r/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency New England
Remediation and Restoration
Annual Report
A status report on the New England
Waste Cleanup and Revitalization Programs.
-------
US. EPA New England Il A United States
— Environmental Protection
Table of Contents Agency New England
RHODE ISLAND
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Overview 2
Land Revitalization 6
National Priorities List 8
Sites of Special Interest 1 4
Watch List 15
Emergency Planning & Response Program 1 6
Brownfields 1 9
RCRA Corrective Action 25
Underground Storage Tank 26
Map 28
(cover photo) Wetland area on the Troy Mills Superfund Site in Troy, NH
-------
U S LWk ew tnglana f%
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 detailsthe 2006 pro ammatic 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
I - contaminated prope es through the Supe nd, ownfloids, RCRA Coffective A on and Underground &orage
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 Ust (NPL) sites as well as the clean up of smalle, 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 stes 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 NPI 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 Brownflekis 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 Brownfields 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 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. Varney
Regional Administrator
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006 1
-------
Overview
NEW HAMPSHIRE
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 EPA National Browntields 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 assistance for 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 brownfields
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 AcL 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
FromDj ove to Cleanup
I
Responsible r ]
L.L L. P t 10n L. —
Shoct4erm acUons may
be taken to eliminate
immediate public health
O( eni*o i nth1 threats
- L s.teØ
Study Type &
I Extent of
Contamination.
[ k e O
Evai
I Site
Indude Site ______
eIIv 1
Long4erm Cleanup
Brownr*lds Progra
1 Stata Led CIeant p
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006 3
-------
Overview
NEW HAMPSHIRE
4- ,
-D
ro
C
LU
a)
z
‘4-
0
a)
0
E
z
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Number of National Priorities List Sites
* may include sites where early action has occurred long-term monitoring, operation, and maintenance ongoing
Source: Superfurrd e-fact .December 2006
in each phase of the Superfund Process
Remedial Study Remedy Selected; Construction Construction
Assessment Underway ’ Design Underway’ Underway Complete”
not Begun’
4 REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006
-------
SUPERFUND SITE CLEANUP STATUS SUMMARY
U.S. EPA New England I EPAUnIt teS
Overview Environmental Protection
Agency New England
Remedial Study Remedy Construction Construction Deleted
Assessment Underway Selected; Design Underway Complete from NPL
not egun Underway
N London Sub
Old Southingtorr
RoymartC
SRS
linemoster Sw
Beacon Heights
Gallups Quarry
Kellogg-Deering
Laurel Pork
Yaworski Lagoon
Barkhomsted
Cheshire GWoter
Nutmeg Valley Rd
Revere Textile
Hoverhill Landfill Blackbum&Unuon Naval Weapons Atlas Tack
Olin Chemical Nuclear Metals Shpock Landfill Natick Army Lab
Sutton Brook Hath & Patterson Fort Devens
Honscom AFB
Industriplex
Iran Horse Park
S Weymouth NAS
New Bedford
Nyanza
Otis ANG Base
Silresim
WR GrocelActon
Wells G&H
GE-Housatonic
Callahan Mine West Site/Hows Cor Portsmouth NSY
Mohawk Tannery” Beede Waste Oil
Chior-Alkali Dover Landfill
Centredole Manor
Fletcher’s Point
Otiati & Goss
Rose Hill Landfill
Davis Liquid
Davisville NCBC
Newport NETC
Peterson/Puritan
W Kingston/IJRI
Baird & McGuire
Cannon Eng
Charles George LF
Groveland Wells
Hocomonco Pond
Norwood PCBs
PSC Resources
Re-Solve. Inc
Rose Disposal Pit
Sullivan’s Ledge
Brunswick NAn
Eastland Woolen
Eastern Surplus
bring AFB
McKin Co
O’Connor Co
Saco Municipal LF
Union Chemical
Winthrop Landfill
Auburn Rood LF
Coo kley landfill
Kearsarge Metallurg
Keefe Enviro
Mottolo Pig Form
N H Plating
Pease AFB
Savage Muni
South Muni Well
Sylvester
Tibbetis Rood
Tirikhom Garage
Town Garage/
Radio Beoc
Tray Mills Landfill
Samersworth IF
Central Landfill
Landfill & Rex Rec
Picillo Form
Stamina Mills
Western Sand & Grovel
Army Matls Tech
Devens-Sudbury Ann
Plymouth Harbor
Salem Acres
Pinette’s Salvage
Soco Tannery
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 IF
Parker Landfill
CONNECTICUT Brood Brook Mill” Precision Plating Durham Meadow
Scovill Landfill
M ASSACHUSmS
MAINE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RHODE ISLAND
VERMONT
Commerce Plume
proposed NPL site
In negotiations with responsible parties
Note Statistics represent most-advanced Operable Unit at each site, additional activities may be ongoing at these sites
REM [ DIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL R [ PORI 2006 / 5
-------
Land Revitalization
NEW HAMPSHIRE
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
revitalization
• Providing land revitalization training
• Conducting public outreach
For more inFormation on EPA’s national
Land Revitalization initiative, please visit:
www.epa.gov/landrevitalization.
