£EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency New England
  [tliisi Remediation and Restoration
          Annual Report
        A status report on the New England

        Waste Cleanup and Revitalization Programs.

-------
U.S. EPA New England a rn United States
Environmental Protection
Table of Contents %e Agency New England
CONNECTICUT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Overview 2
Land Revitalization 6
National Priorities List 8
Sites of Special Interest 1 5
Watch List 18
Emergency Planning & Response Program 20
Brownfle lds 23
RCRA Corrective Action 31
Underground Storage Tank 32
Map 34
(cover photo) Wet/and area on the Troy Mills Superfund Site in Troy, NH

-------
U.S. EPA New England FFIA United States
Environmental Protection
Introduction Agency New England
WELCOME TO EPA NEW ENGLAND
The New England office of the U.S. Environmental Protection 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 Remediation and Restoration focuses on the restoration and revitalization of
contaminated properties through the Superfund, Brownilelds, 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 Priorities List (NPL) sites as well as the clean up of smallei 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 Laboratory 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 NPL. In 2006, the Olin Chemical site in Wilmington, Massachusetts was added to the NPL. Our
Superfund 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 NPt 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 www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/er/erindex.htm.
The success EPA New England’s Brmnflelds 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 Brownflelds program, EPA New England
has distributed more than $132 million to hundreds of communities, states, agencies, and non-prof 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 Brownf,elds 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 Brownfields 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.gov/regionl 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.
RobertW. V ney
Regional Administrator
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 1

-------
Overview
CONNECTICUT
Following is a quick summary of EPA New England’s Office of
Site Remediation and Restoration (OSRR) programs highlighted
in this report.
Superfund 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 EI A 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 and Brownfields Revitalization Act (“the Brownfields
law”) was signed. This law expanded potential federal assistancefor Brownfields revitalization, in-
cluding Assessment Grants, Revolving Loan Fund Grants, Cleanup Grants, Job Training Grants
and Targeted Brownfields 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 brownhields.
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 authori ed states, compels RCRA facilities
to investigate and cleanup hazardous waste releases. RCRA Coffe tive 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 200 5 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 acLi ities. The new Energy Act requires
EPA and the states to meet several programmatic milestones an 1 achievements by specific dates.
These include all federal regulated facilities that have not receiv d 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 tatus 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
FronDi ove to Cleanup
ResponsIble F
for Poflutlon ‘ -
i lncIude Site ______
ion NPI if
I ___
Ty T
Extent of
Contamination-
EvaIt $s Options
Longkrm Cleanup
Brcwnftetds Progral
State Led Cleanup
Shod-term actions may
be taken to eliminate
immediate public heal
or env ronmentel threats.
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 3

