vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency New England
  [•Iiisi Remediation and Restoration
          Annual Report
        A status report on the New England

        Waste Cleanup and Revitalization Programs.

-------
U.S. EPA New England ma United States
— Environmental Protection
Table of Contents %# Agency New England
VERMONT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Overview 2
Land Revitalization 6
National Priorities List 8
Sites of Special Interest 1 4
Watch List 1 5
Emergency Planning & Response Program 1 6
Brownfields 1 9
RCRA Corrective Action 24
Underground Storage Tank 25
Map 26
(cover photo) Wetland area on the Troy Mills Superfund Site in Troy , NH

-------
U.S. EPA New England ll A United States
Environmental Protection
Introduction Agency New England
WELCOME TO EPA NEW ENGLAND
The New England office of the U.S. Environmental Ptotection Agency is dedicated to protecting all New England-
ers from environmental health threats while also preserving and protecting our unique environmental resources.
This annual report details the 2006 programmatic accomplishments of EPA New England’s Office of Site Remediation
and Restoration. The Office of Site Remecliation and Restoration focuses on the restoration and revitalization of
contaminated properties through the Superfund, Brownfields, RCRA Corrective Action and Underground Storage
Tanks programs. Each of these programs shares the common goal of protecting human health while restoring
contaminated properties to economic and environmental vitality. In addition, the Office of Site Remediation and
Restoration is prepared to handle a broad spectrum of environmental emergencies, ranging from those posed by
chemical or oil spills to those presented by potential acts of terrorism or natural disasters.
EPA’s Land Revitalization Initiative seeks to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of our cleanup
programs by promoting an interchange of ideas and finding opportunities for working collaboratively.
A fundamental tenet of the Land Revitalization Initiative is that cleanup and reuse are mutually supportive goals
and that consideration of the anticipated property reuse should be an integral part of EPA’s cleanup decisions. Because land use is
generally determined at the local level, EPA New England has been working in partnership with municipal governments, community
members, property owners, responsible parties and other key stakeholders to implement cleanups that are allowing formerly unproduc-
tive properties to be safely returned to sustainable and beneficial uses. In the Superfund program for example, more than half of the
NPL sites in New England where remedy construction is complete are in reuse. This annual report highlights some of our success in
land revitalization throughout New England.
The Superfund program directs the clean up of National Riorities List (NPL) sites as well as the clean up of smaller often less complex,
sites that pose a significant risk to people or the environment. Our New England Superfund program remains vital and boasts strong
successes. In cooperation with our state counterparts, EPA New England has completed cleanup or has cleanup activities underway at 80
percent of New England’s 115 NPL sites. In 2006, EPA New England deleted the Army Materials Technology Laboratoiy site in Watertown,
Massachusetts from the NPL after it was determined that all appropriate cleanup and response activities had been completed. This deletion
brings to 12 the total number of sites in New England that have been formally removed from the NPL. EPA New England continues to
evaluate sites for possible inclusion on the NR. In 2006, the Olin Chemical site in Wilmington, Massachusetts was added to the NPL. Our
Superlund removal program expended nearly $11 million dollars to complete 13 removal actions across New England in 2006. Through
an aggressive regional program to recoup federal expenses at Superfund sites or to have responsible parties pay for cleanup, we have
restored $2.2 billion to the Superfund Trust Fund since inception of the program. For detailed information about EPA New England’s efforts
in the Superfund program, including detailed descriptions on each NPL site in New England, please visit www.epa.gov/ne/superfund.
EPA New England’s ability to respond to catastrophic incidents that may be caused by natural disasters or acts of terrorism remains a
regional priority. As of the end of 2006, 255 EPA New England personnel have completed Incident Command System training,
including 124 staff members that have completed advanced level training. Our staff participated in extensive training and numerous
exercises with our local, state and federal response partners throughout 2006. During the first half of 2006, EPA New England
continued to provide critical support to the Gulf region by deploying a significant number of staff and contractor resources to assist in
the massive EPA response effort in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Drawing on that experience, we worked closely with our
New England state counterparts throughout 2006 developing debris management plans and overall hurricane response prepared-
ness. EPA New England conducted several emergency response actions during 2006, highlighted by our response to the massive
explosion and fire at a paint manufacturing facility in Danvers, Massachusetts. Within hours of the explosion, EPA New England
personnel were conducting extensive air monitoring and sampling to ensure the safety of first responders and the nearby community.
Once the fire was extinguished, EPA New England quickly worked on stabilizing the site by securing hundreds of drums and containers,
removing chemicals from three underground storage tanks and shipping all contaminated materials from the site. Throughout the
operation, we conducted air sampling to ensure returning residents were not being exposed to contamination. For further information
on EPA New England’s oil and chemical emergency response programs, visit wvvw.epa.gov/ne/superfund/er/erindex.htm.
The success EPA New England’s Brownfields program has resulted in many underused or unused real estate parcels being redeveloped
and once again contributing to the local economy in taxes and jobs. Since the inception of the Browntields program, EPA New England
has distributed more than $132 million to hundreds of communities, states, agencies, and non-profit organizations across the region. In
2006, EPA New England’s Brownfields program awarded 58 grants across the region worth a total of $18.5 million. This included two new
Job Training grants, one to The WorkPlace, Inc. for Stamford, Connecticut and one to JFY NetWorks, Inc. in Boston, Massachusetts. In
November 2006, the Brownfields 2006 conference was held in Boston. Brownfields 2006 brought over 5,000 people to Boston to highlight
opportunities and progress in the Brownfields arena. For more information on EPA New England’s Brownfields activities, we encourage
you to visit our Brownfiekls website to read case studies of redevelopment projects across the region, www.epa.gov/ne/Brownfields.
We look forward to another year of working with our Congressional delegation, states, tribes, the public and others to promote a cleaner
healthier and more productive New England environment. Please visit EPA’s Internet web pages at www.epa.govfregionl to find a
wealth of useful, updated information about the work that EPA New England performs. Thank you for your strong support of these
important programs.