barriers to land
“EPA’s cleanup programs
have set a national goal
for returning formerly
contaminated sites to
long-term, sustainable,
and productive uses.”
— 2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan
Stakeholder Engagement
A fundamental tenet of the rand 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.
(
6 REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORI 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
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.
w
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 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 brownfields into ongoing
restoration/revitalization activities. The Whitney
Screw property has been sold and developed into
a mixture of retail and warehouse uses.
R [ M [ DIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUA [ REPORT 2006 7
-------
National Priorities List Sites
NEW HAMPSHIRE
P 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 NPLsites
• 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)
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/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUM REPORI 2006
-------
U.S. EPA New England l’I A United States
- . - . . . Environmental Protection
National Priorities List Sites # AgencyNewEngland
2006 Superfund Fast Facts—New Hampshire
EPA has worked aggressively to clean up hazardous waste problems in
New Hampshire In cooperation with the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services, final cleanup activities are completed, underway,
or in design at most of New Hampshire’s 21 NPL sites.
• 80% of New Hampshire’s Superfund sites on the National Priorities
List - 17 of 21 sites have undergone or are undergoing cleanup
construction, or are in final design
• 15 Superfund sites have all cleanup construction completed,
2 Superfund sites have cleanup construction underway
• 1 site has been proposed to the National Priorities List, Mohawk
Tannery in Nashua
• Region 1 has helped promote economic redevelopment by removing
174 New Hampshire sites from the CERCLIS waste list
• The Superfund Program has spent over $247 million in New
Hampshire to clean up Superfund National Priorities List sites
• EPA has spent over $42 million on site assessment, investigation
and cleanup at non-National Priorities List sites in New Hampshire
• 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
Hampshire, via direct payments to the Superfund Trust Fund or via
funding of studies and cleanup work, exceeds $302 million
Source EPA New England, December 2006
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 9
-------
National Priorities List Sites
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Barrington
Tibbetts Road
for more information on this project, see: wwwepa.go ’/ne/supeffund/sites/tibbetts
NPL Status: listed in 1986
Cleanup Status: All Construction Completed in 1998
Superfund$$Spent $48million
Berlin
Chlor-Alkali Facility
for more information on this project, see: www epa. o v/ne/superfund/s lies!