-------
Number of National Priorities List Sites
in each phase of the Superfund Process *
Remedial Study Remedy Selected; Construction Construction
Assessment Underway* Design Underway* Underway Complete**
not Begun*
* may include sites where early action has occurred long-term monitoring, operation,and maintenance ongoing
Source: Superfund e-facts, December 2006
Overview
CONNECTICUT
1 t
C)
-D
C
C D
C
L i )
C)
z
0
C)
E
z
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
U
4 REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
SUPERFUND SITE CLEANUP STATUS SUMMARY
U.S. EPA New England p unite states
Overview I Environmental Protection
Agency New England
Remedial Study Remedy Construction Construction Deleted
Assessment Underway Selected; Design Underway Complete from NPL
not Begun Underway
CONNECTICUT Brood Brook Mill”
Precision Plating Durham Meodow
Scovill Landfill
N London Sub
Old Southington
Raymork ’
SRS
Linernaster Sw
Beacon Heights
Gallups Quarry
Kellogg-Deenng
Laurel Pork
‘t’oworski Lagoon
Borkhamsted
Cheshire GWater
Nutmeg Volley Rd
Revere Textile
MASSACHUSETIS
Haverhill landfill
Blackburn&Union
Naval Weapons
Atlas Tack
Baird & McGuire
Army Moth Tech
Olin Chemical
Nuclear Metals
Shpock LandFill
Nrlatick Army Lob
Cannon Eng
Devens.Sudbury Ann
Sutton Brook
Hoth & Patterson
Fort Devens
Charles George LF
Plymouth Harbor
Hanscom AFB
Groveland Wells
Salem Acres
Industr iplex
Hocomonco Pond
Iron Horse Park
Norwood PCB 5
S Weymouth NAS
PSC Resources
New Bedford
Re Solve, Inc
N lyanza
Rose Disposal P 1 t
Otis ANG Base
Sullivan’s Ledge
Silresim
WR Grace/Acton
Wells G&H
GE-Housatonic”
MAINE
Callahan Mine
West Site/Hows Car
Portsmouth NSY
Brunswick NAS
Eostlond Woolen
Eastern Surplus
Loring AFB
McKin Co
O’Connor Co
Soco Municipal IF
Union Chemical
Winthrop Landfill
Pinett&s Salvage
Saco Tannery
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mohawk Tannery”
Chlor-Alkoli
Beede Waste Oil
Dover landfill
Fletcher’s Point
Otiati & Goss
Auburn Road IF
Cookley Landfill
Keorsarge Metallurg
Keefe Enviro
Motiolo Pig Form
N H Plating
Pease AFB
Savage Muni
South Muni Well
Sylvester
Tibbetts Road
Tinkham Garage
Town Garage!
Radio Beoc
Tray Mills Landfill
Somersworih LF
RHODE ISLAND
Centredale Manor
Rose Hill landfill
Davis Liquid
Davisville NCBC
Newport NETC
Peterson/Puritan
W Kingston/URI
Central Landfill
Landfill & Res Rec
Picillo Farm
Stamina Mills
Western Sand & Gruvel
Davis GSR Landfill
Ely Copper Mine Elizabeth Mine
Pike Hill
Bennington Landfill Darling Hill Dump
BFI Landfill Tansitor Electronics
Burgess Bros LF
Pine Street Canal
Pownal Tannery
Old Springfield LF
Parker Landfill
VERMONT
Commerce Plume
A proposed NPL site
In negotiations wilh responsible parties
Note Statistics represent most-advanced Operable Unit at each site, additional activities may be ongoing at these sites
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl. REPORI 2006 / 5

-------
Land Revitalization
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 col/aboratively. 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 govt landrevitalization.
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
CONNECTICUT
6 REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUM REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England
Land Revitalization
Environmental Protection
‘ EPA United States
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
Brownfields Assessment Grant
awarded to the Two Rivers-
Ottauquechee Regional Com-
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.
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 transferred to the Nature Conservancy, which
now manages it as a publicly-accessible sanc-
tuary and nature-viewing area.
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 brownfuelds into ongoing
restoration/revitalization activities. The Whitney
Screw property has been sold and developed into
a mixture of retail and warehouse uses.
U
I
— II II II
1
Superfund
..- ‘ -
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006 7

-------
National Priorities List Sites
CONNECTICUT
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 Engfand 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 cle nups 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)
CT:$225million
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/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England I United States
Environmental Protection
National Priorities List Sites I trI’kAgencyNewEngIand
Source. EPA New England, December 2006
2006 Superfund Fast Facts—Connecticut
EPA has worked aggressively to clean up hazardous waste problems in
Connecticut In cooperation with the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, final cleanup activities are completed, underway,
or in design at most of Connecticut’s 18 NPL sites
• 78% of Connecticut’s Superfund sites on the National Priorities List—
14 of 18 sites—have undergone or are undergoing cleanup
- construction, or are in final design.
• lOSuperfund sites have all cleanup construction completed, 4 sites
have cleanup construction underway
• 3 Superfund sites have been deleted from the National Priorities List;
Cheshire Groundwater Contamination in Cheshire and Revere Textile
Prints Corp in Sterling, and Nutmeg Valley Road in Wolcott.
• 1 site has been proposed to the National Priorities List; Broad Brook
Mill in East Windsor.
• Region 1 has helped promote economic redevelopment by removing
427 Connecticut sites from the CERCLIS waste list.
• The Super-fund Program has spent over $225 million in Connecticut
to clean up Superfund National Priorities List sites
• EPA has spent over $85 million on site assessment, investigation,
and cleanup at non-National Priorities List sites in Connecticut
• 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 Connecticut.
via direct payments to the Superfund Trust Fund or via funding of
studies and cleanup work, exceeds $243 million.
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION A1 INUAI REPORT 2006 / 9

