Year in Review
Region I - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAULG.KEOUGH
DEPUTY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR	page 1

AIR MANAGEMENT DIVISION
LOUIS F. GITTO, DIRECTOR	page2

WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
MERRILL S.HOHMAN, DIRECTOR	page6

WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
DAVID A. FffiRRA, DIRECTOR	page 10

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIRECTOR
EDWARD J.CONLEY, DIRECTOR	page 16

OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL
PATRICK A. PARENTEAU, REGIONAL COUNSEL	page 18

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
HARLEYF.LAING, DIRECTOR	page 20

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
STEPHEN F. ELLS, DIRECTOR	page 23

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
BROOKE CHAMBERLAIN-COOK, DIRECTOR	page 24

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
STANLEY J.PAC, COMMISSIONER	page 26

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
HENRY B. WARREN, COMMISSIONER	page 28

MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
JAMES RHOYTE, SECRETARY	page 29

NEW HAMPSHIRE - A STATE OF ENVIRONMENT
GOVERNOR JOHN SUNUNU	pageSl

RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ROBERT L.BENDICK, DIRECTOR	page 32

VERMONT AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
LEONARD U. WILSON, SECRETARY	page 33

-------
             MICHAEL R,  DELAND
                      REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Friends of the
New England Environment:
  Each year our environmental challenges
loom ever larger and last year was no ex-
ception.  However, 1985  was a year in
which we won many battles and waged
even more in our ongoing campaign to
guard New England's environment and
protect its public health.
  Our successes are due to the unwaver-
ing dedication of each and every employee
in Region I, to the strong contributions by
the Region's  six states,  to the zealous
efforts of environmental  groups -  large
and small -  and to the  deep concern of
all New  Englanders for the unrivaled
quality of our environment.
  Mark  Twain once  said, "Thunder is
good, thunder is  impressive.  But it's
lightning that does the work." This Year
in Review presents  information  about
where and how lightning struck in 1985.
  I have  no higher priority than firm but
fair  enforcement of  our  national en-
vironmental statues. Last year, we exceed-
ed our record setting pace of 1984 by is-
suing 40% more administrative actions
and referring 25% more civil and criminal
cases to the U.S. Department of Justice.
In so doing, we did not simply "run up"
numbers but brought tough and meaning-
ful cases to protect our environment and
public health.
For Boston Harbor, 1985 was the "Year
of Decision." Historic progress was made
to clean up the harbor, currently one of
the most  flagrant violations of the
Clean Water Act in the country. In
1985, we successfully brought suit in
federal court as a first step toward a
court-enforceable schedule to ensure
that  harbor  cleanup occurs in  this
century.
Despite tremendous controversy, a deci-
sion on siting the new Boston Harbor
wastewater treatment  facility  was
made  and  the environmental impact
statement was completed. The stage is
now set in 1986 we must maintain this
momentum by starting to implement
the decisions made last year. High on
the agenda for 1986, the "Year of Com-
mitment," are actions to move the Deer
Island prison, to develop a schedule to
stop sludge discharges into the Harbor,
and to designate a Boston Harbor State
Park which includes Long Island.
By denying 301(h) waiver requests that
would have exempted the Massachu-
setts Water Resources Authority and
the South Essex Sewerage District from
secondary treatment requirements, we
reversed long-standing abuses of criti-
cal natural  resources and  set  new
courses for protection.
We demonstrated  that  negotiation
rather than litigation is a viable and
  preferable way to resolve environmen-
  tal disputes. At the Keefe Environmen-
  tal Services site in New Hampshire, we
  negotiated the nation's first major par-
  ty Superfund cashout with over 100
  responsible parties at a value of almost
  $6 million.
• We demonstrated  that we have the
  capacity and the  resolve to litigate,
  when necessary, by winning the na-
  tion's first Superfund liability trial at
  the Ottati  and Goss site in Kingston,
  New Hampshire. This trial, the longest
  federal environmental trial in the na-
  tion's history, lasted over 100 days and
  resulted in a precedent setting EPA vic-
  tory on all counts.
• We expanded our emphasis on criminal
  violations. We obtained the nation's first
  criminal sentencing in  10 years for
  violations of EPA asbestos renovation
  and  demolition  standards  against a
  Connecticut wrecking company and a
  building owner. The  building owner
  received a one year sentence (11 months
  of which were suspended) and  both
  defendants received a $25,000 fine, were
  placed on 5-year probation, and  were
  ordered to perform 1,000 hours of com-
  munity service
  Our continuing  enforcement effort is
complemented by other priorities and in-
itiatives. Integration across media  lines
and a focus on  system-wide effects of en-

-------
vironmental pollution rank high on this
list.
  For example, we took significant long-
term steps to protect New England's ir-
replaceable groundwater resources. Work-
ing with our state and local partners, we
began the arduous process of developing
a comprehensive protection plan for the
Cape Cod sole source  aquifer.  This ap-
proach  emphasizes  prevention of con-
tamination not reaction to environmental
emergencies.  We are hopeful that this
pilot project will provide important lessons
that can be applied to the management
of aquifers elsewhere in the region and the
nation.
  Inextricably linked  to high quality
groundwater  in our interconnected en-
vironment is wetland protection. Drain-
ed  by farmers, destroyed by developers,
dredged for  navigation  and  used as
dumps, our wetlands have been lost at a
rapid rate Last year, we took several ac-
tions that signal a more active presence
in  the  administration  of the federal
wetlands program in New England. We in-
itiated  a .process to provide for public
review  of a.  proposed  Army  Corps  of
Engineers permit to develop a  shopping
mall in  an  Attleboro,   Massachusetts
swamp. And, we developed a  wetlands
strategy designed to enhance our ability
to preserve these critical resources.
  We started comprehensive evaluations
of our coastal and marine waters. Work-
ing closely with the affected communities,
we conducted broad scale environmental
studies in Narragansett  Bay,  Buzzards
Bay and Long Island Sound - three of the
Northeast's most valued estuaries. These
studies, part of the national multi-million
dollar effort in four bays, are designed to
determine the nature  and extent of the
threats to these resources and develop
long-term protection strategies.
  We continued to make headway in long-
term cleanup at National Priority List
Superfund sites. We started some phase
of construction at more than one-half of
the Superfund sites in New England and
expended over $85 million. Due to Con-
gressional failure to reauthorize Super-
fund, we were forced to slow down the pro-
gram in August 1985. While  the  slow
down postponed  long  term cleanup at
some sites, the contamination  is under
control in every instance.
  Despite the forced  slow  down,  we
honored our  commitment to respond to
hazardous waste emergencies that posed
immediate threats to public health or the
environment. Where imminent threats ex-
isted, we took 18 emergency actions under
Superfund at  a cost of over $6  million.
  One of our most serious long-range air
pollution problems is ozone, more com-
monly referred to as smog. Ozone (the
pollutant, not the atmospheric layer that
we need to protect) is formed when volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) mix with ox-
ides of nitrogen  in  the sunlight. Sta-
tionary sources, especially petrochemical
plants, dry cleaners and gasoline stations,
contribute about 60% of the region's VOC
emissions while motor vehicles account
for the remainder. The environmental
result of continuing emissions is that each
summer an estimated two million people
in  New  England suffer health risks
because the smog levels are unacceptably
high.
  Last year, we identified almost 600 sta-
tionary sources subject to VOC  regula-
tions and developed compliance schedules
for these sources. In addition, we testified
before the Connecticut legislature to en-
dorse the defeat of a bill that would repeal
the  state's automobile inspection  and
maintenance (I/M) program. In another
case, we testified before the New Hamp-
shire legislature on behalf of an I/M pro-
gram for the Nashua area.
  While these are by no means last year's
only achievements, they do reflect the
kinds of actions we initiated in response
to our highest priorities.
  We accomplished much in 1985, yet
much remains to be dona During 1986,
we will continue to aggressively enforce
the nation's environmental statues  and
protect our  environment and  public
health. We will further refine our work-
ing relationships with all constituencies:
citizens,  environmental and  business
groups, federal, state, and local officials,
and the academic community.
  In the year ahead, we will continue to
seek innovative answers to the  unique
cleanup questions presented by our hazar-
dous waste sites. We hope to improve our
understanding of health risks associated
with environmental contamination by
creating working arrangements between
environmental  protection  and  public
health officials. This is a critical initiative
that could increase consistency in assess-
ing the risks  of exposure to environmen-
tal contaminants and  which could im-
prove our ability  to communicate  the
nature of what we know and do not know
to a frequently confused public.
  In 1986,  we will continue to assess
emerging environmental problems, in-
cluding lead-in-soil radon gas, and other
indoor air pollution. We  will persist in
meeting the long-term challenges such as
Boston Harbor cleanup  and wetlands
protection.
  Rene Dubois once said that we must
"think globally and act locally." The en-
vironmental challenges of the years ahead
require that we act personally to reduce
the risks of exposure to pollution.
  By making informed decisions about our
lifestyles and the indoor environments in
which we spend 90% of our time, we as in-
dividuals can limit our exposure to toxic
substances. For example, instituting a
smoking ban in EPA offices likely remains
the most significant step that I have taken
to protect public health.
  Reduction of ozone levels, mitigation of
indoor air pollution sources, and proper
disposal  of household chemicals and
wastes are other examples of the kinds of
solutions that are within  our control. lb
illustrate, since each one  of us is respon-
sible for the generation of one ton of waste
per year, we can make a significant con-
tribution by reducing the amount of waste
that is directly within our control.
  As President Abraham Lincoln said
more than  a century ago, "Public senti-
ment is everything. With  it, nothing can
fail. Without it, nothing can succeed." Our
environmental challenges are great but,
given New England's strong sentiment,
we will, together, succeed.

-------
                                     PAUL  G.   KEOUGH
                            DEPUTY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
  As Deputy Regional Administrator, I am
responsible for overseeing the manage-
ment of the region's day-to-day activities.
I also have been asked by the Regional Ad-
ministrator  to  direct several  critical
initiatives important to the agency, to the
New England region and to our environ-
ment. Enforcement is one area where I
have devoted a considerable amount  of
time. It is the backbone of environmental
protection.
  In 1985, I  continued my role as coor-
dinator of the region's overall enforcement
effort. Thanks to the ongoing dedication
and determination of our regional enforce-
ment staff, this region met or surpassed
all its enforcement goals. In a nutshell, it
was a record year. Region I issued 40%
more administrative orders, referred 25%
more  civil  and criminal  cases to the
Department of Justice and collected more
penalties than in 1984, breaking that
year's record.
  In addition, Region I set the pace na-
tionally for developing enforcement pro-
cedures. The region now  has in place
signed enforcement agreements with each
of the six New England states for all pro-
gram areas. These agreements allow the
states the first opportunity to take action
against violators. In some instances, the
states may refer cases to the EPA for
federal enforcement; or, when action by
the state is not timely or appropriate, EPA
can take  action.
  Mike Deland has made enforcement a
continuing high priority in FY 86, and I
intend to see that we implement a tough
and  aggressive program.  Among the
region's  enforcement priorities for 1986
are:
• Enforcement of regulations to reduce
  volatile  organic  compounds (VOCs)
  emissions which contribute to the ozone
  (smog) problem;
• Enforcement of the asbestos-in-schools
  and asbestos  renovation/demolition
  regulations;
• Implementation  of the  National
  Municipal  Policy (NMP).  In New
  England, 15 municipalities that will
  not have secondary treatment by the
  July 1,1988 deadline will be placed on
  court-enforceable schedules;
• Development of wetlands protection
  measures;
• Crackdowns against those who illegal-
  ly tamper with emission control devices
  or engage in fuel-switching
  and
• Aggressive cost-recovery action against
  responsible parties who refuse to pay
  their share for cleaning up hazardous
  waste sites.
  Human resources was another priority
for me during 1985.1 was honored to be
elected the first chairperson of the agen-
cy's National Human Resources Council.
EPA is at the forefront of an effort to  at-
tract the best and the brightest to our
organization  and to strengthen the
management skills of our present super-
visors. EPA is also committed to improv-
ing the  skills  of  our  clerical  and
secretarial staff. We rotated some of our
senior managers to give them a variety of
assignments, and we granted some of our
employees temporary assignments  to
state and local agencies under the Federal
Intergovernmental Personnel Act.
  In the area of civil rights which I direct
for Region I, the New England office set
the  pace  nationally  for  bringing
minorities and women into the Agency in
1985. Also, the region set a national prece-
dent by becoming the first region in the
country to hire a fulltime Federal Women's
Program Manager.
  In the area of federal-state partnership,
I meet frequently  with the state en-
vironmental secretaries to assess their
performance and to provide a forum for
the states to discuss issues of concern. I
will continue to hold these meetings since
it is essential for us to expand and solidify
this growing interdependent relationship.
Hence, we include in our report this year
presentation from our state counterparts.
  As an internal manager, 1986 poses
many problems. We will face cuts under
the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings  Deficit
Reduction Act. And, we will face continu-
ing problems  in Superfund unless Con-
gress  takes action to reauthorize this
vitally important program.
  While region I faces another busy year
in 1986,1 am confident this office will con-
tinue to show the tremendous progress
seen in the previous two years.

-------
                   AIR   MANAGEMENT
                                                 DIVISION
                                        LOUIS F  GITTO, DIRECTOR
  The Air Management Division (AMD)
 is responsible for the oversight of air,
 pesticide,  environmental radiation and
 toxic programs in New England. These
 responsibilities are carried out directly us-
 ing federal laws, or through state pro-
 grams. In addition to direct grants to the
 states, we provide technical support, work-
 ing  in  close  coordination with state
 agencies.
  Some of the major accomplishments of
 the Air Management Division this past
 year include:  the highest number of
 federal air enforcement actions and air in-
 spections in any year; and  the nations's
 first criminal conviction with a jail term
 in a case  involving the demolition of a
 building containing asbestos.
  Stationary sources that  emitted ex-
 cessive levels of volatile organic chemicals
 (VOCs) and violations of federal rules
 governing the  safe removal of asbestos
 during demolition and renovation projects
 was the primary enforcement focus. The
 Region conducted 199 inspections and
 resolved 12  cases involving significant
 violations of air pollution regulations. We
 issued  13 notices of violation,  22  ad-
 ministrative orders and referred 8 cases
 to the U.S. Department of Justice. Among
 the referrals was the criminal case involv-
 ing a deliberate violation of EPA's asbestos
 demolition/renovation requirements.
  The combined efforts of EPA and the
 New England states resulted in  a high
 level of stationary source compliance (see
 Chart 1).
  The Air Management Division  par-
ticipated in 3 national air task forces this
past year. They include the issues of (1)
stack height regulations to determine the
level of emission controls required; (2)
emission trading policy to determine what
swapping between facilities will be al-
lowed; and the (3) post-1987 ozone task
force to recommend ozone control strategy
to the Administrator.
CONTROLLING SMOG
  Smog (or ozone) is a public health pro-
blem in many areas of the country. The
East coast is one of the most affected areas
of the country. Large population centers
generate VOCs and  oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) which combine with sunlight to
form smog. Smog problems are  most
severe in summer on hot, humid days with
little or no breeze.
  Even  though EPA, the states,  local
governments, automobile manufacturers,
gasoline stations and  industry  have
worked for many years to solve the smog
problem, it still persists.
  To address the ozone problem, EPA and
the New England states have in place
strong, enforceable regulations to control
VOCs. Early in FY 85, the regional VOC
task force  developed this Region's VOC
stationary source enforcement strategy. It
was announced at a technical conference
sponsored by the Air Pollution Control
Association. The strategy is designed to
maximize the benefits of inspections by
focusing on those industries with a large
number of sources and significant VOC
emissions. In the past year, the task force
established a good inventory of  sources
(seeChart 2) and in each state we iden-
tified three or four key industrial source
categories.
  During 1985's state air program audits,
the permit and inspection files of over 100
sources were placed on EPA's significant
violator list. This list targets the most im-
portant pollution sources inadequately
reducing their air emissions. Many other
sources were identified for state or federal
inspections. Together with the states, the
Region will work from this list to achieve
compliance with the regulations by 1987.
  In addition, the states and EPA are ad-
dressing  the  smog problem  through
mobile source control. In the past year,
Connecticut and Massachusetts have con-
tinued to run strong inspection  and
maintenance programs, and EPA has im-
plemented a new mobile source enforce-
ment strategy.
  Also, Region I is on the national VOC
task force to ensure that industries in
other parts of the country are held to the
same high standards as New England in-
dustries; The-two primary goals of our
task force work include  controlling in-
dustrial pollution  upwind  from New
England and uniformly regulating New
England industries  and its competitors.
  Region I is a principal participant in the
national ozone task force. It was created •
to recommend to the administrator what
ozone  reduction standards must be
achieved by December 31, 1987. If they
cannot be, we are working with the New
England states to find a solution.
  In summary, while we are enforcing ex-
isting regulations to control smog, we con-
tinue to work on a  longer term plan to
solve the problem. Efforts include the im-
plementation of a mobile source inspec-
tion program, and detection of tampering
with automobile emission control equip-
ment. These checks  should reduce ozone,
carbon monoxide and toxic levels in the
air. (see Charts 3-4)