fl
(
NPL Status: Listed in 2005
Cleanup Status Study Underway
Superfund $$ Spent. $387,000
Conway
Kearsarge Metallurgical
for more information on this project, see: www pa.go v/ne/s uperfund/sites/
kearsarge
NPL Status Listed in 1984 1
Cleanup Status: All Construction Completed in 1993
Superfund $$ Spent $14 5 million
Dover
Dover Municipal Landfill
for more information on this project, see: www epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/dover
1 NPL Status Listed in 1983
Cleanup Status Remedy Selected, Design Underway
( __Superlund $$ Spent $3.4 million
Epping
Keefe Environmental Services
for more information on this project, see: wwwepa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/keefe
NPL Status: Listed in 1983
Cleanup Status All Construction Completed in 1993
Superfund$$Spent $14 million
10/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAIR [ PDRT 2006
-------
U.S. EPA New England II A United States
Environmental Protection
National Priorities List Sites l AgencyNewEngiand
Greenland/North Hampton
Coakley Landfill
for more information on this project, see wv.wepa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/coakley
NPL Status Listed in 1986 fl
Cleanup Status All Construction Completed in 1999
L Superfurid $$ Spent $4 9 million
Kingston
Ottati and Goss/Kingston Steel Drum
for more information on this project, see www epa gov/ne/superfund/sites/o&g
1 NPL Status Listed in 1983 fl
Cleanup Status Remedial Design, Construction Underway
_ , iperfund$$Spent_$43 million -
Londonderry
Auburn Road Landfill
for more information on this project, see www epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/
auburnroad
NPL Status Listed in 1983
Cleanup Status: All Construction Completed in 1998
Superfund $$ Spent $6 6 million
Tinkham’s Garage
for more information on this proj ect, see www epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/tinkham
NPL Status: Listed in 1983
Cleanup Status, All Construction Completed in 1995
L_Superfund $$ Spent $3 5 million
Town Garage/Radio Beacon
for more information on this project, see www epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/
towngarage
NPL Status Listed in 1989
Cleanup Status’ All Construction Completed in 1992
Superlund $$ Spent $2 million
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 11
-------
National Priorities List Sites
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Merrimack
New Hampshire Plating
for more information on this project, see: www epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/
nhplating
NPL Status: listed in 1992
Cleanup Status: All Construction Completed in 2006
Superfund $$ Spent: $25 8 million
Milford
Fletchers Paint Works & Storage
for more information on this project, see. www epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/fletcher
(
NPLStatus:’Listed in 1989 -
I
L
Cleanup Status
Keyes Field: Study Underway
Other Areas Construction Underway
Superfund $$ Spent: $9.9 million
Savage Municipal Water Supply
for more information on this project, see: www epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/savage
NPL Status: Listed in 1984
Cleanup Status: All Construction Completedin 2006-
( uperfund $$ Spent $26.7 million
Nashua
Mohawk Tannery
for more information on this project, see: www epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/
mohawk
NPL Status:Proposed in 2000 -
I
Cleanup Status Study Underway; Removal Activities
Superfund $$ Spent $4 million
Sylvester/Gilson Road
for more information on this project, see: www epa gov/ne/superfund/sites/
sylvester
NPL Status: listed in 1983
I Cleanup Status All Construction Completed in 1992
L__Superfund $$ Spent $34 7 million
12/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORI 2006
-------
U.S. EPA New England
National Priorities List Sites
Peterborough
South Municipal Water Supply Well
[
Environmental Protection
EpA United States
Agency New England
for more information on this project, see. www epa gov/ne/superfund/sites/
southmuni
NPL Status: listed in 1984
Cleanup Status: All Construction Completed in 1995
Superfund $$ Spent. $1 7 million
Plaistow
Beede Waste Oil
I
for more information on this project, see: wwwepa gov/ne/superfund/sites/beede
NPL Status listed in 1996
Cleanup Status Remedy Selected;
Superfund $$ Spent. $24 million
Design Underway; Removal Activities
Portsmouth, Newington, and Greenland
Pease Air Force Base
for more information on this project, see www. epa govlne/supeifund/sites/pease
NPL Status Listed in 1990
Cleanup Status. All Construction Completed in 2000
Superfund $$ Spent $3.6 million
Raymond
Mottolo PIg Farm
[
for more information on this project, see www epa gov/ne/superfund/sites/moltolo
I
[
j
NPL Status: Listed in 1987
Cleanup Status. All Construction Completed in 1993
Superfund $$ Spent $4 million
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 13
-------
National Priorities List Sites
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Somersworth
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill
for more information on this project, see: www epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/somers worth
NPL Status Listed in 1983
Cleanup Status All Construction Completed in 2005
Superfund $$ Spent. $2 3 million
Troy
Troy Mills Landfill
for more information on this project, see: wwwepa. ov/ne/superfund/sites/troy
NPL Status Listed in 2003
I Cleanup Status All Construction Completed in 2005, Removal Activities
Superlund $$ Spent $12 7 million
14/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006
-------
U S EPA New England United States
Environmental Protection
Watch List Agency New England
RHODE ISLAND WATCH LIST
January 2007
Sites included on the “Watch List” are those that both the state and EPA Site Assessment pro-
grams agree merit increased state-federal coordination and oversight. These sites are a small
subset of the several thousand “active” sites included in the EPA New England and New En-
gland 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 CERCLIS
inventory Sites may be added or dropped if 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 agencies are kept
abreast of key site issues. 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 Watchlist 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) 918-1 387.
