NEW ENGLAND
THE YEAR IN REVIEW
JULY 1983 — JULY 1984
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
THE YEAR IN REVIEW
AUGUST, 1984
-------
"My main mission is to ensure the firm and
fair enforcement of our environmental
statutes."
Michael R. Deland
Regional Administrator
-------
Dear Friends of the New England Environment:
This past year, the Region I Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made significant strides
towards our common cause—protection of New England's precious environment. This "Year in Review
highlights some of our activities in 1983-1984 tohelpyou understand more about our work on behalf of our
environment. We recognize full well that our achievements are due in large measure to the interest and
support of the New England states and of each of you. You have earned our thanks.
One year ago, at the behest of Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus, I returned to the Environmental
Protection Agency as Regional Administrator for New England. In the past year, we strove to help regain
EPA's credibility by taking tough enforcement actions, cleaning up hazardous waste sites, responding to a
changing environmental and technological landscape, hiring committed staff, communicating our efforts
to the community, and encouraging participation in our deliberations.
My main mission is to ensure the firm and fair enforcement of our environmental statutes. In the last year,
Region I took more than 250 formal enforcement actions, including notices of violations, administrative
orders and penalty assessments, and civil and criminal court cases. Among the results . ..
• 200 tons of sewage sludge are no longer being dumped daily into Salem Harbor.
• The Canob Park neighborhood of Richmond, Rhode Island, will have clean drinking water instead of
water contaminated with service station gasoline.
• School systems are newly attentive to their responsibility to protect school children from asbestos,
after we assessed the nation's first civil penalty for violations of the asbestos-in-schools regulations.
• Region I prepared the first federal criminal environmental case filed in Massachusetts in the past ten
years. The case involved violations of PCS rules and falsification of information reported to the EPA.
The company entered a plea of guilty in May and sentencing is scheduled for August.
• The nation's first Superfund liability trial against seventeen defendants continues in U.S. District Court
in Concord, New Hampshire. In the six months since its inception, more than 40 witnesses have been
heard and two thousand exhibits have been introduced.
• Federal judges approved an EPA proposal that part of the large civil penalties assessed against the City
of Providence for air and water pollution violations be used to fund an environmental health study
which benefits people in Rhode Island. We will continue to press for similar creative uses of the fines we
collect.
This enforcement pace means that by the end of the fiscal year Region I will achieve the highest level of
enforcement action in its history. However, this is no time for complacency—enforcement continues to be
my highest priority.
-------
As important as enforcement is, in part because it cuts across all program lines, we have many other
mandates. The most agonizing environmental issue in Region I is hazardous waste. To date, we have put
over $50 million of Superfund money to work to clean up New England's sites. Almost two-thirds of this
money was allocated to the Region since Bill Ruckelshaus returned to EPA. In addition, he delegated to me
the authority to spend up to $1 million to respond to imminent threats to public health or the environment.
This authority enables us to react quickly to hazardous waste emergencies throughout New England, such
as relocating families living near asbestos disposal sites in two New Hampshire communities.
Unfortunately, the wastes that have been accumulating for over 100 years in disposal sites or wastes that
have been indiscriminately or illegally dumped cannot be cleaned up overnight. The studies needed to
determine the most sensible long-term environmental solution are necessarily detailed. They take longer
than we would like and often seem interminable to those who bear the severe emotional trauma of living
near a site. However, I pledge that in every case where an imminent threat to public health is found we will
continue to take quick corrective action.
Meanwhile our older, more mature water and air programs also made strides this past year. For example,
we spent over $150 million to help local governments throughout New England improve surface water
quality by building wastewater treatment plants—and the new automobile inspection and maintenance
programs in Connecticut and Massachusetts, the result of EPA-state cooperation, are making a vital
contribution to the control of smog and carbon monoxide pollution. Hopefully, these brief snapshots may
prompt you to read the more detailed Division Reports and "case studies."
Our many allies throughout the Region appreciably augment our environmental protection efforts. New
Englanders' strong support for environmental protection is reflected in the leadership role played by our
Congressional delegation on environmental issues. We try to build upon this support imaginatively and
aggressively. Similarly, the six New England states are often national environmental leaders. For example,
they are in the vanguard in ground water protection and were instrumental in the development of the EPA's
ground water protection policy. We continue to assist them by providing grants and conducting important
research to pioneer emerging national issues, such as the control of leaking underground storage tanks.
I've spent much of my time reestablishing relationships with our various constituencies. I've met with the
New England Congressional delegation and Governors. We meet quarterly with state environmental
directors as a group and frequently on an individual basis. I've visited with most major environmental and
business organizations in New England and inaugurated joint discussions between those two groups.
Meeting with the media is obviously important as we try to heighten public awareness of and participation
in environmental problem solving. No time has been better spent than the many hours talking with citizens
throughout New England who live near hazardous waste sites, hearing first hand their deepseated and
understandable concerns. The opportunity to listen to and learn from those who care about New England's
environment is invaluable.
We have accomplished much, but there is much more to be done. My priorities for next year include:
• increasing enforcement efforts with particular emphasis on municipal violations, industrial pretreat-
ment and oversight of state activities at hazardous waste management facilities,
• continuing aggressive clean up of hazardous waste sites,
• implementing the ground water strategy, with an emphasis on leaking underground storage tanks,
• accelerating our outreach efforts to our diverse constituency groups,
IV
-------
• coordinating to ensure that our actions do not transfer pollutants from one media to another,
• reissuing water pollution control permits with an emphasis on controlling toxics, and
• continuing to represent New England's views in the national acid precipitation debate.
My list of priorities could not be complete without special mention of Boston Harbor, the most severe water
pollution problem in New England. Sewage and industrial waste from 43 cities and towns as far west as
Framingham pollute the Harbor and cause one of the worst violations of the Clean Water Act in the country.
This must not continue.
Soon we must make several major decisions which will influence the shape of the Harbor for decades to
come. These decisions will not be easy and certainly will be controversial. However, until they are made,
there can be no meaningful progress on Harbor clean up.
We do not lack environmental challenges . . . . Thanks to several key staff additions, we are now better able
to confront them. Last year I had the pleasure of picking Paul Keough as Deputy Regional Administrator.
Paul has served EPA in an exemplary fashion for 13 years — most of these as an extremely able, articulate
spokeman for the Region. As Deputy, or "Mr. Inside, " he has channeled his talents to skillfully guiding the
Region day to day. He tempers his directives with common sense and good humor, greatly boosting the
morale of all.
I am delighted that we persuaded Pat Parenteau to leave his post as Vice President for Natural Resources a t
the National Wildlife Federation to join us as Regional Counsel. His litigation and management skill will
markedly enhance our enforcement efforts, and he will add a helpful dimension to our policy deliberations.
lam equally pleased that Brooke Cook recently joined us as Director of Public Affairs. She comes to us from
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where she served most recently as Director of Communications in
the Executive Office of Human Services. Whether publicizing our enforcement actions or building com-
munity relations, she brings a creative, enthusiastic spark. The addition of these talented people completes
our senior staff and adds new strength and experience to our senior management team.
In closing, I extend my deep appreciation to the committed and extremely capable Region I staff. They are
dedicated public servants who constantly demonstrate by effort and accomplishment their commitment to
the citizens of New England and to the New England environment.
We share the abiding New England ethic first stated over 100 years ago by the Massachusetts Board of
Health (the nation 's first):
"We believe that all citizens have an inherent right to the enjoyment of pure and uncontaminated air
and water and soil, that this right should be regarded as belonging to the whole community, and that
no one should be allowed to trespass upon it by his carelessness and his avarice, or even by his
ignorance."
Still confronting and challenging us a century later is the realization of that right. With your participation
and guidance, we will continue to take significant steps toward a cleaner, safer New England environment.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Deland
Regional Administrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter from the Regional Administrator iii
Deputy Regional Administrator 1
ORGANIZATIONS
Waste Management Division 3
Water Management Division 9
Air Management Division 17
Regional Counsel 21
Environmental Services Division 25
Government Relations & Environmental Review 28
Public Affairs 31
Administrative Services Division 33
CASE STUDIES
New Bedford 5
The Gilson Road Site 6
Canob Park 8
South Essex Sewerage District 10
Lake Memphremagog 12
Boston Harbor 13
Asbestos In Schools 19
City of Providence Settlements 22
PCB Detection 26
Acid Rain Pilot Study 27
United States- Canadian Relations 30
Staff Increases 34
EPA Region I Budget — Fiscal Year 1984 35
-------
\ -?5il
I
I was honored this year—my 13th year with EPA—to
have been selected by Mike Deland to serve as his
Deputy Regional Administrator.
The duties of Deputy Regional Administrator are
many—and varied. My primary responsibility is to
serve as the Regional Administrator's chief lieutenant.
In this capacity, I work closely with him in the develop-
ment and implementation of all major policy and pro-
gram initiatives.
For example, as Mike made clear in his opening letter,
increased enforcement is his highest priority. I was
named overall Regional Enforcement Coordinator for
the Region. It is my responsibility to work with our legal
and technical staff to develop and implement an over-
all enforcement strategy that meets the Regional
Administrator's objective of a more vigorous enforce-
ment presence.
We added new resources to our enforcement program,
including seventeen new attorneys and technical spe-
cialists. New sections dealing with hazardous waste
programs were established within our Waste Manage-
ment Division. A new enforcement tracking process
was established, and once a month the senior program
staff meets with me to discuss the progress of enforce-
ment cases. We also hired a criminal investigator, and I
anticipate the development of a vigorous criminal en-
forcement program.
Deputy Regional Administrator
Paul G. Keough
The Region clearly demonstrated that it has the will
and the capacity to enforce the laws it administers. As
the Regional Administrator pointed out, 1984 was a
very good year, a record year—as far as enforcement is
concerned. And he noted, we intend to keep the pres-
sure on in 1985.
Another major responsibility of the Deputy is to serve
as the day-to-day operations director in the Regional
Office. I am extensively involved with all aspects of
resource distribution, planning, and budgeting.
In the past year, we gained significant increases in our
resources. In fact, by the end of this year, our staffing
level will reach an all-time high. And, as we move ahead
with the hiring of new personnel, the Regional Admin-
istrator gave me the responsibility for overseeing a
vigorous equal opportunity hiring program.
To help meet that objective, we transferred George
Coblyn, our long-time Equal Employment Officer, to
the staff of the Regional Administrator and gave him
the responsibility to recruit women and minorities.
This paid dividends. During the year, 43 percent of all
new professional and administrative hires were
women and 13 percent were minority group members.
With new positions coming to the Region in 1985, we
intend to build a more vigorous affirmative action
program.
-------
I also assumed the responsibility of Director of Civil
Rights and worked with Mr. Coblyn to develop a strong
external affirmative action program. Working with var-
ious specialists in our program offices, we initiated a
major effort to see that women-owned and minority-
owned businesses, as well as small businesses, are
given a fair opportunity to participate in EPA-funded
programs.
I helped develop new management procedures and
processes during the year and streamlined the way we
manage our internal affairs. For example, we im-
plemented a new planning process to direct priorities.
Each Division and Office Director prepares an
"Accomplishment Plan" outlining the implementation
of the announced goals and objectives of the Regional
Administrator. This ensures direction, enables mid-
course adjustments, provides a simple means of
accountability and tracking, and allows us to guide our
state counterparts in carrying out their EPA funded
activities.
I have also been given the overall responsibility of
overseeing regional participation in the Agency's new
Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS).
This is a system developed by Alvin Aim, our national
Deputy Administrator, that checks our progress to-
wards implementing various programs on a quarterly
basis. I meet quarterly with our senior managers to
evaluate how we are doing in carrying out various
program responsibilities. It enables us to identify prob-
lem areas so that we can make resource adjustments
early on.
During this year, I was selected as "lead" Deputy Re-
gional Administrator for Drinking Water and Ground-
water Programs. In this capacity, I represent all of the
regions at Headquarters as budget and policy deci-
sions on groundwater protection and drinking water
are made. I am particularly pleased with this assign-
ment since our Regional Administrator has made the
protection of groundwater one of his highest program
priorities.
As you will see in reports from our Division and Office
Directors on the following pages, a good deal of prog-
ress was made in 1983-1984. Mike outlined some of his
priorities for this coming year. I would like to list a few
areas in which I expect to be heavily involved.
(1) Enforcement—Mike will continue to stress the
need to enforce the law to achieve environmental
results. Prime areas of activity will be dealing with
municipal violators and asbestos in schools. I will
continue to serve as overall enforcement coordi-
nator.