-------
MOBILE SOURCE
ENFORCEMENT (CASE
STUDY)
  Mobile source pollution accounts for a
large part of the total emissions of carbon
monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
and hydrocarbons (HC). Connecticut and
Massachusetts have statewide inspection
and maintenance (I/M) programs for the
testing of vehicle emissions and a limited
program in  New Hampshire  starts in
September 1987. The I/M programs con-
tinue  to be very successful in reducing
auto emissions.
  In addition to I/M, the region fought
mobile source pollution by implementing
a mobile source enforcement program. In
December  1984, Region I began inspec-
tions to detect tampering with automotive
emission control systems and the use of
leaded gasoline in vehicles designed for
unleaded fuel. This is a unique regional
initiative because the mobile source en-
forcement program is centralized in EPA
headquarters and no other region has pur-
sued its own inspection program. Region
Fs effort complements the existing na-
tional inspection program, allowing EPA
to provide broader coverage and quicker
response to public complaints.
  Recent field surveys show that approx-
imately 10% of vehicles have  been
misfueled and 16% have been tampered
with in New  England. The emission con-
trol systems are integral to the proper per-
formance of cars. Tampering and misfuel-
ing increase driving costs for the motorist
because of decreased performance and in-
creased  repairs.  Most importantly,
tampering and misfueling can cause emis-
sions to increase  as much  as  800%.
Overall, automobile pollution is responsi-
ble for about 50% of the HC and NOx and
75% of the CO emitted to the atmosphere
Much of New England is still not attain-
ing the nation's ambient air quality stan-
dards for CO and smog. (HC and NOx are
precursors to the formation  of smog.)
  Region I inspects service stations, repair
shops, automobile dealerships and fleet
operations. Depending on the type  of
operation to be inspected, inspectors sam-
ple unleaded gasoline to test for lead con-
tamination,  measure nozzles on  gas
pumps to determine if they are the prop-
er size and  examine the premises for
evidence of tampering with emission con-
trol equipment. If necessary, inspectors ex-
amine repair records and invoices and
make follow-up  inspections of tampered
vehicles.
  Inspection targets are based on records
of previous violations, random selection
and complaints  received by the regional
office A significant component of the pro-
gram is a toll-free hot line for the public
to report cases of suspected tampering and
misfueling. The hot-line numbers are
1-800-631-2700  for Massachusetts  and
1-800-821-1237  for  other New England
states. Clean air counselors  from the
American Association of Retired Persons
support Air Management Division staff in
conducting inspections and related public
awareness activities.
  Cases are referred to headquarters for
enforcement follow-up and violators are
     Chart 1
     TOTAL NUMBER & COMPLIANCE STATUS OF  MAJOR SOURCES
 subject to civil penalties of up to $2,500
 per violation. New car dealers who tamper
 with emission controls are  subject to
 penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.
 Although Region I's program has only re-
 cently begun, we have  conducted  more
 than 300 inspections and referred 23 cases
 for enforcement action resulting in propos-
 ed penalties of more than $250,000. We
 have determined through discussions with
 auto service personnel that these actions,
 and the continuing presence of EPA  in-
 spectors in the field, are new and effective
 deterrents  against  misfueling  and
 tampering.
                                                                      Legand
                                                                   CD TOTAL KUHICX
                                                      VT
  The region awarded $6.7 million in air
program grants to the  New  England
states to be used for the development of
SIPs  ambient  air  monitoring  of  six
regulated pollutants and for permit pro-
grams for the review of new sources of
pollution and the enforcement of permit
limits. Thanks to state efforts, Region I
continued its 100% on time review of state
implementation plans, which set emission
limits for existing pollution sources. And,
the Region awarded $565,000 in state
grants from a national pool of $3 million
to address potential implementation issue
for acid rain control.
  Four of the six New England states and
the Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Use Management (NESCAUM) received
the acid rain grants. Region I serves as a
link between national research programs
and interested parties  in New England
and helps disseminate information related
to the national acid precipitation pro-
gram,  including the national surface
water survey which sampled nearly 800
lakes in the northeast.
  The first results of this survey released
this past fall showed that 9% of the lakes
in the northeast have pH levels at or below
5.5 and 20% of the lakes have acid neu-
tralizing capabilities  at  or  below  50
microgram equivalents per liter. Finally,
the Region  increased the number of
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) inspec-
tions conducted in the past year by near-
ly 50%. The 193 inspections resulted in 19
civil and one criminal complaint. Twenty-
six notices of non-compliance were  issued
for lesser violations. Connecticut received
a renewed cooperative enforcement grant
of $144,200 for its current year effort. A
new cooperative enforcement grant  for
$50,876 to New Hampshire will permit
greater emphasis on PCB inspection and
enforcement in that state
  The Region began several new programs
aimed at providing either  technical  or
financial assistance for reducing the risk
of asbestos exposure The region estab-
lished an asbestos information center, one
of three in the nation, at Tufts University
                                                          3

-------
                  25X   10X   TJX  IOO%

              TOTAi. Pa_U/TANTS CAUSED BY MAM
Nawnsl Center for Vehicle Enwsons Control and Safely Department ol InduBiial
Saence*. Colorado Sun Unvcmy. fan CoOm. Colorado 80SB
 in Medford, MA. This allowed for a train-
 ing and educational program for asbestos
 hazard identification and control.
  A program of financial assistance in the
 form of interest free loans or grants for
 asbestos control to needy school districts
 began with the passage of the Asbestos
 School Hazard Abatement Act. In FY 85,
 more than $2 million was made available
 to assist 20 projects in New England.
   The region is supporting state efforts to
 establish licensing programs for contrac-
 tors who handle asbestos. As such, the
 Region awarded contractor training and
 certification grants to Connecticut and
 New Hampshire to assist them in develop-
 ing these programs.
  The Region took action to increase pro-
 tection for state and  local government
 employees in the  workplace The  new
 asbestos abatement projects regulation
 applies occupational safety and work prac-
 tice standards to  persons who were not
 previously protected by any regulation.
  Because of limited resources, we con-
 ducted fewer inspections to monitor com-
 pliance with the asbestos-in-schools rule
 However, a more stringent  enforcement
 policy,  requiring  the  issuance of  ad-
 ministrative  civil  complaints  with
 penalties,  is in effect and continues to
 alert school officials and the public to the
 importance  EPA  places  on  asbestos
 identification and reporting.
  The Region addressed air toxics issues
 through grants, technical support and in-
 formation  exchange
  Specifically, the division participated in
 work groups like the interstate commit-
 tee now developing a regional standard for
 perchloroethylene In  addition,  it spon-
 sored a series of workshops for states on
 issues such  as risk assessment, dioxin
 emissions from resource recovery facilities
 and accessing  automated  information
 systems for toxicological data. The Region
 initiated a regional radon work group and
 co-hosted a workshop for federal and state
 governments,  contractors  and  acade-
 micians.
  Elevated levels of naturally occurring
radioactive gas in homes and buildings is
an emerging problem in New England.
Radon, at high concentrations found in
some isolated locations in New England,
is a serious cancer causing health risk.
Caused by the decay of natural uranium
in mineral deposits, the indoor radon pro-
blem has been exacerbated by energy con-
servation efforts which  reduce  air ex-
change with the outside. While the Agen-
cy does not have standards to regulate the
amount of airborne radon allowable, the
division has established an interprogram
task force to gather technical information
and  develop regional responses.  In con-
junction with NESCAUM, Region I spon-
sored a  radon workshop for the New
England states to share this information
and to develop coordinated responses  to
monitoring protocol, health advisories and
remediation  measures.  Such  efforts
include:
• Working with federal, state and local
  agencies in refining and testing the
  radiological emergency response plans
  for six nuclear power plants  in New
  England,  and  developing detailed
  response plans for the Seabrook (NH)
  station; and
• Providing guidance  and  technical
  assistance for non-ionizing radiation,
  like radio  frequency radiation,  in-
  cluding  detailed  modeling in a 0.6
  square mile area of Needham, MA
  which contains six antenna towers serv-
  ing eight radio and eight television sta-
  tions. Results indicated that radiation
  levels are well within acceptable safe-
  ty limits to protect area residents.
  The  Region provided  technical  and
grant assistance of $100,200 to the New
England states to  train  and  certify
pesticide applicators. During FY 85, the
New  England  states  conducted 1,983
pesticide  enforcement  inspections.  In
about 45% of these, the division found
violations of either federal or state rules.
This resulted in 33 license suspensions or
revocations.
  The Region worked closely with Maine's
Department of Agriculture and Board of
Pesticide Control and with the U.S. Food
and Drug  Administration (FDA) to in-
vestigate  a large scale misuse  of an
unregistered herbicide


MONITORING
PESTICIDE  USE
  Early in the growing season of 1985, a
Maine  inspector  working  under  our
cooperative pesticide enforcement grant
came upon a farmer using one of the
newer herbicides on potatoes. A careful
use inspection revealed that this pesticide
was registered primarily for use on cotton
and soybeans but not potatoes. Further
checking revealed this was not an isolated
incident.
  Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), it is
unlawful to use a pesticide for an "unregis-
tered" use. In  the registration  of a
pesticide, maximum residue levels are
established for uses involving food or feed
crop production. Food or feed which have
levels of residue which exceed allowable
tolerance levels are subject to embargo or
seizure
       Chart 2
       MASS CTG VOC EMISSIONS BY SOURCE CLASSIFICATIONS
                                                                        Legend

                                                                      (Z2 B-1980
                                                                      El A3-I980
                                                                      ES Al-1980
                                                                      •V 6-1987
                                                                      CD A2-1987
                                                                      CZ A1-I987

-------
  EPA was alerted and  worked closely
 with Maine officials and the FDA to deter-
 mine the extent of pesticide misuse and
 the levels of residue present in potatoes.
 At a strategy meeting between the state,
 FDA and EPA, plans were made to iden-
 tify purchases, user locations, extent of
 use The group also developed a sampling
 strategy. Identifying those who purchased
 the herbicide for illegal use was difficult
 since sales records for the product are not
 required. However, careful checking re-
 vealed the identity of about 200 who pur-
 chased the herbicides. This accounted for
 an estimated 85% of sales volume "Stop
 use" orders were sent to purchasers and
 promptly followed up by inspections to
 determine the area treated and disposi-
 tion of the unused pesticide Statements
 were taken from those who indicated sales
 persons had recommended the illegal use
 After use locations were identified, potato
 samples were  collected and  an analysis
 conducted to detect levels of the pesticide
 residue
  Evidence collected by Maine resulted in
 fines levied against 106 users and enforce-
 ment actions taken against three dealer-
 ships. In addition, prompt action stopped
 the use of much of this material. For-
 tunately,  after  repeated  analysis of
 potatoes, the FDA was unable to detect
 the presence of an illegal herbicide in-
 dicating the  potatoes were  safe for
 consumption.
  Air management initiative for 1986
include:
• continuing to ensure that national air
  quality standards for sulfur  dioxide,
  total suspended particulate matter, car-
  bon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen oxide
  and lead are met;
• providing  guidance  and  technical
  assistance to state agencies in develop-
  ing SIPs to achieve the ozone standard;
• continuing to stress stationary source
  compliance,  especially VOC  and
  asbestos sources, as well as mobile
  source compliance including I/M and
  anti-tampering;
• Increasing efforts on air toxics, indoor
  air pollution and acid rain;
• continuing the Asbestos School Hazard
  Abatement Act program;
• enforcing a new fire safety rule on fire
  hazards posed by  transformers contain-
  ing PCBs in commercial buildings;
• concentrating on  enforcement  of
  pesticide use  regulations and state
  plans for certification and training of
  applicators; and
• continuing to work with states in ad-
  dressing the radon problem and provide
  guidance and technical assistance on
  other  radiation issues including low-
  level radioactive  waste disposal.
               Charts
       OZONE MONITORING DATA
DAYS EXCEEDING THE OZONE STANDARD
AVERAGE NO. OF DATS EXCEEDING THl OZONE STAN
, * a a

/•'
- '/
:. /
'/ ' /
; . '/.
'• /
' '/•
PW"




CT UC





JU


1
Sf • /
1 — 1
UA NH Rj VT
STATE
                                             Legend
                                            2 tS'-'MJ
                Chart 4
       OZONE MONFTORING DATA
 HIGHEST (SECOND HIGH) OZONE LEVELS
                                            E3 TM1-TM3
                                            CD IM4 '
                STATt

-------
         WASTE  MANAGEMENT
                                          DIVISION
                            MERRILL S. HOHMAN, DIRECTOR
  Region I's Waste Management Division
administers EPA's two federal statutes
governing the management of hazardous
waste.
  The first,  the  Comprehensive En-
vironmental  Response, Compensation,
and Liability  Act (CERCLA)  of 1980,
known as Superfund, created  a federal
response program to cleanup hazardous
waste sites which have resulted from past
improper  management activities and
which present significant risks  to health
and the environment.
  The second, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, establishes a regulatory
framework for the "cradle-to-grave"
management of hazardous wastes.
  To achieve the goals of these statutes,
our major initiatives this year have been:
• continued progress  in cleaning up
  hazardous waste sites, placing major
  emphasis on sites on the Superfund na-
  tional priorities list;
• private party cleanups of hazardous
  waste sites or reimbursement of ex-
  penses incurred  by government in
  short-term and long-term remedial ac-
  tions under Superfund;
• implementation  of the RCRA waste
  management program in Region I, giv-
  ing emphasis to state program develop-
  ment, delegations, permitting, enforce-
  ment and monitoring; and
• corrective actions under the broad new
  authority of the 1984 amendments, cor-
  rective actions which require RCRA
  facility owners and operators to remedy
  any present or prior contamination
  problems.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
SITE CLEANUP - THE
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
 EPA has developed a Superfund na-
tional priorities list, an increase of 12 sites
since 1984.
Charts
CERCLIS - Region  I
G.M.1  National
Priorities List Sites
As of: 12/12/85
 The total funds committed in Region I's
Superfund program through September,
1985 is $85 million. During this past year,
we have initiated some phase of construc-
tion at 29 sites. Studies to identify pro-
blems and select final cleanup options are
either completed or underway at 48 sites.
   j-
                                           57 TOTAL NPL SITES
                                                6

-------
  During 1985, Regional Administrator
 Michael Deland approved nine records of
 decision,  or formal announcements  by
 EPA of the final cleanup remedies to be
 implemented at:

 • Charles      George     Landfill,
  Tyngsborough, MA -   capping and
  leachate collection;
 • McKin Co., Gray, ME - onsite aeration
  with groundwater cleanup;
 • Plymouth Harbor/Cannon's Engineer-
  ing, Plymouth, MA - removal of onsite
  tanks;
 • Hocomonco Pond, Westborough, MA
  capping of former lagoon area, replace-
  ment of storm drain, dewatering of Ket-
  tle Pond, and disposal of soil and waste
  in onsite landfill;
 • Winthrop Town Landfill, Winthrop, ME
    capping the landfill, completing  an
  alternate water supply and  ground-
  water monitoring;
 • Nyanza Chemical, Ashland, MA - con-
  solidation of wastes and capping,
  groundwater and surface water diver-
  sion, post-closure monitoring;
 • Western Sand and Gravel, Burrillville,
  RI    capping contaminated soil and
  sludges;
 • Beacon Heights Landfill, Beacon Falls,
  CT - closure by capping and leachate
  collection/treatment, groundwater
  monitoring and municipal water sup-
  ply extension;
 • Picillo, Coventry, RI - landfilling con-
  taminated soil and sludges.

