LAKE    ONTARIO
                                         TOXICS
                                         MANAGEMENT
                                         PLAN
                                   A Report By The
                            LAKE ONTARIO TOXICS COMMITTEE

                                    February 1989
Environment Canada
Envlronnement Canada
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
                                   Ontario
Ontario Ministry
of The Environment
New York State
Department of
Environmental
Conservation

-------
     LAKE ONTARIO

TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
                    A Report  By
             Lake  Ontario  TOXJCS  Committee
                    February  1989

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                           Page

I.     Introduction                                           1

II.    Scope                                                  2

          A.   Geographic Scope                               2
          B.   Programmatic Scope                             2

III.   The Toxics Problem in Lake Ontario                     4

          A.   Impact on Human Health                         4
          B.   Impact on Other Biota                          4
          C.   Trends                                         5

IV.    The Plan to Address the Toxics Problem in              5
      the Lake

          A.   Goal and Objectives                            5

          B.   Objective l:  Reductions in Toxic Inputs       6
                             Driven by Existing and
                             Developing Programs

          C.   Objective 2:  Further Reductions in Toxic      7
                             Inputs Driven by Special
                             Efforts in Geographic Areas
                             of Concern

          D.   Objective 3:  Further Reductions in Toxic      7
                            Inputs Driven by Lake-Wide
                            Analyses of Pollutant Fate

          E.   Objective 4:  Zero Discharge                  12

V.     costs                                                 13

VI.    Management Structure                                  13

VII.   Public Involvement                                    15

          A.  Objectives                                    15
          B.  Planned Meetings                              15

              1.  Coordination Committee Meetings           15
              2.  Remedial Action Plan Meetings             16
              3.  Bi-National Workshops                     16

          C.  Status Reports and Plan Updates               17
          D.  Technical Reports and Data                    17
          E.  Contact Network                               19
          F.  Modification                                  20

-------
                             TABLES


                                                             Page
I.      Planned Actions Driven by Existing and Developing     21
        Programs

II.     Planned Actions Driven by Special Efforts in          73
        Geographic Areas of Concern

III.    Categories of Toxics                                  75

IV.     Categorization of Toxics Based on Ambient Data        76
        (Category I Toxics)

V.      Toxics For Which There Is No Ambient Data But         78
        For Which There Is Evidence of Presence In Or
        Input To The Lake (Category IIA Toxics)

VI.     Differing Actions by Category                         82

VII.    Planned Actions Driven by Lake-Wide Analyses of       85
        Pollutant Fate

VIII.   Planned Actions Associated with Zero Discharge        93
                                                            11

-------
                             FIGURES



                                                             Page

1.       Lake Ontario Drainage Basin                            3

2.       Management Structure                                  14


                           APPENDICES


I.       Lake Ontario and the Lake Ontario Basin

II.     Toxics Problem in Lake Ontario

III.    Toxics Loadings to Lake Ontario

IV.     Existing Programs

V.       Remedial Action Plans

VI.     Ecosystem Objectives Work Group

VII.    Niagara River/Lake Ontario Categorization
        Committee:  Charge

VIII.   Niagara River/Lake Ontario Standards and Criteria
        Committee:  Charge

IX.     Niagara River/Lake Ontario Fate of Toxics
        Committee:  Charge
                                                                 ill

-------
I.     Introduction

      On February 4, 1987, the Four Parties (Environment Canada,
      the Ontario Ministry of the Environment,  the United States
      Environmental Protection Agency, and the  New York State
      Department of Environmental Conservation) signed a
      Declaration of Intent that included a commitment to develop
      a Toxics Management Plan for Lake Ontario.   Shortly
      thereafter, the Four Parties formed a Lake Ontario Toxics
      Committee, under the direction of the existing policy level
      Coordination Committee, to develop the Plan.

      On January 28, 1988, at an open public meeting in Niagara
      Falls, New York, the Lake Ontario Toxics  Conunitt.ee
      presented a draft Plan to the Coordination Committee.  At
      that meeting, the Coordination Committee  directed the Lake
      Ontario Toxics Committee to:

      o  Pursue an aggressive public outreach effort to ascertain
         the public's views on the draft plan;  and

      o  Continue its efforts to develop supplemental information
         and data to improve the Plan.

      The initial public outreach effort has been completed, and
      supplemental information and data have been generated.  The
      results of these efforts are reflected in this Plan and its
      accompanying Public Responsiveness Document.

      From the beginning, it has been the intention of the Four
      Parties to meet the commitments in the Declaration of
      intent by:

      o  Aggregating existing, readily available  information;

      o  Defining a logical approach to gathering additional,
         essential information;

      o  Developing a management  framework within which to make
         commitments for the cleanup of the Lake;

      o  Proceeding directly to  implementation whenever possible;
         and

      o  Establishing increasingly stringent commitment;; to
         toxics  control, over time, as our  level  of understanding
         improves.

      The Plan has been prepared  in order  to begin  a more
      substantive dialogue aimed  at defining the  toxics prob]em
      in Lake Ontario, and developing and  implementing  the
      specific  joint actions and  separate  agency  action.", requirod
      to eliminate that problem.   Status  reports  and Plan  updai or;
      will  be developed on an annual  basis.
                                                            1

-------
II.    Scope

      A.   Geographic Scope

      Appendix I provides an overview of the characteristics of
      Lake Ontario and the Lake Ontario Basin.

      The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan addresses t;he
      toxics problems encountered in the open waters of the Lake:

      o  Nearshore areas and embayments are included as part of
         the Lake,

      o  Tributaries, including the Niagara River, are treated as
         point source inputs to the Lake, and

      o  The St. Lawrence River is treated as an output from the
         Lake, and is, therefore, outside the scope of the Plan.

      The Lake Ontario drainage basin is shown in Figure 1.

      B.   Programmatic Scope

      The Plan includes a description of the major exist ing and
      developing programs to control toxics in the United States
      and Canadian portions of the Lake Ontario drainage basin,
      and also includes commitments for the full implementation
      of these programs.  This is the baseline against which the
      need for further controls on inputs of toxics will be
      evaluated.

      The task of defining further required controls on toxic
      inputs must first occur in aggregated form.  For this
      reason, the Plan will focus initially on defining the
      relative importance of such aggregated inputs as the
      Niagara River, other tributaries, atmospheric deposition,
      direct discharges, and releases from sediments.  Next, the
      Plan will determine the level to which these aggregated
      inputs must be controlled in order to meet Plan objectives.
      Once this has been accomplished, the responsible
      jurisdictions will be asked to define on a source-specific
      basis how the aggregated input reduction targets will be
      achieved.

-------
^KTORONTO     	LAKSONTARIO
                                                                                                       Sub-Basins
                                                                                            Ontario
                                                                                             160 - Belleville - Napanee Area Rivers
                                                                                             161 -Trent River
                                                                                             162 - Oshawa - Colbome Area Rivers
                                                                                             163 - Toronto Area Rivers
                                                                                             164-Hamilton Area Rivers
                                                                                             165 - Niagara Peninsula Rivers
                                                                                            New York
                                                                                              03 - Lake Ontario   01 Western Section
                                                                                                              02 Central Section
                                                                                                              03 Eastern Section
                                                                                              04 - Genesee River
                                                                                              Q7 - Seneca - Oneida - Oswego Rivers
                                                                                              08 - Black River
            Figure 1. Lake Ontario Basin and Major Sub-Basins

-------
lII.   The Toxics Problem in Lake Ontario

      Appendix II describes the toxics problem in Lake Ontario in
      relation to chemical-specific standards and criteria,  and
      in relation to direct indicators of ecosystem health.   The
      chemical-specific descriptions are fairly well developed;
      the ecosystem-based descriptions are,  however, le.ss well
      developed, and will be a major focus of future planning
      activities.

      A. Impact on Human Health

      Toxics in Lake Ontario are a human health concern.

      o  Certain toxics bioaccumulate in some Lake Ontario
         sportfish to levels that make them unsuitable for
         unrestricted consumption by humans.

            PCBsr Mirex. Chlordane, Dioxinf  and Mercury

            The edible portions of fish tissue in the larger
            specimens of some Lake Ontario sportfish, most
            frequently salmon and trout, exceed Canadian and/or
            U.S. standards for these five toxics.

            Hexachlorobenzene. DDT and Metabolites, and .Dieldrin

            The edible portions of fish tissue in the larger
            specimens of some Lake Ontario sportfish, most
            notably salmon and trout, exceed more stringent, but
            unenforceable EPA guidelines for these three toxics.

      o  Hexachlorobenzene, DDT and Metabolites and Dieldrin are
         also found in the ambient water column at  levels above
         standards and criteria designed to protect human health.

      o  No toxics, however, are found in drinking water at
         levels above standards designed to protect human health.

      o  Generally accepted direct indicators of the  impact of
         toxics  in Lake Ontario on human health are not presently
         available.

      B. Impact on Other Biota

      Toxics in  Lake Ontario  are also a biotic health concern.

      o  They bioaccumulate in  fish  to  levels that  make  them
         unsafe  for consumption by wildlife.  The toxics that
         exceed  guidelines for  piscivorous  wildlife are:  PCBs,
         dioxin  (2,3,7,8 - TCDD) , chlordane, mirex, dieldrin,  DDT
         and metabolites, and octaehlorostyrene.
                                                            4

-------
      o   PCBs,  iron  and  aluminum  are  a]so  found  in the ambient
         water  column at levels above standards  and criteria
         designed for protection  of aquatic  life.

      o   In the past, toxics  have clearly  been shown  to  have
         caused adverse  impacts on other biota.  For  example,
         toxics have caused deformities and  reproductive failures
         in fish-eating  birds.

      o   However, the levels  of toxics in  Lake Ontario have been
         reduced over the past two decades.   There is some
         question as to  whether the persisting adverse impacts  to
         other  biota are linked solely to  toxics.

      C.  Trends

      There is  clear evidence that the levels of some problem
      toxics in Lake Ontario  biota have been reduced  over the
      past two  decades.   For  example:

      o   The levels  of PCBs,  mirex, DDT and  metabolites, die.ldrin
         and hexachlorobenzene  in herring  gull eggs taken from
         colonies on Lake Ontario during the period from 1974 to
         1986  show significant declines; and

      o   The levels  of PCBs  in  lake trout, brown trout antl coho
         salmon collected since 1975  show  significant declines.

      By contrast, the trends in  the  levels  of mirex  in  Lake
      Ontario sportfish  are not clear. In addition,  there  is
      concern that the levels of  problem toxics  in Lake  Ontario
      biota may be stabilizing at unacceptably high levels.
IV.    The Plan to Address the Toxics Problem in the Lake

      A.  Goal and Obiectives

      The goal of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan is a
      Lake that provides drinking water and fish that are safe
      for unlimited human consumption,  and that allows natural
      reproduction, within the ecosystem, of the most sensitive
      native species, such as bald eagles, ospreys, mink and
      otters.

-------
In order to achieve this goal, the Plan includes four
objectives:

o  Reductions in toxic inputs-*- driven by existing and
   developing programs,

o  Further reductions in toxic inputs-1- driven by special
   efforts in geographic areas of concern,

o  Further reductions in toxic inputs1 driven by lake-wide
   analyses of pollutant fate, and    / fififj?

o  Zero discharge.

Many of the activities carried out to fulfill the.se
objectives will be undertaken concurrently.

B.  Objective 1:  Reductions in Toxic Inputs Driveii by
   Existing and Developing Programs

Appendix IV provides a description of the major existing
and developing programs to control toxics in the United
States and Canadian portions of the Lake Ontario drainage
basin.  The purpose of Appendix IV is to provide a status
report that can serve as the basis for additional
commitments; the additional commitments are presented in
Table I.

As discussed in the section above on Trends, impl.omen-
tation of the programs described in Appendix IV h;is
resuJted in substantial reductions in the levels of some
problem toxics in the Lake over the past two decades.  It
is anticipated that full implementation of these programs,
in accordance with the schedules shown in Table 1, will
further reduce the input of toxics to the Lake.  Load
reduction estimates associated with this objective will be
developed for inclusion in Plan updates, and will provide a
baseline in evaluating the need for further reductions.
In this context, inputs refers to toxic chemical .inputs
from the Niagara River and other Lake Ontario tributaries,
the atmosphere, direct municipal and industrial discharges,
releases of toxic chemicals from Lake Ontario sediments,
and to all other sources of toxics to the Lake Ontario
water column and biota.

-------
C.  Objective 2:  Further Reductions, in Toxic Inputs IJrivon
   by Special Efforts In Geographic Areas of Concurn

Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) will be completed for seven
International Joint Commission recognized Areas oJ Concern
in the Lake Ontario basin:  Eighteenmile Creek, Rochester
Embayment, Oswego River, Bay of Quinte, Port Hope, Toronto
Waterfront, and Hamilton Harbour.  To the extent that the
Plan identifies additional Areas of Concern, they will be
brought to the attention of the individual jurisdictions
for appropriate action.   The actions taken to address the
toxics problems in these Areas of Concern will contribute
to the eli.mina.tion of the toxics problem in the open wni.or;1.
of the Lake.  Appendix V provides a description 01 ongoing
RAP planning efforts.  Table II contains commitment:.1; tor
the completion of the RAPs.

The Plan recognizes the Niagara River as one of the most
significant sources of toxics to the Lake.  The Four
Parties have completed,  and are currently implementing the
Niagara River Toxics Management Plan.  Since
implementation of the Niagara Plan will also contribute to
the elimination of the toxics problem in Lake Ontario,
Table II incorporates the Niagara Plan in the Lako Ontario
Plan by reference.  In addition, the Four Parties have
taken a number of specific steps to coordinate trm Niagara
River and Lake Ontario planning efforts.  These include the
use of a single Coordination Committee to provide policy
direction for both Plans, and the use of three joint
Niagara River/Lake Ontario technical committees to carry
out critical elements of the Plans.

The timetables for the full implementation of the RAPs
will be included  in Plan updates, as the RAPs are
completed;  load reduction estimates associated with the
RAPs will also be included in Plan updates.  The Niagara
River Toxics Management Plan will achieve a 50'l, reduction
in the Niagara River loadings of a specified list of
persistent  toxic  chemicals by 1996.

D. Obiective 3;   Further Reductions in Toxic Inputs Driven
   by Lake-Wide Analyses of Pollutant Fate

As shown in Appendix II, the toxics problem in Lake
Ontario can be characterized on a chemical-by-chernical
basis or on an ecosystem basis.  The chemical-by-chemica1
approach is most  useful in moving quickly to
implementation in the context of existing law and
regulation; the ecosystem approach is most useful as a
check on the effectiveness of the chemical-by-chemical
approach.

-------
As a first step in implementing the chemical-by-chemical
approach to toxics control in Lake Ontario,  the Lake
Ontario Toxics Committee developed a system  for
categorizing toxics.   The categories are shown in Table
III.

In order to implement the system for categorizing toxics,
the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee established an ad hoc
Toxics Categorization Workgroup.  For Category I
chemicals, the Workgroup reviewed available  ambient water
column and fish tissue data in relation to applicable
standards,  criteria and guidelines.  As shown in Table IV,
ambient data were available for forty-two chemicals:

o  Seven (7) chemicals exceeded enforceable  standards in
   the water column, fish tissue or both (Category IA) ;

o  Four (4) chemicals exceeded more stringent, but
   unenforceable, criteria or guidelines in the water
   column, fish tissue or both  (Category IB);

o  Seventeen  (17) chemicals were found only at levels at
   or below the most stringent standard, criterion or
   guideline  (Category 1C);

o  Two  (2) chemicals were analyzed with detection limits
   too high to allow a comparison with standards, criteria
   or guidelines  (Category ID); and

o  Twelve  (12) chemicals had no standards, criteria or
   guidelines with which to compare the available ambient
   data (Category IE).

Ambient Lake Ontario data were, however, not available  for
most chemicals.  As a first step in implementing the
chemical-by-chemical approach  for these chemicals, the
Workgroup  looked  at point source data, sediment data,
tributary  water column data and data for other biota as
the basis  for establishing evidence of presence in, or
input to the Lake:

o  Ar, shown in Table V, one hundred and one  (101)
   additional chemicals showed evidence of presence or
   input  (Category IIA); and

o  There  is no evidence of presence or  input of any other
   chemicals  (Category IIB).

-------
The categorization system relies heavily on ambient water
column and fish tissue data because ambient standards and
criteria are available for these media.   Ambient data for
other media (e.g., sediment data) play a more limited role
in the categorization process because there are no
standards or criteria for these media.  The system,
however, is flexible enough to use this other ambient data
as standards and criteria become available.

Toxics are categorized in order to provide a logic:.! L basis
for determining appropriate actions.  As summarized in
Table VI, differing actions are appropriate for chemicals
in differing categories.

o  For toxics which exceed enforceable standards wo wi I I
   enhance and implement control programs.

o  For toxics which exceed unenforceable criteria, we will
   develop enforceable standards.

o  For toxics which are found at levels equal to or less
   than the most stringent criterion, no short-term water
   quality-based actions are required.

o  For toxics which were analyzed with detection limits
   too high to allow a comparison with standards and
   criteria, we will analyze using a more sensitive
   analytical protocol or a surrogate monitoring
   technique.

o  For toxics which have no standards or criteria with
   which to compare available ambient data, we will
   develop standards and criteria.

o  For toxics for which there is evidence of presence in
   or input to the Lake, but no ambient data, we will
   develop ambient data.

o  For toxics for which there is no evidence of presence
   in or input to the Lake, no short-term water quality-
   based actions are necessary.

The additional standards development and data collection
activities described in Table VI will be pursued on a
priority basis, as appropriate.

-------
Since the categorization of toxics plays a central role in
directing the actions in the Plan, the categorization will
be updated periodically to reflect new data and to reflect
changes in standards and criteria.  In addition, we will
improve the reliability of the categorization by
comparing, to the extent possible, both water column and
fish tissue data with water column and fish tissue
staiidards , respectively.  The first updated categorization
will be available in July, 1989.

The Plan focuses priority attention on the eleven
chemicals that have been found to exceed standards or
criteria  (PCBs, dioxin  (2,3,7,8-TCDD), chlordane, mirex,
mercury, iron, aluminum, DDT and metabolites,
octachlorostyrene, hexachlorobenzene, dieldrin).  In order
to deal effectively with these chemicals, we need to know
their sources and we need to know their fate in the
ecosystem.

Appendix III identifies and ranks the major municipal,
industrial and tributary inputs to the Lake.  The municipal
and industrial sources have been ranked based on wastewater
flow.  The tributaries.have been ranked based on tributary
flow, wastewater flow in the tributary basin, and number of
waste disposal sites in the tributary basin.

Appendix Ill's preliminary conclusion is that the most
significant potential sources of toxics in Lake Ontario
are:

o  The Niagara River (including the entire Great Lakes
   drainage basin upstream of the Niagara River);

o  Atmospheric deposition;

o  Inputs from ten other Lake Ontario tributaries;

       Hamilton Harbour  (Ontario)
       Oswego River  (New York)
       Genesee River (New York)
       Twelve Mile Creek  (Ontario)
       Welland Canal (Ontario)
       Eighteenmile Creek  (New York)
       Black River  (New York)
       Trent River  (Ontario)
       Humber River  (Ontario)
       Don River  (Ontario)

o  Inputs from fifteen  municipal  facilities  (twelve  in
   Ontario and three in New York) and two  industrial
   facilities  (one  in Ontario and one in New York) that
   discharge directly to the Lake.

                                                      10

-------
These conclusions are, however, quite general.   We need to
quantitatively define the total load, by source, of the
eleven priority toxics; Table 9 in Appendix III presents a
first estimate of these loads.   Table 9 also includes
loading estimates, by source, for the six Category IIA
toxics that exceed water column standards in the Niagara
River (five polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
tetrachloroethylene); these six toxics will receive
priority consideration for ambient monitoring in Lake
Ontario.  The Plan includes a number of commitments to
improve the loadings estimates; these include the
collection of improved data on New York State tributary
loadings beginning in the spring of 1989, and the review of
all existing loadings estimates by the end of 1989.

In addition to knowing the sources of the eleven priority
toxics, we also need to know their fate in the Lake Ontario
ecosystem.  Mathematical models will be developed to relate
the toxic inputs reflected in the loadings matrix to system
responses such as the levels of toxics in the water column,
sediment and biota.  These mathematical models will provide
the technical basis for load reduction targets that will
achieve standards, and will be used to estimate the time
required to achieve standards.   Preliminary load reduction
targets and estimates of their reliability will be
available by March 1990; final load reduction targets are
projected, based on previous agency experience, to be
available by 1994.  The load reduction targets will build
upon the reductions that have been and will be achieved
through existing and developing pollution control programs.

The rebuttable presumption of the Plan is that attainment
and maintenance of these standards will be adequate to
ensure that toxics do not interfere with the attainment of
ecosystem objectives.  As a check on the effectiveness of
the chemical-by-chemical approach to toxics control, and as
a first step towards establishment of an ecosystem-based
approach, the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee will:

o  Ensure the development of ecosystem objectives for Lake
   Ontario;

o  Monitor the attainment of these objectives; and

o  Provide feedback on the effectiveness of the chemical-
   by-chemical approach.

Initial ecosystem objectives will be available by February,
1990.

The planned actions for further reductions in toxic inputs
driven by lake-wide analyses of pollutant fate are shown in
Table VII.
                                                      11

-------
E. Objective 4; Zero Discharge

There are limits to how effective current end-of-pipe
control programs can be in further reducing pollutant
discharge.  We must give greater consideration to -
opportunities for source reduction.   This will enable us to
move towards our objective of zero discharge of toxics to
Lake Ontario.

Appendix IV contains brief introductions to some of  the
more significant zero discharge-related activities
currently being undertaken in the United States and  Canada.
In the United States these include:

o  The development of more stringent technology-based
   limits for direct and indirect industrial discharges
   that take advantage of advances in technology;

o  The evaluation of emerging technologies for the
   reduction, stabilization or destruction of hazardous
   waste under the Superfund Innovative Technologies
   Evaluation  (SITE) program;

o  The requirement that hazardous waste treatment, storage
   and disposal facilities perform waste minimization
   reviews; and

o  Requirements for the retesting of active ingredients in
   commercial pesticides.

In Canada, zero discharge-related activities currently
being undertaken include:

o  The development of stringent technology-based limits for
   direct and  indirect industrial discharges that take
   advantage of improved treatment technologies;

o  The development of waste management programs related to
   reduction,  reuse, recycling and recovery (4Rs) for
   municipal and industrial wastes;

o  The development of household hazardous waste collection
   programs;

o  The implementation of the pesticides management
   components  of the "Food Systems 2002" Program;

o  Research  programs aimed at developing innovative
   techniques  to control hazardous contaminants;

o  Implementation of the Canadian Environmental Protection
   Act;  and
                                                      12

-------
      o  The initiation of the Environmentally Friendly Products
         Program.

      Table VIII includes a number of commitments to leverage
      zero discharge-related activities occurring at the Federal,
      State and Provincial levels to move us towards the
      objective of zero discharge to Lake Ontario.

V.    Costs

      In controlling toxics, the Plan, thus far, relies on
      existing and developing programs not initiated as part of
      this planning effort.  For this reason, the Plan has not
      yet imposed incremental costs on the regulated community.
      However, with the completion of the preliminary mass
      balance efforts a year from now, we may begin identifying
      control needs that do impose incremental costs on the
      regulated community.  If so, the Plan will estimate the
      costs and benefits of those controls.

VI.   Management Structure

      The Management Structure for the Lake Ontario Toxics
      Management Plan is shown in Figure 2.

      o  The re-named Niagara River/Lake Ontario Coordination
         Committee will continue to provide policy direction
         during  implementation and revision of the Lake Ontario
         Toxics Management Plan.

      o  The Lake Ontario Toxics Committee will be re-named t.ho
         Lake Ontario Secretariat and will continue to liave day-
         to-day operating responsibility during the
         implementation and revision of the Plan.

      o  An Ecosystem Objectives Work Group will be established
         by Canada and the United States; as described in
         Appendix VI, its first task will be to develop ecosystem
         objectives for Lake Ontario.

      o  A joint Niagara River/Lake Ontario Categorization
         Committee will be formed to maintain and refino the
         chemical-by-chemical categorization of toxics  in the
         Niagara River and Lake Ontario; the charge to the
         Committee is included as Appendix VII.

      o  A joint Niagara River/Lake Ontario Standards and
         Criteria Committee will be formed to ensure that a
         consistent set of adequately protective, legally
         enforceable standards are available for the Niagara
         River and Lake Ontario; the charge to the Committee \r,
         included as Appendix VIII.
                                                           1 3

-------
                       Figure 2
          MANAGEMENT  STRUCTURE
                      Niagara River/
                      Lake Ontario
                      Coordination
                       Committee
River
Monitoring

Point Source

Non-Point
Source
Categorization

Standards and
   Criteria

Fate of Toxics

-------
      o  A joint Niagara River/Lake Ontario Fate of Toxics
         Committee will be formed to develop mathematical models
         relating toxic inputs to River and Lake responses; the
         charge to the Committee is included as Appendix IX.


VII.   Public Involvement

      A..  Objectives

      The objectives of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan
      public involvement process are:

      o  To ensure that all sectors of the population affected
         by the Plan, including the public, interest groups,
         industrial associations, municipalities, news media and
         elected officials, are informed of the Plan and its
         progress; and

      o  To provide for the involvement of these groups in the
         implementation phases of the Plan, in formulating
         changes or modifications to the Plan as the work
         progresses, and also in the preparation of regular
         updates to the Plan.

      B.  Planned Meetings

      Public consultation during 1989 will rely heavily on open
      public meetings of the Coordination Committee, on
      participation in Remedial Action Plan meetings, and on
      binational workshops.  This approach will be tried for one
      year, and is subject to modification at the time of the
      1990 Plan update.

      1.  Coordination Committee Meetings

      o  The Coordination Committee will manage both the Niagara
         River and Lake Ontario Plans, conducting regular
         business meetings in public.

      o  Documents to be discussed at Coordination Commi ttee
         meetings will, to the extent possible, be distributed to
         the public in advance of the meetings.

      o  Each meeting will begin with presentations to the
         public on the issues to be addressed at the meeting.

      o  Each meeting will include a public question and comment
         period.
                                                           15

-------
o  The Coordination Committee will then begin its business
   deliberations.  Questions and comments from the public
   related to the deliberations of the Committee will be
   welcomed at the conclusion of each agenda item.

o  Meeting agendas will focus on either the Niagara River
   or Lake Ontario.  The location of Lake Ontario meetings
   will be rotated about the Lake Ontario basin on both
   sides of the international boundary.

o  There may be occasions when it will be necessary to
   conduct executive sessions closed to the public.  These
   will be limited to discussions leading to the
   resolution of issues that are sensitive because oi
   associated enforcement or litigation or which may bear
   on international relations in a manner requiring
   clearances or approvals through diplomatic channels and
   protocols.

2. Remedial Action Plan Meetings

o  The Lake Ontario Toxics Committee will request  that
   Lake Ontario issues be placed on the agenda of  Remedial
   Action Plan (RAP) Citizens Advisory Committee meetinc.).*;
   as relevant issues arise.  This takes advantage of an
   existing process bringing together an already
   identified, concerned public, including all
   stakeholders.  It builds on the fact that work  being
   undertaken in Areas of Concern is an integral part of
   the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, and addresses
   an often voiced concern regarding coordination  of the
   RAP and Lake Ontario planning efforts.

o  Activities surrounding the Plan should not detract from
   the focus on Areas of Concern at RAP meetings.

3. Binational Workshops

o  Binational workshops will be held on an annual  basis to
   review draft Lake Ontario status reports and draft Plan
   updates.

o  Additional binational workshops will be held a?-, the
   need arises to discuss issues of lakewide interest.

o  Issue-oriented workshops will feature invited
   specialists working in a public forum on such topics as
   developing ecosystem objectives for Lake Ontario.  This
   is one component of the Plan in which public
   participation was clearly seen as essential to  ensure
   that the affected cross section of  interests  is properly
   considered.

                                                      16

-------
C.  Status Reports and Plan Updates

o  Lake Ontario status reports and Plan updates will be
   prepared on an annual basis.  I

o  Initial draft documents will be transmitted to the
   public in September.

o  Binational workshops will be conducted in October.

o  The public comment period will be closed in November.

o  Final draft documents, including a draft Public
   Responsiveness Document, will be completed and made
   available to the public in December.

o  The Coordination Committee will approve the documents,
   with changes as necessary, in January.

o  Final documents will be available for distribution to
   the public in February.

D.  Technical Reports and Data

A bibliography will be maintained of technical reports and
data developed during the implementation of the Plan.  The
bibliography and its updates will be distributed to those
on mailing lists.  In addition, relevant educational and
informational materials will be incorporated into this
bibliography as they are developed and become available to
the LOTC.

Repositories where this information will be available are
listed below:

United States

U.. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Office
Carborundum Centre
345 Third Street, Suite 530
Niagara Falls, New York   14303
 (716) 285-8842

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Regional Offices:

NYSDEC - Region  6                NYSDEC  - Region  7
317 Washington Street            7481  Henry Clay  Boulevard
Watertown, New York   13601       Liverpool, New York  13088
 (315) 785-2244                    (315) 428-4497
                                                      17

-------
NYSDEC - Region 8
6274 E. Avon-Lima Road
Avon, New York  14414
(716) 226-2466

University Libraries:
SUNY Brockport
Drake Library
Brockport, New York
14420
Science and Engineering
   Library
Capen Hall
SUNY Center Buffalo
Buffalo, New York  14214

Penfield Library
SUNY Oswego
Oswego, New York  13126

Canada

Great Lakes Environment
   Office
Environment Canada
25 St. Clair Avenue, East
Toronto, Ontario
M4T 1M2
(416) 973-8632

MOE Regional Office
Central Region
7 Overleu Blvd.
Toronto, Ontario
M4H 1A8
MOE Regional Office
West Central Region
Hamilton Regional Office
12th Floor
119 King Street, West
Hamilton, Ontario
L8N 3Z9
            NYSDEC  -  Region  9
            600  Delaware  Avenue
            Buffalo,  New  York   14202
            (716)  847-4550
Collection Division Office
Butlers Library
SUNY Buffalo
1300 Elmwood Avenue
Buffalo, New York  14222

Archives Moon Library
SUNY Environmental Science
   and Forestry
Syracuse, New York  13210
            Communications Branch
            Ontario Ministry of the
               Environment
            135 St. Clair Avenue, West
            Toronto, Ontario
            M4V 1P5
            (416)  323-4571

            MOE Regional Office
            South Eastern Region
            Kingston Region
            133 Dalton Avenue
            Kingston, Ontario
            K7L 4X6

            Intergovernmental
               Relations Office
            Ontario Ministry of the
               Environment
            135 St. Clair Avenue, West
            Toronto, Ontario
            M4V 1P5
            (416)  323-5097
                                                     18

-------
International Joint
   Commission
100 Ouellette Avenue
Windsor, Ontario
N9A 6T3

Regional Municipality of
   Niagara
P.O. Box 1042
Thorold, Ontario
L2V 4T7
(416) 685-1571
International Joint
   Commission
100 Metcalfe street
Ottawa, Ontario
KIP 5M1
University Libraries

Queens University                University of Toronto
Kingston, Ontario                Toronto, Ontario
K7L 3N6                          M5S 1A4

McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario
L8S 4L6

E. Contact Network

The Four Agencies will identify the publics that should be
reached through a contact network.  The concept includes a
focus on key groups having established networks, by
providing extra communication or more detailed information,
while keeping all other interested parties up to date on
progress. It promotes the direction of special effort
towards involving industry, municipal governments,
organized labor and similar agencies, and facilitates
coordination with related activities such as those carried
out on the Niagara River and in Areas of Concern.

o  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will take the
   lead in preparing and maintaining a mailing list for the
   appropriate interested parties in the United States, and
   Environment Canada will prepare and maintain a similar
   list for Canada.

o  The mailing lists will be used to distribute notices of
   meetings, reports and other materials.

o  The mailing lists will be updated periodically to
   ensure that all those interested are being reached.
   Updating will be done through a notice to those on the
   original mailing lists requesting information on any
   additions, deletions or other changes.
                                                      19

-------
F. Modification

The Public Involvement section of the Plan will be
reviewed at the time of the first update, and will be
modified, as necessary, based upon feedback received from
the public.
                                                     20

-------
                                                          Table I

                                Planned Actions Driven By Existing And  Developing Programs
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IA.   Actions in the United States
IA1.  Direct Industrial Discharges
lAla. Complete the process of ensuring that  all major permits  in  the Lake Ontario basin include Best Available Technology
      Economically Achievable (BAT)  limitations for toxic pollutants and also include more stringent water quality-based
      limits as required to meet ambient water quality  standards.   (As shown in Appendix IV, all but 2 of the 37 major
      permits in the basin currently include these limits.)
i.    Issue revised
      SPDES permit
      for Harrison
      Radiator
Final Permit
EPA/NYSDEC
Draft Permit: Completed
Public Notice: Completed
Final Permit: 3/31/89
with A.O.
Harrison Radiator has contested
its water quality-based  limits.
An Administrative Order  (A.O.)
will be issued with a schedule
to come into compliance	
ii.   Issue revised
      SPDES permit for
      Crucible
Final Permit
EPA/NYSDEC
EPA Review: 3/31/89
P.N. of Tentative
Decision: 6/30/89
Final Decision: 9/30/89
Crucible has submitted a
Fundamentally Different Factors
(FDF) variance request which
must be evaluated by EPA/DEC
iii.  Re-issue,  as they
      expire,  SPDES
      permits  for all
      major dischargers
Final Permits
NYSDEC
Continuous
Each permit is issued for five
years.  When reviewed, the permit
is revised to include technology
based limits consistent with the
most current BAT effluent guide-
lines, where applicable, and to
include water quality-based
limits, if necessary.  Most
permits have been through more
than one such cycle.	

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
lAlb.  Seek 100% compliance with Final Effluent Limits on the part of major permittees in the Lake Ontario basin. (As shown
       in Appendix IV,  all but 4 of  the  37 major permittees in basin were in compliance as of 6/30/88.)
 i.    Return significant
       non-compliers
       to compliance or
       take formal
       enforcement action
Improved
compliance
NYSDEC/EPA
Continuous
The tool used to track compliance
is the Quarterly Non-Compliance
Report (QNCR).  If a permittee
shows on a QNCR as being in
significant non-compliance
(see 40 CFR 123.45) EPA or
DEC must either bring the non-
compl ier into compliance by
the time the next QNCR is
issued, or take formal enforce-
ment action against the
non-complier
  K3
  K>

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IA2.  Indirect Industrial Discharges
IA2a. In areas of the basin where EPA is the control authority for the pretreatment program,  ensure  that Significant
      Industrial Users (SIUs) conply with categorical pretreatment limits.   (As shown  in Appendix IV,  all nine SIUs that
      fall in this category failed to provide EPA with the required demonstration  of compliance.)
i.    Issue Administra-
      tive Orders
      against the nine
      SIUs that have
      failed to provide
      EPA with the
      required demon-
      stration of
      compliance
Nine Administra-
tive Orders
EPA
Completed
ii.   Evaluate responses
      to AOs
Nine evaluations
EPA
Completed
iii.  Initiate follow-
      up enforcement
      actions, as appro-
      priate
Follow-up enforce-
ment actions, as
appropriate
EPA
None required
See Appendix IV for
resolution
 U)

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued  -


ACTION


OUTPUT
1
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

DEADLINE


COMMENTS
IA2b. In areas of the basin covered by local approved pretreatment programs, audit or  inspect each  program annually
      to determine effectiveness.   (As shown  in Appendix  IV,  there are  14 approved programs  in  the  basin)
i.    Audit or inspect
      each approved
      local pretreatment
      program annually
14 Audits or
Inspections
EPA/DEC
Annually
ii.   Transmit deficiency
      letters or take
      enforcement
      actions, as
      necessary
Letters and en-
forcement actions,
as necessary
EPA/DEC
Continuous
Appropriate action selected
based on IA2bi

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
 IA3.  Municipal Discharges
 IA3a.  In accordance with the National Municipal Policy all municipal discharges were to be in compliance with the Final
       Effluent Limits  (FEL) by 7/1/88, or have judicially enforceable schedules to meet FEL.   (As shown in
       Appendix IV, 33 of the 39 major municipal discharges in the basin currently meet FEL, leaving 6 as requiring
       judicially enforceable orders).  Of the 6 remaining facilities, 4 already have signed Judicial Orders and the
	remaining 2 are expected to.  Current to 11/20/88.
 i.    Canastota: Con-
      struction of new
      wastewater treat-
      ment facility
Enforceable Muni-
cipal Compliance
Plan
NYSDEC
Completed
                                                                                    Facility under construction.  Judicial
                                                                                    Order issued.  Final Compliance
                                                                                    extended to 10/2/89
 ii.   Fulton: Upgrade of
      existing waste-
      water treatment
      facility
Enforceable Muni-
cipal Compliance
Plan
NYSDEC
Completed
                                                                                    Facility is being upgraded.  Judicial
                                                                                    Order issued.  Final Compliance
                                                                                    extended to 3/31/90
 iii.  Seneca Falls: Up-
      grade existing
      wastewater treat-
      ment facilities
Enforceable Muni-
cipal Compliance
Plan
NYSDEC
Completed
                                                                                    Facility is being upgraded.  Judicial
                                                                                    Order issued.  Final Compliance
                                                                                    extended to 10/1/89
iv.   Wetzel Road:  Cor-
      rection of dry
      weather overflows
      of raw sewage
      within collection
   	system	
                           Enforceable Muni-
                           cipal Compliance
                           Plan
                    NYSDEC
                  Completed
                    Judicial Order issued.  Oak Orchard
                    diversion to be completed by 6/1/89
                    with other final corrective work
                    by 1/1/90
 Ul

-------
   Table I
- continued -
ACTION
V.
vi.
IA3b.
Syracuse Metro:
Elimination of
dry weather
overflows of
raw sewage within
collection system
Leroy: Upgrade of
existing waste
facilities
Re-issue, as they
expire, SPDES
permits for all
major municipal
discharges
OUTPUT
Enforceable Muni-
cipal Compliance
Plan
Enforceable Muni-
cipal Compliance
Plan
Re- issued Permits
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
DEADLINE
7/1/88
Completed
Upon permit
expiration
COMMENTS
Judicial Order has been agreed upon
by both Onondaga County and NYSDEC;
expected to be signed shortly
Facility will be upgraded. Judicial
Order issued and Final Compliance
extended to 1/1/91
Permits are issued for five year
periods. When a permit is received
for renewal it is revised to
include FEL based upon either
secondary treatment or water quality-
based limits

-------
                                               Table I
                                             - continued
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IA4.   Hazardous Waste Treatment,  Storage and Disposal (TSD)  Facilities
IA4a.  Seek 100% compliance with permit conditions or interim status  requirements.
       (As shown in Appendix IV,  four of the eleven land disposal  facilities  in the
       basin are currently out of compliance.)
       Ensure compliance
       of Philips EGG
       with approved
       closure plan
Compliance
EPA/NYSDEC
Philips will
demonstrate
clean closure
within three
years of cer-
tification
approval date
Violation! Illegal operation
of surface impoundment due to
loss of interim status - 11/85
Action; Final order signed
10/86 required closure plan
and financial assurance
Status; All documents required
by the final order have been
submitted.
- Closure plan public-noticed
  9/30/87
- All waste has been removed
  from the surface impoundments
- Closure plan approved 11/87
- Physically closing surface
  impoundments now.  Sampling
  analysis showed no metals
  contamination.  Additional
  sampling and analyses for
  organics was performed
  in October 1988 to determine
  if clean closure is possible.
  Analytical results are under
  review.

-------
                                                       Table I
                                                    - continued
              ACTION
                      OUTPUT
                  RESPONSIBLE
                     PARTY
                   DEADLINE
                        COWENTS
      11.
      ill
Finalize formal
enforcement
order against
Transelco and
ensure compliance
with final order
Oompliance
EPA/NYSDEC
If Transelco signs
the consent order
compliance will
be achieved by 6/89
Violation; Illegal operation
of a surface impoundment
Action; Draft consent order
sent to Transelco 12/85, no
agreement reached
Status; Amended draft consent
order sent to Transelco 8/88
Ensure compliance
of LCP with
approved closure
plan
Compliance
EPA/NYSDEC
Physical closure
to be complete
by 5/89
Violation; Inadequate ground
water monitoring and closure
deficiencies
Action; Final order signed
5/86
Status; Public notice of
closure plan 12/87. Closure
plan approved 9/88. Closure
implementation stalled due
to increase in cost by
contractor.  Entire facility
has been closed since 6/88.
     iv.    Ensure compliance
            of Van De Mark
            with approved
            closure plan
CO
                      Compliance
                  EPA/NYSDEC
                   Closure
                   certification
                   submitted 11/87
                      Violation; Ground water
                      monitoring and closure plan
                      violations
                      Action; Final order signed
                      6/14/85
                      Status; Facility has com-
                      pleted closure of its
                      landfill.  Closure
                      certification accepted
                      10/88.

-------
                                                       Table I
                                                      continued
ACTION
iv. Van de Mark (oont.)
OUTPUT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

DEADLINE

COMMENTS
DEC called in post-closure
permit 9/88. 8/88 DEC
inspection of cap showed no
signs of seepage on landfill
slopes. Sampling wells
quarterly
IA4b.  Make final permit decisions on all existing land disposal facilities.
       (As shown in Appendix IV, there are 11 land disposal facilities in the Basin)
       Issue final closure
       approval and post
       closure permit to
       Black & Decker (US)
       Inc.
Final closure
and post
closure permit
EPA/NYSDEC
Final physical
closure 10/88
Post closure
permit 3/89
                                                                                              The  facility closed its
                                                                                              surface  impoundment and
                                                                                              sludge drying bed  and shut
                                                                                              down all operations at this
                                                                                              site.  Post  closure permit
                                                                                              requirements being developed
ii.    Issue final closure
       approval and post
       closure permit to
       LCP Chemicals
 Final closure
 and post closure
 permit
EPA/NYSDEC
Closure plan
approval 9/88
Post closure
permit 9/89
                                                                                              The  facility has  stopped
                                                                                              usage of surface  impound-
                                                                                              ments. Closure plan  approved
                                                                                              9/88.
                                                                                              Post closure permit
                                                                                              requirements fe.eing developed.
                                                                                              RCRA facility assessment
                                                                                              is under review.
*    iii.   Issue final closure
            approval to
            Specialty Metals
            Division -
            Crucible Inc.
                                Final closure
                       EPA/NYSDEC
                Closure plan
                approved 5/86
                   The facility is in the
                   process of closing its
                   landfill. Closure will
                   be completed 12/89

-------
                                                        Table I
                                                     - continued -
        ACTION
  OUTPUT
                                                                  I
RESPONSIBLE
  PARTY
 DEADLINE
      COMMENTS
iv.    Issue final closure
       approval and post
       closure permit to
       FMC
Final closure
and post
closure permit
 EPA/NYSDEC
Land disposal
units ceased
operation 11/88;
closure
activities
initiated
The facility will close
three surface impoundments
as disposal units. Releases
to ground water detected.
Post closure permit required;
RFI and groundwater
assessment to be implemented.
       Issue final closure
       approval and post
       closure determina-
       tion for CMC -
       Harrison Radiator
Final closure and
post closure
determination
 EPA/NYSDEC
Complete clo-
sure 12/88
Post closure
permit determ-
ination 4/89
The facility will close
five waste piles.  Plans
are to remove all wastes.
Additional ground water
monitoring is needed for
post closure determination
vi.    Complete RCRA
       Facility Assess-
       ment for George
       Robinson & Co.
       and corrective
       action as needed
Complete RFA
 EPA/NYSDEC
Complete RFA
6/89
An operating permit is not
needed. RCRA SWMUs include
four surface impoundments.
Past SWMU activities will
be evaluated.  Based on
the conclusions of the
RFA, corrective action
will be taken as necessary
vii.   Issue final closure
       approval and post
       closure permit to
       Van de Mark
Final closure
and post
closure permit
 EPA/NYSDEC
Final closure
3/88
Post closure
permit - 9/89
Closure activities have
recently been completed
for the landfill.
Ground water contamina-
tion has been detected.
Additional ground water
monitoring to continue
for the next 18 months.

-------
                                                      Table I
                                                   - continued
         ACTION
 OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
  PARTY
 LEADLINE
   COMMENTS
viii.   Issue final closure
        approval and post
        closure permit to
        General Motors -
        Fisher Guide
Final closure
and post
closure permit
EPA/NYSDEC
Closure plan
approval -
12/88
RFA - 5/89
The  facility will be closing
two  surface impoundments
which managed PCBs.  PCB
contamination has been
detected.  A RCRA facility
assessment will be completed
by 5/89, with corrective
activities to be taken as
needed
ix.     Issue final closure
        approval to
        Philips ECG
Final closure
EPA/NYSDEC
Final
physical
closure -
9/88
Philips is not operating a
LDF at this time due to EPA's
denial of permit application
12/86.  A closure plan for
tanks and containers, surface
impoundments, and an inciner-
ator has been approved.
Facility assessment phase of
the corrective action program
complete 6/88. Facility inve-
stigation is necessary.	
        Issue final closure
        approval to
        Transelco-(Div. of
        Ferro Corp.)
Final closure
EPA/NYSDEC
Closure
approval -
12/88
The surface impoundment
is not operating. Closure
plan submitted 8/87.
Enforcement is determining
regulatory status of this
facility
xi.     Issue permit
        to SCA Chemical
        Services,  Inc.
HSWA/RCRA
permit
EPA/NYSDEC
Final HSWA
permit -
issued 11/88.

NYSDEC Part
373 permit
to be issued
in March 1989.
The facility hazardous
waste management activities
consist of disposal in a
landfill, storage and treat-
ment in surface impoundments,
treatment in tanks, and
storage in tanks and con-
tainers.

-------
                                                        Table I
                                                      - continued
ACTION
xi . SCA Chemical
Services, Inc.
( cont . )
OUTPUT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

LEADLINE

COMMENTS
The HSWA permit imposes upon SCA the
requirements to implement an
approved RCRA facility investi-
gation plan in their assessment
of contamination on the site
that may have resulted from past
or present operations.
The facility changed corporate name
to CWM Chemical Services, Inc., in
October 1988. A 3008 (h) consent
order was issued by EPA in 8/88 to
initiate corrective action program.
      IA4c.  Make final permit decisions on all  existing  incinerator  facilities in the basin
i.






ii .
Issue operating
permit to Seneca
Army Depot




Eastman Kodak
Final permit






Final permit
EPA/NYSDEC






EPA/NYSDEC
Final
permit -
11/89






The facility operates a
poping furnace to destroy
unserviceable ammunition.
Corrective action program is
in the assessment stage which
will identify releases from
solid waste management units
Permit issued 3/6/86
      IA4d.     Make final  permit decisions on all  existing  storage  and  treatment facilities in the basin
CO
ho
Issue final
permit decision
for all facili-
ties listed
below by
November 8, 1992
                                   Final permit
                                   determination
EPA/NYSDEC
11/8/92
Storage and treatment facilities
are listed below.

-------
                                                           Table I
                                                         - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
       Storage  and Treatment Facilities

       EPA RCRA I.D.  #     Facility
       NYD000631994
       NYD000691162
       NYD000818781
       NYD301317072
       NYD010779569
       NYD013277454
       NYDD02116192
       NYD002231355
       NYD002207744
       NYDD02207751
       NYD002209013
       NYD302210920
       NYD302211324
       NYD302215226
       NYD002215234

       NYD002215341
       NYD002220804
       NYD002225878
       NYD002227973

       NYC002230092
                      University of Rochester
                      Cheeseborough Ponds
                      Brooks Ave. Tank Farm RGEC
                      Carrier Air Conditioning
                      Auburn Plastics Inc.
                      Solvents  and Petroleum Service Inc.
                      Van de Mark Chemical  Co.,  Inc.
                      Prestolite Motor Division
                      Bausch &  Lomb Frame Center
                      Bausch &  Lomb Optics  Center
                      Southco Inc.
                      Garlock Inc.  Div.  of  Colt  Ind.
                      Xerox
                      CMC Delco Products
                      CMC Rochester Products Div.-
                        Lexington Ave.
                      Stuart-01iver-Holtz,  Inc.
                      Olin Corp.
                      Residual  Fuel Storage Tank
                      Construction Materials Product
                        Division
                      Cambridge Filter Corp.
                                                            EPA RCRA I.D.  #     Facility
NYD002233997
NYD002234763
NYD002231272
NYD006977086
NY4572024624
NY0214020281
NYD043815158
NYD057770109
NYD059385120
NYD980593487
NYD980593024
NYD980593024
NYD075806836
NYD079703120

NYD095577342
Camden Wire Co., Inc.
W.R. Grace - Evans Ch erne tics Div.
General Electric Co., Auburn Plant
Roth Bros. Smelting Corp.
Bell Test Center
Fort Drum - Dept. of the Army
Akzo Chemic America
N.E. Environmental SVCS
General Electric
Lowville Pesticide Storage Site
Camden Wire Co., Inc.
CMC Harrison Rad. Div. Vfastewater Trt.
McKesson Envirosystems
Garlock Inc., Div. of Colt
  Industries
Industrial Oil Tank & Line Cleaning
u>
u>
IA4e.    Review and approve closure plans.  See comment column of IA4b, c, and d


IA4f.    Initiate corrective action programs  through 3008(h) Administrative Orders.  See ccmment column of IA4b, c,
         and d

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued -
ACTION
IA5.
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE*.
COMMENTS
Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites**
IA5a. Cleanup of the Seven Existing National Priorities List (NPL) Sites
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
V.


Cleanup of the
Byron Barrel and
Drum Site
Cleanup of the
Clothier Disposal
Site (Ox Creek)
Cleanup of FMC
Corporation Site
Cleanup of the
Fulton Terminals
Site
Cleanup of the
Pollution Abate-
ment Services Site
(Wine Creek)
RI/FS
RD
RA
RI/FS
RD
RA
RI/FS
RD
RA
RI/FS
RD
RA
RA


EPA
EPA/DEC
EPA
EPA
DEC
DEC
EPA
EPA
DEC


'
Report: 7/3/89
6/30/90
6/30/92
Report: 11/30/88
6/30/89
12/31/89
Report: 3/31/90
9/30/91
3/31/93
Report: 3/31/89
9/30/89
6/30/90
12/31/89




This is a State-lead enforcement case.
DEC negotiated an order with
FMC Corp to undertake the output
actions
No known impacts on Oswego River



 *These deadlines are the best possible estimates for completion of the outputs based on currently available information.
  The possibility of slippages exists based on availability of new information.
**The sites specified below, although located in the Lake Ontario Basin,  may have little impact or no impact at all on
  Lake Ontario.

-------
   Table I
- continued -
ACTION
vi.
vii.
IA5b.

IA5c.


Cleanup of the
Sinclair Refinery
Site
Cleanup of the
Volney Landfill
Site
Evaluation of
addi tonal sites
for inclusion
on the NPL
Inventory all
existing or poten-
tial hazardous
waste sites in
drainage basin area
to Lake Ontario

OUTPUT
RI/FS
RD
RA
RD
RA
NPL Update

Inventory Update


RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
EPA
EPA
EPA/DEC

EPA/DEC



DEADLINE
Report: 12/31/88
9/30/90
12/31/92
12/31/89
12/31/90
Ongoing activity

Ongoing activity



COMMENTS
PRP takeover

EPA and DEC are currently investigating
inactive hazardous waste sites in the
Lake Ontario Basin for possible
inclusion on the NPL




-------
                                                            Table I
                                                         - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
  IA6.    Combined Sewer Overflows
  IA6a.   Plan and construct CSO abatement facilities to address CSO-related water quality violations
         (As shown  in Appendix IV, 2 of 13 combined systems in the Lake Ontario basin are associated with water quality
         violations)
   i.     Construct abatement
         facilities:
         Monroe County -
         Frank Van Lare STP
                            Completion of
                            Construction/
                            Compliance
Monroe County
Jun., 1994
The following schedule for the
completion of interim segments is
included in construction grant
documents:
                                                                                       Project
                                                                                       Dewey - Eastman
                                                                                       State - Mt. Hope
                                                                                       Mt.  Hope - Rosedale
                                                                                       Transfer & Diversion
                                                                                          Interceptors
                                                                                       Lexington North
                                                                                       Seneca Norton II
                                                                                                            Jun., 1990
                                                                                                            Nov., 1992
                                                                                                            Jun., 1993
                                                                                                            Aug., 1993

                                                                                                            Mar., 1994
                                                                                                            Jun., 1994
   ii.   Develop CSO abate-
        ment plan for
        Onondaga County -
        Syracuse Metro
                            CSO/Abatement
                            Plan
Onondaga County,
NYSDEC
Jan., 1992
u>
IA6b.  At renewal of SPDES
       permits,  incorpo-
       rate water quality
       based effluent
       limits into
       permits where CSOs
       are causing
       use impairments in
       the receiving
       waters
                             Re-issued Permits
NYSDEC
As permits expire

-------
                                                           Table I
                                                        - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IA7.    Stonnwater Discharges
IA7a.   Pursue increased requlation of stormwater discharges in accordance with the schedule in the Water
        Quality Act of 1987
IA7ai.  Industrial and Large Municipal Stonnwater Systems
1.
2.
3.
4.
Issue application
regulations
Submit permit
applications
Issue permits
Achieve compliance
with permit limitations
Regulations
Applications
Stonnwater
permits
Compliance
EPA
Prospective
permittees
DEC
Permittees
February,
February,
February ,
February,
1989
1990
1991
1994




 IA7aii.  Small Municipal Stormwater Systems
1.
2.
Submit permit
applications
Achieve compliance
with permit limitations
Applications
Compliance
Prospective
permittees
Permittees
February, 1992
February, 1996



-------
                                                             Table I
                                                          - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
  IA8.    Other Nonpoint Sources
  IA8a.   Identify waters
          that will not meet
          water quality
          standards due to
          nonpoint source
          pollution
Nonpoint Source
Assessment Report
pursuant to
319(a) of the
Clean Water Act
NYSDEC
March, 1989
Preliminary Nonpoint Source Assessment
information was submitted as part of
New York's Water Quality Assessment
Report pursuant to 305(b) of the
Clean Water Act.  The final report
should be submitted by March 1989.
  IA8b.   Prepare Nonpoint
          Source Management
          Program
State Nonpoint
Source Management
Program pursuant
to 319(b) of the
Clean Water Act
NYSDEC
June, 1989
Will provide overview of State non-
point source program, and four year
strategic plan.  The final program
should be submitted by June 1989
  IA8c.   Implement State
          Nonpoint Source
          Program
Implementation
actions
NYSDEC, with
other agencies,
as appropriate
Schedule to be
developed pursuant
to 319(b) of the
Clean Water Act
Plan will target impacted waters
on a watershed-by-watershed basis
or address nonpoint sources on a
statewide basis; specific actions
and annual implementation milestones
will be identified
  IA8d.   Administration of
          the Pesticide
          Control Program
00
Pesticide
registration;
commercial
pesticide
applicator
certification
NYSDEC
Ongoing
Pesticides are registered and permits
are required for the distribution,
sale, purchase, possession or use of
"restricted use" products; all
commercial pesticide applicators must
be certified.

The Cooperative Extension Service also
provides technical information and
advice to farmers on pesticide use

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IA9. Air Toxics
IA9a. Determining Impact
of air source on
Lake Ontario

IA9b. Controlling air
toxics
IA9c. Define how atmo-
spheric concentra-
tions enter lakes



Develop compre-
hensive
emission
inventories
Ambient air
monitoring in
vicinity of
Great Lakes
Operate air toxics
program in NYS
Refine transport
equations to
better handle dry
deposition and
flux of atmo-
spheric contani-
nants into Great
Lakes
NYSDEC
EPA
GLNPO
NYSDEC
EPA
GLNPO



In progress

In progress
Operating
In progress



Expand Air Guide-1
Continued technical &
105 support to State

Section
programs
Addition of other toxic compounds of
concern and increase size of monitoring
network
Continued operation
Continued Section 105
grant support
Use procedures similar to those
described by Strachan & Eisenreich
to quantify impact on Lake Ontario






u>
v>

-------
                                                        Table I
                                                     - continued
Action
Output
Responsible
Party
Deadline
Conments
IA10.  Oil and Hazardous Material Spills
lAlOa.   Implement oil
         bulk storage
         regulations
                       Registration,
                       testing and
                       inspection
                       of oil storage
                       facilities
                     NYSDEC
                   Ongoing
lAlOb.   Maintain spill
         inventory
         data base
                       Identification
                       of accidental
                       spill dates
                       and locations
                     NYSDEC
                   Ongoing
lAlOc.   Implement
         hazardous
         substance bulk
         storage regu-
         lations
                       Registration
                       of hazardous
                       material
                       storage
                       facilities
                     NYSDEC
                   7/89
IMOd.
Implement
Section 313
of SARA
Reporting of
toxic chemical
releases in
a publicly
accessible
data base
EPA
6/89

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                         continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
 IA11.    Dredging and  Dredged Material Disposal
 lAlla.   Identify all  active dredg-
         ing locations and open water
         dredged  material disposal
         areas
Map of Disposal
Areas
U.S. Army
Corps of
Engineers
(CE)
Ongoing
Most areas  identified; update  as
needed
 lAllb.   Adopt appropriate accept-
         able levels  for  identified
         contaminants of  concern  in
         Lake Ontario sediments
         proposed  for open water
         disposal
List of
contaminants
and criteria
for use in
guidelines
CE/EPA
March, 1990
CE/EPA to establish workgroup  to
meet this and subsequent
commitments.  The workgroup will
include representatives from CE,
EPA, DEC and will include other
experts, as appropriate.  This
output is dependent on development
of a Level I model of pollutant
fate by the Fate of Toxics Committee
 lAllc.   Develop  testing protocol
         to be  implemented
         in CE  permit application
         reviews
Guidelines for
standardized
permit review
CE/EPA
Nov. 1990
Permit applications to CE are joint
applications to CE/DEC
 lAlld.   Investigate existing condi-
         tions  in and surrounding
         open water disposal sites
Development and
completion of
special studies,
surveys.
CE/EPA
Ongoing
Studies to evaluate existing
conditions could be accomplished
as part of study projects
currently planned, or to be
developed
 lAlle.  Determine the suitability of
        continued use of the existing
        disposal sites in view of
^       existing contaminant loading
-       and  increase in bottom eleva-
        tions
Development and
completion of
special studies,
surveys
CE/EPA
Ongoing
Studies to evaluate existing
conditions could be accomplished
as part of study projects
currently planned, or to be
developed

-------
                                                        Table I
                                                     - continued -

lAllf.
lAllg.
lAllh.
lAlli.
..
ACTION
Identify operational mitiga-
tion procedures that will
minimize adverse effects
(i.e. capping)
Identify areas ("hot spots")
from which dredged material
is unsuitable for open lake
disposal
Investigate alternative
disposal methods, including
contained upland or lake
sites
Develop decision-making
franework for evaluation
of alternative disposal
methods
OUTPUT
Identification
of existing
and potential
measures.
Maps
Identification
of alternatives
to open lake
disposal
Decision-making
framework
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
CE/EPA/DEC
CE
CE/EPA
CE/EPA/DEC
DEADLINE
Ongoing
Mar. 1990
Ongoing
Ongoing
COMMENTS
An interagency workgroup will
incorporate information from
study projects in assessment
operational procedures
of
Dependent on lAllb
Study projects planned or to be
developed will provide additional
information for review

NJ

-------
                                                            Table i

                                                         - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
   IA12.   Solid Waste
   IA12a.   Implement new Part 360 of Title 6,  NYCRR,  in the Lake Ontario Basin, as described in the 1987-88 update of the

           New York State Solid Waste Management Plan
IAl2ai. Reduce by 8 to 10% the
tonnage of the solid
waste stream

IAl2aii. Reduce and recycle 50%
of the solid waste
generated in the Lake
Ontario Basin

IAl2aiii. Install additional
capacity in the
currently operating
waste-to-energy
facilities so as to
enable such facil-
ities to handle 50%
of the current waste
stream
IA12aiv. Reduce number of land-
fills operating in the
Basin




Reduction in
weight and
volume of solid
waste stream
Reduction/re-
cycling of up
to 50% of
current waste
stream
Additional
waste-to-
energy facil-
ities capacity





Closure of
approximately
230 of the
landfills that
were in opera-
tion as of
June, 1987
NYSDEC



NYSDEC




Local com-
munities/
NYSDEC






NYSDEC






December, 1997

-

December, 1997




December, 1997








December, 1997










This initiative includes the 8 to 10%
reduction described in IA12ai












Landfills will be used only for disposal
of wastes that cannot be reduced, recycled,
reused, or combusted in waste-to-energy
facilities



e-
u>

-------
 Table I
- continued -
ACTION
IAl2av. Phase out incineration
where feasible

OUTPUT
Closure of
322 municipal,
institutional ,
and private
incinerators
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
NYSDEC

DEADLINE
Deceniber, 1997

COMMENTS
This applies to facilities using combustion
with little or no energy recovery, as
opposed to full-scale waste-to-energy
systems


-------
                                                         Table  I
                                                      - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IA13.  Sludge Disposal
IA13a.Continue present program
activities in regard to waste-
water treatment plant sludge
and industrial process sludge,
as outlined in Sections B & D
of Appendix IV
Sample POTW
sludges for
identi fication
of and correc-
tive measures
for releases of
hazardous waste
USEPA/
NYSDEC
Continuing
IA13b.Review Part 360 solid
waste regulations pertaining
to sludge disposal activities
following promulgation of
federal regulation 40 CFR
Part 503
Incorporate
federal regula-
tion into State
regulation
NYSDEC
Not yet
determined
  Ul

-------
                                                         Table  I
                                                      - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IA14.  Ambient Water Monitoring
IA14a.  Conduct ambient water quality monitoring (intensive basin study)  in selected basins
IA14ai. Study of Basin 01
(Lake Erie-Niagara
River)
IAl4aii. Study of Basin 04
(Lake Ontario
tributaries)
IAl4aiii. Study of Basin 05
(Genesee River)
IA14aiv.Study of Basin 07
( Seneca-Oneida-
Oswego Rivers)
IA14av. Study of Basin 08
(Black River)
Report on
Basin Study
Report on
Basin Study
Report on
Basin Study
Report on
Basin Study
Report on
Basin Study
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
December, 1989
December, 1991
December, 1991
December, 1991
December, 1991
Underway. Will provide data on the
Niagara River input to Lake Ontario





-------
                                                         Table i
                                                      - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
CCMffiNTS
IA14b.  Fish Contaminant Surveillance
IA14bi.Collect selected fish
       species specimens for
       examination for
       contaminant concen-
       tration
Report on
toxic sub-
stances in
fish
NYSDEC
March, 1990
For contaminant trend surveillance

-------
                                                         Table I
                                                      - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IA15.  Stream Classification
IA15a.
IA15b.
IA15c.
IA15d.
Reclassification of the
waters of the Genesee
River Sub-Basin
Reclassification of the
waters of the Lake
Ontario (proper) Sub-
Basin
Reclassification of the
Seneca-Oneida-Oswego
Rivers Sub-Basin
Reclassification of the
Black River Sub-Basin
Amended stream
classifications
Amended stream
classifications
Amended stream
classifications
Amended stream
classifications
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
1989
1990
1990
1990
Stream classifications are published in
Title 6, Chapter X of the New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations (NYCRR)
Stream classifications are published in
Title 6, Chapter X of the New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations (NYCRR)
Stream classifications are published in
Title 6, Chapter X of the New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations (NYCRR)
Stream classifications are published in
Title 6, Chapter X of the New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations (NYCRR)
 00

-------
                                                 Table I
                                              - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IA16.
Potable water
IAl6a.    In accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act  amendments of 1986, all public water supply
          systems are to be in compliance with regulated  drinking water contaminants
IAl6ai.   National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
1.
Basic monitoring for
all 13 CPWS (as shown
in Table 1 of
Appendix IV)
Compliance
Purveyors/NYSDOH
Ongoing
Monitoring is required for cer-
tain microbiological, inorganic,
organic and radiological conta-
minants (as shown in Table 2 of
Appendix IV)
IA16aii.  Organic Contaminants
1.    Begin monitoring for
      8 regulated VOCs and
      up to 51 unregulated
      organics at:

      Brockport Village,
      Monroe County Water
       Authority,
      Metropolitan Water
       Board, and
      Oswego City
                  Monitoring
                  Results
Purveyors/NYSDOH
December 31, 1988
CPWSs serving greater than
10,000 persons must complete
monitoring by December 31, 1988

-------
                                                      Table I
                                                   - continued -
                ACTION
                              OUTPUT
             RESPONSIBLE
                PARTY
   DEADLINE
      COMMENTS
     2.    Begin monitoring
           for 8 regulated VOCs
           and up to 51 unreg-
           ulated organics at:

           Albion Village,
           Ontario Town Water
            District, and
           Willianson Water
            District
                            Monitoring
                            Results
           Purveyors/NYSDOH
December 31, 1989
CPWSs serving populations
between 3,300 and 10,000 must
complete monitoring by December
31, 1989
     3.    Begin monitoring for
           8 regulated VOCs and
           up to 51 unregulated
           organics at:

           Lyndonville Village,
           Sodus Village,
           Sodus Point Village,
           Wolcott Village,
           Sackets Harbor
            Village, and
           Chaumont Village
                            Monitoring
                            Results
           Purveyors/NYSDOH
December 31, 1991
CPWSs serving less than 3,300
persons must complete monitoring
by December 31, 1991
     IA16aiii.   Additional Drinking Water Standards
Ui
o
1.    Review and revise
      existing drinking
      water standards,
      as necessary
Revised
Drinking
Water
Standards
                                                EPA
 Continuous

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IB.   Actions in Canada
IBl.  Industrial Discharges (both direct to the Lake and tributaries).
IBla. Implement the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement  (MISA)  Program for  industrial dischargers.
      In June 1986, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment announced  "The Municipal-Industrial Strategy  for Abatement"
      (MISA) Program.   The program is being developed in  consultation with Environment Canada, industries,  interest
      groups and the general public.   Joint technical conmittees (MOE,  EC and  Industrial Associations) for  each sector
      will recommend practical  and effective requirements for each regulation.  Monitoring regulations for  each
      industrial sector will be submitted for public review prior to their promulgation.  In the Lake Ontario Basin  there
      are five organic chemical industries, nine pulp and paper  mills,  three iron and steel mills, three petroleum
      refineries three metal mining and refining, two inorganic  chemical facilities, two electric power generating stations
      and one metal casting operation.   All dischargers are required to control wastes by operating treatment facilities
      under Certificate of Approval or Control Order.  The present situation of compliance and remedial actions for  these
      industrial discharges is  shown  in Appendix IV.
i. Organic Chemicals:
Bakelite Thermosets
Ltd.
Borg-Warner
Chemicals
Celanese Canada Ltd
Dupont Canada Ltd.
Domtar Wood Pre-
serving Inc.
ii. Iron and Steel:
Dofasco
1 Stelco
LASCO

Final Permit


Final Permit


MOE


MOE


Public notice
'88
Monitoring Reg.
'89
Compliance Reg.
1990-91

Public notice
'89
Monitoring Reg.
'89
Compliance Reg.
1991-1992
Domtar Wood Preserving,
issued a Control Order
Inc. was
on
March 19, 1988 to install treatment
systems for wastewaters, surface
collection and leachate collection
systems

Iron and steel mills are

in
compliance with heavy metal
requirements



-------
                                                            Table I
                                                         - continued -
ACTION

ni. Paper & Pulp Mills:

Beaver Wood Fibre
Domtar Fine Paper
Domtar Construction
Materials
Domtar Packaging
Kimberley-Clark of
can. Ltd.
Strathcona Paper
Co.
Quebec and Ontario
Paper Co.
Trent valley Paper
OUTPUT

Final Permit













RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MOE













DEADLINE

Public notice
'89
Monitoring Reg.
'89
Compliance Reg.
1991-1992








COMMENTS

Target loads for some mills set
by internal Ministry Committee
consistent with Best Practicable
Technology

Quebec and Ontario Paper Mill has
appealed a new Control Order

Domtar Construction has connected
to municipal sewers in June 1987




          Board
         Fraser Inc. Thorold
   iv.  Petroleum Refineries;

         Texaco Canada Ltd.
         Petro Canada
          Products  Ltd.
         (Mississauga &
         Oakville plants)
I
  Final Permit
                                                                                     I
MOE
|  Public notice
|  '87
|  Monitoring  Reg.
|  '88
j  Compliance  Reg.
I  1990-1991
Petro Canada, Mississauga, is
implementing a two-phase program to
treat stormwater

Current treatment systems produce final
effluent similar to Best Available
Technology treatment levels

Petro Canada, Oakville, is producing
modifications to existing wastewater
treatment system
Ul
NJ
   v.   Metal  Casting Opera-
        tion  :
         General Motors  of   | Final Permit
          Canada             I
                                                         I
                     MDE
                  Public notice
                  '89
                  Monitoring Reg.
                  '89
                  Compliance Reg.
                  1991-1992
                     Phenol  treatment  system  installed
                     in  1988

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued
        ACTION
    OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
   PARTY
    DEADLINE
          COMMENTS
vi. Metal Mining & Refin-
     ing;
      Eldorado Nuclear   |  Final Permit
       Limited
      (Port Hope, Port
       Granby & Welcome
       Sites)
                    MOE
                  Public notice
                  '89
                  Monitoring Reg.
                  '89
                  Compliance Reg.
                  1991-1992
                    Effluent quality limits are set
                    in Atomic Energy Control Board
                    License
vii. Inorganic Chemicals;

      Exolon
      Washington Mills
       Ltd.
Final Permit
MOE
Public notice
'89
Monitoring Reg.
'89
Compliance Reg.
1991-1992
They are in conpliance with MOE
effluent guidelines

Washington Mills Ltd. installed a
filter system to remove suspended
solids
viii.Electric Power
     Generating Stations;

      Ontario Hydro -
       Pickering
      Ontario Hydro -
       Lakeview
Final Permit
MOE
Public notice
'89
Monitoring Reg.
'89
Compliance Reg.
1991-1992
In ccnpliance with the objectives of
wastewater guidelines of Ontario

-------
   Table I
- continued -

ACTION
IB2. Indirect Industrial
a. Ministry of the
Environment Posi-
tion on tne Sewer
Use Control Program
b. Revision of Ontario
Water Resources Act
in Environmental
Protection Act and
Municipal Act to
provide adequate
legislative basis
for the Sewer Use
Control Program
c. Sewer Use Program
Regulation


Ui


OUTPUT
Discharges
Adoption of
Position cy
Municipalities
Revised
Acts


The Sewer Use
Control Program
will include:
cataloguing di-
rect dischargers
monitoring and
enforcement
protocale
developing con-
trol require-
ments (except
BATEA)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MOE, EC
Municipal
Engineer
Association
MOE,
Municipal
Engineer
Association


MOE, Municipal
Engineer
Association





DEADLINE

Completed
July, 1989


December, 1989





COMMENTS











-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued  -
        ACTION
     OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
   PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
d.  Develop on a staged
    basis effluent limit
    regulation based on
    Best Available
    Technology
    Economically Achiev-
    able (BATEA).  Reg-
    ulations will first
    be applied to:

    - Fabricated Metal
      Products
    - Organic Chemicals
    - Waste Treatment
      & Recycling
      Industries
    - Primary Metal
      Industries Sectors
  Regulations for
  effluent limits
  based on BATEA
MOE
1991-1993
I
  Ul

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued  -
ACTION
1
| OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IBS.   Municipal Discharges
IB3a .  As part of the MISA program all municipal discharges will be subject to Limits Compliance Regulation by Dec. 1991.
       As shown in Appendix IV,  all  the Ontario sewage treatment plants are currently required to comply with controls for
       oniy the conventional parameters.  There are 31 sewage treatment plant facilities in the Lake Ontario basin.  All
       ot the facilities are secondary treatment plants (activated sludge and continuous phosphorus removal).
      Municipal Plants;   |
                         I
      Toronto            |
      Main,  Humber,  High-j
      land Creek, North   j
      Toronto            |

      Oakville
      Southwest &
      Southeast

      Hamilton
      Hamilton,  Burling-
      ton, Dundas

      South  Peel
      Clarkson, Lakevie^
                         I
      St. Catharines      |
      Port We Her, Port   |
      Dalhcusie           |
                         I
      Osnawa             |
      Harmony Creek 1&2  |
                         I
      Whitby             |
      Corbett, Pringie    |
      Creek  #1&2          I
     uay of Quinte
     Belleville, Cobourgj
     Trenton, Port Hone,]
     New Castle, Niapanee!
     Grimsby,           |
     Peterborough       [
                                     I
Final Permit
MOE/EC
Public notice.
'89
Monitoring Reg.
'89-'90
Compliance Reg.
1990-1991-1992
As part of MISA, an intensive sampling
program was completed in 1987 where
40 municipal wastewater facilities
were sampled (influent, effluent,
sludge) for:  PCBs, dioxins, PAHs,
volatiles and heavy metals.  These
plants are:  Toronto (4 facilities)
Yorx-uurham, Oakville, Clarkson,
Lakeview, Hamilton, Burlington,
Grimsby, Nhitby, and Kingston.

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IB4.  Waste Disposal Sites - Active and Closed Sites
a. Obtain site speci-
fic information,
in order to assess
potential hazard
to hunans and
environment







Site specific
report











MOE












On-going












- No compiled information on
compliance is available.

- Each land ill site is handled on a
case-by-case basis as problems
are discovered.
- In many cases, actions constitute
monitoring of the environment
to determine existing or potential
impact.

- Reports will be used to identify
actions required.

