UNITED STATES
                      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                  REGION I
DATE:

SUBJ:

FROM:


TO:
September 17, 1964

              Mane
Update - Region I
Michael R. Deland
Regional Airinistrator

Alvin L. Alr:
Deputy Administrator
        We are pleased to subrit to you the Environmental Management
        Report Up-cte fror. Region I.  Vie hope you will find the doc-
        ur-.ent useful for Agency planning and budgeting processes;
        it will certainly be useful to me in directing our Region I
        initiatives and activities over the next year.

-------
                               ASEM:??? REPORT UPDATE -
                               TABLE OF cn.Tsr
Part I -  Rr.'s Qverviev —  Executive Surr.ary


Part II.  Rgc'ional Environmental  Problens

          Issue  01 - Ground Kater Protection

          Issue  02 - Boston Harbor

          Issue  03 - Toxics

          Issue  44 - Lone  Range  Transport:

                      • Acid Rain
                      0 Ozone

          Issue  «5 - New Bedford Harbor

          Issue  $6 - Hazardous Kaste Ferrr.itt.in5 and Ccrpliance

          Issue  $7 - Asbestos  anc Pjblic Health

          Issue  
-------
Par
t j.      Regional A*.inistrator'« Overview  - Executive Sirrrary

-------
FfcftT I    Regional Administrator's Overview


A. Krrr SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

v«?v Er. = laf>d is faced with a variety of different and sometimes connected enviror.-
rsr.'.e". ar.f public health problems.  In this Environmental Management Report we
explore New England's most significant environmental problems and propose actior.s
that Region I and Headquarters should initiate to resolve them.  While many of
these problems are shared by other parts of the country, some are unique to New
rr.=lar.f.  In all instances, however, public concern is extraordinarily high and
de-anl for actior. is growing.

Recion I is building a forirddable environmental protection presence in New England.
We incorporate strong and balanced enforcement and compliance efforts into all our
activities.  We invite citizens, environmental and business groups, states and
other federal agencies to participate in our deliberations and become partners in
solutions.  And, we pursue improved resource distribution, planning and adjr.inistrativ
mar.agener.t practices to enhance our capacity to manage for environmental results.

Tr.e following is a brief description of the ten highest priority issues in Regior.
I.  Tr-.is list is presented in order of priority.

Ground Water Protection - Ground water is one of New England's greatest natural
resources.  This rich resource supplies drinVing water to approximately 20% of our
j.^pulo'-ior. and fully three-fourths of our conounity water systems rely on ground
water.

Yet, our ground water is in peril - threatened by a variety of contamination
sources, including leaking underground storage tanks, pesticides residues, surface
iir.pDur.d.Tients and leachate from landfills.

T-7 = *.?r. Harbor - Current sewer discharges from 43 Massachusetts cities and towr.s
throughout the Metropolitan District Commission's Boston Harbor facilities create
the most serious water pollution problem in New England.  The discharges regularly
close beaches, cause disease in fish and other organisms and threaten the public
health.

Boston Harbor is a great public resource.  We cannot allow its use as a public
sewer to continue.  In the next twelve months, the "Year of Decision", we and the
Coirjnor.wealth of Massachusetts will maVe a series of critical decisions that will
determine the fate of this resource for'the long term.

Toxic Substances - Complex toxic pollutants in the air, water and land has become
a serious national challenge.  Exposure to toxic substances can cause serious
health effects and long term environmental damage.

Public apprehension over toxic substances stems from the our inability to adequate-
ly assess health implications associated with exposure to low levels of contaminant:
and awareness that many of these substances are suspected carcinogens.

-------
                                       -2-
Lor.g-Kanoe Transport; Reid Rain and Ozone -

    AcidJRain - Long-range transport of acidic deposition is contributing to aquatic
    and forest changes throughout New England.  The three northern New England
    states are most threatened by this phenomena because of geologic characteristics
    which cannot effectively neutralize the acidity in the deposition.

    The New"England environmental community, states, news media and general public
    have a heightened awareness of the problem, and are deeply convinced that touch
    action to reduce emzj.ssi.on levels is essential to the solution of this problem.

    Ozone - Hew England has the nation's second most severe problem of elevated
    episodes of czor.e.  Jr. 1953, Cor.necticut, where the protlem is most severe,
    suffered through 46 days when the ozone level exceeded the standard.  Solutior.
    to the region's ozone problem will require inter-state and inter-regional
    cooperation since emissions from the Vashington-Philadelphia-Sew York corridor
    cotriine with local em.r.issions to form our ozone hazards.

Key Bedford Harbor - The inter-media nature of the problems that we face at Suner-
fund sites has led to the development and coordination of inter-prograir. responses.
The Nev Bedford Harbor site is an excellent example of a multi-media problem that
requires integrated technical, public interest and management responses.

Nev Bedford Harbor and the surrounding environment is extensively contaminated
with PCEs.  The presence of PCBs and heavy metals in the Harbor has lead to great
concern for public health, fishing bans and closing of large commerical fishing
areas, and loss or delay in the development of the Harbor's tremendous recreational
a:-.d economic potential.

HazaieouE Waste Management Facility Permitting and Comp lice - The issuance of
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permits to treatment, storage and disposal
facilities is a high priority for Region I and the New England states.  Failure to
call for'permit applications and issue permits unnecessarily endangers ground
water, soil and human health.

Asbestos and Public Health - Much of the building stock in New England is old and
ir.ar.y of our schools and public buildings contain asbestos insulation and/or decora-
tion.  Our greatest environmental and public health concern centers on renovation
and demolition, because much of the work being conducted is in violation of one or
more provisions of NESHAP. and the risk of human exposure is thereby significantly
increased.  Since asbestos is a known human carcinogen with no known safe level of
exposure, our concern is considerable.

Nationaj Municipal Strategy - Region I is aggressively pursuing major enforceir.er.t
actions to improve municipal compliance rates, construction of needed wastewater
treatment plants and implementation of a regional pretr eatment program.  Our
goal is to achieve marked improvement in water quality across New England, espe-
cially along the coast.

Marine Water O.ua5_itj£ - Outer Continental Shelf oil exploration on George's Bank.
dredging of waterways in southern New England and the cumulative effect of lono-
term point and non-point source discharges to our estuaries are New England's
greatest marine water quality concerns.

-------
                                     -3-
In vne next year, we will focus our efforts on five of the highest priority marine
ar-ri estuarine resources in the northeast United States - Boston Harbor, New Bedford
Harbor, Narragansett Bay, Buzzards Bay and Long Island Sound.

K^r.-rcint Source Pol lution/Confined Sewer Overflows - The New England environment
is confionted by every forir. of non-point source pollution.  Urban runoff, improper
construction practices, on-site waste disposal systems, agricultural activities
a-= forest.- management activities all contribute to serious cumulative imparts or.
o.^r environmental resources.

r~**Mr!ed sewer overflows froir. major city and small town sewer systems result in
significant discharges of untreated wastewater during periods of wet weather.
rr e— jer.'ly, coriined sewer overflows result in the closing of shellfish harvesting
areas  and inhibit the 'complete cleanup of important rivers.

B. w^'IOSM. ACCO.PZ.lSHy.ENTS

We are proud of our accomplishments over the past year in Region I.  You will soon
rereive a Region I publication disrussir.g Region I's achievements in greater
detail thar, is possible here.  What follows are a few highlights selected froir. that
dorument.
    r
Zr.T cr cer.ent has been our nuri>er one priority in Region I.  Over the past year we
to-_-V. more than 250 formal enforcement actions, including notices of violation,
	-'etrative orders and penalty assessments, and civil and criminal court cases.
Some results of these vigorous enforcement efforts are:

  o  TVS hundred tons daily of sewage sludge are no longer being dumped into Saler.
     Harbor.

  o  Residents of Canob Park in Richmond, Rhode Island, have clean drinking water
     today instead of water contaminated with service station gasoline.

  o  School systems and communities in New England are newly attentive to their
     responsiblity to protect school children froir. asbestos, after Region I assessed
     the nation's first civil penalties for violations of the asbestos-in-schocl
     regulations.

  o  Fegaon I prepared the  first federal criminal environmental case filed  in
     Massachusetts in the past ten years.  The case involved violations of  PCB
     rules and falsification of information reported to EPA.  The company entered
     a plea of guilty  in May of this year.

  o  The nation's first Superfund liability trial against seventeen defendants
     continues in U.S. District Court in Concord, New Hampshire.

  o  Federal  judges approved an EPA proposal that a portion of a large civil
     penalty  assessed  against the City of Providence for air and water pollution
     violations be used to  fund an environmental health study that will benefit
     the people of Rhode Island.

The  pace of these and  other enforcement efforts in this Region means that by the end
of  the year Region  I will have achieved the highest level of enforcement actions in
its history.

-------
                                        -4-


Our record on the program side is one we're also very proud of.  A few of our accom-
plishments over the past year are outlined below.

  o  To date, we have put over $50 million of Superfund money to work to clean up
     Ney Encland's abandoned and! uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

  o  We have spent more than $150. million to help local governments across New  .
     England improve surface water quality conditions through the construction
     of wastewater treatment plants.

  o  Our six New England states are in the vanguard in developing groundwater pro-
     tection strategies and were instrumental in the development of EPA's ground-
     water prliry.  Kerion 1 has actively supported state efforts in this area
     through its program grants, training sessions and pioneering efforts in
     er.erginc national issues, such as the control of leaking underground storage
     tanks.

  o  New automobile inspection and maintenance programs are in place in Connecti-
     cut ar.fi Massachusetts, the result of EPA-state cooperation.

  o  We reestablished relationships with our various constituencies in New England,
     meeting with the Congressional delegations, the governors, state environmental .
     directors, the press media, and environmental and industry and business
     groups to heighten public awareness of the environmental issues facing this
     Kegior., and to er,co\^rage widespread participation in solving then.

We have not lacV.ef environmental challenges, and we have working on behalf of the
New England environment a group of highly competent, dedicated and able professionals
A significant increase in our resources this year enabled us to hire a number of
well-trained engineers, scientists and attorneys at the staff level.  We were also
able to bring or. several outstanding individuals to fill key policy positions;
these individuals complete our senior staff and add new strength and experience to
the senior management team.

C. EMERGING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

We are conw.'itted to looking ahead, interpreting current trends to identify new
probler.s before they are widely known.  Dartmouth College, funded by EPA, will
complete in October an assessment of how demographic, economic and social forces
in New England will affect our Region's environment in the next decade.  For exar.rle.
a growing population, principally in rural areas and small towns, and a flourishing
economy confined to create emerging envirorunental problems that the Agency should
begin to address now.  What follows is a brief description of some of the issues
that we are most concerned with.

•  New Englandf-rs are very concerned with the growing effects of pesticides use and
   its impacts on human health as it percolates Into the ground water that we drink
   and drifts along in the air we breathe.  Pesticides application,.designed to con-
   trol one dimension of our environment, is spilling over into others.  As a
   result, our concern for the complex and confusing problem of pesticides contam-
   ination is increasing.

•  As we tighten our homes to make them more energy efficient and convert more home
   heating systems to wood and coal, we are asking questions about the quality of our
   indoor air.environments.  We spend most of our time indoors, where air quality  is

-------
                                       -5-


   frerurntly lower than outside - what long-term health effects  does this hold?
   What are the appropriate policy alternatives?

•  The expar.dir.g hig>.-technology economy of Sew England prompts concern over the
   direct and indirect environmental and public health impacts of-these industries.
   How will planned releases of new genetically engineered organisms effect put-lie
   health and how are exotic chemicals used in the r.esearch and production of high-
   tec^, ology' components effecting our environment?

Tr.e horizon of emerging environmental and public health problems  is expanding as
fast as our curiosity and ability to consider their existence grows.  EPA should
invest time and effort now to discover these problems, exploring  their consequences
ar.i debating alterr.at.ive policy responses.  All the while, however, we car.n-t. ICE*
sight of the older problems already stacked hi-gh.on our plate.

Tr.is Environmental Management Report communicates not only our. perception of the
most significant environmental problems facing New Englanders but it also carries
a comr.itment by Region I staff to take actions to address these problems.  In
t'r.at sense, the EV.K describes Region I's vision for fulfilling our part of the
fcaer.rv's mission to orotect the nation's environment.
Michael K. Deland
*•»•*: orB3 Ai-ir.istrator

-------
Fart II.     Recior^l Envirornental Problens

-------
                                                                 Region I
                                                                 Issue ti
                         GKX2O VRTER PROTECTION


I.  PKJ3LE.M STATEMENT

    J^prox irately 20% of New England's population (nearly 3 million
    people) depend on ground water as their sole  source of water supply.
   .Kcreover, 2,026 corrr.ruty water systens (77%)  utilize ground or
   . er the  past 10 years
    there has been steadily mounting evidence that New England's shallow
    f*Tjifiers are vulnerah'le to contamination fror, a variety  of  sources.
    These include:  uncontrolled hazardous waste  sites, landfills and
    surf are irpo;rv3-«nts (s-cne of wh.ich have already beccne Superfund
    sites), pesticides, and le^.ing undergrDiind storage tarte ILL1?!).


       SLE.X ASSS55KZ2.T
 c.
     Be eke round;  New England has soil types especially susceptible  to
     the leacr.ins of cor.ta.-.inants through the surficial geology  to the
     bedrock layer.  The soil tends to have high penneability.   This
     cojpled with the generally high ground water table, allows  foreign
     n=t£rials sjch as spent solvents, pesticide residje, and petroleur.
     procjcts to q-jickly penetrate the soil layer and reach the  ground
     *--=ter.  In the case of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites,  the
     wastes were disposed of improperly.  With, pesticide residues  however,
     the the way in which the pesticides were applied were, in most
     cases, proper.  Leaking  underground gasoline storage tanks result
     prir.arily frcr, the installation of bare steel tanks, unprotected
     asainst corrosion, fifteen or irore years ago.  The er>=rging probler;
     of leakage fron landfills and surface inpoundnents , regulated under
     the RCSA statute, are primarily due to siting without taking  ground
     water into consideration, and inproper design.  Many landfills  have
     accepted hazardc>js waste fror, sr.all quantity generators in  the  past.
     In addition, ccroercial and household wastes often contain  s~all
     quantities of hazardous raterials which, in aggregate, can  be signi-
     ficant.  This presents a special probleri for the Agency because
     ur.der R2?A subtitle "D", landfills are controlled by the States,  not
     ETA, and the States in genera] do not have the resources to urviertake
     an effective regulatory process.
 b.  GeoprapMc Score:  Ground Water contaninat ion is a Rc^ionwide
     Existing arc potential prot'ltsr. with conta-.inat ion frcn hazardous
     wastes apjx-ars to be nost dcir.inent in tossachuseits and Coanecticut
     (practically all the land disposal syslerx in New England are in
     ticse two states).  Connc-cticut , Ksine, Knswichivsetts and Rhode
     Island have had i>roblwns with pesticide residue, and fV^ine, based on
     prelir\inftry infoi-rr^tion, apfoars to have the nost far-reaching
     threats of contami nation frcn lea>dng storage tanks.
Major Injects   Oontaninants will  render  both current  And potential
^oufoi-s of dr'nking water  uniotable.   In  avVMtion, health risks  fror.
Ufc toxicit  of these  cont A-^inants ray cause  a seven?  ini-oct on  the
         toxicity of these cont A-^inants ray cause a seven? ini-oct on the
           condition.

-------
                                     -2-


   d.  Public Concern;  Public concern  is very high fron the health-related
       aspect of this problen.

   e.  Ksjor Sources;  Unprotected steel gasoline tanks belonging to either
       ncjor oil ccrpanies, sr.all oil ccr.panies or individual station
       owners; potato fields and tabaceo fields;  lagoons;  landfills;
       drons/tanks; piles; sludges; leachfields.
   •

   f.  CDntar.ina.-its of Concern;  Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene
       (tarv:s); ajdicarb, ethylene dibror.ide  (Q2)  and carbonfaron (pesticides);
       volatiles, heavy metals, PCB's and sludges/oils (surface inpoundrier.ts,
       landfills, druns/tanXs sludges,  leachfields).

   g.  Expected Er.virorr.ental Results;  Protection of current arc pot.er.ticl
       sources of drinking water supply, as well as ecologically vital ground
       waters.

