-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The U.S. Geological Survey periodically monitored raw and treated
water for pesticides and heavy metals during the 5-year period 1970-7566 at
Buffalo, Grand Island, Lockport Niagara Falls, Niagara County Water District,
North Tonawanda, and Tonawanda. These data indicate that observed concentra-
tions met applicable drinking water standards with pesticides usually below
detection limits.
Monitoring of the Buffalo water supply in 1976 and 1977 as part of the
EPA National Organics Monitoring Survey found most trace organics were below
detection limits except THMs which were less than 40 ppb.67
The City of Niagara Falls water supply has received the most extensive
monitoring as the result of the discovery of various organic chemical sub-
stances in the intake system. This contamination is alleged to be the re-
sult of the migration of hazardous wastes from an adjacent landfill on
Hooker Chemical Company property. This contamination is part of ongoing
litigation.
The first discovery of some chemical contamination in the intake sys-
tem may have occurred as early as 1969.68 Additional contamination was
detected in 1978 and 1979. At least 38 organic chemicals were detected in
one or more samples of finished drinking water in concentrations ranging
from traces less than 1 ppb to 55 ppb.69 The higher concentrations were
THMs.
The City has taken a number of steps to eliminate contamination of the
water supply including blocking off parts of the shore segment of the in-
take system, cleaning intake structures and lines, and installing an emer-
gency intake line into the Tonawanda Channel. Raw water is now obtained
from both the Chippawa and Tonawanda Channels.
The City now monitors regularly for trace organics in the water sup-
ply. Powdered activated carbon is added in the treatment process to remove
organic chemicals. Finished water quality is reportedly better than most
water supplies obtained from industrialized rivers in other parts of the
country.61 The water also reportedly meets Department of Health standards.61
-------
78
Because of the highly toxic nature of some of the substances known to
be disposed of in the Hooker landfill only 200 yards away and the detection
of these substances in the groundwater and the contaminated intake system,
it may be necessary to relocate or reconstruct the intake system to prevent
future contamination. The City has developed several alternatives for pro-
tecting the water supply but has not yet implemented any of them.
At most Niagara River water supply systems, the locations of the in-
takes directly affect the quality of the supply. As previously discussed,
pollutant levels in the Niagara River are affected by hydrologic conditions
that concentrate pollutants along the east shore of the Upper River and the
eastern half of the Tonawanda Channel. Therefore, except when wind condi-
tions cause mixing in Lake Erie, the City of Buffalo, Town of Grand Island,
Niagara County Water District, Niagara Falls, Ontario and St. Davids sup-
plies would be expected to have the best water quality [Figure 5]. The
Town of Tonawanda and Erie County Water Authority intakes are located at
mid-channel in the Upper River and should usually have water quality nearly
the same as the above intakes.
The intakes for the Cities of Tonawanda, North Tonawanda and Lockport
are all located just west of center in the Tonawanda Channel. This loca-
tion in the river cross-section results in the minimum intake of pollutants
for this river segment, but water quality is not as favorable as in the West
Channel. The City of Niagara Falls intakes from both the Tonawanda and
Chippewa Channels. Water quality is influenced by the ratio of withdrawals
from each channel. Since the River is well mixed at Niagara-on-the-Lake,
water quality is a function of river quality, not intake location.
The horizontal stratification of the river and its effects on the qual-
ity of public water supplies were known as early as 1913.70 Several intakes,
including the City of Niagara Falls, were relocated and new intakes located
farther away than the closest channel during the 1940's and 1950's in order
to obtain better water quality.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
79
Surface Water Quality
Within surface waters, chemical substances partition themselves among
the water, the suspended sediments in the water, and the bottom sediments.
In addition, a fraction of the chemical substances may also be bioaccumu-
lated by aquatic life. All four components of the aquatic system must be
monitored to develop a complete picture of the extent of chemical
contamination.
Extensive monitoring data for all four components sampled by Canadian
agencies in 1979 and 1980 were recently published in the 1981 Baseline Re-
port Update.71 Selected tables from the report are presented here to define
present water quality. Data on fish contamination and the quality of public
water supplies were discussed in earlier sections of this report.
The monitoring was designed to assess the status of water quality with
respect to applicable objectives, to determine temporal and spatial varia-
tions in water quality, and to assist in defining sources of chemical sub-
stances. Water quality monitoring locations are shown in Figure 6. Bottom
sediment sampling locations are shown in Figure 7. Biomonitoring locations
were previously shown in Figure 4 in the section on fish contamination.
The Niagara-on-the-Lake station defines the pollutant load entering
Lake Ontario from the entire Niagara River system. Variations in observed
water quality are the function of variations in point source discharges and
numerous hydrologic factors.
Other key monitoring stations are at Fort Erie, the Buffalo River, and
in the Tonawanda Channel. Under most hydrologic conditions, the Fort Erie
samples are representative of Lake Erie water not contaminated by releases
of chemical substances from point and non-point sources in the Buffalo area.
Water quality would be expected to be similar for the Thunder Bay (Lake
Erie), Fort Erie and Niagara Falls, Ontario monitoring stations, and all of
the Chippewa Channel. The Buffalo River station reflects the higher levels
of contamination present in the Buffalo area and is representative of some
of the pollutants that move down the east side of the Upper River into the
-------
80
---0.0 SURVEY RANGE
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT INTAKE
MONITORING
NIAGARA
ON-THE-
LAKL
FIXED POINT
STATION
ST.
CATHARINES
NIAGARA
FALLS
NIAGARA
FALLS
GRAND ISLAND
Fort Erie boat ram
Niagara Christian College
FORT ERIE
36.0-
FIGURE 6. NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY MONITORING LOCATIONS - 1979/80.
-------
81
Sediment Sampling
Station
FIGURE 7. NIAGARA RIVER BOTTOM SEDIMENT SAMPLING - 1979.
-------
82
Tonawanda Channel. The Tonawanda Channel stations demonstrate the horizon-
tal stratification that is present in this channel and also reflect local
point and non-point source contributions along the channel.
As shown in Tables 8 through 12 taken from the 1981 Canadian report,71
average annual water quality conditions in the Niagara River over the period
1975-1980 met 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement objectives* for trace
metals, pesticides, and trace organics. Concentrations of some organics and
metals exceeded these objectives in less than 10% of the samples.
Copper and iron were the only metals to frequently exceed the object-
ives. As shown in Tables 8 and 9, both annual average concentrations and
the percent of samples not meeting objectives for copper declined signifi-
cantly in the lower River since 1977. Iron concentrations were higher in
1979 and 1980 than in previous years. In the upper River, the percent of
samples exceeding objectives was about the same in 1979 as in 1975.
Spatial differences in average metal concentrations were noted
[Tables 10 and 11] with higher values observed in the upper River and the
Tonawanda Channel than in the Chippawa .Channel.
Most organic substances were non-detectable in water. As shown in
Tables 10 and 12, orBHC was detected in all samples. Cyanide, ^-BHC
(lindane), dieldrin, and PCB were also frequently detected.
In contrast to the water samples, PCBs, pesticides, and metals were
more frequently detected in suspended sediments. Occurrence of these sub-
stances in suspended sediments at Niagara-on-the-Lake are shown in Tables 13
and 14. Concentrations of PCBs, HCB, lead, copper, and zinc are the most
significant. There are no water quality objectives specifically applicable
to suspended sediment.
These are shown in the tables as IJC objectives. The tables also show
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) objectives that are slightly
different for some pollutants.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
83
I—
•"" -- £
•— - . Cc
O <
L-. I O
H < X
'<— O
X. < tJ-
1^ ii H
U
— O I
^ ss 2: ^
"^ < LJ C-
r,c c~: — r-.
F: <: t-
^- u u
< (-• x
r- H M
;• r; 7; >
U- »—< C rH
l_ ^ Oi
c uj y:
u s— <
u _:
33
£ fc
**-. ^^
<
co
o
2 ^
< Zrxi
H O^"
O H i~~
<£ 0
W f-- rH
^ w
01
* CJ
_ rH
0 0.
oo e
- s
c
f-t
•K
0
O
i—4
•
oo
rH
r>-
r^
i-H
O
r^
rH
in
r*.
rH
«
<
W
>-.
•»^
ci
PARAMETE
rH
-T
O
m
n
-?
oo
~3
, — 1
m
o>
^-4
to
CO
0
•
o
z
CN rH rH
rH X
jc s o
5 a oi
rJ < K
< U U
rH
O
o
r">
O
C
1— 1
vD
0
o
m
O
O
rH
rH
O
rH
r^
O
O
rn
rH
VJO
t-1
o
0
CN
O
O
o
r-i
O
O
CM
O
o
| NICKEL
i
rH
O
O
m
o
o
o-
o
c
\c
o
o
o
o
m
c
c
-r-l
*J
U
«J
"-)
JD
O
iJ
c
01
B
(U
OJ
kl
K)
<
oo
r^
ON
rH
U-l
O
Or
•T^
4J
m
t— i
o
•H
>
1
-r-(
3
M
(J
0)
a*
o
IB
U-l
u
3
U
U-l
• 0
c
.C
CC
•H
£
01
o
en
QJ
3
rH
ra
j>
13
OJ
4->
•r-l
•a
w
^ — ,
-^ —
mean calculation
U
o
U-l
O
(n
n)
•o
o
t-i
QJ
4J
C
QJ
in
QJ
3
rH
n)
4J
-r-l
E
T-l
r-J
O
•«-(
iJ
u
rH
i-t
*^
U
•r-l
rH
C
0
•H
<-J
O
i J
••J
13
C
ro
-^-
4.J
u.
V.
o
r— 4
1
_J
cvj
CO
QJ
O
C
O)
s_
O)
4-
O)
D;
, .
QJ
(_J
£_
^3
o
00
-------
84
TABLE 9 •
PERCENTAGE OF WEEKLY WATER SAMPLES VIOLATING
1978 AGREEMENT OBJECTIVES IN THE NIAGARA RI-
VER, AT N1AGARA-ON-THE-LAKK DURING 1975-1980
'ARAMETER
CADMIl'M-T
CHKOMmt-T
1978
IJC
SPEC
OBJECT
ug/L
0.2
50
7.0rPER-T
[RON-T
LEAD-T
NICKEL-T
7.INC-T
MERCURY -EXT
CYANinr.
5
300
25
25
30
1
0.2
-
MOE
OBJECT
ug/L
0.2
100
5
300
25
25
30
0.2
5
% VIOLATIONS AT NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE
1975
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
-
1976
6
0
61
20
0
0
0
-
1977
6
0
79
15
0
2
2
-
1978
0
T
1979
5
0 ! 0
I
AO
33
19 Al
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
1980*
0
2
17
3A
0
0
0
i
••• incomplete data set (includes data from Jan 3- Oct 7/80)
Source: Reference 32
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
85
=ls_ Df
-3^ r,
* •—o
Q
^
tt
fO
1C
1
I
^
o
CXJ
C*
*""*
QJ
cr
c
TJ
JL,
.
^
r-.
0
—
"£
QJ
.Q
O
UJ
§ ^
CO — 1
.-< -.-
"to
cr
QJ
0 ••-
— « u
QJ
CO —>
cr. o
LJ
QJ
ex
00
QJ
OJ
E=
l_
""3
Q-
* •*
-•*, r- *.c .— • O O O u"> O O ""> O cxj OOOO
, . , ,-*-^
"\JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
vvv vvvvvvvvvvvvyvw
*
-— * * * * * *
O- t^j y£j CTi O O O Oj ^J* C3 *3" OJ r~ *3" CO O CD
,-— ^-^ ~^—
cvooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
oooooo oooooooooooooo
vvv vvvvvvvvvvvvvvw
*
— -* + * * + +
O *J" f^- C"» O O CXJOCXJCXJCXJCXI O> OOCXjCXJ
' ^—^. *— -^— - ,-llXj--n.
CXjOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
vvv vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
r— * t— c OO rocxj^H t— *ro
OO .-HUD OOO OO
OO 1 1 O CD I I I I O O O IOO
OO OO OOO OO
/ — " — "* f~" — » • — • — »
4-*
E
cr
o
^~* O O ro O» r-< u
O «— » «XJ OOO QJ
'O C T3 "O
— - 4-» o c: c:
O ^ --r— Q, UJ UJ
CO Q> OJ Q O y «n
.tec: >— JD t- i_ o — _>
*o fO *a ^ — ft) O O »— t *—*
-r~ Qjs-i-i— f— ujczioj _CJT ccr
•*--OC_)C_)fn-— ^-QOOO+ •-tT)'^ XT3"O
^L.---x::i:-o.c_t;i • t i >— i_ +-» 4-* uoo
cQ"o Qjcocn CCJLJ CLCLCX CXQ ~o CL O.CQ .- ••- ••-
CJ •— *- I i-^-i ) . . . .OCQja)<_j^-i;_c
Q- 1 1 'ID O OJ . C J CO
O r*-) o
- —
^3
QJ
QJ
• (—
E E
(/I U QJ 13 E ^ >i
O C"--g^eQJ ^QJ
QJ ^/i T3 3 TT) s_ CL o "^ 5^- O C
^ i- >•»• — tJjCO^ QJQJr-'~
CX cCLJ
*J E
T3 -r-
' '
o • cr
' — Qj O
LJ •— • 4-J
4-J U
cr o QJ
dJ •'-> CJ
E -O TD
o
1- Qj
O QJ >
4- > 0
o o
T3 Jt) (O
OJ *T3
l/l i^
3 S^ O
o
OJ 4-*
QJ H3
5 t/t
v> QJ
oo QJ — •
Qj . — CL i/i
r3 CL e +-J
'TO § tn E
r- O C
E 4-> O •
r^ C ~>
QJ CLJ 4-j uj "3
4_» •*-> ra 0
Qj tJ
••— TT3 OJ •—
u- -n c i- -*->
O C *- "3 ( J
'»— -K 'r '
p .-- v 'L
0) ! C
o •*-* *-> r*> t/'
QJ QJ -O OJ
" -V .V •*->
>-> tJ LJ "TJ "3
rt) i-- V- X i~
(S) *»- C
QJ c cr GJ •-
QJ Q V
C tn 01 |
1- i- l/l 5
CJ QJ QJ QJ ••
1_ jTl -O r3 X!
QJ 6 fcr • — t/1
-C r3 13 t) »O
^ s* ir >• o
*
CNJ
CO
OJ
U
C
O)
s_
O)
M-
O)
a>
o
o
CO
-------
86
TAELE 11.
SUMMARY OF 1979 UPPER NIAGARA RIVER
MEAN TRACE METAL DATA (mg/L)
'V^'AT t Rt
I
I
I
I
I
PARAMETER
RIVER RANGE
As-DTSS
Sc-DISS
H^-EXT
C
-------
I
I
I
I
a
<
o
1/1
H
CM
W
_!
CQ
w
O
u
in
C
o
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
J j j J J J
U
—I
W Ul b>
(J) i> 1-1
< O H
H cS U
u: cc
n o
1C
O .-t
«-l O I
O O I
I I
: g
CQ
O
^-
5
H
O
U
O
»— 1
5
(j:
Pi
o
en
r-
&
r-t
U-
o
>-•
ce
S
^
£^
LO
Pi
U
(-•
<
•y.
oc
u:
>
t— (
o£
^
*^
CJ
•2
M
z
oc
u
(1-
fe
ZZ
t-l
u. a
O 0-!
(-
w o
U U5
< H ,-, ^ _,
f-iUJ OO ^H
LU »— *
U U
«: s
W i-l
P* H
H
»-<
s
I—I
—!
2 x-x
6.J r-^ . r-l ^-1 0 '-|'-|_,^
l-*-^. O OOoJ OC'-'O
(-.SO O-OCO OOOO
IzJ x-^
H
W
Q
a:
w
H
0-
W
Q
Z
Q
25
^ ct
U Q
-ti ca L
>- i »-« u
UVo Q (X,
Z
w
UJ 2
CG O Q
i <; H i
re o.
tx —
C
o
•f I
3
U
r-<
s-
O)
H-
OJ
Qi
OJ
O
S-
3
o
00
-------
ftLE 13.
SUMMARY OF TRACE ELEMENT CONCTrn FAT Kill (|i;;/s) IN SUSPENDED
SEDIMENT AT NIACARA-ON-THE-LAKC
PARAMETER
CADMIUM- EXT
LEAD-EXT
CODALT-EXT
COPTER-EXT
ZINC-EXT
NTCKEL-EXT
CHROMIUM-EXT
1978
N.OBS.
13
13
13
13
13
13
13-
MEAN
2.4
80.0
6.6
46.0
177.0
29.0
39.0
S.D.
0.8
28.6
3.3
15.1
46.0
16.0
31.0
1979-80
N.OBS.
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
MEAN
2.4
S.D.
1.3
58.0 18.9
6.5
44.0
163.0
24.Q
30.0
2.3
37.0
50.0
. 12.0
12.0
Source: Reference 32
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
89
14 MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS (ng/g) IN SUSPENDED
SEDIMENT AT NIAGAKA-ON-THE-LAXF.-1980
PARAMETER
PCR (TOTAL)
ALDR1N
DIELDKIN
X-BHC
tf-BHC( LIN DANE)
<*-CHLORDANE
l-CHLORDANE
o, p-DDT
p,p-DDT
p.p-DDE
P.P-TDE(DDD)
ENDRIN
HEPTACHLOR
NO. OF
SAMPLES
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 24
HCbCpacked col)
HCB(CAP.COL)
MIREX
/3-ENDOSULFAN
MZTHOXYCHLOR
"<-ENDOSULFAN
* 24(23)
13
24
24
21
24
CONFIRMED DETECTIONS
NO.
24
0
21
18
10
14
20
8
18
24
13
1
0
14
24(23)
18
17
0
17
1
MEAN (ng/g)
642
N.D.
4
11
2
1
2
3
13
19
2
L 1
N.D.
2
160(51)
83
6
L 1
10
L 1
•
ST. DEV.
534
—
2
15
4
3
2
5
16
10
2
—
—
3
535(58)
78
7
—
19
— —
* Oiu liij'.li v;i 1 tu' o 1 iri in;i I i'il
N.D. Values net detected
a set from Jan 5 - Auj; 19/1980
ct ion Limit vnlut-s entered as zero in moan calculations
L - less than detection limit
Source: Reference 32
-------
90
Analysis of bottom sediments collected from 25 stations [Figure 7] in
1979 detected the widespread occurrence of PCBs [Table 15]. Almost all
stations had PCB contamination exceeding Ontario Ministry of the Environ-
ment guidelines for prohibiting disposal of dredged spoil in open waters.
The highest concentrations were detected in Buffalo Harbor, Tonawanda Chan-
nel, and the lower River.
Significant contamination of sediments with organochlorine pesticides
was also detected. In the upper River, only chlordane, DDE and DDT were
frequently observed and then at low concentrations. Additional pesticides
and much higher concentrations were observed in the lower River north of
Queenston indicating that section is an accumulation point for contaminated
sediments.
No chlorophenoxy acid herbicides or chlorophenols were detected in the
bottom sediments.
Heavy metals were detected in all bottom sediments. Copper, lead, and
zinc exhibited the highest concentrations but all metals reported except
cadmium exceeded MOE dredged spoil disposal criteria at at least one sta-
tion. The highest metal concentrations were detected in the Upper Tona-
wanda Channel.
Freshwater clams were exposed to Niagara River and Lake Erie waters
for 16 days in 1980 at several locations [Figure 4]. Contamination with
PCBs and organochlorine pesticides was the highest in the Tonawanda Channel
[Table 16].
Algae collected from similar Lake and River locations [Figure 4] were
analyzed for heavy metals and arsenic. Again, the highest contamination
was found in the Buffalo River and Tonawanda Channel [Table 17].
The 1981 Baseline Report Update concluded that "the major portion of
the loading of PCBs and some pesticides occurs adjacent to and downstream
from Grand Island, New York."72 The high concentration of PCBs observed in
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
91
en
en
o
t_>
Q- i/l
o: r>-
0
0
Di -T-
0 UJ
O- 00
C£.
0£ cC
O
oo en
l— -^
—i \
r> en
OO 3
UJ
o: n
^C O-
O 0.
>- oo
—I I
*
cy r~i oo
I— "^ o
LU i—i
o c£
cr> ct LU
CTl ^ —
•—i X C£
o
O LU a:
>- a. o
ce CD vO.'VJr-.rg^Op-,r— Zi^lun^f — • — «
ggig §ggg ™S2
csj • O
O
3£Zz5? ZZ2E2; •aOi^tcvjn .csj^r
o o
CO • —i «
?
a o a Q ou*»or*»o
-------
92
Q.
e
o L
a t
ca
-a:
£
O>
oi
2
OJ
5
.O
Q.
Q.
"
Ol
O>
C
c
•ff
c
o
£
4_)
c
0)
u
c
o
o
— CD
-IT "O
U •—
T3 X
4-> O
Q. Q.
QJ OJ
C
U
c
LU
c:
-5
• —
Q
O)
- O
*5
i o
»S
CO
o
3:
X
Ol
»—
s:
w
CJ
Q •—
O r—
O
— J3
TJ T3
O Ol
H- SI
u>
03
<->
.M
u_
01
c
i_
o
t-> cr
— o
c •—
O j->
E "0
0 u
— o
CO —1
OJ ^. OO CSJ CM
0 0 0 + | /^ +| +1^-1
C3 CD C2 (^ ^H r~) Q
2: z z z +| z z
r-'
CO
Q t- Q Q +| Q Q
+ 1 +1 "+I ^ ^l "+ 1 0
CM VO OJ 1— CO ^H O ^< +1
in' 5-' i' + ' ~ £ 9
. , B t
^ i^ £ § 41 4: 4:
,
Q C3 Q Q U. Q C3
^ z: ^ ^ t— z; zz
1
fi . .
<- U • rt L. (- t. t.
J~~ H~* «" ^ h~ H— h— h~
^ co S
O t- 4- | O +| O + |
oj r- CTI
oj ro ir> t— < Co i — ' . — i
o o o o o o o
O O CO «J- to Cxi ^~
-^ ^ ^ o ^ do
,_•
•
z
-c" . • "J"
•^ -^ c ^-"^ •• ^ .
4_> L. O . CO fl) ^^ l_ j j i
C3J£(U c C *>C">4->fljO
•r- L. C« L. fl in -r- C-C
*O *O r— O O .— *O fO " C CD
oo t- Q; ce *o u_ t- c o t.
^ 0)0 SS -0 ? *0 CT° -iS
— -S -m 3. Q. S Sfe 2 ^ !5°
*- C *Z ^- O. O. "~~ TO Ol ^C Q) Ol 4-*
UJI3 i*_^^ — CTO OJTOt.
-C t~ 3jrx: o-~ t- 13 ••- o
J^ Q. 5
— I O _J
"
^
CM
CM
t
—I
LO
LT)
CD
CM
+-»
E
— i
c
O
4)
U
OJ
OJ
0
u
OJ
r^
i
u->
>0
en
c
0)
"~
'""
0)
L/l
en
OJ
^L
"^
•!->
0
in
_
T3
U
cu
o
5
n
"+- ^-*
o +->
c: 6
o .—
13 c
— O
CU 4->
•a o
"O 4-*
-a
c S
r^ O
" 2
C
T3 QJ
C -O
OJ -w
01
'—
l/l +J
aj o
3 ^
T3 II
O
* Z
CNJ
ro
O)
u
c
01
S-
OJ
O)
o
o
00
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
93
o
CO
CTl
t— t
1
> — ,
•
Q.
co
O3
O
x:
Q.
O
•o
^S
ii
UJ
(Si
^
t/1
o
1 —
1 ' *
s:
j
u-
o
UJ
re
i — -
t—
• — •
^
•^^
UJ
oo
OS
^
o
— >*
~-~^
cr»
•K
c
o
4-1
03
C
O>
c:
o
>,
o
• • (•• •
C\J r-H O^ ^^~ LO OO ^^ r*^- P*"*" OO
^ V
o
r-. OCOCSJCMOJ VOCOCM IO
• ••••• ••• »
O ^J-OCMCO( — f CMi — 'CM O
o co m o o co o
*^ C7> CT» ^- ro in o^ r^- *— * «^"
C5 OOOi — ii — t OO^^ O
10 CM m
• •••• • ••• •
CD in in r"*» t~* t^^i cr* CM CM O^
« — I CO *~ < ^-< f— < ' — t ^-*
c: >- 4-1
0 - C
z: o
r-
(_ ^0)
C_3 -t-* C Cf)
C 03 L.
e o o-o
QJ - "— 3 -i— j_>
-Z Q- 03 O "
l_ Q. C3 U- 4-J
" O3 •' — ^ ^^- C
•JZOJJ^ • -CCU OJO
>- 4-1 c: c_3 ~-^>- a. JK: ^<:
• « • 3 *^v. **- — . — • . . (LI 03 O3 "
I_ Z! O • > — <1J '?p' t- oo I i 03
U EOJ;45 +5^
>,">>jr.c:c_>^ — -at it/i
'2r°5afCJC~~' «3O3 ""Oc-'C^-
03 t3 O3 "O ^ O 1 "f" 1 c/»
• • c_ en o o 5 3 c 03 en 4-1 i/» 03 ^— 03 -r~
QJ U O3 ^~ "^ TO O3 ^ C— TO OO ~ t^ TO l_ ^
r- ~O >f~ TO TO Q. CL "2 TO 'f~~ C ^> TO 4-1 TO
<- C2^'*-14- cxcxTOcnz: a; cncnc C7i4_>
UJO *4-l4-r--t— c:o3 (UCrio3CDTOt_
-Cl_^t3JC.CO'— C_I3QJ^ ••— O
ajh- a) co CQ c_> o t— 2: ai o- Q. z ajzru-
-^ Q- -^ ^
TO Q. O TO
— 1 13 _J _)
-------
94
Buffalo Harbor in bottom sediments and of heavy metals in algae suggest
that this area could also contribute significant loads of PCBs and heavy
metals.
Bottom sediments in large areas of Lake Erie have elevated levels of
persistent chemical substances as shown for PCBs in Figure 8.73
Persistent toxic substances can be transported long distances by sedi-
ments as shown by the distribution of mi rex in the bottom sediments of Lake
Ontario [Figure 9].73 Highly contaminated bottom sediments dredged from
Buffalo Harbor and the Buffalo River were disposed of in a shallow, open-
water dumping area west of Bethlehem Steel in Lackawanna for many years.
It appears possible that under previously discussed adverse hydrologic con-
ditions on Lake Erie, bottom sediments in eastern Lake Erie could contribute
significant loads of persistent chemical substances such as PCBs to the
Niagara River both in the suspended sediments and water. Some of these
sediments may then be redeposited in quieter river sections adding to con-
tamination from local point and non-point sources.
AIR QUALITY
Traditional air pollution parameters are used to define present air
quality and to show the major air quality improvements that have occurred
over the past 15 years. The limited data on chemical substances in ambient
air are discussed. No data on air quality in homes were available other
than for homes involved in the Love Canal litigation. Because of the liti-
gation, these data are not presented. Occupational exposure to air pollution
is beyond the scope of this study.
The most recent published data74 on air quality in the Niagara Frontier
Air Quality Control Region (Erie and Niagara Counties) showed that downward
trends in air pollution, as measured by traditional parameters, continued
through 1979. Monitoring was conducted by the DEC at 10 continuous moni-
toring sites and 47 manual sites in the AQCR in 1979.
-------
I
I
I
95
CO
ID
O
CO
z
LU
Q
LU
LU -A-
O II
L^X,
§S
CO
zQ
~ cc
CO <
°z
mg
OD
Q- I
C30
UJ
CC.
ID
O
-------
96
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
97
Sulfur dioxide levels have declined substantially over the past 10
years. Whereas sulfur dioxide levels were in contravention of the annual
mean standard of 0.03 ppm prior to 1975 in Niagara Falls, Buffalo, and
Lackawanna, all stations are below the standard. The decline has been most
significant at stations where 1970 averages were about 0.05 ppm and are now
about half that level. These declines are the results of enforcement of
fuel regulations and application of industrial emission controls.
Major reductions in total suspended particulate (TSP) levels have also
occurred over the past 15 years. At Niagara Falls, average TSP levels have
decreased from about 120 ug/m3 to about 50 ug/m3 at one key station and
from 270 to 110 ug/m3 at another. In Buffalo, similar reductions from 260
to 95 ug/m3 at one site and 80 to 46 ug/m3 at another were observed. The
health-based ambient air standards are 75 ug/m3 for the annual geometric
mean and 260 ug/m3 for the 24-hour average. Most stations now meet these
standards whereas major contravention of standards was common 10 years ago.
These reductions in TSP levels are particularly significant with re-
spect to such substances as benzo(a)pyrenes, other organic chemicals, and
heavy metals which may be present in the particulates. Sources of such
particulates include chemical plants, steel mills, carbon product manufac-
turers, and coke ovens. A study conducted from 1963 to 1970 showed a rela-
tionship between air pollution from the coke oven industry and the health
of the general population.75 Coke ovens were identified as a source of
high levels of suspended particulates which have since been reduced by con-
trols on the coke ovens and on other industrial and utility sources.
Carbon monoxide (CO) levels have declined throughout the AQCR as a
result of auto emission controls. Automobiles are the most important
source of CO although there are significant emissions of CO from carbon
products plants in the Niagara Falls area. There have been a few contraven-
tions of the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm in the Niagara Falls area in recent
years. Contraventions are slightly more frequent in the Buffalo area.
Annual CO averages are now low (1 ppm or less) areawide.
-------
98
Nitrogen oxides are not a problem in the AQCR. Most sites average
less than half the primary standard of 0.05 ppm. Slightly higher levels
occur in Buffalo than in Niagara Falls.
Lead monitoring began in 1973. A decline in lead levels occurred be-
tween 1973 and 1977 with relatively constant levels since 1977. All loca-
tions are well below the standard of 1.5 |jg/m3. There are no major indus-
trial sources of lead emissions in the study area.
Short-term ambient air monitoring for vinyl chloride was conducted in
June 1974 in the vicinity of the Goodyear polyvinyl chloride plant in
Niagara Falls and at three residential locations in Buffalo.76 Vinyl chlor-
ide was detected downwind of the Goodyear plant at concentrations up to 40
ppb in a Niagara Falls residential area. One sample downwind of the Buffalo
Avenue industrial complex in Niagara Falls reportedly contained 28 ppb vinyl
chloride. No vinyl chloride was detected in the Buffalo residential areas.
EPA has not established an ambient air criterion for vinyl chloride but has
established National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for industrial emissions of vinyl chloride. Sources are required to limit
their emissions to total volumes or concentrations dependent upon the source
process involved. The emissions concentrations allowed are in the 10 ppm
range. New York DEC uses an Acceptable Ambient Level (AAL) of 0.41 ug/m3
to evaluate sources of vinyl chloride emissions.77
Goodyear is the only reported source of vinyl chloride emissions in
the study area. At the time of the 1974 sampling, Goodyear1s emissions
were estimated at 4 tons/year.76 They are now reported as 32 tons/year.78
No current data were identified to evaluate present ambient levels of vinyl
chloride.
During the 1974 vinyl chloride sampling near the Buffalo Avenue indus-
trial complex, the study team experienced eye, nose, and throat irritation
which they attributed to emissions of chlorine or other chemicals from the
nearby plants.76 They also observed corrosion and other damage to aluminum
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
99
windows and doors and to paint in the residential area and to aluminum lamp
poles, iron guard rails, and telephone guy wires that they attributed to
emissions of chlorine in the industrial complex.
There are several plants in the Niagara Falls complex that produce
large volumes of chlorine or chlorinated compounds. Monitoring of ambient
chlorine levels during the past several years by the Niagara County Health
Department indicates that maximum levels approximate and sometimes exceed
Acceptable Ambient Levels.79 Ambient levels were believed to be higher in
the past. The DEC has initiated a case-by-case evaluation of chlorine emis-
sions and an associated abatement program. Present chlorine emissions are
estimated to be in the range of several hundred tons per year.78
A Canadian study of ambient levels of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) and benzo-
(k)fluoranthene (BkF) in 11 Ontario communities was conducted in 1971 and
1972.80 The highest levels observed (116 pg BaP and 176 ug BkF/1,000 m3)
were in Welland on the west edge of the Niagara Frontier study area. These
were attributed to emissions from a graphite electrode production facility.
There are several similar plants in the Niagara Falls industrial areas.
Coke oven emissions are also known to contain BaP. The DEC has not estab-
lished Acceptable Ambient Levels for either of these substances although
BaP is considered a high toxicity air contaminant.77 The current DEC emis-
sions inventory does not list any significant sources of BaP.78 No current
ambient data on BaP were identified during this study.
Atmospheric levels of pesticides were evaluated at nine U.S. cities by
a 1970 study.81 Only low levels of DDT were detected at the four sampling
stations in the Buffalo vicinity. DDT use has been discontinued. No recent
pesticide sampling data were identified.
More than 200 atmospheric samples obtained during 1968 and 1969 from
the Buffalo area were analyzed for 18 trace elements including chromium,
copper, iron, lead, nickel, and silver.82 Chromium, copper, nickel, and
silver concentrations were low with maximum samples less than 0.5 ug/m3.
Lead ranged from 1.6 to 7.2 ug/m3, much higher than current levels. Iron
-------
100
was the highest, ranging from 0.1 to 12.64 ug/m3. These samples were taken
during a period when total suspended particulates were at least double
present levels. No comparable current data on metals were discovered during
this study.
RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Federal government activities associated with the Manhattan Project
during World War II to develop an atomic bomb left several sites in the Nia-
gara Frontier contaminated with low-level radioactivity. Remedial measures
have since reduced these contaminated areas to four sites. Three of the
sites are in Tonawanda and the fourth is north of Niagara Falls. Uranium
ore residues (tailings) are stored at the Niagara Falls Storage Facility
(NFSF) on the site of the old Lake Ontario Ordnance Works and at a landfill
and an industrial site in Tonawanda. Low-level radioactive wastewaters
were injected into the groundwater at a Tonawanda industrial site. These
sites are discussed in more detail in Sections VII and VIII.
The potential environmental hazards associated with these contaminated
sites include emissions of radon gas to the atmosphere and the contamina-
tion of surface runoff or groundwater with radium or uranium. Recent en-
vironmental monitoring has indicated that offsite radiation levels do not
pose a hazard to area residents.83 84 Onsite contamination limits the use
of the sites and long-term remedial measures are needed to insure that no
spread of the contamination occurs.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
101
V. SOURCES OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES
Chemical substances are released to the environment of the Niagara
Frontier from numerous point and non-point sources. Important point
sources include industrial manufacturing plants, municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants, and hazardous waste management and/or disposal sites. Important
non-point sources include contaminated groundwater, dredged spoil disposal,
contaminated lake and river bottom sediments, and urban runoff.
In the following discussion, additional details are presented on each
type of source including the pathways by which chemical substances are re-
leased to the environment. Details are presented on the preparation of an
inventory of all known and potential point sources and the subsequent rating
to identify major sources of chemical substances. Lists of major industrial,
municipal, and hazardous waste facilities are presented. Detailed discus-
sions on the major sources are presented by area in Sections VI-VIII.
POINT SOURCES
Industrial
Industrial manufacturing plants are the most important sources of chem-
ical substances in the Niagara Frontier. Many of these facilities handle,
transport, consume, and produce large volumes of chemical substances. It is
inevitable and unavoidable that some of these substances are released to
the environment from such facilities.
Industrial wastewaters are a common pathway for transport of chemical
substances from industrial plants. These include process wastewaters, cool-
ing water, and miscellaneous utility and other waste streams. The volume
and types of chemical substances in the wastewaters are affected by the
process/products, in-process controls, and wastewater treatment units present
at the facility.
-------
102
Wastewaters may be either discharged directly to surface waters after
treatment (if required) at the industrial plant or they may be discharged
to a municipal sewer system for treatment at a municipal wastewater plant
(indirect discharge). In the latter case, the volume and types of chemical
substances reaching surface waters are also affected by the type and effi-
ciency of treatment provided at the municipal plant.