Regional Administrator
R [ M [ DIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 1

-------
Brownfields
VERMONT
Following is a quick summary of EPA New England’s Office of
Site Remediation and Restoration (OSRR) programs highlighted
in this report.
Superlund Program
OSRR’s remedial branches oversee long-term cleanups at sites that are typically on EPA’s National
Priorities List (NPL). Short-term cleanups can correct many hazardous waste problems and eliminate
most threats to human health and the environment. Some sites, however, require lengthier and more
complex cleanups These may include large-scale soil remediation, restoring groundwater and
taking measures to protect wetlands, estuaries, and other ecological resources. These sites are often
the result of years of pollution and may take several years, even decades, to clean.
Emergency Planning and Response Program
OSRR’s Emergency Planning and Response Program prepares for, and responds to oil and chemical
spills to the environment, and supports and supplements local, state, and private parties’ efforts to
address emergencies
EPA also oversees short-term cleanups across New England. Short-term cleanups, called “removal
actions,” reduce immediate threats to public health and the environment at sites that are typically
less complex to clean up than sites on the NPL. Short-term cleanups may take anywhere from a few
days to a few years to complete, depending on the type and extent of contamination. An emergency
removal occurs when hazardous or toxic chemicals are released into the environment causing po-
tential health or environmental risks. EPA may need to respond within hours of the event
Brownfields Program
Originally begun as an EPA initiative in January 1995, the US EPA National Brownfields Program
has since evolved into a collaborative effort involving many federal, state and local partners In
January 2002, the Small Business Liability Relief arid Brownfields Revitalization Act (“the Brownfields
law”) was signed This law expanded potential federal assistance for Brownfields revitalization, in-
cluding Assessment Grants, Revolving Loan Fund Grants, Cleanup Grants, Job Training Grants
and Targeted Brownuields Assessments. The law also includes provisions to establish and enhance
state and tribal response programs, which will continue to play a critical role in the successful
cleanup and revitalization of brownhelds
RCRA Corrective Action Program
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides EPA and authorized states the au-
thority to regulate facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste (RCRA facilities). Although
RCRA is designed to prevent releases of hazardous waste at RCRA facilities, accidents or other
activities have occasionally caused such releases into soil, groundwater. surface water and air. The
RCRA Corrective Action Program, administered by EPA or authorized states, compels RCRA facilities
to investigate and cleanup hazardous waste releases. RCRA Corrective Action differs from Superfund
in that RCRA facilities generally have viable operators and on-going operations,
although some of the sites may be abandoned.
Underground Storage Tank (UST)/Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Program (LUST)
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established for the first time a link between the UST Regulatory
Program and the LUST Trust Fund Cleanup Program. Prior to 2005 the compliance and prevention
UST program and the LUST cleanup program were in separate statutes and appropriations. The
Energy Act of 2005 allows LUST funding to support prevention activities. The new Energy Act requires
EPA and the states to meet several programmatic milestones and achievements by specific dates
These include all federal regulated facilities that have not received an on-site inspection since De-
cember 1998 be inspected by August 2007 and every three years thereafter. The states must also
adopt secondary containment standards, report on compliance status of government owned USTs,
incorporate a delivery prohibition, develop an annual reporting system available to the public and
adopt a requirement for operator training
2/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England
Overview
‘ EPA United States
Environmental Protection
Agency New England
SUPERFUND
Discovery Cleanup
Long-term Cleanup
Brcwnfields Prograr
State Lad Cleanup 1
Sho 14erm actions may
unmediate public health
) be taken to eliminate
efw3ronrnentai
p
I Study Type &
I Extent of
Contamhi.tion-
[ ateO I
Include
r
Propose
Cleenup_Plan
f. •
—U—
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 3

-------
Brownflelds
Study Remedy Selected;
Underway* Design Underway*
*
Construction Construction
Underway Complete**
* may include sites where early action has occurred long-term monitoring, operation,and maintenance ongoing
Source: Superfund c-facts. December 2006
VERMONT
Number of National Priorities List Sites
in each phase of the Superfund Process
60 —
50 —
40 —
30 —
20 —
c i)
5J
-c,
C
c
LU
clj
z
0
ci)
0
E
z
10
0
Remedial
Assessment
not Begun*
4 REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England I
Overview Environmental Protection
Agency New England
SUPERFUND SITE CLEANUP STATUS SUMMARY
R.medial Study kemedy Construction Construction Deleted
Assessment Underway Selected; Design Underway Complete from NFL
not Begun Underway
CONNECTICUT Brood Brook Mill” Precision Plating Durham Meadow
Scovill Landfill
MASSACHUSETtS Haverhill Landfill Naval Weapons
Olin Chemical Shpack Landfill
Hoth & Patterson
MAINE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RHODE ISLAND Centredale Manor
N London Sub
Old Southington
Roymark
SRS
Linemoster Sw
Beacon heights
Gollups Quarry
Keflogg-Deenng
Laurel Pork
Yaworski Lagoon
Borkhomsted
Cheshire GWater
Nutmeg Volley Rd
Revere Textile
Atlas Tack
Baird & McGuire
Army Matls Tech
Natick Army Lab
Fort Devens
Cannon Eng
Charles George LF
Devens-Sudbury An
Plymouth Harbor
n

