ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS REPORT
for the
STATE OF NEW YORK
May 1983
-------
NEW YORK
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS REPORT
MAY 1983
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION ' PAGE
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF TABLES v
•AIR QUALITY .-•.....;,,•;• ••-:.-;-^;^ — -:-:,V:.v "•-•-.;••;• :; •::•;•
Measuring Air Quality Trends 1
Progress in Control of Conventional Air Pollutants 1
Status of Air Quality 8
Priority Air Quality Problems . 16
Summary Table 16
Detailed Discussion of Priority Problems 17
0 Ozone in Metropolitan New York City 17
0 Carbon Monoxide in Metropolitan New
York City • 19
0 Total Suspended Particulates in the Niagara Frontier 19
0 Sulfur Dioxide in the Niagara Frontier and
New York City 22
0 Statewide Lead Trends 24
0 Coal Conversions 24
0 Toxics 24
0 Acid Rain ' 25
SURFACE WATER QUALITY •
Progress in Water Quality^- 26
Status of Water Quality ' . 28
Priority Water Quality Problems 30
Summary Table 30
Detailed Discussion of Priority.Problems 31
0 Surface Waters Contaminated by Toxics 31
0 Need for Data on the Contamination of
Surface Waters by Toxics 35
0 Conventional Pollution Problems Associated
with Municipal Discharges 37
0 Marine Pollution Problems 37
0 Priority Surface Waters Stressed by Non-Point
Sources of Conventional Pollution 42
0 Loss of Wetlands in Coastal Zones 43
0 Acid Lakes in the Adirondacks 47
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION PAGE
SURFACE DRINKING WATER
Status of Public Water Supply Systems 48
Priority. Drinking'-Water Problem ; :;;.::- :-•••:•. •.'•• - 51
GROUND WATER
Status of Groundwater Resources 52
Priority Groundwater Problems ' 53
0 Toxic and Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater Resources 53
0 Safe Management and Oversight of Enhanced Oil and
Gas Recovery 54
SOLID WASTE
Status of Non-Hazardous Waste Management 57
Priority Non-Hazardous Waste Problem 59
0 Municipal Landfills Containing Toxic Materials
Status of Hazardous Waste Disposal • 59
Priority Hazardous Waste Disposal Problems 60
!i
0 Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities
".Timely Issuance of RCRA Permits
8 Class I Violators of RCRA Requirements
Status of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites 62
Priority Superfund Problems ' . 62
0 Uncontrolled Sites on the National Priorities List
0 Potential Priority Candidates
Spills of Oil and Hazardous Materials 62
PESTICIDES - • 79
RADIATION ' 80
ill
-------
LIST OF AND FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Statewide Sulfur Dioxide Levels 2
2. Statewide Carbon Monoxide Exceedances 3
3. .CO Concentrations Above .'-8-Hour Standard 4
4. Annual Averages of Nitrogen Dioxode 4
5. Statewide Ozone Exceedances 1977-1981 5
6. TSP Sites in Violation of Ambient
Air Quality Standard 1966-1981 6
7. Statewide TSP Levels 1964-1981 7
8. Statewide Lead Levels 1973-1981 8
9. Status of Air Quality in New York State 9
10. Ozone Concentrations Downwind
of New York City 1980 . 18
11. Annual Ozone Values Downwind
of New York City 19
12. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
45th St., New York City 20
13. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Canal St., New York City 20
14. Annual Suspended Particulate Matter
Concentrations, Buffalo, New York 21
15. Trends in Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations
Tonawanda, New York 22
16. Trends in Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations
CCNY, New York 23
17. Annual Average Sulfur Dioxide
NYC and Tonawanda, New York 23
18. New York State Drainage Basins 26
19. Major Contaminated Aquatic Sediments 32
20. Copper Distribution in New York Bight 34
21. PBC Concentration Contours 34
22. Ocean Disposal Sites 40
23. Non-Point Source Problems - Streams 46
24. Non-Point Source Problems - Lakes 46
25. Acidity Status of Adirondack Ponded Waters 47
26. Public Water Supply 48
27. Size Distribution of CWS's 49
28. Community Active PWS's with Violations 50
29. Percentage of Community PWS's in Violation 50
30. Groundwater Resources . 52
31. Major Groundwater Supplies 53
32. Wells Contaminated with Synthetic
Organic Chemicals 54
33. Wells Contaminated with Organics, Long Island 55
34. Priority TSD Facilities 61
35. Superfund Sites in New York State 63
36. Degree of Harm Caused by Pesticides
Misuse 79
37. Radiological Facilities 81
38. Radiation Contamination Sites 82
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES PAGE
.1.. Primary Non-Attainment Areas.. .-• 10
2. Secondary Non-Attainment Areas 11
3. Areas in New York State Where Air Quality
Monitors Have Recorded Values Near the
Air Quality Standards . 12
4. Summary of Source Control Priorities
by Region 16
5. Number of Times the Ozone Standard Has Been
Exceeded at Sites Downwind of Urban Areas 17
6. Numbers of Times That the 24-Hour Average
TSP Standards are Exceeded 21
7. Water Quality in New York State 27
8. Summary of Basin Water Quality Problems/
Priorities by Major Pollutant Categories 29
9. Summary of Source Control Priorities 20
10. Toxic Fish Contaminant Problems • 36
11. Quantities of Waste Materials
Ocean Dumped in the New York Bight 41
12. Non-Point Source Management Program
Water Quality Impairments - Streams 44
13. Non-Point Source Management Program
Water Quality Impairments - Lakes 45
14. Characteristics of Major Non-Hazardous
Waste Streams 58
15. Characteristics of Priority Federal
Superfund Clean-Up Sites . 64
16. History of Oil Spills in New York State 73
17. Environmental Radiation Ambient
Monitoring Systems (ERAMS) 80
-------
AIR QUALITY
MEASURING AIR QUALITY TRENDS
Several indicators can be used to provide a picture of the
trends in air quality. For standards based on an annual
average concentration at each monitoring site, the average
can be plotted for a period of years to determine the trend
in air quality. Standards that use a shorter averaging
time, in addition to the annual average, can be examined by
several different methods. Some of these methods are listed
below.
0 Number of Times the Standard is Exceeded - This indicator
gives.a direct assessment of how often the national air
quality standard was exceeded. Since these exceedences
are often associated with rare or low frequency meteoro-
logical events, the number of exceedences may vary widely
over time due to changes in weather from year to year.
0 Second Highest Value - The averaging time for certain
standards (i.e., TSP, SO2/ CO, and 03) is less than one
year. These standards allow one exceedence per year and
the second highest value is the value that must be at
or below the national standard for a location, to attain
the air quality standard. It is often better to use this
value than the highest value observed. The highest value
is not as important because, by itself, it does not indicate
a violation of the standard. Also, the highest value can
be variable from year to year as it is often more closely
linked to rare meteorological events than is the second
highest value.
0 95th Percentile Value - This is a more robust indicator of
trends because it is not as likely to be strongly affected
by changing weather conditions from year to year. Of
course, the 95th percentile concentration of a pollutant
cannot be related to attainment of standards that are
based on an annual average or the second highest short-term
average.
These indicators are used throughout this report to discuss
trends in air quality in New York State.
PROGRESS IN CONTROL OF CONVENTIONAL AIR POLLUTANTS
The concentration of each conventional pollutant in the air has
been routinely monitored over the past decade by the Continuous
and Manual Air Monitoring Systems operated by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. The following graphs
and discussion provide a statewide overview of the progress
-------
that has been made to date in controlling the air pollutants
for which Ambient Air Quality Standards have been established:
sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone,
total suspended particulates, and lead.
It should be pointed out that the following analysis of trends
is based on data from air quality networks that were standardized
only recently. The state's National Air Monitoring Station (NAMS)
network was approved' in 1981, and the State and Local Air Monitoring
Station (SLAMS) network will be approved in 1983. Even now,
some of the
located.
state's monitoring sites are not yet optimally
Sulfur Dioxide
During the past eight years there has been a significant decline
in the number of monitors exceeding either the annual or short-
term SC>2 standards across the state. Ten sites were in violation
of the annual primary SC>2 standard in 1973, six in 1974, one
in 1975, 1976 and 1977, and none since 1977. However, since
1977, some violations of the short-term standard have been
reported.
The statewide average SC>2 concentration for all monitoring sites
in New York State was 0.014 parts per million during 1981. This
was the lowest overall average recorded since continuous sampling
commenced in 1970 (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
STATEWIDE SULFUR DIOXIDE LEVELS
.040-
CONTINUOUS MONITORING SITES
1970 - 1981
-------
Carbon Monoxide ( CO)
The following bar chart (Figure 2) shows the total number of
times and days during which the 9.0 parts per million 8-hour
standard for CO was exceeded each year for the period 1973 to
1981. This chart excludes New York City traffic monitors, which
are discussed separately later in this report. There was a
steady 7-year decline up to 1980 in the number of times the
standard was exceeded. This progress can be attributed to the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program.
While in general there is a downward CO trend statewide, it
should be pointed out that the monitors outside the New York
City metropolitan area had not in the past been oriented
toward high traffic locations. New York State is in the process
of correcting this problem.
FIGURE 2
a STATEWIDE CARBON MONOXIDE EXCEEDANCES §
S soo- (EXCLUDING N.Y. CITY TRAFFIC MONITORS ) rto Z
o .
at
$ 430-
o
w
u 4OO-
u
in
0 330-
Hf
u
$ 300-
OE
i 230-
OTAL NUMBER OF RUNNING 0
, 8 g £ 8
4»w. 1973 - 1981
4*
:yv
, '.' •/
''•?:
* ' •' S
I 10 ol M Monitoring SUM
•
232
son
•*
(A
r
r=i
i
8
•3
10
am
87
I
| 6oMS Monitoring SiUl |
Mon
-• IT
49 ^* O
*_ (0= jg CM
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
YEAR
«l
40T3 ^^ >QT3
w
•43 « '
o
2
•4O 0
•3Sl!
•30 2ff»
$ UJ
-23 gS
5 u
•» «"
O
•IS u.
I
•10 ffl
•5 u
1
1979 198O 1981
Although there is a steady 4-year decline in the number of
times and days on which the standard was exceeded at the New
York City traffic monitors (Figure 3), CO is still a significant
pollution problem in this area.
-------
FIGURE 3
CO CONCENTRRTIONS RBOVE 8 HOUR STRNDRRD
NEH YORK CITY
2SO-
3OO -
1SO-
225
100-
5O-
Legend
CZ3 45th STREET
•• CRNflL STREET
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
All areas of the state are in attainment of the federal standard.
Figure 4 shows NO2 concentrations at three sites located in
the largest urban areas of the state where it is expected that
concentrations would be highest. Overall, there is a slight
downward trend in NO2 concentrations in major urban areas of the1
state despite the upturn at these three sites in 1981. •.'•
FIGURE 4
RNNURL RVERRGES OF NITROGEN DIOXODE
NEW YORK STRTE
135-I
1OO
73-
se-
as-
Legend
A SREENPOINT. NYC
x HEHPSTEflD. LI _
O BUFFRLO TRfllLER
1977
1978
1979
YERR
1980
1981
-------
Ozone (03)
The following bar chart (Figure 5) shows the total number of
times and days during which the 03 standard of 0.12 parts
per million was exceeded statewide each year for the period
1977 to 1981. While values fluctuated widely.over the years,
exceedences of.. this .standard, decreased significantly.from 297
times' in 11980';to"91:'-times'in "1981!': 'Likewise, there were ' 41
days in 1980 where the standard was exceeded and 24 days in
1981. Several additional years of data will be required to
determine whether this trend toward improving 03 air quality
will continue.
Although the attainment status for 03 has improved statewide,
03 remains a significant pollution problem in the Metropolitan
New York City area, and a minor problem in several upstate
urban areas.
FIGURE 5
Statewide Ozone Exceedances
1977-1981
300-1
SOO-
400-
o
<
X
< 30O-
I
200-
tOO
4
»43
1
[ 24 of 28 Monilwlna SlUt |jj
296
\
2)0(24 Monitoring Siui . |3
197
I
1 17 ol 25 Monitoring SlUi • '. ||
f
9
vi
3
S
91
1
| 80(25 Monitoring Sil«i |§
tn
3
z
§2:
•3O o °
z a
t977 I978
YEAR
1979 I98O
1961
-------
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)
There has been a fairly steady decline in the number and
percentage of sites exceeding the federal annual primary
TSP standard of 75 micrograms per cubic meter (Figure 6).
In 1966 and 1967 more than 70% of the monitoring sites in
New York State were in violation of the standard. Since 1976,
4% or less of the sites have been in violation. Part of
the Niag'ara- Frontier' is>" classified as'' a -'primary and secondary
non-attainment area for TSP, while portions of the Central,
Hudson Valley, and Metropolitan New York City Regions are not
in attainment of the secondary standard.
FIGURE 6
TSP SITES IN VIOLATION OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD
ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN
1966-1981
From 1964 to 1971 the New York State average TSP level was
either above or very close to the primary standard (Figure 7).
Since 1971, there has been a decline in the average statewide
TSP concentrations. Since 1977, the annual average concentration
has stabilized at just over 50 micrograms per cubic meter.
-------
FIGURE 7
STATEWIDE TSP LEVELS
too
42 STATION COMPOSITE
1964-1981
ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEANS
**'* Ambtont Air Quality
^H?;>H • ft, f+ «.«••••«•••••«•••«•«•«..«*•••••
The. installation of particulate matter control equipment on
industrial sources, the use of oil and gas in place of coal,
and various other control measures, including municipal and
private street sweeping, and paving of unpaved roadways, have
contributed to this improvement in air quality.
