UnlMStltM
Environmental Protection
Agtncy
Region 1
JFK f»d»nl Building
BMton, MA 02203
Connecticut
Matne
MMMCflUMttS
New Hampshire
Vtrmont
Rhed* Itland
EPA
RMning A Minigwntnl Divi«ion Plaining, Analytic, a Qrantt Branch
1088
Unfinished Business
in New England:
A Comparative Assessment
of Environmental Problems
Ecological Risk Work Group Report
-------
Unfinished Business in New England:
A Comparative Assessment of
Environmental Problems
Ecological Risk Work Group Report
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I, Boston, Massachusetts
December 1988
-------
Acknowledgments
This report and all the work that supports it would not have been possible without the
efforts of the following people:
Larry Brill, Chair
Richard Burkhart
Kim Franz
Eric Hall
Michael Jasinski
David Lim
Patricia O'Leary
Douglas Thompson
Ray Thompson
Andrew Triolo
Catherine Tunis, EPA Headquarters
Margo Levine, Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc.
-------
Table of Contents
L INTRODUCTION M
IL ANALYTICAL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY H-l
m. RANKING THE ECOLOGICAL RISKS TO ECOSYSTEMS m-1
APPENDIX: Problem Area Papers
Area#l. Criteria Air Pollutants 1
Area #2. Acid Deposition and Visibility 8
Area #3. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants 13
Area #7. Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters 17
Area #8. POTW Discharges to Surface Waters 22
Area #9. Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface Waters 27
Area #11. Habitat Loss 32
Area #13. RCRA Waste Sites 40
Area #14. Superfund Waste Sites 45
Areas #15 & 16. Municipal Waste Sites; Industrial Waste Sites 51
Area #17. Accidental Releases 58
Area #18. Releases from Storage Tanks 72
Area #19. Other Ground-Water Contamination 77
Areas #20 & 21. Pesticide Residues on Food and Pesticide Application 89
-------
I. Introduction
The Ecological Risk Work Group (ERWG) evaluated 24 environmental problems to
determine which areas present the greatest residual ecological risk to each of eight ecosystems
in New England. Residual risk is defined as the risk posed by a problem, given current levels
of control. The work group defined the ecosystems found in New England, developed a
method to evaluate the impact of the different problem areas on these ecosystems, and then
assigned problem areas to its members, according to their areas of expertise, for evaluation.
Members developed papers that described the evaluation for their problem area. Finally, the
work group discussed each problem area and developed a relative ranking delineating several
broad categories according to the severity of ecological impacts.
The Ecological Risk Work Group also performed a limited analysis of welfare risks,
focusing on impacts to ground water. We did not analyze economic factors such as the cost of
alternative water supplies or the loss of income due to fish kills.
This report describes the methodology used by the Ecological Risk Work Group and
discusses ranking issues and results.
-------
. Analytical Approach and Methodology
Ecological risk assessment is a procedure for estimating the probability of and severity of
adverse effects on species, biotic communities, and ecosystem structure and function.
Ecological risk assessment is similar to human health risk assessment in many respects. Both
estimate the risk of adverse effects based on information concerning the sources of stressors
(e.g., characterization of substances released and frequency and duration of release), the
exposure of receptors to the stressors, and the responses of the exposed receptors. However,
the formula most often adopted for estimating risks to human health (hazard multiplied by
exposure predicts risk), while appropriate for ecological risk evaluation, is very difficult to
apply in practice for many reasons, including the vast number of different receptors and levels
of organization within ecosystems and the. uncertainty in defining what constitutes ecosystem
health. Rigorous quantitative ecological risk assessment was beyond the scope of the regional
risk evaluation project Our analysis borrowed from the broad concepts of ecological risk
assessment to provide an analytical framework for evaluating a set of environmental problem
areas. The approach is described in the following sections.
Methodology
The Ecological Risk Work Group compared the stressors associated with each problem
area with the ecological receptors found in New England. Stressors are materials or activities
that may have an adverse effect on some ecosystem. Most often stressors will be some form
of pollution, e.g. ozone, pesticides, metals, and PCBs. Sometimes stressors may be natural
events, such as erosion leading to the destruction of habitat In other cases human activities,
such as the filling of wetlands, are stressors. Receptors may be ecosystems (i.e., streams) or
components of ecosystems such as fish or birds.
The work group gathered regional data to identify, as quantitatively as possible, the
sources and volumes of stressors, the exposure routes, and the affected or potentially affected
receptors. The final estimates of adverse effects are based on a combination of the available
information and the best professional judgment of the work group member assigned to each
problem area. These results were discussed, and in some cases modified, by the entire work
group. The final comparative ranking was developed by the group. It represents our best
professional judgment
The primary source for the analytical approach used in this project was the ecological risk
analysis performed as pan of the National Comparative Risk Project (NCRP). There were
two components to that effort: a study conducted by a panel of EPA experts, and a study
conducted by the Ecosystems Research Center at Cornell University.
-------
The Ecological Risk Work Group built on the NCRP definition of ecosystems and its
evaluation of sttessors for each problem area and how they affect ecosystems. The work
group structured the comparative evaluation so that it could be tracked from beginning to end
and so that each problem area would be treated consistently.
The work group followed five major steps in conducting its evaluation:
Step 1. Identify problem areas for which ecological risk will be evaluated and determine
the stressors associated with each area.
Step 2. Identify the ecosystems of concern in New England.
Step 3. Evaluate the ecological risks for each stressor and ecosystem combination.
Step 4. Aggregate the risk estimates for all stressors in each problem area/ecosystem
combination.
Step 5. Aggregate risks for each problem area across ecosystems and rank problem
areas.
Step 1. Identify problem areas for which ecological risk will be
evaluated and determine the stressors associated with each area.
The work group began with a list of 24 environmental problem areas. By definition, some
of these problem areas presented low or no ecological risk and therefore were not analyzed
further. Below is a list of problem areas considered inappropriate for further analysis by the
work group:
• Radon, Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon, and Drinking Water (problem
areas #4, #5, and #12)—These problem areas affect human health in the indoor
environment.
• Radiation from Sources Other than Radon (problem area #6)~The definition of
this problem area limits consideration to the impact on humans of non-ionizing
radiation from non-occupational exposure.
• Discharges to Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and Oceans from All Sources (problem
area #10)-From an ecological prospective, this problem area is a receptor. The
work group divided it into two distinct ecosystems: estuaries and marine. (See
Step 2.)
• Wetlands/Habitat Loss (problem area #ll)-The work group dropped evaluation
of discharges to wetlands from this problem area because wetlands are evaluated
as an ecosystem. We redefined the problem area to be an analysis of the impact
of habitat loss on all ecosystems.
H-2
-------
• Lead (problem area #22)~Region 1 added lead to the list of problem areas
because of its effect on human health. The work group analyzed the ecological
impact of lead as part of its analysis of surface water discharges from Industrial
Point Sources, Nonpoint Sources, and POTWs.
• Asbestos (problem area #23)-The work group believed there was insufficient
evidence documenting ecological impact from asbestos contamination.
• Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments (problem area #24)~From an ecological
prospective, this problem area is a receptor. The work group analyzed it as an
ecosystem.
• Pesticides-The problem areas Pesticide Residues on Foods (#20) and Pesticide
Application (#21) were combined into a single problem area called "Pesticides."
Elimination of problem areas deemed inappropriate for ecological risk evaluation left the
work group with the following IS problem areas to evaluate:
#1. Criteria Air Pollutants
#2. Acid Deposition and Visibility
#3. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants
#7. Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters
#8. POTW Discharges to Surface Waters
#9. Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface Waters
#11. Habitat Loss
#13. RCRA Waste Sites
#14. Superfund Waste Sites
#15. Municipal Waste Sites
#16. Industrial Waste Sites
#17. Accidental Releases
#18. Releases from Storage Tanks
#19. Other Ground-Water Contamination
#20,21. Pesticide Residues and Pesticide Application
The work group leads for each problem area identified the major ecological stressors for
each problem, using information developed by the Cornell Ecosystems Research Center.
Step 2. Identify the ecosystems of concern in New England.
In order to evaluate the problem areas, the Ecological Risk Work Group developed a list
of ecosystems found in New England, basing the list on the ecosystem definitions found in the
Cornell study. The work group deleted ecosystems not found in New England, combined
certain categories of ecosystems where insufficient data would be available to characterize
every category, and added certain "systems" of particular interest in New England. The final
list of ecosystems for this analysis follows:
n-3
-------
• Marine-all deep coastal waters, extending to international boundaries and
including all near-coastal waters that are not estuaries
• Estuaries-the area where river wave currents meet the sea tides; New England
has several major estuaries of national significance, including Long Island Sound,
Narragansett Bay, Buzzard's Bay, and Massachusetts Bay
• Tidal Wetlands-all coastal wetlands that exhibit the effects of salt water
• Streams-all navigable waterways within Region I
• Lakes—all man-made and naturally occurring inland bodies of water
• Wetlands (freshwater)—all inland areas that exhibit the characteristics of a
wetland, as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers
• Terrestrial Forests-all forested areas
• Agriculture-all land used for the commercial production of any crop
*****
• Ground water-underground water in the saturated zone capable of supplying
water to wells and springs
• Air-all ambient air
Ground water and air are not ecosystems as such, but they are important receptors of
environmental stressors. Deterioration of air and ground-water resources are welfare losses
rather than ecological losses. The work group decided to evaluate the problem areas' welfare
impact on air and ground water. In the end, most of the effort focused on the impact of
contaminated ground water on drinking-water resources. The work group limited its analysis
to identifying threats to ground water, and it did not put a dollar value on ground-water losses.
Step 3. Evaluate the ecological risks for each stressor
and ecosystem combination.
The severity of ecological risks posed by a stressor depends on the type and magnitude of
changes to the structure and function of ecosystems (or ecosystem components) and the
reversibility of these effects. The severity of the effects will therefore depend on the intensity
of the exposure, the size or number of ecosystems at risk, and the hazard potential of the
stressor. Thus, the overall impact of ecosystem-level effects is a function of several factors,
including exposure and hazard.
n-4
-------
• Factors involved in evaluating exposure are as follows:
- Size of the area affected (for some ecosystem types such as lakes, volume
may be a better measure of size)
- Characteristics of releases and emissions, including sources, number,
magnitude, frequency, duration, and form
- Location, spatial extent, and distribution of releases and emissions
- Magnitude and pattern of exposure to stressor
• Factors involved in evaluating hazard include the following:
— Severity of effects caused by a stressor on the structure and function of the
ecosystem, i.e., destruction of habitat, species diversity, endangered species
- Reversibility of effect
- Intensity of effect
- Sensitivity/vulnerability of the target species/ecosystems
- Trend (whether the hazard is likely to increase, remain stable, or decrease in
the future, given current exposure)
.. Scale of effect
- Uncertainty of effects
• Other factors considered in the risk evaluation were the following:
- Value of the target species
- The effect of controls now in place
- Uncertainty of estimates
- The percentage of problem covered by the evaluation
For each problem area, work group members identified major sources of stressors and
discussed major damage pathways. Then, each participant developed an analysis of the effect
of each stressor on each ecosystem in Region L
n-s
-------
Step 4. Aggregate the risk estimates for all stressors in each
problem area/ecosystem combination.
In the evaluation process, work group members considered four criteria in evaluating the
impact of each problem area on each ecosystem (including ground water and air):
1. The ecological hazard assessment, i.e., the potential impact of the problem area on
the ecosystem
2. The reliability of the data, considering both quantity and quality
3. The actual impact in New England based on the known exposure levels
4. The overall risk the problem area presents to the ecosystem in New England, taking
into account data reliability
The work group ranked the impact to each ecosystem from each problem area on a scale
of 1 (low impact) to 5 (high impact). Work group members provided an estimate of the
percentage of the problem covered, and the uncertainty, for each problem area.
Step 5. Aggregate risks for each problem area across
ecosystems and rank problem areas.
After evaluating each problem area for its impacts on each ecosystem of concern, the work
group members discussed the aggregation of these risks across ecosystems to rank problem
areas. The group was not comfortable taking this step because we believed it involved
making judgments about the value of various ecosystems. Still, the results of the
ecosystem-specific rankings allowed the problems to be divided into groups of relatively high
and medium risks. The problems initially eliminated from the analysis in Step 1 were
considered to be of low ecological risk.
n-6
-------
in. Ranking the Ecological Risks to Ecosystems
Several difficult issues arose as the Ecological Risk Work Group discussed the individual
analyses of problem area impacts and attempted to rank those problems. First, we discussed
the inclusion of ground water and air as ecosystems. They are not ecological systems by
definition but are extremely valuable natural resources. We believed that excluding ground
water would result in an unrealistic environmental risk evaluation for the Region I project
Yet it was not possible to use the same criteria for evaluating ground water and air as for
evaluating the impacts to ecological systems, because ground water and air do not, within
themselves, support plant or animal communities. After much discussion, it was decided to
include ground water and air in the initial ranking and decide later how to incorporate them in
the final ranking process.
We also had difficulty ranking three problem areas. These problem areas and the
resolutions on ranking are discussed below:
• Accidental Releases—It is clear that major accidents can be catastrophic.
However, it is difficult to judge the probability that an accidental release will
occur and compare this probability with other risks. The only known accidental
release with a major environmental impact occurred in Region I in 1977 in
Buzzards Bay. Although no major accident has occurred in more than 10 years,
the potential severity of an accidental release is very great Because of the
potential impact, ecological risk of accidental releases ranked high.
• Pesticides-Pesticides use is an approved process that with proper controls may
be beneficial but that historically has not been managed properly. Pesticide
application to lakes, forests, and freshwater wetlands is approved to control
undesired problems such as mosquitoes or spruce budworm. The unknown
secondary impacts of pesticides can have enormous adverse effects. Because of
the history of adverse secondary impacts, such as DDT effects on wildlife, this
problem ranked among the highest
• Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants-Few data are available, but the recent studies
of the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay indicate that these pollutants could have
a significant impact on any large surface-water body. No conclusions about
regional impacts can be drawn at this time because local data are not sufficient.
Rather than attempt to evaluate the impacts, given that there are insufficient data
and that recent data indicate a significant potential problem, we ranked this
problem area as unknown (u).
-------
Ecological Risk Ranking Results
The Ecological Risk Work Group developed a relative ranking of problem areas based on
their estimated risk to eight ecosystems in Region I and to two environmental resources. Nine
problem areas from the original list of 24 were not evaluated because they were determined to
have minimal ecological impact or they were included as ecosystems or in other problem
areas. These problem areas were considered to pose low ecological risks. Using the
information we gathered on the potential impact of a problem area on each ecosystem, as well
as data on regional effects, we ranked the impact to each ecosystem from each problem area
on a scale of 1 flow) to 5 (high). We therefore conducted approximately ISO individual
ecological risk evaluations (10 evaluations per problem area). Through this process, the work
group identified seven environmental problem areas that have high impacts on specific
ecosystems and seven problem areas having a high or medium-high risk to ground water
(i.e., a score of S or 4). The work group believed that no clear-cut distinction exists from one
category to the next highest or lowest category but that, in general, differences of two or more
categories were significant. Table EH-1 presents the ranking for each problem area and
ecosystem combination.
The Ecological Risk Work Group attempted to rank one ecosystem against another, but
came to a consensus that, within Region I, all ecosystems are of significant value and any
comparative ranking would be judgmental. We did not believe that we could determine
whether lakes are more valuable than estuaries or forests. Possibly at the state level this
judgment could be made. Region I, depending on one's perspective, has a strong natural
ecological resource in all eight ecosystems. One ecosystem that does not appear to be at
major ecological risk at the present time is the marine environment, which was defined as
deep ocean. However, the Accidental Release problem area is critical to the marine
environment, particularly since the region includes Georges Bank, an important spawning area
that could be threatened by oil drilling operations.
The work group analyzed and ranked the risk evaluation information in two ways: (1) For
each problem area, we identified the ecosystems exhibiting the most significant adverse
effects and the stressors causing those effects. We grouped the problem areas into categories
5 through 3. Problem areas not evaluated because they were assumed to pose low ecological
risks were placed in Category 2/1 (Table H-2). (2) For each ecosystem, we identified the
problem areas causing the most significant impacts and the stressors associated with those
impacts (Table IH-3).
The ranking matrix included both ground water and air as "ecosystems." As the work
group developed issue papers based on each problem and tried to rank the problems using the
matrix system, we realized that it was difficult to rank air pollution within the air ecosystem
category and have any real meaning. Therefore, we decided not to discuss air as a receptor or
a resource. On the other hand, six of the problems rated ground water as die most
significantly stressed receptor. Based on the premise that the problem list is representative of
important environmental issues in New England, and that one-quarter of the most significant
ecological impact from those problems was to ground water, the work group chose to discuss
it as a separate issue. Ground water is obviously a unique and critical natural resource in
Region I. As previously mentioned, it was initially incorporated as an ecosystem but could
not effectively be ranked accordingly (Table ffl-4).
m-2
-------
We separated the problem areas into groupings of high, medium, and low residual
ecological risk based on the level of stress to the ecosystem. Some of our major conclusions
are as follows:
High Residual Ecological Risk
Seven problem areas clearly pose significant ecological risks in Region I:
• Ozone, a Criteria Air Pollutant, has adverse impacts on forests and may affect
crop yields.
• Acid Deposition has adverse impacts on lakes in New England and also
contributes to forest decline.
• All discharges to surface waters have adverse impacts on aquatic life in steams,
lakes, ponds, impoundments, and estuaries. This includes three problem areas:
Industrial Point Source Discharges, POTW Discharges (including combined
sewer overflows and stonnwater discharges), and Nonpoint Source Discharges.
• Habitat loss-significant loss of uplands and wetlands that are important areas for
spawning and breeding-is occurring in New England.
• Catastrophic accidental releases are not common, but this problem area was
highlighted as significant because major oil spills in the estuarine, tidal wetlands,
and/or marine ecosystems would be likely to have drastic environmental impacts.
Medium Residual Ecological Risks
The environmental problem areas that primarily affect the ground-water resource appear to
pose medium to medium-high residual ecologic risks. These problems areas include
Superfund Waste Sites, RCRA Waste Sites, Municipal Waste Sites, Industrial Waste Sites,
Releases from Storage Tanks, Other Ground-Water Contamination, and Pesticide Application.
Generally, contaminants from sources related to these problem areas are in highest
concentrations in ground water and may be discharging or running off into surface waters and
wetlands, threatening those ecosystems. An ecological risk evaluation, which looks strictly at
ecological receptors, will find that these problems have less ecological impact relative to the
sources directly discharging pollutants to water and air. The Ecological Risk Work Group
included ground water as an "ecosystem" category precisely so that the serious problem of
ground-water contamination would not get lost in the overall analysis. In many ways, the
contamination of ground water poses primarily a welfare risk, because it affects present and
future drinking water supplies. The work group agreed that ground-water quality in New
England is seriously threatened by the problem areas listed above.
ffl-3
-------
Low Ecological Risks
All of the problem areas not evaluated were considered to pose low ecological risks.
These problem areas include Radon, Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon, Drinking Water,
Lead (ecological impacts covered under discharges to surface waters), Asbestos, and
Radiation from Sources Other than Radon.
Unknown
Impacts from Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants were ranked as unknown, because there
were very little data available to evaluate this problem. However, there is concern regarding
potential environmental impacts.
ffl-4
-------
Table 111-1
Assessment of Problems By Ecosystems and Environmental Resources
Wetlands
Tidal (fresh Terras- Agri- Ground-
llariM Estuaries Wetlands Slraanw Lakes water) trial culture water
#1.
92.
03.
#7.
08.
09.
011.
»13.
•14.
#15.
016.
017.
JI4O
018.
019.
020.
021.
Criteria Air PoDutants
Acid Deposition and Visibility
Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants
Industrial Point Source
Discharges to Surface Waters i
POTW Discharges to Surface Waters i
Nonpoint Source Discharges to
Surface Waters
Wetlands/Habitat Loss
RCRA Waste Sites
Superfund Waste Sites
Municipal Waste Sites
Industrial Waste Sites
Accidental Releases
Heiesses irorn atoragu lanxs
Other Ground-Water Contamination
Pesticide Residues on Food/
Pesticide Application
I 1
1 1
1 2
I 3
I 5
2
2
1
2
2
2
1 5
' 3
1 3
u
1
2
2
3
•
2
2
1
2
2
2
5
2
2
1
3
2
5
5
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
1
5
u
1
3
• 5
2
1
1
1
1
3
4
4
u
1
u
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
5
4
U
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
5
2
u
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
X
—
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
5
5
5
2
5
5
Notes: 1 » km ecological risk, 5-high n^u» unknown, x»unranked
Indoor Air PoPutants Other than Radon (problem area 05) and RadUrfon from Sources Other than Radon (06) were not ranked.
m-5
-------
Table 111-2
Ecological Problem Ana Ranking
(unranked within categories)
Envlrenn
SoureM and Stress**)
I Significantly Affected
Category*
1. Criteria Air Pollutants
2. AddDeposldonand
Viability
7. Industrial Point Source
Discharges to Surface
8. POTW Discharges to
Surface Waters
Ondudes combined
sewer overflows
(CSOs}and
storrnwater
discharges)
9. Nonpoint Source
Discharges to Surface
Waters
11. Habitat Loss
17. Ac
Category 4
14. Superiund Waste Sites
15.18. Municipal and
Industrial Waste
19. Oner Ground-Water
ContBHiinfltlon
20.21. Pesticide Residues
on Food/
Application
Category 3
13. RCRA Waste Sites
18. Releases from Storage
Tanks
Unknown
3. Hazardous/Toxic Air
Pollutants
Ozone Is the most slQnific&nt
stressor
Lowering of pH and buffering
capacity
DIschaiBB of toxics, especially
In water with low dilution ratios
Discharge from CSOs and
storrnwater of nutrients and
toxics; POTW discharge of
chlorine, nutrients, and
Industrial waste to water
quality limited streams
Runoff of nutrients and toxic
chemicals Into lakes and
streams
Conversion of undeveloped
land to residential and
commercial properly
Oil spDIs from shipping and
drilling
Discharges of toxics from
Discharges of toxics from
leachate
Sepdc tank discharges of
nutrients
Residual runoff from
application
Discharge of toxics from
Discharges of toxics from
leachate
Terrestrial-Ozone Is considered to cause the decline of forests,
especially at higher elevations. Agriculture-Several crops have
shown decreases In yield due to ozone.