III.  REGION AGEN1A

   a.  Past Res?or.ses;

       • Active coordination with the New England Interstate Water Pollution
         Cor.trol Ccrr.ission to brine the various states together and create
         a forjT: for technical and regulatory discussions.

       • Fomation of an interdivisional L.U.S.T.  ccrr.ittee  to collect and
         sh^re ir.forration and assist the region and states  in forr.jlating
         L.U.S.T policy.

       e Investigation b-y regional laboratory personnel into neans of
         detecting leaking anoerground  storage tanks.

       • Verified selected positive sanples frcr, pesticide residues.

       • Supported state activities by  supplying  technical background on
         toxicological and health effects frcn pesticides.

       • Supported state activities by  providing  infornation on treatment
         techniq'jc-s, recent pilot studies, and national incidents of pesticide
         corita~:ination.

       • Initiated a pesticide sanpling prcyrar. at 50 sites  in the Connecticut
         River Valley assessing the extent of contar.ination  and the
         total population impacted.

       • Surface Impoundment Asessnent  inventoried inpr»urkt>?nts and assessed
            ir potential to oontenr.inate ground water (late 1970's).

                   Inventory conducted  in the late 1970's.

       • Established the Office of Ground Water Protection to txonJinate the
         several ground water prograns  within EPA's stalutoiy e-.'thority.

       • Included ground water protection as  an issue in each Now England State
         Statc-EPA Agreenent.

-------
                                  -3-


    • Establish the Regional Ground Water Steering Garr^tee to develop
      overall policy and oversee the Ground Water Office

    • Ground water contamination plumes studied at more than half of the
      National Priority List sites.

    • A 20-acre slurry wall and clay cap installed at the Sylvester site
     '•in Nashua, New Ha-rpshire to lijr.it further ground water contar.ination.

    • A 9-s^jare ir.ile hydrogeblogic study of Wbbum, Massachusetts
      assessed the conta-.ination of an aquifer which once supplied two
      IT,ajor municipal wells; feasibility studies on aquifer restoration
      are underway.

b.  Reromgnded Regional Actions;

    e Develop detection technique for leaking tanks currently being
      investigated by the Regional lab, and utilize in actual field
      cases; this will uncover current problems and may be used by the
      states or. a wider scale; no state involvement during developr^ent
      stage; finalize results try Sunnier, 1985.

    e Continue to provide a source of information for the states in
      their regulatory developrent; this will facilitate control progrars
      at the State level; ongoing.

    0 Investigate and develop new data and information on underground
      storage tanks; work directly with states in ongoing effort.

    0 Present a L.U.S.T. technical conference to apprise all interested
      parties, including states, of the current technology available to
      help monitor the problem; ccrplete within next six months.

    * Provide oversight of significant agricultural pesticide
      use and coordinate findings with other regional programs;
      this will help identify pesticide residue problens unique
      to the region and provide data useful to the registration
      process; the stales will be active in this effort by providing
      inforr^tion; conduct during FY-1985.

    c Develop policy to provide technical assistance and e-nergency
      response measures in support of state actions involving pesticide
      contaminated public water supplies; this will aid the states in
      decisions involving the closing of .wells and the establish-
      ment of esTt-rgency procedures; develop during FY-1985.

    • Assure that the Region develops effective coordinating procedures for
      ground water management.

    0 Assure that the States also develop effective coordinating
      for ground water

-------
                                     -4-

   c.   Barriers to Qverccne;

       0 Lack of comprehensive regional data on the number and age
         of underground storage tanks.

       0 The trer^endous costs to the oil corpanies to rectify the
         problem,  and the possibility of passing these costs on to
      • -.consjriers.

       • Utilization of existing pesticide enforcement laboratories would
         sigr.if icantly reduce the start up costs associated with a ittsjor
         monitoring effort.

       c Recognition that pesticide residue monitoring should be assignee a
         mjch higher priority than in the past.

       e Resources needed to develop and inplement a National Konitoring
         Plan (NVJ3), which would provide baseline data to assess enviromental
         results, are unavailable.  In  addition, state funding to support
         the state/federal partnership  in ir£ler*nting the NM? is not
         available.

       e Widespread lack of understanding of clean-up technologies and the
         de;ree of clearr-up attainable  in aquifer restoration program.

       e Deta currently available on health effects of nany hazardous
         co-pounds is insufficient to set standards for clean-up and aquifer
         restoration.

       c The public does not trust government's ability to establish "hcv clean
         is clean" criteria.

       • At present, there is virtually no EPA oversight or financial support
         of State Solid Waste Programs; the effect is that rost landfills
         in New England will continue to pose a threat to ground water quality.
IV.  HLIDPJASTERS ACTIONS NEEDED
  c Develop a Ojality Assurance/C^jality Control and effectiveness  evaluation of
    present rr-ethods for testing underground storage tanks.  (Office cf Toxic
    Substances)

  • Select a contact in Washington who. can relay current Headquarters and
    Congressional positions and policies on L.U.S.T. to the Regional Offices.
    (Office of Ground Water Protection)

  • Develop a methodology for gaining information from the  private sector
    on tanks, leaks, removals, and abandonrwnts.  (Office of Tfcxic Substances
    and Office of Ground Water Protection)

  • Designate a central clearinghouse (i.e. ccuputer information system.)  for
    collecting and sonriarizing existing data and statistics o" underground
    storage tanks.  (Office of Ground Water Pi election)

-------
                                   -5-

 c Develop a model cost and manpower needs to urplement effective underground
  storage tank regulatory programs at  the state and regional levels.
  (Office of Ground Water Protection)

 • Support residue monitoring  of pesticides  that are likely to migrate to
  gr:>jndw3t.er supplies.  Soil and  elliptic  conditions favorable to pesticide
  residue and accumulation migration,  especially for degradation-resistant
* pesticides, should be considered.   (Office of Pesticides Programs)

 • Ap.en:  labels or cancel uses when monitoring data and/or experimentation
  indicate ground water contamination  fror,  pesticides.   (Office of Pesticides
  Programs)

 0 Develop policy regarding the types of  control Treasures necessary to
  ir.it igate the risks frcr. pesticide leaching.  Also, develop a  plan on
  how  to iir.plen>ent various control measures,  (office of Pesticide Prograr-s
  and  Office of Ground Water  Protection)

 c Conduct a National Monitoring Program  to  help define the extent  and
  nature of the pesticide program. (Office  of Pesticide  Program)

 0 Develop health advisories and/or Drinking Water Standards for use by
  E?.-.  aro the states in responding to  cor.ta-r.ination incidents.  (Office of
  Drinking Water)

 • Ensure that resources are available  to cor^lete the work of the
  Headquarters task force to  evaluate  the environmental  ijnpacts of non-
  r.arardojs waste nanagerient  facilities; ccrplete by the end of FY-1985.
  (Office of Sclid Waste)

 c Aggressively pursue research into health  and environmental ir-pacts  of
  the  hazardous wastes most ccrronly found  in ground water (usually volatile
  organics). (Office of Research and Development)

 * Establish criteria on levels of  contaminants in ground water  which
  should trigger Superfund involverent.  (Office of Drinking Water)

 • Develop a national inventory of  types  of  contaminants  found in ground
  water  shojld also be established and priority ccnpounds identified.
  (Office of Research and Eevelopnent)

 c Establish a national technology  transfer  progra-r for ground water
  investigation and restoration. (Office of Research and Development)

 0 Revise policies, guidelines and  re-gulations to reflect the use of the
  ground water strategy to manage  progra-ns  and establish priorities.


 Issue  Co-ordinal or:  Bruce Rosinoff
 (8-223-3981) Water Kanagcsnent Division

-------
                                                                      Region I
                                                                      Issue «2
 BG6TCI; HASBOK

 I.  PFD31EM SIATEHSNT

     The vater quality- of Bc» ton Barter  is degraded by the daily discharge of
     600 r.illior. gallons of wastewater and 2500 wet tons of sludge frori the
     Metropolitan District Ccnr.ission's  (KX's) two wastevater treatnent plar.ts
     which often fail to meet NPDES permit conditions.  In addition, the
    • ccriin.ed sewer syster. overf lovs discharge untreated wastewater at sane
    ' 110 locations along the Harbor's edge to create serious near shore
     environmental and health problems.

II.  PROBLEM ASSESS!^*!

     a.  Be cV. ground - The KX is a Massachusetts state agency that provides
         wastewater collection and treatnent  to 43  greater Boston corrur.i-
         ties with a ser\'ice pop'olation  of over 2 million or about 40% of
         the total state popjlation.  It operates two oot-roded,  overloaded
         prirary treatment plants (Nut Island — 1952 and Deer Island — 196B)
         and tvo Coriined Se-^er Overflov (CSO)  treatnent facilities (Cottage
         Farr- — 1971 and Prison Point — 19E1).  Historically, the agency has
         been underfunded and understaffed, conditions which have consistently
         cor.tribjtec to operational problera  experienced at the facilities.

     b.  Geographic Scope - The treatnent  plant and sludge discharges have
         an ir^ert on the water quality  of the  harbor and in the vicinity
         of the islands in the harbor which are being proposed as a Boston
         Harbor Islands State Park.  The CSO  discharges ir^pact the entire
         near shore area frcr. the Town of  Vfinthrop  to the north to the
         City of Quincy to the Sojth and the  city beaches.

     c.  Kcjor Irpacts - Tne discharge of  inaSequately treated wastewater
         frcr. the "treatnent facilities and untreated wastevater frcr, the
         CSO's are aesthetically offensive, create  a risk to the  public
         health, result in periods of closed  sviiming beaches during the
         recreational bathing season, closed  shellfish harvesting areas
         and potential environmental da-age to  the  aquatic environment.
         Direct contact with the conteninated waters can result in a
         variety of illnesses attributable to waterborne oganisrs,  eye
         arv: ear infections and a general  feeling of disccr.fort.   Con-
         sjr.pt ion of cor,tci-.inatc is onxised
         to treatment facilities at Deer Island ard o^xiccs any expansion
         or ui»jre>f?ing of that facility.  The residents also cyrose the
         construction of slurtje incineration facilities at D»-cr Island.
         Tlie rc-sitk-nts of the City of Qmncy object to any cxi\insion of
         tie Nut Island trtaUTH.-nt facility.

-------
                                       -2-

          Among the options being evaluated in upgrading the KDC's treatment
          facilities is locating treatment works on Long Island which is
          owned by the City of Boston.  TTie City Administration has voiced
          its objection to the use of Long Island for wastewater treatment
          facilities.  Notwithstanding the opposition to the various options,
          the residents of the ccrrvunities bordering the harbor aggressively
          see>: the abatement of pollution in the harbor.

          Or. the other hand, residents of the inland ecmunities served by
          the KX, while sympathetic to the harbor cleanup, strongly oppose
          needec increases in user charges and the assessrient of a share of
          the capital cost for construction of upgraded and new treatment
          facilities.

          Public participation in the Boston Harbor cleanup effort has been
          intense with many public meetings scheduled and scne 15 advisory
          groups and carrr.ittees meeting on different issues involved in
          correcting the Boston Harbor problens.
      e.  tejcr Scorces - T^ie most significant sources of the protler, are the
          discharge of sludge an3 inadequately treated wastewater frcr the
          two treatment facilities and the untreated discharges frcr. the CSOs.
          A considerable portion of the overload to the syster-. is attribjted
          to high infiltration./ inflow into the sewerage syster. which, especially
          during rainy weather, res-jits in loads exceeding the capacity of the
          trestr>ent works.

          Past studies have indicated that 34 CSOs discharge continually.
          These discharges are generally due to sewer blockages, accxrulated
          sedinents within the pipes which reduce their capacity, improperly
          functioning regulators within the syster. and tidegate failures.

      f.  Co-nta-inants of Concern - Ihe pollutants in the discharges to
          Boston Harbor include total and fecal colifom bacteria, floating
          materials, oil, grease, suspended and settleable solids, bio-
          cher.icol oxygen demand, nutrients, PCBs and heavy metals.

      g.  Expected Environnc-ntal Results - Correction of the problens contrib-
          utir»g"to"p6l"lution of the'harbor will result in improved aesthetics
          of the harbor and of all the beaches in the area, reduce beach clos-
          ings frcr, once or twice a week to once per bathing season, possibly
          allow reojjening of closed shellf ashing areas, irprove water quality
          wMrh would reduce risks to the public health, improve the quality
          of t)»e fish and increase the rc-creat ional potential of the harbor,
          its beaches and the proposed Boston Harbor I si amis State Park.

III.  REGIONAL AGENT*

      a .  Past Pfrsjonses

          • Six EPA M-iinistrative On^re have been issuod since August 8,
            1980.

-------
                            -3-

0 Ccrfletion of a Draft Environmental Irpact Statenent  (DEIS) in 1976
  on the Upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage Systen.
  The reccmendations were controversial and led to the preparation
  of a Supplemental DEIS (SDEIS).

0 Completion of a Sludge Managenent EIS by EPA in 1979  and issuance
  of a Record of Decision in 1980 directing continued environmental
  evaluation of sludge incineration and exa-.ining further the
  feasibility of composting.

• Issuance by the KDC of a Sludge Management Update Report in 19E2
  focusing on alternate disposal methods of composting, incinera-
  tion anc ooea.-. disposal.

• Irplerentation by the MX in 1983 of the ijmediate upgrade of thc-
  Deer Island and Nut Island facilities to correct chronic opera-
  tional problens.

0 Initiation of corrective measures in 1963 by the MDC and the
  Boston Water and Sewer Ccrr.ission on priority CSO projects.

* The filing of a lawsuit in 19E3 by EPA against the KDC for viola-
  tions of monitoring and reporting reouirenents.  The case was
  settled with the MDC agreeing to ocrply with the monitoring and
  reporting recrjirerents and paying a civil penalty of $15,000.

* Institution of a lawsuit in 1983 by the City of Quincy against
  the KDC because of pollution of Quincy Bay by the Nut Island
  Treatr^nt Plant.  EPA has participated in this suit in a
  "friend of the court status."  .The court has issued a ruling
  outlining a 10-year plan to clean up the harbor.

e Institution of a separate lawsuit in 1983 by the Conservation Law
  Foundation against EPA, the MDC and the Massachusetts Division of
  Water Pollution Control (DKPC) alleging deficiencies in required
  administrative and regulatory reviews.  This legal suit has been
  stayed.

e EPA issuance in June 19B3 of a .tentative decision denying an KDC
  application for a waiver frcn secondary treatment requir orients	
  under Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act.

e MDC sulr.ission in June 1984 of an application for EPA reconsidera-
  tion of the 301(h) waiver based on a reexanination of the water-
  quality impacts which led to the denial.

• Issuance in June 1984 by the Ccrnonwealth of Massachusetts of a
  Sli>3gc- Managtarent Strategy listing ccnijostiny as the preferred
  option with ocean disposal and incineration as the secoivi and
  third preferences, respectively.

• Ccripletion in October 1984 of the SDF.IS on site options for the
  Ujjyrafling of the Boston Mvt-iopolit-an Area Sc-wci ajc Systtsn to
  supplement the DEIS issued in 197B.

-------
                            -4-

    • Continuation by the MX of facilities planning development and
      prosecution of design for Deer Island and Nut Island facilities,
      relief sewers, pur.p stations and interceptors and CSO facilities.

    0 Suhr.issiop. of legislation to the State Legislature by the
   ' •• Governor of the Comonwealth of Massachusetts creating a Metro-
      politan Water Resources Authority' having the responsibility of
      providing water supply services and sewage collection treatment
      and disposal services to the cities and towns now served by the
      MDC.

    * Other Studies by the Department of Environmental  Quality Engineer-
      ing (DDQE) and the MDC address:

      - The feasibility of reducing the anoint of infiltration inflow
        into the MDC's sewer systars.

      - Develocnent of incentives to encourage MDC neriber oorrvonities
        to recjce their flows to the treatment systems.

      - Staffing and financial structures to deterr.ine  the MDC's ability
        to operate and rar.age the wastewater collection and treatrent
        syster.s.