-------
                                                               Table I
                                                            - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
     IBS. Combined Sewer Overflows
     IB5a. Plan and Construct CSO Abatement Facilities to Address CSO -  Related Water Quality Violations
     i.  Develop a compre-
         hensive implementa-
         tion plan to
         improve water
         quality in the
         St. Catharines area
         receiving waters.
         City of
         St. Catharines
  A phased implemen-  City of
  tation plan to
  reduce CSO, STP
  bypass and improve
  stormwater
  quality
                                         November,  1989
                                                                                          I
                        St.  Catharines
                      City of Thorold
                      Regional Municipa-
                        lity of Niagara  |
                      Ministry of  the   |
                        Environment
                                        I
     ii. Develop CSO and STP
         abatement alterna-
         tives to reduce CSO
         and STP bypasses in
         the Regional Muni-
         cipality of
         Hami Iton-Wentworth
  Sizing of CSO     |  Regional Municipa-
  storage facilities]    lity ot
                        HamiIton-
                        Wentworth
                      Ministry of  the
                                         March,  1990
  to reduce CSO and
  STP bypass.   Study
  will be used in a
  future comprehen-
  sive implementa-
I  tion plan to
j  improve water
j  quality to
  Hamilton Harbour
                        Environment
    iii. Develop, install
         and evaluate a
         computerized system
         for reducing the
         number and volume
         of CSO
|  Reduced CSO being
j  discharged to
j  Cootes Paradise
I
00
                     Regional Municipa-
                       lity of Hamilton-
                       Wentworth
                     Ministry ot  the    |
                       Environment      j
December, 1990

-------
                                                             Table I
                                                          - continued  -
       ACTION
                          OUTPUT
    RESPONSIBLE
       PARTY
     DEADLINE
COMMENTS
   iv. Construct CSO
       storage facility.
       Regional
       Municipality of
       Hami1ton-Wentworth
                       72,000m3 CSO
                       storage facility.
                       Reduces overflow
                       to one event per
                       year for a 2000
                       acre drainage
                       area
 Regional Municipa-
   lity of Hami1ton-
   Wentworth.
 Ministry of the
   Environment
 Completed
       Develop a compre-
       hensive implementa-
       tion plan to
       improve water
       quality in the
       Kingston area
       receiving waters.
       City of Kingston
                       A phased implemen-
                       tation plan to
                       reduce CSO, STP
                       bypass and improve
                       stormwater
                       quality
 City of Kingston/
 Ministry of the
   Environment
 December, 1990
  vi.   TAWMS (Toronto Area
       Watershed Manage-
       ment Strategy)  - A
       study of water qua-
       lity (Don River,
       Humber River and
       Mimico Creek)  to
       provide base line
       data to guide  future
       studies.
       Metro Toronto
                       Humber River Water
                       Quality Management
                       Plan

                       Don River Water
                       Quality Management
                       Plan
Metro Toronto/
 Ministry of the
 h'nvi ronment/Area
 municipalities
Completed
                        1989
  vii.  Develop CSO and STP  |  Evaluation of
VO
abatement alterna-
tives for the
Humber STP sewer
drainage area:
Metro Toronto
                             Viable Control
                             Alternatives
Metro Toronto/
 Ministry of the
 Environment
                                                                    | September, 1988

-------
                                                           Table  I
                                                        - continued -
      ACTION
    OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
   PARTY
   DEADLINE
COMMENTS
viii. Develop CSO and |
      STP abatement   |
      alternatives for|
      the Main STP    |
      sewer drainage  |
      area:
      Metro Toronto
Evaluation ot
Viable Control
Alternatives
 Metro Toronto/
 Ministry of the
   Environment
December, 1989
ix. Construct storm-
      water and CSO
      storage tanks
      (200ftn3 and
      16000m3).
      City of Toronto
Reduction of CSO
and stormwater
discharges to
Toronto beach
areas
Metro Toronto/
  Ministry of the
  Environment
Not yet
determined
 O

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IB6.  Stormwater Discharges
      Municipalities to
      prepare Master
      Drainage Plans
      that include
      Stormwater quality j
      controls
Master Drainage
Plan
Municipalities
Voluntary
Ontario has announced its "Urban
Drainage Management Program for
New Development".  The program will
be initially voluntary for three
years
      Developers to
      prepare Stormwater
      management plans
Stormwater
Management
Plan
Developers
Voluntary
Technical guidelines for drainage
design and erosion and sediment
control have been released
      Developers to
      include Stormwater
      management controls
      during construction
      of new development
Stormwater
Management
Works
Developers
Voluntary
Program indirectly controls toxics
through control of sediment

Some municipalities already have
active programs
d.    Develop a compre-
      hensive implementa-
      tion plan to
      improve water
      quality in the
      St. Catharines
      receiving waters.
      City of St.
      Catharines
A phased imple-
mentation plan to
reduce CSO, STP
bypass and improve
Stormwater
quality
City of
 St. Catharines
City of Thorold
Regional Munici-
 pality of
 Niagara
Ministry of the j
 Environment    |
November, 1989

-------
                                                           Table  I
                                                        - continued
       ACTION
       OUTPUT
   RESPONSIBLE
      PARTY
 DEADLINE
COMMENTS
e.  Develop a compre-
    hensive implementa-
    tion plan to
    improve water
    quality in the
    Kingston area
    receiving waters.
    City of Kingston
A phased implemen-
tation plan to
reduce CSO, STP
bypass and improve
stormwater guality
City of Kingston/
  Ministry of the
  Environment
December, 1990
f.   TAWMS (Toronto Area
    Watershed Manage-
    ment Strategy) - A
    study of water
    quality (Don River,
    Humber River and
    Mimico Creek) to
    provide base line
    data to guide
    future studies.
    Metro Toronto
Humber River Water
Quality Management
Plan

Don River Water
Quality Management
Plan
Metro Toronto/
  Ministry of the
  Environment
 Completed
                      1989

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IB7.  Other Nonpoint Sources
      Land Stewardship
      Program
Fanners to prepare
integrated farm
management plans.
OMAF
1990 - but volun-
tary to farmers
Fanners must file farm management
plans with OMAF to receive grant
monies to carry out remedial plans.
      Ontario Soil Cons.
      and Environmental
      Protection Assist-
      ance Program
      (OSCEPAP)
Improved waste
management and
soil erosion
control on
farms
OMAF, MOE
1991 - but volun-
tary to farmers
MOE enhances OMAF $4.5M by $1M
annually.
program to become a joint
ministry program.
c.
      Rural Beaches
Remedial Action
Plans
Conservation
Authorities
CAs to partici-
pate voluntarily
but must develop
RAPs within 3
years of study
initiation
Agreements with Otonabee, Metro.
Toronto, & Niagara Peninsula CAs
presently in existence.

Program has a 10 year lifespan &
is presently in year 3.
      Abatement
Resolution of
farm pollution
problems
MOE Regional
Staff
NONE
MOE & OMAF have developed a set
of protocols for determining
inter-ministry responsibilities
in resolving problems.	
e.    Drainage Design
      and Construction
Reduced sediment
and erosion pro-
blems with drains
Municipalities
None - voluntary
Inter-ministerial committee
issued new guidelines for the
construction of drains built
under the Drainage Act.	
      Pesticide
      Management
1) registration of
   pesticides,
   education and
   licensing of
   applicators.

2) Food Systems
   2002 for 50%
   reduction in
   pesticide use.
MOE
None - voluntary
                                              OMAF
                  2002
annual licensing of pesticide
applicators.
routine monitoring for 54
pesticides at river mouth stations
development of fate & pathway models

Commences Apr. 1/88.
Program consists of education,
delivery & research.

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IB8.  Air Toxics
 a.   Revision to the
     current Regulation
     308
New Regulation
MOE
1989/1990
     Monitoring
     Atmospheric
     Deposition through
     six monitoring
     stations
The whole Ontario
network to be
integrated with
the New York
State monitoring
stations
MOE/EC

New York
1989/1990

-------
                                                           Table I
                                                        - continued
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IB9.  Spills
a.  The Ontario Ministry
    of the Environment
    investigates nature
    and extent of
    environmental
    damage by each spill,
    evaluates adequacy of
    clean-up, enforces
    legislated
    responsibilities
    imposed on dis-
    chargers
Every person having
control of a pollutant
that is spilled
and every person
who spills shall
notify the Ministry
and other persons
that may be affected

Cleanup of spilled
materials
MOE
Ongoing

-------
                                                           Table I
                                                        - continued  -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IB10.  Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal
    Identify all active
    dredging locations
    and open water dredged
    material disposal
    areas
Map of disposal
areas
MOE
                                                                Ongoing
b.  Develop MOE sediment
    quality objectives
    and dredging and
    dredged spoil dis-
    posal guidelines to
    take into considera-
    tion biological
    effects
Guidelines to
be applied to
dredging projects
MOE
                                                                1989/1990
    Identify areas (hot
    spots)  from which
    dredged spoil is
    unsuitable for open
    Lake disposal
Maps of hot
spots
MOE
                                                               Ongoing
d.  Investigate alterna-
    tive disposal methods,
    including confined or
    land disposal
                             Identification
                             of  alternatives
                             to  open  Lake
                             disposal
                    MOE
               Ongoing

-------
                                                           Table I
                                                        - continued  -
ACTION
1
| OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
i DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IB11.  Solid Waste
     Ontario Regulation
     309 for Waste
     Management is
     currently under
     review to establish
     more stringent
     requirements for
     Solid Waste Manage-
     ment
Stringent require-
ments related to
standards in the
location and
operation of an
incineration site,
a dump site and
sites designated
for organic soil
conditioning
MOE
Ongoing

-------
                                                            Table I
                                                         - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
! RESPONSIBLE
| PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
  IB12.  Sludge Disposal
       Continue MOE's program
       for monitoring 14
       parameters (11 of
       which are metals) in
       sludge to be disposed
       of on agricultural land
                          The 14 parameters
                          provide information
                          about metals and
                          nutrients added to
                          soil in sewage sludge
 MOE
Ongoing
Parameters are 11 metals, phosphorus,
suspended solids, ammonium and
nitrate nitrogen
       Monitor hazardous
       contaminants in
       sludge generated
       from municipal
       facilities as part
       of the MISA program
                          Review need for
                          standards for sludge
                          used on agricultural
                          lands and set standards
                          for organic chemicals
                          in sludge when
                          necessary
MOE, OMAF
and MOH**
(through
sludge
utilization
committee)
Ongoing
  c.   Determine if sludges
       comply with standards
       for organic contaminants
       for sludges used on
       agricultural lands
                                                    MOE,  OMAF,
                                                    and MOH
                Ongoing
  *
  **
OMAF- Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
MOH- Ministry of Health
00

-------
                                                           Table I
                                                        - continued
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IB13.  .Ambient Water Monitoring
IBlSa.  Conduct Ongoing Ambient Water Quality Monitoring
       Provincial Water
       Quality/Quantity
       Monitoring Network
Loadings and complete
data files are pro-
vided to the IJC
annually
MOE
Ongoing
32 stations scanned for 58 pesticide
and industrial organic parameters, and
metals in the Lake Ontario drainage
basin
 ii.    Enhanced Tributary
       Monitoring
       Program
Loadings and complete
data files are pro-
vided to the IJC
annually
MOE
Ongoing
5 Lake Ontario tributaries monitored
for enhanced precision of annual
contaminant load estimates (40-100
event-oriented samples/stn/yr).
Suspended bed sediments sampled
annually for trace metals, organo-
chloride pesticides	
IBlSb.  Conduct Ongoing Monitoring of Biota
i. Fish Contaminant
Monitoring Program
ii. Juvenile Fish
Contatiinants Sur-
veillance
Annual publication
"Guide to Eating
Ontario Sport Fish"
Data summaries provided
to the IJC biannually.
Journal paper on Lake
Ontario currently
under preparation
MOE/MNR
MOE
Ongoing
Ongoing
36 locations, for 22 species of fish
for up to 24 parameters including PCBs,
mirex, dioxin, organochlorine pesti-
cides, mercury, heavy metals; part of
the largest continuous contaminants
data base on biota in the world
Contaminant residue data are available
for 22 sites, and temporal trend data
in excess of 10 year intervals exist
for 5 Lake Ontario sites. Analytical
parameters total about 60 individual
compounds

-------
                                                         Table  I
                                                        continued
ACTION
iii. Nearshore Cladophora
Monitoring
iv. Long Term Sensing
Sites
OUTPUT
Data suranaries provided
to requesting agencies
upon request
Interpretive Report
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE
MOE
DEADLINE
Ongoing
Ongoing
Commencing
1988
First
Report
3 Qtr.,1990
COMMENTS
1 control site monitored for PCBs,
organochlorine pesticides, chlorophe-
nols , chlorobenzenes
2 long-term sites for metals, PCBs,
organochlorine pesticides, chloro-
phenols, chlorobenzenes
IB13c.  Conduct Site-specific Studies
  i.  Hamilton Harbour
      Sediment Inputs and
      Bioassessment
Interpretive Report
MOE
3rd Qtr., 1990
10 sources and mouth of ship canal,
for whole water, effluent and sus-
pended sediments
 ii.  Toronto Main STP
      Impact Assessment
Interpretive Report
MOE
4th Qtr., 1989
Large volume water, suspended
sediments for metal and organic
contaminant analysis.  Input for
the development of new discharge
regulations
iii.   Toronto Waterfront:
      Inventory and assess-
      ment of contaminants
      associated with
      suspended particulates
Interpretive Report
MOE
3rd Qtr., 1989
Suspended particulate samples
collected by centrifuge and
sediment traps near river and
STP inputs; analyzed for trace
metals and PCB/organochlorine
pesticides.
 iv.  Metro Toronto Water-
      front - Trace conta-
      minant inputs from
      CSO's and storm
      sewers
Interpretive Report
MOE
3rd Qtr., 1990
1st Phase
Sampling of 44 outfalls for
heavy metals and organic con-
taminants on at least 2 occasions;
resampling of 25 outfalls for 3
more events

-------
                                                          Table I
                                                       - continued -
ACTION
v. Port Hope Harbour:
Contaninant Loading
Study
vi. Bay of Quinte Toxic
Contaminants Study
vii. St. Lawrence River
Mass Balance Study
OUTPUT
Interpretive Report
Interpretive Report
Interpretive Report
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
NWRI (enhanced
funding by
MOE)
MDE
MDE
DEADLINE
2nd Qtr. , 1989
4th Qtr. , 1989
1st Qtr. , 1990
COMMENTS
Assessment of particle-associated
contaminant (PCBs, metals, radio-
nuclides) from Eldorado Nuclear
discharge
Water, sediment, biota sampled from
20 stations in the bay for heavy
metals, organic contaminants
Whole water and suspended sediment
fraction at 5 locations in the
St. Lawrence River for heavy metals,
PCBs, organochlorine pesticides,
PAHs, chlorophenols , chlorobenzenes
note: Canadian federal ambient monitoring programs have been described in Appendix IV.  A detailed schedule of these
      activities was unavailable for inclusion in this table.  The results will,  however, be discussed in the first
      update of the Lake Ontario Plan.

-------
                                                          Table  I
                                                       - continued  -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
IB14.  Drinking Water Surveillance Program
a. Monitoring of all
drinking water supplies
in Lake Ontario Basin














b. Review existing Drinking
Water Standards and
revise as necessary
To date 48 municipalities
on Lake Ontario are being
monitored for raw and treated
drinking water. At each
location 160 parameters
are analyzed, including
pesticides, organics, trihalo-
me thanes, volatiles, chlor-
inated organics and dioxin
and furans.

Corrective actions
immediately undertaken
if poor quality noticed



Stringent water guality
standards

MOE
















MOE/EC


Ongoing
















Ongoing


The plants using Lake
Ontario as a water source
serve the following
locations:

Grimsby, Hamilton, Burling-
ton, Mississauga (Lakeview
and Lornepark ) , Toronto
(R.L. Clark, R.C. Harris,
Easterly), Oshawa,
Deseronto and Belleville

Raw and treated waters
of each plant, at each
location are tested for
several conventional and
priority pollutants



NJ

-------
                                           -.               Table II

                                          Planned Actions Driven by Special Efforts
                                               in Geographic Areas of Concern
         ACTION
   OUTPUT
  RESPONSIBLE
    PARTY
DEADLINE
  COMMENTS
 IIA.   Develop and implement plans to address problems in identified Areas of Concern
 IIA1.  Inpleirent the
       U.S.- Canada
       Niagara River
       Toxics Manaaeirent
       Plan (NRTMPJ
See NPTMP
Four Agencies
See NRTMP
 HE.   Develop Reiredial Action Plans to address identified Areas of Concern in the Lake Ontario Basin
 IIB1.  Develop RAP for
       Eighteeninile
       Creek
 IIB2.  Develop RAP for
       Rochester
       Embayment
 IIE3.  Develop RAP for
       Osweqo River
 IIB4.  Develop RAP for
	Bay of  Quinte
RAP
RAP
RAP
RAP
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
MOE/EC
1992
March, 1991
September1,  1990
3 Qtr.', 1989
For submittal to  IJC
For submittal to IJC
For submittal to IJC
IJC Stage II Report Target

-------
  Table II
- continued -
ACTION!
IIB5. Develop RAP for
Port Hope
IIB6. Develop RAP for
Toronto Waterfront
IIB7. Develop RAP for
Hamilton Harbour
IIC. Implement Remedial
Action Plans
OUTPUT
RAP
RAP
RAP
To be defined
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE/EC
MQE/EC
MOE/EC
To be defined
DEADLINE
2 Qtr., 1989
4 Qtr., 1990
3 Qtr., 1989
To be defined
COMMENTS
IJC Stage II Report Target
IJC Stage II Report Target
IJC Stage II Report Target


-------
                            Table III



                      Categories of Toxics








I.   Ambient Data Available



    A.   Exceeds enforceable standard



    B.   Exceeds a more stringent, but  unenforceable criterion



    C.   Equal to or less than most stringent criterion



    D.   Detection limit too high to allow complete categorization



    E.   No criterion available





II.  Ambient Data Not Available



    A.   Evidence of presence in or input to the Lake



    B.   No evidence of presence in or  input to the Lake
                                                                 75

-------
                   Table IV

Categorization of Toxics Based on Ambient Data
              (Category  I Toxics)
Chemical Fish Tissue
PCBs*
dioxin
(2,3,7,8-TCDD)
chlordane
mirex*
(mi rex + photomirex)
mercury*
iron
aluminum
DDT + metabolites*
octachlorostyrene
hexachlorobenzene*
dieldrin*
hexachlorocyc lo-
hexanes (including
(lindane + alpha-BHC)
heptachlor/
heptachlor epoxide
aldrin
endrin
1 ,2-dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-dichlorobenzene
l ,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2, 3-trichlorobenzene
1,2, 4-tr ichlorobenzene
1 , 3 , 5-trichlorobenzene
1 , 2,3,4-tetra-
chlorobenzene
copper
nickel
zinc
chromium
lead
manganese
A
A

A
A

A
NI
NI
B
B
B
B
C


C

C
C
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI

NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
Water Column
A
D

C
NI

NI
A
A
B
NI
B
B
C


C

NI
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

C
C
C
C
C
C
Summary
A (FT,
A (FT)

A (FT)
A (FT)

A (FT)
A ( WC )
A(WC)
B ( FT ,
B(FT)
B(FT,
B(FT,
C(FT,


C(FT,

C(FT)
C(FT,
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)

C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
WC)








WC)

WC)
WC)
WC)


WC)


WC)














                                                        76

-------
toxaphene
cadmium
D
NI
NI
D
D(FT)
D(WC)
pentachlorobenzene       E
polyfluorinated          E
 biphenyls
dioxins (other than      E
 2,3,7,8-TCDD)
polychlorinated          E
 dibenzofurans*
heptachlorostyrene       E
tetrachloroanisole       E
pentachloroanisole       E
chlorophenyl-[chloro     E
 (trifluoromethyl)
 phenylJmethanone
1,1'-(Difluoromethylene) E
 bis-dichloro-mono
 (trifluoromethyl)-
 benzene
pentachlorotoluenes      E
endosulfan               E
nonachlor (cis + trans)  E
                     C
                     NI

                     NI

                     NI

                     NI
                     NI
                     NI
                     NI
                     NI
                     NI
                     NI
                     NI
           E(FT)
           E(FT)

           E(FT)

           E(FT)

           E(FT)
           E(FT)
           E(FT)
           E(FT)
           E(FT)
           E(FT)
           E(FT)
           E(FT)
A - Exceeds enforceable standard
B - Exceeds a more stringent but unenforceable criterion
C - Equal to or less than most stringent criterion
D - Detection limit too high to allow complete categorization
E - No criterion available

NI- No data available after initial review by the TCW
FT- Based on fish tissue data
WC- Based on water column data
* - IJC critical pollutant
                                                                  77

-------
                             Table V

            Toxics for Which There is  No  Ambient Data
         But for Which There is Evidence of Presence In
                        or  Input to the Lake

                      (Category IIA Toxics)
halogenated alkanes

  methylene chloride
  dichloro(trifluoromethyl)
   a-a-difluoro diphenyl-
   methane
  trichlorofluoromethane
  dichloromethane
  dichlorobromomethane
  dibromochloromethane
  trichloromethane
  1,2-dichloropropane
haloaenated alkenes

  endosulfan sulfate
  hexachlorobutadiene
  cis-l,3-dichloropropene
  trans-1,3-dichloropropene
aldehydes

  endrin aldehyde
chlorinated ethanes

  1,1-dichloroethane
  1,2-dichloroethane
  1,1,1-trichlorethane
  1,1,2-trichloroethane
  1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
  hexachloroethane
chlorinated ethylenes

  1,1-dichloroethylene
  trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
  trichloroethylene
  tetrachloroethylene
ketones

  isophorone
                                                                  78

-------
phthalate esters

  diethyl phthalate
  di-n-butyl phthalate
  di-n-octyl phthalate
  butylbenzyl phthalate
  bis(2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate
  dioctyl phthalate
phenols

  bromophenol
  dibromophenol
  tribromophenol
  pentachlorophenol
haiQ.et.hers.

  4-bromophenylphenyl ether
  pentachlorophenylmethyl
   ether
  tribromoanisole
  dibromochloroanisole
  bromodichloroanisole
ethers

  diethyl ether
hydrocarbons

  benzene
amines

  benzidine
  simazine
  atrazine
  diethylatrazine
  desethylatrazine
  tribromoaniline
  dibromochloroaniline
styreries (alkenylbenzenes)

  hexachlorostyrene
  pentachlorostyrene
nitro and riitroso compounds

  nitrobenzene
                                                                  79

-------
polvnuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons

  phenanthrene
  anthracene
  fluoranthene
  pyrene
  chrysene
  perylene
  coronene
  benzo(a)pyrene*
  benzo(e)pyrene
  benzo(b)fluoranthene
  benzo(j)fluoranthene
  benzo(k)fluoranthene
  benzo(b)chrysene
  benz(a)anthracene
  dibenz(a,h)anthracene
  benzo(g,h,i)perylene
  ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
alkvlbenzenes
  toluene
  tribromotoluene
  ethylbenzene
  sec-butylbenzene
  n-propylbenzene
hydroxv compounds

  tribromocresol
dialkylberizenes

  p-xylene
  m-xylene
  o-xylene
pesticide active ingredients

  methoxychlor
  2,4 ,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic
    acid
trialkylbenzenes

  1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
  l, 3 ,5-trimethylbenzene
                                       other substances

                                         s iIvex
                                         dachtal
                                                                  80

-------
  barium
  antimony
  beryllium
  molybdenum
  silver
  strontium
  selenium
  tin
  titanium
  thallium
metal containing compounds

  butyltin
  dibutyltiii
  methyltin
  dimethyltin
  tributyltin
  alkyl-lead*
non metals

  cyanide
*IJC critical pollutant
                                                                  81

-------
                            Table VI
                  Differing  Actions  by Category
        Category
          Action
I.   Ambient data available

    A.   Exceeds enforceable
        standard
Early Implementation

o  Construct a preliminary loadings
   matrix.
o  Construct preliminary models of
   chemical fate.
o  Establish preliminary load
   reduction targets to meet
   existing standards.
o  Establish a preliminary plan t.o
   achieve load reduction targets.
o  Implement selected, high-
   priority components of the
   preliminary plan.

Full Implementation

o  Ensure that a consistent set of
   adequately protective, legally
   enforceable standards are
   available.
o  Refine the preliminary loadings
   matrix, the preliminary models of
   chemical fate,  and the load
   reduction targets.
o  Finalize the plan to achieve
   load reduction targets.
o  Implement the plan.
    B.   Exceeds a more
        stringent, but
        unenforceable
        criterion
o  Ensure that a consistent set of
   adequately protective, legally
   enforeable water quality
   standards are available.
o  Move toxic to Category IA or 1C,
   as appropriate.
o  Concurrently construct a
   preliminary loadings matrix and
   preliminary models of chemical
   fate in order to avoid delays  in
   the -event that chemicals are
   moved to Category IA.
                                                                 82

-------
                         Table VI (Continued)
                     Differing Actions by Category
        Category
          Action
    C.   Equal  to  or  less
        than most stringent
        criterion
o
No short-term water quality based
actions are necessary.
Review as criteria change.
    D.   Detection limit  too
        high to  allow  complete
        categorization
    E.   No criterion  available
o  Use a more sensitive analytical
   method or a surrogate monitoring
   technique.
o  Move to Category 1A, B, C, or E,
   as appropriate.

o  Develop criterion, as necessary.
o  Move to Category IA-D,  as
   appropriate.
II.  Ambient data not  available

    A.   Evidence of presence
        in or input to the
        Lake
   Monitor in ambient environment,
   as appropriate.  (Priority will
   be given to the 6 chemicals that
   exceed water quality standards in
   the Niagara River at Niayara-on-
   the-Lake.)
   Move to Category IA-E, as
   appropriate.
    B.   No evidence of
        presence in or input
        to the Lake
o  No short-term water quality-based
   actions are necessary.
o  Review as new evidence becomes
   available.
                                                                 83

-------
                         Table VI (Continued)
                     Differing  Actions  by  Category
      Category
          Action
All Categories
o  Categorization, as appropriate,
   based on water column and fish
   tissue data in relation to water
   column and fish tissue
   standards, and criteria
   respectively.

o  Use ambient data for other media
   (e.g. sediment) for Category I
   categorization as standards and
   criteria for these media become
   available.

o  Review categorization
   periodically to reflect new data,
   and to reflect changes in
   standards, and criteria.

-------
                                                              Table VII
                                   Planned Actions  Driven By Lake-wide Analyses of Pollutant Fate
00
ACTION
VI IA.
VIIA1.
VIIA2.
VIIB.
VII31.
VIIBla
i
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
Maintain a current categorization of toxics in the Lake
Expand the list of
toxics based on
readily available
existing inform-
ation
Maintain a current
categorized list of
toxics in the Lake
Expanded list of
toxics
Updated list
Report recommend-
ing the collection
of additional
ambient data to
support Category I
Categorization
Lake Ontario
Toxics
Committee
Categorization
Committee
Categorization
Committee
Completed
July, 1989
July, 1989
I
Report available: "Categorization
Toxics in Lake Ontario", July 18,

of
1988
The list will be updated annually to
reflect new data and criteria
The Committee will attempt to develop
definitive categorizations as described
in Table VI
Take differing actions based on category
Category IA: Ambient data available; exceeds enforceable standard
. Early implementation, where possible, based on incomplete information
. Assess loadings
matrix
Revised loadings
matrix, as
appropriate
Fate of Toxics
Committee
December, 1989



Appendix III contains a preliminary
loadings matrix; the Fate of Toxics
Committee will attempt to improve it

-------
                                                          Table VII
                                                        - continued -
ACTION
ii.
iii.
Select obvious
control prograns
based on best
professional
judgement
Implement obvious
control prograns
OUTPUT
Selected control
programs for early
implementation
Implemented
programs
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Lake Ontario
Toxics Committee
Four Agencies
DEADLINE
March, 1990
Dependent on
VIIBlaii outputs
COMMENTS
Obvious control program will focus on
significant sources of priority
toxics, and will be influenced by
Level I modelling (See VIIBlbic output)

VIIBlb.  Full implementation based on more complete information
VIIBlbi. Define fate of priority toxics in Lake Ontario
        Develop proposed
        conceptual models
        of pollutant fate
        for all priority
        toxics (Categories
        IA and IB)
Proposed concep-
tual models
Fate of Toxics
Committee
March, 1989
Models must account for essential
system characteristics as discussed
in Appendix IX
     b. Select appropriate
        conceptual models
        incorporating peer
        review recaranenda-
        tions
Final conceptual
models
Fate of Toxics
Committee
June, 1989
Requires the convening of a peer review
panel
     c. Develop prelimin-
        ary (Level I)
        models based on
        existing database
Level I models
Fate of Toxics
Committee
January, 1990
Level I models will influence selection
of control programs for early implemen-
tation (See VIIBlaii outputs).  The
models will be used to estimate the
reductions in loadings necessary to
achieve standards and criteria, and to
assess the reliability of those
estimates
  OO

-------
                                                           Table VII
                                                         - continued -
ACTION
d. Develop proposed
research and
monitoring program
to refine the
Level I models
e. Develop refined
models and use
than to specify
the reductions in
loadings necessary
to achieve stand-
ards and criteria
OUTPUT
Research and
monitoring program
Refined models
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Fate of Toxics
Committee
Fate of Toxics
Committee
DEADLINE
March, 1990
1994
COMMENTS
Design based on sensitivity analyses
developed using Level I models
Requires implementation of research and
monitoring program. The 1994 deadline
is an estimate based on the time taken
thus far in conducting the Green Bay
Mass Balance Study. The deadline is
subject to change based on the results
of activity VIIBlbid
VIIBlbii. Ensure that a consistent set of adequately protective, legally enforceable standards are available for priority
          toxics
     a. Report on dif-
        ferences in stan-
        dards among
        agencies
        and recommend ways
        to resolve them
Report recommen-
ding standards
reconcilation
Standards and
Criteria
Committee
 July, 1989
As shown in Appendix II, the standards
and criteria for priority toxics are
not always consistent among jurisdic-
tions.
     b. Develop and adopt
        revised standards
Consistent
enforceable
standards for
priority toxics
Individual
Agencies (e.g.,
NYSDEC, MOE)
Dependent on
VIIBlbiia
VIIBlbiii. Evaluate and
           select
        alternative water
        quality-based
        control programs
	for priority toxics
Selected control
programs for full
implementation
Lake Ontario
Toxics Committee
Dependent on
VIIBlbi and
VIIBlbii
Support provided by Fate of Toxics
Committee
    00

-------
                                                           Table VII
                                                         - continued -
          ACTION
VIIBlbiv. Implement the
          selected water
          quality-based
          control prograirs
          for priority
          toxics
   OUTPUT
Implemented
Programs
RESPONSIBLE
   PARTY
Four Agencies
 DEADLINE
Dependent on
VIIBlbiii outputs
COWENTS
VIIB2.  Category IB:  Ambient data available; exceeds a more stringent, but  unenforceable criterion
VIIB2a.
VIIB2b.
VIIB2c.
Ensure that a con-
sistent set of
adequately pro-
tect ive", legally
enforceable
standards are
available
Develop and adopt
revised standards
Move toxic to
Category IA or 1C,
as appropriate
Report recommen-
ding toxics for
standards
development
Consistent
Standards
Standards and
Criteria
Committee
Individual
Agencies
July, 1989
Dependent on
VIIB2a output


See VIIA2
VIIB3.  Category 1C:  Ambient data available; equal to or less than most stringent  criterion
VIIB3a. Review as criterion
        chancres
       See VIIA2
 00
 00

-------
                                                            Table VII
                                                          - continued -
ACTION
VIIB4.
VIIB4a.
VIIB4b.
VIIB4C.
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
Category ID: Detection limit too high to allow complete categorization
Develop a report
identifying toxics
that require a
more analytic
protocol or a
surrogate monitor-
ing technique
Develop and use
new protocols and
surrogate monitor-
ing techniques
Move to Category
IA,B,C or E, as
appropriate
Report
Improved ability
to categorize
toxics
Categorization
Committee
Four Agencies
July, 1989
Dependent on
VIIB4a output


See VIIA2
VIIBS.  Category IE:  No criterion available
VIIB5a.
VIIBSb.
VIIBSc.
00
VD
Recommend the
development of
standards and
criteria
Develop criteria
or standards
Move to Category
IA-D, as appro-
priate
Report
Criteria or
standards
Standards and
Criteria
Committee
Four Agencies
July, 1989
Dependent on
VIIBSa
Input to be provided by Categorization
Committee (See VIIA2)

See VIIA2

-------
                                                           Table VII
                                                         - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
VIIB6.  Category IIA:  Ambient data not available; evidence ot presence in or input to the Lake
                           I
VIIB6a. Develop a report   |  Report
        recommending toxics)
        for priority       |
        consideration
        for additional
        monitoring
                                    I
                    Categorization  |  July, 1989
                    Committee       |
                                    I
                                     I
                                     |  Priority has already been assigned
                                     I  to six Category IIA toxics that
                                     |  exceed water column standards  in
                                       the Niagara River
VIIB6b. Monitor priority
        toxics
improved
categorization
Four Agencies
Dependent on
VIIB6a output
VIIB6c. Move to Category
        IA-IE, as appro-
	priate	
      See VIIA2
VI3B6d. Revise N.Y.S.
        tributary mon-
        itoring to include
        all Category IA
        and IB chanicals
	except dioxin	
Report on loadings
                                               T
NYSDEC
March, 1992
VTIB7.  Category I IB:  Ambient data not available;  no evidence of presence  in or input to the Lake
VIIBVa. No short-term water
        quality-based
        actions are
	necessary	
                           T
VIIBVb. Review as new
        evidence becomes
        available
      See VIIA2

-------
                                                           Table VII
                                                         - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
VIIC.   Use an ecosystem approach as a check on the effectiveness of the chemical-by-chemical approach to toxics control in
        Lake Ontario, and as a first step towards establishment of ecosystem objectives to achieve and maintain the chemical,
        physical, and biological integrity of Lake Ontario
VIIC1.
VIIC2.
VIIC3 .
VIIC4.
Develop ecosystem
objectives
Define a program of
research to support
the development of
improved ecosystem
objectives
Update Ecosystem
Health section
for Appendix II,
"Toxics Problem in
Lake Ontario"
Monitor progress
towards the attain-
ment of the eco-
system objectives
Initial ecosystem
objectives
Report
Revised
Appendix II
Annual Status
Reports
Ecosystem Objec-
tives Work Group
Ecosystem Objec-
tives Work Group
Lake Ontario
Secretariat
Lake
Ontario
Secretariat
February, 1990
February, 1990
August, 1990
Annually after
the establishment
of the ecosystem
objectives
An Ecosystem Objectives Work Group
will be established in February,
1989. Ecosystem objectives will
cover human health and the health of
biota and their predators.




-------
                                                           Table VII
                                                          -Continued-
ACTION

OUTPUT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

DEADLINE

COMMENTS

VIIC5.  Provide feedback on|  Annual Reports
        the effectiveness  |
        of the chemical-   |
        by-chemical
        approach
Lake Ontario
Secretariat
|Annually after the |  The rebuttable presumption of the Lake
|establisftnent of
(the ecosystem
[objectives
|  Ontario Toxics Management Plan is that
|  attainment and maintenance of chemical-
|  by-chemical standards  will be adequate
|  to ensure that toxics  do not interfere
  with the attainment of ecosystem
  objectives.   This rebuttable presump-
  tion will be re-evaluated annually.
    VD
    M

-------
                                                          Table VIII
                                        Planned Actions Associated with Zero Discharge
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
 VIIIA.
           Zero Discharge Commitments in the United States
 VIIIAl.
           Direct and Indirect Industrial Discharges
 VIIIAla.    Develop five year work-
             plan for review and
             revisions of existing
             BAT and NSPS effluent
             guidelines
                                         Workplan
                     EPA
3/89
 VIIIAlb.    Review all BPJ guidelines
             and revise as required
             by evolving technology
             on a five year cycle
                                         Revised BPJ
                                         guidelines within
                                         five year interval
                     DEC
1/94
 VIIIAlc.    Develop five year workplan
             to develop BAT and NSPS
             effluent guidelines for
             industrial categories for
             which they do not currently
             exist
                                         Workplan
                     EPA
3/89
VO
CO
VIIIAld.   Recommend the inclusion
           of industrial categories
           in the five year BAT/NSP
           workplan based on their
           contribution of toxic
           chemicals to Lake Ontario
Letter with
recommenda-
tions to
EPA-HQ
                                                               LOTC
3/89

-------
                                                  Table VIII
                                                - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
VIIIA2.
Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites
VIIIA2a.   Annual solicitation of
           proposals front private
           companies developing
           waste reduction tech-
           nologies
                               Announcement
                               in Commerce
                               Business  Daily
EPA
9/88
1/89
VIiIA2b.   Choose sites and firms
           to demonstrate technologies
                               Demonstrate
                               technology and
                               evaluate  applica-
                               bility  for media
                               and pollutant
                               remediation
EPA
Ongoing
VIllA2c.   Assess areas
           and chemicals
           of concern in
           Basin for poten-
           tial as SITE
           demonstration
                               Recommendation
                               to SITE program
                               manager
EPA/NYSDEC
3/88
VIIIA3.    Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
VIIIASa.
Develop technical
assistance documents
(TADS) for waste
minimization
Technical
assistance
documents
EPA/NYSDEC
1988-1995
EPA TADs being developed
on long-term schedule.
NYSDEC manual due 3/89

-------
                                                    Table VIII
                                                    continued -
ACTION

VIIIA3b. Implement rule on
pretreatment of
hazardous waste
prior to land
disposal
VIIIA3c. Develop regulations
requiring submission
of Waste Reduction
Impact Statements
OUTPUT

Pretreatment
of waste from
electroplating,
steel and
other industries
Regulations

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
EPA
NYSDEC

DEADLINE

Immediate
6/89

COMMENTS




 VIIIA4.
Pesticides
 VIIIA4a.    Implement testing program
             for coranercial pesticide
             active ingredients
                                Testing of 600
                                chemicals
EPA
Nine years
from enact-
ment of
legislation
 VIIIA4b.   Identify pesticides that
            are a problem in Lake
            Ontario and request early
            action on restrictions
                                Recomme nda t ion
                                letter to EPA
LOTC
12/89
lO

-------
                                                   Table VIII
                                                 - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
VIIIA5.
Toxic Substances Control
VIIIASa.    Implement Comprehensive
            Assessment Information Rule
            (CAIR) of TSCA in support of
            risk assessment and further
            regulatory action
                                Collect  import,
                                manufacturing,
                                and process data
                                on toxic chemicals
EPA
Ongoing
VIIIASb.    Assess need for data on
            toxics of concern in Lake
            Ontario
                               Letter to EPA  re-
                               questing  amendment
                               to CAIR list to
                               include toxics of
                               concern
LOTC
12/89
VIIIASc.    Support program needs for
            toxics effects data through
            TSCA Testing Priorities
            Committee
                               Collect  testing,
                               analytical, and
                               treatment data
                               on  toxic chemicals
EPA
Ongoing
VIllASd.    Assess need for data on
            toxics of concern in Lake
            Ontario
                               Letter  to EPA re-
                               guesting exposure,
                               analytical  and
                               treatment data
LOTC
12/89

-------
                                                  Table VIII
                                                - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
COMMENTS
VIIIA6.
Household Hazardous Waste
VIIIA6a.    Develop household hazardous
            waste disposal program in
            Basin and increase community
            awareness
                                           Provide technical
                                           assistance to local
                                           program sponsors
                                                    NYSDEC
Ongoing
VIIIA6b.    Develop procedure for
            establishment of a permanent
            waste collection station
                                           Manual on permit-
                                           ting, construction,
                                           and operation of a
                                           collection station
                                                    NYSDEC
9/89

-------
                                                           Table VIII
                                                          - continued -
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
1
| DEADLINE
1
| COMMENTS
    VIIIB*.  Zero Discharge Commitments  in  Canada
    VIIIB1. Implement the Municipal-
            Industrial Strategy for
            abatement (MISA)  Program
            for:

            i  - Direct Industrial
                 and Municipal
                 Discharges

            ii - Indirect Discharges
Effluent Limit
Regulations for
9 industrial
sectors and the
municipal sector;
Effluent Limit
Regulation for
industrial
discharges
to municipal
systems
MOE
                                                                            See Tables IBl
                                                                            and IB2
    VIIIB2. Implement Projects under
            the Comprehensive  Waste
            Management Funding
            Program:

            - Municipal 4  Rs Program
            - Industrial 4 Rs  Program
            - Household Hazardous
              Waste Program
                     MOE
                   Ongoing
                                                                                            The  4Rs  are:   reduction,
                                                                                            reuse, recycling and  recovery
VD
00
VIIIB3. Implement Pesticides
        management components
        of "Food Systems 2002":

        - Ontario Pesticides
          Education Program

        - Research-Integrated
          Pest Management
  50% reduction
  in Pesticides
  use

  Farmer Education
  Programs

  Solicited
  Research
  Program
                                                            Ontario Ministry
                                                            of Agriculture
                                                            and Food (OMAF)

                                                            MOE/OMAF
                                                            MOE/OMAF
                   2002
                   Ongoing
                   Ongoing

-------
 Table VIII
- continued  -

ACTION
VIIIB4* Fund and conduct
research programs
and technology
development








VI I IBS. Implementation of the
Canadian Environmental
Protection Act
-






















OUTPUT
Industrial
process change
to reduce
loadings
Innovative
technology to
enhance
reduction,
recycling,
recovery and
reuse of
waste materials
A new regulatory
framework























RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE











Environment
Canada
























DEADLINE
Ongoing











To be esta-
blished























	  	 .  .   v 
COMMENTS

i










Implementation of CEPA
will include:

The development of a compr-
ehensive regulatory scheme
to control toxic substances
at each stage of the life
cycle from development and
manufacture through transport,
distribution, use and storage
and to there ultimate disposal
as waste
The creation of a "living"
list of priority substances
subject to on going assessment
for health and environmental
impacts and control actions
including regulatory
restriction
The imposition of a requir-
ement on industry to supply
the data necessary to allow
for evaluation and assessment
before materials are
permitted to enter Canada

-------
LAKE ONTARIO TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
                      Appendix I




        Lake Ontario  and  the Lake Ontario Basin

-------
                           Table of Contents
                                                            Page
A.   Introduction                                             1

B.   Lake Characteristics
          i)   Morphometry                                    1
         ii)   Circulation                                    2
        iii)   Water Balance                                  2
         iv)   Chemical Characteristics                       3
          v)   Biological Characteristics                     A
         vi)   Environmental Status                           5

C.   Basin Characteristics
          i)   Physiography                                   6
         ii)   Tributary System                               6
        iii)   Population                                     9
         iv)   Land and Water Use                             9

D.   References                                               15
                                   (i)

-------
List of Tables
Table                           Title
 1-1           Major Tributaries to Lake Ontario
 1-2           Lake Ontario Population and Population
               Density by Sub-Basin                               10
 1-3           Industrial Establishments in the
               Canadian Lake Ontario Basin                        11

                                          3
 1-4           Average Daily Flows (1000 m /day) and
               Population (x 1000) Served by Waterworks
               Using Lake Ontario as a Source                     13


 1-5           Water Withdrawal (1000 m /day) by Power
               Generating Facilities on Lake Ontario              14
List of Figures

Figure                             Title                         Page

  1-1           Sedimentation Basins  in Lake Ontario                 1


  1-2           Lake Ontario Basin  and Major Sub-Basins              7
                                   (ii)

-------
A.    INTRODUCTION

      Lake Ontario  is  the  last  lake  in  the Great Lakes  chain  and
      consequently  environmental conditions  in  this  lake will reflect
      not only activities  carried on within  its basin but also
      influences upstream  from  the rest of the  Great Lakes drainage
      basin/ The following  information describes some  of the basic
      features of the  lake and  its basin.
B.   LAKE CHARACTERISTICS

      i)  Morphometry

          Lake Ontario is~the smallest of the Great Lakes  in surface
          area (18,960 km ) and shoreline length (1,146 km) but, with
          a maximum depth of 244m, its average depth of 86m is second
          only to Lake Superior.  This gives the lake a relatively
          deep bottom contour and, as a result, a significant fraction
          of the bottom, 47%, is classified as non-depositional.  A
          wide variety of sediment types (gravel, sand, silty sand and
          silts) and bedrock exposures are evident in the
          non-depositional inshore zone.

          Three basins, Niagara, Mississauga and Rochester, are
          recognized in the main portion of the lake with  a distinct
          separation from a fourth basin, Kingston, at the eastern end
          of the lake (Figure 1-1).  Sediment deposits in  the basins
          consist of fine silty clays and clays which have accumulated
          for the past 11,600 years (Thomas, 1983).
                                                SCOTCH BONNET
                                                   SU.
Figure I-I:
Sf.d imputation Basins in Lake- Ontario (Thomas, 1983).

-------
                                - 2 -
i i) Circulation

    Water circulation patterns are highly variable being influenced
    by wind stress on surface waters, hydraulic flows from
    discharging tributaries, water stratification and mixing and
    upwelling phenomena.  Circulation patterns for Lake Ontario are
    described in greater detail  in Simons and Schertzer (1985) and
    Simons et al (1985).  The generalized circulation pattern shows
    the  flow from the Niagara River moving predominantly eastward
    along the south  shore of the lake.  This is balanced by a
    westward flow in mid-lake, thus setting up a lake-wide
    counterclockwise circulation pattern.  Net flow along the north
    shore is negligible with both eastward and westward components.

    Simons et ail (1985) computed net water transport  in Lake Ontario
    to show that the eastward flow along the south shore to be 70,000
    m /second.  Comparing this to the outflow to the  St. Lawrence  and
    observations of  periodic westward flows from the  Niagara, they
    concluded that more than 90% of the inflowing water must be
    recirculated.  With a mean speed of 5 km/day in the belt of  the
    eastward flow and  the length of the lake being approximately 300
    km,  it was  suggested that the time  scale for recirculation is  a
    few  months.  This  is indicative of  a relatively short mixing time
    within the  lake  which could  ensure  the distribution of an
     introduced  persistent substance throughout the lake in a
    timeframe within 1-2 years.   Researchers (Thomas,  1983; Simon  et
    al,  1985) have also correlated the  distribution of sediment
    contaminants  in  the depositional basins with the  water
    circulation patterns.
iii) Water Balance

     The dominant inflow of water to Lake Ontario is from the Niagara
     River.  The average flow out of Lake Erie into the Niagara River
     for the period 1900 to 1983 is 5800 m /sec which is 85% of3the
     average Lake Ontario outflow to the St.  Lawrence of 6800 m /sec
     (Yee and Lloyd, 1985).  The five major tributaries to the lake,
     the Trent, Oswego, Twelve Mile Creek, Black and Genesee Rivers
     with flows of 198, 189, 179, 117 and 79 m /sec contribute an
     additional 11% (762 m /sec) of the outflow.  Direct precipitation
     to the lake surface accounts for an additional 500 m /sec (50
     year average) while evaporation represents an average annual loss
     of approximately 530 m /sec (Bruce and Rodgers, 1962).

-------
                                 - 3  -
                                      3                         3
    Assuming  a  lake volume of  1640 km  and an outflow of  6800 m /sec,
    the  residence  time  of water  in Lake Ontario, defined  as  the time
    required  to displace all the water  in the lake,  is  approximately
    7.6  years.   In the  consideration  of the natural  displacement  of
    pollution from Lake Ontario, such a calculated residence time is
    not  realistic  for it does  not consider influences such as mixing,
    stratification, sorption/desorption and biological  processes
    which do  occur.  Considering only dispersion and dilution
    processes and  assuming no  continuing  inputs of pollutants,  it has
    been estimated that 20 years would  be required to remove 90%  of
    the  pollution  from  Lake Ontario  (IJC, 1969).  More  recent
    modelling efforts  (IJC,  1987) have  suggested that the water
    column may  be  highly responsive  to  changes  in pollutant  loadings
    but  actual  measured responses to loading  reductions are  not
    available.
iv)  Chemical Characteristics

     A review of Lake Ontario water chemistry on major ions,  specific
     conductance and total dissolved solids can be found in Stevens
     (1987).  The intent here is to describe some of the major
     features, particularly those water quality characteristics that
     are influenced by human activity.

     Beeton (1969) and Dobson (1967) noted the increase in total
     dissolved solids, calcium, chloride, sodium, potassium and
     sulfate in Lake Ontario which Beeton believed started around 1910
     and continued through 1965, largely as a result of human
     activity.  During the period 1972 to 1983 major ion characteris-
     tics were considerably different with decreases noted for
     specific conductance, calcium, chloride and sodium (Stevens,
     1987).

     The accelerated cultural eutrophication of Lakes Erie and Ontario
     led to the introduction of a phosphorus control program in the
     1970's which was primarily directed to the removal of phosphorus
     at sewage treatment plants.  Phosphorus was seen to be the
     principal nutrient driving the eutrophication process.  Total
     phosphorus in the surface waters of Lake Ontario peaked in 1973
     and all measured forms of phosphorus have declined since that
     time consistent with phosphorus  loading reductions to the lake
     (Water Quality Board, 1987).  Relative stability in water
     transparency and summer oxygen depletion rates in Lake Ontario
     have been attributed to phosphorus  control  (Dobson, 1985).

-------
                                 -  4  -
     Increases in nitrate + nitrite concentrations  have been noted
     throughout the Great Lakes Basin and this  has  been raised  as a
     concern by the Water Quality Board in its  1985 report to the
     International Joint Commission.  Nitrate is a  plant nutrient
     which can influence algal growth and community structure and
     thereby impact on food web dynamics in the lake ecosystem.
     Increased nitrogen loading to Lake Ontario can be attributed to a
     complex mixture of atmospheric, agricultural,  urban and upstream
     sources.
v)   Biological Characteristics

     Lake Ontario has some characteristics associated with eutrophic
     conditions and others indicating oligotrophy.  Morphometrically,
     the lake is oligotrophic but water quality is characteristic of
     mesotrophic lakes.  In addition, some areas, such as the Bay of
     Quinte, are eutrophic.  As a result of the increasing enrichment
     of the lake, a doubling of the mean annual biomass of algae at
     the Toronto water intake was observed over the period 1923 to
     1954 with a shift in dominant genera similar to that of Lake Erie
     (Shenk and Thompson, 1965).

     More recent data on phytoplankton indicator species suggest that
     the status of the lake is changing from meso-eutrophic to
     meso-oligotrophic which would be compatible with the decreases  in
     phosphorus loadings (Water Quality Board, 1987).  Zooplankton
     community structure is indicative of mesotrophic to oligotrophic
     conditions (Makarewicz, 1985).

     A substantial change has occurred in the fish communities of the
     lake over the last 60-80 years  (Beeton, 1969;  Loftus and Regier,
     1972; Christie, 1974).  The native forage and top predator
     species  (e.g. Atlantic salmon,  lake trout and blue pike) have
     been eliminated or dramatically reduced through a complex
     interaction of habitat alteration, pollution, overfishing and the
     introduction of exotic species, most notably the sea lamprey and
     alewife.  Today, populations of top predator fish (lake trout and
     exotic Pacific salmon) are being maintained and increased yearly
     through  an extensive hatchery rearing and stocking program.

     A generalized food web existing in Lake Ontario would consist of
     a predator fish in the family Salmonidae (e.g.  lake trout,  coho
     salmon)  which feeds upon smelt, alewifes and sculpin.  The  diet
     of  these forage fish  is composed predominantly  of amphipods,
     mysids and crustacean zooplankton which  in  turn feed on fine
     particulate matter and phytoplankton.  Bioaccumulation of toxic
     chemicals within  this food web  is evident resulting  in
     substantially elevated concentrations  in the top predator fish
     (Borgmann and Whittle, 1983).

-------
                                 - 5 -
vi)  Environmental Status

     The trophic status of the lake appears to be responding
     positively to the phosphorus loading reduction programs on the
     lower Great Lakes.  Algal and zooplankton assemblages that are
     evolving are consistent with a reduced nutrient status and while
     some of the water quality changes that have occurred in the lake
     are not as dramatic as might be desired, there are indications
     that conditions are not worsening and a measure of stability has
     been introduced.

     Present fish populations largely reflect human intervention
     through extensive stocking programs.  Present stocking levels by
     New York State and Ontario amount to approximately 8.5 million
     salmon and trout per year (Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 1987).
     While the stocking programs, together with other fishery
     management and water quality initiatives, have led to the
     existence of large populations of salmonids in Lake Ontario,
     changes within the structure of the forage fish base have led to
     questions as to whether these populations can be sustained
     (Christie et al, 1987).  Furthermore, as only limited success has
     been achieved with the reestablishment of naturally reproducing
     species, the maintenance of existing habitat together with the
     restoration of degraded habitat will play a large role in the
     rehabilitation of the Lake Ontario fishery.

     Lake Ontario, in terms of diversity and concentrations of
     persistent toxic substances found within environmental compart-
     ments of the system, is recognized as the most contaminated of
     the Great Lakes  (Water Quality Board, 1983, 1985, 1987).
     Substantial  improvements, based on concentration trend informa-
     tion from biota, have been experienced  since the 1960's for a
     variety of contaminants.  For the most  part this improvement
     reflects the controls placed on the manufacture and use of
     certain chemicals  (e.g. PCBs, DDT, mercury, mirex and dioxin).
     However, since  the early  1980's no apparent trend has been
     evident for  some  substances  (e.g. PCBs  and mirex) suggesting
     continuing inputs  or recycling within the lake ecosystem.   In
     addition, enhanced sampling  and analytical technology have  led  to
     the detection of  substances  where environmental distribution and
     trend  data are  unavailable.

     Continuing problems with  persistent  toxic substances  on the Great
     Lakes  have  led  to a  series  of  coordinated binational  efforts to
     characterize environmental  conditions and sources.  This  has
      included  the Niagara River  Toxics Committee  (1981-84), Niagara
     River  Toxics Management  Plan (ongoing), Upper  Great  Lakes
     Connecting  Channels  Study (1984-88)  and the  present  development
     of a  Lake Ontario Toxics  Management Plan.

-------
                                 - 6 -

C.   BASIN CHARACTERISTICS

     i)   Physiography

          Much of the following overview has been extracted from
          DeCooke and Witherspoon,  1973.

          The  Lake  Ontario  basin  reflects  the  influence  of  the  ice  age
          when it and the other Great Lakes were  formed.  Areas near
          the  lake  were covered with water following  the glaciation
          period, resulting in beaches,  wave-cut  cliffs  and deltas.
          At the higher elevations,  the  relief reflects  the action  of
          the  ice and the land forms are typical  of a glaciated area
          with moraines, drumlins,  eskers  and  till plains.  In  the
          northeast portion of the  basin the area is  interlaced with
          lakes and frequent outcrops of the Precambrian Shield.  This
          extends eastward  to the Adirondack Plateau  as  an  outlier  of
          the  Precambrian Shield.  South from  the lake,  lowlands  occur
          near the  shore rising  to  the glaciated  upland  with  its
          moraines  and  drumlins.  Behind this  is  the  Allegheny  Plateau
          which forms the northern  edge of the Appalachian  formation.
          This plateau  is deeply  indented  by the  Finger  Lakes of  New
          York State.

          The  drainage  of the basin is characterized  by  small streams
          draining  the  lowland areas which have their sources in  the
           steeper  slopes of the  moraines.  These  lowlands are the most
           important areas around the lake  since the principal cities  and
           agricultural  areas are located on  them  near the lake.  The  soils
           are  generally sands, silts and clays near the  lake  with loams and
           coarse materials  in the moraines.  Most of  the land has been
           cleared  for  agriculture.   The drainage  of the  uplands is  by the
           larger river  systems.   These are made up of interconnected  lakes.
          Typical  are  the Trent  River on the north shore and  the  Genesee
           and  Oswego Rivers on the  south shore.  Agriculture  is practiced
           on the medium-textured soils of  the  drumlins and  till plains
          which these  river systems drain.  However,  their  upper  reaches
           are  steep moraines and in the south  the Precambrian Shield  which
           for  the  most  part is still forested.  These uplands are dotted
          with many small  lakes  which serve  as summer vacation  areas  for
           the  population living in urbanized areas near the lake.


 ii)  Tributary System

      The main  sub-basins and tributaries are identified in Figure 1-2
      and Table 1-1.  Tributary flow, excluding the_Niagara River, is
      divided almost equally between Ontario  (434 m /sec) and New York
      State (429 m /sec) (IJC, 1969).  Over 40% of the Canadian

-------
       OSHAWA


TORONTO
                                                                                                   Sub-Basins
                                                                                        Ontano
                                                                                         160  Belleville - Napanee Area Rivers
                                                                                         161 -Trent River
                                                                                         162 - Oshawa - Colborne Area Rivers
                                                                                         163 - Toronto Area Rivers
                                                                                         164 - Hamilton Area Rivers
                                                                                         165 - Niagara Peninsula Rivers
                                                                                        New York
                                                                                          03  Lake Ontario   01 Western Section
                                                                                                          02 Central Section
                                                                                                          03 Eastern Section
                                                                                          04 - Genesee River
                                                                                          07 - Seneca - Oneida - Oswego Rivers
                                                                                          08 - Black River
                     Lake Ontario Basin and Major Sub-Basins
Figure 1-2:

-------
                                 -  8 -
     tributary flow discharges to the Bay of Quinte which in turn
     discharges to the North Channel between Amherst Island and the
     mainland.  Some work has been undertaken on exchange flows in
     this area (Freeman and Prinsenberg,  1986) which identified a
     persistent counterclock-wise circulation around Amherst Island but
     no determination was made on the relative exchange of flow to the
     lake (Kingston Basin) and the St. Lawrence River.   Stevens
     (1987), in a zonation scheme for water quality in Lake Ontario,
     suggested that contributions from the Bay of Quinte and the Black
     River have little impact on the main body of the lake.  The Black
     River constitutes approximately 25% of the New York State
     tributary flow to Lake Ontario (UC, 1969).
TABLE 1-1:              Major Tributaries to Lake Ontario

Sub-Basin                      Tributary                 Flow (m /sec)

 Ontario                       Niagara River                  5700

  160                          Moira River                       38
                               Salmon River                      13
                               Napanee River                      8

  161                          Trent River                      198

  163                          Humber River                       9
                               Don River                          5
                               Duffin Creek                       3

  164                          Hamilton Harbour                  39
                               Oakville Creek                     2
  165                          Twelve Mile Creek                179
                               Welland CanalU'                10-31

 New York

    03                          Oak Orchard Creek                  10
                               Johnson Creek                      4
                               Irondequoit Creek                  3
                               Eighteenmile Creek                 3
                               Sandy Creek                        3
                               Northrup Creek                     1

    04                          Genesee River                      79

    07                          Oswego River                      189

    08                          Black River                       117

-------
                                 -  9  -
     (1)   Flow from this  tributary  is  almost  entirely  composed  of
          water discharged  from the De Cew  Falls hydroelectric  power
          plant which withdraws water  from  the  Welland Canal.

     (2)   The Welland Canal is  not  a natural  tributary but  it does
          divert water from Lake Erie  to  Lake Ontario.   In  recent
          years approximately 240m  /sec enters  the Canal at Port
          Colborne;  most of the volume is  withdrawn for power
          generation, water quality enhancement and domestic and
          industrial consumption and is not returned to the Canal.
          The range of values shown represents  Canal flows  entering
          Lake Ontario during typical  non-navigational and
          navigational seasons.  The Welland Canal does receive
          discharges from municipal and industrial facilities.
iii) Population

     The Lake Ontario basin was settled earlier than the rest of the
     Great Lakes Basin and by 1860 the population was about 1.4
     million (Beeton, 1969).  Today there are approximately 6.5
     million people living within the basin with the Ontario
     population more than twice that of New York State (Table 1-2).
     In addition, the Ontario population is growing at a faster rate.
     During the decade 1970/71-1980/81 the Ontario population grew at
     an annual average rate of 1.7% (Statistics Canada, 1986).  The
     increase was primarily associated with urban development in the
     Toronto and Hamilton centered sub-basins (the Ontario basin
     population is approximately 91% urban).  The New York State
     population, however, remained virtually unchanged during the same
     period.

     It is projected that the Lake Ontario basin population will grow
     to 7.8 million by the year 2000, an increase of 20% from 1980/81.
iv)  Land and Water Use

     A detailed description of land use in the Lake Ontario basin can
     be found in reports associated with the International Reference
     Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities (PLUARG,
     1976).  An analysis of summary data from these reports (PLUARG,
     1977) indicate that the major land uses in the basin can be
     broken down as follows:

          Urban (residential and commercial/industrial      - 7%
          Agriculture (cropland and pasture)                -39%
          Forest                                            -49%
          Other (lakes, wetlands, parks, etc.)              - 5%

-------
                                - 10 -
TABLE 1-2:
          Lake Ontario Population and Population Density
                  by Sub-Basin
Sub-Basin
Ontario
 Area
 (km2)
                             1980/81
      Population

       (1)
                               2000
                                                 (2)
              Population Density
                 (persons km )
              1980/81      2000
  160
  161
  162
  163
  164
  165

Total
 7055
12815
 1910
 3050
 2300
 1043

28173
  178,316
  217,513
  197,523
2,642,678
  704,713m
  402,944v '

4,343,687
  225,748
  275,371
  250,064
3,345,630
  892,426
  510,127

5,499,366
 25
 17
103
866
306
386
  32
  21
 130
1096
 388
 489
New York State

03-01
   02
   03
03(total)      6364
04             6146
07            13266
08             4962

Total         30,738
249,700
249,100
73,100
571,900
266,800
1,235,000
63,600
268,600
268,300
91,500
628,400
290,500
1,314,600
87,300
                                              90
                                              43
                                              93
                                              13
                                           98
                                           47
                                           99
                                           18
               2,137,300
              2,320,800
Lake Ontario
 Total
58,911
6,480,987
7,820,166
      (1)   Ontario  and  New York  State population data  based  on  1981  and  1980
           Census figures, respectively.

      (2)   Ontario  population  projections  based on  an  assumed annual growth
           rate of  1.4% (IJC,  1985);  average  annual rate  during  1981-86 for
           counties adjacent to  Lake Ontario was 1.8%;   Statistics Canada
           (1985) average annual growth rate to year 2000  for the Province
           of Ontario is about 1.2%.

           New York State population projections based on  N.Y.S.  DEC (1985);
           town/county data have been apportioned to sub-basins.
      (3)  Population for this sub-basin was estimated.

-------
                                     -  11  -
     Industrial/commercial activity in Ontario  is  centered  on  the  urban  fringe
     running around the western end of Lake Ontario  from Oshawa  to St.
     Catharines whereas in New York State the activity is based  in the major
     urban centers of Rochester, Syracuse and Oswego.   As an indication  of the
     sectors represented in the Ontario portion of the basin,  a  special
     tabulation was made on data contained in Statistics Canada  (1986) whereby
     the number of establishments was identified in each sub-basin (an
     establishment is defined as the smallest operating unit capable of
     reporting a specified range of basic industrial statistics).   The
     sub-basins, the number of establishments and the major industrial  sectors
     represented (based on number of facilities and people  employed) are shown
     in Table 1-3.
TABLE 1-3;     Industrial Establishments in the Canadian
                          Lake Ontario Basin

Sub-basin   Establishments              Major Sectors

  160          171            Food and beverage; paper and allied industries;
                              metal fabricating.

  161          310            Rubber and plastics products;  printing,
                              publishing and allied industries;  machinery;
                              electrical products.

  162          188            Rubber and plastic products;  paper and allied
                              industries; printing, publishing and allied
                              industries;  metal fabricating; transportation
                              equipment.

  163         6916            Food and beverage; rubber and plastic products;
                              leather; textiles; clothing; furniture and
                              fixtures; paper and allied industries; printing,
                              publishing and allied industries; metal
                              fabricating; machinery; transportation equipment;
                              electrical products; chemical and chemical
                              products; miscellaneous manufacturing.

  164          960            Food and beverage; rubber and plastic products;
                              printing, publishing and allied  industries;
                              primary metal; metal fabricating; machinery;
                              electrical products; chemical and chemical
                              products.

  165          629            Textiles; clothing; furniture and fixtures;  paper
                              and allied industries; primary metal; metal
                              fabricating; machinery; transportation equipment.

 (Sub-basin 165  includes  the  Niagara River basin in this tabulation).

-------
                             - 12 -
Lake Ontario is of considerable socio-economic value, providing water
for human consumption, manufacturing, transportation, power,
recreation and a variety of other uses.  Withdrawals by municipalities
for public water supplies constitute the major consumptive use.
Approximately 2.6 million cubic metres are withdrawn daily to serve a
combined Ontario and New York State population of 4.6 million.  Withdrawals are
predominantly by Ontario where the population distribution is heavily oriented
along the shoreline (Table 1-4).  Use for power generation, essentially for
cooling purposes in thermally generated power, is also substantial (more than
36 million cubic metres withdrawn per day) but little of this water is actually
consumed (Table 1-5).

Lake Ontario continues to support a commercial fishery.  In 1985,
Ontario harvested 1.7 million Ibs (predominantly whitefish, yellow
perch and eel) while the New York State catch amounted to 200,000 Ibs.
This was the first time this century that the total commercial catch
for the lake dropped below 2 million Ibs (Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, 1986).  The recreational fishery, however, continues to
grow in both jurisdictions and constitutes a major industry on the
lake.  Trip expenditures (i.e. boats, angling equipment, bait,
lodging, etc.) by Canadian and U.S. anglers on Lake Ontario in 1980 were
estimated at $108 million (Talhelm, 1988).

-------
                             - 13 -
TABLE 1-4:
 Average Daily Flows (1000 m /day) and
Population (x 1000) Served by Waterworks
    Using Lake Ontario as a Source
     Ontario

Grimsby
Hamilton (and area)
Lincoln
Burlington
Cobourg
Toronto (and area)
Mississauga (and area)
Newcastle
Oakville
Oshawa (and area)
Port Hope
Bath
Belleville
Deseronto
Ernestown
Kingston
Kingston Township
Napanee
Picton
Thurlow
                Sub-total:
                  Flow

                    7.0
                  277.8
                    2.1
                   58.3
                    9.1
                 1352.0
                  285.8
                    7.9
                   A3.6
                   83.1
                    9.5
                    1.4
                   25.7
                    1.2
                    2.6
                   49.1
                   12.5
                    6.3
                    3.6
                    0.1
                 2238.7
Population
     14.7
    308.1
      5.2
    111.5
     13.3
   2360.0
    545.0
     13.2
     82.8
    211.6
     10.3
      1.5
     35.5
      1.8
      6.8
     78.4
     19.7
      7.5
      6.0
      0.1
   3833.0
New York  State

Chaumont
Sackets Harbor
Metropolitan Water  Board
    (Onondaga County)
Oswego
Brockport
Monroe County Water Authority
Ontario W.D.
Sodus Point
Sodus
Williamson W.D.
Wolcott
Albion
Lyndonville
                Sub-total:
                Total:
                    0.2  (est.)
                    0.3

                    97.7
                    23.9
                    12.1
                   208.2
                    6.8
                    0.8
                    2.6
                    5.7
                    0.8
                    4.5
                    0.6
                   364.2
                  2602.9
       0.6
       1.2
        .5
        .5
        ,7
314.2
 28.8
 27.
387,
 20.
  1.4
  4.3
  5.5
  1.7
 10.2
  1.1
     804.7
    4637.7
 (1)  Ontario and New York State data based on 1986/87 and 1984,
      respectively.

-------
TABLE 1-5;            Water Withdrawal (1000 m/day)
             by Power Generating Facilities on Lake Ontario
(2)
Ontario v '
Plant
Lakeview
Pickering
Fuel
Coal
Nuclear
Withdrawal
6307
19526
                           25833
     New York State


Plant

Somerset

Nine Mile Point

Oswego

R.E. Ginna

Russell
Fuel       Withdrawal

Coal          1296

Nuclear       1765

Oil & Coal    4905

Nuclear       2180

Coal           632
                                                                             10778
      (1)  Water  used  for  cooling purposes;  very  little  is consumed.
          Data are  based  on  design  flows.

      (2)  Darlington,  Hearn  and Lennox  plants  are not operating;  _  ~
          design flows of these plants  are  approximately 22032  10 m /day
          (Ontario  Hydro, 1981).

-------
                                  - 15 -
D.   REFERENCES

     Beeton, A.M. 1969.  Changes in the environment and biota of the Great
          Lakes, pp.150-187.  In:  National Academy of Sciences.
          Eutrophication:  Causes, consequences, correctives.  Proceedings
          of a Symposium.  Washington, B.C. 66Ip.

     Borgmann, U. and D.M. Whittle. 1983.  Particle - size - conversion
          efficiency and contaminant concentrations in Lake Ontario biota.
          Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 328-336.

     Bruce, J.P. and G.K. Rodgers. 1962.  Water balance of the Great Lakes
          system.  Proc. Symp. Great Lakes Basin, Chicago, 111., 1959.
          H.J. Pincus  (ed), Amer. Assoc. Advan. Sci., Washington, B.C.,
          Pub. No. 71, 41-69.

     Christie, W.M. 1974.  Changes in the fish species composition of the
          Great Lakes.  J. Fish Res. Bd. Can. 31: 827-854.

     Christie, W.J., K.A. Scott, P.G. Sly and R.H. Strus. 1987. Recent
          changes in the aquatic food web of eastern Lake Ontario.
          Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44  (Suppl. 2): 37-52.

     De Cooke, B.C. and D.F. Witherspoon.  1973.  A preliminary  Lake Ontario
          water  balance diving IFYGL.   Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res.,
          Proc.  16th Conf. Great Lakes  Res.: 675-683.

     Dobson,  H.F.H. 1967.  Principal  ions  and dissolved oxygen  in Lake
          Ontario.  Internat. Assoc.  Great Lakes Res., Proc. 10th Conf.
          Great  Lakes  Res.:  337-356.

     Dobson,  H.F.H. 1985.  Lake  Ontario water chemistry atlas.  National
          Water  Research  Institute, Burlington,  Ontario,  Canada.
          Scientific Series  No.  139.

     Freeman,  N.G., and  S.J.  Prinsenberg.  1986.  Exchange  flows  in the
          Adolphus  Reach/North Channel, p.27-39.  In  C.K.  Minns, D.A.
          Hurley, and  K.H.  Nicholls  (eds)  Project  Quinte: point-source
          phosphorus  control and ecosystem response  in the  Bay  of Quinte,
          Lake Ontario.  Can.  Spec.  Publ. Fish.  Aquat.  Sci.  86:  270  p.

     Great  Lakes Fishery Commission.  1986.  Minutes of Great Lakes Fishery
           Commission  1986 Annual Meeting.   Great Lakes Fishery  Commission,
           Ann Arbor,  Michigan,  486p.

     Great Lakes Fishery Commission.  1987. Minutes of the Great Lakes
           Fishery Commission 1987 Annual Meeting.   Great Lakes  Fishery
           Commission,  Ann Arbor, Michigan, 275p.

-------
                                  - 16 -
International Joint Commission. 1969.  Report to the International
     Joint Commission on the Pollution of Lake Erie.  Lake Ontario and
     the International Section of the St.Lawrence River. International
     Lake Eire Pollution Board/Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Water
     Pollution Board. (3 volumes).

International Joint Commission. 1985.  Great Lakes Diversions and
     Consumptive Uses.  International Joint Commission Report to the
     Governments of the United States and Canada under the 1977
     Reference.  January, 1985. 82p.

International Joint Commission. 1987.  Proceedings of the Task Force
     on Toxic Chemical Loadings Workshop, February 18-19, 1987,
     Toronto, Ontario, Canada  (in preparation).

Loftus, K.H. and H.A. Regier (eds).  1972.  Proceedings of the 1971
     Symposium on Salononid Communities  in oligotrophic Lakes.  J. Fish.
     Res. Bd. Can. 29: 613-986.

Makarewicz,  J.C. 1985.  Phytoplankton and zooplankton composition,
     abundance and distribution: Lake Erie, Lake Huron, and Lake Michigan -
     1983.   Final Report to the U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program
     Office, Chicago.

New York  State Department of Environmental Conservation.  1985.  Population
     Projections, September 30, 1985;  New York State Water Quality
     Management Plan.  Bureau  of Water Quality Management, New York State
     Department of Environmental  Conservation.

Ontario Hydro. 1981.  Biological  investigations to  improve once-through
     cooling system  designs for the Great Lakes.  Design  and Development
     Division, Ontario Hydro.  Report No. 81481, December, 1981.

PLUARG.  1976.  Inventory of land  use and land use practices in .the Great
     Lakes  Basin, Volume 5  - Canadian Lake Ontario  Basin  and Volume 6  -
     U.S. Lake Ontario Basin.  Reports of the International Reference
     Groups on Great Lakes  Pollution from Land Use  Activities to  the
     International Joint Commission.

PLUARG.  1977. Land use and  land use practices in the Great Lakes  Basin.
     Joint  Summary Report  - Task  B. Report  of the  International  Reference
     Group  on Great  Lakes  Pollution from Land Use Activities to the
     International Joint Commission.

Schenk,  C.F. and  R.E. Thompson.  1965.  Long-term changes  in water chemistry
     and abaundance  of phytoplankton at  a single sampling location  in  Lake
     Ontario.   Proc. Eighth Conf.  Great  Lakes Res.,  Univ. Michigan, Great
     Lakes  Res. Div., Publ.  13:  197-208.

-------
                                  - 17 -
Simons, T.J., C.R. Murthy and J.E.  Campbell.  1985.  Winter circulation in
     Lake Ontario.  J. Great Lakes  Res.  11:  423-433.   Yee, P.  and J.  Lloyd.
     1985.  Great Lakes Water Levels.  Water Planning and Management
     Branch, Inland Waters Directorate.   Environment Canada, Burlington,
     Ontario.

Simons, T.J. and W.M. Schertzer. 1985.  The circulation of Lake Ontario
     during the summer of 1982 and the winter of 1982/83.  National Water
     Research Institute, Burlington, Ontario, Canada.  Contribution No.
     85-26.