Because large volumes of chemical raw materials or products are often
handled or stored, spills and leaks of chemical substances may occur within
an industrial plant site. Stormwater runoff or groundwater may become con-
taminated in such cases and transport these substances off site. This was
more of a problem in the past when material handling and maintenance proce-
dures were not adequate. The use of best management practices (BMPs) for
control of spills and leaks has reduced this problem. However, past spills
and leaks may have seriously contaminated a plant site, often with chemi-
cals no longer used or produced at the site.
Many industrial plants, especially chemical manufacturers, generate
large volumes of hazardous wastes that may contain chemical substances.
These wastes are often stored and/or treated on site prior to ultimate dis-
posal. Disposal may be either at the industrial plant site or at some other
location. Both storage and treatment activities are potential sources of
spills or leaks of chemical substances. Disposal poses a higher hazard for
release of chemical substances to the air, surface water or groundwater.
This was especially true of past on-site disposal practices that did not
adequately contain hazardous wastes.
Many industrial processes emit air pollutants to the atmosphere. As
in the case of industrial wastewaters, the volumes and types of chemical
substances emitted are a function of factors such as process/product com-
binations and air pollution controls.
Municipal
Municipal wastewater treatment plants that receive significant indus-
trial wastewaters are also important sources of chemical substances. Com-
bined sewer overflows and sewer system bypasses are also important.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
103
Municipal wastewater treatment plants usually treat wastewaters con-
sisting primarily of domestic sewage and commercial wastewaters. Such
wastewaters usually contain low levels of some chemical substances used in
the home and in commercial establishments. If the volume of wastewater is
large, the contribution of chemical substances may be significant.
In industrial areas such as Buffalo, Tonawanda, North Tonawanda and
Niagara Falls, the municipal wastewater treatment plants also receive major
volumes of chemical substances in industrial wastewaters. The types and
volumes of these substances discharged to surface waters are a function of
the type and efficiency of treatment provided in the municipal plant.
(Parts of Buffalo, North Tonawanda and Niagara Falls are served by com-
bined sewer systems that convey storm runoff as well as wastewaters.) During
• — *™ /
dry weather, all sewer flows are usually treated. During wet weather, how-
ever, the sewer flows exceed the treatment plant capacity and mixed runoff
and wastewater overflow from the system to surface waters either at combined
sewer overflow points or in treatment plant or pumping station bypasses.
This results in the discharge of untreated wastewaters that can contain
significant volumes of chemical substances.
Part of the chemical substances removed in the treatment process is
concentrated in sludges that may be classified as hazardous wastes if suffi-
cient toxic substances from industrial sources are present. Sludge dis-
posal poses a potential for release of these substances to the environment
in the same manner as hazardous waste disposal.
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites
Hazardous waste disposal sites have the potential to be major sources
of chemical substances. Many hazardous wastes contain high concentrations
of chemical substances. If not adequately contained, these substances may
be released to the environment through ground and surface waters and air
emissions.
-------
104
Most hazardous waste disposal sites in the Niagara Frontier are land-
fills. Hazardous wastes have been placed in the landfills in liquid or
solid form, in bulk, or in containers. Ultimately, liquids move from the
landfills into the environment unless adequate containment measures have
been used as is now required for active landfills. This movement is in the
form of leachate which may be the hazardous waste liquid itself or, more
commonly, the liquids diluted by precipitation or groundwater percolating
through the landfill.
Because containment measures were not adequate at many of the earlier
landfills, contamination of ground and surface waters is a major problem at
a number of locations. If a landfill contains large volumes of persistent
chemical substances, the landfill will continue to be a source of these
substances for many years unless remedial measures are initiated to minimize
or eliminate leachate migration.
Inactive hazardous waste landfills are a major problem. These were
usually the earlier sites that had the poorest containment. Records of
what hazardous wastes are present at a site are often sketchy or non-
existent. Because of the age of the landfills, chemical substances have
had a longer time to migrate into the environment.
Hazardous waste disposal sites may be located at an industrial plant
(onsite disposal) or at another non-industrial location (offsite dis-
posal). The offsite disposal facilities include sites operated by an in-
dustry for their own waste disposal; commercial or public landfills that
primarily received non-hazardous wastes such as household trash and garbage,
but also some hazardous wastes; and the commercial hazardous waste facilities
receiving wastes from many sources. Onsite disposal is discussed with
industrial point sources in this report while the offsite disposal facili-
ties are discussed separately.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
105
NON-POINT SOURCES
Contaminated Groundwater
Contaminated groundwater is an important non-point source of chemical
substances at several locations in the Niagara Frontier. This contamina-
tion is primarily the result of spills or leaks of chemicals at industrial
plants or of inadequate hazardous waste disposal practices (both on- and
offsite).
A number of organic chemical substances used or produced at Niagara
Frontier industrial facilities are readily transported through groundwater
aquifers. Thus, over time, these substances may be transported for substan-
tial distances from the point of contamination of the groundwater.
Three major pathways for movement of chemical substances from contami-
nated groundwater to surface waters are present in the study area. The
most common pathway is the normal discharge of groundwater to surface
streams at the interface of the aquifer with the waterway.
In the Niagara Falls industrial area, contaminated groundwater infil-
trates into both industrial and municipal sewers. This results in the di-
rect discharge of chemical substances to the Niagara River through indus-
trial outfalls and the discharge of additional chemical substances to the
Niagara Falls wastewater treatment plant.
At Niagara Falls, several industrial water supply wells draw contami-
nated groundwater. Chemical substances present in the water supply are
eventually discharged directly to the Niagara River without treatment.
As discussed in more detail in the following section on industrial
point sources, infiltration of contaminated groundwater into industrial
sewers and the use of contaminated well water in the Niagara Falls area may
account for more than one-half of the industrial direct discharges of organ-
ic chemical substances and more than one-third of the discharges of these
substances from all point sources.
-------
106
The extent of the contaminated groundwater problem is only partially
defined at this time. Additional studies are underway or proposed to deter-
mine the areal extent of contamination, define what chemical substances are
present, define flow paths and rates, and develop plans for remedial measures.
Dredged Spoil Disposal
Past and present dredging practices associated with maintenance of
harbors and navigation channels are believed to be significant sources of
chemical substances. Contributions of chemical substances from disposal of
dredged spoil and dredging activity are not defined at this time.
Maintenance of the harbors in Buffalo and Tonawanda and the navigation
channels in the Buffalo River, the Upper Niagara River, and the Tonawanda
Channel requires annual dredging to remove accumulated sediments and main-
tain design depths. The accumulated sediments are contributed by surface
runoff from upstream agricultural areas, urban runoff, industrial waste-
water discharges, and shifting of bottom sediments from adjacent waterways.
Sediments dredged from the channels are known as spoil and must be
disposed of. The early practice was to transport the spoil in hopper
dredges to dumping grounds in shallow open-water areas where it was dumped
and allowed to settle to the bottom. Two disposal areas were used, a large
area about 0.7 by 1.4 miles immediately west of Bethlehem Steel in Lacka-
wanna and a smaller area adjacent to Buckhorn Island at Niagara Falls.
Spoil is now disposed of by pumping it into diked disposal areas. Two diked
areas in the Buffalo Harbor area have been filled and a diked area adjacent
to Bethlehem Steel is in current use.
Dredged spoil in the study area is known to be contaminated with chem-
ical substances including PCBs, mercury, and other heavy metals. Samples
of bottom sediments at locations to be dredged have shown such contamina-
tion. As discussed in Section IV, bottom sediments are contaminated at
most locations within the study area as detected by monitoring studies.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
107
Contamination of bottom sediments was probably much higher than at
present during the time open-water disposal of dredged spoil was practiced.
Discharges of chemical substances to area waterways were larger than at
present because less wastewater treatment was provided. Gross pollution of
the Buffalo River was present. This pollution also impacted the Buffalo
Harbor and Black Rock Canal.
The large volumes (more than 500,000 ydVyear) of contaminated dredged
spoil disposed of in the past in shallow open waters continue to be exposed
to resuspension in lake waters by Lake Erie storms and associated wave ac-
tion. During the time the disposal area was active, a nearby water supply
intake was periodically affected by pollutants from the spoil area disturbed
by storms. As discussed in Section IV, pollutants dispersed by storms can
be transported into the Niagara River by Lake currents.
Dredged spoil is currently disposed of in a diked area that serves as
a settling basin. Solids settle to the bottom leaving free liquids that
may contain chemical substances present in the spoil. Dikes are constructed
of relatively permeable rock rubble that would allow this liquid to seep
into adjacent waterways (Buffalo Harbor or Lake Erie). The settled spoil
has a low permeability but leaching of contaminants from the spoil could
occur if precipitation is allowed to pond on the surface.
Dredging of the navigation channels to remove bottom sediments results
in the resuspension of some of these sediments. This may release chemical
sediments into the water. Where currents exist, as in the Niagara River,
the suspended sediments would be immediately swept away. The significance
of current dredging and spoil disposal practices as sources of chemical
substances are not defined in any of the literature reviewed for this study.
Bottom Sediments
Bottom sediments in Lakes Erie and Ontario and in the Niagara River
and its tributaries are contaminated with varying levels of persistent chem-
ical substances (see Section IV). Heavy metals, PCBs and persistent pest-
icides are of importance because these substances are bioaccumulated in the
-------
108 I
I
aquatic food chain. Sediments in shallow areas of Lake Erie and in the
River and tributaries are subject to resuspension and transport under ad- •
verse hydrologic conditions such as wind storms and floods.
Much of the chemical substances present in the sediments may have ac-
cumulated years ago when discharges of these substances were much larger. •
This would be especially true of PCBs, DDT, and mercury. Substantial con- •
tamination of sediments still exists although point sources were basically _
eliminated years ago. |
Contaminated bottom sediments may be a major source of the persistent I
chemical substances currently observed in suspended sediments in the Niagara
River. None of the literature reviewed specifically addressed this possibility. I
Urban Runoff
DEVELOPMENT OF AN INVENTORY OF POINT SOURCES
Industrial
The EPA Region II Facilities Index System (FINDS)85 was used to prepare
a comprehensive inventory of more than 10,000 manufacturing, wholesale and
I
Surface runoff from urban areas following precipitation events or snow
melt is contaminated with low levels of chemical substances including heavy |
metals and pesticides. This runoff reaches surface waters through storm
sewers or drainage ditches. It may also flow through combined sewers caus- •
ing overflows of untreated wastewaters as discussed in the municipal point
source section. I
I
I
The first step in the identification of major industrial point sources
of chemical substances was to develop an inventory of all known industrial I
facilities in Erie and Niagara Counties. This was primarily done with the
assistance of EPA and NYDEC computer files. I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
109
retail trade, commercial, and service facilities in Erie and Niagara
Counties.86 The inventory included all facilities in the Dun and Bradstreet
file, all State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits, all
major sources of air pollution, and all known hazardous waste disposal
sites. The geographical distribution of these facilities was evaluated and
the boundaries of the detailed study area selected. The inventory was also
reviewed to evaluate what types of facilities were present in the area that
could be potential sources of chemical substances.
A second FINDS inventory, containing about 940 selected facilities in
the detailed study area, was prepared with computer assistance to identify
those facilities (primarily industrial manufacturing plants) with the poten-
tial to be significant sources of chemical substances.87 This inventory
was compared with EPA and DEC lists of wastewater dischargers (SPDES permit
holders), air pollution sources, hazardous waste disposal sites (active and
inactive), hazardous waste management permit applications, and the DEC In-
dustrial Chemical Survey (ICS) to eliminate facilities with no significant
chemical substances activity. This reduced list was used to select files
for detailed review during the file search.
Another EPA Region II computer system, MAPS, was used to plot the loca-
tion of all wastewater discharges, air emission points, hazardous waste
disposal sites, ambient air and water quality monitoring stations, and pub-
lic drinking water supply intakes on transparent overlays keyed to USGS
topographical maps.86 This facilitated identification of any duplicates in
the inventory and assisted in defining the relationships between point
sources and monitoring points, water intakes, and other topographical
features.
Rating criteria were then developed to define the relative significance
of actual or potential releases of chemical substances to the environment
through air, water, or hazardous waste pathways. The criteria were develop-
ed for those specific pathways for which data were available for most signif-
icant sources. These included direct discharges of wastewater, indirect
discharges to municipal sewer systems, air emissions, chemical substances
-------
110
The rating criteria were designed to group facilities by their relative
degree of activity for each pathway. The intent was to identify the facil-
* Priority pollutants in this report are synonymous with the 65 toxic
pollutants defined pursuant to Sec. 307(a) of the Clean Water Act and
published in 40 CFR Part 401.15.
** As used in this report, heavy metals does not include iron as iron is
not an EPA priority pollutant.
I
I
used or produced, hazardous waste generation, management and disposal, and
site contamination. I
I
ities with the most significant potential for release of chemical substances _
to the environment so that they could be reviewed in detail. The criteria |
were not designed to compare a facilities rating with any fixed numbers to
suggest that the facility was "good" or "bad". A high rating number indi- I
cates that the facility has a significant potential for release of chemical
substances to the environment but does not necessarily mean there are any I
major environmental problems associated with the facility. For instance,
both major commercial hazardous waste management facilities received moder- •
ately high ratings because of the large volumes of chemical substances and B
hazardous wastes handled. However, the known releases of chemical sub- _
stances to the environment from both sources are relatively small in compar- |
ison with other major sources.
I
Wastewater discharges to surface waters were assigned ratings based on
the relative magnitude of the total loads of organic priority pollutants* I
and of heavy metals** discharged [Table 18]. The ratings were based on data
reported in recent SPDES permit applications. These data were supplemented •
by recent EPA and DEC compliance monitoring samples and by engineering stu- •
dies performed by the permit applicant. Daily maximum values were used
because long-term data were only available for a few sources and then only |
for a few pollutants. The daily maximum values reported in the permit ap-
plications usually represented only a few samples, often only one. Long-
term averages could thus be significantly different (higher or lower) than
these single samples.
-------
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
111
Table 18
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATING CRITERIA
Rating*
0
1
2
3
4
5
Flow
(mdg)
<0.1
0.1-0.5
0.5-1.0
1.0-2.0
2.0-3.0
>3.0
Total Load (Ib/day)
Organic Priority Pollutants
Direct Wastewater Discharge
50
Rating*
Organic Priority
Heavy
Metals
<1
1-2
2-5
5-10
10-25
Pollutants Present Heavy Metals
Indirect Wastewater Discharges
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
>25
Present
Rating values were assigned for both the organic
priority pollutants and the heavy metals and summed
to get the total rating for direct discharges. The
indirect discharge total is computed in the same
manner.
-------
112
* For this report, air pollutants of concern are defined as those air
pollutants listed by the New York Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion as low, medium or high toxicity air contaminants77 plus carbon
monoxide.
I
I
Indirect discharges of priority pollutants to municipal treatment
plants were also rated. Data were generally not available on priority pol- •
lutant loads in these discharges. The flow rate was known in most cases,
however, and the types of pollutants present (organic priority pollutants •
and/or heavy metals) could be inferred from plant operations when specific •
data were unavailable. The rating criteria [Table 18] were based on flow ^
rate and presence of pollutants. |
An EPA Permit Compliance System (PCS) computer listing of SPDES permits •
indicated there were 140 active permits for wastewater discharges in Erie
County and 61 in Niagara County, a total of 201. Sixty-six of the Erie •
County permits were in the detailed study area as were 42 Niagara County
permits, a total of 108. Most of the permits not in the detailed study •
area were for scattered municipal wastewater discharges or minor industrial 9
discharges. Of the total of 201 permits, 57 were for municipal wastewater —
treatment plants and the remainder for industrial or commercial facilities. |
In the Erie County portion of the detailed study area, 9 of the permits
were for municipal facilities and 57 for industrial or commercial facilities. I
In Niagara County, the corresponding figures were 11 municipal permits and
31 industrial or commercial permits. I
Data on air emissions were obtained from the DEC Air Pollution Source •
Management System, a computerized file of all air pollution sources. The •
file was programmed to identify all air pollution sources in Erie and Nia- _
gara Counties and to list all process emissions for each source. There |
were 828 sources in the Erie County inventory, of which only 344 had process
emissions.78 The remainder were primarily combustion sources such as heat-
ing boilers. There were 139 sources which listed some emissions of air
pollutants of concern.* The other process sources emitted only criteria
pollutants such as particulates or sulfur dioxide. Process sources dis-
charging more than 1 ton per year of air pollutants of concern totalled 74.
-------
I
1
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
113
There were 180 air pollution sources in the Niagara County inventory,
of which 99 had process emissions. There were 57 sources emitting air pol-
lutants of concern with 39 sources each emitting more than 1 ton per year.
Criteria used to assign relative ratings to emissions of air pollutants
of concern are shown in Table 19. No distinctions were made between types
of substances or their relative potential toxicity. The distribution of
sources by emissions volume is also shown in Table 19.
The relative significance of the use, production, storage, and handling
of chemical substances at a facility was assessed based on responses to the
DEC Industrial Chemical Survey (ICS). This survey, begun in 1976 and period-
ically updated, requested industrial facilities to report their average
annual use and average storage volume of selected chemicals of concern.
These chemicals include most of the priority pollutants and hazardous sub-
stances defined by EPA regulations plus a few chemicals of special interest
in New York. Questionnaires were initially sent to SPDES permit holders.
They have also been sent to industrial facilities that discharge wastewaters
to municipal sewer systems. The survey of these indirect dischargers is
continuing and has not been completed.
Some facilities responded negatively (they did not use chemicals of
concern). Positive responders were those facilities indicating some use or
production of chemicals of concern. The Industrial Chemical Survey computer
file listed 131 positive responders in Erie County of which 117 were in the
study area.88 This is an incomplete list as DEC is in the process of enter-
ing into the file additional responders that discharge wastewaters to the
Buffalo Sewer Authority. The ICS list for Niagara County included 42 posi-
tive responders with 30 in the study area.
Rating criteria based on the ICS data are presented in Table 20. A
rating value was assigned both for the total average annual use of chemicals
of concern used or produced and for the average quantity on hand and the
values summed to yield the total rating. No attempt was made to different-
iate between the relative toxicity or hazard of the various chemicals of
-------
114
Table 19
AIR EMISSION RATINGS
Emissions
(ton/year)
<1
1-5
5-10
10-25
25-50
50-75
75-100
100-150
150-300
300-500
>500
Rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Number
Erie County
65
23
10
16
12
5
2
1
1
1
1
137
of Sources
Niagara County
18
6
4
7
5
4
2
0
3
2
__§
57
Table 20
ICS RATING CRITERIA
Rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
Annual
Chemical Use
(lb)
0-1,000
1,000-20,000
20,000-100,000
100,000-1,000,000
1,000,000-5,000,000
>5, 000, 000
Chemicals
on Hand
(lb)
0-1,000
1,000-10,000
10,000-50,000
50,000-100,000
100,000-500,000
>500,000
A rating number was assigned both for chemical use
and chemicals on hand and the two ratings summed
to obtain the total ICS rating.
-------
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
115
concern. The annual use rate gives some indication of the relative poten-
tial for spills and leaks in handling operations, process units and trans-
portation equipment, and other factors related to potential site contamina-
tion and the need for best management practices to minimize the effects of
such contamination. The quantity stored is also related to the relative
magnitude of potential spills, leaks, and site contamination problems. Of
the 147 positive responders in the study area, 17 received a rating of 10
indicating large volumes of chemical substances are handled or stored.
Two sources of information were used to evaluate hazardous waste manage-
ment activity. A Region II computer listing was prepared of all facilities
that notified EPA that they generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous wastes as required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).89 Because the notification form did not request the county in
which the facility was located, a retrieval by county was not possible.
This listing was retrieved by postal zip code areas that approximated the
study area.
There were 283 facilities that indicated they were only generators of
hazardous wastes. An additional 36 generators also transported hazardous
wastes and 62 generators operated treatment, storage, and/or disposal faci-
lities (TSDFs). There were 42 facilities that conducted all three types of
activity (generator, transporter, TSDF). Fifty-seven were transporters
only, 6 were transporters and TSDFs, and 31 were TSDFs only. This is a
total of 517 facilities.
It is probable that the number of facilities in each category is too
high. Many companies unfamiliar with the new regulations notified EPA when
they did not need to. When permit applications were required at a later
date for TSDFs, the numbers decreased substantially. There were 141 TSDFs
in the inventory that indicated their operations would be such to require
permits. Only 67 permit applications (Part As) were received for all of
Erie and Niagara Counties, of which 47 were in the study area.90 It is
also probable that some facilities stopped treating, storing, or disposing
of hazardous wastes because of the new requirements that went into effect
subsequent to the notification.
-------
116
The computer lists of notifiers and permit applicants were compared to
the industrial inventory to identify facilities with significant hazardous
waste management activity. Relative ratings were then assigned using the
criteria in Table 21. These criteria assign ratings based on the capacity
of treatment, storage, and disposal units and on the total volume of wastes
handled per year. No ratings were assigned to generators and transporters
because the notification forms did not specify the volumes of wastes han-
dled, only types. The TSDF rating criteria did not distinguish between
categories of wastes and their relative toxicities or hazards.
An evaluation of the potential for site contamination to release chem-
ical substances to the environment was made. For those facilities with
inactive hazardous waste sites, ratings were keyed to the Interagency Task
Force (ITF) priority rating [Table 22]. Additional rating points were as-
signed if there was known groundwater or surface runoff contamination or if
there was a high probability of such contamination.
Facilities which received non-zero ratings in more than one category
or ratings of 5 or more points in a single category were assembled on a
work sheet showing the incremental and total ratings for each source.
Thirty-three facilities with a rating total of 11 points or more were se-
lected as major sources [Table 23]. In general, these were sources that
discharge significant loads of chemical substances (at least I Ib/day of
organic priority pollutants and/or heavy metals) in their wastewaters (ei-
ther directly to surface waters or through municipal sewage systems); emit
air pollutants of concern; use or produce large volumes of chemical sub-
stances; generate, manage, and/or dispose of large volumes of hazardous
wastes; and have significant site contamination such as inadequate hazard-
ous waste disposal sites or groundwater contamination. The locations of
these sources are shown in Figure 10.
There were 15 major industrial sources among the 33 in Table 23 that
had non-zero ratings for direct wastewater discharges. These 15 sources
are estimated to discharge about 95% of all organic priority pollutants,
phenols, and heavy metals directly discharged by industrial point sources.
-------
I
I
I
1
i
l
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
117
Table 21
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT RATING CRITERIA
Rati ng*
0
1
2
3
Rating
0
1
2
3
Rating
0
1
2
3
Rating
0
1
2
3
Volume Handled
Metric tons/year
10-50
50-100
>100
Storage Capacity
Capacity (gallons)
<5,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-25,000
>25,OOQ
Treatment Capacity
Capacity (gallons/day)
<1,000
1,000-10,000
10,000-100,000
>100,000
Disposal Capacity
Land Application Landfill Surface Impoundment
(acres) „ (acre-feet) (gallons)
<1
1-10
10-25
>25
<1 <1,000
1-5 1,000-5,000
5-10 5,000-10,000
>10 >10,000
-------
118
Table 22
SITE CONTAMINATION RATING CRITERIA
Rating Conditions
Inactive Hazardous Waste Onsite Disposal
0 No onsite inactive disposal
1 Disposal site has low probability of containing
hazardous wastes, ITF priority III
2 Possible hazardous wastes, small area (< 1 acre),
ITF priority II
3 Possible hazardous wastes, larger area, ITF
priority II
4 Known hazardous wastes, ITF priority I
5 Known hazardous wastes, known major environ-
mental problems
Groundwater Contamination
0 No known or probable contamination
1 Significant potential for contamination
2 Known contamination
Surface Runoff Contamination
0 No known or probable contamination
1 Significant potential for contamination
2 Known contamination
-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
119
i/i
UJ
o
z
r-
I/)
ca
a
VI
_J
<:
»— «
E
i
u
u.
o
in
UJ
o
Cf.
o
1/5
•I
0=
1—
o
HH
o:
0
-3
<
0
i/l
a
z
l-H
1—
o£
a
UJ
i
I/I
ro
u
E
O>
o
U)
QJ
O
S-
ro
u
i/j
o
t_
•p
ro
Of
•p
to
ro
3
n
ro -^
o ro
r- OC.
c
o
ro
a> c
ot ro
c
o
u
*>
c
at
0) E
*A 01
5 c
ro
c
j_
a>
u '— •
C
CJ *-H
>•>
o
irt
C
o
(- -r-
E
UJ
a»
•P O)
u t-
0) ro
S- -C
•p- U
~O tf)
C *r-
M Q
O>
P Ol
U t-
QJ ro
I- JI
•r- 0
a in
Q
P1
O
O
E
C
Z
i^
••-
ra
u.
t
a. >.
ro aj
CO ID
rH T-H
ro *}•
"D
a. in
z
u
z
0 0
r-t
ro o
Q CM
z
Ul
10
« 0
1C (0
O>'»-
Z CO
10 10
u o
0 E E
co 5 5
o
f ~a
U "- •—
t- r— r—
< o
O U3 O
•a
C C i-
y 5
u
U) O)
(0 r- 0»
r- O U
P a.
a. o
s- -a «>
OJ C <£
."2 , r—
U- JC P-
^ 00
•(f iD
^r o « CD
u) oo m ^t
csj crt < CM
z
o o r^. o
ID ^ O W
O UO CO rH
o ro o o
rH
in (/>
ro ro
o o ro ro
r- r— I- t.
ro ro ro ro
t- 4- D> O)
3 D «P- -P-
Q)
a> s-
LO r- £
0 3
E O T3 +•*
(I) C (U
J= 0 3 r-
tt) p~ t-Cf O
^: i*- ja o >
P **- I- O 0)
ca co o o u
10 r*.. oo 01 o
rH
in mrHmu>
O O rH CO in
01 01 l-~ 00 <
z
o in ir> o in
o ro in ro ^
!-t
O CD CM O CM
10 a o in o
z
C O C 0 C
5 "io S "io 3
c •*- c •*- c
O 13 O 3 O
K 00 t— 03 1—
4->
C i-
(0 tt(
Q. t- JD
O T> C CJ C
2; ro •»- ID
ro u c at
c -P o ro -i-
5 r— -f- 3 1
ro O i- -Q I- Q.
o > ro 3 c .—
1— Q) 3T r- C C
O O Q O
r~t oo ro ^~
r-t rH i-l rH
U3 r- CSJ OT
U3 ro ro o
0 oo us ro
o ro oo o
^ O ro ^
00 O CM tSJ
CO ro Q Q
z z
U) w y)
ro "io "ro
ro c ro to
ro s « «
•r- O .r- T-
Z (— Z Z
Q)
U
E
r~
O
ai ro
O C "D
CL C_> O O
O U. u. O
in ID ^ 03
rH rH rH rH
roCMrH
ro co at
o o 4->
^n -T- T •?•
CA O rH CSJ
i-H CM CM CM
_ ,H „ >0 rH rH CM .«>• VO <*
ror*.rococMOOLnioinr*
<£00«I«»-CM ID O O ^ rO rH ^ O ^
OCMrHOQOOCMOO
Z
*iO 00 O > ro ro
orocoorocrocc
r— i_ ro p~ i- ro s» ro ro
*f- CTro«*-o, cnro cnro ro
3 •- O 3 O T- O -P- 0 O
cazi—mz:z:p-Zr-p~
x-^
C T3
O C
at **. u. —
o u *— &- at
/g >f« <|y jQ ^£ Q} QJ
s- a. 4-> u, u o — *p-
u_ < >»O)Erot-iu
(O J_.,_ r-T-S-CCJO
nj c >> 3o> 3 ro o o
x — *— a. < 3: ro s: c -r- -p-
O ft. Q£ l/> l/> r— ( — OI3
oo^-mior-.coatOrHcsj
CNjeNjcsicsiogcsiCMroroco
Oi ro
rH CM
O CO
O CO
00 O
^
O rH
rH
rH rH
O O
(A tA
ro
PO
.If
u
(- "*-
c c c
O C Oi
••- o e
ro +j C7)
u 1/1 ro
o ai c c
•— 3 o ro
0--^ E
u c*o ro ai
o ~ re
+j ^
t- o> ro •/>
**-. i. in jj o
ro c "- -a
U) l/l O" N
3 O
O) O O Z Ol
U_ | *i—
1 1 tA
0) z z z o
ro JD u "o ft*
-------
120
-N-
LEGEND
INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE
MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
SOURCE NUMBER SEE TABLE 23 ,
FOR IDENTIFICATION
*:
(E
o
>-
LAKE
ERIE
FIGURE 10. LOCATIONS OF MAJOR POINT SOURCES OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
121
To provide an estimate of the maximum discharges of priority pollutants
from industrial point sources, daily maximum values from SPDES permit appli-
cations were compiled in Table 24. These data show that in an average daily
flow of about 460 mgd, the 15 industries discharge reported maximum daily
loads of 558 Ib of organic priority pollutants, 237 Ib of phenols, and 682
Ib of heavy metals.
Table 24 shows that a major portion of the chemical substances is con-
tributed by a few sources. This suggests a priority order for new SPDES
permits containing best available technology (BAT) based effluent limits on
priority pollutants. It is estimated that the improvements in wastewater
treatment or controls necessary to meet BAT permit limits could achieve at
least a 50% reduction in maximum priority pollutant discharges from indus-
trial point sources.
Table 23 indicates that many of the major industrial sources discharge
significant loads of priority pollutants to municipal sewer systems for
treatment. These loads are included in the major municipal point source
loads.
Municipal
There are about 20 municipal wastewater treatment plants serving the
study area. Only four of these plants were found to discharge significant
loads of priority pollutants [Table 24]. These plants receive major flows
of industrial wastes containing chemical substances. The four plants are
estimated to collectively contribute more than 90% of all priority pollut-
ants discharged by municipal sources.
Based on EPA monitoring in May and June 1981, the four plants discharge
about 328 Ib/day of organic priority pollutants, 525 Ib/day of phenols, and
566 Ib/day of heavy metals. These loads are 59, 222, and 83%, respectively,
of the maximum loads reportedly discharged by major industrial sources.
-------
122
Table 24
MAJOR WASTEWATER DISCHARGES OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Organic
Flow Priority Pollutants Phenols^ Heavy Metals
Facility City
Allied Chemical Buffalo
Ashland Petroleum Tonawanda
Bethlehem Steel Lackawanna
Buffalo Color Buffalo
Chevrolet Tonawanda
Donner-Hanna Coke Buffalo
DuPont Niagara Falls
FMC Tonawanda
Hooker Chemical
(Durez) North Tonawanda
Hooker Specialty
Chemical Niagara Falls
National Steel
(Hanna Furnace) Buffalo
01 in Niagara Falls
Republic Steel Buffalo
Spaulding Fiber Tonawanda
Tonawanda Coke Tonawanda
Industrial Subtotal
Buffalo Sewer
Authority Buffalo
City of
North Tonawanda North Tonawanda
City of
Niagara Falls Niagara Falls
Town of Tonawanda Tonawanda
Municipal Subtotal
(mgd)
Industrial
12.2
19.3
233
10
23
9.8
10.8
7.1
0.7
38.5
38.8
6.8
42.8
4.7
2.6
460
Municipal
180
9.2
64
15
268
(Ib/day)"
<1
0
65
0
0
69
69
0
17
100
3
274
2
0
2
558
-i
60d
r|
14°
252d
2d
328
(Ib/day)"
0.5
2.3
0
oh
55b
25C
2.4
0
119
4
22
4
0
1 c
1.3C
237
fi
<15d
H
0
h f
51°S
0°
525
(ID/day)"
3
242
38
9
-
ld
5
5
4
69
65
8
53
175
5
682
ft
520°
d
3
P
42°
1°
566
Hazardous Waste Management
CECOS Niagara Falls
SCA Model City
Hazardous Waste Subtotal
Canadian Industrial and
Municipal Subtotal
SUBTOTAL - Known Point
Sources
Assumed Contribution of Minor
Point Sources
TOTAL
<1
<1
<1
Canadian
62
791
-------
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
123
Canadian Industrial and Municipal Point Sources
In early 1981, Environment Ontario conducted a survey of industrial
and municipal point sources (including two combined sewer overflows) tribu-
tary to the Niagara River in Ontario which provided the only available data
on discharges of priority pollutants substances from Canadian sources.91
As shown in Table 24, the Canadian loads were about 23 Ib/day of organic
priority pollutants, 3 Ib/day of phenols, and 156 Ib/day of heavy metals.
The organic priority pollutants were less than 3% of the U.S. point source
load while the heavy metals were about 13% of the U.S. load.
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites
As shown in Table 23, there were three major hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities in the study area. One treats and reclaims wastes. Only
two were active commercial hazardous waste disposal sites. As shown in
Table 24, they discharge only minor amounts of priority pollutants. The
maximum daily values shown for SCA would occur on only a few days as the
facility only discharges a few days a year. Although the maximum discharge
rate is 1 mgd, SCA discharged only 6 mil gal. in 1981. CECOS discharges
process wastes to the City of Niagara Falls after extensive pretreatment.
Only peripheral drainage, reportedly containing negligible priority pollut-
ants, is discharged directly to surface waters.
There are many other active and inactive solid and hazardous waste
disposal sites in the study area. Contributions of chemical substances
from these sites are not well defined. In many cases, the disposal sites
may contribute to non-point sources of chemical substances such as contami-
nated groundwater and surface runoff. For disposal sites located at indus-
trial plants, their contribution of chemical substances may be partly re-
flected in the point source discharge.
Of the hazardous waste disposal sites identified by the Interagency
Task Force (ITF) and followup DEC investigations, 155 are located within 3
miles of the Niagara River. These sites are considered to have the highest
-------
124
potential to contribute chemical substances to the River because of their
location.
Of these 155 sites, 68 are at major industrial sources of chemical
substances specifically discussed in Sections VI, VII, and VIII. An addi-
tional 20 sites were eliminated from consideration based on DEC preliminary
investigations. The remaining 67 sites are considered of concern with re-
spect to their potential for release of chemical substances to the environ-
ment. These sites are listed in Table 25 with locations shown in Figure
11.
No attempt was made to rank the significance of these sites. Remedial
measures have been completed at some. Others are scheduled for detailed
site -investigations. A few are under litigation.
Comparison of Point Source and River Loads
A comparison of the estimated total loads of priority pollutants from
U.S. and Canadian point sources with the reported loads in the Niagara River
at its mouth in 1980 indicates that point sources account for major portions
of the organic priority pollutants and phenols in the river, but only a
small fraction of the heavy metals.92 The 1980 Canadian data indicated
that mean organic priority pollutants loads in the river increased from
about 1,070 Ib/day at the inlet to Chippawa Channel to 1,570 Ib/day at the
river mouth, an increase of 500 Ib/day. The estimated total point source
load was 970 Ib/day, 62% of the total river load and 194% of the increase
in load.
The estimated phenol point source load of 829 Ib/day was larger than
the mean phenol load of 680 Ib/day at the mouth of the Niagara River. An
incremental increase in the river could not be computed because all phenol
measurements at the upstream location were below the detection limit.
The estimated total point source load of 1,495 Ib/day of heavy metals
was less than 5% of the reported heavy metals load in the river of more
-------
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
125
Table 25
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES OF CONCERN
NOT AT MAJOR INDUSTRIAL PLANTS
Task Force3
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
a See
b A =
c I =
M =
Site No.