      - Existing and needed rate structures for adequately financing the
        corist ruction, operation, r^intenance and future replacer*ent of
        the KDC's wastewster collection and treatment systens.

    e Based on planning and design acccr.pl i shed to date,  the approx irate
      costs for the r^jor ccr.ponents of the harbor cleanup are:

        Prir^ry/Ocean Discharge                       $660K
        Secondary /Harbor Discharge                    S760K .
        Sludge Managenent/Prijnary                     $ 67K
        Sludge Ka-iageient/Secondary                   $107M
        CSD Corrections                               $111M
        Interceptors, I/I, Separations                $577K

    0 EPA has awarded $169 million in construction grants to the KDC for
      planning, de-sign and construction of facilities which directly and
      irdirectly relate to Boston Harbor.

b.  Rr-cciTfrnded Rc^gional Actions

    0 Sch»c-dule public hearings in Novenher 19S4 on the  SnriS with final
      decisions r.a.^e in Mnrch 1985.  TCiis action will result in  EPA
      identifying sites for the MDC's wastewater treatment facilities
      wtiicli will have the least inverse enviromental
    • Evaluate the MDC's resulrntted 301 (h) waiver applicat'or. with a
      final decision made in Mnrch 1985.  n>is dt-cision will determine
      the level of trealjnent re*^uired for the MOC's waste-water facility.

-------
                                       -5-

           0 Require implementation by the MX of  interim sluc3ge disposal
             approaches to terminate  the  existing  sludge discharge to Boston
             Harbor.  lY.is action would eliminate  a source of pollution to
             the harbor and result in improved water quality.

           •••Require implementation by the KX of  a perranent long-range solu-
             tion to the disposal of  sludge generated  by he hDC's wastevater
             treatrent facility.

           • Preparation of the sludge jnanagement  EIS  in cooperation with the
             KDT arc con currently with prose-cot ion of  the cor.post marketability
             study and preparation of the facilities plan for sludge niar,age-
             ment facilities.

           0 Develop a revised legally enforceable schedule reflecting final
             EIS and 301(h) decisions as  well  as actions necessary for the
             ultirate elimination of  pollution fror, Boston Harbor.

           e Continue to track hOC progress and ccmunicate problems on a
             recjlar basis to senior  na.-.aaenent to assure ccr.pliance with
             established schedjles.

           e Continue the timely processing of required  EPA actions related
             to the award of construction grants,  and  other Clear. Water Act
             rec'-irerients, for Boston Harbor related projects.

       c.  Barriers to Cverccne

           e State construction grant allotnent inadeq-jate to cover hOC needs
             in a timely fashion.

           • Lack of EFA policy on ocean  dor.ping of sludge.

           * KX track record in operation and maintenance is weak.

           6 The public and ir.any elected  officials are unwilling  to accept
             ar,y i.-.ports associated with  potential projects.

           0 Resolution of CSG correction jurisdiction and responsibility
             bc-twc-cn KDC and ineriaer camunities.

IV.  HTADOUAW^RS ACT10TS NEEDED

     • Issue a
-------
                                    -6-

  0 Expedite any needed concurrences on EPA's final decisions relative
    to the KDC's 301(h) waiver reapplication. (OK)

  •.Pursue regulatory reforms to address "big city"' finding problerss
   . throogh tfe use of set aside or carryover acoour.ts. (OK)


Isc-je Coordinator: Alfred Pelcq-jin (223-3909) Water Ka.-agenent Division

-------
                                                                Region I
TOXICS                                                          Issue 13

I. Probler. Statement

Toxic Substances - The nost difficult problem, facing EPA and the states
todey involves toxic pollutants in air, land  or water.  Toxics  includes a
vide range of substances that may cause health effects ranging  frcr,
cancer to birth defects to nervous syster. disorders.  Toxics can include
ccrron building iraterials such as asbestos, volatile solvents used  for
cleaning, waste raterials durped into landfills and industrial  discharges
pjrpe-5 into rivers.

Specific problems include: 1) addressing air  toxics emissions,  2) reducing
toxic industrial discharges, 3) protecting underground sources  of drinking
water frcn toxic contamination frcr. controlled and uncontrolled solid and
hazardous waste disposal sites, 4) identifying the risks of toxic substances
prior to their irarketing and abating risks of currently "in use" substances
such as those found in industrial or consumer products,  5) addressing
interrtedia contar-.ination probler= and 6) assessing and responding to
intermedia irparts frcr, toxics on huran health.

II. Procler Asses snents

Air - Few toxic pollutants are currently regulated by EPA.  State agencies
in New England are developing guidelines for  controlling hundreds of air
toxics.  Currently, state programs address only six criteria pollutants
for which federally prcrulgatec standards exist.  Cbnpounds that states
intend to regulate include heavy netals and organic compounds vhich may
be erdtted fron large industrial sojrces or sr.all sources such  as dry
cleaners or degreasers.  The need to aodress  pjblic concern has been a
rejor factor in state agencies' decision to develop air toxics  control
prograns.  States need assistance in identifying and controlling sources
of air toxics.

Water - Toxic substances, primarily petals, have been discharged to New
England waters since the early days of the Industrial Revolution.   Treat-
r-c-r.t processes have been developed to rertve  these cher.icals, but even
industrial and nanicipal effluents treated to B&7 levels can cause  toxicity
problems in the waters where they are discharged.  This is pait icularly
true throjg>iout the New England states where  plants have historically
located on sr-all sLrea-is with very little capacity for diluting the
vastes they receive.  Tt»o effects of these toxic discharges can be  seen
in the rcOu-x-d q-j*lity of downstream biological conunitics and elevated
levels of six-cific dicsr.icflls at potential drinking water intakes.   Region
J has institutc-d a review of all NPDE5 pewits to ensure that water
quality standards in the receiving waters will not be violated. The goal
of the policy is to increase the nur^er of river miles which nc*t water
quality standards.

Drinking Water - The prohlein of toxic pollutants contwninatins  drinking
water sources, particularly gixwnd water, is  an existing anJ continuing
threat throuylout Nt» England.  De-cause of the geological configuration,
ground water  in Now Eiqland lies close to the surface, thus ir.aVing  it
more susceptible to inlets frcm disjxTsal practices, laixMills, land
     icat ions and discliarges.

-------
                                    -2-

 Ey exA~.ir.ing the documented contamination incidents, we find the majority
 cf the affected areas are located in less densely populated areas  (less
 than SOD people per square mile),  tony tines the severity of the  contan-
 innation is difficult to quantify because of two major reasons: one being
 the fart that the contamination probler. often occurs in private systens
 v.jich ctfc unregulated and secondly, even if the syster. was protected by
 statutes i there is insufficient scientific data and knowledge to substan-
 tiate the assessment.

'Since it is difficult to assess the health irplications of exposure to
 lr.- le-'els of contar.inants, there exists a high level of public concern.
 Another fact in heightening the level of public concern is that often the
 co-.*_a- i-ar.ts are suspected carcinogens such as industrial solvents, e.g.
 tetrarhloroethylene., dichloroethylene, and trichloroethylene.

 Intermedia Toxics - Although the range of potentially toxic substances is
 q-.-ite broaf, regulation of toxics as a whole involves sane curon probler.5
 and uncertainties.  Data needed to naXe good regulatory decisions  is
 often inconplete or rissing.  Testing has been done for only a srall
 r*1:- c*r-,tage of the estirated 60,000 cher.icals in the rarket place.  Most
 tests are based on aniral studies using high doses, and extrapolation to
 hj-£r£ exposed to lev- doses is qjite corplex.  Exposure assessments to
 oetcrr.ine the s^ope of the affected population can be expensive and time
 cc-vs.r.inc.  Vital statistics that Treasure morbidity and mortality and
 . i.-.w nc>ji(3 be used to do epideru'o logical studies are often inconplete or
 risking.  All of these problems and nore are comon in atterpts to under-
 stand and ranage hj-an exposure to toxic pollutants.
     Toxic Substance Control Act (TS2A) enacted in October of 1976 gave
 E?A broaf powers to control the ranufacture and use of toxic substances.
 Currently only polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and chlorofluorocarbons
 tCFC's) are ca-prehensively controlled.  Asbestos reporting requirenents
 have been imposed for schools.  These are, of course just a few of the
 rar.y toxic substances that have found their way into the environment
 through norral use.  tore controls are necessary.  One of the rajor
 proble-is in developing regulations to control the manufacture and use of
 toxic substances is the availability of data to perform risX/benefit
 analyses.

 Interrt-dia problems are by their nature difficult to deal with.  For
 ex.ar^le, industrial donp sites ray be releasing toxics and coors to the
 a-.Ment air; toxics ray also be leaching to groundwater and con ta-.ina ting
 drinking water sullies.  Air stripping to rercve  toxic onjanic cher.icals
 frcr. polluted water may be a source of anbient air toxic contar-ination.
 All proyra". offices need to be aware of practices, regulations or clean-up
 ntasures t>at ray be transferring a toxic problem from one pc\3ia to an-
 other.

 In addition, EPA's current organization nafces a thorough urtfcrs land ing
 ard coordinAt«3 response to toxics difficult.  Trtal hn-.vj cxiveure^to a
 toxic pollutant is rarely consick-reJ.  Statutes, rtyulations, organization,

-------
                                     -3-

and grants were established to respond to problems in isolation frcr> each
other.  Risk assessment and management have energed as tools that could be
used to create more consistent program,  but they have not been used to a
great extent.  Dealing with these uncertainties and cutting across these
boundaries to create a consistent and effective regulatory prograTi is a
major challenge facing EPA.

III. Regional Agervfa

 a 5 Past Responses

    Air:

     • Participated in air  toxics advisory corr.ittees in Massachusetts aid
       Connecticut  (ongoing)

     • Sponsored a workshop on air toxics emissions inventories

     • Conducted ambient nonitorinc at states'  request

    Water:

     • Reviewed KPDE3 perr.its for preservation of water quality standards
       in receiving waters  (ongoing)

     0 Developed acute toxicity testing policy for review of NPDES perr.its.
       States participated  in policy develop->«-.t througy-. New England Interstate
       Water Pollution Control Corr.issior, (19E3)

    DrinXing Water:

      0 Maintained  close ccrr.unication with the Waste Kanajenent Division
        by establishing a merorandjr. of understanding to address o\'erlap?ing
        activities  (ongoing)

      • Coordinated with state counterparts to establish a sir.ilar nerorandjr.
        of unders tending

      0 Providc-d health assessrer.ts arc advisories

    Intemedia:

     • Established  a regional toxics coordinating corr.ittee to act as a
       clearinghouse for multir»«3ia issues, to coordinate division activities
       and to provide a foruri for identifying overlaps and resolving
       inconsistencies

     • Encouraged dovel current of an integrated environmental itvvi>3cnent
            a-:. in Rvodc- Island
   b)  Reccnnended Regional Actions

    Air:

     • Provide  sup-»rt  for state air toxics projrans through risX asscss-»?nt
       worV^>»cps, and air toxics monitoring suj^xsrt.

-------
                                     -4-

     e Increase ability to respond to air toxics health effects question.

  v - *•«>»••
  Tl.- .5;. •

     • Develop a prograr. to attack problem of sedijnent conta-ination
      •a.'»5 subsequent leading to the water colurvi.
 • ...   *
     c Develop chronic toxicity testing

     • Assess practical effectiveness of toxicity policies

     • Deterr.ine effect of toxicity policy on affected strearis through work
       of the states on field validation Drinking Water:

     • Provide contaminated source treatment technical assistance

     ' Provide technical assistance for State Health Advisory Programs

     0 Provide techr.ica! and resource support to states in gathering
       information or, toxic substances

     e Provide technical assistance to Superfund Endangement Assessnents

    Intermedia:

     e Strengthen the Regional Toxics Coordinating Corr.ittee with a rore
       forral structure and nancate frcr. the Regional Adr.inistrator ar>d
       Deputy Regional Adr-.inistrator

     • Expand toxics integration and coordination efforts with state and
       interstate agencies

     • Develop a regional policy on risk assessment and risk management

     • Give greater consideration to use of an intemedia envi-
       ronn&nt&l r^nage.'^er.t approach in certain areas.

   c)  Barriers to Overcome

     * Lack of resojroes, standards/guidelines and general
       data continue to hinder resolution of toxics problens

     • Lack of incentives for regional managers to consider
       intern«3ia infracts and risk

     • Current resistance anong divisions to coordinate where
       intermedia effects exist

IV Ht-aa^uarters Actions Needed

    Air:

     • Provide Pinions and states with infornation on risk
       assessment meUiodology and risk nana^»3-.fnt

-------
                                -5-


 • Expand air toxics emissions factors program  (QftQPS)

 • Expand toxics monitor ing progran

 0 Provide guidance on reducing toxic er.issions, including dioxin,
  . r.^r-iripai resojrce recovery facilities  (Q^OPS)
  •
Water:

 * Develop further criteria for vater toxics  (Criteria and Standards
   Division)-

 e Develop sedirent criteria  (Criteria and Standards Division)

 • Develop standards for N?D£5 perr.it process to ensure consistent
   procedure to draft acute and chronic effluent limits (OZ?, OURS)

 e Develop guidelines for relationship between the arroont of toxicity
   v* ich will still allow streams to meet a lover classification
   (Onlr, .
Drinking Water:

 * Provide resojrces for regional toxicoiogists to evaluate toxic
   related health effects in every medium.  Provide guidance on evaluating
   health effects of ner.itored artient levels

 0 Direct and/or sponsor research on the health effects of comonly
   detected organics and their possible synergistic effects (DDK, OfO)

 • Develop fe3eral regulations and/or guidance to control or elir.inate
   orgar.ic contamination in drinking water  (ODK: Criteria and Standards)

 • Develop health advisories for derrval exposure to organic oonpoonds
   in driaXing water used for bathing (CCK; Health Advisory Progra-)

Intermedia:

 • Strengthen prograr. coordination in Headq'jarters

 • Incorporate intermedia coordination in workload models and operating
   guidance

 • Develop a uniform approach to assessing multimedia  problems IORD)

 0 Develop controls on the irAnufacture and use of toxic substances via
   TSCA St-ction 6 auttority (OTS)
  Issu£_Coordinator: Karyaret McDonoughi Air Kvnagis^ent Division
                    (223-4B70)

-------
                                                                      n I
                                                                 Issue 14

LC*JG RA.'C£ TRAJJSPOKT - ACID RAIN

I.   Procler. Title

•Acid Rain" is a tern used widely throughout New England  to describe a set
of er.virornental probler.s of concern to the scientific ccmunity and the
purlic.  Acidic deposition is contributing to aquatic and forest changes
throughout in New England.  Although the Northeast  is the most  severely
?*f«>ct.e<3 area, the problem is national due to its long range  transport
aspects, which are not addressed effectively under  the state-specific,
artier.:. sta.-vSari's fra~»eworV. of the existing Clear. Air Act.

II.  Probler, Assessment

A.  Scope, Impacts, and Public Concern

"Arid Rain" is a hojsehold word throughout New England, and evidence is
proving that the wet and dry deposition of acidic materials is  da-aging the
rec ion's enviroment.  Scne lakes and streans are reaching pH (acidity)
levels that cannot support freshwater ecologies.  Many aquatic  ecosysters
are being threatened, especially in our three northern states,  because much
cf our geology cannot effectively neutralize the acidity  of deposited
- •'•* •»• and nitrogen oxides (50Xr NO*).  Other dar.age has  been monitored in
our forests, particularly at the higher elevations where  airborne pollution
beccr~s acidic in clouds.  EPA, the environmental camunity,  and the public
ere worried because the relatively large changes in these norrially
stable environments nay be extrensly difficult to reverse.

