, greater protection of human health and
avoidance of contamination of lakes, streams, and ponds.
-9-
-------
RADIATION
The Regional Office worked with the states and other federal agency
members of the Regional Advisory Committee to review existing state and
local Radiological Emergency Response Plans, and ensure that the Report
to the President, State Radiological Emergency Planning and
Preparedness in Support of Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, reflected
the region's views on the adequacy of the plans.
In a similar effort, the regional radiation program serves on a
subcommittee established by the New England Radiological Health
Committee to revise the New England Interstate Radiation Incident Plan.
The plan, which is mandated under the terms of the New England
Interstate Radiological Health Compact, is being revised to more
closely conform to federal emergency planning guidelines, and to
provide a smoother meshing of available state radiation resources in
the event of a radiation accident anywhere in New England. Under the
revised plan, the Regional Office will assume responsibility for the
collection, maintenance and dissemination of emergency radiological
equipment inventories within the six state area, preparation of an
inventory of the emergency response capabilities of state radiation
laboratories, and maintenance of listings of all pre-determined state
environmental radiation sampling points around fixed nuclear
facilities.
Figure 16 illustrates the emergency planning zones required by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission around nuclear power facilities in New
England. Within a KMnile radius, states must provide for emergency
evacuation and other protective measures. Within a 50-mile radius
states must provide for long term environmental monitoring in the event
of a nuclear accident.
-10-
-------
LIMESTONE •
HOULTON
ME
/«—'
0 10 20 30 -40
10 Mile Radius
50 Mile Radius
Operating Facilities
A Facilities Under Construction
x Proposed Facility
-------
NOISE
Under the provisions of the Quiet Communities Act of 1978, the Regional
Office has awarded grants to and entered into cooperative agreements
with several localities and states to help identify the best available
techniques for local noise control.
In the past year, EPA has awarded $30,000 to the Metropolitan Area
Planning Council (greater Boston area) to help member communities
identify local noise sources and develop individual noise control
programs. Salem, Massachusetts has received $12,000 to establish a
noise control program.
In addition, Stamford, Connecticut, and Brookline/Newton, Massachusetts
are in the process of establishing or improving noise control programs
under previous cooperative agreements.
The Quiet Communities Act also mandates the ECHO program (Each
Community Helps Others) whereby communities can obtain technical
assistance for noise control problems from other communities with
similar problems. EPA has awarded Connecticut $37,300 for a second
year continuation of its state ECHO program.
The Regional Noise Technical Assistance Center, established at the
University of Hartford, conducts noise seminars for local officials,
calibrates noise measuring instruments, and offers technical assistance
to communities.
Figure 17 refers to active noise control programs. As used here, an
active program is one in which a community actively enforces and
publicizes its program.
Figures 18 and 19 refer to states' quantitative noise regulations
either for motor vehicles or stationary sources. Quantitative noise
regulations are those with specific decibel levels for particular noise
sources.
-11-
-------
COMMUNITIES WITH ACTIVE
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS BY
STATES - % OF POPULATION
AFFECTED (AUGUST, 1980)
FIGURE 17
-------
STATES WITH QUANTITATIVE
STATIONARY NOISE SOURCE
REGULATIONS (AUGUST, 1980)
CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS*
*(HAS QUANTITATIVE GUIDELINES:
REGULATIONS DO NOT SET LIMITS)
FIGURE 18
-------
STATES WITH QUANTITATIVE
MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE
REGULATIONS (AUGUST, 1980)
CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, RHODE ISLAND*
'(HAS LAW BUT NOT ACTIVELY ENFORCED)
FIGURE 19
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) at the
national level proceeds on a broad front. Rules are under development
for testing health effects of six chemical substances, for reporting
allegations of significant adverse reactions to health or the
environment, and reporting production and exposure related data on
approximately 2300 chemicals. A cumulative supplement to the initial
chemical inventory was published in July, listing a total of 55,103
chemical substances.
In Region I, the program has emphasized interface with industry and the
public, enforcement of the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) rules,
providing technical assistance for detection and abatement of asbestos
exposure hazards, and providing chemical health hazard assessments.
The program provides a central source of information on EPA's chemical
regulatory authorities, chemical toxicity, and chemical production
sites within the region.
Asbestos
The fibrous minerals known as asbestos, used in over 3000 products and
applications, have entered the environment in both occupational and
non-occupational settings. The lung disease asbestosis, and some
cancers of the lung, abdomen, and other parts of the body have been
clearly related to asbestos exposure.
The Region I toxics program provides technical assistance and guidance
to state and local school officials, health agencies and public and
private building owners for detection and evaluation of potential
hazardous asbestos conditions. EPA has provided training for state
officials and training and assistance in contract specifications and
asbestos removal procedures to contractors and architects in all New
England states.
All six New England states now have school asbestos inspection and
hazard abatement programs. The majority of the region's schools, built
or renovated between 1943 and 1978 when spray application of asbestos
was common, have been evaluated. States and school districts have
already spent seven million dollars for asbestos hazard abatement in
more than 100 school districts. In addition, a number of private, non-
school building owners have initiated asbestos control procedures to
reduce the risk of exposure to the materials.
PCBs
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were manufactured in the United States
from 1929 to 1977. PCBs were, and continue to be, used primarily as
cooling and insulating fluids in electrical transformers and
capacitors.
-12-
-------
Although PCBs have not been manufactured in this country since 1977,
most of the PCBs marketed in the United States are still in use in
closed systems which do not permit any detectable human exposure to the
fluids.
The Agency is working closely with utility companies and other users of
transformers and capacitors containing PCBs to ensure compliance with
PCB disposal and marking regulations, (see Enforcement).
The Regional Office provides technical support to the New England
Public Power Association to aid them in finding solutions to their PCB
contamination problems. An enforcement effort initiated by the Agency
features a neutral inspection scheme to spot check industries and
utilities who may use PCBs, as well as response to specific case needs.
-------
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
The goal of the federal Clean Water Act is the restoration of the
nation's waters to a quality which provides for the protection and
propogation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and provides for
recreation in and on the water by July 1, 1983.
State water quality standards are established according to the category
of use for the surface water involved. Class A waters are suitable for
water supply without further treatment except simple disinfection.
Class B waters are suitable for swimming and fishing, and Class C
waters can be used for fishing, but not swimming. By these
definitions, only Class A and Class B waters meet the national
fishable/swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act.
Although the major thrust of water pollution control efforts nationwide
has been to restore polluted streams to fishable/swiimable condition, a
crucial element of an effective water quality management system for New
England is the preservation of those waters which are currently of good
quality. New England has an abundance of priceless clean lakes and
streams whose quality must be protected and preserved to maintain their
value. A major part- of our future water quality management activities
must be directed toward preserving the recreational and aesthetic
potential of these resources.
Current Water Quality Conditions and Progress
As of January, 1980, 61% of New England's major stream areas met the
1983 fishable/swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act. Four thousand
five hundred sixty two of the total 7,453 miles of major river
mainstems and tributaries assessed were suitable for fishing and
swimming. This represents a 5% improvement in stream quality since
1978 and an 11% improvement since 1976 (see Table 4).
Only the major river mainstems and tributaries are assessed in this
report. Most of New England's thousands of miles of smaller upland
tributaries which are not assessed in this report are now meeting the
fishable/swimmable standard.
Although New England has experienced a steady improvement in water
quality since 1976, only 82% of the region's major streams are
projected to meet the fishable/swiimiable goals by 1983. Critical water
quality problem areas where clean water goals will not be met have been
identified in all six New England states. Combined sewer overflow is
the major contributor to water quality standards violations in this
region. Coliform bacteria levels and dissolved oxygen criteria are the
most frequently violated water quality parameters. Major municipal and
industrial discharges with inadequate levels of treatment have
historically been responsible for these violations.
These point source pollution problems are being addressed by two major
elements of the Clean Water Act—the municipal Construction Grants
-------
program and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of municipal
wastewater treatment facilities are under construction or are coming on
line. All of the major industrial dischargers in the region have been
issued enforceable NPDES "clean-up" permits. As more municipal and
industrial discharges are controlled through these programs, we expect
to see an acceleration of water quality improvement.
Table 5 summarizes water quality conditions in the six New England
states. This information comes from reports filed with EPA by the
individual states.
