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^I£ROPHE^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*S»Y
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(Oio«in|
Toiaphene
Children under 15 and women of child-
hour inn aj»4' 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'
8«tM de m*t"
Swmon eo»»>«
Trum * l»c"»
FitslMMir Oium"
C«p"
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 »t«M-IMM4R4-ia«IM90«M»M>a«
Laka Ontario *1
Lac Ontario N01
Chinook*-'*
Sjunxm Aim**"
WMtSucktr*
MMrivnoir»
Code*"
Simon cohy*'-*
WMihs'
MnoowTiwr1*
TniiMi
LikiTiajl'/
Lake Ontario »1
Lae Ontario N»1
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"
M«uni«tno«*'
Raintow Ttout1-'
U)
Laka Ontario »1
Lac Ontario N01
top*
top**
tobdne*
WMMPnll*
Ytlov Pvcft*
TfuiUbnin*
GizzartStad*
NU0MI) PUB*
Laka Ontario *1
Uc Ontario N°1
RiinbawSinV
tpwuo »-«>cM*
WMtSudV*
Meuravnei*
NofVwni Pita*
BncM*
Cup>
Ctiff
Lak« Ontario *1
Lac Ontario NO 1
taMmrSmR*
bertm ire-«rv«r
Lak* Ontario *1
LacOntarioNOI
Ufa Trout*'
Tiuk * l>c"
Lake Ontario »2
Lac Ontario NO 2
Bnwn Bullaad*
Bjrttttt brant*
o«
0>
O«0«
o«
G»
o»
O»O>0«O«
O«O«CS»
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-d«l"
•Lake Ontario «3
lac Ontario NO 3
Laka Ontario «3
Lac Ontario NO 3
OJ
WnoM Trout"
Train m-tn»
Chinook'
SMMHOO tfwiook
MnbowSmT
£p«un 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* «MB«i • a> ma E
NorthmPita*
BrecM*
BmrnBulUiad'
BjftxiOi DraM*
AmencmW
Oannal CufisM
Whin BBS*
B«bUnc«
Snunrmmh Baa*
AcMgin I t»M 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
o»«»«tmfciiaai»
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 Am«n4M>
Uto Ontario *«
LK Ontario NO 6
Grmdicortgont"
Norttwn Pifcn
CpotM •c-w-oV
Uk* Ontario**
LK Ontario NO 6
Amtnan Eri"
AnguMe ir/Mriqu**'
StLBWi»ne«Mv*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
74757«777tH«OII«?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 •3»K ^-~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.
L£P
-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 r«iu*
* (liuulltd
tetetar '•$;
OtUt l»UnJ*
(*MMr only)
* InttaitM both « wit ml «fcy depultlon oetvgrt tlu
Dally Sltw: X
Toxics Slt«a: 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 100°C,
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
------- |