103
82
A
162
111
113
4
128
83
6
84
167
207
173
67
21
242
68
85
219
72
39
182
86
136
190
38
137
76
138
140
141
77
93
14
87
81
196
94
95
144
79
147
149
B
201
150
151
100
203
63
62
C
204
206
241
91
208
220
89
160
90
88
244
245
40
56
Figure 11
Active, I
Site Name
R. P. Adams
Adams Generating Plant
Allied Chemical - Hopkins Street
Altift
Aluminum Matchplate
Anoconda Company
Basic Carbon
Bell Aerospace - Textron
Buffalo Avenue, 52-60 Street
Buffalo Pump Division
Cayuga Island
Chemical Leaman Transit Lines
City of Tonawanda
Empire Waste
Frontier Chemical
Frontier Bronze
Charles Gibson Site
Gratwick Park
Griffon Park
Hartwell Street Landfill
Holiday Park
Hooker - Hyde Park Landfill
Huntly Power Station
Hydraulic Canal
IWS Equipment
Lehigh Val ley
Love Canal
Lucidol of Pennwalt
Lynch Park
MacNaughton - Brooks
Manzel Division
Mobil Oil Corporation
Modern Disposal
Nash Road Site
Necco Park (DuPont)
New Road
Niagara County Refuse Disposal
Niagara Frontier Port Authority
Niagara River Site
Old Creek Bed (Dibaco Site)
Otis Elevator
Power Authority of New York
Ramco Steel - Hopkins Street
Robbin Steel
Rodeway Inn
Seaway Industrial Park
Shavco Plastics
Shavco Plastics
Silbergeld Junk Yard
Squaw Island
Stauffer Chemical (Art Park)
Stauffer Chemical (North Love Canal)
St. Mary's School (60th Street)
William Strassman
Tifft Farm
Times Beach
Town of Niagara
Veteran's Park
West Seneca Transfer Station
Whirlpool Site
J.H. Williams (TRW)
Witmer Road
64th Street
93rd Street School
97th Street Methodist Church
102nd Street Landfill (Hooker)
102nd Street Landfill (01 in)
for site locations.
= Inactive
At an industrial plant 0 = Offsite industrial
Municipal
site P = Private site
City
Tonawanda
Niagara Falls
Buffalo
Buffalo
Tonawanda
Buffalo
Niagara Falls
Porter
Niagara Falls
North Tonawanda
Niagara Falls
Tonawanda
Tonawanda
Tonawanda
Pendleton
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
North Tonawanda
Niagara Falls
Tonawanda
North Tonawanda
Niagara Falls
Tonawanda
Niagara Falls
Tonawanda
Buffalo
Niagara Falls
Tonawanda
Niagara Falls
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Model City
North Tonawanda
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Wheat Field
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Buffalo
Niagara Falls
Buffalo
Tonawanda
Niagara Falls
Tonawanda
Tonawanda
Tonawanda
Niagara Falls
Buffalo
Niagara Falls
Lew is ton
Niagara Falls
Tonawanda
Buffalo
Buffalo
Niagara Falls
Tonawanda
Buffalo
Niagara Falls
Tonawanda
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
disposal site
Status*5
I
I
I
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A
A
I
I
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A
I
I
I
I
I
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A
I
I
I
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
Typec
P
I
0
P
I
I
I
I
M
I
P
I
M
P
0
I
P
P
M
P
P
0
I
M
I
0
0
I
0
I
I
I
P
M
0
M
M
M
0
0
I
M
I
I
I
P
I
I
I
M
0
0
0
P
P
M
M
M
M
M
I
M
M
0
0
0
0
-------
126
ONTARIO
LAKE
FIGURE 11. HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES OF CONCERN
-------
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
127
than 34,000 Ib/day. The river load is suspect, however, because about half
the load was for two metals which were below detection limits in all sam-
ples. Because the river flow is very large and concentrations of chemical
substances are at very low levels near the detection limit of analytical
methods used, estimates of component loads are subject to significant errors
(±50% or more) due to small errors in the absolute value of a sample con-
centration.
Based on a mean river flow of 202,000 cfs, the estimated point source
loads would produce an incremental concentration increase of 0.9 ug/£
organic priority pollutants, 0.7 ug/£ phenols, and 1.3 ug/£ total heavy
metals. These concentrations are below the detection limit for most of the
component substances, especially phenols and heavy metals.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
129
VI. MAJOR SOURCES OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES,
BUFFALO-LACKAWANNA SUBAREA
The Buffalo-Lackawanna subarea encompasses the cities of Buffalo and
Lackawanna and portions of the town of Cheektowaga, all in Erie County.
There are seven major industrial sources, one major municipal source (Buf-
falo Sewer Authority), no major active offsite hazardous waste disposal
facilities, and 20 hazardous waste disposal sites of concern. Seven of
these disposal sites are at major industrial sources. Five of the indus-
trial sources and Buffalo Sewer Authority are major wastewater dischargers.
Combined sewer overflows, urban runoff, dredged spoil disposal, and contam-
inated bottom sediments are all important non-point sources of toxic sub-
stances in this subarea. With the exception of two industrial facilities,
all major point sources and major non-point source contributions are along
the Buffalo River, the Lake Erie waterfront, or the Upper Niagara River.
INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation operates a large, fully integrated iron
and steel mill on a 1,200 acre site in Lackawanna [Figure 12], This mill is
the largest industrial facility in the study area. It began operation in
1922. Processes include coke ovens, blast furnaces, basic oxygen furnaces,
and various rolling mills.
Bethlehem Steel is the largest source of wastewater in the study area.
About 233 mgd of cooling water, process wastewaters, and other wastewaters
are discharged through five outfalls to Blasdell, Rush, and Smokes Creeks
and to the Union and Lackawanna Canals. A wide variety of treatment or
control processes are employed.
A total of 42 organic priority pollutants were reported as detected in
Bethlehem Steel wastewaters in the 1981 SPDES permit application. Fourteen
-------
130
DIKED DREDGED •*£
NATIONAL STEEL ^
(HANNA FURNACE)"
JMsk Sim CD Iu2ah-4 ;7nirT^i
BETHLEHEM STEEL pf*
S-A\\\-» 'i
\ 1 i'1 f-i'' ,4 \\ vJfJ^'caAs'^''- ->^ ,'f 'i't' r~ "-
UT^ru:j^^£^:DAI!7-i_
OLD OPEN WATER ;
DREDGED SPOIL-
DISPOSAL AREA
sm-^y^ \ mj
^^^•^•-,^1^ ^ a,, -
Figure 12. Lackawanna Area
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
131
of these were reported at higher values in the intake water from Lake Erie
than in plant effluents. The total net load of organic priority pollutants
discharged was reported as 64 Ib/day. The most significant organic priority
pollutants discharged were (loads in Ib/day are in parentheses): benzene
(3.2), acenaphthene (7.5), acenaphthylene (8.5), 2-chloronaphthalene (7.5),
dimethylphthalate (10.2), dinitrotoluene (7.5), fluorene (7.2), hexachloro-
benzene (8.5), and pyrene (14.2). Many of these substances are polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Screening sampling of various stream loca-
tions around the Buffalo study area for PAHs in 1980 and 1981 detected me-
dium to high relative concentrations in Smokes Creek and Lackawanna and
Union Canals.93
Other priority pollutants discharged as reported in the permit appli-
cation were 102 Ib/day of cyanide and 38 Ib/day of heavy metals (23 Ib/day
was zinc).
Priority pollutant analyses of samples collected by EPA on May 8 and
9, 1981 from Smokes Creek and the outfalls discharging to Blasdell Creek
and the Lackawanna Canal detected 15 organic priority pollutants at levels
less than 10 ug/£.94 About 107 Ib/day of heavy metals were detected in
three discharges, of which 91 Ib/day was zinc and 13 Ib/day was copper.
The steel mill has other liquid wastes which are not included in the
SPDES permitted outfalls. Runoff from raw material storage piles goes to
surrounding waterways without monitoring. Wastewaters from the coke ovens
and byproduct plant are stripped and dephenolized and then used to quench
hot 80F slag and hot coke. Waste pickle liquors are neutralized on the
alkaline slag landfill that now covers a Targe area of former Lake Erie
shallows on the west edge of the mill [Figure 12]. Dredged spoils from
Smokes Creek, process sludges, and waste treatment sludges are placed in
surface impoundments on the slag fill. The potential contributions of pri-
ority pollutants from these ancillary activities to Lake Erie waters was
not defined. The use of best management practices (BMPs) to control con-
tributions from these sources was not defined.
-------
132
Process emissions of air pollutants of concern to the atmosphere total
about 97 ton/year.78 This included 85 tpy of phenolic compounds and smaller
amounts of trichloroethane, hydrogen cyanide, lead, copper, and zinc. No
emissions data on benzo(a)pyrenes were reported.
The Industrial Chemical Survey (ICS) for Bethlehem listed 15 chemicals
of concern with more than 25 mil gal. used or produced per year and more
than 1.6 mil gal. in storage on the average.88 Major volumes of benzene,
toluene, xylene, and coal tar were listed. About 12,000 gal. of PCBs are
used in closed systems.
Bethlehem Steel has applied for a RCRA permit for its hazardous waste
management activities.90 More than 67,000 metric tons of hazardous wastes
are handled annually. Onsite disposal includes a 240 acre-foot landfill
and a 48,000 gal. surface impoundment. Large volumes of blast furnace and
EOF slags are landfilled onsite. A May 1981 RCRA inspection by EPA found
the hazardous waste management activities and facilities to be essentially
in compliance with Interim Status Standards.95 A June 1981 site inspection
by an EPA contractor did not resolve questions concerning whether leachate,
seepage, or runoff from the site could transport chemical substances into
Lake Erie.96
This is an Interagency Task Force (ITF) listed site. An April 1980,
assessment of environmental problems at the site by DEC indicated potential
ground and surface water contamination.97 The site is now operated under a
DEC Part 360 permit.
It is evident that a significant potential exists for the discharge of
priority pollutants from ancillary activities at this facility including
hazardous and industrial waste disposal in the slag fill area. Permit con-
ditions requiring Bethlehem Steel to address the need for BMPs to minimize
such contributions are needed in the next SPDES permit.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
133
National Steel (Hanna Furnace)
National Steel operates a basic blast furnace operation producing about
1,000 to 1,930 ton/day of pig iron from iron ore. The facility is adjacent
to the Union Canal northeast of Bethlehem Steel [Figure 12].
About 38.8 mgd of wastewaters (primarily non-contact cooling water) is
discharged to the Union Canal when both blast furnaces are operating. The
flow is reduced to 23.5 mgd when only one furnace is in use. About 5 mgd
is scrubber wastewater. The permit application indicated this wastewater
contained major loads (daily maximum) of heavy metals (65 lb), cyanide (87
Ib), and phenolic compounds (22 Ibs) but only a small load of organic prior-
ity pollutants (3 Ib). Only four organic priority pollutants were reported
present. Lead (17.9 lb) and zinc (45 Ib) accounted for most of the heavy
metals.
No wastewaters are discharged to a municipal sewer system.
Hanna Furnace listed only small volumes of a few chemicals of concern
in their ICS response.88 They have not applied for a RCRA permit for
hazardous waste management facilities.90
Raw materials and some solid waste materials including slag and flue
dust are stored in piles on the north side of Union Canal. This area is
reportedly curbed and relatively impervious and no storm runoff occurs.
This is an ITF listed site.98 The site has a DEC Part 360 permit.
No emissions of air pollutants of concern were reported in the emis-
sions inventory.78
Allied Chemical
Allied Chemical on the Buffalo River [Figure 13] manufactures acids
and industrial inorganic chemicals. Products reportedly include ammonium
thiosulfate; cadmium, copper, iron, and nickel nitrates; nitric, oxalic,
-------
134
;--f^(^pwi "» K%W\
r^^^Sfe^ slta^
> r AJS^Jf'.lX ^-<"}-n^^:
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
135
and sulfuric acids; potassium nitrite; and sulfur trioxide." However, the
permit application indicates the metallic nitrates are no longer produced.
The plant began operation in 1930.
Contact and non-contact cooling water and small amounts of utility
wastewaters are discharged to the Buffalo River through four outfalls.
Flow averages 12.2 mgd. The only treatment for these wastewaters reported
in the permit application was neutralization. Cooling water supply is ob-
tained from the Buffalo River Improvement Corporation (BRIC). Process waste-
waters are pretreated at the adjacent Buffalo Color Company facility and
discharged to the Buffalo Sewer Authority system.
The permit application indicated that, based on three samples, maximum
loads of priority pollutants in the direct discharges were low, with less
than 1 Ib/day of organic priority pollutants and phenols present and 3 lb/
day of heavy metals, primarily cadmium, copper, and zinc. The organic
priority pollutants were about 0.2 Ib/day of various pesticides.
No significant emissions of air pollutants of concern were reported.78
Allied applied for a RCRA permit to store less than 20,000 gal. of
corrosive hazardous wastes in containers and tanks.90 Annual volume handled
was estimated at about 200 metric tons.
An IFT-listed disposal site at this facility was a sludge lagoon that
has been excavated and filled with clean fill.100 No obvious environmental
hazards were present in April 1980. Monitoring wells have been installed.
The Allied Chemical and adjacent Buffalo Color Company plant (formerly
owned by Allied Chemical) are along an area of the Buffalo River shown to
have elevated levels of chemical substances in the sediments. The hazardous
nature of the Allied Chemical products and proximity of the plant to the
river indicate the need for BMP conditions in the SPDES permit to minimize
contributions of priority pollutants from ancillary activities.
-------
136
Buffalo Color Corporation
Buffalo Color Corporation manufactures a variety of anilines, anhy-
drides, dyes, dye intermediates, and food colors. The plant began operation
in 1879 as National Aniline and Chemical Corporation. It was operated by
Allied Chemical prior to its present ownership.
About 10 mgd of non-contact cooling waters are obtained from BRIC and
discharged along with minor amounts of boiler blowdown and steam condensate
through two outfalls to the Buffalo River. The only significant priority
pollutants reported in the permit application to be in these discharges
were 9 Ib/day of heavy metals. Process wastewaters (about 1 mgd), contain-
ing about 6 Ib/day of 17 organic priority pollutants and 20 Ib/day of heavy
metals (primarily chromium), are discharged to the Buffalo Sewer Authority
after pretreatment.101
Because of the nature of their operation, Buffalo Color Corporation
uses, produces, and stores very large volumes of chemicals of concern. The
ICS response indicates that more than 50 mil Ib of more than 75 chemicals
are used or produced each year.88 About a million pounds are in storage.
About 20,000 Ib. of PCBs are used in electric transformers.
A wide variety of process air pollutant emissions are reported.78 The
most significant emission of air pollutants of concern was 21 tons/year of
aniline.
An application was filed for a RCRA permit to store and treat (the
pretreatment unit) hazardous wastes.90 Container storage capacity of 75,000
gal. was requested. About 1,500 metric tons of hazardous wastes are han-
dled annually. No onsite disposal was requested.
There has been disposal of hazardous wastes on site in the past. Three
ITF sites are listed at this location.102 The most significant is the
"weathering area" where sludges were stored for many years on the banks of
the Buffalo River. A 500-foot deep well was used for disposal of about 3.5
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
137
mil gal. of ammonium sulfate solution from 1960 until the well collapsed in
1963. This plant produced benzidene dyes until 1976. Traces of the dyes
and intermediates have been found in Buffalo River sediments. Fish tumor
pathology has been linked to this sediment contamination.103
Contamination of the plant site, possibly including groundwater, from
past disposal practices may be continuing to contribute to pollution of the
Buffalo River.102 An effective BMP plan with specific BMPs to control chem-
ical substances in runoff, leachate, etc. is needed.
Donner-Hanna Coke Joint Venture
Donner-Hanna Coke produces metallurgical coke from coal and recovers a
variety of byproducts including phenols, sodium phenol ate, ammonia, ammon-
ium sulfate, tars, light oil containing benzene, toluene and xylene, and
naphthalene. Plant operations began in 1919. The plant is adjacent to the
Buffalo River and Republic Steel [Figure 13].
About 9.8 mgd of cooling water and process wastewaters are discharged
through one outfall to the Buffalo River. Most process wastewaters, after
primary treatment, are used for quenching of coke. Treatment sludges are
recycled to the raw materials. Other process wastes receive filtering,
solvent extraction and distillation treatment before mixing with cooling
waters for discharge. Sanitary wastes are discharged to the Buffalo Sewer
Authority. Most of the water supply is obtained from BRIC.
The SPDES permit application reported a daily maximum discharge (gross)
of organic priority pollutants of 69 Ib, of which 54 Ib was methylene chlo-
ride and 13 Ib was benzene. These two pollutants were also present in the
BRIC supply. The maximum net discharge was about 30 Ib/day. Maximum dis-
charges of cyanides and phenols were reported as 16 and 25 Ib/day,
respectively.
The May 8 and 9, 1981 EPA sampling detected only acenaphthene, arsenic,
and selenium in the discharge at a net discharge load of less than 2 Ib/
day.104 The concentrations observed by EPA sampling are below expected BAT
-------
138
levels. However, reported maximum values in the permit application are
above expected BAT concentrations indicating the need for additional prior-
ity pollutant limits in the next SPDES permit. The facility produces a
variety of organic priority pollutants that should be controlled by the
permit.
The ICS response indicates the plant produces more than 15 mil gal.
per year of toluene, phenol, xylene, coal tar, and light oil.88 Average
storage is about 1.6 mil gal. The Company claims there is no surface run-
off or groundwater infiltration from their raw material and product storage
areas.105 The large volumes of organic priority pollutants stored indicate
the need for BMP conditions in the SPDES permit.
Donner-Hanna Coke applied for a RCRA permit to store and treat about
3,300 metric tons of hazardous waste annually.90 Storage is in tanks and a
surface impoundment with a total volume of 35,000 gal. The DEC has listed
a possible solid waste management site (ammonium sulfate) at this facility
but the Company has denied this.106
Process emissions of air pollutants of concern included about 12 tons/
year of phenols and miscellaneous organics.78 No specific emission rates
were given for benzo(a)pyrene, known to be emitted by coke ovens.
Republic Steel Corporation
This iron and steel mill is on about 120 acres adjacent to the Buffalo
River [Figure 13]. The mill has been in operation since 1906. Processes
include blast furnaces (2), basic oxygen furnaces (2), and pickling and
rolling mills.
About 43 mgd of cooling and process wastewaters and storm runoff are
discharged to the Buffalo River through four outfalls. Water supply is
obtained from Lake Erie.
The SPDES permit application indicated that maximum discharges of or-
ganic priority pollutants and phenols were nil but heavy metals were 53
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
139
Ib/day. This was primarily copper, lead, and zinc. The May 4, 1981 EPA
sampling also indicated organic priority pollutant discharges were nil107
but heavy metals were 37 Ib/day with the same three metals dominant.
The ICS response indicated relatively small use and storage of a few
chemicals of concern.88 A RCRA permit application was filed for the tank
storage of up to 5,250 gal. of hazardous wastes.90 About 1,300 metric tons
are handled annually. Waste treatment sludges are stored at a company-owned
site at another location and then shipped out of state for recovery of iron.
Slags are landfilled at the offsite location.
The only emissions of air pollutants of concern reported were less than
1 ton/year of lead.78 The Company reports storm runoff from material storage
is essentially contained in a diked concrete area with no discharge.108 It
is not clear if there are any other ancillary activities that could contri-
bute priority pollutants.
Chevrolet (Harrison Radiator Division)
This plant in northeast Buffalo manufactures automotive air condition-
ers, heaters, and radiators. It has no direct discharge of wastewaters.
Process wastewaters containing organic priority pollutants and heavy metals
are discharged to the Buffalo Sewer Authority system for treatment.
The ICS response indicates this plant uses about 40,000 gal./year of
1,1,1-trichloroethane, toluene, xylene, and petroleum distillates.88 About
2,800 gal. are stored at one time.
The facility is a large RCRA generator, storage, and treatment faci-
lity.90 The application requested a permit for tank treatment capacity of
0.43 mgd, tank storage of 400,000 gal., and container storage of 2,000 gal.
About 730,000 metric tons of hazardous waste are handled annually, primar-
ily spent electroplating bath solutions. Emissions of air pollutants of
concern were reported as 14.5 tons/year of trichloroethane and 3.5 tons/year
of xylene.78
-------
140
No site contamination data were located.
MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES
Buffalo Sewer Authority
The only major municipal wastewater discharge in this subarea is the
large Buffalo Sewer Authority (BSA) Bird Island plant that serves about
550,000 persons in the City of Buffalo and parts of suburban cities and
towns. A major portion (14% or 24 mgd) of the plant influent is industrial
wastes contributed by about 620 industrial users. About 96% of the tribu-
tary area is served by combined storm and sanitary sewers. Located on Squaw
Island on the Upper Niagara River, the plant discharges directly to the
river.
The plant's primary treatment units were built in the 1930s. Acti-
vated sludge secondary treatment units were completed in 1980. Sludge is
incinerated on site; however, there have been frequent malfunctions in these
incinerators and associated equipment and large quantities of sludge have
been transported to approved landfills.
The secondary treatment units have experienced operational problems
since startup which have been attributed to equipment failures, poor opera-
tion and maintenance, inadequate operator training, and carryover of solids
from the primary units. Renovation of the primary units was not started
until after the secondary units were placed in operation. Repairs and re-
placements of equipment and operator training programs directed at these
problems are continuing with completion scheduled by early 1983.
Average dry weather wastewater discharge is about 160 mgd. Design
flow is 180 mgd. Sampling of the discharge by EPA in May 1981 found that
all organic priority pollutants were below detection limits (ranging from I
to 10 ug/£) except for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate discharged at 10 ug/£ (13
lb/day).109 Department of Health analysis of the effluent in August 1980
found four compounds at detectable levels: bromodichloromethane (6 ug/2),
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
141
dibromochloromethane (1 ug/2), methylene chloride (4 ug/£), and chloroform
(17 (jg/£). This is equivalent to a total toxic organics load of about 60
Ib/day. EPA heavy metals analyses showed a much larger load of about 520
lb/day.109 Predominant metals were zinc (357 Ib), nickel (69 Ib), chromium
(60 Ib), and copper (30 Ib).
Observed concentrations of organic priority pollutants are low. Heavy
metals concentrations are also low relative to BAT for heavy metals. The
BSA pretreatment program is not fully operational. Completion of the plant
renovation plus implementation of the pretreatment program should achieve
some reductions in heavy metals loads but the magnitude of the reduction
cannot be predicted with present data.
NON-POINT SOURCES
Dredged Spoil Disposal
Navigation channels dredged deeper than the historic river or lake
bottom have been constructed in the lower Buffalo River, the Buffalo Outer
Harbor area, the Upper Niagara River, and Tonawanda Channel downstream to
the City of North Tonawanda. Because these deepened channels serve as sedi-
ment traps, they must be dredged annually to maintain navigable depths.
Sediments trapped in the channels originate in urban and agricultural
runoff, combined sewer overflows, industrial wastewater discharges, and
shifting bottom sediments. Pollutants from these sources, including PCBs,
pesticides, and heavy metals, become trapped in the bottom sediments and
appear in the dredged spoil.
The dredging process results in the immediate resuspension of some
sediments that can be carried away by river currents. Disposal of the
dredged spoil results in the transfer of polluted sediments from the dredg-
ing site to the disposal site. This can also result in the release of pol-
lutants.
-------
142
Prior to 1968, all dredged spoil from Buffalo River, Buffalo Outer
Harbor, Black Rock Canal, and Tonawanda Harbor removed by the U.S. Corps of
Engineers was disposed of in open waters of Lake Erie.110 The disposal
area was adjacent to Bethlehem Steel in Lackawanna [Figure 12]. It was
about 0.7 mi wide and 1.4 mi long with its long axis parallel to the Beth-
lehem Steel plant.3 Water depths ranged from 6 to 25 feet.
This disposal area was and remains exposed to the full force of wave
action from Lake Erie storms. This could resuspend bottom sediments into
the lake waters. A hydraulic model study performed by the Corps of Engin-
eers in 1972 found that both surface and littoral drift currents in the
disposal area moved northward parallel to shore with some entering Buffalo
Outer Harbor and others moving into the Upper Niagara River.110 Thus, sedi-
ments from the disposal area could be transported into the river.
In the 1940s, the open water disposal caused some pollution problems
at a western New York water company (later the Erie County Water Authority
Wood!awn plant and now closed) water supply intake at the south edge of the
disposal area.3 The Corps of Engineers attempted to minimize the problem
by depositing coarser dredged materials from the Black Rock Canal near the
intake. The more polluted finer materials and sludges from Buffalo River
and Buffalo Harbor were disposed of farther north.
Before 1968, dredged spoil volumes were probably in excess of 600,000
to 700,000 yd3/year. All except 90,000 to 100,000 yd3 from the Tonawanda
Harbor were dredged from the Buffalo River, Outer Harbor, and Black Rock
Canal areas. Additional spoils from private dredging were also dumped in
the open water area.
The dredging in the Buffalo River was and is done under contract by
clamshell dredge with spoil placed on barges for transport to disposal
areas. This volume was about 125,000 ydVyear in 1973 and is the most pol-
luted. The remainder of the public dredging was and is done by Corps of
Engineers hopper dredges. No information on private dredging practices was
reviewed.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
143
Beginning in fall 1967, the more polluted spoil (100,000 yd3) was
placed in a diked experimental disposal area (No. 9) near the south end of
Buffalo Outer Harbor [Figure 13].110 Between 1968 and about 1973, the Buf-
falo River spoil and about 50,000 yds/year of hopper dredge spoil from near
the mouth of the Buffalo River (classified as seriously polluted because of
mercury content) were disposed of in the No. 9 diked area and a new diked
area at Times Beach near the mouth of the Buffalo River [Figure 13].ll°
The remaining spoil (about 400,000 yds/year) was dumped in the Bethlehem
open water area. Between 1974 and 1977, all dredged spoil was disposed of
in the two diked areas.
The disposal area dikes were constructed of steel mill slag. Engi-
neering studies found the dike material to be relatively porous.111 Thus,
as the spoils dewatered, the water could seep out through the dikes carry-
ing any soluble pollutants with it. The dredged spoil in the No. 9 disposal
area was found to have low permeability. The extent to which leaching
could still occur from these diked sites would be reduced by this low per-
meability but could still occur.
In 1977, a new 107 acre diked disposal area was completed at the south
entrance to Buffalo Harbor adjacent to Bethlehem Steel and just north of
the old open water disposal area [Figure 12]. Dikes for this area were con-
structed of rubble which would also be expected to be porous. All dredged
spoil is now disposed of in this new area (No. 4). Expected capacity is
10 years of spoil.
Data on the presence of priority pollutants in the early dredged spoil
is nonexistent. However, it can be assumed that pollutants in the spoil
were higher than at present because the Buffalo River and Outer Harbor were
much more polluted than at present. A comparison of conventional pollutant
levels in bottom sediments from various Buffalo River-Outer Harbor loca-
tions taken in 1967 and 1972 showed the sediments were less polluted in
1972.112 However, the 1972 data still showed Buffalo River sediments to
have higher lead and zinc levels than EPA criteria for open water spoil
disposal.
-------
144
Samples of bottom sediments from several locations in Buffalo River,
Outer Harbor, and the Black Rock Canal were collected in August 1981 by the
Great Lakes Laboratory under a Corps of Engineers contract.113 The sediment
samples were analyzed for heavy metals, several conventional pollutants,
PCBs, and pesticides. Elutriate tests were also run on the sediments. A
comparison of the metals concentrations with EPA Region V sediment criteria
indicated that all stations were classified as heavily polluted for at least
one metal. Most samples had high levels of four or five metals. The most
contaminated sediments were found in the Buffalo River and in the Black
Rock Canal near the mouth of Scajaquada Creek.
Some PCB contamination was detected at most stations, usually below
1.0 pg/g dry weight and all below 10 ug/g. Low levels of pesticides were
detected in some samples, usually less than 0.5 ug/g with a few samples
exceeding 1.0 ug/g.
Elutriate tests demonstrated that some pollutants are released from
the sediments in the water column. These include mercury and phenols. The
report concluded that critical releases during dredging and disposal may
not initially exist but the potential for long-term releases exists. Be-
cause of this potential for pollutants to be released into the water column,
alternative dredging and disposal practices may have to be considered.113
The current environmental monitoring program for the Niagara River
system is not designed to assess the magnitude of priority pollutants con-
tributed by past and present dredging and spoil disposal practices. Based
on the above information, a modification of the monitoring program to eval-
uate this non-point source is needed.
Contaminated Bottom Sediments
As indicated in the previous discussion on dredged spoil disposal,
bottom sediments in the Buffalo River, Buffalo Outer Harbor, and Black Rock
Canal are contaminated with persistent priority pollutants above levels
acceptable for disposal of dredged spoil in open waters. Other areas of
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
145
contamination were discussed in Section IV. These sediments in stream and
river channels and in shallow water areas of Lake Erie are susceptible to
movement and resuspension in the water column by wave action and/or high
stream flow during storms.
The extent to which contaminated bottom sediments are a source of the
persistent priority pollutants observed in Niagara River suspended sediments
is not defined. This non-point source needs to be evaluated to assist in
development of control strategies.
Combined Sewer Overflows
About 55 combined sewer overflow points are located along the Buffalo
River and its tributaries, the Buffalo Waterfront, and the Upper Niagara
River. These overflows contributed significantly to pollution of the Buf-
falo River in the past with overflows occurring as often as every 5 days on
the average. Overflows allow untreated municipal and industrial wastes to
enter the river where priority pollutants may settle into the bottom sedi-
ments in the slow-flowing lower reaches, adding to the contamination from
point sources and upstream runoff.
Urban Runoff
The Buffalo River, Scajaquada Creek and the Niagara River receive large
volumes of urban runoff from the Buffalo area following precipitation or
snowmelt. This runoff may contribute to the sediment contamination in Buf-
falo River and at the mouth of Scajaquada Creek.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
147
VII. MAJOR SOURCES OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES,
TONAWANDA-NORTH TONAWANDA SUBAREA
This subarea extends along the Tonawanda Channel of the Niagara River
from the north boundary of the City of Buffalo to the north boundary of the
City of North Tonawanda. It includes the west part of the Town of Tonawanda
and the Cities of Tonawanda and North Tonawanda. All of the subarea except
the City of North Tonawanda (Niagara County) is in Erie County. Tonawanda
Creek (Erie Canal) and Ellicott Creek enter the Niagara River near the mid-
dle of the subarea.
There are 11 major industrial sources and two major municipal sources
in this subarea. Six of the industrial sources and the two municipal
sources are major wastewater dischargers. With the exception of the Hooker
Durez plant and the City of North Tonawanda wastewater treatment plant, all
of these facilities are in Erie County. No major active commercial hazardous
waste disposal facilities are in the subarea but there are 55 hazardous waste
disposal sites of concern. Thirty-three of these are located at major indus-
trial sources. Important non-point sources in this subarea include urban
runoff and contaminated bottom sediments.
Most of the major point sources are along the shore of the Tonawanda
Channel [Figure 10].
INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES
Chevrolet Motor Division
The Chevrolet Motor Division of General Motors Corporation operates
three plants (Forge Plant, Metal Casting Plant, and Motor Plant) at one
site in the Town of Tonawanda [Figure 14]. The facility makes automotive
motor assemblies and parts.
-------
148
\ — . •'. -H- »Yi -i*" f^±r
r^^^JK '^ ** "^ **^4Jr
W %v J^'2 / v, I ^
• ^.^M^' | /V
• ~.*Ajf fVf' \\cnT. .x O / /.
\ ^ ^^«- "- rm?^ » £ ^,
V|:^ « •• \^/.VV:^>^vfe^>^ S A°/^
^.^ s jv A'^vc^?-^r\^W,>x^ -i/^1
'j ^ _ - — — m_j-
^.^^^^^•^:.^Tr:-v^n^" " ^"---i^liS §
.... :/f7^'r^^<-'r'-i';-L:"!:f^^\n|vi L:-L\ • 2-^ r-
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
149
About 23 mgd of treated process wastes and cooling water are discharged
to the Niagara River through one outfall. The discharge contains low levels
of organic priority pollutants and heavy metals but daily maximum discharges
of phenols are about 55 Ib/day. The high phenol loads occur during mainten-
ance problems in the treatment system. The plant does not discharge waste-
waters to a municipal system.
ICS responses were submitted for all three plants.88 A wide variety
of chemicals of concern are used in the plants with a use rate of more than
10 mil Ib annually. More than 6,000 gal. of PCBs are present in closed
systems. Other substances used of particular concern include asbestos and
several degreasers.
Emissions of air pollutants of concern reported include small amounts
of trichloroethane and trichloroethylene, 54 tons/yr of organic solvents,
28 tons/yr of miscellaneous organics, and 55,000 tons/yr of carbon monoxide.78
A RCRA permit application requested approval for container and tank
storage capacity of 660,000 gal. of hazardous wastes.90 Tank treatment
capacity of 0.735 mgd was also requested. The plant reports annual hazard-
ous waste generation of more than 60,000 tons, primarily degreasing solvents.
No site contamination data were reviewed for this facility.
Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation
This facility in the Town of Tonawanda [Figure 14] manufactures motor
vehicle tires. The plant began operation in 1920.
About 4 mgd of cooling water and process wastes are discharged to the
Niagara River. Most of this supply is obtained from the River and Company
wells onsite. Both the permit application and EPA sampling indicate that
the effluent contains less than 1 Ib/day of organic priority pollutants.114
Because this effluent does contain process wastewaters, permit limits should
include priority pollutants used in the plant.
-------
150
Some wastewaters (about 0.15 mgd) are discharged to the Town of Tona-
wanda sewer system.
Chemicals of concern used in the plant, as reported in the ICS re-
sponse, total more than 300,000 Ib/yr with 18,000 Ib in storage.88 Toluene
and xylene were included.
Process emissions of air pollutants of concern reportedly include small
amounts of toluene, trichloroethylene, zinc, and 28 ton/yr of organic
solvents.78
Dun!op did not apply for a RCRA permit for hazardous waste management.90
For many years, various industrial solid wastes which may have contained
hazardous wastes were disposed of in pits and piles on the plant site.115
This may have resulted in significant groundwater contamination. Three ITF
sites are designated at this location and are proposed for subsurface inves-
tigation.8
FMC Corporation
This plant in the Town of Tonawanda [Figure 14] is an inorganic chemi-
cals manufacturer. Products include a variety of persulfates, paracetic
acid, and calcium, zinc, and hydrogen peroxides. Perborates were produced
until 1980. FMC began operations at this site in 1952. From 1925 to 1952,
the facility was the old Buffalo Electro-Chemical Plant.
About 7 mgd of river water are used for contact and non-contact cooling
and process (0.15 mgd) purposes. Much of the process wastewater and contact
cooling water is recycled. The permit application indicates a daily maximum
of 5 Ib of heavy metals (primarily zinc) is discharged to the Niagara River.
No other priority pollutants are discharged. EPA sampling in November 1980
detected no priority pollutants.116
Less than 5,000 Ib/year of chemicals of concern are used at this plant
according to the ICS response.88 About 180 gal. of PCBs are present in a
closed system.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
151
The plant has negligible process emissions of air pollutants of
concern.78
The RCRA permit application indicates about 25,000 metric tons/year of
hazardous wastes are handled, primarily corrosives.90 Storage (tank and
container) totals 84,000 gal. Treatment capacity in tanks is 0.066 mgd.
An EPA inspection on December 17, 1980, found the facility in compliance
with RCRA Interim Status Standards.117
About 100 tons of various products and raw materials have been dis-
posed of in four pits onsite.118 Remedial measures (closing the pits) have
been completed. This site is proposed for subsurface investigations.8
Some zinc contamination may be present.
Polymer Applications
This firm produces phenolic resins for plastic manufacture. It is on
a small site adjacent to Dunlop and FMC [Figure 14].
About 0.25 mgd of non-contact cooling water and roof and yard drainage
are discharged to a ditch across a powerplant site to the Niagara River.
This discharge is contaminated with phenols reportedly from surface runoff.
The plant uses large volumes of phenols. Contamination of the plant site
occurred in the past from a lagoon and a leaky waste storage tank. The
tank and lagoon sites have been excavated and contaminated material removed
but site contamination still exists. Process and sanitary wastewaters are
discharged to the Town of Tonawanda.
Phenol and formaldehyde are the only chemicals of concern reported in
the ICS response.88 Volumes used and stored are large; 7.5 mil Ib/year and
170,000 Ib in storage. Because of the existing site contamination and the
large volume stored and handled, the facility should have a Best Management
Practices (BMP) Plan.
