CATEGORIZATION OF TOXICS IN LAKE ONTARIO
A REPORT BY THE
LAKE ONTARIO
TOXICS CATEGORIZATION WORKGROUP
Walter,scnoepf- usepa, Region II (212-264-5352)
Joseph Hudek- USEPA, Region II
William Roth- USEPA, GLNPO
Robert Stevens- Environment Canada
Roy Kwiatkowski- Environment Canada
Karl Suns- MOE
Mary Kirby- MOE
Larry Skinner- NYSDEC
Simon Litten- NYSDEC

-------
PREFACE
On February 4, 1987, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation signed a Declaration of Intent that, among other
things, committed the four agencies to Initiate activity on a
Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan. The draft Plan was
submitted to the Coordination Committee on January 28, 1988.
In order to develop an improved list of categorized chemicals for
the final Plan, the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee (LOTC) formed a
Toxics Categorization Workgroup (TCW). The TCW consists of
members from the Four Parties.

-------
INTRODUCTION
In order to evaluate toxic chemical contamination in Lake
Ontario, the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee has developed a
comprehensive toxics categorization scheme. There are two major
categories: the first category deals with chemicals for which
existing ambient data are availaole; and the second category
deals with chemicals for which there are no reliable existing
ambient data. A complete description of the categorization
scheme is presented in Table 1.
The Lake Ontario Toxics Committee (LO'^C) developed a baseline
list of chemicals for the I A, IB, and I C categories as
outlined in the January 28, 1988 draft Plan. The original list
of chemicals is presented in Table 2. In order to develop an
improved list of categorized chemicals, the LOTC formed a Toxics
Categorization Workgroup (TCW), which consists of members of the
Four Parties.
CATEGORIZATION OF TOXICS
The TCW was asked to re-evaluate existing data used in the draft
Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, and to evaluate other
appropriate data available on Lake Ontario environmental quality.
Each Agency was to prioritize and specify data of importance for
expanding the list of categorized chemicals.
The TCW was given specific terms of reference:
-	Defining exceedance (report exceedances in statistically
valid terms with 80% and 90% confidence limits);
-	Utilization of a Lake zonation scheme where appropriate;
-	Exclusion of designated AOCs for categorization of toxics
into IA, IB, IC, ID, IE; and
-	Categorization of the 11 IJC critical pollutants.
o Total PCB
o DDT + Metabolites
o Dieldrin
o Toxaphene
O 2,3,7,8-TCDD
O 2,3,7,8-TCDF
o Mirex
o Mercury
o Alkylated Lead
o Benzo(a)pyrene
o Hexachlorobenzene

-------
2
The TCW was to base their categorization on the previously
specified scheme (Table 1), utilizing water column and fish
tissue (whole body, fillet) data for I A, I B, I C, I D, and I E
classification, and point source data (e.g., DMR Reports),
elevated contaminant levels in sediment, and elevated
contaminant levels in other media where there are no standards
and criteria (e.g., herring gull eggs, caged mussels) for II A
classification.
The TCW decided to logically organize the new chemical list with
a generic chemical classification scheme developed by the
Pesticides and Toxics Substances Branch of Region II, USEPA.
The TCW agreed that:
-	Different statistical methods had to be applied to the
assorted data sets (fish tissue and water column);
-	A mean calculation, taking into account the upper boundary
of a specified confidence interval, would be compared to
the lowest appropriate standard or criteria and when the
specified confidence limit fell above a given standard
or criteria then an exceedance would be claimed (see
Table 3 for a detailed description of the statistical
methodologies utilized by the TCW);
-	Only water column data would be associated and processed
with a zonation scheme as outlined by Neilson and Stevens
(1986) (Figure 1); and
-	Only tributary data from appropriate near mouth stations
(based on BPJ), more specifically if possible, a single
station beyond influence of Lake back wash, would be used
to categorize chemicals into II A.
IMPROVED LAKE ONTARIO TOXICS CATEGORIZATION LIST
The datasets indicated in Tables 4 and 5 were utilized by the TCW
to categorize chemicals into I A, IB, I C, ID, IE and II A.
Brief data descriptions are presented in Tables 6 and 7.
The expanded list of categorized toxic chemicals based on
additional data represents a significant improvement over the
original baseline list that appeared in the draft Plan. However,
the TCW acknowledges that this document does not present a
definitive categorization of toxics for Lake Ontario. This is
because of data limitations (i.e., the absence or unavailability
of data for many chemicals) and standards limitations (i.e., the
absence of standards, criteria, or guidelines for many
chemicals).