Lakes-New England lakes are experiencing significant acidification
due to add deposition, which affects aquatic distribution.
Terrestrial-Add deposition contributes to decline of forests.
particularly at higher elevations.
Streams—Toxic plants affect sediments and aquatic life.
Estuaries-Toxics and nutrients affect plants, sediments, and
aquatic life.
Streams-These discharges are toxic to aquatic organisms.
Lakes, Ponds. Impoundments-Nutrients and toxics build up In
Impoundment sediments.
Lakes-Nonpoint source runoff causes eutrophlcation.
Streams-Runoff of toxics, Including pesticides, has significant
Impact on aquatic life.
Terrestrial-Significant toss of land to development affects the
habitat environment and breeding areas.
Wetlands (Irashwater)-Slgnlficam toss of land as a habitat breeding
and spawning area occurs.
Agriculture-Significant toss of habitat environment and breeding
area occurs.
Estuaries and tidal wetiands-Major oil spin could destroy habitat
and spawning area and other uses.
Marfne-Thetf- ~
spawning.
Wetlands (froshwater)-Approxlmatdy 50% of the sites are adjacent
to streams or freshwater wetlands. Toxics affect plants, sediments,
and aquatic life.
Wetlands (freshwat&r)—similar to 9»
Lakes-Nutrients contribute to eutnphlcation of New England lakes.
Lakes-Pesticide use has significant Impacts on aquatic life,
particularly when directly applied.
Wedands-Use In mosquito control can affect aquatic Ufa and
vegetation.
Terrestrial—Spraying can affect hohitut
Streams and wetlands (freshwater): Toxics affects plants and
sediments.
Streams and wetlands (freshwater): Toxics affect plants and
sediments.
Unknown.
Note? Toxics Includes organic chemicals, metals, and pesticides.
Problem areas considered to pose tow ecological risk (Category 2/1) were not evaluated by the woik group, and were not intruded in this table.
m-6
-------
Table 111-3
Problem Anas Affecting Ecosystems
Ecosystem
Problem Area
Impact*.)
Marine
Estuaries
Streams
•17. Accidental Releases Oil spiOs from driPing
M. POTW Discharges to Nutrients and Toxics
Surface Waters
(indudss GSQsond
surmwaterolschaiges)
017. Accidental Releases Oil spills from tanKers
IndUSttlSl DlSCnflfQBS !O TOXICS
Surface Waters
•8. POTW Discharges to Toxics, nutrients
Surface Waters
99. Nonpoint Source Toxics, nutrients
Discharges to Surface
Waters
•11. Habitat Loss
Stream alteration
•14. Superfund Waste Sites Toxics
Sulfur doxide
M. POTW Discharges to Nutrients and toxics
Surface Waters (CSO
and storfltwatBf)
•9. Nonpoint Source Nutrients and toxics
Discharges to Surface
Waters
•19. Other Ground-Water Nutrients from septic systems
Contamination
«20.21.Pestiddes
Toxics
Habitat spawning at Georges
Bank
Toxics affect plants, sediments,
and all aquatic life
Significant long-term Impact to
aquatic and plant fife
Impact on plants, sediments, and
aquatic life; potential threat to
water supply
Same as #7
Same as #7
Eliminates spawning and
breeding areas
Impact on plants, sediments, and
aquatic life
Lowers pH that affects aquatic
and plant Bfe
Impact to plants and aquatic life
Nutrients cause eutrophication,
which impacts plants and aquatic
Gfe
Cause eutrophication
Affect plants, sediments, and
aquatic life
Note: Toxics Induce organic chemicals, metals, and pesticides.
(continued)
Page 1 of 2
m-7
-------
Table 111-3 (continued)
Ecosystem
ProMsm ATM
lmpaet(s)
Wetlands (freshwater) »11. Habitat Loss
Development
Terrestrial
014. Superfund Waste Sites Toxics
#13.15.16.Other Waste Sites Tones
01. Criteria Air Pollutants Ozone
02. Add Deposition
f11. Habitat Loss
ff20^l.PestieiOBS
PH
Development
Toxics
Agriculture 01. Criteria Air Pollutants Ozone
•11. Habitat Loss Development
Note: Toxics include organic chemicals, metals, and pesticides.
Efiminates breeding, spawning,
and feeding areas
Affect plants, sediments, and
aquatic life
Affect plants, sediments, and
aquatic life
Causes forest decline, especially
at high altitudes
Causes forest decline, especially
at high altitudes
Eliminates breeding and habitat
Accidental secondary impact on
animals and birds
Decreases crop yield
Eliminates breeding and habitat
Page 2 of 2
m-8
-------
Table 111-4
Problem Areas Affecting Ground Water
ProMoin AIM
Impact
-------
Appendix
Problem Area Papers
-------
1. Criteria Air Pollutants
Problem Area Definition
This category covers outdoor exposure to airborne criteria pollutants. Six criteria
pollutants have been designated under Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA):
• Ozone (Op
• Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Total suspended paniculate (TSP) and/or PM10
• Sulfur dioxide (SCty
• Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
• Lead
An exposure problem arises when a criteria pollutant is present in concentrations that exceed
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Primary standards are set to protect
human health, while secondary standards are set to protect welfare or to prevent damage to
crops, vegetation, buildings, and visibility. In some cases, a single standard may protect
health pud welfare.
Lead will be covered in a separate category.
Summary/Abstract
The criteria air pollutant of concern in New England is ground-level ozone. Currently in
New England, 45 out of 67 counties are not in attainment for ozone, meaning that the standard
has recently been violated. Ozone is a strong oxidant, and has significant ecological effects
on plants and animals This study ranked ozone as having a high impact on terrestrial
(Le., trees) and on agricultural resources (i.e., reduced crop yield and other vegetation
damage). Ozone probably also has an impact on the vegetation found in freshwater and
coastal wetlands, but the extent of the damage has not been quantified. Coastal wetlands may
be especially vulnerable in New England since the highest ozone levels in Connecticut, Rhode
Island, New Hampshire, and Maine all occur near the seacoast; however, because actual
studies of damage to wetland vegetation have not been conducted, the risks have been rated as
-------
Sources
An assessment of air quality levels in New England shows that SO2 and NO^ levels are
below their respective NAAQS throughout the area. The PM JQ standard, which is now the
standard for particulates, is a new standard, and data collectionnas just recently begun in New
The limited PMin data show that the only areas thought to be not in attainment in
New England are small areas in northern Maine. Because these three pollutants (SO2, NOX,
and PMjg) are either not problems at all or are problems in only small areas of the region,
they were not considered in mis risk evaluation.
Although some urban areas in New England are nonattainment areas for carbon
monoxide, CO also was not considered in this ecological risk evaluation because CO is
primarily an urban human health problem connected with heavy traffic and street canyon
areas. The habitat in these urban areas is already greatly perturbed.
This leaves ozone as the only criteria pollutant considered by the Ecological Risk Work
Group in *hiy risk analysis. Ozone is a major air pollution problem in New England.
Forty-five out of 67 counties are not in attainment for ozone, even though the attainment
deadline was December 31, 1987.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant It is not emitted directly into the atmosphere; it is formed
by a series of atmospheric reactions between precursor emissions (e.g., hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides) in the presence of sunlight Ozone precursors are not emitted from a few
large or conveniently concentrated sources, but from numerous sources, large and small, in
diverse locations. These sources include motor vehicles, petroleum refineries, oil storage
tflniry( household products, petroleum marketing, chemical manufacturing, surface coating,
and printing industries.- Precursor emissions usually are transported many miles before ozone
is formed. The chemical structure of individual precursor emissions may quickly be altered,
making it difficult to assess the impact that emissions from any one source have on the
ozone crfjfltyf i Air iffiiip^a^*^ and stagnating **ir masses during the summer
iths can also substantially affect ozone formation.
Because die chemical reactions that form ozone are driven by the sun, ground-level ozone
concentrations are higher during the daytime than they are at night and they are at their
highest during the summer. The absolute highest ozone in New England occurs under
conditions of strong sunshine, light winds (<10 mph), and high temperatures (>86° F). The
sunlight drives the reaction, the light winds create stagnant conditions, and the warm
temperatures aid in VOC evaporation and/or volatilization. For these reasons, warm, sunny
summers are much more conducive to ozone production than cool, cloudy summers.
Figure 1-1 shows the number of ozone exceedance days in New England from 1980 to 1987
versus the number of days the temperature in Hartford, CT, reached or exceeded 86° and
90° F, respectively. The figure shows how ozone exceedances vary from year to year.
-------
Ecological Hazard Assessment
Effects of Ozone on Animals
Animal studies show that ozone interferes with the functioning of many components of
the immune system, a phenomenon observed in several studies using die ozone levels
frequently encountered in the ambient air. In one series of studies, 0.08 ppm (66 percent of
the federal standard) ozone for three hours resulted in increased susceptibility to acute
respiratory infection. Animal lexicological studies also show that ozone initiates damage to
sensitive lung tissue, and that damage continues for some time after ozone exposure has
ended. If the exposure is not repeated, the damaged tissue repairs itself, leaving a small
amount of scar tissue. If the exposure is repeated or continued for long periods of rime, scar
tissue can become extensive enough to cause permanent lung damage. Scar tissue reduces
pulmonary elasticity, a process that is tantamount to premature aging of the lung. Thus far,
permanent damage has been observed only in studies lasting from weeks to months where
ozone exposures of 020 ppm or greater were used. However, some recent animal studies
indicate that short-term exposures to ozone at or near 0.12 ppm cause inflammation. Some
believe that this inflammation is the first step toward more permanent injury.
Effects of Ozone on Agriculture
In the late 1970s, EPA initiated the National Crop Loss Assessment Network (NCLAN)
study to develop pollutant-specific, dose-response information for important crop species.
Evidence from the NCLAN studies indicates that several major cash crops such as soybeans,
peanuts, com, and wheat experience 10 percent or higher yield losses when the average seven-
hour daylight ozone concentration during the growing season exceeds 0.04 to 0.05 ppm.
Controlled studies in greenhouses strengthen the evidence of demonstrated field effects. In
addition, ambient air exposure studies demonstrate that ambient ozone in many regions of the
country (outside California) can reduce plant yield in tomatoes by 33 percent, in beans by
26 percent, in soybeans by 20 percent, and in snapbeans by up to 22 percent. The ozone
levels in Connecticut are so high that certain types of tobacco can no longer be grown in that
state.
Effects of Ozone on Forests
Repeated ozone peaks equal to or greater than 0.08 ppm (66 percent of the standard) have
been implicated in damage observed in white pine in the eastern United States and Canada.
Recent reports indicate that growth rates of red spruce at numerous high-elevation sites
throughout the Appalachian Mountains may have been dropping for 20 to 25 years.
Conclusive determination of the role of air pollution, particularly of ozone, in these most
recent declines is not possible at present because data are limited. Many scientists, however,
think ozone is a major contributor to this decline in growth.
-------
Effects of Ozone on Wetlands
Since ozone causes damage and reduces growth rates of some trees and plants, it probably
also affects the vegetation found in both freshwater and coastal wetlands. The exact nature of
damage to vegetation in wetlands has not been Quantified.
Impact Assessment
The only known pathway of exposure to ozone is through the atmosphere. The current
ozone standard (both primary(health) and secondary(welfare)) is 0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded
more than three times during any three-year period (expected exceedance < 1.0). Studies have
shown that the 0.12 ppm standard may have no margin of error with regards to health effects.
Other studies have shown plant damage and reduced crop yield at tower concentrations
(0.08 ppm) for longer periods of time (e.g., eight hours). An EPA study has shown a strong
correlation between the current 0.12 ppm standard and a proposed or hypothetical 0.08 ppm
eight-hour standard, and an even longer-term, three-month standard (growing season average).
The study implies that if a site exceeds the 0.12 ppm one-hour standard, it probably will
exceed a 0.08 ppm eight-hour standard and the longer three-month standard.
The eight-hour and the three-month standards might be especially important on mountain
top locations, because the ozone levels at "wintpin top locations are not as influenced by
'ground-level scavenging' as are valley locations. Thus, ozone levels on mountain tops are
higher at night than the levels in the surrounding valley locations.
Currently in New England, 45 out of 67 counties are not in attainment for ozone. These
nonatminment areas include the entire states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
In die past six years (1982-1987), ozone concentrations in excess of 024 ppm (twice the
standard) have been measured in Connecticut, Rhode Island, <*nd Massachusetts. Exceedances
of the standard have been measured as far north as Acadia National Park in Maine. Some
vegetation studies show reduced plant yield at values above 0.04 to O.OS ppm (40 to SO ppb).
Figure 1-2 shows the number of days ozone levels exceeded 0.12 ppm at monitoring sites in
the greater Northeast in 1985.
-------
Risk Characterization
Ambient levels of ozone in New England frequently exceed the federal standards and
pose risks to animals antf vegetation. The known effects in animals include acute respiratory
infection and potential lung-tissue damage. Impacts on vegetation include reduced
agricultural crop yields and reduced growth rates in trees and plants. The Ecological Risk
Work Group ranked ozone as having a high impact on terrestrial and agricultural resources.
Coastal wetlands may be especially vulnerable because average one-hour concentrations of
ozone are higher in those areas than in inland areas. Mountain tops in New England also are
deemed especially vulnerable. Risk to humans and wildlife from high ground-level ozone
concentrations also is high.
The work group rates overall risk as low for marine ecosystems, estuaries, streams, and
lakes. Impacts on tidal wetlands and freshwater wetlands also may be high, but actual
studies have not been conducted, so the risks are rated as uncertain.
-------
ft
i!
O!
o
^j
5'
Ozone Exceedance Days and High Temperature Days
/0
0
l
10
9\
/
80
81
8J
—i -
• 4
\ ••' ,•
Legend
Oorn > I24ppb O i
l Ogyi ^ 90 f
Day* ,- 86 f
• t
I
B7
-------
Figure 1-2
1J
.s,s
8 1
At each location, the data show how many days the ozone levels in 1985 exceeded 0.12 ppm.
7
-------
2. Acid Deposition and Visibility
Problem Area Definition
This problem area applies to damages caused by wet or dry deposition of acidic
compounds from the atmosphere. Some gases emitted into the atmosphere interact with
sunlight, water vapor, and oxygen to form acidic compounds. Wet deposition then occurs
when the acidic compounds fall as acid rain or snow. These acidic compounds may also
combine with dust or other dry particles and fall as dry deposition. The pollutants that
contribute to acid deposition are already regulated under die Clean Air Act; however,
deposition can occur even when emissions of these compounds meet EPA standards.
Visibility was also included in the definition, although that issue was not explicitly addressed
by all work groups.
Summary/Abstract
Acid deposition affects all of New England. The most pronounced ecological effects
occur in ponds and forests. Some leaching of toxicants and mineral^ from soils may occur.
More than 100 lakes greater than 10 acres in size are estimated to be acidic. More than 700
are estimated to be ft"Tfltgncdt and more than 2,000 are estimated to be sensitive to acid
deposition. Acid deposition may be a major contributor to the decline of red spruce, balsam
fir, and white ash in northern New England and Massachusetts. It may also contribute to
damage to the sugar maple.
Sources
Naturally occurring wet deposition (rainfall) is already mildly acidic (pH 5.0 • 5.6) as a
result of moisture combining with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to form a weak carbonic
acid.
Massachusetts reported that the average annual pH of precipitation in the state is
approximately 4.2. Maine reported the average annual pH as 4.3S in the western part of the
state (Bridgeton) and 4.5 in the northeastern part (Caribou). Vermont reported pH 4.4 as the
weighted average from four stations during 1980-1983.
The sources causing acid precipitation may lie within or outside Region L While regional
sources are responsible for local or near field effects, the regionwide extent of the problem is
attributed to sources in the Midwest and Southeast as well as to Canadian influences.
8
-------
The sources of concern are industries that bum fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gasoline) and
discharge the precursors of acid deposition (SO?, NOX, and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)) to the atmosphere. Such sources include electric utilities, industrial boilers and
processors, smelters, chemical processors, residential and commercial fuel burning, and
mobile sources.
Ecological Hazard Assessment
Acid deposition is the result of chemical reactions and interactions that may occur in the
atmosphere in the case of wet deposition or on the surface with dry deposition. The
transformation in the atmosphere occurs when the precursors, primarily sulfur dioxide (SOo),
nitrous oxides (NOX), and VOCs, interact with moisture, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, and other
oxidants to transform the SC>2 and NOX into acids. Paniculate matter (sulfates and nitrates)
may be captured by water vapor in clouds to eventually fall to the earth as wet deposition, or
the heavier particulates may drop to earth as wind velocities decrease or air density
diminishes.
While the focus has been mainly on SOo and NO-, organic acids may also contribute to
the acidity of precipitation. The organic acids may be the result of both natural and man-made
VOCs.
Acid deposition's ecological impact is aquatic and terrestrial The aquatic effect is to
lower the pH of surface waters to a point where fish can no longer survive and only a limited
number of aiqimtkr organisms r-"*1 exist.
The terrestrial effects may be the destroying of the forest canopy, destruction of flora,
disruption of life cycle processes, interference with humus production on the forest floor,
leaching of toxic metals from the soil, and destruction of the acid neutralizing capacity (ANQ
of soils.
While evidence suggests that some of the impacts may be reversible in stressed
environments, it is doubtful if water bodies that have become acidified can regain a healthy
aquatic community. Similarly, soils that have lost most of their ANC will not neutralize
naturally occurring rainfall and will continue to get worse. One concern of researchers is that
even if most of the pollution sources could be controlled, many waterbpdies will continue to
become more acidic because of the lost ANC of soil and the natural acidity of rainfall.
In areas where the forest canopy has been severely damaged, pollution-tolerant species
dominate the new growth.
-------
Impact Assessment
The stressors were evaluated only as they affect freshwater impoundments and forests.
Although recent hypotheses indicate a potential for harm to the marine environment, the
preponderance of research has examined effects upon freshwater ecosystems and terrestrial
effects. The major exposure route to these two systems has been long-range atmospheric
transport. Reportedly, visibility in rural New England has declined 50 percent since the 1950s
because of sulfate particulars.
Admittedly wide variations in the acidity of wet deposition exist within New England,
some of this caused by local pollution sources. The entire northeast area (upstate New York
and New England) has been identified as having lower pH rainfalls than the rest of the
country. Long-range transport of pollutants from the Southeast and Midwest appear to be
creating acidification problems in New England.
Acid deposition impacts all of New England. Sulfate precipitation in the Northeast is
estimated to be 8 to 12 times background levels. Researchers indicate that high-elevation
lakes and forests seem to be most affected and also seepage ponds. The most sensitive areas
in Region I are western Maine and the far eastern portion of Maine, the western areas of
Massachusetts (Berkshire County), and Cape Cod. Central and northern Maine do not appear
to be seriously affected.
Aquatic Exposure
For our purposes, acidic lakes will be defined as those having an acid neutralizing capacity
(ANC) <0 equivalents per liter, threatened lakes having ANC <50, and sensitive lakes with
ANC<200.
Using EPA's Eastern Lake Survey (ELS) database and its subrcgion characterization as
shown in the map below, the following observations were made:
IE
10
-------
• The Northeast, including New York and Pennsylvania, contains more threatened
and low pH (<6.0) lakes than any other region studied. It also had the highest
tt^ipn sulfate concentration.
• No lakes in Vermont were estimated to have ANC
-------
Researchers cannot state that acid deposition is the principal causative agent for forest
decline. Ozone, parasites, loss of nutrients, soil damage, climate change-all may be
contributing factors. Researchers do believe that acid deposition plays a significant role in the
health of forests.
Risk Characterization
Acid deposition is a region-wide problem. Our lakes and ponds are being affected, and
acid deposition is, quite likely, a major influence on forest decline and damage. As a result,
the work group ranked the impact of acid deposition on lakes as a 5 and the impact on
terrestrial areas a 4. Streams were ranked as a 3 because of the vulnerability of some
high-altitude lakes. All other ecosystem impacts were ranked as a 1 due to the buffering
capacity of soils in the region and the dilution capabilities of the ocean and tidal waters.
The uncertainty we have is with the processes causing the decline in these resources and
the rate at which changes will occur. This discussion did not address the chemical changes
that will occur as a result of acidification, the leaching of toxicants from the soils, or the
effects on pollen and reproduction cycles of aquatic organisms. Most of the research focused
upon sulfate acidification. More recent works are looking at intraregional effects of NOX
from mobile sources.
The paper looked only at the major issues, probably 80 percent of the problem. It has not
examined direct effects upon flora and resultant effects upon fauna.
The impacts are significant Entire water bodies may be lost to recreational uses. The
forests may change. Habitats can be lost But documentation of the problem has only begun,
and understanding of its mechanism is in its infancy. The cumulative effect of acid deposition
on the animal reproduction and the food chain may be far-reaching.
Welfare
Visibility impacts and agricultural effects are the primary source welfare effects from acid
deposition. As reported by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs in a
1988 study. Interim Report on the Findings of the Massachusetts Acid Rain Research
Program, visibility in rural New England has declined SO percent since the 1950s because of
sulfate participates. That same report notes that acid deposition "could be affecting"
agriculture in New England. Indeed, in the Midwest, studies have linked spotting on com and
the staining of leaf vegetables with acid deposition; no such documentation of effects has
shown in New England, however. As a result, agricultural ecosystem impacts were ranked as
a 2.
12
-------
3. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants
Problem Area Definition
This category covers outdoor exposure to airborne toxic ?nd hazardous pollutants from
routine or continuous emissions from outdoor point and nonpoint sources. Hazardous
pollutants are designated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as pollutants that
may "cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to result in
serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness." Toxic air pollutants encompass any
chemical substance, paniculate or gaseous, that can become airborne and be inhaled in
sufficient concentrations to threaten human health.