Hanscom AFB
Groveland Wells
Salem Acres
lrrdustnples
Hocomonco Pond
Iron Horse Park
Norwood PCBs
S Weymouth NAS
PSC Resources
New Bedford
Re-Solve, Inc
Nyanzo
Rose Disposal Pit
Otis ANG Base
Sullivan’s Ledge
Silresim
WR Grace/Acton
Wells G&H
GE-Housatonic ”
Callahan Mine
West Sito/Hows Car
Portsmouth NSY
Brunswick NAS
Eastland Woolen
Eastern Surplus
Lonng AFB
McKin Co
O’Connor Co
Soco Municipal LF
Union Chemical
Winthrop Landfill
Pinette’s Salvage
Soco Tannery
Mohawk Tannery”
Chlor-Alkali
Beede Waste Oil
Dover Landfill
Fletcher’s Point
Ottoti & Goss
Auburn Rood LF
Cookley Landfill
Kearsorge Metallurg
Keefe Enviro
Mottalo Pig Form
N H Plating
Pease AFB
Savoge Muni
South Muni Well
Sylvester
Tibbetts Road
Tinkham Garage
Town Garage/
Radio Beac
Troy Mills Landfill
Sornersworth IF
Rose Hill Landfill Central Landfill Davis GSR Landlill
Davis liquid Landfill & Res Rec
Dovisville NCBC Picillo Farm
Newport NETC Stamina Mills
Peterson/Puntan Western Sand & Grovel
W Kingston/URI

VERMONT Commerce Plume Ely Copper Mine Eli2abeth Mine Bennington Landfill Darling Hill Dump
Pike Hill BFI Landfill Tonsitor Electronics
Burgess Bros LF
Pine Street Canal
Pownal Tannery
Old Springfield IF
Parker Landfill
Blackburn&Union
Nuclear Metals
Sutton Brook
proposed NPL site
* In negotiations with responsible parties
Note Statistics represent most-advanced Operabfe Unit at each site, additional activities may be ongoing at these sites
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 5

-------
Land Revitalization
VERMONT
LAND REVITALIZATION
Most people associate the reuse of contaminated properties with the Brownfields Program, but
similar efforts are also occurring within the other land cleanup programs:Superfund, RCRA
Corrective Action, and UST. Although the goal is the same — to restore contaminated proper-
ties to economic and environmental vitality — each program must often work from a unique set
of rules to achieve the desired results.
EPA’S national Land Revitalization Initiative, established September 2004, seeks to
enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of these various cleanup programs by promoting
an interchange of ideas and finding opportunities for working collaboratively. Whether
a property is a Superfund site, an operating RCRA facility, a former gas station, or an abandoned
industrial facility, there are common challenges confronting revitalization efforts that can clearly
benefit from a coordinated and comprehensive
approach.This is being achieved by:
• Developing a consistent set of cross-program
revitalization measures
• Promoting collaboration among EPA programs and
external partners
• Developing effective tools that address barriers to land
revitalization
• Providing land revitalization training
• Conducting public outreach
For more information on EPA’s national
Land Revitalization initiative, please visit:
www.epa .gov/Iandrevitalization.
A fundamental tenet of the Land Revitalization
Initiative is that cleanup and reuse are mutually
supportive goals and that consideration of the
anticipated property reuse should be an integral
part of EPA’s cleanup decisions. Because land use
is generally determined at the local level, EPA has
been working in partnership with municipal
governments, community members, property
owners, responsible parties and other key stake-
holders to implement cleanups that enable
formerly unproductive properties to be safely
returned to sustainable and beneficial uses.
“EPA’s cleanup programs Stakeholder Engagement
have set a national goal
for returning formerly
contaminated sites to
long-term, sustainable,
and productive uses.”
— 2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan
6 REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England
Land Revitalization
EpA United States
Environmental Protection
Agency New England
Brownfields
Railroad Row, Hartford,
Vermont — The historic, yet di-
lapidated, Twin State Fruit ware-
house property in Hartford, Ver-
mont underwent an economic
and environmental recovery that
started with a $200,000 EPA
Brownilelds Assessment Grant
awarded to the Two Rivers-
Ottauquechee Regional Corn-
mission.
RCRA Corrective
Action
Gilbert & Bennett, Reading
(Georgetown), Connecticut
- The bankrupt and abandoned
Gilbert & Bennett manufacturing
facility will soon see new life as a
pedestrian-friendly, environmen-
tally-responsible village center
with 416 planned residential units,
over 300,000 square feet of com-
mercial space, a performing arts
center, and a host of other ameni-
ties. The project has received nu-
merous accolades, including
EPA’s 2004 National Award for
Smart Growth Achievement
(Small Communities).
Federal Facilities
Pease Air Force Base,
Portsmouth, New Hamp-
shire - As part of the compre-
hensive redevelopment plan for
the Former Pease Air Force Base
in New Hampshire, the runway,
taxiway, and aviation support fa-
cilities have been refurbished and
upgraded to support new passen-
ger and cargo air operations.
Superfund
Saco Tannery Superfund site, Saco,
Maine — To partially compensate for the per-
manent loss of wetlands at the Superfund site,
247 acres of rare wildlife habitat were acquired
and translerred to the Nature Conservancy, which
now manages it as a publicly-accessible sanc-
tuary and nature-viewing area.
m
UST
(Former) Whitney Screw site, Nashua,
New Hampshire - The UST Program supports
states, territories and other partners in the cleanup
and reuse of properties contaminated by petro-
leum releases from USTs and works to better inte-
grate eligible petroleum brownfields into ongoing
restoration/revitalization activities. The Whitney
Screw property has been sold and developed into
a mixture of retail and warehouse uses.
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 7