Statistics Canada. 1985.  Population projections for Canada, Provinces and
     Territories  1984-2006.  May, 1985.

Statistics Canada. 1986.  Human Activity and the Environment, A Statistical
     Compendium.  Structural Analysis Division, Statistics Canada. 374p.

Stevens, R.J.J. (compiler and editor). 1987.  A review of Lake Ontario
     Water Quality with Emphasis on  the 1981-82 Intensive Years.  Report to
     the Surveillance Work Group, Great Lakes Water Quality Board,
     International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.   In preparation.

Talhelm. D.R.  1988.   The international Great Lakes sport fishery  of  1980.
     Great  Lakes  Fishery Commission  Special Publication  88-4.  70p.

Thomas, R.L.  1983.   Lake Ontario sediments as  indicators of the Niagara
     River  as  a primary  source  of contaminants.  J.  Great Lakes Res.  9  (2):
     118-124.

Water  Quality  Board.  1983.   Great Lakes Water  Quality  Board Report  to the
     International  Joint Commission.

Water  Quality  Board.  1985.   Great Lakes Water  Quality  Board Report  to the
     International  Joint Commission.

Water  Quality  Board.  1987.   Great Lakes Water  Quality  Board Report  to the
     International  Joint Commission.

-------
     LAKE ONTARIO

TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
                      Appendix  II
             Toxics Problem  In  Lake Ontario

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                             Page

A.  Introduction                                              1

B.  Criteria, Standards and Other Yardsticks                  2

C.  Ambient Lake Conditions                                   4

    1.   Ecosystem Health                                     4

         a.   Foodchain Effects                               4
         b.   Measures of Ecosystem Health                    4

              i.   Ecosystem Objectives                       4
              ii.  Toxicity to Wildlife                       5
              iii. Toxicity to Fish                           7

         c.   Human Health Effects                            7

              i.   Drinking Water                             7
              ii.  Fish Consumption                           7

    2.   A Chemical-by-Chemical Assessment of Lake-Wide       8
         Conditions

         a.   Categorization of Toxics Based on Levels        8
              in the Ambient Water Column and Fish Tissue
         b.   Trends in Levels of Toxics in the Ambient       9
              Water Column and Fish Tissue
         c.   Finished Drinking Water                         11

              i.   United States                              11
              i i.  Canada                                     11

         d.   Sediment                                        12

              i.    Existing Data                             12
              ii.   Relationship Between Levels in            13
                    Sediment and Levels in Biota
              iii.  Trends                                    13

    3.   Areas  of Concern                                     14

-------
                             TABLES

                                                             Page

1.    Water Quality Standards and Objectives                   15
     With Regulatory Basis Applicable to
     Lake Ontario

2.    Existing Water Quality Standards,                        18
     Objectives, Criteria and Guidance Values
     for Protection of Human Health and
     Applicable to Lake Ontario

3.    Existing Water Quality Standards,                        20
     Objectives and Criteria for Protection
     of Aquatic Life and Applicable to Lake
     Ontario

4.    Existing and Proposed Standards,                         22
     Objectives and Action Levels for Fish
     Tissue Applicable to Lake Ontario

5.    Existing Guidelines, Standards and                       23
     Objectives for Sediments Applicable
     to Lake Ontario

6.    Existing and Proposed Water Quality                      24
     Criteria, Standards, Guidelines or
     Objectives Which Protect the Most
     Sensitive Use (Most Stringent
     Criterion)

7.    Existing arid Proposed Criteria, Standards                26
     or Objectives for Fish Tissue which
     Protect the Most Sensitive Use  (Most
     Stringent Criterion)

8.    New York State Fish Consumption Advisories               27
     for Lake Ontario

9.    Province of Ontario Fish Consumption                     28
     Advisories For Lake Ontario

10.  Categories of Toxics                                     34

11.  Categorization of Toxics Based on Ambient Data           35
     (Category I Toxics)

12.  Toxics  for Which There Is No Ambient Data but for        37
     Which There Is Evidence of Presence In or Input
     to the  Lake  (Category  IIA Toxics)

                                                           ii

-------
                                                             Page


13.   Fish Flesh Criteria for Piscivorous Wildlife             41

14.   Open Lake Sediment Comparison to                         42
     Dredging Guidelines

15.   Potential Criteria for Contaminants in Sediments         43
     of Lake Ontario and Concentrations of Contaminants
     in Sediments

16.   A Summary of Water Quality Problems Identified           44
     in Areas of Concern
                             FIGURES
1.   Biomagnification of PCBs,  Total DDT                      45
     and Mercury Through the Lake Ontario
     Food Chain

2.   Organochlorine Contaminant and Lipid                     46
     Concentrations in Herring Gull Eggs
     Taken from Two Colonies on Lake Ontario,
     1974 - 1986

3.   Average Levels of PCBs and Mirex in Lake Trout,          47
     Brown Trout and Coho Salmon at Jordan Harbour

4.   Areas of Concern in Lake Ontario                         48
                             REFERENCES                       49
                                                           ill

-------
(A) INTRODUCTION

The ultimate purpose of Appendix II is to present a definitive
characterization of the toxics problem in Lake Ontario.   Consistent
with existing law and regulation, it is most useful to present this
characterization on a chemical-by-chemical basis in terms of
exceedances of enforceable standards.   However, as a check on the
effectiveness of the chemical-by-chemical approach, it is also
essential to present this characterization on an ecosystem basis in
relation to ecosystem objectives.

In preparing the January, 1988 draft of the Lake Ontario Toxics
Management Plan, the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee made an initial
attempt to characterize the toxics problem on both a chemical-by-
chemical and ecosystem basis.

Since that time, a Toxics Categorization Workgroup has established
an in-depth chemical-by-chemical categorization of toxics in the
Lake:
     o Part B of this Appendix, "Criteria, Standards and Other
       yardsticks", discusses and selects the measures
       (standards and criteria) that were used by the Toxics
       Categorization Workgroup in categorizing toxics.

     o Part C2 of this Appendix, "A Chemical-by-Chemical Assessment
       of Lake-Wide Conditions", discusses the categorization system,
       and summarizes the Workgroup's conclusions.

A Niagara River/Lake Ontario Categorization Committee will continue
the work of the Toxics Categorization Workgroup.

By contrast, there are no agreed-upon objective measures that can be
used in assessing the toxics problem in Lake Ontario on an ecosystem
basis.  For this reason, this Plan calls for the establishment of
ecosystem indicators and objectives that can be used in assessing
the health of the Lake Ontario ecosystem.  Pending the development of
these indicators and objectives, Part Cl of this Appendix, "Ecosystem
Health", has, for the most part, been left unchanged; Part Cl will be
modified within eighteen months.

When this Appendix is revised, it will incorporate the results of
new reference materials that have recently become available  (e.g.,
the recent "Great Lakes Toxics Working Paper" prepared by the
Conservation Foundation).

-------
(B)  CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND OTHER YARDSTICKS

Any discussion about the "Toxics Problem in Lake Ontario" first
requires some agreement about what constitutes a problem (i.e., what
one person perceives as a problem may not be considered as a problem
by others).  Problem definition, therefore, requires use of common
measures by which problems are to be identified.  Use of common
measures does not ensure agreement over what is, or is not, a
problem, but the use of common measures does ensure mutual
understanding of how a decision was reached.

The intent of environmental protection regulations in the United
States and Canada is to protect beneficial uses of aquatic resources
and prevent toxic discharges into the environment.  The measure of
protection, or problem prevention, currently used by regulatory     ;
agencies is expressed as a number, or concentration, variously
referred to as a standard, objective, criterion, or guidance value.
These concentrations thus represent the enforceable or recommended
(depending upon their regulatory status) upper limit at which a toxic
substance should be present in the environment.  Exceedance of these
upper limits at some frequency is.therefore, by definition, a measure
for problem identification that has immediate meaning and
applicability for regulatory agencies.

The currently enforceable toxic limits for ambient waters of Lake
Ontario are the Ontario Ministry of Environment's Water Quality
Objectives and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values (Table 1).
These toxic limits can be used as the basis for enforcement against
dischargers of toxics.

In addition to the enforceable limits mentioned above, the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 established objectives for
several types of toxics that are intended to "protect the recognized
most sensitive use in all waters.".  These objectives are referred to
as the IJC Objectives.  In addition, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environment Canada, the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, and the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment have proposed new or additional criteria or objectives
that are recommended for protection of various uses.  These proposed
criteria or objectives are not enforceable by  law since they have not
been through  the normal regulatory review process required for
adoption by the regulatory agencies.  Tables 2,3,4 and 5 summarize
existing enforceable standards and objectives  (as presented in Table
1) plus all other recommended criteria or objectives which, although
not enforceable by law, represent current best  scientific  judgement
regarding  potential effects or risks due to toxicity or
carcinogenicity.  Again, these toxic  limits are use- and media-
specific and  cover such aspects as human health or aquatic life
protection  in water  (Tables 2 and 3), in fish  tissue  (Table 4), and
in sediments  (Table 5).  As large and complex  as this array of toxic
limits  is,  it is still not all-inclusive since  Tables 2 through 5

-------
list only those chemicals that have standards or proposed objectives
from more than one agency.

One objective of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan focusses on
the attainment and maintenance of ambient levels of toxics that will
not cause adverse impacts on human health and the ecosystem.
Adoption of the toxic limit that protects the most sensitive  use
(i.e., the most stringent criterion) would ultimately provide
protection of all uses, while greatly simplifying the vast array of
standards, objectives, criteria, and guidance values currently
confronting the regulatory agencies.  Accordingly, Table 6
summarizes the most stringent criteria applicable to ambient  water
and Table 7 summarizes the most stringent criteria applicable to fish
tissue, which, in total, represent concentrations in water or fish
considered adequate to protect the most sensitive use of Lake
Ontario's aquatic resources.

Thus, for the purposes of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management  Plan,
Table 1 summarizes the measures against which toxic substances will
be compared and categorized as IA (exceeds enforceable standard) and
Tables 6 and 7 are the yardsticks for categorization as IB (exceeds
more stringent, but unenforceable criterion) or as 1C (equal  to or
less than most stringent criterion).

Since criteria development and standard setting is an ongoing
process, it must be recognized that many of these existing numbers
will change and additional standards and criteria will be developed
in response to new scientific knowledge.  As this occurs, the Lake
Ontario Toxics Management Plan will result in a review and possible
re-categorization of affected toxic substances.

-------
(C)  AMBIENT LAKE CONDITIONS

1.    ECOSYSTEM HEALTH

a)    Food Chain Effects

Through a process known as biomagnification, toxics are concentrated
by the organisms consuming them and are magnified many times as they
go up through the food chain.  It is through this process that
compounds such as mirex and dioxin, which normally are not detected
in open lake waters, even using state-of-the-art techniques, can
appear in the flesh of lake trout and some other species in amounts
above standards.  Knowledge of the food chain and biomagnification
is, therefore, essential to an understanding of ecosystem effects.
It is also essential to an understanding of why more stringent water
quality standards and criteria may need to be developed to protect
the Lake's ecosystem health.

D.M. Whittle  (1987) of the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans
indicated that "The invertebrate forage base serves as the source for
subsequent bioaccumulation and biomagnification of toxic contaminants
in the Lake Ontario ecosystem.  Net plankton, zooplankton (Mysis
relicta), and benthic invertebrates (Pontoporeia hoyi) form the first
three steps in food chain contaminant biomagnification and serve as
biological surrogates for the measurement of persistent toxic
chemicals in the water column.".  As shown in Figure 1, "mean
bioconcentration factors for organochlorine compounds such as PCS or
DDT are 104 within the aquatic food chain.  This factor may increase
to 105 with the inclusion of organic contamination accumulation data
from herring gull populations which represent the highest trophic
level.  Similarly trace metals are also rapidly bioconcentrated
within the food chain with factors exceeding 103 for mercury.".

In addition,  sediments are a likely source of toxics to the food
chain.  Fox et al.  (1983) reported open lake sediment PCB           '
concentrations to be in the range of 0.260 to 0.840 ppm.  Fox also  '
examined some of the invertebrates living in and upon these sediments
(oligochaetes and amphipods, respectively).  The oligochaetes were
found to contain 0.93 to 5.3 ppm of PCBs; the amphipods were found  to
contain 2.6 to 17 ppm of PCBs.  These organisms are an important
source of food for  juvenile lake trout.

b)   Measures of Ecosystem Health

i.   Ecosystem Objectives

There are currently no ecosystem objectives for Lake Ontario.  This
is a disadvantage when trying to evaluate the health of the Lake
Ontario ecosystem.

-------
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as amended in 1987
.establishes, for the first time, ecosystem health indicators for use
in Lake Superior and calls for similar indicators in the remaining
lakes.  The newly established indicators for Lake Superior are:

      "(a) with respect to Lake Superior, lake trout and the
          crustacean Pontoporeia hoyi shall be used as indicators:

          Lake Trout

               productivity greater than 0.38 kilograms/hectare;

               stable, self-producing stocks;

               free from contaminants at concentrations that
               adversely affect the trout themselves or the quality
               of the harvested products.

          Pontoporeia hovi

               the abundance of the crustacean, Pontoporeia hoyi,
               maintained throughout the entire lake at present
               levels of 220-320/(metres)2  (depths less than 100
               metres) and 30-160/(metres)2  (depths greater than  100
               metres)".

The focus of the Lake Superior indicators of ecosystem health  appears
too narrow  for effective use in Lake Ontario.  While there may be
some  basic  indicators that may be common to each Lake, there will be
specific objectives required for Lake Ontario that will be tailored
to its specific needs.

The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan calls for the establishment
of ecosystem objectives for Lake Ontario that will be developed by
the Ecosystem Objectives Work Group of the Binational Objectives
Development Committee which has been established by Canada and the
United States in response to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

ii.   Toxicity to Wildlife

One of the  most demonstrable effects of toxics on the Lake Ontario
ecosystem was first described  in the work of Gilbertson  (1974) in
which he studied the  severe reproductive failure of Scotch Bonnet
Island herring gull colonies.  Gilbertson reported a low breeding
success value of 0.12 fledged young per adult mating pair.   This is
about one-tenth the success rate  for herring gulls found along the
New England coast.  On the same island  in 1973, Gilbertson and Hale
 (1974)  found the mean number of eggs hatched was a particularly  low
value of 16%.  The mean breeding  success was 0.06 fledged young  per
adult pair.

-------
Teeple (1977) assessed the breeding failure of herring gulls on
Brothers Island in eastern Lake Ontario.  Here again the gull
population was experiencing reproductive problems.  The. mean number
of eggs hatched per egg laid was a low 23% with a breeding success of
0.06 to 0.18 fledged young per adult pair.

Gilbertson (1974) found the eggs on Scotch Bonnet Island to be thin
and highly contaminated (PCBs over 800 ug/g and DDE over 200 ug/g).
These values were the highest of any gull eggs on the Great Lakes and
very high when compared to the Gulf of St. Lawrence (14.1 ug/g DDE)
and the Bay of Fundy (32.1 ug/g DDE).

Further study in 1975 by Fox et al. and in 1977 by Gilman e.t aJL.
found reproductive failure of herring gulls in the Great Lakes was
mostly restricted to Lake Ontario.  By 1977-1978, Weseloh et a.l.
(1979) reported the breeding success of the Scotch Bonnet Island
colonies to have improved to 1.10 and 1.01 fledged young per adult
pair.

A report (Kurita et al., 1987) describes a comprehensive monitoring
project to assess productivity and deformities in colonial waterbirds
in the Upper Great Lakes.  These species have proven to be a
reliable, sensitive, integrating monitoring system for detecting net
effects and ecosystem wide changes.

Study results support earlier information linking toxic chemical
contamination to both deformities and reproductive failure.  They
further suggest that effects of toxic contamination are even more
pervasive than previously believed.  The paradox reflected by the
report is the recorded, dramatic increase in incidence of deformities
and failures in a period of declining levels of PCB and, presumably,
other controlled toxic  substances.

While there are no specific studies of the effects on mink of eating
Lake Ontario fish, mink populations are known to have declined within
six kilometers of the lake shoreline  (Skinner, 1986).  Hornshaw et
al.  (1983) studied the  effects of feeding the following to mink:
carp and white suckers  from Saginaw Bay, yellow perch scraps from
Lake Erie, whitefish skeletons from Lake Michigan, and alewives from
Green Bay.  Mink growth and furring were normal in all cases.
However, mink which were fed carp failed to reproduce, and mink which
were fed the other fish (excluding alewives) showed reduced
reproductive performance relative to control groups.  Only the
alewife diet supported  reproduction and kit survival comparable to
the controls.

-------
iii.  Toxicity To Fish

One of the only known recent attempts to evaluate the health of open
lake fishes was performed by Wolfe (1987).   This researcher collected
136 lake trout at Charity Shoal, Lake Ontario.   The examination of
these fishes found that they were infested with several types of
parasites.  Except for this, the trout were in good condition and had
abundant fat stores in their abdominal cavities.  There were no gross
abnormalities present, nor anything visible that could be attributed
to Lake Ontario toxics.

The lake trout have not had natural reproductive success in past
years (Pearce, 1988).  The lake trout population had seriously
declined in the 1940s due to overfishing and lamprey predation.  By
the early 1950's, the lake trout had disappeared from the Lake.
Efforts to restore lake trout began in 1973, but there has been no
significant natural reproduction in the Lake.  The reasons for this
are not known, but the effects of toxics and the lack of suitable
spawning habitat are on the list of suspected causes.  With.in the
last few years, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation has reported finding viable lake trout fry on known
spawning shoals in eastern Lake Ontario.  Fishery agencies annually
collect over 650,000 lake trout eggs from Lake Ontario that are
hatched, reared to yearling size, and stocked to develop a new Lake
Ontario strain of lake trout.

c)  Human Health Effects

i.  Drinking Water

Toxic chemicals have not been found in Lake Ontario drinking water at
levels above standards designed to protect human health.  However,
the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan recognizes the need to
develop more direct measures of the impacts of toxics on human
health.  Further conclusions on the impacts of toxics in drinking
water on human health will be deferred until after the development of
these more direct measures.

ii. Fish Consumption

Because of bioaccumulation, the level of certain toxics;  in  fish  is
high relative to the  levels of toxics in water.  Therefore, although
fish consumption is  low relative to water consumption, the  total
exposure of humans to Lake Ontario toxics through  fish consumption  is
higher than through water consumption.  For example, Sonstegard  (in
Health of Aquatic Communities Task Force, 1986) has calculated that
the amount of bioaccumulated toxics ingested in consuming a single
kilogram of fish from Lake Ontario is equivalent to consuming  3.3
million kilograms of the Lake's water.

-------
Fishing advisories began on Lake Ontario in 1970 with the discovery
of bioaccumulated mercury and DDT.  Later (in the mid-seventies)
more advisories were imposed with the discovery of bioaccumulated
PCBs and mirex.  The advisories were revised in the early 1980s to
reflect improvements found in the fish flesh contaminant levels and
to permit the monthly consumption of some Lake Ontario fishes.
However, the discovery of dioxin in fish ranging from 0.002 to 0.162
ng/g is a source of concern.  The current New York State and Province
of Ontario fish consumption advisories applicable to Lake Ontario are
included as Tables 8 and 9.

A study of the effects of contaminated Great Lakes fish on humans was
performed in 1973 and 1974 by the Michigan Department of Public
Health and reported by Humphrey (1976).  This study compared a
population which consumed high quantities of PCB contaminated Lake ;
Michigan sport fish with a control group.  The high fish consumption
group showed higher blood levels of PCBs.

One method used to evaluate the potential problem caused by the
ingestion of contaminated fish is the use of risk assessment. Connor
(1984) used an EPA risk assessment methodology to assess the risk to
consumers of large quantities of contaminated fish.  The calculation
showed a 10 to 100 times greater cancer risk from fish consumption
than from drinking water.

In another study by Sonzogni and Swain (1984) it was suggested that
those who consumed high quantities of contaminated Lake Ontario and
Lake Michigan fish may have a small but elevated risk of developing
cancer as compared to normal fish consumers.  This was based on
conservative extrapolations of animal cancer studies.

2.  A CHEMICAL-BY-CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT OF LAKE-WIDE CONDITIONS

a)  Categorization of Toxics Based on Levels in the Ambient Water
    Column and Fish Tissue

As a first step in implementing the chemical-by-chemical approach to
toxics control in Lake Ontario, the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee
developed a system for categorizing toxics.  The categories are shown
in Table 10.

In order to implement the system for categorizing toxics, the Lake
Ontario Toxics Committee established an ad hoc Toxics Categorization
Workgroup  (Lake Ontario Toxics Categorization Workgroup, 1988).  For
Category I chemicals, the Workgroup reviewed available ambient water
column and fish tissue data in relation to applicable standards,
criteria and guidelines.  As shown in Table 11, ambient data were
available for  forty-two chemicals:

o  Seven  (7) chemicals exceeded enforceable standards in the water
   column, fish tissue or both  (Category IA);

-------
o  Four (4)  chemicals exceeded more stringent,  but unenforceable
   criteria or guidelines in the water column,  fish tissue,  or both
   (Category IB);

o  Seventeen (17)  chemicals were found only at  levels at or  below the
   most stringent  standard, criterion or guideline (Category 1C);

o  Two (2) chemicals were analyzed with detection limits too high to
   allow a comparison with standards, criteria  or guidelines
   (Category ID);  and

o  Twelve (12) chemicals had no standards, criteria, or guidelines
   with which to compare the available ambient  data (Category  IE).

Ambient Lake Ontario data were, however, not available for most
chemicals.  As a first step in implementing the chemical-by-chemical
approach for these chemicals, the Workgroup looked at point source
data, sediment data, tributary water column data and data for other
biota as the basis for establishing evidence of presence in, or input
to the Lake.

o  As shown in Table 12, one hundred and one (101) additional
   chemicals showed evidence of presence or input (Category IIA);
   and

o  There is no evidence of presence or input of any other chemicals
   (Category IIB).

The categorization system relies heavily on ambient water column and
fish tissue data because ambient standards and criteria are available
for these media.  Ambient data for other media (e.g., sediment data)
play a more limited role in the categorization process because there
are no standards or criteria for these media.  The system, however,
is flexible enough to use this other ambient data as standards and
criteria become available.

NYSDEC's fish flesh criteria for piscivorous (fish consuming)
wildlife are included as Table 13.  Comparison of levels of toxics
in Lake Ontario Sportfish with these criteria confirms that PCBs, DDT
and metabolites, dieldrin, chlordane, dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), mirex
and octachlorostyrene exceed these criteria.

b)  Trends  in Levels of Toxics in the Ambient Water Column and Fish
    Tissue

There  is a  paucity of usable data on the  levels of toxics in the open
lake water  column;  no trend assessment has been  developed at this
time.  There are many reasons  for this  information shortfall:

-------
o   Many of the compounds of concern exist at levels below the
    analytical limits of detection;

o   Past collection and measurement techniques were frequently
    designed to meet the needs of specific studies and the resultant
    data are inappropriate for trend assessment; and

o   The cost of obtaining open lake data is high.

In order to put exceedances of fish tissue standards and criteria in
perspective, it should be noted that:

o   Not all fish were found to contain contaminant levels of concern
    to human health.  For example, bullhead and yellow perch, two
    important commercial sportfish meet requirements necessary to be
    sold on the open market.

o   The small and medium sized fish in affected species often contain
    levels of contaminants below legal action levels (levels at or
    above which fish can not be sold for human consumption).

o   Initial efforts to ban the use of some toxics and shut off known
    point sources of toxics have resulted in reduced contaminant
    levels in many affected species.

There is clear evidence that the levels of some problem toxics in
Lake Ontario biota have been reduced over the past two decades.  For
example:

o   The levels of PCBs, mirex, DDT and metabolites, dieldrin and
    hexachlorobenzene in herring gull eggs taken from colonies on
    Lake Ontario during the period from 1974 to 1986 show significant
    declines (Figure 2); and

o   The levels of PCBs in lake trout, brown trout and coho salmon
    collected since 1975 show significant declines (Figure 3).

By contrast, the trends in levels of mirex in Lake Ontario sportfish
are not clear.  In addition, there is concern that the levels of
problem toxics in Lake Ontario biota may be stabilizing at
unacceptably high levels.
                                                           10

-------
c)  Finished Drinking Water

i.   United States

On the United States side of Lake Ontario there are thirteen
Community Public Water Supply Systems (CPWS)1 which utilize Lake
Ontario as a raw water source.   They are comprised of the Villages of
Lyndonville, Albion, Brockport,  Sodus,  Sodus Point, Wolcott, Sackets
Harbor and Chaumont, as well as  Oswego  City, Monroe County Water
Authority, Ontario Town Water District, Williamson Water District and
the Metropolitan Water Board.

As discussed more fully in Appendix IV, all thirteen plants are
currently in compliance with all applicable drinking water standards.
The Safe Drinking Water Act, as  amended in 1986, has put EPA on a
rigorous schedule to develop 83  drinking water standards by June,
1989, and has imposed significantly increased monitoring requirements
on CPWS.  The availability of additional standards and monitoring
data will allow improved assessments of toxics in Lake Ontario
potable drinking water beginning in 1989.

ii.  Canada

The Drinking Water  Surveillance Program  (DWSP) currently monitors 44
plants, of which eleven utilize Lake Ontario as a raw water source
(Grimsby, Hamilton, Burlington,  Lakeview, Lome Park, R.L. Clark,
R.C. Harris, Easterly, Oshawa, Deseronto and Belleville).

Drinking water quality in Ontario is evaluated against provincial
objectives as outlined in the publication, "Ontario Drinking Water
Objectives".  This  publication contains health-related maximum
acceptable concentrations for thirty substances.  In the absence of
Ontario Drinking Water Objectives, other agency guidelines which are
documented in the Parameter Reference Information may be used.  As
discussed more fully in Appendix IV, none of the eleven Lake Ontario
water treatment plants currently produce drinking water that exceeds
objectives or guidelines.
l-  A CPWS  is defined in the Safe Drinking Water Act as "a system for
    the provision to the public of piped water for human consumption,
    if such system.... serves at least fifteen service connections
    used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least twenty-
    five year-round residents".
                                                            11

-------
d)   Sediment

i.   Existing Data

Sediments play a major role in the transport, burial and mobilization
of toxic chemical contaminants in the Great Lakes System.
Characteristics of sediment-contaminant interaction that surface in a
discussion of toxic pollutants in Lake Ontario include:

o   Chronology - analysis of sediment cores provides a profile
    over time and space of deposition of adsorbed toxic chemical
    contaminants;

o   Burial - undisturbed sediments will eventually remove
    associated persistent chemical contaminant burden from the      >
    ecosystem (assuming the sources have been curtailed) ;

o   Removal - removal of contaminated sediment can eliminate
    this source of associated persistent toxic chemicals;

o   Mobilization - resuspension and bottom feeding by benthic
    invertebrate organisms can mobilize contaminants bound to
    sediments; and

o   Dredging - open lake disposal of dredged contaminated
    sediment can provide a renewed source of biologically available
    toxic contaminants.

The role of sediments as a source of chemical contaminants to the
aquatic environment is poorly understood.  Consequently, work on
developing criteria and standards applicable to sediments is still
underway.  There are existing criteria designed to assess dredged
materials for open lake disposal.  Lake Ontario sediment data quality
measurements obtained by Mudroch et al.  (1985), Kizlauskas et al.
(1984) and Onuska et al. (1983) showed exceedances of MOE, EPA and
IJC guidelines for PCBs, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
mercury, nickel, zinc and arsenic (Table 14).  However, these
criteria were developed as a guide to determining appropriate
disposal techniques for dredged materials, not for ambient water
quality evaluation and/or ecosystem risk assessment.

Work has been done by Pavlou et al. (1987) towards developing
preliminary sediment risk criteria based upon existing water quality
standards and criteria, the sediment adsorption coefficients for
chemicals, and the organic content of sediment.  Using these,
exceedances of median values for Lake Ontario data sets were found
for PCBs, DDT and aldrin/dieldrin.  In addition, occasional measured
values for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and mirex also exceeded these experimental
criteria  (Table 15).  The LOTMP calls for the establishment of a
Standards and Criteria Committee; this Committee will consider the
need for sediment criteria.
                                                           12

-------
ii.  Relationship Between Levels in Sediment and Levels in Biota

Trend analysis shows that levels of persistent toxic contaminants in
biota have decreased over the past decade,  and that the decline has
recently exibited a leveling off tendency.   The continuing impairment
of water use despite a significant reduction in toxic discharges, may
be attributed in part to the sediment contamination.  Many of the
persistent, hydrophobic contaminants are associated with suspended
and bottom sediments and are bioavailable.   Bioaccumulation of these
water insoluble materials has been correlated more closely with
sediment contamination than with ambient levels in the dissolved
phase of the water column.  Knowledge of the concentrations of these
chemical constituents helps to assess tox-icity of sediment associated
contaminants.

While burial in the bottom sediment, decay, and out of basin
transport are ultimate means for self purification in the Lake, these
processes may take a considerable amount of time during which the
associated contaminants are recycled throughout the ecosystem.  The
possible effects include:

o    Physical resuspension of settled sediment making it and any
     associated contaminants available for uptake by aquatic
     organisms;

o    Transport of contaminated sediments from "hotspots"  (eg., Areas
     of Concern) into the open lake;

o    Chemical release of adsorbed toxicants into the water column
     thereby promoting bioavailability; and

o    Alteration of the contaminant species associated with the
     sediment making it either more biologically available and/or
     more harmful to aquatic biota.

Research is needed to better define these and other effects.  Efforts
should also be made to try to establish mechanisms  and times  for
ultimate burial  (eg., the time taken for 50% of a sediment associated
contaminant to be removed from circulation within the ecosystem).
This information will be developed as a product of  detailed Lake
modelling, a future activity under the Lake Ontario Toxics Management
Plan.

i i i.  Trends

Measured concentrations of contaminants in bottom sediments can  be
used to map  the  degree and spatial distribution  (dispersion)  of
sediment contamination.  Relating these data to sediment  accumulation
facilitates  estimation of historical and present  loads to the Lake.
When coupled with appropriate limnological  information, an assessment
of the  significance of the major  river  inputs  as  sources  of
contaminants associated with sediment to Lake  Ontario  can be  made.

                                                            13

-------
Contaminants bound to fine grained sediment contributed by tributary
inputs to Lake Ontario are distributed throughout well defined basins
in the Lake.  These depositional basins are the product of littoral
drift patterns and related physical processes characteristic of Lake
Ontario.  Trends through time are established by determining
sedimentation rates and estimating a sediment budget for the Lake
(Kemp and Harper, 1976).  This information is related to measured
contaminant burdens in sediment cores correlated with time using
various dating techniques.

Concentrations of metals in surface sediments have been compared with
background concentrations in the pre-colonial sediments (Mudroch et
al., 1988).  The concentration ranges in surface sediments were
generally wider than for the pre-colonial sediments, and levels
overall in the surficial layer were elevated for cadmium, copper,
chromium, iron, nickel, lead, zinc and, particularly, mercury.  When
compared to the MOE dredge disposal guidelines, pre-colonial
concentrations for cadmium, copper, chromium, nickel, lead and zinc
are in the same order of magnitude as the guideline values.  For iron
and mercury, the guideline values are several orders of magnitude
greater than the measured pre-colonial levels.

The work of Thomas (1983) reflects a pattern of contaminant burden,
represented by industrial chemical residues of chlorinated benzenes,
PCB, mirex, hexachlorobutadiene and octachlorostyrene corresponding
closely to production statistics for these materials over the past
few decades.  A decrease in the sediment burdens of these
contaminants over the past twenty years is indicative of decreased
loadings commensurate with bans, restrictions and reduced production.

3.   AREAS OF CONCERN

As defined in this Plan, there are seven Areas of Concern within the
Lake Ontario Basin (Figure 4):

     o    Hamilton Harbour,
     o    Toronto,
     o    Port Hope,
     o    Bay of Quinte,
     o    Oswego River,
     o    Rochester Embayment, and
     o    Eighteenmile Creek.

A summary of the problems in these Areas of Concern, as contained in
the IJC's 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Report, is presented in
Table 16.  More complete definition of the nature and extent of these
problems will be included in the RAP submission to the IJC.  The
status of RAP development is described in Appendix V.
                                                           14

-------
TABLE 1.

WATtH QUALITY SWNDARDG WO OBJECTIVES WITH REGULAICRY BASIS
   AFPLICABIE TO LAKE CNTARIO
MHO:
M-DIUM:

PROTECTED USE:

CRITERION:
COMPOUND / UNITS:
ALUMINUM
ACENAPHTHENE
PCRYLCNITRILE
A1CRIN
ALCRIN + DIELCRIN
ANTHCNY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BFNZBC
BHCiniNR
BERYLLIUM
CAIMUM
CARBON TKTRACHLCRICE
CHLCRDANE

C
A
R
C
I


N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
aflCRINAltD BENZHCSttY
M3CCIflCRCBENZH
DICHLCRCffiNZOE
1.2
1,3
1.4
TOICHUORCBENZEre
1,2,3
1,2,4
1,3,5
1ETOACHIJCRCBEMZENE
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,5
1,2,4,5
PENWCHLCRCBEICTNE
HEXW3flJCRCBENZETE
CHLORCPOFM
CHRTMIUM
CHRCMIUM (HEX)
CDPPER
CYAmCE
LOT
DEJCICN
DIAilNCN
DIBinYL PHTOALATE
Dianxicens*E 1,2
niaflJGKHIHOI. 2,4
DICHLGRCRCPANE
DIELCRIN
DIPniYI, PWWALATE
DBEniYL PfflNAIATC
N
N










N
N

Y

N
N
N
Y
N

N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N Y S DEC
WATER WATER

AQUATIC LIFE HUMAN HEALTH


AOJIE TCK CHRCNIC TOX BIQMTUM POCD TAINT TCCaCITY CARCDCGHaCITY Ahi.THt.TICS
ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 iq/1 ug/1 ig/1
100
20
0.07 
0.002 f
0.001
3 f
190 e 50 i
1000 i
6 f If
0.1 e 0.02 f
1100 b,e 3 f
1.13b,e 10
0.4 f
0.002 f 0.02 f
5 50 20
5 50 20
5 50

20
30
5 50 10



10




0.02 f
0.2
207 b,e 50 i
11 e
12 b,e 200 i
5.2 e 100 i
0.001 e 0.01
0.1
0.08
50 ,h
0.8
0.3
50 f,h
0.001 e 0.0009
50 ,h
50 f ,h
MO E
WATER FISH TISSUE

AQUATIC HUMAN
LIFE HEALTH

ug/1 ppti




0.001






0.2

0.06 0.3

15

2.5
2.5
4

0.9
0.5
0.65

0.1
0.1
0.15
0.03
0.0065

100

5
5
0.003 5

0.08


0.2




FDA
FISH
TISSUE



Epn



0.3









0.3





















5






0.3


                                                                                                                                15

-------
TABLE 1.  ONTINUED
WATER QUALITY SITOCftRDG AN) OBJECTIVES WITH REGULATORY BASIS
APPLICABLE TO IAKE ONIARIO
HCY:
=DIUM:

WJIWC1U) USE:

CRTTERICN:
OMOJND / UNITS:
DIOXIN (2378-TCCD)

DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
ENESULFAN
EN3RIN
ETHYLBEN2iI>E
FLUORANTHENE
GUTHION
HEPTRCHLOR
HEXKHLORCBENZENE
HEXACHLCRDBl/rADIENE
HEXACHLORCYHEX
HE3WCHLCRCYPENTDIENE
IRCN
ISCPH3RCNE
LEAD
LDCANE
MALATHICN
mtytfSE
MERCURY
METitKYCHLCR
MIREX
NAPHniALENE
NICKEL
NITRATES
NTTRCBENa-NE
NITROKDIPHENYLAMINE
PARATHION
PCB
PE^^X3^IROPHE^DL
PHENDL
SELENIUM
SILVER
HYDROGEN SULFIEE
TETRACHLORCErHANES
1,1,2,2
TETRACHLORDETHYLENE
THALLIUM
TOLUENE
TCKAPHENE
TRICHLORDEnWES
1,1,1
1,1,2
TRKMfHFTHYIfNE

C
A
R

~
I ACUTE TOX
	
ug/1
Y

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y 10

N 4.5
N 300
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N 20
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y

WATER

AQUATIC LIFE

CHRONIC TOX BIOACCUM
ug/1 ug/1
0.000001


0.009 e
0.002 e



0.001 e

1
0.01 e
0.45
300

3.2 b,e

0.1 e

0.2 e,f
0.03 e
0.001 e

96 e



0.008
0.001 e
0.4

1
0.1
2


1
8

O.OOSe



11 I
N Y S DE C
WATER

HUMAN HEALTH

FCCD TAINT TOXICITY CARCDCGENIC1TY AESTHETICS
ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1


0.05 f

0.2 i
50 f ,h
50 ,h

0.009
0.02 f
0.5
0.02 f
1
300 i
50 f ,h
50 i


300 i
2 i
35 i
0.04 f
10

10000 i
30
50 f ,h

0.01

5 ** 1 i
10 i
50 i
50 f

0.2 f
0.7 f
4 f
50 f ,h
0.01 

50 ,h
0.6
3 f
PA.E 2
MO E FDA
WATER FISH TISSUE FISH
TISSUE
AQUATIC HUMAN
r TCV HPfiTTH
Lire. nc/ALin
ug/1 ppn ppn
0.00002 0.00005
0.00001 <

0.003
0.002


0.005
0.001 0.3




300

25b 1
0.01
0.1

0.2 0.5 1
0.04
0.1 0.1

25



0.008
0.001 2 2
0.5

100





i
,
0.008 5




                                                                                                                              16

-------
TABLE 1.   CONTINUED

WATER QUALITY siwtiARDS wo OBJECTIVES WITH REGULATORY BASIS
   APPLICABLE TO LAKE CN]7\RIO
KHCY: N Y SD E C
DHJM: C WATER WATER
A
FKJIECTED USE: R AQUATIC LIFE HUMAN HEALTH
CRTIERICN: I ACUTE TCK CHRONIC TOX BIOACOJM FOOD TAINT TOXICnY (3\RCINCGENICITY AESTHETICS
CCHOJND / UNITS: ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1
TRIOHLCTCReOLS
2,3,5
2,3,6
VINYL CHUCRICE Y 0.3 f
THN: N 30 300 i
rores:
1) Hardness dependent cri.tfiria. Value presentad is based on 100 mg/1.
e Value based on EPA publislied criterion.
f Value presented is guidance value only. NY regs provide authority for use
HOE FTft
WATER FISH TISSUE FISH
TISSUE
AQUATIC HUMAN
LIFE HEALTH
ug/1 ppn ppn

18
18

30


     use of guidance values v*ien a standard does not. east  for a given water
     classification.  NY will initiate rulenaking to adopt  standards for all guideline
     values except the 50 ug/1 general organic guideline value.
h  50 ug/1 individual organic chemical; "general organic guideline value."
i  Value based on regulations for drinking water supplies or sources.
*  Fish tissue level for dioxin adopted by the State of New York
"  Total nonchlorinated phenols: 1 ug/1 for  total chlorinated phenols.
#  NYECBC value for chlo

3URCESCF

NYECEC  Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values.  Division of Water
  Technical and Operational Guidance Series (1.1.1).  New York State Department
  of Environmental Conservation.

M3E  Wells, David L.  March 15, 1987.  Ontario Ministry of  the EnvLronment
  Aquatic Contaminant Ragulatory Tools.  ONCE, Water Resources Branch.

FDA  FDA Action Levels
                                                                                                                                   17

-------
TABLE 2.

EXISTING WATER QUALITY  STANDARDS, OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE VALUES FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
         AND APPLICABLE TO  LAKE ONTARIO
MEDIUM:
PROTECTED USE:
EXPOSURE ROUTE:
CRITERION:
AGENCY:
COMPOUND / UNITS:
ACRYLONITRILE
ALDRIN
ALDRIN + DIELDRIN
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BENZENE
BENZIDINE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORDANE

C
R
C
I
>
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
CHLORINATED BENZENES#Y
DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3
1,4
TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4,5
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM (HEX)
CHROMIUM (TRI)
CYANIDE
2,4-D
DDT
DIBUTYL PHTHALATE
DICHLOROETHANE 1,2
DICHLOROPHENOL 2,4
DIELDRIN
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIOXIN (2378-TCDD)
DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
ENDRIN
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORANTHENE
HEPTACHLOR
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLORCYHEX
TECH
ALPHA
BETA
HEXACHLORCYPENTDIENE
IRON
ISOPHORONE
N



N
Y

N
N
N

Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
WATER
HUMAN HEAL
DRINKING WATER
TOXICITY CARCINOGENICITY AESTHETICS
NYSDEC IJC NYSDEC IJC NYSDEC
ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1
0.07 f
0.002 f
0.001
3 f
50 i 50 i m
1000 i
1 f
0.02 f
0.002 f 0.01 i
3 f
10
0.4 f
0.02 f
20

20
30
10

0.2
50 i 50 i m


100 i
100 i
0.01
50 f,h
0.8
0.3
0.0009 f
50 f,h
50 f,h

0.05 
0.2 i
50 ,h
50 ,h
0.009
0.02 f
0.5
0.02 f



1
300 i
50 f,h

T H
: FISH CONSUMP :

: EPA :
: ug/1 :
0.65 c
0.000079 c

45000
0.0175 c

40 c
0.00053 c

0.117 c

6.94 c
0.00048 c

2600



48
15.7 c


3433000


0.000024 c
154000
243 c

0.000076 c
1800000
2900000
1.4 E -8 c
0.56 c

3280
54
0.00029 c
0.00074 c
50 C

0.0414 c
0.031 c
0.0547 c


520000


WATER+FISH
CONSUMP
EPA
ug/1
0.058 c
0.000074 c

146
0.0022 c
1000
0.66 c
0.00012 c

0.0068 c
10
0.4 c
0.00046 c
488
400



38
0.19 c

50
170000
200
100
0.000024 c
35000
0.94 c
3090
0.000071 c
350000
313000
1.3 E -8 c
0.042 c
1
1400
42
0.00028 c
0.00072 c
0.45 c

0.0123 c
0.0092 c
0.0163 c
206
300
5200
                                                                                                                18

-------
TABLE 2.   CONTINUED

EXISTING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS,  OBJECTIVES,  CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE VALUES FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
         AND APPLICABLE TO LAKE ONTARIO
                                                                                                                     PAGE  2
MEDIUM:
PROTECTED USE:
EXPOSURE ROUTE:
CRITERION:
AGENCY:
COMPOUND / UNITS:
LEAD
LINDANE
MANGANESE
MERCURY
METHOXYCHLOR
MIREX
NITRATES
NITROBENZENE
NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
PCB
PHKNOI.
SELENIUM
SILVER
TETRACHLOROETHANES
1,1,2,2
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
THALLIUM
TOLUENE
TOXAPHENE
TRICHLOROETHANES
1,1,1
1,1,2
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE

C
R
C
I
?
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y



TOXICITY
NYSDEC IJC
ug/1 ug/1
50 i

300 i
2 i
35 i

10000 i

50 f,h

1 i
10 i
50 i



4 f
50 f,h


50 f,h



WATER
HUMAN HEALTH
DRINKING WATER FISH CONSUMP :
CARCINOGENICITY AESTHETICS :
NYSDEC IJC NYSDEC EPA :
ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 :

0.0625 c
100
0.146

0.04 f

30
16.1 c
0.01 0.000079 c




0.2 10.7 c
0.7 8.85 c
48
424000
0.01 f 0.00073 c

1030000
0.6 41.8 c
3 f 80.7 c
0.3 f 525 c


WATER
-------
TO31E 3.

RXISTOG WATER QUALITY SIWCARD6, CBJHCTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR PROTECTION CF AQUATIC LIFE
        AND APPLICABLE TO LAKE GNTOR10
KFDTIJM:
[UOIH.ltD USE:

CRITERION:
KHCY:
fOfON) / IJNl'IB:
AUMNUM
ALDRIN
AIJJRIN t DIELDRIN
ARSENIC
ARSENIC Cmi)
ARSENIC (PENT)
CENZEIG
HNZIDD>E
BERYLLIUM
CAIMUM
tULCRDWE

c
R
C
I
>

Y
Y
Y


Y
Y
Y
N
Y




A

NOT CATOJGRIZH) AS ACI/IE VS CHRCNIC
ME
ug/1


0.001






0.2
0.06
IJC
1KJ/1









0.2 Daphnid reprod m
0.06 Fathead lethality m
CHLOHNATED BENZ0*SY
DICHLORDBENZH
1,2
1,3
1,4
TRICHLORCBENZHC
1,2,3
1,2,4
1,3,5
H-NiranaaMwn;
OKMI1JM
CHRCMI1W (HEX)
awwiM cmo
fir
CTANinE
tar
1HCICN
DIAZDCN

DicracRDEmwc 1,2
DICMCRCPHENOL 2,4
DIEUWN
DICCON (2378-7013)
FMEGULFW
ETCRIN
amncN
(HTJCHUK
IEWCHI0CB^^7CIE^E
tEXACHUDRCYPENTOiae
IKH
IEAD
I.IHTW-:
KRIATHICN
MWOW*E
M-H.1JKY
Ma>nxYaua<
M[RHX
N







N

N
N
N
N
Y
N


Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N

2.5
2.5
4

0.9
0.5
0.65
0.03
100


')
5
0.003

0.08


0.2


0.003
0.002
0.005
0.001


300
2-25
0.01
0.1

0.2
0.04













5 F'ifih repnrlucli(]ii m
5 Fish behavior


0.003 Invert lethality (mean)
0.1 Invert lethal (1/30 days)





0.002 Stcnefly lethality n
0.005 Invert lethality m
0.001 Stcnefly lethality m


300 Algae tctdcity m
5 Neurotox trout
0.01 Stcnefly lethality m


0.2 Finh reproduction m
0.04 Invert effect"; m
0.005 Crustacean lethality
WAT
Q U A T I C

ACUIE TOUCHY
EPA NY3JBC
UJ/I ug/1

3


360
850
5300 a
2500 a
130 a
3.9 b
2.4
250 a
1120 a









16
1700 1)
18 b
22
1.1



118000 a
2020 a
2.5
0.01 a
0.22
0.18

0.52
90 a 10
7 a 4.5
300
82 b
2


2.4


E



EPA
iq/1




190
48


5.3
1.1
0.0043
50
763









11
210
12
5.2
0.001
0.1


20000
365
0.0019
0.00001
0.056
0.0023
0.01
0.0038
9.3
5.2
1000
3.2
0.08
0.1

0.01.2
0.03
0.001
R
LIFE

CHRCNIC TOXICITY BKJCOMJLATICN FDD TJUNT
NYETH; NYECBC LJC NYSDEC
UCJ/l ItJ/l IKJ/I Ut|/l
100

0.001
190 e


6 f
0.1 e
a 1100 b,e
b 1.13 b,e
0.002 f
a 5 50
a 5 50



5 50




207 b,e
11 0
1)
b 12 h,o
5.2e
0.001 e 0.003
0.1
0.08

a
a
0.001 e
a 0.000001
0.009 e
0.002 e ;

0.001 e
a 1
a 0.45
300
b 3.2 b,e

0.1 e

0.2e,f
0.03 e
0.001 e
                                                                                                                                20

-------
|!\BIK 3.  OimNUED
I-XISTIM; MATED CUAUTY rnwiwcG, OBJECTIVES we CRITERIA PCR PRJIBCTICN CF AQUATIC Lire
         Wt> APPLICABLE TO LAKE CNCARIO
                                                                                                                                                      PHZ 2
MDIUM:
IWIU-'IU) USE:

'vrreniCN:
KITCY:
(TWOIM) / UNITS:
immwj-i*
HK.m
IMKIHKN
HH
ii-NiAionniir-Mii.
fHfNiiM
SILVER
IWIOTN SULFHJF.
1IIALLJUM
'KKAfflEhE
VINYL CHLCRIEE
ZffC

C
R
C
1
)
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N

A

ACUTE VS CHRCNIC MJT SPECIFIED
ME IX
ug/1 ug/1

25 25 Dafihiiid rqjrcd m
0.008 0.008 Invert lethality m
0
O.S 0.4 l-'JKli aiclont criteria.  Value presented is based en pH 7.8.
  Value hnsed ai EPA [jihliRliEd criteriai.
I  vnlin pccrontjal i;.; cjuidanoe value oily.
"i  Aan])lr Hoard Report.   Table 2.  Great Lakes Water
  Quality fqreement Specific Objectives  -  Basis, Reference and Status.

 EPA  Water Duality Criteria.  Water Quality Criteria Sumnary.  January 2, 1987.
  U.S. EPA, Office of Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.

 fWEDEC  Ambient Water Quality Standards  and Guidance Values.  Division of Water
  Technical and Operational Guidance Series (1.1.1).  NEW York State Department
  of Environmental Conservation.
                                                                                                                                    21

-------
TAI1IK 1.

rainmr, nn nmn-n SI
                             ,, rn.mcn.vis AWJ N.TKN IEVKIB FCR nat nrnJK
                                                                                    10 IAKE CNITWO
HTOIUM:
roncran ur*:
FmEUKE ROUTE:
CRITERION:
KHCY:
CCWCUC / UNITS:

AIJKIN I DIEUKIN
AIJDIN
DIKIJK1-N
Alfl-NIC
Iia*TJ(A)l'VHFN-:
PAH
a HOWE
TKiaiLCRCBENTH*:
DDT
DIOXIN (2378-TOD)
fJCRIN
IfPITlCHlJDR
KEXAQILORaBENZFN::
HEXACHUKHTIMttErc
HEXKHLCRCYHEX
HEXACHUORDEIHANE
LEAD
LOWE
MERCURY
M1REX
frnofljORnbTYRfn-
PCB
PENITOCrRDPHENDL
EH.ENIUM

HUMAN HFALTH
A FISH CCTEUMETICN
R
C WE IX FDA
N ppn ppm ppn
? EDIBLE PORTION
Y 0.3 m
0.3
0.3



Y 0.3 0.3

Y 5 5
Y 0.00002 0.00005
N 0.3 m
Y 0.3 m 0.3
Y
Y


N 1
Y 0.3 m
N 0.5 1
N 0.1 0.1

Y 2 2
N
N
FISH T 1
AQUATIC LIFE: FI3I HEALTH

S S U E
AQUATIC LIFE: BIRD6 (. MANUALS QUANTIFICATION
i iMr*r
FI3i COEUMPTICN BY BIRDS & MAMMAIS 	 *
NOKaRCINDGENIC 1/100 CWTER RISK
IX NYECBC
fpn fpm
WHOLE FI9I WH31
0.12



1 Potrsit ifil liuh l.imors

0.5
1.3
0.2
0.000003
0.025
0.2
0.33
1.3
0.1
14.1



0.33
0.02
0.11
2
3 Fish survival
IX NYSDEE IX
ppn ppn ppn
F13I WIDLE FI3I
0.022





0.37

1 Bird eggshell UiinniiKj 0.21
.0000023 0.00001

0.21
0.2
4.5
0.51



0.5 Bird behavior
0.37

0.1 Mink reproduction 0.11


 ICIES:

 m  Accepted and incorporated into amaxled GLWQA, 1987.


 SOURCES OF IJFCFNATICN:

 WE Walls, David L.  March 15, 1987.  Ontario Ministry of the Environment
   Aquatic Contaminant Regulatory Tools.  CHE, Water Resources Branch.

 IX 1987 IX Science Advisory Board Report.  Table 2.   Great lakes Water
   Quality Agreement Specific Objectives  - Basis, Reference and Status.

 FTft  FDA Action Levels

 NY3H:  NewsJl, Arthur .J., David W.  Jcnnscn, art) Laurie K. Allen.  July 1987.
   Niagara River Biota Contaminant Project: Fish Flesh Criteria for Piscivorous
   Wildlife.
                                                                                                                               22

-------
TABLE 5.

EXISTING  GUIDELINES,  STANDARDS  AND OBJECTIVES FOR SEDIMENTS  APPLICABLE  TO LAKE ONTARIO
MEDIUM:
CRITERION:



AGENCY:
COMPOUND / UNITS:
AR:;!-'.'"-
BARIUM
BENZO(A)PYRENE
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
PCS
SELENIUM
ZINC

C

R
C
I
?
Y
N

N

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N





MOE
ppm
8


1
25
25
0.1
10000
50

0.3
25
0.05

100
S
DREDGING



EPA 
ppm
3
20

6
25
25
0.1
17000
40
300
1
20
1

90
E D I M E N T
FISH HEALTH



IJC * IJC
ppm ppm
3.3

1 Fish tumors
2.5
48
50


106

0.65
52
0.077-0.089
1 5 Fish survival - ecosystem effects
192
NOTES:
It  Lower end of concentration range designated as "moderately polluted" except
     for cadmium,  which is lower end of "heavily polluted" range.
*  Average concentrations (dry weight) of surficial constituents in Lake Ontario

SOURCES OF INFORMATION:

MOE  Wells, David  L.   March 15, 1987.  Ontario Ministry of the Environment
  Aquatic Contaminant Regulatory Tools.  OMOE, Water Resources Branch.

EPA  Guidelines for the Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor
  Sediments.  April,  1977.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V,
  Chicago, Illinois.

IJC - Dredging   International Joint Commission. 1982. Guidelines and
   Register for Evaluation of Great Lakes Dredging Projects.  Report of the
   Dredging Subcimmittee to the Water Quality Programs Committee of the Great
   Lakes Water Quality Board.

IJC - Fish Health  1987 IJC Science Advisory Board Report.  Table 2.  Great Lakes
  Water Quality Agreement Specific Objectives - Basis Reference and Status.
                                                                                                     23

-------
TABLE 6.

EXISTING  AND PROPOSED  WATER  QUALITY  CRITERIA,  STANDARDS,  GUIDELINES  OR
 OBJECTIVES WHICH  PROTECT  THE  MOST SENSITIVE  USE  (MOST STRINGENT CRITERION)

ALUMINUM
ACRYLONITRILE
ALDRIN
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BENZENE
BENZIDINE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORDANE
C
A
R
C

Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y

Y
N
Y
Y
CHLORINATED BENZENESttY
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM (HEX)
CHROMIUM (TRI)
COPPER
CYANIDE
DDT
DEMETON
OIAZINON

DIBUTYL PHTHALATE

DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2
1,3
1 ,4
DtCHLOROETHANE 1,2
DICHLOROPHENOL 2,4
DIELDRIN
DIETHYL PHTHALATE

DIMETHYL PHTHALATE

DIOXIN (2378-TCDD)
DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
ENDOSULFAN
ENDRIN
ETHYLBENZENE

FLUORANTHENE
GUTHION
HEPTACHLOR
HEXACHLORCYHEX
TECH
ALPHA
BETA
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N


N

N



Y
N
Y
N

N

Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y

Y
Y
Y
CRITERIA
ug/1
100
0.058 c
0.000074 c
3 
0.0022 c
1000 i
0.66 c
0.00012 c
0.002 f
0.0068 c
0.2 m
0.4 c,f
0.00046 c
5
0.19 c
2
11 e
210 b
2
5
0.000024 c
0.1
0.08
0.003
35000
50 f,h
5
2.5
2.5
4
0.8
0.2
0.000071 c
350000
50 f,h
313000
50 f,h
1.3 E -8 c
0.042 c
0.003
0.002 m
1400
50
42
0.005 m
0.00028 c
0.02 
0.0123 c
0.0092 c
0.0163 c
AGENCY PROTECTED
USE
(AQUATIC OR HUMAN HEALTH)
NYSDEC
EPA
EPA
NYSDEC
EPA
NYSDEC; EPA
EPA
EPA
NYSDEC
EPA
MOE; IJC
NYSDEC; EPA
EPA
NYSDEC
EPA
DOE
NYSDEC; EPA
EPA
DOE
MOE; IJC
EPA
NYSDEC; EPA
MOE; NYSDEC
IJC
EPA
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
MOE
MOE
MOE
NYSDEC
MOE
EPA
EPA
NYSDEC
EPA
NYSDEC
EPA
EPA
MOE
MOE; IJC ;EPA
EPA
NYSDEC
EPA
MOE; IJC
EPA
NYSDEC
EPA
EPA
EPA
AQ
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
AQ
HH
HH
AQ
HH
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
HH
AQ
AQ
AQ (Mean)
HH
Ind organic
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
HH
AQ
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
AQ
AQ
HH
Ind organic
HH
AQ
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
                                                                                                    24

-------
TAIil.K fi.   CONTINUED

IIKXACHLORCYPENTDIENE N
HKXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HYDROGEN SULFIDE
IRON
ISOPHORONE

1.KAI)
I.IMDANE
MALATIIION
MANOANMSK
MKRCURY
MKTHOXYCIILOR
Ml REX
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL
NITRATES
NITROBENZENE
NITROSODI PHENYI.AMINE
I'ARATHION
I'CB
I-T'NTACHLOROBENZENE
I'l-NTACHLOROPHENOL
rilENOL
SELENIUM
SILVER
TRTRACHI.ORnnEN7.ENE
TKTRACHI.OROETH 1 122
TKTRACHI.OROETHYLENE
THALLIUM
TOUIKNR

roXAPHRNE
TIMrlll.OROBENZENE
   1.2, i
TRICIILOROETHANES
  1,1,1

  1,1,2
TRICHI.OROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
'/.. I NC                  N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N

N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N

Y




N

Y
Y
Y
0.45
0.00072 c
0.45 c
2 m
300 m
5200
50 f,h
2 b
0.01
0. 1
50
0.012
0.03 e
0.001 e
10
25 m
10000 i
30
4.9 c
0.008 m
0.000079 c
0.03
0.4
1 i
1
0.1
10 .
0.17 c
0.7
4 f
14300
50 ,h
0.0002
5
0.9
0.5
0.65
18400
50 f,h
0.6 c
2.7 c
0.3 f
NYSDEC
EPA
EPA
IJC; EPA; NYSDEC
MOE; IJC; EPA;
EPA
NYSDEC
DOE
MOE; T.IC
MOE; EPA; NYSDEC
EPA
EPA
EPA; NYSDEC
EPA; NYSDEC
NYSDEC
MOE; IJC
NYSDEC; EPA
NYSDEC
EPA
MOE; IJC; NYSDEC
EPA
MOE
IJC; NYSDEC
NYSDEC
AQ
HH
HH
AQ
NYAQ, HH
HH
Ind organic
AQ
AQ
AQ
HH
AQ
AQ
AQ
HH Aesthetics
AQ
HH
HH Aesthetics
HH
AQ
HH
AQ
AQ
HH
IJC; NYSDEC; DOE AQ
I JC; NYSDEC
NYSDEC
EPA
NYGDEC
NYSDEC
EPA
NYSDEC
EPA
NYSDEC
MOR
MOE
MOE
EPA
NYSDEC
NYSDEC; EPA
EPA
NYSDEC
AQ
HH Aesthetics
HH
HH
HH
HH
Ind organic
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
HH
Ind organic
HH
HH
HH
                                  30 m
                                            MOE;  IJC;NYSDEC  AQ
 NOTES:
 a   Insufficient  data  to develop criteria.   Value presented is  the  LOEL -
      Lowest Observable Effect Level.
 b   Hardness dependent, criteria.  Value  presented is based on 100 mg/1.
 c   Human  health  criteria for carcinogens  reported for 3 risk levels.
      Viilue presented  in 10 -6 risk level  (negligible risk).
 il   pll dependent  criteria.   Value presented  is based on pll 7.8.
 <;   Value  based on  KPA published criterion.
 I   V.iluo  presented is guidance value only.
 h   (lOiifTtil organic guideline value.
 i   Value  based on  regulations lor drinking  water supplies or sources.
 i   Accepted and  incorporated into amended GI.WQA, 1987.
 Il   NYSDEC value  for chl orobenzene .
                                                                                                       25

-------
TABLE 7.

EXISTING  AND PROPOSED CRITERIA,  STANDARDS OR OBJECTIVES FOR FISH TISSUE
   WHICH  PROTECT THE HOST SENSITIVE USE (MOST STRINGENT CRITERION)

                     C
                     A

ALDRIN t DIELDRIN
ALDRIN
DIELDREN
ARSENIC
BENZO(A)PYRENE
PAH
CHLORDANE
TRICHLOROBENZENE
DDT
DIOXIN (2378-TCDD)
ENDRIN
HEPTACHLOR
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLORCYHEX
LEAD
LINDANE
MERCURY
M1REX
PCB
PENTACIILOROPHENOL
SELENIUM
TOXAPHENE
R
C
Y
Y
Y
Y


Y

Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
CRITERIA
ppm
0.022 j
0.0000022 k
0.00037
0.000097
]
0.00093
0.0068
1.31
0.0013
0.00000007
0.025 1
0.0031
0.0064
1.3 1
0.0023
1
0.3 m
0.5 m
0.1
0.0025
2 1
3
0.0096
AGENCY
NYSDEC
EPA
EPA
EPA
IJC
EPA
EPA
NYSDEC
EPA
EPA
NYSDEC
EPA
EPA
NYSDEC
EPA
MOE
1, 1C
MOE; IJC
MOE; FDA
EPA
NYSDEC
IJC
EPA
PROTECTED
USE
(AQUATIC OR
HUMAN HRA1.TH)
AQ
HH
II H
HH
AQ
HH
HH
AQ
HH
HH
AQ
HH
HH
AQ
HH
HH
HH
AQ
HH
HH
AO
AQ
HH
NOTES:
j  NYGDEC proposer! objective based on  1/100 cancer  risk  to  fish-eating
      birds and mammals.
k  All EPA numbers are 10 -6 cancer risk levels  (negligible risk)  in edible
      portions of fish, corresponding to water quality  criteria  for  10 -6
      cancer risk from  fish consumption only.
1  NYSDEC proposed objective based on  non-carcinogenic effects  on
      fish-eating birds and mammals.
m  Accepted and incorporated into amended GLWQA,  1987.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION:

MOE   Wells, David L.   March  15,  1987.  Ontario Ministry  of  the  Environment
   Aquatic Contaminant  Regulatory Tools.  OMOE, Water Resources  Branch.

IJC   1987 IJC Science  Advisory  Board Report.  Table 2.   Great  Laker. Water
   Quality Agreement Specific Objectives - Basis,  Reference  and  Status.

NYSDEC  Table of proposed  'Fish  Flesh  Criteria,  Residues and Risk  for 19 Organochlorine
   Chemicals or Chemical Groups.'
                                                                                                   26

-------
                               Table 8

             New York State Fish Consumption Advisories
                          for Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
American Eel
Channel Catfish
Lake Trout
Chinook Salmon
Coho Salmon over 21"
Rainbow Trout over 25"
Brown Trout over 20"

Carp
White Perch
Smaller Coho Salmon
Smaller Rainbow Trout
Smaller Brown Trout
Eat none
Eat no more than one meal per month
The recommendations are based on evaluation of contaminant levels in
fish and wildlife.
New York State Fishing, Small Game Hunting, Trapping Regulations
Guide. 1988-1989. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. 98 pp.
                                                             27

-------
                        Table 9

Province of Ontario Fish Consumption Advisories
                   for Lake Ontario
                           linnoi County t Fronlcnac County
           HopcTwp*. Hamilton Twp
Scwtmough Iwp't
               Number- Station
                                                              28

-------
(continued)
Consumption
Guidelines
One week No restrictions
T wo week s No restrictions
Three weeks Nn restrictions
long-term No restrictions
consumption
10 meals per wk
7 3 kg /wk
(S 1 Ib /wk )
5 meals per wk
1 3 kg /wk
1? 8 II) /wk )
4 meals per wk
0 95 kg /wk.
1? 1 Ib/wk.)
0 776 kg /wk
(05m/wk)
7 meals per wk
1 54 kg /wk
(3 4 It) /wk )
4 meals per wk
0 86 kg /wk
It 9 Ib /wk )
3 meals per wk
0 63 kg /wk
It 4 Ib/wk)
0136 kg /wk
(0 3 Ib /wk |
1 or 7 meals/wk
045kg/wk
1 1 lt> /wk |
1 or 7 meals/wk
0 45 kg /wk
1 1 Ib /wk I
1 or 7 meals/wk
04Skg/wk
(1 Ib/wk |
1 or 7 meals per
month
0 45 kg /mo
1 1 ll> /mo I
None
None
None
None
Guide de
consommation
Une semaine Pas de restrictions
Oeu> semames Pas de restrictions
trots semnmes Pas cte restrictions
Consommalion Pas (le restrictions
A long lerme
Contaminant identification
10 repas par sem
7.3 kg/sem
(S.I Ib /semi
5 repas par sem
1.3 kg/sem
(7.8 ll>/sem )
4 repas par sem
0.95 kg/sem
17.1 Ib'sum)
0.776 kg/sem
(0.5lb/sem)

7 repas par sem
1. 54 kg/sem
13.4 Ib/sem I
4 repas par sem
0.86 kg/sem
M.9lt>/scmt
3 repas par sent
0.63 kg/sem
(1.4 in/sum 1
0.136 kg/sem
(0.3 Ib/scm I
Identification
I ou 7 repas
par sem
0.45 kg/sem
1 1 1b/sem |
1 ou 7 repas
par sem
0.4 5 kg/sem
1 1 ll>/sem 1
1 ou 7 repas
par sem
0.45 kg/sem
1 1 Ih/sem 1
I ou 7 repas
par mots
0.4Skg/mois
1 1 Ib/moisl
des polluants
Aucun
Aucun
Aucun
Aucun

                     Mercury
                     Mercury. PCB. miren and pesticides
                     PCB. mirei and pesticides
                     Mercury. PCB and mire>
                     Mercury, other metals.
                     PCB. miren and pesticides
                     Mercury, other metals
                     ?.3.7.8-TCDD(Oioin|
                     Toiaphene
   Children under 15 and women of child-
 hour inn aj4' should cat only <.,-} (.
Mercure
Mercure. OPC. mire et peslicides
QPC. mire> el pesticides
Mercure. OPC et rniro
Mercure. autres melauK.
OPC. miren el pesticides
Mercure el autres melaui
7.3.7.B-TCDO Idioimcl
Toiaphene
   Lei enfuntt ilc iniiint tie IS an* el let
ftmmcx tn ugf dt pmcrfrr ne Jfrraienl
                                                       par' ,.', (.
                                                                                                      29

-------
     (continued)
      Cantm*
                                                 iwo  w  -e e-96  MS e-n
                                                                                               CamOtav
       Uc Ontario N01
                           totfenc"
                           BuMMbnin*'*
                           SunrtSJud'
                           PMuude'
                           8tM de m*t"
                           Swmon eo>
                           Trum * lc"
                           FitslMMir Oium"
                           Cp"
                           BracM"
                           Mntav Scned*"
                           tpolin nt-en-cieC*
GO
O
                                                                                                                    Epotan ire-oxal*
                                                                                                                    Pirctiiude*
                                                                                                                    BwWwc*
                                                                                                                    Ouml Ctfsft*
                                                                                                                    ButM de m*i*
                                                                                                                    BnMnTreui*
                                                                                                                    Trwtt taunt*
                                                                                                                    FietMttrOrum*
Lak* Ontario #1
Lac Ontario NO 1
                                                                                                                    cpntan c-araeC
                                                                                              Lak* Ontario 1
                                                                                              Lae Ontario NO 1
                     CNnooki-"
                     Simon cNnook'-'*
                                                                                                                    tpatin jn-jftotf*
                                                                                                                    Swnon ooho"*
                                                                                                                    Wntav Traut*-*
                                                                                                                    TiuMkranf

-------
        (continued)
                                                JS
                                                < MI a-wfto-iaiu-MXii-iMit-ntBMeetnxii
                                                                                                                                      <  Ml tM-IMM4R4-iaIM90MM>a
          Laka Ontario *1
          Lac Ontario N01
Chinook*-'*
Sjunxm Aim**"
                              WMtSucktr*
                              MMrivnoir
                              Code*"
                              Simon cohy*'-*
                              WMihs'
                              MnoowTiwr1*
                              TniiMi
                              LikiTiajl'/
          Lake Ontario 1
          Lae Ontario N1
          HBk OXi
Mwniifnoii*
          Laka Ontario *1
          Lae Ontario NO i
                              MwiMrnoii*
                              Tiunedeijc"
         Uka Ontario *1
         Lac Ontario NO 1
BramTnul'
Tni*ibnm>
          Laka Ontario *1
          UK Ontario N*1
Wnbow Smtt"
                              WMlSudw"
                              Munitno*'
                              Raintow Ttout1-'
U)
Laka Ontario 1
Lac Ontario N01
top*
top**
                                                                                                                    tobdne*
                                                                                      WMMPnll*
                                                                                                                    Ytlov Pvcft*
                                                                                                                    TfuiUbnin*
                                                                                                                    GizzartStad*
                                                                                                                    NU0MI) PUB*
                                                                  Laka Ontario *1
                                                                  Uc Ontario N1
                                                                                                                    RiinbawSinV
                                                                                                                    tpwuo ->cM*
                                                                                                                    WMtSudV*
                                                                                                                    Meuravnei*
                                                                                                                    NofVwni Pita*
                                                                                                                    BncM*
                     Cup>
                     Ctiff
                                                                  Lak Ontario *1
                                                                  Lac Ontario NO 1
                                                                                                                    taMmrSmR*
                                                                                                                    bertm ire-rvr
                                                                  Lak* Ontario *1
                                                                  LacOntarioNOI
                                                                                                                    Ufa Trout*'
                                                                                                                    Tiuk * l>c"
Lake Ontario 2
Lac Ontario NO 2
                                                                                                                    Bnwn Bullaad*
                                                                                                                    Bjrttttt brant*
                                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                                      0>
                                      O0
                                                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                               G
                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                               OO>0O
                                                                                                                                                OOCS
                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                                                           o
                                                                                                                                                              o

-------
   (continued)
        Laka Ontario 2
        Lac Ontario N<> 2
Laka Ontario *2
Lac Ontario NO 2
Laka Ontario *2
Lac Ontario NO 2
Laka Ontario 2
Lac Ontario NO 2
Uka Ontario *2
Lac Ontario N 2
                     Biwm BixmejU1
                     Button bnmi>

                            Northcni rwr
                            BrecM'
                            Yel(MrPerch>
                            Pmtiaude'
                            MrtxM SnK>
                            tpnton -n-dl"
       Lake Ontario 3
       lac Ontario NO 3
       Laka Ontario 3
       Lac Ontario NO 3
OJ
                            WnoM Trout"
                            Train m-tn
                            Chinook'
                            SMMHOO tfwiook
                            MnbowSmT
                            pun rc-en-citf
                            Rmtiow Srnrt*
                            E(Un IIC-M cW
                            Banbow Trawl*"
                            Bnwn Twul"
                            Tw* twin"
                            Mnboir SmtB"
                            Dort"
                                                                                                                                          1WO IMS 7V   449 IMI - >n
Laka Ontario 3
Lac Ontario W>3
                                                                                                                    Ach^yi I piindt bouciii*
                                                                                        Laka Ontario *3
                                                                                        Lac OntarioN03
                                                                                                             Anguiie tf n*lqut'
                                                                                               Lak Ontario *3
                                                                                               Lac Ontario N03
                                                                                                             Wjlley
                                                                                                             Dort
                                                                                        Laka Ontario #4
                                                                                        Lac Ontario NO 4
                                                                                        fftfC
                     Oor<>
ttourm

CM* MBi  a> ma E
                                                                                                                    NorthmPita*
                                                                                                                    BrecM*
                                                                                                                    BmrnBulUiad'
                                                                                                                    BjftxiOi DraM*
                                                                                                                    AmencmW
                                                                                                                    Oannal CufisM
                                                                                                             Whin BBS*
                                                                                                             BbUnc
                                                                                                                    Snunrmmh Baa*
                                                                                                                    AcMgin I tM Douche*
                                                                                               Laka Ontario *4
                                                                                               Lac Ontario NO 4
                                                                                                                    Oort"
                                                                                               Laka Ontario *4
                                                                                               Lac Ontario NO 4
                                                                                                            mot*'
                                                                                                            Oort>
                                                                                               Mwrm

-------
     (continued)
                                         ***
                                                                                                                        0
                                                                                                                         *i
         L*c* Ontario *4
         LK Ontario NO 4
                          Dort
                          AduQm I jfindg boucfn*
                          Cup*
                          Cnp>
 late Ontario 4
 LK Ontario NO 4
 tnnaitmmmtto**
        OttHMimilt*
                          Oaf

        Uk* Ontario 94
        LK Ontario NO 4
        otmfciiaai
        Uto Ontario 4
        LK Ontario NO 4
                          tpeitm rc-tn-eW
 Uk* Ontario *4
.Uc Ontario NO 4
           HIM
                          Amrion HP
                          Anguine d'Arntriquf,
                          WhiMsM
                          Gnntft nrtgont*
        UM Ontario 
        LK Ontario NO e
                  American M*
                  AnguM d'Atncrtqu**
             UoM. ran. long
CO
Late Ontario 
LK Ontario NO e
                                                                                             WMtn*
                                                                                             Dor*>
                                                                                                     Ytltait Putft*
                                                                                             Mvttwn Pito^
                                                                                             BrocfuC
                                                                                                     Smjnmouti So'
                                                                                                     Achigg * peaH ttoudu*
                                                                                                     OHno(*
                                                                                                     Swnwi ciMook
                                                                                                     Bn>M TrauP*
                                                                                                     TniM bran***
                                                                            Lite Ontario #6
                                                                            LK Ontario NO 6
                                                                                                     AnwionW
                                                                                                     AnauM (T Amn4M>
                                                                            Uto Ontario *
                                                                            LK Ontario NO 6
                                                                                              Grmdicortgont"
                                                                                                     Norttwn Pifcn
                                                                                                     CpotM c-w-oV
Uk* Ontario**
LK Ontario NO 6
                                                                                                     Amtnan Eri"
                                                                                                     AnguMe ir/Mriqu**'
                                                                                   StLBWineMv*r
                                                                                   Ftouv* St-Laurant
                                                                                              ftiinbw Smef
                                                                                              ptttonrc-tn
                                                                                                                                     O
    Ontario Ministry  of  the Environment.    1988.  Guide  to Eating  Ontario  Sport Fish.   303 pp.