The following is a brief summary of water quality conditions in each of
the six New England states. The water quality projections the states
have made for 1983 are estimates only.
Connecticut - Of the 861 major freshwater stream miles inventoried in
Connecticut, 556, or 65% meet the fishable/swimmable goals of the Clean
Water Act. This percentage represents a 5% increase over 1978 and a 9%
improvement in water quality since 1976. If all Connecticut freshwater
streams including small upland tributaries were assessed, 93% would
meet Class B standards. Approximately 83 percent of Connecticut's major
stream miles will meet the fishable/swimmable goals by 1983. The
primary reasons for the non-attainment of Class B standards are
combined sewer overflows and the need for advanced waste treatment in
certain streams with low assimilative capacities. Combined sewer
overflows are responsible for water quality standards violations in the
Connecticut River, Thames River, and in the coastal waters around the
major urban centers of New Haven and Bridgeport.
Maine - Seventy-two percent of Maine's 2,349 miles of major streams
meet the fishable/swimmable standard. This percentage represents an
improvement of 2% since 1978 and 5% since 1976. In the last two years,
Maine has documented significant water quality improvements in the
Penobscot River, Haley Pond, Rangeley Lake, the Saint Croix River, and
numerous coastal areas. Approximately 88 percent of Maine's major
streams will meet or exceed the fishable/swimmable standard by 1983.
Massachusetts - Approximately 45% of Massachusetts' 1,715 major river
miles now meet or exceed the fishable/swimmable standard. This
percentage represents a 13% increase since 1978, and a 25% increase in
clean water areas since 1976. Although of the New England states,
Massachusetts still reports the lowest percentage of major stream miles
meeting the fishable/swimmable goals, the state's waters have
consistently demonstrated the highest rate of improvement in the
region.
Approximately 60 percent of Massachusetts' major stream mileage will
meet the fishable/swimmable goals by 1983. This revised projection
takes into consideration delays in completing the construction of
wastewater treatment plants. In addition, special complex water
quality problems caused by combined sewer overflows, in-plaoe
-------
sediments, nonpoint source pollution, and low stream flows will prevent
the attainment of water quality goals in numerous stream segments. For
example, heavy metals are present in the sediments of the Blacks tone
River and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) contaminate sediments of
the Housatonic and Hoosic Rivers and the marine sediments in New
Bedford Harbor.
New Hampshire - Fifty-three percent of New Hampshire's 1,320 miles of
major streams meet or exceed fishable/swimmable standards. This
percentage represents a 1% improvement since 1978 and a 9% improvement
since 1976 when only 44% of the state's major streams assessed met or
exceeded fishable/swimmable standards. However, major streams
represent only 9% of the state's identifiable stream mileage. If total
stream mileage including upland streams were assessed, approximately
96% would meet or exceed Class B standards.
Rhode Island - Sixty-six percent of Rhode Island's major stream miles
and 92% of the estuarine areas meet the fishable/swimmable standard. A
six-mile segment of the Woonasquatucket River was recently upgraded
from Class C to Class B when sewage discharges were eliminated upstream
of the Smithfield wastewater treatment facilities.
Rhode Island'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 Fry Brook. These
improvements are associated with improved treatment at upstream
pollution sources. Major combined sewer overflows and urban runoff
problems in Providence, Pawtucket, and Central Falls cause coliform and
solids violations in the Providence River, Woonasquatucket River, and
Narragansett Bay. Large municipal and industrial discharges coupled
with minimal assimilative capacities result in dissolved oxygen
problems in the Pawtuxet River and Mashapaug Brook. The Blackstone
River and Mount Hope Bay have dissolved oxygen and coliform problems as
a result of combined sewer overflows and municipal and industrial
discharges.
Approximately 73 percent of Rhode Island's major stream miles will meet
the fishable/swimmable goals by 1983.
Vermont - Seventy-two percent of Vermont's major stream miles meet the
fishable/swimmable standard. This represents a 4% improvement since
1978, and an 11% improvement since 1976. Ninety percent of the state's
total stream mileage including smaller upland streams is fishable/swininable.
By 1983, about 95 percent of the state's major stream miles will be
f ishable/swimmable.
Clean Lakes
Lakes are one of New England's most valuable aesthetic, recreational,
and economic assets. Eutrophication, or accelerated aging, threatens
the usefulness of many of New England's lakes and impoundments.
Pollutants—particularly nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen from
-16-
-------
municipal wastewater treatment plants and nonpoint sources—and
sediments can contribute to excessive growth of aquatic weeds, thereby
reducing a lake's ability to maintain its full recreational potential.
Many of the significant lakes in New England are showing signs of
eutrophication. For example, Maine shows 30 problem areas; New
Hampshire 50; Vermont 55; Connecticut 100; Massachusetts 1,030.
In 1975, a Clean Lakes program was initiated under the Clean Water Act
to provide for federal participation in lake rehabilitation and
preservation programs.
This program provides funding for lake diagnostic studies at 70%
federal share and implementation activities at 50% federal share. A
breakdown of funds obligated in New England is shown in Figure 21.
While most of the clean lakes projects New England are not complete,
early results of several projects are promising. Major recreational
areas have been restored to Morse Pond, Wellesley, Massachusetts;
Nutting Lake, Billerica, Massachusetts; Annabessacook Lake, Maine; and
Lake Bomoseen in Vermont. Table 6 describes the Section 314 Clean
Lakes restoration projects in New England.
Section 208 Water Quality Management Planning
As point sources of water pollution are brought under control through
the municipal construction grants and NPDES permit programs, nonpoint
sources of pollution have an increasingly significant impact on water
quality. Section 208 of the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to
administer an areawide waste treatment management program designed
specifically to deal with nonpoint sources of water pollution. The so-
called "208" planning programs are designed to control complex water
quality problems including urban runoff, agricultural and silvicultural
runoff, septage management, on-site wastewater management, and lake
eutrophication. As of September, 1980, more than $21.1 million in 208
grants have been awarded to the sixteen designated areawide planning
agencies and to the six New England states to prepare these 208 water
quality management plans (see Table 7).
Most of the initial areawide 208 plans have received state
certification and EPA approval. Several of the 208 agencies have
already been successful in achieving implementation of strategies
identified by 208 plans and those strategies are now resulting in
actual water quality improvements. In the coming years, program
emphasis will be on implementation rather than planning, and 208 funds
will be channelled to areas that are making real progress in solving
water pollution problems.
In all of the New England states, the 208 programs are helping to
preserve and protect the quality of the region's groundwater resources.
These efforts have focused on identifying high priority groundwater
areas, identifying threats to groundwater aquifers, and developing and
implementing aquifer protection regulations.
-17-
-------
Following are some examples of recent 208 implementation successes.
Connecticut's 208 program prepared a manual and training program on
hazardous waste site evaluation. This project assisted local health
officials by defining techniques and the lines of communication
necessary to carry out orderly and efficient hazardous waste site
reviews. In addition, in May, 1980, the Connecticut legislature passed
a Hazardous Waste Facilities Act which had been drafted by the 208
program. This Act constitutes landmark legislation in that it provides
the mechanism for the proper siting of a hazardous waste treatment and
disposal facility in Connecticut.
In Vermont, the 208 program helped establish a logging erosion control
process in cooperation with the logging industry.
In Massachusetts and Connecticut, the 208 programs have assisted local
communities in preventing problems with failing septic systems. On
Martha's Vineyard, the 208 program developed a septic system
inspection/naintenance program. In Connecticut, the 208 program is
assisting communities in the development of sewer avoidance plans.
These plans would provide local water pollution control authorities
with a mechanism to save tax dollars by minimizing the need for the
construction of costly sewer systems by directing land use and growth
patterns and properly managing the construction and maintenance of on-
site septic systems.
Shellfish
Shellfishing is very important in New England, both economically and
recreationally. In or;der to examine the effects of water pollution and
pollution control on shellfish, EPA funded a study which was carried
out by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. The study
began in 1974 and was completed this year. The study involved a survey
of waste discharges affecting shellfish beds on the Maine coast from
the New Hampshire border to the St. Croix River which divides the
United States from Canada.
A total of 2,450 discharges were recorded, with single family houses
and municipal discharges located on or near the shore proving to be the
most significant polluters of overlying shellfish waters. As a result
of abating these discharges, over 4000 acres of shellfish beds with a
commercial value of $6.6 million have been restored to productive use.