  Interim cleanup measures were under-
taken  at  two sites. The regional ad-
ministrator authorized $400,000 to design
and install a standby treatment system
and restore  Well fil, a  major drinking
water supply for the Ibwn of Groveland,
MA. He also authorized $1.4 million  to
remove  contaminated  tanks and
buildings, relocate the water  main and
temporarily cap areas of high soil con-
tamination at the Baird & McGuire site
in Holbrook, MA. However new detection
techniques led  to the discovery of low
levels of dioxin at the site and  delayed
work until the full extent and level of con-
tamination could be determined.
  While emphasizing sites on the national
priorities list, we often undertake action
to protect public health under our emer-
gency authority at sites that may never
qualify for the list. Over $5 million was
spent in 1985 on emergency response ac-
tions.   Region  I has  used this rapid
response  authority  throughout New
England to provide emergency drinking
water,  fencing of hazardous areas and
isolation of asbestos wastes improperly
disposed of in residential areas.
  In Region 1,1,236 potential hazardous
waste  sites  have been identified and
preliminary assessments were completed
at  906 sites.  The  region  conducted
McKIN SITE
GRAY,  MAINE
  Recent remedial measures undertaken
at the McKin Superfund site in Gray, ME
are good examples of how the joint efforts
of EPA and private parties can result in
private participation in the cleanup of an
abandoned hazardous waste disposal site.
  The seven-acre McKin site, located ap-
proximately 15 miles north of Portland,
is an abandoned waste collection, transfer
and disposal facility which operated be-
tween 1965 and 1978. When organic
chemical contamination was detected in
nearby residential wells in 1979, an alter-
nate water  supply  was built. Between
1979 and 1983, EPA removed all surface
drums and tanks from the site
  In 1985, the Maine Department of En-
vironmental Protection, funded through
a cooperative agreement with EPA, com-
pleted studies which  determined the
nature and  extent of contamination re-
maining at the site and evaluated poten-
tial  technologies  to  reduce  any  en-
vironmental or public health hazards. The
studies identified volatile  organic
chemical soil contamination in specific
areas on the site and contamination of the
nearby aquifer.
  On July 22, EPA announced its decision
to attack both problems. For the onsite soil
contamination, EPA chose to aerate the
affected soils under controlled conditions.
For onsite groundwater contamination,
EPA  decided  to pump  contaminated
groundwater and treat it in a new treat-
ment plant to be built at the site
  EPA's decision did not specify whether
this work  would be done by the govern-
ment or by private parties with liabilities
associated with the site. However, short-
ly after EPA made its cleanup decision,
two companies previously identified by
EPA as potentially responsible parties
offered to carry out the approved remedy.
On August 23,  1985, EPA  formally
ordered these  companies,  Fairchild
Camera and Instrument Corporation and
Sanders Associates, to begin cleanup ac-
tivities including a pilot study for soil
aeration.
  The purpose of the pilot study, to be con-
ducted in the winter and spring of 1986,
was to investigate the effectiveness of one
or more methods of aerating soil to allow
volatile contaminants to evaporate The
aeration must take place in an enclosed
environment  with  continuous  air
monitoring.
  This method of enclosing the soil  aera-
tion process and treating air emissions is
the first of its kind at a Superfund site.
The system is designed to treat soil in an
enclosed mixing plant while controlling
the levels  of air pollutants in the air
around the site. To ensure that this hap-
pens, an elaborate air monitoring system
has been designed for the site and near-
by residential areas.
  Five permanent air monitoring stations
encircle the site and a sixth monitor emits
treated air from the soil aeration process.
Data from these stations  and from a
weather tower onsite are continuously fed
to a computer in a trailer at the site. The
computer records and stores the data and
will produce visual and audible signals if
activities need to be modified to reduce air
emissions. This continuous computerized
monitoring network designed for the
McKin site is the most comprehensive to
have been used this way in New England.
  To keep  residents informed of the site
status  and construction schedules, EPA
has established a local telephone hot-line
in Gray. The hot-line gives periodically up-
dated recorded messages regarding the
site status and air quality monitoring, and
records the caller's questions. In addition,
the EPA project officer meets with local
officials and leaders of a citizens group to
share information and help EPA in its
oversight of this important project.
 thorough onsite investigations at 201 sites
 where further study was warranted. Data
 from site investigations are used by the
 Agency to determine which sites pose
 enough risk to be added to the National
 Priorities List (NPL). Region I awarded
 over $1.5 million in grants to the New
 England states, much of which was used
 to  help  them  conduct preliminary
 assessments and site inspections.
  At each site on the national priorities
 list, EPA seeks to identify parties whose
 past practices may have been at least part-
 ly responsible for conditions at that site
 We have the authority to enter into nego-
 tiations with these "potentially responsi-
 ble parties" to arrange for the site cleanup
 or for reimbursement of the trust fund for
   government expenses on site related work.
   If these negotiations fail, EPA can refer
   cases to the U.S. Department of Justice for
   court actions to recover costs incurred by
   government in cleaning up sites. To date,
   more than $20 million in private funds
   have been committed at 18 sites in New
   England.
     A unique feature of many of the Super-
   fund sites in New England is the large
   number of potentially responsible parties
   linked to a particular  site. At the Keefe
   Environmental Services site in Epping,
   NH  EPA  successfully negotiated with
   more than 100 potentially responsible
   parties. This settlement is also notable for
   a mechanism  that protects the govern-
   ment from the risks of settling before all

-------
response costs are known. At the Silresim
Site in Lowell, MA over 200 potentially
responsible parties formed the nation's
first-of-its-kind  trust to conduct a site
study. Through an administrative order
issued to the trust, EPA oversees and en-
forces the proper performance of the study.
  The Superfund law of 1980 established
a  $1.6  billion  trust fund with  taxing
authority that expired on September 30,
1985. As this was written, legislation was
under consideration by Congress to renew
the Superfund law. Although substantial
progress has been made in Region I and
throughout the country to address the pro-
blem of abandoned and uncontrolled sites,
it is evident that much work remains to
be done.
  Since August 1985,  EPA has been forced
to operate the Superfund program on very
limited funds. The impact of this slow-
down of the Superfund cleanup program
was the delay in new design and construc-
tion projects. Remaining trust funds were
earmarked to continue essential Super-
fund response actions and the continua-
tion of studies. In Region I, this meant
that we were unable to provide approx-
imately  $30  million  required  for
construction-related activities at  the
Nyanza site in Ashland, MA and the
Charles George landfill in Tyngsborough,
MA.
  Despite the Superfund slowdown, we
continued to pursue an aggressive enforce-
ment program to require private parties
to pay  for studies and cleanup. At the
McKin site in Gray, ME, which is dis-
cussed below, a settlement with responsi-
ble  parties allowed a cleanup using in-
novative technology to proceed during the
slowdown.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT -  THE
RCRA  PROGRAM
  Region I provided state hazardous waste
programs with $3,775,956 of federal grant
assistance in FY 85 and worked closely
with state personnel in the following
areas:
• providing technical  engineering,
  hydrological and laboratory assistance;
• conducting facility permit application
  reviews;
• inspecting waste facilities to determine
  compliance with  waste  management
  requirements;
• developing special expertise in the area
  of storage and treatment of hazardous
  waste in tanks;
• taking  enforcement actions  when
  necessary; and
• assessing the continuing readiness of
  state  agencies  to  administer  com-
  ponents of the federal hazardous waste
  program.
  In  addition,  Congress  appropriated
grant funds for FY 85 which were used for
activities not traditionally funded by the
state program grants. These funds were
awarded under §8001 of RCRA and were
used in Region I on four projects to inform
small quantity generators of their respon-
sibility under revised regulations, and on
a facility siting study.
  The RCRA program is designed to pre-
vent future Superfund sites from develop-
ing. Through a comprehensive "cradle-to-
grave" management process, EPA and the
states  track hazardous wastes  from
original generation through transporta-
tion, treatment  and  storage  to  final
disposal. All waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities must have an RCRA
permit detailing how they will meet EPA
standards  for  safe  operation  and
maintenanca There are 374  of these
facilities in New England. The pie chart
shows their distribution.
  Because RCRA, like most environmen-
tal laws, encourages states to take over the
responsibility for program implementa-
tion from the federal government, Region
I has continued to maintain a strong com-
mitment to the state authorization pro-
cess. Three New England states have
received final authorization to run their
own   hazardous  waste   programs.
Authorization decisions for other states
are pending at  this time. Under the
statute interim authorization expired on
January 31, 1986, at which time those
states  which had  not  received  final
authorization entered into an agreement
with EPA to assist in administering the
federal RCRA  program until  final
authorization is granted.
  RCRA, enacted in  1976, was amended
in 1980 and again on November 8, 1984,
to reflect  changing needs.  The  1984
amendments, called the Hazardous and
Solid  Waste Amendments  (HSWA),
significantly expanded both the scope and
the detailed requirements of RCRA.
  One of the most significant changes in
the RCRA program is the phasing out of
land disposal of hazardous waste. In the
future, waste generators will have to
reduce the  amounts of hazardous waste
generated,  recycle their waste and use
other technologies to the maximum extent
possible Anyone who wants to operate a
land disposal facility must meet minimum
technological requirements,  including
double liners, leachate collection and ade-
quate groundwater monitoring. Facility
owners and operators are required by the
new law to clean up any contamination
   Charts
   Region I  CERCLA Expenditures to  September  30,  1985
                             Total:  $73.2 million
                                                                Connecticut
                                                                3.6
                                                                4.9X
                                                              Rhod* bland
                                                              8.0
                                                              10.9X
           *Does  not  include  regional  sunnorc  activities
                                                           8

-------
                                                        Chart?
                              REGION  I'S  NATIONAL  PRIORITIES  LIST  FILE
 COHHECTJCITT
 • Laurel Park. Inc.
  Saugatuck Borough
 Southingtcn

• YAworalci Ma*te Lagoon
 Canterbury

• Kcll 0-39-Dee ring Moll Field


• Old Southington Landfill
 Southington

MAIXC

• F. O'Connor Site


• KcKin Co.
 Gray

• Pinattc'a Salvage Yard
• Hinthrop Landfill
 Winthrop
• Union Charcoal Co., Inc.
 So. Hop*
• Brunivick HAS
 Bfunawlck
                                  MASSACHUSETTS
                                                                   HEW HAKPSHIRE
                                                                                                      RHODE 1SLASD
                                    Charloi Ccor«
                                    Landfill
                                    Tynsborough
                                  • Plymouth Harbor/Canr.o;
                                                                     Londondcr;

                                                                    > Kear»agc !
                                   Ro»c Dlipo>al
                                                                    > Coakloy Landfill
                                                                     Northampton

                                                                    » Hottolo Pig Fare
                                                                     Raymond
                                   Kavorhill
                                  • s«l«e Acrei
                                   Sales
                                  » Shpjclc Landfill
                                   Nortan/Attleboro
                                   We*toorough
                                  • Irxdustrl-Plex 128
                                   Woburn
                                  • New Bedford
                                   New Bedford
                                  • Nyanxa Chceical Mai
                                   Aahland
                                  • PSC Reiourco*
                                   Falser
which escapes from RCRA facility. This is
accomplished through  new  permit re-
quirements or enforcement remedies. Con-
gress intended to discourage land disposal
of hazardous waste because of long-term
uncertainties about its persistence, toxici-
ty, mobility and accumulation in plant,
animal and human tissue Certain mate-
rials will be excluded unless they receive
specific EPA approval. Land disposal can
be permitted only  if the waste meets
pretreatment levels or standards.
                                            The region sent out 183 advisory letters
                                           under RCRA  §3007  to  owners  and
                                           operators  in order  to  implement the
                                           HSWA provision for final permit deter-
                                           minations and certification of compliance
                                           with  groundwater monitoring  and
                                           financial responsibility requirements for
                                           land disposal facilities. 53 enforcement ac-
                                           tions were necessary to enforce the infor-
                                           mation request.
                                            Environmental cleanup through correc-
                                           tive action orders or permits is a priority
   UNDERGROUND
   STORAGE TANKS
     One of the most far-reaching of the new
   RCRA provisions deals with an estimated
   one million underground storage tanks in
   the United States containing hazardous
   substances or petroleum products. The
   underground storage tank (USD program
   breaks new ground in that, for the first
   time, RCRA applies to storage of useful
   materials as well as wastes. Under a new
   subtitle I, RCRA  now regulates  under-
   ground tank storage of all petroleum prod-
   ucts (including gasoline and crude oil) and
   any substance defined  as hazardous under
   the Comprehensive Environmental  Re-
   sponse, Compensation and Liability Act
   of 1980 (Superfund).
     "Underground storage tank" is defined
   as any  tank with at least  10% of its
   volume below ground,  including any pipes
   attached.  Thus, above ground tanks with
   extensive underground piping may now be
   regulated. The UST program bans the in-
                                           stallation of unprotected  steel  tanks,
                                           initiates  tank registration, coordinates
                                           federal and state program development
                                           and provides federal inspection and en-
                                           forcement, and will  set technical stan-
                                           dards for all new and existing tanks.
                                            The New England  states are national
                                           leaders in developing regulatory programs
                                           for  underground storage  tanks.  Most
                                           states in Region I will be regulating tanks
                                           well  over a  year before  the eventual
                                           federal  program.  EPA Region  I  has
                                           negotiated state UST grants for FY 86 to
                                           assist the states in managing the required
                                           registration process, and begin to enforce
                                           the  federal   interim prohibition.  The
                                           grants will also support certain innovative
                                           ideas including a tank installer certifica-
                                           tion program in Maine, a low-interest loan
                                           program  for tank replacement in Rhode
                                           Island and a videotaped message for tank
                                           owners with the University of Connecticut
                                           and the Connecticut Department of En-
                                           vironmental Protection.
for the agency, and is extremely signifi-
cant in Region I because of the number of
facilities  lost their interim status  on
November 8, 1985 and must close their
land disposal units. The agency will be
closely overseeing closures throughout the
region and believes that necessary correc-
tive action can most appropriately be im-
plemented during the closure process.
  As a result of the loss of interim status
provision of HSWA, 119 of the region's 141
land disposal facilities must close. Each
of these will be inspected by EPA to en-
sure that they are no longer using then-
land disposal units. If they are operating,
EPA will take  administrative civil or
criminal action. The 22 companies retain-
ing  interim status  will  also  be  in-
vestigated to assess the legitimacy of their
compliance certifications and permit ap-
plications. If they are deficient, action will
be taken requiring that they cease using
the units  and penalties will be assessed.
Possible criminal action will also be con-
sidered for filing a false certification with
the agency. (Federal enforcement has been
strengthened by Congress through the ad-
dition of offenses treated as criminal and
by increasing maximum penalties.)
  Enforcement of applicable standards for
waste handlers is a key component of the
RCRA program. Tb identify  any deficien-
cies  or violations, 220 EPA inspections
were conducted in  FY  85 by  Region I,
resulting in 105 enforcement referrals to
the authorized states. From January 1,
1985 to November 8,1985, Region I issued
14 complaints and assessed $317,000 in
penalties.
                                                            9

-------
WATER  MANAGEMENT  DIVISION
                                    DAVID A.  FIERRA, DIRECTOR
  The Water Management Division ad-
 ministers the federal Clean Water Act
 ICWA) for water pollution control, the Safe
 Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for drinking
 water protection, provisions of the Marine
 Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
 (MPRSA) pertaining to the permitting of
 ocean  dump  sites, and evaluates en-
 vironmental impacts  of EPA's  own and
 other federal actions covered by the Na-
 tional  Environmental Policy  Act. This
 report highlights progress during the past
 year  in restoring  and  protecting the
 valuable water resources  of New England,
 including accomplishments in the follow-
 ing priority areas:
 • cleanup in Boston Harbor,
 • protection  of  marine  and  coastal
  environments,
 • protection of wetlands,
 • restoration of water quality in  lakes
  and streams,
 • development and implementation of
  strong groundwater protection, and
 • state-EPA cooperation.
  Approximately 65% of New England's
 major stream segments  meet the  CWA
 standards for fishing and swimming, and
 approximately 90% of  all streams in-
 cluding smaller  upland  waters  meet
 fishable/swimmable standards. Drinking
 water is generally of high quality.

THE CLEAN WATER ACT
  To restore water quality which protects
aquatic life and permits swimming and
boating, EPA  provides  technical and
financial assistance to state and  local
governments for water quality planning,
monitoring, permit development and en-
forcement,  construction  grant  manage-
ment and groundwater protection. This
year Region I provided more than $14.4
million to state governments for  water
pollution control, water quality manage-
ment planning and management of the
municipal construction grants program.

WATER QUALITY PLAN-
NING AND STANDARDS
  The New England states began develop-
ing control strategies for toxic pollutants
and solutions to problems in  priority
waterbodies.
  Assisted by EPA, the states completed
field studies and set permit limits on the
Naugatuck River in CT, the Pawtucket
River in RI and the Ten Mile River in MA.
(See Ten Mile River case study.)
  EPA awarded  clean lakes grants for
pollution abatement designed to improve
the quality  of  Lake Waramaug, and
Candlewood Lake, CT, Cochnewagon Lake,
ME; and Lake Moray, VT.
  The  New England states will enforce
standards for  the  control  of  toxic
discharges and developing antidegrada-
tion policies to bring continued improve-
ment of water quality.

NONPOINT SOURCE
PROGRAM (NFS)
  The national nonpoint source policy and
strategy to be applied by federal, state and
local governments and the private sector,
aims to restore and maintain water quali-
ty in critical estuaries, lakes, headwater
streams, wetlands and the Cape Cod, MA
aquifer.  Best  management practices
(BMPs) are to be adopted by public agen-
cies, farmers, loggers, construction com-
panies and individual citizens.
  A series of state-by-state coordination
meetings  strengthened cooperation
among U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), state agricultural/water quality
agencies and EPA. Now in its third year,
the rural  clean water project for St.
Albany Bay, VT, with USDA cost sharing,
has seen 90% of the problem farms adopt
BMPs for animal waste management and
conservation tillage to reduce erosion and
sedimentation.
 The 1986 NPS strategy will target NPS
problems discovered in the Naragansett
and Buzzards Bay studies, Cape  Cod
aquifer management program, and criti-
cal wetlands, assistance to the states on
better control of erosion, sedimentation,
and toxics runoff from highway construc-
tion and large-scale shopping mall and
resort development.