-------
                              Table 10



                        Categories of Toxics







I.   Ambient Data Available



    A.   Exceeds enforceable standard



    B.   Exceeds a more stringent,  but  unenforceable criterion



    C.   Equal to or less than most stringent criterion



    D.   Detection limit too high to allow complete categorization



    E.   No criterion available





II.  Ambient Data Not Available



    A.   Evidence of presence in or input to the Lake



    B.   No evidence of presence in or  input to the Lake
                                                            34

-------
                   Table 11

Categorization of Toxics Based on Ambient Data
              (Category  I Toxics)
Chemical Fish Tissue
PCBs*
dioxin*
(2,3,7,8-TCDD)
chlordane
mirex*
(mi rex + photomirex)
mercury*
iron
aluminum
DDT + metabolites*
octachlorostyrene
hexachlorobenzene*
dieldrin*
hexachlorocyclo-
hexanes (including
(lindane + alpha-BHC)
heptachlor/
heptachlor epoxide
aldrin
endrin
1 , 2-dichlorobenzene
l , 3-dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2, 3-trichlorobenzene
1,2, 4-trichlorobenzene
1,3, 5-trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3,4-tetra-
chlorobenzene
copper
nickel
zinc
chromium
lead
manganese
A
A

A
A

A
NI
NI
B
B
B
B
C


C

C
C
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI

NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
Water Column
A
D

C
NI

NI
A
A
B
NI
B
B
C


C

NI
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

C
C
C
C
C
C
Summary
A(FT, WC)
A (FT)

A(FT)
A (FT)

A (FT)
A(WC)
A(WC)
B(FT, WC)
B(FT)
B(FT, WC)
B(FT, WC)
C(FT, WC)


C(FT, WC)

C(FT)
C(FT, WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)

C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
C(WC)
                                                 35

-------
toxaphene
cadmium
D
NI
NI
D
D(FT)
D(WC)
pentachlorobenzene       E
polyfluorinated          E
 biphenyls
dioxins (other than      E
 2,3,7,8-TCDD)
polychlorinated          E
 dibenzofurans*
heptachlorostyrene       E
tetrachloroanisole       E
pentachloroanisole       E
chlorophenyl-[chloro     E
 (trifluoromethyl)
 phenyl]methanone
1,1'-(Difluoromethylene) E
 bis-dichloro-mono
 (trifluoromethyl)-
 benzene
pentachlorotoluenes      E
endosulfan               E
nonachlor (cis + trans)  E
                     C
                     NI

                     NI

                     NI

                     NI
                     NI
                     NI
                     NI
                     NI
                     NI
                     NI
                     NI
           E(FT)
           E(FT)

           E(FT)

           E(FT)

           E(FT)
           E(FT)
           E(FT)
           E(FT)
           E(FT)
           E(FT)
           E(FT)
           E(FT)
A - Exceeds enforceable standard
B - Exceeds a more stringent but unenforceable criterion
C - Equal to or less than most stringent criterion
D - Detection limit too high to allow complete categorization
E - No criterion available

NI- No data available after initial review by the TCW
FT- Based on fish tissue data
WC- Based on water column data
* - IJC critical pollutant
                                                             36

-------
                              Table 12

              Toxics for Which There is No Ambient  Data
           But for Which There is Evidence of Presence In
                          or Input to the Lake

                        (Category IIA Toxics)
halogenated alkanes

  methylene chloride
  dichloro(trifluoromethyl)
   a-a-difluoro diphenyl-
   methane
  trichlorofluoromethane
  dichloromethane
  dichlorobromomethane
  dibromochloromethane
  trichloromethane
  1,2-dichloropropane
halogenated alkenes

  endosulfan sulfate
  hexachlorobutadiene
  cis-1,3-dichloropropene
  trans-l,3-dichloropropene
chlorinated ethanes

  1,1-dichloroethane
  1,2-dichloroethane
  1,1, l-trichlorethane
  1,1,2-trichloroethane
  1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
  hexachloroethane
chlorinated ethylenes

  1,1-dichloroethylene
  trans-l,2-dichloroethylene
  trichloroethylene
  tetrachloroethylene
aldehydes

  endrin aldehyde
ketones

  isophorone
                                                            37

-------
phthalate esters

  diethyl phthalate
  di-n-butyl phthalate
  di-n-octyl phthalate
  butylbenzyl phthalate
  bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
  dioctyl phthalate
phenols

  bromophenol
  dibromopheno1
  tribromophenol
  pentachlorophenol
haloethers

  4-bromophenylphenyl ether
  pentachlorophenylmethyl
   ether
  tribromoanisole
  dibromochloroanisole
  bromodichloroanisole
ethers

  diethyl ether
hydrocarbons

  benzene
amines

  benzidine
  simazine
  atrazine
  diethylatrazine
  desethylatrazine
  tribromoaniline
  dibromochloroani1ine
stvrenes (alkenylbenzenes)

  hexachlorostyrene
  pentachlorostyrene
nitro and nitroso compounds

  nitrobenzene
                                                            38

-------
polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons

  phenanthrene
  anthracene
  fluoranthene
  pyrene
  chrysene
  perylene
  coronene
  benzo(a)pyrene*
  benzo(e)pyrene
  benzo(b)fluoranthene
  benzo(j)fluoranthene
  benzo(k)fluoranthene
  benzo(b)chrysene
  benz(a)anthracene
  dibenz(a,h)anthracene
  benzo(g,h,i)perylene
  ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
alkvlbenzenes
  toluene
  tribromotoluene
  ethylbenzene
  sec-butylbenzene
  n-propylbenzene
hvdroxy compounds

  tribromocresol
dialkylbenzenes

  p-xylene
  m-xylene
  o-xylene
pesticide active ingredients

  methoxychlor
  2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic
    acid
trialkylbenzenes

  1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
  1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
                                       other substances

                                         silvex
                                         dachtal
                                                            39

-------
metals

  barium
  antimony
  beryllium
  molybdenum
  silver
  strontium
  selenium
  tin
  titanium
  thallium
metal containing compounds

  butyltin
  dibutyltin
  methyltin
  dimethyltiri
  tributyltin
  alkyl-lead*
non metals

  cyanide
*IJC critical pollutant
                                                             40

-------
                              Table 13
             Fish Flesh Criteria for Piscivorous Wildlife
Chemical(s)                    Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)

                               Toxicity            Carcinogen
                               Based Criteria      Based Criteria
PCBs                           0.11                0.11
DDT, DDE and ODD               0.2                 0.27
Aldrin and dieldrin            0.12                0.022
Chlordane                      0.5                 0.37
2,3,7,8-TCDD                   0.000003            0.0000023
Endrin                         0.025
Heptachlor and                 0.2                 0.21
 heptachlor epoxide
Mirex                          0.33                0.37
Hexachlorobenzene              0.33                0.2
Hexachlorocyclohexanes         0.1                 0.51
Hexachlorobutadiene            1.3                 4.5
Hexachloroethane               14
Octachlorostyrene              0.02
Trichlorobenzenes (sum)        1.33                NC
Pentachlorophenol              2.0                 NC
2 , 3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol      0.67
NC = Not carcinogenic
   = Insufficient data

From:  Newell, A.J., D.W. Johnson, and L.K. Allen. 1987.
Niagara River Biota Contamination Project: Fish Flesh Criteria for
Piscivorous Wildlife. Tech. Rept. 87-3, Division of Fish and
Wildlife, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany.  182 pp.
                                                           41

-------
                                                TABLE  .14

                          OPEN LAKE SEDIMENT COMPARISON TO DREDGING GUIDELINES
MEDIUM: SEDIMENT
PARAMETER RANGE OF VALUES
PCB
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
ARSENIC
ZINC
0.005 - 0.280ppm Depositional
0.001 - 3.60ppm Non-Depositional
0.1 - 6.2ppm Depositional
0.1 - 20.6ppm Non-Depositional
8.0 - 133ppm Depositional
3.7 - SOOppm Non-Depositional
35 - 56ppm Depostional
2.1 - 200ppm Non-Depositional
20000 -96200ppm Depositional
2900 - 83100ppm Non-Depositional
7 - 285ppm Depositional
1.8 - 287ppm Non-Depositional
0.40 - 3.95ppm Depositional
0.01 - 7.76ppm Non-Depositional
29 - 99ppm Depositional
4 - 160ppm Non-Depostional
No Data
0.2 - 17ppm Depositional
0.2 - 2.4ppm Non-Depositional .
87 - 3507ppm Depositional
6 - 1120ppm Non-Depositional
JURISDICTION
MOE '
0.05ppm
Ippm
25ppm
25ppm
lOOOOppm
SOppm
0.3ppm
25ppm
-
8ppm
lOOppm
EPA* IJC* . GUIDELINES EXCEEDED
Ippm 0 . 077p-0 . 089ppm
6ppm '
25ppm
25ppm
17000ppm
40ppm
Ippm
20ppm
-
3ppm
90ppm
2.5ppm
48ppm
SOppm
lOOOOppm
106ppm
0.65ppm ,
I
52ppm : '
Ippm (
3.3ppm
192ppm
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
.1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
-
1,2,3
1,2,3
*
KEY:  1 = Ontario Ministry of Environment  2 = Environmental Protection Agency  3= International Joint Commission
# Lower end of EPA concentration range designated as "moderately polluted"
* Average concentration (dry weight) of surficial constituents in Lake Ontario
For'further information see Text

-------
                              TABLE 15
   POTENTIAL CRITERIA FOR CONTAMINANTS IN SEDIMENTS OF LAKE ONTARIO
           AND CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN SEDIMENTS
CONTAMINANT AWQS/C Koc Organic*
(ug/1) Carbon
(%)
PCS 0.001 42,500 0.03
2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.0000001 3,730,268 0.03
Mirex 0.001 286,227 0.03
DDT 0.001 248,000 0.03
Chlordane 0.001 54,354 0.03
Aldrin/Dieldrin 0.001 68,911 0.03
Sediment Concentrations
Criterion in Lake Ontario
(ug/kg) Sediment
(ug/kg)
1.3 89**
0.1 0.017
(ND-0.499)***
8.6 1 to 10**
7.1 22**
3.3
2.1 2.8**
**
*** -
3% was selected as a typical organic carbon content of Lake
Ontario sediment.

From Thomas (1983); all data except mirex are means presented by
author; for mirex, data are the range where mirex detected.

from Gradient Corp., (1987); median value of about 0.127 ug/kg,
range of not detected to 0.499 ug/kg, n=32.
                                                               43

-------
                                                Table   16
                   A Summary of Water Quality Problems Identified in Areas of Concern
                       Hamilton     Toronto        Port     Bay of     Osweg'o     Rochester     Eighteenmile
                       Harbour      Waterfront     Hope     Quinte     River      Bnbayment     Creek
Toxics in Water
Toxics in Sediment
Health Advisories
on Fish
Fish Tumors1
Impacted Biological
Community
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No Data
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No Data
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No Data
Yes
1- In many cases, where fish tumors have been found,  further work is warranted to determine the
   extent of the problem and the causative factor.   In other cases, fish tumors have been directly
   linked to contamination by polynuclear aromatic  hydrocarbons.

From: Great Lakes Water Quality Board.  1987 Report  on Great Lakes Water Quality.  Report to
      the International Joint Conmission.  236 pp.

-------
                            Figure 1


  B10MAGM1FICATION OF PCB. TOTAL DOT AND MERCURY THROUGH THE LAKE

  ONTARIO FOOD CHAIN.
-   6.00r  51
s
+t
$
  4.50
   3.00
ID
C.
     1.50
          Q>
                         OBJECTIVE -0.1 MG/KG
                  II
                         &    M
                              /
-------
      FIGURE   2      ORGANOCHLORINE  CONTAMINANT  AND LIPID CONCENTRATIONS  IN HERRING GULL EGGS TAKEN FROM  TWO COLONIES
                      ON LAKE ONTARIO,  1974-1986.
       Gulls at Huggs Island
       200.0

       ItC.O
      1
      g 120.0
        32.0

        21.0

        24.0
g It.O
 12.0
I 
           ?4)SIC77nniOIIBI3l4B
                    Tir
        14.0

        12.0

     a  10.0
I  '
t  2
                                    0.8

                                    o.s

                                    0.4




                                    0.2

                                    O.I
                                       I
                                       5  0.4
                                             \
                                   13.00


                                   12.00


                                    1.00


                                    1.00
                                                                     Gulls at Snake Island
  240.0

  200.0

  110.0

  uo.o

  00.0

  40.0
  s.o

  21.0

  24.0
a
 20.0



I "'

J IC
g 4.0
                                                                              74757777tHOII?tJHei
                                                                         =  4.0
                                                                           1.0
                                                                         a  2.0
                                                                              7475itnnnioiieaMBfi
   0.7

   II


I  
                                    15.00


                                    u.oo


                                    I.M


                                    1.00
WET  WEIGHT CONCENTRATION i STANDARD  DEVIATION.  SOURCE:  Great Lakes Water Quality Board. 1987 Report on
                                                                 Great Lakes Water Quality.  Report  to the
                      ""	                              International Joint Commission.  236 pp.

-------
                                           Figure  3

                              Average Levels of PCS  and Mirex in
                            Lake Trout,  Brown Trout and Coho Salmon
                                       at Jordan Harbour
                    PCB
                                                        MIREX
   ao
9

to
4-1
c
O)
o
    1.0
    o.o I
     75
                                                     025
                                                 5  0.2
                                                  O>
                                     o  0.15
                                     flj
                                     O

                                     O
                                     C-l
                                  0.1
                                                 5  0.05
77
             l>out
79
81
        Brown Trout
83
85
                                    75
             Coho Salmon
                                   77
                                                  Trout
                                   79
                                                                            81
                                          83
                                                                             85
                                                                       \fear
                                                  Brown Trout  -+-Coho Salmon
              From:  International Joint Commission. In press. Appendix B: 1987
              Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, Report of the Surveillance
              Subcommittee to the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, David E. Rathke
              and Gil McRae,  eds. Windsor, Ontario.

-------
                Figure 4.  Areas of Concern  In Lake Ontario
HAMILTON HARBOUR
MAP REF. NO.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
AREA OF CONCERN
Eighteen Mile Creek
Rochester Embayment
Oswogo River
Bay of Quinte
Port Hope
Toronto Waterfront
Mammon Harbour
JURISDICTION
NY
NY
NY
ON
ON
ON
ON
CATEGORY
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
                                                                  48

-------
                             REFERENCES


Connor, M.S. 1984. Comparison of Carcinogenic Risks from Fish vs.
Groundwater Contamination by Organic Compounds.  Environ. Sci.
Technol. 18:628-631.

Fox, G.A.,  A.P. Oilman, D.J. Hallett, R.J.  Nostram, F.F. Onaska and
D.B. Peakall. 1975.  Herring Gull Productivity and Toxic Chemicals in
The Great Lakes in 1975.  Can.  Widl. Serv., Toxic. Chem. Div. Manus.
Report No.  34, 35 pp.

Fox, M.E.,  Carey, J.H., and Oliver, D.G.  1983.  Compartmental
Distribution of Organochlorine Contaminants in the Niagara River and
the Western Basin of Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 9:287-294.

Gilbertson, M. 1974. Pollutants in Breeding Herring Gulls in the
Lower Great Lakes.  Can. Field-Naturalist.  8:273-280.

Gilbertson, M. and R. Hale. 1974. Characteristics of the Breeding
Failure of a Colony of Herring Gulls in Lake Ontario.  Can. Field-
Naturalist. 88: 356-358.

Gilman, A.P., G.A. Fox, D.B. Peakall, S.M.  Teeple, T.R. Carroll and
G.T. Hayman. 1977. Reproductive Parameters and Egg Contaminant Levels
of Great Lakes Herring Gulls. J. Wildl. Manage.  41: 458-468.

Great Lakes Water Quality Board. 1987 Report on Great Lakes Water
Quality. Report to the International Joint Commission.  236 pp.

Health of Aquatic Communities Task Force. 1986.  Literature Review of
the Effects of Persistent Toxic Substances on Great Lakes Biota.
International Joint Commission. 256 pp.

Hornshaw, T.C., R.J. Aulerich and H.E. Johnson.  1983. Feeding Great
Lakes Fish to Mink: Effects On Mink and Accumulation and Elimination
of PCB'S by Mink. A. Toxical. Environ. Health. 11:933-946.

Humphrey, H.E.B.  1976. evaluation of Changes  in the Level of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls  (PCB) in Human Tissue.  Mich. Dept. Public
Health,  Final Report on FDA Contract 223-73-2209. 85 pp.

International  Joint Commission. In Press. Appendix B:  1987 Report on
Great Lakes Water Quality, Report of the Surveillance  Subcommittee to
the Great Lakes Water  Quality Board, David E. Rathke  and Gil McRae,
eds. Windsor,  Ontario.

Kemp, A.L.W.  and  N.S.  Harper. 1976.  Sedimentation rates and  a
sediment budget  for  Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes  Res.  2(2):  324-340.
                                                            49

-------
Kizlauskas, A.G., B.C. Rockwell, and R.E. Claff. 1984. Great Lakes
National Program Office Harbor Sediment Program, Lake Ontario, 1981:
Rochester, New York, Oswego, New York, Olcott, New York. EPA 905/4-
84-002.

Kurita, H., J.P. Ludwig, and M.S. Ludwig. 1987  (Sept.). Results of
the 1987 Michigan Colonial Waterfowl Monitoring Project on Caspian
Terns and Double-Crested Cormorants; Egg Incubation and Field Studies
of Colony Productivity, Embryonic Mortality and Deformities.
Ecological Research Services, Inc.

Lake Ontario Toxics Categorization Workgroup. 1988. Categorization of
Toxics in Lake Ontario.  38 pp.

Mudroch, A., L. Sarazin, T. Lomas, A. Leany-East, and C. De Barros.
1985. Report on the Progress of the Revision of the MOE Guidelines
for Dredged Material Open Water Disposal, 1984/1985. NWRI
Contribution No. 85-80, Burlington, Ontario.

Mudroch, A., L. Sarazin, and T. Lomas. 1988. Report: Summary of
Surface and Background Concentrations of Selected Elements in the
Great Lakes Sediments. J. Great Lakes Res. 14(2): 241-251.

Newell, A.J., D.W. Johnson, and L.K. Allen. 1987. Niagara River Biota
Contamination Project: Fish Flesh Criteria for Piscivorous Wildlife.
Tech. Rept. 87-3, Division of Fish and Wildlife, NYS Dept. of
Environmental Conservation, Albany. 182 pp.

New York State Fishing, Small Game Hunting, Trapping Regulations
Guide. 1988-1989. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. 98 pp.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1988. Guide to Eating Ontario
Sport Fish. 303 pp.

Onuska, F.I., A. Mudroch, and K.A. Terry. 1983. Identification and
Determination of Trace Organic Substances in Sediment Cores from the
Western Basin of Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 9(2): 169-182.

Pavlou, S. , R. Kodeg, A. Turner, and M. Marchlik. 1987. Sediment
Quality Methodology Validation: Uncertainty Analysis of Sediment
Normalization Theory  for Nonpolar Organic Contaminants. Envirosphere
Corp., Bellevue, Washington.

Pearce, W.  1988. Personal Communication.

Skinner, L. 1986. Unpublished Wildlife Survey Data. New York State
Department  of Environmental Conservation. 1987.
                                                           50

-------
Sonzogni, W.C. and W.R. Swain. 1984.   Perspectives on Human Health
Concerns from Great Lakes Contaminants.   In:  J.O.  Nriagu and M.S.
Simmons (eds.). Toxic Contamination in the Great Lakes.  John Wiley &
Sons. 16 pp.

Teeple, S.M. 1977.  Reproductive Success of Herring Gulls Nesting on
Brothers Island, Lake Ontario in 1973.  Can.  Field-Naturalist. 91:
148-157.

Thomas, R.L. 1983. Lake Ontario sediments as indicators of the
Niagara River as a primary source of contaminants. J. Great Lakes
Res. 9(2): 118-124.

Weseloh, D., P. Minean and D.J. Hallett. 1979.  Organochlorine
Contaminants and Trends in Reproduction in Great Lakes Herring
Gulls, 1974-1978.  Trans. 44th N.A. Wildl. Nat. Resources Conf.
543-557 pp.

Whittle, D.M.  1987 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality: Appendix B,
Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Water Quality Board. Report to the
International Joint Commission. 43 pp.

Wolfe, M.J., Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., Pers. Comm. to
D. Busch, January 6, 1987.
                                                            51

-------
     LAKE ONTARIO




TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
                           Appendix III



                  Toxics Loadings to Lake Ontario

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS



                                                                 Page

1.    Introduction                                                  1

2.    Identification of Significant Sources                         2

          2.1   Municipal and Industrial Point Sources             2
                  in Basin

          2.2   Municipal and Industrial Point Sources             2
                  Discharging Directly to Lake

          2.3   Tributaries                                        3

3.    Loading Estimates                                             5

Tables:

     III-l  Municipal Treatment Plants in Order                    8
              of Decreasing Wastewater Flows

     III-2  Industrial Facilities In Order of                     12
              Decreasing Wastewater Flows

     III-3  Sunrnary of Wastewater Flows By Category               15

     III-4  Direct Lake Discharges - Municipal                    16
              Treatment Plants

     III-5  Ranking of Tributaries by Wastewater                  17
              Flow Input

     III-6  Ranking of Tributaries by Stream Flow                 18

     III-7  Wastes Sites by Drainage Basin                        20

     III-8  Ranking of Tributaries by Various Factors             21

     III-9  Loadings Matrix                                       22

            - Footnotes                                           24

-------
                                                                         1.
                                1. INTRODUCTION

Municipal and industrial discharges, both directly to the Lake and indirectly
through tributaries, constitute important sources of toxic chemicals to Lake
Ontario.  These sources are easy to identify and to measure since they come
from discrete pipes.  Other sources may also be important but are much more
difficult to identify and quantify.  These include combined sewer overflows,
which are most active during periods of heavy rainfall; surface runoff and
groundwater flow from hazardous waste sites and industrial, urban, and
agricultural areas; and atmospheric deposition of toxic chemicals, which may
have originated thousands of miles away.  Recycling of toxics bound to bottom
sediments is also suspected of being a source.

This appendix will identify the major industrial and municipal discharges that
have the potential for contributing significant toxics loadings to Lake
Ontario.  It will also identify the tributaries most likely to carry the
largest portion of toxics inputs to the lake.

The ultimate purpose of Appendix III is to construct mass balance estimates
for the toxics identified in Appendix II as exceeding standards.  As a first
step in the construction of these mass balance estimates, the Lake Ontario
Toxics Committee has begun the process of identifying the most significant
sources of toxics to the Lake.  Table III-9 presents the outline of a loadings
matrix:  columns have been included for the most significant sources of toxics
to the Lake; rows have been included for the Category IA, IB, and IIA  toxics
identified in Appendix II.

-------
                                                                         2.
                   2.  IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT SOURCES

2.1  MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES IN BASIN

As a first approach to examining the relative importance of various point
sources and establishing some priority for future direct measurement of toxic
chemical loads, the assumption has been made that the toxic load is
proportional to the wastewater flow alone.  Because of this assumption, power
plants which have very large cooling water flows but relatively small amounts
of toxics, have been omitted from consideration so as not to bias the
analysis.  Future measurements will further refine wasteload estimates through
characterization of their toxic chemical composition.

Tables III-l and III-2 list municipal treatment plants and industrial
facilities throughout the Lake Ontario basin in order of decreasing flow.
These include all municipal treatment plants discharging 1.0 million U.S.
gallons per day (3785 cubic meters per day) or greater and industrial
facilities (other than power plants) that either discharge toxics or, based on
processes and raw materials, have the potential to discharge toxics.  In
sections 3 and 4 this information will be used to identify potential major
sources of toxics discharged directly to Lake Ontario and to identify
tributaries to the lake that are likely to have major toxics inputs.

A summary of the wastewater flows from New York and Ontario sources  (all
treated), by lake or tributary discharge, for both industries and
municipalities is shown in Table III-3.  Wastewater flows from Ontario sources
constitute about three-quarters of the total basin wastewater flows.  Flows
from Ontario sources exceed those from New York for both municipal and
industrial categories.  Since the population of the Ontario portion of the
basin is about twice that of the New York portion, it is not surprising that
the municipal treatment plant flows from Ontario are about twice those of New
York.  The ratio of industrial to municipal wastewater flows in New York is
0.30 while in Ontario it is 0.98.  This suggests a much more industrialized
population in the Lake Ontario Basin of Ontario than in the Lake Ontario Basin
of New York.

2.2  MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES DISCHARGING DIRECTLY TO LAKE

Whether a particular facility is considered to discharge directly to the lake,
or to a tributary is somewhat arbitrary.  However, attempts have been made to
define direct lake contributors as those facilities that discharge to the open
lake or to embayments where loading measurements are best made at the end of
the pipe and not at the mouth of a natural body of water entering the lake.
Accurate loadings from tributary sources can best be determined by
establishing monitoring stations at the tributary mouths.

Fifteen municipal treatment plants discharging directly to the lake are
included among facilities in the basin contributing 90% of the municipal
wastewater flow  (Table III-l).  These are listed in Table III-4 with an
indication of the availability of monitoring data.

Of the industrial facilities that contribute 90% of the industrial wastewater
flow  (Table III-2), two discharge directly to the lake.  These are Alcan

-------
                                                                         3.
Rolled Products Company at Oswego and DuPont Canada at Kingston.  Data on both
organics and metals discharged are available from Alcan Rolled Products
Company, but neither type of data is available from DuPont Canada.

Summary

Fifteen municipal plants (12 in Ontario and 3 in New York) discharge directly
to the lake and are among the 25 plants contributing 90% of the municipal
wastewater in the Lake Ontario Basin.  Two directly-discharging industrial
facilities (one in Ontario and one in New York) are among the industries in
the Lake Ontario Basin contributing 90% of the wastewater flow.  These
facilities are the ones that should receive the most attention in future
monitoring of direct lake discharge point sources.

2.3  TRIBUTARIES

Data are available to rank tributaries by three methods for their potential to
contribute toxic chemicals to the lake: 1. point source wastewater flows;
2. tributary flow  (reflecting runoff); and 3. hazardous waste sites.  Although
the Niagara River is the major tributary of Lake Ontario it is excluded from
this analysis because it is the subject of the U.S. - Canada Niagara River
Toxics Management Plan.

Point Sources

The Lake Ontario tributaries are ranked by total wastewater flow  (industrial
and municipal) in Table III-5.

Tributary Flows

Table III-6 lists the Lake Ontario tributaries by tributary flow.  Eight
tributaries contain 93% of the measured flow to Lake Ontario  (exclusive of the
Niagara River which contributes 86% of the total tributary flow to Lake
Ontario).

Waste Sites

Table III-7 illustrates the number of waste sites in the New York and the
Ontario portions of the drainage basin.  These sites will be used to assist in
prioritizing tributaries.  For this purpose, the number of sites in each
tributary basin is listed.

In New York there are 61 active sites and 292 inactive ones.  Sanitary
landfills are included.  The State's inactive sites list contains, but is not
limited to, all locations in which toxic materials may have been disposed of
or allowed to remain in the past.

In Ontario there are 190 active and 513 inactive or closed sites, all of which
are of the landfill type and include sanitary  landfills.  The presence or
absence of hazardous waste at these sites has not yet been confirmed.

-------
                                                                         4.
Inclusion of the wastes sites is not meant to imply that they are contributing
toxic materials to Lake Ontario.  However, because of the potential for such
contribution, these data are being included in order to assist in establishing
priorities for the monitoring of the tributaries to the Lake.

Summary

Ten tributaries are listed in Table III-8, and are ranked according to
wastewater flow and stream flow.  These ten tributaries (four in New York and
six in Ontario) also contain the six with the highest stream flow.  The ten
listed tributaries deserve the greatest attention in future monitoring
efforts.

The Trent River and the Oswego River Basins, of all the tributary streams,
contain the greatest number of hazardous waste sites.

-------
                                                                         5.
                             3.  LOADING ESTIMATES

Extensive measurements have been made over the past five years on chemical
concentrations in municipal treatment plant effluents, industrial discharges,
and tributary discharges in the Lake Ontario basin.  These monitoring programs
were not designed to provide accurate estimates of chemical loadings.  Data
derived from them must be carefully reviewed before definitive conclusions
from such estimates are developed.

Table III-9 presents a first-cut loadings matrix.  As outlined in the Plan,
the loadings matrix will be used, where possible, as the basis for the early
implementation of water-quality-based toxics controls.  Full implementation of
a water-quality-based toxics control program will, however, require a better
understanding of the fate of toxics in Lake Ontario based on further sampling,
analysis, and mathematical modeling of the Lake.

The sampling and analytical methods, detection limits and descriptions of
quality assurance and quality control protocols for the various agency
monitoring programs have not been reviewed either by the Lake Ontario Toxics
Committee or by representatives of the four participating agencies.  This was
a requirement for inclusion of loading figures in the Niagara River Toxics
Committee Report.  A. siiailar requirement needs to be established for use by
the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee to enable it to carry out meaningful
assessments of baseline loadings estimates and of the effects of remedial
actions.

Tributaries

The most extensive tributary monitoring has taken place on the Niagara River.
Continuous samples are being taken from the river at Niagara-on-the-Lake on a
weekly basis, and analyzed for a long list of organic and inorganic chemicals.
Large volumes of sample are extracted and detection limits run as low as 1
ng/1.  A four-agency committee has reviewed analytical procedures and quality
control and a report on data collected between April 1986 and March 1987 has
been prepared.

New York also operates a toxics-sampling station at the mouth of the Niagara
River  (at the Coast. Guard Station).  Samples are collected ten times per year,
skewed to conform to flow variability, and are analyzed for toxic metals and
volatiles.  In addition, macroinvertebrate and sediment samples are collected
fpr PCB, organochloride pesticides, and heavy metals determinations.

Unlike the Niagara River, whose  flow shows only  small seasonal variations, the
other tributaries have flows with  large seasonal variations.  In Ontario,
tributary sampling has been correlated with the tributary flow but this has
not been done in New York.  Thus the loading estimates on an annual basis  for
New York tributaries cannot be calculated with any certainty.  The most
intensive tributary  loading measurements have been made on the Ontario side of
the lake.  Up to twelve samples  have been analyzed from five major Ontario
tributaries during 1986 for organics and up to 49  samples for EPA priority
pollutant metals.  This program  has been in operation since 1979.

-------
                                                                         6.
Sampling pollutants at tributary mouths on the New York side has been
undertaken since 1982 at varied frequency (five to eight times per year), in
the beginning for all USEPA priority pollutants, and since 1985 for heavy
metals and purgeable halocarbons and aromatics.  Sampling results show very
large variations with time, as would be expected.

New York is committed to revising its tributary monitoring program so that
it will meet the requirements of the LOTMP.  Starting in the spring of
1989, New York will begin enhanced sampling for the Black River, the Oswego
River, and the Genesee River  (80% of New York's tributary loading outside
the Niagara River).  Chemicals analyzed will include all Category 1A and IB
chemicals except dioxin.  Six to ten samples will be collected per year at
each site.

Municipal Treatment Plants - Lake Discharges

Sampling from the major municipal treatment plants on both sides of the lake
has been extensive.  However, the parameters analyzed for and sampling methods
and frequencies have been variable.  Of the plants listed in Table III-3, the
most data are available for three Toronto plants  (Toronto Main, Highland
Creek, and Huniber) and the Rochester Van Lare and Northwest Quadrant plants
 (all among the plants contributing to 90% of the flow, Table III-4).  From
these plants, the metals data are the most extensive and may, because of their
frequency of collection  (weekly or greater, except for Northwest Quadrant),
approximate the actual annual loadings.

Industrial Facilities - Lake Discharges

Of the two priority industrial discharges based on flow, only Alcan at Oswego,
New York has contaminant discharge data.  The Alcan facility has permit limits
for PCBs and trichloroethane, and action levels for copper and  zinc.  The
limited constituents are monitored on a monthly basis and the action levels on
a tri-monthly basis by the discharger.

Storm Sewers and Combined Sewer Overflows

Urban runoff and combined sewer overflows during heavy rainfall or snowroelt,
as well as dry-weather seepage have the potential for contributing toxics to
Lake Ontario.  Only a limited amount of data are available  (Hamilton Harbor,
and the Toronto Waterfront);  no attempt, therefore, has been made to estimate
total loadings to the Lake  from these sources.

Atmospheric Loadings

Estimates have been made of the toxic chemical  loadings to Lake Ontario from
the atmosphere by Eisenreich, Looney, and Thornton  (1981) and Strachan and
Eisenreich  (1986).  These are based on limited and uncertain data.  However,
they do suggest that the atmosphere can be an important source  of loading to
Lake Ontario for some chemicals.

Output of Lake Ontario

Samples have been collected on a monthly basis by Environment Canada since
 1982 at Wolfe Island on the St. Lawrence River.  Analyses have  been made for
organochlorines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

-------
                                                                         7.
New York, since 1982, has been sampling the St. Lawrence River at Cape Vincent
six times per year.  Currently the collections are being made on a
flow-related basis (3-spring, 1-sumnier, 2-fall).  The samples are analyzed for
toxic metals and volatiles.

Recycling of Toxics From Lake Ontario Sediments

The recycling of toxics from Lake Ontario bottom sediments is suspected of
being a significant source of toxics to the water column and biota.  Currently
no data are available to quantify this source.

-------
TABLE III-l - MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS IN ORDER OF DECREASING
                       WASTEWATER FLOWS
Name
Metro-Toronto-Main
Frank VanLare
(Rochester)
Metro Toronto -
Huniber
Hamilton
Syracuse
Mississauga -
Lakeview
Metro Toronto -
Highland Creek
York - Durham
Burlington Skyway
Lockport
Mississauga -
Clarkson
Peterborough
Northwest Quadrant
Gates-Chili-Ogden
Belleville
Location
Ontario
New York
Ontario
Ontario
New York
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
New York
Ontario
Ontario
New York
New York
Ontario
Average
Daily Flow
10 m
677
403
340
326
299
200
157
121
88
83
75
55
50
50
46
Cumulative
Flow
677
1080
1420
1746
2045
2245
2402
2523
2611
2694
2769"
2824
2874
2924
2970
Receiving Watercourse
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Redhill Creek
Onondaga Lake
Lake Ontario
lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Hamilton Harbour
Eighteenmile Creek
Lake Ontario
Otonabee River
Lake Ontario
Genesee River
Lake Ontario
Cumulative %
of Total Load
19
30
40
49
57
62
67
70
73
75
77
79
80
81
83
                                                                                         00
                                            (Bay of Quinte)

-------
TABLE III-l - MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS IN ORDER OF DECREASING
                 WASTEWATER FLOWS (Continued)
Name
St. Catharines -
Port Weller
North Toronto
Auburn
St. Catharines -
Port Dalhousie
Oshawa -
Hanrcny Creek #2
Watertown
Oshawa -
Harmony Creek #1
Oakville - South West
Baldwinsville -
Seneca Knolls
Webster
Oak Orchard
Meadowbrook -
Limestone
Kingston Twp.
Ithaca
Port Colborne (Seaway)
Wetzel Road
Location
Ontario
Ontario
New York
Ontario
Ontario
New York
Ontario
Ontario
New York
New York
New York
New York
Ontario
New York
Ontario
New York
Average
Daily Flow
10V
37
36
34
33
27
26
26
25
19
17
17
16
16
15
14
14
Cumulative
Flow
3007
3043
3077
3110
3137
3163
3189
3214
3233
3250
3267
3283
3299
3314
3328
3342
Receiving Watercourse
Lake Ontario
(Port Weller Harbour)
Don River
Owasco Outlet
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Black River
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Seneca River
Lake Ontario
Oneida River
Limestone Creek
Lake Ontario
Cayuga Inlet
Welland Canal
Seneca River
Cumulative %
of Total Load
84
85
86
87
87
88
89
89
90
90
91
91
92
92
93
93

-------
TABLE III-l - MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS IN ORDER OF DECREASING
                 WASTEWATEP. FLOWS (Continued)
Name
Cobourg #1
Dundas
Oakville - Southeast
Grimsby
Carthage -
W. Carthage
Oswego - West
Trenton
Whitby -
Corbett Creek
Geneva
Milton
Oswego - East
Canandaigua
Oneida
Fulton
Port Hope
Lindsay
Newark
Seneca Falls
Campbellford
Location
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
New York
New York
Ontario
Ontario
New York
Ontario
New York
New York
New York
New York
Ontario
Ontario
New York
New York
Ontario
Average
Daily Flow
10V
13
13
12
12
11
11
11
11
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
1
/
7
Cumulative
Flow
3355
3368
3380
3392
3403
3414
3425
3436
3446
3456
3465
3474
3483
3491
3499
3507
3514
3521
3528
Receiving Watercourse
Cobourg Brook
Coates Paradise
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Black River
Lake Ontario
Bay of Quinte
Lake Ontario
Seneca Lake
Oakville Creek
Lake Ontario
Canandaigua Outlet
Oneida Creek
Oswego River
Lake Ontario
Trent River
Ganargua Creek
Seneca Fiver
Trent River
Cumulative %
of Total Load
93
94
94
94
95
95
95
96
96
96
96
97
97
97
97
98
98
98
98

-------
                        TABLE III-l - MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS IN ORDER OF DECREASING
                                         WASTEWATER FLOWS (Continued)
Name
Albion
Newcastle -
Port Darlington
Whitby -
Pringle Creek #2
Napanee
Cayuga Heights
Whitby -
Pringle Creek #1
Wellsville
Brewerton
Cobourg
Avon
Perm Yan
Dansville
Canastota
Location
New York

Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
New York
Ontario
New York
New York
Ontario
New York
New York
New York
New York
Average
Daily Flow
10 m
6

6
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
Cumulative
Flow
3534

3540
3546
3552
3558
3564
3569
3574
3578
3582
3586
3590
3594
Receiving Watercourse
W. Br. Sandy Creek

Lake Ontario
Pringle Creek
Napanee River
Cayuga Lake
Pringle Creek
Genesee River
Oneida River
Lake Ontario
Genesee River
Keuka Outlet
Canaseraga Creek
Cowaselon Creek
Cumulative %
of Total Load
98

98
99
99
99
99
99
99
99.6




TOTAL (All Plants)
3594

-------
W.R. Grace -
Evans Chemetics
                        TABLE PII-2 - INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES IN ORDER OF DECREASING WASTEWATER FLOWS

                                        Average
Name
Stelco
Dofasco
General Motors
The Ontario Paper
Company
Eastman Kodak,
Kodak Park
Alcan Rolled
Products Co.
Dupont Canada
Harrison Radiator
Fraser, Inc.
LCP Chemicals
Lyons Falls Pulp &
Paper, Inc.
Celanese Canada
Ford Motor Company
Beaver Wood Fibre
Petro Canada
Exolon
Stelco Page Hershey
Location
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
New York

New York
Ontario
New York
Ontario
New York
New York
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Dailv Flow
10V
1245
787
130
115
112

95
73
30
25
20
16
15
15
14
13
13
13
Cumulative
Flow
1245
2032
2162
2277
2389

2484
2557
2587
2612
2632
2648
2663
2678
2692
2705
2718
2731
Receiving Watercourse
Hamilton Harbour
Hamilton Harbour
Welland Canal
Twelve Mile Creek
Genesee River

Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Eighteenmile Creek
Twelve Mile Creek
Geddes Brook
Black River
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Twelve Mile Creek
Lake Ontario
Twelve Mile Creek
Welland Canal
Cumulative %
of Total Load
44
71
76
80
84

87
90
91
92
93
93
94
94
95
95
96
96
New York
10
2741
Seneca River/Barge Canal
96

-------
TABLE III-2 - INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES  IN ORDER OF DECREASING WASTEWATER FLOWS
Name
Dcnrtar Fine Papers
Kimberly Clark
Miller Brewing Company
Boise - Cascade Corp.
(Lewis & Latex Mills)
Bakelite Thermosets
Armstrong World
Industries
Texas Canada
Xerox Corp.
Petro Canada
Garlock, Inc.
Carrier Corp.
Thompson Road
Lapp Insulator
Trent Valley
Paperboard Mills
Dontar Packaging
Burrows Paper Corp.
Canadian Canners, Ltd.
Borg - Warner Chemicals
Location
Ontario
Ontario
New York
New York
Ontario
New York
Ontario
New York
Ontario
New York
New York
New York
Ontario
Ontario
New York
Ontario
Ontario
Average
Daily Flow
10V
9
9
9
9
8
8
7
5
5
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cumulative
Flow
2750
2759
2768
2777
2785
2793
2800
2805
2810
2813
2816
2818
2820
2822
2824
2826
2828
Receiving Watercourse
Twelve Mile Creek
Twelve Mile Creek
Oswego River
Beaver River
Bay of Quinte
Oswego River
Lake Ontario
Tributary of Mill Creek
and Four Mile Creek
Lake Ontario
Red Creek
Sanders Creek
Oatka Creek
Trent River
Trent River
Moose River
Four Mile Creek
Lake Ontario
Cumulative %
of Total Load
97
97
97
98
98
98
98
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99

-------
TABLE III-2 - INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES IN ORDER OF DECREASING WASTEWATER FLOWS
Name
Specialty Metals Div. ,
Crucible Inc.
Eastman Kodak -
Apparatus Division
Syracuse China
Oneida Ltd. -
Chem. Engrg. Dept.
Boise-Cascade Corp.
General Motors -
Fisher Guide
Domtar Wood Preserving
Morse Industrial Corp.
FMC Corporation
Dontar Construction
Materials
Niagara Mohawk Fire
Training Station
Frontier Stone
Products, Inc.
Total (All Plants)
Location
New York

New York
New York

New York
New York

New York
Ontario
New York
New York

Ontario
New York

New York

Average
Daily Flow
10V
2

2
2

2
1

1
1
1
1

1
1

1
2844
Cumulative
Flow
2830

2832
2834

2836
2837

2838
2839
2840
2841

2842
2843

2844

Cumulative %
Receiving Watercourse of Total Load
Tributary of Onondaga Lake 99.5

Tributary of Little 99.6
Black Creek
Ley Creek

Sconondoa Creek
Black River

Ley Creek
Trent River
Tributary of Six Mile Creek
Tributary of Jeddo Creek

Twelve Mile Creek
Tributary of Wine Creek

Barge Canal


-------
                                                                         15.
              TABLE III-3 - SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER FLOWS BY CATEGORY
                  (Flows in 10 m /day; % flow in parentheses)
                           MUNICIPAL
                              INDUSTRIAL
                                  TOTALS

TRIBUTARIES*


LAKE

NY
ONT
TOTAL
NY
ONT
TOTAL
672 (53)
588 (47)
1260
490 (21)
1844 (79)
2334
267 (10)
2352 (90)
2619
95 (42)
130 (58)
225
939 (25)
2810 (75)
3749
585 (23)
1974 (77)
2559


TOTALS

NY
ONT
TOTAL
1162 (32)
2432 (68)
3594
362 (13)
2482 (87)
2844
1524 (24)
4784 (76)
6308
*Wastewater flows in the Niagara River basin, and in the upstream Great
 Lakes basin are not included in the Table because they are outside the
 study area of this Plan.  Wastewater flows for the Niagara River basin
 are available, and are summarized below:
                           MUNICIPAL
                              INDUSTRIAL
                                  TOTALS
NIAGARA R.
   NY
  ONT
TOTAL
851 (88)
114 (12)
965
414 (82)
 89 (18)
503
1265 (86)
 203 (14)
1468

-------
                            TABLE III-4
DIRECT LAKE DISCHARGES - MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS WHICH ARE AMONG
Name
Metro Toronto - Main
Frank VanLare (Rochester)
Metro Toronto - Huraber
Mississauga - Lakeview
Metro Toronto-Highland Ck.
York-Durham
Mississauga - Clarkson
Northwest Quadrant (Monroe Co.)
Belleville
St. Catharines - P. Weller
St. Catharines - P. Dalhousie
Oshawa Harmony Ck. #2
Oshawa Harmony Ck. #1
Oakville - South West
Webster
THOSE CONTRIBUTING 90% OF THE
FLOW IN THE LAKE
Average
Daily
Flow.
10V
677
403
340
200
157
121
75
50
46
37
33
27
26
25
17
TOTAL MUNICIPAL
ONTARIO BASIN
Location
Ontario
New York
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
New York
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
New York
WASTEWATER

Analytical Information
Available
Organics Metals
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
                                                                                       CTl

-------
                                                              17.
TABLE III-5 RANKING OF TRIBUTARIES BY WASTEWATER FLOW INPUT
Stream
Hamilton Harbour
Oswego River
Genesee River
Twelve Mile Creek
Welland Canal
Eighteenmile Creek
Black River
Trent River
Don River
Cobourg Brook
Pringle Creek
Oakville Creek
Oak Orchard Creek
Sandy Creek
Napanee River
Humber River
Johnson Creek
Irondequoit Creek
Nbrthrup Creek
Bear Creek
Duf fin Creek
Four Mile Creek
Wine Creek
Moira River
Salmon River
Location
Ontario
New York
New York
Ontario
Ontario
New York
New York
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
New York
New York
Ontario
Ontario
New York
New York
New York
New York
Ontario
Ontario
New York
Ontario
Ontario
Stream-Flow
1000 m /day
3,330
16,340
6,868
15,466
2,246
240
10,129
17,107
425
	
	
166
822
220
723
798
308
269
61
34
292
	
20
3,300
907
Wastewater_Flow Input
1000 nr/day
2,459
683
219
186
143
113
77
67
36
13
12
10
9
9
6
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
1
0
0

-------
                                                              18.
TABLE III-6.  RANKING OF TRIBUTARIES BY STREAM FLOW (AT MOUTH)
Stream
lake Ontario Tributaries
Trent River
Oswogo River
Twelve Mile Creek
Black River
Genesee River
Hamilton Harbour
Moira River
Welland Canal
Salmon River
Oak Orchard Creek
Humber River
Napanee River
Don River
Johnson Creek
Duf fin Creek
Irondequoit Creek
Eighteenmile Creek
Sandy Creek
Oakville Creek
' Northrup Creek
Bear Creek
Wine Creek
Cobourg Brook
Location
Excluding
Ontario
New York
Ontario
New York
New York
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
New York
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
New York
Ontario
New York
New York
New York
Ontario
New York
New York
New York
Ontario
Stream-Flow
1000 m /day
Niagara River
17,107
16,340
15,466
10,129
6,868
3,330
3,300
2,246
907
822
798
723
425
308
292
269
240
220
166
61
34
20
	
Wastewater Plow Input
1000 m /day

67
683
186
77
219
2,459
0
143
0
9
4
6
36
4
3
4
113
9
10
4
4
1
13

-------
                                                                     19.
TABIE III-6.  RANKING OF TRIBUTARIES BY STREAM PLOW  (AT MOUTH)  (Continued)
Stream
Pringle Creek
Four Mile Creek
Niagara River

location
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario/
New York
Stream-Flow
1000 in /day
492,000
Wastowater Flow Input
1000 nr/day
12
2
See U.S. -Canada Niaga
River Toxics Manageme]
                                                        Plan

-------
                                             20.
        TABLE III-7
WASTE SITES BY DRAINAGE BASIN
New York
#
Basin
Black River
Lake Ontario (East)
Seneca-Oneida-Oswego Rivers
Lake Ontario (Central)
Genesee River
Lake Ontario (West)
TOTALS
Ontario:
#
Basin
of Active
Sites
9
10
23
4
3
12
61
of Active
Sites
Belleville-Napanee Area Rivers 44
Trent River
Oshawa-Colborne Area Rivers
Toronto Area Rivers
Hamilton Area Rivers
Niagara Peninsula Rivers
TOTALS
80
11
12
19
24
190
# of Inactive
Sites
8
15
129
37
58
45
292
# of Inactive
Sites
66
74
61
164
76
72
513
Total
17
25
152
41
61
57
353
Total
110
154
72
176
95
96
703

-------
                                                            21.
TABLE III-8  RANKING OF TRIBUTARIES BY VARIOUS FACTORS
                                   Ranking
Tributary
Hamilton Harbour (Ont.)
Oswego River (NY)
Genesee River (NY)
Twelve Mile Creek (Ont.)
Welland Canal (Ont.)
Eighteenmile Creek (NY)
Black River (NY)
Trent River (Ont.)
Don River (Ont.)
Huniber River (Ont.)
Wastewater Flow
1
O
A.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
16
Stream
Flow
6
2
5
3
8
17
4
1
13
11

-------
  TABLE III-9
LOADINGS MATRIX
Chemical
Loadings in Kilograms/Day Industrial
Niagara River
& Upstream
Great Lakes (1)*
(Numbers in column headings refer
to accompanying footnotes)

Category IA

PCB

Mirex

Chlordane

Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)

Mercury
Aluminum

Iron
Category IB

DDT

Dieldrin

Hexachlorobenzene

Octachlorostyrene



1.03

0.01
(0.03)
ND
(0.01)
ND

NI
286,380.

519,630.


0.05

0.20

0.18

NI
Tributaries
NY (2)





NI

NI

NI

NI

NI
NI

NI


NI

NI

NI

NI
Ontario (3,





0.10

0.00

0.05

NI

0.75
7688.

3613.


0.04

0.05

0.00
(0.03)
ND
Municipal STP's
NY(4)




(1.51)
ND

NI
(0.14)
ND

NI
(0.60)
ND
NI
(16.68)
185.56**

(0.29)
ND
(0.04)
ND
(0.72)
ND

NI
Ontario (5)
3 Toronto
Plants
(67%)

(0.06)
ND
(0.01)
ND

NI

NI

0.03
93.44

1425.

(0.06)
ND
(0.01)
ND
(0.01)
ND

NI
Remaining
9 Plants**
(33%)

(0.02)
ND
(0.01)
ND

NI

NI

0.03
85.15

1475.

(0.02)
ND
(0.01)
ND
(0.01)
ND

NI
Facilities
NY(6)





0.02
(NI)
ND
(0.02)
ND

NI
(0.03)
ND
NI

0.04

(0.02)
ND
0.00)
ND
0.66)
ND

NI
Ontario (7)





NI

NI

NI

NI

NI
NI

NI


NI

NI

NI

NI
Atmospheric
Deposition (8)





0.39++

0.01++

NI

NI

0.17++
25.84+

18.87+


0.07++

0.09++ NJ
to

0.03++

NI

-------
                                                  TABLE III-9  (Continued)
                                                      LOADINGS MATRIX
Chemical



Category IIA

Benz (a) anthracene

Benzo (a) pyrene

Benzo (b) f luoranthene

Benzo (k) f luoranthene

Chrysene

Tetrachloroethylene
Loadings in Kilograms/Day Industrial
Niagara River
& Upstream
Great Lakes (1)*





1.61

0.99

1.46

1.52

2.06

478.90
Tributaries
NY{2)





NI

NI

NI

NI

NI

NI
Ontario (3)





NI
(0.02)
ND
(0.05)
ND
(0.01)
ND

NI

NI
Municipal STP's
NY(4)




(2.73)
ND
(0.92)
ND
(1.71)
ND
(0.92)
ND
(0.92)
ND
(1.15)
1.02
Ontario (5)
3 Toronto
Plants
(67%)

(2.78)
ND
(2.78)
ND
(2.78)
ND
(2.78)
ND

NI
(0.54)
0.19
Remaining
9 Plants**
(33%)

(1.02)
ND
(1.02)
ND
(1.02)
ND
(1.02)
ND

NI
(0.18)
ND
Facilities
NY(6)^




(0.66)
ND
(0.66)
ND
(0.66)
ND
(0.66)
ND
(0.66)
ND
(0.66)
ND
Ontario (7)





NI

NI

NI

NI

NI

NI
Atmospheric
Deposition (8)





NI

0.17-H-

NI

NI

NI

NI
Sources not included:
  0 Direct surface runoff
  0 Direct groundwater inflow
  0 Direct stormwater discharges and conibined sewer overflows
  0 Small tributaries, municipal STPs and industrial discharges
                                                                  Other factors influencing the mass balance:
                                                                    0 Recycling of toxics from Lake Ontario  sediments
                                                                    0 Output of toxics to the St. Lawrence River
**
         Footnotes qualifying the data for each source are listed on succeeding pages.
         Partial.  Not available from some facilities.
+        Based on U.S. data only; wet deposition.
++       Entire lake  (U.S. and Canada); total deposition  (wet and dry).
NI       No Information
ND       Not Detected
(xx.xx)  Incremental load if non-detects were present at the detection level
                                                                                                                         U)

-------
                                                                          24.
                                  TABLE III-9

                                   FOOTNOTES
1.   Loadings from the Niagara River and the Upstream Great Lakes are based on
     the 1986-87 data developed under the Niagara River Toxics Management
     Plan.  The table below shows the separate Upstream Great Lakes and
     Niagara River components of the loadings.
CHEMICAL (Kg/day)
PCBs
Mirex
Chlordane
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Mercury
DDT
Dieldrin
Hexachlorobenzene
Aluminum
Iron
Octachlorostyrene
Benz (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Chrysene
Tetrachloroethylene
UPSTREAM
GREAT LAKES
2.424
0.00
ND
ND
ND
0.347
0.210
0.00
182,286.
285,439.
NI
1.049
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.619
166.441
NIAGARA
RIVER
-1.391*
0.014
ND
ND
ND
-0.294*
-0.005*
0.179
104,094.
234,191.
NI
0.562
0.993
1.463
1.518
0.439
312.456
     NI = No information.
     ND = Not detected frequently enough to allow calculation of a mean
          loading.
     * =  The negative numbers indicate that a higher loading was measured at
          Fort Erie than at Niagara-on-the-Lake.

-------
                                                                          25.
2.   The tributary monitoring program that has been carried out by NYSDEC
     until quite recently was not designed to measure loadings.  Detection
     limits were high so that organic chemicals were only rarely detected and
     the sampling frequency was insufficient to provide a good estimate of
     loadings during high flow events.  Consequently, no estimates of loadings
     from the New York tributaries are available at this time.

3.   The 1986 Ontario tributary loadings include tributaries that are ranked
     as significant sources to the lake.  These tributaries are:  Hamilton
     Harbour, Twelve Mile Creek, Trent River, Don River, Humber River, and the
     Welland Canal.  The sampling strategy for Ontario tributaries emphasizes
     a frequent collection of sampling during high flow events.  In general,
     75% of the samples are collected during high runoff periods (snow melt or
     intensive summer rain events).  The total number of samples from the
     significant tributaries amounted to eleven for trace organics and up to
     64 for selected heavy metals.

     The Committee has not yet had the opportunity to review the location of
     sampling stations in order to ascertain that data from these sites
     accurately represent tributary loadings to Lake Ontario.

     Hamilton Harbour is suspected to be a major contributor to the total
     Ontario tributary load for many chemicals.  At the mouth of the harbour
     (and within the harbour itself), a complex flow situation exists that
     includes:

          -  mixing of tributary input within the harbour;
          -  seiches on Lake Ontario that may reverse net flow;
          -  thermal stratification within the harbour and in the outlet; and
          -  seasonal variations.

     A description of harbour flow modeling has been submitted but a closer
     review of how the chemical data are collected and used in calculations
     will be needed to develop a more reliable loading estimate.

4.   In the top 90% of municipal sewage treatment plants in the Lake Ontario
     basin, New York has three that discharge directly to the Lake.  Van Lare
     and Northwest Quadrant are under a continuing monitoring program for 126
     priority pollutants.  Nine samples have been obtained from each plant
     between 12/84 and 12/86 for volatiles and metals.  Three samples have
     been obtained in.the same time period for base/neutrals, and all other
     USEPA priority pollutants.  Twenty-four hour composites are used for all
     sampling except for volatiles where three grab samples are taken over a
     twenty-four hour period.  Most of the loadings in Categories 1A and IB
     were below the detection Limit  (ND).  The Town of Webster submits
     analyses for selected heavy metals, methylene chloride, and
     1,1,1-trichloroethane through its quarterly self-monitoring reports
     required under the SPDES program.

     All analyses are required to be by USEPA approved methods published in
     the Federal Register, October 26, 1984.

5.   In the top 90% of municipal  sewage treatment plants in the Lake Ontario
     basin, Ontario has twelve that discharge directly  to the Lake.
     Analytical results presented in the table were accumulated from the three
     Toronto plants  (Main, Humber, and Highland Creek), and  four of the
     remaining nine  (York-Durham, Clarkson, Lakeview, and Oakville-Southwest).

-------
                                                                          26.
     Twelve samples were collected between 1/26 and 7/24/87.   Trace organics
     were analyzed by GC/MS according to the USEPA sampling/analytical
     protocols.  A total of 160 contaminants, including USEPA priority
     pollutants, were measured.

6.   Alcan is the priority industrial discharge that goes directly to the Lake
     on the New York side.  A priority pollutant scan in 1981 showed only
     Arochlor 1016 (of all the chemicals in the Loadings Matrix)  to be above
     the detection level.  Alcan has a SPDES permit that requires it to
     monitor on a prescribed schedule for this PCB, which has a permit limit
     of 0.02 Kg/day.  The loading figure is for the period April 1986 through
     March 1987.  Arochlor 1016 was monitored monthly with grab samples
     analyzed in accord with the USEPA method published in the
     October 26, 1984 Federal Register.

7.   DuPont Canada is the priority industrial discharge that goes directly to
     the Lake.  Currently there are no data available on organics and heavy
     metals.

8.   Aluminum and iron loadings are taken from USEPA's Great Lakes Atmospheric
     Deposition  (GLAD) network.  The values for PCBs, DDT, benzo(a)pyrene, and
     mirex appear in Strachan and Eisenreich's paper entitled "Mass Balancing
     of Toxic Chemicals into the Great Lakes: The Role of Atmospheric
     Deposition", 1988, IJC.  Mercury, Dieldrin, and hexachlorobenzene figures
     were secured in a personal communication from Steve Eisenreich on
     July 29, 1988, and are from his unpublished data.

-------
     LAKE ONTARIO




TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
                   Appendix IV



                   Existing Programs

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                           Appendix IV



                                                        Page

I.        Introduction                                     1

II.       Existing Programs on the United States           2
         Side of the Lake

         A.   Direct Industrial Discharges                2
         B.   Indirect Industrial Discharges              9
         C.   Municipal Discharges                       12
         D.   Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage         14
              and Disposal Facilities
         E.   Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites             19
         F.   Combined Sewer Overflows                   29
         G.   Storm Water Discharges                     31
         H.   Other Nonpoint Sources                     33
         I.   Air Toxics                                 35
         J.   Oil and Hazardous Material Spills          49
         K.   Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal     51
         L.   Solid Wastes                               54
         M.   Sludge Disposal                            56
         N.   Ambient Water Monitoring                   57
         0.   Stream Classification Program              61
         P.   Potable Water                              63
         Q.   Zero Discharge                             75

III.     Existing Programs on the Canadian Side          79
         of the Lake

         A.   Direct Industrial Discharges               79
         B.   Indirect Industrial Discharges             90
         C.   Municipal Discharges                       93
         D.   Waste Disposal Sites                       95
         E.   Combined Sewer Overflows                   98
         F.   Storm Water Runoff                        100

         G.   Non-Point Sources/Agricultural            102
              Pollution Management
         H.   Air Toxics                                104
         I.   Spills                                    111
         J.   Dredging and Dredged Spoil Disposal       113
         K.   Solid Waste                               118
         L.   Sludge Disposal                           121
         M.   Ambient Water Monitoring                  123
         N.   Drinking Water Surveillance Program       136
         0.   Zero Discharge                            149

IV.      Research Programs                              159

-------
                             FIGURES
                                                        Page
United States
IV - l.   Major Industrial Dischargers                     8
IV - 2.   Major Municipal Dischargers                     13
IV - 3.   Hazardous Waste, Treatment,                     18
         Storage And Disposal Facilities
IV - 4.   National Priority List Of                       28
         Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites
IV - 5.   Public Water Supply Intakes                     74

Canada

IV - 6.   Direct Industrial Dischargers                   89
IV - 7.   Major Municipal Dischargers                     94
IV - 8.   Active Waste Disposal Sites                     96
IV - 9.   Closed Waste Disposal Sites                     97
IV - 10. Public Water Supply Intakes                    148
                                                            11

-------
I.   Introduction

Appendix IV provides a brief overview of some of the major
existing programs that control the discharge of toxic pollutants
to Lake Ontario.  Its purpose is to provide a status report on
existing toxics control programs that can serve as the basis for
additional commitments; the additional commitments are presented
in Table I of the Plan itself.

-------
II.  Existing Programs on the United States Side of the Lake.

                A.  Direct  Industrial Discharges

In the United States portion of the Lake Ontario drainage basin
there are 37 major and 123 significant minor direct industrial
dischargers.1  The location  of  all  major  dischargers  is shown in
Figure IV-1.

In accordance with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), it is
illegal for a facility to discharge pollutants as a point source
to a surface waterway without obtaining a federal permit.  In New
York State, the authority to issue these federal permits was
delegated to the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) in October of 1975.  The permits, which are
called State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
permits2,  include  effluent limitations on the discharge of
pollutants, schedules for the construction or installation of new
pollution control technology, as well as requirements for self-
monitoring and reporting.

Federal and state roles in monitoring and enforcing compliance
with permit requirements are defined in the USEPA/NYSDEC
Enforcement Agreement.  In part, these include the following:

   -  NYSDEC review of Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
     submitted by permittees;

   -  Annual USEPA or NYSDEC  inspection of all major and
     significant minor facilities to ensure SPDES permit
     compliance and appropriate sampling and  laboratory
     procedures;

     NYSDEC  identification  and response to non-compliance
     issues  through the Integrated Compliance Strategy System
     (ICSS) ;

   -  NYSDEC  development of  a Quarterly Non-Compliance Report
     (QNCR)  for non-complying major facilities;

   -  Quarterly USEPA and NYSDEC coordination  of enforcement
     activity via the Significant Non-Compliance Action
     Program (SNAP).

At present,  all but one major  and  significant minor permits  in
the  Lake  Ontario  drainage basin have  been  revised to  include Best
 1.  Industrial  dischargers  include  all non-municipal discharges
 (e.g.  industrial,  commercial,  institutional).  Major  discharges
 are identified through  an  elaborate  ranking  system which
 emphasizes  a number  of  factors,  including  the presence  of  toxics
 in the effluent.   Significant  minor  discharges are discharges
 which  may impact the quality of  the  receiving waterway  or  may
 contain toxic  pollutants.

 2.  A description of  the New York State  SPDES Program  is included
 as Direct Industrial Discharges> Attachment  I.

-------
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)  requirements
for toxic pollutants.  In addition, SPDES permits may include
more stringent water quality-based limits for toxics if the
receiving water is determined to exceed ambient water quality
standards for those toxic pollutants.3

As shown in Table 1, 92% of the major dischargers in the Lake
Ontario drainage basin are in compliance with their permits.

                             Table  I4
No. of
Manors
37
No. in
Compliance
34
% Compliance
92
In accordance with the Water Quality Act of 1987, over the next
few years NYSDEC will:

    Assess waterways for water quality impairment due to point
    source discharges and, by February 4, 1989, develop neces-
    sary Individual Control Strategies (ICSs) for dischargers
    that are identified as impacting water bodies on the 304(1)
    short list due to 307(a) toxics.  The ICSs will include efflu-
    ent limits or other permit requirements to assure that water
    quality standards are attained no later than June 4, 1992.

    Incorporate new technology-based requirements for Organic
    Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Categories in
    reissued SPDES permits.  The permits will require direct
    dischargers to comply with Best Available Technology
    Economically Achievable (BAT) requirements no later than
    March 31, 1989 for those permits issued before that date, or
    immediately upon reissuance for those permits issued after
    that date.

  Two  permittees have  commented on their  BAT/water quality-based
  effluent  limits:

     0 Harrison Radiator  has questioned  its draft SPDES  permit
       limits through comments submitted  during the public notice
       period.  An administrative order will be issued with the
       final permit resolving the outstanding  issues.

     0 Crucible has requested a Fundamentally  Different
       Factor  (FDF) variance.  Pending a  final determination
       regarding this  request, the previous round SPDES  permit
       for Crucible will  remain in effect.

  For the period  4/1/88 - 6/30/88  four major  industrial
  permittees were  identified as being in significant  non-
  compliance.   These  facilities were addressed at the November
  1988 SNAP Meeting:

  0  LCP Chemical  - New York Inc.  (shut  down  7/15/88)
  0  Milliken Generating Station  (returned to compliance)
  0  Pennwalt Corp.  - Lucidol Div.  (returned  to compliance)
  0  Ginna Nuclear Power Plant -  Sta 13   (permit modification
     proposed)

-------
                       Direct Industrial Dischargers
                               Attachment I

New York state SPDES Program

New York State has chosen the "Substance Specific" approach as
the primary method of water quality-based toxic substance
management and control for point sources.  Water quality
standards and guidance values have been adopted for over 200
toxic substances in both fresh and marine waters for the
protection of human health and aquatic life.  These are in
addition to federally mandated technology-based treatment
standards, and best professional judgement where such standards
are lacking.  As a secondary mechanism of toxics control, whole-
effluent toxicity testing is being included in "third round"
permits, particularly where water quality-based controls may not
assure conformance with water quality standards.

In New York State, the identification of waters needing water
quality-based controls began in the 1960's through the
project/basin assessment process.  This process focused on the
control of conventional, non-toxic pollutants (BOD, UOD, SS, pH,
etc.) from municipal and industrial discharges.  In the late
1960's New York also began requiring technology limits based on
the permit writers "best professional judgement".

The identification process was amplified in the mid 1970's
through the completion of Water Quality Management Basin Plans
for each drainage basin in the State as required by Section
303(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.  These
"303(e) Basin Plans" again focused primarily on conventional,
non-toxic pollutants, but also included assessments for phenol,
ammonia, cyanide, and three heavy metals which have been
incorporated into the State water quality standards.  These
plans, coupled with the initial USEPA effluent guidelines, served
as the guide for issuance of "first round" NPDES/SPDES permits.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 officially
required both treatment technology and water quality-based
effluent limitations for the first time.  By this time, New York
State already had half a decade of experience in writing permits
that contained water quality limitations and was developing the
experience to create other workable treatment technology
limitations.  Moving into the arena of uniform national
wastewater treatment-technology standards proved to be a very
slow process, fraught with controversy and  lawsuits.

Relative to the control of toxic discharges to New York State's
waterways, the most important new feature of the 1972 Water
Pollution Control Act was the legal requirement to establish
national industrial waste treatment technology standards  in the
form of  "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable"
 (BAT).   For the various categories of industry, USEPA was to
promptly develop uniform national guidance  documents containing
treatment technology values  for: BAT, New Source Performance
Standards, and Industrial Pretreatment Requirements.  The

-------
industrial discharges were expected to comply with these
technology guidelines by 1983 for BAT and between 1984 and 1988
for industrial pretreatment requirements depending on the
specific industrial category of the facility.

In 1977 USEPA was sued by several environmental groups for
failing to create the industrial technology guidance values
required by the 1972 act.  Even subsequent to this suit, it was
1981 before the first set of USEPA documents appeared for the
electroplating category of industries.  In the absence of these
national industrial technology standards, the project review
engineers in New York State assigned with the responsibility to
approve wastewater treatment facilities for industries gradually
developed a comprehensive body of guidance values based on their
own "best professional judgement" of what BAT should be.  In 1983
New York formalized these best professional judgement (BPJ)
values in the form of written policy guidance for the issuance of
wastewater permits.  At the present time permit writers utilize
federal BAT guidance where available and state BPJ guidance
values for all other industrial categories.  As of this time,
USEPA had promulgated its forty-fifth set of industrial
wastewater treatment guidance values.

As the number of substance-specific ambient water quality
criteria increased, a formal tabulation was prepared in 1983.
The procedure for the development of criteria was incorporated
into regulation in 1985, as were many of the substance-specific
numerical criteria.  The criteria are called "standards" if in
regulation and "guidance values" if not.  Standards or guidance
values currently exist for about 215 toxic substances for both
fresh and marine waters.

Prior to the development of "third round" permits, a basin
approach to toxic substances control was initiated (1981 to
1984).  This was consistent with the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) and wasteload allocation  (WLA) concept contained in the
USEPA regulation "Water Quality Planning and Management", 40 CFR
130.  To implement the basin approach, a toxic discharge
inventory for each substance is developed.  This is compared to
the maximum allowable load in the most critical downstream
segment in each basin under critical  low flow conditions.  The
assumption is made that  all toxic substances are conservative.
That  is, a substance which enters the water column remains in
downstream segments unaffected by biological, chemical, and
physical processes.

When  discharge loadings  at the technology  level required by  the
Clean Water Act  (i.e. BAT, best  professional  judgement, or
secondary treatment) exceed the  maximum  allowable  load  for a
given substance, that substance  is considered  "water  quality
limiting".  Water  quality-based  limits  are  then applied, which
are usually more stringent than  technology-based  limits.

-------
Virtually all point sources were reviewed for water quality-based
toxic effluent limits in the "second round" of permit issuance
with about 75% revisited so far in the "third round" using the
improved basin allocation method.   This present cycle will be
completed by 1988-89.

During "third round' permit issuance, whole-effluent toxicity
testing is being included in permit development as a secondary
mechanism of toxics control.  It is considered for inclusion as a
monitoring requirement when substances are present for which
standards do not exist, water quality-based limits cannot be
developed because of high ambient background concentrations or
analytical detectability, the effluent contains an unusual mix of
toxics, or there are observed impacts on aquatic life.
            SURVEILLANCE, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT

DEC reviews the self-monitoring reports from dischargers,
flagging any which exceed permit limits and using pre-determined
criteria to assess significance (toxics are considered more
significant than conventional pollutants, and large or frequent
violations more significant than small or occasional
exceedances).

In addition, DEC inspects facilities in operation and indepen-
dently samples effluent to check the validity of self-monitoring
data.  Inspections often detect small operational problems before
they grow into permit violations, and are focused on facilities
with a history of problems and on dischargers to sensitive
receiving waters.

Significant violations of permit conditions trigger compliance or
enforcement measures. In extreme cases, DEC may impose summary
abatement or closure to end an immediate or very serious health
or environmental threat.  The department can also pursue criminal
or civil penalties for illegal discharge.  The common initial
approach, however, is establishment of an "integrated compliance
strategy" to abate the discharge as quickly as possible.  The
violator is obligated to follow the compliance strategy, which
may include construction, corrective maintenance or changes  in
operation.  DEC surveillance of the discharger is increased  until
permit limits are achieved.

-------
                             SUMMARY

Today, New York state has in place and exercises all the
elements needed to control the discharge of toxics to surface
water from point sources:

     - SPDES permit authority which has demonstrated successful
       control  of toxics and conventional pollutants;

     - Written procedures for setting effluent limits for toxics;

     - Federally promulgated technology-based treatment standards
       and DEC'S best professional judgement technology-based
       standards;

     - Water quality standards for 95 toxic substances;

     - Water quality criteria for more than 120 additional toxic
       substances  (these criteria will become standards in the
       future, and are used in setting permit limits);

     - A statewide basin-by-basin inventory of toxic substance
       discharges;

     - A State laboratory certification program to ensure the
        reliability of  effluent monitoring  by dischargers;

     - Stringent civil and criminal penalties for illegal
       discharge;

     - A program to monitor dischargers and to achieve com-
       pliance;

     - Citizens and public officials who are determined to keep
       surface waters  free of toxic contamination.