Table 8 shows a breakdown of restored acreage and value in twenty-four
selected towns.
-18-
-------
TABUS 4
WATER QUALITY SUMMARY IN NEW ENGLAND
Main Stem and Major Tributary Mileage
Meeting or Exceeding the Fishable/
Swimmable Goals of the Clean Water Act
State
1 . Connecticut ( 1 )
2. Maine (1)
3. Massachusetts (2)
4. New Hampshire
5. Rhode Island
6. Vermont (3)
TOTALS:
Miles
Assessed
861
2,382
1,715
1,320
329
879
7,486
Miles Meeting Class "B" Fishable/Swinmable Goals |
1980
Miles %
556
1,718
772
702
217
635
4,562
65%
72%
45%
53%
66%
72%
61%
1978
Miles %
519
1,656
556
691
211
594
4,194
60%
70%
32%
52%
64%
68%
56%
1977
Miles %
515
1,656
402
613
211
533
3,930
60%
70%
23%
46%
64%
61%
52%
1976
Miles %
481
1,603
348
584
211
533
3,760
56%
67%
20%
44%
64%
61%
50%
% Change
78-80 76-80
+ 5%
+ 2%
+ 13%
+ 1%
+ 2%
+ 4%
+ 5%
+ 9%
+ 5%
+25%
+ 9%
+ 2%
+ 11%
+ 11%
NOTE: (1) Connecticut and Maine 1980 values not directly comparable to 1976-1978 values due to increased mileage
assessed in 1980.
(2) Massachusetts - 1978, 1977, 1976 values modified downward to indicate presence of PCB's in fish and sediments.
(3) Vermont - 1978, 1977, 1976 values corrected to remove Connecticut River mileage. Connecticut River reported
under New Hampshire totals.
-------
01
CONN.
NEW ENGLAND WATER QUALITY SUMMARY 1976-1980
Percent of Major Stream Miles Meeting or Exceeding Class B Standards (Fishable/Swimmable)
MAINE
MASS.
N.H.
R.I.
VERMONT
REGION 1
TOTAL
FIGURE 20
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY 1980
State of Connecticut
Major Water Areas
(including mainstem
& major tributaries)
Connecticut River
Park River
Farmington River
Pequabuck River
Housatonic River
Naugatuck River
Thames River
Willimantic River
French River
Quinebaug River
Shetucket River
•^
Central Connecticut
Coastal \
Total
Miles
Assessed
148
'
12
66
15
190
35
57
27
6
42
18
85
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable )
standards
or better
67
2
62
3
118
20
33
27
0
26
15
81
Miles
expected to
be Class B
or better
by 1983
102
7
66
15
143
20
50
27
0
26
18
85
Miles now
meeting
State
water quality
standards
67
2
62
3
118
20
33
27
0
26
15
81
Miles not
meeting
' State
water quality
standards
81
10
4
12
72
15
24
0
6
16
3
4
*Water
quality
problems
2,6
2,5,6
2,5,6
1,3,6
1,2,5,6
2,5,6
2,5,6
2,5,6
2,6
2,5,6
Source of Water
Quality Problems
M = Municipal
I = Industrial
CS = Combined Sewers
NPS = Nonpoint Source
M, I, CS, NPS
CS, NPS
M
M, I, NPS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, NPS
M, I
M, IN, NPS
M, NPS
M, I, NPS
*Water quality 1. Harmful substances; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity;
problems 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temp., etc.); 5. Oxygen depletion;
3. Eutrophication potential; 6. Health hazards - (coliform)
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY 1980
State of Connecticut
Major Water Areas
(including mainstem
& major tributaries)
Quinnipiac River
Western Connecticut
Coastal
Eastern Connecticut
Coastal
Pawcatuck River
Total Miles
% of Miles Assessed
Total
Miles
Assessed
34
93
23
10
861
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable)
standards
or better
7
71
21
3
556
65%
Miles
expected to
be Class B
or better
by 1983
30
93
23
10
715
83%
Miles now
meeting
State
water quality
standards
7
71
21
3
556
65%
Miles not
meeting
State
water quality
standards
27
22
2
7
305
35%
*Water
quality
problems
2,5,6
5,6
6
2,5,6
Source of Water
Quality Problems
M = Municipal
I = Industrial
CS = Combined Sewers
NPS = Nonpoint Source
M, I, NPS
NPS
NPS
M, I
*Water quality 1. Harmful, substances; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity;
problems 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temp., etc.); 5. Oxygen depletion;
3. Eutrophication potential; 6. Health hazards - (coliform)
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY 1980
State of Maine
'
Major Water Areas
(including mainstem
& major tributaries)
Little Androecoggin
River
Androscoggin River
Aroostook River
Carrabassett River
Kennebec River
Moose River
Mousam River
Penobscot River
Piscataquis River
Preaumpscot River
Saco River
Salmon Falls
Total
Miles
Assessed
48
142
100
43
307
65
24
554
67
66
81
36
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable)
standards
or better
20
30
72
40
195
59
12
401
38
53
79
36
Miles
expected to
be Class B
or better
by 1983
42
52
96
30
288
59
12
499
66
59
80
36
Miles now
meeting
State
water quality
standards
42
142
72
43
307
65
12
537
67
59
79
36
Miles not
meeting
State
water quality
standards
6
0
28
0
0
0
12
17
0
7
2
0
*Water
quality
problems
1,2,5,6
2,6,
2,6
2,6
2,6
2,6
2,6
2,5,6
2,6
2,6,
2,6
Source of Water
Quality Problems
M = Municipal
I = Industrial
CS = Combined Sewers
NPS = Nonpoint Source
M, I, CS
M, I, CS
CS, NPS
CS
M, I, CS, NPS
CS
M, CS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, I, CS
M, I, CS
CS
*Water quality 1. Harmful substances; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity;
problems 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temp., etc.); 5. Oxygen depletion;
3. Butrophication potential;
6. Health hazards - (coliform)
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY 1980
State of
Maine
Major Water Areas
(including ma ins tern
& major tributaries)
St. Croix River
St. John River
Sebaaticook River
Coastal Basin
Allagash River
Sheepscot River
Total Miles
% of Miles Assessed
Total
Miles
Assessed
52
378
98
197
69
55
2382
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable )
standards
or better
32
341
34
152
69
55
1718
72%
Miles
expected to
be Class B
or better
by 1983 J
41
373
44
196
69
55
2107
88%
Mi les now
meeting
State
water quality
standards
42
350
44
197
69
55
2218
93%
Miles not
meeting
State
water quality
standards
10
28
54
0
0
o
164
7%
*Water
quality
problems
2,5,6
2,6
1,2,3,5,6
2,6
Source of Water
Quality Problems
M = Municipal
I = Industrial
CS = Combined Sewers
NFS = Nonpoint Source
M, I, CS
M, I, CS, NFS
M, I, CS, NFS
CS
,.-
*Water quality 1. Harmful substances; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity;
problems 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temp., etc.); 5. Oxygen depletion;
3. Eutrophication potential; 6. Health hazards - (coliform)
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY 1980
State of Massachusetts
Major Water Areas
(including mainstem
* major tributaries)
Blaokstone River
Bbftton Harbor Tribu-
taries
Buzzards Bay
•; - :~J~1''-
Cape Cod #
Charles River
Chicopee River
Connecticut River
Deerf ield River
Farmington River
French & Quinebaug
River
Hoosic River
:.T
Total
Miles
Assessed
193
46
101
(58)
91
112
82
79
17
70
43
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable )
standards
or better
95
5
92
(46)
10
49
64
67
17
30
0
Miles
expected to
be Class B
or better
by 1983
120
5
96
(47)
20
73
67
79
17
37
0
Miles now
meeting
State
water quality
standards
108
5
76
(35)
9
50
64
67
17
30
0
Miles not
meeting
State
water quality
standards
85
41
25
(23)
82
62
18
12
0
40
43
*Water
quality
problems
1,2,3,5,6
3,5,6
1,3,5,6
2,5,6
3,4,5,6
1,2,3,5,6
1,2,3,6
1,2,6
1,2,3,5,6
1,6
Source of water
Quality Problems
M = Municipal
I = Industrial
CS - Combined Sewers
NPS = Nonpoint Source
M, I, CS, NPS
M, I, CS, NFS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, I, NPS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, I, CS
M, I
M, I, NPS
M, I, NP"S
•Water quality 1. Harmful substances; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity;
problems 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temp., etc.); 5. Oxygen depletion;
3. Butrophication potential; 6. Health hazards - (coliform)