Major pollutant categories are the following:
• Volatile organic compounds
• Dioxins/fuxans
• Products of incomplete combustion
• PCBs
• Metals
• Pesticides
• Indoor air pollution (e.g., radon and formaldehyde)
• Asbestos
Summary/Abstract
This paper addresses the toxic air pollutants thought to have some negative effect on
ecological systems. The toxic/hazardous air pollutants of concern are metals, dioxins/furans,
PCBs, and wood smoke. Unfortunately, any information available on these pollutants and
their effects has been limited to their effects on human health. A study on ecological effects
of a resource recovery facility in Vermont is beginning to collect some data, but final results
are not available. The entire issue of airborne toxins and their effects on the environment is
still in its infancy.
Because of the data limitations, the risks have all been rated as uncertain. The ranking of
uncertain, however, does not mean that toxins are not important from an ecological point of
view. It only means that more research on the effects of toxins on the environment needs to
be performed. •
13
-------
Sources
Of the toxic pollutant categories cited in the problem area definition, pesticides are
covered in a separate category; asbestos and indoor air pollutants do not have significant
ecological effects and will not be considered further; VOCs, although very important with
respect to the formation of ozone, are not thought to pose significant ecological risks by
themselves. The VOCs are a potential health risk through inhalation (e.g., the inhalation of
gasoline fumes by service station attendants), but such effects are "close-in" effects and do not
cause widespread ecological damage.
This paper therefore concentrates on metals, dioxins/furans, PCBs, and wood smoke.
Routine releases for the four areas of concern include the following:
• Point Sources
— Chemical plants
- Refineries
- Steel mills
- Chemical processing
- Industrial boilers
— Metallurgical processing
- Fossil-fired power plants
- Space heating (oil, coal and wood)
waste incinerators
• Nonpoint
- RCRA and Superfund waste sites
— Industrial and municipal solid waste sites
— Accidental releases
(All of the nonpoint sources-RCRA and Superfund waste sites, industrial and municipal solid
waste sites, and accidental releases-are covered in separate papers.)
14
-------
Ecological Hazard Assessment
As staled in the Headquarters document Unfinished Business:
m The principal stress agents for ecological effects (from toxic air pollutants) have
not been identified*
• Most of the studies to date on toxins have focused on human health effects,
especially carcinogenic effects.
• Persistent compounds such as metals, PCBs, and TCDD may be of special
importance ecologically because of food chain effects.
Unfinished Business also lists specific pollutants and their sources:
Pollutant Source
Arsenic Combustion sources such as waste oil burning, coal-
fired utility boilers, wood smoke, smelters, glass
manufacturing
Chromium Waste oil burning, steel manufacturing, refractory
manufacturing, metals manufacturing, combustion
Products of Incomplete Burning of wood and coal in small combustion units,
Combustion (PICs) coke operations, internal combustion engines
Impact Assessment
The category Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants requires the pathway from source to
receptor to be via the air. But the ecological effects do not necessarily come through direct
inhalation. The deposition of toxins on the ground or in the water may have large ecological
effects. As noted in the EPA Headquarters report, atmospheric loading of toxic pollutants to
the Great Lakes appears to be a major pathway, but details are unknown.
In some instances, such as the damage caused by large smelters in this country and abroad,
the pathways axe known. In general, concentrations of toxins will be greatest near major
sources (which include urban areas), but ambient and deposition data are scarce.
IS
-------
Risk Characterization
Ecological impacts from the deposition, absorption, or inhalation of toxic air pollutants is
possible for all ecological systems, except ground water, although even ground water may be
threatened by toxic air emissions. Again, most of the work done to date regarding toxic air
pollutants has been in the health effects area. Little has been done as far as the ecological
risks of air toxins.
Unfinished Business states the uncertainties succinctly:
Major weaknesses and gaps characterize the base of information on toxic air
pollutants. Generally, the few air toxins emission inventories that are available
show inconsistencies and anomalies, the air quality dam that exist are inadequate
to develop ecosystem exposure estimates, and few compounds have been tested
for ecotoxicological effects. The data limitations preclude performing any type
of comprehensive assessment of ecological risks.
16
-------
7. Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters
Problem Area Definition
Point sources are sources of pollution that discharge effluents into surface waters through
discrete conveyances such as pipes or outfalls. Discharges may result in contamination of
surface water and subsequent injury or harm to aquatic organisms, wildlife, and humans. For
this project, point sources have been divided into industrial (this category) and Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) (problem area #8). Pollutants of concern include total
suspended solids, biological oxygen demand (BOD), toxic organics (e.g., PCBs and phenols),
toxic inorganics such as metals, and thermal pollution. Typical sources of discharge include
chemical manufacturing, metal finishing, pulp and paper processing, iron and steel
production*
Summary/Abstract
The New England region of the United States has enjoyed strong industrial growth from
the beginning of the industrial revolution through the ongoing development of the high
technology industry. With this industrial growth has come significant industrial discharge of
wastes. The three most significant industries in this regard are metal finishers, which
discharge a variety of toxic heavy metals; pulp and paper mills, which discharge
oxygen-depleting organics plus color and odor and possibly dioxin; and the textile industry,
including tanneries that discharge heavy metals, toxic organics, and inorganics. New England
is a small geographic area with an abundance of rivers and streams that serve as the receptors
of these industrial wastes. The major impact of the industrial discharges is on fish and other
aquatic organisms that live in JHMH streams or rivers where natural dilution is insufficient to
overcome the toxic concentrations. Numerous rivers and harbors hold posted fish advisories
because of high levels of PCBs, dioxin, and other contaminants. In addition, some streams
have no aquatic life due to continued discharges of metal plating wastes.
Sources
The EPA Region I office and the six New England states regulate more than 2,100 direct
discharges of industrial waste to this region's surface waters. Of this total, 270 industrial
dischargers are considered to be major dischargers by virtue of their waste volume, the
strength or hazard of the contaminants, or their location with respect to sensitive water uses.
The other 1,800 industrial facilities are labeled minor dischargers because of their size or the
size of the receiving stream. These discharges include non-contact cooling water, small
process waste volumes, and laundromat waste water. Only the major dischargers are
considered to pose a significant hazard to die ecological resources in Region L
17
-------
Representative industrial categories in Region I include electroplating, metal finishing,.
jewelry making, pulp and paper, tanning, textile fabrication and dying, plastics and
Pharmaceuticals. These industries discharge a wide variety of contaminants, tanging from
conventional oxygen-demanding substances to toxic metals to exotic chemicals with
sometimes unknown impacts.
Connecticut and Massachusetts have the greatest number of industrial dischargers. On a
per-square-mile basis, Rhode Island and Massachusetts have the same industrial discharge
density (Figure 7-1).
In Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, the primary categories of industrial
dischargers are electroplating/metal finishing, chemical industries, and pharmaceutical
companies. In the less-developed northern states, the industrial discharges from pulp and
paper, tanning, and textile industries predominate, with a small but increasing number of
industries that discharge toxic
Ecological Hazard Assessment
Industrial point sources discharge toxics, BOD, solids, and nutrients. Common pollutants
include heavy metals such as mercury, copper, cadmium and cyanide; organic chemicals,
including PCBs and PAHs; nutrients of nitrogen and phosphorus; and BOD. These
compounds affect aquatic communities by differentially reducing or eliminating populations
of certain species. Productivity is reduced and alteration in the structure of the aquatic
community is likely to occur.
The oxygen-demanding materials and nutrients will lead to losses of dissolved oxygen in
streams and to subsequent loss of production or even loss of life in the aquatic community.
At depressed oxygen levels, organisms are less tolerant of toxicants and may succumb to
toxicant concentrations that are ordinarily sublethaL
Suspended solids can settle in the receiving water, resulting in loss of habitat for benthic
organisms, loss of valuable spawning area for fish, and loss of breeding/growth area for
shellfish. Additionally, sediments contaminated with metals or organic chemicals may cause
loss of life in benthic organisms or lead to the buildup of chemicals in the food chain, with
impacts on finfish, shellfish, and wildlife consumers of *hiy aquatic life. The impact is most
severe in the local area of the discharge and can include a buildup in the sediment that will
lead to long-term irreversible impacts. Also, certain persistent compounds such as PCBs can
be transported considerable distances before they are deposited.
The Environmental Research Center (ERC) at Cornell University considered industrial
discharges as having a high potential impact on all freshwater ecosystems. It is difficult to
quantify the severity of the impact because it depends on many factors, including the dilution
of die pollutant, the type of pollutant, and the mixing zone of the receiving stream.
.18
-------
Impact Assessment
The direct discharge of industrial waste to water bodies is die pathway of exposure. It is
• continual ?n
-------
Because of the uncertainty of the protection granted by the permits and the fact that a
certain level of noncompliance will continue, it is impossible to accurately estimate the
and locations of surface waters with fish, shellfish, and wildlife at risk.
There are sufficient data on the types of industrial discharges and their location. Good
data on the locations and sizes of the streams in New England also are available. The Permit
i Compliance System (PCS), as pan of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System,
has complete discharge data on all 270 dischargers. The Storet system, a national computer
i some data on the water quality of numerous streams.
Risk Characterization
In New England, the majority of direct industrial dischargers are located on freshwater,
streams, and rivers, and more than 50 percent of these need permits to control water quality.
We ranked die impact of industrial discharges to streams as relatively high (5). The number
of direct discharges to estuaries and wetlands is very limited; however, where they exist there
is the potential for significant, irreversible, long-term impacts. The PCB contamination
problem in the Acushet River and in New Bedford Harbor is an example. Impacts on these
two ecosystems were therefore rated as medium (3). Based on very reliable state and EPA
data in PCS, there are virtually no major direct industrial discharges to the marine ecosystem
or into lakes; therefore, risks for these ecosystems received a low rating (2/1). The other
ecosystems-terrestrial, agricultural, and ground water-are not directly affected by this
problem and were considered to be minimally impacted.
Welfare
Industrial discharges have caused a loss of both recreational and commercial fishing and
shellfishing. There are miles of stream reaches that post fish consumption advisories as well
as numerous clamming flats that have been closed due to industrial pollution.
20
-------
Figure 7-1
ENVIWMWEIITAL PROTECTION A6INCT
STORE! SYSTEM
SOURCE i I FD 03/04/88
+ FACILITY
PROJECTION • ALIENS EQUAL AREA
MALE I • 4000000
21
-------
8. POTW Discharges to Surface Waters
Problem Area Definition
The discharges from Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), including industrial
indirect dischargers connected to POTWs, travel to surface water. Indirect dischargers include
all industrial facilities that are tied into a municipal sewer and do not have a direct outfall
pipe. Discharges may result in contamination of surface waters and subsequent injury or harm
to aquatic organisms, wildlife, and humans. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and
stonnwater discharges are included in this problem area. POTWs are also a major source of
ammonia, chlorination.products, pathogens, and nutrients, as well as metals and organic
compounds commonly found in industrial discharges.
Summary/Abstract
New England has a population concentrated most densely along the coast The region
comprises cities and towns with old sewer systems and a large number of combined sewer
overflows (CSO) and stonnwater discharges. These relatively uncontrolled discharges cause a
variety of short- and long-term problems in surface waters and are not easily controlled. The
discharges are responsible for beach closings in the summer months, because of high bacteria
counts from these sources, and closed shellfish areas because of either bacterial or toxic
pollutants.
Region I is the only region in the country with four major estuaries of national
significance: Boston Harbor, Buzzards Bay, Narragansett Bay, and Long Island Sound.
These estuaries are under tremendous ecological stress because of municipal discharges,
particularly CSOs and stonnwater. Each estuary, as part of the National Marine Estuary
Program, is being studied to identify the major sources of pollution and to develop a plan for
cleanup.
New England has achieved a high level of POTW compliance with the requirements of the
Clean Water Act Approximately 95 percent of all major POTW dischargers are in
compliance with their National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for
secondary treatment or are on a judicial enforcement schedule. The remaining problems are
juc primarily to indirect industrial dischargers, nutrient loadings of phosphorous and nitrogen
from all sources, and toxicity from chlorine and ammonia. These discharges, in combination
with the CSO and stonnwater discharges, greatly stress aquatic life and shellfish in surface
waters and also create adverse welfare impacts by limiting recreational use of this water.
22
-------
Sources
An estimated 748 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) in Region I discharge to
surface waters. Based on volume of discharge and location with respect to sensitive water
uses, these POTWs are broken into major and minor categories, with 321 being major and
427 being minor. All municipal discharges greater than one million gallons a day (mgd) are
considered to be major discharges. In addition to these known POTWs, there are countless
CSOs and municipal stormwater discharges to surface waters that are untreated and not
monitored.
Major dischargers vary in size from 1 mgd to the proposed 500 mgd secondary plant for
the Boston area. Minor dischargers, because of their sizes and locations, are not considered to
have as significant an impact on surface waters. However, any direct untreated discharge
improperly located can close shellfish areas or beaches. Table 8-1 provides a breakdown by
state of the total number of dischargers as well as the number of major and minor dischargers.
Table 8-1
POTW Dischargers In Region I
Major POTWs as a Number of
Number of Number of Percentage of the Major POTWs per 1,000
POTWa Major POTWS Regional Total Square Mllea
Connecticut 133 67 21 13
Maine 178 64 20 2
Massachusetts 208 101 32 12
New Hampshire 99 39 12 4
Rhode Island 33 20 6 16
Vermont 97 30 9 3
Total 748 321
The older, larger New England cities usually have the most significant CSO and
stormwater discharges. The city of Boston, for example, has S3 CSO discharges into Boston
Harbor and its tributaries.
There are many more industrial dischargers tied into municipal sewer systems than those
that discharge directly to surface waters. Within the MWRA sewer system, there are an
estimated 2,000 major dischargers and 5,000 minor dischargers. This number is
representative of all the major cities in New England (i.e., Providence, Springfield, Hartford).
All these cities have developed pretrcatment programs recently. These programs are managed
by each city and rely on industrial self-compliance and monitoring. The limited monitoring
creates a high potential for toxic discharges to POTWs.
23
-------
Ecological Hazard Assessment
Municipal point source discharges from POTWs include conventional pollutants,
biological oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids, nutrients (ammonia, nitrogen, and
phosphorous), organic and inorganic toxics from indirect dischargers, chlorine as a byproduct
of disinfection, and pathogenic organisms. CSOs can discharge any combination of these
pollutants. Stormwater discharges do not include indirect industrial sources but may include
some toxic compounds in the urban runoff.
These different pollutants affect the aquatic community in different ways. Discharges of
conventional pollutants, particularly nutrients, will typically cause a shift in community
structure from a diverse biotic assemblage with higher level species to one dominated by
less-desirable, pollution-tolerant forms. This shift is particularly serious in lakes and estuaries
where nutrients may build up because of insufficient flushing action. Organic and inorganic
toxics from indirect dischargers have the same effect as those from direct industrial
dischargers. They disturb the aquatic community by differentially reducing or eliminating
populations of certain species. Productivity is reduced and alterations in the structure of the
aquatic community are likely to occur.
Suspended solids can settle in the receiving water, resulting in loss of habitat for benthic
organisms, loss of valuable spawning area for fish, and loss of breeding/growth area for
shellfish. Additionally, sediments contaminated with Totals or organic chemicals may cause
loss of life in benthic organisms or lead to the buildup of chemicals in the food chain, with
impacts on finfish, shellfish, and wildlife consumers of this aquatic life.
Historically, chlorine nng been used by all municipal dischargers as a means of
disinfection. Recently, studies have shown that chlorine at low concentrations and without
proper dilution can cause long-term toxic effects. A significant number of Region I's inland
cities and towns where chlorine disinfection is used are located on small streams with
dequate dilution.
The Environmental Research Center (ERG) at Cornell University considered municipal
pollution as having a high potential impact on all freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. It is
difficult to quantify the severity of the impact because it depends on many factors, including
the dilution and location of the discharge, the type of pollutants in the discharge, and the
mixing zone of the receiving stream.
Impact Assessment
Direct discharge from POTWs to water bodies is the pathway of exposure. This discharge
is continual, with dilution or treatment prior to discharge being the only means of reducing the
impact CSOs and stonnwater discharges are intermittent, and their impact is related to
factors such as the size of a rainstorm, the frequency between storms, and the time of the year.
24
-------
All of New England is subject to impacts from municipal discharges. While there is
greater risk in southern New England because of its concentrated population along the
coastline, significant aquatic and wildlife damage occurs throughout the region.
The actual amount of ecological resources lost to municipal contamination is difficult to
estimate, because water quality is affected by a variety of factors. Region I states say in the
1986 Report to Congress, National Water Quality Inventory, that 22 percent to 100 percent of
the impairment stems from municipal discharges.
Table 8-2
Ecological Impairment from Municipal Wastes
Percentage of Impairment
State Due to Municipal Pollution
Connecticut 40
Maine 100
Massachusetts 26
New Hampshire 64
Rhode Island 24
Vermont 22
National Average 17
Because of the large impact of CSOs and stormwater, all of the New England states
reported figures above the national average in terms of impairment caused by municipal
contamination. Many of these discharges flow into important resource areas and cause
significant ecological damage. Examples include Quincy Bay, where a recent study found
aquatic organisms with toxic levels above standards for human consumption, the acres of
clam flats closed in Narragansett Bay as a result of the Providence overflows, and the high
metal level in sediments in Salem Harbor. It is extremely difficult to correct CSOs and
stormwater discharges because of the high costs and the technological considerations involved
in treating large intermittent flows effectively. Chicago and Milwaukee have built enormous
underground tunnel systems to store, pump, and treat their CSOs.
A good computer data system on POTW discharges and their locations is available, as
well as a good computer data system on the locations and sizes of streams in New England.
The Permit Compliance System (PCS), as part of the NPDES, has complete discharge data on
all 321 major dischargers. Also, the Storet system, a national computer database, has data on
the water quality of numerous streams.
25
-------
Numerous studies, both ongoing and proposed, aim to determine which sources are having
the greatest impact on water quality and to identify control methods for these sources. For
example, Vermont is planning & major interstate study of T-aim Champlain to determine the
impact of nutrient loadings and their sources. The estuary studies described previously are
designed to determine the synergistic impacts of municipal discharges, CSOs, stormwater
discharges, and nonpoint sources on the marine environment Until these studies are
complete, we can only estimate the relative impacts from the different sources. Evidence to
date suggests that municipal pollution as a whole is having severe long-term effects on
estuaries and on freshwater ecosystems.
Risk Characterization
In New England, the majority of municipal dischargers are located along the seacoast and
inland waterways. Their potential impacts to estuaries and streams were ranked high (5).
Restrictions on fishing and swimming provide evidence of these impacts. Boston Harbor is a
prime example of the impacts to an estuary from municipal discharges. Most lakes do not
have major municipal discharges that affect their ecological balance. However, there are
exceptions where a major city has been built on a lake, such as the city of Burlington on Lake
Champlain. There are even fewer true ocean discharges from POTWs in New England that
affect the marine ecosystem. Discharges to wetlands are also rare and for this reason do not
pose as high a risk as discharges to other surface waters. Impacts on all these ecosystems
were ranked medium (3). There are very few direct discharges from municipalities to either
agricultural or terrestrial ecosystems, and none where any impact has been shown; they were
ranked low (1).
Welfare
Numerous welfare issues are related to municipal discharges. POTW contamination of
surface waters leads to decreased value or loss of aquatic life resources. Fish and shellfish
body burdens of toxicants may render them unfit for human consumption or less desirable if
tainted with unpleasant tastes a*>4 odors. Additionally, all surface waters have the potential to
be used as drinking-water supplies. The presence of POTW discharges may eliminate or
reduce the value of receiving waters as potential water supplies. There have been increased
incidences of beach closings due to high bacteria counts from POTW, CSO, and stormwater
discharges. Beach closings in estuaries are all directly related to POTW pollution.
26
-------
9. Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface Waters
Problem Area Definition
Nonpoint sources (NFS) of water pollution are diffuse in nature and can derive from
virtually any land use. They are generally considered to include any discharge to surface
water through means other than a discrete conveyance or pipe. Nonpoint source pollutants
may be transported to surface waters by runoff following rainfall or snowmelt, by mine
drainage, or by suspension and dissolution of contaminated sediments.
Summary/Abstract
For New England, NFS pollutants come from five categories: agriculture, development,
urban runoff, on-site treatment systems, and hydro-modifications. Runoff from rainfall or
snowmelt is the pollutant pathway for agriculture, development, and urban areas. The
discharge from these events is intermittent and of relatively short duration.
Nutrients and sediments are the greatest pollutant stressors. Nutrients cause
eutrophication in impoundments, and sediments destroy benthic organisms.
The states have generally rated NFS impacts as moderate, with land or urban development
the most widespread concern. Impacts from nutrients associated with agricultural runoff pose
problems in all the fanning areas of New England
Sources
Nonpoint source pollutants may include runoff, on-site disposal systems (septage systems)
atmospheric deposition, ipnflfiii operations, and hydro-modifications. The major concerns in
Region I are runoff from agriculture, urban areas, and land development (including
construction activities); on-site disposal systems; and hydro-modifications. On-site disposal
systems are addressed in "Other Ground-Water Contamination" (problem area #19) and
hydro-modifications are touched upon in problem area #11 (Wetlands/Habitat Loss).
Runoff is the largest contributor to NFS pollution in surface waters. Urban runoff, as the
name implies, occurs near any urban area. It contains the droppings of animals, oily residues
and washings from automobiles, organics, pesticides, lawn fertilizers, and similar substances.
It may discharge as a bank load to the water body or be transported through storm sewers.
The most extensive problems occur in the metropolitan areas of southern New England.
27
-------
Runoff from development occurs throughout New England. With the healthy economy in
Region I, the suburbs in southern New England have experienced a housing boom and
industrial development Concurrently, rapid development of recreational areas and second
homes has occurred in ski areas and on shorefront properties. While the development stage
may be short-lived, the immediate stress it places on water bodies may be long lasting.
Typically, the resultant development generates an urban runoff problem.
Agricultural activities contribute to NFS throughout New England. Poor land
management practices increase erosion and accelerate the flushing of fertilizers, manure,
pesticides, and herbicides to adjacent waterways. Educational programs have helped
eliminate some historical land use practices such as improper storage and spreading of animal
wastes. The elimination of persistent pesticides and herbicides has greatly reduced the threat
of those toxicants. Erosion and resultant sedimentation with nutrient additions continues to be
problematic.