Site City/Town CERCLIS ID #
Scituafe
Coventry
Providence
Johnston
North Smrthf eld
Danielson Pike Groundwater! Scrtuote R1D987472725
Chase Paint-Riccartli Nursing Home
R&R Jewelry R1D063890727
Coventry Municipal Landfill R1D980734 164
Lancashire Street Disposal Area R 1D987493244
M. Earl Adams Co RI000l 204627
Former North Smithfield R 10981 064843
Nike Control Site
Tiverton - Bay Street Contaminated Tiverton Not in CERCLIS
Soils Site
Boulter Farms Area - Cumberland R10980672620
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 15
-------
Sites of Special Interest
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BEEDE WASTE OIL
Plaistow, New Hampshire
The Beede Waste Oil Superfund site is located in Plaistow, New Hampshire. The 41-acre site was the
location of petroleum and waste oil storage, handling, and recycling operations from approximately
1926 to 1994. Abutting properties in the vicinity of the site are primarily residential. Contamination on
the site originated from poor storage and handling of waste oil and other wastes as well as the unlined
and uncovered storage of large contaminated soil piles at the property
Current Site Status and Cleanup Actions to Date:
• EPA’s cleanup decision, announced in January 2004, requires the excavation of
contaminated surface soils and Kelley Brook sediments, the treatment of deeper con-
tamiriated soil via soil vapor extraction, the extraction and treatment of contaminated
groundwater, institutional controls to restrict groundwater and site uses, and long-term
site monitoring
• EPA conducted settlement negotiations in 2006 with potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) to secure a commttment from the PRPs to fund and perform final cleanup activi-
ties The negotiations resulted in a settlement agreement which calls for remedial design/
remedial action activities to begin in 2007
• EPA has raised over $18 1 million through four de miniims settlements to date.
• From 1996-1997, EPA and NHDES removed approximately 1.1 million gallons of
waste oil, sludge, and water from the Site.
• From 2000-2005, EPA removed over 90,000 gallons of o I from the groundwater
table.
• EPA awarded a $99,350 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative grant to the town to
develop a reuse plan which calls for residential and recreational use of the site.
More information on this site is available at. wv iwepa.gov/neIsuperfundIsites/beede
16/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANMUAIREPORI 2006
-------
U S EPA New England United States
Environmental Protection
Sites of Special Interest Agency New England
NEW HAMPSHIRE PLATING
Merrimack, New Hampshire
The New Hampshire Plating Company Superfund site, located in Merrimack, New Hampshire, was
an electroplating facility from 1962 to 1985. A 13-acre site, it is surrounded by light industry,
commercial businesses, and a few private residential dwellings. During operation, the facility dis-
charged electroplating wastes to a series of four
lagoons, contaminating the soil and ground-
water with a variety of metals, cyanide, and chlo-
rinated organic solvents including trichloroeth-
ylene and tetrachloroethylene. Drinking water
wells are located within four miles of the site
and are a source of drinking water for an esti-
mated 39,000 people. The immediate area is
served by a public water supply.
Current Site Status and
Cleanup Actions to Date:
EPA’s cleanup plan, published in September
1998, required the excavation and treatment
of metals contaminated soil via chemical fixa-
tion (a process through which toxic metals be-
come bound to the soil so they will no longer
leach to groundwater).
In 2002, EPA completed compensatory
wetland acquisitions. The Grassy Pond
wetland area in Litchfield, New Hampshire was
purchased in 1998 and the Green’s Pond wet-
land area in Merrimack, New Hampshire was
purchased in 2002 at a combined cost of $1.6
million.
In 2005-2006, EPA conducted soil excavation
and treatment activities. Approximately 60,000
cubic yards (or 95,000 tons) of soil contami-
nated with metals was excavated and treated
on-site via chemical fixation. The treated soil
was consolidated under a two-foot permeable soil cover which was graded and reseeded.
EPA and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services continue to maintain a ground-
water monitoring program to ensure that contaminated site groundwater naturally attenuates
over time.