-------
National Priorities List Sites
VERMONT
Summary of Superfund Status—New England
EPA has worked aggressively to clean up hazardous waste problems in
New England In cooperation with our state counterparts, final cleanup
activities are completed, underway, or in design at most of New England’s
115 NPL sites.
• 80% of New England Superfund sites (proposed, final, and deleted)
on the National Priorities List - 92 of 115 sites - have undergone or
are undergoing cleanup construction.
• 65 sites have all cleanup construction completed, 27 sites have
cleanup construction underway
• 12 New England sites have been deleted from the NPL.
• EPA has helped promote economic development by removing 1,781
sites in New England from the CERCLIS list of waste sites.
• The Superfund program has spent over $1.8 billion in New
England to cleanup Superfund National Priorities List sites
• EPA has spent over $274 million on site assessment, investigation,
and cleanup at non- National Priorities List sites in New England.
• EPA, with the cooperation of the U.S. Department of Justice,
continues to ensure that companies responsible for contamination at
sites pay their fair share of cleanup costs Since the inception of the
program, responsible party commitments to cleanups in New
England, via direct payments to the Superfund Trust Fund or via
funding of studies and cleanup work, exceeds $2.2 billion.
Source EPA New England. December 2006
Cumulative Federal Superfund Dollars Expended at
National Priorities List Sites in New England (1 980-2006)
fl CT. $225 million
MA. $1 billion
ME $164 million
NH $247 million
RI: $113 million
VT. $85 million
NEW ENGLAND
TOTALS:
$1,834,000,000
Source. EPA New England, December 2006
8/R [ MEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England II A United States
Environmental Protection
National Priorities List Sites # Agency New England
2006 Superfund Fast Facts—Vermont
EPA has worked aggressively to ciean up hazardous waste probiems in
Vermont In cooperation with the Vermont Agency of Naturai Resources,
finai cieanup activities are compieted, underway, or in design at most of
Vermont’s 13 NPL sites
• 69% of Vermont’s Superfund sites on the Nationai Priorities List - 9 of
1 3 sites - have undergone or are undergoing cieanup construction,
or are in finai design.
• 9 Superfund sites have au cieanup construction completed
• 2 Superfund sites have been deleted from the National Priorities List,
Dariing Hill Dump in Lyndon, and Tansitor Eiectronics, Inc in
Bennington.
• Region 1 has helped promote economic redeveiopment by removing
99 Vermont sites from the CERCLiS waste list
• The Superfund Program has spent over $85 miilion in Vermont to
ciean up Superfund Nationai Priorities List sites
• EPA has spent over $5 million on site assessment, investigation,
and cleanup at non-National Priorities List sites in Vermont
• EPA, with the cooperation of the U S Department of Justice,
continues to ensure that companies responsible for contamination at
sites pay their fair share of cieanup costs Since the inception of
the program, responsible party commitments to cieanups in Vermont,
via direct payments to the Superfund Trust Fund or via funding of
studies and cleanup work, exceeds $83 million
Source EPA New England, December 2006
REMEDiATi0N AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006 / 9

-------
National Priorities List Sites
VERMONT
Bennington
Bennington Municipal Sanitary Landfill
for more information on this project, see: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/
bennington
( NPL Status. Listed in 1989
Cleanup Status: All Construction Completed in 1999
L Superfund $$ Spent $3.3 million
Tansitor Electronics, Inc.
for more information on this project, see: w iw.epa .gov/ne/superfund/sites/tansitor
( NPL Status’ Deleted in 1999
Cleanup Status All Construction Completed in 1997
L SuPer1und $$ Spent: $539,000
Burlington
Pine Street Canal
for more information on this project, see: www.epa.gov/ne/superIund/sites/pinestreet
NPL Status: Listed in 1983
I Cleanup Status All Construction Completed in 2004
L__Superfund $$ Spent $1 1 million
Corinth
Pike Hill Copper Mine
for more information on this project, see: viww.e pa .gov/ne/superfund/sites/pikehill
L
NPL Status Listed in 2004
Cleanup Status: Study Underway
Superfurid $$ Spent: $615,000
Lyndon
Darling Hill Dump
for more information on this project, see: www.epa gov/ne/superfundfsites/
darlinghill
( JPL Status: Deleted in 1999
Cleanup Status: All Construction Completed in 1992
L__Superfurtd_ 5$ Spent. $1 million
1O/R [ MEDIATION AI JD RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
Parker Sanitary Landfill
United States
U.S. EPA New England I i -
Environmental Protection
National Priorities List Sites I PAAgencyNewEnglana
for more information on this project, see. www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/parker
NPL Status Listed in 1990
Cleanup Status, All Construction Completed in 2005
Superfund $$ Spent $4.1 million
Pownal
Pownal Tannery
for more information on tins project, see. www.epa gov/ne/superfund/sites/pownal
NPL Status: Listed in 1999
Cleanup Status’ All Construction Completed in 2004
perfund $$ Spent: $28 3 million
Rockingham
BFI Sanitary Landfill
for more information on this project, see: www.epa .gov/nelsuperIunci/sites/bfi
NPL Status: Listed in 1989
Cleanup Status All Construction Completed in 1996
( uperfund $$ Spent: $1.5 million
Springfield
Old Springfield Landfill
L
for more information on this project, see.’ www.epa gov/ne/superfund/sites/
oldspringfield
NPL Status: Listed in 1983
Cleanup Status. All Construction Completed in 1994
Superfund $$ Spent. $4.7 million
I
Strafford
Elizabeth Mine
for more information on this project, see: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/elizmine
NPL Status: Listed in 2001
Cleanup Status’ Study Underway, Removal Activities
Superfund $$ Spent: $25 million
[
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 11