-------
3
The updated Lake Ontario toxics categorization list includes
chemicals classified under I A, IB, I C, ID, IE and II A. The
list is shown in Tables 8 and 9. The support information
necessary to validate chemical classification into I A, I B, I C,
I D, and I E is found in Tables 10 and 11.
A comparison between the original list of toxics submitted in the
draft report and the updated version of the list produced by the
TCW indicates:
-	Category I A was unchanged except for the addition of
Copper, Iron and Aluminum;
-	Category I B was unchanged except for the addition of
Octachlorostyrene;
-	Category I C was changed as described below:
o Pentachlorobenzene was placed in Category I E;
o Alpha and Beta Endosulphan are expressed as Endosulphan
in Category I E;
o Cadmium is removed from Category I C and placed in the
I D Category;
o Toxaphene is added as an additional chemical to the I D
Category;
o Alpha BHC and Lindane presence in the Lake is expressed
under total Hexachlorocyclohexanes;
o Aldrin is added to the list of Category I C chemicals;
o Alpha and Gamma Chlordane, as well as o,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDD
and p,p'-DDT are expressed under Chlordane and DDT +
Metabolites in categories I A and I B respectively; and
o Hexachlorobutadiene and Methoxychlor are
only categorized under II A.
-	Several additional chemicals were added to the I E
Category including:
o Polyfluorinated Biphenyls
o Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans
o Other Dioxins (excluding 2 ,3,7,8-TCDD)
o Heptachlorostyrene
o Tetrachloroanisole
o Pentachloroanisole
o 1,1'-(Difluoromethylene)Bis-Dichloro-Mono(Trifluoro-
methyl)Benzene
o Pentachlorotoluenes
o Chlorophenyl-[Chloro(Trifluoromethyl)Phenyl]Methanone
o Cis-Nonachlor
o Trans-Nonachlor

-------
4
Table 1. Toxics Categorization Scheme
I.	Ambient Data Available.
A.	Exceeds enforceable standard
B.	Exceeds a more stringent, but unenforceable criterion
C.	Equal to or less than most stringent criterion
D.	Detection limit too high to allow complete categorization
E.	No criterion available
II.	Ambient Data Not Avaiiahip.
A.	Evidence of input to the Lake
B.	No evidence of input to the Lake

-------
5
Table 2. Categorization of Toxics in Lake Ontario. Baseline
List of Chemicals from January 28, 1988 Draft Lake
Ontario Toxics Management Plan.
Category I A
PCB
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Chlordane
Mirex
Mercury
Category I B
Dieldrin
DDT
Hexachlorobenzene
Category I C
Aluminum
Cadmium
Chromium
Zinc
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobutadiene
Lindane
Alpha-BHC
Gamma Chlordane
Alpha Chlordane
Alpha Endosulphan
Beta Endosulphan
Methoxychlor
Endrin
o,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Heptachlor

-------
6
Table 3. Statistical Methodologies Used in Computing Confidence
Intervals and Defining Exceedances for Toxics
Categorization of Chemicals Found in Lake Ontario.
Categorization of chemicals requires a test or set of tests,
which are applied to data describing the chemical contamination
of water and organisms, in order to classify each contaminant
into I A, I B or I C (Table 8).
Limitations on the quality and quantity of data, as well as
differing interpretations of the exceedance problem, resulted in
the use of several statistical procedures for determination of
exceedances in the categorization process.
Differences between the statistical procedures can be divided
into two areas of interest:
o Test and confidence interval construction methods
o Data transformation procedures
Test and Confidence Interval Construction
Two interpretations of the nature of the problem were followed.
The first interpretation used a test of the form
H0: Z >= u(C) + t(a/2) (no exceedance)
: Z < u(C) + t(a/2)	(exceedance)
where Z is the exceedance criterion
u(C) is the estimate of the mean of C
C is the random variable representing sample
concentration.
The 80 and 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) constructed were
symmetrical about the mean, with (a/2)*100 % of the distribution
below the CI, and (a/2)*l00 % lying above the CI. An exceedance
was said to occur if the criterion was below the confidence limit
(see la). To construct the 80 and 90 % CIs, (a/2) assumed the
values of 0.10 and 0.05, to give a= 0.2 and 0.1 respectively. In
these cases, greater than 10 %, and greater than 5 % of the
samples, respectively, would have to occur above the criterion
for an exceedance to exist. This test was applied to data in
studies B - D from Table 6.