EPA awarded a $99,050 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative grant to the town in 2000 to
develop a reuse plan which calls for recreational use of the site property. EPA incorporated the
town’s plans for potential recreational use into its final grading plans and the site’s final soil
cover was graded in a manner to maximize the amount of space available for future recreational
sports fields.
More information on this site is available at: www.epa.gov/ne/superlund/sites/nhplating
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 17
-------
Watch List
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW HAMPSHIRE WATCH LIST
January 2007
Sites included on the “Watch List” are those that both the state and EPA Site Assessment pro-
grams 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 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
FORMER CARDINAL LANDFILL, FARMINGTON
The Cardinal Landfill is located south of Watson Corner Road in Farmington. Davidson Rubber
Company and its successors disposed of manufacturing wastes at this former gravel pit between
1966 and 1987 Wastes disposed of included an average of 700-800 cubic yards per week of
PVC trimming scraps, rejected polyurethane foam products (often mixed with waste solvents
prior to disposal), acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene inserts, paint wastes (containing toluene, ethyl
benzene, xylenes, and ketones), drums of waste solvent, methylene chloride residue recovered
from cleaning equipment used in the manufacturing process, still bottoms from a methylene
chloride recovery process, scrap metal, metal bumpers, construction debris, plastic, cardboard,
refuse, and garbage There is strong evidence that a dense non-aqueous phase liquid ground-
water contamination source remains in the overburden and bedrock beneath the area of drum
disposal (the Primary Landfill) Approximately 300 drums were removed from the Primary Landfill
in July 1990
Groundwater in the overburden and bedrock has been impacted by tetrachloroethylene, its
breakdown products, 1,1- and 1,2-dichloroethane, ketones, benzene, toluene, acetone, ar-
senic and manganese Contaminated groundwater discharges to the Cocheco River to the west.
The landfill is currently located in the source water protection area of an active municipal well,
GP-6, that on average provides 15% of the Town’s water supply VOCs have been measured in
soil vapor in an area of the adjacent manufactured housing park northwest of the site.
The owner of the Cardinal Landfill, Collins and Aikmari Inc (C&A), filed for Chapter 11 Bank-
ruptcy protection on May 17, 2005. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
requested that the EPA add the Cardinal Landfill site to the Watch List in a letter dated November
2, 2005 C&A currently conducts groundwater monitoring twice per year under a Groundwater
Management Permit and operates a soil vapor management system to protect residents adjacent
to the landfill. Plans filed recently with the bankruptcy court strongly suggest that the Cardinal
Landfill property is likely to be abandoned by C&A in the near future The state continues to track
the bankruptcy proceedings.
18/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUA [ REPORT 2006
-------
U.S. EPA New England I EPA ’ States
Watch List Environmental Protection
Agency New England
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 19
-------
Emergency Planning & Response Program
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.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
3EPA
>.
REGION 1
— - . p ,.
20 REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl. REPORT 2006
-------
U.S. EPA New England
Emergency Planning & Response Program
‘ EPA United States
Environmental Protection
Agency New England
05/25/2006
06/20/2006
1 2/07/2006
09/1 9/2006
04/11/2006
$1,770,762
$2,996,604
$ 44,988
$ 5,840
$ 394,799
Massachusetts
1 2/20/2005
01/20/2006
11/15/2006
06/28/2006
$ 1 72,323
$ 250,887
$ 11,557
$ 800,478
New Hampshire
St Catherine Street Tannery Waste
Penocook
07/10/2006
Rhode Island
Centredale Manor
Restoration Proiect
Hartford Avenue Gravel Pits
North Providence
Johnston
05/15/2006
1 0/24/2006
Vermont
St Albans Gas and Light
St Albans
09/1 2/2 006
SITES WITH CLEANUP ACTIVITIES COMPLETED IN 2006
Site Name City Date CERCLA
Completed Funds Expended
Connecticut
InterRoyal (Removal 4)