-------
National Priorities List Sites
VERMONT
Vershire
Ely Copper Mine
for more information on this project, see: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/ely
C


NPL Status Proposed in 2001
Cleanup Status Study Underway
Superfund $$ Spent. $1.6 million
Williston
Commerce Street Plume
for more information on this project. see: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sfles/commerce
r NPL Status Listed in 2005
Cleanup Status. Remedial Assessment not Begun
L__Superfund $$ Spent: $439,000
Woodford
Burgess Brothers Landfill
for more information on this project, see: www.epa gov/ne/superfundfsites/burgess
C NPL Status. Listed in 1989
Cleanup Status. All construction Completed in 2000
Superlund $$ Spent $2.1 million
12/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006

-------
United States
U.S. EPA New England I -
Environmental Protection
National Priorities List Sites OtPAAgency New Eng land
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUM RIPORT 2006 / 13

-------
Sites of Special Interest
ELIZABETH MINE
Strafford, Vermont
The Elizabeth Mine Superfund site is a former copper and
copperas mining operation in Strafford, Vermont which
operated from 1809 to 1958. There are two large tailing
piles (TP-1 and TP-2), one area of waste rock and cop-
peras heap leach piles (TP-3), two large open bedrock
cuts (North Open Cut and South Open Cut), a small
area of waste rock (TP-4), several miles of underground
shafts and adits, and a satellite area of mining (South
Mine) within the Copperas Brook and Lord Brook water-
sheds. The major contaminants of concern for ecological
receptors at the site are aluminum, cobalt, copper, iron,
manganese, and zinc.
In September 2002, EPA signed an Action Memorandum
for a non-time-critical removal (NTCRA) that included
stabilization of the tailing piles and diversion of surface water/shallow groundwater as key compo-
nents. From 2003-2006, EPA implemented a NTCRA to stabilize the Tailling Dam. In 2006 a subset
of the NTCRA activities were initiated. These activities included the stabilization of the west side of the
Tailing Dam along with the installation of 2630 feet of diversion channels along the east and west
sides of TP- 1. Diversion channels will be installed along the east side of the Tailing Dam during 2007.
In September 2006, EPA completed the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for the site and
signed a Record of Decision selecting the final cleanup action for the site.
More information on this site is available at: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/elizabeth
VERMONT
14 REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England I A United States
Environmental Protection
Watch List # Agency New England
VERMONT WATCH LIST
January 2007
Sites included on the Watch List are those that both the state and EPA Site Assessment programs
agree merit increased state-federal coordination and oversight. These sites are but a small
subset of the several thousand active sites included in the EPA New England and New England
state inventories of known and suspected hazardous waste disposal sites. Criteria for including
sites on the Watch List are loosely defined. In general, the Watch List includes sites that warrant
special monitoring because they are strong National Priorities List (NPL) candidates, are the
subject of considerable public interest, are particularly large and/or complex, are requiring
significant Agency or state resource expenditures, or are state-lead sites that may be referred to
EPA in the future. Watch List sites may be, but are not necessarily, listed in the federal CERCUS
inventory Sites may be added or dropped as their status changes.
The purpose of the Watch List is to facilitate rapid information exchange between the states and
EPA regarding the current status of these high profile sites, and to ensure both agencies are kept
abreast al key site issues. EPA and the state have agreed to share site information and to revise
the status of sites as needed. At a minimum, however, the entire list will be reviewed and revised,
as appropriate, annually.
Sites on the Watch List are listed below. For a more detailed description of current activities at
these sites, please contact Meghan Cassidy, EPA Chief, Technical Support and Site Assessment
at (61 7) 91 8-1 387.
Site City/Town CERCLIS ID #
Young Landfill Highgate VFD980914931
St. ,AJbans Gas and Light (former) St. Albans VFD988366688
Jard Bennington VTD048141741
Vermont Asbestos Group Lowell and Eden Not in CERCUS
9 Depot Square (former Howe Cleaners) Barre Not in CERCLIS
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006 / 15