(2) Toxics—Region I will be working with our states to
develop a strong toxics program in all program
areas. I will be heavily involved in working with our
Toxics Coordinating Committee to see that all
cross-program matters are addressed.
(3) Special ocean studies—I will be working with our
Water Division to develop strategies for carrying
out special studies of Narragansett Bay, Buzzards
Bay, and Long Island Sound. These studies will be
patterned after the Chesapeake Bay Study being
carried out by our Region III Office in Philadelphia.
(4) Continued emphasis on minority hiring.
(5) Working with the states on the implementation of
our groundwater protection strategy.
Mike Deland and Paul Keough
-------
WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Merrill S. Hohman, Director
Region I's Waste Management Division administers
EPA's two federal statutes dealing with the manage-
ment of hazardous waste.
The first, the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, known asSuperfund, created a federal response
program to clean up hazardous waste sites which have
resulted from past improper management activities
and which present significant risks to health and the
environment.
The second, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), establishes a regulatory framework for the
"cradle-to-grave" management of hazardous wastes.
To achieve the goals of these statutes, our major initia-
tives this year have been:
• To continue progress in cleaning up hazardous
waste sites, placing major emphasis on sites on the
Superfund National Priority List
• To ensure private parties meet their responsibili-
ties under Superfund for site clean up and reim-
bursement to government of expenses incurred in
connection with removal and/or remedial actions
• To implement the RCRA waste management pro-
gram in Region I giving emphasis to state program
development, delegations, permitting, enforce-
ment, and monitoring
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE CLEAN UP—
THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
EPA has developed a Superfund National Priority List
that presently consists of 546 waste sites across the
country that pose the most serious risks to human
health and the environment. In New England, 45 sites
are now on the National Priority List.
Superfund provides EPA with the authority to respond
quickly to hazardous waste-related emergencies that
pose a danger to public health or that threaten the
environment. Region I used this rapid response au-
thority in connection with a growing variety of situa-
tions, including, as examples, 1) dealing with PCB "hot
spots" 2) attending to asbestos wastes improperly dis-
posed of in a residential neighborhood, and 3) remov-
ing sunken barrels as a precautionary measure to pro-
tect a drinking water supply.
In the 13 month period from March 1983 to April 1984,
the Region obligated more than $30 million of Super-
fund monies for hazardous waste emergency response
and remedial action in New England. By way of com-
parison, $20 million was obligated by the Region over
the nearly two year period that began in July of 1981.
We also provided over $450,000 in grants to the New
England states to help them conduct site investiga-
tions and preliminary assessments.
-------
While our emphasis has been on addressing sites that
are on the National Priority List. EPA and the states
continue to identify and develop response plans for all
sites. We often undertake action under our emergency
authority to protect public health at sites that may
never qualify for the National Priority List.
In Region I. nearly 900 potential hazardous dump sites
have been identified, and we will evaluate all of them by
1986. Preliminary assessments were completed at 523
sitesacross New England, and work is in progressat 64
sites. The Region conducted elaborate on-site inves-
tigations at 84 locations, and 23 more are underway.
Each hazardous waste site presents its own set of
special problems. As the New Bedford case on page
five demonstrates, responding to Superfund sites fre-
quently can involve coordinating the efforts of several
state agencies and several departments of local gov-
ernment, and tapping the expertise of other federal
agencies. These multi-governmental efforts are de-
signed to determine whether contaminated air. land.
surface water or groundwater is posing a health risk to
people who live or work near a hazardous waste site.
REGION I NATIONAL PRIORITY LIST SITES
MASSACHUSETTS
• Baird & McGuire
Holbrook
• Cannon Engineering Corp
(CEO
Bridgewater
• Charles George Reclama-
tion Trust Landfill
Tyngsborough
• Groveland Wells
Groveland
• Hocomonco Pond
Westborough
• Industn-Plex 128
Woburn
• New Bedford
New Bedford
• Nyanza Chemical Waste
Dump
Ashland
• PSC Resources
Palmer
• Plymouth Harbor Cannon
Engineering Corp
Plymouth
• Re-Solve. Inc.
Dartmouth
• Silresim Chemical Corp.
Lowell
• VV R GraceS Co .Inc.
(Acton Plant]
Acton
• WellsG&H
Woburn
• Iron Horse Park
Billenca
• Sullivan's Ledge
New Bedford
VERMONT
• Old Springfield Landfill
Springfield
• Pine Street Canal
Burlington
NEW HAMPSHIRE
• Auburn Road Landfill
Londonderry
• Dover Municipal Landfill
Dover
• Keefe Environmental
ServiceslKES)
Epping
• Ottati&Goss Kingston
Steel Drum
Kingston
• Somersworth Sanitary
Landfill
Somersworth
• Sylvester
Nashua
• Tmkham Garage
Londonderry
• Kearsage Metallurgical Corp.
Conway
• Savage Municipal Water Supply
Milford
• South Municipal WaterSupply Well
Peterborough
RHODE ISLAND
• Davis Liquid Waste
Smithfield
• Landfills Resource
Recovery. Inc.
North Smithfield
• Peterson-Puritan. Inc.
Lincoln Cumberland
• Picillo Farm
Coventry
• Stamina Mills. Inc.
North Smithfield
• Western Sand & Gravel
Bumllville
MAINE
• F OConnorSite
Augusta
• McKinCo.
Gray
• Pinette's Salvage Yard
Washburn
• Saco Tannery Waste Pits
Saco
• Winthrop Landfill
Winthrop
CONNECTICUT
• Beacon Heights Landfill
Beacon Falls
• Laurel Park. Inc.
Naugatuck Borough
• Solvents Recovery Service
of N E
Southmgton
• Yaworski Waste Lagoon
Canterbury
• Kellogg-Deermg Well Field
Norwalk
• Old Southington Landfill
Southmgton
-------
NEW BEDFORD
Indiscriminate use, mismanagement and improp-
er disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
has resulted in serious, widespread multimedia
contamination in New Bedford, Massachusetts.
PCBs have been found in the water, sediments,
fish and shellfish of the Harbor; in the area's air,
groundwater and soils; and at upland disposal
sites at the New Bedford Municipal Landfill and
Sullivan's Ledge.
The difficulties facing EPA in reducing exposure
to PCB's in the area are exemplified by the in-
volvement of four other federal agencies, four
state agencies and two communities. These var-
ious government bodies share a common con-
cern about how to dredge bottom sediments
without creating a worse problem, how to protect
aquatic life and the local fishing industry, and,
most importantly, how to convey an adequate
understanding of the health implications to peo-
ple who live and work in the area.
Because there has been PCS contamination of
18,000 acres of bottom sediments and the water
column in the Acushnet River and Buzzard's Bay,
because a PCB "hot spot" in the River will ne-
cessitate dredging more than a million cubic
yards of material, because of the number of gov-
ernment entities dealing with the site, and be-
cause of the variety of environmental pathways of
exposure involved, it is understandable that the
New Bedford site is considered to be one of the
most complex environmental problem sites in the
country.
To date, preliminary field investigations have
identified two important sources of continuing
contamination of New Bedford Harbor and near-
by Buzzards Bay: a PCB "hot spot" at the head of
the Acusnet River which flows into the Harbor,
and the New Bedford wastewater treatment facil-
ity whose sewer lines were contaminated by in-
dustrial users of PCB's. As part of the overall $3.4
million Remedial Investigation Feasibility Stud-
ies, EPA Region I has initiated a feasibility study
for the Acushnet River "hot spot" zone. The
study, due to be completed in August will identify
possible remedial actions and assist the state in
finding a suitable disposal site.
EPA has taken a number of other actions to deal
with the PCB problem in New Bedford.
Last winter, the federal government filed suit
under Superfund on behalf of EPA, the Coast
Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospher-
ic Administration against six corporations seek-
ing, among other things, to recover damages for
the PCB contamination of natural resources, and
for past and future clean-up costs.
In June, Region I announced the transfer of near-
ly $1 million to the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) in Atlanta. CDC will conduct a health study
of New Bedford area residents to determine the
extent of human exposure to PCB's, contamina-
tion of local food supply and occupational con-
tact. The Massachusetts Department of Health
and the CDC will coordinate planning of the in-
vestigation. The first phase of the project involves
collecting data to determine the extent of PCB
contamination in the local population and the
various routes of exposure, the second will con-
sist of case studies to test specific hypotheses
concerning PCB health effects.
Among other enforcement actions, Region I
issued Administrative Orders to the City of New
Bedford and to Cornell-Dubilier Electronics. The
electronics firm is scheduled to clean out the
affected sewer lines in August, and the City will
monitor the effluent and sludge for PCB's at the
waste water treatment facility.
At Sullivan's Ledge, another National Priority List
site in the New Bedford Harbor area, we started
preliminary investigations to determine whether
a different solution is needed. EPA has also con-
ducted an air monitoring program, with back-
ground measurements in areas of particular con-
cern to residents in Fairhaven. The results of this
work should also be available this summer.
To keep the residents informed and involved in
the many facets of this serious environmental
problem, EPA has undertaken a substantial com-
munity outreach program. It includes a bilingual
(English and Portuguese) monthly newsletter,
distribution of more than 26,000 copies of a site-
specific PCB pamphlet, and the convening of
public meetings at critical decision-making
points. The EPA project officer meets regularly
with focal citizen groups to obtain public input to
help EPA find appropriate solutions.
-------
EPA seeks to identify parties whose past practices may
have been at least partly responsible for conditions at
Superfund National Priority List sites. We have the
authority to enter into negotiations with "potentially
responsible parties" to arrange for site clean up or for
repayment to the Fund for government monies spent in
connection with site-related work. If these negotia-
tions fail, EPA can refer cases to the Department of
Justice for court actions to recover costs incurred by
government in cleaning up sites. Thus far, more than
$6 million in private funds have been expended at nine
sites in New England.
It is common in New England for Superfund sites to
have scores of "potentially responsible parties" to con-
tact. This year, the Region mailed more than 1,400
notice letters as the first step in documenting actions
for eventual cost recovery or negotiated settlement,
hundreds more than any other EPA region.
THE GILSON ROAD SITE IN
NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE—
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
During several months of activity in 1979, more
than 1,300 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste
were disposed of at a seven acre sand and gravel
pit on Gilson Road in Nashua, New Hampshire.
The gravel pit had been in active use for some
time, receiving refuse and discarded demolition
materials.
The state estimates that at least 900,000 gallons
of toxic chemical wastes were discharged into a
leach field. The chemical seeped into the soil,
entered the groundwater and contaminated more
than 100 million gallons of groundwater in the
Gilson Road vicinity.
A number of emergency actions were taken to
assure the protection of public healjth and the
environment from imminent threats posed by the
contamination.
City of Nashua officials erected a security fence
funded by EPA around the whole site in May of
1980. The contents of roughly 1,300 discarded
drums containing chemical wastes were sam-
pled, analyzed and transported to an approved
hazardous waste facility. An emergency intercep-
tion and recirculating system was installed to
temporarily contain the contaminated groundwa-
ter, to prevent the waste from migrating into Lyle
Reed Brook and the Nashua River.
In August 1981, New Hampshire and EPA officials
entered into a first-in-the-nation "cooperative
agreement" to provide federal resources and
conduct engineering studies to clean up the site.
Federal, state and local government have been
directly involved in the planning and execution of
the project. As a technical achievement itself, the
site work has won state, regional and national
awards for engineering excellence.
On May 14,1984, New Hampshire Governor John
H. Sununu and Regional Administrator Deland
broke ground at Gilson Road for a $5.4 million
groundwater treatment facility to treat half a mil-
lion gallons of groundwater per day over a two
year period. When completed, the treatment facil-
ity will subject the tainted groundwater to physi-
cal, chemical and biological purification pro-
cesses.
Costs have exceeded $10 million at Gilson Road,
of which the EPA Superfund share has been in
excess of $9.5 million. Gilson Road is the Re-
gion's most ambitious, technologically innova-
tive and costly hazardous waste site clean up
effort to date.
The combined efforts of EPA, the City of Nashua
and the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollu-
tion Control Commission dramatically demon-
strate how the job of hazardous waste site
cleanup can be accomplished when various
levels of government join forces in a truly coop-
erative spirit.
-------
Recently, a Region I staff member experimented with
an innovative groundwater sensing technique at the
Western Sand and Gravel Superfund hazardous waste
site in Rhode Island. In certain circumstances the new
technique obviates the need for sinking expensive
monitoring wells since it can detect contaminated
underground plumes by means of remote sensing.
This Region I innovation is now in regular use nation-
wide.