No process emissions of air pollutants of concern were reported for
this facility.78 No RCRA hazardous waste management permit application was
listed.90
-------
152
Allied Chemical Corporation
The Specialty Chemicals Division of Allied operates this plant in the
Town of Tonawanda [Figure 14] for the production of polyethylene plastic.
Process wastewaters are discharged to the Town of Tonawanda. About 4.5 mgd
of Niagara River water used for non-contact cooling is mixed with small
amounts of storm runoff and contact cooling water and returned to the river.
The permit application indicated that organic priority pollutants in this
effluent were all below detection limits. Negligible amounts of heavy met-
als were detected.
Chemicals of concern reported in the ICS response were confidential.88
Air emissions were minor.78
Allied1s RCRA permit application indicated that about 15 metric tons
of hazardous waste are handled annually.90 Container storage capacity of
about 14,000 gal. was requested. An EPA inspection on May 7, 1981, found
the facility in compliance with RCRA Interim Status Standards.119
Quantities of coal tar, scrap polyethylene, and spent catalyst have
been disposed of at this location at three sites.120 Subsurface investiga-
tions have been proposed by DEC to evaluate potential groundwater
contamination.8
Tonawanda Coke Corporation
This facility, adjacent to Allied Chemical [Figure 14], produces found-
ry coke from coal in 60 ovens. Byproducts include light oil (benzene, tol-
uene, xylene), tar, and coke oven gas. Ammonia is no longer recovered as a
byproduct. This plant was formerly operated by the Semet-Solvay Division
of Allied Chemical.
About 2.6 mgd of cooling water and coke quenching wastewaters are dis-
charged to the Niagara River after treatment in two lagoons. The permit
application indicated that this discharge contained a daily maximum load of
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
153
5 Ib of heavy metals [primarily lead], 7 Ib of cyanide and 22 Ib of phe-
nols. Average phenol discharges are only 1 Ib/day. No organic priority
pollutants were present above detection limits. A second set of special
samples for benzene, xylene, and toluene indicated they were below detection
1imits.
The ICS response indicated that about 0.9 mil gal. of coal tar, ben-
zene, toluene, and xylene are produced annually with about 50,000 gal. in
storage.88
No significant process emissions of air pollutants of concern were
reported.78 However, coke ovens are known to emit benzo(a)pyrenes.
No RCRA permit application has been submitted from Tonawanda Coke.90
Unknown quantities of coal tar and rubble were disposed of at three sites
at this facility for several decades.121 Surface sediment samples indicate
contamination with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Groundwater is also
potentially contaminated.121 Subsurface investigation has been proposed by
DEC.8
Union Carbide, Linde Division
Union Carbide develops, designs, and fabricates cryogenic hardware at
a plant in the Town of Tonawanda [Figure 14]. During World War II the plant
also refined uranium ores for the Manhattan Project.
The plant has no direct wastewater discharge. Wastewaters are dis-
charged to the Town of Tonawanda sewer system for treatment. During the
uranium refining operations, caustic wastewaters containing low-level radio-
activity were initially discharged to town sewers.122 Because this caused
operational problems at the treatment plant, these wastewaters were alter-
nately discharged to five 150 ft deep wells onsite or through a storm sewer
to Two-Mile Creek. About 37 mil gal. of wastewaters containing radioactive
materials were injected in the wells.
-------
154
The ICS response indicates about 10,000 gal. of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
are used annually.88 About a thousand gallons of chemicals are stored at
one time.
Process emissions of air pollutants of concern total about 30 ton/year
and are primarily trichloroethane and xylene.78
The RCRA application indicates about 250 mil tons of hazardous wastes
are handled each year.90 Container storage for 100 drums and treatment
tank capacity of 0.03 mgd were indicated.
Some residual radioactive contamination of soils and building materials
is present in addition to the groundwater contamination. Soil and ground-
water samples were taken in March 1981 by the Department of Energy. The
Department reported in December 1981 that radioactive contamination of
groundwater was not a problem.123
The well initially used for waste injection was formerly used as a
water supply. It was out of service because of groundwater contamination
before wastes were injected. The type or source of this contamination was
not defined.
Ashland Petroleum Company
This is a petroleum refinery with a capacity of 62,000 barrels of crude
oil per day. Products are gasoline, fuel oil, asphalt, and aromatic petro-
chemicals. The facility is on the Niagara River adjacent to the south Grand
Island bridge in the Town of Tonawanda [Figure 15].
Process wastewaters are discharged to the Town of Tonawanda sewer sys-
tem for treatment. The refinery has four direct discharges to the Niagara
River. The main discharge is about 19 mgd of non-contact cooling water
which flows through a circulation pond before discharge. The permit appli-
cation indicates this discharge is a major source of heavy metals with re-
ported daily maximum loads of 199 Ib antimony, 3 Ib copper, 17 Ib lead,
-------
155
O)
s_
O
c
O
O
Q.
-------
156
15 Ib nickel, and 8 1b zinc. Phenols were only 2 Ib/day and other organic
priority pollutants were below detection limits. Two discharges are storm-
water runoff with reportedly low contamination. The fourth discharge is an
intake screen backwash.
The heavy metals discharges are above levels expected for non-contact
cooling water, especially the antimony. A BAT level SPDES permit should
require reduction of the metal discharges.
About 1.5 mil gal. of benzene, toluene, and xylene are produced
annually and stored at the refinery according to the ICS response.88 This
storage, coupled with the stormwater contamination potential of a refinery,
indicates the need for a BMP plan to minimize contributions of priority
pollutants from ancillary activities.
Process emissions of air pollutants of concern from the refinery report-
edly include benzene, xylene, and organic solvents totalling about 17 tons/
year.78
Ashland Petroleum applied for a RGRA permit to handle and treat about
576 metric tons of hazardous waste annually.90 This is primarily DAF float
from the process waste pretreatment unit.
Three ITF hazardous waste sites are at this facility.124 Ashland now
owns the former Haist property that was used for disposal of uranium ore
residue (tailings) from the processing of Colorado ore at the Union Carbide-
Li nde facility in the 1940s.83 Ashland removed some of the tailings to
the adjacent Seaway Industrial Park landfill and built storage tanks on the
site. Low level radioactive contamination is present in the remaining tail-
ings. Some movement of minor amounts of radioactive contamination offsite
in surface runoff may be occurring. The Department of Energy is reviewing
long-term remedial measures.
The other two sites are a lead sludge disposal area and a concrete
storage pit for API sludges. DEC has proposed subsurface investigation of
the lead site.8
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
157
Spaulding Fibre Company
Spaulding Fibre manufactures various vulcanized fibers and high-pressure
plastic laminates, and also several grades of resin and paper for in-plant
uses at their plant in the west side of the City of Tonawanda [Figure 15].
Cooling and process wastewaters totaling about 2.7 mgd and 2.0 mgd of
stormwater are discharged through two outfalls to the Niagara River. These
discharges are reported in the permit application to be major sources of
heavy metals (175 Ib/day of zinc daily maximum). Zinc chloride is used in
the vulcanizing process. Reported zinc concentrations were more than 5
mg/£ indicating that BAT for this facility should reduce maximum zinc dis-
charges by 80%. The facility is reportedly currently meeting its permit
limit of 70 Ib/day of zinc. Other priority pollutants in the discharge
were nil.
The ICS response indicates this plant is a large user of phenol (1 mil
Ib), zinc, asbestos, toluene, and other chemicals of concern totaling about
2.4 mil lb/year.88 Onsite storage exceeds 400,000 Ib.
Process emissions of air pollutants of concern included chlorine, phe-
nol compounds, and miscellaneous organics totalling 24 tpy.78
A RCRA permit application was filed for storage in containers and tanks
(15,000 gal.) and waste piles (1,400 yard3).90 No significant hazardous
waste volumes were reported.
Four ITF hazardous waste disposal sites are located at this facility.125
One contains 20 tons of asbestos and fiberglass. Another was a concrete
tank that formerly stored metal sludges. A third site was several lagoons
that contained zinc chloride and phenolics. These have been excavated and
filled with clean fill. The fourth site contains 750 drums of varnishes
placed there in 1978. Monitoring wells are present. No additional remedial
action has been recommended by DEC.8
-------
158
I
I
I
Columbus-McKinnon Corporation
This facility on Ellicott Creek in the City of Tonawanda manufactures
chains and hoists. A variety of metal processing steps are used including •
pickling, degreasing, and zinc phosphating.
I
City water is used for cooling and processes. This water is recycled
in sumps with blowdown from the sumps averaging 0.08 mgd discharged through _
two outfalls to the Creek. Organic priority pollutants and heavy metals in |
the discharge were less than 1 Ib/day.
I
I
A large number of chemicals were reported in the ICS response.88 Most
of these were either very small quantities, industrial gases, or oils. I
Cutting oils are of concern at this facility as 27,000 gal. of waste cutting
oils have been disposed of in a pit.126 DEC has proposed subsurface inves-
tigation. 8
Emissions of 62 tpy of paint thinner that could include air pollutants
of concern were reported.78
A RCRA permit application was filed for storage in containers and tanks
(11,000 gal. capacity) and tank treatment (0.01 mgd capacity).90 About 500
metric tons/year of hazardous wastes including corrosives, chromium wastes,
and pickling wastes are handled.
Hooker Chemical Corporation, Durez Division
This plant is a chemical manufacturing facility producing phenolic
resin, phenolic molding compound, hexamethylenetetramine, paratertiary-octyl
phenol, zinc and calcium stearates, alkyd molding compound, and diallyl
phthalate molding compound. Formaldehyde, used in several processes, was
formerly produced. The plant is in the northeast part of the City of North
Tonawanda about 1 % miles from the Niagara River.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
159
Water supply of about 0.7 mgd is obtained from the City of North Tona-
wanda. Sanitary wastes are discharged to the City. All other wastewaters
including cooling water, utility water, process wastes, and stormwater run-
off are discharged through 14 outfalls to storm sewers. These sewers dis-
charge to the Little River branch of the Niagara River at the north end of
Tonawanda Island.
Sampling data and the permit application show that concentrations of
toxic organics, phenols, and heavy metals were above BAT levels in several
of the discharges. The permit application indicated that a total of 27
organic priority pollutants were detected in one or more discharges. The
reported daily maximum load of organic priority pollutants was 17 Ib/day.
The highest concentrations reported were 38 mg/2 chlorobenzene, 18 mg/2
benzene, 3.6 mg/£ phenol, 5 mg/S, dichlorobenzene, and 11 mg/S. 1,4-dichloro-
benzene. Concentrations in excess of 1 mg/2 were observed for these five
organics during the May 4 and 5, 1981 EPA sampling with a total of 16 com-
pounds detected.
Total phenols as high as 150 mg/S, were reported in the permit applica-
tion. The EPA sampling detected total phenols of 24 mg/1 in one outfall.
A total daily maximum load of 119 Ib/day was reported in the permit
application.
Heavy metals totalled 4 Ib/day, primarily zinc. Concentrations as
high as 2.5 mg/S, were reported.
In the ICS response, Hooker indicated that chemicals of concern used
at this plant exceed 50 mil lb/year.88 Storage exceeds 5 mil Ib. Phenol
use exceeds 30 mil Ib/year. Other high volume substances include formal-
dehyde, aniline, and styrene. Asbestos was used until 1978.
Air emissions from processes include 73 tpy of formaldehyde and 26 tpy
of phenol compounds.78
-------
160
A RCRA application was submitted for the handling of about 1,200 mil
tons/ year of hazardous wastes.90 Hazardous waste management units include
50,000 gal. of container storage, 540,000 gal. of tank storage, a 720 gpd
solvent recovery unit, and a 720 gph incinerator.
There are 14 ITF hazardous waste disposal sites at this facility.127
Materials landfilled include about 250 tons of phenol tar that may contain
chlorobenzenes and 28,000 tons of phenol-bearing materials. Hooker is in-
stalling wells to assess the extent of any groundwater contamination.
Both surface runoff and groundwater contamination are known to occur
at this facility. Contamination may be infiltrating plant sewers. This
contamination is the result of past spills as well as waste disposal.
It is apparent that permit limits need to be established for a number
of organic priority pollutants observed in wastewater discharges to reduce
concentrations discharged to BAT levels. The site also has significant
contributions of priority pollutants from ancillary activities (primarily
past waste disposal activities). A comprehensive best management practice
(BMP) plan is needed to minimize these contributions. The plant has some
BMPs in use.
MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES
Town of Tonawanda
The Town of Tonawanda operates an advanced activated sludge wastewater
treatment plant that serves a population of about 129,000 in both the Town
and the City of Tonawanda and the Village of Kenmore [Figure 15]. Waste-
waters formerly treated at the City plant are now diverted to the Town plant
and the City plant has been abandoned. Design flow for the town plant is
30 mgd and dry weather flow is about 15 mgd. Treatment units in addition
to the standard activated sludge process include chemical clarification for
phosphorus removal and mixed media filtration. The plant was completed in
1978.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
161
At least 20 industrial plants are connected to this treatment facility
with about two-thirds discharging some or all of their process wastes to
the town for treatment. Influent priority pollutants from these industries
are not defined.
EPA sampling of the plant effluent in May 6 and 7, 1981, detected only
low levels of priority pollutants.128 Organic priority pollutants were
about 2 Ib/day, heavy metals 1 Ib/day and phenols essentially zero. Seven
organic priority pollutants were detected in the effluent, most at less
than 10 ug/£.
City of North Tonawanda
This new wastewater treatment plant serves the City of North Tonawanda
and at least 10 industrial facilities. Average wastewater flow is about 9
mgd; design flow is 15 mgd. Industrial inflow is less than 1 mgd.
The plant uses physical-chemical treatment processes. Units include
flow retention basins for stormwater surges, primary clarifiers with chemi-
cal addition, sand filters, and activated carbon filters. Such a treatment
system design is effective in removing most priority pollutants. The acti-
vated carbon filters have been plagued by construction delays and equipment
malfunctions and are not yet in service.
Plant effluent was sampled by EPA in May 1981.129 Total organic pri-
ority pollutants were about 14 Ib/day. Heavy metals were only 3 Ib/day and
phenols were essentially zero. Specific organic priority pollutants de-
tected included trichloroethylene, chlorobenzene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
chloroform, 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene, methylene chloride, tetrachloro-
ethylene, and toluene. The activated carbon filters would be expected to
substantially reduce the discharges of these organic substances.
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
There are no active major commercial hazardous waste management/dispo-
sal facilities in this study subarea. There are 34 ITF-identified hazardous
-------
162
waste disposal facilities at major industrial point sources. These were
discussed under each point source above.
An additional 21 hazardous waste disposal sites have been identified
at other industrial facilities or at nonindustrial (offsite) locations.
NON-POINT SOURCES
Non-point sources of priority pollutants in this subarea appear to be
less significant than in the Buffalo-Lackawanna or Niagara Falls subareas.
Contaminated bottom sediments have been detected in the Tonawanda Channel.
During high flows in the Niagara River, these bottom sediments contribute
to the load of priority pollutants carried by suspended sediments in the
river. Conversely, this area may be a sink for contaminated sediments dur-
ing low flows. Contaminated sediments dredged from the Tonawanda Harbor
channels are disposed of in the Buffalo spoil disposal areas.
Urban runoff from Tonawanda and North Tonawanda probably contribute
some priority pollutants. There are eight combined sewer overflows in North
Tonawanda.
The contributions of these non-point sources are not defined.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
163
VIII. MAJOR SOURCES OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES,
NIAGARA FALLS SUBAREA
This subarea extends from the north boundary of the City of North
Tonawanda north to Lake Ontario. It abuts the north shore of the Tonawanda
Channel and the east shore of the Lower Niagara River. The entire subarea
is in Niagara County.
There are 12 major industrial sources and one major municipal source
(the City of Niagara Falls wastewater treatment plant) in this subarea.
Most of the industrial sources are in the City of Niagara Falls or Town of
Niagara. There are three major commercial hazardous waste management fa-
cilities. Two of these are large disposal sites. An additional 61 haz-
ardous waste disposal sites of concern have been identified in the study
area. These include Love Canal, Hyde Park Landfill, the 102nd Street
landfills, and the Niagara County Refuse Disposal Site. Twenty-eight of the
disposal sites are at major industrial sources.
Important non-point sources in this subarea include contaminated
groundwater, combined sewer overflows, contaminated bottom sediments, and
urban runoff.
INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES
Bell Aerospace Textron
This facility, adjacent to the Niagara Falls International Airport
[Figure 16], manufactures and tests missile and space vehicle components,
high-energy lasers, and various aircraft parts and electronic navigation,
communication, and guidance systems.
Process wastewaters are discharged with sanitary wastes to the City of
Niagara Falls for treatment. Consideration has been given to diverting
these wastewaters to the Niagara County Sanitary District No. 1 wastewater
treatment plant.
-------
164
fO
O)
(TJ
S_
CO
cu
«* isoiaa ar^visi , anvn
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
165
Cooling and stormwaters averaging about 0.09 mgd are discharged to
Bergholtz Creek through two outfalls. These discharges contain small vol-
umes of chromium and zinc from cooling tower blowdown.
About 100 chemicals of concern were reported in the ICS response.88
Most of these were in small volumes of 100 Ib/yr or 10 Ib in storage. The
largest use and storage were for trichloroethylene (16,000 Ib/yr and 6,500
Ib, respectively).
Process emissions of air pollutants of concern include about 62 tpy of
trichloroethylene and small amounts of lead and zinc.78
Bell Aerospace applied for a RCRA permit for storage of hazardous
wastes in a 240,000 gal. surface impoundment.90 This is a pretreatment unit
for plating wastes discharged to the City. Only about 2 metric ton/yr of
hazardous wastes are handled.
The plating waste lagoon is an ITF hazardous waste site and has been
proposed for subsurface investigation by DEC.8 There is a potential for
groundwater contamination by lagoon seepage.130
Hooker Specialty Chemicals Division
This Hooker facility on Buffalo Avenue in Niagara Falls [Figure 17] is
the largest and most complex chemical manufacturing facility in the Niagara
Frontier. It has received much public and regulatory attention as a result
of Love Canal and other Hooker hazardous waste disposal sites and its dis-
charge of mi rex and other releases of chemical substances of environmental
significance. Hooker's past hazardous waste disposal practices are the
subject of active litigation. Extensive engineering studies and pollution
abatement activities have been undertaken with respect to both hazardous
waste disposal sites and wastewater discharges. The present SPDES permit
contains numerous limits on priority pollutants and other chemical sub-
stances. Because of all this activity, voluminous file materials and publi-
cations are available on this facility. To put the environmental effects of
the Hooker plant in the same perspective as other major industrial sources of
-------
166
-..,-.• j#>^^ .7^
-$ '--h •%/ '•
"lif^Sti/iM ^ .;,
. ?r£7/.v -VT iff/s?-^,^!—
, H1! j i 1
IH^hr-^
C'fr^^1'
• i \'_?-
JtrV .-•'S
J-
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
167
chemical substances, the following discussion will primarily consider the
same types of information as at other facilities.
More than 250 chemicals have been produced at this facility since 1930.
The plant produces chlorine and caustic by the diaphragm process (85%) and
by the mercury cell process (15%). A wide variety of chlorinated compounds
also are or have been produced. These have included various chlorinated
toluenes, dechlorane (a fire retardant), and mi rex (a pesticide with the
same formula as dechlorane), hexachlorocyclopentadiene (C-56), chlorinated
benzenes, and trichloroethylene.
About 6 mgd of process wastewaters containing a wide variety of pri-
ority pollutants are discharged to the City of Niagara Falls wastewater
treatment plant. Other wastewaters, primarily non-contact cooling water,
totaling about 38 mgd are discharged to the Niagara River. Most of this
flow is discharged directly to the River at the plant site. Part of the
flow goes to the Niagara Falls Diversion Sewer that connects to the dis-
charge tunnel for the City wastewater treatment plant and discharges to the
Niagara River below Niagara Falls.
Although the direct discharges are primarily cooling water, they con-
tain major loads of chemical substances. Total organic priority pollutants
reported in the permit application have a daily maximum load of about 100
Ib. Other organic chemical substances not required to be reported in the
permit application have been detected in these discharges in the past.
Heavy metals daily maximum loads totaled 69 Ib. Phenols were only about 4
Ib/day.
Extensive engineering studies by Hooker have indicated that up to
three-fourths of this priority pollutant load may be contributed by contam-
inated surface runoff and by contaminated groundwater infiltration into
sewers. Higher loads were discharged in the past. Various improvements to
reduce sewer infiltration have been completed and others are planned. En-
gineering studies have been completed by Hooker at DEC's request to form a
basis for systematic further reductions in these discharges of priority
-------
168
pollutants and to develop the basis for additional, more stringent permit
limits for a variety of chemical substances. Major reductions in these
discharges of priority pollutants are expected by mid-1984 as BAT require-
ments become effective.
Hooker's ICS response declared chemical names and use rates confiden-
tial.88 It is evident from the complexity of this facility's operations
and processes that large volumes of numerous chemicals of concern are used
and stored.
Process emissions include at least 10 air pollutants of concern of
which the emission of 110 tpy of chlorine is the most significant.78 Other
significant emissions are chloroform, benzene, ortho-chlorotoluene (22 tpy),
and mercury. Total emissions of air pollutants of concern are about 140
tpy.
Data on the Hooker RCRA permit application were not included in the
Region II computer listing.90 It is obvious, however, that Hooker is a
major generator of hazardous wastes. Large volumes of hazardous wastes
have been disposed of in the past at Hooker-owned sites at Love Canal, Hyde
Park, and 102nd Street. About 75,000 tons of hazardous wastes have report-
edly been landfilled on the Buffalo Avenue plant site. Various hazardous
waste management facilities are present at the site including container,
tank and surface impoundment storage units, treatment units and an incinerator.
Contamination of the Hooker plant site by hazardous waste disposal is
the subject of active litigation. It is evident, however, that much of the
plant site and the underlying groundwater are contaminated with chemical
substances and these pollutants are being transported offsite by surface
runoff and sewer infiltration. A comprehensive Best Management Practices
(BMPs) plan and specific BMPs should be required by the new SPDES permit to
minimize the contribution of priority pollutants from existing contamina-
tion of the site and to prevent future contamination by spills and leaks,
hazardous waste management activities, and other ancillary activities.
Hooker has already initiated a number of BMPs.
-------
I
I
I
I
a
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
169
There are 10 ITF hazardous waste sites at this plant.131 They are
under active litigation. More than 100 monitoring wells have been installed
and voluminous data collected. Future monitoring and remedial measures
will primarily be determined by the litigation.
DuPont
This facility, west of Hooker adjacent to the Niagara River and Gill
Creek [Figure 17], manufactures inorganic and organic chemicals. Products
include chlorine, sodium, copper and zinc cyanides, polytetramethylene ether
glycol from tetrahydrofuran, polyester, and electroplating bath additives.
An April 1979 ICS response indicated that until about 1975 the facility
manufactured up to 500 mil Ib/yr of chloroform, carbon tetrachloride (a
byproduct), methyl chloride, methylene chloride, tetrachlorethane and
trichlorethylene.
About 2 mgd of process, utility and sanitary wastewaters are discharged
to the City of Niagara Falls wastewater treatment plant. An additional 11
mgd of wastewater, primarily non-contact cooling water, is discharged di-
rectly to the Niagara River via two outfalls, to Gill Creek in one outfall
(3.1 mgd), or to the Diversion Sewer in one outfall (5.5 mgd). The permit
application indicates the direct discharges have daily maximum loads of 26
Ib organic priority pollutants, 5 Ib heavy metals, and 2 Ib phenols. The
organics were primarily carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and methylene
chloride.
DuPont1s latest ICS response declared the chemicals used and their
volumes to be confidential.88 It is evident, however, that major volumes
of chemicals of concern are used, produced, and stored at this plant. The
April 1979 ICS response indicated about 1500 gal. of PCBs were present in
transformers and capacitors. In the 1960's, about 24,000 Ib/yr of PCBs
were used in a closed loop cooling system with dirty oil sent to a reclaimer.
Process emissions of air pollutants of concern include 20 tpy of cop-
per, 2 tpy of zinc, and 14 tpy of chlorine.78 Miscellaneous organic emis-
sions of 11 tpy are also listed.
-------
170
I
I
I
DuPont submitted a RCRA permit application which requested approval of
tank storage capacity of 60,000 gal.90 About 154,000 m ton/yr of hazardous •
wastes were handled, primarily corrosives. DuPont subsequently withdrew
their permit application indicating that all hazardous wastes will be moved •
offsite within 90 days.
posed of included copper, zinc and sodium cyanides, chlorinated organics
(primarily volatiles), and barium salts. Soil contamination by chlorinated •
organics, cyanides, and metals was possible. One area contained soil con-
taminated by PCB leaks. In addition, sediments in the adjacent Gill Creek M
were found to be contaminated with PCBs. Most of this contaminated mater- ~
ial, including the Gill Creek channel, has been excavated and replaced with
clean fill. DEC has recommended a plant wide monitoring program for detec-
tion of site contamination.
Both the nature of this plant's operations and the known contamination
indicate the need for a comprehensive BMP plan. M
01 in Corporation
1
Olin operates an inorganic chemicals plant on 22 acres adjacent to •
DuPont and the Niagara River [Figure 17]. Sodium and chlorine are produced ||
in a mercury cell. Other products include calcium hypochlorite (HTH) and |
sodium chlorite and methylate. Chlorine production began in 1897.
About 0.5 mgd of process wastewaters are discharged to the City of
Niagara Falls for treatment. Most mercury contaminated wastewaters are M
sent to the City after pretreatment for mercury removal. Non-contact cool- •
ing water, boiler blowdown and uncontaminated, uncontrolled stormwater run- _
off totaling about 7 mgd is discharged to the Diversion Sewer via four |[
outfalls.
I
Olin obtains its water supply from the Niagara River (70%) and from m
two 125 ft deep onsite wells (30%). This well water is contaminated with •
organic priority pollutants. It is used for cooling water in the HTH pro- I
cess and does not receive treatment. Consequently, Olin's discharges con-
tain a large load of organic priority pollutants (274 Ib/day), the largest J
i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
171
reported discharge in the Niagara Frontier. A majority of this contamina-
tion is tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, trans-l,2-dichloroethylene,
and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.
Heavy metals (primarily zinc; mercury is <0.1 Ib/day) at 8 Ib/day and
phenols at 4 Ib/day are also reportedly present.
01 in and DEC are negotiating a solution to this discharge of organic
priority pollutants through the SPDES permit process. The current permit
contains limits on priority pollutants based on the existing discharge. A
new permit will require major reductions. This could be accomplished by
activated carbon filter treatment of the well water or construction of a
recirculating cooling system using river water as makeup. Costs of either
alternative are high.
The ICS response indicated that 01 in uses or produces large volumes of
chemicals of concern including 42 mil Ib/yr of HTH. About 7 mil Ib are in
storage. About 250 gal. of PCBs are in use in transformers and capacitors.
Process air emissions from 01 in include 65 tpy of chlorine and 0.3 tpy
of mercury.78
Hazardous waste management facilities listed in the RCRA permit appli-
cation included 27,500 gal. of container storage, 180,000 gal. of tank stor-
age and 0.09 mgd of tank treatment capacity.90 About 600,000 tpy of hazard-
ous wastes are handled, primarily corrosives. An EPA inspection on Decem-
ber 17, 1980 found the facility in compliance with RCRA Interim Status
Standards.133
There are five ITF hazardous waste sites at the 01 in facility.134 A
125 ft deep well was used from 1963 to 1977 to dispose of about 130,000
tons of C-2 end liquor. Brine sludge possibly contaminated with mercury
and waste transformer oil that may have contained PCBs were spread at three
sites. The old mercury pond was excavated and refilled with clean fill.
Contamination of soil, surface, and groundwater with mercury is possible.
DEC has recommended subsurface investigations at the Olin plant.8
-------
172
Contamination of Gill Creek sediments with BHC (primarily Lindane) was
detected. The contamination was removed by 01 in. 01 in produced BHC and
trichlorobenzene from 1950 to 1956 but did not manufacture Lindane.135
Olin attributed the Gill Creek contamination to a reported spill of chlori-
nated benzenes from the old Solvent Chemical Company facility just upstream
of the contamination. Olin also indicated that trichlorophenol contamina-
tion in its well water may be related to Olin production of trichlorophenol
from 1954 to 1956. Other observed site contamination may be related to
activities of at least six other companies prior to 1930 on this site.
It is evident that site contamination is a major problem at Olin. A
comprehensive BMP plan is needed to minimize contributions of priority pol-
lutants from the site. Olin has been working on such a plan.
Carborundum Company
This facility at the west end of the Buffalo Avenue industrial complex
[Figure 17] manufactures abrasives (silicon and boron carbides and aluminum
oxide). The plant has been in operation since 1895.
About 3 to 4 mgd of process wastewaters are discharged to the City of
Niagara Falls for treatment. About 4 mgd of cooling waters and storm run*
off are discharged to the Niagara River through three outfalls (50%) and
one outfall to the Diversion Sewer (50%). Water supply is obtained from
the river. The discharges contain negligible priority pollutants.
The ICS response indicates the plant is a major user of phenol (2 mil
Ib/year) and also uses large amounts of trichloroethylene (18,500 Ib/year)
and coal tar (140,000 Ib/year).88 Chemicals stored exceed 100,000 Ib.
Process emissions of air pollutants of concern were minor.78 No haz-
ardous waste management permit application was listed.90
An ITF site at this facility was a small coolant disposal pit.136
Remedial measures will remove any contamination. No further investigation
was recommended by DEC.8
-------
I
I
I
9
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
173
Priority pollutant use at this site suggests the need for a BMP plan
to prevent contamination of cooling water or surface runoff.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
This plant, at the east edge of the Niagara Falls industrial complex
[Figure 17], manufactures vinyl chloride plastizol resin, vinyl co-polymer
resin, and accelerators and anti-oxidant chemicals for the rubber industry.
Process wastewaters averaging about 0.4 mgd are discharged to the City
of Niagara Falls for treatment. There are no direct discharges of waste-
waters from this plant.
Goodyear uses very large volumes of chemicals of concern totaling about
87 mil lb/year.88 Vinyl chloride (57 mil Ib) is the largest volume but
more than a million Ib of each of the following chemicals are used: ani-
line, o-toluidine, nitrobenzene, xylidene, dioctyl phthalate, mixed tolui-
dines, and di-isooctyl phthalate. Storage is about 1.7 mil Ib.
Process air emissions include 32 tpy of vinyl chloride.78
The RCRA permit application indicates that the facility has 1,000 gal.
of container storage capacity and an incinerator with a capacity of 0.116
ton/hr.90 Hazardous wastes handled total about 789 m ton/year. This is
primarily hydrogen sulfide that is incinerated.
There are no ITF sites at this facility.137
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
This facility at the northeast corner of the Niagara Falls industrial
area [Figure 17] produces carbon and graphite forms from coke, coal tar,
and petroleum pitch.
-------
174
Airco Carbon (Speer)
I
1
Sanitary wastes only are discharged to the City of Niagara Falls waste-
water treatment plant. There are no process wastewater discharges. Non- I
contact cooling water and stormwater averaging 0.6 mgd are discharged to
Pike's Creek to the 61st Street storm sewer to the Niagara River. No prior- I
ity pollutant data were available for this discharge, but pollutant levels '
are believed to be negligible.
The ICS response indicates the plant uses about 12 mil Ib/year of coal
tar, coal tar pitch, and petroleum pitch.88 Storage is about 600,000 Ib.
•
Process emissions include 1,990 tpy of carbon monoxide and 112 tpy of •
unspecified hydrocarbons.78
|
No RCRA permit application was submitted.90 One ITF site is at this
plant.138 Unknown quantities of product and raw materials have been dis- m
posed of in a landfill. DEC has proposed subsurface investigations to de- *
tect any polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon contamination that might be —
present.8 J
A comprehensive BMP plan is needed for this facility to insure that I
priority pollutants from raw material storage do not enter the untreated
cooling water and storm runoff. ft
m
This facility produces carbon and graphite electrodes and products ^
from petroleum coke, coal, charcoal, carbon black, and natural graphite. |
Coal tar pitch and other polymers are used as binders. Chlorine is also
used in the process. •
The plant has no direct wastewater discharge. Wastewaters averaging •
about 1.5 mgd are sent to the City of Niagara Falls for treatment.
No ICS response was listed for the Company.88 Chemical use similar to I
Great Lakes Carbon would be expected. —
I
-------
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
175
Process emissions include 16,600 tpy of carbon monoxide, 0.3 tpy of
chlorine, and 0.02 tpy of benzo(a)pyrene.78
No RCRA permit application was listed for this facility.90 An ITF
listed site reportedly received asbestos and large volumes of refractory
and sand.139 DEC has proposed subsurface investigations and monitoring for
polynuclear aromatics.8
Varcum Chemical Company (Reichhold Chemicals)
This plant at the north edge of the Niagara Falls industrial complex
[Figure 17] produces phenolic resins used by the abrasive industry. Raw
materials include phenols and formaldehyde.
Process wastewaters are discharged to the City of Niagara Falls for
treatment. This discharge is a major source of phenols. Phenol discharges
as high as 2,000 Ib/day in the past have been reduced to about 100 Ib/day.
There is no direct discharge of wastewaters. However, storm runoff may
have some phenol contamination.
Varcum's use of chemicals of concern is large with phenol/phenolic
compound use of more than 17 mil lb/year.88 Xylene use is also significant.
Storage of phenols exceeds 1 mil Ib.
Process emissions of air pollutants of concern including phenol and
xylene are reportedly small, less than 2 tpy.78
The RCRA application indicates that Varcum has container storage capa-
city of 5,000 gal., tank storage capacity of 30,000 gal., and an incinerator
with a 400 gal./hr capacity.90 About 52 m ton/year of ignitable wastes and
spent solvents are incinerated.
An ITF listed site at this plant was a settling pond used for phenolic
sludges and resins.140 The site has been excavated but there may be some
residual phenolic contamination. DEC has proposed a site investigation.8
-------
176
Problems have been experienced in the past with material spills and
runoff contamination. A BMP plan is needed to minimize any releases of
priority pollutants.
SKW Industries (formerly Airco Alloys)
This facility in north Niagara Falls [Figure 18] is a ferroalloy plant
producing a variety of ferrosilicon, ferrochrome, and ferromanganese alloys.
The plant does not have any direct wastewater discharges. Sanitary
wastewaters only are discharged to the City of Niagara Falls. Storm runoff
disposal was not defined. The plant has large raw material piles including
chrome ore.
No ICS response was listed for SKW or Airco Alloys.88 Process emis-
sions included 10.5 tpy of chromium oxide.78
SKW did not submit a RCRA permit application.90 The facility has an
active industrial solid waste disposal site under DEC permit.141 The site
has been used for about 60 years for disposal of large volumes of slag and
flue dust. The dusts are moved in slurry form. Groundwater monitoring has
detected high levels of chromium. Surface runoff is also contaminated with
chromium. This is an ITF listed site.
TAM Ceramics (formerly NL Industries)
This Company in north Niagara Falls [Figure 18] produces specialty
ceramic products including dielectric materials, zirconium oxide alloy, and
electronic specialty products.
The facility has no direct wastewater discharge. About 0.4 mgd of
cooling and process water is sent to the City of Niagara Falls for treat-
ment. Infiltration of organic priority pollutants into plant sewers, pos-
sibly from the nearby Hyde Park Landfill, has been detected.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
177
RESERVOIR
ELEVA TIQN SS5
HYDE PARK LANDFILL
^yfmrTC RBDY'"if"vr""ir"=r
*6//rBL &JCF-7CC^3in
, '^•K—'{—/' //LAri»Yfrie.£/Ave i\\ \Zj - r*g^^s'7; - -%~y
ALLOYS :i,^^%\f''|^
• •~—-- -^-^ ' /'Cr ^TrTl- --. ?V^ ^
Drwe-m \ •"T*7T~|i-•"•'••'.. -^\ ^.