-------
Emergency Planning & Response Program
VERMONT
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND
RESPONSE PROGRAM
EPA New England’s Emergency Planning and Response
Program prepares for, and responds to oil and chemical spills
to the environment, and supports and supplements local, state,
and private parties’ efforts to address emergencies.
EPA also oversees short-term cleanups across New England.
Short-term cleanups, called “removal actions” reduce immediate
threats to public health and the environment at sites that are typically
less complex to clean up than sites on the National Priorities List.
Short term cleanups may take anywhere from a few days to a few years to complete. depending
on the type and extent of contamination.
EPA may need to respond within hours to perform an emergency removal action when hazard-
ous or toxic chemicals or oil are released into the environment causing potential health or
• environmental risks.
• Time critical actions are those cleanups where, based on an evaluation of the site, EPA
determines that on site cleanup activities must be initiated within six months of determining that
a short term cleanup is appropriate. For time critical actions, EPA conducts an investigation of
the contamination and produces an “action memorandum” authorizing and outlining the cleanup
process before beginning work.
Examples of the types of situations where EPA may need to respond immediately include indus-
trial fires, explosions, or imminent, catastrophic contamination of a drinking water supply. EPA
conducted several emergency response actions during 2006, highlighted by the massive explo-
sion and fire at a paint manufacturing facility in Danvers, Massachu-
setts. Within hours of the explosion, EPA personnel were conducting
extensive air monitoring and sampling to ensure that evacuation zone
was large enough and that firefighters and personnel investigating the
cause of the explosion were wearing the appropriate level of respiratory
protection. Once the initial criminal investigation was concluded, the
EPA response team quickly stabilized the site by securing hundreds of
drums and containers, removing chemicals
from three underground storage tanks, re-
moving metal debris, and shipping off all
contaminated materials from the site.
Throughout the operation, EPA conducted air
sampling to ensure returning residents were
not being exposed to any contaminants. The
following charts show the funds spent at each
of the short term cleanup sites that EPA
worked on in New England in calendar year
2006.
Also, EPA prepares for and responds to catastrophic incidents that may be caused by natural
disasters or acts of terrorism by participating in numerous training and exercises with our local,
state and federal response partners. During the first half of 2006, we deployed significant num-
bers of personnel and contractor resources to Louisiana to assist in the huge EPA response to the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Drawing on that experience, we worked closely with
our New England state counterparts throughout 2006 on developing debris management plans
and overall hurricane response preparedness.
j.___
16 REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England
Emergency Planning & Response Program
‘ EPA United States
Environmental Protection
Agency New England
SITES WITH CLEANUP ACTIVITIES COMPLETED IN 2006
Site Name Cily Dote CERCLA
Completed Funds Expended
Connecticut
InterRoyal (Removal 4)
Somers Plating
East Main Street Disposal Area
Maine
Camden Yarns
New Franklin Laundry
Plainfield
05/25/2006
$1,770,762
Somers
06/20/2006
$2,996,604
Branford
1 2/07/2006
$ 44,988
Lewisfon
Bangor
09/19/2006
04/11/2006
$ 5,840
$ 394,799
Massachusetts
Leavens Awards
Cabin Realty Trust
John J. Riley
Whitman Cistern
Attleboro
Taunton
Wobu rn
Whitman
12/20/2005
01/20/2006
11/15/2006
06/28/2006
$ 172,323
$ 250,887
$ 11,557
$ 800,478
—
New Hampshire
L St Catherine Street Tannery Waste Penacook 07/10/2006 $ 322,641
Rhode Island
Centredale Manor
Restoration Protect
Hartford Avenue Gravel Pits
North Providence
Johnston
05/15/2006
1 0/24/2006
$2,883,251
$ 77,905
— J
Vermont
St Albans Gas and Light
St Albans
09/1 2/2006
$1,248,563
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 17

-------
Emergency Planning & Response Program
VERMONT
SITES WITH ONGOING CLEANUP ACTIVITY
Site Name City Date CERCLA
Started Funds Expended
Connecticut
South Paris
Perry
Baldwinville
Do nvers
Seekonk
Taunfon
Woburn
Norwood
Chesterfield
Providence
08/14/2006
10/19/2006
08/16/2004
11/27/2006
07/10/2006
10/30/2005
03/28/2003
10/16/2002
11/07/2005
06/02/2005
$ 1,490,161
$ 58,030
$11,433,392
$ 132,834
$ 416,148
$ 464,173
$ 82,953
$ 369,573
$1 ,402,952
$ 4,266,225
None
Maine
A C Lawrence
Erb Junkyard
Massachusetts
Baidwinville Residential Properties
Danversport Explosion
Sherman Avenue
Parcel 6A
Wells G & H
Zimble Drum
New Hampshire
Electrosonics/Spofford Place
Rhode Island
Lancashire Street Disposal Area
Vermont
Jo rd
Bennington
08/17/2006 $1,196,615
18/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England ri United States
- Environmental Protection
Brownfields l Agency New England
J EPA NEW ENGLAND BROWNFIELDS:
RESTORING VERMONT COMMUNITIES
Environmental contamination can rob a community of Its
economic potential and its social structure even when
Land & Community Revitahz tion contamination is not severe enough for a Superfund desig-
B R.O’v\1N1 F l E LPS nation. Any amount of contamination—or even the percep-
tion of possible contamination—can prevent the use of
valuable property. Across New England, hundreds of prop-
erties are abandoned or underused because of the fear of environmental contamination, a
contamination that may not even exist. And at the same time these sites are left unused, devel-
opment is consuming valuable open space elsewhere. Although such idle properties, called
brownfields, are usually urban warehouses or abandoned factories, they can also be found in
rural areas. When mines are abandoned or fields host illegal dumping, the value of the property
can plummet
EPA New England’s Brownfields Program provides solutions by helping communflies restore value to
these abandoned sites. The program focuses on providing grants and services to help communities
assess contamination, plan for new uses, and clean sites to ready them for redevelopment.
“The term ‘brownfield site’ means real property, the expansion, redevelopment.
or reuse ci which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence
of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.”
(from the federal Brownfields Act of 2002)
Summary of Brownfields Program
Originally begun as an EPA initiative in January 1995, the US EPA National Brownflelds
Program has since evolved into a collaborative effort involving many federal, state and local
partners. In January 2002, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownlields Revitalization Act
(“the Brownfietds law”) was signed This law expanded potential federal assistance for Brownfields
revitalization, including grants for assessment, cleanup, and job training. The law also includes
provisions to establish and enhance state and tribal response programs, which will continue to
play a critical role in the successful cleanup and revitalization of brownfields. Below is a
summary of the US EPA Region 1 funding for each of the key Brownfields initiatives.
Summary of EPA Brownfields Funding in Vermont (1 994-2006)
Program Funding
Assessment Grants $ 6,01 0,000
Revolving Loon Fund (RLF) Grants $ 2,000,000
Cleanup Grants $ 0
Job Training Grants $ 0
EPA Targeted Assessments (TBA) $ 266,621
State Brownfields Funding $ 2,226,543
Showcase Communities $ 0
Grand Total: $10,503,164*
*Funding total current as of December 2006
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006 / 19