 PROTECTION OF
 COASTAL AND MARINE
 ENVIRONMENTS
  For centuries the estuaries and coastal
 waters of New England have been receiv-
 ing  industrial and domestic waste
 effluents, combined sewer and nonpoint
 source runoff. The resulting degradation
 in water quality from excess bacteria,
 heavy metals,  nutrients and organic
 chemicals that have  seriously impaired
 both the recreational and commercial use
 of the water.
  Where  wastewater  treatment plants
 were  constructed  or combined sewer
 overflows corrected, noticeable improve-
 ment in water quality and water use has
 occurred, resulting in lower human health
 risks,  reduced  toxicity  and decreased
 potential for eutrophication ("choking" by
 aquatic weeds).
                                                      10

-------
301(h) WAIVER FROM
SECONDARY TREAT-
MENT  PROGRAM
  Under Section 301(h) of the Clean Water
Act coastal communities may use primary
wastewater treatment if EPA agrees to
waive the general requirement for secon-
dary treatment where it can be demon-
strated that no major adverse  environ-
mental impacts will occur. EPA Region I
has reviewed 39 applications with respect
to the physical,  chemical, biological,
recreational, aesthetic and water quality
impacts that the primary effluent could
have on the marine environment. All but
12 applications were formally acted upon
by the end of FY 85, including denial of
the waiver application of the Massachu-
setts Water Resources Authority (MWRA)
for ocean disposal of metropolitan Boston's
sewage after primary treatment.

OCEAN DISPOSAL
PROGRAM
  The Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuary Act allows EPA, in conjunction
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
to designate dredge spoil, industrial waste
and sludge disposal sites in the ocean. Due
to the natural siltation of harbors and
rivers, periodic dredging is necessary to
maintain navigational channels. To meet
these needs, EPA and the Corps are in the
process of formal designation of interim
dredge disposal sites off Maine and Mas-
sachusetts  (north  of  Cape Cod),  and
through the development of an environ-
mental impact statement (EIS), EPA and
the Corps are also investigating a south-
eastern MA/RI dredge spoil disposal site.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE
PROGRAM
  In 1985, $4 million of special appropria-
tions supported by Senators Chafee (RI)
and Weicker (CD were earmarked for com-
prehensive water quality management of
Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay,
Buzzards Bay and Puget Sound in the
state of Washington. The goal of the pro-
gram is to improve and protect the bays'
resources through coordinated research
and management programs. Region I is
responsible for the Narragensett  Bay,
Long Island Sound and Buzzards Bay
studies. Due to interest on both a state
and federal level, an estuarine program
for Massachusetts Bay may be forthcom-
ing with the continued funding of the na-
tional program.
  The  following case  study  of Nar-
ragansett Bay gives more specifics on the
formulation of a study.
NARRAGANSETT BAY
STUDY
  Approximately $1  million  has been
directed towards funding for Narragansett
Bay to be jointly administered by EPA and
the Rhode Island Department  of En-
vironmental Management (DEM).
  Narragensett Bay serves a variety of
commercial and recreational uses such as
shellfishing,  finfishing,  lobstering,
aquaculture, boating and water contact
sports. It is also  the host for numerous
wading bird rookeries and a winter home
for a family of harbor seals. It receives
domestic and industrial wastes from Prov-
idence, Cranston and Warwick in the up-
per portion of the estuary. The Narragan-
sett Bay workplan serves as a prototype
for federal, state, local and private efforts
toward comprehensive estuarine manage-
ment   and protection. The  workplan
outline is  as follows:
• identify management issues and goals
  for Narragansett Bay,
• identify past, continuing and potential
  problems associated with water quali-
  ty and other reasons why Bay uses are
  impaired,
• identify critical resources in need of
  protection,
• identify relevant, ongoing programs of
  federal,  state,  local  and private
  organizations,
• determine what additional projects and
  studies  are  needed to resolve  Bay-
  related management issues, and
• determine what public education and
  participation would be appropriate for
  the project.
  Major goals in 1986 will be development
of an  environmental master  plan, in-
creased NPDES permit  compliance
monitoring for discharges to the Bay and
the establishment of maximum discharge
limits for toxic and nutrient discharges to
the Bay.

WETLANDS
PROTECTION
  Section  404  of  the Clean Water Act
regulates the discharge of dredged or fill
material into the nation's waters through
a permit program administered by EPA
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Its
purpose is to protect wetlands and water
quality. When adverse impacts cannot be
avoided, we seek full mitigation or offset-
ting of wetland losses.
  Increased staff and funding improved
EPA's wetland protection program in 1985
and allowed the region to pursue several
initiatives. We reviewed over 500 proposed
projects in 1985 ranging from small boat
docks to major wetland fills for highways
and commercial development. EPA recom-
mended modification of permits in near-
ly half the cases to reduce environmental
impacts and occasionally permits were
denied. Permit conditions typically in-
clude reducing the amount of wetland
filled  or compensating for lost habitat
through creation of new  wetlands.
  During the latter  half  of 1985, the
region devised a comprehensive strategy
to improve coordination among state and
federal agencies involved in wetlands pro-
tection and increase the use of EPA's own
authority in the 404 program. Under our
404(c) "veto" authority we intervened  in
the controversial Attleboro (MA) Mall
case. We also participated in a joint pro-
gram with Corps, the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service and  the  National  Marine
Fisheries Service to evaluate compliance
with permit conditions. In  1986 we plan
to initiate a program to identify important
wetland areas throughout New England
in need of advanced designation and pro-
tection by EPA.

NATIONAL ENVIRON-
MENTAL POLICY ACT
COMPLIANCE
  The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)  requires that any major actions
taken by federal  agencies which signifi-
cantly affect the environment be accom-
panied by an environmental impact state-
ment (EIS). Less significant actions re-
quire preparation of  an environmental
assessment.
  Major  EISs worked on in the past year
include: 1) The French River EIS (MA) -
The issuance of the draft EIS in October
1985 recommended three actions to im-
prove  water  quality,  (a) advanced
wastewater treatment for  the towns  of
Webster and Dudley; (b) sediment control;
and (c) low flow augmentation for Buffum-
vill Lake. 2)  Boston  Harbor EIS -  In
December 1985 EPA issued the final EIS
for  the siting of wastewater facilities  in
the harbor. The EIS recommended Deer
Island. As a final step in the process the
region will develop an EIS on  sludge
disposal options for the MWRA.

PERMITTING  AND
COMPLIANCE
  The Clean Water Act permit program
limits the amounts and kinds of pollu-
tants that can be discharged into naviga-
ble  waters. In Region I, there are 2,650
such permits issued to both municipal and
industrial  sources, most of which were
issued in the early and mid '70s for five
year terms. In the states where EPA has
primary permit issuance  authority
(Maine, Massachusetts and New Hamp-
shire), the backlog of expired major per-
mits was all but eliminated in October
1985. We are now working with the states
having  delegated National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting authority (Connecticut, Rhode
Island and Vermont) to complete reis-
suance of their major permits that have
expired. It is anticipated that the states
will substantially complete that effort  in
FY86.
                                                         11

-------
  The new permits require reductions in
toxic pollutant levels to assure protection
of the receiving water. The region is us-
ing two powerful tools which more ac-
curately assess the water quality impact
of toxic discharges: (1) EPA's new criteria
for toxic pollutants and (2) new toxicity
testing (bioassay) procedures. The Ten
Mile River case study is an illustration of
the effective use of these tools in establish-
ing permit limits. In addition, many of the
municipal permits incorporate pretreat-
ment requirements which will begin to
regulate  toxic discharges to municipal
sewer systems.

TEN MILE RIVER
  The Ten Mile River flows for 20 miles
through industrialized areas of Massachu-
setts and eastern Rhode Island. Almost
half of the river is impounded by dams,
and  a good  portion of the  remaining
length is encased in man-made walls. The
Massachusetts section of the Ten Mile
River receives waste from 15 major  in-
dustrial and two major municipal dis-
chargers, many of which are associated
with the  jewelry and metal finishing
industry.
  Intensive  surveys conducted in  1984
found high concentrations of metals in the
water column and in the sediment  in-
cluding cadmium, lead, copper and silver.
Copper has  been found at levels far  ex-
ceeding EPA's water quality criteria along
much of the river's length. It is estimated
that during low flow conditions about 90%
of the entire stream consists of wastewater
effluent.
  The region is working with the Massa-
chusetts Department  of Environmental
Quality Engineering (DEQE) to cleanup
the Ten Mile River. The results of the in-
tensive study and sampling program done
during the summer of 1984 were reviewed
and modeling resulted in effluent limita-
tions for draft permits becoming available
in June,  1985.
  The Ten Mile River survey and analysis
is the first in the region that combined
traditional  chemical  monitoring with
biomonitoring and effluent toxicity test-
ing. Permit limits and enforcement strat-
egies have been developed that are tied
directly to the site-specific uses of the Ten
Mile River. In a continuance of this com-
bined biological and chemical data gather-
ing and analysis, the NPDES permits will
contain biological limits along with con-
ventional chemical limits.
  EPA sent draft permits to the discharg-
ers in July, 1985 and held a meeting with
them in early August. This was followed
by a 30-day public comment period and
public hearing. During the comment peri-
od, several people requested a summary
report on the survey results and limita-
tion basis along with additional time to
comment. EPA and DEQE granted these
requests  and planned to  distribute a
report  in February, 1986.  That report
would be followed by a 60-day reopening
of the public comment period.
  After issuance of the permits with a
stringent water quality-based limitation
in 1986, EPA plans to develop administra-
tive orders with compliance schedules and
interim limitations for each discharger.
CLEAN WATER ACT
PERMIT COMPLIANCE
  Ninety percent of all major municipal
facilities and industrial dischargers re-
mained in compliance with permit limita-
tions during the past year. The region
completed 242 inspections  of permitted
facilities, issued 43 administrative orders
and referred seven cases for judicial ac-
tion. Inspections completed during FY 85
are as  follows:
 PRETREATMENT
   Of the 81 New England communities re-
 quired to limit industrial discharges of
 specific chemicals into municipal sewer
 systems, 67 have pretreatment programs
 which EPA has approved, and approval
 of the  remaining  14  communities'
 pretreatment  programs will  remain a
 high priority.
   In a new audit program to determine if
 communities are complying with approv-
 ed pretreatment requirement, nine audits
 wer performed by regional staff in FY 85.
 Federal  enforcement   actions  were
 initiated  against  three industrial
 dischargers who did not comply with
 federal standards. The region will also
 review state and locally  developed pro-
 grams to ensure they are strictly enforced.
 One community has already been referred
 to the Department of Justice for neglect-
 ing to comply  with pretreatment re-
 quirements.
  Charts

  compliance sampling  .
  compliance evaluation
  performance audit  ...
  pretreatment audit. ..
 Municipals      Industrials
	  21	  5
	129	25
	  36	17
	   9	_0
       195                47
NATIONAL MUNICIPAL
POLICY
  The national municipal policy requires
all municipalities to construct wastewater
treatment plants by July 1,1988 with or
without the assistance of federal funds. In
New England this policy affects 96 com-
munities. All the New England states
submitted municipal policies  consistent
with national policy.
  The region and the New England states
are working closely to ensure that all
operating facilities are in compliance, all
fundable facilities are on a schedule and
all communities which need  treatment
facilities but will not be eligible for federal
funding prepare the required compliance
plans. At the end of 1985 77% of the com-
munities were on enforceable  schedules,
and 8% were awaiting 301(h) waivers or
waste load allocation decisions. The re-
maining 15% will be placed on judicial
schedules during the next two years.
  The region has issued 13 administrative
orders to enforce community compliance.
The states and the region are establishing
a priority order for all communities not
scheduled to receive federal  funds.  We
will initiate enforcement  actions where
appropriate to require these communities
to construct needed wastewater treat-
ment facilities.
 CONSTRUCTION OF
 MUNICIPAL
 WASTEWATER TREAT-
 MENT PLANTS
 CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
   Between October 1,1984 and September
 30, 1985 the region processed approx-
 imately 380 construction grants totaling
 $212.8 million to help local governments
 build wastewater treatment plants and
 other facilities designed to improve water
 quality.
 COMBINED SEWER
 OVERFLOWS (CSOs)
   Congress appropriated $60 million for
 the elimination of combined sewer over-
 flows (CSO) to marine waters. In FY 84,
 $12.3 million was obligated for projects in
 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and
 New Hampshire. In FY 85  four projects
 totaling $4.7 million were funded  in
 Maine and Massachusetts. Tbgether these
 projects will help eliminate marine CSOs
 in the Housatonic River estuary (CT),
 Boston Harbor,  Great  Bay/Piscataqua
 River estuary (ME and  NH), St.  George
 River estuary (ME) and the Maine coastal
 area near Old Orchard Beach.
   The region and bur states are also com-
 mitted to  initiatives which  bring  to
 minority and women  owned business
                                                         12

-------
enterprises a fair share of the EPA con-
struction  grant dollars. Minority and
women business enterprise participation
was 8.7%, up from the 7.8% level in FY 84.

OPERATION AND
MANAGEMENT
  Regional staff performed 107 com-
pliance   inspections  of municipal
wastewater treatment plants during FY
85. Operations management evaluations
brought significant improvement in plant
management and performance. The
states, with EPA support, also provided ex-
tensive technical and management
assistance to 57 smaller communities in
the region to improve their operation and
maintenance of sewage treatment plants.
  The region presented awards to six plant
managers, one from each state, for con-
sistently outstanding plant management.
This is the start of a new incentive plan.
  The quantity of sludge produced has in-
creased dramatically with expansion of
older treatment plants and construction
of new ones. During the past year, we met
with  each of the New England states to
review their existing sludge programs,
make  recommendations  for  im-
provements, and  participate  in the
development of the state sludge manage-
ment and technical sludge regulations.
                 Charts
    Construction  Grants  Obligations
October 1, 1984 to September 30, 1985
       Region I Total:  212.8  Million
                Millions of Dollars
                               Chart 10
     Percentage of Water Systems in Compliance
     With The Maximum Contaminant Level  for
                       Coliform Bacteria
                                             FY84
Connecticut	95
Massachusetts	88
Maine	  	94
             FY85
             ....97
               ..92
New Hampshire	85
Rhode Island	96
Vermont	78
National Goal	   ,	93
                .86
                .97
                .79
                .93
     Percentage of Water Systems in  Compliance
 With The Maximum Contaminant Level for Turbidity
                                              FY84
 Connecticut	94
 Massachusetts	97
 Maine..............	,	........................97
 New Hampshire	96
 Rhode Island	100
 Vermont	96
 National Goal ................   .............      ..97
              FY85
              ....93
              ....94
              ....98
              ....97
              ...100
              ....90
                . .97
DRINKING WATER
QUALITY
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
SUPERVISION
PROGRAM (PWSS)
 The Safe  Drinking Water  Act  was
enacted in 1974 to protect public health
by requiring public water supply systems
to meet minimum national standards set
by EPA. During the past year, Region I
provided approximately $1.8 million to
the New England states to regulate public
water supply systems.
 An increase in compliance with max-
imum contaminant levels (MCL) for coli-
form bacteria is noted in the table below
for five of the six states. The other state
maintained identical compliance  rates
during the last two years.
 In  monitoring and reporting,  New
Hampshire stands out as having the
greatest percentage improvement, going
from only 41% coliform compliance in
1984 to 77% in 1985. Excepting Vermont,
with a compliance rate of 69%, and New
Hampshire all other states have greater
than 90% compliance for monitoring and
reporting of coliform.
 Turbidity compliance levels continue to
remain high, all states reporting well over
90% of their systems in compliance The
remaining systems will now have to begin
planning whether to provide filtration of
their source of supply or switch to other
sources.
                                                   13

-------
UNDERGROUND WATER
SOURCE PROTECTION
PROGRAM
  During the past year, Region I provided
a total of $308,400 in grants to support
state programs to regulate underground
injection and promote groundwater protec-
tion activities. All New England states
have assumed primary enforcement re-
sponsibility for the underground injection
control (UIC) program.
  In addition to the PWSS and UIC pro-
grams, Region I continued efforts to iden-
tify  and protect  critical  groundwater
aquifers under the sole source aquifer pro-
gram. A sole source aquifer is the sole or
principal drinking water source for an
area which, if contaminated, would create
a significant hazard to public health. Dur-
ing the past year, EPA continued to review
proposed federally funded projects over the
three sole source  aquifers in Region I,
Cape Cod and Nantucket Island, MA, and
Block Island, RI. The region is also cur-
rently evaluating a petition to designate
a fourth area in central Massachusetts as
a sole source aquifer.
TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
  Some  170  people attended a two-day
EPA-sponsored seminar on giardiasis, its
occurrence,  treatment  and  laboratory
methods. The Water Supply Branch and
the Air Management Division prepared a
three-day seminar on radon in January,
1986.
  Each year  more than 100 requests for
assistance are received from the general
public, the most common regarding home
treatment devices  to remove contami-
nants such as arsenic, iron manganese,
nitrates, organic solvents and radon.
Water has been analyzed for antimony,
lithium and tungsten in the course of
special  studies. We continually review
health effects data and render opinions to
the Superfund office, the states and the
general public.
  Reports on hazardous waste sites are
reviewed from a water supply perspective.
We review EISs for major federal projects
and provide technical comments on their
possible impacts  on water  supplies.
Several highway projects under review
may have significant impacts on sources
of drinking water.