Lead (Ph)
Lead levels at the eight Pb monitoring stations within New
York State (Figure 8) are well below the primary air quality
standard of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter and have steadily
declined over the last eight years. This is due to the in-
creased use of unleaded gasoline and the decreased Pb content.
of leaded gasoline.
-------
FIGURE 8
STATEWIDE LEAD LEVELS
1973-1981
« soon
«
i.oo
m
Eaerfower Pk. Momoroneck
Albany ilKica Syrocu** Rochester
LEAD MONITORING SITES
Buffalo
jomeitown
It should be noted, however, that a new Pb monitoring network
is now being established within the state which will focus on
neighborhoods with high traffic densities. These _new sites
should give a more representative picture of Pb concentrations
in urban areas.
STATUS OF AIR QUALITY
Shaded sections show those areas which are classified as not being
in attainment of the primary standard for the indicated pollutant.
The unshaded areas in the map (Figure 9) show the areas of the
state which are unclassified or where the primary standards for
all conventional pollutants have been attained. Unclassified areas
include parts of New York City (TSP and 802) and all of Washington
County in the Northern Air Quality Control Region.
The areas where the primary air quality standards had not been
met as of the end of 1981 are as follows:
0 TSP and SO2 - Portions of the Niagara Frontier Region,
0 03 - In and downwind of New York City, in the Hudson
Valley Region and in western New York State from
Buffalo to Syracuse, and
0 CO - Highway intersections in the New York City, Albany, and
Syracuse metropolitan areas.
-------
FIGURE 9
STATUS OF AIR QUALITY
IN NEW YORK STATE
PRIMARY STANDARD
UTOteATTAINMENT AREAS
® TSP O
(2) CO & OZONE
ATTAINMENT ond/or UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
D TSP,SOj.CO.NOj, and OZONE
ENTIRE STATE IS IN ATTAINMENT FOR NO
All areas of New York State are in attainment of NO2 standards.
Primary non-attainment areas for TSP, SC>2/ CO, and 03 are listed
in Table 1, while Table 2 lists areas that are not in attainment
of secondary standards for TSP and SC>2. These locations on the
lists represent those areas in New York State which present
current abatement problems.
In addition to these primary and secondary non-attainment areas,
there are also a number of areas in the state that, although
currently in attainment, are close enough to the standard level
to pose a potential maintenance problem. Locations that have
pollutant concentrations near the air quality standards for
TSP, SO2 and CO are listed in Table 3. While the air quality
at these locations is generally better than national standards,
these areas may present potential degradation problems and
will require close surveillance to see if violations of the
standards occur in the future.
-------
TABLE 1
PRIMARY NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS IN NEW YORK STATE
Conventional
Pollutant
AQCR
Non-attainment
Area
TSP
NIAGARA FRONTIER
BUFFALO (PART)
LACKAWANNA
NIAGARA FALLS (PART)*
SO 2
NIAGARA FRONTIER
BUFFALO (PART)*
LACKAWANNA (PART)*
CO
CENTRAL
HUDSON VALLEY
METRO NYC
- SYRACUSE (PART)t
- WATERFORD
- COLONIE (PART)T
- SCHENECTADY*
- NEW YORK CITY
(EXCEPT NORTHWEST
PART OF STATEN
ISLAND)
- YONKERS
- MT. VERNON .,
- NASSAU COUNTY (PART!
NIAGARA FRONTIER (ALL)*
GENESEE-FINGER LAKES (ALL)*
CENTRAL (PART)"*
HUDSON VALLEY (PART)*
METRO NEW YORK CITY (ALL)
(MAJOR URBAN AREA:
BUFFALO)
(MAJOR URBAN AREA:
ROCHESTER)
CAYUGA AND ONONDAGA
COUNTIES
(MAJOR URBAN AREA:
SYRACUSE)
COUNTIES: ALBANY
COLUMBIA
DUTCHESS
GREENE
ORANGE
'PUTNAM
RENSSELAER
SCHENECTADY
ULSTER
TOWNS AND CITIES:
CLIFTON PARK
HALFMOON
MECHANICVILLE
WATERFORD
(MAJOR URBAN AREA:
NEW YORK CITY
METROPOLITAN AREA)
* New York State has requested redesignation from non-attainment to
attainment or unclassifiable.
t New York State has requested redesignation of part of this non-
attainment area to attainment.
-------
TABLE 2
SECONDARY NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS IN NEW YORK STATE
Conventional
Pollutant
TSP , .
S02
CO, 03, N02
AQCR
NIAGARA .FRONTIER
CENTRAL
HUDSON VALLEY
METRO NYC
NONE
SECONDARY STANDARD AT SAME
LEVEL AS PRIMARY STANDARD.
Non-attainment
Area
- BUFFALO (PART)
- NIAGARA FALLS
- NIAGARA
- BLASDELL
- CHEEKTOWAGA (PART).
- LOCKPORT (PART)
- LACK A WANNA
- SYRACUSE
- EAST SYRACUSE
- SOLVAY
- ALBANY (PART)
- CATSKILL (PART)
- NEW YORK CITY (PARTS)
11
-------
TABLE 3
AREAS IN NEW YORK STATE WHERE AIR QUALITY MONITORS
HAVE RECORDED VALUES NEAR THE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
(outside of designated non-attainment areas)
TSP - Sites with an annual geometric mean of 55ug/m3 (73% of
the 75ug/m3 annual primary standard) or more, or an annual
second highest 24-hour average of 130 ug/m3 ( 87% of the
150ug/m3 secondary standard) or more.
AMHERST* sec 24-hour**
BABYLON
DEPEW* sec 24-hour
ELMIRA
GLEN COVE
GLENS FALLS
HEMPSTEAD* sec 24-hour
HOOSICK FALLS
JAMESTOWN
LEWISTON
MASSENA* pri 24-hour
NEW PALTZ* sec 24-hour
NORTH TONAWANDA
OSSINING* sec 24-hour
PORT JERVIS* sec 24-hour
ROCHESTER* sec 24-hour
SARANAC LAKE* sec 24-hour
SAUGERTIES* sec 24-hour
SCHNECTADY
SLOAN
TONAWANDA
UTICA
WEST SENECA
NOTE: 1979-81 data
* Violated a standard in one year or more.
** sec = secondary standard (150 micrograms per meter cubed)
pri = primary standard (260 micrograms per meter cubed)
SOo - Sites with an annual average of 52 ug/mj (65% of the
primary standard) or more, or annual second highest 24-hour
average of 300 ug/m3 (82% of primary 24-hour standard) or
more, or annual second highest 3-hour average of 1000 ug/m3
(77% of secondary 3-hour standard) or more.
- ALBANY (Hudson Valley Region)
- JAMESTOWN (Southern Tier West)
- NEW YORK CITY (Metropolitan New York City Region)
- ROCHESTER (Genesee-Finger Lakes Region)
- TONAWANDA (Niagara Frontier Region)
CO - Sites with a second highest one hour average of 30.0 mg/m3
(75% of standard) or more, or a second highest 8-hour average
of 7.5 mg/m3 (75% of standard) or more.
- MAMARONECK (Metro New York City Region)
- ROCHESTER (Genesee-Finger Lakes Region)
12
-------
Summary of Air Quality in Each Air Quality Control Region
Niagara Frontier
The Niagara Frontier contains areas that are still designated
non-attainment for TSP, SO2/ and 03 primary standards. The
violations of the primary TSP standard in Buffalo, Lackawanna,
and Niagara Falls are mainly caused by process and fugitive
emissions from steel manufacturing and other industries in
the area. The high S02 concentrations in Lackawanna are
primarily caused by emissions from by-product coke oven
batteries.
A reduction in concentrations of TSP and SC>2 has been observed
in the Niagara Frontier in the past few years. This may be
due, in part, to the severe economic problems that have caused
shutdowns of heavy industry in this region. The closing of
steel plants and other sources of particulate matter at the
end of 1982 may produce further reductions in TSP concentrations.
Monitoring done at sites downwind of Buffalo have shown
occasional 03 concentrations above the standard over the
past few years due to automobile and industrial emissions of
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, but this problem is much
less severe than the 63 problem in the New York City area.
Toxic air pollution emissions from industrial processes, residual
waste processing and abandoned waste dumps is a problem which
was not addressed until recently. The scope of the required
actions is not defined.
Genesee Finger Lakes
There are relatively few serious air pollution problems in this
region. Although violations of the air quality standards for
TSP, CO, and SC>2 are rare, some monitoring sites have recorded
concentrations near the standards. For this reason, monitoring
data from this area needs to be watched closely for evidence of
potential problems. The^Region has also had some violations of
the 03 standard. Due to"" the number of chemically based industries,
toxics may also be a problem in this region.
Southern Tier East and Southern Tier West
These regions are not heavily industrialized and, compared to
other areas of the state, have fewer people and motor vehicles.
There are no non-attainment areas in this part of the state.
However, Jamestown has had TSP and SO2 concentrations near the
air quality standards and Elmira has had TSP concentrations
near the standard.
13
-------
Central
Industrial process emissions from a major chemical plant, as
well as fugitive emissions, are the main sources of the
limited secondary TSP violations in this Region. Automot-ive
congestion at two intersections has caused a violation of
the CO standard at these locations. In addition, 03 may be
a minor problem in part of the region. Attainment of the 63
standard will" be maintained "through"-con'tfols on both mobile
sources and large stationary sources of hydrocarbon emissions.
Northern
The Northern Region does not have any major air quality
problems with respect to criteria pollutants, although some
TSP monitors have recorded concentrations near the air quality
standards. It should be noted, however, that acid rain due
to the long-range transport "of pollutants, particularly
sulfur and nitrogen oxides, is an emerging problem in the
Adirondacks .
Hudson Valley
Carbon monoxide non-attainment areas exist at isolated "hot-spots"
in Waterford, Colonie, and Schenectady. While all of these
problems are caused by traffic congestion, only the Waterford
problem will require traffic planning action to improve traffic
flow. The other CO exceedances are being addressed through
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program.
There are also two TSP secondary standard non-attainment problems
in this region; one at the Port of Albany and one in Cementon.
The Cementon non-attainment classfication is caused by an
unstablizied cement plant dust dump, while the Albany problem
is caused by grain terminals and power plants.
The Hudson Valley Reg io.n also has had an 03 problem. It is
unclear as to how much of this problem is from local sources
of hydrocarbons and how much is transported from the New York
City metropolitan area. The same hydrocarbon controls applicable
to other upstate 03 non-attainment areas will be instituted
to reduce the local contribution to this problem.
14
-------
Metropolitan New York City and Long Island (Part of New York-
New Jersey-Connecticut Interstate AQCR)
Although progress has been made over the last ten to twenty
years in this region, many air quality problems continue to
persist. These are related to the area's dense population,
heavy, .traffic ,....numerous, power .plants, fuel combustion and
other industrial "activity, and municipal 'incineration of
solid waste.
The suspended particulate concentrations are below the primary
TSP standards at all monitoring stations in the region, although
parts of the metropolitan area are non-attainment areas for
the secondary TSP standard. However, most of New York City is
unclassifiable for attainment of the TSP standards because the
monitors are located far above street level.
Annual average 562 concentrations in New York City are near
the primary air quality standards and need to be watched to
see if concentrations remain below the standards.
The primary standard for CO has not been attained in major
portions of the metropolitan area, due to the tremendous
number of motor vehicles operated in the region. The entire
region also violates the 03 standard. Motor vehicles are
important contributors to the 63 problem; however, non-
motor vehicle emissions also play an important role.
Due to the heavy industrial activity and waste disposal ac-
tivity in the Metropolitan New York City area, it is suspected
that many toxic pollutants may be entering the air. However,
the current lack of information on the nature and extent of
toxic emissions prohibits a definitive analysis of their
potential effects.
15
-------
PRIORITY AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS
Table 4 presents a summary of the source control priorities
for each Air Quality Control Region in New York State.
AS this table indicates, the highest priority air quality
problems are in two major areas: the Niagara Frontier (TSP)
and the Metropolitan New York City and Long Island (CO, 03)
Air Ouality Control Regions. The following section describes
each of these problems in greater detail and presents data
on the status and trends in air quality at representative
monitoring stations in the' problem area.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF SOURCE CONTROL PRIORITIES BY REGION
Source
Control
Problem
Point Sources
Area Sources
Mobile Sources
Long Range
Transport
Toxics
w
^j; .
§
2
U.
2
a
a
z
SQz L
TSP H
03 L
TSP H
03 L
H
*
4)
0»
.£ . '
U.
sl
i
o
03 .L
03 L
H
.
.s
H-
C in
w
^
o
Z
Acid
Rain
H
H
^
^
^
c
o
-------
Detailed Discussion of Priority Problems
Current Air Quality Problems
0 Ozone in Metropolitan New York City
Several regions^in .New York State .have had violations of
the 03 standard ('Table 5)/-and are currently not in attain-
ment. In the New York City metropolitan area the problem is
particularly severe. During 1981, all properly sited 03
monitoring sites in the Metropolitan AQCR violated the 03
standard.
TABLE 5
NUMBER OF TIMES THE OZONE STANDARD HAS BEEN
EXCEEDED AT SITES DOWNWIND OF URBAN AREAS IN NEW YORK STATE
Urban Area/Site
New York City
White Plains, N.Y.
Bridgeport, Ct.