-------
National Priorities List Sites
CONNECTICUT
Barkha msted
Barkha msted/New Hartford Landfill
for more information on this project, see: www.epa .gov/ne/superfund/
sites/barkhamsted
NPL Status Listed in 1989
Cleanup Status, All Construction Completed in 2001
L_Superfund $$ Spent $2 9 million
Beacon Falls
Beacon Heights Landfill
for more information on this project, see: www.epa .gov/ne/superfundf
sites/beacon
r NPL Status Listed in 1983
Cleanup Status: All Construction Completed in 1998
L_Superfund $$ Spent $4 7 million
Canterbury
Yaworski Lagoon
for more information on this project, see. www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/
sites/yaworski
NPL Status Listed in 1983
I Cleanup Status: All Construction Completed in 2000
L__Superfund $$ Spent: $14 million
Cheshire
Cheshire Groundwater Contamination
for more information on this project, see. www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/
sites/cheshire
NPL Status. Deleted in 1997
Cleanup Status. All Construction Completed in 1997
L Superfund $$ Spent $430,000
1O/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006

-------
Durham
United States
U.S. EPA New England -
National Priorities List Sites I PAEnv1ronmnta1 Protection
Agency New England
Durham Meadows
for more information on this project, see. www epa.gov/ne/superfund/
sites/durham
NPL Status. Listed in 1989
Cleanup Status Remedy Selected
uperfund $$ Spenr $4 5 million
East Windsor
Broad Brook Mill
for more information on this project, see: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/
sites/broadbrook
I

NPL Status Proposed in 2000
Cleanup Status Assessment Underway
Superfund $$ Spent $424,000
Groton and Ledyard
New London Submarine Base
for more information on this project, see: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/
sites/newlondon
C NPL Status: Listed in 1990
Cleanup Status Study, Design, and
I Construction Underway
erfund $$ Spent: $2.4 million
Naugatuck
Laurel Park
[
for more information on this project, see: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/
sites/laurelpark
I
NPL Status. Listed in 1983
Cleanup Status. All Construction Completed in 1998
Superfund $$ Spent: $3.9 million
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 11

-------
National Priorities List Sites
CONNECTICUT
Norwalk
Kellogg-Deering Wellfield
for more information on this project, see: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/
sites/kellogg
NPL Status: Listed in 1984
Cleanup Status. All Construction Completed in 1996
L Superfund $$ Spent $4 4 million
Plainfield
Gallup’s Quarry
for more information on this project, see: www.epa.gov/ne/superfundf
sites/gallup
( NPL Status Listed in 1989
Cleanup Status: All Construction Completed in 1997
Superfund $$ Spent. $1 .7 million
South i ngton
Old Southington Landfill
for more informalion on this project, see. www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/
sitesfoldsouthington
C NPL Status. Listed in 1984
Cleanup Status
Landfill Cap. Construction Complete
Groundwater Study Underway
(, Superfund $$ Spenr $9 8 million
Solvents Recovery Service of New England
for more information on this project, see: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/
sites/srs
Status Listed in 1983
Cleanup Status Construction Underway; Removal Activities
Superfund $$ Spent. $1 1 5 million —
12/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
Sterling
Revere Textile
U.S. EPA New England I p unitedstates
Environmental Protection
National Priorities List Sites I Ll Agency New England
for more information on this project, see: www epa.gov/ne/superlund/
sites/revere
NPL Status’ Deleted in 1994
Cleanup Status All Construction Completed in 1992
L Superfund $$ Spent. $2 3 million
Stratford
Raymark Industries
for more information on this project, see: www.epa gov/ne/superfund/
sites/raymark
( ÜPL Status: Listed in 1995
I
I

L
Cleanup Status:
Facility Property’ Construction Complete
Other Areas’ Study Underway
Superlund $$ Spent’ $154 million
Precision Plating Corporation
for more information on this project, see: www.epa .gov/ne/superfund/
sites/precision
(‘ NPL Status: Listed in 1989
I Cleanup Status’ Study Underway
L Superlund $$ Spent’ $130,000
Waterbury
Scovill Industrial Landfill
for more information on his project, see: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/
sites/scovill
L
NPL Status’ Listed in 2000
Cleanup Status: Study Underway
Superfund $$ Spent: $2.8 million
Vernon
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 13