Somers Plating
East Main Street Disposal Areo
Maine
Camden Yarns
New Franklin Laundry
Plainfield
Somers
Branford
Lewiston
Bangor
Leaverts Awards
Cabin Realty Trust
John J Riley
Whitman Cistern
Attleboro
Taunton
Woburn
Whitman
$ 322,641
$2,883,251
$ 77,905
$1,248,563
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006 / 21
-------
Emergency Planning & Response Program
NEW HAMPSHIRE
SITES WITH ONGOING CLEANUP ACTIVITY
Site Name City Date CERCIA
Started Funds Expended
Connecticut
None
Maine
A C Lawrence South Paris 08/14/2006 $ 1,490,161
Erb Junkyard Perry 10/19/2006 $ 58,030
Massachusetts
Baldwinville Residential Properties Baldwinville 08/16/2004 $11,433,392
Danversport Explosion Danvers 11/27/2006 $ 132,834
ShermanAvenue Seekonk 07/10/2006 $ 416,148
Parcel 6A Taunton 10/30/2005 $ 464,173
Wells 0 & H Woburn 03/28/2003 $ 82,953
Zimble Drum Norwood 10/16/2002 $ 369,573
New Hampshire
Electrosonics/Spofford Place Chesterfield 11/07/2005 $1,402,952
Rhode Island
Lancashire Street Disposal Area Providence 06/02/2005 $ 4,266,225
Vermont
Jard Bennington 08/17/2006 $1,196,615
22 /REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006
-------
U S. EPA New England United States
- Environmental Protection
Brownfuelds Agency New England
EPA NEW ENGLAND BROWNFIELDS:
RESTORING NEW HAMPSHIRE
COMMUNITIES
L ncl & Community Pvr liz tion Environmental contamination can rob a community of its
oVVN ‘ E’ I — economic potential and its social structure even when
ID 1<,. 1— 1 L ) contamination is not severe enough for a Superfund
designation Any amount of contamination—or even the
perception of 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 contaminaUon, 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 Brownfields Act 012002)
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 Brownfields Revitalization Act
(“the Brownfields 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 New Hampshire (1994-2006)
Program Funding
Assessment Grants $ 2,429,000
Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grants $ 4,051,790
Cleanup Grants $ 1,000,000
Job Training Grants $ 0
EPA Targeted Assessments (TBA) $ 398,926
State Brown{ields Funding $ 6,626,543
Showcase Communities $ 0
Grand Total: $ 14,506,259*
4 Funding total current as of December 2006.
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 / 23
-------
Brownfie lds
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Assessment Grant Program I
The Brownfields Assessment Program consists of grants of up to $200,000 for hazardous
substances and $200,000 for petroleum initially to local, tribal arid 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
Claremont $ 200,000
Concord $ 90,000
Nashua $ 473,000
Nashua Regional Planning
Commission $ 200,000
New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (Haverhill, Woodville Rail Yard; New lpswich,
Seppalo and Aho Property, Northfield, Surrette Battery
Site; Tilton, Pillsbury Mill Site) $ 350,000
New Hampshire Office of
State Planning $ 400,000
North Country Council
of Governments $ 200,000
Southwest Region Planning
Commission ___ $ 516,000
L tqi1 $ 2,429,OO
*Fufldiflg 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 commu-
nities may team together to establish larger revolving loan funds pools Grantees are
selected through a national competition.
Recipient Funding
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services $ 1 ,601 ,790
State of New Hampshire $ 2,450,000
Total: $ 4,O51,79O
*Funding total current as of December 2006
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 brownfields 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
City Site Funding
Crtiig Supply Site, Depot Street
Perkins Machine Shop Property,
92& 1 lOWaterStreet
76 Temple Street
Former Rex Leather Tannery
Lot 43, Corner of Old Manchester Rood
and \Mght Street $ 200,000
Lot 120, Corner of Old Manchester Road
and Wight Street
Total:
t Funding total current as of December 2006
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$1 ,000,000*
Durham
Keene
Nashua
Raymond
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl. REPORT 2006 / 25
-------
Brownfields
NEW HAMPSHIRE
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 Brownfields-Iunded grant recipient. Grantees
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 govern-
ment officials and developers to make informed decisions regarding the redevelop-
ment potential of a site.