•• • 'll.'" ' %A
Theater
^r. ^, \ ^ i j
w:^1;^^^,/ v
"
^ '.'.^Course ;.'{;: 'j "'
[ \"a fei
lYMCA
Figure 18. North Niagara Falls Area
-------
178
The ICS response lists about 1,400 Ib/year of asbestos use.88 Process
emissions include 29 tpy of carbon monoxide and a small amount of lead.78
No RCRA permit application was listed.90 A 30-acre disposal site was
used by NL Industries to dispose of several thousand tons of various solid
wastes (oxides, chlorides, carbonates containing zirconium, and titanium).142
This facility is adjacent to the Hyde Park Landfill and related to that
1itigation.
Union Carbide Corporation - Carbon Products Division
The National and Republic plants of this Division are in north Niagara
Falls [Figure 18]. They manufacture carbon and graphite products from coal
and coke mixed with coal tar and pitch binding resins.
Wastewaters (sanitary and contact and non-contact cooling) are dis-
charged to the City of Niagara Falls for treatment. There are no direct
wastewater discharges.
The ICS response indicated that about 32 mil Ib of petroleum and coal
tars are used annually with about 2 mil Ib in storage.88
Process emissions include about 517 tpy of carbon monoxide.78 The
RCRA permit application indicated only nominal hazardous waste handling and
storage.90
An active industrial solid waste disposal site (a listed ITF site) is
operated under DEC permit on 300 acres for disposal of carbonaceous material,
air pollution control dusts, fire brick, etc.143 There is possible contami-
nation of ground and surface water with coal tar derivatives. DEC has recom-
mended monitoring for polynuclear aromatics.8 Monitoring wells are onsite.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
i
E
t
I
I
l
i
179
MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES
City of Niagara Falls
The only major municipal wastewater discharge in this subarea is the
new City of Niagara Falls advanced wastewater treatment plant adjacent
to the Buffalo Avenue industrial complex and the Niagara River [Figure 17].
This plant serves the City of Niagara Falls, part of the Town of Niagara,
and about 25 major industrial plants.
Much of the City is served by combined sewers. Until 1978, dry
weather wastewaters from these combined sewers were intercepted and con-
veyed to a primary treatment plant in the Niagara River gorge about 1 mi
downstream from the American Falls. This plant provided only fine
screening and chlorination. Wet weather flows were bypassed directly
to the Niagara River at eight points in the gorge. By 1970, dry weather
flows were about 70 to 90 mgd, far in excess of the plants 50 mgd capacity,
and continuous bypassing of excess flow occurred.
During the 1930s, the Diversion Sewer was built to collect cooling
water from the Buffalo Avenue industries and relieve the combined sewer
system. The Diversion Sewer extends from 47th Street westward along
Buffalo Avenue to the site of the present treatment plant where it dis-
charges to an old hydroelectric power plant tail race tunnel. This tunnel
discharges to the Niagara River below the Falls near Rainbow Bridge. The
tunnel now also receives the effluent from the new wastewater treatment
plant.
In 1976 the gorge pumping station at the site of the old treatment
plant and a force main to the new treatment plant were completed. The
Southside Interceptor was also completed in 1976 to convey primarily
Buffalo Avenue industrial wastes to the new plant.
The new treatment plant was placed under construction in 1973 and com-
pleted in 1978. It was and is one of the largest municipal advanced waste-
water treatment plants in the country. It is a physical-chemical plant
-------
180
designed to handle a mixture of industrial-commercial-domestic wastewaters.
Treatment includes chemical flocculation, pH adjustment, sedimentation,
granular activated carbon contact, and chlorination.
After a few months of operation, the carbon filter beds failed in 1978.
Since July 1978 the plant has provided only primary treatment. The plant
failure and the subsequent delays in repairs have resulted in much contro-
versy and in a Federal-State suit against the City. Litigation is
continuing.
Average dry weather flow to the treatment plant is about 65 mgd, sub-
stantially above the design flow of 48 mgd. Wet weather flows are much
higher and the combined sewers overflow at eight points in the gorge.
Part of the cause of the excess flow is sewer infiltration. The plant
was designed for 10 mgd of infiltration. Present infiltration estimates
are about 24 mgd.
Analyses of the treatment plant effluent in June 1981 by NEIC found 26
organic priority pollutants totalling 252 lb/day.31 Chloroform, 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene, trichloroethylene, and toluene concentrations were the
highest at 36 to 72 ug/£. Substantially lower concentrations and loads
would have been expected if the carbon beds were in use.
Heavy metals totaled 42 Ib/day, primarily copper. This was substan-
tially below design limits because influent zinc was well below design.
Total phenols were not analyzed by NEIC. City data indicate the plant
discharged an average of 510 Ib/day of phenols for the 12-month period end-
ing in June 1981.
Industrial wastes are the source of most of the priority pollutants
discharged. Contaminated groundwater infiltration may also contribute
priority pollutants to the system.
-------
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
t
i
181
Industrial wastes discharged to the system by major industries are
limited by contract with the City. Flow is limited to 26 mgd in alloca-
tions to major industries. Waste loads as defined by TSS and COD are also
allocated. Specific priority pollutants are not allocated. The City has
undertaken a program to reduce phenol discharges to the system from indus-
try because this is the priority pollutant most difficult to remove in the
treatment system.
The SPDES permit should include additional limits on priority pollut-
ants to provide adequate control of such substances in this discharge when
the carbon beds are rebuilt. The permit should also require other treat-
ment plant and sewer system improvement needs that have been identified to
be completed so that additional reductions in discharges of priority pollut-
ants can be achieved.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
CECOS (formerly Newco Waste Systems)
This is a very large solid and hazardous waste management facility
adjacent to the Niagara Falls industrial complex [Figure 17]. Waste dis-
posal areas cover more than 300 acres and extend up to more than 50 ft in
elevation above the surrounding terrain.
The facility accepts a wide variety of waste materials including muni-
cipal solid waste, industrial solid wastes, waste treatment sludges, and
hazardous wastes. Activities at the site include a foundry sand reclama-
tion area, a salvage yard, a sanitary landfill, an intermediate landfill, a
secure landfill for hazardous wastes, an acid neutralization facility, and
an aqueous waste treatment facility.
The site has been in operation since 1896 and was initially a deposi-
tory for lime wastes from an acetylene gas production plant. These lime
wastes are now used for acid neutralization.
-------
182
The site is operated under a DEC permit that requires extensive envi-
ronmental monitoring including surface runoff, groundwater, leachate, and
ambient air.
There are two wastewater discharges from the facility. Process waste-
waters and landfill leachate are batch treated in the industrial wastewater
facility that includes activated carbon filters. Batch discharges are made
to the Niagara Falls sewer system about twice a month. Total wastewater
discharged averages about 0.5 mil gal./month.
Peripheral site drainage receives neutralization and is discharged to
a ditch leading to the 62nd Street storm sewer and the Niagara River. Neu-
tralization is needed because of leachate or runoff from the lime wastes.
EPA analysis of this flow (about 0.3 mgd) on May 5, 1981, detected phenol
at 75 p.g/£, methylene chloride at 10 ug/£ and seven heavy metals at concen-
trations ranging from <10 to 47 pg/A.144 Total toxics load was <1 Ib/day.
Sanitary landfill leachate has since been diverted from the storm sewer
system to the City of Niagara Falls for treatment.
Frontier Chemical Company
Frontier Chemical operates a hazardous waste management facility in
the Niagara Falls industrial complex under a DEC Part 360 permit [Figure 17].
The Company treats aqueous wastes and operates a fuel recovery process and a
chlorinated hydrocarbon recovery distillation unit. No disposal occurs at
this facility. Fuel products, recovered hydrocarbons, and residuals are
sent elsewhere for use or disposal.
The RCRA permit application listed container storage capacities as
330,000 gal., tank storage capacities as 650,000 gal., and a 3,000 gal. sur-
face impoundment.90 Total hazardous wastes handled are more than 6,000
tpy. An EPA inspection on December 16, 1980 found the facility in compli-
ance with RCRA Interim Status Standards.145
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
f
1
I
1
i
I
I
I
I
I
183
The treatment system includes chemical oxidation or reduction, neutral-
ization, further oxidation, activated sludge, and a granular activated car-
bon column. About 0.05 mgd of treated effluent is discharged to the City
of Niagara Falls.
Infiltration of groundwater contaminated with organic priority pollut-
ants into the sewer system has been detected. Soil borings also indicate
contamination is present.
SCA Chemical Services (formerly Chem-Trol Pollution Services)
SCA operates this large regional hazardous waste management and dis-
posal facility on 630 acres of the old Lake Ontario Ordnance Works
[Figure 19]. The facility has been in operation since 1972.
A wide variety of hazardous wastes from western New York and other
states are treated, recovered, or disposed of at this site. In 1978, about
17% of the wastes were received from Erie and Niagara Counties and 42% from
New York State.146 Activities include aqueous waste treatment, solvent
recovery, fuel recovery, and secure landfills. A liquid incinerator was
operated until 1974.
The RCRA application listed 43,000 gal. of container storage capacity,
54,000 gal. of tank storage capacity, 0.2 mgd of treatment capacity in tanks
and surface impoundments, other treatment processes with a capacity of 0.04
mgd, and 240 acres for land application.90 Hazardous wastes handled in 1978
were about 28 mil gal.146
The aqueous wastes (primarily landfill leachate) are treated in a sys-
tem including biological treatment, activated carbon filtration oxidation,
lime precipitation, sand filtration, and aeration. The treated effluent is
stored in large lagoons and tested before periodic batch discharges.
-------
184
Figure 19. Lake Ontario Ordinance Works
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
185
Two discharge paths have been used. Prior to 1981 when a pipeline was
completed to the Niagara River west of the facility, wastewater was dis-
charged to Six Mile Swale at a controlled rate based on stream flow. This
discharge began in 1977. About 3 to 6 mi 1 gal./year were discharged. Dis-
charges to Six Mile Swale have been terminated.
Direct discharge to the Niagara River began in July 1981. About 6 mil
gal. were discharged in 1981. Discharge occurs at a 1 mgd rate. Based on
sampling of the lagoon contents and a 1 mgd discharge rate, this discharge
would contain about 1 Ib/day of organic priority pollutants and 5 Ib/day of
heavy metals. Such a discharge would only occur a few days a year.
NON-POINT SOURCES
Important non-point sources in this subarea include combined sewer
overflows, contaminated groundwater, urban runoff, and contaminated bottom
sediments. Combined sewer overflows occur at eight points in the Niagara
River gorge along the west side of the City of Niagara Falls. As discussed
in the section on the City sewer system, industrial wastewaters comprise a
large volume of Niagara Falls wastewaters. Combined sewer overflows would
thus be expected to be significant sources of priority pollutants during
wet weather.
Contaminated groundwater is present under most of the Buffalo Avenue
industrial complex. Specific conditions were previously discussed for each
major industrial facility in that area. Contaminated groundwater has also
been detected in north Niagara Falls near landfills and industrial plants
and in the Love Canal-102nd Street landfill area. Infiltration of this
contaminated groundwater into industrial sewers and wells may contribute as
much as one-third of organic priority pollutant discharges by industrial
and municipal point sources in the study area. Direct groundwater flow
into surface waters probably contributes additional priority pollutants.
Urban runoff from Niagara Falls through separate storm sewers directly
contributes some priority pollutants. Another effect is the contribution
to combined sewer overflows.
-------
186
Contaminated bottom sediments are present in much of the Tonawanda
Channel and the Lower Niagara River. Concentrations of priority pollutants
are the highest off the 102nd Street landfill area and the Buffalo Avenue
industrial complex waterfront. Resuspension of these sediments during high
river flows can be a significant source of contaminated suspended sediments.
I
-------
I
I
I
1
I
I
f
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
187
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL PROGRAMS
Environmental conditions, their causes, and their effects in the
Niagara Frontier are of local, state, national, and international con-
cern. Agencies at all levels of government are thus involved in programs
to control and regulate activities that exert an effect on the environ-
ment. This section reviews the activities of New York State and Federal
agencies as they relate to environmental control programs. Several
Canadian agency activities associated with the Niagara River are also
discussed. Where needs are identified, suggestions are made for program
changes or additions.
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
Environmental standards or criteria have several purposes. They
form benchmarks against which existing environmental conditions can be
measured. They specify acceptable ambient air quality to protect human
health and acceptable water quality to protect human health and other
beneficial water uses. They are often used by regulatory agencies to
determine the need for more stringent controls on sources of air or
water pollution. They may form the regulatory basis for specific limits
on sources of pollution.
Environmental standards are based on scientific study and consider
health risks among other factors. They are defensible in regulatory
actions. They are useful for objective evaluations of environmental
problems of public concern. This is especially important with respect
to the emotional issues surrounding toxic substances in the environment.
Water Quality
Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires that water quality
standards be established for all surface waters of the U.S. These
standards consist of designated uses of stream segments based on water
uses to be protected and water quality criteria for each designated use.
The criteria specify levels of water quality that must be maintained or
exceeded to protect each water use.
-------
188
EPA is given the responsibility to develop and publish information on
water quality required for various uses and other guidance for the develop-
ment and promulgation of water quality standards. The states are given the
responsibility of designating the water uses to be protected in their
streams and establishing associated water quality criteria.
The NY Department of Environmental Conservation established water qual-
ity standards for the waters of the Niagara Frontier as required by the
Clean Water Act. These were subsequently approved by EPA. Specific water
quality criteria included in these standards were discussed in Section IV.
These criteria give limited attention to chemical substances.
Section 304 of the Clean Water Act amendments in 1977 required EPA and
the states to give more attention to a series of specific toxic pollutants
known as priority pollutants. EPA was required to develop and publish re-
commended criteria for 65 priority pollutants for protection of human health
and aquatic life. Recommended criteria were published in a series of cri-
teria documents during 1980. A summary of the water quality criteria was
published in the Federal Register on November 28, 1980.
In 1978, DEC proposed revisions of their water quality criteria to
include stringent limits on a number of additional chemical substances.
There was much opposition to the proposed revisions and they were withdrawn.
The International Joint Commission (IOC) has been active in establish-
ing water quality objectives for boundary waters of the Great Lakes. These
objectives are not enforceable by either country but represent target water
quality levels which both countries have pledged to implement programs to
achieve and maintain. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972 es-
tablished general and specific water quality objectives which addressed a
few chemical substances. The 1972 agreement was superseded by the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 which contained specific objectives
for numerous chemical substances. The current New York water quality stand-
ards are keyed to the 1972 agreement and do not reflect the more stringent
1978 objectives or the recent EPA guidance.
-------
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
189
Revision of the current water quality standards is needed to include
specific criteria for chemical substances of concern in the Niagara River
consistent with IJC objectives and EPA guidance. This would provide a ra-
tional basis for programs to control sources of these specific substances,
would ensure protection of water uses, and would provide benchmarks for
assessing existing water quality.
Air Quality
A similar regulatory pattern exists with respect to air quality. The
Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish primary and secondary air quality
standards for several air pollutants to protect human health. The states
are required to develop implementation plans that prescribe control meas-
ures to achieve these standards.
EPA promulgated the required air quality standards and New York deve-
loped an EPA-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). New York also pro-
mulgated their own air quality standards which covered more pollutants than
the EPA standards.
Coverage of specific chemical substances emitted to the air in the
Niagara Frontier by this program was limited. To offset this deficiency,
the DEC developed and implemented an approach previously discussed in Sec-
tion IV. Lists of air contaminants with high, medium, and low toxicity
were prepared and used to evaluate emission inventories to identify speci-
fic sources of chemical substances for review. Acceptable ambient levels
were established for some air contaminants by the New York Department of
Health. Published occupational health limits were used for others with
appropriate application limits. Simplified air modeling techniques are
used to identify sources that potentially cause ambient levels to exceed or
approach guidelines. Any such sources are then required to conduct detailed
source and ambient studies and develop and implement control measures as
needed.
The DEC program for control of toxic air contaminants has only recently
been implemented in its present form. The program appears to have the poten-
tial to identify and control any significant sources of emissions of chemical
substances.
-------
190
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
Monitoring of ambient environmental conditions and of pollution sources
is an important part of all environmental control programs. Ambient moni-
toring is needed to assess environmental quality with respect to the stand-
ards previously discussed and to identify trends and problem areas. It is
also useful in identifying sources of pollution. Monitoring of pollution
sources is needed to assess compliance with applicable limits on pollutant
emissions or discharges, to define pollutant loads, to assist in interpreta-
tion of ambient data and to evaluate the efficiency of pollution controls.
Environmental monitoring has been conducted for years in the Niagara
Frontier by both American and Canadian agencies. Most U.S. monitoring is
done by DEC and EPA while Canadian monitoring is primarily conducted by
Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Over the years, a gradual specialization and division of types of moni-
toring primarily performed has occurred for the Niagara River system. Be-
cause most water pollution sources are located on the U.S. side of the River,
DEC and EPA have concentrated on source monitoring. The Canadians have
concentrated on long-term ambient monitoring. However, all agencies do
some monitoring of all types.
Because of the growing international concern over chemical substances
in the Niagara River, in early 1981 an American/Canadian Niagara River Tox-
ics Committee was established to oversee and coordinate a comprehensive
investigation of chemical inputs to the Niagara River. The Committee con-
sists of representatives from DEC, EPA (Region II - New York City and Great
Lakes National Program Office - Chicago), Environment Canada, and the Ontar-
io Ministry of the Environment. The Committee developed a 2 h year work
plan to identify sources of chemical substances, recommend control programs,
and recommend long-term monitoring programs.
Environmental monitoring (both ambient and source) was a key element
in the work plan. Ambient monitoring of the river designed to identify
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
191
areas of significant chemical substances input was proposed. This included
water, sediment, and biota sampling. Several special monitoring programs
were proposed to identify the occurrence and sources of specific substances
such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Some of the monitoring has been
completed and results are becoming available. Data were incorporated into
the preparation of this report as they became available. Additional data
are expected in the next few months that should assist in the design of
subsequent monitoring efforts.
Monitoring of selected major industrial and municipal point sources of
toxic substances was scheduled in the work plan. EPA Region II conducted
monitoring of 11 sources in May 1981. Preliminary results are used in this
report. Monitoring of the Niagara Falls wastewater treatment plant was
conducted by EPA-NEIC, Denver, in June 1981. Data not restricted by litiga-
tion was incorporated in this report. DEC has scheduled monitoring of addi-
tional sources.
Contaminated groundwater and leachate from hazardous waste disposal
sites are important non-point sources of chemical substances to the Niagara
River. Some monitoring of these sources has occurred as part of the ongoing
DEC program to identify disposal sites requiring remedial measures or as
part of engineering studies conducted by applicants for SPDES permits dis-
cussed below. However, the monitoring to date has not adequately defined
the significance of these non-point sources.
A comprehensive subsurface investigation and groundwater monitoring
program has been proposed by DEC to investigate the 73 most significant
hazardous waste disposal sites remaining to be evaluated and to evaluate
contaminated groundwater conditions in the Niagara Falls industrial complex.
This investigation and monitoring program is needed to fill critical gaps
in information on sources of chemical substances.
In addition to normal EPA and DEC program funds and personnel resources,
the Niagara River investigations have been partially funded by EPA's Great
Lakes National Program Office. This has enabled several specialized studies
-------
192
and investigations to be funded. The Niagara River is currently one of the
Great Lakes National Program Office's top priorities.
Recent results of the monitoring programs, evaluated in light of the
various hydrologic conditions that occur in the Niagara River system as
discussed in Section IV, suggest several possible changes and additions to
the monitoring program. The wide variations in the concentrations of some
chemical substances appear to be at least partially related to changes in
hydrologic conditions. A detailed study of recent monitoring data and hy-
drologic data is needed to develop and refine correlations between the two
factors. This would assist in defining the relative inputs of point sources
and non-point sources and in defining source locations.
Additional monitoring locations in the Upper Niagara River and Lake
Erie are needed to separate the effects of pollution sources in the Buffalo
River-Buffalo Harbor area and in the nearshore waters of Lake Erie. Previ-
ous studies have shown that pollution from the Buffalo area enters the Upper
River in a narrow band along the east shore that may be missed by present
sampling locations. Some sources of chemical substances which (based on
sent data) appear to be located along the Tonawanda Channel may actually be
in the Buffalo area.
Large volumes of polluted bottom sediments dredged from Buffalo River
and Buffalo Harbor navigation channels were dumped in a shallow open-water
area of Lake Erie near Bethlehem Steel prior to 1972. This spoil area is
exposed to wave action during wind storms that can resuspend these sedi-
ments. This spoil area may be an additional significant source of persist-
ent chemical substances observed in Niagara River suspended sediments.
Present sampling is not designed to evaluate this possibility.
REGULATION OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
The primary program for regulation of industrial and municipal waste-
water discharges is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program established by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
193
(In New York, this is known as the SPDES permit program.) This is a joint
Federal-State program. EPA is required to establish overall program guid-
ance and regulations and develop and publish various guidelines. Permit
program regulations have been published by EPA in 40 CFR Parts 122 through
125. Effluent guidelines on which permits are based are contained in 40
CFR Parts 400 to 460.
Administration of the SPDES permit program in New York has been dele-
gated by EPA to the Department of Environmental Conservation. DEC has pro-
mulgated their own regulations governing operation of the SPDES program
(Title 6, Environmental Conservation, Article 3, Parts 750-757). DEC re-
ceives permit applications from dischargers, develops permit conditions,
issues the permits, monitors compliance with permit conditions, and takes
enforcement actions to achieve compliance when necessary.
EPA retains program overview. This is conducted by the Region II of-
fice in New York City. Region II conducts selected compliance monitoring
inspections and provides technical assistance to DEC. In some cases, EPA
can also initiate enforcement actions against dischargers to achieve com-
pliance.
At the national level, EPA is required to develop and promulgate regu-
lation effluent guidelines that specify what pollutants must be limited for
each type of industry and what volume of each pollutant may be discharged.
Similar effluent standards are promulgated for municipal discharges.
EPA promulgated effluent guidelines for most industrial categories in
the mid-1970's. These guidelines gave limited attention to toxic substances
because analytical methods did not exist for many of them and little was
known of their presence in wastewaters or the environment.
As the result of a 1976 court settlement concerning a suit filed by
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the 1977 amendments to the
Clean Water Act, EPA was required to develop effluent guidelines for 34
industrial categories that gave special attention to 65 toxic pollutants.
-------
194
This list of toxic pollutants was subsequently expanded to the 129 "priority
pollutants" that include the organic priority pollutants, pesticides, and
heavy metals discussed throughout this report.
Development of effluent guidelines for priority pollutants has proven
to be a difficult, complex, and expensive task. As a result, promulgation
of guidelines for most industrial categories has slipped several years be-
hind the original schedule. Final guidelines are still not available for
most major industry types.
Beginning in 1975, DEC issued SPDES permits to industrial dischargers
based on the early EPA effluent guidelines. Most permits had few if any
limits on priority pollutants.
In 1976, DEC initiated the Industrial Chemical Survey (ICS) that re-
quired industries to report what chemicals they used or produced that were
included on a list of "chemicals of concern". This list included most of
the priority pollutants. Industry responses to the ICS survey gave DEC its
first comprehensive information on priority pollutants potentially present
in wastewater discharges.
As the initial SPDES permits began to expire, DEC issued short term
permits based on EPA policy requiring permits to be issued with expiration
dates based on expected effluent guideline promulgation dates for that in-
dustry. In some cases, DEC added priority pollutant limits in the short
term permits based on the ICS response, plant evaluations and/or selected
effluent sampling. In many cases, the permittee was required to conduct
special short term effluent monitoring to evaluate the actual discharge of
priority pollutants potentially present. For several complex plants, de-
tailed engineering studies were required to develop methods for abating
discharges of priority pollutants.
In May 1980, EPA revised its NPDES permit regulations to require most
industrial dischargers to submit data on priority pollutants in their ef-
fluents as part of their permit applications. DEC has now received such
data from most major industrial dischargers in the Niagara Frontier.
-------
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
195
The Clean Water Act requires all industrial dischargers to achieve
effluent limitations for priority pollutants based on best available tech-
nology (treatment or process control) (BAT) by July 1, 1984. The EPA ef-
fluent guidelines under development are to prescribe BAT for priority
pollutants.
DEC has delayed issuing long term SPDES permits containing BAT limits
because of the delays in promulgation of effluent guidelines. Permits based
on guidelines are much easier to prepare and are more defensible under chal-
lenge by the permittee. The alternative is to prepare permit limits based
on the best professional judgment (BPJ) of the permit writer and available
information. The permit regulations allow BPJ permits when no applicable
guidelines are available.
DEC has indicated that it will begin issuing BPJ permits by July 1,
1982, if EPA guidelines are not yet available. This issue date is necessary
to allow permittees time to construct any needed treatment or control units
and meet the July 1, 1984 BAT deadline.
It is probable that many guidelines will not be available prior to
mid-1982. Also, promulgated guidelines will not cover all processes at
some of the more complex plants necessitating preparation of part of the
permits by BPJ procedures in any case. DEC has done much of the development
work for many of the permits. EPA has compiled extensive data that could
be used for BPJ permit development. Therefore, it appears that preparation
and issue of BPJ permits for many of the major industrial dischargers should
begin as soon as practicable.
Based on an evaluation of existing discharges of priority pollutants
from the 15 major industrial facilities, reductions in these discharges of
more than 50% should occur when BAT limits are achieved.
A special need with respect to the permit program is related to the
need for Best Management Practices conditions in the permit. As discussed
in Sections VI-VIII, BMP plans and/or specific BMPs are needed at a number
-------
196
of Niagara Frontier industrial plants to minimize discharges of priority
pollutants from ancillary activities such as spills and leaks, raw material
storage, and solid or hazardous waste disposal. This is especially true in
the Niagara Falls area where extensive groundwater contamination exists.
Some plants have partial BMP programs but more formalized implementation is
needed.
EPA has promulgated permit regulations specific to BMPs (40 CFR Part
125, Subpart K) but the effective date has been suspended indefinitely be-
cause of industry objections and litigation on the overall permit regula-
tions. The permit regulations (40 CFR Part 122.62(k)) contain adequate
authority to establish BMP permit limits for the types of problems encoun-
tered in the Niagara Frontier. Clarification of EPA policy, guidance, and
regulations on BMPs would be helpful in gaining permittee acceptance of
such permit conditions.
REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Hazardous wastes (as defined by 40 CFR Part 261 promulgated in accord-
ance with Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) are
subject to regulation by provisions of RCRA essentially from the time of
their generation until ultimate disposal. The storage, treatment, and dis-
posal of industrial solid wastes, including those classified as hazardous by
New York regulations (not necessarily RCRA hazardous wastes), are regulated
by a New York program governed by Title 6, New York Codes, Rules and Regula-
tions, Part 360. These two programs regulate essentially all current hazard-
ous waste management activity in the Niagara Frontier.
Neither RCRA nor the Part 360 program apply to inactive hazardous waste
disposal sites. To abate environmental impacts from inactive sites, alter-
nate approaches are used depending on the severity of environmental problems
and cooperation of site owners. These include negotiating voluntary reme-
dial measures, litigation of recalcitrant cases, and direct Federal/State
remedial action in severe cases.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
197
Active Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
EPA has promulgated regulations under RCRA that specify what chemicals
and industrial wastes are hazardous wastes (40 CFR Part 261) and establish
operating procedures for waste generators and transporters (40 CFR Parts
262 and 263). Regulations have also been promulgated (40 CFR Part 265) that
specify procedures that facilities that store, treat, or dispose of hazard-
ous wastes must follow in the interim period until they are issued a RCRA
permit. These "interim status standards" specify general operating proce-
dures and minimum facility standards. EPA can enforce these regulations or
delegate their enforcement to DEC. These regulations are currently the
primary EPA method of regulating hazardous waste management activities.
All facilities that store, treat, or dispose of RCRA hazardous wastes
(TSD facilities) are required to apply for a RCRA permit. This is a two-
step operation. All existing TSD facilities have submitted a simple permit
application (Part A) that defines their activities in general terms. Upon
EPA request, the facility must submit a much more detailed permit applica-
tion (Part B) within 6 months of the request. A RCRA permit is then pre-
pared and issued.
RCRA regulations have been promulgated for facilities that store or
treat hazardous wastes in containers, tanks, and waste piles. These regula-
tions cover about two-thirds of active hazardous waste TSD facilities.
Regulations have not been finalized for existing disposal facilities or for
facilities that store or treat hazardous wastes in surface impoundments or
for incinerators. Part B applications are now being requested from facili-
ties with containers, tanks, and waste piles. A few permits have been issued.
Major industrial facilities that were assigned high hazardous waste
management ratings in this study are candidates for early requests for sub-
mission of Part B applications. RCRA permits should be issued to these
facilities as soon as practicable to help ensure that releases of chemical
substances to the environment from storage and treatment of hazardous wastes
are minimized.
-------
198
All storage, treatment, and disposal of industrial solid wastes, in-
cluding hazardous wastes, is subject to regulation by operating permits
issued by DEC under their Part 360 program. The three major commercial
hazardous waste management facilities in the Niagara Frontier have such
operating permits. These permits specify operating conditions, facility
standards and environmental monitoring requirements more stringent than
RCRA interim status standards. DEC monitoring of these facilities and en-
forcement of permit conditions should assure adequate environmental protec-
tion until disposal regulations are promulgated by EPA and RCRA permits can
be issued by EPA or by DEC after program delegation to New York. The cur-
rent DEC operating permits may meet RCRA requirements when promulgated.
DEC has issued Part 360 operating permits to most active major indus-
trial hazardous waste TSD facilities. In some cases the facilities must be
upgraded to meet permit requirements. All active TSD facilities should
receive permits and upgrade their facilities as soon as practical to mini-
mize potential or actual releases of chemical substances.
Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites
Following discovery of the Love Canal problems in 1978, various activ-
ities by New York State and EPA led to the identification of about 300 haz-
ardous waste disposal sites in the Niagara Frontier. About 155 sites within
3 miles of the Niagara River were selected by DEC for priority attention.
Active sites were brought under Part 360 permit requirements. The 125 inac-
tive sites received different attention.
The primary approach used by DEC was to conduct a preliminary investi-
gation of each site and, where environmental impacts or hazards were evi-
dent, negotiate with the site owner to conduct voluntary remedial measures.
This was successful in a number of cases. Remedial measures have been com-
pleted on many of these sites.
Where negotiations were not successful, legal action was initiated by
DEC and/or EPA to force remedial work to proceed. Such cases were filed
against the Hooker sites at Love Canal, 102nd Street, and Hyde Park and part
-------
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
199
of the sites at Hooker's Buffalo Avenue plant. A case was also filed
against Olin's 102nd Street site.
At Love Canal, the environmental and human impacts were such that New
York and EPA took direct emergency actions to reduce the problem. Residents
of the immediate area were evacuated and their homes purchased by the State.
Remedial measures to minimize infiltration of precipitation through the
site and to collect and treat leachate were initiated. The State and EPA
spent millions of dollars to mitigate the Love Canal effects. Love Canal
and the Niagara County Refuse Disposal site in Wheatfield are under consid-
eration for further cleanup under Superfund financing.
The preliminary DEC investigations at many sites indicated the need
for further study including subsurface investigations and groundwater moni-
toring. DEC has proposed such investigations for 73 priority sites.8 This
study is needed to identify sites for which remedial action is needed and
to better define the contributions of chemical substances from these sources.
-------
REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
201
REFERENCES
1. August 1981. Table: Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the
U.S. and Their Constituent Counties by Race and Spanish Origin, 1980,
p. 6.
2. Bureau of the Census, 1980. 1980 Census of Population and Housing,
New York. U.S. Department of Commerce, PHC80-V-34, pp. 8, 9, 13, 14.
3. May 1950. Report of the Board of Technical Advisers to the Inter-
national Joint Commission on the Pollution of International Boundary
Waters 1948-1949 Investigation. Niagara River, Lake Erie-Lake
Ontario Section, p. 19.
4. Halliday, R. A., W. M. Archer, and P. I. Campbell, 1975. The
Niagara River Acoustic Streamflow Measurement System. Technical
Bulletin No. 86, Inland Waters Directorate, Ottawa.
5. U.S. Geological Survey, 1968. Ground-Water Resources of the Erie-Niagara
Basin, New York. State of New York Conservation Department, Basic
Planning Report ENB-3, 114 p.
6. U.S. Geological Survey, 1964. Ground Water in the Niagara Falls Area,
New York. State of New York Conservation Department Water Resources
Commission, Bulletin GW-53.
7. Erie - Niagara Basin Regional Water Resources Planning Board, December
1969. Erie - Niagara Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Plan - Main
Report. West Seneca, New York, p. III-2.
8. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, October 1981.
Proposal for Non-point Source Investigation, Niagara River Toxics
Program. 22pp.
9. Public Health Service, January 1954.t Industrial Wastes Along the
Niagara Frontier and Their Effect on the International Boundary Waters.
Cincinnati: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, NTIS
PB 215 227, 52 p.
10. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, March 1977.
Draft: Water Quality Management Plan for the Lake Erie-Niagara River
Basin.
11. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, January 1975.
Water Quality Management Plan for Planning Areas (01-01) - Niagara
River Main Stem. New York, 195 p.
12. Erie - Niagara Basin Regional Water Resources Planning Board, December
1969. Erie - Niagara Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Plan - Main
Report. West Seneca, New York, 187 p.
13. U.S. Geological Survey, 1980. Chemical Quality of Water from Community
Systems in New York, November 1970 to May 1975. Water Resources
Investigations 80-77.
-------
202
14. Great Lakes National Program Office, Oct. 1980. Data Sources for the
Niagara River. Chicago: Environmental Protection Agency, 117 p.
15. Interagency Task Force on Hazardous Wastes, March 1979. Draft Report
on Hazardous Waste Disposal in Erie and Niagara Counties, New York.
SW-P11, 325 pp.
16. Division of Solid Waste Management, June 1979. Industrial Hazardous
Waste Generation in New York State - An Inventory. New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, 196 pp.
17. Departments of Environmental Conservation and Health, June 1980.
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State, First Annual Report.
New York State, 107 pp.
18. New York State Departments of Environmental Conservation and Health,
May 1979. Toxic Substances in New York's Environment: An Interim
Report. New York, SW-P12, 48 pp.
19. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, November 1980.
Toxic Substances in Erie County: New York State: Survey and Sampling
Plan. New York, WM-P 19, 93 pp.
20. Department of Environmental Conservation, June 1980. Trends in Levels
of Several Known Chemical Contaminants in Fish from New York State
Waters. New York State, Technical Report 80-2, 77 p.
21. Department of Environmental Conservation, June 1981. Toxic Substances
in Fish and Wildlife: 1979 and 1980 Annual Reports, Vol. 4, No. 1.
New York State, Technical Report 81-1 (BEP), 138 p.
22. Great Lakes Laboratory, July 8, 1981. Niagara River Toxics Study,
Contract No. R005664-01, Interim Report on Segment 1 — Lake Erie
Section. Buffalo: State University of New York College at Buffalo,
48 pp.
23. Great Lakes Laboratory, June 19, 1981. Niagara River Toxics Study,
Contract No. R005664-01, Interim Report on Segment 2 — Buffalo River
Section. Buffalo: State University of New York College at Buffalo,
40 pp.
24. Great Lakes Laboratory, August 21, 1981. Niagara River Toxics Study,
Contract No. R005664-01, Interim Report on Segment 3 — Upper Niagara
River Section. Buffalo: State University of New York College at
Buffalo, 130 pp.
25. Great Lakes Laboratory, November 6, 1981. Niagara River Toxics Study,
Contract No. R005664-01, Interim Report on Segment 4 — Tonawanda
Creek to Niagara Falls. Buffalo: State University of New York
College at Buffalo.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
203
26. Great Lakes Laboratory, November 18, 1981. Niagara River Toxics Study,
Contract No. £005664-01, Interim Report on Segment 5 — West Branch of
the Niagara River. Buffalo: State University of New York College at
Buffalo.