This year, Administrator Ruckelshaus transferred to
Regional Administrators the authority to obligate $1
million for immediate action in emergency situations.
Region I used this authority frequently, e.g. in Barring-
ton and Hudson, New Hampshire; Derby, Connecticut;
and Plymouth, Massachusetts. As additional authority
is transferred later this year, Region I will be able to
move still more quickly to initiate and accomplish the
long-term remedial action cleanup work necessary at
so many sites across New England.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT—
THE RCRA PROGRAM
Region I provided state hazardous waste programs
with $3,840,729 of federal grant assistance in FY 84
and worked closely with state personnel on a broad
range of hazardous waste management activities.
They include:
• providing technical engineering, hydrological and
laboratory assistance
• conducting facility permit application reviews
• inspecting waste facilities to determine com-
pliance with waste management requirements
• developing special expertise in the area of storage
and treatment of hazardous waste in tanks
• taking enforcement actions when necessary, and
• assessing the continuing readiness of state pro-
grams to administer components of the federal
hazardous waste program.
The RCRA program is designed to prevent future Su-
perfund sites from developing. Through a comprehen-
sive "cradle-to-grave" management process, EPA and
the states track hazardous wastes from original gen-
eration through transportation, treatment and storage
to final disposal. All RCRA treatment, storage and dis-
posal facilities must have a permit detailing how they
will meet Agency standards for safe operation and
maintenance. There are 374 of these facilities in New
England. The pie chart shows their distribution.
TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES REQUIRING PERMITS IN
REGION I AS OF 6/30/84
During the past year, Region I and the New England
states formally requested 29 facilities to submit permit
applications, and in addition, seven applications were
voluntarily submitted for review. Since 1982, EPA and
the states requested a total of 126 applications, includ-
ing applications from all RCRA facilities in the states of
Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Following
these requests, many existing waste management fa-
cilities and handlers decided not to conduct activities
subject to RCRA regulations and closed their opera-
tions.
In enacting RCRA, Congress wanted the states to oper-
ate their own hazardous waste programs in place of
the federal RCRA program by 1985. To accomplish
this, a state must develop a program that is as strict or
more strict than the federal program. All six of the New
England states now are operating the enforcement
and permitting elements of the RCRA program. All six
states will seek and expect to be granted approval from
EPA to run the full RCRA program sometime this
winter.
Ensuring that waste handlers meet applicable stan-
dards is a key component of the RCRA program. To
identify any deficiencies or violations, 140 RCRA in-
spections were conducted by Region I. Over the last
nine months the states have conducted an additional
912 inspections. There were 43 enforcement referrals
to the states. Region I issued nineteen complaints, with
$116,000 of penalties assessed.
-------
During the year. Region I RCRA staff developed a re-
gional enforcement policy defining EPA and state
roles so that it would be clear when it was appropriate
for EPA to take enforcement action in states that had
been delegated the federal RCRA management pro-
gram. We are proud of our pioneering work in this area.
The Agency recently adopted our policy for use nation-
wide.
CANOB PARK
Residents of Canob Park, a section of Richmond,
Rhode Island, had been experiencing gasoline
contamination in their water supply. A number of
homeowners stopped drinking the water from
their wells on the advice of the Rhode Island De-
partment of Health and were using bottled water
at their own expense.
EPA conducted extensive studies to determine
the nature and possible sources of the problem.
These studies, concluded in the fall in 1982, de-
termined that there were two independent
sources of contamination: an Exxon service sta-
tion and a neighboring Mobil service station. As is
the case at most filling stations, both of these gas
stations stored their product in underground
tanks. Leaks of gasoline from these tanks had
entered the groundwater, moved with the
groundwater toward Canob Park and resulted in
contamination of many of the private wells in the
area.
When the study results were known, EPA met
with Exxon and Mobil representatives in an
attempt to deal with the problem. After extensive
negotiations failed to produce an agreement,
EPA, in September, 1983, exercised its adminis-
trative authorities under RCRA and issued Orders
to Exxon and Mobil requiring the companies to:
1) supply bottled or filtrated water to residents
with contaminated water, 2) remove all contami-
nated soil from company property and 3) with-
draw and treat all contaminated groundwater.
This was the first case in the nation to make use of
a RCRA hazardous waste provision in connection
with a leaking underground storage tank
problem.
Issuance of the Administrative Orders spurred re-
newed negotiations with the oil companies. Final-
ly, in February 1984, a series of agreements
among EPA, Exxon and Mobil, and the State of
Rhode Island were signed. Together, these agree-
ments provided a comprehensive solution to the
Canob Park problem.
Under the agreements, Exxon and Mobil, with a
contribution by the State, will fund the construc-
tion of a new municipal water system for Canob
Park. Until the new system is in place and oper-
ational, the oil companies will supply bottled wa-
ter to all homes with contaminated water and
conduct an ongoing monitoring program to de-
termine whether the contamination has spread to
other areas.
The municipal water system to serve the affected
area is expected to be operational in September
of 1985.
-------
WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
David A. Fierra, Director
The Water Management Division administers the
federal Clean Water Act (CWA) for water pollution con-
trol and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for drink-
ing water protection. This report highlights progress
during this past year in restoring and protecting the
valuable water resources of New England, including
accomplishments in the following priority areas:
• increased compliance with environmental laws;
• development and implementation of strong
groundwater protection programs;
• restoration of water quality in lakes and streams;
• increased emphasis on the clean up of Boston
Harbor and Salem Harbor;
• management of the federal financial investment in
water pollution control improvement;
• improving the cooperative State/EPA efforts in
preserving and protecting New England's water.
In general, New England's water is very clean. Approx-
imately 66% of New England's major stream areas
meet the CWA standards for fishing and swimming, but
remaining water quality problems are complex and
costly to solve. Our population enjoys drinking water
that is of high quality, but violations of national stan-
dards do occur.
PERMITTING AND COMPLIANCE
Clean Water Act Permit Program
The Clean Water Act permit program limits the
amounts and kinds of pollutants that can be dis-
charged into navigable waters. In Region I, there are
2,650 such permits issued to both municipal and in-
dustrial sources.
The Region made substantial progress this year to-
ward its goal of reissuing all expired major permits in
the states where EPA has primary permit issuance au-
thority (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and
Rhode Island). Two-thirds of all outstanding major per-
mits will be issued by October 1984; by October 1985
the backlog of expired major permits will be elimi-
nated.
These new permits will result in significant environ-
mental improvement since they require reductions in
toxic pollutant levels to assure protection of the receiv-
ing waters. The Region is using two powerful new tools
which more accurately assess the water quality impact
of toxic discharges: (1) EPA's new criteria for toxic
pollutants and (2) new toxicity testing (bioassay) pro-
cedures. In addition, many of the municipal permits
incorporate pretreatment program requirements
which will begin to regulate toxic discharges to munic-
ipal sewer systems.
-------
Clean Water Act Permit Compliance
This year the principal permit program emphasis was
on improving the compliance rate of major municipal
wastewater treatment plants, but industrial discharg-
ers were not neglected. Ninety percent of all major
municipal and industrial dischargers were in com-
pliance with permit limitations.
To ensure the high compliance rate was maintained,
the Region completed 238 inspections of permitted
facilities and took a series of enforcement actions,
issuing 34 Administrative Orders and referring 6 cases
for judicial action. (The Region has 651 major facilities:
339 are municipals, 312 are industrials.) Inspections
completed during this period are as follows:
Municipals Industrials
Compliance Sampling
Compliance Evaluation
Performance Audit
19
133
32
184
22
25
7
54
National Municipal Policy
The National Municipal Policy requires all municipali-
ties to construct waste water treatment plants by
July 1, 1988 with or without the assistance of federal
funds.
All six New England states submitted State Municipal
Policies which ensure that their municipalities comply
with this rule. These State Policies address the con-
struction grant/permit compliance relationship, distin-
guish between the fundable and unfundable projects
and require Municipal Compliance Plans for projects
that will not receive federal funds.
The Region and the New England states are working
closely to insure: 1) all operating facilities are in com-
pliance, 2) all fundable facilities are on a schedule and
3) all communities which need treatment facilities but
will not be eligible for federal funding prepare the
required compliance plans.
In addition, the Region has initiated several enforce-
ment actions to ensure community compliance. The
SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT
(Salem Harbor)
For the first time in over four years sewage sludge
is not being discharged to Salem Harbor because
the South Essex Sewerage District (SESD) has
complied with an EPA order upheld in May by the
U.S District Court. The chemically treated sludge
is now being trucked to the Peabody landfill.
The District facility serves five communities
(Salem, Peabody, Beverly, Marbleheadjand Dan-
vers) and a number of industries, including 18
tanneries. Approximately 200 tons of sludge per
day had been discharged to Salem Harbor since
early 1980 when SESD shut down its sludge in-
cinerator. The shut-down was due in part to the
presence of hazardous levels of chromium that
are present in the ash as a result of the incinera-
tion process. However, the SESD sludge is not a
hazardous waste.
EPA filed suit against the District on September
22, 1983 to permanently end the discharge. The
Conservation Law Foundation joined the suit.
Major obstacles to resolving the violations were:
1) locating a suitable sludge disposal site and 2)
raising an adequate level of funding for plant
changes and sludge treatment.
In efforts to bring about resolution of the prob-
lems, the Region stopped all construction grant
payments to the District and to its member com-
munities, met with city and town officials and
citizens at their respective town meetings to en-
courage local override of "Proposition 2-1/2" and
issued Administrative Orders directing SESD to
evaluate alternative sludge management and to
repair and modify its treatment plant in Salem.
As a result of these coordinated activities, the five
municipalities of SESD did vote to override the
"Proposition 2-1/2" limit on the District's budget
in order to provide funds for equipment to pre-
pare the sludge for landfilling. The Region pro-
vided technical assistance to establish that the
landfilling solution was feasible. EPA won a sum-
mary judgment motion establishing that the Dis-
trict was violating the law and obtained a court-
ordered date of July 2, 1984 for the District to
cease sludge discharges to the ocean.
The District now has a safe, environmentally
acceptable way to dispose of its sludge. As a
result, residents of the North Shore of Mas-
sachusetts will be able to use the Harbor more
fully for recreational purposes.
10
-------
states and the Region are establishing a priority order
for all communities not scheduled to receive federal
funds. We will initiate enforcement actions where
appropriate to require these communities to construct
needed wastewater treatment facilities.
Pretreatment
The Region is requiring 77 communities in New En-
gland to develop and implement pretreatment pro-
grams to limit industrial discharges of specific chemi-
cals into municipal sewer systems. Compliance with
pretreatment standards is a priority because it will sig-
nificantly reduce the discharge of toxic pollutants.
In addition, federal enforcement actions are being ini-
tiated against industrial dischargers who do not comp-
ly with the federal standards, including several en-
forcement actions against metal platers. The Region
will also overview state and locally developed pro-
grams to ensure they are strictly enforced.
CONSTRUCTION OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
Between July 1983 and June 1984 the Region process-
ed approximately 325 construction grants actions to-
talling S153 million to help local governments build
waste water treatment plants and other facilities de-
signed to improve water quality. These transactions
reflect our efforts to manage a sound construction
grants program through the commitment of funds to
new projects that will result in significant water quality
benefits.
The Region and our states are also committed to those
initiatives which ensure that minority and women own-
ed business enterprises (MBE/WBE) are awarded a fair
share of EPA grant dollars. Emphasis on the program
this year resulted in a ten percent increase in the MBE
WBE participation rate.
Providing assistance to communities experiencing
financial and management problems with the opera-
tion of wastewater treatment facilities was a major
initiative in the water program. Contractors for EPA
produced two manuals to aid in this effort: "The New
England Wastewater Management Guide" and "Ener-
gy Management in New England Wastewater Treat-
ment Plants—A Practical Guide". In cases where prob-
lems are perceived, municipal wastewater treatment
plant compliance inspections now include a financial
and management component.
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS NET OBLIGATIONS
JULY 1983-JUNE 1984
Region I Total—$153 Million
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
VT
7.1
4.6%
11
-------
LAKE MEMPHREMAGOG—
A CASE OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
An extensive algae growth over a large portion of
Lake Memphremagog on the Vermont/Canadian
border stirred citizen and governmental concern
about the Lake's future. Studies undertaken to
determine the causes of the problem indicated
that the nutrient input to the Lake was too great.
In 1973, the governments of Canada, the United
States, Vermont and Quebec formed the Lake
Memphremagog Committee to discuss programs
for a coordinated approach to water quality man-
agement in the Lake. The Committee outlined
actions for both countries which were aimed at
improving water quality and protecting the Lake.