Each Year's Peak
Downwind Ozone Site
Buffalo
Amherst
Middleport
Syracuse
Camden
Rochester
Williamson
Rochester
Albany
Rensselaer
Glens Falls
NOTE: The ozone standard
more than once per
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Avg . 1979-1981
9 11 8
27 .9 15
31 19 17
311
_ _ _
— — —
_ _ _
4 0
163
010
is 0.12.ppm peak 1-hour
year, on average.
21
22
36
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
daily
7 12
9 1
24
0 less than
0
0
0
0
1
0
value occuring
5
—
1 . i
1 •'. ; •
0
0
0
2
0
not
-------
However, 03 is a major problem not only in the New York
City metropolitan area, but also extends well into the State
of Connecticut (Figure 10). Figure 11 shows the trend toward
decreasing peak 03 values downwind of New York City, although
values are still well above the standard. The production and
transport of 03 in the area have been evaluated, and local and
downwind data from 1979 through 1981 were used in modeling
for the Ozone State Implementation Plan. The modeling .results
indicate that about a 60 percent reduction in hydrocarbon
emissions will be needed in the New York City metropolitan
area in order to meet the 03 standard area-wide'.
FIGURE 10
OZONE CONCENTRATIONS DOWNWIND OF NEW YORK CITY *
*Based on 1980 data.
>0.24 PPM
0.20 TO 0.24 PPM
0.16 TO 0.20 PPM
Mill 0.12 TO 0.16 PPM
-------
FIGURE 11
flNNURL OZONE VRLLJES DONNNIND OF
MEN YORK CITY
0.4-1
a.
a.
0.2-
0.1 -
O.O'
•OZONE STflNOflRO
OZONE 3THNDflRO 13 BflSED ON 2nd HIOHEST
oniur nvERfloe FOR n GIVEN
Legend
A HIflHE3T-ftLL 3ITS3
X BRIDGEPORT. CT
a
1977
1978
1979
YERR
1980
1981
° CO in Metropolitan New York City
Carbon monoxide concentrations exceed the air quality standards
at many intersections in the Metropolitan New York City Region.
These "CO hotspots" are currently being studied to assess the
magnitude of the problem. There are two traffic monitors in
Manhattan, one in Midtown at 45th Street, and one in lower
Manhattan at Canal Street. At both of these locations, the
frequency of violations of the 8-hour standard has been going
down; 'however, the second highest 8-hour average value has
decreased by only a small amount (Figures 12 and 13). This
may indicate that the control measures being implemented are
reducing extremely high short-term concentrations, but are
having little effect on the overall average concentration.
0 TSP in the Niagara Frontier
There have been some observed improvements in TSP concentrations
in recent years in this region. Table 6 shows the number of
times that the primary and secondary 24-hour TSP standards have
been exceeded at a representative site from the urban portion
of the region. Figure 14 shows that, in general, the annual
TSP concentrations have been steadily decreasing over the past
four years. Twenty-four hour average levels still exceed the
secondary standards (not shown). However, the annual geometric
means are still at or above the annual primary standards in
1981 at some sites in the region, especially in Lackawanna.
19
-------
FIGURE 12
SO-t
CflRBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRRTIONS
ST., NEW YORK CITY
1 hf STflNOfiRO
Legend
A 2nd HIOHE3T Ihr-
X 2nd HIOHC3T 8hr
a
8 hi- STRNDHRO
1977
1978
1979
YEflR
1980
1981
FIGURE 13
SO-i
CflRBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRflTIONS
CflNflL ST., NEW YORK CITY
1 hr* STRNORPO
1977
1978
1979
YEflR
1980
1981
20
-------
TABLE 6
NUMBERS OF TIMES THAT THE 24-HOUR AVERAGE TSP
STANDARDS ARE EXCEEDED
1977 1978 1979
Buffalo Trailer
Primary Standard (1)
Secondary Standard (2)
(1) 260 ug/m3 not to be
(2) 150 ug/m3 not to be
0
9
exceeded
exceeded
1
9
more
more
0
5
than
than
1980
0
4
once
once
1981
0
5
per year
per year
FIGURE 14
RNNURL SUSPENDED PRRTICULRTE MflTTER CONCENTRRTIONS
BUFFRLO, NEW YORK
200-1
Legend
A _SITE «18-TRflILER
x SITE »11-PS 26
n SITE -2-TIFFT ST
1971 72
80
1981
While it appears that air quality may be improving in the Niagara
Frontier, it will have to be carefully monitored to determine
whether progress continues. It should be pointed out that the
reduction in TSP concentrations in this region may be due, in
part, to the adverse economic conditions that have caused shutdowns
of heavy industry. Therefore, any progress that is made could be
reversed if economic conditions change.
21
-------
Potential Air Quality Maintenance Problems
This section presents additional data on specific geographic
areas in New York State that, although currently attaining
air quality standards, have observed pollutant concentrations
•relatively close to the standard. Therefore, these
areas present, potential, ai.r..quality: .maintenance problems
(refer to Table" 3,. page" 12)V The following sites will be
watched closely in the coming years to assure that they
maintain their attainment status.
0 Sulfur Dioxide in the Niagara Frontier and New York City
Figures 15 and 16 show the decreasing trend in S02 concentrations
at representative sites in the Niagara Frontier (Tonawanda) and
New York City, respectively.
FIGURE 15
TRENDS IN SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
TONflWRNDR, NEW YORK
400-i
24 HOUR STWJOflRO
1977
1978
1979
YERR
1980
Legend
X 2nd HIGHEST 24hr-
0 95tH% Iht- flVG
1981
Both the Niagara Frontier and New York City currently have
concentrations below the S02 standards (Figure 17). However,
recent reductions in SO2 concentrations in the Niagara Frontier
may be due, in part, to the economic problems that have caused
shutdowns of heavy industry in the region, and therefore, may
pose a potential maintenance problem should economic conditions
change. Similarly, while the S02 concentrations at New York
City sites are. currently below the air quality standards, coal
22
-------
FIGURE 16
TRENDS IN SULFUR DIOXODE CONCENTRRTIONS
CCNY, NEW YORK CITY
400-1
3CO-
2CO-
1OO-
• 24 HOUR STRNORRO |
Legend
X 2nd HIOHE3T 24hi-
O 95-thX lh«- RVO
1977
1978
1979
YEflR
1980
1981
conversions by utilities and industry could cause a reduction of.
the difference between the present values and the standards.
The New York City area is designated as "unclassifiable" for
SO2 due to the number of monitors that are too far above
street level.
FIGURE 17
100-
RNNUflL RVERRGE SULFUR DIOXIDE
.NYC RND TONRWRNDR, IEH YORK
RNNURL STRNOflRO
Legend
A CCNY, NYC
x TONflWflNDR
1977
1978
1979
YEflR
1980
1981
23
-------
Emerging Problems
0 Statewide Pb Trends
All areas of New York State currently have Pb concentrations
below the air quality standard, and have a long period of
record well below the standard. Lead concentrations at
these sites have continued to decline over the past decade.
However, a new'Pb'monitoring "network is now being established
which will focus on neighborhoods with high traffic densities.
These sites should be more representative of Pb levels in '
urban areas.
0 Coal Conversions
The recent decline in fuel prices has diminished the interest
of utilities and industries in burning coal. However, if oil
prices increase in the future, a resurgence of interest in
coal conversions would be likely. Many of the large combusion
sources desiring to reconvert to coal would not wish to do so
under currently applicable emission regulations. If widespread
conversion under relaxed emission limitations were allowed to
take place, attainment of the national primary air quality
standards or Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
increments for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter could be
endangered. This situation is most critical in the New Jersey -
New York - Connecticut Air Quality Control Region' where
several large sources want to convert to coal and where
interstate air quality impact issues come into play.
0 Toxics ,; I
There is very limited information regarding the sources and
effects of toxic air contaminants. EPA has implemented
regulations covering a few toxics under the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants program, which has
been delegated to the state.
Emerging concerns about toxic problems are associated with
emissions from landfills, combustion of illegally contaminated
fuel oils, toxic waste handling and disposal facilities and
municipal waste incinerators. The potential for legal and
illegal disposal practices to contaminate the atmosphere is
indisputable. Whether such contamination poses a threat to
human health is not clear. Information which is not now
generally available, but which is essential to assessing
potential hazards, includes improved risk assessment information,
field measurements of the types and quantities of fuel oil
contaminations, information on the quantities of waste oil
entering the marketplace, emission rate data for landfills,
and better estimates of populations at risk.
24
-------
° Acid Rain
As discussed in the water quality section, acid deposition
has affected numerous water bodies in New York State. Increased
sulfate/nitrate emission loadings in the atmosphere can
lead to increased acidity in downwind, environmentally sensitive
areas. This is especially true in the Adirondack region of
upstate New York. EPA's current legal authority to regulate
long-range transport of the precursors to acid rain formation
is'not yet. clearly' defined.:--While' EPA recognizes the potential
deleterious effects of acid deposition, EPA believes that
current research on source-receptor relationships is inconclusive
and r«quir«s more study.
In 1980, the Interagency Task Force on Acid Precipitation was
established to develop and implement a national 10-year
research program designed to increase our' understanding of
the causes and effects of acid rain.
As results of the program become available, a series of special
assessment documents will be issued. The first of these
reports, known as the Critical Assessment Document is a
comprehensive review of the existing scientific information on
acid deposition. It will be available after March 1983.
25
-------
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
PROGRESS IN WATER QUALITY
The State of New York is divided into the following seventeen
major .drainage -.basins .(-see..Figure;-.18.).: . .. . •
Lake Erie-Niagara River
Allegany River
Lake Ontario & Minor Tribs.
Genesee River
Chemung 'River
Susquehanna River
Seneca-Oneida-Oswego
Black River
St. Lawrence River
Lake Champlain
Upper Hudson
Mohawk River
Lower Hudson
Delaware River
Passaic-Newark
Housatonic River
Atlantic Ocean-L.I
FIGURE 18
•New York, State Drainage Basins
26
-------
There are approximately 70/000 miles of streams and 4,000
fresh water lakes in New York State. While 3,400 miles
(5%) of these streams are impacted by point discharges,
approximately 1,200 miles (2 %) are affected to the degree
that water quality standards are violated. In addition,
4,700 miles (7%) are impacted by non-point sources. It
should be noted that some segments are impacted by both
point and nonrpolnt sources'.- ' .' . • •"• •• -' '••'• " : -
Table 7 indicates the estimated percentage of river miles per
basin impacted by point source discharges that are meeting state
water quality standards.
TABLE 7
WATER QUALITY IN NEW YORK STATE
EST. % MEETING
BASIN NAME STATE STANDARDS*
Lake Erie-Niagara River 97 .2
Allegany River 97.4
Lake Ontario & Minor Tribs. 97.7
Genesee River 98.1
Chemung River 98.3 .
Susquehanna River 98.9
Seneca-Oneida-Oswego 98.6
Black River 99.7
St. Lawrence River . 98.0
Lake Champlain 98.6
Upper Hudson 98 .9
Mohawk River 95.5
Lower Hudson 98.3
Delaware River 99.0
Passaic-Newark 98.7
Housatonic River 94.0
Atlantic Ocean-L.I. —
Statewide Average 97.9
* Based on the estimated percentage of total river
miles that are meeting water quality standards.
27
-------
The construction of new and upgraded municipal sewage treat-
ment facilities has reduced the amount and/or the concentra-
tions of pollutants entering the surface and groundwater
systems. The number of municipal sewage treatment plants in
New York State has increased from 298 to 509 in the past three
decades. More significantly, the type of treatment provided
by these facilities has improved substantially.
The increase in new treatment-plants has reduced the total
amount of pollutants discharged to the environment. The
increases in the number of plants and treatment capabilities
have and will continue to increase the amount of sewage sludge
that must be disposed of. For example, 4.6 million wet tons of
sludge generated in New York and New Jersey were ocean dumped
in the New York Bight Apex in 1973; by 1981 the amount had
increased to 6.7 million wet tons.
Industries in New York also have treatment facilities that may
include biological, chemical, or physical processes to assure
that they meet effluent limitations which are either technology
or water quality based. Between 1970 and 1980, the number of
industrial treatment facilities increased from 392 to 444.
STATUS OF WATER QUALITY
The surface water quality problems which are most pervasive in
the State of New York fall into the.following categories:
0 toxic materials
0 organic oxygen demanding materials
0 infectious agents
0 nutrients
The extent and severity of the problems caused by conventional
and toxic pollutants in each of the seventeen basins in the state
are shown in Table 8. Table 9 summarizes for each basin the
problems that are high priority relative to other problems in
the state.
28
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF BASIN WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS/PRIORITIES BY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12,
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
MAJOR BASIN
Lake Erie/Niagara
Allegheny River
Lake Ontario/Minor Tribs.