27. Great Lakes Laboratory, December 16, 1981. Niagara River Toxics
Study, Contract No. R005664-01, Interim Report on Segment 6 — Lower
Niagara River Section. Buffalo: State University of New York College
at Buffalo.
28. The New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc., 1981. The Ravaged
River: Toxic Chemicals in the Niagara. New York, 260 pp.
29. New York State Department Environmental Conservation, June 1981. Toxic
Substances Control in the Niagara River - A Preliminary Report. Albany,
49 pp.
30. Sept. 14, 1981. American/Canadian Niagara River Project: Project
Workplan. 37p.
31. National Enforcement Investigations Center, November 1981. Evaluation
of the Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant, Niagara Falls, New
York. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Denver,
EPA-330/2-81-016.
32. Ministry of the Environment, November 16, 1981. Environmental Base-
line Report of the Niagara River - November 1981 Update. Ontario,
Table 19.
33. Department of Environmental Conservation, Oct. 1, 1981-Sept. 30, 1982.
New York State Fishing, Small Game Hunting, Trapping Regulations Guide.
New York State, 96 p.
34. Ministry of the Environment, June 1980. Environmental Baseline Report
of the Niagara River. Ontario, 32 p.
35. Ministry of the Environment, November 1981, op. cit.
36. Department of Environmental Conservation, Mar. 20, 1978. Monthly
Report on Toxic Substances Impacting on Fish and Wildlife, Report 12.
New York State, 53 p.
37. Department of Environmental Conservation, Mar. 20, 1979. Monthly
Report on Toxic Substances Impacting on Fish and Wildlife, Vol. 2,
Report 12. New York State, 52 p.
38. Department of Environmental Conservation, June 1980. Trends in Levels
of Several Known Chemical Contaminants in Fish from New York State
Waters. New York State, Technical Report 80-2, 77 p.
39. Department of Environmental Conservation, June 1981. Toxic Substances
in Fish and Wildlife: 1979 and 1980 Annual Reports, Vol. 4, No. 1.
New York State, Technical Report 81-1 (BEP), 138 p.
-------
204
40. October 1981. Miscellaneous Tables: Toxic Substances Monitoring
Program. Bureau of Environmental Protection. West Coxsackie, N.Y.,
20 pp.
41. August 1981. Table: Results from Isomer Specific Determination of
TCDD Levels in Great Lakes Fish. New York State Health Department,
1 p.
42. November 15, 1979. Contaminant Analysis in Lake Trout. Memo:
from G. C. LeTendre, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
43. Undated. Personal communication. R. Sloan, New York DEC, Albany, New
York.
44. Department of Environmental Conservation, June 1980. Trends in Levels
of Several Known Chemical Contaminants in Fish from New York State
Waters. New York State, Technical Report 80-2, p. 15.
45. Ministry of the Environment, November 1981, op. cit., p. 4.
46. Department of Environmental Conservation, June 1980, op. cit. p. 52.
47. Ministry of the Environment, November 1981, op. cit., Fig. 14 and
Table 17.
48. Ibid, Table 16.
49. Department of Environmental Conservation, June 1980, op. cit., pp. 19
and 53.
50. Ministry of the Environment, June 1980. Environmental Baseline Report
of the Niagara River. Ontario, p. 29.
51. Department of Environmental Conservation, June 1980, op. cit., p. 29.
52. Ibid., p. 45.
53. Ministry of the Environment, November 1981, op. cit., p. 23.
54. Black, John J., Margaret Holmes, Paul P. Dymerski, William F. Zapisek,
1980. Hydrocarbons and Halogenated Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic
Environment. Fish Tumor Pathology and Aromatic Hydrocarbon Pollution
in a Great Lakes Estuary. Plenum Press: New York, 559 p.
55. Ministry of the Environment, November 1981, op. cit., p. 3.
56. International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, April 15,
1972. Great Lakes Water Quality. Ottawa.
57. Undated. New York Water Quality Standards: Part 701, Classifications
and Standards of Quality and Purity.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
205
58. International Joint Commission, Canada and the United States, Nov. 22,
1978. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978. Ottawa.
59. May 1950. Report of the Board of Technical Advisers to the Inter-
national Joint Commission on the Pollution of International Boundary
Waters 1948-1949 Investigation. Niagara River, Lake Erie-Lake
Ontario Section.
60. Department of the Environment, Burlington, 1978. Short-term variation
of the Chemical Composition of the Niagara River. Ontario, Scientific
Series No. 90, 35 pp.
61. October 20, 1981. Niagara Gazette: Falls Report Claims Drinking Water
is Safe. Niagara Falls, New York.
62. Ministry of the Environment, November 1981, op. cit., Table 22b.
63. ibid, Tables 21-22.
64. Ibid, Table 23.
65. Ministry of the Environment, June 1980, op. cit., p. 9.
66. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Aug. 1981. Finds and Maps,
Data Element Dictionary. New York, 70 p.
67. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. National Organics Reconnais-
sance Survey of Public Drinking Water Supplies, Cincinnati, Ohio.
68. The New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc., 1981. The Ravaged
River: Toxic Chemicals in the Niagara. New York, pp 175.
69. JMd.
70. International Joint Commission, Canada and the United States, Nov. 22,
1978. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978. Ottawa.
71. Ministry of the Environment, November 1981, op. cit.
72. Ibid, p. 4.
73. Ministry of the Environment, June 1980, op. cit., Fig. 5 and 6.
74. Department of Environmental Conservation, 1979. Air Quality Report:
Continuous and Manual Air Monitoring Systems. New York State, 297 p.
75. Armbrust, Robert A., 1973. Coke Oven Pollution and Abatement in New
York State. Air Pollution Control Association Annual Meeting.
Pittsburgh, Air Pollution Control Association, 31 pp.
76. National Environmental Research Center, May 1975. Ambient Air Measure-
ments of Vinyl Chloride in the Niagara Falls Area. Research Triangle
Park, N.C., EPA/650/4-75/020, 19 pp.
-------
206
77. Undated. Application of 6 NYCRR 212 - Toxic Air Contaminants. Memo:
from Mr. Hovey, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
78. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, November 6, 1981.
Air Pollution Source Management System Facility Process Emission
Summary, Erie and Niagara Counties. Albany, New York, 267 pp.
79. Personal communication. Mr. Art Fossa, New York Department of
Environmental Conservation, Buffalo, New York.
80. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, September 1973. Benzo (a) pyrene
and Benzo (k) fluoranthene in Urban Atmospheres in Ontario. Toronto,
60 pp.
81. Stanley, Charles W., James E. Barney II, Michael R. Helton, and Anne R.
Yobs, May 1971. Environmental Science and Technology. Measurement of
Atmospheric Levels of Pesticides, p. 430-435.
82. Missouri University, 1970. Determination of the Trace Element Levels
in Atmospheric Pollutants by Neutron Activation Analysis. Fourth
Annual Conference on Trace Substances in the Environment. Columbia,
Missouri, p. 420-432.
83. U.S. Department of Energy, September 1980. Description of the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. Oak Ridge, Tennessee, ORO-777,
p. 18-24, A-6 thru 44.
84. Office of Environmental Compliance and Overview, September 1980. A
Background Report for the Formerly Utilized Manhattan Engineer District/
Atomic Energy Commission Sites Program. U.S. Department of Energy,
DOE/EV-0097, pp. 117-139.
85. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Aug. 1981. Finds and Maps,
Data Element Dictionary. New York, 70 p.
86. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, September 22, 1981.
Facility Index System Listing of Facilities in Niagara and Erie
Counties, New York. New York City.
87. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II. Selected Listing of
Facilities in Niagara and Erie Counties, New York. New York City.
88. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, November 4,
1981. Industrial Chemical Survey: Positive Responders to Chemicals
of Concern, Companies Located in Erie and Niagara Counties. New York.
89. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, September 23, 1981.
Computer Listing of RCRA Notifiers in Selected Postal Zip Codes in
Western New York. New York City.
90. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II. HWDMS Master Facility
Listing: RCRA Part A, Permit Applications Erie and Niagara Counties,
New York. New York City.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
207
91. Ministry of the Environment, November 1981, op. cit., Table 25.
92. Ibid, Table 28.
93. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1981.
Investigation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Vicinity of
Buffalo, New York. New York: Third quarterly report, Great Lakes
Initiative Grant No. R00556101, 15 p.
94. Region II, undated. Priority Pollutant Report, Bethlehem Steel Cor-
poration, Buffalo, New York, NY 0001368, May 6-8, 1981. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Edison, N.J.
95. May 7, 1981. RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility Form for
TSD Facilities only, Bethelehem Steel Corp., Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II, Edison, NJ.
96. Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., June 15, 1981. Hazardous Waste Site
Investigation, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna, N.Y., for
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, N.Y., TDD No. 02-8011-16.
97. Division of Solid Waste, June 1980. Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites
in New York State, App. Vol. 3. New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, p. C-29-26.
98. Division of Solid Waste, June 1980, op. cit., pp. C-9-33 and 38.
99. SRI International, 1981. Directory of Chemical Producers. Menlo Park,
Calif., 1120 p.
100. Division of Solid Waste, June 1980, op. cit., pp. B-9-41 and 42.
101. Region II, September 1981. Niagara River Toxic Monitoring Report,
Buffalo Color Corporation, Buffalo, New York, May 7, 1981, NY
0002470. Environmental Protection Agency. Edison, N.J.
102. Division of Solid Waste, June 1980, op. cit., pp. B-9-51 to 56.
103. Black, John J., Margaret Holmes, Paul P. Dymerski, William F. Zapisek,
1980. Hydrocarbons and Halogenated Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic
Environment. Fish Tumor Pathology and Aromatic Hydrocarbon Pollution.
104. Region II, undated. Compliance Monitoring Report, Donner-Hanna Coke,
Buffalo, New York, NY 0003310, May 4-5, 1981. Edison, N.J. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
105. June 1, 1981 letter from Mr. Kevin D. Mahar, Environmental Control
Manager to the New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany,
New York.
106. Division of Solid Waste, June 1980, op. cit., pp. B-9-63 and 64.
-------
208
107. Region II, September 1981. Priority Pollutant Report, Republic Steel
Corporation, Buffalo, New York, May 4-5, 1981, NY 0001881. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Edison, N.J.
108. June 30, 1980 letter from Mr. J.M. Potivora, Supt. of Environmental
Control to the New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation.
109. Region II, undated. Compliance Monitoring Report, Buffalo Sewer Au-
thority, Bird Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, Buffalo, New York,
NY 0028410, May 4-5, 1981. Environmental Protection Agency. Edison,
N.J.
110. U.S. Army Engineer District, February 16, 1973. Final Environmental
Statement: Diked Disposal Area - Buffalo River, Buffalo Harbor,
Black Rock Channel, Tonawanda Harbor, Erie County, New York.
Buffalo, New York.
111. State University of New York College at Buffalo, December 1975.
Buffalo Harbor Diked Disposal Sites: Engineering Properties and
Drainage Characteristics. Buffalo: 12 pp.
112. U.S. Army Engineer District, October 1974. Final Environmental
Statement: Black Rock Channel and Tonawanda Harbor, New York
(Operation and Maintenance). Buffalo, New York, Table 9.
113. Great Lakes Laboratory, October 1981. Analysis of Sediment, Water
and Elutriate Water Collected and Processed from Buffalo Harbor, New
York Sampling Sites. State University College at Buffalo, New York,
pp. 24-26.
114. Region II, August 1978. Priority Pollutants Monitoring Report, Dunlop
Tire and Rubber Corp., Buffalo, New York, NY 0101575, January 24-25,
1978, March 14-15, 1978. Environmental Protection Agency. Edison,
N.J.
115. Division of Solid Waste, Junr 1980, op. cit., pp. B-9-65 to 68,
C-9-31 and 32.
116. Region II, undated. Compliance Monitoring Report, FMC Corporation,
Tonawanda, New York, NY 0000337, November 19-20, 1980. Environmental
Protection Agency. Edison, N.J.
117. Dec. 17, 1980. RCRA TSD Facility Inspection Checklist, FMC Corp.,
Tondawanda Facility, Environmental Protection Agency, Region II,
Edison, NJ.
118. Division of Solid Waste, June 1980, op. cit., pp. B-9-79 and 80.
119. May 7, 1981. RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility Inspection
Form for TSD Facilities only, Allied Corp., Allied Fibers and Plastics
Co., Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Edison, NJ.
120. Division of Solid Waste, June 1980, op. cit., pp. B-9-35 to 40.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
209
121. ijbid, pp. B-9-129 to 134.
122. Task Force on Toxic Substances, January 29, 1981. The Federal Connec-
tion: A History of U.S. Military Involvement in the Toxic Contamina-
tion of Love Canal and the Niagara Frontier Region, Vol. I and II.
New York State Assembly.
123. December 1981, Press Release, U.S. Dept. of Engergy
124. Division of Solid Waste, June 1980, op. cit., pp. B-9-47 and 48,
C-9-21 and 24.
125. ibid, pp. B-119 to 124, C-9-45 and 46.
)
126. Ibid, pp. B-9-61 and 62.
127. Ibid, pp. B-9-231 and 232, 371 and 372.
128. Region II, undated. Compliance Monitoring Report, Town of Tonawanda
WWTP #2, Two Mile Creek Road, Tonawanda, New York, NY 0026395,
May 6-7, 1981. Environmental Protection Agency. Edison, N.J.
129. Region II, August 1981. Compliance Monitoring Report, North Tona-
wanda Wastewater Treatment Plant, North Tonawanda, New York, NY
0026280, May 4-5, 1981. Environmental Protection Agency. Edison,
N.J.
130. Division of Solid Waste, June 1980, op. cit., pp. C-9-145 and 146.
131. Ibid, pp. B-9-233 to 248.
132. ibid, pp. B-9-215 to 226.
133. Dec. 17, 1980. RCRA TSD Facility Inspection Checklist, Olin Chemical
Corp., Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Edison, NJ.
134. Division of Solid Waste, June 1980, op. cit., pp. B-9-273 to 276.
135. January 16, 1980 letter from Olin to New York Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, Buffalo, New York.
136. Division of Solid Waste, June 1980, op. cit., pp. B-9-287 and 288,
C-9-143 and 144.
137. Ibid.
138. Ibid, pp. B-9-229 and 230.
139. ibid, pp. B-9-201 and 202.
140. ibid, pp. B-9-277 and 278.
141. Ibid, pp. C-9-109 and 110.
-------
210
142. iMd, pp. B-9-259 and 260.
143. Ibid, pp. C-9-131 and 132.
144. Region II, undated. Compliance Monitoring Report, CECOS, Inc.,
May 5, 1981. Environmental Protection Agency, Edison, NJ.
145. Dec. 16, 1980. RCRA TSD Facility Inspection Checklist, Frontier
Chemical, Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Edison, NJ.
146. SCA Chemical Services, Operating Report for the SCA Chemical Waste
Services, Inc., Model City, New York Facility, February 1979.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
211
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Air Pollution
Department of Environmental Conservation, 1975. Air Quality Report: Con-
tinuous and Manual Air Monitoring Systems. New York State, 175.
Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board, July 1979. Emission
Growth Factors for the Niagara Frontier. Grand Island, N.Y., 148 p.
Kurtzweg, J. A. and C. 0. Nelson, November 1980. Journal of Air Pollution
Control Association. Clean Air and Economic Development: An Urban
Initiative. Washington, D.C., p 1187-1193.
National Air Pollution Control Administration, April 1969. Air Pollution
Report - Federal Facilities, Niagara Frontier Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region. NTIS PB 209788, 26p.
National Air Pollution Control Administration, December 1968. Buffalo Air
Pollutant Emission Inventory. Durham, North Carolina, NTIS PB 206243,
48 p.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation, May 10, 1981. Regula-
tion: Part 212: Processes and Exhaust and/or Ventilation Systems.
New York.
National Enforcement Investigations Center and Region II, February 1979.
Visible Emissions Observation Survey, Bethlehem Steel Corporation -
Lackawanna Plant, Lackawanna, New York. Denver: Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, EPA-330/2-79-008, 51 p.
National Enforcement Investigations Center and Region II, February 1979.
Visible Emissions Observations, Hanna Furnace Corporation, Buffalo,
New York. Denver: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-330/2-79-010,
13 p.
National Enforcement Investigations Center and Region II, February 1979.
Visible Emissions Observations, Republic Steel Corporation, Buffalo
Plant, Buffalo, New York. Denver: Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-330/2-79-009, 52p.
New York State Air Pollution Control Board, 1964. Air Pollution - Niagara
County (Comprehensive Area Survey - Report No. 3). Albany, New York,
96 p.
Pillay, K.K.S., C. C. Thomas, Jr., and C. M. Hyche, February 1971. Nuclear
Technology 1971. Neutron Activation Analysis of Inorganic Constituents
of Airborne Particulates, p 224-231.
Smoke Prevention Association of America, 1951. Proceedings of the Smoke
Prevention Association of America Convention, 1951.
-------
212
Syracuse University Research Corporation, May 1972. Field Evaluation of
Methods of Collection and Analysis of Airborne Pesticides. Vol. I -
Field Evaluation and Analysis. Vol. II - Pesticide Field Monitoring
Data. New York, 155 p 155 and 218.
Winkelstein, W., Jr., 1961. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion. The Erie County Air Pollution - Respiratory Function Study.
Winkelstein, Warren, Jr. and Seymour Kantor, July 1969. American Journal
of Public Health. Prostatic Cancer: Relationship to Suspended Partic-
ulate Air Pollution, p 1134-1138.
Winkelstein, Warren, Jr. and Michael L. Gay, January 1971. Archives of
Environmental Health. Suspended Particulate Air Pollution, p 430-435.
Winkelstein, Warren, Jr. and Michael L. Gay, 1970. 16th Meeting of the
Institute of Environmental Sciences. Arteriosclerotic Heart Disease
and Cerebrovascular Disease: Further Observations on the Relationship
of Suspended Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in the Erie Coun-
ty Air Pollution Study. Boston, p 441-446.
Directories
Niagara Falls Area Chamber of Commerce, January 1981. Industrial Directory,
Niagara Falls Area. Niagara Falls, N.Y., 35 p.
Buffalo Area Chamber of Commerce, 1981. Western New York Business Direc-
tory. Buffalo, N.Y., 212 p.
1981-82. Telephone Directory for Buffalo and All Suburbs, 636 p.
Hazardous Wastes
Chemical and Environmental Conservation Systems International, Inc. Ten-Year
Technology Plan.
January 2, 1980. Chemical Week. Feds Sue Hooker on Disposal.
Department of Environmental Conservation, Oct. 1, 1980. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact Statement: Proposed Adoption of
Regulations for Siting Industrial Hazardous Waste Facilities. New York
State, 6NYCRR, Part 361, 38 p.
Department of Environmental Conservation, October 1979. Hearings on: Inac-
tive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites and the Report of the Interagency
Task Force on Hazardous Wastes. New York State, SW-P11.
Deutsch, D. J., September 22, 1980. Chemical Engineering. Energy from
Garbage Tempts CPI Firms. New York, p 79-81.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
213
Ember, Lois R., August 11, 1980. Uncertain Science Pushes Love Canal Solu-
tions to Political, Legal Arenas, 22 p.
May 18 and June 29, 1979. Hearing Transcript: Hazardous and Toxic Waste
Disposal Field Hearings: Part 2. Committee on Environmental Public
Works Hearings, 96th Congress.
Kolata, Gina Bari and Constance Holden, June 13, 1980. Science. The Love
Canal: Botched Study, Chromosome Damage, and Stress.
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, October 8, 1980. Report of the
Governor's Panel to Review Scientific Studies and the Development of
Public Policy Problems Resulting from Hazardous Wastes. New York City.
National Enforcement Investigations Center, December 1979. Pollutant Ana-
lyses, Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation Waste Disposal Sites,
Niagara Falls, New York [July 12 - September 7, 1979]. Denver: En-
vironmental Protection Agency, EPA-330/2-79-021, 126 p.
McDougall, W. Joseph, Richard A. Fusco, and Robert P. O'Brien, December 1980.
Containment and Treatment of the Love Canal Landfill Leachate.
New York State Department of Health, April 1980. Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes
in the Love Canal Area.
May 16, 1980. New York Times: Love Canal Families are Left with a Legacy
of Pain and Anger.
May 30, 1980. New York Times. News Report.
May 24-28, 1980. New York Times. Relocation for Love Canal Residents.
SCA Chemical Services, November 1981. Ten Year Development Plan. Model
City, N.Y., 63 p.
Task Force on Toxic Substances, January 29, 1981. The Federal Connection:
A History of U.S. Military Involvement in the Toxic Contamination of
Love Canal and the Niagara Frontier Region, Vol. I and II. New York
State Assembly, 370 p.
U.S. Congress, 1979. Joint Hearing Report. Hazardous and Toxic Waste Dis-
posal Field Hearings. 96th Congress, 1st session, 460 p.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1978. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1053.
Potential Effects of Deep-Well Waste Disposal in Western New York.
U.S. Department of the Interior.
Wilford, John Noble, Dudley Clendinen, and Richard J. Meislin, June 1980.
New York Times. Love Canal - The Continuing Saga.
-------
214
Industrial Source Information
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., June 27, 1980. Hazardous Waste Site Inves-
tigation, S.K.W. Alloys, Inc., Niagara, N.Y., for Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region II, N.Y.
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation, March 1979. Chlorocarbon Source
Investigation Program, Niagara Plant. Niagara Falls, N.Y., 150 p.
Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation, September 22, 1980. Volume I -
Executive Summary, Report on Wastewater Outfall Sewers, Niagara Plant
Comprehensive Water Management Study. Niagara Falls, N.Y., 41 p.
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation, September 22, 1980. Volume II -
Field Investigation, Report on Wastewater Outfall Sewers, Niagara
Plant Comprehensive Water Management Study. Niagara Falls, N.Y.,
150 p.
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation, September 22, 1980. Vol. Ill -
Plates: Report on Wastewater Outfall Sewers, Niagara Plant Comprehen-
sive Water Management Study. Niagara Falls, N.Y., 25 p.
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation, September 19, 1980. Vol. IV -
Chemical Loadings and Groundwater Quality: Niagara Plant Comprehen-
sive Water Management Study. Niagara Falls, N.Y., 202 p.
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation, February 23, 1981. Niagara Plant
Comprehensive Water Management Study, Remedial Work Alternatives to be
Evaluated. Niagara Falls, N.Y., 8 p.
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation, undated. Response to NYSDEC Reply
Letter dated December 29, 1980. Niagara Falls, N.Y., 44 p.
McPhee, Smith, Rosenstein Engineers, January 1977. Industrial Waste and
Pretreatment in the Buffalo Municipal System. Ada, Oklahoma, EPA-600/
2-77-018, 184 p.
National Enforcement Investigations Center, September 1976. Compliance
Monitoring Survey, Hanna Furnace Corporation Plant, Buffalo, N.Y.
Denver: Environmental Protection Agency, Permit No. NY0001597.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation, undated. Compliance
Monitoring Report, Buffalo Color Corporation, Buffalo, New York,
# NY 0002470, February 26-27, 1980. Buffalo, N.Y.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation, undated. Compliance
Monitoring Report, Dresser Industries, Inc., Depew, New York, May 15-16,
1978. Buffalo, N.Y.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation, undated. Compliance
Monitoring Report, Hanna Furnace Corporation, Subsidiary of National
Steel Corporation, Buffalo, New York, NPDES Permit # NY 0001597,
December 3, 1979. Buffalo, N.Y.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
215
New York Department of Environmental Conservation, September 1980. Compli-
ance Monitoring Report, Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp., Durez
Division, North Tonawanda, New York, # NY 0001198, May 13-14, 1980.
Buffalo, N.Y.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation, June 1981. Compliance
Monitoring Report, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Cheektowaga, New York,
SPDES Permit # NY 0001210, December 16-17, 1980. Buffalo, N.Y.
Region II, undated. Compliance Monitoring Report, Allied Chemical Corp.,
Buffalo, New York, NY 0002160, November 17-18, 1980. Edison, N.J.
Region II, undated. Compliance Monitoring Report, Buffalo Color Corp.,
Buffalo, New York, NY 0002470, November 17-18, 1980. Environmental
Protection Agency, Edison, N.J.
Region II, undated. Compliance Monitoring Report, The Carborundum Company,
Niagara Falls, New York, NY 0001376, November 19-20, 1980. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Edison, N.J.
Region II, June 1978. Compliance Monitoring Report, Dunlop Tire and Rubber
Corporation, Buffalo, New York 14240, NY 0101575, January 24-25, 1978.
Environmental Protection Agency, Rochester, N.Y.
Region II, January 1979. Compliance Monitoring Report, E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and Co., Inc., Niagara Falls, New York. August 2-3, 1978,
NY 0003328. Environmental Protection Agency, Rochester, N.Y.
Region II, May 1981. Compliance Monitoring Report, E.I. DuPont de Nemours
and Co., Inc., Niagara Falls, New York, NY 0003328, November 17-18,
1980. Environmental Protection Agency, Edison, N.J.
Region II, undated. Compliance Monitoring Report, General Motors Corpora-
tion, Tonawanda, New York, NY 0000574, November 17-18, 1980. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Edison, N.J.
Region II, September 1981. Compliance Monitoring Report, Hooker Chemical
Corp. , Durez Division, North Tonawanda, New York, May 4-5, 1981, NY
0001198. Environmental Protection Agency, N.J.
Region II, February 1979. Compliance Monitoring Report, Hooker Chemical
Corp., Specialty Chemicals Division, Niagara Falls, N.Y., NPDES No.
N.Y. 0003336, September 13-14, 1978. Environmental Protection Agency,
Rochester, N.Y.
Region II, December 1978. Compliance Monitoring Report, 01 in Corporation,
Olin Chemicals Group, Niagara Falls Plant, Niagara Falls, N.Y. 14302,
September 21-22, 1978, NY 0001635. Environmental Protection Agency,
Rochester, N.Y.
Region II, undated. Compliance Monitoring Report, Tonawanda Coke Corporation,
Tonawanda, New Jersey, (sic, N.Y.) NY 0002399, November 17-18, 1980.
Environmental Protection Agency. Edison, N.J.
-------
216
Region II, February 1981. Compliance Monitoring Report, Union Carbide
Corp., Niagara, New York, NY 0000060, November 19-20, 1980. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Edison, N.J.
Region II, April 1979. Compliance Monitoring Report, Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, NPDES No. NY 0001210, January 17-18, 1979. Environmental
Protection Agency, Rochester, N.Y.
Region II, undated. Performance Audit, Olin Corp., Niagara Falls, New York,
NY 0001635, July 31 - August 1, 1980. Environmental Protection Agency.
Edison, N.J.
Region II, undated. Priority Pollutants Monitoring Report, Bethlehem Steel
Corp., Lackawanna, New York, NY 0001368, October 29, 1979. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Edison, N.J.
Region II, undated. Priority Pollutant Monitoring Report, Ford Motor Com-
pany, Buffalo, New York, August 28-30, 1979. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Edison, N.J.
Region II, undated. Survey and Sampling for Mercury, Olin Corp., Niagara
Falls, New York, June 6-8, 1978. Environmental Protection Agency.
Edison, N.J.
May 7, 1981. RCRA Generator Inspection Form, Allied Corp., Allied Fibers
and Plastics Co., Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Edison,
NJ.
Miscellaneous
Department of Environmental Conservation, 1977. Annual Report of Environ-
mental Radiation in New York State. New York, 53 p.
Department of Environmental Conservation, March 1977. Draft Water Quality
Management Plan for the Lake Erie-Niagara River Basin. New York.
Diachenko, Gregory W., March 1979. Environmental Science and Technology,
Vol. 13, No. 3. Determination of Several Industrial Aromatic Amines
in Fish.
Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board, June 1972. Niagara
River Environmental Plan, Summary Report. Grand Island, N.Y., 54 p.
International Association of Great Lakes Research, 1971. Proceedings of the
14th Conference on Great Lakes Research. Hydrogeology of the Forty
Mile Creek Drainage Basin on the South Shore of Lake Ontario. Toronto:
University of Toronto,p 368-386.
International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, 1965. Rules of
Procedure and Text of Treaty. Ottawa, Canada-Washington, D.C.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
217
New York State Departments of Environmental Conservation and Health, May
1979. Toxic Substances in New York's Environment: Appendices. New
York, SW-P12. 250 p.
Areas of the Erie-Niagara Basin. United States Department of Agriculture
76 p.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1970. Characteristics of New York Lakes: Part 1
Gazetteer of Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs. United States Department
of the Interior, Bulletin 68, 124 p.
Municipal Source Information
Flynn, Thomas F.X. and John C. Thompson, November 1972. Water and Wastes
Engineering. Niagara to be One of the Biggest.
Region II, September 1978. Compliance Monitoring Report, City of Niagara
Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant, Niagara Falls, N.Y., June 6-8, 1978.
Environmental Protection Agency, Rochester, New York: NPDES NY 0026336.
Region II, August 1981. Compliance Monitoring Report, Niagara County Sewer
District No. 1, Wheatfield, New York, May 6-7, 1981, NY 0027979. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. Edison, N.J.
Region II, December 1979. Compliance Monitoring Report, Town of Tonawanda,
Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2, Tonawanda, N.Y., NPDES Permit No. NY
0026395, September 19-20, 1979. Environmental Protection Agency, Ro-
chester, N.Y.
Water Quality
Canada Center for Inland Water, Burlington, 1979. Niagara River Chemical
Loading 1975-1977. Ontario: Scientific Series No. 106, 11 p.
Department of the Environment, Burlington, 1977. Water Quality Surveys
on the Niagara River - 1974. Ontario: Report Series No. 48, 9 p.
Elder, Vincent A., Bertha L. Proctor, and Ronald A. Hites, October 1981.
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 15, No. 10. Organic Com-
pounds Found Near Dump Sites in Niagara Falls, New York.
Environmental Protection Agency, February 1975. Water Pollution Investi-
gation: Buffalo River. EPA-905/9-74-010, 161 p.
May 1975. EPA Form: Technical Report Data: from Bruce W. Gay, Jr. and
Richard C. Noonan, National Enforcement Investigations Center.
Great Lakes Laboratory, December 1976. An Investigation of the Nearshore
Region of Lake Ontario. Buffalo State University of New York College
at Buffalo, NTIS PB-266 268, 282 p.
-------
218
Great Lakes Laboratory, 1980. Water Quality and Bethlehem Steel Corporation.
Buffalo: State University College at Buffalo.
Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, November 13, 1980. 1980 Annual Report:
A Perspective on the Problem of Hazardous Substances in the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem. Toronto, 70 p.
Great Lakes Water Quality Board, November 12, 1980. 1980 Report on Great
Lakes Water Quality - Appendix. Toronto, 82 p.
Kaiser, K. L., May 1978. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol 12,
No. 5. The Rise and Fall of Mirex. Ontario: Canada Centre for In-
land Waters, p 520-528.
Kites, R. A. and C. R. Nelson, September 1980. Environmental Science and
Technology. Aromatic Amines In and Near the Buffalo River. Indiana
University, 3 p.
Lake Ontario Basin Office, January 1, 1981. Report of Mercury in Sediments
in the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, N.Y.
Nalepa, T.F. and N.A. Thomas, 1976. Journal of Great Lakes Research, Vol.
2(1). Distribution of Macrobenthic Species in Lake Ontario in Rela-
tion to Sources of Pollution and Sediment Parameters. Cincinnati:
National Field Investigations Center, p 150-163.
Sargent, D. H., July 1976. Proceedings of the Conference on Environmental
Modeling and Simulation, April 19-22, 1976. Waste Allocations in the
Buffalo (New York) River Basin. Cincinnati, p 126-128.
Shaver, C. G., J.A.C. Fortescue, P. A. Peach, S. A. Curtis, June 1977.
Stream Sediment Geochemical Anomalies in Relation to Industrial En-
vironmental Pollution and Geoepidemiology in the Niagara Peninsula.
Columbia.
October 11, 1981. Sixty Minutes: Don't Go Near the Water. Mike Wallace,
CBS Television Network.
Sweeney, R.A., 1973. Water for the Human Environment, Vol. IV. Rejuvena-
tion of the Buffalo River. Chicago: International Water Resources
Association, p 445-455.
March 1980. The Invisible Menace: Contaminants in the Great Lakes. WIS-
SG-80-133, 58 p.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1968. A Reconnaissance of Stream Sediment in
the Erie-Niagara Basin, New York. State of New York Conservation
Department, Basin Planning Report ENB-5, 33 p.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1968. Chemical Quality of Streams in the Erie-
Niagara Basin, New York. State of New York Conservation Department,
Basin Planning Report ENB-4, 104 p.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
219
Water Supply
Carlo, George L. and Curtis J. Mettlin, May 1980. American Journal of Pub-
lic Health. Cancer Incidence and Tribalomethane Concentrations in a
Public Drinking Water System. Buffalo.
Westerhoff, G. P., June 1971. Journal of American Water Works Association,
Vol. 63, No. 6. Experience with Higher Filtration Rates. New York,
p 376-386.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX
•Selected Water Quality Objectives
From the International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A-l
c
O a>
O IP
O -C &
•>-• in H
(U O 'O
E j>J • ,
flj rtj £
»— i U)
-.H *J C Ml
nj C "•* 0)
01 > rtj >
> 3 0) *J
H C rH 3 O
H O rH OI
b1 TJ O. -> -Q W
r-j QJ -H O 11
cc tn c -P O
O 3
to in w in - 4J
A. 0) D- O "D V-) O
W > -rH £ a, rfl -r-t
*J W -O C O
U c at o at t-«
o> o N £ .c
XI *> C C
rH O _Q O JJ
G> 01 O tQ
U) U (U >,*J «-4
0> J-J (0 C .J Ul
E-t o o> in u 01
ot jc in c M &«
*M -P Q* o E
iw > U U
ft* -U -r* X •
V. O 4-» rH O <
a> o> o ra
W .U 0> D •
3 O *r"> 4J W
ra n .a 3
o ao E
tn **-i
CO C
o em
•D -U O t-i 3
C 13 •*"* O- JC
o 4J i-j LI u-t
c o c o a> o
'H • a> a 0.
VJ 0 0 C
T3 C 01 E O
rH TJ O •""' H) -H
KJ 01 O & Ll 4J
O) -r-it.no
IM CJ •*-! TD O 01
O X O 01 U 4J
0) C • JC
•a ti .c -H o 4J
W «H H
4J 3 C 73 VJ
CO -H fli O
OI J^ • rJ tJ O
C *-» rH X --* •
8^, 4j a; o; w .c
QJ ,^ .^ .,-| (Q
C *J r-4 >D -U W -M
•r^ 41 *0 O «J "-*
n jc St i-i *o c ja
•O ** O) C M-i
rH C (X (O T? *J O
0) -4 O £ C ^ CP W 4)
•O Q CflJ-^O-^lJ C
•r4 \ E-iHV4r-ljCO>0> (0
O C 3 r-J CT>*U W J E *O
4-> W rH lJ rQ XT jJ W O
O 0) "D 0)0>U W QJ C rH
•r4 0) rH JC -H *r4 IM —4 2 O £
C (* < tn *0 6 O »w — 0 O
<0
o* ^^
M id
0 ~
•
rH
rQ
rH
3
O ft-1
JC .^i
ua v
at o
4-1
C 4J
•»-) ^-t
^
0»
C M
ia a>
•o o. •
M 01
O E *w
tH BJ -H
X M r-l
O fj\
0 0
O O -P U)
-H «J 0)
c e 3 -*-»
o tr -^
•H iD M -H
C 4J tp-U
0) r-t lj 01
t-t 0) ft) O U 4J
Q 0 JC JO -r-l O
Q x *J « E v<
oi 4J a
UH *H QJ ^
O *J O E • 41
o .-ix:
n c E to *> .