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY 1980
State of Massachusetts
»Sje* Water Areas
(including mainstem
6 iSd Jor tributaries )
H6u*atonic River
Ifi^ich & Parker
Rivers
The Islands #
Herrimack River
Millers River
KttSNua River
Wdftrft Coastal #
ttor^Eli River
• UC]
$WittH Coastal #
SuAsCo
Taunton River
Total
Miles
Assessed
91
71
(27)
115
55
108
(14)
36
(9)
88
173
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable )
standards
or better
5
68
(26)
40
39
9
(5)
27
(4)
26
43
Miles
expected to
be Class B
or better
Lby 1983
5
71
(26)
54
39
42
(6)
36
(8)
58
92
Miles now
meeting
State
water quality
standards
5
49
(26)
36
39
9
(7)
16
(2)
26
43
Miles not
meeting
State
water quality
standards
86
22
(1)
79
16
99
(7)
20
(7)
62
130
*Water
quality
problems
1/3,5,6
5,6
2,6
3,5,6
2,3,5,6
3,5,6
5,6
2,3,5,6
2,3,5,6
3,5,6
1/2,3,4,5
6
Source of Water
Quality Problems
M = Municipal
I = Industrial
CS = Combined Sewers
NPS = Nonpoint Source
M, I, NPS
NPS
M, I, NPS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, I, CS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, CS, NPS
M, NPS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, CS, NPS
M, I, CS, NPS
*Water quality 1. Harmful substances; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity;
problems 2. Physical modification (suspended solids/ temp*, etc*); 5. Oxygen depletion;
3. Eutrophication potential; 6. Health hazards - (coliform)
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY 1980
State of Massachusetts
Major Water Areas
(including mainstem
& major tributaries)
Ten Mile River
Westfield River
Total Miles
% of Miles Assessed
# - For Cape Cod, The
Total
Miles
Assessed
23
121
1715
Islands, Nc
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable )
standards
or better
0
88
772
45%
Miles
expected to
be Class B
or better
by 1983
4
110
1025
60%
rth and South Coastal numbe
Miles now
meeting
State
water quality
standards
0
88
737
43%
srs represent sec
Miles not
meeting
State
water quality
standards
23
33
978
57%
jments, not mile
*Water
quality
problems
2,3,5,6
2,6
jage.
Source of Water
Quality Problems
M = Municipal
I = Industrial
CS = Combined Sewers
NFS = Nonpoint Source
MI, I NPS
M, CS, NPS
.
*Water quality 1. Harmful substances; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity;
problems 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temp., etc.); 5. Oxygen depletion;
3. Eutrophication potential; 6. Health hazards - (coliform)
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY 1980
State of New Hampshire
Major Water Areas
(including mainstem
& major tributaries)
Androscoggin River
Connecticut River
Ashuelot River
Ammonoosuc River
Merrimack River
Pemigewasset River
Contoocook River
Nashua River
Piscataqua River and
Coastal Basins
Saco River
Total Miles
% of Miles Assessed
Total
Miles
Assessed
78
339
76
62
346
66
66
10
183
94
1320
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable)
standards
or better
56
97
36
35
228
56
3
0
97
94
702
53%
Miles
expected to
be Class B
or better
by 1983
61
339
76
62
316
66
66
5
183
94
1268
96%
Miles now
meeting
State
water quality
standards
56
99
36
35
230
66
3
0
98
94
717
54%
Miles not
meeting
State
water quality
standards
22
240
40
27
116
0
63
10
85
0
604
46%
*Water
quality
problems
2,6
2,5,6
6
2,5,6
6
6
2,6
2,5,6
Source of Water
Quality Problems
M = Municipal
I = Industrial
CS - Combined Sewers
NPS = Nonpoiht Source
M, I, CS, NPS
M» I, CS, NPS
M, CS
M, I, CS, NPS
M
M
M, I, CS/ from Mass.
M, I, CS, NPS
M, I
*Water quality 1. Harmful substances; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity;
problems 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temp., etc.); 5. Oxygen depletion;
3. Butrophication potential; 6. Health hazards - (coliform)
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY 1980
State of Rhode Island
Major Water Areas
(including nainstem
fi major tributaries)
Blackstone River
Hoosup River
Moahassuck River
Pawcatuck River
Pawtuxet River
Woonasquatucket River
Estuarine Areas &
Salt Ponds (acres)
Total Miles
% of Miles Assessed
I
Total
Miles
Assessed
89
25
17
115
60
23
117,764
acres
329
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable )
standards
or better
48
25
8
94
28
14
108,555
acres
217
66%
Miles
expected to
be Class B
or better
by 1983
55
25
10
103
30
16
112,270
acres
239
73%
Miles now
meeting
State
water quality
standards
82
25
14
111
57
20
108,045
acres
309
94%
Miles not
meeting
State
water quality
standards
7
0
3
4
3
3
9,719
acres
20
6%
*Water
quality
problems
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
6
Source of Water
Quality Problems
M = Municipal
I = Industrial
CS = Combined Sewers
NFS = Nonpoint Source
M, I, CS
M, CS, NFS
M, I
M, I
M, CS, NFS
M, I, NPS, CS
•
*Water quality 1. Harmful substances; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity;
problems 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temp., etc.); 5. Oxygen depletion;
3. Eutrophication potential; 6. Health hazards - (coliform)
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY 1980
State of Vermont
Major Water Areas
(including mainstem
& major tributaries)
Battenkill, Wai loom-
sac, Hoosic Rivers
Poultney, Mettawee
Rivers
Otter Creek
Lake Champlain
Tributaries
Hissiquoi River
Lamoille River
Winooski River
White River
Ottoquechee , Black
Rivers
West, Williams,
Saxtons Rivers
Total
Miles
Assessed
44
44
86
23
93
90
115
69
65
86
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable )
standards
or better
29
34
61
8
76
78
61
58
44
77
Miles
expected to
be Class B
or better
by 1983
43
44
76
23
92
89
98
68
64
86
Miles now
meeting
State
water quality
standards
29
41
80
19
82
84
111
63
53
84
Miles not
meeting
State
water quality
standards
15
3
6
4
11
6
4
6
12
2
* Water
quality
problems
5,6
6
5,6
2,3,5
5,6
5,6
2,3,5,6
6
1,6
6
Source of Water
Quality Problems
M = Municipal
I - Industrial
CS = Combined Sewers
UPS = Nonpoint Source
M, I, CS
M, NPS
M, CSO
M, I, CS, NPS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, CS, NPS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, CS
M, I, CS, NPS
M, I
*Water quality 1. Harmful substances; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity;
problems 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temp., etc.); 5. Oxygen depletion;
3. Bitrophication potential; 6. Health hazards - (coliform)
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY 1980
State of Vermont
Major Water Areas
(including mainstem
& major tributaries)
Deerf ield River
Connecticut River*
Stevens, Wells,
Waits, Qmpompanoosuc
Rivers
Passumpsic River
Lake Memphremagog,
Black, Barton, and
Clyde Rivers
Total Miles
% of Miles Assessed
*Connecticut River mil
I
Total
Miles
Assessed
34
—
16
47
67
879
.eage tabula
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable )
standards
or better
30
—
7
25
47
635
72%
ited in New Ha
Miles
expected to
be Class B
or better
by 1983
34
12
45
65
839
95%
unpshire sectic
Miles now
meeting
State
water quality
standards
28
7
33
49
763
87%
>n.
Miles not
meeting
State
water quality
standards
6
—
9
14
18
116
13%
*Water
quality
problems
6
2,5,6
1,4,6
5,6
2,3,6
Source of Water
Quality Problems
M = Municipal
I = Industrial
CS = Combined Sewers
NPS = Nonpoint Source
M
M, I, CS, NPS
M, NPS
M, CS
M, CS, NPS
•
*Water quality 1. Harmful substances; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity;
problems 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temp., etc.); 5. Oxygen depletion;
3. Eutrophication potential; 6. Health hazards - (coliform)
-------
O
0
c
O
SECTION 314 CLEAN LAKES FUNDING THROUGH 9/1/80
FIGURE 21
CONN
MAINE
MASS
N.H.