During the last ten years the communities of
North Troy, Brighton, Newport Town, Derby Cen-
ter, Orleans, Derby Line, Barton, Glover, and
Newport City have invested $22 million to clean
the waters of this area: $3 million came directly
from the communities, $4 million was provided by
grant assistance from the State of Vermont, and
$15 million was from the federal construction
grants program.
With the completion of the City of Newport's
wastewater treatment facility this past year, all
municipal pollution abatement projects in the US
portion of the Memphremagog Basin and nearby
communities are complete. The municipalities
jointly have made a significant water quality
accomplishment, and now the residents of the
Vermont and Canadian communities which par-
ticipated in this major task will be able to reap the
recreational and water supply benefits.
WATER QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
During the past year the New England states improved
their water quality management processes. All states
updated their Continuing Planning Process docu-
ments, developed priority waterbody lists and are
focusing resources on developing solutions to prob-
lems in priority waterbodies.
The Region developed a toxic pollutant control plan to
use for establishing appropriate permit limits to
achieve water quality standards. The states, with the
assistance of EPA, are now developing toxic pollutant
studies for the Naugatuck River in Connecticut, the
Pawtuxet River in Rhode Island and the Ten Mile River
in Massachusetts. The studies will serve as the basis
for establishing permit limits for the multiple dis-
charges to these waterways and the ultimate achieve-
ment of water quality standards and uses.
EPA awarded four Clean Lakes grants which provide
for pollution abatement activities designed to improve
the quality of each lake and increase their recreational
potential. The four lakes are: Kezar Lake, New Hamp-
shire; Webber Lake, Maine; and Spy Pond and Whit-
man Pond in Massachusetts.
WETLANDS PROTECTION
The discharge of dredged or fill material into the na-
tion's waters is regulated by a permit program adminis-
tered by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Region I attempts to ensure there are no avoidable or
significant impacts to water quality or wetlands from
dredge and fill activities. When adverse effects cannot
be avoided, we seek full mitigation of water quality
impacts and habitat losses.
The Region reviewed approximately 500 proposed
projects this year ranging from small boat docks to
major wetland fills for highway or industrial develop-
ment. We recommended specific permit conditions or
modifications to reduce environmental impacts in
nearly half the cases. These conditions include reduc-
ing the amount of wetland filled or compensating for
lost habitat through creation of new wetlands. Fifteen
permit applications were denied outright. In addition,
the Region initiated an inspection program to deter-
mine applicant compliance with permit conditions.
12
-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT COM-
PLIANCE
The National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
Team reviews environmental assessments and pre-
pares environmental impact statements (EIS) for EPA's
actions. It also conducts special environmental studies
such as a major computerized data management sys-
tem for Boston Harbor. The most significant activity of
the Team, described in the case study which follows,
has been to prepare a supplemental EIS on cleaning up
Boston Harbor. Two other examples of the Team's
efforts this year include: 1) Plymouth, Massachusetts
EIS Project—The EIS evaluated alternatives on land
and in the ocean for the disposal of wastewater treat-
ment plant effluent, and 2) Getty Mining Project—The
Company proposes the first major underground min-
ing operation in Region I, an 80 acre lead and copper
mine and mill complex at Mt. Chase, 15 miles northeast
of Baxter State Park in Maine.
BOSTON HARBOR
Forty-three cities and towns discharge sewage
into Boston Harbor through two obsolete Metro-
politan District Commission (MDC) treatment
plants and more than 100 combined sewer over-
flows (CSO). These discharges create the most
serious water pollution problem in New England
and they make the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts one of the worst violators of the feder-
al Clean Water Act in the country. They regularly
cause beach closings, diseases in fish and other
organisms, and threaten public health. These dis-
charges cannot be allowed to continue.
To date, $168 million in EPA grants have been
made to projects related to Boston Harbor, main-
ly to repair and rehabilitate portions of the MDC
and member community sewer systems and to
correct some CSO problems. In addition, in order
to avoid treatment plant breakdown, more than
$30 million for immediate interim improvements
at Nut Island and Deer Island will be spent.
Clearly the time has come to make the difficult
decisions which will actually lead to the two bil-
lion dollar Harbor clean-up. Progress has indeed
been made in the last year. For example, EPA has
taken a number of enforcement actions designed
to address the more serious operational and man-
agement problems. As a result of these actions,
the MDC corrected its monitoring and reporting
violations and initiated the design and construc-
tion of alterations at its two treatment plants to
improve persistent operational problems. A re-
cent EPA Administrative Order will establish a
schedule under which the Commonwealth must
decide how it proposes to dispose of 600 tons of
sludge which is now discharged daily to the Har-
bor. Since June, 1983, EPA has been acting as a
"friend of the court" in asuit filed in State court by
the City of Quincy, Massachusetts, against the
MDC. In that capacity regional staff has been con-
tributing legal and technical expertise on Boston
Harbor issues to the court-appointed master.
During the last year, EPA has also been preparing
a supplemental draft environmental impact state-
ment on the extremely controversial topic of
where the new treatment plants are to be located.
There have been many contacts between EPA,
the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environ-
mental Affairs, the MDC, the Department of En-
vironmental Quality Engineering and the Coastal
Zone Management Office to address the many
complex problems. To insure public input into
the process, meetings have been held regularly
during the year with several technical advisory
groups and citizens' advisory committees. Public
hearings on EPA's draft recommendations will be
scheduled for this fall.
In June, 1984, Regional Administrator Deland tes-
tified in support of a proposed Metropolitan Wa-
ter Resources Authority. This legislation would
combine the MDC's Water and Sewerage Divi-
sions into an independent authority with the abil-
ity to generate its own capital and operating rev-
enue. Deland stated, "Cleaning up Boston Harbor
requires the will to make tough decisions, the
abilityio finance and manage billions of dollars of
complex construction, and a commitment to the
proper operation and maintenance of this invest-
ment. Today's MDC is simply unequipped to do
the job. It is barely able to stay ahead of system
collapse, much less to manage many 100 million
dollar projects concurrently."
13
-------
During the coming year, at least four of these
tough decisions will be ripe for action by govern-
ment. First, the Massachusetts legislature will de-
cide whether to create a new and adequately fi-
nanced and staffed sewerage authority. Second,
under the EPA Administrative Order, the Com-
monwealth will commit to a schedule which will
lead to getting the sludge out of the Harbor.
Third, the EPA will decide whether to permit the
MDC to discharge primary effluent at a point
seven miles east of Winthrop, rather than requir-
ing the MDC to provide secondary treatment and
discharge into the Harbor. Fourth, as a result of
the environmental impact statement and plan-
ning process, EPA and other governments must
decide what treatment facilities are to be built
and where they are to be located. A tall order for
all of us.
Any further delay in making these decisions could
actually cost the Commonwealth significant
amounts of money. EPA currently has a sewage
treatment grants program, which has already pro-
vided almost $11/4 billion to Massachusetts proj-
ects and which is available to help fund the clean
up of Boston Harbor. But this grants program will
not continue forever. Should the Commonwealth
delay in creating the administrative structure and
funding mechanism needed, the Commonwealth
could end up building its new treatment facilities
after the federal program expires, making Boston
one of the few major metropolitan areas in the
country required to build the treatment facilities
without federal assistance. No one wants this to
occur. The time has long since come to clean up
Boston Harbor.
DRINKING WATER QUALITY
Public Water Supply Supervision Program
To maintain safe and pure drinking water supplies, The
Safe Drinking Water Act was enacted to augment state
water supply and groundwater programs. This year,
Region I provided technical assistance and $1.8 mil-
lion in grants so that states can comply with water
supply regulations and improve drinking water quality.
In particular, Region I emphasized improved com-
pliance with national drinking water standards. A chart
identifying compliance rates in New England follows:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL INTERIM :
PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
Microbiological Turbidity
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Regional
FY84 National Goals
Key: MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level; M/R = Monitoring and
Reporting
In addition, water supply staff provided extensive tech-
nical assistance to state and local governments in such
areas as sanitary surveys and water system improve-
MCL
95%
88%
94%
85%
96%
78%
89%
93%
M/R
96%
98%
94%
41%
100%
69%
83%
79%
MCL
94%
97%
97%
96%
100%
96%
96%
97%
M/R
92%
100%
97%
86%
100%
85%
94%
92%
ments. We also provided information to the states and
the general public on health risk from contaminants
found in drinking water (e.g. volatile organic chemi-
cals, gasoline, dioxin and ethylene dibromide) and
assisted the Federal Emergency Management Agency
in assessing flood damage to public utility facilites in
Connecticut.
Underground Injection Control Program
To protect valuable underground water supplies, EPA
requires the states to implement underground injec-
tion control programs. During the past year, Region I
water staff worked with the states of Maine, Connecti-
cut, Vermont, and Rhode Island to help them develop
underground injection well programs compatible with
the Safe Drinking Water Act. All six New England states
have achieved primary enforcement responsibility for
the program and in the past year, focused their effort
on groundwater protection activities.
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
New Englanders are heavily dependent upon ground-
water for drinking water—77% of our public water sup-
plies and over 95% of our rural population rely upon
this source. However, these resources are extremely
vulnerable to a variety of man-made and natural
sources of contamination. Potential sources of con-
tamination include: underground storage tanks and
14
-------
piping systems, landfills, septic systems, surface im-
poundments, pesticides and herbicide applications,
road salt storage and application. These sources are
widely dispersed throughout the countryside.
Region I has long emphasized the need for groundwa-
ter protection in New England and has enthusiastically
supported state initiatives to develop groundwater
strategies. In fact, prior to the groundwater program
receiving the national attention it now enjoys, this Re-
gion encouraged the New England States to use por-
tions of state grants for groundwater planning and
management functions. These early "seed" efforts
have allowed Region I to go beyond the program de-
velopment stage and become a leader in the national
groundwater protection effort.
During the past year, Region I demonstrated its com-
mitment to groundwater protection by designating the
aquifers underlying Nantucket Island, Massachusetts
and Block Island, Rhode Island as sole source aquif-
ers. A designated aquifer is the sole or principal drink-
ing water source for an area which, if contaminated,
would create a significant hazard to public health. Af-
ter designation, EPA has authority to review federally
financed projects to insure that no significant ground-
water damage will occur.
Region I has taken several actions designed to elevate
groundwater issues to the upper management level
and to better coordinate the Agency's groundwater
programs. We formed a Groundwater Steering Com-
mittee composed of senior managers from all pro-
grams which effect groundwater. Regional Adminis-
trator Mike Deland is one of seven members on the
National Groundwater Task Force. Paul Keough is the
lead Deputy Regional Administrator in the country for
groundwater budget issues.
The Region also funded a groundwater protection ini-
tiative of the New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission. The basic objective is to provide
a forum for the New England states to exchange in-
formation on groundwater management activities in
areas of common interest. The Commission created a
work group specifically concerned with ensuring con-
sistent mapping of interstate aquifers.
Region I encouraged the development of state ground-
water work plans. These will be consolidated plans
incorporating all state programs which contain
groundwater components. This effort wil I set the stage
for the New England states to be in the vanguard if and
when federal grant funds become available for state
groundwater protection programs. The Regional
Office has also devoted considerable time to training
state officials in various aspects of groundwater pro-
tection, groundwater modeling and management of
hydrogeologic investigations, and techniques for de-
tecting and measuring groundwater contamination.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
During this past year, we have worked with the New
England states, the Office of Toxics Substances and
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in
Washington to address one of the most immediate
threats to our groundwater supplies—leaking under-
ground storage tanks. We estimate that there are over
2 million underground petroleum and hazardous
waste storage tanks which contain many billions of
gallons of fuel and other potentially harmful products
buried across the country.
Region I is the national coordinator for the Agency's
leaking underground storage tank initiatives. One of
our first responsibilities is to organize regional partic-
ipation in a national survey which is designed to pro-
vide important information on the nature and extent of
the problem across the country. The survey will ex-
amine over 1000 retail gas stations, farms, marinas,
airports, fleet service facilities, and publicly owned
facilities with fuel tanks. The survey methodology will
be tested at nine facilities in the Northeast, Middle
Atlantic and Midwest, including five facilities in New
England.
Region I helped develop the proposed regulations gov-
erning the storage of hazardous waste in tanks. These
regulations, developed under the authority of the Re-
source Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA),
should be released for comment at the end of this year.
Last February, we issued RCRA 7003 consent orders to
the Mobil Oil Corporation and the Exxon Oil Company,
owners of retail gasoline stations in the Canob Park
section of Richmond, Rhode Island. This is the first
time this authority has been used in a case where
leaking underground storage tanks contaminated
groundwater.