-------
(Q
 c

 S

MAJOR INDUSTRIAL
DISCHARGERS
Lake Ontario Basin
NEW YORK STATE



CANADA - ONTARIO

 " " UNITED STATES - NEW YORK
x-
^
^^fP7
^
y?' ,^S^^^^<^/ f
fe^ ^" / ^v c^yv
V^M -\
/  Vxr? /^
/ v-< r (-/
** ** rt / \ 1 ^ 
/ 03-03 \
/^ , l\
<'' ONTARIO Oswego 2^T^ *3 ^^J1/ J\
X ^29%,A^ f)/ <"
\ v\ \ v ^  ~\i
^

/^r yEMii"ec" /f ^v v~
^^~^~ T-TO"^ V 	 SJ ///~ 5fl/mon
jl 	 .^gSgrofe 03-01 ;r^>46 ~^l>
Niagara v 	 ^X v^ D1ROCHESTER \^
' U Falls \ ^X> ^-yVL.
\ .4 ^ \y>^
\- y T >^-~ s ^.1 i
]% ( \" Oneida \
\\tolcon \Q\ )
r, 1 ^> h- ^wfr V J 3K ^-~s^^~^ m I
^03-02\ny- ^ Y"
^^s~\r ^ M^v\J )
^-^ V Ai ^ txd2 j-^.
,..0 SYRACUSE S.33 \
TV/^\ x!T '>2i u \
V8!(20 )
I.P//N W
15 . VA r ^-^
r"L

-

/~~vy X.
f**
\
f^^^^lr-,
08 ^M

/~^
V^M^1 ^^_/
\ *s?
'  vXj^ J
\s 	










*$ /( A~\ (wH IT /f 7 fw^ ^
/ N / ^ fA il J?^
A / /V
/^ / \' Sn
( Sp S V 	 /( /
\ y \\ j j/y
; c^ st/
/ |\ .  J r >y
^V "haca I 6 Eastman Kodak Co.
\ 1 ' \ \ 	 ' 7 Bee Bee Generatin9 station
V \ \^ / 8 Pennwalt Corp. - Lucidel Div.
N^ ( ) vJ 9 3M Graphic Preparation
\ / 10 Ginna Nuclear Plant - Sta. 13
\ / 11 Gartock Inc.
opAi | V SUB-BASINS 12 Greenridge Generating Station

1/1 50  \. | 03-01 Lake Ontario,
7 ^ 03-02 Lake Ontario,
0 kilometres 50 C W ( 03-03 Lake Ontario.
13 International Salt
Western Section 14 Milliken Generating Station
Central Section 15 Evans Chemetics Div.
Eastern Section 16 Philips EGG Inc.

miles ^-^_/ 07 Seneca-Oneida-Osweqo Rivers 18 Welch AI|Vn ' Jordan
08 Black River
19 Specialty Metals Div.
20 LCP Chemicals - New York Inc.
21 Allied Chemical - Syracuse
22 General Electric - Electronics
23 Anheuser Busch Inc.
24 Fulton Brewery - Miller Brewing
25 Armstrong World Industries
26 Alcan Sheet and Plate Div.
27 Nine Mile Point Nuclear
28 J. A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power
29 Oswego Steam Station
30 Schoeller Technical Papers Inc.
31 Queens Farm Dairy Inc.
32 Camden Wire Co. Inc.
33 Oneida Ltd. Chemical
34 Burrows Paper Corp.
35 Lyons Falls Pulp and Paper
36 Lowville Municipal Pollution Control
37 Lewis and Latex Mills
38 Champion International Corp.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ick University Cartography

-------
               B.  Indirect Industrial Discharges

In accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act,  indirect
Industrial Users (industrial discharges to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs))  within the United States are regulated
under the National Industrial Pretreatment Program.  The national
program includes General Pretreatment Regulations which contain
general and specific discharge prohibitions protecting the
individual municipal treatment systems and local environment from
pass through and interference, and categorical pretreatment
standards which limit, by industrial category, the pollutant
discharges of industrial facilities which discharge into a POTW.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 403, Industrial Users must comply with both
General Pretreatment Regulations and categorical standards.  The
primary focus of categorical standards is the control of toxic
pollutants.  Therefore, the standards contain specific numerical
limitations based on an evaluation of specific technologies for
each individual industrial category.  There are two (2) types of
categorical pretreatment standards.  Existing source standards
(Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources  (PSES)) correspond
to Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
discharge  limitations for existing direct dischargers.  New
source standards  (Pretreatment Standards for New Sources  (PSNS))
correspond to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new
source direct dischargers.

Federally  approved local pretreatment programs are the vehicle
for implementing the National Pretreatment Programs. POTWs were
required to develop a pretreatment program as follows;

  1. Any POTW  (or combination of POTW's operated by the same
     authority) with a total design flow greater than 5
     million gallons per day  (mgd) and receiving,  from
     industrial users, pollutants which pass  through or
     interfere with the POTW's operation or are otherwise
     subject to pretreatment categorical standards;

  2. A POTW designated by EPA or the State, even though the
     POTW  has  a design flow of 5 mgd or less, if it was deter-
     mined that the nature and volume of the  industrial influent
     caused: an upset of the treatment process, a  violation of
     the POTW's effluent limitations, contamination of municipal
     sludge, or other circumstances that warrant a program to
     prevent interference with the POTW or pass through.

In New York State there are fifty-six approved local pretreat-
ment programs,  fourteen of which are  in the Lake Ontario  drainage
basin .   The POTW's State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
 (SPDES) permit  requires the facility to implement  its  approved
pretreatment program.  At a minimum, each POTW must  enforce
Federal categorical standards as well as  any  more  stringent  local
limitations developed  as part of the POTW program.
 l.   A listing  of  the  fourteen  approved  pretreatment  programs  in
 the  Lake  Ontario  basin is  included  as Indirect  Industrial
 Discharges,  Attachment I.

-------
The EPA remains the pretreatment program approval authority in
New York State pending delegation of this program to the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).  EPA,
with assistance from NYSDEC, monitors implementation of the
fourteen (14) approved pretreatment programs in the basin by
reviewing the pretreatment reports submitted by the POTW's under
the terms of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES/SPDES) permit and through annual pretreatment inspections
or audits at the POTWs.

In areas of the state not covered by approved local pretreatment
programs, EPA directly monitors compliance of industrial users
with pretreatment standards.  Within this category, there are
twelve (12) industrial users of POTWs in the Lake Ontario
drainage basin that are subject to categorical pretreatment
limits.  As of mid-1987, all failed to provide EPA with the
demonstration of compliance required under 40 CFR 403.5 and were,
therefore, subject to potential enforcement actions.

Following evaluation of the most current compliance status of
each categorical industrial user in the Lake Ontario drainage
basin, nine  (9) Administrative Orders were issued.  Specifically,
EPA required these facilities to submit all overdue reports
(Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR), 90-day compliance report,
semi-annual status reports) pursuant to 40 CFR Part 403.12.  All
nine  (9) non-compliers responded.  Most of these industrial users
were unaware of the pretreatment regulations or reporting
requirements subject to Categorical Standards.  Of the nine (9)
facilities, one had eliminated the discharge to a POTW, another
stated that  it was not an industrial user of a POTW, two  (2)
others were not able to submit old sampling and analytical data
but are presently in compliance, and the remaining five (5)
facilities demonstrated compliance by submitting to EPA the
required reports.
                                                               10

-------
                 Indirect Industrial Discharges
                         Attachment  I
              Approved  Pretreatment Programs  in the
                   Lake Ontario Drainage Basin
 I)   Auburn,  City of
 2)   Canandaigua, City of
 3)   Fulton,  City of
 4)   Geneva,  City of
 5)   Ithaca,  City of
 6)   Lockport,  City of
 7)   Middleport,  Village of
 8)   Monroe County
 9)   Newark,  Village of
10)   Newfane, Town of
11)   Onondaga County
12)   Oswego,  City of
13)   Watertown, City of
14)   Webster, Town of
                                                               11

-------
                         C.  Municipal Discharges

In the United States portion of the Lake Ontario drainage basin, there are
39 major and 96 minor public owned treatment works1 (POTWs).  The location
of all major municipal dischargers is shown in Figure IV-2.  The Clean
Water Act requires POTWs to obtain permits prior to discharging to  sur-
face waterway.  In New York State, the authority to issue NPDES permits
was delegated to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) by EPA in October of 1975.  In addition, the Federal and State
roles in monitoring and enforcing compliance with permit requirements are
defined in the USEPA/NYSDEC Enforcement Agreement (see section on direct
industrial discharges, supra).

At the present, all discharge permits in the Lake Ontario drainage basin
require a minimum of secondary treatment or more stringent treatment as
required to meet water quality standards.  In addition, all major discharges
into the Great Lakes drainage basin are required to comply with a 1.0
mg/1 effluent limit for phosphorous.  Taken together, these limitations
are referred to as final effluent limits (FEL).

The National Municipal Policy (NMP) requires POTWs to be in compliance with
FEL by July 1, 1988.  In those cases where FEL will not be met, the NMP re-
quires enforceable judicial orders with schedules for compliance for all
major discharges.  A snapshot of NMP compliance on July 1, 1988 is shown
in Table 1.
                    Table 1
No. of major
Discharges
39
No. meeting
FEL (i.e. in
compl iance )
33
NMP Enforcement
Projects 2
6
       POTWs have design flows equal to or greater than 1 million gallons per
day  (MGD).  Minor POTWs have design flows less than 1 MGD.  The numbers
shown exclude a small number of privately owned treatment systems.

2Canastota, Fulton, Leroy, Seneca Falls, Wetzel Road* and Syracuse Metro*
 current  enforcement status  is summarized in Table I  in the main body of the
 Plan.

*These are for violations within the collection systems and do not necessarily
 imply POTW non-compliance.
                                                                           12

-------
 31
CO
 c

 3
 <\5
MAJOR MUNICIPAL
DISCHARGERS ^
(OUTFALL LOCATIONS)






s*
**
^
Lake Ontario Basin
NEW YORK STATE


CANADA - ONTARIO

UNITED STATES - NEW YORK
^~^^
^ ^f^
"*s-f ~ ^^ ^ "
i^ff(W^A^
I WatertownUx^^
/X "^/^\^
/ C^eJ^ /7 \
/ \ /-^l^~ ^~^i~^/''Vv if
/ ^v.
/ ^OVr^
<\/% /%/% \ r ^^ -
/ 03-03 \

t

j~Sp\
f**
\

/ J -f^_
Cr ^yi
08 \


Y \^- zvi*' r
^-^ 	 J
^'' ^ ^ r\ ,}
< Oswego^ _ (70 | \ _ P
\
\
\
^~i
Niagara V
'TV'

i

 .  ,. 	  	 ^^
"M^^r-^/^a^^^
^n|gijXM=4fcHKj?.R^
V^_/Y^5sry^^

\J // Cree j^\ 7)
// \ >,A
/D BUFFALO 11 J *\ \ It /I. }
,
4^y

.^^
t
.j
\










YV: sax ?v
^^^(V^r^ V 3
^^>^^ f
5^-K/^ ^3SYRA^SE% 36X V

V 25 \ |\ JP / r\ J?^
21^^71 /' // \^
sr 2./^\ rV
V -/







/(}} rnMU r ^7^

J
' /
' / fr
L fa '/ V_ry7 -
V8 k V-^x f
(

/ f^\f^ /li/
s *\ /  ' r J/
s_, j) \ \^/~~^
^1 \ B/acV I
v \

< r ~\
KEY
J
 1 Lockport
2 Newfane
\ 3 Northwest Quadrant
tef &5 n 4 Medina
7/1 \24x y 5 Albion
V/j 23^ ^X 6 Leroy
.^-. Ithaca /^ 7 Wellsville
1 ^ \ 	 J 8 Dansville
\ \ V. 1 9 Genesee
v. \ ) \J 10 Avon
\ / 11 Ogden
\J 12 Spencerport
SCALE \) 1 SUB-BASINS 13 Frank Van Lare
^^^ \
1/1 50  V \ /) 03-01 Lake Ontario,

? ) 03-02 Lake Ontario,
0 kilometres 50 C ^ X 03_Q3 Lake Qntario
14 Webster
Western Section 15 Ontario
Central Section 16 Newark
Eastern Section 17 Farmington
miles \^ S 07 Seneca-Oneida-Oswego Rivers 19 pe Yan

08 Black River
20 Geneva
TO LOCATIONS

21 Waterloo
22 Seneca Falls
23 Ithaca
24 Cayuga Heights
25 Auburn
26 Oswego (S)
27 Oswego (N)
28 Fulton
29 Baldwinsville/Seneca Knolls
30 Wetzel Rd.
31 Oak Orchard
32 Brewerton
33 Syracuse Metro
34 Meadowbrook/Limestone
35 Canastota
36 Oneida
37 East Oneida Lake
38 Watertown
39 West Carthage

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ity Cartography

-------
       D. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities


The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 authorized the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish  a program to manage
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs).

Pursuant to RCRA regulations, each new facility and each facility that had
been operating as an existing facility on November 8, 1980 had to submit a
Part A permit application describing all hazardous waste management activi-
ties.  Existing facilities were authorized to continue to operate such
activities under a pre-permit stage known as interim status.  Regulations
governing the operation of such facilities under interim status are in
effect until such time as a full RCRA permit is issued or denied.  A full
RCRA permit is based on a Part B application.  This application includes a
detailed facility description, engineering designs and drawings, operating
procedures, contingency plan, personnel training programs, closure plan,
and financial assurance.  An application is required upon request or
statutory deadline for existing facilities and prior to operation for new
facilities.  The authority to issue RCRA permits was delegated to the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation  (NYSDEC) in May, 1986.
RCRA permits regulate the operation of such facilities through application
of performance standards as promulgated under the regulations.  The NYSDEC
is authorized to issue permits for all RCRA requirements, except those
promulgated under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984  (HSWA)
and those promulgated by the EPA after December 31,  1984.

HSWA requires the permit applicant to:

     A.  Construct land disposal facilities in accordance with Minimum
         Technology Requirements, such as double liners and leachate
         collection and detection systems.

     B.  Construct and operate treatment and storage tanks  in accordance
         with the federal regulations promulgated July 14,  1986, which
         mandate secondary containment.

     C.  Identify and address any contamination at all solid waste
         management units.

     D.  Certify to waste minimization.
                                                                             14

-------
The HSWA permit also requires the applicant to initiate a corrective action
program to address any environmental releases of hazardous waste or constituents
at solid waste management units.  A corrective action program consists of
the following:

     A.  KCRA Facility Assessment to identify releases or potential releases
         requiring further investigation;


     B.  Interim Corrective Measures to take immediate action in response
         to releases;

     C.  RCRA Facility Investigation to fully characterize the extent of
         releases;

     D.  Corrective Measure Study to determine the need for and extent of
         remedial measures.  This step includes the selection and implemen-
         tation of appropriate remedies for all problems identified.

These  four activities ensure that a facility, including those under interim
status, will adequately identify all contamination and provide corrective
action as necessary to protect human health and the environment.

At present there are 48 hazardous waste management facilities operating in
the Lake Ontario drainage basin.  The type and number of facilities are
presented in Table 1.  The location of these facilities is shown in Figure IV-3.
It should be noted that most of the land disposal facilities will be closed
or undergoing closure by the end of 1988.
                                  Table 1
  Type of Facility

  Land Disposal Facilities  (LDFs)

  Incinerator Facilities

  Storage/Treatment Facilities


  Total
No. of Facilities

       11

        2

       35
       48
                                                                            15

-------
  To enforce RCRA regulations, the NYSDEC operates an inspection program at
  the regional level that requires that compliance inspections be performed at
  TSDFs a minimum of once every two years, and for land disposal facilities,
  once per year.

  Detailed compliance/enforcement information has been developed for land disposal
  facilities (generally high impact potential on the Lake Ontario Drainage
  Basin).  This information has been developed based upon the July 1987
  EPA/NYSDEC inspection reports and updated to October, 1988.  Four of the eleven
  land disposal facilities in the basin are in non-compliance.  Table 2 provides
  information on these four non-complying facilities, such as identification
  of the violator, the nature of the violation, enforcement actions undertaken
  or planned and when such actions took place or will take place.

                                    Table 2
Name of Facility
Nature of Non-Compliance
Enforcement Actions Undertaken
 Philips EGG
-Groundwater Monitoring Violation
-Inadequate Part B
-Loss of Interim Status (LOIS)
-Complaint issued 11/85
-Final Order and compliance
 schedule issued 10/86
 Transelco
 -Illegal Use of Surface Impoundment
 -Illegal Groundwater Monitoring
-Complaint issued 7/84  (stopped
 use of impoundment)
-Negotiate final order  for
 closure requirements by 3/89
 Van de Mark, Inc
-Groundwater Monitoring Violation
-Closure Plan Violations
-Final Order signed 6/85
-Closure certification accepted
  10/88.	
 LP
-Inadequate Groundwater Monitoring
-Closure Plan Deficiencies
-Complaint issued 9/85
-Final Consent Order  issued 12/85
 requiring submittal  of approv-
 able closure plan  to address
 violations.
-Public notice of closure plan
 12/87.  Plan approved 9/88.
 Physical closure to  be
 completed by 5/89.	
                                                                              16

-------
The schedule for permitting and compliance activities required under RCRA and
HSWA as described in more detail in Table 1 of the plan is as follows:

A.  EPA/NYSDEC final permit determinations on all land disposal
    facilities by November 8, 1988;

B.  EPA/NYSDEC will make final permit determinations on all existing incinerator
    facilities by November 8, 1989;

C.  EPA/NYSDEC will make final permit determinations on all existing storage
    and treatment facilities by November 8, 1992;

D.  EPA/NYSDEC will make final determinations on closure plans for closing
    facilities and subsequent certification or adherence to approved closure
    plans; and

E.  Where permits have not been issued or the facility is going to close, EPA
    and NYSDEC have the power to require corrective action implementation
    through HSWA 3008(h) Administrative Orders, State enforcement procedures,
    and other authorities.
                                                                            17

-------
   HAZARDOUS  WASTE
 TREATMENT STORAGE
&  DISPOSAL  FACILITIES
           Lake Ontario  Basin
           NEW  YORK  STATE
                             CANADA - ONTARIO

                          UNITED STATES - NEW YORK
          miles
03-01 Lake Ontario, Western Section
03-02 Lake Ontario, Central Section
03-03 Lake Ontario, Eastern Section
04   Genesee River
07   Seneca-Oneida-Oswego Rivers
08   Black River
   KEY TO LOCATIONS

 1 SCA Chemical Services Inc.
 2 Bell Test Center
 3 Akzo Chemic America
 4 Van de Mark Inc.
 5 GMC Harrison Radiator Div.
  Wastewater Treatment
 6 GMC - Harrison Radiator
 7 Van de Mark Chemical Co. Inc.
 8 FMC Inc.
 9 Black & Decker (US) Inc.
10 Bausch & Lomb Inc. Frame Center
11 Brooks Avenue Tank Farm RGEC
12 GMC Delco Products
13 Olin Corp.
14 GMC Rochester Products  Div.
  Lexington Ave.
15 Eastman Kodak
16 Bausch & Lomb Inc. Optics Center
17 University of Rochester
18 Stuart-Oliver-Holtz Inc.
19 Southco Inc.
20 George Robinson Inc.
21 Xerox
22 Garlock Inc. Div. of Colt Industries
23 Garlock Inc. Div. of Colt Industries
24 Transelco - Div. of Ferro Corp.
25 Seneca Army Depot
26 W.R. Grace - Evans Chemetics
27 Philips ECG
28 Auburn Plastics Inc.
29 General Electric Co. Auburn Plant
30 Speciality Metals Div. - Crucible Inc.
31 LCP Chemicals
32 Construction Materials Products Div.
33 McKesson Envirosystems
34 Residual Fuel Storage Tank
35 Prestolite Motor Div.
36 Roth Bros. Smelting Corp.
37 Carrier Air Conditioning
38 GMC - Fisher Guide
39 Solvents & Petroleum Service Inc.
40 General Electric
41 Cambridge Filter Corp.
42 N. E. Environmental SVCS
43 Industrial Oil Tank & Line Cleaning
44 Camden Wire Co. Inc.
45 Camden Wire Co. Inc.
46 Lowville Pesticide Storage Site
47 Fort Drum Dept. of Army
48 Cheseborough Ponds
                                                                                                                   Brock University Cartography

-------
             E. INACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Inactive hazardous waste site investigation and remediation
activites in the U.S. portion of the Lake Ontario Drainage
Basin are conducted by both Federal and State agencies.  The
two programs complement each other in achieving correction of
contamination created by past indiscriminate disposal of waste.

1.  Federal Program

    In December 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
    (CERCLA), commonly known as " Superf und" .  The Act authorized
    EPA to provide long-term remedies at hazardous waste sites,
    and established a $1.6 billion fund, raised over five years
    from special industry taxes and general revenues, to finance
    remedial activities.   In 1986, Congress reauthorized
    Superfund by enacting the Superfund Amendments and
    Reauthorization Act (SARA), increasing the fund to $8.5
    billion and strengthening the remedial process.

    Superfund calls for EPA to compile a National Priorities
    List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites which are candidates
    for remedial action.   A priority site can be remediated in
    several ways:

         0  The responsible parties* can remediate it voluntarily;

         0  The responsible parties can be forced to remediate
            it by legal and administrative actions; or

         0  Superfund monies can be used to finance the remedial
            action.  (If there is difficulty in getting the
            responsible parties to act, EPA will proceed under
            Superfund and  will seek recovery of its costs through
            legal action at a later date.)
 *  Responsible  parties  under  Superfund  include  site  owners
   and operators, as well as  generators and  transporters  of
   waste  to  the site.
                                                                 19

-------
At NPL sites, a remedial investigation (RI) is normally
conducted.  The RI is designed to collect and analyze the
data necessary to determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site, to determine the need for remedial
action, and to support the development of possible remedial
alternatives.  Then,, a feasibility study (FS) is conducted.
This study consists of a detailed evaluation of different
remedial alternatives on the basis of benefits to human health
and the environment, technical feasibility, and costs.   At
the conclusion of the RI/FS, EPA, in conjunction with the
State selects a remedy for the site, and proceeds with  the
detailed design and construction for the selected remedy.

Table 1 summarizes the status and the total Federal/State
funding associated with the       sites already listed  on
the National Priorities List (NPL) in the Lake Ontario basin.
The location of these sites is shown in Figure IV - 4.
Table 2 lists additional potential sites in the basin on
EPA1 s inventory.
                                                                20

-------
Site
          Table 1
NPL SITE STATUS AND FUNDING
 IN THE LAKE ONTARIO BASIN

      Performed or Underway
       Remedial Activites
Federal/State
Funding($1000)
Byron Barrel and
Drum - Site 819005

Clothier Disposal -
  Site 738014

FMC Corp. - Site 837001

Fulton Terminals -
  Site 738023

Pollution Abatement
Services - Site 738001

Sinclair Refinery -
  Site 902003

Volney Landfill -
  Site 738003

Total
         IRA  RI/FS*


         IRA  RI/FS*




         IRA  RI/FS*
          IRA*  RI/FS
         RD, RA,  Monitoring*

          IRM*, RI/FS*,  RD*
         RI/FS  RD*
      955


    2,242
      900


   11,500


    3,600


    1, 251



  ~$2"0,448~
Key

IRA - immediate removal action
RI/FS - remedial investigation/feasibility  study
RD - remedial design
RA - remedial action
IRM - Initial remedial measure
   Indicates remedial  activity  underway-
                                                                21

-------
                           Table 2
                      SITES ON INVENTORY
                  IN THE LAKE ONTARIO BASIN
COONTY

Jefferson

Orleans

Monroe

Wyoming

Genesee

Allegany

Livingston

Seneca

Schuyler

Wayne

Cayuga

Onondaga

Ontario

Madison

Oswego

Torapkins

Oneida

Lewis

Yates

Herkimer

Total
NO;-OF"SITES

     9

     9

    65

     9

     9

    12

     7

    14

     8

     7

     8

    40

     6

     6

    33

     9

    30

    12

     9

    15
   309
* This  is an approximation: for the purpose of this approximation,
  100%  of the land area in the counties cited above has been
  considered to lie within the boundary of the Lake Ontario
  basin.  Niagara County is not included in order to avoid
  overlap with the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan.
                                                                22

-------
2.  New York's Hazardous Waste Site Remedial Program

    The New York State Abandoned Sites Act of 1979 (Chapter
    282) marks the formal beginning of New York State's
    Inactive Hazardous Waste Site Remedial Program.   The
    Abandoned Site Act mandated a statewide inventory of
    inactive hazardous waste sites, established the  New
    York Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites, and
    provided DEC and DOH the authority to order responsible
    parties to clean up their waste sites, or to initiate
    cleanup activities in the event that no responsible
    party could be identified.  The first New York State
    Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Dump Sites,
    published June, 1980, listed 680 sites.

    The Abandoned Sites Act was seen as an interim measure
    until the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compen-
    sation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Federal Superfund
    proposed in 1979 was enacted and operating.  It  was
    intended to ensure that State and local governments
    would be prepared to implement a federal hazardous
    waste cleanup program.

    State Superfund Law of 1982

    As more sites were discovered and the need for additional
    funding became evident, New York enacted the State Super-
    fund Law of 1982 (Chapter 857).  This law established the
    Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund  (State Superfund)  from fees
    assessed against wastes generated in or transported into
    New York State.  These monies were dedicated to pay for
    site investigation, remedial programs at sites where there
    is no responsible party, financing the non-federal share
    of remediation activities carried out under federal Super-
    fund, and emergency response actions for spills involving
    hazardous waste.

    The Superfund Law required DEC to prepare the Inactive
    Hazardous Waste Remedial Plan.  It also authorized the
    creation of the first State Superfund Management Board
    whose function was to review and approve or modify the
    Remedial Plan.  Upon completion of its legal mandate in
    June 1984, the original Board  ceased to exist.

    Executive Order #33, Community Right to Know

    Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order  #33 on December  29,
    1983 mandating DEC to survey  industry's past hazardous
    waste disposal practices.  Questionnaires were distri-
    buted to nearly 15,000  industries suspected of generating
                                                                   23

-------
or transporting hazardous wastes during the thirty-year
period from 1952 to 1981.  Approximately 60% of the
questionnaires sent out were returned; 449 potential new
disposal sites were identified.  These sites required
further investigation in order to decide which sites
should be added to the Registry of Inactive Hazardous
Waste Sites.  The report of suspected waste sites was
released April 1, 1985.

A number of companies could not provide the location of
sites used for some of the waste disposals they reported,
and these sites were listed as "unknown" in the 1985
report.  An extended program was initiated in 1986 to
investigate these deficiencies.  The extended program also
sought to obtain information from the earlier nonresponders
surveyed new potential hazardous waste generators and
transporters, surveyed previous owners of companies which
went out of business, and attempted to find new addresses
for companies that could not be located previously.  The
report was expected to be published in April, 1988.
                                                              24

-------
1985 Amendments to the Superfund Law

The State anticipated $10 million per year in receipts
from the waste-end assessments on industries that generate
or transport hazardous wastes in New York State.   In
actuality these assessments yielded only $3.5 million per
year.  To remedy this shortfall, the State passed the 1985
Amendments to the State Superfund Law (Chapter 38).  The
1985 Amendments authorized a significant increase in
revenue totaling $22 million per year through industry-
based fees.  In addition, $8 million was appropriated out
of the State's General Fund, thereby making available a
total of $30 million to fund New York's Remedial Program.

The 1985 Amendments require DEC to publish Quarterly
Reports indicating progress made in enforcement,  site
investigation and/or remedial activities at each site
listed in the Registry.  The Department was also required
to prepare a status report and annual update of the
Remedial Plan, initially by July 1, 1986, and in each
successive year.  This law constituted the second State
Superfund Management Board, directing it to evaluate the
State's implementation of the New York State Hazardous
Waste Site Remedial Program.

The Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1986

With Superfund revenues of $22 million per year (plus $8
million from the State's General Fund), it would take at
least 40 years to fund the State's share of remediating
an estimated 500 hazardous waste sites.  In order to com-
plete cleanup within the State Superfund Management Board's
recommended 13-year schedule, an additional funding commit-
ment was needed from both industry and government.  Governor
Cuomo therefore proposed issuance of the Environmental
Quality Bond Act of 1986 to raise $1.45 billion.  Of this
amount, $1.2 billion is earmarked for remediation of
hazardous waste sites when other sources of funding are
not available.  Debt service incurred on the bonds issued
to clean up hazardous waste sites will be shared equally
by New York State and industries that produce or process
hazardous waste.  In 1986, the Legislature approved and
Governor Cuomo signed the Bond Act authorizing a referendum
for voter approval.  On November 4,  1986, the Bond Act was
approved overwhelmingly by voters of New York State.

Site Investigation

Once a hazardous waste site  is  listed in the Registry, the
State must  (1) determine whether hazardous waste at  the
site constitutes an  imminent or  significant threat to  the
environment or public health, and  (2) identify potentially
responsible parties.
                                                               25

-------
DEC conducts two kinds (Phane I and Phase II) of investi-
gations at the waste sites.  For Phase I studies, DEC
hires engineering consultants to search records of federal,
State, and local agencies known to be involved with the
site, and to interview site owners (if known) and local
residents to gather pertinent information on the site.
Phase I site investigations provide preliminary characteri-
zations of hazardous substances present at each site;
estimate pathways by which pollutants might be migrating
from the original site of disposal; identify population
or resources which might be affected by pollutants from
the site; observe how the disposal area was used or
operated; and gather information regarding who might be
responsible for wastes at the site.

If additional information is needed to classify and rank
a site* DEC will conduct a Phase II investigation to
determine whether or not the site poses a significant
threat to public health and the environment.  All data
gathered in the Phase II study are used to classify the
site.  These data are applied to the USEPA Hazard Ranking
Score Model to arrive at a final Hazard Ranking Score to
determine if a particular site qualifies for inclusion
on the NPL.

Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies

The RI/FS contains two components:  the Remedial Investi-
gation (RI) and Feasibility Study  (FS).

Whereas a Phase II study is performed to determine if a
site  contains hazardous waste, and if a significant threat
to public health or environment exists, the  RI defines
the areal and vertical extent of the problem.

Data  collected  in the RI provides  information on the  con-
figuration of the underground, contaminated  plume emanating
from  the site and the pathways by  which contaminants  are
escaping from the site.  The FS utilizes the information
generated by the RI to develop and evaluate  alternative
solutions   (including the  "no action" alternative) to the
problem.  Based on this evaluation of alternatives, an
appropriate remedial action will be recommended and chosen.

Remedial Design and Construction

Once  a remedy is selected, a remedial design is prepared
and  the  remedial action  is carried out.

Table 3  gives a listing of the number of sites  in the Lake
Ontario  basin by county.   The Class 2 sites  are  those
which represent the highest priority  in the  New  York
State program.
                                                               26

-------
                               TABLE  3
                  SITES  ON NEW YORK STATE  REGISTRY
                      IN  THE LAKE ONTARIO BASIN*
                                       CLASS  2 SITES WITH
PHASE I, II
COUNTY ft
OF SITES
ft OF CLASS 2
SITES
REMEDIAL PROGRAM
UNDERWAY OR COMPLETE
UNDERWAY OR
COMPLETE

Jefferson
Orleans
Monroe
Wyoming
Genesee
Allegany
Livingston
Seneca
Schuyler
Wayne
Cayuga
Onondaga
Ontairo
Madison
Oswego
Tompkins
Oneida
Lewis
Yates
Herkimer
TOTAL
2
.7
61
1
7
9
8
3
1
10
4
36
6
3
29
7
25
3
4
15
246
1
2
14
0
3
3
2
2
0
4
1
12
0
1
7
4
11
0
1
6
74
0
2
4
0
2
2
1
1
0
3
1
5
0
0
6
3
6
0
0
2
37
0
6
28
1
5
6
5
5
1
3
2
19
3
1
16
6
10
0
2
9
128
*This  is  an  approximation:   for  the purpose of this  approximation,  100% of
the  land  area  in the counties cited above has been considered to  lie  within
the  boundary of the Lake Ontario Basin.  Niagara County is not included in order
to avoid overlap  with the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan.
                                                                       27

-------
     NATIONAL PRIORITY  LIST
    OF INACTIVE HAZARDOUS
             WASTE SITES
            Lake Ontario Basin
            NEW YORK STATE
31
(Q'

CD
                          CANADA - ONTARIO

                       UNITED STATES - NEW YORK
          SCALE
         1/1 500 000

          kilometres
                  50
           miles
                  30
03-01 Lake Ontario, Western Section
03-02 Lake Ontario, Central Section
03-03 Lake Ontario, Eastern Section
04  Genesee River
07  Seneca-Oneida-Oswego Rivers
08  Black River
 KEY TO LOCATIONS

1 FMC
2 Byron Barrel/Drum
3 Sinclair Refinery
4 Clothier
5 Fulton Terminals
6 Volney Municipal Landfill
7 Pollution Abatement Services
                                                                                          Brock University Cartography

-------
                       F.  Combined Sewer Overflow

In the United States, combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges are required
by the Federal Clean Water Act to be covered by discharge permits.  In New York
State, the authority to  issue such permits is delegated to NYSDEC.  For
the most part, CSOs are  included in municipal SPDES permits as separate
discharge points.  In some instances, the SPDES permits also specify
effluent limits for the CSO discharges.

There are thirteen (13) combined sewer systems in the Lake Ontario drainage
basin.  No dry-weather overflows are allowed from combined sewer system.
NYSDEC has provided guidance through Technical and Operation Guidance
Series (TOGS) to aid staff in the evaluation of CSOs to ensure that
water quality objectives are met, and to protect the best usage of the
State's water resources  from significant impairment by the direct and
residual degrading effects of CSOs through the elimination and/or reduction
of CSO discharges.  Out of the thirteen combined sewer systems, two
facilities (Monroe County - Frank Van Lare STP and Onondaga County - Syracuse
Metro STP) experience CSO problems that cause water quality violations.

EPA and NYSDEC, through the Construction Grants Program, has awarded grants
to CSO abatement projects designed to restore uses of the receiving waters in
priority water quality areas which had been impaired by the impact of CSOs.
Three potential funding  sources for CSO abatement projects were available.

  1)  State's Regular Allotment
      After September 30, 1984, the Governor may include in the State's prior-
      ity system a category of projects needed to correct CSOs which impair
      water uses in priority water quality areas.  Funds from the State's
      regular allotment may be used only for non-marine CSO abatement projects.

  2)  Governor's Discretionary Set-aside
      After September 30, 1984, up to 20% of a State's regular allotment, at the
      discretion of the Governor, may be used to fund categories of projects
      which were previously eligible for grant assistance before this date.
      Among the previous categories of projects is the correction of CSO,
      either' marine or non-mar'ine.

  3)  Separate Appropriation for Marine Projects
      After September 30, 1982, marine CSO projects may be funded through a
      separate Congressional appropriation.  These projects are administered
      at EPA headquarters subject to a national priority system.  These funds
      are to address impaired uses of public health risks  in priority water-
      quality areas  in mar'ine bays and estuaries caused by the  impact of CSOs.

Currently, the only source of assistance, unless a project is on the
latest, and last-to-be-generated priority list, will be a State
Revolving Loan Program,  presently under development.
                                                                          29

-------
Since 1972 >  Federal construct ion grants have been awarded for the following
majot' CSft abatement projects in the Lake Ontario drainage basin:

 0 Ptahroe County---		 $216 M  (Planning and on-going construction)
 0 City of Auburn---^	$4.2 M  (Planning and construction)
  Oftondaga County-	~ $6.2 M  (Completed)
 b Onohdaga Gduhty----~	$91.0 M (Planning started)
                                                                         30

-------
                    G.  Storm Water Discharges

In accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act,  point sources
discharging stormwater may require permits under the NPDES
program.  In New York State, these type of permits are issued by
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) under the SPDES program.   The State has issued
stormwater permits mainly to those industrial facilities
permitted to discharge treated process wastewater that also have
the potential for discharging stormwater contaminated by
industrial activity.

However, with the passage of the Water Quality Act of 1987,
greater emphasis will now be placed on the regulation of
contaminated stormwater.  The Act has established the following
categories of stormwater discharges that must be regulated:

   (1) Those discharges  already permitted.

   (2) Discharges associated with  industrial activity.

 .  (3) Discharges from municipal separate storm systems
      serving a population of 250,000 or more.

   (4) Discharges from municipal separate storm sewer
      systems serving a population of 100,000 or more
      (but less than 250,000).

   (5) Discharges designated as causing water  quality
      violations or contributing significant quantities
      of  pollutants.

All other storm water discharges  (i.e. parking lots, shopping
malls,  office buildings, hospitals, schools, parks, etc.) are
part of the moratorium  that remains in effect until October 1,
1992.   By the time, the moratorium expires, EPA will have to do
the following:

          (l)  Identify  volume and extent of pollutants  in these
              discharges, and classes of storm water discharges
              that will be  required to  obtain a  permit  (October
              1988).

          (2)  Establish procedures  and  methods  to control  storm
              water (October  1989).

          (3)  Establish regulation  to designate  discharges
              covered by the moratorium to  be regulated to pro-
              tect water quality  and  establish a comprehensive
              program  (October  1992).
                                                              31

-------
The WQA also exempts stormwater runoff from agricultural lands
and uncontaminated stormwater from mining operations or oil and
gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operation
or transmission lines from the requirement to obtain a permit.

Permits for industrial stormwater discharges in New York State
may be re-evaluated when EPA issues final regulations in
conformance with the Water Quality Act of 1987.  EPA, the State
and industries will have to accomplish the following:

  (1) EPA to develop application regulations by February,
      1989.

   (2) Industries to submit  permit applications by February,
      1990.

   (3) Permits to be issued  by February,  1991.

   (4) Industries to be  in compliance with permit no  later
      than February, 1994.

Municipal stormwater systems are required to reduce the discharge
of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and regulate non-
storm water discharges  into the storm system.  Large municipals
(greater than 250,000)  are to abide by the industrial deadlines
for filing an application and being in compliance.  Smaller
municipals (greater than 100,000 but less than 250,000) will have
to submit a permit application by February, 1992 and be in
compliance no later than February, 1996.
                                                              32

-------
                            H.  Other Nonpoint Sources


A nonpoint source (NFS) of pollution is usually considered an areawide source
or many small sources of pollution distributed diffusely over an area, which
cumulatively make a significant contribution to water quality degradation.
Toxics may enter surface waters either dissolved in runoff or attached to
sediment or other organic materials and may enter groundwater through soil
infiltration.  Contaminants transported from the land by runoff following a
storm event are usually characterized as nonpoint if they enter the waterbody
diffusely rather than at a discrete stormwater discharge point.

NFS impacts are associated with both long-term, fixed land uses (e.g.,
agriculture, urban development) and more sporadic and transitory activities
(e.g., construction sites, timber harvesting).  Programs to address activities
such as forestry and construction must be preventive in nature; i.e., they
must promote awareness and understanding of proper site management before a
project is undertaken so that site-specific impacts can be prevented.  On the
other hand, the impacts of agricultural or urban land uses typically manifest
themselves as identifiable longer-term problems in a waterbody (e.g., eutro-
phication of a lake or reservoir) which must be prevented or corrected by
efforts to promote proper long-term management practices on the landscape.

Addressing nonpoint source pollution involves a broad array of program
activities on the part of several federal, state and local agencies.  In
New York State, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has lead
responsibility by virtue of its statutory authority, for the management of
water resources and control of water pollution.

"Best Management Practices" (BMPs) are essential tools to better link water
guality with the land management activities of pertinent resource management
agencies and with the activities of local government.  Since most of the
institutional capability for implementing management practices to control NPS
exists at the local level, cooperation and coordination among agencies is an
essential part of "outreach" to develop awareness and enthusiasm for BMPs on
the part of local government and the public.

Nonpoint sources of water pollution within the scope of the State's management
strategy which may include substances of a toxic nature are: diffuse urban
runoff; household on-lot wastewater disposal; pesticide and fertilizer use
in agricultural and silvicultural operations, by conmercial turf grass, yard
care, and vegetation control operations, and by homeowners; small spills,
accidents and leaks of hazardous substances associated with poor housekeeping
at industrial and conmerical facilities; and storage and use of road salt and
other deicing chemicals and abrasives.

Some examples of NPS control related activities/programs are:

-  Irondeguoit Bay Segment of  the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program  (NURP) which
   evaluated the significance of urban runoff on water guality and evaluated
   the effectiveness of control measures.
                                                                             33

-------
-  Septic tank control programs under the New York State Department of Health
   and county health departments which enforce standards for on-lot wastewater
   disposal systems.

-  Training and certification of coranercial and private (farmer)  pesticide
   applicators by DEC.  DEC also registers and classifies products for use in
   New York State, with authority to cancel these registrations if necessary.
   DEC is also responsible for the pesticide enforcement program to deter
   misuse of pesticides.

-  The Agricultural Conservation Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
   which is used to partially fund soil and water conservation BMPs on private
   land.

While the total amount of activity that may be considered NFS control-related
during the past few years has been substantial, collectively the activities
have not constituted a defined program.  There has been no articulated frame-
work or strategy to provide the various individual efforts with a common
management direction.

As the major point sources of water pollution are brought under control in New
York, as well as nationwide, the water quality impacts of NFS become relatively
more apparent.  In recognition of these impacts, the Water Quality Act of 1987
provides new direction and authorizes Federal assistance for the preparation
and implementation of state NFS programs.

Under the Water Quality Act, the State is required to submit, for EPA approval,
an assessment report  identifying those waters that cannot reasonably be
expected to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or the goals
and requirements of the Clean Water Act due to NFS pollution.  This report will
also describe the specific NFS categories affecting these waters and general
programs and methods used for controlling this pollution.  A preliminary listing
of waters was submitted to EPA in April 1988 as part of New York's water quality
assessment report submitted pursuant to section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.
While the report was due to EPA in August 1988, DEC now expects to submit the
final report to EPA in March 1989.

The State is also required to submit, for EPA approval, a NPS management
program providing an overview of the State's NPS program, as well as what the
State intends to accomplish over the next four years.  While the assessment
report will identify the overall dimensions of the NPS problem, the management
plan will target a subset of these waters on a watershed-by-watershed basis.
Statewide approaches to problems such as urban stormwater runoff from develop-
ing areas may also be developed.  While the program was due to EPA in August 1988,
DEC now expects to submit the NPS management program to EPA in June 1989.

EPA will be encouraging the State to develop NPS programs which build upon
related programs such as clean lakes, estuaries, stormwater permits, ground-
water and wetlands, and complement and increase the effectiveness of State and
local NPS programs already underway.  In addition, EPA will encourage the State
to coordinate its NPS programs with those of other Federal agencies.
                                                                             34

-------
                       I.   AIR TOXICS
Introduction

The presence of toxic compounds in the Great Lakes has been a
concern for quite a long time.   The source of these toxic
contaminants was thought to be by direct discharge into the lakes
or tributaries by industry.  More recently, concerns have been
raised that air emissions from man-made sources are also being
deposited into the Great Lakes and may contribute significantly
to loadings of certain pollutants, such as PCBs (Strachan and
Eisenreich) .   It is hypothesized that the presence of nearby
and upwind pollutant sources, the large surface area of the
lakes, and the absence of effective in-lake removal processes,
could make the Great Lakes susceptible to input from airborne
pollutants.

Possible sources of concern of air toxics emissions in New York
State around Lake Ontario include hazardous waste disposal sites,
industries that use or produce toxic substances, incinerators of
waste materials, and the combined emissions of man-made sources
in nearby urban areas, such as the Buffalo-Niagara area.

The EPA has established a national program for air toxics
to develop control requirements for many of these sources.  In
addition to establishing National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, EPA provides technical and financial support to
state agencies for the development and implementation of air
toxics programs.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
has developed one of the most comprehensive programs for
controlling emissions of air toxics.  Unless exempted by
regulation, New York State regulates all chemical substances
emitted from these sources under its air toxics control program.
In addition, New York State, in cooperation with New Jersey and EPA,
is involved in an extensive air toxics monitoring and assessment
project located around Staten Island. This project will hopefully
provide a model for other urban areas in assessing the "urban
soup", toxics of concern within urban areas.

Finally, EPA is participating in several national programs to
research the problems of atmospheric deposition and transport of
air toxics.  Two of the programs which most directly affect
deposition into the Great Lakes are the National Atmospheric
Deposition Program and the Great Lakes Atmospheric Inputs and
Sources Network.  Both programs address ways to measure the
amount of airborne pollutants that are deposited and to identify
both nearby and long range sources of airborne pollutants.
                                                             35

-------
EPA's Approach to Controlling Emissions of Air Toxics

In addition to controlling emissions of criteria pollutants, EPA
has established emissions standards (NESHAPs) for seven
pollutants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (NESHAP).
Sources of these pollutants must demonstrate compliance with
federal emission requirements.  These toxic pollutants are:

               - Mercury
               - Beryllium
               - Asbestos
               - Vinyl Chloride
               - Benzene (NESHAP proposed)
               - Radionuclides
               - Arsenic

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA is
developing regulations for toxic air emissions from hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. In the
Superfund program, air toxics will be addressed in clean-up
decisions at sites.  In addition, EPA has developed a program of
technical and financial support to states to encourage them to
develop air toxics control programs.

The overall effect of these programs is to limit and reduce the
total atmospheric burden of a wide range of airborne pollutants,
thereby reducing the amount available for deposition into the
Great Lakes.

State Air Toxics Programs

Strong and effective state and local air toxics programs are
essential to the implementation of the federal program.  The
federal program is based on the states:

     * implementing and enforcing delegated NESHAPs.

     * building the technical, regulatory and administrative
       capabilities needed to implement an effective control
       program.  These capabilities include:

               - effective permitting procedures for new and
                 existing sources
               - implementation of the Prevention of Significant
                 Deterioration of Air Quality program.
               - expanded emission inventories for toxic
                 compounds
               - legal authority and ability to regulate sources
                 of air toxics
                                                             36

-------
     * assessing the health impacts in high-risk urban areas  and
       reducing air toxics emissions that result from the combined
       effects of numerous sources and pollutants.

     * controlling high-risk point sources of local concern that
       are not of broad enough concern for federal  regulation.

In addition to the regulatory capability provided by the NESHAPS
and other federal regulations, state air toxics regulations,  and
the identification of high risk urban areas,  there  is a state
initiative program which is designed to help  states financially
and with technical information about sources  of toxic air
pollutants too localized for action under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act (NESHAPs).  Under the state initiative program, the
EPA supports state analysis of high risk point source problems
(risk > 10  ) by funding contractor or state  support to assist
the state in making control decisions.

New York State's Air Toxic Program

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) has a comprehensive state air toxics program.  NYSDEC's
Bureau of Air Toxics mission is to provide a  coordinated,
technically current regulatory approach for the control of
emissions of chemical substances for which no federal ambient air
quality standards have been developed.  The New York State
regulation, 6 NYCRR Part 212, and New York's  Air Guide-1,
entitled "Guidelines for Control of Toxic Air Contaminants",
provide the regulatory base upon which New York's air toxics
program is built.

Air Guide-1, an engineering document, contains specific chemical
control guidance for over 240 chemicals separated into three
categories:  high toxicity air contaminants,  moderate toxicity
air contaminants, and low toxicity air contaminants.  The higher
the toxicity, the more stringent the control  requirements become.
Air Guide-1 provides New York's regionalized  air pollution
control program staff with a screening mechanism to determine
what control requirements are necessary for a source seeking a
new or renewed state air permit.  As part of  this review, the
applicant must evaluate the predicted maximum ambient impact of
the chemical contaminant with the acceptable ambient level for
the chemical contaminant in Air Guide-1 to determine
acceptability or the amount of emissions reduction required.

EPA and NYSDEC are supporting a study in Staten Island  in order
to characterize the levels of toxics  in the urban airshed.
This study is monitoring for selected organics and metals both
outdoors and indoors.  It is anticipated that the Staten Island
Study will provide a basis for addressing air toxics contaminants
in urban areas.  Consequently, toxic problems in urban  areas near
Lake Ontario may be more accurately  addressed.  In addition  to
the Staten Island Study, NYSDEC has  established monitoring for
approximately 25 lighter VOCs at many urban areas' sites along
with dioxin and furan sampling in Niagara Falls and other

                                                             37

-------
selected areas around the state.

This combination of state air toxics control program, NESHAPs,  the
state initiative programs, and joint EPA and state urban area projects
give NYSDEC and EPA the capability to identify and effectively control
sources of toxic pollutants in the Lake Ontario area as well as the
entire state.


National Efforts to Characterize Atmospheric Deposition

Acid Rain

The national program dealing with acid rain is intended to study
the possible need to control further the emissions of pollutants
such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, the two major causes
of acid rain.  Because of concerns raised over the contribution
of acid deposition to adverse effects on the environment and
public health and welfare, the National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP) was authorized by Congress under the
Acid Precipitation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-294, Title VII).  Under
this act, Congress directed that a ten year research plan be
developed. Management of NAPAP and this plan is headed by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the
Environmental Protection Agency; the Departments of Agriculture,
Energy and Interior; and the Council of Environmental Quality.
According to the congressional mandate, NAPAP's research is to
focus on:

     * identifying sources
     * establishing a nationwide acid deposition monitoring network
     * developing and applying atmospheric transport
       models to predict long and short range transport
     * determining the impact on the physical environment
       such as:
          - the impact of acid rain on America's lakes
            and streams
          - the corrosive effects of acid rain on building
            materials2'3

As part of NAPAP, the EPA established the STAR (State Acid Rain)
program.  As part of this program, New York is addressing the
acid rain problem by undertaking strategy development studies
relating to reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions.  New York is
examining the impact on acid deposition of different emission
control strategies.  New York is using a modification of the
Cornell/Carnegie Mellon University economic model, which can
analyze utility and industrial costs, to assess the costs of each
possible strategy.

Also, as part of EPA's acid rain strategy, the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) was developed.   Wet
deposition monitors were placed nationwide to analyze the
composition of rain and snow.  Besides sampling for metals and
nutrients  (SOP4, N03, NH4, etc.), these monitors
                                                              38

-------
provide data which allows for study of long and short  range
transport and identification of high emitting area sources.

Great Lakes Study

In 1972, the United States and Canada, under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1972, developed a framework for the
surveillance, monitoring, research, protection, and reclamation
of the physical and chemical quality of the Great Lakes system.
Coordination of the monitoring of atmospheric deposition in the
United States is provided by the Great Lakes National  Program
Office (GLNPO) located at EPA's Region V office.  The  Great Lakes
Atmospheric Deposition (GLAD) network was established  in 1981 to
characterize this deposition.  Thirty-six monitoring stations
were installed along the U.S. shores of the five Great Lakes.

Like the NADP network the GLAD network collects wet-only
deposition samples.   A list of chemicals sampled for  is provided
in Table 1.  Based on a review of the data provided in the GLAD
data analysis report, long range transport of lighter  chemicals
from urbanized areas to the Great Lakes is indicated;  for heavier
chemicals, like metals, transport is localized to the  immediate
vicinities erf the urban areas where these pollutants are emitted.

Although a heavy metal itself, it is hard to determine whether
or not mercury would exhibit transport properties similar to the
heavy metals contained within the GLAD data analysis report.
Because of its special properties, mercury is known to exhibit long
range transport.  For the other ten chemicals of concern  (which
the GLAD monitors do not sample for), whether they would show
transport properties similar to those of the metals or the lighter
chemicals cannot be determined based on the GLAD data.

As part of a strategy to monitor for a wider variety of chemicals
than are sampled for at GLAD sites, in March of 1987 a document
entitled "Design of a Great Lakes Atmospheric Inputs and Sources
(GLAIS) Network"5 outlined recommendations for a monitoring
network to do atmospheric sampling for many chemicals of concern
in the Great Lakes.  EPA has begun implementation of this
monitoring network.  As part of an EPA study of the sources, the
transport, and the fate of toxic substances in Green Bay,
Wisconsin, coordinated by the GLNPO, atmospheric sampling has
been proposed at 1.5 m above ground level in Green Bay.  In
addition, meteorological sensors for recording of wind direction,
wind speed, temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, and
rain intensity have been installed at the same site.  Sampling
was proposed for PCBs, HCB, DDT and its metabolites, BaP, and
dieldrin.   A sampling site of this type is now in operation in
Green Bay.  The chemicals sampled  for at the Green Bay site  are
listed in Table 2.  Three additional sites, one in Wisconsin, one
in Michigan, and one  in Canada at Point Petre on Lake Ontario,
have been proposed for fiscal year 1989  (October 1988 through
September  1989).

It is expected that the data obtained from these monitors will
                                                             39

-------
                             Table 1
               Chemicals Sampled for at GLAD Sites
"Nutrients";                    Metals;
Nitrate                            Cadmium
Ammonia                            Copper
Nitrogen                           Iron
Sulfate                            Lead
Chloride                           Calcium
Total Silica                       Magnesium
Alkalinity                         Sodium
Strong Acids                       Potassium
Total Phosphorus                   Arsenic
Total organic carbon               Aluminum
                                   Barium
                                   Beryllium
                                   Cobalt
                                   Chromium
                                   Lithium
                                   Vanadium
                                   Titanium
                                   Boron
                                   Zinc
                                   Manganese
                                   Strontium
                                   Nickel

-------
                             Table 2
        Chemicals Monitored for "GLAIS" Site in Green Bay
"Nutrients":
Nitrate/Nitrite as N
Ammonia as N
Nitrogen
Sulfate
Chloride
Total Silica
Total Phosphorus
Total organic carbon
Alkalinity
Strong Acids

Organics
PCBs
Dieldrin
Metals:
   Lead
   Cadmium
   Arsenic
   Copper
   Iron
   Nickel
   Calcium
   Magnesium
   Sodium
   Potassium
   Aluminum
   Barium
   Beryllium
   Cobalt
   Chromium
   Lithium
   Vanadium
   Titanium
   Boron
   Zinc
   Manganese
                                                             41

-------
vastly improve the data base for atmospheric concentrations of
many toxic contaminants around the Great Lakes.  Currently, there
is a limited data base pertaining to atmospheric concentration of
toxics.  These proposed monitoring sites will allow better
quantification of the toxic contributions to the Great Lakes from
the atmosphere using procedures outlined by Strachan and
Eisenreich  .
                                                              42

-------
Atmospheric Loadings to Lake Ontario
To assess the possible contribution of air contaminants into Lake
Ontario, two approaches are appropriate.   The first is to
estimate concentrations in the air in the vicinity of Lake
Ontario based on ambient measurements and calculate the flux of
pollutants across the air/water boundary.  This is the approach
used by Strachan and Eisenreich  in estimating contributions
of atmospheric deposition.

The second approach is to review the possible sources of
the contaminants from known emission inventories,  to attempt to
estimate through dispersion modeling the ambient concentration
in the vicinity of Lake Ontario and, from these estimates, to
deduce the deposition into the lake.  For seven of the eleven
chemicals, there are no known sources because, in fact, the use
of these chemicals is no longer permitted and there are no
manufacturers of these chemicals near Lake Ontario.  Fugitive
sources of these chemicals exist; however, there are no
reliable estimates of the quantities emitted.

Consequently, for the seven chemicals of concern for which good
emission estimates are not available, the first approach may be
the only reliable method.

1.  PCBs

There are no air emissions sources of PCBs in New York State's
inventory of permitted sources.  PCBs were mainly used by
electrical utilities as a heat transfer medium in transformers,
but have now been banned from use in the United States.  Since
PCBs do not degrade quickly, they may be found in the soil or
groundwater where PCBs were used, stored, or manufactured.  Based
on limited measurements of PCB concentrations in the atmosphere,
Strachan and Eisenreich1 have estimated 0.39 kg/day are
deposited into Lake Ontario.  This estimate is used in the
loadings matrix in Appendix III of the Lake Ontario Toxics
Management Plan.  As there are no permitted air emissions sources
of PCBs in New York state, the most likely sources of PCBs to
Lake Ontario are:

          a) disturbance of soil in which the chemical may
             persist, resulting in loadings to the atmosphere
             with possible subsequent deposition into the lake,
             and
          b) evaporation from contaminated water sources to the
             atmosphere, resulting in subsequent deposition to
             Lake Ontario.

PCBs are being sampled at the "GLAIS" site in Green Bay and
are proposed to be sampled at additional monitoring sites.
These data can be used to more reliably estimate deposition
into Lake Ontario.
                                                             43

-------
2.
There are no air emissions sources of Mirex in New York State's
inventory of permitted sources.  Mirex is a pesticide that has
been banned for use in the United States since December of 1977.
It is possible that soil or water contamination could persist
providing the same sources to the atmosphere as those for PCBs.

Mirex is not being proposed for sampling at the "GLAIS" sites.

3.  Chlordane

There are no air emissions sources of chlordane in New York
State's inventory of permitted sources.  Chlordane was banned
from use on April 15, 1987.  On the other hand, the chlordane
that was in inventory at the time of the ban is in limited use,
but is restricted to application by beneath-ground injection for
insect extermination.  Consequently, emissions to the air are
decreasing as the use of chlordane is phased out.  Atmospheric
inputs to Lake Ontario, if any, are most likely due to the
fugitive processes described for PCBs.

Chlordane is not proposed to be sampled at any of the "GLAIS"
sites.

4.  Dioxin (2.3.7.8 TCDD)

There are four permitted air emissions sources near Lake Ontario
(within approximately 67 miles of the lake) that emit dioxin;
total permitted emissions are 0.025 Ibs/day.  If total emissions of
dioxin from these sources are assumed to be deposited into Lake
Ontario, the water quality standard of 1 ppq (parts per
quadrillion) would be exceeded.  New York State does not set an
acceptable ambient level (AAL) for dioxin in Air Guide-1.
Instead, significant sources of dioxins are reviewed on a case-
by-case basis.  A risk assessment analysis is performed on these
sources to determine whether the source would have a detrimental
impact on the population exposed.  For the four sources mentioned
above, it was determined that there was not a significant risk
from dioxin to the population exposed.

Although the water quality standard would be exceeded using the
unrealistic assumption that all emissions of dioxin near Lake
Ontario would be deposited into the lake, the air emissions from
these four sources have been controlled so air emissions do not
pose a significant risk to the exposed population.   Further
analysis relating dioxin inputs to levels of dioxin in the Lake
will be performed by the Fate of Toxics Committee.

NYSDEC operates two dioxin monitors in the Niagara Frontier near
Lake Ontario.  Dioxin is not being proposed for sampling at the
"GLAIS" sites.  The data from the NYSDEC dioxin monitors will
provide a more accurate estimate of airborne dioxin in the
vicinity of Lake Ontario.
                                                            44

-------
5.   Mercury

Total emissions of mercury from permitted sources in New York
State near Lake Ontario were calculated to be 10.387 Ibs/day;  if
all atmospheric emissions were deposited in Lake Ontario, the
concentration of mercury in the lake  would be 8 x 10~6 ppm,
which does not exceed the water quality standard of 0.2 ppm.
This estimate is conservative and the actual value for
atmospheric deposition of mercury from New York State Sources
into Lake Ontario is muchless than 10.387 Ibs/day.  Data
from the GLAD sites shows that atmospheric mercury is either  at
or below the detection limits of the monitors (.1 ug/1).  This
further substantiates the low atmospheric input of mercury into
Lake Ontario.

6.   Octachlorostyrene

There are no air emission sources of Octachlorostyrene in New
York State's inventory of permitted sources.  Atmospheric inputs,
if any, are most likely due to the fugitive processes described
for PCBs.

Octachlorostyrene is not proposed to be sampled at any of the
"GLAIS" sites.

7.   Aluminum

Total emissions of aluminum from permitted sources in Erie,
Monroe, Niagara, Onondaga, Orleans, Oswego, St. Lawrence, and
Wayne Counties (counties near Lake Ontario which have permitted
sources of aluminum) were calculated to be 901.1 Ibs/day; if all
atmospheric emissions were deposited in Lake Ontario a
concentration of 5.7 x 10   ppm of aluminum in Lake Ontario is
calculated.  This concentration is far below the standard and is
conservative since the actual value for atmospheric deposition of
aluminum from New York State sources into Lake Ontario is much
less than 901.1 Ibs/day.

8.   Iron

Total emissions from permitted sources in Erie, Monroe, Niagara,
and Onondaga Counties  (counties near Lake Ontario which have
permitted sources of iron) for an entire year were calculated to
be 14.4 Ibs/day; if all atmospheric emissions were assumed to be
deposited in Lake Ontario, a concentration of 9.2 x 10   ppm of
iron in Lake Ontario is calculated.  This concentration  is far
below the standard is conservative since the actual value for
atmospheric deposition of iron into Lake Ontario is much less
than 14.4 Ibs/day.
                                                              45

-------
9.  DDT

There are no air emissions sources of DDT in New York State's
inventory of permitted sources.  DDT is another pesticide that
has been banned from use in the United States.   Consequently, the
0.07 kg/day estimated by Strachan and Eisenreich and contained in
Appendix Ill's loadings matrix is most likely attributable to the
same fugitive sources listed for PCBs.

DDT is not proposed to be sampled at any of the "GLAIS" sites.

10.  Dieldrin

There are no air emissions sources of Dieldrin in New York
State's inventory of permitted sources.  Dieldrin was banned from
use in May of 1975.  It is possible that soil or water
contamination could persist.  Therefore, the 0.09 kg/day due to
atmospheric deposition of dieldrin, as estimated by Strachan and
Eisenreich and contained in the loadings matrix of Appendix III,
is most likely due to the fugitive sources listed for PCBs.

Dieldrin is being sampled for at the "GLAIS" site in Green Bay
and will be sampled for at the proposed additional sites.  This
information will provide a more accurate estimate of airborne
dieldrin in the vicinity of Lake Ontario.


11.  Hexachlorobenzene

There are no sources of hexachlorobenzene in New York State's
inventory of permitted sources.  Hexachlorobenzene is in limited
use as a pesticide although it is being reviewed by the EPA.
Hexachlorobenzene is primarily applied by injection, perhaps,
limiting its direct emission into the atmosphere.  It is possible
that soil or groundwater contamination could result in loadings
to the atmosphere.  The 0.03 kg/day atmospheric deposition of
hexachlorobenzene estimated by Strachan and Eisenreich and
contained in Appendix III is most likely due to the fugitive
sources listed for PCBs.

Hexachlorobenzene is not proposed .to be sampled at any of the
"GLAIS" sites.

Conclusions

Five of the eleven chemicals of concern have been banned for use in
the United States.  There are no sources permitted to emit these
toxics into the air.  This restricts their probable atmospheric
loadings to the fugitive emission sources outlined for PCBs.  In
addition, future airborne emissions from the United States can be
expected to decline as the residual compounds degrade.  A
determination of the atmospheric contribution must, by necessity,
depend on accurate atmospheric measurements of the compounds in
the vicinity of the Great Lakes.  Existing programs, GLAD and
"GLAIS", will be expanded in terms of the number of sites and the

-------
compounds measured.  Consideration will be given to modifying
sample sites and parameters, as necessary, based on the
recommendations of the Niagara River/Lake Ontario Fate of Toxics
Committee.

In terms of mercury, aluminum, and iron the airborne contribution
of permitted sources in New York State does not appear to be a
major contributor to the concentrations in Lake Ontario.
Sampling through 1985 indicates mercury concentrations are at the
minimal detection range and confirms that airborne mercury is not
likely a major source of contamination.

In the case of dioxin, assuming all permitted sources in New York
State that emit dioxin near Lake Ontario deposit into the lake,
the water quality standard of 1 ppq would be exceeded.  While
this scenario is unrealistically conservative, we need to develop
a better definition of the transport properties that occur at the
air/water interface.
                                                             47

-------
                           References

1.  Strachan and Eisenreich, Mass Balancing  of  Toxic  Chemicals
     into the Great Lakes;   The Role of  Atmospheric  Deposition,
     1988, IJC.

2.  United States Environmental Protection Agency,  Acid Rainr EPA
     Journal, September 1986.

3.  NAPAP, Interim Assessment,  The Causes and Effects of Acidic
     Deposition. September 1987.

4.  Gatz, Donald F., Van C.  Bowersox, Jack Su,  Gary J.  Stensland,
     Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition  Network Data Analysis  and
     Interpretation, 1986.

5.  EPA-905/4-87-001, Design of a Great Lakes Atmospheric Inputs
     Sources (GLAIS) Network.  March 1987.

6.  Arimoto, Richard, The Atmospheric Deposition of Chemical
     Contaminants to the Great Lakes.  August 11, 1987.
                                                             48

-------
           J.  Oil and Hazardous Material Spills

Prevention and cleanup of oil and hazardous substance
spills are the focus of U.S. programs developed under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) and the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).

The FWPCA requires that non-transportation related fa-
cilities develop and follow a spill prevention control
and countermeasures plan to prevent discharge of oil
products to waters of the United States or their shore-
lines.  Facilities that are involved in drilling, pro-
ducing, gathering, storing, processing, refining, trans-
ferring, distributing or consuming oil products, with
underground storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons
or aboveground storage greater than 1,320 gallons must
comply.  Containment systems, maintenance, security,
operating procedures and reporting requirements are
included.  Oil removal contingency plans also are
required for all Great Lakes ports.

New York State has additional requirements for the bulk
handling and storage of petroleum products.  These in-
clude registration of all facilities, periodic tests
and inspections for leaks, installation of diking,
gauges and valves to prevent overfills and releases,
and new tank standards.

Hazardous substance releases are regulated under Section
313, Title III of SARA.  Manufacturing operations employ-
ing more than ten people that manufacture, import, or
process any of the more than 300 toxic chemicals, in
amounts greater than 25,000 pounds, must report annually
both their routine and accidental releases.  Among the
regulated chemicals are chlordane, PCBs, mercury and hexa-
chlorobenzene.

Firms using any listed toxic chemicals in other ways,
such as for degreasing, in amounts greater than 10,000
pounds per year must also report any releases.  Release
information will be made available to the public through a
computerized data base in 1989.

Sections 302, 303 and 304 of SARA require facilities
handling "extremely hazardous substances" to cooperate
with state and local officials  in preparing comprehensive
emergency plans.
                                                           49

-------
New York State's Hazardous Substance Bulk Storage Act
further regulates the sale, storage and handling of
hazardous substances to prevent releases.  Like the
petroleum bulk storage program, it requires tank
registration, compliance with standards for construc-
tion, operation, maintenance, inspection and closure,
and restricts the sale of toxics to unregistered
facilities.

There are also national and statewide spill response
programs in place, so if a release should occur, imme-
diate action can be taken to limit its impact on the
environment.  New York has a 24 hour a day hotline to
report spills, and regional NYSDEC staff are prepared
to respond.
                                                           50

-------
         K.    Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal

Individual dredging projects in Lake Ontario, such as maintenance
of navigation channels and commercial marina areas, require
authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE)  pursuant
to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 403).
Those projects with associated disposal of dredged materials  in
waters of the United States also require authorization pursuant
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.  1344).   The
permitting authority must examine practicable alternatives,
including reuse and upland disposal options, to the discharge of
dredged material into the waters of the United States.

Individual dredging projects, including CE projects, are also
subject to State review, and issuance of a Water Quality
Certificate in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act, if the project includes disposal in waters of the United
States.

On the federal level, applications for Section 10 and 404 permits
in Lake Ontario are submitted to the Buffalo District, CE.  The
State and Federal applications are identical and joint.   The
agency to which the application is submitted provides the other
with an official copy.  After this point, permit decision actions
are taken separately.  When a complete application is received,
the District issues a Public Notice soliciting comments on the
proposed action from interested parties.  The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) reviews all dredge and fill Public
Notices issued by the CE and provides comments and
recommendations to avoid and/or minimize adverse impacts to the
aquatic ecosystem.  The CE must provide full consideration to
these recommendations when making permit decisions.  EPA has
final authority on Section 404 permit actions in accordance with
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act.

At present, in order to comply with federal regulations and
guidelines, material to be dredged and/or open lake disposed must
meet established criteria for toxics concentrations contained in
the EPA Guidelines for the Pollutional Classification of Great
Lakes Harbor Sediments.  These criteria are utilized by EPA, the
CE and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation  (NYSDEC) in determining the suitability of dredged
material for open lake disposal.

These guidelines provide three categories for sediments:
non-polluted, moderately polluted, and heavily polluted.
Criteria for determining whether dredged material  is  suitable for
open lake disposal vary depending on the contaminant(s) of
concern.  For example, because of the documented bioaccumulation
potential of mercury and PCBs, if the guideline values are
exceeded, the sediments are classified as polluted and
                                                              51

-------
unacceptable for open lake disposal regardless of levels of other
constituents.  The guidelines are based on bulk analysis or total
concentrations of sediment parameters.   They are not designed to
assess specific environmental effects of open water disposal of
the tested sediments or what portion of the contaminant load may
be biologically available.  The bulk chemical content of a
sediment may not reflect the actual potential for damage to the
aquatic ecosystem associated with open lake disposal.

The current guidelines were developed over ten years ago.   Since
that time the awareness of the presence and biological effects of
many contaminants has grown.  Specific testing procedures and
methods also have been and continue to be investigated that may
enable better assessment of the environmental effects of open
water disposal of dredged material.  The Buffalo District CE
routinely includes elutriate and bioassay testing for Federal
dredging projects.  These tests are not always required of non
federal applicants.

According to the January, 1982 Report of the Dredging
Subcommittee to the Water Quality Programs Committee of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Board, sediment chemical data are not
sufficient to assess potential environmental impacts.
Bioassessment to determine acute toxicity, impacts on
reproductive success, and contaminant bioaccumulation potential
for particular aquatic organisms needs to be implemented on a
routine basis.  The Buffalo District CE is currently studying
four new short term (life cycle) sub-lethal chronic toxicity
bioassay techniques to better determine the level of restrictions
which must be placed on dredged material disposal.  Further work
directed toward determining biological effects of specific
contaminants will be undertaken to evaluate and develop
appropriate testing procedures.  EPA will coordinate with the
appropriate agencies to formulate applicable criteria for
consistent implementation.

Testing requirements similar to those for the analysis and
evaluation of dredged material for ocean disposal may be
appropriate.  Testing procedures described in the EPA Region
II/NY District COE Guidance for Performing Tests on Dredged
Material to be Disposed of in Ocean Waters, include physical,
chemical and biological analysis of dredged sediments.  EPA will
coordinate with all regulatory agencies involved to develop
criteria and guidelines specific for Lake Ontario.

The physical and chemical testing will determine the potential
for environmental degradation of dredging/disposal areas.  Major
constituents to be analyzed will be based on the conditions and
characteristics of the proposed dredging and disposal areas and
associated sediments.  Contaminants that are identified as Lake
Ontario priority pollutants will be included on a list of
constituents that will be required to be tested for  in any
proposed dredged sediments to determine whether restrictions are
required on the method of disposal.
                                                              52

-------
Bioassay/bioaccumulation procedures will assess biological
effects of projected dredging and discharge activities.
Environmentally sensitive benthic and water column organisms
indigenous to Lake Ontario will be selected as appropriate
testing species.

EPA will work with the appropriate agencies to identify known
"hot spots" or areas of high contaminant concentration and
develop strategies for the disposal of dredged material from
these areas to ensure that environmentally acceptable disposal
options are available.

EPA will work with the appropriate agencies in developing
alternative disposal options that will include contained upland
sites.  This will ensure that contaminated sediments which are
not considered suitable for open lake disposal are appropriately
disposed of utilizing methods that do not allow return of
contaminants by runoff into the open lake water column or
leaching into existing or potential groundwater resources.

Open lake disposal occurs in various locations throughout the
lake.  The sites are generally areas where dredged material has
been disposed of historically.  Since some of the sites have been
receiving dredged material at various intervals throughout recent
history, there is potential for cumulative and long-term impacts.
The conditions at these sites will be investigated by the
appropriate agencies, and evaluated as to whether continued use
of each site would incur environmentally damaging impacts.
Information from study projects that are aimed at determining
existing conditions in the lake will be reviewed in the
assessment of these areas.
                                                              53

-------
                             L.  Solid Wastes

     Each year, an estimated 20.2 million tons of municipal solid waste,
and substantial amounts of nonhazardous industrial wastes, sewage sludge,
and construction and demolition wastes, are generated in New York State.
About 2.4 million tons of this municipal waste, and a proportionate amount
of the other solid wastes, originate in the Lake Ontario Drainage Basin.
These wastes can cause both environmental and public health problems.

     Some 25 years ago, New York State first sought to control odor,
disease, and vermin at waste dumps through regulations prohibiting
uncovered dumps and open waste fires.  Since then, far-reaching social and
technical changes have significantly affected solid waste management.
These changes have been reflected in increasingly strict state controls.
Since 1981, the last time state solid waste facility regulations were
significantly revised, New York has modified environmental laws and has
issued policies and guidelines improving such waste management.

     The NYSDEC has replaced its solid waste management facility regulation
Part 360 of Title 6, New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR Part
360), with a new, comprehensive version incorporating recent legal,
technical, and policy developments.  The new regulation became effective on
December 31, 1988.

     New York's objective is to promote integrated solid waste management
through the concept of a "solid waste management method hierarchy," or
order of preference.  This order is:
          0 Waste reduction;
          0 Recycling and reuse;
          0 Waste to energy; and
          0 Landfilling.
     The revisions improve solid waste management by providing consistent,
predictable rules for design, construction, operation, closure, and
monitoring of  facilities, and by requiring consideration of the entire
solid waste management system, with an emphasis on recycling, before
facilities are built.

     The revised Part 360 safeguards environment and public health by
requiring hydrogeologic  investigations and groundwater protection measures,
state-of-the-art construction, stringent operation and maintenance,
increased monitoring, and expanded status reporting on solid waste
management facilities.

     The new regulation:

          reorganizes and greatly expands Part 360; includes all State
          requirements for facilities using specific technologies, and
          accepting  particular types of wastes, or those  facilities  located
          in certain geographic areas;

          requires demonstrated consideration of recycling as part of a
          solid waste management system;
                                                                            54

-------
clarifies definitions and exemptions, making it easier for all
persons and institutions involved to identify their
responsibilities;

updates standards governing facility design, construction,
operation, maintenance, closure, and monitoring.  Important new
requirements include double composite liners and dual leachate
collection and detection systems for solid waste landfills;
requires increased planning and engineering for facilities,
extensive reporting and documentation about construction and
operation;

incorporates technical criteria for solid waste management
facilities, such as composting operations, land application
facilities, and surface impoundments;

brings construction and demolition debris sites under stricter
regulatory control;

establishes requirements for storage, treatment, and disposal of
infectious waste, incinerator ash residue, and waste tires.
                                                                   55

-------
                            M.  Sludge Disposal
     Sewage sludge use and disposal is regulated under the joint authority
of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).  Federal regulation (40 CFR Part 257) established standards for
cadmium, PCBs, and pathogens in sludge applied to land, and established
general management standards for landfills.  Section 405(d)(2) of the CWA
of 1987 placed new emphasis on EPA to identify and limit toxic pollutants
in sewage sludge.  EPA is developing a new national permitting program to
implement comprehensive standards for the safe use and disposal of sewage
sludge.

     These technical standards will be implemented through either NPDES
(SPDES) permits issued to POTWs, or under alternate State programs
approved by EPA.  New York State requires that sludge or its ash be
monitored for the presence of toxic materials as regulated by 6 NYCRR Part
360 Solid Waste Management Facilities regulations.  If such material is
found to be present, the provisions of the National Industrial Pretreatment
Program come into play, in which the offending material is controlled at
its source (point of entry into the POTW collection system).  This is
outlined in Section B of this Appendix, Indirect Industrial Discharges.

     In addition, the treatment, storage, and disposal of sewage sludge is
regulated in New York State by 6 NYCRR Part 360.  This includes
agricultural use of sewage sludge through land application and composting.
Part 360 establishes both construction and operational criteria for these
facilities as well as contaminant concentration limits for the sludge
and/or compost.