Although the sr.all, airborne particles of acidic precursors can directly
iripeir'visibility, rost effects beccne apparent only after these materials
have ccrtined with water to becone sulfuric and nitric acids.   Increased
vater acidity is known to cause material deterioration, such  as rock weather
ing or materials da-age.  It also increases the ability of ground water to
leach metals and other cher.icals frcn soils.
   er the Clean Air Act, each state develops its own implementation plan
(SIP) to nc-et the national a-hient air quality standards for NOj^ and SC>2
set by EPA.  For the most part, these SIP's have been adequate to r*?et the
« of the
SO^i unissions in New EnglaraJ.  Of our six stMcs, only Veiront can attribute
more t>»an one third of its unissions to otlier miscellaneous sources.  In

-------
                                -2-

 Kassachusetts and Coanect icut , electric power stations account for more
 than half the SOx inventory; area sources (principally cars) account for
 more than half of the NOx inventory in every state.
 Upwind states also contribute to acidic deposition.  In 19B1, New England
 sources er.i'tted less than 3% of the U.S. SOx and NI>x inventories (665,000 and
 596,000 tor.s respectively).  New York State's SOx emissions (1,035,000 tons)
'are greater than the emissions fror. all New England sources.  She annjal SOx
 inventories of several, individual, ir.idwestern states are ten times greater
 than the New England state inventories.  Baldwinville Station in Illinois
 erittef over 253,020 tons of SOx *n 19E1* as did the four other electric
 generation stations' ir. Ohio, Indiana, anc Illinois which rank in the top
 five.  In Indiana, coal-burning electric power stations contribute more
 than 80% of the SO- emissions, 1.49 million tons out of a total of 1.84
 Trillion tons.
                (see attached charts)

 C.  Expected Enviromental Results

 If anc when a.-. arid rain control plan is inplenented, sulfate and possibly
 nitrate deposition will decrease, anc this should er.able our ecosystem to
 stop acidifying and hopefully return to their natural state.  The recreational
 and ccmerciaa activities that depend on our forests and lakes, such as
 fisheries, will no longer be in as much jeopardy.  Acid rain controls would
 also help solve other environmental problems such as visibility iripairnent
 and a-~ier.t levels of fine particulates.


 III.  Recional Agenda

 Because E?A does not believe that we know encogh about acid rain to propose
 controls at this tine, najor research projects, like the National Acid
 Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), are studying the effects and
 mechar.isrs of acid deposition.  The Region participates in a national task
 force that is studying the inplenentatior. issues which would arise under an
 acid rain cor.trol program.  Through the SLA's and KLSCAJ>:( we are working
 with states in t.v«e region to characterize the probler:., anc coordinate the
 exchange of inforr.at.ion, and enco.u-a-ge regional strategies.

 a.  Past Responses

 Research

 • LaV.e Survey -- Bc-cause we do not know the extent of the d00 lakes nation-
   wide as or»e of the NAPW projects.  Sax? 500 of those are located in New
   England. Tltt: pilot proyracn for our laXcs was completed in June.

 • Purest Research — Rc-seardiers have disixweivd t>v»t forest dictack is
   occurring in the uppor elevation nounl^in forests of New FinjlAnd and
   otlitr parts of the U.S.  B<.-cajse UK-SO forests me often cloud -cove red,
   enviroirental acidity levels are high.  ILwver, the efft-cts of acid rain
   on forests are difficult to isolate U.-MUSC of other d.f-wjc factors,  e.g.
   drought, disease, ozone, heavy metals such as lead.

-------
                               -3-

  •  Response Rate to Acidic Deposition -Lakes and their watersheds are
     intercoanected through carp lex physical and biological 'systers.  It way
     not be the total acidic deposition that acidifies a particular lake
     but an increase in the rate of deposition.  If this direct response
     r»:-rhar;isr. is accurate, we ray have scne tine before additional irreparable
     harm will be done.  On the other hand, if watersheds contain a lir.itec
     arour.t of neutralizing capacity (buffering) and historical acidic
     Deposition has depleted scne of that capacity, a delayed acidification
     response could be triggered by continued deposition at the sane or
     even lower rates.  Scne of the N?*?«? laboratory and field studies are
     trying to answer this question.

Task Force

  •  The Region participates in the national task foroe that is investigating
     the irrlerentation issues associated with an air pollution control
     prograr. that would track tons of SOj reduced.

  *  E?n's Task Force has prepared an outline and statenent of critical
     prograr. issues that will be discussed with state agencies and the
     public shortly.

  •  The outline and report of this Task Foroe planning work is being used
     to set priorities for further efforts.

  '  Region I alsD participates in the local Acid Rain Task Force sponsored
     by NESCA'JV. and NEIVJPCC, the Northeast air and water directors groups.
     We report on research findings and ocryliance activities.

b.  Reccmended Actions

  •  Continue to follow and report on the lake survey.  Final Phase One
     sampling will be conducted in October.  A second phase of the lake
     survey will sarple streams, soil, fish life, and other biota.  The
     results of this project will provide a basis for long terr. acid rain
     monitoring stations.

  •  Continue to participate in studies to establish a dry deposition
     iron i tor ing technique.

  •  Continue to participate on local and national task forces.  Encourage
     our regional groups to propose control strategy development studies
     that can be forded by a ncv Congressional appreciation (52.6n) for
     this purpose.  Work on unission data bases and control strategies can
     begin almost ir.ix'diately.

C.  Barriers to Overcome

  *  Resources

  •  Interstate differences in program, politics, emissions an3

-------
                                 -4-
   •   Uncertainty about da-rage causes and mechanises.  Also, there are few
      standard measurenent techniques or quality assurance procedures for
      monitoring acidic deposition or its imparts.


TV*.  -Headquarters Actions Needed
     Continue full support of K^?A? projects, ensuring that adequate resources
     are ccrr.itted to long-terr. research projects and environmental mor.itoring.
     Tre OF.T arid rain bjdoet r.ust be fully funded and monitored.
  *  A monitoring methodology for dry deposition must be developed.  Other
    research results must be used to develop control plans.

  0  EPA must use our regulatory review and approval experience to guide
    program. plan-ing.   Headquarters must assure efficient coordination of
    acid-rain issues.   Ine Office of Air and Radiation must continue to
    analyze issues and control options.

  9  E?A should taV.e irr-ediate steps to irprove the procedures for developing
    e-issior. data  beses and for ap?ro\'ing then.

  *  EPA should prcr^ide a fonrr: for discussion of strategies anc research
    findings by different govemnent and industry1 groups.

  0  E?A sho-old also enco-jxage regional strategies and innovative institutions
    that  co-jld iryler«nt control plans on a regional or national basis.

  •  OA?. nust na>.e  state support and regional inplenentation assistance
    available.

  0  EPA shoold reccmend and unple-Tient an acid rain control prograrr. as soon
    as possible.


  lEEue Coordinator; Sarah Siron, Air Kanage-Tent Division
                     (223-4561)

-------
NEW ENGLAND S02 INVENTORY ;

-------
S02 EMISSIONS
                                      CQ TOTAL
                            W

-------
                                                                Region I
                                                                Issue 14

 LON3 JVJCE TRVEPOKT - OZQM: IN NEK ENGLAND

 I.  Procler Statener.t

 Attainment of the one hour ozone standard (,12pjr.) continues to be one of
 the nsjor enyiromer.tal probler.s here in New England.  In Connecticut,
 where the protler. is nost severe, there were 4€ days in 19E3 when the
'orone standard was exceeded and levels were recorded as high as .246 ppr:..
 Ozone is forr*ec when volatile organic corpounds (VOC) and nitrogen
 oxides (NOX)  che-.ically react in the presence of sunlight.  The reaction
 tire varies,  but usually it is on the order of 3 to 6 hours, and the peak
 ozone levels  occur anywhere frcr. 60 to 600 ir.iles fror. where the VOC and
 NDj; originated.  This transport phenomena ineans that emissions frcr. the
 V; a= h in? ton/Pr.i la delphi a/New York corridor contribute, along with local
 e-.issior.s, to ozone fomation in New England.  As a result, New England
 has the second nost severe ozone episodes in the nation.

 33. Prowler assessment

 T;J= ozorie standard is being violated essentially everywhere in the three
 southerr. states of Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.  It is
 also being violated in southern New Hanpshire and southern Kaine.  Using
 rs's. supplied by the Anerican Lang Association, EPA estirates there are
 over 1.95 ir.illion people in these areas that are "at ris>:" when there
 is  an episode.  The "at risk" group includes:

    e infants  less than 2 years old
    c people with e-pheser^, bronc.w;itis or asthna
    c people over age 65

 The effects of ozone on hunans are well aocunented.  Sane of the adverse
 health synptons associated with ozone are: shortness of breath, coughing,
 ryoVing, bumLng eyes, and redooed resistance to infection.  Even in healthy
 adults, high  levels of ozone r-ake exercise difficult and scnetires irpos-
 sible.  Ozone is also responsible for reduoed growth in sere vegetation,
 including crops, anc cracking in rubber products.

 tost of the "at risk" pop-ilation is aware when t-here is an ozone procle-.
 Tr,e nt-.-sr-^r^rs* raaio and TN all report when levels are expected to be
 above the standard and warn the *at risk" group to stay indoors and do
 r.inir^l exercise.  During these high ozone periods, the frequency of
 hospital erorgency visits for respiratory problems usually increases.

 EPA has chosen to control ozone by focusing its attention on reducing VOC
 uiissions. VOC emissions are about e^jxwlly split between irv^ustrial
 sources ard robile sources (principally cars).  1^)e imlustrial sources
 include Ue gasoline r.arVeting industry (from bulk tennirvals to gasoline
 stations), coaling facilities (paper, fabric, metal, can, coil), chty.ical
 nanufacturers, arri users of i'«grcasers and other solvents.  ETA has
 worV.cO with the stales to dexeloj) controls for over 25 categories of
 irrfjstrial sources.  A^ditior«ny, other sources which car.it o\-er 100 tons
 per yoar are  rc^uirc-d to reduce emissions Uirough the ivV^ition of control
 equiprient or  conversion to less polluting processes.

-------
                                -2-

Mobile sources are also being controlled.  The Federal Motor Vehicle
Emission Control Progran has resulted in significant redactions in VOC
frar, new cars, while the Inspection and  Maintenance programs in
Connecticut. Massachusetts and Rhode Island are designed to help insure  -
that vehicle emission controls are maintained in good working order.

However, there have been problers getting sources to ccr.ply with existing
.regulations, ana there are people who are tar.pering with their  autonobile
er.ission control devices.  For exar'ple,  just two tank fulls of  leaded
gasoline will poison the catalyst in the catalytic converter and make it
ineffective.

Region I is in the process of transferring responsibility for the VOC
program  frcr. the planning stage to the inplenentation and enforcenent
stage.  Once EPA has established a strong ccnpliance program with .the New
England  states, we expect to see the VOC emission levels reduced to  the
levels projected in the attainment plans, and we expect ozone levels to
drop belov the standard.  However, that  goal is still several years  away.

III. Regional Agenda

• States have developed plans (SIPs) to  attain reduce VOC er.issions

e E?A has worked with states to develop  SIPs and to approve SIPs

• Region has initiated a Task Force to identify and resolve problems
  related to irplenentation of the Stationary scarce control strategies
  in SIPs.

  The Task Force is developing an enforcertent strategy - the next step
  is to  to discuss possible strategies with the State Air Directors.

• It will be several years before all sources must be in ccnpliance.
  Kovever, there are over 50% of the sources which should be in ccr.pli-
  ance now, and we hope to work with states to determine ccnpliance.  We
  are planning a series of workshops over the next year to  train  the  in-
  si>rctors on particular source category ccr.pliance inspection techniques.
      1/K pragrar.s  in Connecticut and Massachusetts are also an integral
  pe>rt of the VCX reduction strategy and we are working with these states
  to assess their prograns.

  Headquarters Actions

  Since ozone is a  regional air pollution problem rather than a source-
  sp»?cific problem, we have requested that hea&jiwrters continue to fund
  the Northeast Corridor Regional MOoling Project (NKCR!*?) which was
  designed to assess how the emissions fron tlx? entire East Coast are
  interacting.  Unfortunately, headquarters has infonrcd us they will not
  provide this support.

  Tne technical issues involved in determining compliance for each industrial
  source are ecrplex and hoAVjiwrtei-s ncc-ds to continue to provide teclnical
  assistance in UK.»SC deteiiriinations.
   Issue Coprdiryitor:  John Hani sen, Air ftvia-jjvnt Division
   "" .....            (223-5130)

-------
                                                                       Region 1
                                                                       Issue « 5
KT.: BEDF3FC HAP33?.
Ir.pl enervation of  the  Superf und Progrer. will be a rrajor environmental issue
in FY36 ah3 following  years frcn technical,  enviromental and legal points
ot view.  Iriplerentation of the program at the many eligible sites in
Roc i or. I will be ar. extraordinarily ccrjrlex  undertaking, involving not
orly the Superfine Progra-. but  also ii^ecting decisions and actions
undertaken by a niJ7,be r of other EFA nedia programs.

Such issues as CERCLA  compliance with other  enviromental statutes,
especially F3sA and implementation  of the National Groundwater Strategy
will require much  nore intensive multiprcgrar. involvement than in the
pest.  EPA needs to develop the inter-program relationships to assure
CESJLA decisions reflect the view of our expertise in drinking water,
sir pcllutior, arc  grants administration.   Further, sites such as New
B-iford Ksrbcr which discharges to  and  ir.pacts Buzzards Bay, ray beccne
dirertly involved  in general interest problers (e.g. the Congress ionally
r=-c5ted Bay study).

Of particular concern  will be those sites at which EPA studies will be
csr-irludinc and decisions will be r.ade on the extent of rer»edy during
FYC6.  In Recior, I we  expect to be  addressing 25 sites during that
period. TVie fol loving  sites are exp&cted to  be those for which decisions
or. extensive remedy will be rade during 1986:

Ct: Beacon Heights      Kass: Charles George (final)  Me: O'Connor
    Kellog-Deering
    Yaworski
    Laurel Park
    Old Southington

RI:' Davis
    Sta~:ina Kills
                          Iron Horse Park
                          New Bedford  (final)
                          Wells G fc H
                          Cannon - Bridgewater
                          Cannon - Plynouth
                          Silresim
Kes'terr, Sard (final)  Vt: Springfield
                                                           Saco

                                                      NH:  Dover
                                                           Sonersworth
                                                           Kearsarge
                                                           S.  Kur.icipal
                                                           Tinkhan
                                                           Savage
                                                           Koefe
Tnere will continue to be a high  level of public concern about  the problens
at Suj-r-rf a-*3 sites and continued  activity by citizen's  groups designed  to
both, -.stij^j] ate and encourage  incrc-asod Agency activity  in the clcan-up
and to provide public eanrents on prcvose>d clean-ups to the Agency.
In edition, iriplu-cntation of tJie cxj*-cted  reautiioi iziation  and great
exj^ansion of the Sui*rfund Progrcn will  be otning into  focus  in fY86.
    nore de-tailed df-scription which  follows of New a^forf Harbor,
possibly one of the nost canplic«*l«3 Suix?rfund sites  in the ccxintry,
illustrates Ute caiplexities and  issues  involved,  and is presented to
illustrate the tyi*-s of problems  that caji be expected to occur at a mnber
of other sites by tlje time 1986 arives.

-------
                                     -2-
I. Probler Statenent

New Bedford Harbor  arc  the surrounding environment is extensively corjtar.irict.ee
with PCBs.  Technically and environment ally the New Bedford situation is
extraordinarily  ccrplex.   K^ti-necia contamination and exposure pathways
include: ambient air; surface and ground-waters; soils; sediments; food chain;
and ind-jE trial plant sites.  Nev Bedford is a National Priority List (NFL)
site for Superfunc  action.

There  is a high  level of public concern with the probler., manifested by the
esuci-lishnent of several  citizen groups created to focus public cements to
the Agency.  There  is consistently high attendance at public meetings and
the agency has received a large number of corrents fron the public on
proposed planning activities.

II. Prohler
Ear?', ground:  Poly chlorine ted  byphenyls  (PCEs)  were used by two electrical
Cbperitor F^e.-jfa-turers, the  Aerovox  Cor.pany and Cornel 1-Dubilier Incorporated,
in New Bedford, tessachusetts over a  period of tine spaaning several decades
up until the late 1970's.  As a  result  of poor disposal practices, PCB
contamination in the New Bedford area is  widespread.