Hydro-modification activities include stream channelization, bridge building, bank
stabilization, a"d dam building. The first three activities occur throughout Region I and are
mostly associated with highway construction. Dam building for small hydropower
development or recreational impoundments is an increasing activity in the upland streams.
Vermont in particular is experiencing this pressure on its streams. During the construction
stage, these activities cause siltation and choking of the stream beds.
Based upon die states' evaluations of their NFS problems, the following problems were
the most significant:
• Connecticut—on-site disposal systems, ianrffiiial habitat modification, and land
development
• Maine-development impacting lakes and agriculture
• Massachusetts-on-site disposal systems, land development near lakes
• New Hampshire-landfills, construction related to land development
• Rhode Island-construction, land development, on-site disposal systems
• Vermont-agriculture, land development, hydro-habitat modification
28
-------
Ecological Hazard Assessment
A dfttu'lfd list of specific contaminants could be produced, but for the purposes
paper a more generic list of problems such as sited atmospheric deposition, mining activities
and silvaculture will not be considered, nor will in-place contaminants (sediments) and
naturally occurring pollutants.
The principal ecological stressors considered are as follows:
Sediments Toxic organics (pesticides, VOCs)
Nutrients Oxygen-demanding wastes
Heavy metals Highly variable stream flows or water levels
Sediments and nutrients have the most widespread impacts, disrupting or destroying
aquatic habitats. Sediments cause a "blanketing" of stream benthos. They coat the bottom of
streams and impoundments. Spawning beds are covered, which removes a hatching area from
production and interrupts the life cycle of the species. In addition, the habitat of macrophytes
is smothered, and food supplies for the aquatic community are destroyed. High spring flows
flush most New England streams, aod they may recover their "habitat" But the species
population and food supply may take years to recover. The spring flushing does not improve
impoundments, on the other hand, because the impoundment will be blanketed and filled as
the sediment moves downstream and settles in the quiet waters.
Nutrients have the greatest impact in impounded or quiescent areas where they promote
the growth of algae and rooted plants. Algal blooms may clog a water body, preventing
boating and swimming, and create nuisance conditions. During the night, the blooms may
deplete the dissolved oxygen in the water, killing other living organisms and themselves. At
this point, the bloom area may become a decaying, stinking, biological slime. The entire
effect is to accelerate eutrophication of the water body: Dissolved oxygen is reduced, light
penetration diminishes, species are displaced, their diversity diminishes, and the water body
dies. Eutrophication may be slowed but reversal is difficult If the nutrients are dissolved in
the incoming water ?n(i not bound up in the sediments, the problem may be remediated.
Heavy nrtals and toxicants also may stress aquatic organisms or "snuff out" their lives.
Even a pulse of a toxicant, an acute dose, may destroy lire for miles. The habitat has not
changed, but life in the stream portion is unbalanced and can take years to be restored.
Chronic exposure will cause the toxicant to accumulate in the organism, where it may stress
or eventually kill the organism. Such bioaccumulation may be even more destructive to
higher life forms that devour the contaminated species. Fortunately, such situations may be
reversible once the toxicant is removed.
29
-------
Impact Assessment
The stressors reach the environment primarily as a result of human activities. Hydro-
modification is the only activity where the NFS impact results from in-stream activities. The
other pollutants of concern are transported via rainfall and snow melt.
Nonpoint source pollution is a problem throughout New England and is highly localized.
Even the locales are subject to change from year to year as development areas change.
Agricultural runoff, especially sedimentation, is a problem in Maine's Aroostook County.
Nutrients associated with the agricultural runoff come from manure and fertilizer. Most of die
farm areas in Region I are affected by die nutrients. The most noticeable impacts are within
small, shallow impoundments with a low water-exchange rate.
Other agricultural runoff may include toxicants such as herbicides and pesticides. Isolated
cases of spills or cleaning of equipment have caused fish kills but the impact does not appear
to be as significant as those from agricultural runoff. Toxic pollutants, however, may be more
significant in urban runoff. Lack of regional data about bioaccumulation of toxics in fish
tissue makes assessment of the magnitude of exposure difficult, but the potential is great
The states in their NFS assessment reports rated land or urban development as the most
widespread NFS concern. These activities will have the greatest continuing impact on water
bodies.
Urban runoff causes some concern in southern New England, but impacts may not be long
lasting. Primary concern is bacterial loading (oxygen-demanding loads), which has negligible
ecological importance. Also of concern are sediments, road salts, street droppings, and
toxicants. These may have a significant impact for several days, but in most cases do not have
long lasting significance. The evaluation does not include combined sewers as an NFS
problem. Storm sewers, which are part of large collection systems, also are not considered an
NFS problem and are included in problem area #15 (Municipal Waste Sites).
Dam construction (hydro-modification) causes concern in Vermont and in Maine. These
projects have high visibility but tend to have primarily local effects.
Not all states used the same format for defining the extent of problems with nonpoint
source discharges to surface waters. Some used river miles and acreage, while others used
number of basins impacted and percentage of waters. The reported information is based upon
qualitative judgement after review of the reports and discussions with Region I staff.
30
-------
Risk Characterization
More than 100 miles of streams in New England are reported as moderately impacted by
agricultural runoff. Urban runoff moderately affects a similar number of stream miles but
significantly affects 60 miles of Rhode Island streams.
Lakes seem to be the most sensitive to NFS pollution. Because impoundments are the
settling basins for rivers and streams, much of the NFS loadings sink in those locations.
Because lakes and ponds do not purge themselves during high flow conditions, their problems
are long lasting. The work group ranked NFS impacts on lakes as a 5.
The largest problem with nonpoint source discharges stems from nutrients and their
resultant algal blooms. The growth leads to eutrophication-the loss of recreational use, the
development of noxious conditions, die loss of habitat, and the death of a resource. Lakes are
an important recreational resource to Region L The high use of this resource attracts attention
to the lakes, so that maintaining a healthy aquatic community and an aesthetically pleasing
environment is important.
Sedimentation is the other significant stressor having the potential for far-reaching effects.
The biological ecosystems of interdependent organisms needed to nurture life are being
threatened by sedimentation. Soil eroding from land development and farmland blankets
benthic communities and stream beds used for fish reproduction. Several hundred miles of
streams in New %ngl?n4 are affected. How many of those mites are in highly productive
areas is unknown. The impacts on streams were ranked a 4.
Not included in this risk evaluation were damages to the marine environment. Estuaries
are a valuable marine resource. They are the nursery and reproductive areas for much of
marine life. Urban runoff would have a significant impact on these resources, especially if
storm sewers were included as a nonpoint source discharge.
31
-------
11. Habitat Loss
Problem Area Definition
This problem area includes risks from pollutants reaching wetlands, risks from physical
alteration of wetlands and uplands, and impacts from physical alteration of wetlands and
uplands. Activities that contribute to the problem include agricultural modification; flood
control channelization; fining for highways, housing, and ia"dfiHs; dredging for navigation
channels, harbors and marinas; mining and resources extraction; discharges from point
sources, nonpoint sources, and others, including contamination from hazardous waste sites.
Such activities alter the salinity and water level while contributing turbidity, sedimentation,
amf numerous pollutants. The more significant overriding impact is the continued loss of
habitat through the elimination of both wetlands and the adjacent uplands.
Summary/Abstract
The upland and aquatic habitats of New England have suffered major losses and
disruption and continue to be destroyed at an alarming rate. Habitat is often sacrificed for
short-term, seemingly persuasive reasons without consideration or appreciation of the
long-term, unintended consequences. The seriousness or "risk" associated with habitat loss
varies according to location in the region, nature of the threat, and the type of habitat affected.
We believe the highest risk in Region I is concentrated in rapidly growing areas (e.g., central
Connecticut, southern Maine, and New Hampshire). When historical losses are considered as
well, risk increases north to south and closer to the coast Some ecosystems, such as the tidal
wetlands, are very sensitive to habitat disruption but are generally well protected; others (most
upland types), while less sensitive, experience wholesale losses. Direct, reliable data are
unavailable to assess the problem. The data that do exist are generally uncollated and difficult
to retrieve. We assume that habitat loss correlates with growth and development On that
basis, we subjectively rank risk from habitat loss across eight ecosystem types and conclude
that risk is high far upland, freshwater wetlands, and streams; moderate for lakes and
agricultural lands; and low for marine systems, estuaries, and tidal wetlands.
Sources
This report focuses on the ecological risks of physical destruction or alteration of habitat
and does not analyze other risks to habitat The other risks, primarily those caused by the
discharge of pollutants to the water, air, and land, are evaluated in separate reports prepared
by the ecological work group. Moreover, from an ecological standpoint, the physical
destruction (and in some cases alteration) of habitat overshadows the impacts caused by other
factors.
32
-------
The causes of habitat loss vary widely. Alteration of habitat ranges from outright
destruction to die conversion of the habitat to less valuable types. Habitats differ in the values
they provide and in their susceptibility to degradation. Likewise, the magnitude and
frequency of habitat losses are not constant, but vary according to location within.New
in assessing risk, we must therefore be mindful of three main variables: the nature
of die threat, the habitat in jeopardy, and the location within the region. In addition, we must
consider the extent of adverse effects in both space and time. Far-reaching and permanent
impacts pose greater risk than local and temporary ones.
Construction of roads, houses, factories, shopping malls, and other facilities destroys
habitat Other activities, such as industrial discharges, dam construction, pesticide
applications, and stream channelization, alter or pollute a habitat Some types of projects
generate all three types of impacts. With highways, for example, the road construction
directly destroys habitat, alters the hydrology and biology of die surrounding landscape, and
pollutes nearby waterways.
While die sources of habitat destruction vary, die effect does not Loss of die habitat
means a total and permanent loss of natural resource values. Both die causes and effects of
habitat alteration and pollution vary, ranging from beneficial (e.g., wildlife management
actions) to adverse (e.g., channelizing streams) to severe (e.g., toxic discharges).
The major sources or "stresson" physically destroying or altering upland and aquatic
habitat in New England are die following:
• Residential developments
• Industrial and commercial developments
B pflm construction
• Transportation projects, especially interstate highway or expressway construction
• Drainage fl"d alteration of aquatic habitats for agriculture
• Logging/silviculture
• Solid waste disposal
• Peat mining
Often, one type of activity creates and reinforces die "need" for another. Industrial
development along Route 128, for example, contributed to a housing boom in nearby
communities. This, in turn, increased traffic and aggravated solid waste disposal problems.
The solution for each problem accelerated die destruction of habitat (or, in die current jargon,
"loss of open space").
33
-------
We continue to lose habitat in New England, with the central and southern sections
suffering the greatest impacts. It is also in these areas, especially near the coast, where the
most significant historical losses have occurred. In recent years, habitat loss has been most
pronounced in certain "hotspots" in the region-southern Maine and New Hampshire;
Burlington, Vermont, and vicinity, southeastern Massachusetts; and central Connecticut In
some areas (e.g., certain counties), habitat is shrinking at an alarming rate; in other parts of the
region only small-scale losses are occurring. Some habitat types (e.g., ocean, saltmarsh)
either experience little development pressure or are now well protected. Ongoing rapid
destruction characterizes other habitats (interior deciduous uplands, coastal uplands).
Ecological Hazard Assessment
Our densely populated landscape and long history of settlement underscore the special
concerns the loss of habitat issue holds for us in New England. Although local and state
authorities control development more tightly in New England than elsewhere, we must view
current habitat losses in a historical context By the end of the eighteenth century, settlers and
farmers had cleared much of the land for agriculture. In the ensuing SO years, New England
became a much more industrial society. Factories were built, rivers were dammed, the
coastline developed—all at the expense of the extant natural habitats. (A number of authors
have examined this issue; see, for example, The Changing Face of New England, by Betty
Flanders Thomson.) Although heavy industry eventually declined in New England, much
natural habitat was forever lost
Habitat loss can be analyzed on several different geographical and biological scales.
Impacts may be viewed in the immediate (ie., within project boundaries) or local
(e.g., watershed) area, or in a broader context (e.g., ecotype, political boundaries). Biological
effects can be measured at the individual, population, species, or community level. As a rule,
adverse effects become more difficult to quantify and analyze at the higher and more complex
levels. A single episode of habitat loss, such as construction of an industrial park, may be
devastating to individuals, detrimental (but difficult to quantify) to populations, and scarcely
noticeable at the species and community levels.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss in detail the direct ecological effects of
habitat loss. The national study did summarize in general terms the *««"*» threats facing
aquatic habitats but did not address upland habitat losses. The subject received some attention
in the literature and, while much research remains to be done, a considerable body of
knowledge has been amassed. Some key ecological impacts that result from habitat loss or
alteration are:
34
-------
• The extirpation cf local populations of a given species-Loss of particular
features of a habitat critical to a given species can occur (e.g., loss of tree cavities
for nesting birds when mature woodland is replaced with a pine plantation). Loss
of critical habitat could result in complete extinction for endangered or threatened
species.
• Disruption of normal movement patterns of species-Physical barriers such as
dams and highways block normal migratory routes. Many organisms cannot cross
areas of inhospitable habitat to reach the favorable habitats, fragmenting species
into small, isolated populations more vulnerable to extinction.
• Proliferation of common nuisance species of plants and animals-As these
species prosper, the overall productivity and diversity of ecological communities
decrease.
• Physical habitat alteration that indirectly kills or impairs organisms-Far
example, dredging sediments may release toxic substances into the water column,
resulting in death or damage to aquatic organisms.
• Sublethal effects-to animal-Animals will alter their behavior, competitive
interactions, predator-prey relationships, or reproductive success.
• Degradation or disturbance of natural hydrologicalfunctions-Haibit&t loss
correlates directly with increased pollution of surface and ground water,
disruption of ground-water discharge and recharge, and alteration of natural
patterns of stormwater flow, storage, and release.
• Increase in turbidity/suspended solids-la some cases, toxic organic and
inorganic chemicals also increase.
• Alteration of energy flow and nutrient cycling (nitrogen, sulfur, and carbon
cycles)
• Adverse effects on local weather and global climate
These impacts weaken or degrade the physical or chemical environment needed by
ecological communities for survival. Moreover, most if not all of these effects become far
more alarming when viewed cumulatively or interactively. For example, beyond the obvious
impact of habitat destruction we must also consider the deleterious effects of habitat alteration
and fragmentation. Altered habitat (e.g., after impoundment) is usually depauperate compared
with the natural system that once existed. Not only do direct physical assaults modify or
destroy habitat, they also make natural communities more susceptible to other environmental
stresses, some of which we consider elsewhere in the regional study.
35
-------
While the direct impacts of large projects are readily identifiable, cumulative losses
continue to be a major concern. Many proposals to alter habitat appear reasonable (and may,
in fact, be reasonable) when viewed alone, but taken together produce an unacceptable result.
This reflects the difficulty of evaluating the effect of piecemeal habitat losses in a large spatial
or temporal context. Cumulative impacts manifest themselves in different guises—as additive,
exponential, positively or negatively synergistic, or as thresholds. The sudden outbreak of
waterfowl cholera in the Dakotas illustrates the threshold effect: The decline of prairie
pothole habitat created overcrowded conditions under which the disease could infect a large
number of birds. Except for such anecdotal studies, few data exist upon which to predict the
long-term or indirect effects of habitat loss.
Impact Assessment
We have located few data that directly bear on the issue of habitat loss and alteration.
Insofar as data do exist, they are scattered, uncollated for the most part, and distributed among
many government agencies at different levels, academic institutions, private groups, and
individuals. Simply trying to assemble the information would be a daunting task beyond the
resources of the regional study. Moreover, the objectives, methods, geographical coverage,
and quality control undoubtedly differ markedly among studies. Had we restricted our
analysis to a specific habitat (e.g., peat bogs) or area (e.g., Cape Cod) we could have
assembled more reliable data,1 but it would not have been representative of the overall
situation in Region L
An ideal assessment would allow us to judge the severity of risk to each habitat type from
each type of stress. A more realistic approach, given our constraints, would be to locate areas
of high growth and development in the region and identify (or infer) the resulting habitat
losses (Le., trends). State and regional planning or environmental review agencies may keep
records of major development activities or trends. Moreover, documents produced by project
proponents often disclose the types of habitat impacts expected to occur. We provided a list
of contacts to the regional risk study contractor and flsfrgd them to assemble data along these
lines. The effort generally did not uncover any good data that systematically address the
issue. Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that the natural landscape of New England is
rapidly being despoiled.
* While information on this limited scale would not be predictive for purposes of regional risk
evaluation, it would be useful in evaluating and controlling ecological losses in high-risk areas.
36
-------
• By the year 2000,80 percent of the U.S. population will live within SO miles of
the coast The impacts of this seaward migration and ribbon of development
along the coast will be particularly heavy in a coastal region like New England.
• From 1982 to 1987 construction contract awards (commercial, industrial,
residential, public works, and utilities) increased by 63 percent in the United
States. During die same period in New England, die award rate jumped by
158 percent-2.5 times die national increase.
• Housing starts in New England doubled from 1982 (42,300 units) to 1985
(92,300 units).
• The Boston Globe (April 10,1988) reports that "construction devours 600 acres
each week of Massachusetts farmland, forests, and other open space...." The
population on Cape Cod has grown 27 percent and its housing stock 43 percent
in die last decade.
• Federal permit requests for dredge and fill work, ocean disposal, and placement
of structures have risen from roughly 1,600 in 1983 to die more than 5,500
projected for 1988.
• In Massachusetts, notices of intent filed with conservation commissions increased
from 2,393 in 1981 to 7,226 in 1987, a 159 percent increase in activity. The state
expects 10,000 notices to be filed in 1990.
• Although comparative historical data were not available. New Hampshire reports
processing approximately 2,300 dredge and fill permits in 1987 alone.
These data do not show die total extent of habitat loss nor partition it by habitat type, but
they do demonstrate die unprecedented building explosion in New England in recent years.
Without exact figures, it seems reasonable to assume that the rapid rate of development
translates directly into loss or alteration of habitat While some of the development work
involves renovation or replacement of existing structures, much of it undoubtedly occurs at
undeveloped sites. Since state and federal laws strongly discourage destruction of wetlands
and other aquatic habitats, die majority of impacts probably occur in upland areas.
The information discussed above led us to qualitatively describe the impact of habitat loss
on each of die eight ecosystems as shown below:
Marine
Little destruction of die habitat except along die immediate coastline for erosion control,
causeway construction, and marina development Widespread alteration of habitat from
dredging occurs but adverse effects are neither permanent nor severe on a broad scale. Some
work (e.g., dredging in eelgrass beds) causes substantial impacts.
37
-------
Estuaries
Impacts occur from marina development and the straightening and filling of shorelines.
Dredging of intertidal areas (e.g., mudflats) destroys shellfish habitat While direct loss of this
habitat type is uncommon, estuaries are sensitive to perturbation (e.g., changes in salinity).
Tidal Wetlands
Very little destruction has been allowed since state and federal regulatory actions began.
The resource has suffered major historical losses, however. This sensitive ecorype is now
well protected.
Streams
anj culveiting are the main threats. Few large-scale projects are mounted
but a multitude of smaller ones occurs. Outright habitat loss is less of a problem than
alteration by eliminating meanders, backwater areas, and riffle/pool complexes. Data are
available on streams but uncollated.
Lakes
Most physical alteration occurs at the shoreline. Some "landgrabs" also occur.
Drawdown and dredging cause adverse but not usually permanent impacts. Uncollated data
are available for only some stressors.
Freshwater Wetlands
Highways, dams, and residential construction, especially in southern Maine and New
Hampshire and central Connecticut, threaten this ecosystem. Peat mining is a growing
concern in Maine. The largest single threat is from the Big River Dam in Rhode Island,
which would destroy more man 600 acres of productive inland wetlands. Conversion of
freshwater wetlands for agricultural use (e.g., cranberry production) is a problem in
southeastern Massachusetts. Data on the ecosystem are better for major projects than for
minor areas (<1 acre in impact).
Upland
Hard data are virtually nonexistent because this habitat is poorly protected by state and
federal laws, but the ecosystem is under siege from development of all types. These habitats
are generally considered less valuable than aquatic systems, but the magnitude of the losses is
Significant.
38
-------
Agriculture
The adverse impacts mainly affect health and welfare. However, New England loses large
farmland acreages to residential and other types of development. As an ecosystem,
agricultural lands are monotypic, disturbed areas of less value than natural areas.
Nevertheless, they do provide some natural resource values (food, cover, etc.), especially
when juxtaposed with other habitat types.
Risk Characterization
The Ecologocal Risk Work Group ranked the impact of habitat loss on upland (terrestrial)
areas as 5 and the impacts on streams and freshwater wetlands as 4. Lakes, tidal wetlands,
and estuaries received a 2 ranking due to protection afforded those areas and the limited
opportunity for additional perterbations. The marine ecosystem was ranked in the lowest
category because of the small area of effects and the generally non-permanent nature of
effects. (Ground water and air do not suffer habitat loss in the standard sense and are not
applicable to this analysis.)
The National Comparative Risk Project ranked the ecological risk of habitat loss second
only to global wanning. It concluded, "Physical habitat alteration is the stress that has the
greatest adverse impacts on ecosystems," and further commented, "Perhaps the single most
important stress, which tends to eclipse most of the others for most ecosystems, is the
alteration-including outright destruction- of habitat"
Welfare
Habitat loss causes serious human-use impacts as well. Destruction or degradation of fish
or shellfish habitats adversely affects both sport and commercial interests. Upland habitat
losses similarly affect commercial and sport hunters and trappers. Recreational opportunities
(e.g., hiking, boating) suffer when natural habitats are destroyed. Loss of habitat is often
costly too. Floods become more frequent and damaging; shorelines erode; drinking water
becomes more polluted. Having lost the "free work of nature," we often have to engineer
expensive and only partially effective solutions that otherwise might not have been necessary.
We did not evaluate these and other welfare impacts of habitat loss. However, the national
study did treat the issue in detail.
39
-------
13. RCRA Waste Sites
Problem Area Definition
This category includes the risks posed by hazardous waste sites regulated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). More specifically, it includes operating
and inactive RCRA landfills and surface impoundments, hazardous waste storage tanks,
hazardous waste burned in boilers and furnaces, hazardous waste incinerators, and associated
solid waste management units. Seepage and routine releases from these sources contaminate
soil, surface water, and ground water, and pollute the air.