     Sludge generated as the result of any industrial process, or resulting
from the processing of hazardous wastes and disposed of by the generating
facility, is treated as a hazardous waste material and must be handled and
disposed of in accord with RCRA, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984  (HSWA), and the Clean Water Act, as outlined in Section D of this
Appendix, Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
                                                                            56

-------
                       N.  Ambient Water Monitoring


     Monitoring of New York's surface waters is conducted along two fronts:
water quality by the DEC'S Division of Water; and wildlife (fish and
furbearers), by the Department's Division of Fish and Wildlife.

     Surveillance of New York's surface water quality is mandated by
Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law  (ECL).  The objectives of
this program are: to acquire, develop and disseminate water quality data;
to determine long-term trends and variation in water quality; and to
determine compliance with State water quality standards and guidance
values.  To accomplish these objectives, the State's surveillance network
was significantly modified in 1987 to integrate ambient monitoring for
toxic and conventional water quality parameters in three media  (water
column, sediment, and macroinvertebrates).  This program modification,
called Rotating Intensive Basin Studies  (RIBS), is designed with the
following objectives:

          1.   locate and identify water quality problems;
          2.   develop a water quality baseline for assessing trends;
          3.   expand knowledge of water quality cause and effect
               relationships  (i.e., assess bioavailability of inplace
               toxics and effects of land use patterns, geology, and
               airborne contaminants);
          4.   provide data to support recommendations concerning
               water quality management; also assess policy impacts.

     Sampling locations are selected using five principal considerations:

          1.   major international or interstate waters  (to provide
               information on boundary transport of pollutants);
          2.   critical water use areas  (e.g., public water supplies,
               recreational areas where there is considerable human
               contact, and important wildlife habitats);
          3.   areas of significant industrial or municipal usage
               and/or discharge;
          4.   stream segments with localized problems identified
               by Regional Offices or other program units;
          5.   stream segments which are considered "background",
               i.e., are upstream of significant  anthropogenic
               sources of pollutants.

     The major drainage basins of the state have  been divided into three
groups which balance anticipated workloads.  Each grouping is monitored
intensively for a two-year period within a six-year cycle.  During each
two-year study, 24 water column samples are collected at each station and
analyzed for metals  (cadmium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead, zinc, iron,
aluminum, manganese), volatile halogenated organics,  nutrients,  suspended
solids, total and fecal coliform, conductivity, hardness, turbidity
dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature.  Six water column samples are used
to run toxicity tests with Ceriodaphnia.  The water column sampling
schedule is designed to increase the frequency of sampling during months
which have the greatest hydrological  (flow) variability.  Two spatial
                                                                             57

-------
composites of fine-grained surficial sediments are collected and analyzed
for metals, organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, total volatile solids, and
grain size.

     Macroinvertebrates are collected two to six times at each site and
analyzed for community structure (species richness, diversity), metals,
organochlorine pesticides, and PCBs.

     NYSDBC is committed to proper Quality Assurance practices.  It is
Department policy that there shall be sufficient QA activities to assure
that all environmental data will be of known and acceptable quality,
scientifically valid, of known precision and accuracy, of acceptable
completeness, representativeness and comparability, and where appropriate,
legally defensible.  NYSDEC's Division of Water employs a quality assurance
officer and assistant, both full-time, to manage and conduct this program.

     Key field elements for program quality assurance have been submitted
to USEPA,, or EPA protocols have been adopted when available or appropriate.

     Field quality assurance project plans are developed in accord with EPA
"Guidance for Preparation of Combined Work/Quality Assurance Project
Plans", and reviewed by DEC's QA officer and EPA Region II at Edison.
System audits are conducted in the field.

     Laboratories providing analytical support must develop QA/QC plans.
Performance audits, the use of spiked samples, etc., are conducted with
these laboratories.  System audits consist of on-site visits for
qualitative review of equipment capability and personnel education/
training.

     The monitoring data are stored in both electronic processing and paper
files.  The processor is used to transfer data en masse from the analytical
laboratory to DEC, and from DEC to the EPA's STORET System.  The processor
is also used to produce statistical summaries, compare sampling results
against criteria or standard values, produce spatial data distributions,
and perform a limited amount of data editing and verification.  Paper files
are used in the process of data editing and verification.  This procedure
objectively compares parameter results against reasonable values, and
subjectively with expected or historical results for that particular
sampling location.

     The edited data are provided to DEC's permit writers, and are used to
assess water quality by comparing it to established ambient standards and
guidance values, and by analyzing water quality trends.  They are also used
in the development of the State's Priority Water Problem List, and in
selection of locations for intensive integrated surveys.  Additionally,
data are made available outside the Department upon request.

     Biennial reports are produced  from the RIBS data.  They are designed
to provide a general overview of the sampling program to the public,
federal  and state  agencies, and interested parties.  These reports include
data analysis, sampling and laboratory methodologies, network descriptions,
quality  control guidelines, standards and guidance values used to determine
trends or detrimental water conditions, and data listings.  These  reports
                                                                             58

-------
will be used along with other evaluated data to compile the water quality
assessment for the State's 305(b) report, and its Priority Water Problems
List.

     New York's fish flesh monitoring program for Lake Ontario is composed
of two elements:

          1.   contaminant trend surveillance;
          2.   contaminant source identification with the use of
               young-of-the-year fish.

     The former program is a core program of the Division of Fish and
Wildlife which documents changes in chemical contaminant levels in selected
Lake Ontario fish species with time.  In addition to trend surveillance,
the data are evaluated by the New York State Department of Health for risk
to human consumers.  The data are also useful for predicting when sampling
efforts may need to be intensified, or other species should be examined.

     Collections are made on a biennial basis because of the time required
to produce meaningful changes in contaminant concentrations in adult fish.
These changes frequently require one to three years to manifest themselves
once a contaminant source is eliminated.

     Parameters examined and recorded in the field are:  species; location;
collection date; collection method; collection agents; fish length; weight;
age; and sex.  The Hale Creek Field Station Analytical Services Laboratory
determines and records lipid content, PCBs, mirex, photomirex, DDT and
metabolites, HCB, dieldrin, endrin, aldrin, chlordane and its degradation
products, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, nonachlor, and
hexachlorocyclohexanes.  A subsample is shipped to the NYS Department of
Health for TCDD analysis.

     For the latter element, in the years 1984 through 1987, New York
conducted a program called Great Lakes Nearshore Fish Contaminant
Surveillance.  The objectives of this program were:

          1.   document changes  in contaminant levels in fish
               which reflect recent inputs to local aquatic
               ecosystems;
          2.   provide an enforcement mechanism for the control
               of point and nonpoint sources of chemical
               contamination.

     Fish act as integrators of  chemical contaminant inputs to their
ecosystem.  In addition, fish are the most probable source of significant
chemical ingestion for a variety of bioaccumulative compounds.  Most
chemical contaminant trend monitoring programs address species consumed by
man.  The analyses are conducted on mature or older, more migratory
individuals which represent exposure to contaminants over a long period of
time, and from diverse locations.  In contrast, this program directed
itself toward young spottail shiners, which reflect recent contaminant
exposure and inputs.  In addition, the young spottail shiners have a
limited home range, usually specific to the area in which they were hatched
 (i.e.,  within 0.5 miles of collection site).
                                                                             59

-------
     Samples consisted of young-of-year spottail shiners collected from the
mouths of major tributaries of the Great Lakes, or near significant
potential sources of environmental contaminants.  Sampling time was late
summer/early fall of each year.

     Parameters monitored include individual length and composite weight of
the fish, sampling date, and the several chemicals listed above in the
Contaminant Trends study.

     Renewal of this program in 1989 and beyond will depend upon the
availability of funding.

     From 1982 through 1984, NYSDEC conducted a special study on chemical
contaminants in New York furbearers.  The objective of this study was to
compare organochlorine and mercury residues in wild mink and otter with
those of fish from the state's Toxic Substances Monitoring Program.
Results indicated a significant correlation for PCBs and p,p'-DDE in fish
and both mammalian species when the collection stations were less than 20
km apart.  The correlation for mercury was significant on the basis of
major watershed.
                                                                              60

-------
                     0.  Stream Classification Program
     Under Section 303(c)  of the Clean Water Act, states are required to
review and revise, if necessary, water body classifications, water quality
criteria, and associated general policies, at least once every three years.
Together, water body classifications (uses) and water quality criteria
establish the water quality goals of a water body.  At a minimum, the goal
for all state waters must be to provide water quality for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and
on the water; or the state must complete a use attainability analysis (UAA)
where this water quality goal is not attainable. A UAA is a structured
scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of the use,
which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors.
The results of the review/revision, and a certification that revisions have
been duly adopted pursuant to state law must be submitted to EPA for review
and approval.

     New York's Environmental Conservation Law provides, among other
things, that the state's waters, both surface and underground, be grouped
into classes in accordance with best usage, and standards of quality and
purity be assigned to each class.

     In adopting the classifications of waters and the standards of purity
and quality assigned to each, consideration is to be given to the physical
characteristics of the waterbody, the character of the district bordering
said waters, the uses which have been made, are being made, or may be made
of said waters, and the extent of defilement or fouling of the water by
past discharges.

     Classes are assigned according to best usages, which range from
potable down through contact recreation and fishing  (including fish
propagation).  Standards are set, in surface waterbcdies, for both fresh
and saline waters.

     Classifications and standards are considered, in the state's water
pollution control program, not to define the current quality of the water,
but to be an objective in the conduct of the program.

     The Environmental Conservation Law provides for periodic review and
consideration for reclassification of the various lakes, ponds, and streams
in the state.  Such periodic review takes  into consideration changes that
would influence best usage of the water, including improvement in quality
brought about by implementation of the state's water pollution control
program, and changes in the character of the surrounding area.  The public
participation process is brought to bear in this endeavor.

     Reclassification is usually conducted on a basinwide basis.  The new
classification of any particular lake, pond, or stream, or of any segment
of lake, pond, or stream becomes official when, following approval by the
State Environmental Board, it is filed as  Regulation with New York's
Secretary of State.

     Reclassification hearings  for the Black River, Lake Ontario, and
Seneca-Oneida-Oswego Sub-Basins in the Lake Ontario Drainage Basin are
tentatively scheduled for  1989.
                                                                            61

-------
     The hearing for the Genesee River Sub-Basin was conducted in July,
1988.  Formal reclassification usually occurs four to six months after the
hearing.
                                                                             62

-------
                        P.   Potable Water
On the United States side of Lake Ontario there are thirteen
Community Public Water Systems (CPWS)  which use Lake Ontario as
a raw water source.   A CPWS is defined in the Safe Drinking Water
Act as "a system for the provision to  the public of piped water
for human consumption if such system ...  serves at least fifteen
service connections  used by year-round residents or regularly
serves at least twenty-five year-round residents".  Table 1 lists
these systems, and Figure IV-5 identifies the approximate
location of each.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the USEPA delegated
primary enforcement  responsibility for the Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) program to the New  York State Department of
Health (NYSDOH).  Under this delegation,  NYSDOH is responsible
for assuring that all public water systems are in compliance with
the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR)
promulgated under the authority of the SDWA.  In accordance with
the NPDWR, all CPWS are required to monitor for microbiological,
inorganic, organic,  and radiological contaminants.  Table 2 lists
the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)  established for inorganics,
organics, and radionuclides in drinking water.  CPWS are required
to have their drinking water analyzed  by a NYSDOH certified
laboratory, and to submit the results  of these analyses to the
local health office.

A description of the NYSDOH PWSS program is included as
Attachment I.

Federal and State roles in monitoring  and assuring compliance
with the NPDWR are defined in the NYSDOH/USEPA Memorandum of
Understanding for Enforcement.  In part, these include the
following:

         Criteria by which systems in violation of the
         NPDWR are classified as Significant Non-
         Compliers  (SNC) by EPA, and a description of
         appropriate actions for NYSDOH to take in
         response to instances of significant non-
         compliance ;

         Quarterly submittal by NYSDOH of a Significant
         Non-Complier status report (SNCR);

         Quarterly USEPA and NYSDOH meetings regarding
         all systems on the SNCR;

         Criteria for which direct USEPA enforcement is
         appropriate.
                                                                 63

-------
At present, all CPWS on Table 1 are in compliance with the
drinking water standards listed in Table 2.

The SDWA was amended in 1986, putting the USEPA on a rigorous
schedule to develop 83 drinking water standards by June, 1989
(see Table 3).  On July 17, 1987, the USEPA promulgated primary
drinking water standards, also referred to as MCLs, for eight
Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) on the list of 83 contaminants.
These eight VOCs and their respective standards are listed in
Table 4.  The regulations promulgated on July 17, 1987 require
all CPWS to complete one year of quarterly monitoring for these
VOCs by December 31, 1991, according to the following schedule:

CPWS Population Served                 complete Monitoring Bv;

Greater than 10,000                    December 31, 1988
3,300 to 10,000                        December 31, 1989
Less than 3,300                        December 31, 1991

In addition to the monitoring requirements for the eight VOCs,
all CPWS are also required to monitor for up to 51 unregulated
organics (Table 5), also according to the schedule above.  NYSDOH
has, under its option to be more stringent, adopted in November
1988 a generic standard for these unregulated organics of five
parts per billion (ppb) for all except the trihalomethanes and,
naphthalene.

Four of the thirteen CPWS utilizing Lake Ontario serve a
population of over 10,000 persons (Brockport Village, Monroe
County Water Authority, the Metropolitan Water Board and Oswego
City).  Therefore, for these systems the initial data bases of
regulated VOCs and unregulated organics will be completed by
early 1989, and at that time will give a better indication of
any organic contamination of Lake Ontario water supply systems.

USEPA will be promulgating additional primary drinking water
regulations over the next few years, to cover the remaining
seventy-five contaminants specified for regulation.  These
regulations will include both MCLs as well as monitoring
requirements, so that the data base on toxic contaminants in Lake
Ontario will be greatly expanded.  There have been some special
studies with limited monitoring of certain organics such as
2,3,7,8-TCDD  (Dioxin) from systems using Lake Ontario, but to
date no contraventions of health advisories or drinking water
guidelines have been encountered.
                                                                 64

-------
                             TABLE 1
     Community Public Water  Systems  in New York State Which
              Use Lake Ontario as a Raw Water Source
SYSTEM NAME
POPULATION
COUNTY
Lyndonville Village                   960
Albion Village                      5,800
Brockport Village                  10,800
Monroe County Water Authority     260,000
Ontario Town Water District         5,800
Williamson Water District           5,500
Sodus Village                       1,800
Sodus Point Village                 1,300
Wolcott Village                     1,500
Metropolitan Water Board           70,000
             (wholesaler)
Oswego City                        28,800
Sackets Harbor Village              1,200
Chaumont Village                      625
                 Orleans
                 Orleans
                 Monroe
                 Monroe
                 Wayne
                 Wayne
                 Wayne
                 Wayne
                 Wayne
                 Oswego
                 Oswego
                 Jefferson
                 Jefferson
                                                                 65

-------
                             TABLE 2
                 Primary Drinking Water  Standards
        (values given in mg/1 unless otherwise specified)
NAME
NYS MCL
FEDERAL MCL
              INORGANIC
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Fluoride
Nitrate
 0.05
 1.00
 0.010
 0.05
 0.05
 0.002
 0.01
 0.05
 2.2
10.0
 0.05
 1.00
 0.01
 0.05
 0.05
 0.002
 0.01
 0.05
 4.0
10.0
              ORGANIC

Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene

Chlorophenoxys:
     2,4-D
     2,4,5-TP Silvex

Total trihalomethanes
 0.0002
 0.004
 0.1
 0.005
 0.1
 0.01

 0.10
 0.0002
 0.004
 0.1
 0.005
 0.1
 0.01

 0.10
              RADIOLOGICAL
Combined radium-226
and radium-228
5 pci/l
5 pCi/1
Gross alpha particle activity
(including radium-226
but excluding
radon and uranium)           15 pCi/1
              15 pCi/1
Beta particle  and photon
radioactivity  from
manmade  radionuclides
 4 mrem/yr
4 mrem/yr
                                                                 66

-------
                             TABLE 3
  Contaminants Required to be Regulated under the SDWA of  1986
                   Volatile Organic Chemicals
Trichloroethylene                 Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene               Chlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride              Dichlorobenzene
1,1,l-Trichloroethane             Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane                1,1-Dichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride                    trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride                cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene                      Styrene
Total coliforms
Turbidity
Giardia lamblia
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Microbiology and Turbidity
               Viruses
               Standard plate count
               Legionella

         Inorganics
Mercury           Asbestos
Nitrate           Sulfate
Selenium          Copper
Fluoride          Nickel
Thallium,
Beryllium
Cyanide
Nitrite
Antimony
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP
Aldicarb
Chlordane
Dalapon
Diquat
Endothall
Glyphosate
Carbofuran
Alachlor
Epichlorohydrin
Toluene
Adipates
2,3,7,8-TCDD  (Dioxin)
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
          Organics
               Heptachlor
               Heptachlor epoxide
               Vydate
               Simazine
               PAH's
               PCB's
               Atrazine
               Phthalates
               Acrylamide
               Dibromochloropropane (DBCP)
               1,2-Dichloropropane
               Pentachlorophenol
               Pichloram
               Dinoseb
               Ethylene dibromide (EDB)
               Xylene
               Hexachlo rocyclopentad i ene
               Aldicarb sulfoxide
               Aldicarb sulfone
                          Rad i onucli des
Radium  226 and  228                Gross alpha particle activity
Beta particle and photon radioactivity
Uranium                          Radon
                                                                 67

-------
                             TABLE 4
       Standards for Volatile Organic  Chemicals  and Others
        (values given in ug/1 unless otherwise specified)
         CONTAMINANT

         Trichloroethylene
         Carbon Tetrachloride
         1,2-Dichloroethane
         Vinyl Chloride
         Benzene
         p-Dichlorobenzene
         1,1-Dichloroethylene
         1,1,l-Trichloroethane
   NYS MCL

      5
      5
      5
      2
      5
      5
      5
      5
FEDERAL MCL

     5
     5
     5
     2
     5
    75
     7
   200
In addition, the New York State Department of Health has adopted,
with an effective date of January 9,  1989, a general standard of
5 ppb (ug/l) for all Principal Organic Contaminants (POCs).
Those requiring monitoring are listed below.
benzene
bromobenzene
bromochloromethane
bromomethane
n-butylbenzene
sec-butylbenzene
tert-butylbenzene
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chloroethane
chloromethane
2-chlorotoluene
4-chlorotoluene
dibromomethane
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
l, l-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropane
2,2-dichloropropane
1,1-dichloropropene
cis-1,3-dichloropropene
trans-1,3-dichloropropene
ethylbenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
isopropylbenzene
p-i sopropy1toluene
methylene chloride
n-propylbenzene
styrene
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
trichlorofluoromethane
1,2,3-trichloropropane
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
m-xylene
o-xylene
p-xylene
                                                                68

-------
                             TABLE 5
        Unregulated Contaminants Which Require Monitoring
List 1  All systems must monitor for;
Chloroform
Bromodichloromethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Bromoform
trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Dibromomethane
1,l-Dichloropropene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
p-Xylene
o-Xylene
m-Xylene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Ethylbenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
Styrene
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2,2-Dichloropropane
6-Chlorotoluene
p-Chlorotoluene
Bromobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropene
List 2  Vulnerable (by State determination) systems must
monitor for;

Ethylene dibromide (EDB)
l,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
List 3  Systems must monitor at State discretion for;
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
n-Propylbenzene
n-Butylbenzene
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Isopropylbenzene
Tert-butylbenzene
Sec-butylbenzene
Fluorotrichloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Bromochloromethane
                                                                 69

-------
                             Potable Water
                            ATTACHMENT  I
         BUREAU OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION


     Consistent with the goal of insuring that a safe and adequate water
supply is provided to the residents of New York State, the Bureau of
Public Water Supply  Protection reports  to  the  Commissioner, through
the Division of Environmental Protection, on program developments and
accomplishments, Industry trends, emergency situations, status of the
Federal grant,  and  enforcement  problems.  The  Bureau  manages  the
Drinking  Water Supply Supervision Program  in  the State,  including
carrying out  the  requiremnts of  Part 5 of the State Sanitary Code,
Article  11  of  the Public  Health Law, and the Federal Safe  Drinking
Water Act.  Designs  for new or improved  water  supply activities  are
reviewed including water supply applications, cross connection control,
new  process  designs,and  new equipment and  materials.  Technical
assistance  is provided to  the field in water treatment plant japerations, .
surveillance   and  monitoring,  and  water  contamination   problems.
Emergency responses are  coordinated   and the  release of emergency
equipment  supervised. A Statewide water plant operator training  and
certification program is managed as well as a certification program for
Bottled and  Bulk Water  Operators and Fluoridation Grant  activities.
The Bureau is the liason with the Environmental Protection Agency on
water supply  matters and  reports Statewide  program  developments
directly to them through agreement under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
These  responsibilites  are accomplished through  the organization as
follows:
                                                                             70

-------
              Bureau of Public Water  Supply Protection


     The  Bureau  of  Public  Water Supply Protection  has the primary
responsibility for  assuring  that  safe,  potable  water,  in  adequate
quantities is provided in New York State. This is accomplished through
the oversight of local water supply  regulatory programs; the training
and certification of water supply operators;  the maintenance of  a data
base; development and  initiation of enforcement policies;plan review;
maintenance  of  a  water quality surveillance program;  and  providing
technical assistance to both local regulatory units and water suppliers.

     The  Office of  the Bureau  Director  manages  and  directs  the
activities  of the four sections and  one  unit of the  Bureau; handles
legislation,   code  revisions,   grant  implementation,  budgeting,  and
administration;  provides  leadership  for implementation  of  Bureau
responsibilities  and  advises  the Division Director of  policy  matters
concerning  Bureau programs.

Compliance  and  Operations Section

     The Compliance  and Operations  Section assures that water systems
are adequately  operated and maintained; systems are  operated and
regulated by competent .personnel; appropriate actions  taken  where
deficiencies in water  supplies exist and safe  drinking water is provided
during emergencies.
     This  is accomplished  through  direct technical  assistance  on
questions of facility operations and emergency response,development
and provision of training for  water  supply  operators and  certification
of qualified individuals,  assisting  in  and/or initiating  enforcement
actions  at deficient  water  supplies and maintaining  a Watch List of
problem supplies.

Field  Coordination Section

     The  Field  Coordination  Section assures  that Regional and  local
health units are aware of Departmeritar policylind^aYe"carrying out the
policies; maintains a  system data base  and solicits public participation
wherever appropriate.
     The  Section maintains constant  communications with field staff and
is responsible  for  implementing   new  Bureau programs,as  well  as
evaluating each Regional Office Water  Supply Program.  The data base
for all  public water  supplies  in  New  York  State  is updated and new
ways  sought to  make handling of paperwork easier for all staff. Public
participation is  sought  through the  annual Water  Week celebrations as
well  as  many other educational/awareness efforts.

Special  Studies  Section

     The  Special  Studies  Section  assures that safe,  potable drinking
water is available through laboratory studies, bottled water program,
and implementation of filtration .
     The  Section  coordinates activities with  the Wadsworth Center for
Laboratories and  Research  as well as conducting special studies  on
selected contaminants to determine prevalence.  The bottled/bulk water
program assures  that safe,  potable water  is available  for  purchase.
The  Section will  also be providing guidelines  and  implementing the
filtration  policy.
                                                                              71

-------
Design Section

     The Design Section assures  that water systems are designed and
constructed in compliance with current standards.
     The  Section  reviews all  submittals  of plans and  specifications,
engineering reports, cross connection control  devise designs,  federal
aid applications  and  water supply applications  for compliance with
standards and current and future water supply  needs. Cross connection
control  device  testers  are also  certified  through this section.  In
addition, the Section is responsible for developing and coordinating our
efforts toward assuring an adequate future water  supply for New York
City.

Water Resources Management Strategy Unit

     The Water Resources Management Strategy Unit is responsible for
the development of thirteen substate and one statewide water resources
management strategy, reviewing  and approving  watershed rules and
regulations,   groundwater  protection  and  volatile  organic  chemical
regulations.
     The  Unit is  involved  with  many interagency coordination efforts
as well as  participation in hearings and policy  development.
                                                                             72

-------
                          BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cartwright, R.H.,  and J.A. Ziarno.  1980.   Chemical Quality of
Water from Community Systems in New York;  November 1970 to May
1975.  Water Resources Investigation 80-77.  U.S. Geological
Survey.  444pp.

Close, J., K. Slade, and K. Markussen.  1982.  Report of 1981
Organic Chemical Surveillance Survey at Community Water Systems
in New York State.  New York State Department of Health.  52pp.

Code of Federal Regulations:  40; Parts 141 and 142.  July, 1987.

Federal Register.   Wednesday, July 8, 1987; Part II.

Markussen, K.J.  1988.  Personal Communication.

New York state Department of Health.  1976.  Mirex Surveillance
Sampling.  Unpublished data.

New York State Department of Health.  1988 (Feb.).  Municipal
Water Supplies:  Analysis for Dioxins and Dibenzofurans,
November 1986.  Unpublished data.

New York State Department of Health.  1982.  New York State
Atlas of Community Water System Sources.  79pp.

New York State Sanitary Code:  Title 10; Part 5-1.

Schreiber, J.S.  1979.  The Occurrence of Trihalomethanes in
Public Water Supply Systems of New York State.  New York State
Department of Health.  78pp.

Slade, K.E.  1987 (April).  Report of Statewide Surveillance of
Organic Compounds in Selected Community Water Systems; New York
State 1984-1985.  92pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Federal Reporting Data
System/ Interactive.  1980 through 1987.

U.S.EPA.  Health Advisories.  March 31, 1987.

U.S.EPA.  Interstate Water Carrier Files.  1956 through 1976.

U.S.EPA.  Water Quality of Community Water Supplies:  1,000 City
Survey.  C1979.
                                                                73

-------
            PUBLIC WATER
           SUPPLY  INTAKES
             Lake Ontario  Basin
             NEW YORK  STATE
c
CD

<
                              CANADA - ONTARIO

                           UNITED STATES - NEW YORK
            SCALE
           1/1 500 000

            kilometres
             miles
                     30
03-01 Lake Ontario, Western Section
03-02 Lake Ontario, Central Section
03-03 Lake Ontario, Eastern Section
04   Genesee River
07   Seneca-Oneida-Oswego Rivers
08   Black River
  KEY TO LOCATIONS

1 Lyndonville Village
2 Albion Village
3 Brockport Village
4 Monroe County Water Authority
5 Ontario Town Water District
6 Williamson Water District
7 Sodus Village
8 Sodus Point Village
9 Wolcott Village
10 Metropolitan Water Board
11 Oswego City
12 Sackets Harbor Village
13 Chaumont Village
                                                                                                         Brock University Cartography

-------
                    Q.  Zero Discharge

Introduction

The Four Parties agree  that there are limits to how effective
current end-of-pipe control programs can be in further
reducing pollutant discharge.   We must give greater
consideration to opportunities to reduce or eliminate
pollutants before they  reach the pipe in the first place.

General

EPA has committed to an aggressive leadership role in
incorporating source reduction strategies,  as appropriate,
into all programs.  In  conjunction with its newly established
Office of Pollution Prevention, EPA will explore ways,
through regulation, coordinated Federal/State activity, data
collection and analysis, and by identifying research needs
and other strategies, to further reduce the levels of
discharge to and ambient levels of toxics in Lake Ontario.

The goal of zero discharge, and methods to  achieve it are
already incorporated into existing regulatory programs.  As
an initial step, EPA and NYSDEC have identified program
activities that can help in reducing toxics in the Lake.  The
purpose is to leverage  these activities for maximum benefit
to the Lake Ontario Basin.

Direct and Indirect Industrial Discharges

In accordance with Section 304(m) of the Water Quality Act of
1987, EPA is currently preparing a five year workplan to
review and revise Best  Available Technology (BAT) guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for direct and
indirect industrial discharges subject to regulation under
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
This will be done for selected industrial categories with
current BAT or NSPS, and for additional industries where they
have yet to be developed.

As national BAT guidelines are developed or revised, DEC will
use these to derive discharge  limits under its SPDES
program, as permits come up for renewal.  In the absence of
BAT guidelines, DEC will continue to derive its own Best
Professional Judgement  (BPJ) guideline values for the same
purpose.  DEC will review all BPJ values on a five-year
cycle to insure that they are consistent with newly
developed treatment technology, and then incorporate these
revised guidelines into  its SPDES permit program.
                                                              75

-------
The Four Parties will prepare a letter to EPA recommending
the inclusion in the workplan of specific industrial
categories, based on their contribution of toxic chemicals to
the Lake Ontario ecosystem.
Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites

Section 311 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) provides for a field-based research and
development program to evaluate emerging technologies for the
reduction, stabilization or destruction of hazardous waste.

The Superfund Innovative Technologies Evaluation (SITE)
Program is a partnership linking toxic material reduction
methods with the media and pollutants they have potential to
remediate.  Twenty one technologies are already being tested,
and six field demonstrations have been completed.   Inactive
hazardous waste sites and areas with contaminated sediments
within the Areas of Concern will be evaluated for suitability
as demonstration sites, and a list of potential candidate
sites will be forwarded to EPA by the Four Parties.
Hazardous Waste Treatment. Storage and Disposal
Facilities

The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)
require transport, storage, and disposal facilities to
minimize the amounts of hazardous wastes generated.  Waste
minimization through product substitution, process effi-
ciency, resource recovery and other means is a particularly
cost-effective and implementable means of toxics source
reduction.

NYSDEC is currently developing regulations that would require
a Waste Reduction Impact Statement with any application for a
hazardous waste management permit.  It would include a
detailed facility assessment and an analysis of all potential
waste reduction opportunities.

EPA is developing technical assistance documents on per-
forming waste minimization reviews, the use of chemicals in
metal parts cleaning, and industry-specific waste reduction
methods.  NYSDEC is also preparing a Hazardous Waste
Reduction Guidance Manual for use by industry.

Additionally, EPA has mandated that nearly one third of all
regulated hazardous wastes be treated before being disposed
of on land.  Part of HSWA implementation, this rule takes
effect immediately for the steel and electroplating
industries, and certain chemical and other manufacturers. It
will affect about 861 million gallons of waste in the U.S.
each year.
                                                             76

-------
Pesticides
Recently enacted Amendments to the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (FIFRA)  include
provisions to retest 600 active ingredients used in nearly
50,000 commercial pesticides.  EPA is given nine years to
complete the testing.   A shifting of the financial burden to
the regulated industry is also included in this legislation,
as they will be responsible for retesting and  disposal costs
currently borne by EPA.

In order to take advantage of this new legislation, the Four
Parties will assess which pesticides are a concern in Lake
Ontario, and' recommend the priority retesting  of their active
ingredients for toxic effects.  This information can be
factored into decisions on toxics control measures to be
instituted for the Lake.
Toxic Substances Control

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)  regulates the manu-
facture, import and usage of any of the  60,000 commercial
chemicals on the TSCA inventory.  In implementing this law,
EPA has established mechanisms that allow for data collection
on substances considered priorities by EPA programs.   The
Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule (CAIR), just pub-
lished in the Federal Register, allows for chemicals to be
nominated to the CAIR list in support of particular program
needs.  This allows for the collection of information on the
import, manufacture and processing of toxics.

Another source of toxics data is through the EPA Testing
Priorities Committee, which has a similar nomination process.
Information on testing, analysis, treatment and exposure can
be collected, and technical assistance provided,  by justi-
fying a program need for additional data.

The Four Parties will evaluate the need for additional data
on toxic chemicals of concern, and forward a request for any
identified needs to the appropriate TSCA support group.
                                                             77

-------
Household and Commercial Hazardous Waste

Until recently, household waste had nowhere to go but the
trash can.  Recognizing the potential adverse effects from
this individually minor, but collectively major source of
toxics has lead to the sponsoring of "cleanup days",  when
residents can bring hazardous materials to a central  col-
lection point for proper disposal.  Local sponsors can
receive technical assistance from the NYSDEC in their
efforts.

Additionally, NYSDEC is developing a manual on permitting,
construction and establishment of a permanent waste collec-
tion facility.
                                                              78

-------
III. EXISTING PROGRAMS ON THE CANADIAN SIDE OF THE LAKE

A. Direct Industrial Dischargers

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment employs a variety of measures to  achieve
compliance with its requirements, ranging from voluntary measures, formal programs,
Control Orders, Requirements and Direction, Certificates of Approval to prosecution. This
will change as MISA will set minimum legal requirements across the province.

The implementation of pollution control is a co-operative federal/provincial endeavour.
Under the federal Fisheries Act,  national legally binding  Regulations and Guidelines set
effluent limits for specific industrial sectors. Federal Guidelines set minimum acceptable
national  standards for existing  plants, while Regulations prescribe national effluent
limitations for new and expanded plants for various industrial sectors. The only exception
is the Federal  Regulation for chlor-alkali plants which apply to both existing and new
facilities.

Ontario has agreed, under the Federal-Provincial Accord for Environmental Protection, to
adopt pollution  control requirements which are at least as stringent as the national
requirements. Currently, federal effluent Guidelines and  Regulations (year  of
promulgation) apply to:   Pulp  and Paper (1971), Petroleum Refineries (1973),  Metal
Mining (1977), Mercury Cell Chloralkali Plants (1977), Metal Finishing (1977) and Meat and
Poultry Processing Plants (1977).  Under the Fisheries Act Regulations, it is an offence to
violate a regulation limit while  under the Fisheries Act Guidelines, while it is not
considered an offence to exceed the guideline, there may be potentially an infraction of
the general prohibition under the act, prohibiting the deposit (discharge) of deleterious
substances into waters frequented by fish. FederafGuidelines are, in fact, statements that
indicate which practices will be considered necessary by the Federal government to meet
the intent of the  Fisheries Act.

Legal Requirements

Legally enforceable Control Orders (which are negotiated) under Section 13 of the
Environmental Protection Act may be issued to any existing plant. Control Orders define
tasks and compliance dates by which specific tasks must be completed. Legally enforceable
Requirements and Directions may also be issued under Section 51 of the Ontario  Water
Resources Act. The requirements for issuance of these documents are different in the two
Acts. For some sources, there are  federal Regulation limits.

Design Certificates of Approval (C's of A) for sewage works are issued under the Ontario
Water Resources Act. In the past, the C of A was an  approval to install pollution control
equipment with  the design numbers shown in the C of A. Recently, some sewage work
approvals have begun to include legally enforceable effluent limits.

Effluent Guideline Limits

Historically, for most sources, Ontario has taken an effluent guidelines approach in setting
provincial requirements. This approach, which was  incorporated into the "Industrial
Guidelines", was based initially  on experience with municipal sewage treatment systems.
It was presumed that treated  industrial  effluents should  have  the same pollutant
concentrations as treated municipal effluent. However, since industrial effluents are quite
different from municipal effluents in regard to specific pollutants, pollutant concentration
and volume flow, application of the same treatment technology did not result in  similar
treated effluent concentrations. Industrial wastewater effluents in many cases  would
require dilution by cooling water, etc.  to  meet the effluent concentrations. Guidelines
allow for these differences where similar treatment technology has been installed.


                                                                             79

-------
New plants recycle and reuse water to a much greater extent than do older plants. As a
result, even when such plants use a highly effective treatment system, the effluent may
exceed concentration  limits.  In these situations, the  Ministry sets loading limits on a
kilograms discharged per day basis rather than on an effluent concentrations basis.

Ontario also uses a "water quality approach" in setting effluent limits.   In the case of
biodegradable pollutants, every river or lake has a  definable dilution, dispersion or
assimilation (self-purification) capacity for non-persistent waste discharges. Water quality
considerations take precedence when biodegradable discharges exceed the assimilative
capacity of the receiving  waters, but are within the  limits set by federal Guidelines or
Regulations.  In these cases  more stringent requirements, based  on the assimilative
capacity, are used to set effluent loading limits. Some plants employ secondary treatment
facilities to reduce biodegradable discharges; some of these biodegradable compounds
are defined as toxic organics. The degree of biodegradation varies for specific compounds.

Best Professional Judgement Limit

Where there  are no legal limits, MOE District Office staff, may set a guideline based on
Best Professional Judgement. This incorporates a review of the manufacturing technology,
effluent treatment technology and past performance.

Where innovative technology is being tried, Best Professional Judgement limits and/or
conditions may be set out in a Certificate of Approval. These limits would then be legally
enforceable.

In summary,  chemical-specific limits for the  various discharges are set in several forms:
pollutant concentrations (milligrams per litre), pollutant loadings (kilograms per day),
load per unit of production (kilograms  related to production rate), and  radioactive
loadings (becquerels per litre per day). These limits may  be based on any of the above
rationales.

Compliance

The  term 'compliance' in the context of this report indicates that  the effluent data
recorded in this report are not exceeding the limits for a  given parameter, location and
time. There may indeed have been violations of Ministry Acts, Regulations and control
documents, and ensuing prosecutions during any period in which an  industry may have
been shown as being in compliance. Spills, for example, may cause violations which are not
reported in in this document but are compiled separately.

Non-compliance is currently  expressed in terms of the number of times in the calendar
year that any discharger exceeds any effluent limit, whether that limit is a guideline, or a
legal requirement as explained above.

Based on this current definition of non-compliance the numbers of industries that are out
of compliance with monthly and yearly averages are 14 and 18 respectively (see Table 1). In
order to provide a comparison with the USEPA reporting system, Ontario  divided  its
industrial dischargers into major and minor dischargers. Status actions being taken by each
industry are outlined in Tables 2 and 3.

Using the USEPA system, which  entails the reporting of 'significant non-compliance' for
the major dischargers, Ontario has seven  (7)  major direct dischargers compared to thirty-
eight (38) on the New York side of Lake Ontario. The number of Ontario major industrial
dischargers that are out of compliance based  on SNC is three (3) as shown in Table 1.
                                                                             80

-------
Future Ministry Approaches to Compliance

The Ministry realizes that due to the varied derivations of current Ministry limits and
guidelines that a formal compliance statement is currently difficult. Ministry staff are
therefore examining the legal status of all effluent guidelines currently in use with a view
to setting a comprehensive compliance assessment and reporting policy prior  to the
implementation of MISA  limits regulations. In conjunction with the development of
Ministry limits, compliance assessment will reflect the achievability of appropriate monthly
average, weekly, and daily maximum, effluent limits. The limits and Ministry responses to
non-compliance will be statistically based and supported by a policy framework. Objective
evaluations of the  seriousness of non-compliance will be based on the frequency and
magnitude of violations.

The Ministry is studying similar approaches used by  the United  States Environmental
Protection Agency  and the Great Lakes states under the Clean Water Act with a view to
compatibility with our  neighbours' reporting practises. There is general consensus that the
policy will express a concept of "Significant Non-Compliance" which will assign greater
weight to serious or chronic infractions than to marginal or infrequent ones.

MISA Monitoring and Regulatory Progress

The ultimate goal  of  the MISA Program, announced by the Environment Minister Jim
Bradley in June 1986,  is the virtual elimination of toxic contaminants from all industrial
and municipal effluents. In general, this will be done through two types of Regulations.
The first type, Monitoring, will identify toxic contaminant concentrations  and loadings.
The second regulation, based on Best  Available Control Technology  Economically
Achievable (BATEA), will set limits. Under BATEA, dischargers will be required to establish
a minimum level of treatment regardless of location.

Environment Canada,  industries,  interest groups and the public are consulted in the
development of these Regulations. A Joint Technical  Committee (JTC),  composed  of
industry and government (both  Federal and Provincial) officials, develop monitoring
programs to identify  and  characterize sources of contaminants discharging to surface
waters in Ontario from the specific sector, either industrial or municipal, with which the
JTC is associated.  The JTC also  reviews and considers the  practical and effective
requirements of the Regulations developed by Ministry staff. Policy decisions are the sole
responsibility of the Ministry. Extensive public participation is part of the MISA Program.
All Regulations in draft form are released for public comment.

The  MISA Advisory  Committee (MAC),  a group  of independent technical and
environmental people, acts as an effective public advisory body to Environment Minister
Jim Bradley. The MAC, created  in November  1986,  reviews all draft  Regulations and
provides advice and recommendations to the Minister. MAC representatives are observers
at JTC meetings to maintain close liaison on developments in the MISA Program.

The  General  Effluent  Monitoring Regulation was  promulgated  on June 7,  1988. The
General Regulation is a legal description of the requirements  for sampling  devices,
analyses, of flow measurement, the quality assurance  and quality control, aquatic toxicity
testing protocols (acute and chronic) and, the data handling and reporting.

The  first sector regulation, Effluent Monitoring Regulation  for the Ontario Petroleum
Refineries, was promulgated June 7,  1988. This sector regulation requires both the
conventional and trace contaminants to be identified  and quantified as well as frequency
of sampling of various discharges. A legal reporting requirement is part of the Regulation.
                                                                              81

-------
Regulations are under development or  planned for each  sector. The  monitoring
regulation will come into force following a public review period and revisions, if necessary.
Effluent Limits Regulations for each sector will be developed taking account of monitoring
data collected during the monitoring regulation. These are expected to be in place in
three years.

Several other major Ministry projects supporting MISA are also well  under way. A list of
priority  pollutants for Ontario was developed, and  is entitled the Ontario .Effluent
Monitoring Priority Pollutants List or EMPPL. EMPPL includes a listing mechanism which
recognizes and assigns significance to the environmental effects of a specific compound or
pollutant. A study has been done on the availability of private laboratory services in North
America. Also, a major study is in  progress to assess various socio-economic impacts
relating to the implementation of the MISA program for each industrial sector (Economic
and Financial Profiles).

The  Loans  for Environmental Defence (LEND) Program has $150 million available to
companies that need assistance to clean up pollution problems. Up to 40% of the cost of
clean up is available to companies demonstrating  financial need. The terms for these
repayable loans will be based on individual  circumstances.
                                                                            82

-------
                                  TABLE 1
                         Non-compliance Comparison
            ENVIRONMENT ONTARIO DISCHARGE REPORT vs USA EPA SNC
                                    for
                              Lake Ontario Basin

ENVIRONMENT ONTARIO
Total Sources reporting in 1987 Discharge Report   - 29
Companies out of compliance based on monthly averages (MOE) -        18
Companies out of compliance based on annual averages (MOE) -         14
USEPA REPORTING SYSTEM
Major Direct Dischargers* reporting - 7
Companies out of compliance based on SNC format -
(based on last       reporting period of July to December 1987)
* Major Discharges definition based on EPA
prepared October 13/88
                                                                        83

-------
                                   TABLE 2
Beaver Wood Fibre Company
Dofasco Inc.
Domtar Packaging
Fraser Inc.
Petro-Canada Products Ltd.
(Clarkson)
  Lake Ontario

Major Dischargers

  Target loads set by Pulp and Paper Committee
  consistent  with best practicable  technology.
  Section 126 EPA survey completed; technical review
  by company to be completed June/88. Review by
  MISA and Order to be drafted Fall 1988.
  Future reductions  in suspended solids  will be
  accomplished by eliminating overflows from the #1
  Hot Mill Filtration Plant. Cyanide reduction will be
  accomplished with the installation of a Blast Furnace
  recirculating water  system. Phosphorus exceeded
  requirement during four months as a result of
  upsets in By Products  plant. Phenol reduced by
  improved  on  line treatment  time  for the
  Zimpro/HCN tower blow down and will be further
  reduced by diversion of the Biological Treatment
  Plant effluent to the Sanitary Sewer.

  New paper machine which started up  in 1986
  resulted  in increased wastewater volumes and
  suspended  solids being discharged  to  the  Trent
  River. New "broke  thickener",  installed in  mid -
  1987, has reduced  suspended solids in discharge
  since early 1988. Control Order requiring further
  improvements  in suspended solids  reduction nd
  addressing of effluent toxicity problem will be in
  place by autumn 1988

  Process  upsets including equipment breakdown
  account for exceedances. Target loads set by Pulp
  and Paper Committee  consistent  with  Best
  Practicable Technology.

  The values listed on the data sheet for Phenols and
  Solvent Extractables are sums taken from sampling
  point 0100 and 0200. All other parameter values
  are for  sample point 0100 exclusively.   Partially
  treated  storm water  is, on  occasion, being
  discharged directly into Lake Ontario. A program
  has been devised to enable  Petro-Canada  to
  contain and treat, through  the  water effluent
  treatment plant,  all storm  water up to and
  including the amount produced by a 5-year storm.
  The program is expected to be completed in 1989.
  Phase 1 of the  program involved  installation of a
  new stormwater basin and effluent sewer line and
  junction box to divert stormwater effluent to the
  wastewater treatment completed in Jan 1988. If
  stormwater continues to be discharged to the lake
   in 1988, Phase 2 of the program will be initiated.
                                           84

-------
Stelco Inc.                         Since the diversion of # 1 and #2 Interceptor sumps,
                                  April 1987, ammonia, cyanide and phenol loadings
                                  are in  compliance. Suspended  solids and solvent
                                  extractables (oils) will be  reduced during 1988
                                  rerouting of the Oil Recovery Plant to the Eastside
                                  Filtration plant. Since phosphorus and biochemical
                                  oxygen demand are consistently 98% below target
                                  loads, these pollutants are not being reported.

The Ontario Paper Company Ltd.      New Control Order appealed.
                                                                            85

-------
BTL Industries Ltd.
                              Minor Dischargers

       (*... borderline cases - more information may put it into Major Catergory)

Borg-Warner Chemicals             This waste water treatment plant construction was
                                 completed in early 1986. Certificate of Approval 4-
                                 003-85-006  issued for plant, July 23, 1985. The
                                 revised effluent  criteria are to be in force upon
                                 completion of  construction  (early '86). The
                                 following table uses actual  flow times the actual
                                 concentration for the  "ACTUAL"  figure, and the
                                 actual flow times the Certificate of Approval value
                                 or set concentrations for the  " GUIDELINE ".

                                 Discharge consists of cooling  water and surface
                                 runoff.  The accuracy  of  historical  flow
                                 measurement and sampling procedure is suspect.
                                 More accurate  flow  measurement equipment
                                 installed for MISA pre-regulation  monitoring.
                                 Environmental Protection  Act Section 126
                                 Provincial Officer's Report being prepared during
                                 1988.

                                 In compliance. Lagoon is discharged spring and fall.

                                 Reported data (control point 0100) is for Centre
                                 Outfall which  carries cooling  water, surface
                                 drainage and effluent from wastewater treatment
                                 plant. Water quality based total COD loading to the
                                 North Channel is limited to 1200 Ibs (544 kg) per
                                 day as established in November 1975 Requirement
                                 and Direction. Wastewater  treatment  plant
                                 effluent quality data to be include in future
                                 Discharge Summary reports. Wastewater effluent
                                 quality data shows plant not to be in compliance
                                 January and February 1987;  attributed  to
                                 treatment plant startup acclimatization.

                                 Treatment plant operated on an intermittent basis
                                 only, during periods of production. Moira R. impact
                                 minimal due to high streamflow.

DomtarConstructionMaterialsLtd.*  Target loads set by Pulp and Paper Committee
                                 consistent  with Best Practicable Technology.
                                 Company connected to the sanitary sewer June
                                 1987.
Canadian Canners Ltd.

Celanese Canada Ltd.
Corby Distilleries Ltd.
Domtar Fine Papers*
                                 Company is not in compliance for Biochemical
                                 Oxygen Demand loadings. Company is on voluntary
                                 program to reduce BODS by controlling colloidal
                                 solids.
                                                                          86

-------
Dohntar Wood Preserving
DupbntCanada Ltd.*

Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. Port Gran by
Eldorado Nuclear Ltd., Port Hope
Control Order issued on March  1, 1988 requiring
Company to install a wastewater treatment system,
surface collection system and a leachate collection
system.  Domtar has submitted  submitted  an
application for  approval  of an upgrade to its
effluent treatment process. Existing effluent
objectives only for carbon filtration system effluent
set out in Certificate of Approval #4-081-81 dated
September 21st, 1982.  Phenols:  20 micrograms/L;
maximum loading .014 kg/day. Pentachlorophenol:
100 micrograms/L; maximum loading 0.68 kg/day.
Effluent objectives will be reviewed for revision on
new Certificate of Approval for  upgraded
treatment process.  New objectives will consider
total loading from all discharges.  Treatment  unit
effluent to be added as IMIS reporting location to
permit compliance assessment.

In compliance.

Decommissioning of the site plans are indefinite.
Effluent quality  limits are  set in AECB operating
licence.License limits compliance  point changed
effective July 1, 1985 to  Interceptor effluent.
Arsenic exceedances in Feb, Apr, and July are
minmal; a flow  equilization timer control will be
operational June 1/88, and is expected to lower
arsenic levels leaving treatment facility.

No flow measurements available - estimates only.
Reported is  the  concentration of  specific
parameters from control point 02.
Eldorado Nuclear Ltd., Welcome
Exolon*

FORD Motor Company
Kimberly Clark of Canada Ltd.
Decommissioning of the site is indefinite. Effluent
quality limits are set in AECB operating licence.
Collection ponds re-constructed in 1986 to improve
arsenic  treatment. Only Radium and Arsenic
concentrations in Licence Limits  -  No loading
criteria.

Incompliance.

On December 3, 1986, Halton  Regional Council
approved the discharge  from Ford into the
Regional sanitary sewer system. A completion date
of Jun 30,  1988  is projected for the upgraded
chemical pretreatment plant.

Target loads set by Pulp and Paper Committee
consistent  with  best practicable technology.
Company is reducing  use of recycled paper to
improve BODS  reduction.  Company operating
polishing lagoons to reduce  BODS. Company
expected compliance in 1988.
                                         87

-------
Ontario Hydro - LakeviewTGS

Ontario Hydro - Pickering N.P.G.D.
In compliance.

In compliance.
Petro-Canada Products Ltd..Trafalgar*  Recent investigations show the company is
                                   having a problem with the quality of biomass in
                                   the aeration system. A program to correct this is
                                   underway ana should be completed by the end
                                   of 1988.
Stelco Page Hersey Works
Strathcona Paper Company


Texaco Canada Ltd.*

Trent Valley Paperboard Mills*
In compliance. Company treating  effluent for
PCB contamination in sand/carbon filter system.
Treatment system  is approved under REG 11/82
Direction.

In compliance. New flow monitoring installation
and single outfall installed in 1987.

Decommissioning activities ongoing.

Suspended solids effluent objective of 140 kg/day
set out in Certificate of Approval still under
review.  Receiving water studies have  not
identified an effluent  impact with respect to
BOD.  Company  preparing  submission  to
demonstrate  that exisitng effluent quality is
equivalent to  that from a  mill  employing
optimized'Best available Technology1.
                                                                           88

-------
           KEY TO LOCATIONS
 1 Canadian Canners Ltd.
 2 General Motors
 3 Ontario Paper Co.
 4 Beaver Wood Fibre
 5 Stelco Page Hershey
 6 Exolon
 7 Fraser Inc.
 8 Kimberly Clark
 9 Domtar
10 Dofasco
11 Stelco
12 Canadian Vegetable Oil
13 Petro Canada Products
14 Union Carbide
15 Ford Motor Co.
16 Petro Canada Products
17 Texaco Canada Inc.
18 St. Lawrence Starch Co.
19 LakeviewTGS
20 Chrysler Canada Ltd.
21 Canada Malting Co.
22 Redpath Sugar
24 Texaco Canada Inc.
25 Leaver Brothers
26 R. L. Hearn TGS
27 Manson Insulation
28 Pickering NGS
29 LASCO
30 General Motors of Canada
31 Darlington NGS
32 St. Marys Cement
33 Goodyear Canada
34 Eldorado Resource Ltd.
35 Eldorado Resource Ltd.
36 Borg-Warner Chemicals
37 Domtar
38 Bakelite Thermosets
39 Wellington Mushroom Farm
40 Lake Ontario Cement
41 Waupoos Canning Co.
42 Lennox TGS
43 Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd
44 Celanese Canada Inc.
45 DuPont Canada Inc.
        SUB-BASINS

160  Belleville-Napanee Area Rivers
161  Trent River
162  Oshawa-Colborne Area Rivers
163  Toronto Area Rivers
164  Hamilton Area Rivers
165  Niagara Peninsula Rivers
23 Victory Soya Mills
Note: though location 5 falls outside the basin boundary, it is included
   on the map since it has an effect on Lake Ontario.
                                                 ONTARIO
                                                                         CANADA - ONTARIO

                                                                      UNITED STATES - NEW YORK
                                                                                     J
                                                                            DIRECT  INDUSTRIAL
                                                                                  DISCHARGERS
                                                                                  Lake Ontario  Basin
                                                                             PROVINCE  OF ONTARIO
                                                                                                                 Brock University Cartography

-------
B.  INDIRECT INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES

In the Ontario section of the Great Lakes drainage basin there
are 31 municipal sewage treatment plants (STP).  These STP's
accept wastes from approximately 10,000 industrial, commercial
and institutional premises.

Sewage treatment plants are subject to the provisions of the
Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection
Act (Ontario).  STP process design, operating criteria and
discharge limits for conventional wastewater effluent
parameters are prescribed in a Certificate of Approval.
Discharge limits are usually specified uniformly on the basis
of type of treatment, e.g. secondary treatment, lagoons, etc.
More stringent discharge limits based on the local receiving
water quality may be required in some instances.  These
discharge limits are derived from the policies and objectives
listed in "Water Management - Goals, Policies, Objectives and
Implementation Procedures of the Ministry of the Environment
(1984)".

Most of the STP's in Ontario use agricultural lands for sludge
disposal.  This disposal practice is regulated by Regulation
309 of the EP Act and the metal and conventional pollutant
limits in the sludge are specified in "Ontario's Guidelines for
Sewage Sludge Utilization on Agricultural Lands (1986)".  This,
consequently, restricts the influent metal concentrations into
STP's that use agricultural lands for sludge disposal.

The discharge of industrial, commercial and institutional
wastes to STP's is regulated locally by municipalities  through
the use of an industrial waste bylaw made under the Municipal
Act (Ontario).  These municipal bylaws are based on a  model
bylaw developed by a committee composed of members from the
Ontario Ministry of  the Environment (MOE), Environment  Canada
and the Municipal Engineers Association  (Ontario).  The bylaw
prescribes limits for conventional pollutants,  most metals  and
some organics.  The  pollutant limits are  set  so that  there  will
be no public health  or environmental problems  in  the  sewer
system or at  the STP in the following areas:  worker safety,
pass through  to the  receiving water, sludge contamination,  and
interference  with STP processes and equipment.
                                                              90

-------
Hazardous wastes which are discharged to municipal sewers are
also regulated under Regulation 309 of the EP Act.  All waste
generators are required to submit a Generator Registration
Report and manifest each hazardous waste discharge to the
sewer.

Monitoring and compliance activities are carried out by the
local municipality and the MOE.  In part, they include the
following:

     - inspection and compliance sampling of all significant
       industrial dischargers by the municipality;

     - periodic audit of STP operational and effluent data and
       operations by the MOE;

     - inspection and compliance sampling by the MOE of
       industries where complaints are received from the public
       or problems are identified by the municipality;

     - monthly audit of Regulation 309 Generator Reports and
       manifests by the MOE.

As part of the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement
(MISA) Program, the Ministry plans to develop effluent limit
regulations to control industrial discharges to municipal
sewers.

Limits based on the best available pollution control technology
economically achievable will be placed on all dischargers
within the designated sectors.  These limits will be applied on
a sector-by-sector basis.  The 22 sectors selected to be placed
first under BATEA limits are those which discharge the largest
loadings of toxics to the sewer system.

BATEA-based discharge limits will be set for those pollutants
having the greatest ability to harm human health or damage the
environment.  Limits will be stated in terms of allowable
concentrations and either mass loadings or loadings per unit of
production.  As pollution abatement technology improves, limits
will be revised reflecting the more stringent levels that can
be economically achieved.
                                                              91

-------
In addition to stating numerical limits, BATEA regulations will
detail other industry control requirements.  A section of the
regulation will state an industry's responsibility for
maintaining operating records, reporting information and
notifying municipalities of violations.  The steps to be taken
following a violation will be defined, and the discharge limit
review period will be specified.

Local limits will be developed by the municipalities in
accordance with provincially-regulated standardized methods and
procedures.

To develop local limits, municipalities must first identify the
pollutants present in raw sewage which have a reasonable
potential for passing through to receiving waterways, harming
the health of sewage treatment plant workers, upsetting plant
operation, or contaminating sludge.

The municipality must then determine, using technically-
defensible methods, the maximum allowable loadings the sewage
treatment plant can receive.  Finally, the municipality will
allocate the maximum allowable loads to dischargers under a
BATEA limit and significant industrial dischargers.  These
limits must be approved by the Ministry.

Where a local limit and a BATEA limit conflict, the more
stringent of the two will be  enforced.
                                                               92

-------
C.   Municipal Discharges

The MISA (Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement) program is
designed to replace existing requirements which control only the
conventional parameters associated with municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment facilities.

Under the MISA program monitoring regulation for municipal wastewater
treatment plant discharges will be developed in 1988.  By that time, all
municipal facilities will be required to carry out bioassay tests as well
as monitoring of specific trace contaminants both metals and organics on
a specified frequency.  These results are to be reported to the Ministry
of the Environment for assessment.  Failure to report data will result in
prosecution.  The reported data will be used to determine concentrations
and loading rates attainable by the Best Available Technology
economically achievable (BATEA) by municipal sector.  These limits will
be stipulated in a Effluent Compliance Limit Regulation.

In addition to BATEA, more stringent effluent limits in the form of site
specific requirements will be imposed on plants discharging into
sensitive receiving water bodies.
                                                                           93

-------
          KEY TO LOCATIONS
 1 Niagara-on-the-Lake STP
 2 Port Weller WPCP
 3 Port Dalhousie WPCP
 4 Baker Road WPCP
 5 Biggar Lagoon
 6 Hamilton-Wentworth WPCP
 7 Dundas STP
 8 Skyway WPCP
 9 Elizabeth Gardens PS
10 South-West WPCP
11 Milton STP
12 South-East WPCP
13 Clarkson WPCP
14 LakeviewWPCP
15 Long Branch STP
16 Twp. of Etobicoke STP
17 Number STP
18 North Toronto STP
19 Highland Creek STP
20 York-Durham WPCP
21 Pringle Creek WPCP
22 Corbett Creek WPCP
23 Harmony Creek WPCP
24 Port Darlington WPCP
25 Graham Creek WPCP
26 Lindsay STP
27 Peterborough STP
28 Port Hope WPCP
29 Cobourg STP
30 Brighton STP
31 Campbellford STP
32 Trenton WPCP
33 CFB Trenton WPCP
34 Belleville WPCP
35 Wellington WPCP
36 Picton STP
37 Oeseronto WPCP
38 Napanee STP
39 Bath WPCP
40 Kingston Twp. WPCP
41 Kingston WTP
42 River St. PS
43 Kingston WPCP
        SUB-BASINS

160  Belleville-Napanee Area Rivers
161  Trent River
162  Oshawa-Colborne Area Rivers
163  Toronto Area Rivers
164  Hamilton Area Rivers
165  Niagara Peninsula Rivers
Note: though location 43 falls outside the basin boundary, it is
   included on the map since it has an effect on Lake Ontario.
  N
                                                                        CANADA - ONTARIO

                                                                     UNITED STATES - NEW YORK
                                                                            MAJOR  MUNICIPAL
                                                                                 DISCHARGERS
                                                                                 Lake  Ontario Basin
                                                                            PROVINCE  OF  ONTARIO
                                                                                                                Brock University Cartography

-------
D.  WASTE DISPOSAL SITES

      Active Sites

All active waste disposal sites (190) must have a Certificate
of Approval issued by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).
To get this certificate, a new proposed landfill site may have
to undergo public hearings under the Environmental Protection
Act and the Environmental Assessment Act.  These hearings are
designed to allow public input to the waste site selection
process and to ensure that the proposed site is environmentally
safe if approved for operation.

All active waste disposal sites are inspected routinely by the
MOE to ensure that the terms and conditions of the Certificate
of Approval are being met while the landfill is active.  The
owners/operators are responsible for the proper operation of
their landfill sites and the MOE has grant assistance programs
to help the operators in this task.  Landfills not conforming
to MOE standards may be closed.

      Closed Sites

The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has records of 510 closed
waste disposal sites in the Lake Ontario Basin.  A systematic
review and gathering of data on each site was started in 1980
and will continue until approximately 1990 to ensure that
existing problems at any site are identified and to prevent
future problems at those sites that have this potential.  Work
in this program includes a review of all existing data on each
site, field verification of site location, a classification of
each site according to its potential to impact the environment,
and where warranted, detailed field  investigations to determine
site hydrogeology and existing surface and groundwater
contamination at a site.  A monitoring program will be
established at sites where the potential exists  for off-site
impact.  As with the active sites, the site owner or past
operator will be held responsible  for any remedial actions
necessary at a closed landfill site.
                                                              95

-------
(Q
C
CD
oo
                                                                           SUB-BASINS

                                                                      160  Belleville-Napanee Area Rivers
                                                                      161  Trent River
                                                                      162  Oshawa-Colborne Area Rivers
                                                                      163  Toronto Area Rivers
                                                                      164  Hamilton Area Rivers
                                                                      165  Niagara Peninsula Rivers
               KEY TO LOCATIONS

                 Not available
                                                       CANADA - ONTARIO

                                                     UNITED STATES - NEW YORK
                                                             ACTIVE  WASTE
                                                            DISPOSAL  SITES
                                                             Lake Ontario Basin
                                                          PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
                                                                                  Brock University Cartography

-------
                                                                     SUB-BASINS

                                                                160  Belleville-Napanee Area Rivers
                                                                161  Trent River
                                                                162  Oshawa-Colborne Area Rivers
                                                                163  Toronto Area Rivers
                                                                164  Hamilton Area Rivers
                                                                165  Niagara Peninsula Rivers
       KEY TO LOCATIONS
          Not available
 SCALE
1/1 500 000

 kilometres
  miles
                                Oshawa


                                   LAKE
                                                 CANADA - ONTARIO

                                               UNITED STATES - NEW YORK
1
Catharines

  Niagara Falls
        50
        U
   CLOSED WASTE
  DISPOSAL SITES
    Lake Ontario Basin
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
                                                                            Brock University Cartography

-------
E.   Combined Sewer Overflows

The Canadian portion of the Lake Ontario drainage basin is entirely
within the province of Ontario.   In the basin               there are 18
municipalities that are served by combined sewers to various extents.
The population served by combined sewers is about 600,000.

Sewer construction requires approval  under the Ontario Water Resources
Act.  After the 1960's, construction of combined sewers is no longer
approved for new urban centres.

Combined sewer overflow control  is made through financial  assistance by
the provincial government to municipalities which own the  sewers.  Three
financial assistance programs are in place.  They are the  Sewer
Construction Grant Program, the Pollution Control Planning Study Grant
Program and the Metro Toronto Waterfront Water Quality Improvement
Program.  In addition, a policy is being developed to extend grant
eligibility to the control of combined sewer overflow and  other pollution
sources under an existing provincial  program, the Direct Grant Program.
More details of the programs are given below.

The Sewer Construction Grant Program is a long-standing one.  Separation
of combined sewers is eligible for a grant which varies according to the
size of the proposed sewer.  The grant percentage is 100% of the
construction and engineering costs for a sewer of 700 mm diameter.  It
decreases as the sewer size increases.  The program is under review to
extend grant eligibility to facilities other than combined sewer
separation.  Municipalities are actively taking advantage of this
program.

The Pollution Control Planning Study Grant Program, initiated in 1984,
assists municipalities in the development of area-wide pollution control
plans for remedy of urban water pollution.  The planning addresses
combined sewer overflow and other pollution sources; considers multiple
water uses; and encourages coordinated and innovative  solutions.
Planning projects are in progress in 20 municipalities.  Notable examples
include  the municipalities of St. Catharines, Peterborough and Kingston.
$1.2 million are budgeted for this program in FY 1987-88.
                                                                          98

-------
The Metro Toronto Program started in 1984.  Unlike the first two programs
which have province-wide application, this one caters specifically to
pollution remedy needs of Metro Toronto, which has the largest population
(2.2 million) in Ontario.  The program provides grants for pollution
control planning studies and construction of remedial works including
combined sewer separation.  To date, the provincial  government has
provided $17 million under the program.

The province-wide Direct Grant Program currently provides grants for
construction and upgrading of sanitary sewage collection and treatment
facilities.  The grant is 33% of the construction and engineering costs.
A policy is being developed to extend grant eligibility to the control of
combined sewer overflow and other pollution sources.  It is expected that
the enriched program will be available by late 1987  or early 1988.

As part of the Municipal-Industrial  Strategy for Abatement (MISA)
initiative, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment  has planned to
develop a policy and guidelines on the control of combined sewer
overflows in the next few years.
                                                                         99

-------
F.   Stormwater Runoff

The Canadian portion of the Lake Ontario basin (see Figure) covers an
area of about 2.8 million nectars and has a population of about 4
million.  Most of the urban centres in the basin are served by separate
storm sewers except the combined sewer areas.

Up to now, pollution control of storm sewer discharges is voluntary.  The
provincial government, however, encourages and assists municipalities in
pollution control through the grant programs described earlier in the
"Combined Sewer Overflows" section.  In addition, a provincial Urban
Drainage Program has been developed with the aim to reduce stormwater
runoff impacts from new urban developments as much as possible.  The aim
will be achieved through good planning at the watershed, subwatershed and
subdivision levels; through conservation of natural drainage in
developing areas; and erosion and sediment control during construction.
The program is voluntary whose principal implementors are municipalities
and local conservation authorities.  The provincial government will
provide technical guidance and technology transfer to the implementors.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment is developing several initiatives
to strengthen pollution control of urban storm sewer discharges.  The
following outlines the initiatives which are planned to be carried out
progressively in the next few years.

Model Sewer-Use Bylaw

The development of a model sewer-use bylaw is nearing completion as part
of the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA).  Among the
control of other point sources, the model bylaw proposes pollution
control of stormwater discharges from industrial premises on a
case-by-case basis.  Storm sewer discharges from non-industrial sources
will be exempt from control until the need for regulatory control is
established and priority  sources, for example, industrial wastewaters,
are put under control.
                                                                           100

-------
Technology Consolidation

Some techniques are available for the estimation of storm sewer pollution
loads and treatment efficiencies, but the techniques require specialist
knowledge for successful applications.  Most stomiwater treatment
technologies are in their infancy.  A series of technology development
projects is being planned to consolidate and improve the estimation
techniques for universal routine applications.  Stormwater treatment
technologies will also be reviewed and design manuals will be developed.

Pollution Control Criteria

Existing pollution control criteria are built upon the implicit premise
that discharges are continuous and steady.  This premise may be true of
sanitary and industrial wastewaters but not storm sewer discharges.  A
planned initiative is to develop storm sewer discharge control criteria
that will take into account the highly time-variable and intermittent
nature of storm sewer discharges.

Training and Technology Transfer

The plan is to provide training and transfer of technologies of pollution
control of storm sewer discharges to staff of the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment and to municipal and consulting engineers.  The initiative
will prepare practising professionals and technologists to take on work
of pollution control of storm sewer discharges regardless whether the
control will be voluntary or mandatory.
                                                                          101

-------
6,   Non-Point Sources Agricultural  Pollution Management

Different pollutants of agricultural origin include pesticides,  bacteria
and nutrients from livestock and poultry manure,  and nutrients and
sediments from eroding crop land.  Considerable sediment and pollutant
loads have also been found to originate with poorly constructed and
maintained municipal drainage ditches.

Although there is a much less intensive program in the Lake Ontario Basin
than in the Lake Erie Basin, where the  $30 m, 5-year SWEEP program is
being implemented, some of the initiatives being  used are available
throughout Southern Ontario.

The problems are being attacked on several fronts:

(1)  Incentives:  The Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) makes
     grants available for farmers for the construction of environmetally
     appropriate manure storages and for structural erosion control
     devices.  Engineering assistance is provided.

(2)  Education and Demonstration:

     OMAF soil conservation advisors work with farmers and farm groups to
     develop sound, conservation land management practices and to set up
     local demonstrations to promote them.

(3)  Abatement;  MOE Regional staff investigate manure pollution
     incidents, pesticide contamination incidents and well water
     pollution problems; where warranted legal action is pursued.
     Currently, MOE and OMAF have developed a set of protocols for
     determining inter-Ministry responsibilities in resolving such
     problems.

(4)  MOE Rural Beaches Program:

     MOE has agreements with the Otonabee and Niagara Region Conservation
     Authorities to develop remedial strategies addressing rural  sources
     contaminating  public beaches.
                                                                          102

-------
(5)   Drainage Design Construction:

     Recently an inter-ministerial  committee  issued  new  guidelines  for
     the construction of drains  built  under the  Drainage Act.   The  design
     and implementation of these guidelines by municipalities  will
     greatly reduce the erosion  and sediment  problems  experienced with
     these drains historically.

(6)   Pesticides Management:   MOE carries  out  routine responsibilities
     involving registration  of pesticides and education  and  licencing of
     pesticide applicators.   In  addition, MOE analyses for 54  pesticides
     in samples collected at major  Lake Ontario  tributary streams.
     Pesticide fate and pathways models have  been  developed  to assist in
     developing optional pesticide  use strategies.
                                                                          103

-------
H.  AIR TOXICS

A major pollution challenge is the issue of air toxics.  Air is
the medium in which the most rapid transport of toxic
pollutants can take place.  As a result, water bodies like the
Great Lakes and in particular Lake Ontario can be impacted by
deposition of air toxics emitted from local sources, as well
as from sources thousands of kilometres away.

Ontario's existing pollution reduction program is a broad
multi-faceted control system which includes a number of
elements.  Air quality criteria are set based on the lowest of
effects on human health, plants, odour perception or property.
Corresponding to these criteria, there are 250 ambient air,
point of impingement standards, guidelines and provisional
guidelines designed to ensure that the air quality criteria are
attained.  A modelling scheme for evaluating concentrations
from stack emissions at the maximum point of impingement is
incorporated into the appendix to a Regulation (i.e. Reg. 308)
under the Environmental Protection Act.  All new or modified
sources of emission to the atmosphere are required by the Act
to obtain a certificate of approval which is based upon the
attainment of the point of impingement standards.

In addition, there is a mobile source emission control program,
as well as special regulations designed to control emissions
from specific industries.  There are abatement procedures
including measures to immediately stop activities giving rise
to unacceptable emissions, and both stop orders and control
orders which specify measures that must be taken over set  time
periods to reduce emissions.

Ontario also has various measurement programs which can lead  to
abatement procedures to control toxic emissions.  The mobile
monitoring group conducts industrial source  related surveys
each year, measuring downwind ambient concentrations of more
than 140 VOCs with two ot its mobile units.  In addition,
mobile mass spectrometers, the TAGA 3000 and 6000,  are also
used in surveys to measure more reactive and polar  organics.

                                                             104

-------
Exceedence of Ontario standards can lead to abatement
procedures.  Stack emission testing of major sources (e.g.
municipal, hospital incinerators) has led to retrofits, to the
mandating of very high levels of control technology for these
sources, and to the development of policies requiring specific
combustion and emission conditions.  There is also a program to
examine and evaluate injury and damage to plants and soil
contamination resulting from air emissions.  Measurements
indicating exceedence of normal concentrations in plants and
soil can lead to further investigations and abatement.

In addition, there are a number of projects under way aimed at
air toxics.  These include the development of an emission
inventory of toxic compounds for Ontario/Eastern North America
and a feasibility study for an inventory of urban toxic
emissions.  Modelling of the transport and deposition of toxic
species is being undertaken on both the mesoscale and the
regional scale.  A companion data base, containing ambient
monitoring data and emissions data is also being assembled for
testing the models.

A vector system-based priority setting approach for toxics has
been developed utilizing toxicity, exposure and environmental
behaviour parameters.  In addition, several ambient air, soil
and plant monitoring networks are in the development phase.

In total, all these programs contribute to limiting and
reducing the total atmospheric burden of a wide range of toxic
pollutants to Lake Ontario and the Great Lakes.

Clean Air Program (CAP) - Revision to Regulation 308

Of particular significance to the management of air toxics is
the recently proposed revision to the general air pollution
regulation (i.e. Regulation 308).  The main thrust of the
revisions is the reduction of air toxic emissions by
application of bottom-of-the-stack controls on all air
pollution sources of any appreciable size.  It is proposed that
appropriate levels of control would be based on the pollutant's
toxicity  (carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, sub-
                                                                105

-------
lethal effects on mammals,  plants and non-mammalian animals and
acute lethality), arid its environmental behaviour properties
(i.e. persistence, bio-accumulation and potential for
redistribution into various compartments of the environment
from ambient air).  Pollutants of highest concern would require
the most stringent level of control.  Once the appropriate
control technology has been selected, there is a requirement to
prove that the second line of defence, a satisfactory level of
ambient air quality (as defined by air quality standards) has
been achieved.  This will be done through dispersion modelling,
using a newly proposed, state of the art set of models.  This
modelling package attempts to take into account the full range
of meteorological (dispersion) conditions found in the Province
of Ontario.  The revisions also propose that the operational
part of certificates of approval be renewable every 10 years.
This would ensure that adequate control of emissions is being
maintained and, particularly in the cases of contaminants
deemed to be potentially harmful, that controls are updated on
a regular basis in line with the latest developments.