Upland sites of contar.ination include Sullivan's Ledge and the New Bedford
K-i-.icipsl Landfill, which  received approximately 500,000 pounds of PCBs,
rainly as reject capacitors.  PCBs were also directly discharged by the
ccrpariies to surface waters resulting in  high  concentrations of PCBs in
S€-fir>er,ts.  Secinent concentrations in  the Aerovox mudflats range frcr, 500
    to over 1000 ppr., with a  reported iriaxinin  value of 190,000
Historically, the New Bedford Kastewater Treatment  Facility received PCfc
conta-inated waste  frcr. the  ccrpanies via  their wastewater discharges to
t-he plant.  Currently,  an estir.ated  200 to 700 pounds  per year of PCBs are
being discJ.arged frcr, the Clark's  point outfall because of residual  con tar. i -
nation in the sc^er lines.   An  unXjiown additional anount is contributed
frcr. 27 ccrtined sewer  o-v'erf lows which discharge  to the Acushnet River and
Buzzards Bay.                                                           _

As a result of direct and irrfirect discharges of PCBs  into the estuary,
elevated levels of PCBs in fish tissue have been xeixnted.  This led to a
fishing Lan being imposed on over  18,000 acres of the  harbor.   The FXxx3 and
Drug A'l'.i nisi rat ion (FDM has set  a  max. unum limit of 5 pjr-, in  fish for
hur-ian core u-ipt ion.  Migratory fish taken frcn the an>a have levels as high
as 16 \>\r, ar*3 bottom feeding fish, excluding eels,  up  to 57 pjw.  Lobster
sa-iples have been reported as high as 51 Pi^i in the ir\nor bailor. The
closing of large areas  of cor.nercial fisheries has  had an AlvciFe wipftct on
the local fishing industry.  OUicr a^K-erse ijni>acts  inclvx^c dolaying  projv>sed
harbor develo^rient projects, delaying planned maintenance anJ  develoii>?ntal
dredging projects, loss of recreational potential of the hfliior, arv! possible
public health ard welfare effects.  TJx?re  is also conoern for  the presence
of hc-avy metal contaninants  in  the New Bi^foix! area.  Although little is

-------
                               -3-
currently  kr>^>—  about their occurence and distribution, the history of
hea\y metals  in  the  area parallels that of PCBs and will, therefore, be
included in future Superfund Investigations.

Past Responses:

f  Negotiated a  Consent  Agreement with Cornel 1-Dubilier Electric (CDE) to
ta'-.e remedial actions at their facility.  CDE has completed the major tasks
ojt-iinec in the  Agreement.

•  Negotiated a  Consent  Order with Aerovox Incorporated to characterize
deir site, suir.it a plan for on-site rer»edial actions, and ir.plenent the
plan.  Aerovox has completed the onsite renedial activities.

e  Conducted  a cor.prehensive nulti-nedia field investigation  in the New
5t-f ford ares  to  nore clearly delineate the probler. areas.

*  Issued  an  Administrative Order to CDE to clear, out oor.tar.inated sewer
lines in the  vicinity of their facilities.

"  Issued  ar:  Administrative Order to the City of New Bedford  to provide
technical  assistance to  CDE during the sewerline project for  monitoring of
the effluent  and sludge  frcn the sewage plant for PCBs.

Expected Environmental Results:

A successful  resolution  of  the problems in the New Bedford area will have
ir.ar.y positive effects on the area including:

0  Protecting the health and welfare of the public.

e  The return of ccmercial fishing to scne of the PCB inpacted areas.

e  Ccrrencing previously proposed r.a intenance anc developmental dredging
   projects.

0  Restoration of the recreational potential  of the harbor.

•  Protecting the environn&nt of the New Bedford Karbor/Bazzards Bay syster..

i1 1 Regional  Agenda/Act ions

•  Finalized  the RA'P in August, 1984.

•  CcnpleU-d  draft feasibility study for the Acushnet River Estuary Hot
Spot; rek-ased for public review in August,  19B4.

•  Filed suit in Federal District Court against Potentially Re
Parties.
•  Contiriue aggressive ongoing Co^nunity Relations Pixigi am  Owst has
solicited  input  frcrri  the public and  also infoiTK«d them on present and
prcjosed activities.  Initiated bilingual monthly fact sheet.

-------
                             -4-
•  Continue operation aid develop-ent of data r.angenent"systeri developed
for New Bedford Harbor.
0  Massachusetts Departrient of Environmental O'Jslity Engineering  (fo
DE£I) will continue to coordinate the actions of other state agencies
involved in the New Bedford cleanup.

0  MA DDQr will play a specific role in the selection of renecial
alternatives.

•  Under the Superfund statute it is the states' responsibility to provide
the Agency with off-site disposal areas.  The Agency is working closely
with the state to investigate potential off-site disposal areas.   However,
to date no specific disposal sites have been selected.

Barriers to Cverccne:

•  There could be significant political and corrunity relations problers
in selecting disposal sites for higMy contaminated dredge spoils, should
dredging beccne a selected renefial alternative.  The MA DDQE has  infernally
indicates that there are no acceptable upland disposal sites.  The ccmur.ity
has expressed concern over the potential ij^pact of this problem.
0  Cost estir.ates for renedial actions for cleanup of Hot Spot areas of
the Harbor range fror. 525 - 80 million.  Estirotes for the remainder of
the Harbor will likely be at least as high.

0  Tne problems of environmental complexity, tiding, and to scne extent
finding have been cverccne by dividing the area into specific sub-sites
which can be Independently jranaged.  Each sub-site has milestones for
remedial investigatins, feasibility studies, ircplenentation and funding
allocation requests.  While ccnpletion of all renedial actions taken
under this strategy will take several years, the agency will be able to
            steady progress towards an overall "cleanup" of the area.
0 Althojgh EPA has taken the position that CERCLA actions do not req-jire ET
envirorrrmtal perr.its or EIS's, Ne-» Bedford Harbor actions could be 6"^er those pe-nrdt prograns. Such determinations
coold int&ct the tir.ing as well as the ultirate acceptance of the selected
         action.
•The extensive- involvenent of other EPA prcgran offices may present institutional
barriers to rapid dtcision naking, to the extent that those prograns are
asked to concur in CEKCLA decisions.

-------
                                  -5-
IV HcBJrjarters Actions Needed

Prcvide tvr-ical prograr. support for this Soperfund site.  The Office of
Waste ?racra.-.E Enforcement  coordinates enforcenent activities, anc the
Office of Brtergercy a.-v: Remedial Response provides prograr. guidance and
tt.-jj.ical support.

Re-gior. I will suirit  to Headquarters the proposed Record of Decision afte:
fir,=liz£tion of the feasibility study for the Acroshnet River Estuary Hot
Spot.  The Recion reqjests  a reasonable turnaround tine frcr, Head^jarters
fo: 6 response or decision  on the proposed Record of Decision.


Issje Coordinator: Gerard Sotolongo (223-1951),  Kaste Karagnent Division

-------
                                                                  fcecion 1
                                                                  Issue t6

          WASTE PER^TTING AND COMPLIANCE

A. Hazardous Waste Management  Facility Perr.itting

IA. Problem Statenent

Beginning in FY-B2 Region I and the states  in  a  cooperative  effort  formally
initiated calling hazardous waste facility  Part  "B" perr.it applications.
During FY-83 and 84 the states and Region I worked together  to review
perr.it applications and point  out deficiencies to applicants so that
ccr^lete applications could be developed.   Also  during FY-83 and FY-84
Region I authorized all of the six New England States to make perr.it deri-
sions in lieu of EPA while EPA provided technical support  for the energinc
state perr.it program

IIA. Probler. Assessment

a. Background; The permit prograrr. was designed to first  bring under regula-
   tion"the nost environmentally significant facilities  in the Region (ie
   off-site commercial facilities, incinerators  and land disposal facilities),
   Because of the complexity of the facilities;  the necessary learning
   period for both the regulated can-unity  and the regulators and the tine
   necessary for development of inplenentation guidance  in the fomative
   years of the prograr, the issuance of perr.its  has been a resource
   intensive and difficult task.

b. Geocrsphic Scope; She greatest concentration  of major facilities are
   "locatecln"the"nore highly  industrialized states of Coanecticut, Massa-
   chusetts and Rhode Island.  A high level of public concern is generated
   by p&rr.it development activities for comercial facilities, incinerators
   and landfills.  Often the public's concerns are related to probler-iS
   which cannot be directly addressed by EPA RCRA regulations such  as
   location, traffic patterns, air enission standards and  regulation of
   recycling or Connercial processes.

c. Major Irpacts; Of prinary concern to the Region and the state agencies
   "Is the aSa*. (-rent of or corrective action of ground water  contar.inatior.
   thru tJ-ie application of technical stark3a:-ds via the pei-it requirements.
   In this area of concern the lack of groand  water nonitoring data and
   poor quality of the data that has been generated has  ha,-perec5 our efforts
   to identify and solve problens.

IIIA. Regional Agenda

a. Past Responses: Tte Region  has nv»de a najor effort during FV-83  and
   tV-84'to tailor state requests for Part  "B" appli cat ions  for the land
   disposal facilities.  -HK? exix-cted results  of applying  the RCKA  regula-
   tions to existing land disiosal operations  is that those  land disposal
   facilities which did not or do not operate  hazai-JcKis  WAste land  dispos-
   al as their principal business will close their land  disix»s«l  facility
   in accordance.with an aj>pxt^t<3 closure plan under the direction  of the
   state envirorr.ental »jencies.  T\ie ris^ining  land disio&al facilities
   which will continue to opiate can be regulated by allying technical
   Standards Uirough the permit pixxx-ss i3urir»3 the latter  part of the decade.

-------
                                      -2-
     Hrogress in R3A perr.itting in Region I since the beginning of the
     program is shown in Table I.
              . . ••
J.VA .Hr-*.; garters Action Needed
                s must address in the near future the national ground water
     policy and strategy in concert with the national permit strategy and
     siete gro-r*: vattr policies and strategies.  Everyone agrees that more
     erphasis in control of ground water contamination is necessary through
     perrr.itting disposal facilities.  However, with the linited resources
     available , it is not clear that a resource intensive permit strategy
     viil achieve the goals of effective ground water managertent.

-------



S&T
In=
Disposal
SiT
Inc
Disposal

S&T
Jnc
Disposal
-3-
Table I
Region 3 RZRA Perrdt Actions F*-E2 thru FY-B4
Cirvjlative
FY-S2 arvS P3 Perr.it Actions
Withdrawn
Called Received Draft Issued Closed
69 33 10 32
7 4 001
19 6 001
Only FY-84 Perr.it Actions
Withdrawn
Called Received Draft Issued Closed
15 6 615
0 0 000
2 0 404
Cumulative
Thru 7/1/84 Perrit Actions
. Withdrawn
Called Received Draft Issued 	 Closed
84 39 7 1 37
7 4 001
21 6 405

-------
                                  -4-

 B. Hazardous Waste Compliance Monitoring and Enforcenent

 IB. Procler. Statement

 During Fi>84 Region I continued its RCRA Subtitle C compliance and
 enforcener.t efforts while at the sane tine inplenenting an enhanced state
 er^orce-tnt oversight program.  TY.is latter initiative is intended to
 better define the Federal/State enforcement relationship under RUvA by
 establishing acceptable levels of enforcenent response for certain types
 of violations, the result being a consistent and aggressive state enforce-
 r-e-.t ar>: E=.~. prccrar. recionvide.  T^e following statistics reflect EPA's
 enforosrter.t efforts for FY-84 (as of July 31, 19B4):

                 Inspections conducted             14B
                 S300B Conplaints issued            14
                 S300B Final Orders issued          13
                 5300B Penalties assessed     5223,127
                 §3033 penalties collected    $ 44,820

     level of state inspection and enforcement activity has steadily
 increased since the Itove-iber 1953 effective date of RCRA as a result of
 their assj-.ing the ccr.pliance nor.itoring and enforcenent lead after
 receiving Phase I authorization frcn EPA.  The following are regionwiae
 state enforcement statistics for FY-84 (as of July 31, 1964):

               • Inspections conducted           1,030
               * Enforcement actions initiated     272

 In the area of state oversight, Region I developed an enforcenent response
 policy which establishes the appropriate action for various classes of
 violations, and sets out those enforcenent tine franes necessary for
 such actions to be considered tinely.  We have irplenented this policy
 in all six New England States, and initial indications are that it has
 more than net its intent of swift, effective and consistent enforcenent
 actions at both the state and federal levels.  EPA Washington is in the
 process of developing a national RCRA enforcenent response policy and
 will use the Region I approach as a basis for that effort.

I IB. Probler Assessrient
 a . Be^rqand^ P.jch progress has been nade over the past few years in
    bringing 'industries into compliance with RCRA.  State and EFA field
    surveillance activities have shown that the irost serious violations,
    Uose with the greatest potential for environmental harm, have been
    corrected.  Such situations are uncovered occasionally.  However,
    plaaning and record keeping type violations are clearly the nost prevalent
    Over the next fiscal year, compliance and enforcur.vnt attention will
    focus on the ground water monitoring, financial, and closure/post
    closure reqx irurvnts of RCRA.  In doing so wo will address what is
    considered to be the priority enforovrx-nt initiatives of the progran.
    W<_- will at the sane tune facilitate the penniuinvj process via our
    ground water efforts and address the facility closures which will
    result, as additional permit applications are called in.

-------
                                -5-
IIIB. Regional Agenda

As has always been the case, a successful RCRA ccrpliance program is a
joint State/EPA effort.  ]We expect that the result of our FV-E5 initiatives
vill be consistent and aggressive State enforcenent programs regionwide,
increasing levels of compliance with RCRA's ground water monitoring and
finar.cial rerjir^enents , and enviromentally sound clean-up actions at
those facilities who choose to close rather than receive final operating
permits.  Although, as always, it vill be necessary that we and our
states exercise judicious use of our resources in order to meet these
objectives, the one area where we may nevertheless fall short is that of
analytical support for the ground water monitoring program.  Sampling
and analysis of well systens in place is not only costly but the RC31A
work is in competition with other media for laboratory support which is
insufficient to meet everyone's needs.  It is inportant that this issue
be resolved as soor, as possible so that we can proceed in an expedious
anc ccrprehensive namer.  Kith most clear cut violations of RCRA previ-
ously addressed, what we have foand to renain are those cases most
difficult to prove and often requiring sane arrojnt of dnn., soil and
waste strear. sanpling.  This will serve to further exacerbate an already
strained laboratory resource.

IVB. Heajrjarters Actions Needed

Heaaq-jarters must address as quickly as possible the short fall in
analytical resources to support the RC3Vi program.  This is a probler. for
both E?A and the states and must be resolved if we are to adequately
deal with the priority R3vA enforcenent initiatives in Ftf-85.
Issue Coordinator t Richard Boynton, Kaste Kanagpent Division (223-4445)

-------
                                                                  Region 1
                                                                  Issje o 7
ASBESTOS AND PUBLIC HEALTH

I. Probier' S
This issue fpcuses on two separate and distinct, although  inter-related
problems which are regulated under the authorities of two  separate
statutes, ie, CAA-NESHAP and TSCA.  Heightened public awareness of  the
potential dereers associated with asbestos exposure , potentiated by
school districts asbestos hazard abatement program, is resulting in
significantly increased nunbers of asbestos related renovation operations.

There is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that  the majority of
asbestos derolition and renovation operations are performed in violation
of one or nore provisions of NESH&P.  The increased rate of renovation
operations, which ray be done inproperly, significantly increase the risk
cf exposure to asbestos by workers, building occupants, and the general
public.

II. Procler. Assessment

a. Geocraphic_scope - The problem of potential environmental contamination
ty asbtstos, as a result of faulty work practices, is Region wide.  The
affected population varies but could range frcr. several people to entire
neighbor roods in any single situation.

b. Ksjor irparts - Asbestos is a known hunan carcinogen.  There is no known
safe level of exposure.  Contamination of the environnent with a high
potential for horan exposure increases the risk of illness in the exposed
pop jl at ion.

c . Level of Concern - There is a relatively high public and news nedia
coricerri over the darxgers associated with. asbestos exposure, as evidenced
by nedia coverage of the subject and the nurber of asbestos-related
inquiries rade to the Regional Office.

d. Major sources - The most significant sources of environmental release
of asbestos would be renovation and derolition of public and private
buildings, and to a lesser extent frcn private dwellings.

e.Contari^nant jof concern - Asbestos.

£. Exjx-ctc-d environrfntal resuHs -Implementation of an aggressive
eriforou:*nt" iJrojraris tai-get«3 tx> Uose wlio rca^A-e asbestos from buildings
would be an increase in co-.tpliancc with applicable regulations le^ing to
the elimination of hur.an and enviroi rental exposure to this carcinogen.

311. Pc-gional Agenda

A clooe working relationship of long standing has been dcve-lopod between
the astjcstos prc^jrams untV.-r TSCA and NT.SHAP.  RefeiTals of potential
violators are routinely made between Ux? two prcyitiros.  However, in the
past there has U-en a disi'ioioitionatc enfoiexrvnt resix»nse policy between
the two. T)»e TSCA reulations have been a»jjrc-ssively enforced since

-------
                                   -2-

prcr.ulgstion of the applicable rules.  NLSKA? enforcement has been hind-
ered by both a lack of adequate  resources  and an  inability to initiate
enforcement actions for violations of the  work practice standards due to
a Suprerie Court decision which ruled that  the CAA did  not give EPA the
authority to pror.jlgate such standards.