Summary/Abstract
The RCRA waste sites problem area ranks low in the overall ecological damage to the
receptors. The major significant concern is the welfare impact caused by the degradation of
ground water, which may cause a need to obtain alternative water supplies and potential loss
of property value. The exposure route is primarily from releases from land disposal units such
as surface impoundments and landfills. Contaminants mostly consist of volatile organic
compounds and heavy metals. However, the impact is generally localized and can be detected
with adequate ground-water monitoring systems.
The potential effects of the SWMUs pose the uncertainty in this problem area. The
SWMUs can pose a greater impact on ground water than RCRA units because most of the
solid waste units do not have proper lining or any ground-water monitoring systems in place.
However, at this time, Region I lacks sufficient data on the universe of SWMUs.
Sources
According to the regional database, New England has about 350 RCRA treatment,
storage, or disposal facilities. Table 13-1 indicates the types of facilities and locations within
Region I; data on SWMUs are not included due to insufficient information.
40
-------
Table 13-1
Distribution ofRCRA Waste Facilities In New England
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine
N0w Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
128
71
22
5
13
4
74
20
5
4
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
204
92
27
9
14
4
Total 243 103
Table 13-2 shows the quantities of wastes generated annually in Region I and the amount
of wastes handled on-rite and shipped off-site. The information is based on draft 1985 state
data and has been edited by Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc. (TBS).
Table 13-2
Waste Generated Annually In New England
u—
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Watte
Generated
(memo tons)
167,042
7.878
19,495
11,455
13,981
Waste Handled
OivStte
(metric tons)
67.953
1,766
2,919
207
1,976
Waste Shipped
ON-Stte
(metric tons)
97.089
6.110
16,575
11,248
12.005
Waste Shipped
Within Region
movie lonsj
49,265
5.049
10,951
8.280
4.618
•MassachusettdatB ware not avaBabte tor analysis.
41
-------
Ecological Hazard Assessment
More than 100 compounds may be found at RCRA sites across Region I. The common
strcssors of concern include compounds such as 1-1-1 trichloroethylene, toluene, benzene,
heavy metals, and synthetic organics.
The potential impacts on the ecosystem caused by the RCRA waste sites consist of direct
and indirect impacts that result in the degradation of ecosystems. Releases could increase the
concentration of contaminants in surface water or air such that the productivity of vulnerable
ecosystems is increased.
Impact Assessment
The major pathways of exposure from the RCRA waste sites are releases of contaminants
into the ground water and into the surrounding soil. Other potential pathways of exposure
include the discharge of pollutants into the surface water from the contaminated ground water,
the release of contaminants in air from the hazardous waste incinerators, and the volatilization
of the organic compounds from the storage and land disposal units.
The magnitude of exposure from the RCRA waste sites is highly site specific and variable.
Overall, the impact is generally localized and the severity of effects low on the ecosystem.
Federal regulations impose strict requirements for both operating and inactive
RCRA waste sites. For the operating RCRA land disposal facilities, the federal regulations
require installation of liners and leachate collection systems. In addition, the owner/operator
is required to install ground-water monitoring systems to detect any releases from the units. If
release is detected, the owner/operator must conduct a ground-water assessment monitoring
program to determine the rate and extent of the release and implement corrective action. For
the inactive RCRA land disposal facilities, the federal regulations require the closure of the
units within 180 days from the last receipt of waste. The owner/operator could either
clean-close the unit or close as a landfill. The regulation for clean closure requires removal of
all the contaminants to health-based standards. For closure as a landfill, the regulation
requires an RCRA cap consisting of an impermeable membrane and leachate collection. In
addition, post-closure care and ground-water monitoring are required for 30 years.
Risk was assessed using the Regional Hazardous Waste Planning Model previously
developed by TBS for EPA. The model was designed to assess the relative costs and risks
associated with various hazardous waste management strategies. To estimate risk, the model
uses generator-specific data on quantities of waste handled, how it is handled, and where it is
handled, along with average releases algorithms and data on exposure parameters. The waste
data come from validated annual reports filed with each state. The waste constituent data and
releases algorithms were developed by EPA's Office of Solid Waste. The exposure
parameters (hydrogeologic setting, temperatures, population, locations, drinking-water source
42
-------
type) were developed by TBS for each geographic area in Region I where waste handling
takes place. These characterizations are rough in some cases, with each location being forced
into one of several possible characterizations for each exposure parameter.
Based on estimates of typical constituents of the hazardous wastes generated in Region I,
more than 100 compounds could be expected to be found in RCRA sites across New England.
The model is based on estimates of the ambient concentrations in the air, surface water, and
ground water for these compounds, which include arsenic, benzene, cadium, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform, chromium, dichloromethane, ethylene dibromide, lead, mercury,
perchloroethylene, PCBs, toluene, vinyl chloride, and xylene. The ambient concentrations for
17 of the compounds were compared with water quality criteria to determine the potential
impact to ecosystems. In no instances were water quality criteria estimated to be exceeded.
Risk Characterization
Impacts on wetlands and streams were ranked as medium (3) by the work group. Even
though the modeling results did not show any exceedances of water quality criteria, the work
group felt that those results were based on overly conservative assumptions (e.g., stream
measurement point distance). The other ecosystem impacts were all ranked in the lowest
category due to a lack of pathways and exposure and the localized impact of RCRA sites (e.g.,
marine and lakes). Overall, the problem area was ranked in the lowest risk category by the
Ecological Risk Work Group.
As discussed previously, one of the uncertainties is the lack of data on SWMUs. Since
most of the SWMUs are unlined and have no ground-water monitoring provision, this could
have a greater impact than RCRA units. Based on an examination of RFAs for nine facilities
in Region I, more than 200 SWMUs were found, or an average of more than 20 SWMUs per
site. These SWMUs were generally of two types: tanks and drums, or unlined landfills and
lagoons. Further investigation found that the materials in these SWMUs were generally
consistent with current activities and wastes at the site.
The percentage of problem covered is estimated to be medium. Region I has reliable data
on the RCRA universe. Data on SWMUs, however, is lacking and therefore reduced our
estimate of the percentage of the problem covered.
Assuming that the waste types and annual volumes are roughly equivalent to the present
activities at the sites, the model can develop a very rough estimate of the impact of the
SWMUs. The drums and tanks currently regulated pose very minimal risk as estimated by the
model; we would estimate that the SWMU drums and tanks probably pose a higher but still
minimal risk. The unlined landfills and lagoons, however, may pose higher risks than those
posed by currently regulated RCRA units. Due to the uncertainty in this area, however, we
did not alter the risk ranking of the problem area.
43
-------
The Region I study ranking is consistent with that of the national study. The national
study ranks active hazardous waste sites "low" in the overall impact on the ecosystem. The
study concluded that the reasons for the low ranking are due to ad^q^qt?- control of spills and
releases, localized impact, and the unlikelihood of a catastrophic event However, the national
study does not take into account the effect of the SWMUs.
Welfare
The RCRA Waste Sites problem area ranks medium (4) in impacts to ground water. The
potential impacts could be categorized as follows:
• Leakage of pollutants from hazardous waste sites into ground water, which may
cause a need to obtain alternative water supplies
• Loss in property value due to soil contamination
• Loss in value of the affected property due to contamination of ground water
44
-------
14. Superfund Waste Sites
Problem Area Definition
This category includes hazardous waste disposal sites that are regulated by Superfund.
Generally, they are inactive and abandoned sites. They include sites on the National Priorities
List (NFL), those deleted from the NFL, those that are candidates for the NPL, and any
additional sites that states may be addressing. Releases from these sites may contaminate
ground water, surface water, sediments, and soil, and pollute the air. Pollutants include many
toxic and hfl^dous chemicals.
Summary/Abstract
The ecological impacts from Superfund sites in Region I have been qualitatively
evaluated. The most likely ecological effects of approximately one-half of these sites will
result from contamination of streams and/or freshwater wetlands. Many Superfund sites are
close to these ecosystems, and the chemicals typically found at many of these sites have acute
and/or chronic effects on aquatic organisms.
The welfare impacts from these sites are a major concern. Ground water is a vital resource
in New England, and many Superfund sites have contaminated this resource within the site
boundaries and, in some cases, beyond the site boundaries, affecting municipal water supplies
or nearby residential wells. Many of these sites are near residential areas and may affect local
property values.
Sources
The ecological risk evaluation focused on the 59 proposed and final NPL sites (as of early
June 1988) located in EPA Region L At present, no sites in Region I have been deleted from
the NPL.
45
-------
The distribution of the 59 NFL sites in the New England states is as follows:
State Number of NPL Sites Percentage
Connecticut 8 13.6
Massachusetts 21 35.6
Maine 7 11.9
New Hampshire 13 22.0
Rhode Island 8 13.6
Vermont _2 3.3
Total 59 100.0
This analysis will use the definition of "natural resources" found in Section 101(16) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980 and as amended by the Superrbnd Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986:
Land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking-water supplies, and other
such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or
otherwise controlled by the United States (including the resources of the fishery
conservation zone established by die Fishery Conservation and Management Act of
1976), and State or local government, any foreign government, an Indian tribe, or, if
such resources are subject to a trust restriction on alienation, any member of an Indian
tribe.
Limited information is available on the approximately 1,650 hazardous waste sites
presently being evaluated within Region I for possible inclusion onto the NPL. One hundred
twenty-nine sites have undergone a removal action to abate an imminent or substantial threat
(primarily threats to public health) from the release of hazardous substances from these sites.
Approximately 25 percent have undergone a complete preliminary assessment and site
inspection (PA/SI) under the Pre-Remedial Superfund Program, Only 132 (5 percent) of
these sites have been determined not to warrant any further action within Region I to date.
It should be noted that for those sites with completed PA/SIs, evaluations were made
using the old Hazard Ranking System (HRS) methodology. This methodology placed little
emphasis on ecological impacts.
46
-------
Ecological Hazard Assessment
Each Superfund hazardous waste site typically contains a hodgepodge of pollutants that
occur in all media. Most, if not all, of these pollutants have short-term and/or long-term
effects on aquatic and/or terrestrial organisms.
The National Comparative Risk Project (NCRP) presented a list of the 30 most frequently
observed chemicals, and their respective percentages, based on a preliminary national survey
of 540 hazardous waste sites. The compounds listed are typical of those found at NFL sites in
Region L They include txichloroethylene (55 percent), lead (57 percent), toluene (43 percent),
PCBs (29 percent), methyl ethyl ketone (7 percent).
The NCRP also provided results from a 1985 survey of 277 NFL sites. The results
indicated, "Approximately 6 percent of the 277 NPL sites reviewed are likely to have
significant natural resource injuries-commercial effects (primarily to fisheries) or recreational
effects large enough to bring upon damage suits. Another 16 percent may have some
possibility of injury to natural resources."
The frequency of potential ecological injuries mentioned for these sites was as follows:
Surface 90%
Wetland 37%
Fisheries 55%
Other (land, forests, endangered species,
marine mammaia, biota, and wilderness) 32%
Non-NPL sites also have the potential for natural resource injury.
The NCRP identified three anthropogenic ecological stressors of greatest
iiiiiMn fflmy»»ppiQl toxic orgamcs and inorganics, and ground-water contamination—and
attempted to prioritize the potential ecological effects from these environmental stressors on a
biosphere, regional, and ecosystem basis. The results indicated that for the Superfund
problem area, toxics in water are of medium ecological importance on a regional scale and
ground-water contamination is of unknown, but potentially very significant, importance on an
ecosystem scale.
The two Superfund trustees-the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—have studied Superfund sites. Their
focus is principally on chemicals that are highly persistent and/or severely toxic. Chemicals
typically characterized by these parameters are metals (e.g., lead and chromium), polycyclic
compounds (Le., PCBs and dioxins), and/or pesticides in surface water/sediments and ground
water.
47
-------
Impact Assessment
Based on sources presented above, the pathways of exposure were identified as surface
waters and ground water. The work group focused primarily on surface-water exposure via
runoff and/or ground-water discharge to surface waters.
The ecological impacts from the air exposure route at Superfund sites, while a "natural
resource" as defined previously, is very difficult to quantify or qualify from an ecological
perspective. Further, it primarily involves human health and welfare effects. Local air
impacts to terrestrial and/or agricultural ecosystems in the vicinity of Superfund sites have not
been investigated to the degree that would allow even a qualitative assessment
Most of the information for this analysis comes from NOAA and DOI. Substantial
quantitative information on ecological damage is available from only a few of the 59 Region I
NFL sites. However, there is a national coordination program, established by EPA (with DOI
and NOAA), to conduct "Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys" (PNRSs). The objective of
the PNRSs is to assess available site-specific information and determine the need for a
complete damage assessment or to provide a release from ecological damages from a
particular site.
In lieu of having these completed surveys, NOAA (in 1983) initiated a systematic review
of the potential for Superfund sites to cause injury to their resources, e.g., marine fisheries,
anadromous fisheries, marine mammal habitats, and endangered marine species. The DOI,
the trustee for migratory birds, endangered species, and DOI land and waters, undertook a
similar but less intense review process of selective NPL sites by conducting preliminary
PNRSs. The Region I NPL sites covered by DOI or NOAA to date can be summarized as
follows:
• NOAA-A1159 sites have been reviewed; four sites have been issued a "release";
one site has a release pending; and one site is in litigation (New Bedford Harbor).
• DOI-A preliminary PNRS has been completed for 16 sites; 10 sites have been
issued a release; and one site has a potential for litigation (New Bedford Harbor).
The assumptions used by NOAA and DOI are considered accurate and representative for
this analysis. These data will be extrapolated to non-NPL sites in Region I. This approach is
consistent with the model used in the NCRP for this problem area.
48
-------
Risk Characterization
The results from NOAA's site evaluation process (1983 to 1987) of the 59 NFL sites in
Region I showed the following potential impact distribution:
State Number of NPL Sites Number of Impacts Percentage
Connecticut 8 3 38
Massachusetts 21 12 57
Maine 7 6 86
New Hampshire 13 5 38
Rhode Island 8 5 61
Vermont .2 J. JO
Totals 59 32 54
Data from 24 of the 32 sites identified for their potential NOAA trustee impacts reveal that
virtually all Superfund sites have possible injury to recreational and/or marine fisheries (shad,
trout, salmon, etc.) via surface-water contamination. Four sites (approximately 7 percent)
have potential impacts to estuaries due to their close proximity to the Atlantic Ocean. One
site-New Bedford Harbor-has shown significant contamination in marine species. As a
result, New Bedford harbor is closed to the harvesting of all finfish, shellfish, and lobster.
(Note: NOAA considers potential impacts to occur even if no known [but potential future]
installations offish ladders in streams are or will be present).
The results from the 16 sites for which DOI has conducted a preliminary PNRS were not
yet available for review. However, based upon the information cited previously, 6 percent
(1/16) of these sites had sufficiently serious injuries to warrant a potential damage claim on
impacted DOI trustee resources (approximately 30 percent-five sites-are currently being
evaluated further). No sites to date have had any formal damage claim made by DOL
Assuming that 33 percent of the current non-NPL sites in Region I will become NPL sites
and that approximately SO percent of these sites have a potential for natural resource injuries,
roughly 250 new Superfund sites in Region I could have potential ecological effects. Based
upon similar assumptions, approximately 30 sites could have significant natural resource
injuries in the future.
The Region I results are similar to the results of the NCRP, Le., 2 percent to 6 percent of
NPL sites are likely to have sufficient ecological impacts to natural resources, commercial or
recreational, to bring upon a damage claim. However, the NOAA information projects a
38 percent increase in the potential for ecological injury in Region L NOAA's identification •
49
-------
of the potentially affected ecological receptors in Region I was generally consistent with those
of the NCRP. Due to the locations of Superfund sites, the work group ranked die impacts on
streams and wetlands a 4; all other ecosystem impacts were ranked as a 2 or a 1. Ground-
water impacts were ranked a 5.
The uncertainty in these results is significant Large-scale biological sampling efforts
have not been undertaken at many of the 59 NFL sites in Region L The upcoming PNRSs to
be conducted by NOAA and DOI over the next two years should significantly increase the
amount of quantifiable ecological information on the impacts from Superfund sites in
Region L
Based upon the 59 NFL sites for which some limited, qualitative information is currently
available, it is difficult to quantify the percentage of the problem area addressed. Assuming
that approximately 250 additional hazardous waste sites could indicate a potential for
ecological impacts now or in the future, this analysis addresses only 25 percent of the problem
area.
Welfare
Ground water is a vital natural resource in Region L Contaminated ground water has a
significant welfare impact at almost all of the Region's 59 NFL sites. Alternative
drinking-water supplies have been developed at five sites where the entire municipal water
supply is contaminated.
The loss of property values of residences around Superfund sites can be very significant
No Region I-specific data is available to better qualify this statement
50
-------
15. & 16. Municipal Waste Sites
Industrial Waste Sites
Problem Area Definition
The municipal waste sites category includes exposures to releases from open and closed
municipal landfills, municipal sludge and waste incinerators, municipal surface
impoundments, land application units, and land treatment units. Impacts from the
management (disposal, treatment, reuse) of all household, municipal, and other solid waste
not regulated by RCRA are included here. Routine and non-routine releases, soil migration,
and runoff can contribute particulates, toxics, biological oxygen demand (BOD), PCB, and
nutrients to air, soil, and surface and ground water.
The industrial waste sites category consists of industrial waste, including sludges handled
in nonhazardous industrial landfills, industrial surface impoundments, land application units,
and land treatment units subject to Subtitle D, along with numerous incinerators. Routine and
non-routine releases, soil migration, and runoff may contribute particulates, toxics, BOD,
PCBs, and nutrients to air, surface water, ground water, and soil.
Many municipal landfills receive wastes other than household wastes, such as sludge or
incinerator ash. We consider only those landfills that receive at least SO percent of their waste
from household and commercial sources to be municipal landfills. Landfills receiving less
than 50 percent household and commercial waste (i.e., ash, small quantity generator waste,
sludge, mining) would be classified as industrial landfills.
Due to a lack of information on industrial landfills in the Region (e.g., their number and
location), we were only able to evaluate these facilities relative to the municipal facilities.
That is, we based our judgment of the risk of industrial waste sites on our estimate of the risk
associated with municipal waste sites (specifically active municipal landfills).
Note that risks from these two problem areas (municipal and industrial waste sites) may be
double-counted with Other Ground-water Contamination (problem area #19),
Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants (problem area #3), and Surface Water Discharges (problem
areas #7, #8, and #9).
Summary/Abstract
There are 739 active municipal solid waste landfills in Region L An estimated
1,700 municipal solid waste landfills have closed since 1978. An undetermined number of
other municipal waste sites also exist in New England. The major modes of ecological
damage are from runoff and ground-water infiltration into surface water, the major welfare
impact is the loss of the use of ground water as a drinking-water source due to contamination
by landfill leachate.
51
-------
The risks associated with municipal sites were estimated by examining the risks associated
with open municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs). MSWLFs (largely due to their
propensity to be located in wetlands and floodplains) were judged to pose a medium
ecological risk due to effects on freshwater wetlands and streams through runoff and
infiltration. We did not directly characterize the impacts of municipal waste combusters,
municipal surface impoundments, land application, or treatment units due to the lack of
available data in these areas to perform risk assessment
Due to a lack of data, industrial waste sites were evaluated solely by qualitatively ranking
the problem area relative to the evaluation of municipal waste sites. Using.this approach,
industrial waste sites were judged by the work group to be slightly more risky than municipal
waste sites. This was due to their probable greater number and perhaps more hazardous
constituents.
Sources
Since 1978,14,000 municipal landfills have closed nationwide, an estimated 1,700 of
them in Region I. This paper focuses on active municipal landfills and attempts to also
determine the risk posed by closed municipal landfills where there are insufficient data to
perform risk assessment
There are more than 739 active municipal landfills in Region L These landfills are
scattered throughout the six states in the region (Table 15/16-1).
Table 15/16-1
Active Municipal Landfills/Region I
State Number of Landfills
Connecticut 91
Massachusetts 203
Maine 294
New Hampshire 70
Rhode Island 11
Vermont 70
Total ~739
52
-------
EPA Headquarter*s Subtitle D survey developed extensive survey data for 58 of these
landfills. These data formed the basis for our analysis of the risk associated with MSWLFs.
The 58 surveyed facilities range in physical size from 1 to 256 acres and receive between
1 to 962 tons of waste per day. There is no apparent correlation between physical size and the
amount of waste received at each landfill per day. Using the amount of waste received per
day to categorize landfills, 75 percent of die landfills in Region I can be categorized as small,
receiving less than 30 tons of waste per day. Twenty-three percent fall into the medium
category, receiving between 30 and 500 tons of waste per day, while the remaining 2 percent
fall into the large category, receiving more than 500 tons of waste per day.
The landfills in Region I tend to be smaller than those of the nation as a whole.
Nationally, approximately 67 percent of all landfills receive less than 50 tons of waste per day
compared with 75 percent in Region I.
Ecological Hazard Assessment
The major pollutants or stressors are included in Tables 15/16-2 and 15/16-3. While these
are the constituents found in landfill leachates, we must assume that some of these may also
be found in surface water. There are no useful data on the concentrations of these constituents
in surface water that can be associated with MSWLFs. We also could not find any useful data
on gas releases at landfills in Region I. It is generally believed, however, that landfill gas
releases involve methane gas.
Table 15/16-2
Landfill Pollutants and Stressors
Ground-Water Surface-Water
Resource Aquatic Toxlclty
Damage Threshold Note Damage Threshold
Pollutants (mg/l) (mg/l)
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic
Tetrachtoroethane
Dichloromethane
Cartxm Tetrachloride
Antimony
Phenol
Iron
TDS
0.0020
0.0500
0.3000
3.2000
0.0050
0.0000
0.0001
0.3000
500.0000
D
D
E
E
D
E
D
D
0.1900
0.8400
0.0000
1.6000
2.5600
1.0000
0.0000
Notes: D°MCLs; E=taste and odor.