If implemented, as proposed, the new regulations would
contribute significantly to the reduction of atmospheric impact
of air toxics on Lake Ontario and the Great Lakes.
                                                                 L06

-------
Atmosperic Deposition of Toxic Species to Lake Ontario

Under the auspices of the Acidic Precipitation in Ontario Study
(APIOS) the Deposition Monitoring Group of the Air Resources
Branch of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment carries out
monitoring, which will assist in assessing the importance of
atmospheric deposition of a number of chemical species to the
Great Lakes.  Specifically, three networks are operated:

i)   the daily network in which 24-hour precipitation samples
     are collected at 18 sites.  At 10 of these sites, 24-hour
     filter pack samples are also taken to determine pollutant
     concentrations in air.  The precipitation and filter
     samples are analyzed for acid-related parameters (e.g.
     sulphate, nitrate, etc.).

ii)  the cumulative network, in which 28-day precipitation
     samples are collected at 38 sites.  At 24 of these sites
     28-day filter samples are also taken.  These samples are
     analyzed for acid-related parameters, but the
     concentrations of a number of metals are also determined,
     including manganese, nickel, zinc, iron, lead, vanadium,
     aluminium, copper and cadmium.

iii) the toxics monitoring network which is currently being
     completed.  This network will consist of six sites, at
     each of which precipitation samples will be collected over
     a 28-day period, and a 4-day air sample will be collected
     every second week.  The target compounds in this network
     include DDT, ODD and DDE, PCB, hexachlorobenzene, hexa-
     chlorocyclohexane, aldrin, mirex, chlordane and
     oxychlordane.  Sampling of precipitation has taken place
     at  five of the sites for periods ranging between eight
     months and two years, and air sampling has been  carried
     out at one site  for two years.   Installation of  four
     further air  samplers will take place during July 1988, and
     the sixth site will be  installed during August or
     September 1988.
                                                              107

-------
Site locations for the three networks are indicated on the
attached map.  It should be noted that the site selection
criteria used in network design were set up to ensure that
regionally representative samples are collected.  That is, the
possibility of contributions from local sources is specifically
avoided.

Deposition to Lake Ontario

The toxics network has not yet been in operation long enough
for deposition to Lake Ontario to be estimated.  For selected
metals the estimated loadings are given in Table 1.  These
estimates were obtained by combining previously published
deposition fluxes (Tank et al., 1986) with the surface area of
Lake Ontario (19,011 km2).

                            TABLE 1
               METAL DEPOSITION TO LAKE ONTARIO
          Metal             Annual Deposition (tonne)
                            Wet       Dry      Total
Lead
Cadmium
120
2.7
90
0.7
210
3.4
It should be stressed that the uncertainties are large,
particularly for the dry deposition estimates.  For this
reason, the deposition of other metals has not been calculated.
However, an estimate may be made for other metals based on the
relative concentrations as reported, for example, in the annual
APIOS Deposition Data Summaries.

Integration with Other Agencies

A number of other agencies are concerned with monitoring the
input of toxic species to the Great Lakes, specifically
including Environment Canada, and the US EPA.  This monitoring
is mandated under the International Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, and the monitoring plan is described in Annex 15 of
that agreement.  Ontario is represented on the working groups
charged with implementing Annex 15.
                                                                 108

-------
        SITE LOCATIONS FOR  THE  THREE NETWORKS
Cumulatlvt Sites:
 9   ft. Stanley*
     Gpktvutu*
     WtlkMport*
     Alviniioo
     Ikmnrark
     Nlotnten*
4
S
6
7
g
9
10.  Milton (MOT*!
    Much '14)^
11.
12.
13.

    UliSfer, .Km '83)
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
24.

27.
28.
Mth't fell**
DtlhwtU WlU*
GoldnUkc*
Ullbwforc*
ttdbwy
DOTMt*
(tdtallu*
                           Itlmd
                       Asm Uke (
                            , Jim
29.
X.

31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.

39.
Wlntik (mi. Dw '*)
CmUton
Itaklnt, Ai
Dorian*
QiMtico
Ue UQroix
ExptrifMnul UM Am
EU riu*
                         * (liuulltd
                   tetetar '$;
                   OtUt lUnJ*
                   (*MMr only)
 * InttaitM both  wit ml fcy depultlon oetvgrt tlu


 Dally Sltw:  X

Toxics Slta: 0
                                                                        109

-------
The Annex calls for the establishment of two master monitoring
sites during 1988/9, one in the U.S., the other in Canada.  The
U.S. master site is currently being installed at Green Bay in
Michigan.  The Canadian master site is planned for Point Petre,
near Picton, where installation is expected to begin during
August 1988.  The sixth Ontario toxics monitoring site will
allow data from the whole Ontario network to be integrated with
data from the Annex 15 master and subsequent subsidiary sites.

Reference

Tang, A.J.S., Ahmed, A. and Lusis, M.A. (1986).  Summary:  Some
     Results from the APIOS Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring
     Program.  Report ARB-110-86
                                                                 110

-------
I  SPILLS
Early  in  July of  1985,  the  Ontario Government  announced  the
proclamation  of  Part  IX  of  the  Environmental Protection  Act
which was known as the "Spill Bill".


On November 29, 1985,  Part  IX came  into  force  and on that same
day the Ministry's  Spill  Action Centre  (SAC)  began phasing in
operations.


Part  IX  of  the  Environmental  Protection  Act  deals  with
spills of pollutants discharged:

   0 into the natural environment;
   0 from or out of a structure, vehicle or other container;
   0 that are abnormal in quantity or quality in light of all
     the circumstances of the discharge,

and  which cause  or  are  likely  to cause  adverse  effects  as
defined in the legislation.

Part IX does the following:

   0 Establishes prompt and broad notification requirements.
   0 Establishes a duty on the person having charge, management
     or control of the spilled pollutant, as well as on the
     owner, to clean up the spill.
   0 Provides for liability - for loss and damage as well as
     costs and expenses - of the owner and person in control of
     the spilled material.
   0 Maintains the duties and liabilities of persons who cause
     or are otherwise responsible for spills under  the common
     law or other statutes.
   0 Provides for the right of municipalities to respond to
     spills and for their compensation for cost and expenses
     from the owner and the person having control of the
     pollutant.
   0 Under certain conditions, provides  for the authority of
     the Minister of the Environment to direct his  employees or
     agents to respond to spills.
   0 Provides for the authority of the minister to  issue orders
     to those liable at law and others who may be able to
     assist.
   0 Establishes a right-of-entry for those with a  duty, those
     under order or direction, and municipalities,  for the
     purpose of carrying out their respective duty, order or
     role as applicable.
   0 Establishes the right  to compensation and a compensation
     mechanism with respect to directions and orders.
   0 Provides for the  establishment  of the Environmental
     Compensation Corporation.
                                                           Ill

-------
When  a  spill  occurs,   the  Canadian  federal  and  provincial
agencies which  administer safety,  transportation or  environ-
mental legislation and programs hold the discharger responsible
for dealing with  it.  The discharger  is  required  to  report  the
incident, to  obtain  and clean up the pollutant or arrange  for
these actions to  be  carried  out and restore the  spill  site to
essentially pre-spill  conditions  where  this can  be  reasonably
expected.

The role of the Ministry  staff  sent to  investigate spill sites
is:

-  to determine the nature and extent of environmental damage
   caused by the spill;
-  to evaluate the adequacy of the clean-up and restoration
   efforts and recommend appropriate procedures where
   applicable;
   to help enforce the legislated responsibilities imposed on
   the discharger and others  as applicable;
-  to document all findings,  actions and recommendations.

The Ministry's  Investigations  and  Enforcement  Branch Officers
are  empowered to  gather  information where  it is believed an
offence  may have  been  committed  under  environmental
legislation.  They may obtain search warrants,  seize documents,
equipment,   and/or   material,  and  where  a  violation  is
identified, they will lay charges.

Branch  staff  are  available to  respond  either on  an emergency
basis or to a post-incident report.   On  arrival  at  the spill
site,  they  search  for  any indications  of negligence  and,  if
evidence  is  found  that  suggests  further  investigation  is
needed,  staff proceed  with  the  full  authority  granted  them
under law.

The government  of Ontario has established  a  crown corporation
entitled  the  Environmental   Compensation  Corporation  (ECC).
This  crown  corporation  receives applications  for compensation
from  parties  who  have  suffered loss  or damage due  to  a spill
and to make compensation payments to such people.   The ECC does
not replace the role  of insurance  companies nor does it lessen
the legal  responsibilities of  those involved  in  a  spill.   The
ECC,  however, can help  where  those  sources of compensation are
not  available.    The ECC  may  also receive  applications  from
owners  or  controllers  that  have  had  to  pay  compensation to
spill victims but were not themselves at fault for the spill.
                                                             1 19

-------
J.  DREDGING AND DREDGED SPOIL DISPOSAL

The classification process differentiates material on the basis
of chemical and physical characteristics.  The dredged material
management options include:  open water disposal, disposal on
land, and confined disposal.

The dredged material will be classified in one of the following
categories:

     a)   suitable for open-water disposal;
     b)   suitable for unrestricted use on land;
     c)   suitable for restricted use on land;
     d)   contaminated material requiring disposal at a
          certified confined disposal facility (dewatering
          permitted);
     e)   severely contaminated material requiring specialized
          disposal at a certified confined disposal facility
          (with no dewatering).

Selection of the disposal alternative is made on a
case-by-case basis by following the interim classification
procedure.

Open Water Disposal

The quality of dredged material is compared to the Open Water
Disposal Guidelines (Table 1).  If concentrations are less than
these guideline values, open water disposal may be permitted
subject to approval of an open water disposal site.

If the concentrations of any of the parameters in Group 1
exceed the Numerical Open Water Disposal Guidelines, open water
disposal of the dredged material cannot be undertaken.
Averaging of the sample results will not be allowed.  Group 2
parameters will be used to assist with the interpretation of
the Group 1 parameters and, where metal contamination has been
established, to reinforce the requirement  for containment of
the material.
                                                                113

-------
Where Group 3 parameters have also been required by MOE,
approval for open water disposal will be based on both the
individual concentrations and/or the average concentration per
stratum/layer, i.e., averaging of the concentrations for
individual layers will be allowed.  If the individual
concentrations or the average concentration per stratum for
Group 3 parameters is less than the numerical guidelines, the
dredged material will be acceptable for open water disposal.
Open water disposal of dredged material not meeting the
guidelines for Group 3 parameters may be allowed on a case-
by-case basis at the discretion of MOE, where the "natural
background" concentrations are equal to or greater than those in
the dredged material.

Unrestricted Land Use
If the quality of the dredged material exceeds the Open Water
Disposal Numerical Guidelines, or open water disposal is not
permitted in the water body where the dredging is taking place,
then the quality of the dredged material is compared to the
Unrestricted Land Use Guidelines (Table 1).

Averaging of the sample results of the Group 1 parameters will
not be allowed.  If the concentrations of constituents in Group
1 falls within this category, the material may be placed on any
lands with the owner's approval, or at an engineered, confined,
in-water location.  Current land use and/or zoning regulations
do not restrict the choice of lands.  The dredged material must
be properly stabilized after placement.  MOE concurrence is
required.

The concentrations of the individual metals in Group 3 may be
averaged for each stratum if the set of samples is considered to
be representative of the area to be dredged.  If the average
concentration conforms to the Unrestricted Land Use Guideline,
the sediments will be deemed acceptable for use on any land, or
may be placed at an engineered, confined in-water location.

Where contaminants other than those listed are present in the
sediments, the suitability of this material for unrestricted use
on land shall be determined by MOE in consultation with the
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
                                                           114

-------
Restricted Land Use

If the quality of the dredged material exceeds the unrestricted
land use guidelines, it is compared to the Restricted Land Use
Guidelines (Table 1).  Averaging of the sample results will not
be allowed.  If the concentrations of constituents falls within
this category, the dredged material may be used only on lands
currently zoned either commercial, industrial, or parkland, or
at an engineered, confined in-water disposal location.

The concentration of the individual metals in Group 3 may be
averaged on a per stratum basis, if the set of samples is
considered to be representative of the area to be dredged.  If
the average concentration conforms to the Restricted Land Use
Guideline, the sediments will be deemed acceptable for use on
commercial/industrial land, designated parklands/greenbelts or
placement at an engineered, confined in-water disposal
location.  Where contaminants other than those listed are
present in the sediments, the suitability of this material for
use on commercial/industrial land shall be determined by MOE.

The dredged material must be properly stabilized after
placement.  Concurrence is required from MOE, and an inventory
of locations where dredged material has been placed will be
maintained.

Waste Containment
If the material fails to satisfy the Restricted Land Use
Guidelines, it will be classified as waste.  In this case, an
acid leach test is then required.  If the material  is  shown  to
be non-hazardous, then it may be disposed of at either an
existing certified waste disposal site, or one certified by  the
Regional Director for the disposal of dredged material only,
under the provisions of Regulation 309 of the Environmental
Protection Act.
                                                               115

-------
TABLE 1:  DREDGED MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION (ug/g dry weight) (Interim)

Parameter                  Open Water       Unrestricted    Restricted
                           Disposal (1)     Land Use (2)    Land Use (3)

Group 1

Cadmium                       1.0                1.6            4.0
Lead                         50.0               60.0          500.0
Mercury                       0.3                0.5            0.5
PCBs                          0.05               2.0            2.0

Group 2

Loss of weight on
   ignition                   6.0%
Oil and Grease            1,500.0
Total Phosphorus          1,000.0
Total Kjeldahl N          2,000.0
Ammonia (Total N)           100.0
Grain Size                  	 characteristics to be reported 	
Visual Description          	 characteristics to be reported 	

Group 3
Arsenic
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
8.0
25.0
50.0
25.0
0.1
10,000.0

25.0

0.5
100.0
14.0
120.0
20.0
100.0

35,000.00
4.0
32.0
1.6

220.0
20.0
120.0
25.0
100.0

35,000.0
4.0
60.0
2.0

500.0
(1)  Rationale for the derivation of open water disposal guidelines
     discussed in Persaud in Wilkins, 1976.

(2)  Rationale for the derivation of unrestricted land use guidelines
     discussed in OMAF/OMOE/OMH Guidelines for Sewage Sludge Utilization on
     Agricultural Lands, 1978.

(3)  Rationale for the derivation of restricted land use guidelines are
     based on data provided by the Phytotoxicology Section of Air Resources
     Branch, MOE.

     Additional parameters may be requested by the review agencies because
     of known discharges.
                                                                            116

-------
The MOE is currently developing biologically-based Sediment
Quality Guidelines to be used in assessing contaminated sediment
from the perspective of protecting water quality, benthic
organisms against toxicity, and higher trophic organisms against
bioaccumulation of contaminants from sediment via benthic
organisms.


Work is well underway and guidelines for the following
parameters are expected by March 1989.
          TKN
          TP
          TOC
          Arsenic
          Cadmium
          Chromium
          Copper
          Iron
          Lead
          Manganese
          Mercury
          Nickel
          Zinc
          Heptachlor
          Endrin
          Mirex
          Aldrin
          Chlordane
          DDT (total)
          p,p-DDT
          p,p-DDD
          p,p-DDE
          p,p-DDT
          PCBs
          PCB 1254
          PCB 1248
          PCB 1016
          Dieldrin
          BHC
            -BHC
            -BHC
          HCB
          Heptachlor Epoxide
           y~chlordane
          Oil  and  grease
                                                               117

-------
K.  SOLID WASTE
The management of municipal waste in the Lake Ontario Basin is
primarily achieved by landfilling methods.  There are
approximately 190 active landfill sites that receive an average
of approximately 2.7 million tonnes per year.  The majority of
these sites are operating satisfactorily.  Approximately a
quarter of a million metric tonnes per year of municipal waste
is incinerated at two facilities.

In 1981, the MOE implemented a Source Separation Program to
financially support municipal recycling efforts.  Other
programs directed at municipalities were the Waste Management
Improvement Program (WMIP) and the Waste Management Master Plan
Program (WMMP).  In 1987, all of these existing programs, as
well as new funding programs were combined into one program
called the Comprehensive Funding Program for Waste Management.

The Comprehensive Funding Program (CFP) was announced in April
1987.  This funding program has two major components:  4Rs and
treatment/disposal.  The treatment/disposal component of the
CFP included enhanced funding for WMIP and WMMP as well as a
new Financial Assistance Program (FAP) directed at assisting
municipalities to get from the planning stage to the
operational stage of disposal facilities that they own and
operate.  The 4Rs component of the CFP is directed at both
industries and municipalities to encourage diversion of waste
from disposal options.

The Municipal Recycling Support Program, which replaced the
Source Separation Program, is designed to assist municipalities
in their attempts to recover as much material as possible from
the waste stream through recycling.  This program is aimed at
getting the homeowner to separate recyclable materials, such  as
                                                               118

-------
newspapers, glass and cans, from the regular trash.  A new
Municipal Recovery Program is available to assist
municipalities in establishing facilities for recovering
materiiTils from mixed solid waste, or for processing these
wastes into useful products, such as fuel or compost.  A new
Reduce/Reuse program was also introduced to assist
municipalities, the private sector or others to implement
projects aimed at altering consumer waste generation behaviour,
or to help consumers reduce the amount of waste requiring
disposal.

All of the above programs are primarily directed at
municipalities.  Another new program, the Industrial 4Rs
Program, is directed specifically at the private sector.  This
program includes assistance available to industry  in the form
of technical advice and financial support.  MOE financial
assistance will help to reduce the costs and risks that
industry faces in shifting to more environmentally sound waste
management practices required by existing as well  as future
legislation that will more tightly control industrial
discharges.

Proponents eligible for assistance include all industrial and
commercial sectors.  Projects eligible for assistance  include
feasibility studies, the implementation of new or  expanded
projects for the reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery of
wastes, process or equipment modification or evaluation or
both, demonstration of technology either new to Ontario or
novel to industry in general, upgrading operations beyond
current industry state-of-the-art, and research.   The  focus of
the program is to support  industry in projects that break new
ground or  reduce risks in  the implementation of the 4Rs.  Two
waste exchanges, namely the Canadian Waste Materials Exchange
and the Ontario Waste Exchange,  are partially  supported by  this
program.
                                                               119

-------
The Ministry recognizes that some financial assistance is
desirable to initiate the practice of special collection and
disposal of household hazardous waste (HHW) throughout Ontario.

Accordingly, the Ministry has established a program of grants
to encourage and aid municipalities in setting up special
collection methods to deal with these wastes.  In addition, the
document, "Guide to Implementing Household Hazardous Waste
Collections" has been produced by the Ministry as a detailed,
step by step technical guide to conducting such programs.

The grants are for multi-material collection projects,
including waste solvents, paint, medical compounds, pesticides,
etc. and are not aimed at any one waste type.
                                                              120

-------
L.  SLUDGE DISPOSAL


Sewage sludges usually contain large amounts of phosphorus,
together with trace amounts of magnesium, zinc, copper and
boron and appreciable amounts of organic matter.  In addition,
anaerobically digested sludges contain large amounts of
ammonium and nitrate nitrogen.  There are 7 x 106 m3 of sludge
containing 4 to 5% solids, generated annually throughout the
Province of Ontario.  The sludge (4 x 106 m3) generated in the
Lake Ontario basin (57% of the total) is disposed of as
follows:

     24% ( 971 x 103 m3) is used in agriculture
     57% (2299 x 103 m3) is incinerated
     16% ( 644 x 103 m3) is landfilled
      2% (  86 x 103 m3) is placed in drying beds

Metals in sewer sludge of concern to agriculture in Ontario are
arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, mercury,
molybdenum, nickel, lead, selenium and zinc.  Critera for these
metals are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

                            TABLE 1
METAL CRITERIA FOR FLUID ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED SEWAGE SLUDGES
     1
   Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Mean Total
Content of
Uncontaminated
Ontario Soils
  (ug/g)*
    7
    0.8
    5
   15
   25
    0.1
    2
   16
   15
    0.4
   55
Maximum
Permissible
Metal Content
Recommended
in Sludged
Soils (ug/g)*
*Based on dry weight at 100C,
interchangeable.
Maximum
Permissible
Metal Addition
to Uncontamina-
ted Soil in
Ontario (kg/ha)
                   14
                    1.6
                   30
                  210
                  150
                    0.8
                    4
                   32
                   90
                    2.4
                  330
                The terms ug/g and mg/kg are
14
1
20
120
100
0
4
32
60
1
220

.8



.5



.6

                                                               121

-------
                       TABLE 2

  METAL CRITERIA FOR ALL AEROBIC SEWAGE SLUDGES AND
FOR ALL DRIED AND DEWATERED ANAEROBIC SEWAGE SLUDGES
  Metal                           Maximum Permissible
                                  Metal Concentration
                                  (mg/kg of solids)
  Arsenic                                 170
  Cadmium                                  34
  Cobalt                                  340
  Chromium                               2800
  Copper                                 1700
  Mercury                                  11
  Molybdenum                               94
  Nickel                                  420
  Lead                                   1100
  Selenium                                 34
  Zinc                                   4200
                                                            122

-------
                    M.  AMBIENT WATER  MONITORING
The collection of data is fundamental both to assessing the nature  and extent
of toxic chemical contamination  in Lake Ontario and  to determining the
effectiveness of remediation efforts.  The necessary information is obtained
through specific studies and surveys as well as from more generalized,  ongoing
surveillance and monitoring  activities. A considerable multitude of  monitoring
and research programs have been and are being conducted within the Lake Ontario
Basin by a variety of institutions and jurisdictions. Oriented, as they are,
towards specific components of  the toxic chemical contamination  problem in the
Lake, most of them are inadequate to respond to the global problem  as defined
in the       Lake  Ontario Toxics Management Plan. However, by examining the
results of the various programs, it is possible to discern similarities  in
trends  at the different  trophic levels in the Lake that are the target of these
programs. This information  can then be used  to  develop a  basis for problem
definition  and  a benchmark for ongoing  measurement of change.

The following is intended to highlight the major and more  recent programs from
which much of the interpreted information in the       Lake Ontario Toxics
Management Plan was derived.

FEDERAL PROGRAMS

  Environment Canada

     Canada - U.S.  Open  Lake Surveillance

        Five surveillance cruises were conducted on Lake Ontario during  1987  as
        part of the  Great  Lakes  Intensive Surveillance Program  (GLISP).

     Interconnecting   Channels Water Quality

        Niagara  River Ambient  Monitoring  Program
        St.  Lawrence  River  Water Quality  Monitoring  Program

     Atmospheric Loading

        Environment Canada operates a network  of  Great Lakes monitoring
        stations (two on Lake Ontario)  measuring trace toxic contaminants in
        wet precipitation.

     Herring  Gull Monitoring Program

        The  Canadian Wildlife Service monitors trace organic contaminants in
        herring gulls as indicators of contamination in the Great Lakes. This
        information is supplemented with chemical analysis  and assessment of
        mortality  and  gross  deformities in other wildlife populations.

  Fisheries and  Oceans  Canada

        Commercial fish catches are sampled to determine compliance of marketed
        fish with federal guidelines.
                                                                      123

-------
Open Lake, Whole Fish  Ecosystem  Contaminant  Monitoring Program

    This program uses two to three species of fish  representing various
    trophic levels to monitor food chain accumulation contaminant trends.
    Samples are analysed for a wide range of  inorganic and organic
    materials and the work is  carried  out cooperatively with the
    U.S.E.P.A. and the  U.S.F.W.S..

Fish Health Assessment

    This consists of studies of spring spawning white suckers to identify
    pathological  abnormalities.

Hamilton  Harbour Fisheries  Assessment and Rehabilitation

    The program looks at current and  future fisheries  habitat
    requirements.

Lake Trout Reproduction

    Studies carried out under this  program relate physiological and
    nistological responses affecting reproduction to potential contaminant
    stress.

Contaminants Surveillance

    This monitoring program was initiated in 1977  to  describe temporal
    trends  of contaminant levels in aquatic ecosystems.

Phytoplankton Monograph

    This is a five  year project  to prepare  a monograph on the
    phytoplankton community structure, productivity, physiology and
    ecology and on  lake dynamics.

Bioassessment

    Under this program, phytoplankton bioassay techniques are developed
    and used to carry out contaminant assessment.

Biological Tissue Archive

    The purpose of the activity is to establish a long term tissue archive
    to  facilitate retrospective tissue contaminant analysis.

Long Term  Biological  Index  Monitoring  Program

    This provides baseline information on the subvertebrate community and
    on the chemical and physiological environment as a measure of response
    to  changes in water quality resulting from remedial actions.
                                                                  124

-------
Provincial Programs

Great Lakes Investigations and Surveillance Program

The Great Lakes surveillance program of the Province of Ontario
conducted annually by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
and the Ministry of Natural Resources addresses water quality
problems in the nearshore areas of the Great Lakes and their
connecting waterways, defining ecosystem effects of municipal
and industrial discharges, urban and agricultural drainages and
shore-based construction activities.  Information based on
these activities is published in reports by the Ministry of the
Environment and in scientific papers.  Pertinent results from
these studies are also summarized and submitted to the IJC
Water Quality Board for inclusion in its reports to the
International Joint Commission.

General goals and objectives of the Great Lakes program can be
stated as:
0  Assess the quality of the aquatic ecosystem (water quality,
   sediment quality and biota) in the Great Lakes and
   connecting waterways to determine water use suitability for
   aquatic life, recreation and water supply.
0  Investigate areas of degradation, and define impact and
   cause (source) of water use interference.
0  Assess the effectiveness of remedial programs and controls
   and recommend abatement measures.
0  Investigate and identify emerging problems; provide early
   warnings and speedy response to new issues.
0  Coordinate and assist in the development of Remedial Action
   Plans for Great Lakes Areas of Concern and Lakewide
   Management Plans.
0  Develop new approaches and technologies for field data
   collection, data analysis and presentation, as well as
   computer simulation and model predictions, all in aid of  the
   objectives as noted above.

                                                              125

-------
0  Ensure compliance with the international and the Canada-
   Ontario Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements and their
   requirement for annual scientific updates on inputs and
   conditions of the Great Lakes.

Activities associated with these objectives are in part cost-
shared by the federal government under the Canada-Ontario
Agreement (COA) on Great Lakes Water Quality.

Great Lakes Site-Specific Investigations

Each year the province conducts site-specific investigations to
assess compliance and response to specific controls, to assess
water quality trends, and to identify emerging problems
generally in accordance with the objectives of Annex II of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.  For example, the
following major investigations are currently being undertaken
in Lake Ontario.

"  Hamilton Harbour Sediment Inputs and Bioassessment:

In support of the development of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial
Action Plan, whole water, effluent and suspended sediment
samples were collected during 1988 at 10 sources and the mouth
of the ship canal, to identify the quality and quantity of
suspended sediments discharged into the bay from tributaries
and municipal and industrial discharges.  The impact of active
sediment sources compared with historical accumulations must be
clarified before recommendations concerning remedial options
for contaminated sediments can be made.  Extensive previous
studies have also addressed water, sediments and biota and
various cause-effect relationships necessary to develop
remedial options.

*  Toronto Main STP  Impact Assessment

Intensive studies were undertaken in the area of the Main STP
MISA pilot site at the Toronto waterfront,  in 1984, 1986 and
1987.  These data provided  information on water transport and
dispersion in  this area  of  the lake, as well as contaminant
levels in the  effluents  and receiving water.  In 1987, large
                                                          126

-------
volume water sampling techniques (A.P.L.E.)  were used to reduce
contaminant detection levels to values low enough to assess the
fate and transport of chemicals.  Suspended sediments were also
collected from the STPs and river mouths,  for metal and organic
contaminant analysis.  Data analysis, modelling and reporting
will be completed in 1988/89.  This information will assist in
the development of new regulations for the discharge of toxic
contaminants.

"  Toronto Waterfront:  Inventory and Assessment of
   Contaminants Associated with Suspended Particulates

Previous investigations into effects of dredging and
lakefilling activities have identified metals and organics
associated with suspended solids near the lakefilling at the
East Headland, in the vicinity of the Main STP discharge, and
at the mouth of the Don River.  Summaries of recent bed
sediment data have identified zones of contaminated sediments
within the waterfront area which suggest that, although the
impact of suspended solids inputs on water quality tends to be
localized, the potential exists for impacts on area sediment
quality and aquatic biota.  During 1986, suspended particulate
samples were collected near river and STP inputs (Mimico Cr.,
Humber R., Don R., Humber STP, Main STP) and the East Headland
and analyzed for physical parameters, nutrients, trace metals
and PCB/organochlorine components.

*  Metro Toronto Waterfront - Trace Contaminant Inputs From
   CSO's and Storm Sewers

In developing the Toronto Waterfront Remedial Action Plan, it
was recognized that data for various contaminant inputs to the
waterfront were inadequate for accurately assessing the
relevant significance of pollution sources.

The first phase of this study will quantify the dry weather
loading estimates for a number of contaminants  from priority
outfalls along the Toronto waterfront.  Data will be used  in
whole  lake and nearshore modelling programs which will examine
the possible transport of contaminants  to recreational areas,
and water  intakes.  The fate of these contaminants and their
relative distributions in suspended  and bottom  sediments,  fish
and biota  will also be modelled.
                                                             127

-------
*  Port Hope Harbour:  Contaminant Loadings

To assess the need for further control measures, suspended
sediments in Port Hope Harbour and effluents from Eldorado
Nuclear were assessed for particle-associated contaminants
(PCBs, metals, radionuclides) .

*  Bay of Quinte Toxic Contaminants

Water, sediments and biota were surveyed during 1988 in the Bay
of Quinte to assist in formulating specific abatement options
for trace contaminants in the Bay of Quinte Remedial Action
Plan.  These samples were analyzed for heavy metals and organic
contaminants to determine active sources of contaminants
(including sediment mobilization), to estimate annual loads and
to determine short-term trends.

*  St. Lawrence River Mass Balance

Whole water and suspended sediments were sampled at various
locations in the St. Lawrence River to determine the relative
significance of contaminant loadings from Lake Ontario vs.
local inputs at the Cornwall/Massena area of the river.

Table 1 summarizes the inorganic and organic parameters which
are being assessed in the above-noted investigations.
                                                              128

-------
Paraaeters
                                   Hamilton Harbour
                                   Sediment
                                   Inputs and
                                   Bioassessment
                                                                          TABLE 1
                                                          GREAT LAKES SITE-SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS
                                                                         & ORGANIC PARAMETERS
           Metro TW -
           Trace Contain.
           Inputs from
           CSO's and SS
              Toronto Main
              STP Impact
              Assessment
          TWF: Inventory
          & Assessment of
          Contarn. Assoc.
          With Susp. Part.
           Port Hope Harbour
           Contaminant
           Loadings
               Bay of Quinte
               Toxic
               Contaminants
           St. Lawrence
           Mass Balance
Aluminum
Mercury
Nickel
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Iron
Selenium
Mangenese
PCS' 8/organochlorine pesticides
Chlorobenzenes
Chlorophenols
PAH'S
Phthalates
Phenoxyacid herbicides
Triazine herbicides
Volatile organics
Speciated phenolics
Dioxins/furans
Radionuclides
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-------
Long-Term Ambient Water Quality Monitoring

Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network

The Ministry operates a regular tributary monitoring
program comprised of a network of ambient water quality
stations at many tributaries flowing into the Great Lakes.  The
Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) was
established in 1964 to provide baseline conditions on
provincial water quality; information for setting guidelines
and objectives and for determining trends through surveillance
as an aid to problem identification.  The provincial network
was expanded from an initial number of 180 sites to 840 during
the late 1970's.  Similarly, the number of parameters analyzed
was also increased.  In 1986, approximately 740 active stations
were sampled throughout the province, 175 of which are located
in the Lake Ontario drainage basin.

Generally, six to twelve samples per year are collected at each
site.  A core group of parameters is generally collected at
each station consistent throughout the province.  The group
includes conventional parameters and heavy metals such as
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, zinc and mercury.  Data on
organic contaminants is not collected at most stations.

The Ministry initiated a major sampling effort for pesticides
and industrial organic residues in 1979.  The program has
expanded in stages from analysis of a handful of parameters at
a few sites to scans for up to 86 parameters now determined
periodically at 81 stations across the province, including 32
stations in the Lake Ontario drainage basin (Table 2).  Those
parameters found at detectable levels in the basin are shown in
Table 3 .

Enhanced Tributary Monitoring Program

In addition, the Ministry has carried out the Enhanced
Tributary Monitoring Program  (ETMP) since 1980 to  enhance the
precision of annual tributary nutrient and contaminant load
estimates from 17 significant Great Lakes tributaries.  The
five tributaries on Lake Ontario monitored under this program
are noted in Table 2.  Forty  to one hundred event-oriented
samples are taken at each  station annually.  Suspended and bed
sediments are  also  sampled  annually  for  trace  metals  and
organochlorine pestides.                                   130

-------
                            TABLE 2


      PROVINCIAL WATER QUALITY NETWORK AND ENHANCED TRIBUTARY

     MONITORING PROGRAM STATIONS IN  THE LAKE ONTARIO DRAINAGE

             BASIN SAMPLED FOR SOME  TOXIC CONTAMINANTS
     Tributary

*Welland River
 Welland River
 Welland River
 Welland River

 Chippawa Canal

 Welland Canal

*Twelve Mile Creek
 Twelve Mile Creek
 Twenty Mile Creek
 Credit River
 Etobicoke Creek
 Etobicoke Creek

 Humber River
 Humber River
*Huraber River
 Don River
 Don River West
*Don River
 Stouffville Creek
 Redhill Creek
 Redhill Creek

 Crowe River
 Otonabee River

 Otonabee River
 Otonabee River
 Otonabee River
 Otonabee River
 Clear Lake Outlet
 Jackson Creek
 Trent River
*Trent River
 Moira River
      Station Location

At Montrose Bridge
New Syphon at Port Robinson
At Sinclairville Bridge
Lot 25, Con. 7 former Twp. of
     Binbrook
At Hydro Footbridge Downstream
     from Whirlpool Road
At Weir Downstream from
     Lakeshore Road
At Lakeport Road, St. Catharines
Wellandvale Ave., St. Catharines
21st Street, Louth Township
Highway 5, Brindale
Highway 2, Long Branch
At Highway 10, 1.2 miles NW
     of Snelgrove
Lakeshore Road, Toronto
Albion Hill, Conservation Area
At Old Mill Road
Lakeshore Road, Toronto
Sheppard Ave., Toronto
At Pottery Road
First Road North of Stouffville
At Barton Street East, Hamilton
Mountainbrow Blvd., Hamilton,
     Albion Falls
Highway 7, Marmora
At Brnsforth Bridge, S. of
     Peterborough
Highway 7, Peterborough
Road to Nassau Mills
At Lock No. 19 Dam, Peterborough
Lock 25, Lakefield
Highway 28, Youngs Point
Dalhousie Street, Peterborough
Bridge Street bridge, Hastings
New Highway 2 bridge, Trenton
Footbridge North of Highway 2,
     Belleville
*Enhanced Tributary Monitoring Program Locations
                                                             131

-------
                          TABLE 3


               PROVINCIAL WATER QUALITY NETWORKi

          PESTICIDE AND INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC PARAMETERS
CHLOROBENZENES
1,2,4,5 Tetrachorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
2,3,6 Trichlorotoluene
1,2,3 Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3,4 Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene
1,3,5 Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Octachlorostyrene
Pentachlorobenzene
Trichlorotoluene

CHLOROPHENOLICS
2,4,5 Trichlorophenol
2,4,6 Trichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES
(continued)

 Chlordane, Alpha
 Chlordane, Gamma
 Endosulfan I
 Endosulfan II
 Endrin
 Endosulfan, Sulphate
 Heptachlor
 Mirex
 Oxychlordane
 Simazine
 PHENOXY ACID HERBICIDES

 Dicamba
 Silvex
 2,4,5 Trichlorophenoxyacetic
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCS

Hexachlorocyclohex-Alpha BHC
Hexachlorocyclohex-Gamma BHC
Hexachlorobyclohex-Beta BHC
PCB Total
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Methoxychlor
Heptachlorepoxide
PP-DDE
PP-DDT
PP-DDD
OP-DDT
                                                              132

-------
Monitoring of Biota
Ontario's Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program

The Ministry has conducted extensive testing of sportfish since
the mid-1970s.  To date over 120,000 fish have been analyzed,
covering 1500 locations across Ontario, for a wide variety of
metals, pesticides and industrial organic compounds.  This is
the largest continuous contaminants data base on biota in the
Great Lakes.  The results are published annually in the Guide to
Eating Ontario Sportfish.  The data in the guide are based on
analysis of a skinless, boneless dorsal fillet.

In Lake Ontario, sport fish have been tested at 33 locations.
Since 1976 testing has been carried out periodically at the
Ganaraska River, which is a notable spawning run for rainbow
trout (Salmo gairdneri).  Similarly, coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) have been tested at the Credit River since 1972, where
a regular autumn salmon run occurs.  Salmon and trout have also
been tested at Jordan Harbour since 1976.  The program has
gradually expanded and 22 species of fish have been tested
throughout Lake Ontario.  Parameters include PCBs, mirex, dioxin
(2,3,7,8-TCDD) organochlorine pesticides, mercury and other
heavy metals.

A principal purpose of the program is to advise anglers about
the suitability of consuming fish from particular lakes.  The
data also indicates temporal and spatial trends in contaminant
levels.  PCB and OC pesticides have shown general declines in
levels throughout the lakes for all species and all
contaminants.  Mercury levels have declined significantly in
Lake St. Clair after the source from the chlor-alkali plant at
Dow Chemical was terminated in 1970.  In certain cases, the data
may also help identify sources of pollutants to Lake Ontario.

Juvenile Fish Contaminants Surveillance

Juvenile fish contaminants surveillance was initiated in the
Great Lakes  in 1975 utilizing young-of-the-year spottail shiners
(Notropis hudsonius).  The purpose of the program is to
establish a  data base  for spatial and temporal trend assessment,
                                                             133

-------
to identify point source areas of concern and use juvenile fish
residue data as an early warning system for bioaccumulative
material identification.  Because of its restricted nearshore
habitat, young-of-the-year spottail shiners as a biomonitor can
provide site-specific contaminant residue data that may be used
for point source identification.

Spottail shiners are important forage fish in the Great Lakes
and therefore spottails in particular and forage fish in
general represent an important link in contaminant transfer to
higher trophic levels.

In 1988, collections were taken from seven sites on Lake
Ontario, including Niagara-on-the-Lake, Twelve Mile Creek,
Burlington Beach, Credit River, Oshawa Creek, Outlet River and
Wolfe Island.  Parameter groups tested for include organo-
chlorine pesticides, chlorinated aromatics, chlorinated
phenols, mercury, dioxins, dibenzofurans and PAHs.

Nearshore Cladophora Monitoring

Between 1980 and 1985 the Ministry annually monitored PCB and
trace metal concentrations in the green filamentous alga
Cladophora glomerata at 10 shoreline sites in Lake Ontario.

Table 4 is a list of the contaminants for which Cladophora is
analyzed.  The Ministry now has five years of sound monitoring
data for Lake Ontario.  Since 1986, the Ministry has annually
sampled a single control site near Prince Edward County.

                            TABLE 4
CLADOPHORA MONITORING PROGRAM: PARAMETERS ANALYZED
Al
As
Ba
B
Be
Ca
Cd
Cl
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
K
Mg
Mn
(aluminium)
(arsenic)
(barium)
(boron)
(beryllium)
(calcium)
(cadmium)
(chlorine)
(cobalt)
(chromium)
(copper)
( iron)
(mercury)
(potassium)
(magnesium)
(manganese)
Mo
Na
Ni
N
Pb
P
Sb
Se
Sr
S
Ti
V
Zn
(molybdenum)
( sodium)
(nickel)
(nitrogen)
(lead)
(phosphorus)
(antimony)
(selenium)
(strontium)
(sulphur)
( titanium)
(vanadium)
( zinc)
PCBs/organochlorine pesticides
chlorinated benzenes
chlorinated phenols
                                                             134

-------
Long-Term Sensing Sites

In 1988-89 the first of a number of long-term sensing sites
will be established for detailed ecosystem monitoring, using a
variety of biomonitors, located in two critical areas (Fort
Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake).   The stations will examine
trends, interrelationships and cumulative impacts of organic
contaminants (Table 5).  "Sensing sites" will serve as monitors
with which to gauge levels of contamination of the lake
ecosystem as a whole and as a testing ground for potentially
useful biomonitoring techniques.

                            TABLE 5
         LONG-TERM SENSING SITES: PARAMETERS ANALYZED
     Mercury
     Copper
     Nickel
     Lead
     Zinc
     Cadmium
     Chromium
     Iron
     Aluminum
     Arsenic
     Selenium
     Manganese
     Barium
PCB1s/organochlorine pesticides
Chlorobenzenes
Chlorophenols
PAH's
                                                                 135

-------
N.   DRINKING WATER SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
The Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP) for Ontario
monitors drinking water quality at municipal water supply
systems.  The DWSP Database Management System provides a
computerized drinking water quality information system for
the supplies monitored.  The objectives of the program are to
provide:

-  ;  immediate, reliable, current information on drinking
     water quality;
-    a flagging mechanism for  'Objective1 exceedence;
     a definition of contaminant levels and trends;
     a comprehensive background for remedial action;
     a framework for assessment of new contaminants; and
-    an indication of treatment efficiency of plant
     processes.

Program

The DWSP officially began in April 1986 and is designed to
eventually include all municipal water supplies in Ontario;
currently 44 plants, 11 of which utilize Lake Ontario as a
water source, are being monitored.  Water supply locations
have been prioritized for surveillance, based primarily on
criteria such as population density, probability of
contamination and geographical location.

An ongoing assessment of future monitoring requirements at
each location will be made.  Monitoring will continue at the
initial locations at an appropriate level and further
locations will be phased into  the program as resources
permit.  It is estimated that  after 4 years of operation, the
program will be monitoring 90  locations.
                                                                 136

-------
A major goal of the program is to collect valid water quality
data, in context with plant operational characteristics at
the time of sampling.  As soon as sufficient data has been
accumulated and analysed, both the frequency of sampling and
the range of parameters may be adjusted accordingly.

Assessments are carried out at all locations prior to initial
sampling in order to acquire complete plant process and
distribution system details, and to designate (and retrofit
if necessary) all sampling systems and locations.  The prime
considerations in the assessment and design of the sampling
system are:

     i)   the sample is an accurate representation of the
          actual water condition, e.g., raw water has had no
          chemical treatment;
    ii)   the water being sampled is not being modified by
          the sampling system;
   iii)   the sample tap must be in a clean area of the
          plant, preferably a lab area;
    iv)   the sample lines must be organically inert (no
          plastic, ideally stainless steel).

It is imperative that the sampled water be a reflection not
of the sampling system but of the water itself.  The sampling
system documentation includes:  origin of the water; date
sampling was initiated; size, length and material type
(intake, discharge and tap), pump characteristics (model,
type, capacity) and  flow rate.

Samples are taken of the raw  (ambient water) and the treated
water at the treatment plant, and of consumer's  tap water in
the distribution system.  In order to determine  possible
effects of distribution on water quality, both standing and
free flow water in old and new sections of  the distribution
system are sampled.                                          137

-------
Sampling is carried out by operational personnel who have
been trained in the applicable procedures.  Comprehensive
standardized procedures and Field Test kits are supplied to
sampling personnel.  This ensures that samples are taken and
handled according to standard protocols and that field
testing will supply reliable data.  All field and laboratory
analyses are carried out using "approved documented
procedures".  All laboratory analyses are carried out by the
MOE Laboratory Services Branch.

Information System

The database contains a "Plant and Distribution System
Description", consisting of seven components:

     Process component inventory
     Treatment chemicals utilized
     Process control Measurement information
     Design flow and retention time data
-    Distribution system description
     Sampling system description
-    A listing of relevant personnel including plant
     management and operating staff, and appropriate Ministry
     of the Environment staff.

"Field Data" are collected at the plant and from the
distribution system sites on the day of sampling.  The field
data consist of general operating conditions and the results
of testing for field parameters.  General operating
conditions include chemicals used, dosages, flow and
retention time on the day of sampling as well as monthly
maximum, minimum and average flows.  Field parameters include
turbidity, chlorine residuals (free, combined and total),
temperature and pH.  These parameters are analysed according
to standardized DWSP protocols to allow for interplant
comparison.                                                  138

-------
"Laboratory Analytical Data" consists of results from samples
gathered from the raw, treated and distribution sampling
sites and analyzed for approximately 160 parameters at a
frequency of two to twelve times per year.  Sixty-five
percent of the parameters are organic.  The parameters
measured may have health or aesthetic implications when
present in drinking water, be used in the treatment process
or are treatment by-products.  Due to the nature of certain
analytical instruments parameters may be measured for in a
"scan" producing some results for parameters that are not on
the DWSP priority list but which may be of interest.  The
majority of the parameters are measured on a routine basis,
however, those that are technically more difficult and/or
costly to analyze for are done less frequently.  These
include Specific Pesticides and Chlorophenols.  Total number
of tests of bacteriological, conventional, metals and
organics in raw and treated waters of Lake Ontario Plants are
shown in Table 1.  Parameters that are currently being
monitored under DWSP are shown in Table II.

All laboratory generated data is derived from standardized,
documented analytical protocols.  The analytical method is an
integral part of the data and as methods change notation will
be made and intercomparison data documented.

A catalogue of "Parameter Reference Information" for each
substance analyzed on DWSP is included in the database.  It
documents parameter name and aliases, physical and chemical
properties, basic toxicology, world-wide health limits,
treatment methods and uses.

Drinking water quality in Ontario is evaluated against
provincial objectives as outlined in the publication, Ontario
Drinking Water Objectives (ISBN 0-7729-2725-1 revised 1983).
This publication contains health-related Maximum Acceptable
Concentrations for thirty substances.  In the absence of
Ontario Drinking Water Objectives, other agency guidelines
which are documented in the Parameter Reference Information
may be used.  Ontario Drinking Water Objectives and other
guidelines are shown in Table II.
                                                            139

-------
              TABLE 1
NUMBER OF TESTS CONDUCTED 1A - 1987
Water Treatment
Plant
Grimsby
Hamilton
Burlington
Lake view
Lorne Park
R.L. Clark
R.C. Harris
Easterly
Oshawa
Deseronto
Belleville
Bacteriological
31
44
46
47
8
43
42
45
32
23
30
Raw
Chemistry
198
264
260
259
44
261
259
261
176
132
179
Metals
180
241
243
243
40
243
243
243
160
120
179
Organics
790
1045
993
1027
234
919
1017
1018
224
590
669
Bacteriological
32
44
52
48
8
48
45
48
37
23
35
Treated
Chemistry
225
251
296
295
50
297
229
285
200
150
225
Metals
150
222
243
243
40
243
203
228
160
120
179

-------
                               TABLE II

                 DRINKING WATER SURVEILLANCE  PROGRAM
     SCAN/PARAMETER

     BACTERIOLOGICAL
STANDARD PLATE COUNT MEMBRANE
FILTRATION
P/A BOTTLE
TOTAL COLIFORM MEMBRANE  FILTRATION
TOTAL COLIFORM BACKGROUND MF

     CHLOROAROMATICS
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,3,5-TRICHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
OCTACHLOROSTYRENE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
2,3,6-TRICHLOROTOLUENE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROTOLUENE
2,6,A-TRICHLOROTOLUENE

     CHLOROPHENOLS
2,3,4-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,3,4,5-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,3,5,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL

     CHEMISTRY  (FLD)
FIELD COMBINED CHLORINE RESIDUAL
FIELD FREE  CHLORINE  RESIDUAL
FIELD TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL
FIELD PH
FIELD TEMPERATURE
FIELD TURBIDITY

     CHEMISTRY  (LAB)
ALKALINITY
CALCIUM
CYANIDE
CHLORIDE
COLOUR
CONDUCTIVITY
FLUORIDE
HARDNESS
MAGNESIUM
SODIUM
AMMONIUM TOTAL
NITRITE
DETECTION
  LIMIT   GUIDELINE
CT/ML

CT/100ML
CT/100ML
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
DMSNLESS
C
FTU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
TCU
UMHO/CM
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0
0
0
0
1.000
5.000
1.000
1.000
5.000
1.000
5.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
50.
50.
50.
50.
50.
50.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
.200
.100
.001
.200
.5
1.
.01
.50
.05
.20
.002
.001
500/KL
0
5/100mL
N/A
450
10000
10000
10000
10000
38000 .
10000
1900
N/A
74000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2600000
5000
60000
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.5-8.5
15 C
1.0
30-500
100
.200
250
5.0
400
2.4
80-100
30
200
.05
1.0
                         141

-------
     SCAN/PARAMETER

TOTAL NITRATES
NITROGEN TOTAL KJELDAHL
PH
PHOSPHORUS FIL REACT
PHOSPHORUS TOTAL
TOTAL SOLIDS
TURBIDITY

     METALS

ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BORON
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
COBALT
CHROMIUM
COPPER
IRON
MERCURY
MANGANESE
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
LEAD
SELENIUM
STRONTIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC

      PHENOLICS

PHENOLICS  (UNFILTERED REACTIVE)

      PESTICIDES  & PCB
ALDRIN
ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE
BETA  HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE
GAMMA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE
ALPHA CHLORDANE
GAMMA CHLORDANE
DIELDRIN
METHOXYCHLOR
ENDOSULFAN 1 (THIODAN I)
ENDOSULFAN 2 (THIODAN II)
ENDRIN
ENDOSULFAN SULPHATE(THIODAN
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
HEPTACHLOR
MIREX
OXYCHLORDANE
O,P-DDT
UNIT

MG/L
MG/L
DMSNLESS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
FTU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
MG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
DETECTION
  LIMIT   GUIDELINE

    .02   10.
    .02   N/A
  N/A     6.5-8.5
    .0005 N/A
    .002  .40
   1.      500
    .02   1.0
.004
.001
.001
.01
.001
.30
.001
.001
.001
.002
.01
.001
.001
.001
.003
.001
.001
.02
.001
.001
.10
.05
1.0
5.0
.0002
5.0
1.0
.05
1.0
.300
1.0
.05
.50
.05
.05
.01
2.0
20.
.10
5.0
     .2
2.0
NG/L
(BHC) NG/L
(BHC) NG/L
(LINDANE) NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
SULPHATE) NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
700
700
300
4000
7000
7000
700
100000
74000
74000
200
N/A
3000
3000
N/A
N/A
30000
                                                                      142

-------
     SCAN/PARAMETER                  UNIT
PCB                                   NG/L
O,P-DDD                               NG/L
PPDDE                                 NG/L
PPDDT                                 NG/L
ATRATONE                              NG/L
ALACHLOR                              NG/L
ETHLYENE  DIBROMIDE                   UG/L
HEXACHLOROBENZENE                    NG/L

     POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS

PHENANTHRENE                         NG/L
ANTHRACENE                            NG/L
FLUORANTHENE                          NG/L
PYRENE                                NG/L
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE                   NG/L
CHRYSENE                              NG/L
DIMETHYL  BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE          NG/L
BENZO(E)PYRENE                       NG/L
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE                 NG/L
PERYLENE                              NG/L
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE                 NG/L
BENZO(A)PYRENE                       NG/L
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE                 NG/L
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE               NG/L
INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE              NG/L
BENZO(B)CHRYSENE                     NG/L
CORONENE                              NG/L

     SPECIFIC PESTICIDES

TOXAPHENE                            NG/L
AMETRINE                              NG/L
ATRAZINE                              NG/L
BLADEX                                NG/L
PROMETONE                            NG/L
PROPAZINE                            NG/L
PROMETRYNE                           NG/L
SENCOR  (METRIBUZIN)                  NG/L
SIMAZINE                              NG/L
2,4,5-TRICHLOROBUTYRIC ACID          NG/L
(2,4,5-T)
2,4-DICHLOROBUTYRIC ACID (2,4-D)     NG/L
2,4-DICHLORORPHENOXYBUTYRIC ACID     NG/L
2,4-D  PROPIONIC ACID                 NG/L
DICAMBA                               NG/L
PICHLORAM                            NG/L
SILVEX  (2,4,5-TP)                    NG/L
DIAZINON                              NG/L
DICHLOROVOS                          NG/L
DURSBAN                               NG/L
ETHIOK                                NG/L
GUTHION                               NG/L
MALATHION                            NG/L
MEVINPHOS                            NG/L
METHYL PARATHION                     NG/L
DETECTION
LIMIT
20.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
50.
500.
.050
1.0
10.0
1.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
50.0
5.0
50.0
10.0
10.0
1.0
5.0
20.0
10.0
20.0
2.0
10.0
N/A
50.
50.
100.
50.
50.
50.
100.
50.
50.
100.
200.
100.
100.
100.
50.
20.
20.
20.
20.
N/A
20.
20.
50.

GUIDELINE
3000
N/A
30000
30000
N/A
35000
50.
10.
N/A
N/A
42000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5000
300000
60000
10000
52500
16000
1000
80000
10000
280000
100000
18000
N/A
87000
2450000
10000
14000
N/A
N/A
35000
N/A
160000
N/A
7000
                                                                      143

-------
     SCAN/PARAMETER

METHYLTRITHION
PARATHION
PHORATE  (THIMET)
RELOAN
RONNEL
AMINOCARB
BENONYL
BUX  (METALKAMATE)
CARBOFURAN
CICP  (CHLORPROPHAM)
DIALLATE
EPTAM
I PC
PROPOXUR  (BAYGON)
SEVIN  (CARBARYL)
SUTAN  (BUTYLATE)
METOLACHLOR
UNIT
DETECTION
  LIMIT   GUIDELINE
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
NG/L
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
N/A
N/A
2000.
2000.
2000.
2000.
2000.
2000.
2000.
200.
2000.
500.
N/A
35000
35.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
18000
350000
30000
N/A
N/A
90000
70000
245000
50000
     VOLATILES

BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
PARA-XYLENE
META-XYLENE
ORTHO-XYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE  CHLORIDE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
BROMOFORM
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
TRIFLUOROCHLOROTOLUENE
TOTAL  TRIHALOMETHANES
STYRENE
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
.050
.050
.050
.100
.100
.050
.100
.500
.100
.100
.100
.020
.050
.200
.050
.100
.050
.050
.100
.050
.200
.050
.100
.100
.100
.050
.100
.500
.05
5.0
24.0
2.4
300
300
300
7.0
1750
350
N/A
350
200
5.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
350
.60
350
10.0
350
0.17
1510
5.0
130
200
N/A
350
46.5
                                                                     144

-------
Information from the system may be obtained through direct
enquiries, and general information and the results of
analyses are also published in the form of annual reports.

Results and Discussion
The plants using Lake Ontario as a water source, included in
the DWSP are:

          Grimsby
          Hamilton
          Burlington
          Lakeview     ...
                       Mississauga
          Lome Park
          R.L. Clark
          R.C. Harris   Toronto
          Easterly
          Oshawa
          Deseronto
          Belleville

A "quantifiable" denotes that the result is greater than the
statistical limit of detection established by the analytical
staff.  "Trace" denotes that the level measured is greater
than the lowest value detectable by the analytical method,
but lies so close to the detection limit that it cannot be
confidently quantified.  Whilst traces can be useful in trend
analysis or confirmation of the presence of a specific
contaminant that is repeatedly detected at these levels, the
occasional finding of a trace level of a contaminant is not
considered to be significant.

The .general chemistry and bacteriological parameter results
at these Lake Ontario locations are consistent with those
found elsewhere in the Great Lakes waters.  The analyses show
quantifiable levels of most metals in both raw and treated
                                                              145

-------
waters, but none of the treated water samples exceeded the
applicable health-related Ontario Drinking Water Objectives
(ODWO) for these substances.

Of the pesticides only Bladex, Proraetone and Simazine were
found at quantifiable levels in raw water once, at Hamilton.
Traces of  -BHC and lindane occurred in most raw water
samples; they are ubiquitous throughout the Great Lakes
basin.  Traces of other pesticides only occurred
sporadically.

Phenolic compounds are present in the aquatic environment as
a result of natural and/or industrial processes; quantifiable
levels of these compounds at the low^Wg/L levels occurred in
only a few raw water samples.

No quantifiable levels of any of the other organic compounds
analyzed for were found in raw waters, although traces of
toluene, hexachloroethane benzene, trichlorobenzenes,
pentachlorobenzene, ethylbenzene and xylenes occurred at some
locations.

The only organic compounds found at quantifiable levels in
treated waters other than trihalomethanes, were hexachloro-
ethane (found once at Hamilton), thiodan sulphate (found once
at Grimsby), and m- and p-xylenes (found once at Lakeview).
Trihalomethanes, formed when chlorine used for disinfection
of treated water reacts with naturally occurring organic
compounds, were found in all treated water samples.  No
treated waters exceeded the ODWO for trihalomethanes.  A very
few samples from the distribution system sites yielded
quantifiable levels of organic substances - benzene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, hexachloroethane, 2,3,6-trichloro-
toluene and xylene, even when these were not present in the
treated water at the plant; none exceeded any applicable
health-related guidelines.  Such contamination may have
                                                              146

-------
resulted on passage of the water through the distribution
system.  Similarly, the treatment plant and distribution
system may contribute to the traces of chlorinated benzenes
and toluenes, ethylbenzene, benzene and other organics
occasionally occurring at distribution system sites.  Traces
of  -BHC and lindane frequently were found in treated waters.
Phenolic compounds were usually present only at trace levels
in some treated water.

The results, for analyses carried out in 1987 on the
programme, show that at all locations both raw and treated
waters contain few contaminants.
                                                              147

-------
         KEY TO LOCATIONS
 1 Vineland WTP
 2 Beamsville WTP
 3 Grimsby WTP
  Hamilton-Wentworth WTP
  Burlington WTP
 6 Oakville WTP
 7 Lome Park WTP
 8 Lakeview WTP
 9 R. L. Clark WTP
10 New Toronto WTP
11 Island Filtration Plant
12 R. C. Harris WTP
13 Scarborough PS
14 Easterly Filtration Plant
15 Ajax WTP
16 Whitby WTP
17 Oshawa WTP
18 Bowmanville WTP
19 Newcastle WTP
20 Port Hope WTP
21 Cobourg WTP
22 Trenton WTP
23 Belleville WTP
24 Point Anne WTP
25 CFB Mountainview WTP
26 Picton WTP
27 Deseronto WTP
28 Sandhurst Shores WTP
29 Bath WTP
30 Amherstview WSS
31 Kingston Twp. WTP
32 Kingston WTP
       SUB-BASINS

160  Belleville-Napanee Area Rivers
161  Trent River
162  Oshawa-Colborne Area Rivers
163  Toronto Area Rivers
164  Hamilton Area Rivers
165  Niagara Peninsula Rivers
                                                                 CANADA - ONTARIO

                                                              UNITED STATES - NEW YORK
                                                                         PUBLIC WATER
                                                                      SUPPLY  INTAKES
                                                                         Lake  Ontario Basin
                                                                    PROVINCE OF  ONTARIO
                                                                                                     Brock University Cartography

-------
                   .O.  Zero Discharge

Zero Discharge Related Activities in Canada

a)  General

Canada and Ontario are committed, through the Canada-Ontario
Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality (COA), to undertake
programs and measures in accordance with the principle that
discharges of toxic substances be prohibited and the discharge
of any or all persistent toxic substances be virtually
eliminated.

Consistent with this principle and the philosophy of zero-
discharge, Canada and Ontario have enacted and will continue to
implement, a variety of measures, including:

     0    new or revised legislation and regulations pertaining
          to toxics control;
     0    programs for research, technology development and
          implementation of toxic source reduction and effluent
          treatment actions;
     0    programs for the  identification, assessment and
          monitoring of toxic substances; and
     0    programs to  inform and involve the public in
          activities related to toxics control.

The Canadian Environmental  Protection Act is a recently
enacted, comprehensive body of legislation that  subsumes
several  former Acts and regulations and offers an ecosystem
approach to environmental protection.  It provides for broad
government control over the release of toxic substances  into
the environment.   It also sets a nationally derived precedent
for progressing from "react and cure" to "anticipate and
prevent" - the quintessential basis moving towards controlling
pollution through  intervention at source control as opposed to
discharge controls.  Specific provisions include:

1.  an expanded definition  of "substance" that includes  both
    chemicals and  their by-products, either  in isolation or in
    mixtures and  emissions, effluents, wastes and  the products
    of biotechnology;
                                                                 149

-------
2.  a expansion of the terra "toxic" to mean harmful to human
    health AND/OR to the environment;

3.  a comprehensive regulatory scheme  to control toxic
    substances at each stage of the life cycle from development
    and manufacture through transport, distribution, use and
    storage and to their ultimate disposal as wastes;

4.  creation of a "living" list of priority substances subject
    to ongoing assessment for health and environmental impacts
    and control actions, including regulatory restrictions;

5.  a requirement by industry to supply the data necessary to
    allow for evaluation and assessment before the materials
    are permitted to enter Canada;

6.  regulation of the emissions, effluents and waste handling
    and disposal practices of federal  departments, boards and
    Crown corporations.

The Act is supported through a comprehensive enforcement and
compliance policy.  This policy places strong emphasis on
prevention of damage to the environment.  The compliance
requirements embody exchange and distribution of information
including technology development and transfer.  The policy also
advocates and promotes the use of environmental audits.  The
latter will evaluate efficiency levels of pollution abatement
programs adopted by industry, identify potential problem areas
and develop recommendations for change and improvement as
necessary.

The legislation provides for establishment of federal-
provincial equivalency agreements that will ensure the
requisite level of environmental protection prescribed under
the Act is maintained across Canada.  These bilateral
arrangements deal with specific regulations, when and if the
control limits, testing procedures, enforcement, penalties and
citizens' rights are equivalent to federal requirements.
                                                                150

-------
This cooperative jurisdictional framework:

1.  ensures a strong and consistent enforcement of the Act;

2.  minimizes overlap and duplication of effort;

3.  relieves industry of the potential for "double jeopardy"
    from competing provincial and federal regulations;

4.  guarantees all Canadians an equivalent level of
    protection.

The Act also embodies the concept of an "environmental bill of
rights", recognizing the rights of citizens to a clean and
healthy environment.  Some of these include:

1.  the right to be informed about proposed regulations,
    enforcement activities and about the health and
    environmental impacts of assessed substances;

2.  the right to seek a review of regulations under the Act;

3.  the right to ask that a board of review be established and
    the right to present a concern before that board;

4.  the right to request that a suspected toxic substance be
    included on the Priority Substances List for assessment;

5.  the right to request an investigation be conducted
    regarding a suspected violation of the Act;

6.  the right to seek an injunction if personal injury is
    suspected as the result of a violation of the Act and the
    right to sue for compensation.

While this particular legislation is, as yet, only in its
infancy, it promises to provide the powers needed by the
governments to take the measures necessary to establish and
maintain a safe and healthy environment.  It also maintains
continuity of established pollution control procedures while
moving  towards a nationally recognized policy for anticipation
and source control.
                                                              151

-------
Environment Canada's Environmentally Friendly Products Program

Environment Canada, in conjunction with Health and Welfare Canada has developed
and initiated a program to introduce and promote environmentally friendly
products. Products submitted for approval under the program are tested and, if
they conform to specifications, are identified as posing no environmental risk.
This allows responsible and concerned consumers to participate collectively in
a process that will ultimately nave a significant effect on environmental
quality. It offers Canadians the opportunity to have an immediate and personal
influence on the environment through their purchasing power both in the area of
harmful waste elimination and in the promotion of technologies and processes
that give rise to environmental benign products.
                                                                              152

-------
b)  Direct Discharges

Industrial and Municipal Effluent Limits

The Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) is
Environment Ontario's program to reduce the discharge of toxic
contaminants to Ontario's waterways.  The ultimate goal of the
MISA program is the virtual elimination of persistent toxic
contaminants from all discharges into Ontario's waterways.  In
this context, the Ministry considers virtual elimination of a
persistent toxic substance to be reduction to a level as close
to zero as is possible to measure contaminants.  Under MISA,
dischargers will be required to monitor and report on the
contaminants present in their effluent streams.  This
information will be used to set legal discharge limits requiring
reductions in toxic discharges to the level attainable with the
best available pollution control technology which is
economically achievable (BATEA).

BATEA is based not only on end-of-pipe treatment, but will also
include a variety of other measures such as manufacturing
process change, substitution of less toxic chemicals, in-plant
treatment and recycling where appropriate.  In addition to the
BATEA limits set on discharges, the Ministry will require the
use of "best management practices"  (BMPs) to control releases of
toxic pollutants from plant runoff, spillage and leaks, waste
disposal sites, and drainage from raw materials.  Periodic
review of effluent limits will be carried out to achieve more
stringent technology-based limits as improved treatment
technologies are developed.

c)  Indirect Discharges

The updated  model  sewer use by-law  which was issued  in
September, 1988 by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment will
enable municipalities to require  local  industries to reduce
toxic discharges to  sewer  systems.  The by-law sets  stringent
discharge  limits on  metals such  as  copper, cadmium,  nickel  and
zinc; prohibits  the  discharge  of  hazardous substances  such  as
PCB's and  toxic  pesticides, and  provides  improved
administrative procedures  to control  sewer use.
                                                             153

-------
In addition, limits based on the best available control
technology economically achievable will be placed on 22
industrial sectors that are discharging to municipal sewers.

d)  Control of the Generation, Handling and Disposal of
    Wastes

Ontario's basic waste management program is regulated under the
Environmental Protection Act.  The Waste Management Regulation
(Reg. 309) sets out a complete chain of responsibilities from
waste generation through transportation and disposal in
controlling liquid industrial and hazardous wastes.  A
generator register and manifest system is used to track wastes
from source to proper disposal at a receiving facility.
Receiving facilities are operating under Ministry of
Environment Certificates of Approval which identify wastes
acceptable for disposal at each site.  The system is managed by
the province, with follow-up action, including enforcement for
any irregularity.

The storage and movement of PCB wastes as well as the siting,
operations and emissions from mobile PCB destruction facilities
are regulated.  This includes facilities for destruction of PCB
contaminated mineral oil.

With respect to incentive programs for encouraging waste
management, in June 1987 the Ontario Government announced its
Comprehensive Funding Program (CFP) for waste management.  This
new program provides financial assistance to municipalities and
the.private sector for waste management activities.  These
activities include treatment and disposal facilities and
initiatives under the Municipal 4R's Program (Reduction, Reuse,
Recycling and Recovery Program); Household Hazardous Waste
Management Program; and an Industrial Waste Management Program.
The Industrial Waste Management Program provides assistance
for industries to take advantage of new opportunities for waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery.  This new program
provides financial and technical assistance to explore
beneficial uses of commercial and  industrial waste and their
reduction.  Eligible projects include feasibility  studies;
reduction, reuse, recycling or recovery of wastes; process or
equipment modification or  evaluation; demonstration of
technology; upgrading existing operations beyond current state-
of-the-art for a particular  industry, and research.
                                                            154

-------
If industry were to purchase capital equipment, it was felt
that they should maintain a reasonable financial stake to
ensure that the equipment worked properly.  The intent of the
program is to share the risk,  not assume the risk, with
industry, in developing new ideas to maximize waste diversion.
It was therefore determined that for research, development or
demonstration projects, the program could cover up to 100% of
the eligible costs.  For capital, start-up or commissioning
projects, the program would match the proponent's equity in the
project to a maximum of 50% of eligible costs.

Budget projections for the 5-year period commencing in the
1987/88 budget year are $9.3 million.  The budget for 1987/88
was $1.0 million and for 1988/89 is $1.2 million.  The actual
amount of expenditures for 1987/88 was approximately $0.4
million.  This amount represents projects actually established
and monies actually moved by March 31, 1988 since the June 1987
start date of the program.  Currently, we have commitments for
a further $0.8 million.

Proposals are currently evaluated on a first-come, first-served
basis.  The criteria used to evaluate proposals include the
extent of reduction or elimination of contaminants of
environmental concern, the quantity impact on the waste stream,
the scope of the proposal with respect to the potential for
further application in Ontario, a cost/benefit analysis, the
capability of the proponent to undertake the project (both from
a technical and business perspective) and the export potential
for Ontario industry of new technology.
                                                              155

-------
e-  Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs

   The  Ministry of  the Environment  (MOE)  recognizes  that  various
   household and  personal products  are hazardous  in  nature.   While
   there  is presently no clear evidence of  environmental
   impairment  due to disposal of these materials  by  common  sewer
   or garbage  collection methods, the Ministry  regards  the  special
   collection  and disposal of these materials as  prudent  in  the
   interests of ongoing environmental protection.  At  the same
   time,  the Ministry recognizes that some  financial assistance  is
   desirable to initiate the practice of  special  collection  and
   disposal of household hazardous  waste  (HHW)  throughout
   Ontario.

   Accordingly, the Ministry has established a  program  of grants
   to encourage and aid municipalities in setting up special
   collection  methods to deal with  these  wastes.   In addition, the
   document, "Guide to Implementing Household Hazardous Waste
   Collections" has been produced by the  Ministry as a  detailed,
   step by step technical guide to  conducting such programs.

   The  grants  are for multi-material collection projects,
   including waste  solvents, paint, medical compounds,  pesticides,
   etc. and are not aimed at any one waste  type.

   As municipalities are responsible for  the management of
   household wastes, only municipalities  will be  eligible to apply
   for  monetary assistance although the technical guideline
   described above  will be available to all interested  groups.
   Funding will apply only towards  direct costs of conducting a
   project and not  to feasibility studies or consultants' costs.

   MOE  financial  participation is expected  to last for  3  years,  at
   the  end of  which period the results will be  reviewed and  a
   decision made  on possible continuation of  funding.

   In the case of large municipalities which may  require  several
   collection  projects to satisfy the needs of  all population
   centres, each  individual project is eligible for  funding,  but
   only once a year.  It  is not anticipated that  small
   municipalities will require more than  one project.
                                                                  156

-------
Pesticides

Ontario currently has a comprehensive and integrated pesticide
control program designed to minimize the exposure of humans and
the natural environment to pesticides, and to further reduce
non-point source inputs to the Great Lakes Ecosystem of
pesticides from urban and rural land drainage,  and waste
disposal sites.  Principal controls include regulations under
the Pest Control Products (PCP) Act and the Provincial
Pesticides Act.  These Acts establish which pesticides may be
used and regulate the conditions of sale, storage, use and
disposal based on classification criteria.  Supporting these
regulations is a licensing and permit system which prevents
excessive and indiscriminate pesticide use.  It also specifies
the type and quantity of pesticide that may be purchased, and
sets out the conditions of use.

A committee is currently evaluating options to recycle
pesticide containers and to collect unwanted pesticides.  The
goal will be to mitigate improper disposal and contamination of
disposal sites observed in the past.

The Ministries of Agriculture and Food and the Environment
jointly provide cost-shared grants for the construction of
facilities such as nurse tanks and back-flow prevention devices
for chemical sprayers which reduce the risk of accidental
discharges of pesticides to surface or groundwater supplies.  A
40 percent grant to a maximum of 7,500 is available to farmers
under this program.

Food Systems 2002, a program recently introduced by the Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, has the goal of reducing
pesticide by 50 percent over a 15-year period.  Pesticide
specialists have been hired to expand the integrated pest
management program.  Integrated pest management uses cultural,
physical and biological controls as well as targeted chemical
methods to control pests.  Programs are directed  toward the
entire pest complex - insects, weeds and disease.  Under Food
Systems 2002 the Ontario Pesticide Education Program will
expand to include growers and provide $800,000 annually toward
research on pest management alternatives that will reduce
dependency on chemicals.

-------
The impact of Food Systems 2002 will be to directly reduce the
loading of pesticides applied to the land.  In combination with
sound land management practices promoted through other programs
the loading of pesticides to surface runoff potentially will be
reduced even further than the 50 percent reduction target set
by the program.

Research being funded by the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment is supportive of the goals of Food Systems 2002.
Projects are being conducted to find alternative pesticides for
those deemed environmentally hazardous, and to determine
hazards associated with pesticides in use.

g)  Research and Technology Development

The Research and Technology Branch of the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment provides grant and contract support for applied
research and technology development under the Environmental
Research Program.  Research needs are identified annually in
five categories: air quality, water quality, liquid and solid
wastes, analytical methods and socio-economics.

Examples of issues identified as priorities within the Research
Program include:

0   development of emerging technologies for industrial process
    changes to reduce contaminant loadings to waste streams;
0   development of innovative sewage treatment processes;
0   assessment of the effects of intensive crop production
    practices on groundwater quality;
0   development of innovative techniques and mechanisms to
    monitor and control hazardous contaminant discharges into
    sewer systems.

Socio-economic research related to zero discharge includes
examination of key factors which motivate private sector
decision regarding technology choice and assessment of the
social implications of environmental contaminants and their
control.
                                                                158

-------
PART IV - Research Programs


The previous parts of this appendix  have described various remedial thrusts
undertaken by the agencies in response to toxic chemical contamination in Lake
Ontario. The foundation  of all of these is the research carried out by, not
only the agencies, but by governments  in general as well as  by academic
institutions and  industry. The agencies, in particular, invest  a significant
level of resources in research on Lake Ontario. In addition, there is a
tremendous amount of study devoted to related phenomena - into lake processes
in general,  into atmospheric processes and into many areas having  applicability
to understanding and ameliorating the toxic chemical problem in  Lake Ontario.
Of significant importance is the understanding that the agencies  also identify
research needs and direct the focus of their own efforts, as well as those of
the  research community at large, towards priority  problems.

In this context, the work of the standing expert committees will undoubtedly
highlight critical areas  for further study as the overall effort to rid Lake
Ontario of toxic chemical contamination progresses.  This offers a  number of
significant  advantages.

1.  It will allow the agencies to focus their study efforts in response to
    information  deficiencies as they are identified through remediation
    activities. Research resources will  be channelled towards problem
    resolution directly linked to the elimination of the toxic contamination.

2.  It will lead the agencies towards a common  understanding of the problem
    and, consequently, a  common solution. Working separately, agencies may well
    develop effective but different answers  to  problems resulting in a
    diversity of  approaches that may later need to be  reconciled.

3.  It will foster a  cooperative response to the  shared problem of
    transboundary pollution, encouraging the pooling of resources in response
    to problems of a magnitude too great to be independently  managed by any
    single agency.
                                                                       159

-------
      LAKE  ONTARIO
TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
                        Appendix V





              Geographic Areas of Special Concern

-------
APPENDIX  V - Geographical Areas of Special  Concern


    Within  the Great Lakes Basin,  specific areas have been identified as
    exhibiting particular problems stemming from one or more forms of
    pollution. Not surprisingly, these areas have tended  to be associated  with
    the more industrialized and more densely populated urban centres around the
    Basin. The nature of such problems has altered over time as technological
    evolution  expanded the body of knowledge surrounding water quality.
    Significant progress has been made in remediating some of the problems but
    as answers were being found to these, new and more complex  issues  were
    emerging.