VT.
-------
NEW ENGLAND CLEAN LAKES RESTORATION PROJECTS
STATE - LAKE
LAKE PROBLEM
RESTORATION TECHNIQUE
TOTAL PROJECT COST
(ESTIMATED COMPLETION
DATE
CONNECTICUT
Bantam Lake
Lake Waramaug
MAINE
Cobbossee Water*
shed District
Lakewide phytoplankton
blooms and macrophyt6
beds in the extensive
littoral zones which
cover as much as 20%
of the lake's 916 A •
surface areas.
The extensive summer
and fall blue-green
algal blooms in the
Lake are the most ob-
vious symptons of the
Lake's eutrdphication
problems* Agricul-
tural runoff from
Barnyards, feedlots,
etc. is a major source
of the pollution.
Thfee lakes comprising
the watershed (Anna-
bessacook, Cobbossee/
and Pleasant Pond) are
eutrophic and suffer
from excessive phos-
phorus enrichment and
dense algal blooms.
Selective dredging of
263,000 cu. yds. of sediment
from those areas where suf-
ficient organic sediment
exists to promote growth of
aquatic macrophyte. A non-
point source loading abate-
ment program for the lake
watershed.
Restoration includes imple-
mentation of conservation
practices; local land use
controls; comprehensive
information, education/ and
public participation pro-
grams; water quality
monitoring; and project
coordination.
Hypolimnetic aeration to
control internal nutrient
cycling; chemical addition
(alum) to bind or absorb
soluble phosphorus; control
phosphorus runoff by con-
struction of manure storage
facilities; diversion of
runoff; and livestock exclu-
sion from streams.
$ 827,589
6/22/83
$ 248/450
7/14/84
$ 935,812
8/1/81
1
-------
NEW ENGLAND CLEAN LAKES RESTORATION PROJECTS
STATE - LAKE
LAKE PROBLEM
RESTORATION TECHNIQUE
TOTAL PROJECT COST
ESTIMATED COMPLETION
DATE
Little Pond
Sabasticook Lake
Sabattus Pond
Heavy growth of zoo-
plankton was causing
taste and odor prob-
lems in water distri-
bution lines.
The quality of Saba-
sticook Lake began to
deteriorate in the
late 1940's. Exces-
sive nutrient loading
has led to a condi-
tion of hypereutrophy
with classical symp-
toms of chronic dense
algal blooms, in-
creased vascular plant
growth, and fish
kill.
In recent years, the
Pond has deteriorated
due, in part, to the
existence of nuisance
blooms over most of
the summer. In fact/
water contact recrea-
tion is severely re-
stricted every sum-
mer usually during
the hottest days by
floating scums and
other manifestations
of the bloom.
Introduce alewives to con-
trol zooplankton population.
$ 19,893
6/30/78
(completed)
The proposal provides for
dam—reconstruction in order
to permit a 3.5 meter draw-
down of the Lake. The
drawdown in concert with
point and nonpoint source
controls is expected to
significantly improve water
quality.
$1,160,000
9/30/83
The proposal provides for
dam reconstruction and out-
lets to permit a 3-meter
drawdown of the Pond. Other
work includes dredging and
nonpoint source control to
improve lake water quality.
$ 64,000
10/4/81
-------
NEW ENGLAND CLEAN LAKES RESTORATION PROJECTS
STATE - LAKE
LAKE PROBLEM
RESTORATION TECHNIQUE
TOTAL PROJECT COST
I
(ESTIMATED COMPLETION
DATE
Salmon Lake
MASSACHUSETTS
Charles River
Morse Pond
Once Salmon Lake sup-
ported a diverse cold
water fishery, but
shortly after the
Second World War, only
brown trout were able
to maintain them-
selves. In the 1970's
obvious signs of
eutrophication were
apparent with noxious
algae blooms occurring
more frequently.
Saltwater stratifica-
tion prevents verti-
cal mixing, and decom-
position of organic
materials results in
complete oxygen de-
pletion in the deeper
zones resulting in
odor from hydrogen
sulfide production.
High nutrient loading
from urban runoff and
sediments has re-
sulted in blue-green
algal blooms, and high
organic loading from
deciduous leaves has
resulted in color
problems.
Modification of a dairy farm
drainage area. A 3-year
construction phase during
which diversions, tiles, a
storage lagoon, and irriga-
tion system will be built.
$ 63,800
7/14/85
Destratification of the
Charles River Lower Basin
by induced circulation
using compressed air.
$ 815,000
3/2/81
Chemical treatment for iron
and colloidal particle re-
moval; harvesting; dredging;
public education; and re-
placing deciduous trees
with evergreens.
$ 876,580
1/30/81
-------
NEW ENGLAND CLEAN LAKES RESTORATION PROJECTS
STATE - LAKE
LAKE PROBLEM
RESTORATION TECHNIQUE
TOTAL PROJECT COST
ESTIMATED COMPLETION
DATE
Lower Mystic Lake
Matting Lake
Construction of a dam
in 1909 resulted in
the entrapment of 250
million gallons of
saltwater in two deep
kettle holes in the
Lake. The anoxic zone
has generated high
concentrations of
sulfides, ammonia, and
phosphorus.
High nutrient levels;
blue-green algae; low
transparency; nuisance
aquatic vegetation;
high oxygen demand of
mucky sediments;
color; and organic
sedimment accumula-
tion.
Pump saline water from the
Lake; remove hydrogen sul-
fide by precipitation with
ferric chloride; and aerate
bottom waters.
$ 639,995
12/31/81
Dredging and post-dredging
flocculation; control of
overland runoff inputs by
street sweeping, sediment
entrapment; establishment
of buffer zones; public
education; and diversion of
stormwater around the Lake.
$ 482,318
6/6/82
VERMONT
Lake Bomoseen
High nutrient concen-
trations have re-
sulted in heavy
growth of aquatic
macrophytes and blue-
green algae, which
interfere with recre-
ational activities.
Harvesting 180 acres of the
lake each year for 3 years
will remove excessive nu-
trient levels, thereby re-
ducing aquatic plant growth
and increasing public access
and use of the Lake.