Recipient Site Approx. Value
of Assessment
Durham Craig Supply Company, Depot Road $ 70,409
Franklin J.P Stevens Mill, East Bow Street $ 8,697
Londonderry Lamont Labs, 6 Perimeter Road $ 30,954
Milton Former Tannery Site (Milton Mills), Wolfer Street $ 1 65,300
Newport Anibargis Mill, 8 Greenwood Road $ 116,748
Sutton Henry Tire Property, Route 114 $ 6,818
__________ _______ ________ $ 398,926* J
*Funding total current as of December 2006
26/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006
-------
U.S. EPA New England I EPAU S
Brownflelds Environmental Protection
Agency New England
Program Funding
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services
Total:
Fundina total current as of December 2006
Claremont
Derry
Durham
G ree nfie I d
Ha rrisville
Hove rh ill
He nn ike r
Jaifrey
Londonderry
Manchester
Merrimack
Milton
Milton Mills
Mount Vernon
Nashua
New Boston
New lpswich
Northfield
Plymouth
Raymond
Some rswo rth
Su rry
Sutton
Tilton
Troy
Winchester
$ 6,626,543
$ 6,626,543*
Berlin Fraser Paper Administration Building
Notre Dame / Burgess School
Pulp and Paper of America, R&D Building
Bradford Former Naughton Landfill/Autocraft Site
Bristol Bristol Micro Factory
Center Barnstead Rogers Property, 72,
South Barnstead Road
Monadnock Mills
Shamrock Cleaners Site
Craig Supply Site
Former East Coast Steel
Hartford Property
Woodsville Railyard
Contoocook Valley Paper
Elite Laundry
Lomont Laboratories
Boss Island, 3 1 0 Second Street
Bass Island, 344 Second Street
Merrimack Industrial Metals,
Post Rood Plaza
Spaulding Composites Lagoon Site
Former Greene Tannery
Kominski Site
Whitney Screw
Robert Riley Property
Seppala & Aho Site
Surrette Battery
Ke ley’s Salvage Yard
Rex Leathers/Regis Tannery
Breton Cleaners , 1 Winter Street
Bedard’s Auto Center & General Store
Carnevale Property
(Henry’s Tire & Wrecking), Route 11 4
Pillsbury Mill
Troy Mills
AC Lawrence Leathers
(Route 126)
Durham Craig Supply Site
Goffstown Upreach Therapeutic Riding Center
153 Paige Hill Road
Laconia Mechanic Street School,
259 Mechanic Street
Wilder Thermometer
Carnevale Property
(Henry’s Tire & Wrecking), Route 1 14
Peterborou g h
Sutton
Financial Assistance
to State Brownfields
Program
EPA also offers funding to directly
support state brownfields activities
including funds to establish and
enhance state brawnfields pro-
grams (also known as voluntary
cleanup programs), to conduct site
specific assessment and cleanup,
to develop revolving loan fund pro-
grams and to develop insurance
tools Below is a summary of fund-
ing received in New Hampshire
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl. REPORT 2006 / 27
-------
Brownfields
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Showcase Communities
As part of the multi-federal agency Brownfields National Partnership, sixteen
communities were selected to receive Showcase Community designation rouow-
ing a national competition. The federal partners work with selected communities
to revitalize browrifietds properties. EPA generally provided each with a $00,000
Brownfields nonstration Pilot and assigned an EPA employee to work full time
in the designated community for two years.
28/REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION IiNNUA [ REPORT 2006
-------
U S EPA New England United States
w 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 us 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, tour 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
Totals: 190 166 132 34 26 282
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006 / 29
-------
Underground Storage Tanks
NEW HAMPSHIRE
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.
CI
4,633
1,268
780
ME
1,471
9
311
MA
4,766
1,173
401
NH
1,294
0
538
RI
675
20
135
VT
1,129
150
510
Totals:
13,968
2,620
2,675
Data as of September 2006
826
88
956
826
254
769
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
State Facilities UST Facility Inspections
Inspections needed in FY06
by August 2007
Data as of December 2006
CONFIRMED RELEASES
IN NEW ENGLAND
State Releases CIeanups , Backlog
Reported Completed
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
30 R [ MEDIATION 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 / 31
-------
Map
32/R [ M [ DIAJION AND RESTORATION ANNUAL REPORT 2006
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
U.S. EPA New England I EPA ted States
Map I Environmental Protection
Agency New England
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION ANNUAl REPORT 2006 / 33
------- |