Genesee River
Chemung River
Susquehanna River
Seneca Onieda-Oswego
Black River
St. Lawrence River
Lake Champlain
Upper Hudson River
Mohawk River
Lower Hudson River
Delaware River
Newark River Raritan Bay
Housatonic River
Atlantic Ocean/Long Island
ORGANIC
O2 DEMAND
M
M
M
H
H
H
H
M
L
M
H
H
H
M
H
L
Sound H
INFECTIOUS
AGENTS
H
M
M
H
H
H
H
M
M
M/L
M
H
H
M
M
M
H
NUTRIENTS
H
H
H/M
H
H/M
M
H
M
M
M
H/M
H/M
M/H
H
L
L
H
MAJOR POLLUTANT CATEGORIES
TOXICS
H
M
H/M
M
L
L
H/M
L
M
M
H
M/H
H
L
L
L
H
THERMAL
L
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
M/L
M/L
M/L
M/H
L
L
L
M
SED/MINERAL
M/H
M
. M
H
'H
H/M
•.M
M
M/L
H
M/H
H
M/H
M
L
L
M
OIL/HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
M
H
M
M
L
L
M
L
H
H/M
M/L
H
H
L
L
L
H
H - High Priority relative to other problems in the Basin
M - Medium
L - Low
-------
PRIORITY WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
As this table indicates, the highest priority water quality
problems in the state are concentrated in five major basins:
Erie-Niagara, Upper Hudson, Mohawk, Lower Hudson, and Long
Island Sound/Atlantic Ocean. In each of these basins, water
quality is seriously impacted due to the indicated source
•control".:problem;."' -In:'some-'.cases, pollution is severe enough
that some stream segments are not meeting their designated
use. The following section describes these problems in
greater detail.
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF SOURCE CONTROL PRIORITIES
'
WQM/ Source
Problem
Point Source-
Conventional
Toxics
Non-point Source
Ocean Dumping
.
-
0
cn
a
2
fii
a
d.
a,
3
X
»
3
"^
O
*•
^.
X
X
z
c
cn
5
c:
a
3
q
X
X
1 1
a
r*
<
3
^
a
—
i
t. \
&
*™J
B
^5
U
H
^
cn
cn
-------
Detailed Discussion of Priority Problems
0 Surface Waters Contaminated By Toxics
The most significant water quality problem in New York State
is contamination by toxic substances. Municipal and industrial
discharges, residual wastes (sludges), sewer overflows, oil
and hazardous material ':spills',' landfill 'leachate, 'and other
sources contribute' to the toxics in New York State waters.
Toxics monitoring in New York State is conducted routinely
at 50 water stations, each of which is sampled 6 times a year,
and at 106 fish stations, one-third of which are sampled
each year. Additionally, special studies are done to track
down known or suspected toxic discharges. As additional
monitoring is conducted, new toxics contamination may be
discovered. For this reason, toxics are considered to be a
potential environmental problem throughout the state. The
following discussion focuses on specific areas where toxic
contamination is currently known to be a serious problem.
Contravention of Water Quality Standards for Toxics
Most of the water quality standards for toxics in New York
State are based on narrative, rather than numerical, criteria.
The standard is contravened if there is any "toxic waste or
•deleterious substance" that is "injurious to fishlife... or
adversely affects the flavor, color or odor thereof, or
impairs the waters for any best usage...."
The three basins with the highest percentage of total stream
miles contravening toxic wa.ter quality standards in New
York State are the Erie-Niagara, Upper Hudson and Mohawk
river basins. In each of these basins, fisheries .have
been seriously impaired due to toxic substances. There
follows a more detailed discussion of toxic contaminated
aquatic sediment and fish tissues.
Toxic Contaminated Aquatic Sediments
Figure 19 outlines the areas of the state where major toxics
contaminated aquatic sediments are known to be located.
31
-------
FIGURE 19
MAJOR CONTAMINATED
AQUATIC SEDIMENTS
lake*, and *tre«K* who** botton *edinent«
are contaminated with toxic chemical* (dark
arvaa on nap) include pare* of T««lt* Cntario,
Onondaga take near Syracuse, and the Hudson
River, including Foundry Cove and New York
Bight.
Additional isolated example* (not •noon on
thi* >ap) of toxic contamination hav* b*«n
in oth«r portion* of th« Stata.
32
-------
Approximately 250 miles of stream sediments are currently
known to be impaired by in-place toxics. The basins most
seriously affected are Lake Ontario, the Hudson River, and
Atlantic Ocean/Long Island Sound.
The Hudson River from Hudson Falls to New York City is con-
taminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Foundry
Cove,, a. shallow, bay .on the .-east, bank, of the Hudson River
across from West Point, is contaminated with cadmium and
an adjacent wetland, the Constitution Marsh, is polluted
with cadmium and nickel.
Sediments in a broad band running along the southern shore of
Lake Ontario between the Niagara River and the Rochester embay-
ment are contaminated with Mirex. Both Mirex and PCBs have
been discovered in sediments in the eastern part of the lake,
north of the Oswego River.
Onondaga Lake, located at the northern edge of Syracuse in
central New York State, is contaminated by mercury.
The waters surrounding the New York City metropolitan area are
also seriously contaminated by toxics. Figures 20 and 21 show
examples of sediment concentrations of copper in the New York
Bight Apex and of PCBs in the Bight Apex and Long Island Sound,
respectively.
Some dredging practices can exacerbate the problem of toxics
in aquatic sediments. In addition to the problems associated
with the disposal of dredged material (see Impaired Fisheries
in the Ocean, page 39), the dredging itself may degrade water
quality. When sediments are dredged (and disposed of), sig-
nificant amounts of toxic contaminants may be released into
surrounding waters in biologically available forms. For ^_
example, relocating (via ocean dumping) sediments containing
PCBs, trace heavy metals, pathogens, hydrocarbons, and other
toxic substances will degrade receiving water quality.
The relocation of dredged toxic pollutants to upland sites
as part of a clean-up activity can also have adverse impacts
if proper precautions are not taken. Poor upland disposal
practices can result in the degradation of wetlands and/or
water bodies due to the release of sediments. The disposal
area must be designed to provide adequate retention time.
33
-------
FIGURE 20
Copper Distribution in New York Bight
Copper distribution In sediments of the New York Bight (pom, dry wt.).
FIGURE 21
PCB Concentration Contours
PCB concentritlon contours (concentrations In ppb).
-------
Toxic Contaminated Fish
At approximately 110 sites in New York State, fish are
•routinely biomonitored for one or more of the following
contaminants to identify potential problems: mercury, cadmium,
lead, PCBs, Mirex, DDT, and metabolites, endrin compounds in
. the. .chlordane ..group.,: .hexachlorabenzene ,. aldrin/ dieldrin,
heptachlor and BHC isomers. 'Information gathered by this
monitoring program and other studies is presented in Table
10 for those areas of the state where contaminant problems
are known to exist.
Fish tissue analysis is a good indicator of toxic water, con-
tamination as it is a relatively direct measure of whether
the water body is attaining its designated use. The presence
of contaminants in fish from the water bodies poses potential
harmful health effects to aquatic life, fish-eating wildlife,
and humans. Most of the contaminants which have been monitored
are bio-accumulative; that is, they tend to concentrate in
living organisms. Therefore, the contaminant concentrations
found in fish are considerably higher than the concentrations
in the water, making the fish good indicators of potential water
quality impairments.
Specific advisories exist to limit consumption of fish from
some bodies of water. To minimize potential adverse health
impacts, the New York State Department•of Health recommends
that individuals eat no more than one meal (1/2 Ib.) per week .
of fish from any water in the state due to PCB contamination;
the New York State Department of Health and the Department of
Environmental Conservation also issued a warning on the taking
of blue claw crabs from the Hudson River due to cadmium
contamination.
0 Need for Data on the Contamination of Surface Waters by Toxics
The identification of geographic areas where toxic contaminant
problems exist is the first step in finding the pollutant source
and eventually preventing additional contamination. Toxics
monitoring is done at 50 locations (in the state) as part of the
toxic pollutant surveillance network, to determine the statewide
distribution of toxic substances. The network covers all major
rivers and major tributaries where toxic discharges are known
to exist. Other locations are sampled on a case by case basis
(toxic trackdown) as toxic problems are identified or suspected.
Further studies are needed to determine the magnitude of toxics
contamination in New York State waters and to develop strategies
to deal with the problem.
35
-------
TAULE 10
TOXIC FISH CONTAMINANT PROBLEMS IN NEW YORK STATE
LOCATION
"SJlrondack
Mountains
STATEMENT OP PROBLEMS
EXTENT OF PROBLEMS
Heavy metaTcontamination (mercury, load, and
cadmium) is occurring in fish from sane bodies
of water. Metals uptake may be related to
lake acldfication. toss of fish population in a
number of lakes is due to acidification. This
problem may be compounded by metal toxicity.
Throughout Adirondacks where lakes have poor
buffering capacity. Other lakes outside of
Adirondacks above 2000 ft. with poor buffering
capacity are also threatened.
Delaware Elevated arsenic levels in American shad. Re-
River sldent species do not exhibit this contamination.
Source of arsenic is likely to be:downstream from
New York State section of Delaware because con-
tamination is limited to migratory species.
Finger Lakes Recent inputs of DOT and chlordane have been re-
ported. DDT concentrations in sane situations
are approaching levels which have been shown to
impair lake trout reproduction.
DDT concentration in fish are elevated in Seneca.
Canandagua and Keuka Lakes-Chlordane is elevated
in fish fran Cayuga Lake. .;.
Hudson River Extensive contamination of fish with PCD. High
levels of cadmium have been reported in blue crab.
Dioxin and dibenzofuran have been identified in two
fish samples. High incidence of fin rot in shortnose
sturgeon, ulcer disease in goldfish, and liver tumors
in tomcod have been reported. Weakened backbones in
: striped bass have been identified. The role of con-
taminants in these conditions requires investigation.
Fishing is prohibited from Troy Dam to Fort
Bdward. Below Troy commercial fishing is re-
stricted to American shad and Atlantic sturgeon
due to PCB contamination. Ban on.the taking of
blue claw crabs.
Lake Champlain PCB and Mercury at elevated levels in fish.
PCB contamination appears to be restricted to
northern end of lake. Mercury contamination is
highest in Fort Ticonderoga area.';
Lake Ontario Mi rex, photomirex, and PCB at elevated concentra-
& St. Lawrence tions. Dioxin has been detected in some fish.
River Numerous canpounds have been reported. Evidence
of impaired fish reproduction has been reported.
'Ihe relationship of this problem to contaminants
is under study.
Entire Lake'. Specific consumption advisories on
Lake Ontario fish have been made by NYSDKC ami
NYSDOH for particular species and sizes of fish.
long Island . Fisheries surveys have identified chlordane con-
tamination in sane freshwater fish in Long Island)
probable source is treatment for termite infestations.
Nassau Lake
and Valatie
Kill
Approx. 60% of ponds tested have fish with eleva-
ted chlordane concentration.
Fish contain elevated PCB attributable to runoff
fran an abandoned dump site.
Advisory exists that fish fran part of Valatie
Kill should not be eaten. Eels and black crappie
from Nassau Lake should not be eaten.
Niagara River High concentrations of dioxin have been Identified
in fish. Dibenzofuran has also been found.
These are releatively recent findings and the ex-
tent of the problem has not been established.
Onondaga Lake Mercury contamination of fish due to abated in-
dustrial source.
Entire lake is closed to fishing.
Statewide
Statewide advisory suggests limiting consumption of
fish to 1 meal (B oz.) per week. Several localized
waters have fish with high contaminant concentrations.
-------
0 Conventional Pollution Problems Associated with Municipal
Discharges
Two areas of the state that are receiving large volumes of
inadequately treated municipal wastes are the Mohawk River
and Lower Hudson basins.
General—water.quality
-------
Impaired Shell Fisheries
All shellfish beds in the New York City area are closed to
harvesting for human consumption due to high coliform levels.
Disappearance of oyster and soft clam resources in the Lower
New York Bay and Upper East River are a direct result of
sewage and toxicants. The effects of sewage on the benthic
fauna pf,,Raritan::Bay,are^well..documented.... Remaining shellfish
operations'''in''the'immediate New' York estuary are limited to
transplanting hard clams from the Lower Bay, and harvesting
surf clams off Rockaway Beach, for bait use.
While a viable shellfishery continues to exist on Long Island,
the salinity in Great South Bay has increased from 23 to 29
parts per thousand since the mid 1930's, causing a detrimental
effect on the populations of hard clams in the bay by allowing
predators such as moon snails, whelks, oyster drills, crabs,
starfish, and browsing gastropods to increase their range.
Increased salinity may also adversely affect the reproductive
capabilities of adult hard clams. Overharvesting, in conjunction
with decreased population, is probably the major cause of the
decreased landings of hard clams since 1976. The 1980 dockside
value of the hard clam harvest was 16.3 million dollars, with a
gross retail value of about 100 million dollars. However, since
1976, there has been about a 50 percent reduction in the total
landings of hard clams in Great South Bay.
Increased salinity can be caused by a variety of meteorological
and hydrological factors, but municipal discharges also con-
tribute to this problem. An additional 8 percent decrease in
thfe '.standing crop of hard clams in the bay is projected when
the Southwest Sewer District's outfall reaches full discharge
capacity. (Increased sewering causes a drop in the water
table level, reducing both stream flow and underground water
flow into the bay, thereby increasing salinity.)
Many areas of Great South Bay, as well as' the New York Harbor
and New York Bight Apex areas, are closed to clamming due to
high coliform levels in the water. The coliform bacteria
are used as an indirect method of detecting disease-causing
bacteria, viruses, protozoa, worms, and fungi. The sources
of coliform contamination on Long Island are land runoff
and improperly operating cesspools and septic systems. The
highest densities of legal size clams can be found in areas
which are closed due to bacterial contamination. The source
of coliiorm contamination in the New York Harbor area is
inadequately treated sewage discharges. The sources in" the
New York Bight are ocean dump sites (sewage sludge and dredged
material) and other estuarine discharges.
38
-------
Impaired Contact Recreation
Each spring and summer the New York City Department of Health
conducts a comprehensive beach water survey and sampling program
at all of the city's major beach areas. The purpose of this
program is to test beach areas for compliance with existing
Health Department;•standardsahd:. to, provide public information
regarding the advisability of using New York City beaches for
swimming. As a result of this survey, beaches are classified
into one of three categories: approved for bathing; not
recommended (closed); or temporarily restricted.