$ 149,280
12/30/80
-------
NORTHERN MAINE
(NMRPC)
LOWER
PIONEER
VALLEY
(LPVRPC)
LAKES
REGION
(LRPC)
ANDROSCOGGIN VALLEY (AVRPC)
SOUTHERN KENNEBEC
VALLEY (SKVRPC)
CONN-208
MONTACHUSETTS
(MRPC) \ CENTRAL MASS
(CMRPC)
BERKSHIRE '
COUNTY
(BCRPC)
RHODE ISLAND STATEWIDE
(RISPP)
GREATER PORTLAND (GPCOG)
SOUTHERN MAINE (SMRPC)
SOUTHERN ROCKINGHAM (SRRPDC)
MERRIMACK VALLEY (MVPC)
NORTHERN MIDDLESEX(NMAC)
METROPOLITAN AREA (MAPC)
OLD COLONY (OCPC)
SOUTHEASTERN (SRPEDD)
CAPE COD (CCPEDC)
' NANTUCKET(NPEDC)
MARTHA'S VINEYARD (MVC)
so
75
100
SCALE IN MILES
REGION I
208 AREAWIDE WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING AGENCIES
FIGURE 22
-------
TABLE 7
Region I
208 GRANT AWARDS IN NEW ENGLAND (Thru 9/80)
Connecticut
Maine
Portland
S. Maine
N. Maine
Androscoggin
S . Kennebec
SUBTOTAL:
Mas sachu set ts
Berkshire
Cape Cod
Central Mass
MAPC
Martha's Vineyard
Montachusett
N. Middlesex
Old Colony
SKPEDD
SUBTOTAL:
New Hampshire
S. Rockingham
Lakes
SUBTOTAL:
Rhode Island
Vermont
TOTAL REGION
FY
1975
$
770,000
488,000
207,900
339,100
380,000
$ 2,185,000
$
374,000
350,000
1,035,000
2,292,000
216,000
377,000
456,840
650,000
1,132,000
$ 6,882,840
$
270,300
532,880
$ 803,180
$ 2,300,000
$
$12,171,020
NOTE: Does not include following
Massachusetts
NHMSPCC
FY '79
$444,700
75,000
FY
1976
$1,000,000
405,000
$ 405,000
$ 320,000
$ 320,000
$ 337,000
$ 337,000
$
. $ 412,000
$2,474,000
FY
1977
$ 60,000
119,168
38,400
32,432
$190,000
$261,120
3,000
22,913
9,000
26,367
20,700
$343,100
$ 20,782
15,000
44,218
$ 80,000
$
$ 50,000
$723,100
FY
1978
$ 996,435
416,818
17,889
$ 434,707
$ 404,980
36,750
59,979
14,062
57,000
43,394
9,488
42,194
$ 667,847
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$
$ 450,000
$3,048,989
FY
1979
$ 409,790
352,554
5,523
36,000
32,731
$ 426,808
$ 391,777
11,146
6,250
2,904
19,500
$ 431,577
$ 119,225
22,875
24,900
$ 167,000
$ 28,825
$ 113,000
$1,577,000
FY
1980
$ 290,000
76,874
23,000
6,200
40,797
46,613
6,000
$ 199,484
$ 154,000
24,000
53,000
19,200
27,000
15,000
29,959
29,500
$ 351,660
$ 55,000
15,500
21,000
$ 91,500
$ 75,169
$ 130,992
$1,139,000
TOTAL
$ 2,756,420
$ 3,840,999
$ 8,997,024
$ 1,978,680
$ 2,403,994
$ 1,155,992
$21,133,109
NURP funds awarded:
FY '80
$678,700
117,700
-------
TABLE 8
MAINE SHELLFISH AREAS RECLAIMED
Town
Machlasport
Freeport
Waldoboro
Georgetown
Woolwich
Phippsburg
York
Wells
Falmouth
Cunberland
Yarmouth
Brunswick
Harpswell
Southport
Boothbay Harbor
Northport
Deer Isle
Stonington
Brooksville
Blue Hill
Winter Harbor
Gouldsboro
Mount Desert
St. George
Total Acres
1846
2081
1032
738
895
1449
89
151
501
449
1116
1644
2253
113
281
309
1580
509
1055
419
25
1066
564
889
Total Acres
Closed
523
859
431
372
484
549
54
112
367
134
334
244
485
46
227
139
155
73
191
135
15
31
199
116
Total Acres
Open
1323
1222
601
366
411
900
35
39
134
315
782
1400
1768
67
54
170
1435
436
864
284
10
1035
365
773
Total Acres
Regained
450
590
326
10
411
98
35
39
109
0
331
6
188
31
18
129
100
5
186
112
5
31
199
103
Value
Acres Gained*
720,000
1,180,000
782,400
10,000
150,000
156,800
84,700
40,140
305,200
0
397,200
3,000
263,200
14,260
9,000
180,600
320,000
4,000
186,000
134,400
4,000
31,000
239,260
145,400
%
Improvement
Based on average $20.00 per bushel
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
The Construction Grants program is mandated by the Clean Water Act and
authorizes grants to cover 75 percent (and in some cases 85 percent) of
the cost of needed wastewater treatment facilities.
This year EPA obligated $265 million for the planning, design and
construction of wastewater treatment facilities throughout New England.
This amount includes funding for the construction and/or upgrading and
expansion of thirteen wastewater treatment plants. Seven treatment
plants were completed in this fiscal year. In the last three years, 61
new and/or upgraded wastewater treatment plants have become operational
in this region. The benefits of these and the many associated sewage
treatment projects are evident in the number of rivers that have
realized significantly improved water quality (see Surface Water
Quality).
The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977 called for management of the
construction grants program to be delegated to the individual states.
All six New England states have been delegated this authority and thus
are eligible to use up to two percent of their construction grants
allocations for program management activities. We hope that these
delegated programs will be more efficient than pure federally-run
programs because they are closer to the public they are intended to
serve and the problems they are designed to solve.
Another important amendment to the Clean Water Act called for increased
funding (85 percent) for innovative and/or alternative projects.
Twenty-six communities have been awarded grants which took advantage of
this increased funding. The total project cost associated with the
innovative and alternative portions of these projects is 46 million
dollars.
Although significant progress has been made toward reaching the goals
of the Clean Water Act, a great deal of work remains to be done. The
remaining needs are large and the overall water quality goals of the
Act remain elusive. The program has been criticized for its
complexity, for what some have called excessively burdensome
requirements, for project delays and for high costs.
To address these criticisms, the Agency is developing a long-range
strategy designed to successfully meet America's water quality goals in
the year 1990. It will examine EPA's legislation and current policies
to determine what the public expects us to achieve by 1990 and what
steps need to be taken in the 1980's to reach that goal. The study
will review what remains to be done, what our expectations of
accomplishments are by 1990, and what problems are associated with
these accomplishments. The study will evaluate the financial level of
support needed to achieve these objectives, define funding strategies
and priorities, and identify the institutional machinery available for
delivery.
-19-
-------
Clearly, the Construction Grants program is in a period of transition.
We hope that with the completion of the 1990 strategy, state assumption
of program management functions, and a change in EPA's role to that of
oversight and review, a stronger EPA/state partnership will evolve
which will provide for significant progress in the coming years.
-20-
-------
FEDERAL SUPPORT COMMITTED
FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN REGION I
600
(160)
500
400
co
cr
5
d
Q
U.
O
CO
300
(71)
- (29)
200
100
(54)
(32)
(51)
(25)
(45)
1973
1977
1975
* ( ) Number of facilities placed
under construction each year
1976 1977 1978 1979
FIGURE 23
1980
-------
DRINKING WATER
The Safe Drinking Water Act was passed by Congress in 1974 to ensure
that water supply systems serving the public meet minimum national
standards for the protection of public health. Approximately 2,563
community and 8/490 non-community water supplies serving about 95% of
the New England population are covered by these regulations. The
public water systems are distributed as follows:
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Approximately 75 percent of public suppliers use surface water sources
and 25 percent supply groundwater.
Drinking water standards, as prescribed by the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations promulgated under the Act, establish maximum
contaminant levels (MCL) for inorganic and organic chemicals,
turbidity, bacteria and radionuclides. In addition, the regulations
require periodic monitoring of public water supplies for the specified
contaminants, and public notification if any of the MCL's are exceeded.
Total
PWS
5,125
2,495
1,499
1,010
479
445
11,053
Community
733
334
581
430
93
392
2,563
Non-Community
4,392
2,161
918
580
386
53
8,490
The violations recorded for FY-79 are as follows:
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL
MONITORING/REPORTING
States
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
Turbidity
60
17
34
25
3
18
157
Bacti
86
146
90
194
30
125
671
Chem/Rad
32 ||
3 II
1 II
35 ||
2 II
0 ||
73 ||
Turbidity
13
3
0
371
7
65
459
Bacti
95
16
763
1416
6
281
2576
Chem/Rad
11
0
0
0
0
£
11
-21-
-------
The intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act is that states assume primary
enforcement authority as scon as they can demonstrate their ability to
enforce standards at least as stringent as the federal standards.
In May, 1977, Connecticut became the second state in the United States
to assume primacy for its safe drinking water program. Maine and
Massachusetts assumed primacy later that year, New Hampshire and Rhode
Island in 1978 and Vermont in 1980.
Organic Contamination
Twenty-five percent of the New England population is served by
groundwater. For this reason, EPA is very concerned about what appears
to be a rising incidence of organic contaminants in groundwater in this
region. Table 9 presents an updated picture of organic groundwater
contamination in New England. The number of sites where contamination
has been found has doubled since last year.
However, it is incorrect to assume that people living in the vicinity
of these sites are drinking contaminated water. In fact, many of the
contaminated wells were not in use as water supplies. In other cases,
alternative water supplies were provided to families served by
contaminated wells.
In addition, last spring EPA officials discovered that in many
communities throughout New England, water delivered through vinyl lined
asbestos cement pipe contained high levels of a potentially toxic and
carcinogenic solvent known as tetrachloroethylene. The solvent was
used in applying liner to the insides of the pipes.