-------
National Priorities List Sites
CONNECTICUT
Wolcott
Nutmeg Valley Road
for more information on this project, see. www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/nutmeg
NPL Status Deleted in 2005
Cleanup Status. All Construction Completed in 2004
Superfund $$ Spent. $2 8 million
Woodstock
Linemaster Switch Corporation
for more information on this project, see: www.epa.gov/ne/superIund/sites/
linemaster
NPL Status. Listed in 1990
Cleanup Status All Construction Completed in 2005
L_Superfund $$ Spent: $2 million
14/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
— ..

.
U.S. EPA New England 1 A United States
Environmental Protection
Sites of Special Interest # Agency New England
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES INC.
Stratford, Connecticut
Raymark Industries, Inc. was located at 75 East Main Street in Stratford, Fairfield County, Con-
necticut, and operated from 1919 to 1989. Raymark primarily manufactured friction materials
for the automotive industry, which contained asbestos, metals, phenol-formaldehyde resins, and
various adhesives. Throughout its years of operation, a wide
array of wastes were generated, including asbestos, lead,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and a variety of volatile
organic solvents, including toluene, trichioroethylene (ICE),
and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). During its 70 years of opera-
tion, the facility discharged process waters to a number of
lagoons located on the 34-acre East Main Street property. As
the solids in these process waters settled out, the lagoons
were periodically excavated and the material disposed of both
at the facility as well as at various locations throughout the
town of Stratford. This excavated, contaminated material has
impacted over 250 acres at over 75 locations in Stratford.
Groundwater on and emanating from the former facility is
also contaminated; however, the impacted area is served by
a public water supply.
Current Site Status and Cleanup Actions to Date:
• From 1992-2000, EPA and the CTDEP have performed numerous cleanup activities through-
out Stratford related to the Raymark site. These activities have included: covering the Raybestos
Memorial Balllield, removing Raymark Waste from 47 residential and commercial properties,
and demolishing the former Raymark facility and capping the property for future reuse.
• The Raymark site continues to have a high level of community interest. EPA is currently
working with a citizens advisory group, the Raymark Advisory Committee (RAC), local officials,
and numerous property owners to develop a cleanup strategy for approximately 25 properties
contaminated with Raymark waste.
Key Accomplishments:
• EPA announced a cleanup decision for the former Raymark facility in 1995.
• In 2002, the redevelopment of the former Raymark facility was completed with the construction
of the Stratford Crossing Shopping Center, which contains a Home Depot, Shaw’s Supermarket,
and a Wal-Mart. These three stores employ over 650 people.
More information on this site is available at: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/raymark
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUA [ REPORT 2006 15