53
-------
Table 15/16-3
Characteristics of Landfill Contaminants
Median
Concentration
Pollutants (mg/l)
Vinyl Chloride 0.100
Arsenic 0.010
Tetrachtoroethane 0.020
Dichloromethane 0.230
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.010
Antimony 0.470
Phenol 0.260
The major ecosystem risks associated with MSWLFs are impacts to surface water
(through runoff and infiltration), to habitat due to landfill location, and gas releases to the
atmosphere. The greatest risk landfills pose, however, is contamination of ground water by
their leachate. This risk is considered a welfare effect We will discuss the loss of ground
water as a resource, as a welfare effect, later in this paper.
Impact Assessment
Although ground-water infiltration into surface water is an important area of potential
ecosystem risk, the determination of concentrations of pollutants as they infiltrate from
ground water to surface water is site-specific and difficult to analyze. Since the majority of
active landfills are unlined, infiltration of landfill leachate through ground water to surface
water is assumed to be the chief transport route to surface water. Toxics found in landfill
leachate thus may be expected in surface water, although no specific levels could be
characterized by us based on our literature search and interviews. Methane gas release at
landfills is difficult to measure because most MSWLFs do not currently perform gas
monitoring. Region I's higher annual average net precipitation may contribute to leachate
generation and surface-water runoff and infiltration. The location of landfills in floodplains
and wetlands also creates potential risk to surface water (through runoff and infiltration) and
to habitat
MSWLFs have historically been located on "low-value" real estate; these areas were often
wetlands or floodplains. Of the surveyed landfills for which we have detailed data, 9 percent
are located in floodplains and 16 percent are located in wetlands. Nationally, 13 percent of all
MSWLFs are located, at least in part, within the 100-year floodplain, while only 6 percent are
located within wetlands. These locations and the lack of controls at the typical landfill may
result in impacts on surface water. The loss or alteration of wetland habitat due to an
MSWLF is another ecosystem risk associated with landfills.
54
-------
There are insufficient data available to quantitatively characterize surface-water runoff or
infiltration or gas-release risks at landfills. However, information about other variables that
may impact surface-water runoff and infiltration and gas release allows us to qualitatively
discuss these areas. These variables include regional net precipitation and the remaining
capacity at landfills.
Annual average net precipitation (precipitation minus evapotranspiration) in Region I, at
20 inches per year, is higher than many other regions in the nation. The national average,
including states with very high (Alaska) and very low (Arizona) net precipitation, is an
estimated 4 inches per year. While the higher precipitation in New England has potential to
increase the volume of surface-water runoff and leachate generated at landfills, other
variables, such as the hydrogeological setting at any given landfill, may mitigate the higher
annual average net precipitation.
EPA's Subtitle D survey shows that there is a short remaining life at landfills in Region I.
Within IS years, almost three-quarters of all MSWLFs currently in operation nationwide
expect to close. In Massachusetts and New Hampshire, the survey data indicate that all
landfills may be closed within 10 years. Because a majority of these landfills are nearing
capacity, the leachate generation, the surface-water runoff and the infiltration and gas release
may be reaching f"axi"uim levels.
In the early 1970s, roughly 300 to 400 new landfills opened nationwide. During the past
10 years, the number has dropped to between 50 and 200 landfills per year. With fewer new
landfills opening and older landfills reaching capacity, older landfills may be forced to remain
open and accept unsafe levels of waste for their size and location. Since many older landfills
were poorly located to begin with, they are already in higher risk locations. In addition, there
will be pressure to transport wastes to landfills not yet at capacity, decreasing their remaining
lives. The potential for illegal dumping may increase, which could create problems in
unaffected ecosystems.
All data for Region I were taken from EPA Headquarter's national municipal solid waste
landfill (MSWLF) survey. A subset of 56 surveyed landfills was used to characterize risk in
New England because we only had landfill size and regional precipitation numbers for these
facilities. There are few data available to quantitatively characterize ecosystem risk. Data
needed include the locations of the landfills, surface-water runoff, and gas release to the
atmosphere. The best data available were on landfill location; time and budget constraints
disallowed actual mapping of the 739 landfills in Region I. Therefore, we relied on the survey
sample of 58 to characterize the Region I location risk.
55
-------
Risk Characterization
Ecosystem risk at Region I landfills is difficult to rank because of insufficient data for
assessing ecosystem variables. For this reason, a qualitative decision is necessary.
Approximately 27 percent of active landfills are located in sensitive areas and pose a potential
threat to wetlands and surface waters. Moreover, we assume that the 1,700 closed landfills are
at least as risky as the active landfills. Therefore, the work group ranked the impacts on
freshwater wetlands and surface water as medium (4 and 3, respectively). Tidal wetlands and
estuaries were ranked slightly lower (2) due to the smaller number of facilities located in these
areas. All other ecosystems were ranked in the lowest impact category due primarily to the
locational pattern of landfills and the lack of pathways of exposure. This ranking is similar to
the ranking determined in Unfinished Business.
The Ecological Risk Work Group judged the risk associated with Subtitle D industrial
landfills to be probably greater than risk from municipal landfills. The primary reasons for
this determination were the probable larger numbers of Subtitle D facilities and the judgment
that the compounds in the landfills might be slightly more toxic than those in municipal
landfills. Overall, however, the work group did not feel that the increase in risk would be
significant enough to rank this problem area higher than the municipal Subtitle D sites
(e.g., industrial Subtitle D sites were not judged to be as risky to the environment as
Superfund sites). As a result, it was decided to rank these two areas the same across all
ecosystems.
We have not characterized the impacts of municipal waste combusters, surface
impoundments, land application, or treatment units. We feel the portion of the problem
characterized in this analysis is medium. The uncertainty due to lack of data in the landfill
areas is also medium.
Welfare
The loss of ground water due to contamination from landfill leachate is the primary
welfare concern associated with this problem area. We examined this issue by using model
results and data on the landfills in Region I to determine the portion of landfills that might
lead to the loss of ground water as a potential drinking-water source (either through violation
of MCLs or exceedance of taste and odor thresholds).
The major stressors reviewed in our'welfare analysis were taken from the risk segments of
EPA Headquarter's recent Subtitle D Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). These include vinyl
chloride, arsenic, tetrachloioethane, dichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride, and phenol (see
Table 15/16-2). These pollutants were selected from an initial set of 212 pollutants as the
chief constituents of concern, or those with the highest potential for causing human health risk
or resource damage.
56
-------
Antimony was also considered in the RIA analysis for health risk. We have excluded it
here because we could not locate data on MCLs or taste and odor thresholds.
Using the same modeling result used to support EPA's Subtitle D landfill regulations, the
ratio between the level of the stressors in ground water 60 meters from a landfill was
compared with the benchmarks described above for the constituents of concern.
• Vinyl Chloride: 77 percent exceed MCLs
• Arsenic: 0 percent exceed MCLs
• Tetrachloroethylene: 0 percent exceed taste and odor standards
• Dichloromethane: 0 percent exceed taste and odor standards
• Carbon Tetrachloride: 11 percent exceed MCLs
• Phenol: 100 percent exceed taste and odor standards
Eleven percent of the landfills were estimated to exceed threshold levels for vinyl
chloride, carbon tetrachloride, and phenols.
57
-------
17. Accidental Releases
Problem Area Definition
The accidental releases problem area as defined by Region I includes catastrophic events
with acute impacts, often requiring emergency response. Contaminants are accidentally
released into die environment in a variety of ways during storage, transport, or production.
For example, an industrial unit may explode and emit toxics into die air, or a railroad tank car
may turn over and spill toxics into surface water or onto soil and roads. Damages to industrial
property and personnel and releases to sewers, oceans, air, soil, and waterways may occur
from short-term releases of a variety of chemicals, some highly toxic or flammable. Acids,
PCBs, ammonia, and sodium hydroxide are examples of past releases, with PCB accidents
being the most frequent Releases from oil spills are also included in this category, with a
focus on water releases where the impacts of oil spills are often the most severe. Spilled
products may include pesticides, crude oil, gasoline, solvents, diesel oil, fuel oil, and other
distillates. Spills from tanks are discussed in problem area #18 (Releases from Storage
Tanks).
Summary/Abstract
Accidental releases may affect freshwater, marine, or terrestrial ecosystems. Sources
include transportation accidents and industrial releases. Data on such releases, however, are
available only for the past few years and are not sufficient for determining the probability or
nature of various infrequent accidents. The data used for this analysis-developed by the
National Response Center (NRC)--show that most releases of toxic chemicals and petroleum
products are small (less than 1,000 pounds for toxic chemicals or 1,000 gallons for petroleum
products). However, a small number of very large spills accounts for a high percentage of the
total quantity released and causes the greatest ecological damage.
The impacts of releases of toxic chemicals to terrestrial ecosystems are generally not
significant However, the local impacts of releases to freshwater, wetland, marine, and
estuarine ecosystems can be very significant This is especially true for the rare releases of
large quantities of toxic substances to marine ecosystems.
58
-------
Sources
Accidental releases of oil occur during the transport of oil in vessels, tanker trucks, and
pipelines; from marine- and land-based transfer facilities; and from refinery, bulk storage, and
both onshore and offshore production facilities. Releases of oil range from crude petroleum to
gasoline and other distallates. Releases can occur to all media, but the focus here is on
releases to water because data are available to characterize releases to that medium and
because the ecological effects would be on a larger scale and more severe for aquatic than for
terrestrial ecosystems.
Marine releases are predominantly the result of small leaks and spills of petroleum
products from a large number of individual vessels. Large, individual marine releases are
rare. Three of the largest in recent history in Region I were (1) a spill from the barge Florida
in 1969 in West Falmouth, Buzzards Bay, (2) die open ocean spill from die Argo Merchant in
1976, and (3) the barge Bouchard No. 65 in Buzzards Bay in 1977.
The Florida accident released 650,000 to 700,000 liters of Number 2 fuel oil into
Buzzards Bay. The oil spread over more than 1,000 acres, including at least four miles of
coastline. The Argo Merchant carried 7.6 million gallons of Number 6 industrial fuel oil,
which spilled into Nantucket Shoals. The barge Bouchard No. 65 spilled 100,000 gallons of
Number 2 fuel oil onto ice-covered Buzzards Bay.
Coastal releases typically occur at marine terminals. A Connecticut source estimated that
petroleum spills on the order of 50,000 gallons occur two or three times per year. While these
spills have the potential to damage critical estuaries, they have not resulted in significant,
long-term effects in the last 10 years. Cleanup efforts are undertaken to remove the oil and
generally succeed. Smaller spills (2 to 100 gallons) are common. A Rhode Island official
estimated that up to 95 percent of the material released in these smaller events is recovered.
Inland spills that result in ecological damages in Region I may be caused by
(1) transportation accidents, (2) industrial releases to surface water, or (3) in-plant releases that
are improperly drained through municipal sewer systems. The industrial releases to municipal
sewer systems can interfere with proper functioning of water treatment plants, thereby
allowing harmful substances to enter surface water. Rapid response by state and local
authorities to roadway spills greatly reduces the risk of ecological damages from
transportation-accident events. Each state responds to hundreds of small events each year.
The inland releases probably cause short-term terrestrial damages. Response and cleanup
efforts at die roadway spills generally include the removal of any contaminated soil or
vegetation. These removals have temporary damaging effects. In addition, a major goal of
these response efforts is to prevent contamination of water bodies.
59
-------
The National Comparative Risk Project relied on accidental release data from the NRC in
its analysis. The NRC collects reports of releases of hazardous materials that exceed the
threshhold level of reportable quantity. Underreporting to NRC may be as high as 40 to
50 percent. Most of the releases of toxic chemicals and petroleum products are small fless
than 1,000 pounds for toxic chemicals or 1,000 gallons for petroleum products). However, a
small number of very large spills account for a high percentage of the total quantity released
and cause the greatest ecological damage.
A major source of national information on accidental releases of toxic chemicals is the
Acute Hazardous Events Database (AHEDB). The AHEDB was assembled by Industrial
Economics, Inc. (lEc) to support the EPA Headquarters review of the public health dangers
associated with accidental releases of acutely toxic chemicals. The AHEDB currently
represents 11,097 accidental events. Accident records were collected primarily from the
National Response Center (70 percent) and augmented by data from Region Vn, state
governments, other consulting firms, and newspapers. The database focuses on events
involving toxic chemicals, so it contains very few reports of events involving oil or other
fuels. Most events in the AHEDB have occurred since 1980, but data are provided for some
serious events as early as 1964. Of the 122 accidental events reported for Region 1,24 are
transportation-related and 98 are associated with plant facilities. The major chemicals
involved were chlorine, several acids, and polychlorinated biphenyls. After adjusting for the
undersampling of non-injury, non-death, and non-air-release NRC events and the estimated
underreporting to the NRC database, we estimate that from 1982 to 1986 there were
approximately 890 release events in Region I involving chemicals listed as hazardous under
CERCLA (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980).l
A recent analysis of the data collected by NRC on releases of non-CERCLA chemicals
(primarily petroleum products) in Region I showed that 732 events occurred from 1982 to
1984: 304 releases in Massachusetts, 152 releases in Connecticut, 115 releases in Maine,
74 releases in Vermont, 61 releases in New Hampshire, and 26 in Rhode Island. The NRC
collects information on oil releases to surface water and does not collect information on
releases on the land.
We estimate the total number of CERCLA chemical releases in Region I as follows. The number of events in
the sample AHEDB (which focuses on non-death, non-injury, and non-air accidental releases) is multipled by
a factor of 10 to account for underreporting of those events. The number of estimated sample events then is
added to the number of events listed in the main AHEDB, which contains data on accidental releases that
involve death or injury. That sum gives the estimate for total NRC CERCLA events.
60
-------
The NRG staff also summarized information on the frequency of releases of hazardous
substances and the media (land, air, water) that are affected by these releases. These data are
presented in Exhibit 17-A. On a national basis, land is the media most commonly affected by
releases of CERCLA substances (53.2 percent).
Ecological Hazard Assessment
The most common substances involved in accidental releases are petroleum products.
Other organic and inorganic substances also may be released during industrial or
transportation accidents. The AHEDB and NRC data were used to identify non-petroleum
products frequently involved in accidental releases. These substances include PCBs, sulfuric
acid, anhydrous ammonia, chlorine, and hydrochloric acid. Acids, although potentially
hazardous in the short term, are not likely to cause long-term ecological damage.
The effects of accidental releases on ecosystems have been studied most extensively for
major marine or coastal oil spills. Petroleum in the marine environment can elicit a broad
range of toxic responses at low concentration (less than 1 mg/1) to many marine organisms,
both plant and aniniai-
A study of the ecological effects of the fuel oil spill from the barge Florida near West
Falmouth, Massachusetts, has shown (1) high mortality of plants, crustaceans, fish, and birds
immediately after the spill, (2) short-term physiological and behavioral abnormalities in these
populations found in areas with high concentrations of fuel oil, and (3) detectable changes in
the biota and presence of partly degraded fuel oil from the spill in the sediments of the harbor
and estuary five years after the spilL In studies of sediments and the water column to date,
there is no compelling evidence indicating permanent damage to the world's ocean resources
or even to a particular pan of it There is also no evidence of a permanent increase in
pathological abnormalities due to petroleum hydrocarbons alone in marine biota.
Short-term effects of petroleum releases are documented. Typically, the range of effects
will depend on the degree of vertical mixing that occurs within die water column. Fish kills
can result from surface contamination alone, whereas food-chain effects will be observed
when the benthic environment is contaminated.
In general, water column communities respond more quickly than do benthic
communities. Phytoplankton populations can recover within weeks after an accident;
microfauna and macrofauna recover within months and years, respectively.
61
-------
Impact Assessment
The ecological impacts of oil spills vary depending on a number of factors, including the
size of the spill, the type of oil, the location of the spill, and the ability to manage the spill.
According to Unfinished Business, the spills with the most severe impacts are those in
confined, shallow bodies of water in which the volume of the spill is large relative to the size
of the water body, the oil is light, refined oil, and there is a high load of fine sediment in the
water column. Spills occurring under these conditions are rare. When they do occur, they
damage populations of benthic communities for many years.
Most oil spills occur in inland areas (70 percent by quantity) as compared with coastal
areas. The inland areas most affected by spills are rivers, beaches, and non-navigable water
bodies. In coastal areas, the spills are primarily in ports, harbors, and river channels
connecting terminal facilities to harbors.
Of the four major pathways of exposure, only one was evaluated by the Ecological Risk
Work Group for this report: the direct contamination of surface water bodies and marine and
estuarine environments. Not evaluated in the report are the following exposure pathways:
direct exposure of wildlife from air releases, direct exposure to vegetation from air releases
and contaminated soil, and indirect exposure to wildlife from ingestion of food contaminated
by air or soil.
NRC and AHEDB do not identify the type or extent of ecological damages resulting from
the releases of hazardous events. In order to obtain information on these damages in Region I,
officials in the region were contacted and asked to recall the ecological damages of releases
and the extent and reversibility of the damages. The information obtained from these offices
and from several literature sources is summarized. The literature sources are cited in the
bibliography.
On average, approximately 11,000 oil spills occur each year, resulting in releases of about
9 million gallons of oil (Table 17-1). Most reported spills are fairly small-more than
90 percent of spills for which the release volumes are reported are less than 1,000 gallons. On
the other hand, the relatively small number of spills greater than 10,000 gallons, about
1.3 percent of reported spills, account for more than 80 percent of the volume of spills
(Table 17-2). The data indicate that the infrequent, large-release event dominates releases to
the environment Most releases are of crude oil and diesel and fuel oils, and most occur in
inland areas where rivers, beaches, and non-navigable waterways receive the impacts.
*
*Some small spills may not be reported. Many reported spills are from an unknown source, are of unknown
quantity, or are sheens that have been observed.
62
-------
Table 17-1
OH Spills by Number and Quantity
1979-1983
Quantity
Year (thousands of gallons) Number
1979 10,990 10,500
1980 9,194 10,171
1981 8,820 17,800
1982 8,612. 9,188
1983 9,208 8,270
Average 9,365 11,186
Table 17-2
Distribution of the Number and
Quantity of Spills, by Spill Size
1982 and 1983*
Spill Size Percentage of Percentage of
(gallons) Total Spills Total Volume Spilled
<10
10-99
100-999
1,000-10,000
10,000-100,000
100,000-1,000,000
>1 ,000,000
39.5%
36.5
16.8
5.8
1.1
0.2
<0.1
0.1%
0.9
3.6
13.3
21.3
35.9
25.0
aAbout 28 percent of reported spills either are of unknown
quantity or are sheens. Such spills are not included in the
above calculations.
63
-------
Although oil spills to water are frequent events, generally the amounts spilled or left
unrecovered after cleanup activities are small enough so that natural systems are not
significantly threatened. The very infrequent large-size spill in confined waters can cause
significant short-term localized damage. However, even in such cases the combination of
cleansing processes of natural systems, weathering of oil, and cleanup efforts have resulted in
ecosystems recovering relatively quickly.
Accidental releases of toxic chemicals occur in all media and involve a wide range of
chemicals. Most involve relatively small quantities of material. But it is the infrequent, large
quantity (only 2.4 percent of the number of releases) that accounts for more than 90 percent of
the quantity of material releases. The types of chemicals released in greatest quantities and
highest frequencies are acids, bases, and non-persistent organics (PCB releases are mostly to
land).
Accidental releases of toxic substances are unlikely to substantially affect terrestrial
ecosystems, but they may create significant localized effects of short duration to freshwater
ecosystems. Releases to marine, estuarine, and wetland ecosystems are infrequent but could
result in significant localized effects. There always exists the potential that low probability
events involving releases of large volumes of highly toxic and persistent compounds could
result in significant and persistent local and regional effects to marine environments.
Available data (which are acknowledged to understate releases) indicate that about
2,000 accidental releases of CERGLA listed chemicals occur each year, resulting in an
average of about 40 million pounds of releases per year (Table 17-3). (The number of
releases is relatively similar from year to year, but the quantity of releases varies
considerably.) About 12 percent of the releases are to water. Of this, about 3.5 percent are to
sewers (and may have subsequent effects if POTWs cannot adequately treat the released
material), about 1.5 percent are to the oceans, and about 8 percent are to inland waterways.
Table 17-3
NRC Notifications of Releases of
CERCLA Chemicals
Year Number Quantity
(million ib)
1982 1,664 10.7
1983 2,014 93.6
1984 1,991 11.1
1985 2,523
Average 2,048 . 38.5
64
-------
The types of toxic chemicals released in largest quantities generally are common
production chemicals. Spills of PCBs are reported with the greatest frequency. About
90 percent of these spills involve power companies and occur primarily as a result of
equipment failure and of maintenance activities. Most PCB releases, thus, would be confined
to land. They are expected to decline as phase-out of PCBs continues. Releases of anhydrous
ammonia, chlorine, methyl chloride, and vinyl chloride are reported frequently but do not
account for a large volume of releases because the reportable quantities for these chemicals
are set very low-100 pounds, 10 pounds, 1 pound, and 1 pound, respectively.3
The consequent effects of the residual release on the aquatic environment will depend on
the characteristics of the chemical (persistence, bioaccumulative properties, and toxicity). We
do not have information to characterize the short-term and long-term effects of releases
already experienced. It would appear that most ecological impacts would be localized and of
short duration. This observation, of course, does not rule out the potential for a natural
disaster at a regional level from an accidental release of large volumes of highly toxic
persistent chemicals.
Risk Characterization
Terrestrial ecosystems are unlikely to be substantially affected by accidental releases.
Freshwater ecosystems are likely to have significant localized effects, but they are likely to be
of short duration. Wetland ecosystems also could have significant localized effects (probably
of short duration), but releases to such systems occur infrequently.
Marine and estuarine systems are infrequently affected by releases. However, the
potential always exists for highly significant and persistent local and regional effects to
marine environments from low probability events involving releases of large volumes of
highly toxic and persistent compounds. The work group ranked impacts to marine
ecosystems as a 4; impacts on estuaries and tidal wetlands are ranked as a 5.
Releases of oil to water are frequent events but generally are in amounts small enough, in
combination with cleanup activities, not to significantly threaten natural systems. The very
infrequent event of a large-size spill in confined waters can cause significant localized
damage.
The regional results are based primarily upon the data gathered for the National
Comparative Risk Reduction Project and its report, Unfinished Business. Accidental releases
rank relatively higher in the region than they rank nationally. Unfinished Business assigned
the same rank to the ecological impacts of oil spills but placed oil spills below accidental
releases of toxics. The low rank assigned to both types of accidental releases reflects the
a release exceeds the "reputable quantity," the responsible party is required to notify the NRC and report
the release.