GROUNDWATER
PROTECTION
  Eighty percent of New England public
water supplies and  over 95% of our rural
population rely upon groundwater, which
is vulnerable to  man-made  natural
sources of contamination. Sources of con-
tamination include: underground storage
tanks and piping systems, surface waste
impoundments, pesticides and herbicide
applications,  and road salt storage and ap-
plication. Long before groundwater receiv-
ed national   attention, the region  en-
couraged the New England states to use
portions of state grants for groundwater
planning and management foundations.
These early  "seed" efforts have  made
Region I a leader in the national ground-
water protection effort. EPA maintains a
groundwater steering committee com-
posed of senior managers  from all pro-
grams  which relate to groundwater.
Regional Administrator Michael Deland
is one of seven members on the national
groundwater task force Paul Keough is
the lead Deputy Regional Administrator
in the country for groundwater program
issues, including the budget. The Cape
Cod  aquifer  management project will
serve as prototype of a comprehensive ap-
proach to groundwater management. (See
Case Study.)
                                                          14

-------
THE CAPE COD
AQUIFER MANAGEMENT
PROJECT
  Most Cape Cod residents rely solely on
groundwater for domestic use Long con-
sidered a pristine source in abundant
supply, both public and  private wells
recently reflected the need for increased
commitment to  protect this  precious
resource - the wells were found to be con-
taminated.  Thus, EPA's New  England
office and the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering
(DEQE), together with the Cape Cod Plan-
ning and Economic Development Commis-
sion and the U.S. Geologic  Survey, in-
itiated a two-year study to examine the
adequacy of existing groundwater protec-
tion programs and recommend improve-
ments. Current  groundwater protection
programs at all levels of government are
focused narrowly and administered sepa-
rately. This study will be comprehensive,
focusing on the resource itself, and exam-
ining threats to groundwater from a varie-
ty of activities.
  Barnstable and Eastham  have been
chosen as the focus of this effort. Barn-
stable is a large town which has devoted
much attention to groundwater protection
and has developed expertise  at the local
level. Eastham  is a small, rural town,
totally dependent on  private  drinking
water supplies. It relies on septic systems
and has limited resources available for
groundwater management.
  The final project recommendations will
be transferable to the rest of the Cape
and to the entire state EPA and DEQE
hope that this project will also serve as a
national  prototype for  groundwater
management.
  This is a cooperative effort aimed at im-
proving  coordination  in  groundwater
management between and among federal,
state and local levels of government. A
data management group will identify ex-
isting groundwater data bases, integrate
them and make them more accessible In
addition,  these data bases will provide
background  information for the other
working groups. The group will also ex-
plore geographic information systems and
computer graphics as  a  long-term
management tool.
  An  aquifer assessment  group  will
review the methods  of determining the
zone of contribution (ZOC)  for ground-
water supply wells  and surface water
resources. It will recommend  appropriate
methods for use in the study area. They
will also assess the threat of contamina-
tion from various sources within these
ZOCs and suggest acceptable land uses
within these zones.
  Finally, an  institutions  group will
review existing programs, comparative
costs and current bureaucratic structure,
looking for  gaps,  inconsistencies and
duplications to streamline program coor-
dination and groundwater management.

OFFICE  OF GROUND-
WATER PROTECTION
  The region's Office of Groundwater Pro-
tection disbursed more than $650,000 in
groundwater grants to the New England
states in 1985. The financial assistance
has catalyzed the development of com-
prehensive statewide  groundwater ac-
tivities or strengthened existing state per-
mit programs and classification systems.
  The region also funded several ground-
water protection initiatives of the New
England Interstate Water Pollution Con-
trol Commission (NEIWPCC):
• A standing  committee on  leaking
  underground  storage tanks.  Several
  meetings have been held with the
  states to exchange information, success
  stories,  and problems encountered in
  developing and implementing under-
  ground storage tank regulations.
• An educational brochure and slide tape
  presentation on leaking underground
  storage tanks.
  The EPA headquarters office has award-
ed NEIWPCC an  additional grant  of
$75,000 to provide all 50 states a channel
for regional input into national standard
setting and regulation development and
for  information  dissemination to the
states and the public.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
  During 1985, the region has accom-
plished or made significant progress in
many of the highest priority water issues
in New England. In FY 86, the Water
Management Division will focus attention
and resources on:
• continuing emphasis on marine  pro-
  grams (eg., Boston Harbor, estuaries,
  301(h) waivers and ocean dumping of
  dredged material);
• implementing our new wetlands protec-
  tion strategy;
• strengthening the Clean Water Act per-
  mit program and assuring that all point
  source discharges have appropriate en-
  forceable permits;
• implementing the overall compliance
  strategy for the permit program (in-
  cluding the national municipal policy,
  pretreatment  compliance, and  com-
  pliance inspection policy);
• managing the federal funds available
  to maximize  the  benefits  of  the
  municipal   construction   grants
  program;
• developing and implementing a strong
  groundwater protection program;
• increasing  compliance with the na-
  tional drinking water  standards;
• implementing  a program  of  field
  sanitary surveys of public water supply
  systems to detect deficiencies in the
  system's facilities and/or operation that
  compromise its ability to continually
  produce safe drinking  water, and
• continuing coordination with Super-
  fund and other regional environmental
  programs.
                                                         15

-------
                           ENVIRONMENTAL
                      SERVICES   DIVISION
                                  EDWARD J. CONLEY DIRECTOR
  The Environmental Services Division
(ESD)  in  Lexington, MA,  provides
laboratory and field support services to
the air, water and waste program offices
in Region I. These services include collec-
tion  and analysis  of samples and  en-
vironmental data, oil spill response, and
emergency cleanup of hazardous waste.
The chemical and biological laboratory is
one of the best equipped of its kind in the
northeast,  fitting legacy to former Divi-
sion Director Edward V. Fitzpatrick. Fitz
retired in May 1985, having served as lab
director in Region I since EPA's inception.
 He chose the site for the lab, supervised
 its design and construction and guided it
 through the crucial  early years with
 characteristic wisdom and foresight.
   ESD  personnel  work with state en-
 vironmental agencies on the coordination
 of environmental  monitoring networks
 which provide a continuous measurement
 of air and water quality. The lab's quality
 assurance services are available to the
 state laboratories to help them maintain
 accuracy and adequacy of sample analyses
 and  to keep  pace  with  changing
 technology and regulatory requirements.
   SOIL GAS ANALYSIS - A
   NEW TOOL FOR
   GROUNDWATER
   PROTECTION
    Growing concern over groundwater con-
   tamination  with  volatile  organic
   chemicals presented the need for new
   technology to detect leaks in underground
   storage tanks and to track plumes of con-
   tamination from waste piles and spills.
   This contamination is principally caused
   by volatile organic chemicals. Measure-
   ment of organic vapor in holes augured in
   soil near the surface give useful informa-
   tion in organic contamination in the
   aquifer below. Soil gas is analyzed in the
   field by means of a state-of-the-art por-
   table gas chromatograph capable of de-
   tecting 10-20 parts per billion of gasoline
   or organic solvent in an aquifer 10-30 feet
   below. This is done by testing at various
   depths and recording the readings at each
level. The field chemist can identify gas-
oline,  diesel fuel,  fuel oil,  or specific
solvents or mixtures present in the aqui-
fer. A plume can be delineated by auger-
ing holes to show the direction of the
plume's movement and the lateral concen-
tration gradient. In several field studies,
it has been possible to learn which of 3
buried tanks at a service station is leak-
ing and the type of gasoline.  This tech-
nique  has been described at 7 technical
meetings during the past year and more
than 200 requests for information on field
chromatography have been answered. We
have conducted 6 training courses on the
use of field chromatography for ground-
water and hazardous waste site investiga-
tion, one for each New England state. Per-
sonnel from other EPA regions have at-
tended several sessions. Widespread ap-
plication of this technique, and its contin-
uing refinement, are a high priority of the
regional laboratory.
  The lab has served the Superfund teams
in the Waste Management Division in two
ways: with sampling and analysis of water
and  soils at Superfund sites, and with
management of emergency cleanups
where hazardous waste has presented an
immediate threat to public health or the
environment. Our emergency response
team handled 18 cleanups at Superfund
and  other hazardous waste sites  and
helped thg states and local authorities in
35 instances of chemical releases  during
the past year in New England. Prelim-
inary assessments were conducted at 38
sites. There were 23 federally funded oil
spill cleanups, and 50 oil spills at which
ESD assisted the states.
  Field personnel conducted 129 compli-
ance inspections to determine whether
dischargers had complied with  waste-
water permit limits  or  pretreatment
guidelines for industrial waste discharged
to municipal sewers. Most inspections in-
volved  complex  laboratory analysis.
Others consisted of thorough visual  in-
spection and review  of  sampling and
analysis conducted by municipal or  in-
dustrial dischargers.
  During the past year ESD staff provid-
ed on-the-job training and formal courses
for state personnel in new technology and
new regulations applicable to field work
and laboratory analysis. The Air Section
conducted 10 workshops on visible emis-
sions and certified state and EPA inspec-
tors to cite emission sources for violation
of regulations governing total suspended
particulates. Training was also given on
field methods for detecting leaks in under-
ground storage tanks, including a tech-
nique refined by laboratory personnel in-
                                                      16

-------
volving the use of a portable gas chro-
matograph to analyze soil samples.
  BSD personnel also 1) established a tox-
ics air monitoring site on a hill in Chelsea,
MA, overlooking an oil farm and chemical
industries; 2) processed, evaluated and
published the 1984 Annual Report on Air
Quality in New England; 3) worked with
the  states  and major  industries  in
conducting and observing emission tests
for particulates, sulfur oxides and volatile
organic chemicals; 4) conducted field per-
formance  audits on  all  national air
monitoring sites and 50% of all state air
monitoring sites, completing a full audit
of each state's air monitoring program;
and 5) expanded ESD's capabilities for tox-
ic air monitoring, including significant
field studies at Raymark and American
Cyanamid plants in Connecticut, ambient
sampling for volatile organics at Deer
Island wastewater  treatment plant in
Boston Harbor, and at many Superfund
sites in New England.
  In October and November 1984, Region
I personnel took part in Phase I of a na-
tional lake survey. A total of 519 lakes in
New England were sampled from helicop-
ters, and data have provided a statistical
base for defining those lakes which are
potentially sensitive to acid  deposition.
These data were used to group lakes hav-
ing similar chemical characteristics and
to select representative lakes for more in-
tensive sampling. During FY 86, EPA con-
tractors will follow up with more intensive
chemical and biological sampling of the
representative lakes.
  The division took  charge of launching
the agency's chemical  emergency pre-
paredness program in New England late
in the year. The program is designed to
help states and local governments develop
emergency response  and  contingency
plans in case hazardous chemicals are ac-
cidentally released.  The division distrib-
uted an acute hazards list of 402 chemi-
cals in general use in industry, chemical
profiles of each, and guidance on drawing
up contingency plans. The division con-
tinues to provide technical assistance
  The biology section  responded to an
epidemic  of giardiasis,  an intestinal
parasitic disease, in Pittsfield, MA. Work-
ing with personnel  from the Lawrence,
MA experiment station, our people soon
recovered the causative organism and pin-
pointed the possible source of contamina-
tion. The biology lab is one of the very few
on the east coast which  is  capable of
isolating and analyzing for giardia.
  The giardia episode brought the division
into close contact with state and local
public  health  departments, an ac-
celerating trend, as the interest in en-
vironmental protection shifts noticeably
toward health effects of environmental
degradation,  especially the impact of
chemical contamination of air, water and
soil.
A PRELIMINARY
CHECKLIST  OF  THE
AQUATIC MACRO-
INVERTEBRATES
OF THE NEW ENGLAND
REGION
  New England's streams and lakes have
a  rich  and diverse macroinvertebrate
fauna and records of these aquatic popula-
tions are being documented in the course
of state biological water quality monitor-
ing. A checklist of the aquatic macro-
invertebrates in  New England and New
York State was begun in 1982, using lists
of animals collected as part of the 7 states'
water quality monitoring, and supple-
mented  with lists contributed by selected
taxonomists and private collectors. This
is a working list, not based on extensive
searches of literature and historical rec-
ords. This list will be useful  to the  state
and federal aquatic biologists in determin-
ing the impact of pollution on streams and
water bodies as well as indicating recovers'
from pollution after toxic discharges have
been eliminated.
  The presence of certain species, especial-
ly stoneflies, mayflies and caddisflies, and
most molluscs indicates good water quali-
ty. Poor water quality is indicated by the
presence  of  aquatic earthworms  and
midge flies. Molluscs, or freshwater shell-
fish, are generally sensitive to acidic con-
ditions. Macroinvertebrate taxonomy is
one of the most  useful biological tools for
the assessment of water quality.
  The list will  be updated periodically,
prompting a continuing exchange of speci-
mens and distribution records among the
states. So far, it  contains more than 1.500
taxa covering the Phyla Porifera through
Mollusca.
  Publication of the list is expected early
in 1986. We plan to establish a central ref-
erence collection at the ESD laboratory for
use in specimen verification and in  con-
ducting workshops on macroinvertebrate
taxonomv.
                                                           17

-------
    OFFICE OF  REGIONAL  COUNSEL
                 PATRICK A. PARENTEAU, REGIONAL COUNSEL
  This office provides the legal muscle for
the region's enforcement program, prepar-
ing lawsuits, negotiating settlements, col-
lecting penalties and helping to prosecute
criminal violations of the nation's environ-
mental laws. It also defends the region
against  a variety  of legal challenges,
especially suits designed to block enforce-
ment efforts or to stall cleanup operations.
Finally, the office serves as a trouble-
shooter, trying  to clear legal obstacles
from the path of EPA's complex regulatory
mission,  and to keep the construction
grants program from bogging down with
bid protests and grant appeals.
  Here are some highlights from last year:

CLEANING UP
HAZARDOUS WASTE
SITES-
A COOPERATIVE
EFFORT WITH THE
WASTE MANAGEMENT
DIVISION
  The Ottati & Goss case,  the nation's
longest running environmental lawsuit,
ended last summer after 113 days of trial.
When the dust  had cleared, the federal
government had won the most comprehen-
sive  decision to date establishing strict
liability against hazardous waste gener-
ators as well as the owners and operators
of hazardous waste  sites which contami-
nated ground  and  surface  water  near
Kingston, NH.  The case demonstrates
that EPA is not only committed to hazar-
dous waste cleanup but is willing and able
to litigate against  multiple defendants
when necessary. EPA has spent about $1.7
million on removal of some 4,400 drums
of waste from the 28-acre site occupied by
Ottati & Goss and Kingston Steel Drum.
The site was used for waste disposal and
drum cleaning in the 1960s and 1970s.
The removal took  place between the
autumn of 1981 and the summer of 1982.
EPA has spent an additional $850,000 on
groundwater and related studies and in
the preparation of a preliminary engineer-
ing plan for permanent cleanup.
  Another New Hampshire case, only a
few miles down the road from the Ottati
& Goss site, provides an even better il-
lustration of how EPA would like to deal
with Superfund cleanups. That case in-
volves a site near Epping, NH operated by
Keefe Environmental Services as a hazar-
dous waste treatment, disposal and stor-
age facility between May 1978 and Janu-
ary 1981. The seven acre site consisted of
a lined waste lagoon with a capacity for
600,000 gallons of liquid waste, four 5,000
gallon above-ground storage tanks, seven
dumpsters containing sludges and soils,
and as many as 6,000 fifty-five gallon
drums. EPA, the State of New Hampshire
and the Tbwn of Epping spent approx-
imately $3 million to cleanup and secure
the site EPA pumped the lagoon to pre-
vent overflows during rain and snowmelt,
stabilized deteriorating surface condi-
tions, staged, grouped and overpacked
deteriorating drums and removed ultra-
hazardous materials. New Hampshire re-
moved more than 4,000 drums under a
cooperative  agreement with EPA. Near-
ly two years of painstaking negotiations
finally paid off with the signing of a com-
prehensive cleanup agreement by 117 re-
sponsible parties last fall. The settlement,
valued at close to $6 million, has been
hailed on all sides as a model agreement.
Its key feature is a risk premium payment
designed to cover  unexpected cleanup
costs while allowing responsible parties to
"cash out" their liability. This new ap-
proach  is expected to speed settlement
of Superfund cases in New England and
throughout the country, resulting in more
cleanups and less time spent in costly
litigation.
CLEANING UP BOSTON
HARBOR
  Forty-three cities and towns discharge
sewage into Boston Harbor through two
obsolete primary treatment plants former-
ly operated by the Metropolitan District
Commission (MDC) but now under the jur-
isdiction  of  the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority (MWRA). More than
100 combined sewer overflows (CSO) also
discharge to the harbor. The combined
effect of these discharges creates the most
serious water pollution problem in New
England by regularly causing beach clos-
ings, and diseases in fish and other organ-
isms and threatening public health.
  lb date, $210 million in EPA grants
have been made to projects related to
Boston Harbor, mainly  to repair and
rehabilitate portions  of Boston and
member community sewer systems and to
correct some CSO and chronic treatment
plant problems. In addition, some $40
million in federal  grants are scheduled
during FY  86 for immediate improve-
ments  to the Nut Island and Deer Island
treatment plants and to correct additional
CSO and sewer system problems.
  As part of the region's multi-pronged
effort to restore water quality in Boston
Harbor, the MDC's  application  for a
waiver of secondary treatment was de-
                                                      18