-------
Sites of Special Interest
CONNECTICUT
DURHAM MEADOWS
Durham, Connecticut
The Durham Meadows site is located in the town of Durham and includes an area of groundwa-
ter contamination centered on Main Street. Two manufacturers (Durh m Manufacturing Com-
pany and Merriam Manufacturing Company) of metal cabinets, boxes, and other items, con-
tributed to the contamination through their past disposal practices.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 1 ,4-dioxane have impacted a number of private drink-
ing water wells in the area, and filtering and monitoring of these wells continues under state
order. In late 2003, a newly identified contaminant, 1 ,4-dioxane, was discovered in private
wells. Carbon filters are not able to fully address 1 ,4-dioxane. There is currently no federal
drinking water standard for 1 ,4-dioxane The Connecticut Department of Public Health has
developed an interim drinking water comparison value for 1 ,4-dioxane of 20 parts per billion
(ppb) and bottled water has been supplied to several homes
EPA finalized its cleanup decision for Durham Meadows in a Record of Decision in September
2005. The selected remedy includes excavation and off-site disposal of soils at both manufactur-
ing properties, distributing an alternative source of public water via a connection to the City of
Middletown Water Distribution System, a groundwater monitoring netv’ork, a technical imprac-
ticability waiver for portions of the groundwater plume, institutional controls, and further delin-
eation of areas where there may be a potential concern for indoor aiç risks. In July 2006, EPA
installed a limited number of shallow groundwater wells site-wide to Investigate the potential for
vapor intrusion from VOCs in groundwater Sampling of these wells is ongoing. The State of
Connecticut is currently pursuing funding for waterline extension activities from the state legisla-
ture. EPA also continues site cleanup negotiations, which began in April 2006, with the Durham
Manufacturing Company. In January 2007, at the agreement of all parties, EPA retained the
services of a mediator to aid in negotiations.
More information on this site is available at: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sitesldurham
16/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAIREPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England United States
Environmental Protection
Sites of Special Interest Agency New England
OLD SOUTHINGTON LANDFILL
Southington, Connecticut
The Old Southington Landfill is located in the town of Southington, Connecticut and includes
an area of groundwater contamination emanating from the landfill and flowing in a westerly
direction toward the Quinnipiac River. Between 1920 and 1967 the landfill was operated by
the town of Southington where it accepted a mixture of municipal and hazardous waste. In the
early 1 970s the town closed the landfill, backtilled it with approximately two feet of clean fill.
subdivided the property and sold it to four residents on the northern end of the landfill and to
six businesses on the southern end of the site The landfill sits in a mixed residential and
commercial zone and Black Pond abuts the landfill to the northeast. The community is sup-
plied with municipal water
In 1987 three potentially responsible parties (PRPs) signed a consent order with the EPA to
perform a remedial investigation, feasibility study, and risk assessment. This work addressed
the landfill area but did not address groundwater contamination leaving the site. The investi-
gation found a number of contaminants such as solvents, metals, polynuclear hydro-aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) In 1994. EPA issued a cleanup decision which required capping the
landfill, permanent relocation of all on-site homes and businesses, encapsulating a hot spot
area into a lined cell underneath the cap, soil gas collection system, long term monitoring,
and five year reviews. In September 2006, EPA issued a second cleanup decision for the site
which addressed groundwater contamination and vapor intrusion. EPA expects to enter into
negotiations with the PRPs in 2007 to implement the groundwater cleanup remedy.
More information on this site is available at www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sitesfosl
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION A1 NUAE REPORT 2006 / 17

-------
Watch List
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT WATCH LIST
January 2007
Sites included on the Watch List are those that both the state and EPA Site Assessment program
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. Watch List sites may be, but are not necessarily, listed in the federal CERCLIS 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 of key site issues. Both Agencies 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 (617) 918-1387.
Site City/Town CERCIIS ID #
Newhoil Street Neighborhood Hamden CTD982544355
Milforri Area-wide TCE Contamination MilfortJ Not in CERCLJS
J8/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl. REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England I EPA’ ’ States
Watch List Environmental Protection
Agency New Eng’and
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION A1 NUA [ REPORT 2006 / 19

-------
Emergency Planning & Response Program
CONNECTICUT
110
9EPA
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND
RESPONSE PROGRAM
EPA New England’s Emergency Planning and Response
Program prepares for, and responds to oil and chemical spills
REGION 1 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.
(:cs%O Short-term cleanups, called “removal actions,” reduce immediate
‘4I. PRO 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.
i± t .
20 REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl. REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England p united States
Environmental Protection
Emergency Planning & Response Program Agency New Engtand
SITES WITH CLEANUP ACTIVITIES COMPLETED IN 2006
Site Name Cily Date CERCIA
Completed Funds Expended
Connecticut
InterRoyal (Removal 4)
Plain{ield
05/25/2006
Somers Plating
Somers
06/20/2006
East Main Street D
usposal Area
Branford
12/07/2006
Maine
Camden Yarns
Lewiston
09/1 9/2006
New Franklin Laundry
Bongor
04/11/2006
Massachusetts
Leavens Awards
Attleboro
1 2/20/2005
Cabin Realty Trust
Taunton
0 1/20/2006
John J Riley
Woburn
11/15/2006
Whitman Cistern
Whitman
06/28/2006
{
New Hampshire
St Cathenne Street Tannery
Waste Penocook
07fl0/2006
Rhode Island
Centredale Manor
Restoration Protect
Hortford Avenue Gravel Pits
North Providence
Johnston
05/15/2006
10/24/2006
$1,770,762
$2,996,604
$ 44,988
$ 5,840
$ 394,799
$ 172,323
$ 250,887
$ 11,557
$ 800,478
$ 322,641
$2,883,251
$ 77,905
Vermont
St Albans Gas and Light
St Albans
09/1 2/2006
$1,248,563
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006 / 21