    The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement sets out objectives, jurisdictional
    standards, criteria and guidelines respecting the designated beneficial
    uses of Great Lakes waters. Locations where these limiting  measures of
    water quality have been exceeded are designated Areas of Concern under the
    Agreement and are consequently  subject to extraordinary measures for
    remediation and rehabilitation. Problems in  Areas of  Concern  are,  at
    present, predominantly those attributed to toxic chemical contamination. In
    addition to causing use impairment, this form of pollution may also cause
    loss  of both habitat and biological diversity in some  locations.

    At present, 42 sites around the Great Lakes Basin have  been designated as
    Areas of Concern by the International Joint Commission under the Agreement.
    Seven  of these are found in the Lake  Ontario Basin. They are:

    On the Canadian  side of Lake Ontario

        o    Bay of Quinte
        o    Port Hope Harbour
        o    Toronto  Waterfront
        o    Hamilton  Harbour

    On the United States  side  of Lake Ontario

        o    Eighteenmile Creek
        o    Rochester Embayment
        o    Oswego River

    In addition, the international connecting channels to Lake Ontario,
    binational in responsibility, have been designated Areas of Concern.  They
    are:

        o    Niagara  River
        o    St. Lawrence River

    .The Great  Lakes Water  Quality  Agreement calls for the  agencies to alleviate
   ' water use impairments in these areas through development and implementation
    of action programs specifically  designed  to  bring  about the necessary
    improvements. Such programs are known as Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) and
    are characterized by  a logical sequence of activities  for problem
    identification  and resolution.

-------
Remedial Action  Plans derive from  two key realizations:

o    the recognition that disparate programs often focussed :on  specific
     problems without due  attention  being  .paid  to  overlapping
     responsibilities and consequences, and

o    the need to involve,  in  a coordinated manner, the multiplicity of
     jurisdictions and interests represented within  these Areas of Concern.

Figure I illustrates the general approach followed in  developing a RAP for
a designated Area of Concern. It identifies the stepwise,  ecosystem driven
process undertaken in addressing  specific use  impairments, particularly
those occurring as the result of toxic chemical contamination. Figure II is
a  representation of the process by which the various jurisdictions and
interests are integrated in developing and  carrying  out a RAP.

It- is intended that the RAP process become  an integral  component of the
LOTMP. This will become more apparent as the Plan assumes the .identity of a
lakewide management plan under Annex H of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. There is a  clear need for very close  coordination between  RAP
activities and  initiatives undertaken as the result of implementation of
the LOTMP. For at least the first  year  the  RAPs,  having an already well
established program  of public  consultation involving a majority of the
interested and affected Lake Ontario Basin community, will serve as the
communications vehicle for the LOTMP. This focus  will ensure the necessary
coordination takes place as well  as guide the LOTMP towards the GLWQA and
its attendant negotiated provisions for remediation and  jurisdictional
accountability. This  ensuing direction will  facilitate  identification of
new potential "hotspots" and provide the mechanism  for rapid and effective
agency response. It will also aid in ongoing assessment, allowing agencies
to measure progress and determine when remediation is complete,  use
impairment has been eliminated and  beneficial uses restored. These areas
may then be "delisted", allowing jurisdictions to refocus their energies on
other problems.

On the Canadian side of Lake Ontario, RAPs are being developed under the
auspices of the Canada-Ontario Agreement .Respecting Great Lakes Water
Quality  (COA). The Agreement is  overseen  by a  joint review board  and
provides the mechanism for  cooperative federal/provincial effort in areas
of mutual responsibility. A  RAP is considered complete when the COA Board
of Review  approves its submission to  the  Water Quality  Board  of  the
International Joint Commission. Summaries of  recent progress  on  the
Canadian RAPs are  given at the end of this Appendix.

On  the  U.S.  side of  the Lake, the New York State  Department of
Environmental  Conservation  has assumed responsibility for preparing  RAPs
for Eighteenmile Creek,  Rochester Embayment  and  Oswego Harbor.  Most of the
work in preparing the  Rochester Embayment RAP will be undertaken by Monroe
County.  The Department is assisted by the US EPA  and  win submit  RAPs
directly to the International  Joint Commission  when they are completed.
Summaries of progress on the New York RAPs  are given at the end  of this
appendix.

-------
FIGURE I.    REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS  -  GENERIC  TASKS









                    o Environmental Data  Base  o







              o Identification of Pollution Sources o







       o  Identification of Restoration Goals  and  Objectives o







                 o Remedial  Action  Requirements o







              o Identification of Preferred Options o







 o Draft Remedial Action Plan (including  implementation schedule) o







                 o Cooperative Agency Approvals o







         o Agency Release for Public  Review and Comment o







 o Preparation of Final RAP (including implementation schedule) o







                     o  Final  Agency  Approvals o







        o Transmission of RAP to the IJC by the Agencies o

-------
                                               I
                                               N
                                               T
                                               E
                                               G
                                               R
                                               A
                                               T
                                               E
                                                                 INTERNATIONAL
                                                                JOINT COMMISSION
                                                      GREAT LAKES
                                                   FISHERIES COMMISSION
                                                   ENVIRONMENT CANADA
                                            U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                                         AND
                                                OTHER  FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS
                                                          U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                                                                     AND
                                                          CANADA DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
FISHERIES
   AND
 WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT
  LAND
  USE
PLANNING
ATMOSPHERIC
 EMISSIONS
  CONTROL
 NON POINT
. SOURCE
 CONTROL
                                                                 JURISDICTION
GROUNDWATER
MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
INDUSTRIAL
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
HARZARDOUS
  WASTE
MANAGEMENT
  WATER
MANAGEMENT
   AND
  HARBOUR
MAINTENANCE
                                                                                         RECREATION
                                                                REGIONAL/COUNTY
                                                             PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
                                                                                                                INTEGRATE
                                                               CITY AND TOWNSHIP
                                                                 GOVERNMENTS
                                                                PUBLIC INTEREST
                                                                    GROUPS
                                                               CONCERNED CITIZENS
                                               4
                                                                 FIGURE  II
     A TWO  DIMENSIONAL SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM WHICH  DEPICTS  THE NEED TO INTEGRATE THE  RESPONSIBILITIES OF
        DIFFERENT  AGENCIES,  ORGANIZATIONS AND  PROGRAMS UNDER THE UMBRELLA  OF  A REMEDIAL ACTION  PLAN

-------
Remedial Action Plans are to be submitted to the IJC for review and comment at
three stages. First, when a definition of the problem has been completed;
second, when remedial and regulatory measures are selected;  and finally, when
monitoring indicates that identified beneficial uses have been restored. The
following timetable summarizes the planned development stages of the IJC Areas
of Concern on the Canadian side of the  Lake.
            CANADIAN  AREAS OF CONCERN ON LAKE ONTARIO

          REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN STATUS -  DECEMBER,  1988
LOCATION
  IJC
Stage   I
 Report
 Target
                    Jan-Mar 1989
     Apr-Dec 1989
  IJC
Stage  II
 Report
 Target

 (Quarter)
Hamilton  Harbour

Toronto Waterfront    X

Port  Hope Harbour     X

Bay  of Quinte          X
                      3 Qtr 1989

                      4 Qtr 1990

                      2 Qtr 1989

                      3 Qtr 1989
Hamilton Harbour

The assessment of environmental conditions in the harbour has been completed
and published in a discussion document for public review. The primary  focus of
the document is on water and sediment quality and on contaminants in fish.
Where data were available, information on related environmental matters such as
fish populations and habitat, and  wildlife and water birds have been included.

While the assessment has been completed, additional studies  are being carried
out to address  the information gaps. These include:

o   further assessment of the sources and biological effects of contaminated
    sediments;
o   assessment of in-situ treatment of  contaminated  sediments;
o   feasibility of proposed ammonia and phosphorus treatment at the  Hamilton
    sewage treatment  plant;
o   intensive  fish  and fish habitat study of the  Harbour;
o   analysis of the water exchange between the bay and Lake Ontario for its
    impact on  water quality,  and
o   fecal coliform testing to establish general nearshore levels  and  the
    reasons for their variation.

-------
Three major studies have been completed in 1988. A socio-economic study of the
several remedial options proposed (including a numerical model of the impact of
ammonia and phosphorus control on hypolimnetic oxygen), a study of the source
of suspended sediments to tributaries in the rural areas of the basin, and a
determination of the sources  of water  clarity  problems.

A number of  plans are  expected to  be completed in 1989:

1.  The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth is preparing a plan for
    completion of  a combined sewer  overflow remediation  program;

2.  The RAP team,  in conjunction with the Regional Conservation Authority,will
    be developing  a plan for control of suspended  solids loadings to the west
    end of the  Harbour, and

3.  The Ontario Ministry of the Environment  is developing a pilot plan for a
    computer-assisted  storm event control system to optimize sanitary and storm
    sewer operation  in  the area.

Intensive monitoring of the Harbour and its  tributaries has been undertaken
from  1986 to  1988 to  establish baseline  environmental quality  data. A
monitoring program has been designed for ambient water quality, sewage
treatment plant effluents, fish, wildlife, sediments and tributary loadings.
Effluent  and  process  monitoring   regulations  under the   Ontario
Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) are expected to be in effect
by  mid-1989.

As well, a funding agreement has been established to clean  up a contaminated
sediment problem  in Windermere Basin.

The steel industry continues to implement measures designed to reduce
contaminant loadings to the harbour. Dofasco Inc. will be undertaking diversion
of biological treatment effluent to the municipal sewage treatment plant in
1989. Plans  are in  place to recirculate  Dofasco's blast  furnace cleaning
wastewater in 1989.

The loss of marsh in the harbour has been of concern to many. On June  13, 1988
the Board of the Royal Botanical Gardens approved  a  project to restore the
marsh in Cootes Paradise with the help of Ducks Unlimited. However, the project
is still subject to approvals by the regulatory agencies.  Restoration is
planned for the fall of 1989 and will take three months to complete at a cost
of  $1.25  million.

In March, 1988, a  report on "Goals, Problems and Options" was released and
submitted to Stakeholders. The report was considered  at a public meeting in
May, 1988 and a Stakeholders' meeting in  October, 1988.  It will form the basis
of discussions between  the Writing  Team  and Stakeholders leading to
determination of the preferred options in  early  1989.

Toronto Harbour

The emphasis  in the  last year has been on the establishment  of a public
information program and the development of a public advisory  process. The
public information program has been aimed at informing the public about the RAP
process  and providing opportunities for community involvement. The public
advisory process has been aimed at gaining public input in goal setting.

-------
Program activities have included distribution of a brochure and newsletters,
poster display, and fact sheets on beaches, fish consumption, aesthetics and
drinking water. During the spring of 1988, meetings  were held with the Toronto
Waterfront Remedial Action Committee (WRAP), environmental,  conservation,
recreation and community groups, and interested  individuals preparatory to the
Metro Toronto RAP.

The public involvement program consists of the  production  of reports and
discussion papers, and the sponsorship of  a workshop to review reports, set
goals, and review ongoing remedial programs. The  workshop, held in October,
1988  discussed the following documents:

o   Environmental Conditions and  Problem Definition Report
o   Discussion Paper on  Goals
o   Discussion Paper of  Existing Remedial Programs
o   Reference List

The Centre for the Great Lakes was contracted to conduct the workshop held in
October, 1988 at  which  more than 100 individual and  group  participants
discussed water use goals and the progress  of remedial measures  was reviewed.

Municipalities within the study  area have  been requested  to nominate
representatives to the public advisory process,  and provide staff to act on a
technical advisory committee. Two municipal representatives will be added to
the RAP team  and a representative of the public may also  be added to the RAP
team  in the future.

A number of studies and remedial actions have been  undertaken and  are ongoing
in the Metro Toronto region. These include:

o   river quality  management plans for the  Humber and  Don rivers, and
o   implementation of remedial measures  (sewer  separation  projects and
    detention tanks)  under the Metro Toronto Waterfront Water  Quality
    Improvement  Program.

Port  Hope

The first stage report on problem definition has been completed and  will be
submitted in the first quarter of 1989.

The Port Hope Harbour RAP Public Involvement Program has been emphasized over
the last year. The program consists  of meetings  with the Port Hope
Environmental Advisory Committee, a newsletter,  articles concerning Port Hope
Harbour RAP in the Low Level Radioactive Waste  Management Office of the  Atomic
Energy of Canada  Ltd. (AECL-LLRWMO) newsletter and providing information
packages on the RAP  to  all interested Port  Hope  area residents.

A RAP Community Information Workshop was held  in March,  1988. It was attended
by over 40 individuals and stakeholders. The workshop provided the stakeholders
with the opportunity to express opinions on use goals and the Public
Involvement  process. Public consultation and stakeholder discussions  will
continue with the  objective  of submitting a  final RAP to  the IJC in December,
1989.

-------
Detailed plans for sediment removal have been developed by the LLRWMO.
WhitesheU Nuclear Research Establishment of AECL has completed a small scale
in-situ demonstration project and supporting laboratory program  to confirm the
viability of the recommended cleanup method for the harbour (clamshell dredging
followed by suction  dredging  of residual sediment). The project will  ensure
that the cleanup of  the harbour will not pose any unacceptable environmental
risks. The demonstration project's clamshell dredging was completed in the fall
of 1987. The test area was left until  June 1988 when the hydraulic cleanup
process was undertaken. A summary report containing analytical results and
remedial action recommendations  is scheduled to be completed  late in 1988.

The National Water Research  Institute (NWRI)  Of  Environment Canada  is
conducting a field survey to determine  contaminant  loadings of sediments to
Port Hope Harbour. This study will  give an indication as to the potential for
recontamination of harbour sediments following the cleanup. It is  based  on the
continuance of present  loadings.

The implementation of the proposed remedial action for Port Hope Harbour is
dependent on the establishment of a low level radioactive waste facility. A
special Task Force was established  in 1986 to  identify the siting process  by
which candidate sites will be selected. The Siting Task Force has been given  an
eighteen month mandate to implement several of the recommendations in the first
phase of the report entitled, "Opting for Cooperation". The siting process is
anticipated to take three to five years to complete.  Following  this, the
construction of an operational waste disposal facility  will begin. This
facility  will be capable of receiving sediments from  Port Hope Harbour.

Bay  of  Ouinte

The public information and involvement component of  the RAP is being  jointly
handled by the RAP team and a twenty one member Public Advisory Committee with
the assistance of a consultant-facilitator. Several approaches have been
employed throughout  the development of the RAP to inform and involve the
public. These have included: public meetings, information  booths, newsletters,

questionnaires,  and talks,  plus routine media coverage. The final phase will
involve consultation with the public  concerning the options for remedial
action.

The RAP Team produced a progress report in January, 1987 which documented
ecosystem status, data gaps, impaired uses, concerns and restoration objectives
together with a list of potential remedial options.  Following  the release of
the report, a series of technical studies and consultant's evaluations were
initiated to complete the ecosystem assessment and examine cost and feasibility
of the potential remedial options. These are being published by the RAP Team as
a  series of technical documents for the RAP.  The  studies include:

o   evaluation of municipal and industrial  point source loadings;
o   evaluation of diffuse source contaminant  loadings at the Bay;
o   evaluation of landfill sites as sources of persistent toxic contaminants;
o   evaluation of phosphorus  sediment  flux;
o   evaluation of toxics data base;
o   toxics studies for water,  sediments,  and biota, and
o   bacteriological studies

-------
During 1988 scientists, resource managers, consultants and members of the
Public Advisory Committee participated in two ecosystem  modelling workshops.
The purpose of the workshops was to  construct a conceptual model of the
ecosystem linkages and develop, to the extent possible,  predictive numerical
models which would allow an integrated evaluation of anticipated ecosystem
responses to potential remedial measures.

The final phase of information synthesis,  a socio-economic study, is now in
progress. It will include a comparative assessment of the potential  remedial
measures options and their cost effectiveness.
         UNITED STATES AREAS  OF CONCERN  ON LAKE ONTARIO

                    REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN STATUS


LOCATION                     STATUS          SCHEDULED COMPLETION



Oswego River           In  progress                  1990

Rochester Embayment   Started, November, 1988      1991

Eighteenmile Creek    Not yet underway             1992




Oswego River

The Oswego River Area of  Concern, located at the entrance into Lake Ontario of
the largest sub-basin tributary to the Lake, is the recipient  of drainage  from
5,122 square miles of  land.

IJC-identified problems in this Area of Concern are conventional pollutants,
heavy metals, and  contaminated sediments.

In 1985, Science Applications International  Corporation assembled key  data
source documents for  the Area of Concern. The Corporation then  assessed the
sufficiency of the documents and identified  additional data  needs.

New York's water pollution control program has resulted in adequate treatment
for all of the point source discharges in the drainage basin tributary to the
Oswego River Area of Concern. Such  sources  include  the cities of Syracuse,
Fulton, and Oswego, in addition to major  communities in the  upper reaches of
the  Basin.

In connection with heavy metals  and contaminated sediments, a series of  samples
was collected and analysed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers in May, 1987.  (The
Oswego Harbor is maintained and dredged by the  Corps.) NYSDEC collected a
sample of sediment from the  mouth of the river  in 1987. This information is
available for review and  assessment by the  RAP  participants in their
development of the Plan.

-------
A committee of citizens from the local area was organized in  April, 1987 and
has held monthly meetings since. Their accomplishments have included defining
desired use, publishing newsletters to inform people about the Oswego Area  of
Concern,  and conducting  public  meetings.

In development of the Remedial Action Plan, a technical meeting was held among
NYSDEC staff and local scientists to review the environmental data and  define
the problems in this  AOC. Input from  this meeting and other sources relative  to
the problems in the AOC has been assembled  into a problem-statement chapter.
This and two other chapters, the Environmental Setting  and the Introduction,
have been  given to the CAC as a working draft for  their  review. One meeting
with the CAC has since been held,  written comments received, and changes  in
these chapters are now being  made.

A workplan has been developed, describing the activities,  the timing, and the
responsible parties (DEC'S Regional Office at Syracuse,  DEC's Central Office,
and the Citizen's Advisory  Committee) leading to the formal RAP document.

The Remedial  Action  Plan  is  scheduled for completion  in  1990.

Rochester Embayment

The Remedial Action Plan for the Rochester  Embayment started in 1985  with a
three-step gathering  of information by the Science Applications International
Corporation, a consultant employed by USEPA. The result of  that effort was the
assembly  of key source documents, assessment of the sufficiency of the
information, and identification  of  additional data  needs.

Problems in the Area  of Concern, according to the IJC, stem from  conventional
pollutants, heavy  metals,  toxic organics  and  contaminated sediments.

Past water pollution  control efforts have resulted in management of all point
source discharges in  the area tributary to the Rochester  Embayment. The County
of Monroe  is presently in  the midst of  a combined sewer  overflow abatement
project that will result in  adequate treatment of all of Rochester's storm
drainage  through transmittal to the Van  Lare  Wastewater Treatment  Plant.

The Irondequoit Basin (Irondequoit Creek and Bay) is tributary to the Area  Of
Concern. Monroe County is implementing a water quality management program for
the Irondequoit Basin. This program integrates management  of nonpoint sources
of pollution from urban and agricultural  areas and management of  in-place
pollutants in Irondequoit Bay. The management plan integrates findings  of the
Irondequoit Bay  Clean Lakes Program, the Irondequoit Basin Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program, and the NYSDEC Irondequoit  Basin  Agricultural Runoff  Study.
Implementation of  the  plan to date includes:

o   Application  of 924,000 gallons of alum to Irondequoit Bay to bind
    accumulated  phosphorus in deep bay  muds, and thereby  preclude its
    availability as a nutrient;

o   Continuation and expansion of  a water quality monitoring program  in
    association with the U.S.  Geological Survey. This includes  research  of the
    modification of  an existing detention  basin to improve water quality,
    monitoring of groundwater, and  monitoring of a wetland  system that could  be
    further used for stormwater treatment;  and
                                                                          10

-------
o   Institution of a construction site erosion control program in cooperation
    with the Soil and Water Conservation District. This includes the hiring of
    an erosion control technician who reviews site plans and construction  sites
    for erosion  control compliance.

In 1985, the Monroe County Department of  Health conducted the Genesee River
Sediment Toxics Study, an activity to identify  the types and  toxicity of
sediment at the mouth of the river, which  is the prime component of the Area of
Concern.

NYSDEC, in  1987 and 1988, collected additional sediment samples from the lower
portion of the Genesee River.

An award of $241,150 of CLean Water Act  205j funds has  been  made to Monroe
County to assist NYSDEC in the preparation of the Rochester Embayment Remedial
Action Plan. Watershed plans for each  of the watersheds that  flow to the
embayment are being prepared as  part of this  effort. A detailed workplan has
been prepared and contract preparation is underway. A kick-off public meeting
was held  in mid-November (1988).

A Citizens' Advisory Committee and subcommittees are in the process of being
formed by  Monroe County.

The Plan  is expected to  be  completed in 1991.

Eighteenmile Creek

The International Joint Commission  identified problems in the  Eighteenmile
Creek Area of Concern as being  the result of conventional pollutants, heavy
metals, and contaminated  sediments.

Past contamination  of the creek was due to municipal discharges from  the city
of Lockport and the hamlet of Newfane, and to various discharges from Harrison
Radiator (near Lockport) and various industries located along the stream
between the city and the lake. Abatement  of this pollution has been achieved
through control of point sources in the drainage area, primarily through
upgrading  at Lockport and consolidation, treatment, and discharge to Lake
Ontario of the effluents in  and around Newfane.

In 1987 and 1988, NYSDEC collected sediment samples from  the harbor at Olcott
and from the creek upstream of dams located at Hurt and at Newfane.  Prior
sampling had  been conducted by US EPA and the Corps of Engineers.  High sediment
metal concentrations were noted  behind the two dams.

At the present time, efforts are being concentrated in the other five New York
Areas of Concern, with the RAP for this area being delayed until  the  rest are
substantially completed. It is envisioned that work on  this Remedial Action
Plan will get underway  in 1991  and be  completed  by 1992.
                                                                           11

-------
     LAKE ONTARIO

TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
                    Appendix VI
          Ecosystem Objectives Work Group

-------
                                                              APPENDIX VI
                 ECOSYSTEM OBJECTIVES  DEVELOPMENT


Background


The development and application  of  ecosystem objectives  represents an
alternative approach to the traditional, chemical specific  environmental
objective setting process employed in the Great Lakes Basin. As recognized in
the revised (1987)  Great Lakes Water Quality  Agreement (GLWQA), chemical
objectives alone are insufficient for  protecting  ecosystem integrity.
Accordingly, the  Parties to the GLWQA, the  governments of Canada and the United
States, are committed to the development of ecosystem objectives for the Great
Lakes. To this  end, the governments have established a Binational Objectives
Development Committee which will include an Ecosystem  Objectives  Work Group.

It is proposed that the development of ecosystem objectives for  Lake Ontario be
undertaken through the GLWQA by the Ecosystem Objectives Work Group (EOWG). By
adopting such an approach, the agencies build on the  formalized cooperative
intergovernmental framework on  the Great Lakes with its clear definition,
purpose and  structure  for objective  development:

  o Annex 1 of the GLWQA sets out specific objectives (to include ecosystem
    objectives) under the Agreement and the  framework for developing these
    between the Parties.

  o Annex  2 of the GLWQA defines and establishes the concept of lakewide
    management plans,  including the development and application of objectives.

  o Annex 11 of the  GLWQA sets out specific  ecosystem health indicators for
    Lake  Superior and calls for development of indicators for  the rest of the
    Lakes.

  o Annex  12 of the  GLWQA requires the establishment of action levels to
    protect human health  based on multimedia exposure and  the interactive
    effects of  toxic substances.

The GLWQA structure provides access to the existing institutional arrangements
amongst federal, state and provincial governments  and  incorporates the
necessary links to the International Joint  Commission as  well as  to the
concerned and  affected public. Clearly, this arrangement presents the  logical
vehicle for maintaining the direction and coordination essential to the success
of such a unique undertaking. It further ensures that ecosystem objectives and
indicators developed for Lake Ontario  will be consistent and  compatible  with
those developed for the rest of the Great Lakes. For these reasons, the Niagara
River/Lake Ontario Coordination Committee  has agreed to utilize  the EOWG to
carry out the ecosystem  objective commitments in the Lake Ontario Toxics
Management Plan. In  addition, the Coordination Committee has  established
deadlines for  meeting these  commitments.

-------
Considerations

1.  Work undertaken through the auspices of the International Joint Commission
    led to the existing oligotrophic  ecosystem  objectives for Lake Superior
    identified in the GLWQA. A proposed mesotrophic indicator is presently  in  a
    draft stage. This background work and the expertise developed through these
    activities need to be drawn upon in future ecosystem objective development.

2.  Existing  approaches to ecosystem objective development have  focused
    strictly on the aquatic system. The GLWQA defines the Great Lakes Basin
    Ecosystem as the interacting components of air, land,  water and living
    organisms, including humans, within the  drainage basin. The development of
    objectives by the Ecosystem Objectives Work Group will  have to consider
    broadening the existing  approaches beyond the aquatic  system.

3.  The GLWQA requires that the public be consulted in the development and
    adoption of  objectives. The agencies supporting the development of the  Lake
    Ontario Toxics Management Plan have also acknowledged the need for public
    participation  in the development of  ecosystem objectives.


Terms of Reference

The terms  of reference of the  GLWQA Ecosystem Objectives Work Group have not
been finalized at the time of preparation of the LOTMP. However, the  following
elements  are anticipated:

1.  The Ecosystem Objectives  Work Group  (EOWG)  reports to the Canada-U.S.
    Binational  Objectives Development  Committee.

2.  The EOWG  will be co-chaired  by Environment Canada and the  U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency and will include membership from the
    Province and the  States.

3.  Membership on the EOWG should represent a range of ecological views and
    maintain historic continuity with IJC efforts, and include  representation
    from agencies (including provincial and  state agencies)  with public health
    and natural resource management responsibilities involving Lake Ontario.
    Partial membership changes are anticipated when ecosystem  objectives are
    being developed for the other  Great Lakes.

4.  The EOWG will undertake a review  of the rationale and development of the
    existing  oligotrophic objectives  (Lake Superior)  and proposed IJC
    mesotrophic objective.

5.  The EOWG will  consider alternative approaches to ecosystem objective
    development (eg. structural vs.  functional,  community  vs. organism)
    including  non-aquatic  objectives  (eg. humans, wildlife).

6.  The EOWG will identify appropriate system variables for future monitoring
    based on an ecosystem objective concept.

7.  The EOWG will identify gaps in  knowledge needed to develop and apply
    ecosystem  objectives and recommend  research required.

-------
8.  Based  on  a  consideration of 4,5,6 and 7 above, the EOWG  will  develop
   ecosystem  objectives for Lake Ontario initially, and then  for the other
   boundary waters of the Great Lakes  system, or portions thereof, and for
   Lake Michigan.

9.  In developing recommended ecosystem  objectives for Lake Ontario, the EOWG
   will:

   o Meet the output commitments and  deadlines  associated with activities
     VIIC1 and VIIC2  in the Lake Ontario Toxics  Management Plan;

   o Address both human health and the health of aquatic biota and their
     predators;  and

   o Report progress on  a regular basis to the  Lake Ontario Secretariat.

   The Niagara  River/Lake Ontario Coordination Committee will recommend public
   membership for the  EOWG.

10. The  EOWG will identify appropriate additional public  consultative
   mechanisms in  the development of ecosystem objectives.

-------
     LAKE ONTARIO

TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
                     Appendix VII
             Niagara River/Lake Ontario
             Categorization Committee Charge

-------
                                                               Appendix VII
                        Niagara River/Lake Ontario
                         Categorization Connittee
                                  Charge
     Under both the Niagara River and Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plans
chemicals will be categorized based on a number of factors, including:
their presence in the waterbodies or in biota at levels above or below
agency standards and criteria, the relation of their detection levels in
the waterbodies to the standards and criteria, and whether or not they are
known to be entering the waterbodies (see the two plans for details).  As
our knowledge about chemicals in these waterbodies increases, and as
discharge levels change, the assignment of chemicals to specific categories
will change.  A continuous effort will be needed to keep the categorization
scheme up-to-date.

     The Categorization Committee is charged as follows:

          1.  Maintain the categorization of chemicals for the Niagara
              River and Lake Ontario (separately) so that they are
              reasonably current and available for use by the Niagara River
              and Lake Ontario Secretariats.

          2.  Perform the categorization using procedures established by
              the Secretariats tempered by scientific judgment.

          3.  Advise the Secretariats on needs for changes in the
              established categorization procedures.

-------
     LAKE ONTARIO

TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
                       Appendix VIII
                 Niagara  River/Lake Ontario
                 Standards  And Criteria
                    Committee Charge

-------
                                                              Appendix VIII
                        Niagara River/Lake Ontario
                     Standards and Criteria Committee
                                  Charge
     The levels of toxic chemicals in water and fish in Lake Ontario and
in the Niagara River, and whether or not these levels exceed environmental
standards and criteria, are major driving forces behind implementation of
the two Toxics Management Plans.  For many chemicals found in these
waterbodies, standards and criteria do not exist.  Where they do exist the
values often differ among different agencies.

     An attempt will be made to insure that standards and criteria are
developed for chemicals found above natural background levels in the
ambient water, biota, and sediments where standards and criteria do not
presently exist.  At the same time, where agencies already have standards
and criteria, an attempt will be made to examine differences, where they
exist, and propose common values that can be adopted by all four agencies.
These are expected to require a continuing effort.

     The Niagara River and the Lake Ontario Secretariats are jointly
establishing a Standards and Criteria Committee to assist them in the
annual plan updates and in making recommendations to appropriate agencies
on standards and criteria.  This committee will report to the Secretariats.
They will be expected to consult with the IJC and other agencies as
necessary to prevent duplication of effort and insure a coordinated
program.

     The specific charge to the Standards and Criteria Committee is:

     1.   For Category IA  (exceeds enforceable standard) and IB  (exceeds a
          criterion) chemicals, review the standards and criteria for their
          adequacy relative to the purposes of the two Toxics Management
          Plans, and identify standards and criteria that are inadequate
          for these purposes.  Where significant differences in standards
          and criteria exist among agencies, describe the reasons for these
          differences and propose ways in which the differences can be
          resolved.

     2.   For Category IE chemicals  (no criteria exist), describe the
          current status of standard and criteria development noting
          responsible agencies and scheduled completion dates for each
          chemical.

     3.   For Category IE chemicals, where no criteria or standard
          development is underway, prepare a plan for criteria development.
          The plan  should include a  scheme to select and prioritize
          chemicals for criteria development based on their likely
          environmental significance and the state of current scientific
          information  for these chemicals.   It  should describe where
          important scientific  information gaps  exist and propose agencies
          that  could best be  responsible for obtaining  this information.

-------
4.   The comhittee will keep informed of progress in the development of
     specific objectives by the federal agencies tinder the Great Lakes
     Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), and coordinate their work, to the
     extent feasible, with work being done under the GLW3A.

-------
     LAKE ONTARIO

TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
                   Appendix  IX
             Niagara  River/Lake  Ontario
             Fate  of  Toxics Committee  Charge

-------
                                                   Appendix IX


                   Niagara River/Lake Ontario
                    Fate of Toxics Committee
                             Charge

The Niagara River Toxics Management Plan has identified seven
toxics that exceed standards or criteria in the water column in
the Niagara River.  The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan has
identified eleven toxics that exceed standards or criteria in the
water column or in fish tissue in Lake Ontario.

A common objective of both plans is to eliminate exceedances of
standards and criteria.  Mathematical models of pollutant fate
can be developed to relate pollutant inputs to levels of toxics
in the aunbient water column, sediment and biota.  The models can
be used to estimate the reductions in loadings necessary to
achieve standards and criteria and to estimate the time lags
associated with system response.  The Lake Ontario Toxics
Committee and the Niagara River Secretariat are establishing a
joint committee to develop mathematical models of pollutant fate.
The charge to the joint committee is as follows.

  o Develop appropriate conceptual models that account for
    essential system characteristics such as:

         - Hydrodynamics;
         - Zonation;
         - Impacts of areas of concern such as harbors and
           embayments;
         - Time scales for response; and
         - Other physical, biological and chemical factors.

  o Develop loading estimates, by source, for the chemicals that
    exceed standards and criteria; these estimates will build on
    those in the Niagara River and Lake Ontario Plans.

  o Use the models to relate pollutant loadings to levels of
    toxics in the ambient water column, sediment and biota, as
    appropriate.

  o Estimate the  reductions in loadings necessary to meet
    standards and criteria; estimate system lag times and
    estimate potential errors.

The Fate of Toxics Committee will be expected to estimate the
reductions in loadings necessary to meet standards and criteria
based on preliminary models of pollutant fate within one year.
These preliminary models will be based entirely on existing data.
The Committee will also be expected to define additional
sampling, analysis and research necessary to develop improved
models, over time.

-------
The Fate of Toxics Committee will report to the Niagara River
Secretariat and Lake Ontario Toxics Committee.

-------
  PUBLIC RESPONSIVENESS DOCUMENT


LAKE ONTARIO TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
                     Lake Ontario Toxics Committee
                     February, 1989

-------
                            Table of Contents

                                                             Page

I.        Introduction                                         1

II.       Executive Summary:  Public Comment And                3
         Responses

         A.    The Toxics Problem In Lake Ontario              3
         B.    Goals                                           5
         C.    Today's Programs                                8
         D.    Geographic Areas Of Special Concern             9
         E.    Future Approach                                 10
         F.    Communication And Reporting                     12
         G.    General                                         15

III.      Responses To Additional Comments On The              16
         Draft Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan

         A.    Plan                                            16
         B.    Toxics Problem In Lake Ontario                  25
         C.    Toxics Loadings To Lake Ontario                 28

-------
I.   Introduction
On February 4, 1987, the Four Parties (Environment Canada,  the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment,  the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation) signed a Declaration of
Intent that included a commitment to develop a Toxics Management
Plan for Lake Ontario.

Since January 28, 1988, when the Coordination Committee approved
the release of the draft Plan to the public, the Lake Ontario
Toxics Committee (LOTC) has pursued an aggressive public outreach
effort to ascertain the public's views on the draft Plan and has
continued to make necessary additions and improvements to the
draft Plan.

The LOTC has:

o   Developed a summary of the draft Plan entitled "Draft Lake
    Ontario Toxics Management Plan: Summary and Issues for
    Public Discussion";

o   Made the draft Plan and Summary available at repositories
    around the Lake Ontario basin;

o   Mailed approximately 6500 copies of the Summary to the
    public;

o   Conducted five public meetings;

    Toronto, Ontario    - 57 in attendance
    Rochester, N.Y.     - 26 in attendance
    Watertown, N.Y.     - 34 in attendence
    Niagara Falls, N.Y. - 22 in attendence
    Oswego, N.Y.        - 27 in attendence

o   Responded to requests for approximately 250 copies of the
    draft Plan; and

o   Received  45 sets  of written comments on the draft Plan,
    including one  letter co-signed by representatives of twenty
    organizations.

The Public Responsiveness Document (PRO) reflects the extensive
comments received  from Canadian and U.S. citizens around the Lake
Ontario Basin.  The major portion of public comment  is discussed
in Part II, entitled,  "Executive Summary: Public Comment And
Responses".   The Executive Summary is organized into seven
sections:

-------
    A.  The Toxics Problem In Lake Ontario;
    B.  Goals;
    C.  Today's Programs;
    D.  Geographic Areas Of Special Concern;
    E.  Future Approach;
    F.  Communication And Reporting; and
    G.  General.

These sections correspond to those used in the Plan Summary.   For
each section there are sub-sections summarizing:

    o What the draft Plan says;
    o What the public says; and
    o Proposed response.

Responses to additional public comments are included in Part III,
entitled, "Responses To Additional Comments On The Draft Lake
Ontario Toxics Management Plan".

-------
II.  Executive Summary:  Public Comment And Responses


A.  The Toxics Problem In Lake Ontario


What The Draft Plan Savs


The draft Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan concludes that:

o Toxics are a problem in fish flesh because they accumulate
  to levels unsafe for human consumption;

o The ecosystem may be under stress from chemical
  contamination, but more information is needed to understand
  what is taking place;

o Toxics are considered by health agencies not to be a problem in
  treated drinking water;

o Toxics in the Lake, and toxics continuing to enter the Lake
  are a problem because they make it impossible to achieve the
  Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement goal of virtual
  elimination of persistent toxics.


What The Public Savs


There was no one who disagreed with the statement that
bioaccumulated toxics in fish flesh are a problem.

Most felt that the ecosystem is under stress. Some felt that
toxics are clearly the cause; others accepted the Plan's
premise that the cause/effect link still needs to be established.
Some suggested additional references that may prove useful in
evaluating cause and effect; others emphasized the need for
further research.

Many saw the need to take a more holistic view of the impact
of toxics on human health; they emphasized that we don't fully
understand the impact of toxics from Lake Ontario on humans.
Some saw the need for epidemiological studies which would show
the integrated effect of toxics from all sources on humans in
the basin.

Most were extremely uncomfortable with the statement, "In
drinking water, toxics are considered by health agencies not to
be a problem".  Some felt that toxics in treated drinking water
are a problem; others felt that it is premature to say that
toxics in treated drinking water are not a problem.

-------
The concept of virtual elimination was generally discussed in
the context of goals, and not in the context of the toxics
problem in Lake Ontario.
Response

We agree that the ecosystem is under stress.  We welcome
additional references that may assist in evaluating the causes of
this stress.  However, although it appears likely that toxics at
their current levels contribute to the stress, conclusive
cause/effect evidence is not available.   The Plan notes the
establishment of an Ecosystem Objectives Work Group under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.  One charge to the Work
Group will be to identify the research required to better
understand the role of toxics in causing ecosystem stress. .The
Ecosystem Objectives Work Group will also be responsible for
developing objectives that will be used in an assessment of the
impacts of toxics in Lake Ontario on human health.

We recognize that the brief discussion of toxics in treated
drinking water that is contained in the draft Plan is
inadequate.  The final Plan includes a much more in-depth
evaluation of toxics in treated drinking water.  To the extent
that problems in treated drinking water are associated with raw
water quality, they fall within the scope of this Plan.  To the
extent that they are associated with the water treatment process,
they fall outside the scope of this Plan.

A Canadian federal interdepartmental task group comprised of
representatives from Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, and Health and Welfare Canada has been formed to prepare
a report on the effects of toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes.
Part I of the two part report will be primarily a data compendium
describing concentrations and levels of chemicals in Great Lakes
media.  The second part will interpret this information and
describe the effects of these chemicals in the Great Lakes Basin.
The report will be issued in July, 1989.  The Lake Ontario Toxics
Committee will review the results of the report to determine its
applicability to the LOTMP and to our understanding of the human
health impacts of toxics in Lake Ontario.

-------
B.  Goals


What The Draft Plan Says


The draft Plan outlines the following goals:

o Short term - reduction of chemical inputs.

o Intermediate - achievement of protective ambient levels.

o Long term - virtual elimination of persistent toxics in the
  Lake.


What The Public Says


Many stated that we need a more visionary statement of our
goals.

Many emphasized the need to associate deadlines with our goals.

Many felt there is a need to quantify our load reduction goals.

Many supported the step-wise movement towards the virtual
elimination of toxics in Lake Ontario:

o Load reduction, as a first step, had almost universal support;

o Further load reduction for problem toxics, such that
  protective ambient standards are attained, had substantial
  support; and

o Load reduction to zero also had substantial support.

Many felt that virtual elimination was a reasonable goal;
others felt that it was too Utopian and needed to be tempered
based on economic impacts; still others felt that, although
Utopian, virtual elimination should still be retained as a
long-term goal- "it's ok if goals are unachievable".  There were,
however, many different definitions of what virtual
elimination means.  For example:

o Zero discharge to the Lake;

o Non-detect in the Lake; and

o Present in the Lake at levels that do not harm human health
  and the ecosystem.

-------
Some suggested that virtual elimination should apply to all
toxics, not just persistent toxics.
Response

The final Plan contains only one goal, a long-term goal.  The
goal is a Lake that provides drinking water and fish that are
safe for unlimited human consumption, and allows natural
reproduction within the ecosystem of the most sensitive native
species, such as bald eagles, osprey, mink and otters.

The Plan also includes objectives that move us towards the long-
term goal.  Many of the activities carried out to fulfill these
objectives can be undertaken concurrently.  To the extent
possible, the objectives will be quantified and will include
target dates.

Objective 1.  Reductions In Toxic Inputs Driven By Existing And
              Developing Programs - Reduction of toxic inputs
              through the full implementation of existing and
              developing programs initiated prior to the Lake
              Ontario planning effort.

              a.   The final Plan includes target dates for the
                   full implementation of existing and
                   developing programs;  many of these dates
                   were also included  in the draft Plan.

              b.   The final Plan does not include an aggregated
                   load reduction estimate associated with the
                   implementation of all existing and developing
                   programs; the data necessary to develop this
                   estimate are not yet available.  An estimate
                   will be developed for inclusion in a Plan
                   update.

              Further Reductions In Toxic Inputs Driven By
              Special Efforts In Geographic Areas of concern -
              Remedial Action Plans  (RAPs) are currently being
              developed for seven Areas of Concern in the Lake
              Ontario basin: Eighteenmile Creek, Rochester
              Embayment, Oswego River, Bay of Quinte, Port Hope,
              Toronto Waterfront and Hamilton Harbour.  The
              final Plan contains commitments for the completion
              of the RAPs.  To the extent that the Plan
              identifies additional Areas of Concern, they will
              be brought to the attention of the individual
              jurisdictions for appropriate action.  The actions
Objective 2.

-------
Objective 3.
              taken to address  the  toxics  problems  in Areas of
              Concern will contribute  to the  elimination  of the
              toxics problem in the open waters  of  the Lake.  In
              addition,  the Four Parties have completed,  and  are
              currently implementing the Niagara River Toxics
              Management Plan.

              Further Reductions In Toxic  Inputs Driven By Lake-
              wide Analyses Of  Pollutant Fate -   Further
              reduction of inputs for  problem toxics such that
              we meet our goal  for  Lake Ontario.  Our  intention
              is to identify the input reductions required for
              problem toxics based on  increasingly  sophisticated
              analyses over time.

              a.   Preliminary  (Level  I) models  of  fate*  for
                   toxics exceeding standards or criteria will
                   be developed by January,  1989.  It  is  our
                   intention to apply  these  preliminary models  to
                   identify the required  input reductions.  It  is
                   also our intention  to  identify target  dates
                   for the attainment  of the required  input
                   reductions.

              b.   More fully-developed models of fate will be
                   generated as necessary, after a  careful
                   evaluation of the preliminary models.

              c.   If standards and criteria are attained, but
                   ecosystem objectives are  not  attained,
                   further reduction of problem toxics will be
                   required.

              Zero Discharge -  Further reduction of toxic inputs
              to zero through advances in technology and  through
              restrictions or voluntary elimination of the
              manufacture and use of certain toxics.   We  cannot
              quantify this objective  nor  can we associate  any
              target dates with it.

The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan deals with all toxics,
not just persistent toxics.
Objective 4.
    In this "Executive Summary" the term "preliminary model of
    fate" is synonymous with the term "mass balance model".

-------
C.  Today's Programs


What The Draft Plan Savs
In New York State, present pollution controls are based
principally on the use of technology to prevent toxic
substances from entering the environment.  Controls such as
wastewater discharge permits and hazardous site remedial plans
usually specify use of the best technologies available.  Where it
can be shown that application of the most effective technology is
riot sufficient to protect public health or the environment,
additional control measures are required.

In Ontario, effluent guidelines are set in legally-enforceable
Control Orders or Certificates of Approval, based on both
technology and water quality factors.  The Provincial Ontario
Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA), begun in
June, 1986, will set monitoring regulations and effluent
limit regulations based on best available technology (BAT).

The draft plan describes existing toxics control programs and the
activities that will be undertaken in the near future to fill
gaps in these programs.


What The Public Savs
There was general agreement that the full implementation of
existing and developing programs will achieve a significant
reduction of toxic inputs to the Lake.

There were a number of suggestions that the Plan include
additional programs.  Of particular note were concerns related
to shock loadings and the need for source reduction.

There were also a number of specific comments on the individual
programs.

-------
Response
The final Plan includes descriptions of additional programs and
commitments for their full implementation.  They are:

- Air Toxics
- Spills
- Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal
- Sludge Disposal
- Solid Waste
- Ambient Water Monitoring
- Potable Water
- Stream Classification
- Zero Discharge

Specific comments on the individual programs will be addressed
in Part III.
D.  Geographic Areas Of Special Concern


What The Draft Plan Savs
The Plan recommends focusing corrective activities on specific
geographic areas around Lake Ontario: the Niagara River and
seven Remedial Action Plan (RAP) areas located around the Lake.
What The Public Savs
The public fully supports intensive efforts focussed on
geographic areas of special concern.  They also believe this
focus will have a marked positive effect.  However, localized
efforts to remediate these designated sites should not result
in increased ambient Lake contamination.

Many emphasized the importance of the Niagara River and the
upstream Great Lakes as sources of toxics to Lake Ontario.

A few want to expand the study area to  include the St. Lawrence
River.

Many would like a process to  list and de-list Areas of
Concern.

Many see the need to coordinate the Lake-wide and RAP planning
efforts.

-------
Response
The Lake Ontario Toxics Committee acknowledges the importance of
the Niagara River and the upstream Great Lakes as sources of
toxics to Lake Ontario.  The Lake Ontario Plan, using mass
balance techniques, will identify the relative contributions of
problem toxics entering the Lake from various sources, including
the Niagara River and upstream Great Lakes.   This will, in turn,"
facilitate identification of proposed reduction targets and
implementation of appropriate management responses.

The Niagara River Toxics Management Plan will be used as the
vehicle to identify the required management responses within the
Niagara River Basin.  The Niagara River Toxics Management Plan
will also be used as the vehicle for referring proposed reduction
targets for the upstream Great Lakes to the appropriate
jurisdictions for response.

The general process for listing and de-listing Areas of Concern
is outlined in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.  To the
extent that the Plan identifies additional Areas of Concern,
they will be brought to the attention of the individual
jurisdictions for appropriate action.

In order to better coordinate the Lake-wide and RAP planning
efforts, the following steps will be taken:

o The Lake Ontario Toxics Committee will prepare letters to the
  jurisdictions responsible for the individual RAPs, identifying
  chemicals that are problems on a Lake-wide basis, and seeking
  assistance in obtaining load reductions for these chemicals
  to the extent that they have been identified as problems
  in the Areas of Concern.

o Information exchanges between the LOTC and the
  individual RAPs will be encouraged.

o Public involvement efforts will be coordinated
  (See Communication and Reporting).


E.  Future Approach


What The Draft Plan Savs
Future controls will limit toxics on a chemical-by-chemical
basis to ensure protection of human health and the ecosystem.
Ecosystem objectives will be established to evaluate the
effectiveness of the chemical-by-chemical approach.

                                                           10

-------
What The Public Savs
The chemical-by-chemical approach is seen as having advantages
and disadvantages.  The three major advantages are:

  o It allows us to set clear priorities;

  o Existing regulatory programs can deal with problems
    identified on a chemical specific basis; and

  o It is cost effective.

The two major disadvantages are:

  o It ignores cumulative and synergistic effects; and

  o We don't have the knowledge to set adequately protective
    standards.

One element of the chemical-by-chemical approach, the
development of mass balances for problem toxics, has wide
support.  There are, however, concerns about acceptability and
enforceability of the results of the mass balance efforts.

To the extent that a chemical-by-chemical approach is used,
there is a need for uniform standards and advisories.

The use of an ecosystem-based approach in parallel with the
chemical-by-chemical approach is one of the most popular
elements of the Plan.

Many emphasized the need for broad involvement in establishing
ecosystem objectives; representatives of the public, particularly
academics, were frequently recommended for  involvement in the
development of ecosystem objectives.

There were some suggestions for ecosystem objectives; many
suggested that the ecosystem be defined to  include humans.
Response


The Plan retains the parallel chemical-by-chemical and
ecosystem approaches. Each has advantages and disadvantages;
they work well together.  The mass balance approach is essential
to the establishment of quantifiable input reduction targets on a
chemical specific basis.
                                                            11

-------
As outlined in the section on goals, preliminary mass balance
estimates can be used to establish preliminary input reduction
targets. The cost to the Four Parties will be approximately
$100,000 (U.S.).

Decisions on incurring the substantial costs required to
construct fully-developed mass balance estimates will be deferred
until the completion of the preliminary models.

The Four Parties will move towards more uniform standards and
advisories by referring differences to the Committee on
Criteria and Standards.  The Committee will develop
recommendations on resolving differences for consideration by
the individual jurisdictions.

An Ecosystem Objectives Work Group will be formed and will
include representatives from the public.

Specific suggestions for ecosystem objectives will be referred
to the Work Group.

In establishing ecosystem objectives for Lake Ontario, the
ecosystem will be defined to include humans.


F.  Communication And Reporting


What The Draft Plan Savs
The draft Plan includes a number of continuing public
involvement commitments:

o Coordination Committee meetings, open to the public, will be
  held at locations around the Lake.

o The Plan will be updated every two years; Status Reports will
  be issued in alternate years.

o Mailing lists will be maintained. Those on mailing lists will
  receive Plan Updates, Status Reports and bibliographies of
  Technical Reports.

o Technical Reports will be maintained in repositories around
  the Lake.

-------
What The Public Says


The Lake Ontario Toxics Committee received a clear message
calling for increased public participation in the development and
implementation of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan.  The
message also highlighted needs for more information and increased
dialogue overall.  Of particular concern were accountability,
outreach to develop an effective, basin-wide constituency, and
coordination with other related efforts.

Considerable interest was expressed for the establishment of a
Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) associated with the Lake
Ontario Toxics Committee.  Some proponents indicated a need for
funding to alleviate expenses while a few suggested funding
should include a per diem stipend.  Discussion also reflected
concern about public participation in a multiplicity of such fora
and the associated time commitments.

There was strong support for regular Coordination Committee
meetings around the Lake. The suggested frequency ranged  from
every two months to every six months.

To ensure accountability, the public wants regular progress
reports on the implementation of the Plan.

There were many suggestions for developing a basin-wide
constituency. These included:

o   Making informational materials more widely available  by
    using local and university library systems;

o   Using existing organizations such as the Lake Ontario
    Organizing Network;

o   Using citizens to distribute information;

o   Conducting bi-national conferences;

o   Using newsletters;

o   Developing educational curricula; and

o   Making special efforts to  involve industry, municipal
    government,  labor groups,  and other agencies.

The public also  saw the  need to  coordinate with other ongoing
public  involvement efforts:

o   Coordinate Niagara River Coordination Committee activities
    with Lake  Ontario Coordination  Committee activities;  and

o   Coordinate with RAP  public involvement efforts.
                                                            13

-------
Response

There will be one Coordination Committee for Niagara River and
Lake Ontario issues.  Business meetings of this Committee will be
held to review status reports on Plan development and
implementation, and to deal with problems and issues as they
arise.  These meetings will be open to the public.   Meetings on
the Niagara Plan will be held in Niagara Falls, Ontario or
Niagara Falls, New York.  Meetings on the Lake Ontario Plan will
be held at various locations throughout the Lake Ontario Basin.

Following a careful evaluation of the identified needs and
options for ongoing public involvement in the Lake Ontario
effort, the LOTC recommends the Communication and Reporting
component of the LOTMP be expanded considerably from that
proposed in the draft Plan.  It is felt the following
recommendation reflects concerns on the part of both the agencies
and of the participating public for an efficient and effective
vehicle of communication.  It is also the intent to implement
this proposal for a one year trial and evaluate its effectiveness
in meeting the needs of both the agencies and the public in the
cooperative development and implementation of the LOTMP.

The LOTC recommends that public consultative activities build on
the RAP processes around the Lake Ontario and Niagara River
basins to disseminate information and air concerns for the Lake-
wide activity.  This takes advantage of established networks of
stakeholders and concerned interests, focusses work in designated
"hotspots" around the basin within the context of a Lake-wide
program, and promotes coordination between the various interests
at work in the basin.  This will be supplemented with bi-national
workshops held at least once a year (coincident with the release
of annual* Status Reports and Updates) and additionally as issues
and concerns arise that demand a more Lake-wide focus.  The
latter will feature specialists brought together to bring their
collective expertise to bear on specific problems in a public
forum.  The LOTMP will not become a prime focus for existing
RAPs, but Lake Ontario can be part of RAP agendas as issues arise
and the responses will set direction for more comprehensive
activities (such as workshops) as need arises.
* The final Plan calls for the preparation of Status Reports and
  Plan Updates on an annual basis.
                                                           14

-------
It is felt this approach will better serve the larger juris-
diction of a whole lake system, while, at the same time,  ensuring
the most effective use of the resources contributed both  by the
agencies and by the public.   There is a large and diverse range
of activities that make up the whole.  The proposed strategy
provides both the focus needed to effectively address these
components and the mechanism for knitting them into a
comprehensive and holistic plan of attack.  The procedure also
facilitates carrying out most of the specific suggestions
referenced above.
G.  General


What The Draft Plan Says


Not applicable.


What The Public Savs
The public perceived the Plan to be "a good beginning".  Many
were impressed with the ability of the Four Parties to work
together to produce a Plan.  Most emphasized the need for
further work.  A few thought that the Plan was merely a rehash
of existing information.

There were three additional recurring themes:

l. The plan should identify the laws that will need to be
   created or amended to achieve the goals of the Plan.

2. The plan should include a discussion of the costs and
   sources of funding for implementation of the Plan.
   Some asked that options at different cost levels be
   included.

3. The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan should serve as the
   basis for the Lake-wide Management Plan required by the GLWQA;
   there should be one plan for the Lake.
                                                           15

-------
Response
We thank the public for its kind remarks.   We agree that the
Plan is just a beginning and that extensive further work is
essential.  We note that there are many elements of the plan
(e.g., mass balance, ecosystem objectives) that are new.
The lack of legislative authority has not yet been identified
as an impediment to the implementation of any plan
recommendations.  This is because all implementation activities
thus far included in the Plan fall in the category of existing
and developing programs.  However, with the completion of the
preliminary mass balance efforts a year from now, we may begin
identifying control needs that do go beyond existing
legislative authority.  If so, the Plan will recommend
legislative changes.

Similarly, with regard to the costs of implementation, the Plan
thus far relies on existing and developing programs not
initiated as part of this planning effort.  For this reason,
the Plan has not yet imposed any incremental costs on the
regulated community.  However, with the completion of the
preliminary mass balance efforts a year from now, we may begin
identifying control needs that do impose incremental costs on
the regulated community.  If so, the Plan will estimate the
costs and benefits of those controls.

This PRD does identify incremental costs associated with
continued development of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management
Plan.

The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan serves as the Lake-wide
Management Plan required by the GLWQA.  It may need to be
modified as consultation within the IJC community further defines
the requirements for Lake-wide management plans under the GLWQA.

III. Responses To Additional Comments On The Draft Lake Ontario
     Toxics Management Plan

A.  Plan
    Comment: The  involvement of a large number of Government
    jurisdictions in Lake Ontario environmental programs was
    seen both to complicate effective management and to blur
    jurisdictional responsibility.  There is a need to clearly
    delineate the lines of responsibility of each Government
    agency, and define the responsibilities of municipalities in
    implementing the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan.
                                                           16

-------
Response;  The individual commitments in the Plan,  identifying
responsible parties, allow for agency cooperation,  while
maintaining a clear line of responsibility.  The
municipalities in the Lake Ontario Basin are directly
influenced by the federal, state and provincial programs that
are the focus of the LOTMP.  As the Plan evolves,  additional
commitments may be included for municipal government.
Comment;  There is a need to coordinate control programs in
the United States and Canada.

Response: The control programs in the United States and
Canada have been developed in response to separate statutory
mandates.  Coordination is occurring through the preparation
of the LOTMP.  To the extent that separate national programs
as currently being implemented are inadequate to protect the
Lake, the LOTMP will recommend additional controls.
Comment:  Discuss Nuclear waste, particularly the release
of radioactive substances from mining operations.

Response; The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan
does not directly address radioactive material.  This topic
may be added in future updates of Appendix IV.
Table I;  Planned Actions
1A1.  Direct Industrial Discharges (U.S.)
Comment;  The proposed five year permit revision provision
for SPDES permits is in conflict with existing State and
Federal law.

Response; USEPA does not believe that the five year permit
reissuance provision is in conflict with State and Federal
requirements.  Technology-based effluent limitations and
standards or new source performance standards are required
conditions of the NPDES permit.  It should be emphasized
that these provisions do not apply to existing sources which
modify their pollution control facilities or construct new
pollution control facilities and achieve performance
standards, but which are neither new sources or new
dischargers.  Only new dischargers which underwent
                                                        17

-------
construction after October 18, 1972, or new sources which
meet the applicable promulgated new source performance
standards before the commencement of discharge, may not be
subject to any more stringent technology-based limits during
the protection period.  Therefore, when applicable, permits
can be issued to include technology-based limits based on the
most current effluent guidelines.
Comment; Who will check on the self-monitoring results
of dischargers in the Lake Ontario Basin?

Response; NYSDEC checks on major discharges by collecting its
own samples, and analyzing them.  In addition, NYSDEC carries
out plant inspections and also monitors the receiving waters
(stream monitoring).  Furthermore, a great deal of self-
monitoring is performed by contract laboratories and paid for
by the industrial plant.  Contract laboratories used by New
York dischargers are State approved.
IA2.  Indirect Industrial Discharges (U.S.)
Comment;  A variety of experts, including local experts,
should be involved in interpreting the bioassays conducted
at the eight Publicly Owned Treatment Works with Significant
Industrial Users.

Response; The NYSDEC and USEPA will jointly interpret the
results of these bioassays in accordance with State and
Federal toxicity testing guidelines.  Federal protocols for
conducting toxicity testing are contained in "Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms", USEPA/600/4-85/OB, March 1985.  The State
guidelines are included in the "New York State Manual for
Toxicity Testing of Industrial and Municipal Effluents",
NYSDEC, February 1985 and the NYSDEC, Division of Water's
"Technical and Operational Guidance Series (1.3,2), Toxicity
Testing in the SPDES Permit Program", April 1987.  Pending
the  interpretation of these results, the State may issue
additional permit requirements such as whole effluent
toxicity testing permit limits, additional toxicity testing,
a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation, or other types of controls
in these permits.  These additional permit requirements
would be subject to public participation through the public
noticing process.
                                                        18

-------
IA4.   Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal
Facilities (U.S.)
Comment:   List facilities by County.

Response;  A map showing the location of all treatment,
storage and disposal facilities is included in the final
Plan.
IA5.   Inactive Hazardous Waste Site (U.S.)
Comment:   Include a more specific timetable of planned
actions.

Response:  The draft Plan included a complete schedule
leading to remedial action at each National Priority List
Site.  The final Plan includes updated schedules.
Comment;   There seems to be some evidence of contaminant
releases to the Oswego River from the Fulton Terminals Site.

Response;  The surface water data collected from the Oswego
River during the remedial investigation at the Fulton
Terminals Site indicates the existence of only one organic
contaminant, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, at low
concentrations.  That contaminant was detected upstream from
Fulton Terminals at twice its level in the water adjacent to
the site.  The overall level of organic contamination was
considerably higher in the river sediment samples than
in the corresponding surface water samples.  However,
the observed contamination of sediments cannot be attributed
to Fulton Terminals, since the major contaminants were not
detected in the groundwater emanating from the site, and
since higher total organic contaminants were observed
upstream from the site than adjacent to or downstream from
it.  This information is indicative of one or more upstream
sources of contamination.

In summary, there is no definitive evidence linking
contamination in the Oswego River with the Fulton
Terminals Site.
                                                       19

-------
IA6.  Combined Sewer Overflows (U.S.)
Comment:   The construction of CSO abatement facilities at
the Monroe County Frank Van Lare STP may be delayed from the
date shown in the draft Plan if adequate funding cannot be
obtained; the problem relates to the change from a
construction grant assistance program to a loan program.

Response: Various overflow abatement projects remain to be
constructed within the combined sewer system.  Schedules
have been developed to construct those projects regardless
of the availability of Federal funding.
IA8.  Other Nonpoint Sources (U.S.)
Comment;   A number of reviewers recommended that DEC prepare
the State Nonpoint Source Management Program in consultation
with other agencies, including the New York State Soil and
Water Conservation Committee, the Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, the USDA Soil Conservation Service,
the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets;
Health; and Transportation.

Response;  The agencies named in the commentor's questions
have been invited to participate on the State's Nonpoint
Source Workgroup and to review the Management Program, as
appropriate.
Comment;  Lead Agency responsibility for agricultural non-
point source pollution should remain with the New York State
Soil and Water Conservation Committee and should utilize the
Committee's network of local districts.  The Committee has
the experience and understanding of working with the
agricultural community.

Response; Lead responsibility regarding implementation of
the agricultural nonpoint source management program remains
with the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee,
utilizing the statewide network of local districts.  As the
agency responsible under State law for water quality and
water resources management, DEC has the lead responsibility
for developing the State's Nonpoint Source Management
Program, including overall program planning and oversight.
                                                       20

-------
Comment;  Implementation of agricultural non-point source
control measures must be on a voluntary basis.

Response;  The implementation of agricultural nonpoint
source controls is expected to continue on a voluntary
basis. In the event of persistent and continuing water
quality standards violations, and/or where additional
nonpoint source controls are found to be feasible, State
enforcement or other actions may have to be undertaken to
assure the protection of water quality.
Comment;   Best management practices should continue to be
utilized as primary control measures.

Response:  Best management practices will continue to be
utilized as the primary control measure for agricultural
nonpoint source control.  The identification and listing of
specific practices considered to be BMPs, the official
endorsement of these BMPs for use and making suitable
information/guidance on BMPs available comprise one of the
key elements of any cost effective nonpoint source program.

Best management practices are essential tools to better
link water quality with land management activities
of pertinent resource management agencies and with the
activities of local government.  Cooperation and
coordination among agencies is an essential part of
"outreach" to develop awareness and enthusiasm for BMPs
on the part of local government and the public.
Comment:  Cost Sharing mechanisms must be established in
order to offer incentives to landowners to implement best
management practices.

Response: The Water Quality Act of 1987 and associated
legislative history specifically excludes the use of certain
funds for direct cost sharing to individuals (except for
"demonstration projects" in some cases) while allowing the
use of other funds for loans to farmers to manage nonpoint
sources  of pollution.
IA.16.  Potable Water  (U.S.)
Comment: Those  counties bordering on Lake Ontario should
incorporate  toxics  information  into their analyses of
private  drinking water wells.
                                                        21

-------
Response: This task is not specifically included in the
management plan.  Community Public Water Systems serving
less than 3,300 persons must complete the monitoring for
eight regulated VOCs and up to 51 unregulated organics by
December  31, 1991.
IB1.  Direct Industrial Discharges (Canada)
Comment: Specify a short-term goal of full compliance with
existing Certificates of Approval and Control Orders within
two years.  If compliance is not achievable within two
years, pollution abatement equipment should be installed to
meet existing Certificate of Approval or Control Order
r equ i r ement s.

Response: In general, MOE ensures that full compliance with
existing Certificates of Approval and Control Orders is
implemented as quickly as possible.  In some cases, f 11.1.1
compliance is achieved in less than two years.  In other
cases, full compliance has to be staged over a longer period
of time due to the complexity of certain treatment methods or
purchasing of specific equipment.
Comment: The implementation of MISA should be monitored to
ensure that targets are being met.

Response; MOE will monitor progress of the MISA program
against the deadlines in Table I of the final Plan.
Comment: Facilitate the development and implementation
of acute and chronic toxicity tests that could be
applied directly to effluents.  Specify as an
intermediate goal that all direct discharges are
required to be subject to and "pass" chronic toxicity
tests, particularly those tests used to assess
reproductive success of aquatic organisms.

Response: MOE has developed protocols for both fish and
Daphnia Magna acute toxicity tests.  These protocols
are being applied to MISA monitoring regulation.  MOE is
currently developing methods for other species.  The
MISA program's goal is the elimination of all toxic
compounds.  The monitoring regulation will help develop a
staged program to achieve the ultimate goal of MISA.
                                                        2.2

-------
IB2.  Indirect Industrial Discharges (Canada)
Comment;   Ontario should explain how and when MISA will
control industrial discharges through municipal sewers.

Response:   Appendix IV and Table I of the Plan provide a
description of the program to control indirect industrial
discharges and an associated list of MOE actions.
Comment:  Promote the development and implementation of
industrial pretreatment programs.  The Lake Ontario Toxics
Management Plan should encourage the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment to specify and prioritize industrial sectors
suitable for pretreatment programs, as well as publish an
implementation schedule specifying when various industrial
sectors will be required to comply with plant-specific
pretreatment standards.

Response: The sectoral Best Available Technology limits will
include 22 priority sectors.  These sector limits can be
supplemented by local limits to protect sewage treatment
plants.
Comment;  Encourage MOE to establish minimum sewer-use
standards for Ontario, in order to reduce regional
disparities.

Response: MOE is currently developing a sewer use control
program.   This program will be subject to public review and
input.  The final MOE position, including public comments
will be finalized by the end of 1988.  Since MOE recognizes
the problem with existing sewer use control, MOE will impose
Sectoral Best Available Technology limits, similar to those
for direct dischargers, as early as 1991.
IB3. Municipal Discharges  (Canada)


Comment; Encourage MOE to  forego the requirement for
monitoring regulation on municipal sewage treatment plants,
and  instead direct all their resources towards accelerating
the  development and  implementation of the compliance
regulation.

Response; The monitoring regulation for municipal sewage
treatment plants  is  essential to ensuring the collection
of  a quality assured/quality controlled data base.  This
data base will facilitate  the development of the
effluent limit regulation.
                                                        23

-------
IB4.   Waste Disposal Sites- Active and Closed (Canada)
Comment;  MOE should publish a report within one year that
identifies the compliance status of the waste disposal sites
in the Lake Ontario Basin (both active and closed)  with
respect to their Certificates of Approval.

Response: Information on the compliance status of the waste
disposal sites in the Lake Ontario basin can be obtained
from the inspection reports which are available from MOE's
Regional Offices.
Comment:  Take a more systematic and comprehensive approach
to ensure that adequate programs are in place or under
development to identify and remediate landfill problems.

Response; The gathering and assembling of information
required for the inventory of waste disposal sites is a
major part of MOE's long-term, comprehensive program to
investigate and monitor waste disposal sites throughout
the province.  The information sources include the
Ministry's computerized data files on individual sites, file
archives and field inspections of the sites.  In its updated
list of Ontario waste disposal sites in 1988, the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment has initiated detailed
hydrogeological studies for closed landfill sites in
Trenton, Picton and Caledonia.  The Ministry is continually
revising and expanding the inventory to ensure Ontario
residents are kept informed of the locations, status and
possible impacts of both closed and active landfill sites.
IBS.  Combined Sewer Overflows / IB6.   Storm Water
Discharges  (Canada)
Comment; Ensure the development of a list of the combined
sewer overflows and stormwater discharge points in the Lake
Ontario Basin.  Indicate the approximate frequency of
overflow in CSOs and the frequency of discharge at
stormwater discharge points.  Estimate the annual volume of
wastewater and stormwater discharged untreated into Lake
Ontario.  Ensure the development of a monitoring program to
estimate the potentially toxic chemical loadings to Lake
Ontario from combined sewer overflows and from direct
stormwater discharges.  Identify programs to mitigate
significant CSOs and direct stormwater discharges in
cooperation with the municipalities concerned.
                                                       24

-------
    Response:  There  are  existing  comprehensive programs  to  study
    the  effects  of combined  sewer overflows  and  stormwater
    discharges on water  quality and  also  to  assess  the
    significance of  these  sources relative to other point and
    nonpoint  sources.  Programs such as pollution control
    planning  (PCP) define  impacts and remedial measures  for
    storm and combined overflow sewers on a  province-wide scale.
    Programs  which are specific to a certain location or area,
    such as Toronto  Area Watershed Management Study (TAWMS)
    provide  in-depth assessment of local  problems.   Sewer
    rehabilitation programs  (Lifeline Programs)  are aimed at
    investigating potential  problems that may be attributed to
    old  sewers.   These programs usually  include  a  list of CSOs
    and  storm sewers,  frequency of discharges, and  estimates of
    flow rates and toxic loadings.
    IB7.   Other Nonpoint Sources (Canada)
    Comment:  Ensure the development and implementation of
    monitoring programs to assess the impact of nonpoint sources
    of potentially toxic chemicals compared with point sources.

    Response;  The LOTC will form a Niagara River/Lake Ontario
    Fate of Toxics Committee,  which will attempt to establish the
    relative magnitude arid significance of point and nonpoint
    sources of toxics in Lake  Ontario.   The Fate of Toxics
    Committee will recommend a monitoring program to support its
    efforts.
B.  Appendix II:  Toxics Problem in Lake Ontario
    Comment;  Define the term "Ambient" as used in the Lake
    Ontario Toxics Management Plan.

    Response; "Ambient" means the level or concentration
    of a toxic chemical in a medium (water column,
    sediment, fish tissue) within Lake Ontario.
    Comment;   Polychlorinated dibenzofurans,  particularly
    2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzofuran, and 2,3,4,7,8
    pentachlorodibenzofuran should be included on the list of
    problem chemicals.
                                                           25

-------
Reponse:  The expanded list of toxics includes
polychlorinated dibenzofurans.  Polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (including 2,3,7,8-TCDF and 2,3,4 ,7 ,8-PeCDF)
have been placed in Category IE, "No Criterion Available".
The Criteria and Standards Committee will evaluate the need
to develop standards or criteria for 2,3,7,8-TCDF and
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF.

Comment:  Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) should be
considered for addition to the list of problem chemicals.

Response;  A number of PAHs are included in Category
IIA, "Evidence of Presence In or Input to the Lake",
where ambient data (fish tissue, water column) is
not currently available for Lake Ontario.
Comment;  There appears to be a lack of confidence by
the LOTC in data used to assess the state of Lake
Ontario with respect to toxic chemical contamination.

Response: A great deal of useful data was available for
preparing the LOTMP.  However, some data is suspect or
missing.   Data limitations will be addressed during the
continuing planning process.
Comment; The Parties signatory to the GLWQA clearly
recognize two classes of toxic substances - those that
are persistent and those that are not persistent.  The
LOTMP has not preserved this distinction and the
blurring of these two discrete categories of
contaminants will seriously hamper programs designed to
bring about the restoration of Lake Ontario.

Response; The LOTC will evaluate the need to
distinguish between persistent and nonpersistent toxic
substances prior to recommending specific control
actions for problem toxics in Lake Ontario.
Comment; Utilize the "synergistic approach" to assess
the impact of toxic chemicals on the Lake Ontario
ecosystem.

Response: The chemical-by-chemical approach will be
used to move quickly to implementation in the context
of existing law and regulation.  The complementary
ecosystem approach, which does account for synergistic
effects, will serve as a check on the effectiveness of
the chemical-by-chemical approach.
                                                       26

-------
Comment:  The Plan should assess the need for
ecologically-based sediment criteria.

Response;  The Committee on Standards and Criteria will
assess the need for sediment criteria.
Comment: Define how the ecosystem approach is legally
enforced by the Four Parties.

Response; The ecosystem approach is not directly
enforceable.  The ecosystem approach is useful as a
check on the effectiveness of the chemical-by-chemical
approach.
Comment;  Proscriptions from eating fish are complied
with only by knowledgeable people with other sources of
protein readily available.

Response;  We agree.  That's one reason why the goal of the
Plan is fish that are safe for unlimited human consumption.
Comment;  We need to inform people of proper cleaning of fish
to make them safer to eat.

Response; The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation publishes a fish filleting guide that shows how
to fillet fish so as to reduce toxics consumption.  This
guide is widely distributed in New York State.
Comment:  The LOTMP should encourage basic research on the
role of sediments in determining levels of toxics in Lake
Ontario; funds should be committed to this effort and some
should go to academic institutions.

Response:  The Committee on the Fate of Toxics in Lake
Ontario is charged with outlining the required research
program.
Comment:  The Plan  should  include a commitment by the Four
Parties to a coordinated multi-year research program to
support modelling of Lake  Ontario.

Response:  The Committee on the Fate of Toxics in Lake
Ontario is charged  with outlining the required research
program.
                                                        27

-------
    Comment;  The biomonitoring programs and epidemiological
    studies on human populations in the Lake Ontario Basin
    should be included in the Plan.

    Response; This issue will be addressed by the Ecosystem
    Objectives Work Group during the continuing planning process
C.  Appendix III: Toxics Loadings to Lake Ontario
    Comment;  Why are sanitary landfills excluded from the New
    York State data in Table III-7 (pg. 20)?

    Response; The New York State Sanitary landfills have been
    included in the final Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan.
    Comment;  There is a need to understand the impact of
    groundwater contamination on Lake water quality.

    Response: The Niagara River/Lake Ontario Fate of Toxics
    Committee will attempt to identify all significant
    sources of toxics to Lake Ontario.
    Comment: Nowhere does the draft plan address the question of
    municipal and industrial shock loading.

    Response; High loadings of pollutants over a short period of
    time may cause extensive environmental impacts.  This is
    recognized by the agencies and they feel that current stream
    monitoring can detect such effects.  Special investigations
    can then track down the source.  The agencies have the
    authority to force suspected sources to install continuous
    monitoring and to take other necessary steps to prevent
    reoccurrence.  As part of the Ontario MISA effluent
    monitoring regulation, industrial and municipal facilities
    will be equipped with continuous monitoring instrumentation
    for some indicator parameters to detect short term shock
    loadings.
                                                            28

-------