The following beaches were closed or temporarily restricted
during 1981:
Beach Area
Sea Gate at
South Beach
Coney Isla'nd
in Staten Island
Prince's Bay in Staten Island
Mt. Loretto in Staten Island
Tottenville in Staten Island
Ft. Wadsworth in Staten Island
Plum Beach in.Jamaica Bay
Canarsie Beach in Jamaica Bay
Howard Beach in Jamaica Bay
Cross Bay Blvd. in Jamaica Bay
Bathing Activities
Not Recommended
Not Recommended
Not Recommended
Not Recommended
Temporarily
Temporarily
Temporarily
Temporarily
Temporarily
Temporarily
Restricted
Restricted
Restricted
Restricted
Restricted
Restricted
The closing of the beach areas is particularly critical due
to the large population in the area that depends on these
waters for recreation.
Impaired Fisheries in the Ocean
The large quantities of raw and inadequately treated municipal
wastes, and present and past industrial discharges in the Hudson/
Raritan estuaries, combined with the ocean dumping of dredged
material and sewage sludge have impacted finfish populations
.and shellfish beds in the New York Bight. Marine pollution
has contributed to three major pollution problems: (1) the
closure of shellfish beds due to bacterial contamination, (2)
toxic contamination of sediments and fish from the New York Bight
Apex to the outer continental shelf-slope break, and (3) coastal
eutrophication.
There are currently six active dump sites in the New York
Bight where the disposal of waste materials is permitted.
Four of these sites are located in the New York Bight Apex.
39
-------
The six active sites (Figure 22) are:
0 Sewage Sludge (12-mile) Dump Site
0 Acid Waste Dump Site
0 Cellar Dirt (Rubble) Dump Site
0 Chemical Waste (106-mile) Dump Site
0 Wood Incineration Dump Site
0 Dredged Material (Mud) Dump Site
FIGURE 22
Ocean Disposal Sites
UJNC /SCA.NO SOU.VU
Key Co Dump Site
1. Sewage Sludge (12
2. Acid Waste
3. Cellar Dirt
4 Chemical Waste
(106 mi.) ;
5. Wood Incineratio
6. Dredge Material
LONG ISLAND-ij'Li-
The annual average discharge of dredged material in the
Bight over the next several years is expected to be between
8 and 10 million cubic yards (5 to 7 million cubic yards from
federal projects, and 2 to 3 million cubic yards from non-
federal projects). The quantities of waste materials (other
than dredged material) ocean dumped at each of these sites
are shown in Table 11.
40
-------
TABLE II
QUANTITIES OF WASTE MATERIALS*
OCEAN DUMPED IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
(in thousand wet tons)
Sewage Sludge Site
1973
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
MJ Bergen Co. Util. Auth.
MJ Joint Meeting
MJ Linden Rosella/Rahway.Valley
MJ Middlesex Co. Sew. Auth.
MJ Middletown Twp. Sew. Auth.
MJ Passaic Valley Sew. Contm.
MJ Municipalities
MY Glen Cove
TY Nassau Co. DPW
MY New York City DEP
-TY Wetchester Co. DEF'
Acid Wastes Site
•U Allied Chemical Corp.
U DuPont - Grasselli
U NL Industries, Inc.
Cellar Dirt Site (1)
* Moran Towing Corp.
* Water Tunnel Contractors
Chemical Waste Site
U American Cyanamid Co.
U Camden Sewage Sludge
IJ Chevron Oil Co.
IY Con Edison - Fly Ash
* Digest Cleanout
)E Dupont - Edge Moor
IJ Dupont - Grasselli
* General Marine Trans. Corp
fj Hess Oil Co.
* Modern Trans. Co.
Wood Incineration (1)
* Corps of Engineers
New York City
* Ocean Burning, Inc.
* Weeks Stevedoring
(1) Quantities in thousands of dry tons
(*) Wastes generated in New York and New Jersey
231
129
•••'67" •
342
10
555
260
7
363
2540
74
4578
65
157
2540
2762
835
139
974
130
27
45
127
•
8
37
374
_
11
11
242
125
"•• .142 ••
340
11
517
348
4
344
2050
80
4203
62
86
2190
2338
770
770
151
29
102
170
39
491
8
8
16
278
116
- ,142'. :
331
20
570
300
4
357
2040
112
4270
53
2030
2083
396
396
128
24
___
106
290
86
634
.2
6
6
246
88
228
300
18
576
212
7
409
2150
138
4375
52
1360
1412
315
315
131
.
27
180
5
69
412
.3
8
8
225
86
227
305
15
729
139
6
386
2210
157
4485
32
666
698
379
379
143
53
18
418
118
91
843
13
2
15
235
226
232
544
19
602
134
4
390
2480
108
4974
29
1360
1389
241
241
122
59
18
409
189
79
879
16
2
18
250
307
253
900
19
534
107
7
400
2809
346
5932
33
1509
1539
107
107
101
90
308
156
4
46
706
35
10
45
273
416
347
1227
19
654
97
6
465
3255
425
7184
40
1907
1047
89
89
68
2
52
238
237
23
620
5.6
3.1
0.8
1.0
10
271
467
278
931
21
589
53
23
503
3320
226
6682
36
1720
1756
0
0
25
'
20
22
200
267
9.7
0.4
0.3
5.7
16
41
-------
Studies conducted by the National Oceangraphic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) have demonstrated that many fishery
resources of the New York Bight are contaminated with toxics,
including petroleum hydrocarbons and PCBs. Species occurring
from the coastal waters of the New York Bight Apex to the
outer continental shelf-slope break showed unexpectedly high
levels of these, contami.nants... , Measurements of trace metals
and organic contaminants "in sediments collected over a broad
area of the continental shelf indicate that the seaward extent
of pollution may be greater than earlier expected. In addition,
outflow plumes from the Raritan/Hudson River complex carry
particulates and adsorbed toxic contaminants out to the contin-
ental shelf. Such materials eventually settle to the seabed
and may be one of the principal causes of adverse effects on
benthic communities and finfish populations. Studies have
identified a higher incidence of skeletal deformities, mutagenic
aberrations and various shell or skin lesions in organisms
collected inshore and in and around dumpsites.
NOAA studies of benthic populations and communities indicate
that benthic diversity and standing stocks are low in active
ocean dump site areas, and also suggest a slow recovery in
the benthos at discontinued dumpsites.
Evidence from NOAA studies also points to severe coastal
eutrophication in waters of the Bight. This eutrophication
may have increased the organic loading in some areas to beyond
their assimilative capacity, thus causing local areas to
have a bottom oxygen concentration below that which is
healthy for most marine life. Hypoxia (very low oxygen),
causing mortality, has occurred in the Bight several times in
the last decade and a half. Seabed oxygen demand was found
to be greater nearshore and in areas receiving inputs of
organic carbon due to ocean dumping.
While these environmental impacts are associated with several.
pollution sources, ocean dumping plays a major adverse role.
Additional applications for ocean dumping other wastes (e.g.,
coal ash and low level radioactive wastes) are expected.
Applications for significantly increasing the volume of wastes
dumped by current users are highly probable.
0 Priority Surface Waters Stressed by Non-Point Sources of
Conventional Pollution
There are literally hundreds of stream segments and lakes
in New York State that are stressed by non-point sources, of
pollution. Sediments, nutrients, and pathogens collectively
are the primary contaminants, causing over 80 percent of the
problem. Many of these stressed segments and lakes, especially
larger waterbodies, have multiple non-point problems, making
them complex and often more difficult to address. However,
many of the waterbodies have stressed segments which have
42
-------
relatively simple, straightforward solutions, and collectively
may contribute to more use impairment than do large waterbodies
which have complex problems.
Table 12 summarizes the mileage and number of stream segments
that are impaired by non-point sources. . Figure 23 outlines
.those. .bas.ins,..with. h.igh.,...medium,., .or,, low numbers of stream
miles with non-point source problems.
Table 13 summarizes the square mileage and the number of
lakes that are impaired by non-point sources. Figure 24
outlines those basins with high, medium, or low numbers of
square miles of lakes with non-point source problems. As can '
be seen from Tables 12 and 13, nonpoint sources of pollution
impact nearly all basins in the state. The impact of acid
rain on New York State lakes is covered separately (see
page 47).
0 Loss of Wetlands in Coastal Zones
In and around the highly developed metropolitan areas of
New York State, urban sprawl continues to destroy wetlands.
The loss of wetlands in coastal zones contributes to the
loss of fish spawning habitat and fisheries resources
and decreases.water quality. Estimates indicate that New
York State has lost over 40 percent of its wetlands since
the 1930's. Between 1954 and 1968, over 33 percent of the
wetlands on Long Island were lost to development. The
piecemeal alteration and destruction of wetlands through
draining, dredging, filling, and other means has had an
adverse cumulative impact on natural resources of the
coastal zone. The destruction of wetlands, and/or their
degradation, represents an irreversible and irretrievable
loss of valuable aquatic resources.
The further loss of wetlands may arise from continued unwise
land use practices. The Corps of Engineers and EPA can
prevent or minimize any further degradation of this important
natural resource by carefully reviewing Section 404 permit
applications for construction projects, or by providing
financial or technical assistance for EPA or Corp funded
activities. Activities in wetland areas should be scrutinized
so that losses are avoided or minimized wherever possible.
43
-------
TABLE 12
BASIN
01 Lake Erie-Niagara River
02 Allegheny River
03 L. Ontario & Minor Tribs.
04 Genesee River
05 Chemung
06 Susquehanna River
07 Seneca, Oneida & Oswego R.
08 Black River
09 St. Lawrence River
10 Lake Champlain
11 Upper Hudson River
12 Mohawk River
13 Lower Hudson River
14 Delaware River
15 Passaic-Newark
16 Housatonic River
17 Atlantic Ocean, Long Is.I/
TOTALS
•POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
V&TER QUALITY IMPAIRMENTS
STREAMS
- Miles (Number) -
APPROX.
TOTAL
-•-••; '-RIVER
MILES
3370
2820
3610
3480
2550
6620
7430
2810
8120
4250
5970
5060
. 7740
3470
390
250
2060
MAJOR*
•• STRESSED
SEGMENTS
507(31)
136(21)
313(291)
358(35)
164 ( 16 )
588(36)
601(51)
128(8)
358(28)
116(19)
125(13)
275(33)
432(36)
40(3)
0
10(1)
_».
MINOR*
STRESSED
SEGMENTS
60(10)
104(27)
20(1)
19(4)
—
—
5(2)
22(2)
106(11)
6(2)
78 ( 16 )
54(13)
105(14)
—
—
—
__
TOTAL MAJOR
AND MINOR
567(41)
240(48)
333(30)
277(39)
164(16)
588(36)
606(53)
150(10)
464(39)
122(21)
203 IJ29)
329(46)
537(50)
40(3)
0
10(1) •
__
TOTAL
PERCENT
MILES
STRESSED
17
9
9
8
6
9
8
5
6
3
3
7
7
1
' 0
2
-,--
70,000
4151(360)
579(102) 4730(462)
*This table summarizes the mileage and number of stream segments that are
stressed by non-point sources. Major stressed segments are defined as
those segments (areas) that were evaluated by New York State in a priority
ranking system for non-point stresses. Minor stressed segments are defined
as all other segments (areas) receiving non-point stresses.
I/ Basin 17 was not evaluated due to lack of information.
44
-------
TABLE 13
NON-POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
WATER QUALITY IMPAIRMENTS
LAKES
- Sq. Miles (Number) -
BASIN
61- Lake Erie-Niagara.-River ••/:••••
02 Allegheny River
03 L. Ontario .& Minor Tribs.
04 Genesee River
05 Chemung
06 Susquehanna River
07 Seneca, Oneida & Oswego R.
08 Black River
09 St. Lawrence River
•s
10 Lake Champlain .
11 Upper Hudson River
12 Mohawk River
13 Lower Hudson River
14 Delaware River
15 Passaic-Newark
16 Housatonic River
17 Atlantic Ocean, Long Is.2/
TOTAL !/
MAJOR*
STRESSED.
AREAS
••--/*<3 St 4 ).-:--"
.71(1)
20.28(4)
14.12(7)
3.01(6)
9.31(15)
282.76(14)
11.71(3)
57.96(25)
23.74(11)
56.10(7)
5.70(2)
24.39(38 )
1.51(6)
1.67(1)
0
513.32(151)
MINOR*
STRESSED
AREAS
20.98(1)
.04(1)
.05(1)
.56(2)
70.68(8)
.05(2)
.27(1)
.08(1)
.31(1)
93.02(18)
TOTAL MAJOR
AND MINOR
.35(4)
21.69{2)
20.28(4)
14.16(8)
3.06(7)
9.31(15)
282.76(14)
11.71(3)
58.52(27)
94.42(19)
56.15(9)
5.97(10)
24.47(39)
1.82(7)
1.67(1)
0
606. 34(169)
* This table summarizes the square mileage and number of lakes that
are impaired by_ non-point sources. Major stressed areas are defined
as those segments (areas) that were evaluated by New York State in
a priority ranking system for non-point stresses. Minor stressed
areas are defined as all other segments (areas) receiving non-point
stresses.
_!/ Totals do not include the many Adirondack lakes and streams
affected by acid rain.
2/ Basin 17 was not evaluated due to lack of information.