-------
Emergency Planning & Response Program
CONNECTICUT
SITES WITH ONGOING CLEANUP ACTIVITY
Bo ldw inville
Danvers
Seekonk
Taunfon
Woburn
Norwood
08/1 4/2 006
10/19/2006
08/16/2004
11/27/2006
07/10/2006
10/30/2005
03/28/2003
10/16/2002
New Hampshire
Electrosonics/Spofford Place Chesterfield 11/07/2005
$ 1,490,161
$ 58,030
$11,433,392
$ 132,834
$ 416,148
$ 464,173
$ 82,953
$ 369,573
$1 ,402,952
Providence
06/02/2005
$ 4,266,225
Site Name City Date CERCLA
Started Funds Expended
Connecticut
None
Maine
A C Lawrence South Paris
L Perry
Massachusetts
Boldwinville Residential Properties
Danversport Explosion
Sherman Avenue
Parcel 6A
Wells H
Zimble Drum
Rhode Island
Lancashire Street Disposal Area
Vermont
Jord
Bennington
08/1 7/2006
$1,196,615
22/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006

-------
Land & Communrty Re i±aIi ±ion
BROWN F! ELPS
U.S. EPA New England II A Uni ed States
Environmental Protection
Brownfuelds Agency New England
J EPA NEW ENGLAND BROWNFIELDS:
RESTORING CONNECTICUT
COMMUN ITIES
Environmental contamination can rob a community of its
economic potential and its social structure even when
contamination is not severe enough for a Superfund
designation. Any amount of contamination—or even the
perception ci possible contamination—can prevent the use
of valuable property. Across New England, hundreds of properties 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, development is consuming valuable open
space elsewhere. Although such idle properties, called brownfields. are usually urban ware-
houses or abandoned factories, they can also be found in rural areas When mines are aban-
doned or fields host illegal dumping, the value of the property can plummet.
EPA New England’s Brownfields Program provides solutions by helping communities 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 of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence
of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant”
(from the federal Brownilelds Act of 2002)
Summary of 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 and Browniields Revitalization Act
(“the Brownfields law”) was signed This law expanded potential federal assistance for Brownfietds
revitalization, including grants for assessment, cleanup, andjob 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 Brownlields initiatives.
Summary of EPA Brownfields Funding in Connecticut (1994-2006)
Program Funding
Assessment Grants $ 7,789,130
Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grants $ 7,568,000
EPA Targeted Brown{ields Assessment $ 2,1 77,470
Cleanup Grants $ 3,485,500
Job Training Grants $ 1,740,264
State Brown{ields Funding $ 5,896,608
Showcase Communities __________ ___$ 300,000
Grand Total: _______ $28,956,972*
*Funding total current as of December 2006.
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAt REPORT 2006 / 23

-------
Brownfields
CONNECTICUT
Assessment Grant Program
The Brownlields 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
Bridgeport $1 ,200,000
Bristol $ 200,000
Capital Region
Council of Governments $ 400,000
Danbury $ 200,000
East Hampton $ 1 75,000
Griswold $ 200,000
Haddam $ 156,000
Hartford $ 550,000
Meriden $ 200,000
Middletown $ 400,000
New Britain $ 200,000
New Haven $ 267,000
Newington $ 200,000
New London $ 250,000
New Milford $ 350,000
Norwalk Redevelopment Authority $ 400,000
Norwich $ 350,000
Regional Growth Partnership $ 200,000
South Central Regional
Council of Governments $ 200,000
Stamford $ 200,000
Torrington $ 1 99,130
Valley Council of Governments
(formerly Naugatuck Valley
Regional Planning Agency) $ 742,000
WLn fLWincht r $50,000
*Funding total current as of December 2006.
24 /REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England United States
Environmental Protection
Brownfields 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 cleaning up
contaminated sites. Grants are for up to $1,000,000 and eligible communities may team
together to establish larger revolving loan funds pools. Grantees are selected through a
national competition.
Recipient Funding
Berlin $ 500,000
Bridgeport $2,150,000
Connecticut Department of
Economic and Community
Development (Hartford) $ 668,000
New Milford $1,000,000
Regional Growth Partnership $1,000,000
Stamford $ 750,000
Valley Council
of Governments $ 850,000
Winchester/Winsted $__650,000
Total: $7,568,000*
*Funthng total urrent as of December 2006. -
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 25