-------
A second interpretation of the problem made the assumption that
the test was of the form
H0: Z >= u(C) + t;
H2: Z < u(C) + ta
(no exceedance)
(exceedance)
The CIs constructed in this case were one-tailed {see lb), with
(l-a)*100 % of the distribution lying below the upper limit, and
a*100 % lying above the upper limit. The lower limit was taken
to be zero, although minus infinity is technically correct. An
exceedance was said to occur if the criterion was less than the
upper limit. To construct 80 and 90% CIs, a= 0.2 and 0.1 were
used, respectively. In these cases, greater than 20 % or greater
than 10 % of the samples would have to occur above the criterion
for an exceedance to be declared. This test was used to evaluate
fish contamination from studies G - J in Table 6.
(a) Two-tailed Distribution with (a/2)*100 % in Each
Tail, (b) One-tailed Distribution with a*100 % in the
Upper Tail.
It follows from the descriptions above that	the upper bounds for
the 80 % CIs determined by the first method	are equivalent to the
upper bounds for 90 % CIs determined by the	second method. The
90 % confidence limits for both the one and two tailed t-tests
are displayed in Table 11.
Transformations
It has been observed that the concentrations of hydrophobic
compounds (such as PCBs and DDT) rise as an exponential function
of fish size (age). This relationship is represented as

-------
8
C= Aebx
where C is the concentration in fish tissue
A is a coefficient related to contaminant concentration
in water
b is a coefficient which represents the rate of the
bioaccumulation process.
Logarithmic transformation of fish residue data and incorporation
of size information permits the estimation of the rate parameter
by linear regression analysis of the transformed data
ln(C)= ln(A) + bx
which describes a straight line with slope b and C axis intercept
equal to A. The confidence interval for the mean u(C|x0) at a
particular point x0 along this line is given by the upper and
lower limit expressions
co " ta/2*s(X,C)[1/n + (xD - X)2/SUM xj2]1/2 < u(C|x0) <
co + ta/2*s
-------
9
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has a program (study A)
that analyzes 15 - 20 fish of each species to compute important
statistics.
The Great Lakes Surveillance Program (studies G - J) collects 20
to 50 fish of each species, which are combined into five fish
composites for analysis.
From the above examples, it is evident that some of the sample
statistics represent the mean values of 3 - 10 averages, where
each average is residue found in a 5 - 15 fish composite. It is
therefore likely that the mean values are good estimates, but the
variances are not strictly comparable and are underestimated by
these procedures.

-------
10
Table 4. Data Sources Utilized To Classify Chemicals Into
Categories IA, IB, IC, ID, and I E For
Lake Ontario.
Ambient Data Available
(A).	Johnson, A. 1985-1986. Ontario Sportfish Program. Ministry
of the Environment and Ministry of Natural Resources.
Jordan Harbour- 1986
Credit River- 1986
Frenchman's Bay- 19 86
Ganaraska River- 1986
Burlington Beach- 1985
(B).	Stevens, R. J. and M. A. Nielson. 1985 - Lake Ontario Water
Column Survey. Unpublished Data. Canadian Centre for Inland
Waters, Burlington, Ontario, Canada. December 1987.
(C).	Stevens, R. J. 1986- Lake Ontario Water Column Survey.
Unpublished Data. Canadian Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington,
Ontario, Canada. December 1987.
(D).	Skinner, L. 1985. Lake Trout: Fish Survey Data, 1985
Collection. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
(E).	O'Keefe, P., C. Meyer, D. Hilker, K. Aldous, B. Jelus-
Tyror, K. Dillon, R. Donnelly, E. Horn and R. Sloan. 1983.
Analysis of 2,3,7,8- Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in Great Lakes
fish. Chemosphere. 12(3): 325-332.
(F).	Jaffe, R. 1985. Aquatic Fate of Hazardous Waste Derived
Organic Compounds in the Niagara River - Lake Ontario Area. Ph.D.
Thesis, Indiana University. 243 pp.
Great Lakes International Surveillance Program
(G).	DeVault, D., J. M. Clark, G. Lahvis, J. Weishaar. 1988.
Contaminants and trends in fall run Coho Salmon. J. Great Lakes
Research. 14{1): 23-33. (Salmon Creek Data, 1983-1984).
(H).	DeVault, D., B. Hesselburg. In Press. Contaminant Trends in
Fish from the Lower Great Lakes. (Hamlin [1985] and Oswego [1984]
Data).
(I).	DeVault, D. 1984. Unpublished Report: Contaminants in Lake
Ontario Salmon. (Sandy Creek and Eighteenmile Creek Data, 1983).
(J). DeVault, D., W. Dunn and C. Rappe. In Press.
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans and Polychlorinated Dibenzo-Para-
Dioxins in Great Lakes Fish: Baseline and Interlake Comparison.
(Oswego and Hamlin Data, 1985).