In cooperation with the New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission, we sponsored two im-
portant meetings for representatives from the north-
eastern states in the past four months. These day-long
15
-------
meetings provide a rare opportunity for EPA and the
states to exchange information, discuss problems and
provide experienced direction and guidance on
national groundwater protection efforts.
We awarded a grant to the New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control Commission to develop a pub-
lic awareness package on the value of groundwater
and the potential costs of contamination. This informa-
tion should complement the chemical advisory warn-
ing that EPA will distribute to 2-3 million facilities and
concerned members of the environmental and busi-
ness communities in the fall.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In the past year, the Region has accomplished or made
significant progress in many of the highest priority
water issues in New England. In FY85 the Water Man-
agement Division will focus attention and resources on
the following:
Strengthening the Clean Water Act permit pro-
gram and assuring that all point source discharges
have appropriate enforceable permits;
Implementing the overall compliance strategy for
the permit program (including the National Munic-
ipal Policy, pretreatment compliance, and com-
pliance inspection policy);
Managing the federal funds available to maximize
the benefits of the municipal construction grants
program;
Developing and implementing a strong ground-
water protection program in all New England
states;
Continuing emphasis on special high priority proj-
ects (e.g. Boston Harbor and Narragansett Bay);
and
• Increasing compliance with national drinking wa-
ter standards.
16
-------
AIR MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Harley F. Laing, Director
The Air Management Division is responsible for the air
pollution control program in New England, the region-
al toxics and pesticides programs, and guidance to
states on environmental radiation matters.
AIR
Five-year trends from 1978 through 1982 show signifi-
cant improvement in air quality in most urban areas of
New England. During 1982, for the first time, no viola-
tions of ambient sulfur dioxide standards were re-
corded anywhere in the region. Moreover, there are no
areas for which the nitrogen dioxide and lead stan-
dards have not been achieved. Particulate levels have
been declining steadily, leaving problems in only a few
isolated locations. The Region's major non-attainment
problems continue to be carbon monoxide and ozone
in southern New England, due principally to motor
vehicle emissions.
The Clean Air Act gives EPA its statutory authority to
control air pollution. Its main objective is the attain-
ment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by EPA to protect the
public health and welfare. Currently NAAQS have been
specified for six pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2), total
suspended particulate matter (TSP), carbon monoxide
(CO), ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and lead. EPA
has established requirements for state agencies for the
ambient monitoring of these pollutants, the develop-
ment of State Implementation Plans (SIP's) which set
emission limits for existing pollution sources, permit-
ting programs for the review of new sources of pollu-
tion, and the enforcement of emission limits.
The states have primary responsibility for implemen-
ting these programs, while EPA provides guidance,
assistance and oversight. In the past year the Air Man-
agement Division (AMD) worked closely with the state
air agencies to set priorities and provide technical and
financial assistance. Air grants to the New England
states totalled $6.5 million.
EPA worked with the states to establish the National
Air Audit System. This is the first system to provide
national guidelines for the comprehensive audit of
state programs. This past spring AMD conducted the
Region I audits. While specific recommendations for
program improvements were made, we concluded that
the New England states are generally doing a good job
in carrying out their air program responsibilities.
The Clean Air Act requires the states to design SIP's to
reduce O3 and CO levels to attain NAAQS standards by
1987. In the past year the required state submissions
and EPA reviews were completed. Region I was the
only EPA Region to have all of its required O3 and CO
SIP's fully approved.
17
-------
Another important initiative was the monitoring of
progress by the states in implementing the control
requirements committed to in these SIP's. This in-
cludes the control of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) from stationary sources, and VOC, N02 and CO
from mobile sources. VOC and N02 react to form
ozone in the presence of sunlight. For this reason the
successful implementation of vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs in Connecticut and Mas-
sachusetts was particularly noteworthy.
A continuing success story is the conversion of New
England utilities and industrial sources to coal and
higher sulfur oil in response to economic conditions,
without SO2 and TSP levels exceeding NAAQS limits.
In the past year, AMD closely monitored the conver-
sions of the Mt. Tom, Salem Harbor and Somerset
electric stations to coal.
In addition, by processing 29 SIP revision requests, we
eliminated our backlog. This included approval of a
statewide sulfur-in-oil revision in New Hampshire, the
processing of a number of temporary sulfur-in-oil revi-
sions for small facilities through special energy con-
servation conversion permitting programs in Rhode
Island. Connecticut and Massachusetts, and the
approval of lead SIP's in all six states.
The past year has also seen renewed emphasis on
stationary source enforcement. EPA's compliance en-
gineers worked diligently with their state counterparts
to coordinate on-site inspections for compliance with
applicable regulations. The number of inspections
nearly doubled, increasing to 110 from 57 the preced-
ing year. In addition, Region I satisfactorily resolved 8
out of 9 cases involving significant violations of air
pollution regulations. Ten Notices of Violation were
issued, and four cases were referred to the Justice
Department. This combined state-EPA enforcement
effort has resulted in a high level of compliance, as
shown in the following chart.
Several complex environmental issues also con-
fronted the air program, including toxic pollutants and
acid rain. In both areas the states have looked to EPA
for technical assistance, guidance and information.
During the year AMD sponsored two workshops on air
toxics for state agencies and, working through Region
I's Toxics Coordinating Committee, furnished techni-
cal assistance on specific intermedia toxics problems.
MAJOR SOURCES: TOTAL NUMBER
AND NUMBER IN COMPLIANCE
700-1
600-
O 500
I
CC 400
O
£ 300 H
0!
LJ
CD
3 200
100-
1
SP
Legend
E3 TOTAL NUMBER
HI IN COUPUANCE
I
CT ME MA NH Rl VT
STATE
In the area of acid deposition, we have tried to provide
a focal point for the exchange of information among
concerned parties on research efforts and regulatory
developments. Staff members served on a national
EPA task force addressing the state-of-the-science of
acid rain and possible control scenarios and are con-
tinuing to participate on another task force addressing
implementation issues associated with acid rain con-
trol strategies. In a recent briefing for the states, EPA
and Forest Service experts presented the latest in-
formation on forest damage. Meanwhile, Region I's
Environmental Services Division conducted a pilot
study of acid-sensitive lakes in New England.
In addition to our activities in acid rain and air toxics,
major initiatives for the coming year will include the
establishment of a mobile source enforcement pro-
gram targeted at the problem of automobile fuel-
switching and emission controls tampering. We will
also provide guidance and technical assistance to
state agencies in developing SIP's for the new PM10
particulate standards and in meeting the visibility re-
quirements of the Clean Air Act. Heavy program em-
phasis will continue to be placed on stationary source
compliance and the monitoring of Oa/CO SIP commit-
ments.
18
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA
regulates the manufacturing, processing, distribution,
storage, and disposal of chemicals that pose an un-
reasonable risk to public health. In the past year the
principal regional program emphasis has been on the
enforcement of asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) rules. In July, 1983 Region I began an innovative
and aggressive program of monitoring and enforcing
the Asbestos-in-Schools Rule (See inset below). This
has resulted in inspections in 240 school districts
throughout New England, of which 95 were cited for
violations.
PCB's are in wide use as an insulating fluid in electrical
equipment. Unfortunately they are hazardous at even
extremely low levels and are characterized by persis-
tence in the environment and accumulation in the tis-
sues of living organisms. In the past year, 131 PCB
inspections were conducted in the Region, an increase
of 9% over the previous year. These resulted in 12 civil
and one criminal complaints. In addition, 24 Notices of
Non-compliance were issued for lesser violations. This
effort has been greatly enhanced by a cooperative
grant agreement with the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, through which EPA pro-
vided the funds ($100,000) and technical assistance to
develop the Connecticut PCB program.
Frequently specific toxic or hazardous substances,
such as dioxins or PCB's, pose intermedia problems
affecting air, water and soil. Under our organizational
structure, these media are the responsibility of differ-
ent components of the regional office. To deal with this
situation, the Toxics Coordinating Committee was
formed, chaired by the Air Management Division, with
representatives from all Region I divisions.
ASBESTOS IN SCHOOLS
Because it has excellent heat and fire resistance
and other useful properties, asbestos has been
widely used as an insulating material in buildings.
However, if it is not completely sealed in, it can
pose a danger to health. Asbestos can break into
tiny fibers smaller than dust particles, which are
easily inhaled or swallowed. The presence of
asbestos particles in the body can cause asbesto-
sis, lung cancer, and othertypes of cancer. Fibers
may remain in the body, causing cancers that do
not appear for 15 to 40 years after exposure.
To safeguard children and school workers, the
1982 Asbestos-ln-Schools Rule was established
under the Toxic Substances Control Act, requir-
ing school districts to check each of their schools
for the presence of friable (easily crumbled)
asbestos, and if found to notify parents, teachers,
and school employees. School districts should
then seal, encase or remove the asbestos. School
inspections and notifications were to be com-
pleted by June 28, 1983.
With a very limited toxics program staff, Region I
was faced with a nearly impossible task of moni-
toring compliance and enforcing the Asbestos-
ln-Schools Rule. The Air Management Division
developed an innovative plan to tackle this prob-
lem. Through an amendment to a national grant
to the American Association of Retired Persons,
four inspectors were hired to augment the AMD
staff and were trained to conduct school inspec-
tions throughout New England. Early findings in-
dicated that over 50% of the school districts were
in violation of the Rule's requirements. This
unacceptable rate of non-compliance was ad-
dressed through a vigorous enforcement pro-
gram and the use of news media to inform school
officials and the public that EPA regards the
asbestos problem as a serious matter.
In the past twelve months, Region I has con-
ducted inspections at 657 schools in 240 school
districts throughout New England. Ninety-five
districts were cited for violations, and in three
cases where school districts failed to take action
after being cited, Administrative Civil Complaints
totaling $174,000 in penalties were issued. Re-
gion I's action against a New Hampshire school
district was the first time that an Administrative
Civil Complaint had been used as a means of
obtaining compliance with the Asbestos-ln-
Schools Rule.
Region I's successful program led the way in
establishing an expanded enforcement effort
nationally.
19
-------
The Committee serves as a communication channel
and forum for exchanging information on intermedia
toxic matters and provides a structure for coordinating
responses to intermedia toxics problems. Since its
formation in September, the Committee has, among
other activities, reviewed and commented on the pro-
posed National Dioxin Strategy, responded to state
requests for technical assistance, and developed a "re-
source bank" of individuals with varied expertise who
can be called upon to assist on toxics problems.
In the coming year toxics program emphasis will re-
main on the aggressive enforcement of asbestos and
PCS rules. Establishment of a Regional compliance
program to deal with asbestos during the renovation
and demolition of buildings will be a major goal. The
Toxics Coordinating Committee will continue its work
on the National Dioxin Strategy and will coordinate a
multimedia study planned for Rhode Island. It also
plans to address the use of automated data bases for
retrieving toxicological information as well as the need
for developing a procedure for responding to toxic
problems where established procedures do not exist.
PESTICIDES
The Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances is re-
sponsible for carrying out the mandates of the federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
FIFRA is EPA's principal regulatory authority gov-
erning the production and use of pesticides. Primary
enforcement responsibility under FIFRA has been del-
egated to state agencies. EPA provides technical sup-
port, guidance and oversight to the states, as well as
financial assistance, which totalled about $600,000 for
New England in fiscal year 1984.
In the past year the New England states conducted
approximately 1,250 inspections and initiated 125 en-
forcement actions against violators of pesticide reg-
ulations. In addition to compliance activities, the
states, with EPA assistance, operate a program of
training and certification of pesticide applicators.
In the spring of 1984 EPA worked closely with the State
of Maine to monitorthe annual aerial spraying of forest
areas infested with the spruce budworm. This is the
largest aerial spraying operation carried out in the
United States and this year (including adjacent Cana-
dian acreage) covered 8 million acres. EPA provided
training to new inspectors for the State of Maine in
connection with this project.
Under a new federal program, Region I, assisted by
EPA headquarters personnel, conducted an inspec-
tion of MIT's Animal Pathology Laboratory to deter-
mine whether the laboratory was meeting recently
promulgated regulations for good laboratory prac-
tices. At the same time, two studies which had been
carried out by the laboratory for a major chemical
manufacturer to support pesticide registrations were
audited by the inspection team. During the coming
year further inspections of New England laboratories
will be performed under this program.
An emerging environmental problem is the possible
impact of pesticides (for example, EDB) on groundwa-
ter and its potential threat to water supplies. EPA has
worked closely with Massachusetts, Connecticut and
Maine on this issue, and Rhode Island is looking into
the problem. It is expected that this effort will continue
to be an important one during the coming year.