-------
nied, requiring construction and operation
of secondary  treatment facilities.  En-
vironmental impact studies  have been
completed for facilities siting: The studies
narrowed the  choice for the  treatment
works from 22 sites to a single preferred
site, Deer Island. Public hearings of the
final environmental impact  statement
were held in January 1986 with the final
record of decision issued in February.
  A lawsuit was filed in January 1985 to
obtain a firm cleanup schedule under the
direction of the Federal District Court in
Massachusetts which has the  broad
authority needed to oversee the multitude
of parties and issues involved in solving
this problem. Despite opposition by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and by
the MWRA, Federal Judge David Maz-
zone  entered  judgment  last summer
against both the authority and the com-
monwealth  finding  them liable  for
numerous violations of the Clean Water
Act. Following negotiations among the
parties, which also included the Conser-
vation Law Foundation of New England,
the City of Quincy and the Tbwn of Win-
throp, Judge Mazzone issued the first
remedial order in late December, contain-
ing an interim, three year schedule of ac-
tivities, including immediate improve-
ments to the existing primary treatment
plant on Deer Island. With this interim
schedule the court-administered cleanup
of Boston Harbor has officially  begun.
More orders will follow, but it is hoped
that the parties will continue negotiating
their differences to arrive at mutually
agreed upon schedules and timetables for
the  actual  construction  of  necessary
facilities for secondary treatment, sludge
disposal and combined sewer overflows —
a massive construction project estimated
to cost more than $2 billion and take more
than 10 years to complete.

GETTING TOUGH ON
ASBESTOS VIOLATIONS
  Asbestos, a known human carcinogen,
presents one of the most pervasive health
risks in New England. Having been used
for so many years as insulation in homes,
businesses and factories, it is literally all
around us. Although usually safely con-
cealed behind walls, ceiling tiles and other
structures, it can become dangerous when
released as dust into the air.
  Region I has been a leader in the vigor-
ous enforcement of two different programs
designed to regulate asbestos. One is the
asbestos-in-schools  program, in  which
hundreds of enforcement actions have
been taken under the Ibxic Substances
Control Act, and thousands of dollars have
been spent on safe removal of asbestos
from schools around New England. Equal-
ly important, the highly visible enforce-
ment effort has  helped make parents,
teachers, administrators and   school
boards much more aware of the asbestos
problem, prompting corrective  actions
beyond those stimulated by the enforce-
ment actions themselves.
  The  other major  asbestos  program,
under the hazardous«emissions provision
of the Clean Air act, regulates the demoli-
tion or renovation of buildings containing
asbestos. The usual approach is to assess
a fairly stiff penalty for violations and to
order future compliance However, given
the gravity of the threat posed by im-
proper handling and disposal of large
amounts of asbestos  frequently exposed
during building demolitions and renova-
tions, and the slow response of the reg-
ulated community — both contractors and
   building owners — to following prescribed
   procedures, Region I has decided to raise
   the ante for serious  violations by bring-
   ing criminal prosecutions against delib-
   erate or repeat offenders. In December
   1985, a Federal District Judge in Connec-
   ticut found  two men guilty of knowing
  ' violations of federal regulations and hand-
   ed down stiff sentences that included 30
   days  in jail for one person, a one-year
   suspended sentence for the other, and a
   $25,000 fine for each. In addition, each
   was  placed on  five years probation and
   was  ordered to perform 1,000  hours of
   community service Sentences like these
   will serve as a powerful deterrent to other
   violations of the asbestos rules.
  This past year Region I initiated its first
action under section 404(c) of the Clean
Water Act, which provides EPA with the
authority to prohibit or restrict the filling
of wetlands (and other waters of the U.S. i
 when there would be unacceptable ad-
 verse effects from a proposed development
 on certain environmental resource values.
 This section of the Act has been  used in-
 frequently in the past, and only four 404(ci
 actions have been completed nationwide.
 The case has captured widespread atten-
 tion  in the  local and national media.
   Pyramid Companies of New York pro-
 posed to fill 30 acres of primarily forested
 wetlands in order to build a shopping mall
 in an area known as Sweedens Swamp in
 Attleboro, MA. If permitted, this would be
 the largest loss of wetlands in Massachu-
 setts in at least 5 years. Pyramid claims
 that  the destruction of wetlands is justi-
 fied because it proposes a wetland mitiga-
 tion plan which would "improve" the re-
 maining wetlands onsite and create new
 wetlands offsite.
   Region I became involved with the mall
 proposal since it requires a permit under
 section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which
 regulates the discharge of dredged or fill
 material into waters of the U.S., including
 wetlands. The 404 program  is jointly ad-
 ministered by the Corps of Engineers and
 EPA. EPA has  authority under §404(ct
 (commonly known as the"veto" provision)
 to override a Corps decision to issue a per-
 mit whenever EPA determines that there
 would be unacceptable impacts to munici-
 pal water supplies, fisheries, shellfish, rec-
 reation and/or wildlife.
  Since October  1984, Region I  has ob-
jected to issuance of the Corps  permit
 because of the impacts on the wetland and
 a belief that at least one less environmen-
 tally damaging site exists where a mall
 could be built.  The local Corps Division
 had decided to  deny the 404 permit, but
 the Corps headquarters office interceded
 in the case and directed the New England
 Division to issue the permit to Pyramid.
The Corps" Washington position involved
a legal and policy interpretation of EPA's
regulations which, if applied in other
cases as well, could substantially weaken
the 404 program.
  In late July, Region I initiated the for-
mal 404(ct administrative process.  Our
August 21. 1985 public notice states that
Pyramid's proposal may result in unaccep-
table adverse impacts on the wetland, and
sought public comment on numerous is-
sues. Pyramid filed suit against EPA seek-
ing to stop the 404(ci process. The federal
district court for the District of Columbia
dismissed Pyramid's action, ruling  that
the court lacked jurisdiction over the case
since EPA has yet to take final agency ac-
tion. The court also held that EPA retains
broad discretion to initiate section 404ici
actions, and that EPA's action  in this case
was within discretion. This was the first
written decision construing section 404ic>
of the Act.  Pyramid has appealed the
decision.
  The next step in the 404(c) process is for
Region I to complete its evaluation of the
record (including  approximately 1,200
comments) and make a recommendation
to EPA headquarters. The regional admin-
istrator has three options: withdraw EPA's
objections and allow the project to proceed
subject to the requirements of the Corps
permit; restrict use of the site or place con-
ditions on the project which must be satis-
fied before the mall could be built; or pro-
hibit filling of Sweedens Swamp thereby
vetoing the Corps permit and  preventing
construction of the mall. This decision will
depend primarily upon how the region re-
solves two key questions: 11 must an alter-
nate site(s) which would fulfill the basic
project purpose be available to the permit
applicant to be considered feasible, and 2i
may mitigation, if initiated successfully
in advance of a project,  substitute for
avoiding the impacts in the first place by
use of an alternate site? The final EPA de-
cision will be made by Joy Manson. the
Assistant  Administrator  for External
Affairs.
                                                            19

-------
                          PLANNING  AND
     MANAGEMENT  DIVISION
 The Planning and Management Divi-
sion provides a variety of services to sup-
port regional  program  activities, in-
cluding space, equipment, support for our
employees, financial  management and
budgeting, and information processing
and communications.
 Activities with greater external impact
include the administration of federal
priority setting and program coordination.
The activities highlighted below are ex-
amples of the work of the Division.
HARLEY  F LAING, DIRECTOR

 • The Division serves as the production
  manager for Region I's Environmental
  Management Report (EMR), the na-
  tional "state of the environment" repor-
  ting and planning effort undertaken
  every year in each of the  10 EPA
  regions.
  State  and  environmental  group
 representatives work with the region to
 identify New England's most important
 environmental issues. The report outlines
 action plans at the national, regional and
state levels to solve these critical en-
vironmental problems.
• The region's work planning and accoun-
  tability systems track program and en-
  forcement   activities   against
  commitments developed in conjunction
  with EPA headquarters at the beginn-
  ing of the fiscal year.
 The region is now in the process of
automating the planning, management,
tracking and accountability systems. This
effort will aid program managers by con-
tinuous reporting of progress in regional
program, enforcement, special initiative
and grant-related activities.
                                                                     STAFF INCREASES
                                                                      The Region I organization continued to
                                                                     grow during FY 85. The number of per-
                                                                     manent employees increased by nearly
                                                                     15%, from 401 to 459. The greatest in-
                                                                     creases were in waste management with
                                                                     all programs benefitting from the addition
                                                                     of technical staff, attorneys and clerical,
                                                                     administrative and support personnel.
                                                                     Consistent with the Agency's equal em-
                                                                     ployment policy, half of the new profes-
                                                                     sional and administrative employees are
                                                                     women, and nearly 20% of the profession-
                                                                     al and  administrative new  hires are
                                                                     minority group members.

                                                                     HUMAN RESOURCES
                                                                     INITIATIVES
                                                                      In keeping with EPA's increasingly
                                                                     strong commitment to improving its effec-
                                                                     tiveness and productivity through devel-
                                                                     opment of its employees, Region I has
                                                                     undertaken a number of human resource
                                                                     initiatives.
                                                20

-------
EPA REGION I BUDGET -
FISCAL YEAR 1985
 The budget we managed for FY 85 was
comprised  of 459 staff years and $20
million to support Agency operations. The
budget also included  $77 million for
grants for  wastewater treatment plant
construction and $26 million for grants to
support  state  environmental program
operations.
 The region's resources increased signifi-
cantly from FY 84 to FY 85.
In addition to Superfund, other EPA
program funding for protection of the
environment from hazardous waste and
toxic pollutants (pesticides, radiation
and  toxic  substances)  increased
operating dollars by $451,600 or 20tf
over FY 84.
Financial operating funds increased by
$3.3 million or 20% over FY 84.
Superfund's  financial  operating
resources increased by $1,228,000 or
42%.
                Stability of funding levels is the high-
              light of Region I's financial assistance to
              states. These grants support  air, water,
              construction grants management, water
              quality, public water supply, underground
              injection control, hazardous waste and
              pesticides enforcement and certification
              programs. For FY 85, the New England
              states received EPA funds as  follows:
                                    Connecticut
                                    Maine
                                    Massachusetts
                                    New Hampshire
                                    Rhode Island
                                    Vermont
                                    Total
                       $5,813,000
                       $3,019,000
                       $9,655,000
                       $2,879,000
                       $2,722,000
                       $3,031,000
                      $26,119,000
                                               Chart 11
                       Regional Programs  Financial Resources
                                                                           Regional
                                                                          Operation
                      04   85
  84   85
84  85
84  85
                                                      21

-------
  We began a supervisory training pro-
gram for all managers and supervisors.
Recently, this program was extended to
our senior professionals through a year
long human relations training program
designed to help them improve a variety
of job-related skills.
  We established a human resources ad-
visory  committee  representing  all
segments of our workforce Six priority
areas were selected for further  develop-
ment by the committee —  (1) upward
mobility, (2) increasing the number of
women and minority managers and super-
visors, (3) secretarial/clerical recruitment
and retention, (4) rotational assignments,
(5) senior level non-supervisory positions,
and (6) communications. Workgroups have
been formed to make recommendations in
each of these areas in the near future.
We expect this committee to develop and
communicate a wide variety of human re-
source initiatives.
• In FY 85 the region awarded 54 en-
vironmental program grants along with
numerous  special  purpose assistance
grants worth $26 million to state en-
vironmental and public health agencies.
  The Division provided administrative
and financial technical assistance to EPA
program managers and to state recipients
of EPA grant assistance
  In addition,  cooperative  agreement
awards  under  the  Superfund  program
were distributed to the New  England
states to help them with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Division worked with pro-
gram officials to explain the accounting
requirements mandated by Congress and
to develop  administrative procedures
necessary to assure proper, effective and
efficient  state  financial management
systems.  Other  new  grant-related  in-
itiatives in the hazardous waste and tox-
ic materials area were the small quanti-
ty generators  and  the underground
storage tank programs and grants under
the Asbestos School Hazards Abatement
Act.

  The Division planned and implemented
EPA's new performance-based grant policy,
a national initiative to improve the pro-
ductivity of EPA funded state programs
effort through a process of negotiated
commitments and close  monitoring of
performance
• The Division investigated groundwater
manuals and  automated  information
sources and  researched automated data
processing tools and system support for in-
tegrating or evaluation of groundwater
information.
  Support was provided to the Cape Cod
(MA) aquifer management project by help-
ing to identify groundwater data needs
and select information systems. Informa-
tion systems that could be useful in ad-
dressing technical and management
issues in the  Barnstable-Eastham (MA)
study area were identified. An automated
information resource assessment system
will permit all the participants in the
Cape Cod project to use this compendium
of information.
                                                          22

-------
 OFFICE  OF   GOVERNMENT
                                   RELATIONS  &
   ENVIRONMENTAL   REVIEW
  This small office has four big jobs. It
enlists the support of senior public officials
to help EPA carry out its mission. It re-
iews the major actions and permits issued
by other federal agencies to minimize en-
vironmental damage. It ensures that fed-
eral agencies comply with all environmen-
tal laws. And lastly, the office director is
senior policy advisor to the Regional Ad-
ministrator (RA) and his Deputy; serves
as Acting Regional Administrator in their
absence; and is the RA's representative in
the preparation of the landmark environ-
mental impact statement (EIS) for the
siting of wastewater treatment facilities
for Boston Harbor. Below are some ex-
amples of what we do.
GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS
  New England's congressional delegation
has traditionally played a leading role in
shaping environmental statutes. Members
actively support EPA's mission and our
office is responsible for sustaining that
backup.
  We respond to inquiries from members
of Congress, governors, mayors and other
senior officials. Assistance is provided on
the impact in New England of EPA ac-
tions and policies as well as on problem
situations affecting a particular communi-
ty or an individual.
  We responded to more than 220 official
letters this year; telephone calls from
government  officials presented  a
multitude of new issues every week.
Hazardous waste management and water
pollution control issues are areas of most
frequent concern. Recognizing the strong
bipartisan support for environmental pro-
tection programs, Regional Administrator
Mike Deland has met at least once this
year with 23 members of the New Eng-
land  congressional delegation or their
senior staff and with all of the governors.
STEPHEN F  ELLS, DIRECTOR

NATIONAL EN-
VIRONMENTAL POLICY
ACT (NEPA) REVIEWS
  We review and comment on all actions
proposed by the federal government in
New England that could have a  signi-
ficant impact on the environment. The ob-
jective is to  insure that  the federal
establishment protects the environment
as much as possible in its construction,
grant awarding, permitting and other ac-
tivities. We do this by consulting with the
proposing agency early in the process, by
reviewing other agencies' environmental
impact statement (EIS) assessments, by
requesting that  an EIS be prepared for
major projects that have not had adequate
environmental review and by encouraging
selection of environmentally preferable
alternative.
  This year we were involved in projects
throughout New  England, such as
Boston's  third  harbor tunnel/central
artery; traffic impacts on drinking water
in Providence, RI; proposed dredging of
Lake Champlain, VT, and the "Big A"
hydroelectric dam on the Penobscot River,
ME. Of the 14  draft  and final impact
statements we reviewed, EPA expressed
environmental objections to two and
raised environmental concerns  about
another six. In many cases the projects
were either modified as the result of our
concerns or additional information was
provided to our satisfaction. In addition,
the office reviewed and commented on 80
environmental assessments and scoping
requests and 265 hydroelectric projects.
FEDERAL FACILITY
COMPLIANCE
  The Executive Branch of the federal
government owns 1,344 installations in
New England  on  approximately 1.3


              23
million acres of land. It owns hundreds of
motor vehicles, major ships and large air-
craft. It operates hospitals, laboratories,
manufacturing  plants  and technical
facilities. With operations on such a large
scale, it should come as no surprise that
many of the facilities have been sources
of pollution in the past and remain poten-
tial sources of pollution in the future This
year, through the federal facility  com-
pliance  coordinator EPA provided
technical advice and timely compliance
with state and federal environmental
laws. We now conduct reviews and inspec-
tions to ensure compliance by federal
facilities.
  We assist federal agencies and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)in de-
veloping budgetary plans for controlling
pollution from federal facilities. During
FY 85, over $46 million has been budget-
ed for pollution abatement at federal
facilities in this region.