-------
11
Table 5. Data Sources Utilized To Classify Chemicals Into
Category II A For Lake Ontario.
Evidence of Presence or Input
(K). Mann Testing Laboratories Ltd. 1986. Analysis of W.P.C.
Influents and Effluents. Final Report Submitted to Metropolitan
Toronto Works Department, Water Pollution Control Division.
(L). Boyd, D. In Press. The Effect of Contaminants Associated
with Suspended Sediment on Water Quality in the Toronto
Waterfront During 1985. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 16
pp + Appendices.
(M). Lomas, T. 1985 and 1987- In-Place Pollutants Program.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
(N). Kauss, P. B. 1983- Freshwater Clam Study- Niagara River:
Data Analysis in Progress. Great Lakes Section, Ontario Ministry
of the Environment.
(0). Whitehead, B. 1983 - 1986, Enhanced Tributary Monitoring.
River Systems, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
(P). Niagara River Data Interpretation Group. 1988. A Joint
Evaluation of Upstream/Downstream Niagara River Monitoring Data
for the Period April 1986 to March 1987. Inland Waters/Lands
Directorate, Environment Canada. 43 pp.
(Q). Monroe County Department of Pure Waters. 1987. Discharge
Monitoring Report. Frank E. Van Lare STP. 700 Pinegrove Ave.,
Rochester, NY.
(R). City of Lockport. 1987. Discharge Monitoring Report.
Lockport City Wastewater Treatment Plant. Plank Road, Lockport,
NY.
(S). Town of Webster. 1987. Discharge Monitoring Report. Webster
Town Water Pollution Control Facility. 226 Phillips Road,
Webster, NY.
(T). Monroe County Department of Pure Waters. 1987. Discharge
Monitoring Report. Northwest Quadrant Pure Waters District. 170
Payne Beach Road, Hilton, NY.
(U). Alcan Rolled Products Company. 1987. Discharge Monitoring
Report. Alcan Sheet and Plate Division, Lake Road North, Oswego,
NY.
(V). Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment. 1986. Toxic Water
Quality Surveillance Network. Division of Water, NYSDEC, Albany,
NY.

-------
12
(W). International Joint Commission. 1983. An Inventory of
Chemical Substances Identified in The Great Lakes Ecosystem, Lake
Ontario and St. Lawrence River, volume 2. Report to the Great
Lakes Water Quality Board. Windsor, Ontario. 274 pp.

-------
13
Table 6. Data Descriptions of Aquatic Studies Used to Classify
Chemicals Into IA,IB, IC,ID, and I E For Lake
Ontario.
(A).	The Ontario Sportfish Program is designed to collect and
test fish for contaminants such as Hgf PCB, DDT, Mirex and other
substances. The program begem bprause of concerns of anglers,
cottagers, fish consumers and citizens who wanted to know if the
Ontario environment was becoming increasingly contaminated.
A typical collection includes 15 - 20 fish of each species with
lengths and weights representative of the size range of that
species from the lake being tested, h boneless, skinless, fillet
of dorsal muscle flesh is removed from the fish and analyzed at
the MOE laboratories in Toronto.
(B).	Stevens et al. (1985) reported on concentrations of toxic
metals within the Lake Ontario water column. Ten metals were
monitored at twenty stations.
(C).	Stevens (1986) reported the concentrations of
chlorobenzenes, organochlorine pesticides and PCB in surface (one
meter) whole water samples, using high volume (44 L) sampling
techniques at 33 stations in Lake Ontario.
(D).	The NYSDEC Fish Survey (1985) analyzed different portions
of fish as follows:
Species
Lake Trout - age 3
other ages
Brown Trout
Rainbow Trout
Coho Salmon
Chinook Salmon
American Eel
White Perch
Portion of Fish
Whole Body
Std. Fillet
Std. Fillet
Std. Fillet
Std. Fillet
Std. Fillet
Muscle without Skin
Whole Body
The toxic chemicals analyzed for include:
PCB
DDT + Metabolites
Endrin
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Mirex
Photomirex
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Nonachlor
Chlordanes
Hexachlorocyclohexanes
Hexachlorobenzene
Mercury