-------
FIGURE 23
Non Point Sourea Problems
Streams
(ttimtau toUm* with prebtonM/BMJn An*)'
FIGURE 24
Non Point Sourea Problem*
Lakes
(HquOT Ww mUM with pre6tonM/Ba«in AIM)
46
-------
0 Acid Lakes in the Adirondacks
In New York State, the impact of acid rain is most acutely
felt in the Adirondack region, where soils are shallow and
their ability to neutralize the acidity in"rain is very
limited. New York lies downwind of many large industrial
areas, in particular those areas in the Midwest where stan-
dards- for,the.emission.-of sulfur .oxides.are relatively low.
At present, the' U.S. annually discharges more than 28 million
tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Ohio, Indiana,
and Pennsylvania are responsible for approximately 25 percent
of this total.
Acid rain has caused significant deterioration of water
quality in many Adirondack lakes and' streams. The low pH
levels (i.e., high acidity) in these lakes and streams have
resulted in fish kills, and many of the lakes and streams
are no longer capable of supporting fish life.
Of 849 ponded waters surveyed in the Adirondacks since 1972,
212 ponds, representing 10,460 acres, were found to have pH
values below 5.0. These ponds are no longer capable of sup-
porting viable fisheries. Another '256 ponds, representing
63,248 acres, are classified as "endangered", (i.e., pH of
5.0 to 6.0). The extent of the acid precipitation on another
2,028 lakes and ponds is unknown; plans to sample these 59,430
unclassified acres are currently being developed. The acidity
status of these Adirondack ponded waters is shown in Figure 25
FIGURE 25
ACIDITY Si ATUS
OF ADIRONDACK PONDED WATERS
NOT SAMPLED SINCE 1974
59,430 ACHES
LAKES * PONDS
pH U£SS THAN S.O
10,460 ACRES 212
LAKES AND PONOS
pH GREATEH THAN 8.0
149,OT1 ACHES
332 LAKES AND PON OS
pH 5.0-8J3
. 33,243 ACHES
258 LAKES 4 PONOS
TOTAL ACHEAG& 231134
TOTAL t LAKES Si PONOS: 1377
-------
SURFACE DRINKING WATER
STATUS OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
The sources of drinking water in New York State include
rivers, reservoirs, streams,•lakes, and ground water.
There are over 14,000 active public water systems through-
out the state. These systems are characterized in Figure 26
by type of system, water supply source, and population served.
FIGURE 26
PUBLIC
NEW
•
) WRTER SUPPLY
YORK STflTE
PWS SOURCE
SURFfiCE HflTER
1 rH « / -xiv >
i
POPUUnON SERVED
SURFflCE WflTER
10 Cf~* nrwi tTOff\
PWS TYPE
48
-------
The majority (78 percent) of New York State's population
served by community water supplies (CWS) use surface
waters as the primary source of drinking water; the remainder
use ground .water. These larger systems are usually well
operated and experience relatively few violations of drinking
water standards. As shown in Figure 27, there are numerous
small and very small systems throughout the state. Most
violations, of-.drinking-water standards occur in these
smaller systems. ' "
FIGURE 27
SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF CWS'S
NEW YORK STRTE
ao-
70-
60-
'CD
tZ 50-
CQ
^ 40-
E—
CO
3- 30-
^^
20-
10-
n -
73*
2K
1SK
Legend
cza cws's
•• POP SERVED
SIZE CflTEGORY
Overall, the quality of drinking water provided in public
water supply systems (PWSs) in New York State is excellent
(Figure 28 and 29). In 1981, 90 percent of the systems
were in full compliance with the national drinking water
standards pertaining to microbiological quality; 9.2
percent were intermittent violators and 0.8 percent were
persistent violators. In the same year, 94 percent of the
systems met the turbidity standard; 4 percent were intermit-
tent violators and 2 percent were persistent violators.
49
-------
FIGURE 28
ICO-1
75-
SO-
COMMUNITY RGTIVE .PWS'S-WITH VIOLRTIONS
' . '. ' NEW ' YORK' STRTE
93.3%
2S-
0.6K O.SX,
ZERO 1-3 >3
NUMBER OF VIOLRTIONS
Legend|
1980 !
1381 !
FIGURE 29
PERCENTflGE OF COMMONITY PWS'S IN VIOLRTION
NEW YORK STRTE
LL1
CD
LO
I cc
I C-U
i Q_
6-1
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
5.67. 5.6%
Legend
2Z3 1980
•• 1981
4^
«f«^
^-V ^o^
SIZE CflTEGORY
-------
There were no significant violations of the inorganic
drinking water standards for arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, nitrate, selenium, silver, and
fluoride, or of the organic drinking water standards for endrin,
lindane, methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2, 4, -D, and 2, 4, 5-TP
silvex, or of the standard for trihalomethanes. No data are
available on .violations of radiation drinking water standards.
PRIORITY DRINKING WATER PROBLEM
The major problem currently faced in the drinking water
program is contamination of groundwater sources by toxic
pollutants. As discussed in the next section on ground
water, a number of wells have been closed throughout the
state due to contamination by organic chemicals. There
are no national drinking water standards for these toxic
contaminants, nor are routine analyses conducted for them
in drinking water supplies.
51
-------
GROUND WATER
STATUS OF GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
The protection of groundwater resources is a priority in New
York State. Figure 30 outlines the groundwater rich areas of
the'state.'- • ...;'•...-'-.-.'•••'•: ;•:.;• ' .• / .- :. • - ••
FIGURE 30
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES IN NEW YORK STATE
Almost 30 percent of New York State's population uses ground
water as a source of potable water supply. Figure 31 shows
the major aquifers in the state. Public supplies account
for 560 million gallons a day (MGD), with private wells
providing an additional 120 MGD. Two-thirds of all water
used for livestock watering and irrigation comes from ground-
water sources, consuming approximately 45 MGD. Finally,
ground water provides a small, but important fraction of the
waters needed for industrial and cooling water uses.
52
-------
PRIORITY GROUNDWATER PROBLEMS
0 Toxic and Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater Wells
New York State's sources of underground drinking water (Figures
30 and 31) have become increasingly susceptible to serious
contamination. . .-.The-.generation." of ' pollutants atop a groundwater
system can have serious effects on that system. Better
monitoring techniques have made the detection of chemicals
and contaminants in relatively low levels possible. Toxics
and other contaminants in drinking water, even in small
quantities, can pose public health hazards.
FIGURE 31
MAJOR GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
3.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Lonz Island **
Ramaoo R. - Mahwah R.
Sprouc Creek - Fishkill Creek.
S. Fallsburg - Woodbourne
Schenectady *
Vescal *
Endicocc - Johnson City
Clmira - Horseheads - Big Flacs
Fulton
Irondogenesee
Corcland
Jamestown
Sardinia *
*SSA Petition Submitted
**Nas./Suf. Ccvs Desiznated
Blclyn/Queens Pet. Submitted
As of September 1982, 22 wells in 8 community supplies
remained closed in upstate New York due to organic chemical
contamination. Figure 32 shows the location of well closings
upstate. As this map indicates, contamination is widespread,
and not restricted to a particular area of the state.
53
-------
FIGURE 32
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL3 KNOWN TO BE
CON I>MINATED WITH SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS
MARCH 1981
• ANTHRACENE
BENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
XYLENE
A PHTHALATES
._ "> * •
\ A • / -~
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE j A • X A* I
TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYUEN
VINYL CHLORIDE
* PCB
o «„. •>'••> ..--w j j:
V r--7 V^i:
*A 0 i
•r \
•>.. , !x
"^.<«^«X'
•-v«v
The contaminant sources that contribute to groundwater
quality problems are associated with a wide range of human
activities. They include municipal and industrial wastewater
discharges; home septic systems; toxic household consumer
products; leachate from landfills containing hazardous wastes;
leaking industrial, chemical, and gasoline storage tanks;
petroleum or other hazardous materials spills; and use of
fertilizers and pesticides for both domestic (i.e., lawn
fertilizers) and agricultural applications. In urban areas,
there are also important water quality problems involving
urban stormwater recharge, or conversely, the reduction of
recharge due to excessive impervious surface areas; the role
of sewering on water and contaminant budgets; and influence
on the movement of contamination through excessive pumpage.
54
-------
The aquifer system on Long Island is experiencing localized
contamination problems. At present, approximately 30 of the
approximately 1,000 major public drinking water wells are
closed or restricted in their use because of contamination
by synthetic organics and nitrates. Although Long Island's
gr.pun.d;..wat;er.. resources .have, these, contamination problems
in a 'number of localities, they are still'relatively clean,
especially in large areas of Suffolk County such as the
Pine Barrens area. . Figure 33 shows the location of well
closings on Long Island.
FIGURE 33
WELLS CONTAMINATED WITH ORGANICS
LONG ISLAND
&
MOMIAUI PO«M*
t = Well Closed as of 9/82
Community Public Water Supply
Wells On Long Island Closed Due
To Organic Contamination
55
-------
0 Safe Management and Oversight of Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery
If an enhanced oil recovery injection well loses mechnical
integrity, a conduit for injected fluids to enter underground
sources of drinking water (USDWs) can be created. In New
York State, establishing mechanical integrity is made more
.difficult .because..the .oil ,production ..industry in the state
does not use casing from the surface to the injection zone.
Casing is placed only to the bottom of the USDWs; the remainder
of the well is "open-hole" construction.
56
-------
SOLID WASTE
There are .two primary classifications of solid waste:
hazardous and non-hazardous. Hazardous wastes are defined
as wastes that have the potential to cause or signficantly
contribute to serious illness or death, or pose a substantial
threat to human health or the environment when improperly
managed'.-,- Ngn-hazardous-vwaste/ -includes •••all: discarded materials,
such as municipal refuse, rubbish, incinerator residue,
demolition and construction debris, and sludges, that do
not fall under the definition of hazardous waste.
STATUS OF NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
As shown in Table 14, over 77 million tons of non-hazardous
waste are produced in New York State every year. Of this
total, the 15.4 million tons that represent municipal waste are
almost entirely disposed of in landfills. Other disposal
methods are also summarized in the table.
There are three major non-hazardous waste management problems
in New York State:
0 Commingling of hazardous wastes in municipal
landfills,
0 Exhaustion of available disposal, volume in
active sites currently in use by congested core
cities, and
0 Contamination of groundwater by .uncontrolled
municipal dumps.
The commingling problem is evidenced by the fact that 5 out
of the 26 Superfund sites located in New York are actually
municipal waste landfills contaminated by hazardous wastes.
Exhaustion of available disposal volume is a potential waste
management problem that may soon be faced by New York City,
Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. New York City's position
is especially severe: it will lose half its current disposal
capacity at the end of December 1985, when the Fountain
Avenue Landfill in Brooklyn reverts to the National Park
Service. Impacts on groundwater from past disposal practices
are evident on Long Island__(see Groundwater, page 52).
Two approaches to dealing with non-hazardous waste management
problems are resource recovery and improved landfill tech-
nology. Resource recovery takes two basic, complementary
forms: recovery of materials through-source separation
57
-------
TABLE 14
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS
Non-Hazardous
Waste Stream
Municipal
Waste
Industrial
Waste
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant Sludges
Water Treat-
ment Plant
Sludges
Power Util-
ity Wastes
Septic Tank
Pumping s
Number of Tons
Produced Annually
(Approximately)
15:;4 million '
9.1 million
*
438 thousand
91 thousand
860 thousand
Undetermined
Primary Means
of Disposal
Landfills
Landfills
Ocean
Dumping &
Landfills
Landfills
Land Disposal
IN NEW YORK
Other Means
of Disposal
Resource
Recovery
Resource
Recovery
Incineration
and land
application
STATE
Preferred Means
of Disposal
Resource
Recovery
Resource
Recovery
On a case-
by-case
basis
.
Problems
(Environmental Concerns)
- volume produced
- potential pollution of surfac
water, groundwater, air & soil
lack of acceptable sites
- lack of data base defining a-
mount.s generated, sources &
physical & chemical properties
- limited data on waste stream
characteristics and disposal
practices
- contamination of groundwater
and surface water
Mining Wastes 30 million
Agricultural
Wastes
22 million
On-site
On Farm
Landfills
-------
techniques and recovery of energy through controlled inciner-
ation. In addition to providing disposal capacity, resource
recovery is a partial answer to the problem of commingling of
hazardous with non-hazardous wastes. Unlike landfills, modern
resource recovery plants provide opportunities to examine and
control the contents of incoming refuse to screen out hazardous
wastes. For example, tank trucks and drums cannot pass unde-
tected onto the tipping floor of an incinerator. Fear.s of
toxic.contamination, however, have generated citizen opposition
to incineration. .. Sampling, and analysis to prove the safety
of energy-producing incineration would help private disposal
firms, states and local governments to implement, needed
resource recovery projects.
In 1972, an Environmental Quality Bond Act to promote resource
recovery was approved by the voters of New York State. The bond
act set aside $175 million for up to 50 percent funding of muni-
cipal recovery facilities, including source separation programs.
All of these monies are currently allocated.
Improvement of land disposal technology generally takes the
form of liners and leachate collection in new facilities -
the same techniques as for hazardous waste landfills.
Existing sites, however, can be remediated only at great
expense, and will in most cases, continue to degrade local
groundwater over decades to come.
PRIORITY NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE PROBLEM
0 Municipal Landfills Containing Toxic Materials
Contamination of surface water and groundwater supplies has
occurred in New York as a result of runoff of viral, bacterial,
and toxic contaminants from municipal landfills.