65
-------
conclusion that most of the events involve small releases and that their impacts are short term
and of moderate severity.
A recent study showed that there is significant underreporting to the NRC of accidents.
Based on the results of this study, we adjusted the estimate of the total number of accidental
events involving toxic chemicals occurring in Region I. However, this adjustment is based on
the assumption that the underreporting of events, determined for 1987 by the study, has been
consistent since 1980.
The AHEDB has been designed to supplement the information from the NRC on
accidents involving air releases, deaths, and injuries. However, no special effort has been
made to supplement the AHEDB with information on ecological damages available directly
from states in Region I, and the database seriously underreports accidents causing ecological
damage only. The focus of the AHEDB also has been on releases from fixed facilities. The
database underreports transportation accidents, but we have not analyzed the magnitude of
this problem.
This brief analysis provides only limited insight into the probability and nature of an
accidental release of more severe consequence than is reported in the available databases.
Data are available for only the past few years and are not sufficient to determine the
probability or nature of infrequent accidents. Due to the limited data available, it is not
possible to determine the percentage of problem covered.
Welfare
Oil spills from offshore drilling accidents or ruptures in storage tanks or tanker vessels can
damage coastal and ocean sealife. Generally, responses to oil spills in the region are rapid,
quickly limiting the size of the damage area. However, although the damage area may be
small, the economic impact may be devastating. An analysis of an oil spill impact in 1969 at
West Falmouth, Massachusetts, shows that the spill of 650,000 liters resulted in an immediate,
massive kill of crabs, lobsters, and other crustaceans, mollusks, fish, and polychaete worms.
Mortality in affected areas was 95 percent The spread of contaminated sediments
compounded the problem, causing continued, extensive mortality. The high (41 percent)
aromatic content of this spill resulted in a greater environmental impact by killing virtually all
of the benthic community. This caused destabilization of sediments, which were then
mechanically transported. Seven years later, the sediments at Wild Harbor still carry oil from
the spill.
In discussing welfare impacts of accidental releases in Region I, the Draft EIS, Proposed
North Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Offering (Lease Sale #96) also
must be discussed. Region I's comments to Headquarters on the Draft EIS detail the
66
-------
conclusion that the risks associated with outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities in the
North Atlantic are unreasonable and unnecessary in light of the exceptionally valuable
biological resources within the proposed area of sale:
• Georges Bank supports a $180 million per year fishing industry, which accounts
for 20 percent of die total dollar value of U.S. landings.
• Tourism is an important industry in Region L An accidental release of oil
resulting in closed beaches during the summer would have a severe impact on the
region's economy.
The welfare effects of toxic releases are difficult to assess because few data have been
gathered to measure the impacts on the ecosystems. Based on the limited data available,
however, accidental releases have a high potential welfare impact in Region L
67
-------
Bibliography
American Petroleum Institute. Proceedings. 1985 Oil Spill Conference.
Ballou, S.W., Levenson, JJJ., Robek, KJE. and Gabriel, MIL Regional Ecological
Assessments: Concepts, Procedures and Application. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National
Laboratory, Energy and Environmental Systems Division, 1981.
Blumer, M., Sass, J., Souza, G., Sander, H., Grassle, R, and Hampson, G. The West
Falmouth Oil Spill. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Reference No. 70-44, Technical
Report, September 1970.
Boykin, Raymond. "Risk Analysis for Chemical Facilities." Presented at the AICE
Symposium, Monsanto, SL Louis, MO, 198S.
Cutter Information Corporation. Oil Spills: International Summary and Review. Oil Spill
Intelligence Report, 1986.
Deland. Michael R. "Memorandum RE: Draft EIS Proposed North Atlantic Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Offering." April 1987.
"EPA Backs Plan to Drill Offshore." New York Times, May 8,1988.
Garrick, John. "Recent Case Studies and Advancements in Probabilistic Risk Assessment"
Risk Analysis, 4, no.4 (1984):267-279.
Gould, JJL, Mertens, E.W. The Effects of Oil on Marine Life: An Overview of Research
Sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute. November 1976.
Industrial Economics, Incorporated. "Acute Hazardous Events Data Base, Interim Final
Report." Cambridge, MA.
Longley, W.L., Jackson, R., Snyder, B. Managing Oil and Gas Activities in Coastal
Environments. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 1987.
Massachusetts Interagency Task Force on Oil Spills. Oil Spill Prevention and Response.
Publication #9705-185-30-5-77-CR, April 1987.
68
-------
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. PRA Procedures Guide, A Guide to the Performance
of Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983.
Tenth Biennial Oil Conference: Prevention, Behavior, Control Cleanup. Baltimore, MD,
April 6-9,1987.
"Region I Ecological Risk Assessment Methodology." December. 14,1987.
The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine (TRIGOM). An Historical Review of Oil Spills
Along the Maine Coast: 1953-1973. Prepared for the Maine State Planning Office Coastal
Planning Group by Edward H. Shenton, TRIGOM publication No. 3, August 1973.
Risk Analysis of Six Potentially Hazardous Industrial Objects in the Richmond Area, A Pilot
Study, A Report to the Richmond Area Public Authority. Boston MA: Kluwer Boston Inc.,
1982.
Sanders, Oward, J. Frederick Grassle, George R. Hampson, Linda S. Morse, Susan
Gamer-Price, and Carol C. Jones. "Anatomy of an Oil Spill: Long Term Effects from the
Grounding of the Barge Florida Off West Falmouth, Massachusetts." Journal of Marine
Research, 38(no. 2) (1980)265-377.
Steering Committee for Petroleum in the Marine Environment Update, National Research
Council Oil in the Sea, Inputs, Fates and Effects. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 198S.
Tarzwell, C. "Toxicity of Oil and Oil Dispersion and Mixtures to Aquatic Life." Unpublished
paper.
Technical Resources Incorporated (TRI). Ecological Risk Assessment, Draft Report, End
Points Selection Criteria. Prepared for the Exposure Assessment Group, Office of Research
and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Rockville, MD: TRI, 1987.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Transportation of Hazardous Materials.
OTA-SET-304. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, July, 1986.
U.S. Department of Transportation. "Patterns and Trends, NRC Data: 1982-1985" and
"Update with Quantities, Injuries, and Fatalities." March 1986.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Polluting Incidents In and Around US Waters. Calendar
years 1987 and 1983.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation System Center. Addendum, Patterns and
Trends for National Response Center Hazardous Releases. July 1985.
69
-------
U.S. EPA Chemical Preparedness Program. 'Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis:
Emergency Planning for Extremely Hazardous Substances." Washington, D.C: April 1988.
U.S. EPA Office of Policy Analysis. "Regional Ranking of Environmental Priorities."
Washington, D.C: April 1988.
U.S. EPA Office of Policy Analysis. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of
Environmental Problems: Overview Report and Appendices. Washington, D.C: February
1987.
Walter, Robert, et aL "A Statistical Analysis of Hazardous Material Releases Reported to the
National Response Center." Presented at the 1986 Hazardous Material Spills Conference:
Preparedness, Control and Cleanup of Releases. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes, May
1986.
Walter, Robert National Response Center. Personal Communication, February 1988.
70
-------
Attachment 17-A
Media Affected by Accidental Releases
Reported In the NRC Database
(percentage of events)
First
Half Cumulative
Media 1982 1983 1984 1985 Average
Non-CERCLA
Releases:
Air 10.7% 9.9% 7.8% 4.9% 8.3%
Land 18.7 22.5 28.0 27.5 24.2
Water 50.2 49.4 48.2 54.2 50.5
Unknown 20.3 18.3 16.1 13.3 17.0
CERCLA
Releases:
Air
Land
Water
Unknown
15.8
50.2
12.8
21.3
14.0
54.6
12.5
18.9
15.0
57.6
9.8
17.7
17.8
50.4
14.5
19.8
15.7
53.2
12.4
19.4
Source: A Statistical Analysis of Hazardous Material Releases Reported to the National Response
Center.
71
-------
18. Releases from Storage Tanks
Problem Area Definition
An underground storage tank (UST) system consists of a storage vessel with at least
10 percent of its volume below ground and the underground piping connected to the tank.
The substances stored in USTs can be divided into four product categories: petroleum motor
fuels, heating oil fuels, chemical compounds, and miscellaneous substances (stormwater
runoff, waste water, etc.)
Currently, EPA only has regulatory authority over 35 percent of the UST population of
tanks. The vast majority of exempt tanks are utilized for storing heating oil for use on-site.
Approximately 2 million tanks are estimated to be in current use in the northeastern United
States (Region I, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey). Precise data on volumes of
gasoline and heating oil stored in those tanks are not available. However, an assumption that
SO percent store gasoline and SO percent store heating oil would seem to be an acceptable
range. Statistical analysis of existing databases can then be applied to both regulated and
exempt tanks. By a conservative estimate, 10 percent of the tanks at the nation's gasoline
service stations have leaked or are leaking. This percentage extrapolated to the Northeast
would represent a staggering 200,000 leaking USTs, ranging in size from 250-gallon
residential USTs to the 50,000-gallon bulk storage facility.
Summary/Abstract
Underground storage tanks are the ubiquitous depositories of gasoline, heating fuels, and
hazardous substances. Gasoline and heating oil hydrocarbons that have been released in
ground water represent the most widespread form of aquifer contamination by organic
chemicals within Region I. EPA has estimated that approximately 60 percent of existing
regulated USTs are constructed of unprotected bare steel. The 500,000 exempt USTs in
Region I are all bare steel and unprotected against corrosion, which is the leading cause of
leaks to the environment It has been estimated that 10 percent of the regulated USTs at
gasoline service stations are currently leaking into die ground water. If this percentage is
applied to all USTs in Region I, both regulated and exempt, then there are more than 70,000
leaking USTs in Region I.
72
-------
Region I may be facing a pervasive threat to its underground resources from USTs and a
lesser but also important ecological risk. Transport of the released product, with regard to its
mobility and velocity in the terrestrial environment, is slow and usually confined to a limit of
several thousand feet from the source in worst-case conditions. This factor, combined with
the typical urban or residential locations of USTs (in disturbed settings), tends to mitigate and
lessen the potential impact on the natural ecosystem. Therefore, even though the total number
of suspected leaking USTs is extremely large in Region I, the adverse ecological impact is
low because previous activities to install die tanks already have altered natural environment
and because migration of released product is limited
Releases from underground storage tanks will have greatest impact on the ground-water
ecosystem. Management of all USTs is imperative to minimize the threat to underground
drinking water systems. Potential impacts on wetlands, streams, and lakes are moderate.
Continued collection of data on releases from storage tanks will be required to improve the
reliability of assessing impacts.
Sources
The national population of all USTs is estimated to be 4.8 million t^nicy An important
distinction to remember when discussing USTs is the fact that only 1.7 million tanks are
currently being regulated by EPA under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The basis on which USTs are regulated is determined by the substance and use
of the product being stored. Essentially all motor fuels, most hazardous substances, and
heating oils that are not used for consumption on the premises where they are stored are
considered regulated substances for UST purposes. Therefore, it can be confidently stated
that 3.1 million USTs nationwide are exempt from federal notification and technical
standards.
•
Most of the statistical data on USTs presented in this report will be on a national,
geographical, and regional basis. Due to gaps and limitations of the reference material,
extrapolation and assumptions will be based on regional totals.
The population size of exempt and regulated USTs is listed in Table 18-1.
73
-------
Table 18-1
Population Size of Exempt and Regulated USTs
Cm thousands)
National
880
820
60
1.760
1,900
800
340
3,040
Northeast
225*
195*
420
1,215
345
47
1.607
Region I Type of UST
75 Retail motor oil, regulated
65 Non-retail motor fuel, regulated
3.5 Chemical UST, regulated
143.5 Total, regulated
500* Residential heating oil, exempt
15* Non-residential heating oil, exempt
15* Farm heating/motor fuel, exempt
S30 Total, exempt
•Estimated total based on correlation.
Ecological Hazard Assessment
The heating oil sector of the UST population in the Northeast is neatly equal to the
national total of the regulated USTs. This factor is significant when looking at the impacts of
all USTs within Region L We assumed that total consumption of motor fuel and of heating
oil is almost equal in the Northeast Therefore, the regulated USTs in Region I distribute
approximately the same product volume as the exempt USTs, despite representing a smaller
fraction of the total population. This fact should not give a false sense of assurance about
regulation and control, however. The vast majority of the heating oil USTs, unlike the
regulated systems, are located in suburban and rural areas and are closer to ecosystems where
disturbances to the natural state have been minimal. Potential for greater ecological damage
in those areas, therefore, is high.
The chemical USTs (the smallest percentage of the total population) are located primarily
in urban and industrialized areas. These UST sources, although more toxic because of their
hazardous contents, pose much less of a threat to the environment than the heating oil USTs
that are distributed more uniformly throughout Region L
74
-------
Lighter fuels are more likely to contaminate a larger area than heavier fuels that are
retained in the subsurface pore space. Yet the lighter fuels will disperse and dilute at faster
rates than the heavier fuels, which have a tendency to be retained in the soil, to build to
greater concentrations, and to contaminate the environment longer.
When a released product eventually reaches a water table, it will spread out and float on
top of the water table. Previously absorbed material can become mobile and enter the
migrating plume when rainfall percolates through the soil. As the water table surfaces and
flows to a stream or a lake, the released products contained in the flow become toxic to the
aquatic ecosystem, threatening fish, water fowl, and wetland vegetation. Biodegradation may
reduce the contaminant levels; lighter, more aromatic fuels will degrade more readily than the
heavier oils, which have a larger molecular size and low solubility.
Another pathway for ecological damage results from the potential introduction of a
released product into surface waters through runoff from contaminated soils. During
collective and cleanup activities, excavation of soil may leach released product to surface
water unless adequate containment is provided. This inadvertent secondary contamination
can be eliminated through good management practices.
Contamination of the air through evaporation of a released product also is possible.
Differences in vapor pressures will tend to volatilize the aromatic fraction of a fuel that has
been released to the environment
Impact Assessment
Residential and farm tanks pose the greatest threat from released products in Region L
Impact would be on a small and localized scale, however. Potential contamination of the air
through product evaporation poses only minimal ecological impacts, and those impacts would
be very localized. Location of the storage tanlcs below ground minimizes risk to many
ecosystems.
Releases from underground storage tanks will have the most significant impact on
groundwater. The potential impacts on wetlands, streams, and lakes would be moderately
affected by a petroleum release. The data reliability associated with this analysis is low based
on a lack of any comprehensive database. Only within the past two years has there been any
systemized data collection on releases. It will be several more years before there will be
sufficient consistency in data collection so that qualitative assessments can be made with a
high level of reliability.
75
-------
Risk Characterization
Underground storage tanks are usually installed in areas that have already been
significantly disturbed from a natural state. Also, releases from USTs do not migrate great
distances from their points of discharge. There are exceptional situations where the insult to
the ecosystem can be extreme. As a result, the work group ranked the impacts to wetlands as
medium (a 3) and impacts to all other ecosystems as a2or a 1.
Ground-water contamination by a UST release is extremely expensive to clean up and
treat, and the resource is never restored to its original water quality. Dilution and dispersion
mechanisms do not adequately treat UST-contaminated ground water. Cleanup will always
require sophisticated treatment.
76
-------
19. Other Ground-Water Contamination
Problem Area Definition
Ground water can be contaminated by an extensive variety of point and nonpoint sources
of pollution not addressed in other problem areas for the Region I Comparative Risk Project
For the purposes of this project, only septic systems, road de-icing salts, Class V underground
injection wells, and the leaching of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers will be assessed due
to limited resources and time. The impacts from underground storage tanks, hazardous waste
sites, and ifln^fiiiq are covered in other problem areas.
The list of possible contaminants is even more extensive than that of possible sources and
includes nitrates, microbes, sodium, chloride pesticides, and, due to the inclusion of Class V
underground injection wells, potentially any waste fluid produced by various industries,
utilities, and commercial ventures, inciting toxic organic and inorganic chemicals, heavy
metals, and oil and petroleum products.
Summary/Abstract
The New England region has very high septic system densities (as many as 200+ per
square mile in places) and high rates of road de-icing salts applications (as much as 300
pounds per square mile per storm in some states). Region I also has a projected agricultural
pesticide application rate, for 12 pesticides, of more than 1,000 tons per year and a large
potential for ground-water contamination from Class V underground injection wells. The
pollutants represented by the sources in this problem area, as ground-water contaminants,
present their greatest environmental risk upon discharge to surface waters. Where ground
water is a major source of water to an aquatic system, the ecological threat from these
pollutants is the greatest but that threat is largely unstudied, undocumented, and unknown.
The major environmental impacts from "other ground-water contamination" are thought to be
on our lakes, streams, freshwater wetlands, and estuaries. The primary concern about these
pollution sources, however, is for ground water as a regional resource and its route of
exposure to humans.
77
-------
Sources
Obtaining data on the types, numbers, sizes, and locations of the major sources in this
problem area requires documented inventory by the states and their local communities.
Whereas a town might have one landfill, it could have hundreds of septic systems, many miles
of roads that are salted in the winter, numerous unrecognized Class V underground injection
wells discharging hazardous and nonhazardous wastes, and some area! extent of agricultural
fields where pesticides and fertilizers are applied. The most readily available statistics about
the separate sources appear below.
Septic tanks and cesspools considered in the evaluation include individual, on-site
subsurface disposal systems serving fewer than 20 people. Of all ground-water pollution
sources (ie., not just those in this problem area), septic tanks and cesspools rank the highest in
volume discharged directly to soils and are the most frequently reported sources of
ground-water contamination (Canter and Knox, 1985). Table 19-1 presents the estimated
number of septic systems and a calculation of the statewide density of systems per square
mile, based on 1980 Census of Housing data.
Table 19-1
1980 Septic Tanks and Cesspools
State Number of Septic Systems (1980) Systems per Square Mile
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
357,446
198,629
550,629
161,386
112,663
99,752
73.4
6.4
70.4
17.9
106.8
10.8
Source: USEPA. January 1987.
The total number of septic tanks and cesspools in Region I in 1980 was about 1,480,500.
Recent estimates by some of the New England states show an increase since 1980: a
26 percent increase for Maine (now about 250,000 systems), an increase of more than
9 percent for Massachusetts (now more than 600,000 systems), and a 28 percent increase for
Rhode Island (now about 143,900 systems). It is reasonable to assume that there are about
1.75 million septic tanks and cesspools in New England today. Table 19-2 provides some
county-level statistics, also based on 1980 Census data, which were calculated assuming an
even distribution of systems within the county.
78
-------
Table 19-2
1980 Septic Tanks and Cesspools
County, State
Systems per
Square Mlie
Fairfteld, Connecticut
Hartford, Connecticut
New Haven, Connecticut
Bristol, Massachusetts
Middlesex, Massachusetts
Norfolk, Massachusetts
Plymouth, Massachusetts
Worcester, Massachusetts
79-158
68-135
82-164
90-180
61-122
127-254
76-153
33-66
Source: Canter & Knox, 1985
Septic tanks and cesspools are located throughout the region in unsewered areas. An
assumption that they only occur in very rural settings would be erroneous: Some of the
counties listed in Table 19-2 are among the most populous in the region. With regard to
ecological threats, those systems in highly vulnerable settings atop ground-water aquifers and
close to ground-water discharge areas (rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and estuaries)
are of most concern. In New England, many unsewered areas border these vulnerable and
recreational surface-water areas.
The application and storage of rood de-icing salts and sand/salt mixtures also generate
ground-water contaminants. Table 19-3 provides road salt statistics available from the states
and other sources. Roads generally run through lowland areas, especially the larger highways,
due to engineering considerations. Therefore, we can assume that they are frequently located
above ground-water aquifers in proximity to surface waters.
Table 19-3
Annual Usage of Road De-Icing Salts
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Tons/
Year
55.000
259,367
139,434
90,000
2-Lane
Roads
(mites)
22.00
8,571
3,000
State
and/or
Local Road
both
state
state
Lb/Lane
Mile per Storage Covered
Storm Event Capacity ?
160
160'
300
250
150-300
250
700 piles
123,305 tons
91 piles
No
yes
79
-------
Class V underground injection wells provide a diverse aziay of source types and an
alarmingly large potential for unrecognized ground-water contamination. By definition, a
Class V well injects nonhazardous fluids into or above underground sources of drinking
water. However, many of these wells, by nature of design and function, directly discharge an
array of toxic pollution sources above or into ground water. If these wells are injecting
hazardous substances, they should be classified as Class IV wells, which have been banned
nationally, and thus would have to be shut down or their discharges modified and regulated by
permit. Table 19-4 is the May 1987 Gass V well inventory for New England as reported to
Congress. The scatter and various weights of numbers in the data suggest an incomplete
inventory of Class V wells in New England and illustrate the variation in targeting priorities
between the states to inventory specific types of wells. More recent figures, available from a
USEPA FURS database report and dated February 5,1988, indicate a total of 449 wells, and,
according to the states' files on data not yet entered into FURS, there are 729 Class V wells in
New England. The discrepancies are partially due to a new system of well codes for reporting
inventories and are being resolved. Table 19-5 lists wells classified as Class V wells under
the new reporting system. Note that wells involving disposal of septage are for systems
serving 20 persons or more.
Table 19-4
New England Class V Well Inventory
State
Total 5D2 5D3 504 5A7 5W115W12. 5A19 5W20 5X28 5R21 5X26
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
84
15
132
38
80
15
3 -
.
19 -
- 3 1
•
• •
12
.
10
6 2
-
™
62 -
-
27 72
-
8 -
— —
m
•
3
3
8
*
6
15
1
13
59
5
1
-
-
1
3
10
.
-
-
-
2
"
Total
364 22 3
16 24 97 72 14 99 14 1
Source: USEPA. May 1987.
Note: Refer to Table 19-5 for well codes.