C 3 -U TJ (0
O -O W -H 0) M M • a o w *J
u oi oi a c Q a
813 4J >M *O CT
^ -rH O rH JJ 10
*HJ 3 JC
01 C 10 O D1 P1
j3 -rf M C .C -H C
•P 4) O W 41 -rH
U) P4-H ^ E
O JJ E <0 W JJ M
-rf 10 M -rH 01 C
E rH U 4J 14J i O
3 O cn C «- O C
U jO O 01 01 1 ~<
« V. O rH g J= M
E-I e e o s D>>M u
JJ O
gc
c E 10
O « E
•0 --H M 3
«-H JJ O1 •*-«
O 0 V4 »w
w a> a
4= 01 C
MEH rH E O
01 A 10-H
ia • -0 tr. o
S 0! i> O OJ
IVJ. V4 4J
C JJ 01 t) O
•Hi-l X — ' U 41
-i .u e a T)
C -r<
•H M C « 41 X
U ID .H . -C O
•o a o ** d
c c u
0> E-rH T3 M
10 M O» O rJ
H-l V t3 OJ IM O
O Cn C O rH
o oi x — . x;
CM oi in x: u
O o >M 'HI/I a
T< -H o jj tn -H jJ
J-> g O B a o
U O M O -*H M rH
c jj x; 41 oi jc
8-0 C W > E 0
0) OJ 3 10
41 o x: .u in 4J
01 U C U 01 C O
x; x o-n * o oi
EH 01 O «w — * O 1C
•0 01
C -v4 •
lo-o 4J wx;
oi o 9 M
M 41 U C J3 -H
O O 41 O "*-l
x; oi *j jc rH x; IO
jj *» oi x: c E
a ia M u o M 3
M 2fc JJ n -H 01 rC
jj -PH jj jj a
c c rH a vi H-I
OJ -H Ot O E O
o M x: (x 10
C 0) 01 rJ C
O 13 a"w 0) cn O
U-rt O rH O -H
X E XI l-i JJ
01 O 10 W -r* O O
x: a n c TJ -n 41
JJ OJ cn O OJ E JJ
O~H O
o o o n-r< . a
rH -H M O
E JC E JJ 41 41 41
3 o c TJ T) x; c
aarHoi-rHOJjj a
JJ O O X OJ T)
oj ao c o o u c
x ai • o a x o -H
o
c c
o
TJ -H
rH JJ
3 W
O M
-C JJ
w ai c
501
o
01 C
jj u o
a o u
01
c oj jc
•H M H
JJ
OJ -*4
CrH .
a 4i
TJ rJ
-------
A-2
fN
O 0)
»*-!
T3 -H
C <1> *H
(0 dj
Cj (j
C X --4
i-t
o o
rH X! t4
10 ui a
44
O Oi O
4J r-l 4J
a.
U4 g 01
O 10 ^4
in 4J
O H .-H
The concentrati
unfiltered wate
micrograms per
Iron
•o
01 ~
14
oi n
44 E
I-H 10
•rt 14
H4 O*>
C 0
3 1-
O
C *rl
to E
CO'
-rt 0 01
1*1 *M
C -rt
O tl -H
*4 01
•rH oi o
CJ -rt
rH X 4J
10 01 10
44 3
O 4J cr
44 o a
o «o o
rH 01
C 3 44
o o o
The concentrati
water sample sh
per litre to pr
Lead
•O »4 rH
01 a) 01 rH
M O. V4 10 .
01 4-1 01
4-1 01 -r4 C »W
rH 6 rH -rt .rt
•rt 10 rH
*4 U H 01
C CP &> ^4 CJ
3 o a 4-> -4
K -rt 4-1
C Cl Ul rH 10
18 -rt E 3
6 0) 14 CT
C 14 (U «
•rt O Cn Qi
rH O 4J
»o M in o
(0 13 O E 01
01 01 -rt 10 4J
.-i oi e w o
U Cn 14
rH X 0 O Oi
10 01 tN b
44 O O
O 4J - "H 4J
•P 0 J4 E
CO 10
u-i -rt in 01
O tl 14 CN X
rH 01 10
C 3 O.TD i-J
o o a c
The concentrati
water sample sh
litre in Lake S
in Lake Huron a
remaining Great
Mercury
•O ki
01 01 01
IH Qi u IIH
01 OI -rt
44 E drH
rH 10 rH
— i u ra £ o
**4 Cn 4J 10 -rt
C O W 4J
10 u 4-1 en ra
o o a
•rt B O 0 «>
>i" c e 4J
la . O O
n o -rt in oi
O 4J . 4J
Ll rQ 10 O O
41 01 k4 M
E 01 4J -O Dl
O C 01
rH X 01 01 O
« 01 O O 4J .
4J C X tO
O 4J O 01 — 13
4J o ti in ,4
114 o) in w J3
O -D x; -n a
C 3 C
O O*O 01 4-1 -rt
The concentrati
water sample sh
litre nor shoul
mercury in whol
gram (wet weigh
and fish-consum
Nickel
,
in 01
CM I4H
•H
01
c 01 o
a u -rt
X 4-1
c 01 to
4J cr
rH 0 <0
oi c
_y 4-1
O t3 O
•rt rH 01
C 3 4J
O O
rH X U
«j m a
O 01 O
44 rH 44
Ql
'o ro 2
111 4J
C -rt
O 14 *H
The concentrati
unfiltered wate
micrograms per
Selenium
X4
o o
rH UH
C t3 ll
a 01 01
01 4J
c
3 O
C O
10 *H
g
C
•H* O
C TJ •
••H 01 4)
H 0) *W
O-H
*H X r-t
O 01
0 4J-H
m 3
o *u tr
r-f 4
§D
O 4J
The concentrati
water sample sh
litre to protec
^
O in
C -H •
tj ro Ul
3 «H
O 4J
tn en O
X1 11 W
tn jf V4
•rt 01
>4-i 4J e
(U 3
u-i % Ul
le portions o:
am per gram ('
of human con
of lindane in edib
exceed 0.3 microgr
for the protection
Methoxychlor
Q
14 01
4-1 4J
10 'rt
C i4
•rt 01
a
14
o e
of methoxychli
0.04 micrograi
aquatic life.
The concentration i
should not exceed
the protection of
Mirex
10
4J
^
C C rH 4J
10 10 m ui
•rt . C 01
ui x 44 in to xl
E oi c e G
in VH 10 in 4J 01
c E ui c ui 4J
10 XI 10 Ul
V4 01 10 *J rH XI 01
O rH O rH
10 01 U] rQ X)
O E X) O C 01 10
•rt -rt -rt W C r-H
44 C TJ 4J 01 -rt -rt
10 <0 rH 10 E E 10
3 33 V4 >
O T3 O O' 01 01 «
a c x: Q V4 4-1
ra w u 01 >t
U4 -o £ -a o>
O M-t c -00 .C'QCC-^WtO
vj *M -H n u » «
igO) *0 M-i QJ l-( c •• i-i o cr I-H **-i - ai ocpcu*
C-H X4Jfl3>iQlU«J A — 'J-lE »WCU<i»
(U M
^
£e<;
10 (0 VI
X VH — 1
O CP^H
4J 0
M O
IM CJ -rl tO
O -rt 4-1 U
The concentration i
not exceed 0.008 m
protection of aqua
Other Compounds
Phthalic Acid Este
r;20l014J-HtH Ul
C. V4 > O E O O
C 44 -rt O
rH-rt -rt 44 IN C 04
>, r-l 0 • • O —
4J 01 01 0) O -rt
3 4-1 14 CXUH 4J 10
•rt r-l S, a) rH 0) O >
rQ 10 U 01 4-1 C
JC Ul 0 0 O 01
The concentration
di(2-ethylhexyl) p
exceed 4.0 microgr
microgram per litr
protection of aqua
esters should not
in waters for the
Polychlorinated Bi
uoitnO3 01 cj44.uo!
>,rH-rt «4 01
rH O U> C
&£. JJ E p
E 01 01 01 10
C X! ^4 "*H 4-1 rH 13 Cn
844 X 10 10 O
to in o 3 -rt in rH
01 C 44 44 Q O
O > O C C TJ
-rt .rt E 01 'rt 10 W O
C 44 01 45 4J rH 43
10 o *o in to 01 44
Cn 01 O "D 4O > 01
O J3 JJ 3 U rH
O X p Cl
IJ C rH O. 01 C •rt
OlOiOOIEXlOiu
O-rtXrH rHOC O rH C
oo xiaoioi -rt a 01
klOI-rtOlUO44-rt C 4J 10
O DHX: i43X:oiu ro oi n
b.ui3iouui>oio cn x <
V4
—. o ~
x» £ «
V4
o
O H4
n
c -a .4
10 01 01
01 44
C O *8
^ S *
O £
•r^ 4-* Q
c o u
(U C
tn 4J
M -O 0
10 rH 01
3 44
rH O O
ra .c u
4-1 U D,
0
44 01 O
i-H 4J •
^4 CX Ifl
O E oi oi
(0 W -rt
The concentrations
unfiltered water £
micrograms per lit
public water supp]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
«-<
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A-3
c
•r*i
U
c
Or
W
cu
M
o.
rt)
Jj
u
o
c
•c
rH
3
O
x:
Ul
01
rH
(0 •'
U 4J
E x:
01 4J
x:
U Ul
0 C
vi o
4J -rl
CI 4-1
a a
Vl
73 4-1
c c
10 01
0
rH C
-H 0
O 0
Vl
o
c
01
01
x:
01
«
g
rH •»
•rl 01
10
01 U-l
rH Vl
XI 3
•H 01
Ul
> x:
4-1
01
10 C
O
•o
01 C
u O
O -H
01 4J
4J 10
TJ 3
O
41 -H
XI 0
o
C 01
ra -M
O HJ
—^
fH
'"•'
..
Vl
3
O
>-
X)
TJ
at
4-1
u
a
4J
01
•o
q;
Xj
C
ra
u
**.
fH
•rl
Cl
•rl
4J
10
3
o-
a
01
rH
JO
•a
01
IM
0
01
c
•rl
4J
C TJ
•n c
10 id
4J
i*
01 01
ui 6
3 01
ifl -n
Cl C
a
C O>
10 Vl
0 O
*-~.
fH
fH
*•"
E
O Vi
4J 0
4J
O 4J
xi x: -n
CP C
'O -n 01
C Ul t)
10 -rl
>i 01
Ul XI 01
01 Vl
C 01
•H rH O
rH XI 4J
01 10
Vl 4J 01
O U 3
x: o o
Ul 4J -rl
01 Vl
C -0 01
O 4J
01 01 •
01 Vl rH 01
4J 10 01 E
•H TJ 0)
01 4J -rl
o io at c
ax: vi n
01 4J nj Ol
TJ Vi
Ul Vl O
E 4J O
C c u
o a> * -n
*M E Vt 4-1
•H 3 10
C HJ O 3
ra ai TJ 01
U Ul 0 IB
— .
•H
to
01
Cl
c
ra
4-1
10
XI
3
Ul
U
-H
c ra
B> C
vi o
O E
C E
rH <
d
01
C
~ vi o
rn O -ri
m IM 4J
2 H) IM
— 01 Vi O
M 4J
«J 4J C C
•n -ri oj o O
C rH Cl O -H
O C m 4J
fVl O U
01 u TJ at
10 Ui 01 4-1
01 O
•D 01 . o Vi
at E oj x a
N 10 "M OJ
•rl Vl -rl 01
C OlrH 4J XI
O O O 4J
fH Vl O C
1 ClfH VI
C fH 4J TJ O
3 E ra E ra
u c 4J rH ra 3 c
c o ra Vi oi
O TJ Vt 4J o> Cl IT
OrH a. o Of-i o
3 4-1 Vl rH Vl
01 O 01 U X) TJ
x: x: x: >M -*H 3 >
EH M 4j o e a a:
Vl
C 01
01 a
CP
O u
TJ «
£ 01
o
•a vi
at u
4J -H
10 6
•rl •
O 0 01
O "M
Ul OI -rl
Ul rH
•H -a
•o at o
C 01 fH
3 O 4J
x ra
IM Ol 3
O a1
c o
O C 4J
•H O
41 *o a
fl rH 4J
Vl 3 O
4J 0 H
ex: a
Oi 10
U O
c at *>
8-0
fH 01
IM Vl
01 rH 4J
JC 3 -rl IQ
1-1 o
c
4J
(0
XI
3
OT
01
01
at
o
at >i
Ul X) rH
Vi Vi
oi 4J ra
4J O C rH
ra c io3
3 c x: o
rQ -H 4J -rl
Vl rH 4J
01 3 — Ul H
Q. O 01 Ul 10
ax: E oi Oi
3 01 fH rH
at rH 4J at
x: at >, o 1-1
4J > C C fH
01 ra rH
c rH oi x:
fH 4J X) W
C 1 -n
C Ol 01 rH
ra >i vi 3 >M
X 4J O O
01 O fH jC
rH rH 10 4J
at tj Vi
C 11 Vl 4-1 O
C > 01 fH Ol
ra rH Oi Oi
x: o -3
U Ul 01 Ul (A -
in E Vi io
c c *o vi 4J x: -ri
01 fH O» 10 4J O
Ol 4J OlfH 3 01
>i ci x: H vi a
X 01 4J rH O O 01
O C -n fH IM
C •• E 4J Vl
•a o ui 01 >i ai
at o oio c Vi 4J
> .x • e ra ra
rH at ra "* -n io 3
O JC |J rH 0)
io 4J c o o> T)
n oi ra a OrH
•H cx:x: >, c o
a M 4J 4J x: c o
O Vi tw
4J 10 O
•O
in C 4J
. 3 to
x: o
01 4J Vl
en ««
C 4J
id (0 ol
rl 4J
S -H
01 o< c
x: 3
4J 01
-c m
oi 4J .
•a o
•rl O
in a- c
4J C 10
3 M x:
Ox: 4J
u
at at
XI at Vi
x: at
u c
•o n O •
<-l-n N U
3 "D Vl
O at at
JC. -O 01 4J
Ul rH 3 10
X O 13
CXx: at .u
Ul 4J C
m o *> S5
01
3
Vi
o
a
Ul
o
x:
Ai
0 01
E Ol
Ul O Vl
x: o a
0) 4-1 11
x: 3x1 n
4-1 O 4J
V. >, C
O DI ra • oi
4-t E oi E
Ol 01 01
>D Cl Vl 3 Vl
01 C O -H
4-t 10 Vl 3
•H Ul 01 01 O1
E -H Vl 4-1 01
•H 3 a a vi
•-1C 3
4J rH
01 4-1 10 rH O
Xi c x; id Vi
0) 4J fH 4J
•a > o c
rH 01 Ul -H O
3 Vl 01 *M O
O Oi E Ol
x: -H c ui —
10 O rH Ol 3 •
4J 10 XI vi ,n >,£ x
•n U c c a at
4J ra « a 01 c
ra ui o c
Vi 01 01 o JC <
4J O) -O 4J Oi
c o at c
at c 01 oi ci-ri
Cl C 3 3 -H
C O i O ra
rH 01
a E u
a o
3 M Cl
u IM fH
4J
vi at oi
01 01 JC
4J M 4J
a i a
OrH
-H rH Vl
rH 10 O
XI -H IM
3 4J
a c vi
01 3
3 01 O
a 01 TJ
a a o
4J a
c —
ai
4J
O
(j
V4
01
x:
C T3 Vl
fa at ai
01 4-1
con
•H x 3
oi
01 3
•O 4-1 4J
•H rH O 0) C >
4-» Ot O > Ol rH 4J
(0>O4-H 4JQO VlUl
CO1 MOIOIOIC 0113
01
V 01
c x:
rH4J
at »
01 -n C T3 (0 ^1 Vl i
o ra TJ o 3 <
XrHCUrHOCIM
at u « ra -H n '
01 4J Vl E7>
•4-10104-101
-C C -I 3.
S« 3 g Oi
a:
s.?
QU
•HC
Viai
10 VI
4J 3
c ic
o >J
oi >
4J4J •••HrH
> COfOOr
-HrHU-lOVlCOi
S'OOIrllsO 4J G> Vl *
l> 01 01 tj d Ol 4J
Ul 01 > rH C 4J O
•o *Qai ra^oio4-i
-ri oi rH at E 3
rH vi 01 x; ai ra IM
,
rM i*-j ui w U •-« 4*t
W O Ul' g «f S".
-»4)
•O O 4J
c o
U-l M
0-0 til
C 3 «
O OJ=
-tx: *i
JJ 10!
« b
X • o
JV'H'IM
C Q.
• e at
O 13 Vl
C » 4-1 C
8-rt O,
VI rH -H
at x:
at 4J vi 4-1
x: n at D
H » a
•o n •
oi vi at
Vi cniM
at o -r<
4J Vl rH
rH O
•r* -rl (J
W
CPO 4J
c o
U-l Vl
Q 10 P*
/•*
c D at
o o x:
« w
tt ffl! (O
01 e ai c
own* o
C M 4J -HL
8f< XT
Vl H 4J
oi ra
01 4J Vl Vi
x: ra ai ra
EH > A Ci
•o
at g
Vi 10 •
oi vi 01
4-1 OHM
rH O fH
•rl Vl rH
4J
cm a
no 3
c°. 8s
fH O
U4
C TJ O
O 01
-H 01 C
x: u o
4J X fH
•0 01 4J
rl U
Ct O 4J
c s
B TJ ft
C 3 01
O O J=
jj m TD
* Vl
i;s&
c a,
111 B at
LI ra vi at
C <0 4J CU
8 IK r-H Vl
x; ra oi -w
EH 3 Oi O
c c
01 B >,
4J -rl C
01 TJ ra
•n 01
01 E vi
Vi B O
OJ Ol U
ax:
I 4J 4J
c to
HIM at
O -P
*m Vi
•a o 3
oi . o
•n o x!
IM I
fH *O VO
O 01 01
oi at
a u a
to x •
§"§2
4J -H
IM O C O
O C O 01
fH Ol
C TJ 4J d
O rH •
-» 3 VtrH.
« JC C Ol
vi a 01 o
•U Ulrt
c n c
oi at o *
o TJ O >
8 OrH 4J
-H a -H
111 g? (o
01 UT4Ut C
x: o> u a?
EH am a
a
co
Vl
01
x:
tg V
C C >l>rl
ra Vi ra c -H
O -rl «JrH
n TJ
at rH at u u
o ra E o -n
C fH Irl 4J
oj U at a
4J 4J £ 4-1 3
M 01 c 4J ra o-
xi 3 fH oj a
3 TJ IM 4-1
U) C 4-1 O 4J
•H C u O
ci aim 3 at
fH * td O O 4J
X rH 01 • XI O
o ra no i vi
4J Ol Ol U? Ol
4-1 Cl 01 01 Q
C-H X) 01 « *»
01 C U
4J 2 -^ X C W
ago ai-r< ai
fH C -1
to
-------
A-4
U
2
O
U
O
Q
U
f-4
M
M
,_J
rH
rH
rH .C
4J IM W E
LO Q; QJ
'O C OI
o, ox:
x: o N t»
0)
x: w w •
4J 01 3 to
•H VJ 0>
S 3 -O Vi
w a> 3
C (D JJ W
O QJ ••-* «J
-H E £ QJ
4J •«"* E
(0 a» rH
JJ X 01
rH «J 4) W
w 3 x:
C rH JJ 4J
0 rH 3
O nj *w c
x: o
C U) t)
•H C 4J
.. <0 H
* ui O
01 4J cn CX
o- c c a*
-•H Q) —* V-l
4J e jJ
VJ C U) rH
P« 01 X 3
> OJ C
QJ O C
x: o •-< fl
E-. rH
rH fl C
(0 fl
-rH 0) ••
O X> Oi QJ
C -H M T3
•H V-J fl p
> O Q,rH
O Ul QJ O
• ^ 0) r-. C
rH fi* 'O £X-"*
in
(U 0>
> Cn
•r-4 .U
JJ 10
m x: «.
4J O Ul
•rH 01 VJ
rH ">H Of
fl 'O 4J
cr ,
emu
fl 3 fl
T3
ai ai c
> O 3
--H vj o
4J a xi
fl o
4J W O
fl 4J
JJ 4J
C C — *
«I -rH Ul
3 Q Oi
cr CX-.H
LJ
•a --H «
C rH JJ
10 ro 3
_Q
C "*H -ft
O O Xj
•rH JJ
JJ C
10 o tj.
O -rH C
-rl JJ IH
i! -3"°
JJ V4 r-l
COO
01 Ul C
T3 01 -H
IH -0 —
^^
10
— •
ia
OJ
c
O
N
01
UI
3
T)
01
ft ft
e «
•rH 01
14
V4 10
O J=
1*4 O
to
Ul -rH
OJ TJ
14 *o
id OJ
-O-l
3 -n
_Q C
01
I4J *O
O-n
c o
O J-r
•r4
id OJ
01 C
C CT'
rH Ul
o> ui
a a
^*K
JD
01 "D
TO C
3 10
•D •-
OJ ul
jj m
•H Ul
E 3
•rH
rH rH
10
•D "H
01 O
aU-l
01
o c
VJ 01
ax)
OJ rH
JJ
**H C
O 01
JJ O
0 ft
10
a-o
g c
TH IQ
01 0>
j: c
jj
*H in
O--I
x
c
01 C
E O
U)
n to
OJ O>
U) C
10 O
< N
^^
o
«^
-O 01
01 N
JJ -rH
•rl Ul
•rH C
Uj C
0 0
•H
C O JC •
OJ 3 4J >i
X 01 3 O
01 ,4 rH
01 O
01 01 O C
j= rH c x;
JJ X) 10 O
•r4 rQ OJ
U-l to J-l ±J
O Ul o
o o jj
c a u c
o a oi
•n E e
Ul 3 C JJ
•H g -H 10
> — 1 01
01 X 10 rJ
U 10 OJ JJ
E C
-o o 01
C 01 N JJ
10 > Ul
01 x: n
i -H o »
01 x: 3
-H o in c
> a -H
0) IM
rJ O O Ul
cr JJ c
c in o oi
"H OJ 01 g
3 C lw 01
r" Q '1 | **
••H N OJ O
JJ M
c oi -a ft
O M C g
O 3 10 -H
^*
•a
of the
discharges,
lions per
lowing
Ul 10 rH
1-1 rH Cfl O
OJ 10 KH
JJ -rH C
•o u o oi
Ul rH JJ
>t 3 rH
W -O '"H J?
•0 C S JJ
c •-( >
3 V4
O O U4 OJ
JJ i*j O O
c
01 -O 10 10
x: 01 tn -o
4J JJ 01 rJ
n o o
c c x o
-n tr OJ O
J3 -H 10
JJ Ul C
•H 01 ~H C
3-D -H
in
Ul 01 01 »
'11 .O CPO
C rJ ,~H C
E ui o a
•rH -*H f^
l-l UI C ••
01 3 OJ 10
X e r4 01
10 O rH
rJ rJi-rH
• t4 C 10 rJ
3 4J
f\ *—
JJ-H
01 0)
x: x:
EH 4J
,««
10
01
5
o> o
W >i C
3 XI O) 'O
jQ Cn C
4J Ul rH 0) Of
•rt fl fl XI rH
E x) x; x)
••H ui » «j
rH 0) Of C
W 0) 01 O •
fl 01 N VJ Ul V)
O ••-* CF* fl 01
(Ml Ul 01 Ot U
O >, -0 H 3
XI Oi Ul
c I x: o> rH ra
O OJ H rH r-l QJ
••H Ul J3 fl 6
JJ fl — 1
fl O • w >,4J
O >t Ul J2 C
0*000 o*
r~* c P* o> e
C OI rH JJ
jj O cn j-» x> fl
O fl Ul fl 01
fl *D 01 C M
X ft) >, JJ -H 4J
o> -H v-i fl fl
*w O 0» -4J JJ
•a --H jj \j +J c
C O fl O> (0 0>
fl OJ rH 3
CX 3 OI JJ rH
iH rH fl rH
*rH xi T) x: xi
N x; ui N u
to o e oi jj
QJ £X-<-< CP O
o* c w c r-i ia
,C O OJ *«H fl V-i
^t N rJ £ rH CU
f.^
JQ
01 UH
x: O
O VJ
JJ 10
13
01 C
rH 3
XI 0
10 JJ
o
•H OJ
•H x;
ft
q JJ
10
to
C JJ
O Oi
-H e
jj
•rH 01
•D J3
C
O rH
Or-l
It)
a
Ul TJ
01 Q •
> JJ Ul
-H 01
•U IH C
O OJ O
U JJ N
•r-i n
xi ft oi
O Ul
tn 3
u c
•rH -rl IQ
•rl -rH JJ
O 01 —4
OJ O E
a oi-5
CO rJrH
_— _
o
1-1
o
01
0
01 N
o 01
«JH Ul
•D 01 3
C XI
10 -D
-o OJ
rH 01 JJ
O '*H £
• r4 44-1 ^H
Ul 01 rH
x: "° >
ft 01 01
-D C '
rH rH 10
10 rH
O ID IU 01
-4 J= O C
E in 0
01 C
jn M O D1
0 C ~t C
O -U -H
•»-rH 40 4J
IH jJ o in
10 -rH O -H
O rQ rH X
TH C OJ
cn O OJ
O o x: c
rH JJ 10
O rH
JO O C C
Cn CT- rJ JJ
c o 01 o
JJ O -H .J
Ul r-l U] JJ
•rf T) c in
X >, O OJ
u x: o >j
,-^
T)
JJ
g
rH
rH
fl
^
01
3
rH
10
OJ
W
3
O •
u! in
OJ 01
1J C
O
rH N
10
l-l 01
3 10
JJ 3
id
C rrj
OJ
,4 -rt
10 E
C -rt
"H rH
t-i in
O iO
40
rl T3
4J 01
X 4J
OJ a
c
O-rH
U) 0)
10 -O
OJ
V4 OJ
< XI
,MS
OJ
^
migratory
o
Ul
01
u
fl
Jb
g
Q
JJ
^
m
x:
QJ
c
N
Ul
"O
4J
-H
g
-H
ij
^^
*w
QJ £ (U C
O u. x: c -H o O
•H 0» W *W O rH N
X) -H -rt O -r-« C
u c jj x: o o»
x: QJ --H ui o CT»-.H x:
..H Ul -rH JJ -U O <0
S -O 3 O VJ U C
jj o r-i x: o -H
U fl O 4J
Ol 4-1 O) OT >i-H
M-j }_i •>. « i-t tn j^ ^
v-i o e >•••-* fl
•*J E JJ Oi CJ1 0) C
•«H >i fl r-l O 4-* ft
14-1 Ul C -.H 4J
i-i o o ox:4J oj '* O -.H ID
u) c i-i x: 1 <0
CX en— * C rH o> tn
••H CX e CT> H W
fl J-i t) Oi O O ^ *O
30 u) Cm
cr x: n o x: >i
0> -H rH »W rH
H | tfj r; {0 •*•( 3 0) Vj
-H o a> i c
oj 3 QJ »w w x; N w
4J E 1-1 0) U O>
3 E O"1 C l"i "»H 0> C
O O 0) 01 O ,C M O
iVj O *O -Q *W 3 3 N
limited
j=
jj
c
-H
X!
JJ
•H
J
•a
81
jj
E
C
01
a
0>
j5
^j
o
c
rH ••
rH X!
a o
x; -H
to
C Ul
O 01
*•! O
TH N
TJ
C 01
O in
U 3
^^
C7<
(U rH O
(U Q.-H
X 3* Ul
Cl W QJ
e
o o -o
C 4J
301-1
o -H o
u jj o
3
tn ft-o
»o c
c c «
3 ••*
O 01
c. o ^
E t4 Ul
C JJ 10
O -rH JJ
rH OJ C
O ft->-4
01 E cn
J= 10 4Q
4»H O O
O 14 01
M -H O
rH
OJ
a a>
OJ • O
tH rH JJ
o oi
01 c
JJ rH -rH
—i jj c e
in rq 8)
01 01 JJ JJ
M c 01
oi o in
JZ 81 01 W
•u tr> rj x; 40
HI -rl U]
40 jj 01 i-i e
c xi oi ui
oi « jj o c
4J JJ O rH 10
40 C O>
«1 -D rH O
41 a r-* --1
x; 10 3 3 01 t
JJ O O CO U)
X -C 01 JJ
cn jJ w o x: w
C 10 -rl JJ 01
81 in o O
JJ >vrt Ul -rt
C JJ C C >,4J
01 -H 10 O JJ ft
> DI -H -rH 01
tn TH rJ JJ rH rH
1 81 JJ O IU -rl O
O O l-l XI C
40 -H C JJ O>
J-l C JJ 01 ft ,4
Ul 10 A) O 01 O
JJ g 3 C O
3 3 cr o o >,
» x: jj jj
01 C rH
rH 01 10
4J 01
rH x x:
10 01
o c
j-i c. e
O 4J 3
Q x;
14 ° -
aiJ o
in oi to
OJ rH JJ
31 rH O
o o v
rH >H UH
OJ C OJ
JJ O rH
a
o
U]
ftrH X!
01 3
X O JJ
x: c
JJ 01
O 81 O
a >,
c >,
« B 14
o «
JJ C t» V4
BJ -rH tO 01
OJ 81 ft
jj -o o e
W C 01 81
< a c E-i
O 01
JJ
40 14-4
x: o
11
01 !Q
3
4J r-H,
13 a
01 81
ft C
E 01
CO
cn o
c o
40 rH
o >,
o *
JJ
^1
S »
•a
O >i
H 11 •
^ Ul
rH 21 81
01 > JJ
x;
10
"ie
a o
» C
40
M-n O O B
8i c tr in
JJ 3 C 01 10 >,
10 E -rl rJ 4J XI
- JJ 3 ft O 5
81 10 ft ft
\J--O
4J ja ,4 4J 3 *O
- V4 x: oi to-
10 "H JJ rH CJ
IH TJ 81 JQ 01
O in « « w
01 rJ C
C U 01 rH O OH
O C X: rH TH O
-H ia jj -H jJ
HJ ** O > O 81
u a u 3
• ai
rJ Ul
O 01 oi
in
•H o> >i
JJ C OJ C
•rl 3 10
•H"" O 3
jj • x:
o Q in
•rl O O O
jj 10 in
OXI-rH 1J
ai -a o
>,
c a in
c
•M -rH Ul
O rJ
rH 10 H)
O 01
>1 40
^ •§
gc c ui n
Bl 0) 4-H O 81
on
4-rtC
VI rH
ft E «J
01 rJ >H il
81 3-M< 81 81
)H 81 -O JJijB JJ V4
O VJ C O 11rH> «
fclK-rt ID OT8 Ck
*> Q
C J
o o
O HI
O OJ C O
« V4 81 01
O rH 3
•-* *O C
>1 O O -H
Q HJ ft U)
JJ C
O 01 6 «0 CO
HH xj c
3 JJ JJ O J
^3 tQ 10 10 -H <
• •£ i, tl M
3Jl JC 41 U
• •O •*' C S
•"'S 3 B t-l
w» o V4 QHTJ Q
« JC-H o c <
X • > c a 5
rO3>,OCrHTHOJC: VJJJH
tnoioo-rig OOtnvix?
OjJrif-M rIccicii40«JO
COIJJEC ai i-i n o 01 -H
D)C>OIE>)UHe3 rH M >,4J
v< oeoxojjooi cr. u o
ci ti o jj THia>« oa
x:ra cjJjJOHJaiooi3tH
>, 01 jj * a B> j: c o v< g n
-HlO-rtOJ.J'^ UT) OrHO
CM
CM
HJ8
C O
8J a
O3-H
oo-o
r-IMn'OJ
«i 4i4J
: c 3
i jj o
I O *H
i — O
o 'a
81 ili O
rH 104
•D «
tn o> O
TH O J3
rH f-H
xi o 01
*J T1 O
Sis'*
I-I 01
at>.
81
c
O.o
o e
V4
HT<
JJ rH
40 -H
X B
o oj o o a
•rH rH TJ ft-rH
4J 81 W rJ
" ID Vi O
to x: ft
81 ro . JJ O
> 01 81
C "D •-! * 81
TH c xi e c
«i I > S^
a o x: rH jj
O 01 O TH 81
10 M to E -o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A-5
la
o
*5
H
10
CO
Ul
o
H
EH
ARDOUS POLLU
M
<
X
rH
rH
re
X
Ul
in
e Partie
.c
Sn
rH
44
(O
TJ O
C Vi
re o
in
•H IM O 01
X O -rt X
44 44 44
- (0
nj -~ n o
O i-H CT4J
n)
rH X "O
•-< C 01
X TJ O Ol
•ri C Vl
T3 01 W 10
c O.4J x:
«1 D. CJ O
(X < 41 in
O* *M -ri
< in IM T3
10 41
in cn
re O 0 C
44 -ri -ri
C X 01
S -0 0 XI
O 41 44
M Vi oi O
41 >
41 IM 10 X
XI 4) X in
Vl -ri
0 0 Vl
44 Vl 44
01 «J
-44 C
44 IM 3 -a
w m o c
•* G C K —
rH-ri JJ E
41 01 4)
a Vi in w 44
01 41 -ri w
C X 0 rH >,
•ri — C U]
10 10 rH
44 x 44 re tn
c a in e 4i
•ri C XI -ri .*
10 c D c re
S < in re >-]
"re
^*
10 Vi
01
X U4
in u in
•ri IM 3 C
x O « re
44 Vl
-^ 41 44
IM ^- c x
O fS 10 44 41
rH
IN X Ul O X3
•ri 44 44 -ri
x TJ u in
•H C 01 >i ID
13 41 >M 44 Q
C Q O
C C -H C
S -o -ri cn 10
O 41 > 44
c M re o ui
j; Vi x 44 xi
Ol 3
list, to be
einafter ref<
potentially
scharge, and
n of these si
x 1;
,
in c/i
e 01 in
10 «~i 01
Vl 41 X
cn Vi 10
O J
Vl IM
CL n jj
3 implement ;
te the risk i
to the Great
velop am
eliminai
bstances
Oi Vi 3
Q O U
•O
*^
sted in Appendix
owing
•H rH
rH rH
3 a
01
0 X
44 44
in x
41 44
O -ri
c »
10
44 41
in u
n r?
polluting sul
3 in accordai
zardous ]
eterminei
a >o
x
oi in
X] 01
rH 3
rHT3
10 01
X U
in o
• Vi
CN rH (t,
or listing in
ed toxicological
been evaluated
y acceptable.
IM 44 41 rH
C >rH
in oi re ra
01 EX 3
O 3 44
C OX 3
(0 o o B
44 13 -ri
in X 01
XI c S XI
3 O
W 04 <0 O
3 44 44
« 10
O 41 0)
Vi ro re 41
re XI -H 01
M 44 "d
10 41 C
X XI 41 -O
4J C
rHrH O O
rH rH O.
a a in
X 4) 41
IM tn CH-H
O Vl 44
rH 10 U
C X n)
O X O Pt
•ri -H W
44 TJ -r* 41
0 C TJX
41 41 4-1
rH £X*O
0) CX C >,
w «; (oxi
•J
IM>
mutual consent
amendments to
XIII of this
>, in u
XI IflrH
U
41 -O-ri
TJ 01 44
(0 44 Vl
e i 01 in
10 XI 01
E m
rH 0
rH «"H Pi
10 Vl
X X 3
•rl Ul D.
•a
C "O 41
-H Vl
Oi IM X Cn
« 0 4J«!