The pipe was distributed throughout New England as follows:
ESTIMATED
STATE $ UTILITIES MILES OF PIPE
Connecticut ; 12 20
Maine 2 18
Massachusetts 83 717
New Hampshire 27 49
Rhode Island 14 100 (43.5 in
Providence)
Vermont 1£ 20
154 924
State water supply agencies are continuing sampling and analysis of
water supplies in affected communities and EPA will continue to provide
technical assistance to states and utilities in solving particular
problems. Flushing water mains and installing bleeders on low flow
lines or dead ends to permit constant flow have been the most effective
control measures to date.
-22-
-------
Protection of Underground Water Sources
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, established by
Congress as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act, is now underway in New
England. Its purpose is to enable states to protect underground
sources of drinking water by controlling subsurface disposal practices.
The UIC program regulations recognize five classes of underground
injection practice:
I. Municipal and industrial disposal wells injecting fluids beneath
drinking water aquifers;
II. Oil and gas production and storage wells;
III. Mineral and energy extraction wells;
IV. Hazardous waste disposal wells injecting into or above drinking
water aquifers; and
V. All other injection wells, including heat pump and cooling water
return flow wells, drainage wells, recharge wells, salt water
intrusion barrier wells, and cesspools and septic systems serving
other than single family residences.
There are believed to be very few Class I, II, or III wells in New
England, but little is known about the impacts of Class IV and V wells
on groundwaters in the region.
EPA has awarded the six New England states grant funds totalling
$237,200 for UIC programs. (See below). These funds will be used to
support activities including identification of underground water
sources, inventory of injection practices, analysis of legal authority,
and development of rules and administrative procedures. In applying
for these funds, each state program has expressed its intention to
assume primary enforcement responsibility under the Act within two
years of receiving the initial grant award.
GRANT
AMOUNT RECIPIENT
$41,500 Department of Environmental Protection
39,900 Department of Environmental Protection
45,800 Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
37,400 Water Supply and Pollution Control Comnission
36,400 Department of Environmental Management
36,200 Department of Water Resources and Environmental
Engineering
$237,200
-23-
-------
Surface Inqpoundment Assessment
The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes research and studies to
investigate direct and indirect causes of drinking water contamination.
One such study was the Surface Impoundment Assessment (SIA). This two
year program, which for all New England states ended in March 1980, was
to evaluate both current and potential impacts of waste disposal
impoundments in underground recharge areas of groundwater supplies.
Three states, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine, contracted with
EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center to locate and
count the impoundment sites. The remaining states are using a
combination of existing state aerial photographs and office files for
their location and count.
The following is a summary of the surface impoundments in Region I:
CT ME MA NH RI VT
# of sites 382 173 316 154 47 238
located
# of impoundments 1020 453 1962 287 145 291
located
% of impoundments 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
assessed
On a national level, the data from this program will be incorporated
into a five-year program established in the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. The data and the individual state SIA reports will be
assimilated into two national reports. One will discuss the data in
relation to potential groundwater contamination. The second report
will propose new regulations and legislation to control this type of
disposal practice.
Water Conservation
We in New England are accustomed to thinking of drought and water
restrictions as afflictions of Sun Belt states. However, as the demand
for water continues to rise and instances of local water shortage and
contamination become more frequent, water conservation becomes an
increasingly important issue in New England. Although conservation
alone may not ensure the continued availability of a high quality water
supply, resourceful implementation of conservation measures can result
in reduced costs related to the construction and operation of water and
wastewater systems. In addition, environmental and social benefits
such as minimizing impacts associated with the expansion of existing
supplies or the development of new ones may accrue from water
conservation practices.
-24-
-------
A number of EPA programs address the water conservation issue. The
Construction Grants program takes community water consumption and
wastewater production levels into account when reviewing wastewater
treatment facility plans under the Clean Water Act. The Water Quality
Management Program places emphasis on water conservation activities in
areas where existing or potential water supply quality or quantity
problems exist. Finally, EPA's Environmental Impact Statement
preparation process often includes discussion of water conservation
management alternatives.
Interstate Highways v. Water Quality
Protecting water supplies from potential contamination from interstate
highways has a very high priority in our region.
New England is fortunate to have high quality drinking water sources
and it is very important to protect these sources from any type of
contamination. Contamination associated with highways can be due to
construction, to highway use, and to secondary growth in the vicinity
of the highway.
During the past year, EPA ordered a halt to construction on Interstate
190, a 4-lane highway in north central Massachusetts which crosses nine
miles of the Wachusett Reservoir watershed. The Reservoir supplies
water to 2.5 million people in Metropolitan Boston.
EPA ordered the halt because previously agreed upon protective measures
to prevent dirt and sediment from washing into the Reservoir had not
been implemented. Following the order, the protective measures were
implemented and highway construction is proceeding at this time.
In a similar action last year EPA, through the environmental impact
process, expressed reservations about the proposed route of 1-84
through Rhode Island and Connecticut and its potential impact on the
Scituate Reservoir which is the sole source of drinking water for
Providence, Rhode Island. The Regional Office recommended to the EPA
Administrator that the matter be referred to the Council on
Environmental Quality for resolution. The CEQ in turn concluded that
the construction of the highway across the watershed would pose a
serious threat to the Reservior and recommended that the U.S.
Department of Transportation advise the R.I. Department of
Transportation that it will only consider approving routes outside the
watershed. Acting on this, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation has
directed the Federal Highway Administration to eliminate from further
consideration the route of 1-84 through the Scituate Reservoir
watershed.
-25-
-------
TABLE 9
DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
CONTAMINATED BY ORGANIC CHEMICALS
State
Connecticut
Beacon Falls (private wells)
Bristol
BrookfieId (11 private wells)
Canton (7 private & non-community
wells)
Cheshire (N. Cheshire well #4)
Colchester (well #3)
Colebrook (non-community supply)
Darien (Rewak municipal well)
Danbury (Lakeview NHP)
Derby (10 private wells)
Durham
Bast Granby (non-community supply)
East Haddam
Farmington Industrial Park
(well * 1,2,3,4)
Manchester (Progress Road well)
New Haven (N. Cheshire well field)
Norwalk (4 public wells -
W. Smith well field)
Plainfield (Union W.W. fl
Kaman well #1)
Plainville (Johnson well #3)
Prospect (well * 7)
South Windham - Windham
(15 private wells, 2 non-community
wells, 1 community well)
Primary Contaminant
acetone, toluene,
1,1,1 trichloroethane
under investigation
benzene
trichloroethylene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
benzene
benzene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
under investigation
trichloroethylene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
under investigation
1,1,1 trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
Probable Source
of Contamination
dump site
unknown
underground gasoline tank leak
chemical dump
unknown
underground gasoline tank leak
underground gasoline tank leak
manufacturing campany procedure
illegal dump site
landfill
unknown
discharge from floor drains
unknown
under investigation - industrial
discharge in vicinity
under investigation
historic dumping
industrial waste discharge
waste discharge from aircraft firm
industrial waste discharge
under investigation
old town dump
old factory site
-------
State
Primary Contaminant
Probable Source
of Contamination
Connecticut (cont'd)
Southington (wells #4,5,6)
Southington
Pratt and Whitney wells #2,7
Thomaston (Reynolds Bridge well)
Tolland (private wells)
Wallingford (well #3)
waterford (private wells)
Woodbury (well #2)
Maine
Gray (15 private wells)
Saco (private wells affected)
Massachusetts
Acton (Assabet wells #1,2)
Auburn (2 private wells)
(11 private wells)
Bedford (wells #3,7,8 & 9)
Belchertown (3 private wells)
Billerica (temporary closing
of surface supply)
Burlington (wells #3,4)
Canton (municipal well #7 and
non-community well)
Danvers (well #1)
Dartmouth (municipal well -
Route 6A)
Dedham-Westwood (wells #3,4)
Groveland (wells #1,2)
Holbrook (public supply well)
Lawrence
Lunenberg (2 community wells)
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
tetrachloroethylene
various chemical compounds
1,1,1 trichloroethane
benzene
trichloroethylene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
dimethyl sulfide
phenols and ketones
1,1 dichloroethylene
benzene
gasoline
landfill leachate
dioxane
trichloroethylene
dlesel fuel
methyl ethyl ketone
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
dichloroethylene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
organics
benzene, trichloroethylene
industrial waste discharge
under investigation
chemical storage tank leak
landfill
under investigation
underground gasoline tank leak
industrial waste discharge
industrial waste dump
old landfill site
industrial waste storage
gasoline and diesel fuel leak
landfill
industrial waste discharge
industrial waste discharge
oil spill
illegal dumping
unknown source
unknown source
unknown source
illegal dump site
industrial waste discharge
unknown source
previous spill
unknown
industrial wastes emptied in pit
-------
State
Massachusetts (cont'd)
Primary Contaminant
Probable Source
of Contamination
Lynnfield (Lynnfield Center Well)
(A one-day incident
N. Reading (wells #3,4)
Norwood (abandoned wellfield)
Palmer (Galaxy wellfield)
Provincetown (S. Hollow wellfield)
Rehoboth (private well)
Rowley (lone nunicipal well)
Westford (private and non-
comnunlty wells)
Westport (7 private wells)
Wilmington (wells #1,2)
Woburn (wells F and 6)
New Hampshire
Portsmouth, Pease Air Force Base
Rhode Island
Cumberland (Lenox Street well)
Lincoln (3 wells)
(Quinnville section)
N. Smithfield (Forestdale)
*(Slatersville-
Poccheco Park)
Richmond (at least 5 private
wells affected)
1,1,1 trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
tri chloroethylene
trichloroethylene
gasoline
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
gasoline
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1, trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
tetrachloroethylene
benzene
unknown
industrial wastes
unknown source
industrial discharge in vicinity
gasoline leak
dump
industrial wastes
dumping of barrels
oil and gasoline dumping
unknown source
dump
disposal of solvent wastes
landfill (?)