EPA no longer supports state non-hazardous waste programs.
The result in New York and New Jersey is that two major
activities mandated by Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) are left incomplete: the Open Dump
Inventory and the state Solid Waste Management Plans. Federal
oversight of state non-hazardous waste programs has also
ceased, except for ad hoc attention as important problems surface
STATUS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
Bringing hazardous waste disposal under a sound management
system is a major environmental concern in New York State.
The preventive aspects of this system are managed under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Under RCRA, the New York State Department of En-
vironmental Conservation has implemented a manifest reporting
system to allow tracking of wastes from point of generation
to final disposal. This manifest system became operational
in 1982, so the volume and characteristics of wastes will
be more fully known in the near future.
59
-------
Under the RCRA program, New York State regulates 520 facilities
for the treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) of hazardous
wastes. Of these, the facilities of most concern are those
close to residential areas, those which threaten groundwater
aquifers or surface water supplies, or those which have
unique types and concentrations of chemical wastes. There
are .74" of these major . facilities in- the state (Figure 34).
The TSD facilities can include .storage tanks, drum storage,
lagoons, landfills and/or on-site incinerators.
In addition to these major TSD facilities, there are about 80
major generators of hazardous wastes and 31 major transpor-
ters of hazardous wastes in New York State. It is the TSDs,
however, that present the greatest potential for environ-
mental impacts.
PRIORITY HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEMS
0 Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities
There are two commercial, off-site hazardous waste disposal
facilities in New York State: CECOS and SCA. Both are
located in Niagara County. If new facilities are needed,
their siting will likely be a significant problem.
0 Timely Issuance of RCRA Permits,
Safe management and oversight of hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal (TSD) faciltieis involves the inspection
and technical evaluation process of RCRA permits. Current
EPA and state resources are insufficient to complete all
necessary permits in a timely manner.
0 Class I Violators of RCRA Requirements
Region II and New York State are experiencing significant
problems in having TSD facilities comply with the monitoring
and financial responsibility requirements of the RCRA regulations
Monitoring is needed at selected TSD facilities to determine
if that facility is having an impact on groundwaters. In
addition, many TSD facilities have not posted insurance to
cover damages associated with releases of hazardous materials.
If not resolved, these Class L violations could lead to
future environmental problems.
60
-------
FIGURE 34
PRIORITY TSD FACILITIES IN NEW YORK STATE
2 : MAJOR S'lOHAfif /TflF. AIMENI
X . SlJ^FACf IMPOI/NDMC-NI
A - IMCINtHAlORS
O ' LAND OISI'OSAI
-------
STATUS OF UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Of the 418 uncontrolled hazardous wa-ste sites nation-wide
that are included on the National Priority List, 26 of
these sites are located within the State of New York.
These.sites, are.listed in. Table 15. and are geographically
shown in Figure 35. Many of the sites in New York are of
special concern because they threaten public drinking water
supplies, or are located in substantially populated areas,
or both.
PRIORITY SUPERFUND PROBLEMS
0 Uncontrolled Sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
As mentioned above, New York State has 26 sites on the current
NPL. Each of these is considered a high priority by both
state and Regional management.
0 Potential Priority Candidates
In addition to the 26 sites on the NPL, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and EPA
have identified over 600 other uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites that may also require some clean-up effort. Ongoing
investigation at many of these sites will define the hazards
that they pose. In fact, NYSDEC has developed a system to
rank the order in which the sites should be investigated.
As more information is obtained from these investigatons,
EPA may add some or all of these sites to the NPL; this
action depends upon the degree of hazard of the sites.
Otherwise, these sites will be assigned a lower priority and
will be addressed in the future either by NYSDEC or, as
appropriate, by the Superfund Program.
SPILLS OF OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Unintentional spills of oil and hazardous materials have sig-
nificant impacts on waterways throughout Region II. Both
surface and groundwaters are affected.
In New York, the largest oil spills have occurred on water-
ways used as transportation arteries, particularly the
St. Lawrence Seaway, Hudson River, and New York Harbor area.
The number of oil spills has increased significantly in the
past few years (Table 16). However, these have usually been
cleaned up or dispersed without substantial environmental
impact.
62
-------
FIGURE 35
SUPERFUND SITES IN NEW YORK STATE
-------
TABLE 15
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
National Priorities List December 30, 1982
Map
No.
Site Name
Potential Contaminants
Potential Impacts
Clean-up Action*
American Thermostat
Groundwater _...-_
0 Trichloroethylene
Surface Water
0 Trichloroethylene
' Contamination of private
drinking water wells.
Residents are presently
drinking bottled water
supplied by responsible
party.
16 Batavia Landfill
Ground Water
0 Phenols
0 Iron
0 Mercury
0 Manganese
0 Total chromium
0 Barium
0 Magnesium
0 The drinking water supplies
for 3250 people are threat-
ened; the supplies include
privately-owned wells and
Oakfield municipal wells.
A Remedial Action Master
Plan is currently being
developed.
20 Brewster Wellfield
Groundwater
0 Trichloroethylene
0 Tetrachloroethylene
Contamination of potable
water supply wells above
NYSDOH guidelines serving
2,000 people.
As of 1/1/83
-------
Map
No.
Site Name
TABLE 15 (continued)
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
National Priority List December 30, 1982
Potential Contaminants
Potential Impacts
Clean-up Action*
11 Facet Enterprises
a\
tn
Ground Water
0 Polychlorinated
biphenyls
0 Cadmium
0 Arsenic
0 Trichloroethylene
0 Copper
0 Tin
0 Cyanide
0 Gasoline
0 Naphtha
Surface Water
0 Trichloroethylene
0 Methylene chloride
0 1,1,1-trichloroethane
0 Chromium
0 Cadmium
0 Industrial and commercial
water supplies are threat-
ened.
0 Two Elmira Water Board wells--
Kentucky Avenue and Sullivan
Street—that supply drinking
water to 40,000 people are
threatened.
0 Recreational and fishing uses
of Newton Creek are threat-
ened.
0 The Newton Creek aquifer is
contaminated with trichloro-
ethylene.
0 The Chemung River, from which
Elmira withdraws drinking water,
may be contaminated by Newton
Creek.
A Remedial Action Master
Plan is currently being
developed.
22 Fulton Terminals
* As of 1/1/83
Groundwater
0 PCB
0 Toluene
0 Benzene
Surface Water
0 Benzo (a) anthracene
0 Benzo (k) fluoranthene
0 Anthracene
0 phenanthrene
Public water supply serving
15,000 people are threatened.
0 River used for recreational
purposes and water supply
is threatened by contamina-
tion.
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
National Priorities List
December 30, 1982
Map
No.
Site Name
Potential Contaminants
Potential Impacts
Clean-up Action*
GE Moreau Site
Groundwater
"Trichloroethylene
°PCB
°1,2, dichloroethylene
Privately-owned
wells serving
approximately
10,500 people may
be threatened
Responsible party
should remediate.
a\
en
25
Hooker 102nd St.
Air
°PCB
Surface Water
0 Tetrachloroethylene
0 Trichloroethylene
0 Benzene
0 Trichlorophenol
0 Arsenic
0 Lindane
0 Organic phosphites
0 Chlorobenzenes
0 Contaminated leachate and
surface water run-off, which
flow into the Niagara River,
may threatened the drinking
water supply for Niagara Falls.
0 The recreation and fishing
uses of the Niagara River
(and Lake Ontario, further
downstream) may be threatened.
A suit has been filed
in Federal Court
against Occidental
Chemical Corporation
(OCC) in order to
cause OCC to clean up
this site.
* As of 1/1/83
-------
Map
No.
Site Name
TABLE 15 (continued)
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
National Priorities List December 30, 1982
Potential Contaminants Potential Impacts
Clean-up Action*
24 Hooker-Hyde Park
Landfill
Ground Water
0 Benzene
0 Toluene
0 Lindane
0 Hexachlorocyclo-
pentadiene
0 Trichlorophenol
0 Chlorobenzenes
' Leachate from the landfill
has contaminated the ground-
water in the vicinity of the
site. This groundwater flows
to the Niagara Gorge, into the
Niagara River and eventually
to Lake Ontario.
0 Bloody Run (Creek), which
drains the surface run-off
from the landfill, is contami-
nated with dioxin. This creek
empties into the Niagara Gorge.
Court-order
A Settlement Agreement
which became effec-
tive on July 1, 1982
outlined the following
programs:
0 Containment
0 Monitoring
0 Maintenance
0 Guarantee
0 Environmental
Surface Water
0 Dioxin
0 Tetrachloroethylene
0 Lindane
0 Mirex
Air
0 Dioxin
0 Lindane
0 Chlordane
0 Mirex
0 Settleable particulates
which contained dioxin, lin-
dane and mirex were found in
factories adjacent to the
landfill.
Approximately 3,100 people
who live, work, or matricu-
late within 0.5 miles of the
landfill may be affected by
contaminated, airborne dust.
The Settlement Agreement
is being implemented. At
this time survey wells are
being installed around the
landfill to determine the
extent of groundwater
contamination.
As of 1/1/83
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Map
No.
Site Name
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
National Priorities List December 30, 1982
Potential Contaminants Potential Impacts
Clean-up Action*
Hooker-S-area
crv
GO
Ground Water
0 Benzene
0 Chlorobenzenes
0 Trichloroethylene
0 Toluene
0 Polychlorinated
biphenyls
0 Hexachlorocyclo-
pentadiene
0 Hexachlorocyclo-
butadiene
0 Lindane
0 Tetrachloroethylene
0 Leachate from the landfill
threatens the Niagara Falls
water treatment plant, in-
cluding the water intake
tunnel. The treatment plant
supplies the drinking water
for approximately 30,000
people.
A Settlement Agreement is
being negotiated. This
settlement involves the
federal and state govern-
ments, and the Occidential
Chemical Corporation and
the City of Niagara Falls.
Surface Water
0 Lindane
0 Hexachlorocyclo-
pentadiene
0 Hexacholorcyclo-
butadiene
0 Benzene
0 Chlorobenzenes
0 Trichloroethylene
0 Tetrachloroethylene
0 Toluene
0 Contaminated surface or
subsurface water flows into
the Niagara River, which is
used as the public drinking
water supply for Niagara
Falls.
* As of 1/1/83
-------
Map
No.
19
Site Name
Kentucky Avenue
Wells
TABLE 15 (continued)
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
National Priorities List December 30, 1982
Potential Contaminants Potential Impacts
Ground Water
0 Trichloroethylene
0 One municipal water supply
well has been closed.
0 Portions of the Harris Hill
and Newton Creek aquifers
are contaminated with tri-
chloroethylene.
Clean-up Action*
0 A Remedial Action Master
Plan is currently being
developed.
0 An Action Memorandum that
that was submitted to EPA
HQ on 8/10/82 provides
for the following:
0 remedial investigation
0 a feasibility study
TV
o,
Love Canal
Surface Water
0 Lindane
0 Dioxin
Air
0 Tetrachloroethylene
0 Pentachloroethylene
0 Trichloroethylene
0 The West Branch water intake
of the Niagara Falls water
treatment plant may be con-
taminated.
0 The municipal drinking water
supply of Niagara Falls is
threatened.
0 1100 people living within
0.5 mile of the site may be
affected by airborne emis-
sions.
* As of 1/1/83
°'i A leachate collection
system has been installed
at the site.
0 A fence has been instal-
led around the site.
0 Environmental and health
studies have been con-
ducted.
0 A Cooperative Agreement
was signed on 7/12/82.
0 Families whose homes have
been demolished near the
the site have been relo-
cated.
0 An environmental monitor-
ing report has been pre-
pared.
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Map
No.
21
Site Name
Ludlow Sand and
Gravel
26 Marathon Battery
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
National Priorities List December 30, 1982
Potential Contaminants Potential Impacts '
Groundwater
0 PCB
Surface Water
0 PCB
Ground Water
0 Cadmium
0 Nickel
0 Cobalt
0 Zinc
0 Hexavalent chromium
Surface Water
0 Cadmium
0 Nickel
0 Cobalt
0 Public water supply serving
1,406 people is threatened.
0 River used for water supply
purposes is threatened by
contamination.
The drinking water supply
for 1800 people is threat-
ened; this supply includes
the public supply for the
town of Garrison and the
private supplies for the
Gordon School and the
St. Basil's Academy.
Clean-up Action*
0 A Remedial Action Master
Plan (RAMP) was begun in
5/82.
0 An Action Memorandum that
was submitted to EPA HQ
on 1/14/82 asks for a
feasibility study (under
the terms of the Cooper-
tive Agreement). Signing
awaits two items: deter-
mination whether the site
is a federal facility and
completion of the RAMP.
* As of 1/1/83
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
Map
No.
Site Name
14 Mercury Refining
18 Niagara County
Refuse
As of 1/1/83
National Priorities List
Potential Contaminants
Groundwater
0 Mercury
0 PCB
0 etc.
Surface Water
0 Mercury
0 Lead
0 PCB
0 Chromuim
0 Cadmuim
Ground Water
0 Polychlorinated
biphenyls
0 Mercury
0 Acetaldehyde
0 etc.
Surface Water
0 Polychlorinated
biphenyls
0 Mercury
0 Acetaldehyde
Air
0 Formaldehyde
December 30, 1982
Potential Impacts
0 Contamination of river
threatened an emergency
alternate water supply- for
the City of Albany serving
101,000 people.
0 The leachate from this site
may flow into the Niagara
River.
0 Some privately-owned drinking
water supplies are threatened.
Clean-up Action*
0 A Remedial Action Master
Plan is currently being
developed.