RADIATION
During the past year the Air Management Division
worked with federal, state and local agencies on the
review of 11 state Radiological Emergency Response
Plans for 7 nuclear power plants in New England. AMD
also provided guidance and technical assistance on
such issues as non-ionizing radiation (e.g. radio fre-
quency and microwave) and the disposal of both high-
level (nuclear plants) and low-level (medical, indust-
rial, academic facilities) radioactive waste. Low-level
waste disposal will continue to be an important issue,
since New England generates about 15% of the U.S.
total of such waste. Under the provisions of the Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, by January 1,1986
all states, either acting alone or in concert with other
states, must have established or arranged for the
establishment of disposal sites to meet the needs of
waste producers within their borders.
In the coming year we will continue to work with the
states on the low-level waste disposal problem, and
will provide guidance and technical assistance on
other radiation issues.
20
-------
OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL
Robert A. DiBiccaro, Acting Regional
Counsel
The Office of Regional Counsel provides legal support
to all of Region I's program offices. The majority of the
attorneys' time is spent pursuing the Region's vigor-
ous enforcement efforts. The attorneys concentrate on
both administrative and judicial enforcement work.
Other responsibilities include defending the Region in
suits filed against the Agency, handling bid protests
and grant appeals under the Agency's grant prog rams,
reviewing state requests for delegations of specific
program authority and providing legal counsel to the
program offices on request.
The Office of Regional Counsel is comprised of four
attorney/secretary teams: the Waste Team, the Water
Team, the Air Team and the Grants, Contracts, and
General Law Team.
THE WASTE TEAM
During the last year, the Waste Team provided legal
support for the Waste Management Division's imple-
mentation of the Superfund program and its revitaliza-
tion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulatory enforcement program.
Superfund litigation in Region I in the last year has
been highlighted by three major cases:
Ottati and Goss—The first Superfund multiple gener-
ator trial in the country began concerning the Ottati
and Goss site in Kingston, NH. This complex case with
17 defendants, 2000 exhibits and 42 witnesses has
been in trial for six months and the conclusion is prob-
ably months away. One major defendant has already
agreed to spend approximately a million dollars to
excavate several hundred buried drums from the site.
New Bedford Harbor—EPA filed suit against six cor-
porations to address PCB contamination in New Bed-
ford Harbor. This case presents complex legal and
environmental issues which will be unravelled in the
course of the litigation. (See inset, page 5)
Johns-Mansville—In a case concerning asbestos con-
tamination of sites in Hudson, New Hampshire, EPA
prevailed on a motion for preliminary injunction to
gain site access from landowners to cover the asbes-
tos. The District Court ruling was upheld on appeal to
the First Circuit Court, thus providing an important
decision nationally in support of EPA's right to site
access for clean-up purposes.
In Superfund site clean-up work, negotiations with
potentially responsible parties to accomplish private
party clean-up at Superfund sites also account for a
21
-------
significant amount of attorney time. In addition to ma-
jor on-going multiple party negotiations, Region I
attorneys have provided legal support for negotiations
on a number of sites, yielding significant environmen-
tal results and conserving the Superfund. Some exam-
ples:
Industri-plex, Woburn, Mass.—Negotiations with
Stauffer Chemical company resulted in a consent
order under which Stauffer will soon complete Reme-
dial Investigation and Feasibility Studies at this major
National Priority List site. Stauffer's studies will assess
environmental harm and provide clean-up alterna-
tives.
Winthrop, Maine—Negotiations with Inmont Corpora-
tion have resulted in a consent order concerning the
Winthrop Landfill National Priority Listsite. Inmont has
agreed to provide an alternative water supply to resi-
dents living near the landfill whose wells have been
affected by groundwater contamination.
Plymouth, Mass.—Negotiations with Saltwater Trust,
owner of the Cannons Engineering National Priority
List site, resulted in agreement by the trust to remove a
leaking tank which posed a fire and explosion threat as
well asathreatof soil and groundwater contamination.
In the RCRA area, Waste Team attorneys furthered the
RCRA enforcement effort by negotiating a number of
settlements of administrative actions against violators
of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. They con-
tinued the review of state hazardous waste programs
to assist the New England states in receiving final
RCRA authorization.
Region I's Waste Team lawyers are among the most
experienced within EPA, and in addition to their re-
gional work, have played a major role in the develop-
ment of national hazardous waste policy, particularly
in the areas of Superfund and RCRA enforcement and
RCRA state program authorizations.
The entire regulated community benefitted from a
digest of all the RCRA regulatory amendments pre-
pared by a Region I Waste Team attorney and pub-
lished in "Environment Reporter."
THE WATER TEAM
Over the last year, the Water Team continued to run an
active and expanding enforcement program under the
Clean Water Act. In FY 83, the Team prepared cases
against seven major industrial and municipal violators
of water pollution laws. These cases were referred to
the Department of Justice for the filing of federal law-
suits. In FY 84, the Team has developed another five
cases to date, and expects to prepare three more cases
by the end of the year. These enforcement actions
represent a significant increase over the two water
cases Region I referred to Justice in FY 82.
The Water Team has recently initiated a strong pro-
gram to enforce in court the federal pretreatment stan-
dards that apply under the Clean Water Act to indus-
tries that discharge to municipal treatment plants. The
two pretreatment cases recently referred to Headquar-
ters are the first federal pretreatment cases in Region I.
The Team has also initiated a new effort to enforce
drinking water standards under the Safe Drinking Wa-
ter Act and is currently planning Region I's first federal
drinking water enforcement case for the fall.
Enforcement against municipalities was our first prior-
ity this year. Two major examples, South Essex Sewer-
age District in Massachusetts and Boston Harbor are
discussed in detail on pages 10 and 13; a third exam-
ple, Providence, Rhode Island, appears below.
CITY OF PROVIDENCE SETTLEMENTS
EPA and the Department of Justice successfully
negotiated settlements in related Clean Water Act
and Clean Air Act cases against the City of Provi-
dence. The settlements are noteworthy for two
reasons. First, the City will be paying $250,000 to
Rhode Island in settlement of the water case to
fund a creative, environmentally beneficial proj-
ect. Second, the City must pay a substantial cash
penalty of $180,000 to the U.S. Treasury for its
egregious violations of the Clean Air Act.
The settlements were approved and entered by
the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island on June 8,
1984. The claims against Providence relate to the
City's violations in 1979, 1980, and 1981 of con-
sent decrees signed by the City and the United
States in 1978, involving the City's wastewater
treatment plant and incinerator.
The City had faced a total potential liability of
approximately $1.4 million dollars in penalties for
22
-------
operating its incinerator for 249 days while
bypassing the pollution control equipment, and
for delays in repairing its wastewater treatment
plant. The settlements send a strong message
that consent decree violations will not be toler-
ated by the United States, and at the same time
allow a substantial portion of the total penalty to
be used in a way that will benefit the citizens and
environment in Rhode Island.
The Clean Water Act settlement will provide fund-
ing support for the Rhode Island Toxic Pollutant
Transfer and Risk Assessment Project. The proj-
ect will be an in-depth study of intermedia trans-
fers of toxic pollutants in the environment and
corresponding health risks of these transfers. It
will be conducted by the Rhode Island Depart-
ment of Environmental Management, with assis-
tance from EPA, the state Department of Health,
Brown University, and the University of Rhode
Island.
Initially the study will focus on surface water con-
tamination in the Upper Narragansett Bay and air
pollution from toxics at sewage treatment plants.
A citizen's advisory committee, made up of en-
vironmental organizations, medical profession-
als, and state and local officials, will be estab-
lished to help give the program direction.
The State hopes that this project will enable it
betterto identify multimedia toxic pollutant prob-
lems and to determine the relative health and
ecological risks associated with such problems.
The funding of the credit project is an unusual
and creative settlement. The project itself was
devised after a great deal of effort and coopera-
tion by the Rhode Island Department of Environ-
mental Management, the State Department of
Health, EPA Regional and Headquarters staff, the
Department of Justice, and "Save the Bay," a
citizen's environmental group.
Water team attorneys also concluded all legal reviews
for delegation of the underground injection control
program to the New England states, and Rhode Is-
land's application for delegation of the federal water
pollution control permit program. Moreover, they pro-
vided continuing legal assistance to the Water Man-
agement Division's water permitting operation, and
assisted in the review of local pretreatment programs
and Clean Water Act 301 (h) discharge waiver deter-
minations.
THE AIR TEAM
The Air Team works with the Region's Air Management
Division in implementing programs under the Clean
Air Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
During the past year, the Air Team attorneys helped
initiate the Region's enforcement of the asbestos-in-
schools regulations and contributed to a strong EPA
enforcement effort under the Clean Air Act. Synopses
of some significant cases follow:
Goffstown, New Hampshire—An asbestos complaint
was issued to the Goffstown, New Hampshire School
District. Nationally, this action was the first issued
under a program designed to identify the asbestos in
schools and to warn parents and school employees of
the hazard posed by this dangerous material.
Electro Sales, Somerville, Massachusetts—Attor-
neys on the Air Team worked on a criminal enforce-
ment action involving violations of PCB rules by this
firm. In May, the company entered a plea of guilty.
Sentencing is scheduled for August.
Borden, Inc., Leominster, Massachusetts—In
addressing the problems to human health posed by air
toxics, the Air Team pursued court action against the
Borden, Inc. facility in Leominster, Massachusetts.
This case involves numerous violations of the Agen-
cy's regulations for vinyl chloride, a hazardous air pol-
lutant.
During FY84, the Air Team has already helped prepare
four new cases for judicial litigation, with two more
expected before the end of the year. This effort repre-
sents a substantial increase over the two cases re-
ferred for litigation in FY 83. Beyond its enforcement
work this year, Air Team lawyers provided counsel to
the Air Management Division on program matters and
conducted reviews of proposed revisions to each New
England state's implementation plan (SIP) air pollution
control regulations. This past year, significant SIP revi-
sions included VOC regulations for New Hampshire
and regulations of the State of Connecticut developed
in satisfaction of the Clean Air Act requirements.
23
-------
GRANTS, CONTRACTS AND GENERAL LAW TEAM
The Grants, Contracts and General Law Team attor-
neys provide legal advice to all of the Region's pro-
gram offices. Most of the work is done in the construc-
tion grants program, a $2.4 billion per year program
under which the Agency provides grant funding to
municipalities to build sewage treatment facilities.
Over the past year, Team attorneys provided advice to
Regional personnel on new regulations involving all
grants programs, debarments of EPA grant recipients
for misconduct and ethical standards for EPA em-
ployees. More bid protests were processed and grant
appeals handled than in any previous year. Team mem-
bers were also involved in the first bid protest under
the Superfund program.
Attorneys for the Team were involved in the Region's
first two debarments from an EPA grant funding. One
action resulted in a three year debarment of a company
and its officers due to prior criminal convictions. The
other concluded in a three year voluntary exclusion of
a company and its officers for falsifying information in
a grant document. The Team attorneys also helped to
develop the Region's new grant appeal procedures
issued in June, 1984.
CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE
In April, 1984, an attorney in the Office of Regional
Counsel was appointed criminal enforcement coordi-
nator for the Region. A number of criminal cases are
now under active development, either in the investiga-
tive or grand jury phase. In the next several months, a
criminal investigator will be assigned full-time in the
Region. Another investigator is expected to be added
to the Region during the next fiscal year.
APPOINTMENT OF A NEW REGIONAL COUNSEL
Regional Administrator Deland selected Patrick
Parenteau to serve as the new Regional Counsel.
For the past 3 years, Mr. Parenteau has served as the
second-ranking official of the National Wildlife Federa-
tion, the nation's largest environmental public interest
group. As Vice President of the Federation, Mr. Paren-
teau headed a staff of fifty people including lawyers,
technical experts, and lobbyists, as part of the Federa-
tion's efforts to shape national environmental policy.
24
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION
Edward V. Fitzpatrick, Director
The Environmental Services Division (ESD) located in
Lexington, Massachusetts is the laboratory and field
support arm of EPA in Region I. The Division collects
and analyzes samples and environmental data to sup-
port the Air, Water, Hazardous Waste and Superfund
programs managed by the other Divisions of the Re-
gional Office. The Lexington facility includes one of
the most up-to-date environmental laboratories—
chemical and biological—in the Northeast.
Environmental Services Division personnel work
closely with the state environmental agencies to coor-
dinate the operation of networks of air and water quali-
ty monitoring stations throughout New England. Data
from these networks provide a continuous measure of
air and water quality trends in the region.