80
-------
Table 19-5
types of Class V Wells
Well Coda Well Description
5W9 Untreated sewage waste disposal wells
5W10 Cesspools
5W11 Septic systems (undifferentiated disposal method)
5W31 Septic systems (well-disposal method)
5W32 Septic systems (drainfield disposal method)
5W12 Domestic WWTP effluent disposal wells
5A19 Cooling water return flow wells
5W20 Industrial process water and waste disposal wells
5X28 Automobile service station disposal wells
5F1 Agricultural drainage wells
502 Stormwater drainage wells
5D3 Improved sinkholes
504 Industrial drainage wells
5G30 Special drainage wells
5A5 Electric power reinjection wells
5A6 Direct heat reinjection wells
5A7 Heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells
5A8 Ground-water aquaculture return flow wells
5R21 Aquifer recharge wells
5B22 Saline water intrusion barrier wells
5S23 Subsidence control wells
5X13 Mining, sands, or other backfill wells
5X14 Solution mining wells
5X15 In-situ fossil fuel recovery wells
5X16 Spent-brine return flow wells
5X17 Air scrubber waste disposal wells
5X18 Water softener regeneration brine disposal wells
5N24 Radioactive waste disposal wells
5X25 Experimental technology wells
5X26 Aquifer remediation wells
5X29 Abandoned drinking-water wells
5X27 Other wells
81
-------
Agricultural pesticides and fertilizers are nonpoint sources of pollution that primarily pose
an ecological problem as direct surface runoff. However, leaching of pesticides and fertilizers
into ground water accounts for some proportion of their presence in surface waters. Potential
sources of pesticide and fertilizer contamination include land application, disposal, spills, and
leaks by manufacturers and formulators, dealers, and industrial, agricultural, and domestic
users. For this evaluation, only agricultural applications were considered.
A study extrapolating annual applications of 12 pesticides based on 1979 and 1982
national data indicates that 2.04 million pounds per year are applied in New England, or about
1,020 tons per year. This estimate does not include homeowner use or usage in forests, rights
of way, golf courses, and other non-agricultural activities (Resources for the Future, 198S).
Fertilizers are a source of nitrates and leach into ground water much more readily than
pesticides. In Rhode Island, fertilizer applications totaled 22,849 tons in 1987 and only
9 percent was for agricultural use; the rest was for lawn and golf course types of applications.
Ecological Hazard Assessment
Major pollutants from septic tanks and cesspools include nitrates, microbes (e.g., coliform
bacteria .and viruses), chloride, methylene chloride (aJca. dichloromethane) and
1,1,1-trichloroethane. Major pollutants from road de-icing salts include sodium and chloride.
For Class V underground injection wells, no "priority" pollutants were assigned to the
source, because of the variety of well types and the lack of data. Pollutants include potentially
any waste fluid produced by various industries, utilities, and commercial ventures, as well as
septic system pollutants and agricultural chemicals.
Major pollutants found in ground water as a result of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers
applications include nitrates, aldicarb, EDB, alachlor, atrazine, oxyamyl, dinoseb, carbofuran,
1,2- and 1,3-dichloropropane.
The Ecosystems Research Center (ERC) at Cornell University, for the Unfinished
Business project's national Ecological Risk Work Group, considered ground-water
contamination as a stress agent category under "other environmental problems" (ERC, 1986).
ERC defined the areas to include "all contaminants entering ground-water systems, such as
metals, toxic organics, toxic inorganics, pesticides, herbicides, radionuclides, and microbes."
This categorical placement reflects their judgement, at least on a national scale across all
hydrogeological settings, that any contaminant discharging to surface waters via ground water
is less of an ecological threat than its presence in surface waters due to direct introduction.
They also note that "ecological effects are limited to localized areas of ground water reaching
surface water systems; even then, ecological effects are highly unlikely unless ground water is
the major source to the aquatic system; the primary concern is route to humans." Other
information for ground-water contamination from the ERC study appears below:
82
-------
Severity of effects. Any effects are probably limited to the ecosystem level; the effects are
unknown for freshwater ecosystems, unknown for estuaries, unexpected for marine and
terrestrial ecosystems, and unknown for wetlands.
Reversibility. This was not estimated for any ecosystems.
Types of impacts to resources. The only ecological response noted by the national work
group across all ecosystems was a concern for the ecosystem as a potential route to humans
for health-effects stresses.
Impact Assessment
Ground-water discharge to surface-water bodies is the exposure pathway considered in
this assessment, the underlying assumption being that contaminated ground water is not an
ecological threat until it discharges. New England's hydrogeology is such that ground-water
flow systems are generally local, that is, flow paths tend to be short from primary recharge
areas to surface-water points of discharge. This is due to the glacial origins of our aquifer
deposits, consisting of relatively vulnerable, thin, and isolated "pockets" or "stringers" of
stratified drift, deposited in preglacial bedrock valleys. Pollutants in ground water have the
potential to be highly concentrated at the point of discharge. This is due to short flow paths
and a lack of much dispersion or dilution. However, the particular fate and transport
characteristics of the pollutants and the aquifer are extremely important in determining that
potential The effect of ground-water pollution on surface-water quality is greatest both
during periods of low precipitation, since ground water as base flow can be as much as
70 percent of the stream flow in some areas of New England, and on the many ponds of
glacial origin that are surface expressions of the water table.
The percentage of resources affected by "other ground-water contamination" is not fully
known. The location of the pollutant release relative to a surface-water body is of great
significance.
Potential Impacts from Septic Tanks and Cesspools
It is estimated that only 40 percent of all septic systems function properly, and areas with
more than 40 systems per square mile can be considered to have potential contamination
problems (Canter and Knox, 1985). Reference to Tables 19-1 and 19-2 shows that the more
populous sou'hem New England area has double and even triple that density in some
counties. Massachusetts, with more than 600,000 systems and noted surface-water problems,
appears to be at the greatest risk. On Cape Cod alone, an estimated 63.8 million gallons per
year (mgy) of septage is generated, with only 31 percent being effectively treated, leaving
about 44 mgy to discharge to a highly vulnerable environment (CCAMP, 1988). If the design
83
-------
life of these systems is 10 to IS years, and many in New England were installed in the 1960s,
we can expect that we are seeing the beginning signs of a problem that could only get worse
as development in New England increases. If an estimated 1.75 million systems discharge
45 gallons per day (gpd) per person, and we assume three persons per system, then New
England generates 86 billion gallons per year of septage, and potentially 51.6 billion gallons
of partially treated sewage are discharging per year in New England.
Examination of the-1988 Water Quality Reports for the New England states gives some
indication in a few states of the possible extent of septic problems on surface waters.
Pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources are increasingly being recognized due to point
source discharge reductions and continuing water quality problems. Failing septic
systems—septic tanks and cesspools—are noted as a major contributor to the nonattainment
status of 27 of 32 drainage basins in Massachusetts and as a minor contributor to two other
basins. More specifically, septic systems contributed to the poor surface-water quality noted
in 73 of 159 lakes and ponds and in 63 of 376 surface-water segments of nonattainment status.
In 16 of the 63 water segments there were shellfish bans. In New Hampshire, on-site
wastewater systems had moderate/minor impacts on 922 miles of rivers, and in Maine
approximately 31.3 percent of the ground-water nonattainment areas (or 91.3 square miles)
are estimated to be due to septic systems.
The ecological repercussions of this pollution source are probably related to nutrients
(nitrates) as a primary stress agent Since it appears likely that high concentrations of
untreated septage are discharging, examination of nutrients as a "water source" stress agent
(ERG study) warrants attention. Nutrients would have an ecological effect at an ecosystem
scale. For freshwater ecosystems, nutrients would have highest effect on unbuffered lakes;
they have a medium effect on buffered lakes and unbuffered streams and a low effect on
buffered streams. For marine ecosystems, nutrients have the highest effect on estuaries and a
medium effect on coastal marine waters.
Potential Impacts from Road De-Icing Salts
In Maine, an estimated 10.9 square miles (or 14.1 percent) of ground-water nonattainment
areas are due to plumes from 700 uncovered salt storage piles. A Rhode Island study (FHA),
1981) showed high concentrations of sodium and chloride thousands of feet downgradient
from salt storage piles, and some surface-water samples showed sodium and chloride
concentrations in the hundreds of parts per million.
A special legislative committee on water supply in Massachusetts described the impacts of
mad salts. Note that some of the trees cited as most sensitive are frequently found in wetland
areas, which are ground-water discharge areas:
84
-------
Road salts have been documented as causing damage to vegetation. High sodium
levels may inhibit moisture uptake. Sodium can interfere with a plant's ability to
absorb necessary nutrients such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium. Vegetation
up to 120 meters from a road can be severely damaged by salt sprayed from traffic
and wind. Internal accumulation of sodium and chloride first results in foliage
damage and may progressively cause growth depression and leaf bum, followed by
reductions in new shoot growth, and, if sufficiently severe, eventual death.
Depending on the particular species, plants range from highly salt sensitive to
highly salt tolerant Some of the most sensitive include the American elm, red
maple, white pine, hemlock, and sugar maple.
Table 19-3 contains scattered estimates of road salt applied and stored in New England.
Using the annual tonnage figures for some of the states, an estimated 750,000 tons of salt are
applied annually to major New England roads. If it is assumed that almost all of this salt
eventually reaches surface waters as runoff or via ground-water infiltration, then road salt has
the potential to create, as a very rough estimate, approximately 12 billion gallons of salt water
(of an average seawater sodium chloride concentration) annually.
To the extent that high concentrations of brine are discharging to surface waters near the
point of application or storage, one can expect ecological effects to freshwater plants and
organisms similar to those described in the report by the Massachusetts legislative committee,
cited above. Ecological damage regionwide is probably restricted to localized roadside areas.
Potential Impacts from Pesticides and Fertilizers
The potential environmental damage from ground water contaminated by agricultural
chemicals includes damage to vegetation, waterfowl, and aquatic life in discharge areas
(USDA, 1987). The regional significance of pesticides as they impact ecology is best
addressed as a surface-water issue. Generally, the amount of pesticide running off a field will
be greater than that leaching into ground water, and both pathways will probably join at the
same surface-water body nearest the point of application. This makes it difficult to assess the
relative contributions. Fertilizers leaching into ground water, however, may be a large source
of nitrates found in surface waters in agricultural areas because of their greater leaching
potential
The toxicity of pesticides varies, and no water quality criteria have been noted for them.
Probably less than 1 percent of the estimated 1,020 tons per year of agriculturally applied
pesticides leach inn) ground water. As noted above, it is believed that direct runoff is more of
an ecological threat No data analysis was attempted for fertilizer applications, but we can
expect that high nitrate levels in agricultural areas are due to fertilizers as well as to other
nonpoint sources.
The extent of ground-water contamination by pesticides and fertilizers is just coming to
light As quantification of the leaching potential and the fate and transport characteristics of
these contaminants continues, the environmental damage by them as a ground-water source
may be easier to assess. This source, similar to the others, depends significantly on location.
85
-------
Potential Impacts from Class V Underground Injection Wells
No data were obtained to assist in an ecological impact evaluation for this source.
Where a Class V well is discharging toxic effluents near a surface-water body, localized
ecological effects can be expected. Of all the sources addressed in this problem area, this one
has the most unknowns.
Risk Characterization
Effects of stressors on each ecosystem were ranked on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 the greatest
effect The potential impact ratings reflect a combination of information on the potential of
the stressors both as ground-water contaminants and as water-source stress agents as discussed
in the ERG study and referenced above. The potential to impact kikes was ranked
medium-high. Impacts on wetlands, streams, and estuaries was ranked medium. The regional
impacts for the most part are uncertain except for streams and lakes, which were addressed
regarding septic systems in the state's 1988 Water Quality Assessment reports. Data
reliability is largely uncertain; limited data were available and the amount of qualitative
assessment required was high. The overall effect to each ecosystem is thought to be highest
on our region's lakes because they are standing-water bodies sometimes receiving high
amounts of ground-water discharge. The exception to the above statements is the rating of the
impact on ground water itself, which will be addressed below.
The problem area "Other Ground-Water Contamination" was defined more broadly by the
national Ecological Risk Work Group than by our regional team. The problem definition was
narrowed for the regional study in hopes of improving data quality. Even so, a good database
was not readily available for any of the four main sources covered.
The national study ranked this problem area in the fifth of six groupings, along with most
waste sites, accidental releases, and oil spills. The fifth grouping was characterized by data of
moderate uncertainty and by problem areas with many sources of generally low impact but
with the potential for high local impacts. The group also represented sources of variable
control and impacts of uncertain recovery.
The results of the regional ranking are somewhat better in that we were able to regionalize
the problem area, primarily due to the high densities of septic systems and high rates of road
de-icing salts applications. Still, an understanding of the specific ecological impacts of this
problem area as a whole remains highly uncertain.
86
-------
As noted in the section above, the uncertainty is high for this problem area because the
ecological impacts of pollutants in ground water are not well studied or documented. Without
data on Class V underground injection wells, which have more toxic potential than septic
tanks and road salting, and due to a general lack of data for the other sources, the percentage
of the problem covered in the evaluation is less than SO percent Thus, much of the ranking
was qualitative.
Welfare
Ground water as a resource in this region is highly impacted by "other ground-water
contamination." Although levels of the stressors may be reduced by the time they discharge
to a surface-water body, where dispersion and dilution can occur, within the ground-water
flow system the pollutants addressed above often occur at levels that prevent using the ground
water as a drinking-water source. The problem is particularly risky with regards to private
wells. These wells are largely unmonitored. As a result, people may be unknowingly
drinking water contaminated by high sodium, nitrate, chloride, and bacterial levels. Also, an
increasing number of wells are being contaminated by pesticides and toxic organic and
inorganic chemicals, contaminants for which tests are costly. The sources in this problem area
are widespread and have the potential to slowly degrade the natural high quality of Region I's
ground waters.
87
-------
Bibliography
Canter and Knox. Septic Tank System Effects on Ground Water Quality. Chelsea, Michigan:
Lewis Publishers, Inc., 1985.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP), USEPA, MADEQE, CCPEDC, et al.
Draft document, 1988.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Contamination in Municipal Water Supplies. Boston,
Massachusetts: Special Legislative Commission on Water Supply, 1986.
Ecosystems Research Center (ERC), Cornell University. "ERC Workshop on Ecological
Effects from Environmental Stresses," published as an Appendix to Unfinished Business.
USEPA-OPA & OPPE, 1987.
Federal Highway Administration (FHA). "A Study of the Effects of Salt Storage Practices on
Surface and Ground Water Quality in Rhode Island." NTIS report no.
FHWA-RI-RD-80-01,1981.
Resources for the Future, Inc. National Pesticides Inventory Database. Washington, D.C.,
1985.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Magnitude and Costs ofGroundwater
Contamination From Agricultural Chemicals. Staff Report AGES870318, Washington,
D.C., 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Comparative Impact Analysis of Sources of
Ground-Water Contamination-Phase m." Draft Report Washington, D.C.: OPA,
January 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of
Environmental Problems, Appendix m, Ecological Risk Work Group. Washington, D.C.:
OPA and OPPE, February 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Class V Injection Wells: Current Inventory, Report
to Congress. EPA 570/9-87-006, Washington, D.C.: USEPA Office of Water, May 1987.
-------
20. & 21. Pesticide Residues on Food
& Pesticide Application
Problem Area Definition
This evaluation combined two problem areas to include risk associated with the direct
application of pesticides to ecosystems and risk associated with the resultant pesticide residues
on food consumed by wildlife. The term "pesticide" includes all insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, and rodenticides. It is further defined to include "any substances or mixture
intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest" Accidental exposure to
nontarget organisms and unwanted pesticide residues that bioaccumulate in the food chain can
result when pesticides are applied correctly or when they are misapplied.
Summary/Abstract
New England faces a unique ecological problem from the use of pesticides. It is a small
geographical area with no clear division between agricultural and nonagricultural land. The
agricultural community, particularly in southern New England, is dispersed throughout forest,
residential, and industrial areas. The use of many different pesticides in these relatively small
agricultural zones raises the potential for pesticide contamination of the surrounding
ecosystems either through direct application to wildlife habitat and freshwater systems or by
runoff or aerial drift
The agro-ecosystem (e.g., agriculture) is important not only because it produces the bulk
of food used for human consumption but also because it can serve as a unique habitat for
certain wildlife species. Most of the agro-ecosystem is treated with pesticides at least once per
growing season.
The aquatic environment may be directly treated with pesticides to control mosquitos or
algal blooms and it can indirectly receive pesticides through agricultural runoff and drift
Freshwater systems ultimately lead to estuarine and coastal systems that can, in turn, become
contaminated with pesticides.
As a class of chemicals, pesticides can be both beneficial and hazardous, depending on
where and how applied. Because pesticides are designed to kill living organisms, unintended
exposure can be very destructive to the biotic receptors (e.g., fish and wildlife in the
agro-ecosystem).
89
-------
Sources
Types and amounts of pesticides applied in New England vary with the type of agriculture
practiced in a given area. Apples, corn, small fruits, and vegetables are grown throughout the
region and present essentially the same pesticide problems. There are also highly specialized
agricultural situations in the region. In Maine, blueberries are grown extensively in
Washington County and potatoes in Aroostook County, each crop requiring use of an array of
different pesticides. In Vermont, feed com and apples are the major crops. Cranberry
production in southeastern Massachusetts requires direct application of pesticides to bodies of
freshwater. A large number of nurseries and greenhouses throughout the region also rely
heavily on pesticide use. The many small vegetable farms throughout Connecticut,
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are also a potential source of pesticides being introduced
into the environment
In Region I, the close proximity of crop land and pastures to both forest ecosystems and
aquatic systems places these in immediate danger of receiving off-target drift from pesticide
applications. Pesticides are used to the greatest extent on the agro-ecosystem.
Other major uses of pesticides include forest management (which includes herbicides used
in rights-of-way maintenance) and large-scale abatement projects such as mosquito and
aquatic weed control. Pesticides applied to forest ecosystems (e.g., the Maine Spruce
Budworm Project) will result in direct application to aquatic ecosystems (streams, ponds,
etc.). The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) estimates that approximately 10 percent of all
pesticides applied by air or mist-blower ground equipment will reach adjacent aquatic
ecosystems.
In reviewing the many sources of the ecological risks from pesticides, only a few major
pesticides were considered. Those pesticides used in large amounts in agriculture, forest
management (including herbicides used in rights-of-way maintenance), or large-scale
abatement projects (mosquito control) were evaluated.
Ecological Hazard Assessment
Data from EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs indicate that at least 121 pesticide-active
ingredients are registered for direct application to streams, lakes, ponds, and estuaries.
Pesticides used for agriculture vary directly with the type of crop and the infestation to be
controlled.
Ecological effects resulting from pesticide exposure can be quite pronounced (death) or,
more likely, include long-term impacts such as decreasing population. Since reaction to
pesticides can be species- and chemical-specific, this paper will not attempt to evaluate all
possible combinations.
90
-------
Fish and wildlife are directly exposed to pesticides through inhalation, ingestion, and
dermal absorption. Residues on food and in fish and wildlife habitats result in direct exposure
to pesticides. Certain pesticides bioaccumulate in and contaminate food chains. Acute
poisoning of nontarget organisms can lead to direct mortality or cause an inability to resist
predation. Chronic effects include an inability to function properly, such as inability to feed
or to reproduce. Ultimately, a change in the number of species and in species size will have a
deepening impact on the stability of the entire ecosystem.
Occasionally, adverse impacts are reversible. A case in point is the decline of the
peregrine falcon and other species as a direct result of poisoning with DDT. Once the stressor
was removed, the affected species recovered.
Most of the measurable data available for assessing pesticide impacts on wildlife concern
obvious fish and bird kills.
Impact Assessment
The pathways of exposure include direct application of highly toxic pesticides, such as
methylparathion, and highly persistent pesticides, such as atrazine. This includes multiple
applications of insecticides and fungicides, particularly in one of New England's major fruit
crops-apples.
Agricultural applications result in direct hazards to all terrestrial organisms and to aquatic
organisms from runoff and drift With respect to forest applications, the use of highly toxic
insecticides to control defoliating insects of both hardwood and coniferous species and the use
of herbicides in other forest management practices, such as "conifer release," result in the
same threats to wildlife as stated above.
Direct application of aquatic herbicides to lakes, ponds, and streams is routine in Region I
to control unwanted vegetation. Streams are affected by direct forest application and also
from agricultural runoff. The use of larvicides to control mosquito populations results in
direct applications to wetlands. These areas are also affected by runoff and drift from
agricultural use. The use of antifouling paints on boats poses a threat to mollusk and fishing
beds.
The magnitude of the exposure is difficult to assess. The data available for review only
indicate which pesticides are likely to have an impact on an ecosystem due to volume used,
not relative toxicity. The data were not helpful in estimating single-use-related responses.
Each of the ecosystems is at high risk from pesticide contamination even when pesticides are
91
-------
applied correctly. The degree of risk will vary according to type of pesticide, the amount
reaching the receptor, and the relative vulnerability of the receptor to the individual pesticide.
Because of the variance, the diversity of pesticides, and their bio-effects, the problems cannot
be consolidated into a single analysis. Each chemical and its possible impact on a given
environment should be looked at separately.
There are data available regarding the average annual amount (pounds) of agricultural
pesticides used in each state in the mid-1980s, prepared by the Resources for the Future, Inc.,
from the National Pesticides Inventory database on a per-county basis.
There are numerous examples of the misuse of pesticides and its impact The use of DDT
and its long-term impact on the reproduction of the peregrine falcon is an example. The
recent banning of Chlordane because of its potential impact to human health is another
example of a previously approved chemical that is now banned.
Risk Characterization
Direct application of pesticides to lakes, freshwater wetlands, and terrestrial sites puts
these ecosystems in Region I at high overall risk. In addition, these receptors are a risk from
pesticide infiltration from other locations, either through off-target drift or agricultural runoff.
The risk to wildlife increases as food sources are ultimately contaminated with pesticide
residues. Pesticides also may infiltrate into soils, eventually contaminating ground water and
threatening present and future water supplies.
Estuaries, tidal wetlands, and streams are at moderate risk from direct application and
indirect contamination from pesticides. Mollusk and fishing beds in particular are threatened
by discharge of antifouling paints.
Welfare
The potential for ground-water contamination from pesticides is extremely high in certain
areas of Region L To date, agricultural chemicals have been found in ground water to some
degree in all our states. The extent of the problem is yet to be determined.
92
------- |