0 An Action Memorandum that
was signed on 4/13/82
provides for the follow-
ing:
0 installation of a fence
around the site
0 additional sampling
0 a feasibility study
0 A Cooperative Agreement
is being negotiated.
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Map
No.
Site Name
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
National Priorities List December 30, 1982
Potential Contaminants Potential Impacts
Clean-up Action*
3 Old Bethpage
Landfill
Ground Water
0 Vinyl chloride
0 Toluene
0 Xylene
0 Benzene
0 Zinc
Air
Vinyl chloride
Drinking water supplies are
threatened for 9800 people
who live in Bethpage and
Plainview and who are ser-
ved by the Farmingdale
Water District.
Airborne emissions may
affect 10,000 people in
Huntington and Amityville
who live within 1 mile of
the site.
0 A Remedial Action Master
Plan is currently being
developed.
15 Olean Wellfields
* As of 1/1/83
Ground Water
0 Trichloroethylene
0 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
0 Methylene chloride
0 Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
0 Bis (2 Ethylhexyl)
phthalate (BIS)
0 Choroform
0 Carbon Tetrachloride
0 In Cattaraugus County, the
public drinking water supply
for 18,000 people is contami-
nated.
A Remedial Investigation
is under
0 An Action Memor
was signed on 4/13/82
provides for the follow-
ing:
0 remedial investigation
0 a feasibility study
0 A Cooperative Agreement
that was signed on
1/20/83.
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
Map
NO.
Site Name
2 Pollution Abatement
Services (PAS)
-4
U)
National Priorities List
Potential Contaminants
Ground Water °
0 Chloroform
0 Toluene
0 Trichloroethylene
0 Methylene chloride
0 Trichloroethane °
0 Polychlorinated
biphenyls
0 Lead
o
Surface Water
0 Chromium
0 Lead
0 Methylene chloride
0 Toluene
0 Dimethylaniline
0 Polychlorinated biphenyls
0 Cadmium
Air
0 Toluene
0 Ethylbenzene
0 o-, m- and p-Xylene
0 Chloroform
0 1,1,1-trichloroethane
0 Carbon tetrachloride
0 Trichloroethylene
0 Tetrachloroethylene
December 30, 1982
Potential Impacts
Privately-owned drinking
water supplies for 76
people have been contami-
nated.
The drinking water supply
for Oswego (population
24,000) is threatened.
Airborne emissions may
affect the population of
Oswego.
Clean-up Action*
A Cooperative Agreement
that was signed on
3/12/82 provides for the
following:
0 removing surficial con-
tamination (anticipated
completion is 12/82).
0 studying the work need-
ed for subsurface in-
vestigation (work
should begin in 11/82)
0 performing hydrogeo-
logic investigations
° quantifying drum waste
0 estijnating soil contam-
ination
0 removing drums
0 enclosing the site with
a fence
As- of 1/1/83
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
New York
Map
No.
Site Name
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
National Priorities List December 30, 1982
Potential Contaminants
Potential Impacts
Clean-up Action*
12 Port Washington
Landfill
Groundwater
0 Benzene ___
0 1,1,1-trichloroethane
0 Tetrachloroethylene
0 Trans-l,2,-dichloro-
ethylene
0 Carbon tetrachloride
0 Public water supply well,
Port Washington Water Dis-
trict, is threatened.
13 Ramapo Landfill
Air
0 Vinylchloride
0 Xylene
0 Ethyl benzene
Groundwater
0 Cadmium
0 Lead
0 Toluene
0 Xylene
0 Phenols
Nearby residences threatened
by air emissions.
Contamination of public
groundwater and surface
water supplies serving
50,000 people.
Surface Water
0 Arsenic
0 Chromium
* As of 1/1/83
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Map
No.
Site Name
Sinclair Refinery
Ul
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFIJND CLEAN-UP SITES
National Priorities List December 30, 1982
Potential Contaminants Potential Impacts Clean-up Action*
Ground and Surface Water
0 Benzene
0 Toluene
0 Mercury
0 Polychlorinated
biphenyls
0 Methyl cyclohexane
0 Endrin
0 Hydrocarbons
0 Polynuclear Aromatics
Air
0 Mercury
0 Polychlorinated
biphenyls
0 Benzen
0 Toluene
0 The drinking water supply
for approximately 1700
people in Wellsvile may be
threatened.
0 Agricultural water supplies
for 1800 acres (equivalent
to 2700 people) is threat-
ened.
0 The Genessee River, which
supplies drinking water for
7000 people in this area,
receives contaminated surface
run-off.
0 Approximately 8700 people who
live within a 4-mile radius
of the site may be affected
by the airborne emissions.
An Action Memorandum that
was submitted to EPA HQ on
8/11/82 asks for the fol-
lowing:
0 remedial investigation
° a feasibility study
0 Remedial Action Master
Plan is in draft form.
* As of 1/1/83
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
Map
No. Site Name
23 Solvent Savers
National Priorities List
Potential Contaminants
Groundwater
0 1,2 dichlorobenzene
0 Napthalene
0 Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
0 Dithylphthalate
0 1,1,1 trichloroethane
0 1,2 trans dichloroethy-
lene
0 Trichloroethylene
0 Chloroform -.
0 Tetrachloroethylene
0 2,4 dimethylphenol
0 Phenol
0 PCB
December 30, 1982
Potential Impacts
Private wells serving 517
people are threatened by
contamination.
Clean-up Action*
5 Syosset Landfill
Surface Water
0 1,1 dichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
0 Surface water used for
fishing and recreational
purposes is threatened.
Trichloroethylene
1,2 trans-d ichloroethylene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Groundwater
0 Organic solvents
0 Trichloroethylene
0 Tetrachloroethylene
0 1,1,1-trichloroethane
Public water supply wells
are threatened.
Remedial Action Master Plan
under development.
* As of 1/1/83
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Map
No.
Site Name
New York
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIORITY FEDERAL SUPERFUND CLEAN-UP SITES
National Priorities List December 30, 1982
Potential Contaminants Potential Impacts
Clean-up Action*
17
Vestal Water Supply
10
Wide Beach Development
York Oil Company
Groundwater
0 1,1,1, Trichloroethane
0 Trichloroethylene
0 Tetrachloroethylene
0 Cloroform
Ground Water
0 PCB
Surface Water ~
0 PCB
Air
0 PCB
Ground Water
0 Polychlorinated
biphenyls
Surface Water
0 Polychlorinated
biphenyls
Contamination of public
drinking water wells
serving 10,000 people.
0 Private wells serving 5,000
are threatened.
0 Lake Erie and marshes are
threatened by contamination.
0 Air contamination threatened.
0 Privately-owned drinking
water supplies for approx-
imately 1700 people are
threatened.
0 Recreational and fishing
uses of Lawrence Brook and
Deer River may be affected.
Remedial Action Plan is
being developed.
A Remedial Action Master
Plan is currently being
developed.
* As of 1/1/83
-------
TABLE 16
HISTORY OF OIL SPILLS IN NEW YORK STATE
YEAR .
1973
. -1974 •' •••- .- • .-:•-
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
Total
Annual Average
NUMBER OF SPILLS
REPORTED
, . 469 ..
'•'•-.. ""•••••v'"49'5 '" "'
735
746
762
1,173
1,606
1,802
1,920
9,708
1,078
GALLONS
SPILLED (X 1,000)
1,216
'1,867
590
4,357
1,286
2,534
1,111
2,370
3,942
19,273
2,141
A more insidious problem is leaking underground gasoline
storage tanks which have affected residences and their water
supplies. These groundwater spills are difficult to track
and to clean up, and in some cases, evacuation of homes has
been required along with the shutdown of private and public
water supplies.
Experience during 1978-82 has shown that the number and
effect of groundwater spills are significant and that the
majority of these spills are caused by deteriorating under-
ground tanks. In general, the location of groundwater
pollution and the determination of whether there is a re-
amount of petroleum are both time-consuming and
problems. Removal 'operations require an extended
time and do not generally attain complete recovery.
full extent of the groundwater problem is not known,
throughout the state and is most acute on Long Island
over 40 ongoing recovery operations to remove
products from the groundwaters in Long Island.
coverable
difficult
period of
While the
it exists
There are
petroleum
Spills have also resulted from overturned tank trucks. In
1982, over 22,000 Ibs. of methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) were
spilled in 'Hicksville , Long Island. The underlying aquifer
is a sole source of drinking water, so the impacts of the
MEK are of special concern. Clean-up actions are currently
underway.
78
-------
PESTICIDES
The EPA pesticides program is directed toward oversight of
federally-funded, state-implemented programs. The New York
State program is mainly concerned with the certification of
pesticide applicators, licensing of pesticide business appli-
cators, registering of-pesticide dealers, and monitoring of
the manufacture, sale,- and.use of pesticides to assure safe
storage, handling, and application of these items.
There are approximately 318 pesticide manufacturers and
formulators and some 130 custom blenders throughout the
state. These firms produced about 227 million pounds and
12 million gallons of pesticides in 1981.
New York State has conducted an evaluation of the types of
pesticide misuse violations that occur in the state. The
study shows that although manufacturers, distributors and
retailers committed 45 percent of all violations, no noticeable
environmental harm was caused (Figure 36). Another 42
percent of the violations were committed by non-agricultural
users and caused minor harm, e.g., poisonings of plants
and/or animals which fully recovered. Pesticides misuse
representing 13 percent of the violations produced the
most environmental harm (short-term symptoms of poisonings).
Of all application methods, the use of mist blowers and
hand sprayers caused the most harm.
FIGURE 36
DEGREE OF HflRh CRUSED BY
PESTICIDES MISUSE IN NEW YORK STflTE
NO
MINOR HfiRM
427.
NOTICEflBLE
457.
HflRM
HfiRMFUL
137.
''O
-------
RADIATION
The EPA has established a network of sampling points to
reflect ambient radiation levels caused by nuclear activities
Samples of air, drinking water, surface water, and milk
are collected periodically at designated locations in New
York by .the state or by a local agency (Table 17). Samples
are analyzed, at the; Eastern Environment al.- Radiation /Facility
(EERF) in Montgomery, Alabama. ,
TABLE 17
Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring Systems (ERAMS)
Type of Samples
Air
Drinking Water
Surface Water
Milk*
Monitoring Locations
Albany
New York City
Syracuse
Yaphank
Albany
New York City
Niagara Falls
Syracuse
Ossining
Oswego
Poughkeepsie
Buffalo
New York City
Syracuse
Yaphank
* in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
The maintenance of the ERAMS network is gaining increased
importance because of heightened concern over radiation by
the general public. Both the baseline and unusual activity
data provide important quantitative information on radiation
trends and potential population exposure.
80
-------
Radiological Facilities
Figure 37 indicates the locations in New York State where
radioactive materials are used for generating electricity
or for research and development purposes. EPA provides
technical assistance and oversight for evaluating potential
environmental impacts at these sites.
FIGURE:37
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES
& NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES
O FEDERAL NUCLEAR FACILITIES
O STORAGE / DISPOSAL
t Rao FACILITIES
New York State has five operating nuclear power plants
which are located at the following sites:
8 Indian Point 2 and 3 (Buchanan)
0 R.E. Ginna (Ontario)
0 Nine Mile Point I/James A. Fitzpatrick (Scriba)
81
-------
Two additional plants are under construction, one at a new site
0 Shoreham (Shoreham)
. ° Nine Mile'Point II ('Scriba)
In addition, there are three federal facility sites currently
conducting radiation research and development activities:
* Brookhaven National Laboratory (Upton)
0 Knolls Atomic Power" Laboratory (West Milton)
0 Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (Niskayuna)
Figure 38 indicates sites in New York State where nuclear
ores have been processed or stored. In some cases, radioactive
contamination has occurred there.
FIGURE 38
RADIATION CONTAMINATION SITES
82
-------
As shown on the map, there are two commercial ore processing
sites in New York State, located at Port Henry and Colonie.
The Port Henry site is a former iron ore processing plant.
As a result, surrounding areas have been contaminated with
mill tailings containing uranium, thorium, and radium. The
Colonie site was a smelting plant for the production of
aircraft counterweights and armor penetrators from depleted
uranium; surrounding properties were contaminated from radio-
active plant stack emissions. The State of New York is
pursuing the- cleanup of the Colonie site and is responsible
for investigating opt ion's :for 'the ir "disposition.' The EPA is
available to the state, as needed, for technical assistance.
There are also two major radioactive waste sites, Nuclear
Fuel Services, located at West Valley, and the Niagara Falls
Storage Site, formerly known as the Lake Ontario Ordnance
Works, in Lewiston. The West Valley facility was operated
for low-level commercial waste disposal and high-level waste
•reprocessing. It houses 600,000 gallons of high-level
liquid radioactive waste. The Niagara Falls Storage Site,
owned by the Department of Energy, has been used for storage
of pitchblende and uranium processing residues since the 1940's
In the early 1970's, radiation surveys of the original Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) site showed that 6.5 acres exceeded
the AEC guidelines. Radioactive soil was removed and placed
on the present site. A post-decontamination survey found
portions of the original site to be at a level which New York
State did not consider adequate to permit unrestricted use of
the land. Therefore, the state has enforced limited usage
of the site. The DOE and New York State are expected to
settle on a final site disposition by the spring of 1984.
DOE is reevaluating the site under the FUSRAP program in
addition to stablizing the current site.
The Manhattan Engineer District (MED) former ore processing
sites are also indicated in Figure 38. These sites are
under.the control of the Department of Energy.
83
------- |