STATE/EPA
AGREEMENTS

  This  office  developed  management
agreements that were signed this year
with state environmental agencies  in
Region I. These multi-purpose documents
focus top management attention of the
state and EPA on the evaluation and ac-
complishment of major environmental
and programmatic issues. The agreements
serve as a vehicle  to identify new  or
emerging items of interest, as a composite
of the related environmental management
grants awarded to the states ($25 million
annually) and as a mechanism to develop
special strategies.  .

-------
                       OFFICE   OF   PUBLIC
                                                      AFFAIRS
                    BROOKE CHAMBERLAIN-COOK,  DIRECTOR
  The Office of Public Affairs (OPA) saw
a sharp rise in news media coverage, an
increase in outreach efforts to new publics
and expansion of the Superfund communi-
ty relations program in 1985. A sampling
of the stories managed through OPA in-
clude the first challenge of a U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers wetlands permit (the
Attleboro Mall case), the first comprehen-
sive court ruling on industry's liability for
Superfund cleanups (the Ottati & Goss
case), and a unique $5.7 million "cash-out"
settlement in the Keefe Environmental
Services case in Epping, NH. This case set
a new national pattern for Superfund set-
tlements.  And finally, the nation's first
criminal conviction under the current as-
bestos removal regulations - the Water-
bury (CT)  House Wrecking case
  With  a greater number of Superfund
sites, each with complex cleanup issues,
the Office added two professionals to the
Superfund community relations staff of
one In addition, an increase in Region I
news led to the addition of one more press
officer for a total of three
  To expand the Region's outreach to busi-
ness and industry, the Office developed a
mailing list of business firms broken down
into eight  categories, according to their
fields of interest. This will help us keep
them apprised of new or changing regula-
tions and other actions which might affect
them.
  The Boston Harbor cleanup case domi-
nated this  year's news, starting with the
creation of the Massachusetts Water Re-
sources Authority to manage water sup-
ply and sewerage for metropolitan Boston
and continuing through a favorable rul-
ing on EPA's suit to compel Harbor clean-
up, the Agency's rejection of the state's ap-
plication for waiving secondary treatment
requirements and the regional office's com-
bined effort with the state to select Deer
Island in Winthrop as the site for a new
secondary wastewater  treatment plant,
necessary for the successful cleanup of the
Harbor.
  A page one story from July, 1985 to the
end  of the year was Michael Deland's
challenge of the U.S. Army Corps of En-
gineers' permit to allow Pyramid Corpora-
tion of Syracuse,  NT  to fill  Sweeden's
Swamp in Attleboro, MA for the purpose
of constructing a shopping mall. Environ-
mental  groups strongly supported the
challenge, while Pyramid organized a ma-
jor lobbying and public relations cam-
paign in favor of the project.
  The year brought a big victory for the
region's legal and technical  personnel
when a federal judge  in  Concord, NH
handed down the nation's first comprehen-
sive  decision confirming the liability of
waste generators, transporters and facili-
ty owners and operators for the cost of
Superfund cleanups. The decision came
after 113 trial days, the nation's longest
environmental trial, in EPA's suit against
15 responsible parties at the Ottati  &
Goss Superfund site in Kingston, NH.
Another landmark Superfund case that
drew attention from news media across
the country was a $5.7 million cash-out
settlement of past and future Superfund
costs at the Keefe Environmental Services
site in Epping, NH. Also a first for the
news media and legal profession was the
criminal conviction of a building owner
and his wrecking contractor in Waterbury,
CT, for violation of regulations on the safe
 removal of asbestos. The owner was given
 a 30-day jail sentence and other heavy
 penalties were imposed in the first test of
 EPA's revised asbestos regulations.
  Most press releases  go to  the daily,
weekly and electronic broadcast media.
Last year we added mailings to trade
papers and trade associations as well.
Such releases alerted these editors to the
agency's revised asbestos removal regula-
tions, the imminent closing  of certain
hazardous waste  land disposal facilities
and called attention to new regulations
affecting small quantity generators of
hazardous waste
  In 1985, we began transmitting news
via a public relations newswire which
allowed OPA to electronically send news
to scores of papers and television stations
in the region and beyond. The service has
proved especially useful for short-notice
releases to inform the media immediate-
ly of breaking news stories.
  Region I made substantial contributions
to EPA  Journal with full length, il-
lustrated articles on hazardous waste
tracking in New  England and on strict,
new  permits to  clean up the effluent-
dominated Ten Mile River in southeastern
Massachusetts.  In  addition, Michael
Deland authored  an historical retrospec-
tive piece for EPA's 15th Anniversary
issue in that magazine
  OPA  compiled  a new  business  list,
broken down according to field of interest:
wastewater permits, industrial pretreat-
ment, air emissions permits, PCB man-
agement, asbestos management, hazar-
dous waste management, auto emission
controls, and radiation. Most businesses
asked to be kept informed in at least four
                                                        24

-------
categories. The list will prove useful in
1986 and beyond with new statues and
regulations.
  Traditional outreach  to elementary
schools had another banner year. Again,
more than 10,000 entries were submitted
for the Elementary Education  Ecology
Poem and Poster Program. Paul Keough,
Deputy Regional Administrator and the
program's originator, and Michael Deland
awarded prizes at ceremonies in all New
England states. EPA staff offices continue
to be adorned with imaginative, often
heart-rending, posters and poems in de-
fense of clean air, clean water and pro-
tected wildlife And, at the annual Citi-
zen's Briefing in December, a dozen citi-
zens received awards for their contribu-
tion to environmental protection.
  Our periodical "New England Environ-
ment" grew in both circulation and com-
prehensive coverage Requests to be in-
cluded on the mailing list came in from
all corners of the region. Circulation has
now reached 1,000 and a new compressed
format is under consideration for 1986.
  OPA continued to field about 1,500 let-
ters  from  citizens,  at  least 10,000
telephone  calls  (about 70  per  day),
unheralded visits by inquiring citizens,
and 503 formal requests for information
invoking the Freedom of Information Act
(up from 350 in 1984). The regional ad-
ministrator and his senior  staff were in
frequent contact with environmental and
business groups. At least one  meeting
with each occurred every quarter.
  The  Superfund community relations
staff supports the Superfund office in plan-
ning and implementing community rela-
tions  outreach and public information
efforts. The professionals that were add-
ed to the one-person staff during  1985
worked on the growing number of sites
moving toward final cleanup. The trend
was toward informal briefings, site tours
and individual interviews with continued
emphasis on public meetings and hear-
ings.  For example, in  Gray, ME, the
McKin site manager met informally every
few weeks with the town  council over
cleanup techniques for that site Key
citizens also attended. At the residents' re-
quest, EPA installed a telephone hotline
which  daily reported the  site's status
through  recorded  questions  and  com-
 ments. Even early drafts of the cleanup
 plan were reviewed by local officials and
 key citizens.
  The community relations staff stressed
education of local officials and residents,
allowing them a more active role in deci-
sions. A blizzard of fact sheets presented
complex technical and legal  issues in
plain English. At the Silresim Superfund
site in Lowell, MA  responsible parties
agreed to do a  remedial study, with
citizens participating in monthly over-
sight meetings.
  "We're Number One," the Office's inter-
nal newsletter, gained further employee
acceptance as a news and information
outlet.  In addition, the Office sponsored an
internal training session on community
relations at Superfund enforcement sites
- those where EPA must juggle the right
to know with the right to privacy during
negotiations with potentially responsible
parties. In August, the OPA hosted the na-
tional  conference  of headquarters  and
regional public affairs directors. Finally,
the Office organized the annual meeting
at which Michael Deland conferred merit
awards on outstanding employees.
                                                          25

-------

                           CONNECTICUT
                               DEPARTMENT
            OF   ENVIRONMENTAL
                                 PROTECTION
                          STANLEY J. PAC, COMMISSIONER
  In 1985, Connecticut continued its his-
 torical role as a national leader in the
 comprehensive protection of the environ-
 ment and natural resources.
  The state's  air pollution control pro-
 gram, created in response to the federal
 Clean Air Act, has far exceeded the federal
 requirements in the stringency of its pol-
 icy. Its commitment to reducing air pollu-
 tion continues to serve as a model for
 other states. Connecticut has established
 stricter standards, such as the lowest
 sulfur-in-fuel requirement in the nation,
 has applied stringent permit application
 review criteria such as best available con-
 trol technology to require acid gas scrub-
 bers on all resource recovery facilities, and
 has developed innovative air pollution
 control programs such as the program to
 control hazardous and toxic air pollutants.
 The state's air monitoring network is the
 largest in New England and is recognized
 as one of the best in the nation.
  New programs in 1985 included vapor
 loss testing of gasoline tank trucks to at-
 tain ozone standards,  the toxic air pro-
 gram which lists over 850 toxic com-
 pounds  and proposes to control such
 pollutants from over 10,000 sources, and
 the permitting of four resources recovery
 plants, more than any other state utiliz-
 ing resource recovery as a solution to solid
 waste management problems. Connecti-
 cut's automobile emissions inspection and
 maintenance program has decreased tail-
 pipe levels of hydrocarbons and carbon
 monoxide by thousands of tons since its
 inception in 1983,
  The hazardous materials management
 unit responded to 1,997 reported spills for
the calender year ending December 1985
One hundred twenty six inspections of
major facilities, and 38 inspections of
minor facilities were conducted. A total of
147 new enforcement actions were initi-
ated in 1985, 36 referrals to the attorney
general for civil actions were made and 15
referrals to the state's attorney for crimi-
nal actions resulted in forfeitures totalling
$145,000. Approximately $2 million was
spent in 1985 for removal of contaminated
soils at three separate sites. During FY
85, an exten sive state-wide inventory to
locate historical hazardous waste disposal
sites was completed which involved over
3,500 inspections. During the 1985 legis-
lative session, $250,000 was allocated to
the DEP to conduct a program for the col-
lection of household hazardous wastes.
 The state's local assistance and program
coordination unit was one of four states
in the nation to participate in the develop-
ment of a national program to regulate
the nonresidential underground storage of
oil and petroleum liquids. This unit also
began the first training and certification
classes for 104 wastewater treatment
plant operators in the spring of 1985.
 Clean water goals continue to be met
                                                 26

-------
with strong, successful programs. Ninety
three percent of the state's surface waters
meet their designated use classification
and the  majority of groundwater  is
suitable for drinking without treatment.
A major revision to the state's water quali-
ty standards was undertaken in 1985. The
proposed  standards  include  concerns
which address toxic substances, biological
parameters, flow regulations, provisions
for the expansion of seasonal disinfection
zones, bioconcentrations, nutrient effluent
limitations and eutrophication on major
rivers.
  In June 1985, the Department obtained
a new mobile toxicity laboratory which is
being used to test aquatic toxicity at
various river sites throughout the state
Also in June, a toxicity conference with
over 260 participants examined recent
aquatic toxicological studies conducted by
DEP and EPA. The department began in
1985 its participation with EPA in a study
of Long  Island Sound's  water  quality
which will help protect the Sound against
further  environmental  stresses  and
degradation.
  A new potable water program enacted
in 1985 provided  $7 million for potable
water in cases of well contamination. Vic-
tims of well contamination are provided
with bottled water immediately on iden-
tification by the state or by responsible
parties. Four hundred families are cur-
rently being provided with bottled water
by DEP, and projects for long term water
supply extensions or filter systems are
underway in towns where no responsible
parties exist.
  Since 1967, over $1 billion in state and
federal grants have assisted municipali-
ties in meeting their water pollution con-
trol needs  through the construction of
treatment facilities. A program initiated
in 1985 identified an additional $1.1 bil-
lion in needs and proposed a revolving
loan program with $756 million in state
monies over the next 20 years. Governor
O'Neill's innovative proposal is designed
to ensure the successful implementation
of our clean water goals into the next
century.
  In the area of water resources, 400 of the
state's 2,300 registered  dams  were in-
spected in the last fiscal year. $2 million
in low-interest loans have been authorized
for dam repair and high hazard dams have
been identified as having priority for the
loans. During FY 85,  the DEP was in-
volved in 30 flood control projects, 26 dam
repair projects and three beach and shore
erosion  projects. Two of the flood control
projects were completed, five are under
design, and three are under preliminary
investigations. Seven dam repair projects
were completed, seven are under design,
and 12 are under preliminary investiga-
tions. Two of the three beach and  shore
erosion  projects were completed.
  As a review of 1985 suggests, many of
our environmental goals have been and
continue to be met. But it is inherent in
the nature of protection and preservation
that new needs and new goals will  arise
With the successes and accomplishments
of 1985 marked and noted, our vital signs
are strong indeed. We look forward to our
continuing challenge
                                                           27

-------
                                                      MAINE
                                     DIVISION    OF
                          ENVIRONMENTAL
                                       PROTECTION
                           HENRY B.  WARREN, COMMISSIONER
  Early in 1985, Maine identified the pro-
 tection of its groundwater resources as its
 top environmental goal for the year. Be-
 fore 1985 .ended Maine  had  planned,
 financed and launched a strategy to ac-
 complish that goal without neglecting its
 other environmental responsibilities.
  Maine's 112th legislature responded to
 the Department of Environmental Protec-
 tion's call for action by enacting three key
 bills.
 •  An underground storage tank law gave
   the DEP broad authority over both old
   and new installations of underground
   petroleum storage facilities - a prime
   source of groundwater contamination.
 •  A wetlands law gave the DEP control
   of many development activities in the
   state's  freshwater  wetlands,  major
   recharge  areas  for  groundwater
   resources. Maine  has identified 3,000
   wetlands each of which  is of ten acres
   or more in size.
 •  The legislature also required owners of
   salt  and  sand-salt storage  areas to
  register the location of their storage
  areas with the DEP so that the latter
  could investigate  and prioritize their
  potential threats to groundwater. The
  same law authorized the DEP to reim-
  burse municipalities for up to 50 per-
  cent of the  cost of building  non-
  polluting facilities.
 The public affirmed  its support for
groundwater protection by overwhelming-
ly  approving a $3 million  bond issue in
November to finance the  underground
storage tank law.
 On June 10, 1985,  Governor Joseph E.
Brennan  issued  an executive  order
establishing a Maine groundwater policy
and ordering the Maine Land and Water
Resources Council to establish a standing
groundwater committee to oversee im-
plementation of the policy.
  Among other things, the policy calls for
making groundwater policies responsive
to changing conditions and related health
risks, ensuring that waste disposal and
other land use decisions are made only
after full consideration of their likely im-
pacts on  groundwater, giving highest
priority  to  protection  of significant
aquifers,  assisting municipalities and
water companies in protecting water sup-
plies, and  fostering greater  public
awareness  of the  importance  of
groundwater.
  Groundwater was not the only course on
Maine's 1985 environmental menu, yet it
seemed to play an important role in
almost all DEP endeavors for the year.
Threats to groundwater lent an ever pres-
ent sense of urgency to the need for bring-
ing solid waste management practice in-
to compliance with accepted standards.
The groundwater connection hung heavy
over operations in the DEPs Bureau of Oil
and Hazardous Materials Control partic-
ularly as they pertained to uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites and plans for their
cleanup and/or roles in the consideration
of hundreds of development applications
processed  during the year by the DBFs
Bureau of Land Quality Control.
  While much public attention in Maine
in 1985 was focused on groundwater and
related  problems,  groundwater  by  no
means monopolized media attention. Acid
rain continued to be a major source of en-
vironmental frustration in Maine in 1985
as cries of protest and mounting documen-
tation of damage failed to elicit anything
from Washington other than promises for
more studies. The DBFs Bureau of Air
Quality Control  also concentrated re-
sources on another airborne but seasonal
pollution problem, ozone. Studies indicate
the problem  is increasing in coastal
Maine, particularly in the south-central
area.
  While all evidence indicates that most
of Maine's acid rain and ozone are the
result of activities in  the more in-
dustrialized areas to the south and west,
the department is fully aware that Maine
must continue to ask its  citizens  and
businesses to observe the same environ-
mental diligence and responsibility that
must be enforced elsewhere in the nation
if clean air is to become a reality.
  This year  the DEP is  asking  the
legislature for the authority to adopt and
implement regulations to reduce sulfur
dioxide emissions similar to laws being
drawn up by the other New England
states.
                                                     28