X)
>. -0 >M
rH 01 O
>, l/l in TJ
iOO!3Cn OC 4141
exoc ao 44 x
44 -ri -ri 41 O -H C 44
>1 > > X U 44 41
44 O 0) >ri 44 Q, 01 E 41
Vl 44 Vl 4) rH 3 XI
(0 (X O S 41 O. O
d, -a oi tux B >. o >i
vi "d o > Go E
41 *O C >, 01 44 440)
xio 44 vi o cn ro X) t3
4-1 >O Vl 01 C rH C
•ri 01 0> fO O -r-l-ri 3 44 (0
C w C 41 3 >,
- O oiin oi vi E: 44
ra 44 4> .c >, vi a vi •
•H o H re o> o c re CQ
M 4) C T) X 1> -H O CM C
01 O ro 44 U 44 .ri O
44C44 . O -ri £ Ul 44 O>'ri
V444X1 44 £ 41 -ri 10
C 3 "0(0(03 Vi-ri O
Oinxcx ui vi 44 cn
•rl O 41 C O Vl -ri 41
O W (XrH -ri jq rH !M -ri
01O1 < -ri 4-J 44 10 Vl
rHE 2 tQ V1414141
W 4J rH -1 C C a-O 3 44 44
O 41 41 4> (0 Vl
OIC-ri41443OO 4JIM
(4 Cin-oo Q. • -o >i
O< E T3 44 C 44
E~4l-riioa.Vi3
D -ri
1 Cn rH
01 rH
C C-H
O-ri E
•H
rH
•*r re
O Vi
C 41
•ri 01 Vu
rH
ul cn in
rH C E
re -H re
c a -H
10 rH
C rH
IM -ri -ri
0 E
•o
C 41 O
•ri 41 Vl
44 44 C O
io in ra
rH -ri JZ •*
3 C 44 44
£E tn CT>
13 Ul -ri
10 01 41
tn c
41 41 vi N
44 X O 'P
a oxi
in 44
IM in IM
O CJ rH O
rH 10
•M 3 E
1-1 rl IT fl
(d O w Li
x cn
I in oi o
oi >• n iH
c re o -H
o 13 •a x
•ri
-~
3INT CONTINGENCY PLAN
£r
. y.
O O W
^ o o
flj r! JJ 4J
a "Joint Canada-United States Marine
Plan for the Great Lakes {CANUSLAK)"
74, shall be maintained in force, as
ime. The Canadian Coast Guard and thi
ard shall, in cooperation with other
tify and provide detailed Supplements
of particular concern in augmentatiol
the responsibility of the United Sta
nadian Coast Guard to coordinate and
the Supplements appended to the Plan.
X O^4-*3CfD4j(0
H >,r-i u o c ja u t3
u o 'o & c
• C » -*J 4-1 -H i-H 41 flj
C D O U) X. iH jS
(0 CT»(N tt) nj » W (0 *-* C
*HC EOW'^-C w
*J C 4J -M C A»
0) C D W4JJ^AJ*0
.C O >-3 6 01 VJ O*Ht CJ 'O -4-> 3 (Q
OJJ'D 0» U y)CQ*J4J
»H o (Li •«-»'*•«' (US nj-H
r^eumnjs ra raoOE
«,
41
X T3
44 C
(D rH
C 10
•ri rH -ri
purpose of the Plan is to provide fo
ated response to pollution incidents
responsible federal, state, provincia
Ian supplements the national, provinc
the Parties.
cidents.
41
X
E-i
t
o>
in
O
C
s,
M
M Pi C
cn >i
XI
0
01
X
H
^-.
XI
oi re
•0 X 41
C 44 Vl
a a
cn
lop appropriate preparedness measures
ve systems for discovery and reportin
ce of a pollution incident within the
by the Plan;
Ol-ri C -O
> 44 01 41
41 U 44 Vl
•O 01 M 01
IM-ri >
O IM X O
EH V V tl
•ri
itute prompt measures to restrict the
spread of the pollutant; and
4J Vl
c x
•ri 4J
Vl
0 3
EH IM
iH
•H
— ••
C
0
•ri
44
3
ide adequate cleanup response to poll
ts.
> c
O 01
H -0
CU*H
o
o c
EH *ri
"ri
*ri
•ri
*-*
rl
01
•D
C
3
costs of operations of both Parties
e by the Party in whose waters the
urred, unless otherwise agreed.
4) C U
X Vi O
t* 0 O
XI
• 44
crt o' c
C XI 01
•ri *rj
t) rH «ri
C -1 O
3 re c
u
c
c o
IQ **4
rH 44
n. 3
rH
41 rH
• x o
'O
01
**
O AI
•*-* .C
he Canadian Coast Guard and the Unite
empowered to amend the Plan subject
amendments shall be consistent with t
of this Annex.
E-i
.
44
C
Ol
e
•o
c
0>
1
in
V Ol
IQ O >
3 **H
'O W AJ
k-t O
iT3.ua>
a «j -r-»
o x .a
U) jJ *O
(fl
LJ p
U) 1-J W
OJ -H O
4J 3 Q^
flj CT ^
*J (U 3
CO M &
-------
A-6
10
r-l a 0
0 .-I
c K -~i
•H ra ry
w c u
rH rti 0'
m 04
E O
-•H JJ I/I
C E
ra TJ «
Q) Vl
i*-i 10 tjt
O O-H
a-i
C X rH
O 41 -H U
•H gO
rH i-H O 01
3 nj oj Vi
a. e 3
O 1J C O
O. oi ra x
01 C (N
at oj 01
jj x: 10 n
? 01 O
HI rH "M
Ul
IM yi vi jJ
O 41 O £
rH D^
»W O -r*
10 O *
I m a >,
0> >i 3 TJ
d ra rr O
o -a u a
,«
* 01
••H O H
01 O JJ
rH 0 C VJ
10 01 O
E VJ U
•r< 3
C O O V4
10 P«-H 3
ra XI O
IM > 3 X
0 U
10 01
c o c
O O CM O
•rl JJ
JJ C Vi
10 *o ra o
»H i O Vl
c ra — i oi
O T3 JJ Bi
*^
^
•H
Ul
0 >1
in Q
o •a
•n, 01 01
11-1 -iH *? 01
•H rH Q)
OX rH
OJ O H
01 X > O
3 O
E O
3 01 0) JJ
E 01 VJ
•r4 rtj 3 rH
X E JJ 10
10 O rH 3
E *|H 3 D*
XI U 01
a •
1 JJ 01
01 a) C A
10 rH 0)
01 10 C O 0)
o x p 10
01 JJ JJ U VJ
IU O*
VJ VJ JJ *rl
10 O 01 >0 rH
VJ 3 rH
O 0) O E-H
rH JJ rH 3 g
IM 10 -H
VJ JJ TJ O
•H x ai B n
ra » a c
3 O Vj >0
tr u o c x
< DIO.-H w
^^
^
•^
01
<0
01
a
w
n
01
jj
10
01
u
01
X
jj
O
JJ
c
•H
o<
Vi
a ..
x >.
a
•H *Q
•o oi
B
o'e
VJ
j^ HI
U 4J
•H Of
.^
J3
arges
£
U
n
•o
IM
O
^,
VI
o
JJ
10
•rl
X
01
Jj
B
O
^ 1
10
E
C
O
uj .«
B »
•H Jj
E
6-0
wTj
01 U
X Q
JJ
Q Vl
0 0
^^
^H
*^
C 01
ra B
Vi
JJ 0)
VJ JJ
O JJ
a ra
o) Oi
B
ra c
VJ 0
JJ-H
JJ
CXI
M VJ
3 JJ
>a 01
M
01 *O
vi n
•H C
M a
rH 01
(TJ W
•0 3
E Ql
J5
0) 4J
5 a»
c
cn*H
B C
VI 6
a C
01 01
n j>j
01 01
rfj *O
«i^
•H
•H
•a
01
V4
o
Q.
•H
&
•O
01
Vj
Jj
o
10
c
si
^
jj
B
01
TJ
tH
***
•«H
•rJ.
-_-
•2
jj
ra
JJ *O
VJ
o o
4J U
o
n 10
01
u c
ra^
10 01
a B
3 "**
U E
VJ
en Oi
B JJ
•H 0)
3
rH 0)
•H JO
O
rH
o) ra
3X ••
O w w
•a oi
Vl X Vl
ra oi 3
N E -O
10 B 01
**%
\J
>, W M
rH -H Ol
rH X
«J JJ Ol
•H C
JJ *J -rt
C O *
U 0
JJ «S rH
O rH
Pi X O
•O
C 01
aix
&4J
• C "H
>i *O
JJ CO)
>i a -i O JJ
J3-H . O O
>1-rJ. B 01
N V JJ X O rH
O -H O -H 01
X B U JJ JJ U
^J n IM -H O rH 10
-o jj o x jj rae o>
CM O>i>JJVJ X«
O. 3 01 OiJJ 01 IM 01
O|iH O lOrH
JJ4J.Q3-HI1I-HIV • -D
CO JJ *O 10 *rl ra B B B ra rH
OllOrl XJJOO>0)N-rl
C JJ N B*4J B - 3 CX
10 ra -H >i u o TJ
JJ O>X BOI -.JJOVJrHOI
JQ -H rH 01 10 O O >"H 9
U-H-HEJOJJEOOIE
Vj jj o oi a o> O>D
01 01 V4 3 O 01 X O
&O ^ 3 *r4 ra *r4
•,jj m C JJ O Vi O»M x
gOiUOO-H ».OViO^
aiOE'a JJCXEC
jj jj aoiUfHU)-rJ.D<
VJ •O'O O-HjJ-njJ3«
PiCVlJJQOlOlO ^JIOOI
•HOIB-r4jJDIJ>>rJ'OUa
^•k
a
~"
s_
XI
0>
i
rH
rH
a
£
n
O)
x
•o
B
01
Ol 10
< 01
•H
E JJ
O V
vi ra
IM pi
10 Ol
Ol X
U JJ
B
(0 IM
JJ O
10
XI JJ
3 E
10 01
II)
IM B
O O
U
rH
0 rH
> ra
O 3
01 3
« e
*-*
XI
~*
O 01
H4
C 01
0 E
•n ra
jj VJ
id 4J
•H 01
ra .a
X-rl
ai in
10
01 O
x (X
u
o o
JJ IM
&lf*l
JJ
•H M
Vj-r«
O'O
•r« B
Vi 01
aai
01 <
T< 6
D>-r1
rHI?
ra JJ
£ 10 .
lO-rlrH
n x
01 01 "H
•rl Ol TJ
JJ O B
VJ C 0>
10 ra cu
(Q rtj
01 XI
X 3 O
E-i U JJ
^^
U
*^
o
JJ
3
rH 10
rH 3
O O
"2
IM ra •
O N CO
ra
rKXTI
M B
•H IM a
rl O
01 rH
x ra a
JJ 01 01
o x
r-l O, 01
O 01 E
4J-O <
E
o *o c
O C-H
a
O -0
C B
Ol-rl-H
oi rH ra
VJ-D jj
3 C B
n a o
rax u
01
B * 01
01 VJ
C 18
ra M n
O 01
Ul JJ U
E vi B
ra ra
tPJJ 10
O Vi A
VJ O 3
Ai O.U
m
B en
ra B
VJ-H
3
13
• Vi O
in IM ft
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
"'i
i
fz
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
A-7
u
u
I
in
m
o
in
o
o,
01
3 u a
o -< u
a w oi 41
e: 10 -o ID n
< .0 •** *O fl
tJ O> -H lj 01 O> *H H &> 0>
< C -u ai ID a 01 O 41 41 M 01 "O "O 01
X *H 10 41 *O 0> 0> &> 41 Ot 3 0* HJ fll O E *O •»•*•** *U 01 OlOt
01 *O 0) flt AJ O EE V< *r^ 'O lO 'O *J 0* ^ *O **4 0* *M flj 01 fl> ^* BJ *H J^ -H £ O O *O *O *O ^ 0> *H 01 •*** *^ 41
*O £*i 0> 41 4J 10 _O O O ^4 ^ C *H (0 4J O *H X 4J O € *O 41 fll ^1 3 Q 01 O *^ 3 **"! "H *r4 O *O *M *O 0) M M flj ttt At
Vl O *U "^ 01 r-( 'U *^J 41 N 10 f ^ 3 £} tO O O V4 O O X4 i~l *^ t4 U^ ^U 41 O O 41 10 *** U IM O i~t O JZ X 3 *O M **^ *~t 3 41 01 10 •*-<
fa'U>in3eo «H j^vja oa»-H-^-»H.r4io'ojrx-Hi-(iH>ix-H33aiaxj:4i aioMwu^iwc-^-H-HC •H*n^-(outi55'0 -HDO
>t-^ X>tO*-H VJ OOCO <£Q0CQO10}DOUOOC>'GMXOCOMCOCOttHH<0 04p*H£^H£^>Ha>^ihVfiO Uv^j^iH 4l&>Oup
ID < «C « u C —i fH£E EEEEEEeEEEEEEEgEEEEEEeiD >, >i >,>,>, X U 41 U333O-H
tl 01 -HC 1»-l*HfHr-l (fl'H33
10-^-H o >,>,^4rt-r< ^ifH-H ccccccccccccccccccccccc •HBBeeeecdccesoiooo:
4J414l4l4141O>i>lEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOfHr-l-rt-H-H-r4-H.HOia>Cia)OI-HNNNN
oooooooorHHrHiH§iB^i|l§i§J§iilililileijccccccc^t'Vj^V'ioooiwaiaioia)Oi333oiS
-------
A-8
id
O
,
JJ >, 01 01 C
id U JJ 01 >D 01 01
tw OJ oj »o -H *O A
CO Q id i) 9 13 O 3 O « 01
73*0 C 01 10 CO Oli-lr-ttni-l.il
E oi .H -i 0) 11 u Hi o»4i4iO)id4JC.He a 01x010 jc a us a
3 *u a> u u *o £ 0) *J v •a>iiaio>^o 41 tt^otT} •o^'ac *ocj^iut3C
•H-M4J >4!i41*H*H aJ id id •H**HfljidO^i jJU^-l 4)C •H2'O**-'6)4) *H£>iAI **4 ^iC'HOtO)
ci4id C E3 O>o>id0* 0> C E5 MC^*wO4J OiUus C*H u*^i"4X4J4J x^'.c.c U XQJM^JU
couot *o uoid id oijj'uvj'o o)4Jvaiid o *aid.Uf-i>H>Hijid4IT}IMIt4O UCUC UlX^Q>Q)ldUlldr-t>i O*HE^ >^*H 3 O N C Id C O
10
§
S « o
3 4J «;
n id ^ «i «
c "c ? •* « a
41 4) 'WO 0»C UrH
C<*4 *H 4J<*-I§ *H*M MX
4>o)vj u o)oto> O II 1) ^3 -O O 0) < 1OID*JB 01. "O *^ 3
.HtX>£ **^ "04^4^^406114 0)Vi'OOIO)0)OI4JM O( 01 C33'O'OO)Q>
UCC'Hg'HOOCJO* (M 0)>H Id aOOMtH 4Jld*H4J4J4J4JIOO tt C f~t C i-l-H<*4>-4~44J4J
naimnnciiiiuO'O rH C CV14J'D*Mi-f^iO3 QOMidfdldCOIO 0) OlE CCMWida
Cb-H 3 41 OOOl-H^UCmOuW 4J4JOM.-t>w U rt C-HNC H C3 ---~.....
.-.o>i>ix 10 Ne-< ge<-i3.u>-i
U<O3>J W333O <>C«(rtJ3O. *J ^1i BCXIIWMNOOOSOOOJ: oioi«c»c oraxicvj-»
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A-9
01
•o
•*4
u
o
3 01
in •a
e o
3 rH
& -~* 0) .c
AJ W 4J O
nj to nj
•" Z O< M fn
10
n-i E E E E
rH 3 3 3 3
a -H -H .»H -H
U) C C C C
O O O O
O O O O O
ai
jj
a
c
o
IM
rH
3
w
»i ai
4J -c
ia 41
C N
o o c
rH —I 10 V .O
3 CO (9 *l rH
01 CO 10 .Q 10 >, 41
4J 01 XI -H X! O Q
aim C-HU a ai -H li
4J 01 C 01 41 41 41 Q fH 01 W T> U JJ 41
C W 6 'rl O (0 *O 01 01 |*H UlX^rH4JJ^J^'HVl 'OX M Ol>1 C^HOIC^J-lH-IIOtlT] E ^101 0) rH 3*OrH
^J*1>tOIUC >r4 CCrl3rHE3**HOVjOOO ^•'H (XCXCJ^ •HUTJOI MOl Ol£C*r4RJrOCM-l4JQ! 013 OIIO'OO>fOOI30ICl>HUH
.
.JJJ-'OOrH 41 tt c u n •-<•-< o Q«-i groaj*Ja,D4J—i —"OiJ--inn!oraoa,o
EeEeeOOC4>O MVJ-H^-H£>i>i>,i>i 4»wOOra<-tO"H W 4) g iJOflEJ3OCOBU^CUl-^
333333 "1-H-HCce «s,«i«ioon >,jz 3r-t< •-< o i o M «j jr >i«-t o ><-H £ j; -H
iniQuiuiwinoo^r-io-HEEeeeeeEEEEeeesEBEjJxcuu i i alaic.ci-ii-i.c.c.u.-i.H-H:*, *io<<(a(nuuu6-ft4nzo.oH*HO>iU|iMlM *• « UMardUUaiOIECCiORf^OIQIOOCjUUUOtVOUUUOO
n,o.A,a.P<&,a,a. iVo Kuioiuioioioioicouiuuiuiiooicooioioiuioitou]
-------
A-10
10
c
10 ' , >, O M • 4> 41 U .C 0) O
o a» o toM i .c a> o -u ^ v. M M M o>ai M .c m 4> M M M^OI-UB-^U
M 4> .-I ±JO -O'0 aJ-HX -HCUMO3 *Jil OO-C-OO-U OXAJ«331)>,
•C VJ ^ GJ rH BC O. (0 M 0. C N 3 01 JS O (0 flj 01 r-t (Q CU>r^ 3 *f4 rH O W S *^4 O X
OOO CJX 3-Hto B3<0 O iH 3 N I 4> f\ 3 B 41 C *H P. 3 JC (0 B B
4J t/l t> O O *H '"t &. 41 M 0B333*C 0) ZOlKlJ OJ O4 04 C/l W 3 T3 0) B **•* M Ol Cj *J 3 3
•HCO'WOHO ^CCOUOO
u
o
I
tn
a
D
01
X t^
M O
U Oi
W 01
0. 3
a. o
< a
K
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0) J3
4-1 OJ ^
a c a
41 41 O 01 V
4J ^ UN -D T3 T
•C-POIM o -H *. to JO < < ji
dil/lljron ua> "O 0)41010 CO)
•04l4iOO OlOI-H 01 4) O -u JJ JJ H OIOIUU-H4JOI
^^•ojroi^i^ivH MIS oioi c •o'OM *> u cioiooi a o«-t •aO'D-^-? J» «>•"„
jj ,0.;, dnj nj3ia j3>« •o-«J o« M -HO raoioimoi-H'-i.u'o ^ MO -HC-^OO n **«e>
34JO£X'OCV*C *O (03 CM .CO BO OM O'O'O'^'O'OOOB X Oftf OXr-ICCC4>4)Oi-H(0
r-f-^^4>iO4>Q>Oli4i*H C XO1 (04J 4JNC(Of-4 Mb. 01^MEO4JIQ*Hn)O ^J OM >HCX30l4)'>-4XMf034J
_6O O UM »i>iiO>iMMOtJi
JeeeeeBB^-H «-D 3 ceB^J!3-c,8,,S_S &006-*HU)E6EOX*HJ-'^OD'HO >i W C H*H(U*Cu4UlN>frHE~C:c-t-'JQOOOOOOK)f-M-*JMMMM MMHM
MrH33iEe6|-WJJWM[;gCMJJ'D'O'OtXM^IrHr-lMMMJ3O*OCl.D4Du(X
<OO(JOOQQQ
-------
I
A-n
1
1
^M
1
1
1
STANCE
Annex
CD in
O -rl
» fj
« C.
X "*
o
EH TJ
o>
RSISTENT
As us
PE
.nitions
at
r^
rH
41 .-
O in
£ ,v
id ai
to s
Q XI
in x:
171
O-H
•H 41
X
0 C
xi ra
Xi
XXI
c
Id rJ
means
greate
E U-I
41 O
O
C 14
XI XI
ui ra
XI *
in c
-H
U
•H 01
X O4
O-H
XI r-4
1
4J OJ
C rH
oi ra
XI Xi
Ul
•H id
in
41 xl
d< .H
* ?
_ ,
id
O-l
a
VM
1
41
c
O
u o •*
x: x> >,
xi x>
x; o
V4 V) X4
O -H
U-I C IH
•H 01
m -H ra
H TJ 3
•H
D'XI O
4.'
V4 01 41
O X
41 C id
e O rH
•H XI
XI Ul 10
XI ,
Xi U1 -H
XI
10 41
in 3
C U-I rH
ra o ra
41 >
E§rH
f-life"
:entrati
origina
rH U
ra c in
X O xi
* O *H
_^
-Q
41
XI
10 rH
C. ui ra
•H 41 XI
O 0 C
•H C 41
xl (0 41 E
c xi x: c
ra in xi o
XI r4
O 3 IH -H .
xi ui a > c
C 0
W * XI x>
3 41 rH U O
ro • ra o 10
41 -H 41 UH
O • C >,
O in v-i
>j in c oi o
O* xl (0 -H XI
c B xi ra
ra ra 3 -H rH
c x: |j 3
in -H o cji
C E C -H 01
ra 10 O V4 r4
41 XI Q,
E C xl -o
O U xi C
c O 41 41 10
E U Ul
41 rH OJ fjl
xi ra 41 o c .
ui xi xi .H m
>\ C 01 rl 4>
W 41 W T3 O rH
E U C XI O
oi c 41 ra -H -ri
c o t> c o
•H ,d rg ^- Q C
C -H 10 XI E -H
rJ > C |H
m c c v - A.
3 oi ra E x:
CO rH
>* 4i en O r-i ra
rH U C 14 <0 V4
rl 3 - > ui c
u 3 ra c o 4>
* 04 Xi 41 U 13
^^
o
O X!
Oi xi
r4 01
XJ XI
L4 -H
o o s
XI
tjl 01
c in o
•H 41 C
rH O nj
rH C -O
0 ra r-l
V4 XI O
XI Ul O
c xi o
83 10
Ul
c
U O -r-l
O -H
UH X TJ
O 0>
in xi xi *•
oi P. in
•H XI O 01
tjv C H3 rH
41 01 Id Q.
XI XI -«H
ra in 41 o
U — i JQ c
XI Ul -H
Ul M rH 14
01 rH CLt
•>, 0,10
rl Xi OI
O U-I U C
XI O -H
ra 6 *
>H xi 41 O
3 3 XI rH
cn o« in M
41 C >, O
OS -H 10 *W
___
Id
Ul
in x: -
•H xl C
rH ra
x 4J ia B
ai c; ai
C 41 Xi TJ
C XI C
< in c n
-H ra
owe n
•H Ki 3 41
xi ui xi -a O
xi a. c ri
xi ra 3
c UH o o
•H O 4)Xi W
xl xl 41
rO XI O rH r-l
o 3 ,H ra
-H iX rJ4 41 O
U-l C r- -tH
•H -H O XI
o xi ro ra
41 41 01 3
a-G rJ 3 O'
u) xi 41 c ra
W 41 rl XI CJl
E xi O c C
ra ra O-H
u c c o &
Cfl-H -H -H
O E 41 rH
U -H Ul Xi
p4rH 41 XI OH
41 0 O
U-i CO)
o >, ra ,4 >, ..
•H XI 3 XI OH
XI rH in Ul -H O
C 41
4) 3 3 41 -H U
xi XI (0 XI 01
c v. o ox;
••H -H O XI 3 XI
> -H rr5
41 X ro O 41
x: o o c ri in
H XI XI ra O. 3
-H
^*
o
in
XI
3
ao
C r!
•H 41
N
IM
rH
OH
l4rH
xi id
C JZ
u)
Vi 41
O 0
OH C
a
•O xi
41 Ul
xi XI
a 3
o in
tj
ra u
•H
ilosophy
tent tox
rge.
x; u) id
Cu-H X
u> o
41 h Ul
EH O.'O
-H
NH
XI
rH ra o
ra 41 -H
O IH X
•H o o
XI XJ
O 41
ra xi xi
L4 -XI C
a. 41
OH XI
ro o in
C -H
Id Ul Ul
C r-l
41 O 41
XI xl
C O XI
o a
Ul ro
Id 41 41
41 in xi
boo
x: oi
rH UH
a oi ra
XJ
oi ra >,
X XI rH
id -H oi
XI rH 10
rH XI 01
ra x; -a
x; oi id
10 V4
in o oi •
41 XI XI 10
•H Ul 41
xi in >,o
M 41 CO C
id U ra
&< 3 m x»
in 41 ui
oi ro x x)
Xi 41 Id 3
EH E iJ ui
XI
OI
c
41 -H
xi 3
ra o
XI rH
CO rH
O UH
4)UH O
xi oi in
Xi 01
x; xi en
XI U
•H xi ra
S O.Xi
O 0
c -o ra
O ra -H
XI TJ
Id C OH
>-i ra o
41
a a, c
o o o
O *H -H
O 01 XI
> Id
C 41 C
•H TJ -H
•• rH -H
Ul rH rH
01 ra 41
TH x:
xl Ul 41
10 «.XI Ul
P4 Ul 41
XI IJ O
41 C O C
Xi 41 OH 10
EH S xl
C Ul Ul
>J 01 XI
• 01 r4 3
Ul > 3 Ul
E O w
id u ra o
V4 41 -H
O"H E X
0 id O
W -H *O Xl
A O C
c ro 4-1
> in oi
O E xi
r-i ra ui
• 04 14 -H
<*i (71 in
•O O r4
C rl 41
10 P. P.
> c
no
xi >,
O Oi (0 V4
3 c xi ra
ro -H ra c 3
O > T> O C
r4 rH 10
P. O 4) Ul *"3
> > C XI
> C -H O V4 >l
Ul -H XI -r4. O Xt
41 ra xi OH
in ui xi ra 04 >,
Ul C -H *Q 0) rJ
Oi 0 xi c O
O -H C 41 >,xl
O in ra £ Li c
rl Ul 3 g 01 41
CU-H CJ1 O > >
E owe
* 01 TJ 41 '"H
in c u
rH rrj flj . Ul
ra c x; c -H
•H ra *. x1 o x;
r4 Ul -H >H XI
4) U) 4) * XI
XI 4) O -H 41
ra u c r-4 in xi
B M ra 4i O 41
3 XI Xi O,rH
3 O ui xi in cu
ra ui xi oi -H g
r4 3 OTU p
oi ui o 0
U-I XI XI ro
O Ul O CO
c * x in
O O 4) 41 4i
UJ TJ jj X) C JU
•rl O Ul 3 -H
XI VJ -H Ul rH rH •«
c a in TI ,_, CM
Oi 1 IH 41 C ra CO
TJ >i 41 xi ra x: en
M XI O.XIX; U rH
"a
_
r4 C
41 rH 10
xi id
ra xi 6
f O 01
XI XI
- u
rJ 41 >,
-Hxita
in u>
C Ul 41 rH
oi in x o
41 01 ra rl
> in J xi
xi in c
oi ra xi O
XI nO
O 41
C XJ U TJ
O (5 41
•H 14 XI
XI 01 01 Id
ra TJ j= IH
C r4 XI OI
•HO 41
TJ O XI
14 C XI C
8 in
in 41 *
e o oi
41 ra c >
Ul M (0 -H
O CT>xl Ul
rH O Ul C
U VI Xl 4)
04 3 x:
u-i Ul 41
O 41 -4
xi o a
XI Ul -r* E
c 10 x o
Oi ? O O
E XJ
x; TJ o
Ul ~H U-I C
•H rH O -H
rH O OH
JQ Ul xi 41
ra 3 TJ
XI TJ CU
in c c o
CO 10 -rH XI
XI
o
U 4' >i
O"H O
t/l *O >4 ^
rH 3 41
, >,
N 10 O > Vi XI
ra oi
Xi C. »rH > Ul
O Ul Q U E
OJ 3 xl -H Id
O Ul O rl rl
3 Xl • Dl
rH in TJ in OH o
ra rH O 3 O rl
Ul Id l-l TJ Cb
O-H CU C T)
CU IH -H 01 01
ui oi E in u
•H XI 3 13 O 01
TJ ra 41 C Pi ^
€ rH ra ui xi
1-1 O *H
O 41 r-l U] TJ XJ
OH in XI rH C
41 41 -H TJ 41
MX; cu o c E
E xi a 10 oi
ra TJ Ul rH
IH XI 41 TJ CU
on ra 4-1 oi oi E
o x: ra tnxi-rt
U XI C TJ V<
Oi — i 01 O O
oi E wi a 4J
xi IH ra TJ in
C 3 XI C 41
•H w c TJ ra TJ
O C O C rl Id
n oi o to xi B
7,
I
I
I
I
i
i
Z
5
i
i
Surveillance and monitoring activities shall be
for the following purposes:
Compliance. To assess the degree to which
jurisdictional control requirements are being met.
c.
41
3t ^"*
id ! t/l
Vl rt
Id «O -H
•n r+ frt xi
A joint surveillance and monitoring program neces:
the attainment of the foregoing purposes shall be
and implemented among the Parties and the State ai
1 Governments. The Great Lakes International
nee Plan contained in the Water Quality Board Annu;
1975 and revised in subsequent reports shall serv<
the development of the joint surveillance and ,
g program.
4) TJ ra ra UH ri C
,J 41 -H rH O O "H
3 D, O rH UH V4
in o c -H *j o
C: rH *H 41 rH rH XJ
V 41 > > O 41 -1
> O M CuTl C
• OO>r-i30>OO
O
xr
f. XI
The program shall include baseline data collectiol
alysls, evaluation and quality assurance programs
g standard campling and analytical methodology,
oratory comparisons, and compatible data managemen
essments of the following:
c c xi
ui c in
Whole lake data including that for nearshore area
(such as harbours and embayner.ts, general shoreli
cladophora growth areas), open waters of the Lake
fish contaminants, and wildlife contaminants; and
^"*
.a
^r»*
n
-------
A-12
O
O1.C
C JJ
•r4 •
O» U tj"*
•H 01 C
xi o ••<
ro tn Li
JJ 41 Li
Cl. 3
41 - O
O U) O
o o) O
ra o
c. N
>W 10 i-H
O JJ r-4
W It)
C JJ tl
033
•r4 W JJ
jj m
ra o c
3 X 41
O O Ll
*-l JJ HJ
ra
o jj ..
C JJ
O 01 Ll
in a,
in -4
41 in c
o 41 "
Li o
a o x:
•o
a
o
in
c c
—4 (0
in d
e
ra ,
-*4 UJ
r! 0) "*
O > JJ
H Li C
ra 3 41
41 io -a
01 •-(
C JJ
•3 O
C --4 JJ
ra jj c
ra oi
CT> C-4
C |J O
•rf 4>~<
Ll JJ IJ4
o c "-*
JJ M 3
•rt n
C 0
O 0) .-I
E *t
•J 0)
CJ JJ
c ra nj
V4 M JJ
o o ra
•-< 4) t3
c .c oi
Ol-J JC
Sxli W
U-l -H
O ("4
XI
jj ro
P jj
O u>
a. ai
a
• 3 01
*» in xj
o
JJ
•.
f4 c «
a i >i
Ll U) Li 0) E
O "< 3 Li 41
a in u Q, jJ
E M Li U
o> oi oi 4; >i
ti P. E A CO
ra
Cl
X C
o ra
jj
jj jj
C -r4
41 .-4
jj ra
in -3
•H O*
U
\J 41
01 JC
IH -o
o n
a c •-
Cum ra
E E e
—i 3 01
41 V)
f4 O 1
A
•«
ID
01
O
c
It)
JJ
in
j3
3
u
o
X
o
jj
c
41
JJ
II)
U
01
a
j
O. •
in
O 0
c
v ra
O JJ
c in
in o
oi in
Vi
n o
-H
o x
J= O
•a
n
jj
c in
41 41
E E 0
01 01 C
>* in
M D>X1
cn— I U)
C 3
(0 O O
> 1*4 JJ
*-4 J3 Vl
ra jJ
C JJ
< 0>
•O JJ
oi ra
• JJ O.
6 O-rf
41 »4 O
> M ra
u in
cn4i
c
JJ Ju 6
**4 rH «H
in •-! XI
c a o
• O -Ft V4
in o u) pu
in —
c w
O^l
4J O
n) -^
rH £
HI Of
K-* _fl
u o
-*
jJ ID
0 -H
1 41
41 JJ
3 ra
o ra
M O
jj
n 1-1
ra
IM jj
o c
41
01 E
in C
3 O
V<
'c">
ra c
01
JJ
C JJ
flJ >W
•a oi
c in
ra a
11
4J|
A] »
(— ( jj
a o
B a
0 E
O--I
i")
3
01
c
c
o
Oi
c
in
0)
JJ
«H
4
JJ
01
1
o
M
>
IJJ
O
U
JJ
i-<
3
n
41
01
5^
U4 U
Or-t
ra
3 o
28
s-g
o
n u
•O Oi £
C .%JJ c C4IJJ4I
JJOI JJO O*O -i-ijqXI
C Ll C *H -r4 C EH J-l 'JJ
IU 0)jJ 0>*UJJ JJIO MQiC
OE e4ic4 OIU4O
41 41 *«H V4 01 O 3 JJ "^ *^O "^ Xi
•H Ur-< -HO>U KJ -D O Oli-lU
^ xt ^ jj *i i c *• o) ra 10 o E *o
|J CJJ C 41 Ul -D DlO»J=lfl 10-HO
rau 10 IH ti-iOoi 10 t^Sivi
•a V tioiw Oi-icu i-»-4 o tn re
c x 4ix:loo ow c-io ^HOI'OOI
in n) jj c E o) Qi-i-t 10 10 TO ^-i c ra oi
»oixi oic ai rax jj~4 mratJ
rH Vj o> -*^ Q) ra ra o JJ c o> —i 01 in 41 ^
raJj 30 Din OM jj ra *o JJXIOL*
OCIO>i D. 41 -r4 U. r-< C C3ha
EO-HIQ worac V40I3 ra • 03
xl *o jJin OIIQ *f4jjc* inxroi jQ**^oi*r4
OWlrH OI.CO U X 01 JJO XLlJJ
c s: u > N ra»-i c a«w u cera rtjj>,ra
OJJ --4-H ^4rH £ raOOC ^-4OJJ 3 LlCU
O cn-JJ vj ra w j3 Li ra jJ LI in o tj 01
oc^ra jJ — i oo 10 oin ra 3 u ww
ra -H)J aai OILI rara4i3 JJ XCJJ'M
ai'a xi jj LIX «ra laogta 41 1-4 o uo •
inoi 01 rao 3> *HE x:ra>i"
ra c E JJ o n ^v* JJ x:raC CO". C <3 0) JJ i-(3 » O-rf
D> c D, 41 c ra 4>cin oiooic ra £ tn • cue
Ojn ra € •** v Eo>rH E*^*Hoi 41 JJ jcoira U
rHO C O ^ Ll»4 O, 3 ra CUMJJJJ ICJJU (J JJ g C 01
OM aijJJJ o>n otro o x-^ in oai LIIOD-HJJ
-44) CJ^Ll •* 4 C 4>mE 4i[jiClfl fdjJlM 41 lOiO
xin ^ic4i co> >co) > ran eo4i w-u-id
001 rarat> O*<4 OIQX; oic34i 3Li oiino O
E-i n z xi o xu Qoo o o era. K o. 01 a; >. MJJ
> ra c oi
O "^ 3 O >X n3
^ ^a> >w o> x: o jj jj ^ jj
r-4 VJ O* 4* AJ 3
V ft) 4J R) >O
> JJ « O 41 C
• 4D C • J^ M kJ O
«D rH -^4 P* 4J OtU O
O
•M
X
o *-
*M
+J -M
C»H
V
*J O
tn •*•*
M 10
at O*
& a
IWT)
o c
ra
in
0 JJ
01 •-«
IM ra
oi jn
"S £
O ra
E
41 3
o .c
c
ra c
o o
—4
w n
•••4 41
C U
D> C
—4 10
0)
41 JO
H n
a
m
01
o
c
n
jj
wa
XI C
u
0 J=
--« jj
Xrt
°§
O 3
O X!
•0
41 a
^
O *M
ID r-4
JJ *O
O •-(
01-4
uw 3
4-4
01 >
OI
01 UJ
>•*
•»4 r^
4J
U U
ra »H
-------