ESD is responsible for the collection and laboratory
analysis of samples to support enforcement actions
against violators of our environmental laws. It has a
staff which is on call 24 hours a day to respond to spills
of hazardous chemicals. This staff also oversees a
program to prevent and minimize the dangers from
leaks and spills of chemicals at industrial locations in
New England. Lastly, ESD runs a quality assurance
program, working closely with state laboratories to
ensure that the accurancy and adequacy of sample
analyses is maintained in this field of rapidly-changing
technology and regulatory requirements.
With the start-up of the federal Superfund program in
1981, the Environmental Services Division became
heavily involved in this priority effort to clean up haz-
ardous waste sites. In addition to the collection and
chemical analysis of samples from hazardous sites,
ESD has the responsibility for "removal actions" to
eliminate the immediate danger to public health.
During the past year, removal actions were undertaken
at 14 sites in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
and Connecticut. Twelve of these have been com-
pleted at a cost of approximately $4,000,000 from the
federal Superfund for the clean-up work. Corrective
measures ranged from removing contaminated mate-
rial, sealing and covering several asbestos dumps in
the Hudson/Nashua, New Hampshire area to prevent
particles from getting into the air, to retrieving and
disposing of chemical drums which had been dumped
into Sunapee harbor.
In a stepped-up Agency-wide enforcement campaign
ESD personnel conducted approximately 150 com-
pliance inspections to ensure that waste water dis-
charge permit conditions were being adhered to.
Where serious violations were found, ESD furnished
technical data and expert testimony to support legal
cases.
25
-------
Providing technical assistance to state agencies in
terms of both direct support and training is an impor-
tant function of the Environmental Services Division.
Direct suppport refers to the dispatching of ESD per-
sonnel upon request to assist states in investigating or
resolving environmental problems or in performing
specific tasks, such as sample collection or chemical
analyses. Recent examples include organic con-
tamination of groundwater in Williamstown, Vermont,
lead contamination of soil in several Massachusetts
locations, widespread mercury contamination in
Poultney, Vermont, and numerous requests for assis-
tance in the developing field of air toxics monitoring.
During the past year, the ESD staff provided both for-
mal courses and on-the-job training for state person-
nel in field work and in laboratory procedures. The
goal of this training program is to aid state personnel in
keeping abreast of current technology as well as the
requirements of programs for which the states have
accepted delegation.
There was a strong effort to develop state capabilities
in bio-monitoring and bio-assays. Over twenty training
courses were held by ESD at its Lexington facility and
other New England locations. These included a con-
tinuous emissions monitoring workshop, a volatile
organics stack testing workshop, a course in writing
permits for waste incinerators, a workshop on the use
of Photovac equipment, a permit compliance course,
safety courses, and bio-assay training, among others.
In the past year the Environmental Services Division
undertook several special initiatives to gain new
knowledge of the environment and advance our tech-
nology and management of laboratory capabilities. A
new analytical technique was developed which allows
rapid and accurate field assessment of the extent of
PCB contamination at a suspected site (see inset be-
low). A Sample Control Center was established at the
Lexington facility to improve management of labora-
tory support for the Superfund program, particularly
where contract laboratories are used. The limited
capacity for this type of chemical analysis requires
careful planning, technical assistance, sampling study
design, and quality assurance programs to ensure that
the available capacity is utilized effectively with consis-
tently good output data. A pilot project for a national
Acid Rain Study was initiated (see inset, page 27). In
addition, the groundwork was laid for Region I's partic-
ipation in a national study of the extent of dioxin con-
tamination in the United States.
During the coming year, the Environmental Services
Division will continue to provide field and laboratory
support for the Regional office, as well as technical
assistance and coordination with our counterparts in
the state agencies. The acid rain pilot study will lead
PCB DETECTION—A NEW TECHNIQUE
One of the most difficult problems in chemical
analysis is identifying and measuring organic
chemicals in an unknown sample. The difficulty is
multiplied when dealing with concentrations of a
few parts per million, in the field, and with a need
for quick answers. This is the situation faced by
an environmental engineer trying to determine
the extent (if any) of PCB (polychlorinated
byphenyl) contamination at a suspected site.
PCB's are dangerous to human health and may
be found almost anywhere, because thay have
been used so widely as insulating material in
electrical equipment such as transformers.
The problem of field testing soil for PCB content
was tackled and solved during the past year at
EPA's Region I laboratory. The technique, which
utilizes a portable gas chromatograph, was used
by Environmental Services Division personnel at
several sites. In Norwood, Massachusetts and
Washburn, Maine clean-up teams were able to
collect, analyze, and report on 500 samples in a
few days. This would have been inconceivable
using previous procedures. Cost savings alone at
those two sites were over $50,000. The technique
has also been used at five other sites in Mas-
sachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
Since papers on the new methodology were pre-
sented at and published in the proceedings of
two national meetings, dozens of inquiries have
been received at the Region I laboratory.
This contribution to the advancement of environ-
mental science was recognized by the awarding
of the Agency's bronze medal.
26
-------
into participation in the national study. We will con-
tinue with our part in the national dioxin study, estab-
lishing what we expect to be background data, since
there are no known manufacturing facilities nor
appreciable areas in the Region where herbicides or
pesticides with dioxin contaminents were used.
We expect the Regional Sample Control Center to be in
full operation. Finally, we anticipate new develop-
ments in the areas of quality assurance and quality
control as new federal regulations go into effect.
ACID RAIN PILOT STUDY
One of the major environmental issues today, par-
ticularly in the Northeast, is the effect of acid rain
on the environment. A specific concern is the
impact of acid precipitation on acid-sensitive
lakes—lakes with low natural alkalinity, which are
presumed to be most susceptible to changes
from acidic deposition. Unfortunately, quantita-
tive data about the present chemical and biologi-
cal status of aquatic resources in the United
States is limited. For this reason EPA, in conjunc-
tion with the National Acid Precipation Program,
has proposed a 3-phase National Surface Water
Survey, the first phase of which would include a
survey of nearly 2500 lakes nationally.
Randomly-selected lakes in the four northern
New England states were designated for a pilot
study to test out sampling and laboratory
methods tQ be used in the full survey. EPA per-
sonnel from Regions I and II conducted the study
assisted by personnel from the state environmen-
tal agencies of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
and Massachusetts, who determined which of the
smaller lakes were privately-owned and obtained
permission for the samples to be taken, as well as
aiding in other ways.
The design of the study called for the sampling to
be done by two field crews operating from heli-
copters, with the samples to be processed in a
special mobile laboratory. Despite several set-
backs, the sampling and analyses were com-
pleted in early June, 1984.
The pilot study was a success due to the joint
efforts of EPA and state personnel. More than 120
lakes were visited and 111 were sampled. Both
field and laboratory equipment and methods
were tested, changed and retested. The knowl-
edge gained will provide a sound base for the full
national survey.
27
-------
OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS & ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW
Stephen F. Ells, Director
This small Office has four big jobs. It enlists the sup-
port of senior public officials to help EPA carry out its
mission. It reviews the major actions and permits
issued by other federal agencies to minimize environ-
mental damage. It ensures that federal agencies com-
ply with all environmental laws. And, lastly, the office
director is senior policy advisor to Regional Adminis-
trator Mike Deland. Here are some examples of what
we do. i
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
Almost every member of New England's Congression-
al Delegation is on a committee with environmental
jurisdiction or in a Congressional leadership position,
such as House Speaker O'Neill. This includes mem-
bership on every committee with environmental juris-
diction in the House of Representatives and the United
States Senate. Most importantly, this representation
frequently results in federal laws that reflect New En-
gland's strong and abiding concern for protection of
the environment and natural resources.
The Office of Government Relations and Environmen-
tal Review is responsible for responding to inquiries
from Members of Congress, governors and other
senior officials. These may range from pending legisla-
tion and the impact in New England of EPA regulations
and policies, to problem situations of a particular com-
munity or citizen.
We respond to more than 150 official letters a year;
telephone calls from government officials face us with
about 20 new issues every week. Hazardous waste
management and water pollution control issues are
most frequently raised. Recognizing the strong bi-
partisan support for environmental protection pro-
grams, Regional Administrator Mike Deland has met at
least once with 28 members of the New England Con-
gressional delegation and most of the governors in his
first year as Regional Administrator.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)
REVIEWS
We review and comment on all actions proposed by the
federal government in New England that could have a
significant impact on the environment. The objective is
to insure that the federal establishment protects the
environment as much as possible in its construction,
grant awarding, permitting and other activities. We do
this by reviewing other agencies' environmental im-
28
-------
pact statement (EIS) assessments, requesting that an
EIS be prepared for major projects that have not had
adequate environmental review and encouraging
selection of environmentally preferable alternatives.
This year, we were involved in some of the largest,
most controversial projects in recent history:
Offshore Oil Drilling on Georges Bank—After review-
ing the Department of Interior's EIS for Lease Sale 82,
which proposed oil and gas leasing on 25 million acres
of the North Atlantic, Region I opposed leases in near-
shore waters, the sensitive Georges Bank fishing
grounds and in submarine canyons, and urged delay of
the entire sale. Soon after EPA and many others voiced
these objections, Congress required the Department
of Interior to delete sensitive tracts. Lease Sale 82, now
14 million acres instead of 24, is scheduled for Septem-
ber 1984.
Boston Third Harbor Tunnel/Central Artery—After
identifying problems in the draft EIS, Region I worked
extensively with consultants, Massport and state and
federal highway agencies to ensure that the air quality
analysis, one of the most complex in our experience,
would accurately assess the impacts of this major proj-
ect.
l-84/Route 6—We continued to express opposition to
the construction of new expressways and major road
expansion in Rhode Island across the Scituate Reser-
voir, the sole sou rce of drinking water for half of Rhode
Island, and on corridors in Connecticut that aim at the
Reservoir and its watershed. Region I worked closely
with consultants and project proponents to prepare a
state-of-the-art impact assessment to protect the Res-
ervoir.
Northern Peat Energy Project—For the first time, Re-
gion I is helping the Corps of Engineers write an EIS.
Due to be released around the end of 1984, this EIS will
consider the impacts of Signal Company's proposed
peat-to-energy project. Our job, while reserving the
right to review the project under NEPA and the Clean
Water Act, will be to write the water quality, air quality
and noise sections of the Corps EIS.
Sugar River Watershed Flood Control Dams—We ob-
jected to a ten dam project proposed by the Soil Con-
servation Service (SCS) to be built on the Sugar River
and tributaries in western New Hampshire. The basis
for our objections was significant adverse impacts to
high quality streams and wetlands, inadequate demon-
stration of need for the project, and a seriously out-
dated EIS. The Corps of Engineers and SCS now agree
that the project will not proceed further until an EIS
re-examines need, impacts, and alternatives.
In addition to these projects, we reviewed another 28
EIS's and assessments, 101 hydroelectric projects,
and 13 other environmental documents.
FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE
The Executive Branch of the federal government owns
1,344 installations in New England on 1,294,727 acres
of land. It owns hundreds of motor vehicles, major
ships and large aircraft. It operates hospitals, labora-
tories, manufacturing plants and technical facilities.
With operations on such a large scale, it should come
as no surprise that many of the facilities have been
sources of pollution in the past and remain potential
sources of pollution in the future.
This year, we re-established the function of Federal
Facility Compliance Coordinator to provide technical
advice and assistance to other federal agencies and to
ensure cost-effective and timely compliance with state
and federal environmental laws. We now conduct re-
views and inspections to ensure compliance by federal
facilities.
We assist federal agencies and the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget in developing budgetary plans for
controlling pollution from federal facilities. During
FY84, over $46 million has been budgeted for pollution
abatement at federal facilities in this Region.
STATE/EPA AGREEMENTS
This Office developed the Management Agreements
that were signed this year with each major state en-
vironmental agency in Region I. These multi-purpose
documents focus top management attention at the
State and EPA on the evaluation and accomplishment
of major environmental and programmatic issues. The
agreements serve as a vehicle to identify new or
emerging items of interest, as a composite of the re-
lated environmental management grants awarded to
the states ($25 million annually) and as a mechanism to
develop special strategies.
An issue in this year's Rhode Island agreement is a
good example of how the process works. Environmen-
tal risk assessment was identified as an emerging issue
of concern to state environmental officials and the
citizens of Rhode Island. Because the issue was high-
29
-------
lighted, officials at EPA. the Justice Department and
the State were able to have the U.S. District Court
agree to apply $250,000 in penalty funds (recovered
from an air and water suit filed against the City of
Providence) to an environmental monitoring study.