-------
                        MASSACHUSETTS
         EXECUTIVE  OFFICE   OF
ENVIRONMENTAL  AFFAIRS
                                JAMES S.  HOYTE, SECRETARY
 As I look back over the past year, I feel
very  proud of the environmental  ac-
complishments we have  carved out in
Massachusetts.
 Two things are very clear: that it has
been  a  strong year for significant  en-
vironmental legislation and that we have
done something that no one else has been
able to do - we have begun the real task
of cleaning up Boston Harbor and have
made progress that can be measured up
against anyone's yard stick. I want to note
that one of the reasons we've been able to
launch such a comprehensive and focused
effort is because of the willingness of the
EPA Region I office to place major empha-
sis on the recovery of this great resource
 At the close  of 1984 Governor Dukakis
signed  into law the  legislation that
created  the Massachusetts  Water  Re-
sources  Authority -  the independent
authority fashioned by us to take over the
job of running the sewage collection and
disposal system  for the metropolitan
Boston Area.
 During 1985 we administratively and
politically established this new entity
which is a publicly appointed board of 11
of which I serve as chairman.
 In this past year, the MWRA board has
grappled with several  important issues
and in a short period of time has made
significant decisions including:
• Location for a preferred site for a new
  sewage treatment plant.
• Reaching consensus to back the EPA
  decision that secondary treatment be
  required for the new plant.
• Deciding what to do with the sludge
  project on an interim basis while the
  long-term solution is considered.
• Breaking ground in the fall at Constitu-
  tion Beach in East Boston to  begin
  work to upgrade the first CSO  (Com-
  bined Sewer Overflow) as a tangible
  step towards improved harbor  water
  quality.
• Initiating  a $40 million capital im-
  provement  program for the present
  plants on Nut and Deer Islands.
• Setting new water and sewer rates for
  the metropolitan district.
 While in fact the issues of pollution in
Boston Harbor are specific for that area,
we have documented in 1985 that there
is great cause for concern of our marine
environment in general. A special paper
prepared by our Department of Fisheries,
Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforce-
ment,  Division of Marine Fisheries, in
conjunction with Coastal Zone Manage-
ment and the Department of Environmen-
tal Quality Engineering, indicates pro-
blems  have surfaced  despite all of our
substantial ongoing efforts to preserve,
protect and enhance our marine life and
coastal areas, and these problems are ac-
celerating at a faster rate than anyone
could have anticipated even five years ago.
It is clear to us that we have come up
against the limits of our environment and
that unless we take immediate remedial
action we will face a serious environmen-
tal and economic loss.
 lb address these problems, I have form-
ed a  special interdisciplinary marine
resources coordinating  group and am
holding public meetings to help us focus
and manage our efforts to implement an
action plan as quickly as possible.
  The report indicates that problems stem
from:
• Polluted waters that contaminate fish
  and shellfish and cause areas to be
  closed to harvesting, resulting in both
  economic and environmental losses.
• Population  and  development growth
  which  put  stress  on the natural
  resources.
• Inadequate  shoreside facilities  and
  public access to the coast that makes it
  more difficult for the fishing industry
  to conduct its business.
• Excessive fishing that neglects conser-
  vation and fish management.
• A need  for better coordination among
  agencies with overlapping jurisdictions.
  We will focus on solutions to these issues
raised by our special paper in 1986.
  Some of the largest gains we have made
environmentally in Massachusetts  in
1985 were through placing significant en-
vironmental legislation into law. That
record includes:
• Administrative  "polluters" penalties
  law that gives the state department of
  environmental quality engineering the
  power to levy fines without the delay of
  court process of up to $25,000 per day
  against  people or industries who are
  damaging the environment.
• $21 million  added to the state super-
  fund  coffers for toxic  waste site
  cleanup.
• State acid rain control law  that caps
  sulfur dioxide emissions in Massachu-
  setts and establishes a state emissions
  reduction program if either a federal or
  regional program is not in place by the
  end of 1989.
                                                   29

-------
•  Air pollution penalties law  that in-
  creases the current  fines the  state
  department of environmental quality
  engineering assesses to violators of air
  quality regulations.
•  $427 million water and sewer construc-
  tion   bond   that  allows   more
  Massachusetts cities and towns to begin
  vital repairs to their water and sewer
  systems to ultimately improve ground-
  water quality, conserve water and to
  build  much needed new wastewater
  treatment facilities.  The bond  is a
  creative approach to stretching federal
  aid dollars over more programs and is
  a state commitment to the environment
  and to our basic  infrastructure.
 •   Water management act  that will im-
   prove how we manage and protect our
   water resources across political boun-
   daries. Water now becomes a public
   resource instead of a private or local one
   which will be especially important for
   areas that have water shortage or water
   quality problems.
  In  1985 we have made progress im-
 plementing our landmark $162 million
 open space bond that has 25 separate pro-
 grams designed  to protect and preserve or
 rehabilitate environmentally  sensitive
 land around the state. In the past year, we
 have added 10,000 new acres to publicly
 preserved land in  the commonwealth;
 have set in motion programs to rehabili-
 tate 22 city and  town commons across the
 state as well as 12 historic Olmsted parks;
 have authorized 45 grants to 28 cities and
 towns to acquire or rehabilitate conserva-
 tion or park lands; and have awarded 18
 grants to 17 coastal towns to improve their
 coastal facilities.
  In short in 1985 we have continued to
initiate and implement significant pro-
grams in our five environmental priority
areas:
• Tb clean up Boston Harbor.
• Tb develop an acid rain control strategy.
• Tb  closely protect and manage  our
  valuable water resources.
• Tb better manage  our waste
• *Ib preserve and protect our open space
  For 1986 we will:
• Continue to focus  on water  resources
  protection,  most  particularly  as  it
  affects our groundwater.
• Emphasize pesticide reform essential to
  groundwater protection with a goal of
  reducing our overall pesticide use by 25
  percent by 1990 and an additional 15-20
  percent by 1995. Pilot programs under-
  taken in 1985  already show this is a
  realistic goal for large Massachusetts
  crops such as cranberries and apples.
• Continue to focus on  waste  stream
  issues which will include creating a
  plan legislatively mandated for dispos-
  ing of our solid waste; implementing a
  household hazardous waste program;
  enacting a low level radioactive waste
  management process based on a special
  commission's  draft plan;  carefully
  reviewing our present hazardous waste
  siting process and  increasing  state
  Superfund resources.
• Continue to press for a national acid
  rain control strategy.
• Continue our emphasis on land preser-
  vation and protection particularly in
  areas potentially stressed by devel-
  opment.
• Maintain our substantial  efforts that
  focus  our  energies  and resources
  towards cleaning up Boston Harbor.
  Our achievements of 1985, especially
our legislative achievements, could not
have been accomplished without the sup-
port and cooperation of everyone working
together - environmentalists, legislators
and public officials. I look forward to what
we can achieve together in 1986.
                                                            30

-------
                                                     NEW  HAMPSHIRE   -  A
                                           STATE   OF   ENVIRONMENT
                                                                        GOVERNOR JOHN SUNUNU
  In New Hampshire most environmental
activities are the responsibility  of in-
dependent boards and commissions which
report directly to the Governor. It is both
a significant obligation and unique oppor-
tunity for a Governor to be directly in-
volved with environmental programs. I
am pleased to submit this report on behalf
of our environmental agencies and our
citizens.
  Last year and in recent years, New
Hampshire has  faced a continuing
challenge to  preserve  the  unique
character of the  natural  environment
while serving all  the other needs of a
growing population and a booming econ-
omy. In this situation there is a complex
relationship between natural  resource
policy, land use decisions and the  en-
vironmental programs administered by
the EPA. Hard  decisions must be made
every day.
  Probably the best example of the results
of this effort is our groundwater program.
We have initiated a statewide effort of
detailed aquifer mapping (in cooperation
with the U.S. Geologic Survey office) to
supplement the  general information
which is now available Clearly, the key
element of groundwater protection is wise
land-use decisions, made on a daily basis
by local governments and almost as often
by the state in  public facilities and
highway construction, will be of even
greater weight  than permit conditions
will in assuring groundwater protection.
  Our water supply and pollution control
program remains strong. Last year saw
considerable improvement in the  public
water supply program and continued ac-
tivity on the pollution control side. New
Hampshire pays 20% of the eligible cost
of federally funded water pollution control
facilities and regulates such diverse pollu-
tion  sources  as subsurface  disposal
systems and non-point sources such as log-
ging operations and land disturbance due
to construction.
  Wetlands disturbance and dock loca-
tions are regulated by the Water Re-
sources and Wetlands Boards.  When it
became  apparent that  our stringent
review of dock permits was having its
desired effect, the number of moorings on
our lager lakes increased dramatically. To
control this, I imposed a moratorium on
moorings last July.
  We have introduced legislation which
will  create innovative cooperative
state/local programs on docks and moor-
ings. We also hope to have in place soon,
legislation encouraging and permitting
towns which share the same lake to de-
velop uniform land use and site develop-
ment plans.
  Towns around three of our major lakes
have already begun work in anticipation
of this legislation. The density of lake
development and the manner in which it
is regulated could have a far greater
negative  effect on water quality than
after-the-fact and costly abatement pro-
jects can repair.
  Solid and hazardous waste continues to
pose a significant challenge.  We have
seven resource recovery plants  either in
operation or on the drawing boards and
continue an aggressive hazardous waste
site  cleanup program under  both the
federal Superfund and our own hazardous
waste cleanup fund. Probably  the most
notable success story was played  out at the
Tibbetts  Road site where exemplary
cooperation between our state  agencies,
the EPA, the Barrington town officials and
the affected citizens has led to a solution
to a serious hazardous waste situation (in-
cluding the late discovery of dioxin) in
record time.
  Air pollution, particularly long-range
transport, remains a major concern. New
Hampshire enacted a stringent acid rain
control law as well as legislation requir-
ing annual performance checks of pollu-
tion control equipment in the densely
populated southern  tier  and  anti-
tampering inspections statewide I will
continue to work on the regional and na-
tional scenes to develop solutions to long
range transport of both oxidants  and
sulfur.
  Throughout the year, we were supported
by excellent cooperation from the EPA
regional office, our legislature, our in-
dustrial community and our citizens. The
key to long-term sustained progress is
frank and honest communications bet-
ween these groups. I signed our Acid Rain
Bill last June We enjoyed broad-based
support on this issue and on many others
during the  year. Some  states  have
legislated more extreme programs but few
have enacted more  effective programs.
That's the New Hampshire way.
                                                      31

-------
                             RHODE  ISLAND
                                 DEPARTMENT
              OF  ENVIRONMENTAL
                             MANAGEMENT
                               ROBERT L BENDICK,  DIRECTOR
  Traditional measurements of the quali-
 ty of Rhode Island's environment show
 1985 as a year of progress. Background
 levels of traditional pollutants in Nar-
 ragansett Bay and its tributaries were
 down.  Air  quality showed continued
 improvements.
  Among the factors contributing to en-
 vironmental improvement were continued
 upgrading of major sewage treatment
 facilities; increased enforcement directed
 at air and water pollution violations; im-
 plementation  of  strict  underground
 petroleum  and hazardous materials
 storage tank regulations; and the con-
 sistency of day to day  monitoring and
 inspection.
  Other specific highlights include open-
 ing upper Narragansett Bay to shellfishng
 on a regular basis for the first time in
 years;  closing the state's last private
 landfill; reducing by 50% permit renewals
 backlogs for major municipal  and in-
 dustrial wastewater treatment facilities in
 the 14 months since the state took over
 responsibility of the program from EPA;
 and installing a computer system that can
 flag pollution standard violations quick-
 ly, spot trends, and provide data for future
 studies.
  However, as development continues in
 the rural and suburban areas of the state,
 and sources of pollution become more
 dispersed, it is apparent that traditional
 methods of measuring the health of Rhode
 Island's environment are not enough.
  Major relationships have been estab-
 lished with the University of Rhode Island
and, to a lesser extent, with Brown Uni-
versity,  to provide technical  support to
DEM staff. Stronger ties were developed
with the state health department to joint-
ly assess human risks from environmen-
tal threats. New technical staff reflecting
a diversity of scientific skills were hired.
Long range studies of the bay and ground-
water began, including a study of how cer-
tain land uses may impact drinking water
wells.
  The Narragansett Bay Project, admini-
stered by DEM and established in 1984
to gather  data which will help manage
estuaries more effectively and efficiently
had completed by the end of 1985 its first
six months of field research. Project scien-
tists from the University of Rhode Island
have collected data to establish the inter-
relationships between sewage treatment,
water quality, and quahogs with the aim
of improving water quality management
and fisheries management for the bay.
  Public education about household toxic
wastes and oil spills has increased, and en-
forcement actions against  industrial
polluters have been well publicized.
  Still, there are major problems. Wide-
spread illegal application of the pesticide
Chlordane, abandoning hazardous wastes
at industrial plants,  unearthing PCB-
contaminated oil in a farmyard, received
much attention. Thus, the criminal in-
vestigative unit has been extremely active
and must be expanded.
  There remains a need for more compre-
hensive water supply planning and more
detailed understanding of the relationship
between water use and effluent levels. The
studies and  data-gathering started  in
1985 should begin  to provide  policy
guidance in 1986 for more effective pro-
tection of surface  and  groundwater
supplies.
 In addition, programs begun in 1985
will continue in 1986 to improve and
preserve the health and quality of the
state's environment. These include im-
plementing regulations for  alternative
fuel burning; requiring regulations for
new sources of air pollution to apply best
available control technology; cradle-to-
grave tracking of hazardous wastes; and
starting the work on a new inventory, in-
spection, and monitoring program for air
toxics.
 Finally, DEM is now well into a joint
project with the University of  Rhode
Island's College of Resource Development
to establish a comprehensive geographic
information system which will record and
track all  environmental data in Rhode
Island.We hope this system will be the cor-
nerstone  of future environmental pro-
grams in the state.
                                                   32

-------
        VERMONT  AGENCY  OF
                        ENVIRONMENTAL
                           CONSERVATION
                            LEONARD U.  WILSON, SECRETARY
 Vermont reinforced its commitment to
a clean and healthy environment in 1985
with a legislative session which gave the
Agency of Environmental Conservation
(AEC) far-reaching powers to control ac-
tivities which pose a risk to groundwater
quality. An underground storage tank pro-
gram was established, a mini-Superfund
created and  a groundwater  correlative
rights bill adopted. The mechanics for the
protection of groundwater quality were
put into place.
 The legislative program reflected the
importance placed  on environmental
quality by Governor Madeleine M. Kunin
in her inaugural address and the subse-
quent policy statements that set the direc-
tion of  her administration in January.
Jonathan Lash was appointed commis-
sioner of water resources and environmen-
tal engineering in February to give strong
leadership to the agency's key environ-
mental protection department. Within the
Agency, we have emphasized the coordina-
tion of the programs between the fish and
wildlife department, the forests, parks and
recreation department and those of water
resources to  assure that environmental
quality is the dominant natural resource
management priority.
 During 1985, Vermont continued to up-
grade waste management practices affect-
ing the quality of air, land and waters of
the state. Development of air toxic control
strategies and visibility standards domi-
nated the air pollution control programs.
Acceleration  of hazardous  waste site
cleanup, creation of  an underground
storage tank program, and recertification
of landfills were priorities of the waste
management program. In the surface
water area, work continued on the few re-
maining unsatisfactory  discharges to
waters of the state while advance waste
treatment was established  in several
areas to control nutrient discharges. Com-
missioner Lash made organizational and
management changes within the depart-
ment to give enhanced status to the air
and solid waste programs.
 Our  research priority in 1985  was
measuring the  consequences  of  acid
deposition and transported air pollutants.
Visibility studies as well as aquatic and
forest impact monitoring added to the
evidence that sulfates and other out-of-
state air pollutants  were  increasing
damage to Vermont's ecosystems and its
economy. EPA Administrator Lee Thomas
visited Vermont in August to accompany
Governor  Kunin and United  States
Senator Patrick Leahy on an inspection
of forest devastation on Camel's Hump
mountain which scientists attribute to air
pollution.
 In 1986 our top priority will be ggaminn-
tion and modernization of our surface
water pollution control statutes to provide
greater protection for the fragile upland
waters of the state, to provide acceptable
and environmentally sound waste man-
agement procedures for the rapidly expan-
ding recreation industry and to create a
non-point source water pollution control
program to manage  diffuse contami-
nation.
 During 1986, we will intensify our solid
waste management efforts, with emphasis
on determining the most cost effective and
environmentally sound strategy for the
management of solid wastes. Increased
efforts in recycling and resource recovery
will be considered as well as  landfill
disposal options for sludge management.
 To support all of our management and
control activities, we will be planning for
a new and improved laboratory  and ex-
panding  the use of  risk analysis-risk
management  procedures  in decision
making.
 We see as a major management chal-
lenge the continuation of our sound en-
vironmental protection programs  as
federal fiscal resources are diminished by
federal budget balancing efforts. We are
particularly concerned over reductions of
federal assistance grants to municipalities
for water pollution control facility con-
struction. In addition, we are apprehen-
sive about the consequences of diminish-
ing federal funds for environmental pro-
grams both at the  national level and
through grants to states.
                                                    33

-------