-------
Brownfields
Assessment Grant Program
The Brownfields Assessment Program consists of grants of up to $200,000 for hazardous sub-
stances and $200,000 for petroleum initially to local, tribal and state governmental entities to
conduct site assessment and related activities at brownfields sites. Up to $350,000 can be used
per size with a waiver. Grantees are selected through a national competition.
Recipient Funding
Addison County Regional
Planning Commission $ 200,000
Bennington County Regional
Commission $ 200,000
Burlington $ 700,000
Central Vermont Regional
Planning Commission $ 200,000
Chittenden County Regional
Planning Commission $ 600,000
Lamoille County Planning Commission $ 200,000
Northeastern Vermont Development
Association $ 200,000
Northwest Regional Planning Commission $ 600,000
Rutland $ 200,000
Rutland Regional Planning Commission $ 600,000
Southern Windsor County Regional
Planning Commission $ 760,000
Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional
Commission $ 600,000
Windham Regional Commission $ 950,000
Total: $ 6,010,000*
t Funding total current as of December 2006
20 /REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORI 2006
VERMONT

-------
U S. EPA New England United States
Environmental Protection
Brownflelds # Agency New England
Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grant Program
Under this initiative, grants are awarded to eligible local, tribal and state entities to
establish and capitalize revolving loan funds to assist private and public entities in
cleaningup contaminated sites Grants are for up to $1,000,000 and eligible com-
munities may team together to establish larger revolving loan funds pools. Grantees
are selected through a national competition.
Recipient Funding
Southern Windsor County Regional
Planning Commission $1 ,000,000
Vermont Agency of Commerce
& Commur ty Dev&oprnent $ 1,000,000
Total: $ 2,OOO,OOO
1 Funding total current as of December 2006
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 21

-------
Brownfields
Cleanup Grant Program
Under this initiative, EPA funds are awarded to eligible local, state, tribal and non-
profit entities to conduct cleanup activities on eligible brownfielcis properties. Grants
are for up to $200,000 per property. Entities must own the property at the time of
award to be eligible for Funding. Grantees are selected through a national competi-
tion.
Job Training Grant Program
The Brownfields Job Training Program funding is used to train workers in the field of
hazardous waste assessment and remediation. To be eligible for these grants, the
applicants must be affiliated with an existing Brownfietds-funded grant recipient. Grant-
ees are selected through a national competition.
EPA Targeted Brownfields Assessments
Under this initiative, EPA uses its contractors to conduct brownfields assessments at
sites identified by the local entity as being a high-priority for reuse. Brownfields assess-
ments typically involve a review of existing site records, site sampling and preparation
of a preliminary clean-up cost estimate The information gathered allows local gov-
ernment officials and developers to make informed decisions regarding the redevel-
opment potential of a site.
Recipient Site Approx. Value
of Assessment
Montpelier Corr Lot, Taylor Street $ 110,31 7
Rockingham TLR Complex, Mill Street $ 56,304
Windsor - 28 River St __________ ____ $ 100,000
P Tota’ : ______________ _____________ 266,621*
Funding totol current as of December 2006
22/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006
VERMONT

-------
U.S. EPA New England United States
Environmental Protection
Brownfields Agency New England
Financial Assistance to State Brownfields Program
EPA also offers funding to directly support state brownfields activities including funds to
establish and enhance state brownfields programs (also known as voluntary cleanup
programs), to conduct site specific assessment and cleanup, to develop revolving loan lund
programs and to develop insurance tools. Below is a summary of funding received in
Mmont:
Program Funding
Vermont Deportment of
Environmental Conservation
Total:
— ciurr nt ris r fl
Jard Chemical Company
151 South Champlain Street
Vermont Electric Coop
Jewell Brook Property
BCIC Building Complex
Sweat Comings
Stanley Tools Site
Jones & Lamson Plant #1
PVDC Property, 1 00 River Street
Downtown Windsor
Showcase Communities
As part of the multi-federal agency Brownfields National Partnership, sixteen communities
were selected to receive Sho vcase Community designation following a national competition.
The federal partners work with selected communities to revitalize brownfields properties.
EPA generally provided each with a $00,000 Brownfields Ehionstration Pilot and assigned
an EPA employee to work lull time in the designated community for two years.
$ 2,226,543
$ 2,226,543*
iii.x.i-e LsIsr:
State Assessments
Municipality Site __________
Bennington
Burlington
Johnson
Ludlow
North Bennington
Richford
Shaftsbury
Springfield
Windsor

REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 23

-------
RCRA Corrective Action Program
VERMONT
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides EPA and authorized states
the authority to regulate facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste (RCRA
facilities). Although RCRA is designed to prevent releases of hazardous waste at RCRA
facilities, accidents or other activities have occasionally caused such releases into soil,
groundwater, surface water and air The RCRA Corrective Action Program, administered by
EPA or authorized states and territories, compels RCRA facilities to investigate and cleanup
hazardous waste releases. In New England, four of the six states are authorized to run the
program, and Massachusetts and Rhode Island are currently working toward authorization
in 2007. RCRA Corrective Action differs from Superfund in that RCRA facilities generally
have viable operators and on-going operations, although some of the sites may be aban-
doned.
By the year 2020, EPA and the authorized states plan to have largely completed cleanup of
releases of hazardous wastes at all facilities requiring Corrective Action resulting in reuse
and revitalization of these properties. While working toward the 2020 goal, EPA wanted to
ensure that sites presenting the greatest risk to human health and the environment were
addressed first, and developed what is called the “2008 baseline” of facilities in each state.
Remediation of the highest-priority sites involves numerous steps and often takes years to
complete. Interim goals allow EPA to measure performance and facilitate reuse and revital-
ization of these sites. In this regard, the EPA RCRA Corrective Action Program developed
two Environmental Indicators (Els).
Human Exposure El
The Human Exposures El ensures that people near a particular site are not
currently exposed to unacceptable levels of contaminant risk under current land
and groundwater use conditions
Groundwater El
The Groundwater El ensures that the migration of contaminated groundwater has
stabilized and does not spread and further contaminate groundwater resources.
As a result of EPA efforts to achteve the Els at facilities, as of today the Els have been
achieved at the majority of the highest-priority Corrective Action sites in New England.
Building on the success of the Els and collaborative partnerships with stakeholders, the
Corrective Action Program prioritized its focus in 2006 to the substantive cleanup and
revitalization work that will result in final dispositions of these facilities. Similar to the Superfund
program then, the RCRA Corrective Action Program is measuring its remedy and “con-
struction completion” accomplishments, which translate into reuse and revitalization of
these facilities and communities.
New England Universe and Status of RCRA Corrective Action Sites
State 2008 Human Groundwater Final Construction 2020
Baseline Exposure El El Achieved Remedy Complete Baseline
Achieved Selected Achieved
CT 128 119 90 17 11 163
ME 18 13 13 10 9 37
MA 26 20 15 1 1 46
NH 9 6 6 2 1 11
RI 5 4 4 0 0 18
VT 4 4 4 __ 4 4 7
L Ls: 190 T 132 26 282
24/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl. REPORT 2006

-------
NEW ENGLAND UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANKS FACILITY INSPECTIONS
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
Iota Is:
4,633
1,471
4,766
1,294
675
1,129
13,968
1,173
0
20
150
2,620
CONFIRMED RELEASES
IN NEW ENGLAND
401
538
135
510
2,675
U.S. EPA New England United States
rI.%En oental Protection
UST Agency New England
EPA NEW ENGLAND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS:
New Legislation Requires Changes to the
Underground Storage Tank Program
On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Title XV,
Subtitle B of this act (entitled the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of
2005) contains amendments to Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the origi-
nal legislation that created the underground storage tank (UST) program. This new
law significantly affects federal and state underground storage tank programs, will
require major changes to the programs, and
is aimed at reducing underground storage
tank releases to our environment.
The UST provisions of the Energy Policy Act
focus on preventing releases. Among other
things, it expands eligible uses of the Leak-
ing Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust
Fund, and includes provisions regarding
inspections, operator training, delivery pro-
hibition, secondary containment and finan-
cial responsibility, and cleanup of releases
that contain oxygenated fuel additives. To
implement the new law, EPA and states will
work closely with tribes, other federal agen-
cies, tank owners and operators, and other
stakeholders to bring about the mandated
changes affecting underground storage
tank facilities.
In 2006, EPA proposed or finalized con-
gressionally required guidelines on inspec-
tions, delivery prohibition, state report on
government owned UST’s, public record,
secondary containment, financial respon-
sibility and installer certification, and tribal
strategy. In 2007 states must begin to adopt
these guidelines in their state — for sec-
ondary containment and financial respon-
sibility by February 8, 2007, and delivery
prohibition, inspections and public record
by August 8, 2007. Operator training re-
quirements need to be in place by August
8, 2009.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Program
In addition to the extra activities now required in the Energy Bill, New England states continue to track
new releases, have contamination assessed and plan and implement cleanup of leaking under-
ground storage tanks (LUSTs). Above is the current count of cleanup activities underway in the region.
Nationally the cleanup backlog is 113,915 as of September, 2006. The annual goal for the country
is to complete 13,000 cleanups per year. The regional goal in FY07 is 445.
Data as of September 2006
1,268 780
9 311
Data as of December 2006
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
Totals:
2,497
2,261
6,186
2,275
1,260
1,945
16,424
1,671
2,173
5,230
1 ,449
1,006
1,176
12,705
826
88
956
826
254
769
3,719
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUM REPORT 2006 25

-------
Map
26/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
PAGE NOT
AVAI LABLI
DIGITALLY

-------
U.S. EPA New England I EPAU
Map I Environmental Protection
Agency New England
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 27

-------