Without the agreement, the connection between this
monitoring project and its supporting funding would
not have been made (See inset, page 22).
UNITED STATES—CANADIAN RELATIONS
Since the middle of 1983, much progress has
been made in improving relations with our Cana-
dian neighbors. Frequent meetings were held
with environmental officials from the Province of
New Brunswick and Environment Canada. We
have had discussions on a variety of issues of
concern to all levels of government.
This Region not only actively participates in two
international boundary river committees but also
deals with specific environmental issues that
transcend our mutual borders. As an example of
the latter, all nine United States treatment facili-
ties are now in place and able to control wastewa-
ter discharges into Lake Memphremagog which
lies on the boundary between Canada and Ver-
mont.
This Regional Office co-chairs with Canadian
officials two committees that oversee water quali-
ty requirements on international sections of the
St. John and St. Croix River systems. On February
22, 1984, a new diplomatic note was signed re-
newing the charter of the St. John River Water
Quality Committee for an indefinite period of
time. Like the St. John committee, the St. Croix
River Water Quality Advisory Board (which re-
ports to the International Joint Commission in
Washington, DC) continues to list progress being
made in water quality improvements, and both
committees are beginning to deal with the issue
of restoring the anadromous fisheries.
On May 23, 1984, Regional Administrator Mike
Deland met with the Regional Director General of
Environment Canada's Atlantic Region. Hosting
and participating in discussions with EPA's sister
regional agency in Canada has been, very produc-
tive. The exchange of ideas, technical data, and a
better understanding of the overall direction of
the environmental movement in Canada have
been a favorable product of these meetings.
Though the acid rain debate continues between
the two countries, it is gratifying to note that offi-
cials of both countries continue to cooperate in
pollution abatement efforts.
30
-------
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
David Pickman, Acting Director
One of the greatest challenges facing Mike Deland
when he returned to the Agency as Regional Adminis-
trator last summer was to reestablish strong links be-
tween EPA and the environmental and business com-
munities. The Region needed to regain the confidence
of the communities and encourage our citizens to par-
ticipate in our deliberations so that we could develop
more appropriate policy and make better decisions.
Region I made every effort in the past 12 months to
convey the message that EPA can be trusted, that EPA
is operating in a fish bowl, that EPA is focusing a
multi-pronged offensive against such environmental
harms as groundwater contamination and that en-
forcement is the name of the game.
Regional Administrator Mike Deland explained our
priorities and goals to the media via personal inter-
views with newspapers, radio and television stations
on breaking stories. Typical were removal actions at
Superfund sites, enforcement moves under the Clean
Water Act, Clean Air Act, Toxic Substances Control
Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Su-
perfund. He also carried the message to the editorial
boards of more than a dozen major newspapers
around New England.
This spring, the Region published a revision of its
"Directory of New England Environmental Organiza-
tions" and distributed it to about 500 state environ-
mental agencies and voluntary environmental orga-
nizations.
In December 1983 Region I celebrated the 13th birth-
day of EPA with a well attended "Citizens' Briefing"
held at a suburban convention center. Awards were
given for outstanding contributions in the fields of
education, journalism, public service, public educa-
tion, and business. Guest speakers were William Weld,
the United States Attorney for Massachusetts, Ben-
jamin Dysart, president of the National Wildlife Federa-
tion, and New Hampshire Governor John Sununu,
chairman of the National Governors' Association Acid
Rain Task Force.
The Office of Public Affairs maintained close working
relations with the operating divisions. The stepped up
enforcement program and accelerated Superfund
activity called for careful planning to make certain that
the news was clear, accurate and relevant to the Agen-
cy's central mission—to protect the environment and
public health. Information policy during this period
can be summed up in a few words: to help the news
media get the whole story quickly, easily and accu-
rately.
31
-------
Two innovations were conceived at the Senior Staff
Retreat in April and hatched in June: an internal news
letter and a report to environmental and business orga-
nizations, state and regional environmental officials.
The internal newsletter, titled WE'RE NUMBER ONE,
was first published on June 4 and now appears weekly.
WNO prints news from all divisions of the Agency:
major projects and who is working on them, grants,
enforcement actions, marriages and degrees. The
weekly is also a vehicle for special messages from the
Regional Administrator and Division and Office Direc-
tors.
The external newsletter, NEW ENGLAND ENVIRON-
MENT REPORT, is issued monthly. It first appeared in
June and has been enthusiastically received. The pub-
lication reviews EPA actions, many of them distinctly
local in their impact, which nevertheless reflect Agen-
cy and Regional policy. EPA's friends and associates in
the world of environmental protection have welcomed
this information on Regional and national policy, en-
forcement actions, research programs, policy de-
velopment and outreach meetings. It reaches about
500 organizations and agencies.
Both publications are produced by photocopy process
from typescript originals and entail no external cost of
composition. NEW ENGLAND ENVIRONMENT RE-
PORT is a self-mailer.
Since August 1983 the Office of Public Affairs has
furnished full-time community relations services to Su-
perfund project officers and on-scene coordinators
and to the states conducting Superfund projects under
cooperative agreements. The Communjty Relations
Coordinator has provided plans for each site, prepared
news releases, fact sheets and summaries for public
meetings and general information. These services
were previously offered on a more limited basis by an
information specialist working about half time on Su-
perfund.
The Community Relations Coordinator hosted a
national quarterly meeting of co-workers from all ten
EPA Regions and organized a Region I training session
for EPA and state personnel on community relations
skills required at Superfund sites.
This year's Elementary Education Ecology Poem and
Poster Program drew a record 10,000 entries from New
England grade schools. Awards were presented by the
Regional Administrator and Deputy Regional Adminis-
trator in ceremonies held in each New England State,
usually assisted by one of the State's U.S. Senators.
APPOINTMENT OF A NEW DIRECTOR
In July, we welcomed Brooke C. Cook as the new
Director of the Office of Public Affairs.
Ms. Cook, Director of Communications for the Mas-
sachusetts Executive Office of Human Services, brings
broad experience in communicating complex and
sensitive subjects in the human services field to an
equally challenging environmental protection arena.
32
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DIVISION
Louis F. Gitto, Director
The work of the Administrative Services Division is
principally to manage the internal operations of the
Region. We operate traditional planning and evalua-
tion, personnel, finance (collection/disbursement),
procurement and internal support (computer assis-
tance and operations, space, equipment, supplies,
etc.) functions to maintain our environmental pro-
grams.
The dedicated staff of this Division worked hard to
keep the Regional operations running smoothly. Some
of our major achievements are highlighted below:
Integrated Regional Planning
We wanted our employees, our state counterparts and
the public to have a clearer idea of how Region I would
achieve specific environmental results. It is important
that all our constituencies understand how we believe
our objectives and activities will result in a cleaner,
safer environment. To map out this direction, we inte-
grated our regional planning process with our identi-
fication of environmental problems and regional
goals.
Beginning with the Environmental Management Re-
port in the spring, we first identified Region I's key
environmental issues and laid out action steps for
addressing them. Regional Administrator Mike Deland
stated his goals for the Region. Regional managers
established priorities and prepared "Accomplishment
Plans" to explain how their programs would work to
achieve both the Regional Administrator's goals and
environmental improvement.
Our accountability systems track program accom-
plishments against the program commitments so that
senior managers (and the public) can understand how
well the Region is progressing throughout the year in
reaching its stated objectives.
Regulation Development
Regulation development is one of EPA's major respon-
sibilities. To improve Region I's role in the Agency's
rulemaking process, we initiated a new system to iden-
tify and follow those developing regulations in which
the health, environment, or economic effects of a rule
could have a major impact on the New England states.
Regional Administrator Deland can now concentrate
regional technical expertise in areas producing the
most benefits for the Region and take the lead in nego-
tiating for our positions and priorities.
33
-------
STAFF INCREASES
As a regulatory agency dealing with highly tech-
nical issues, Region I employs engineers and sci-
entists, attorneys and various administrative sup-
port employees. In the last year, the Region has
hired 84 permanent employees for a net increase
of 56, from 345 to 401 (a 16.2% increase). Consis-
tent with the Agency's priorities, the largest in-
crease was associated with Waste Management,
while enforcement positions were added to the
Water, Waste, and Air programs.
The increases have significantly enhanced the
Region's technical and enforcement capabilities.
The increases by occupational category are:
Engineers
Clerical
Attorneys
Scientists
Administrative
+ 33
+ 10
+ 7
+ 4
+ 2
Also, consistent with the Agency's Equal Employ-
ment Policy, 43% of the professional and admin-
istrative hires were women and 13% of the profes-
sional and administrative hires were minority
group members.
Managing for Environmental Results
At the urging of the Regional Administrator, we
arranged a meeting between Rhode Island environ-
mental officials and the staff who developed a success-
ful Environmental Management Mapping Program in
Maryland. This interchange of ideas helped Rhode Is-
land begin a project of their own to map environmen-
tal, geographic and demographic information.
Although the effort will require a substantial long-term
commitment of resources by Rhode Island if it is to be
successfully completed, we feel it could provide signif-
icant background information for setting environmen-
tal priorities.
Making Resource Management Work
Again this year we worked with several of our states to
help resolve fiscal and administrative problems associ-
ated with managing environmental program grants.
These grants totaled almost twenty-five million dollars
in Fiscal Year 1984; states have purchased and must
account for millions of dollars of equipment. While
most systems are operating well, we helped implement
better cost accounting, procurement processes, and
property management systems. We are one of the few
regions providing this support to our states and we
intend to keep improving this service.
Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA)
Under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) we
have put twelve of our highly experienced people into
state offices to work on environmental and policy
issues. These are important assignments for both the
state and for us (In prior years, these assignments have
filled a State Commissioner position and another a
Deputy Commissioner position). This year one of our
twelve is working directly in the office of a New En-
gland governor. This assignment includes close work-
ing relations with state officials nationwide, national
environmental leaders and high ranking federal offi-
cials in the United States and Canada. While this is not
a "typical" assignment, each position is important to
the mission of EPA and the state.
Helping To Share Information
The environmental effort relies on a sharing of data
between the states and ourselves; our Automated Data
Processing systems (ADP) are established with that
sharing in mind. However, we have gone one step
beyond that traditional role with the Maine Department
of Environmental Protection. With funding and data
support provided by Region I, Maine DEP designed,
developed, and is in the final stages of loading data
into a New England Hazardous Waste Manifest System
(a system to track the load by load trucking of hazard-
ous wastes from the point of pick-up to the point of
delivery).
This system is unique in a number of respects. It
addresses the consensus of waste tracking needs
identified by all six New England states. Additionally
Maine provides the host computer facility and opera-
tions support to allow all interested New England
states to directly use this system. To date, New Hamp-
shire, Rhode Island, and Vermont have made commit-
ments to be active system users. A breakthrough
aspect of this system is its ability to provide a common,
sharable source of data on manifested New England
wastes.
34
-------
EPA REGION I BUDGET—FISCAL YEAR 1984
The budget we manage for Fiscal Year 1984 (Oct.
1983 to Sep. 1984) is comprised of 404 staff years
and $17 million to support our operations includ-
ing $3 million for Superfund operations, $184 mil-
lion for construction grants for wastewater treat-
ment plant construction, $25 million for grants to
support State environmental program operations
and in May we were given additional responsibil-
ity to manage $1.8 million for Superfund Removal
actions for the remainder of the year.
The Region's resources increased across all
operating programs from Fiscal Year 1983 to
1984. Highlights of the increases are:
• Financial resources increased by 2.7 million or
9 percent.
• Superfund operating financial resources have
increased by $427,000 or 19 percent over FY 83
• In addition to Superfund, other EPA programs
dealing with protection of the environment
from hazardous waste and toxic pollutants
(Hazardous Waste, Pesticides Radiation and
Toxic Substances) have increased in operating
dollars by $643,000 or 38 percent over FY 83.
Stability of funding levels is the highlight of Re-
gion I's financial assistance to states. These
grants support Air, Water, Construction Grants
Management, Water Quality, Public Water Sup-
ply, Underground Injection Control, Hazardous
Waste and Pesticides Enforcement and Certifica-
tion programs. For Fiscal Year 1984, the New
England states received EPA funds as follows:
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Total
$ 5,360,000
2,694,000
9,553,000
2,712,000
2,672,000
1,962,000
$ 24,953,000
REGIONAL PROGRAMS FINANCIAL RESOURCES
CO
cc
O
Q
LL
O
CO
HAZARDOUS AND WATER REGIONAL
TOXIC WASTE
OPERATION
83 84 83 84 83 84
FISCAL YEAR
83 84
35
------- |