-------
Brownfields
CONNECTICUT
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 browntields 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 competition
City Site Funding
Bridgeport Chrome Engineenng Site, 405 Central Avenue $ 200,000
Mount Trashmore, 329 Central Avenue $ 200,000
Pocelli Trucking Site, 79-119 Trowell Street
and 310-318 Eagle Street $ 200,000
Producto Machine Site 990 Housatonic Avenue $ 200,000
East Hampton Summit Thread Powerhouse
13 Wofrous Street $ 200,000
Georgetown Georgetown Redevelopment Corportilion
Gilbert and Bennet By-Product,
15 North Main Street $ 200,000
Greenwich Cos Cob Power Plant, 22 Sound Shore Drive $ 200,000
Hartford-North Star Center for Human Development, Inc.
Hartford Car Wash, 2434-24 70 Main Street $ 200,000
Menden THR Hub 1 & 77 State Street $ 200,000
Middletown Portland Chemical Works Site,
680 Newfield Street (rear) $ 200,000
New Britain 207 Oak Street $ 60,000
New Haven Brewery Building, 456-458 Grand Avenue $ 200,000
New London Habitat for Humanily of Southeastern Con nedicuf
Vacant lot, Fitch Avenue $ 200,000
New Milforti Century Enterpnse Center, Housatonic Avenue
and Aspetuck Ridge Road $ 200,000
Shelton Former Rolfitr Property 131 East Canal Street $ 200,000
The Shelton Farm and Public Market,
100 East Canal Street $ 200,000
Sprague Mukluk Preserve Pond
239 Pautipoug Hill Road $ 200,000
Stamford Seaboard Equities Building, 1 Dock Street $ 25,500
114 Manhaffan Street $ 200,000
$3,485 ,5(c*ij]
t Funding total current as of December 2006
26/R [ MEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006

-------
U S EPA New England Umted States
— Environmental Protection
Brownfields Agency New England
Job Training Grant Program
The Brownfields ob 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 Brownfields-funded
grant recipient Grantees are selected through a national competition.
Recipient Funding
Bridgeport Deportment
of Social Services
North Star Center for
Human Development
Middlesex Community College
Stamford
The Workplace
Total: _____
Funding total current as of December 2006
$ 398,500
$ 200,000
$ 400,000
$ 200,000
541 L 4
$1 .740.264*
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 2?