landfill (?)
abandoned wool manufacturing plant
septic tank additives
underground gasoline tank leak
-------
State
Primary Contaminant
Probable Source
of Contamination
Vermont
Cannan (nunicipal well)
Essex Junction (IBM well)
Post Mills (private well)
Reading (private well)
Rockingham (several private wells)
•Springfield (private well)
gasoline
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethy1ene
gasoline
trichloroethylene
gasoline
leaking gasoline tank
underground storage tank leak
landfill
underground storage tank leak
landfill leachate
underground storage tank leak
•Have not exceeded SNARLS
-------
ENFORCEMENT
Air Compliance
There are 1155 major sources of air pollution in New England. A major
source is one that has the potential to emit 100 or more tons of a
criteria pollutant per year. In the past year, EPA's Enforcement
Division has continued its program of field surveillance of major air
pollution sources in the region. Enforcement engineers or private
consultants under contract to EPA have inspected more than 200
facilities to determine their compliance status. Compliance statistics
for the region show that since July 1, 1979 the number of sources in
compliance has increased from 1054 to 1127; the number in violation has
decreased from 85 to 28; and the number of facilities of unknown
compliance status has decreased from 23 to none. Thus the overall
compliance rate for major sources of air pollution is approximately 98
percent. Figure 24 shows the compliance rates for FY. 79 and FY 80.
One of the Enforcement Division's highest priorities this year has been
the Major Source Enforcement Effort, a program to track and secure
compliance of major sources that failed to comply with state and
federal air pollution regulations by the statutory deadline of May
1975. Of the 89 sources being tracked in this program, 75 are in
compliance, 10 are the subject of state and/or federal enforcement
action, and four are under enforcement review with action likely in the
immediate future.
Water Compliance
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program for industrial and municipal discharges is the primary tool in
the water enforcement program. Anyone who discharges into a navigable
waterway of the United States must obtain an NPDES permit to do so.
These permits prescribe strict limitations on the kinds and amounts of
pollutants that can be discharged. If an industry or municipality
cannot immediately comply with prescribed effluent limitations, the
permit contains an enforceable compliance schedule.
Permits are issued either by EPA or by states to whom EPA has delegated
this authority. In New England, Vermont and Connecticut have NPDES
authority.
The compliance rate for industrial discharges in this region is 90%.
The compliance rate for municipalities is substantially lower because
of limitations on availablility of federal funds to construct municipal
plants (see Construction Grants).
Improving the level of municipal compliance is the .highest priority of
EPA's water enforcement program. The major tool in this effort is the
Municipal Management System. The system is a coordinated effort among
municipalities, their consultants, and state and federal governments to
identify municipalities not in compliance due to construction delays,
and to monitor and track their progress through planning, design, and
construction. This integrated approach will help eliminate delays and
ensure adequate funding for needed sewage treatment projects.
-26-
-------
Toxic Substances
Ihe Enforcement Division has continued its program of surveillance and
enforcement of those facilities subject to EPA's disposal and marking
regulations for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) under the Toxic
Substances Control Act. Approximately forty facilities including
electric utilities, solvent reclaimers, and transformer service shops,
have been inspected for compliance with the regulations and five
complaints have been issued where violations were documented. Three
cases have been settled to date and penalties totalling $9,600
collected for past violations. Ihe settlement of the remaining two
cases is pending.
In June, 1980 EPA received a request from the Northeast Utilities
Company to bum PCB-contaminated mineral oil at its Middletown,
Connecticut power generating facility. The regulations permit burning
of mineral oil contaminated with PCB's in the 50-500 parts per million
range, provided the boiler is a "high efficiency boiler" and provided
that monitoring and recordkeeping requirements are satisfied.
Although EPA's review of the Company's submittal determined that the
burn would conform with regulatory requirements, Middletown residents
were concerned that the burn would produce toxic combustion by-
products, specifically dioxins and furans.
Regional engineers consulted EPA's Office of Toxic Substances and
determined that the burn could proceed safely. These findings were
presented to residents at a public meeting in Middletown. At press
time, the town was holding hearings to determine whether the conditions
of the proposed burn meet local requirements.
-27-
-------
NUMBER OF MAJOR AIR POLLUTION SOURCES
IN COMPLIANCE
COMPARING 7-1-79 FIGURES TO THOSE OF 7-1-80
Unknown Status
1979
1980
12
In Compliance
1979
1980
1054
In Violation
1979
1980
85
28
1127
FIGURE 24
-------
RATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WATER POLLUTION
REGULATIONS—1980
Rate of compliance of major industrials with final effluent limits
IstQTR.
2nd QTR.
3rd QTR.
83%
90%
IstQTR.
2nd QTR.
3rd QTR.
72%
84%
* Compliance data not calculated.
FIGURE 25
-------
OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
From July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980 513 oil spills and other
environmental emergencies were reported to EPA's Oil & Hazardous
Materials Section. Three hundred seventy-five of these reports involved
oil spills, and 83 involved other environmental emergencies. Figure 26
shows the distribution of products spilled and sources of spills.
In the same period OHM responded on-scene to 63 spills, and initiated
clean up activities using the Section 311 pollution fund in twelve
incidents. The 311 fund can be activated when any of 298 specified pol-
lutants presents a threat to a navigable waterway and the responsible
party is unknown or unwilling to undertake clean up.
While the above numbers do reflect the more serious spill events that
occur in New England, they are not indicative of the total spill
problem. For example, in the same period, 600 oil spill incidents were
reported in Connecticut. While many of these incidents were minor
events that did not reach the water, the numbers more accurately reflect
the scope of the spill problem in this region.
During the past year, the emphasis of OHM's emergency response has been
expanded to include investigation and in some instances, emergency
mitigation and containment measures at uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites.
From January through August, OHM investigated fourteen uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites and took emergency action using 311 funds six
times.
In an effort to coordinate the activities of federal, state and local
officials during emergency response activites, the OHM Section annually
updates both regional and state contingency plans. The plans are
distributed to appropriate officials, and serve as an information source
during emergency response activities.
Finally, in the last year, OHM has conducted more than ninety
inspections to determine compliance with regulations which require
facilities which store significant quantities of oil to prepare and
implement spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plans. Of the
facilities inspected, 67% were found to be in violation and appropriate
enforcement actions were brought against all violators.
-28-
-------
PERCENTAGE OF OIL SPILLS-
TRANSPORTATION AND NON-TRANSPORTATION RELATED
JULY 1,1979-JUNE 30,1980.
Transportation related
Non-transportation related
69.9%
Kerosene
.5%
Jet Fuel
.2%
BREAKDOWN OF SPILLED MATERIALS
JULY 1,1979-JUNE 30,1980.
#4 Oil—2.6%
#6 Oil
9.3%
#2 Oil
19.7%
Gasoline
15.2%
All other materials
9.8%
Diesel
8.9%
Hazardous
Materials
14.4%
Other Oil
Materials
18.4%
FIGURE 26
------- |