An anendnent to the CAA perr.itted the reprcr.ulgation of the work practice
standards or. April 5, 1984.  This action now permits the Agency to increase
its enforce-mer.t; effort.  While additional  resources  have recently been
allocated for NLS-iA? enforcement, more are neede-d to adequately address
the situation.  NESKAP - Asbestos enforcement resources need  to be allocated
separately frcr. other NESrlk? activities, and be increased significantly.

Effective enforcement of asbestos denolition/renovation operations is also
ccrplicated by the delegation of only portions of NLSJRP authorities to
rost Region I states, and full delegation  to only 1  or 2.  The Region is
actively working toward attaining a viable progra- in  each state,  and has
now developed a ccr.prehensive region-wide  strategy under which EPA aid the
states will increase enforcerent efforts.

The Air Kar.agerent Division, in  which both TSZA and  NE5HAP programs are
located, is considering a coordinated program enccr.passing both activities
under one office.  Lack of adequate resources has been a deterrent to
coordination, although cooperative efforts do continue.   Additionally,
the regional asbestos prcgrars jointly conducted  an  asbestos  dero/reno
workshop for state inspectors.   All states except Vemont attended the
workshop.  Increased state activity is anticipated.

A viable asbestos enforcement prograr., with deronstrable results,  is
possible.  With adequate resources and continued  cooperative  and coordi-
nated efforts, the presence of an EPA enforcement posture will  put the
regulated corrunity on notice, and is certain to  decrease the occurence
of poor work practice operations.

Or: ar. interagency level, significant progress toward reducing huran exposure
to asbtstos during dero/reno operations was naoe  this  year through a hvrv-
randur, of Urnt-rstarding between  the regional offices of  EPA and QSHA.   The
MX' sets forth a prograr. of mutual exchange of inforr.ation regarding asbestos
derolition/ renovation.  EPA infoi-ns C6H?»  of all  asbestos Oix?rations for
wV,ich notices have been received umter the requirements  of the  NESHAP
regulations, anJ refers potential violations of C6*R regulations discxn-erec
during the course of an EPA investigation.  Similarly, OSH& will,  in the
course of regular projracnc-d and special cr^ftsis insect ions,  ascertain
whether a contractor has ccr.plied with the EPA rcxjuirorients,  «nJ inform
EPA if a violation is suspected.

In a non-ro«3ulaLory activity, the Rmjional TSCA aslcsto-, prcyrdn pro-ides
technical assistance, literature, and training aids  to building  ov-ners,
state and local ijovei ments, airf the public to enable  t}x»jm to safely and
a3(*juately dc-al with asbc-stus hazards.

-------
                                   -3-

TV. Hgasrjsrters Actions
Additional resources need to be allocated to the region by both the Office
of .Air, Ncsise and Radiation and the Office of Toxic Substances to allow
ar. expert ion of enforcement and technical assistance capabilities.
Kcc.>Tjarters should evaluate the possible disproportionate occurrence of
asr^stos dero/reno operations between regions, as influenced by building
size, nunber, types and age, and provide increased resources to regions
having l*rge n^-oer of asbestos operations performed regularly.
Throughout Region I, asbestos derolition/reno\Tation operations far exceed
tj-je agency- 's ability to monitor.  Resources are needed now, at a tine  .
wher. the potential for huran exposure to asbestos is greatest.


j'ssje Coorcir^tor;  Paul Hef feman (223-05B5) , Air Kar.agenent Division

-------
                                                                           I
K^.TIOf;^ KJMCIFAL POLICY                                           Issue IE


I.  Probler. Statement                                    -   '

    The major enforcement areas are  to  inprove  the  ccr.pl iance rate of munici-
    palities with their NPDES pernits and  to inplenent  a Regional Pretreament
    Progra-r.  EPA developed a National  Ki-iicipal Policy (NX?) which requires
    all municipalities ccnply with the  Clean Kater  Act  by  constructing
    wastewater treatment plants in accordance with  their NPDES perrr.it by
    July 1, 19EE whether or not federal funds are available or to insure
    their constructed facility is in ccnpliance with  their NPDES discharge
    perr.it.  The NX? also requests that each State  develop a  State Kjr.icipel
    Strategy that evaluates all municipal  discharges; deterr.ines which
    constructed facilities cannot meet  existing penr.its; which unconstructed
    facilities will not receive federal funds;  and  how  the State will
    require unfunded ccmunities to  construct VMT?  without federal assistance.
    The National and Regional Pretreatjnent prograr.  has  two major priorities
    the first is to have all necessary municipalities develop and implement
    approve:: pretreatrient program to insure that indirect industrial  dis-
    charges pretreat their waste so  as  not to upset the municipal wastewater
    treatment, cause pass through of pollutants, or inhibit sludge disposal
    practices and se-condly that all  indirect industrial discharges as  a
    r.inir.jr. ccrjly with Federal Categorical  Effluent limits where appropriate.


II. Protler Assessment

    Trie Municipal Ccr^liance probler, is a  ccnbination of two  problers  1)
    that a njnber of constructed nunicipal W-.T? are not meeting  their  NPZES
    perrdt and 2) that a nj-i>er of comanities  have not constructed the
    necessary treatrent facilities in order  to  ccrply with the requirements
    of the Clean Kater Act (O£>).  The KM? set  up a prcoedjre to insure  all
    municipalities cone into ccrpliance with the OR by July  1,  19BB.  Bcwever,
    it specifically states that federal funds are not a prerequisite to
    oonpliance.  Therefore, EPA and  the New  England States are requiring
    cat-unities to develop Municipal Cor-.pliance Plans (MCP) to determine the
    type of treatrient a comanity needs and  the funding nechanisrr. available
    in order to cxr-.piete construction by July 1, 19BE.  The goal  of the
    Recior. and States is to have all ir.ajor facilities in the  above category
    sj5j-.it a Mr? by October 1, 1985.  The  Re-aion and/or States will then
    require thie cciTiunity to ccnply  with the KIP throujh an enforoonent  _
    action.  The Region or State will work with carrunities to shov ther.
         tJ-iey can afford to build a VA-.TP without federal funds.
        Region a,t3 States will continue their enforoonent effoit to insure
    all constructed wastevater treaO-ent plants ccr.ply with their NTDES
    ptmit.  Any constructed facility that is not in corplifmce will be
    rercjuired through an enforcvax-nt action to set up a plan that aJJrcsses
    Uc reasons for nonconpliancc- and places the facility on a exjoSitious
    schedule to ta>.e all steps necx-ssary to insure long term cvr^liance.

-------
                                     -2-
    Through this extensive effort all major municipalities will be in ccn-
    pliance with the OR.  This will result in a marked improvement in the
    water -quality throjghout New England especially along the coast.

    The pretreatnent enforoenent effort is also a ocnbi nation of two efforts.
    The first is to insure all comunities develop and implenent programs.  EPA
    and the States of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island de-
    sigristed 79 ccrr.unities as needing to develop pretreatjnent programs in
    order to cor.trol the potential discharge of toxics frcr. indjstrial contri-
    butors.  The States of Connecticut and Vermont have developed pretreatnent
    programs at the State level.  The Region has approved approximately 1/2
    of the 77 prograTis to date although all programs were to be subr.itted for
    approval by July 1, 1983.  The other ccrrunities have either not satr.itted
    or suhr.itted inapprovable prograns.'  The Region has initiated a strong
    enforcerer.t effort including administrative orders and press releases
    nar.ina the camanities in an effort to have all prograns sutnitted by
    Septe-Tiber 30, 1984.

    The irylerentation of approved pretreafrient programs will control the dis-
    charge of toxic into municipal sewers and the pass through into waterways.
    Each comunity will require the industries to properly pretreat their
    wastevater and dispose of the sludge in an approved manner.  Each comj-
    nity must set up a program to inspect, monitor, and enforce both federal
    and local pre treatment standards against all indirect discharges.

    Trie other part of the enforcement efforts is to insure that the Federal
    Categsrical Standards requiring specific industries to meet national
    pretreatr»ent standards by a certain date are fully ccnplied with.  An
    exenple of this is that the electroplaters were required to install
    treatment by April 28, 1984 and meet national standards.  EPA has initi-
    ated a strong enforoenent program to insure that these dates and standards
    are met and is taking appropriate enforcement action including civil
    penalties.  The Region is developing a strong field inspection progra-
    to verify compliance throughout the Region.  The Region has also begun
    editing ccrrvjr.ities with approved progrars to ins-are that they properly
    inple.-fcnt those programs.


III. Regional Agenda
          Region has discussed with each State the NXT and each State has
    developed a State Municipal Strategy.  The Rt'gion and/or State have
    prioritized those VA7PP that will not received fc\V?ral f orris and are
    requiring then to suli^it furling options and schedules to construct the
    nc-cessary facilities by July 1, 1588.

    The Rogion and State will require all constructed V*%TP that cannot meet
    thie p*nTiit conditions to su!mt a canioeite correction Plan (CCF) that
    identifies the reasons for nbn«JTl i ance and prcix>scs a plan to insure
    the facility is returned to compliance.

-------
                                     -3-
    • Continue to require comjnities to suhr.it pretreatr»ent prograns as
      quickly as possible.

    ••Re view'and approve all pretreatonent programs upon acceptability.

    • Initiate enforcement action against recalcitrant municipalities

    • Initiate field inspections on a systematic basis to insure industries
      comply with categorical standards

    • See); penalties for all non-conplying industries to help make the regulated
      corr.'jnity aware of E?A aggressive enforcenent
      efforts.

IV. Headquarters Action

    o Office of Water Enforcenent and Permits should issue a National Pre-
      treatnent Ccr^-liance Stratec-y to insure a consistent National Prograr.
      is adopted.

    o EPA Headquarters nust review the National Municipal Policy if Federal
      forcing for r.ur.icipal wastewster construction is extended beyond 1955
      and modify it appropriately.

    o E?A Office of Water ErJorcenent and Permits must increase Regional
      resources to fully irplenent an enforcenent effort for pretreatnent
      and municipal ccr.plia.nce.


ISEJ? Coordinator  Larry Brill (223 - 5330) - Water Management Division

-------
                                                           Region I
                                                           Issue 19
     PROBLEM S37iTEK2?T

    'Two major envirornental issues irpacting the New England Coast
     are estuarine water quality problems caused by industrial and denes-
     tic waste effluents, ccri-ined sewer overflows and non-point source
     runoff and ocean disposal of dredged material.
II.  PRDBLEV.

II.*..
   a. Background - Ihe major pollutants effecting New England estuaries
      are coliforr, bacteria, heavy metals, nutrients and organic cher.i-
      cals.  Trie bacteria, nutrients and metals originate frcr, nonpoint
      source nroff , wastewater treatment plants and ccr-ined sewer over-
      flows.

   b. Geographic scope - Under a recent congressional action, four mil-
      lion dollars was appropriated for studies of four estuaries: Puget
      Sound, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay and Buzzards Bay.  Of
      these ironies, approximately 2.6 ir.illion dollars will be administered
      by E?A in assessing the proble-;S, identifying corrective measures
      and ir?l orient ing these measures in the New England estuaries.

   c. Major irpacts - Estuarine pollution is nost exemplified by the
      closjre of shellfishing groands, loss of the use of beaches for
      contact recreation, and a general der.ise of aesthetic quality.

   d. Level of public concern - There is a very high level of public
      concern over~the degredation of estuarine water quality.  For in-
      stance, Save the Bay, a private envirornental group fomed approxi-
      mately ten yc-ars ago to address the problers of Nai-ragansett Bay,
      has 10,000 djes paying fa-.ilies listed in their nerbership and has
      establis>*d itself as a viable political faction.

   e. Kajor _so-jrces - The majority1 of marine pollution to these urban
      esUjaries originates fror. malfunctioning wastevater treatnent
      plants, otnbined sewer overflows, non-point source runoff, dredging
      activities and oil transport an.3 distribution.

   f. Con'-ar-inants of concern - Heavy metals, organic chwiicnls, coliforr.
      tJctefia","hijtrjents, KfD^, and petroleum hyJrocai-bons.

-------
MARINE KATE? OUALm

I.
    'Two major environmental issues imparting the New England Coast
     are estuarine water quality problems caused by industrial and domes-
     tic waste effluents, ccr^ined sewer overflows and non-pcint source
     runrff and ocean disposal cf dredged material.

II.  PROBLEM ASSESSMENT

31A. ESTUAPIES

   a. Background - The majcr pollutants effecting New England estuaries
      ere cclifcrrr berterie, heavy ratals, nutrients and organic cleri-
      cals.  The bacteria, nutrients and metals originate frcr. nonpcint
      source runrff , wastewater treatment plants and combined sewer over-
      flows.

   b. Geographic sccpe - Under a recent congressional action, four nil-
      "licn dcilars was apprcpriatei fcr studies cf four est-uaries: Puget
      Sound, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay and Buzzards Bay.  Of
      these rcnies, apprcx Lately 2.6 ir.illion dollars will be administered
      by EPA in assessing the problems, identifying corrective measures
      and irpltrt-nting these measures in the New England estuaries.

   c< Mejsr ir^iarts - Estuarine pollution is nest exemplified b^' the
      clcsjre cf shellfishing grounds, loss of the use of beaches for
      contact recreation, and a general demise of aesthetic quality.

   d. Level of jpublic concern - There is a very high level of public
      concern ever the degredaticn of estuarine water quality.  Per in-
      stance, Save the Bay, a private environmental group forrned approxi-
      mately ten years agr tc address the pr obi ens of Narragansett Bay,
      fias 10,000 dues paying ferilies "listed in their n*crr-ivrship and has
      estat.•lis^c<3 itself as a viaMe political faction.
   e. fejor_ sources - TTie r^jority cf Ferine pollution tc these urban
      estuaries originates frar malfunctioning wastewater treatment
      plants, ccrijinc-d sewer overflows, non-point source runoff, dredging
      activities and oil transport and distribution.

   f. Oontcri nanis of con£trn - Heavy nvtals, oi-ysnic chrtnjcflls, coliforw
      bacteria,' 'nutrients, BOIX,, and pcLroleom hydrocarbons.

-------
                                   -2-
   Q. Expected enviromental results - As the above itentioned problems
      ere alleviated, the benefits te be expected are:

     - •  An increase in both contact and non-contact water use.
     r
      0  An increase in recreational and comercial shellf ishing.

      *  AT. increase in property values bordering the polluted areas.

      0  Rehabilitation of areas by populations of health and diverse
         marine organisms.

      0  An increase in the aesthetic quality of the water.

HE.  OC.V: DISPOSAL Or DRE2GED MATERIALS

   £. BerVcrcund - New England waters have been used for the disposal of
      dredge: iraterials.  Appr ox irately 75% (or 19 ir.illion cubic yards)
      of the tcta! arcunt of material dredged in New England between 1971
      anc 195D was disposed in open waters off New England's coast. Of
      this tctal, 3,280,843 cubic yards were disposed at two EPA approved
      iteriir. sites over the past four years.  The derand for disposal
      at these and other open water sites is expected to continue and
      possibly increase over the next decade because of the need to
      meir.tain and enhance regional harbors and ports.

   t. Geographic sccpe - Major dredging efforts in New England will be
      the harbors in Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts; mainly
      Providence, the Mount Hope Bay area, Pall Fiver, and New Bedford.

   c. Kc jcr inparts - Impacts due to the disposal of dredged material
      are 'not totally predictable as yet.  The potential for affecting
      recreational artf ccnrercial resources and general water quality
      is always present when discharging cent arina ted dredged materials.

   d. Level cf_pub]ic concern - TTiere is a high level of p-jblic concern
      re-Ja'rdi'ng the e'nviVonnvnta] impacts of dredg«3 material disposal
      into the ocean as well as the socio-economic impacts if nc new
      di edged disposal sites are identified.  As pviMic meetings are held
      on specific projects, public test irony helps to select vhich
      alterrtative(s) are most acceptable.

   e> EXJ ec ted env i rorvrt- nt a 1 resul t s
                  effect on recreational and conT«?rcial resources
         and general water quality d.iannels.