-------
Brownfields
EPA Targeted Brownfields Assessments
Under this initiative, EPA uses its contractors to conduct brownfields assess-
ments at sites identified by the local entity as being a high-priority For reuse.
Brownfields assessments typically involve a review of existing site records, site
sampling and preparation of a preliminary clean-up cost estimate. The infor-
mation gathered allows local government officials and developers to make
informed decisions regarding the redevelopment potential of a site.
Recipient Site Approx. Value
of Assessment
Bridgeport 50 Miles Street
Paceili Trucking, 79-199 Troweli Street
& 310-318 Eagle Street
Swan Engraving, 385 Hanover Street
H.J. Mills Box Factory, 149-151 Church Street
O’Sullivan’s Island
Field-Holstein Property, Phelps Street
Cos Cob Power Station (Former),
22 Sound Shore Drive
Hartford 1 0 Reserve Rood
Hartford Car Wash, 2434-24 70 Main Street
Ledyard Erickson Property, 110-114 Military Highway
Buckiand Manufacturing, 131 Adams Street
international Silver Factory, Cooper Street
Portland Chemical Works, 680 Newfield Street
34 Lloyd Street
Manchester
Meriden
Midd letown
New Haven
New London
New London
North Haven
Norwich
Plainfield
Plymouth
Prospect
Redding
Shelton
Fitch Avenue (Habitat for Humanity)
Penn Central Transportation Co
Foot of State Street
249 Sockett Point Road
26 Shipping Street
Occum Roto Print, 2 Taftviile Occum Rood
InterRoyal Miii, 20 Reservoir Road
Hart Property, 269 Main Street
U S. Cap & Jacket, Inc.,
214 New Haven Road (Route 69)
Gilbert & Bennett, 1 North Main Street
Rolfite Chemical, 131 Canal Street
Samarius Property, 1 23 Canal Street
Shelton Waterfront, Canal Street
Baltic Mills
Amerbeile Textiles, 1 04 East Main Street
& 5 Brooklyn Street
Hockanum Mill, 200 West Main Street
Roosevelt Mills, 215 East Main Street
L_Totai: ________
F d tal current as ofD b 2OO 6
Bristol
Derby
G lastonbury
Greenwich
$ 15,615
$ 76,233
$ 52,448
$ 64,867
$ 96,981
$ 84,905
$ 116,291
$ 59,403
$ 22,895
$ 10,952
$ 26,408
$ 80,000
$ 70,444
$ 50,000
$ 100,000
$ 51,692
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
$ 84,903
$ 116,397
$ 75,000
$ 78,836
$ 100,000
$ 61,815
$ 13,602
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
$ 96,196
$ 71,587
$2,177,470*
CONNECTICUT
Sprague
Vernon
28/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
United States
U.S. EPA New England I
Environmental Protection
Brownfields EPA Agency New England
Financial Assistance to State Brownfields Programs
EPA also offers funding to directly support state brownfie!ds activities including
funds to establish and enhance state brownfields programs (also known as volun-
tary cleanup programs), to conduct site specific assessment and cleanup, to de-
velop revolvir g loan fund programs and to develop insurance tools. Below is a
summary of funding received in Connecticut:
Program Funding
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
$ 5,896,608
Total: $ 5,896,608*
Fund,nci total current as of December 2006
State Assessments
Berlin
Cornwall
Derby
Hamden
New Haven
Meriden
Portland
Shelton
South Windsor
Westbrook
Windsor
Berlin Center
Notional Automatic
Pioneer Precision Products,
889 Farmington Avenue
Neoweld Corporation
Derby DOT Parcel
New Hall Street School
(Rochford Field)
142 River Street
568 Elm Street
485 Orchard Street
Canberra Industries (Meriden Aye)
Connecticut DOT Site #1
Somarius Property
Hi-G Company Property
Turnpike Autowreckers
American Tool & Machine
- __j
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUM REPORT 2006 / 29

-------
Brownfie lds
CONNECTICUT
Showcase Communities
As part of the multi-federal agency Brownfields National Partnership, sixteen communities were selected to
receive Showcase Community designation following a national competition. The federal partners work
with selected communities to revitalize brownflelds properties. EPA generally provided each with a $00,000
Brownfields iionstration Pilot and assigned an EPA employee to work full time in the designated
community for two years.
City Funding
Stamford _____ _______$ 300,000 _____ ___
Total: $ 300,000*
*Funding total current as of December 2006.
30/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England United States
Environmental Protection
RCRA Agency New England
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 achieve 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
26 282
LJo ill? ll6 6 _J_ ___ _
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006 / 31

-------
Underground Storage Tanks
CONNECTICUT
CT 4,633
ME 1,471
MA 4,766
NH 1,294
RI 675
VT 1,129
Totals: 13,968
Data as of December 2006
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.
1,173
401
0
538
20
135
150
510
2,620
2,675
CT
2,497
1,671
826
ME
2,261
2,173
88
MA
6,186
5,230
956
NH
2,275
1,449
826
RI
1 ,260
1 ,006
254
VT
1,945
1,176
769
Totals:
16,424
12,705
3,719
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.
NEW ENGLAND UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANKS FACILITY INSPECTIONS
1,268 780
9 311
CONFIRMED RELEASES
IN NEW ENGLAND
State Releases Cleanups Backlog
Reported Completed
Data as of September 2006
32 REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006

-------
U.S. EPA New England
UST
EPA United States
Environmental Protection
Agency New England
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 32

-------
Map
34/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006

-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
U.S. EPA New England I EPA ted States
Map Environmental Protection
Agency New England
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUM REPORT 2006 / 35

-------