-------
                                   -3-
III.  REEIO^M A3ETCA

IIIA. ESTUARIES

   a. Past responses

      •  Research en estuarine pc Hut ion and the development of cor.p-jter
         irodels capable cf pollutant dispersion prediction.  For  instance,
         in 19E2, EPA developed a dispersion rodel for Nerragsnsett Bay.
         Irie ncoel has been used by the Rhode  Island Department of Er>-
         virorrental Management to justify the State's application for
         CSO funds during the first round of funding and will be  enplcyei
         fcr f Jture yearly applications for CSO funds.  Ttie nodel has
         also been used in an EPA Headcjuarter's study of the benefits cf
         cleaner water in Upper Narragansett Bay.

   b. Re ^emended regional actions

      •  Adrinister the Special Bay and Estuary Studies of the three
         estuaries recently funded through Congressional action.

   c. Barriers tc overcome

      e  Cleanup cf these estuaries will require a large public ccrrr.it-
         mer.t and investment fcr nc-n-pcint source, CSO and pcint  source
         contrcls.

3 1 IB. CCEA'C DISPOSAL Cf DRIDGED KATERIALS

   a. Past Responses

      *  EPA - Corps of Engineers coordination on dredge and fill projects.

   b. Pc-cQ-T-'erKi:! recicnal actions
      e  Desig'.at.icn cf .a southeastern  regional dr«3ge3 material disposal
         site  fcr projects in Rvcde  Island and Southeastern Massachusetts.

   C. Barrers tcovercone
                is a need tc expand our present  kn^-ledge of  the  in-.pacts
         of Fiaterjal disposal  in  the marine enviroirvnt, and to
         appropriately condition  our regulatory fr ax-work t«s*?d  on the
         extend of present knowledge.

IV.   HEADQUAK] tl>S ACTION NEEDED

IVA.  ESTUARIES

      •  Establish a federal priority for the control of co^«in«3 sewer
         overflows (Assistant  Administrator  for Water).

-------
                                   -4-
      •  Increase federal support of riarine research.   Fundiny of  this
        .work will make possible continued refinenent  of the dispersion
         rodeis.

      •  Coordination of a mutual assistance program with other federal
         agencies involved in oeeanographic or estuarine research  (Assis-
         tant Administrator for Kater).

      *  Continued, fund ing for support of estuarine  water quality  ir^rove-
         roent programs (Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection).

IVE.  OCEAN DISPOSE or DPJDGED MATERIALS

      e  Continue national dredge disposal site inpacts characterization
         procra-  through continjef ronitoring (Office  of Marine Discharge
         Evaluation).
;_u=: Coordinator:  Don Porteous (223-5043), Water Ka-iagerent Division

-------
                                                                      Region 3
                                                                      Issue 610
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS WS> NOltPOINT SOURCES

I. Prohler Statement

Ccntined Sewer Overflows (CSO's)  located in nost larger cities and nuner-
cxis rural ccrr.uriities in New England  degrade  the water quality of najor
rivers, coastal areas and several lakes.

Nonpoint Sources  (NPS) of pollution inpair  high quality drinking, fishing
arc recreation waters in Nev England.

II.  Probler. AssessrSent

a. Background  - Most major cities and numerous rural ccmunities in New
   England have ccnbined sewers.   During periods of wet weather the
   sewers beccne  surcharged  overflowing  untreated wastevater into
   rivers, lakes  arc coastal waters resulting in degraded water quality
   arc irpeirment of beneficial uses.

   No-point prob!e-iS are generally localized  or sporadic in contrast to
   gross, wids-spreaf point  source pollution  loadings.   Agricultural
   ruroff frcr. nanure handling and cropping practices,  erosion and
   seSinentatior,  associated  with  large scale  connstruction  and urban
   storr. runoff all inpair lakes, ponds, estuaries,  bays and otherwise
   high quality waters.  A rounting priority  issue  is groundwater
   cor,ta,-.i nation  frcri faulty on-site  systens, landfill  leachate,
   urten storr. runoff, leaking storage tanks, pesticides/herbicides,
   anc r^terials  storage sites.

b« Geographic  Scope - Although the probleri  is New England-^wide , nost of
   t-he carr.ur-ities having CSOs are located  astride major rivers or ad-
   jacent to coastal waters. Approxirately forty percent of the popula-
   tion of New England is served  by combined  sewer  systens.

   Urban runoff anc construction  problems occur mainly  in southern New
   England, as well as in areas undergoing  rapid urbanization, resort
   develojj-.ent a-t3 large-scale construction projects.  Agricultural and
   forestry NPS are concentrated  in northern  New England, e.g., Chars-
   plain Valley and Maine lakes country.  NPS groai3water conta-ination
   occjrs through New England.

c. Kejqr lij^cts  - Anong the serious  adverse  econonic and environmental
   injects o£ "co-.Sined sc-^c-r o\-erflows ar»d  nonpoint  sources are the
   following:

          c-^.-r Overflows
   CSOs result  in the closure ofshcllfish harvesting aix-as  aid svirming
   Loaches ar<3  often preclude other recreational u*es.  H>ey  ca-i aesthet
   ically d».-<3ra.'-fc wateitcdies.  "Hie ijnpact of preclucV-d uses  is often
   substantial  since urban areas w!>ere use pressures are nost intensive,
   are nost ccrnonly affected.

-------
                                     -2-
     CSOs prevent final clean-up of iriajor rivers and river segnents.
     Oft-times river clean-up has proceeded to an advanced stage - major
     wastewater treatnent facilities have been ccrpleted, but CSOs produce
     water quality problens;
  e  The total cost of ccntined sewer control in Nev England est rated
     by the 19 S3 Needs Survey to Congress is $4.5 billion.

   Urban runoff - Runoff fror. paved areas, rooftops and lawns carries
   sedlner.ts, nutrients, pathogens, toxics and debris into strears, ponds,
   water supply reservoirs and estuaries.

   Constrjctior. activities - Improper construction practices at particular
   sites cause erosion and sedimentation and associated runoff of nutrients
   and toxic substances into strears, la>.es, water supplies and estuaries.
   Silt, nutrients, and toxics runoff frcn construction practices directly
   ir.pair critical waters, sensitive aquatic ecosystems, spawning areas and
   prime recreation/aesthetic values.  Further, these silt/toxic loads
   successively settle and shift with the currents for years to ccne,
   accelerating bank erosion and flooding.

   On-site vsste disposal systens - Suburban and rural ccmunities continue
   to rely on individual 'subsurface disposal systens.  Approximately 35% of
   the region's popjlation utilize subsurface systens to dispose of their
   donestic wastes.  Although such systens are often the most effective and
   econcr.ical waste treatment alternatives, they can create water quality
   prccleris in both ground and surface waters if they are improperly sited,
   designed, or rvaintained.

   Agricultural activities - Agriculture-related pollution poses significant
   water "quil'ity probler-s where anir.al waste handling, cropping practices,
   and pesticide. 'herbicide applications de-grade high quality waters prized
   for t^ieir recreation, fish and wildlife, water supply and aesthetic values.
   Forest nar,ao«z-*nt a-tivities - On a scattered basis, improperly designed
      'ing "roads "and "skiddi'ng practices impair high quality- uses.
d. I>?vel of PtibJic Concern - T^ere is a high degree of public concern for
   "tile "c lea n^up "arid Vfccl«--4t icon of public water uses in urban areas such
   as Boston Harbor, Narragansett Bay and New Haven Harbor which are ini>acted
   by CSOs and urban storm runoff.  Concern runs high to ruintain New
   England's assets of high quality lakes and streams, and water Baylies.

-------
                                 -3-
e. Major sources - Ttie major source of CSOe are older combined urban
   sewer systems which were designed to convey both stonrwater and
   wBStewater.  However, during wt weather these  system  are hydra'jli-
  .cally overloaded and they overflow into adjacent waterways.  Major
  • NPS sources are urban storm runoff, agriculture, forestry, and
   construction, and on-si'te waste disposal.

*• Contarinants of concern - CSO discharges include a mixture of all
   the cor-tar.ina.-its in wsstewster and stocnwater.   NPS  contar.inants
   include sedijrents, nutrients, heavy metals, toxic substances and
   6ebris.

g. Expected eviroamental results

   Cor±ined Sewer Overflows

   e  Control of CSOs, when  ir-lenented in combinatin with other
      basic water pollution control treasures, will  result  in  reclama-
      tion of the desired uses along the major rivers and  reny miles
      of the coastline in New England.

   •  Shellfish beds may be opened; swinr.ing and recreational areas
      can be fully utilized; fishing, canoeing and  general use and
              rnt of the rivers and coastal areas will  be  substantially
             d; the aesthetic qualities of the water will  be  restored.
   0  Since the New England eccnrry  is so closely linked  to the environ-
      mental quality of the region,  significant economic  benefits
      will accrue as a result of  the completed clean-up.

   Nonpoint Sources

   •  Pollutant loads frcir, norfoint  sources can be  expected to be  re-
      duced by  ij^lenentation of  Best  Kanagcnent Practices  (B^'s)
      thus nr.iriirizing the water  uses  irf&ired and  providing insura-ice
      a-gainst coetly, disruptive  incidents and need for expensive
      rcnedial measures.

   *  Construct ion - reduced eroeion and  sed indentation of streans,
      ponds and estuaries during  residential, cormfrcial, and highway
      Cfjnstruction.

   •  Urban stoiir. runof_f_  - Significant reduction  in axJijivnt, nutrient,
      and" metals i~unoff,  restoring ar«3 maintaining  water  uses.
      On-.site wastcwater  disp'^l - Prevention eg  pollution to wells,
      aqu'i fe'rsi "si Warns ^  and pjnds cuiTently conlflpr.inat«3  or threatened
      by  in^..rcjfic-r on-site d

-------
                                   -4-
     0  Agriculture - Reduced sedimentation, pesticide/herbicide
        cor.tarr.inat.ion, phosphorous loadings and lake cutrcphication.

     *  Forestry' - Decreased erosion and sedimentation  into quality lakes
        anc--strea,-.s fror. iirpr-oper forestry activities.
    •
III. REGIONAL AGENTft

  a. Past Responses

     Ccr.bined Sewer-Overflows

     •  New England - New Haven, Hartford, BridgeportfCT), Providence
        (RI), Breton, Springfield, Worcester (MA), Concord, Manchester
        (NH), Portland, Bangor(KE), and Burlington(VT)  are among the
        major cities in New England that have combined  sewer syster.s
        discharging overflows into adjoining waterbcdies-rivers, lakes
        and coastal waters. In northern New England a snail number  of
        s-aller conrrjnities are also served by CSQs.  Many municipali-
        ties have taken limited rerwdial action to reduce the frequency
        of the CSOe, and several conrunities have eliminated the over-
        flows try means of sewer separation.  Eight CSO  projects located
        in KA, CT, KE, NH, totaling SIB.5 million in construction cost,
        are currently being considered for funding under Section
        201(n)(2) of the CXA (Marine CSOs).  Construction on these  pro-
        jects can be initiated ixT7»?diately upon issuance of the grants.
        This provision of the CKA can provide a powerful tool for deal-
        ing with CSOs in New England.

     N^r.point Sources

     •  Prevention is a prime objective in K?S prcgrans.  Tt>e focus is on
        b-jli'ding BKP's into the daily activities that potentially contri-
        bute to npnpoint pollution.

     0  Pestoretion nc-asures and intensified BtfT's are  directed at  prob-
        ler. areas ir;«cting priority water.  Tt»e St. Albans, Rural  Clean
        Kcter Project (PCW?) on Lake Char^lain and the  Wostport River
        Estuary (Kas.Racchusetts) RO3" project have enrolled problem
        fanr.s in manure handling and crapping BMP's.

     *  All New England states have nonpoint source assessments and im-
        plfcntntation in Kater Quality Kin^c-ncnt Plans  and State work
        plans.

     •  Tlie Region has boon working with the states; soil and water con-
        servation interests; the agricultural construction and forestry
        ccjijnunity; and the host of sister agencies, organizations,
        and interests in wh.ee hands lie the iivluwntation of RIP'S.
        Several Now England Soil Conservation Service State
        Conservaticjnists have refocused the 9^11 KMej-shed Program
        under P.L. 566 to fund HKT's in critical lake vMeistvds, in com-
        bination with Agricultural Coa«^ei-vation Pr^iiW cost-spring and
        EPA Clean Lakes Restoration Grants.

-------
                                 -5-
b. Fecjrervdec Pec ions! Actions

   Oar±ined Sewer Overflows

  • •  In cor, junct ion with the State water pollution control agencies,
      modify NFDES penrits to require  definitive  in^lerentaticn of
      ccnbined sewer overflow control  prcgrarrvs.

   0  Vterk with the State anc" c:n-,j.-iities  to  develop sound applications
      for securing maximum funding under  Section  201 (n) (2) of  the CV5>.

   e  &>cojrage States and local corrvjnities  to develop lov cost-high
      benefit CSO control operational  and  maintenance programs.

   e  Encourage States and local ccnr»uriities  to iriplenent CSO  control
      prcgrars utilizing Federal, State and local funds.

   hioripoir.t Sources
   0  Work with the states to beef up  state N?S  ivf lerentation plans,
      outlining specific activities, geograpMc  areas,  programs,  respon-
      sibilities, funding and scheduling.

   0  Assist state water quality agencies  in  refining water quality
      stajxSards to reflect use  iFfeirtnent  fron N?S and  to incorporate
      criteria for N?£ pollution.

   e  Encourage state water quality agencies  to  involve sister
      agencies and to furnish their, water quality information

   •  Involve environmental , corrercial and industry grcups, e.g.,  con-
      struction.

   •  Support the states in assisting  local officials responsible for
      local plar.r.ing, zor.ing, subdivision  controls, site
      code enforcement, and road and street irainte nance.

   *  Foster state and local action to monitor and enforce

   •  Prcrote state and local cost-sharing and tax incentives  for PMT's.

c . Ba i IT i ers to overcome

   O-nb i ned Sc^c r Overflows

   0  Federal, state and local  g^venvtnts have  fcx\js«.->d thpir  atten-
      tion on the task of providing basic  collection and t re a brent
      of wastewater.  "Hie control of ccirtoined sewers Kis boen  given
      secondary priority prinarily due to  the 3ijt>iled-c<:Titcx'r-n- placed
      on Uem by federal statutes, regulations,  guirtolinos  aixl programs.
      Ttiis reduced priority has resulted in limited L
      of prcgramr. to reduce CSO&.

-------
                                   -6-
     e  The technology for control of overflows, within reasonable
        financial frarework, is available.  The application and Imple-
        mentation of the technology is a critical factor.

    • •  The prirary barriers to solution of the probler are federal,
        state and local governmental priority for control of the over-
        flows and governnental financial resources to construct the
        required CSO control systems.

     N3~ipoint Sources

     *  The diffuse, intermittent nature of N?£ sources makes it diffi-
        cult to recognize their water quality impacts and mount effectiw
        abatement strategies.

     e  The diversity of managernent agencies requires coordinated efforts
        to develop and iir.plenent pollution abatement measures.

     c  Since BX?'s usually involve chancing ingrained habits and opera-
        tions, long lead tires are often required in the adoption process.
        Local ffjtoncny may iir,pede adaption.

     e  DirdnisMng support funds make abatenent efforts more difficult
        to ir.plenent.

TV.  HEA20UAPTERS ACTIONS NEEDED

     Corbined Sewer Overflows

     •  Establish as a federal priority the control of combined sewer
        overflows; (Assistant Administrator for Kater).

     e  Provide policy and operational guidance to the regions which
        recci-t-ends definitive ir.pleme-ntation of CSO progrars through
        NrDLS pecr.its; (Office of Vaster Er.forca>?nt and Perr.its).

     0  Aggressively ir.plenent Section 201(n).(2) of the CK^; (Office of
        Kster Prcgrars Operations).

     Nonjx>int Sources

     •  Enunciate a clearcut NTS Policy and Implementation Program.

     •  VforK with federal agencies and national organizations to reach
        the- diversity of interests involved in controlling the scwrces of
        nonjoint pollution; (agriculture, forestry, construction, and
        tr ansport at ion).

     0  Assure federal projects, grants, and loans incorporate

-------
                                   -7-
     0  Prcvide national leadership, guidance and  technical assistance,
        with "last resort" back-up enforcement  (e.g.; coostruction).

     •  Furbish rodel legislation,  guidance and technical assistance to
        build up state-local-private sector capability.

     0  Befocus existing agricultural  cost-sharing programs to support
        v=t£r quality objectives.

     e  Provide funding, tax incentives,  and other incentives  for deron-
        strative programs.

     °  Arrange details of seasoned experts to  facilitate National and
        Regional progrars.
Issue cccr fins tors;  Walter Newr,an (223-3917)  and Bart Ha=je  (223-3917)
      "                 Division

-------
Fart III.  Reoior.al  Reccrre nest, ions for the Agerxry Priority
           List  FY 66-87  •

-------
                          Part III

  Region I Recomnedations for the Agency Priority List FYB6-B7


The Priority List Process and Purpose;

1. A large number of environmental laws are up for reauthoriz-
   ation.  Amendments nay bring significant new or shifted
   requirements.  It is therefore difficult (and rather risky)
   at this tire to make s-jjcestions for what our priorities
   should be for Agency action.

2. No one has indicated what the criteria are for selection
   of items for inclusion on the List.  Khat assumptions
   underlie the List and its preparation   How are the regions'
   views incorporated in the Priority List?

3. How is the Priority List used?  How should it be used in
   the regions and at HQ.  The answers could shed light on the
   preceding question.  In soir.e cases, items high on the List
   are not budgeted for by the Agency while some lower on the
   List are.
   The Priority List is too long; it should be shortened
   about 16-20 Issues.
to
5. Ve should consider a ranking by medium; it would be easier
   to prepare the List and make it more meaningful.

6. In some cases, one item higher on the List cannot be attacke:
   until a one lover has been satisfactorily addressed (eg.  923
   must be completed before the Region can address 14)

7. Should the List be used to drive planning in the Agency?
   Should the process be further refined to factor List entries
   into our workplans?  Should we incorporate some specific
   activities and milestones?

-------
Fezion I Part III cont'd

Suggested Changes;


1. The List should give more emphasis to enforcement and
   compliance.  These are important and necessary compon-
   ents to many of the current entries and should be
   expressly addressed in the List (eg. Is 7, 9, 12, 13,
 -  16, IB, 21, 22, and 25).

2. Long-range transport (broader than "acid rain" or.
   •acid precipitation") needs to appear near the top.
   It should .encompass acid deposition, ozone, and other
   transportable materials that threaten public health,
   buildings and structures, waters, and crops, trees
   and vegetation.  New reports and studies point to the
   need for controls and for research.  Ke should be in
   an implementation stage by 1986-87.  This issue is of
   critical importance to the people of New England.

3. Entry for Air Toxics monitoring ans strategy should
   appear earlier on the List.  See previous suggestion.

4, The List should include marine water quality-related
   issues. A goodly number of regions possess major
   coastal and ocean resources and depend on the sea,
   bays and estuarine areas for fishing, aquatic nurseries,
   ecological cycles and recreation.  Action on the CWA
   appropriations suggests this will be a major focus of
   attention.

5. Dioxin might drop down.  The Agencuy could well be at
   the end of its Dioxin Strategy project in a couple of
   years.

6. An iterr. should be included which links pesticides and
   drinking water protection.  Leaking underground storage
   tanks, landfills, and surface impoundments also affect
   drinking water supplies.  Monitoring for arr.bient pesti-
   cides will be important.  These matters are of rapidly
   increasing public concern in this Region.   Ke therefore
   need to amend item 6.

7. Ar.end item 7.  Much of item 7 should be completed in
   1985.  However, monitoring for toxics impacts and the
   enforceinent/coiT.pl iance components will still be import-
   ant priorities.

8. We need to include indoor air pollution fairly high up
   on the List.  This if a particularly important public
   health issue in New Lngland because of the high fuel/
   energy costs in this part of the count-ry,  and because
   of the heavy and growing reliance on wood and coal
   burning stoves for winter heating of residences.

-------
Fart. IV.  Most Significant Enviromental Problem - Region I Chart

-------
                                              Most Significant EnvIronnri.t.a 1 'Problems
         OfflCEi  Region I
Hank/Problem
1^ Groundwater;
~ Contamin-
ation





Geographic
Scop*
Peglonwlde
due to anils.
geoloqy .and
hydrology of
New England

3 Pillion
New Englaiiders
Major
Impacts
Pi iiks to current and future
(potential 1 drinking water
supplies; could be rendered
unsafe/unfit to drink

Rinks to public health

Need clean water sources
Level of
Public Concern
Very High and
Rapidly Bin ing






1 Major
| Sources
Uncontrolled h.w. alien

Leaking tank*!, pipes t
drums

Landfills t leachflelds

Surface impoundments,
(• Contaminants of
Concern
Spent solvents

Pesticide
residues

Gasoline and
petroleum
products
                  depend on
                  qroundwater
                  aa nole aourcc
                  of drinking
                  water (20* of
                  population)
                  and >2.000
                  177%) of our
                  community water
                  systems rely on
                  ground or com-
                  bined ground t.
                  aurface waters
                  for drinking
                 for industrial/commercial
                 growth

                 Closing of wells  In many
                 communities  in New England

                 Potential threats to aqui-
                 fers and recharge areas
                                                 piles, sludgea. lagoons

                                                 Chemical spills

                                                 Improper handling and
                                                 rilnposal of household
                                                 t commercial products
                                                 containing hazardous
                                                 and tonic materials
                                              Other
2  Boston
   Harbor
2 million
people in
netro- Boston
(40% of the
population of

Massachusetts
and 4 ) commu-
nltleal

Harbor ar«a
and nearhy
ocean areaa

Dlqcharn* of
*00 mi it »on
                  of waat"«*at»r
                  and 2,">00 wot
Risks to public health

Adverse effects on commer-
cial t recreational uses
Aquatic eco-systems

Shellfish beds

Plahvrles

Cloned beaches

Aesthetically offensive

Inparta and conditions
are |>flrt Irular ly severe
durln-i and after storms
High—viewed by
the Involved
public as the
number one nlte-
npeclflc envi-
ronmental prob-
lem in New Eng-
land, and until
recently seen
n» H nn)nr rnvl
rnnmental failure
of all levels of
government
Inadequately treated
wantewater from Roston
t surrounding cities
It towns

Sludge ft effluent
Discharges

CSO's

Lack of adequate
wantewater treatment
capalty t malfunction-
ing equipment
Bacteria and
pathogens

Heavy metal•
                                                                                                               PCB'e

                                                                                                               Organic*

                                                                                                               Nutrients

                                                                                                               Creases and
                                                                                                               oils

                                                                                                               Floating and
                                                                                                               act I It-able
                                                                                                               •III
                                                                                                                    '  I

-------
REGIONAL OFFICE!  *eqion_J
Rsnk/Problem
Geographic
Scop*	
Major
Impacts
                                            Mont Signif leant EnvironmentsIproh1rms
Level of
Public Concern
Major
Sources
Contain I nants ot
Concern
     Totlcs       Reglonwlde       Air, surface water, ground-
                                   water, drinking water, land
                                   contamination

                                   Can occur In all media ft
                                   ahlft from one to another

                                   Can affect virtually all
                                   life forms and Interrupt
                                   ecological systems!
                                    human beings
                                    animals
                                    fish t, aquatic life
                                    lnn«*cts
                                    vegetation
                                    forests
                                    croplands
                                    micro-organisms
                                    other living things

                                   Effect" of toilcn on health
                                   of humans and other organisms
                                   can ramie from death, cancer,
                                   birth defects, reproductive
                                   problems, nervous system
                                   dlnorders to auch more mild
                                   aymptomti an naunea or skin
                                   or eye Irritation

                                   At thia point we have only
                                   a limited knowledge of the
                                   effect* of toilcn on lite
                                   forrnn,  individually, ayner-
                                   glntlcally, and in small
                                   concentration*.  Me will
                                   certainly discover new one*.

                                   Aqt{cultural production,
                                   |jrnr1ur:ta. foodatutfa A
                                   additives

                                   .Stream, river* lake, harbor,
                                   eituarln*, bay, ocean
                                   HedimentH
                                                Very High and
                                                Growlni) concern
                                                   Many known, suspected,
                                                   k unknown i
                                                    large  indiintrial
                                             Many t varied
                                              V.K.C. 'a
                                              metals
                                                                     utilities
                                                                     dry cleaners
                                                                     municipal  t  Indus-
                                                                       trial effluonta
                                                                     waste materials In
                                                                       lamlf illn
                                                                     hazardous  waste sites
                                                                     consumer/household
                                                                     cleaning products,
                                                                     paints, solvi-nts
                                                                     chemical manufactur-
                                                                     ing t processing
                                                                     commercial t home
                                                                       use of pesticides
                                                                     food addUlvrs
                                                                     coal i petroleum
                                                                       processing b
                                                                       combustion
                                                                     leaking tanks, drums,
                                                                       ft pipes
                                                                     laboratories
                                                                     hospitals
                                                                     mining wastes
                                                                        batteries
                                                                     finishing  materials
                                                                       fc wastes
                                                                     gasol ln« t dlescl
                                                                       product processing
                                                                       t combustion
                                                                              dl-.trl- ft
                                                                              tntrachlor-
                                                                              ethylene
                                                                             PCH'S
                                                                             dioxin
                                                                             al icarb
                                                                             atsbeBtoB
                                                                             F.DII
                                                                             b».u
                                                                             hazardous
                                                                              wastes
                                                                             new i eilstlng
                                                                              chemicals
                                                                              development,
                                                                              manufacturing
                                                                              processing,
                                                                              handling, use
                                                                              product
                                                                              ponents
                                                                             tad ipnucl ides

                                                                            Combinations of
                                                                            the above

                                                                            Other

-------
REGIONAL OrriCEi.  Beg ion I


Rank/Tobies
                                          Moat Significant' Environmental
Geoqraphic
Scope 	[Impacts
                                                             I Level  of        I Major
                                                             [public Concern |smirces
                                                                                      (Contaminants ol
                                                                                      Icunci't n
         Setter
Overflows/
Nonpolnt
Sourceg
ATT major
citvps of New
Fnqland am)
numerous
        con-
         (400
of population
in reqlon)

NFS
poqlon wide
with urban 6
rural runoff
differing in
oource.
                      beaches and shell flnh
                                                                Hl«jh
                                 areas

                                Health hazard

                                Prevent reclamation for desired
                                  uses
                                Impairment of water uses  In
                                populated urban areas and
                                quality waters and ecosystems
                                in rural areas
                                                                 Hlqh
Comliined sewer
  systems
Same as those
 contained in
 waste water
                                                              Urban  runoff
                                                              Aqrtculture
                                                              Construction
                                                              On-site waste  systems
                        Sediment
                        Nutr
                        Metals

-------
                                                      1 «>n< EHR
                                          Most Sign if leant Environments l_Probl ems
REGIONAL OFFICEi  Beg ion I
Rank/Problem
  Geographic
  Scop*	
JMnjor
1 impacts
Level Of
PuhIic Concern
J Major
Source
Contaminants of
Concern
 National
 Municipal
 Policy/
 Pretreatwent
 Mrlne
 water
 Quality
 KlT municipal-
 ities must
 comply with
 WA by 7/1/BB

 pretreatment
 79 comnunTTTeS
 in Me., Mass.,
 N.H. . and R.I.
 require pre-
 treatment pro-
 9 r eras
 which
 pretrent waat«
 water fc
 dispone
 of sludqe

Cntuarivn -
 Boston Harbor
 Loni Island
  Sound
 N*rraqann«tt
  Bay
 Buzzard's Bay
               Oredqlnq  In
               harbors  in R.I.
               and  SF. M4  Bay,
               Fall Plver,
               New  Bedford
   Significant financial import-
   ance to communities If CWA
   funding not reauthorized.
                                 If pretreatment pronrama are
                                 not in place, communities may
                                 not control tonic discharges.
                                 Significant cost to some
                                 induntrlea to control tonic
                                 waste
    Clonure of shell fishing
    ground*, loss of use of
    beaches, demise of aesthetic
    quality.
                  Major dredging always has
                  potential for affecting
                  recreational and commercial
                  rennurce* and general water
                  degradation.
                                                  Moderate
     High
                 Waste water treatment
                 plants
                          Any waste water
                           discharge
                                                 79 affected communities  Toilcs
                                                 All Industries requiring
                                                 pretreatment
                                                                                          Toiics
                 Majority of marine poll-
                 ution originates from
                 malfunctioning aewaije
                 treatment plants,
                 combined sewer overflows,
                 non-|>olnt source runoff,
                 drf*d<|ing activities and
                 ol 1  transport and
                 distribution
                             Heavy
                              me tii Is
                             Organic
                              chrmicala
                             C<>|i form
                              bacteria
                             Nutrients
                                                                             Petroleum
                                                                              hydrocarbons

-------
                                                      J_9M_FMP_Uptl.n *•

                                          Most_Slgnl Meant  F.nv Ironm-otal  'i
REGIONAL OFFICEi   Region I

                1  Geographic
Rank/Problem    I  Scope	| Impacts
                                                               Level  of        iN.ijor
                                                               Putil lc Conco rn | S<>y_rce_s_
                                                                                      |( ontaml nantft  ot
                                                                                      It'once 111	
Implementation
o( Super fund
Proqraw/New
Bedford Harbor
New Bedford   Hlqh concent ratlona of  PCR'a       High
 area         in
              Flfihlnq h^n  Imposed over
              Ifl ,000 acr^n of Harbor  -
              closinq lar
 metal aludges

Solventa -
 halogenated fc
 non-halogenstea

Haste pesticide
 reslduen
 Asbesto* and
 Public Health
  Peqion-       Known human carclnoqen with no    Relatively
  wle)«          known safe level of exposure      high
                                                                                  Renovation/demolition of
                                                                                  public and private
                                                                                  bul Idings.

                                                                                  Private dwellings to a
                                                                                   lenser degree
                                                                                                              Asbestos

-------
REGIONAL OFFICEI   "eg ton I
HanVProbl
Geographic
Scop*
flavor
Impacts
                                                          19B4 EMU  Update

                                              Most Significant Environmental  Problems
                                                                    Level  of
                                                                    Public Concern
                       Major
                       Source*
                       Contaminants ot
                       Cone*r n
    Toiics

    Icont'd)
                   Institutlonal  impacts toot

                   Difficult  for  federal
                   ann  state  lawmMKtriH anu
                   regulators tn  establish
                   standariln  and  criteria
                   and  to  device  Implemen-
                   tation  programs

                   Difficult  for  public to
                   understand these natter*
    Long  Rang*
    Transport
    of  Pollut-
    anlsi oions
    t other  air
    pollutants,
    »  acid
    deposition
Otone is a
particularly
serious prob-
lem in Conn,
Haas, Rl,
So. NH t Bo.
Main*

Region I Is
the victim of
the nation's
2nd most
severe otone/
air pollution
levels
                 Acid deposition
                  In  an  enpeclal ly
                 ••vere problem
                  In  New
                 «1'l» to
                  Ing  capacity
                  of our  no! Is
                  • nd
                  V» are
                  downvlnd of »h»
                     Ion*' • pia ]or
1.95 million people  In  New
Rnqland are at  rink  of
renplratnry prohlemn dus
to oznn»-/alr pollution
epiBoT»>B, especiallyi
 — th<» ««ld«»rly
 - people who have nnthsia,
  enphpHfma, bronchitis
 - Infants under 2 yrs. Old

Public health Impacts,
Including respiratory
aynptnmn fc reduced resistance
to Infection.   More  hosplt-
sliiatlons during episodes.

Lost work tine

Stunted growth  of vegetation

*.cM_d«»j>o8it_loii - serious,
wT'l^ni-r.-a'!. <|rnwinq  b porhaps
lrrovf>rnlhle adverne Impact a i
streamn, rlvern, laKen, r«?s-
evolrat flnherlrs 4  aquatic
life t llfo nyst.emni r.errea-
trtal nyntrmn,  tncludlnq •
fnrontn. vni|««tat Ion, nolla,
P i rro-nrrjan I nmni buildings,
Rtructurfn fc materials!
*nh«nc"1 ability of  «|round-
wAt<>r IM l«»arh  m»tals fc chem-
lc«l«» |>art Iciil^te resplra-
Oip^ne - Moderate
1 "o~TlTq h for the
<|rn«*ral public
I. Hl
-------