-------
14
The time of sampling ranges between spring, summer and fall
depending on species of interest- The number of fish collected
for individual analysis ranges between 5 and 30.
(E).	O'Keefe et al. (1983) performed analytical studies on Lake
Ontario fish, such as Lake Trout, Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon,
Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, White Perch, White Sucker, Smallmouth
Bass and Brown Bullhead, in order to identify tissue residues of
2,3,7,8-TCDD. Samples were taken between 1978 and 1980.
(F).	Jaffe (1985) in a doctoral thesis tried to identify the
aquatic fate of hazardous waste derived organic compounds in the
Niagara River-Lake Ontario Area. Sediments were sampled from the
Niagara River (1981) and Lake Ontario (1982, 1983). Fish (such
as bottom feeding and non-migratory species [ex. Carp]) from the
Niagara River and Lake Ontario were collected in the summer of
1984 using an electro-shocking device. Additional fish were
received from the NYSDEC (1979) and from angling in 1983. Whole
fish samples were extracted and GC/MS analyses conducted.
Great Lakes International Surveillance Program
(G) - (J). The Great Lakes International Surveillance Program
consists of separate monitoring programs for each of the Great
Lakes. The program is intended to monitor the state of the lakes
with respect to eutrophication and to provide data on long term
trends of chemical contamination for selected compounds in
certain fish and other biota.

-------
15
Table 7. Data Descriptions of Information Used
to Classify Chemicals Into II A For
Lake Ontario.
(K). A study conducted in June and July of 1986 by Mann Testing
Laboratories LTD. for the Toronto Works Department was used to
indicate "evidence of presence or input" of chemicals.
The goal of the study was to characterize the raw sewage and
final effluent samples from sewage treatment plants serving
metropolitan Toronto. Non-volatile and volatile organics,
conventionals and metals were analyzed for at the Humber, Main,
and Highland Creek Sewage Treatment Plants, all of which
discharge directly to Lake Ontario.

-------
16
(N). Data from the Freshwater Clam Study conducted by MOE was
used to indicate "evidence of presence or input". The
investigation was designed to determine the relative inputs of
trace contaminants at various locations in the Niagara River
using clams as biomonitors. Clams were exposed for 15 weeks to
ambient aquatic conditions at 27 stations (including near the
mouth) along the Niagara River.
(0). Data provided by the Enhanced Tributary Monitoring Program
under the directorship of MOE was utilized to indicate "evidence
of presence or input". The data represents sampling between
January 1983 to December 1986. The following locations were
selected:
-	Twelve Mile Creek at Lakeport Road in St. Catharines (1.3 km.
U/S mouth)
-	Humber River at Old Mill Road (5.6 km U/S mouth)
-	Don River at Pottery Road (4.5 km/ U/S mouth)
-	Trent River at New Highway 2 Bridge in Trenton (0.8 km U/S
mouth)
The objectives of the tributary monitoring program are: To obtain
a better data base primarily by increased sample frequencies; to
establish procedures to improve the precision of the tributary
load estimates; to establish procedures to optimize future Great
Lakes tributary sampling.
(P). Information from the water quality monitoring program
guided by the Niagara River Data Interpretation Group between
April 1986 and March 1987 was used to indicate "evidence of
presence or input" of chemicals. This program is designed to
collect ambient water and suspended sediment samples at the head
(Fort Erie) and mouth (Niagara on the Lake) of the Niagara River.
Only data collected at the NOTL station was utilized for this
report. Sampling was conducted on a weekly basis.
(Q), (R), (S), (T), (U). The data from five DMRs were utilized
as "evidence of presence or input" of chemicals.
(Q). Frank E. VanLare STP, New York. Discharge directly into
Lake Ontario.
(R). City of Lockport STP, New York. Discharge is directly into
Eighteen Mile Creek above two dams.
(S). Town of Webster STP, New York. Discharge is directly into
Lake Ontario.
(T). Northwest Quadrant Pure Waters District, New York.
Discharge is directly into Lake Ontario.

-------
(U). Alcan Rolled Products Company, New York. Discharge is
directly into Lake Ontario.
(V). Several near mouth stations and their associated data that
are part of the NYSDEC Toxic Water Quality Surveillance Network
(1986) were utilized to indicate "evidence of presence or input"
of chemicals. The sampling locations were:
-	Black River in Watertown: Site is approximately five miles
upstream of Black Rock Bay and above two dams. This site is
never affected by backwater from the Lake.
-	Oswego River in Oswego: Site is approximately 0.25 miles
upstream of Oswego Harbor. This site may be affected by
backwater during some certain seasons of the year.
-	Genesee River in Rochester: Site is off Genesee Docks
approximately one mile upstream of river mouth. This site is
likely to be affected by Lake backwater.
(W). The IJC document entitled "An Inventory of Chemical
Substances Identified in the Great Lakes Ecosystem, Lake Ontario
and the St. Lawrence" was used to indicate "evidence of presence
or input" of chemicals. The chemical substances identified in
the above volume mav not all be found within the boundaries
designated by the TCW.

-------
18
Table 8. Categorization Of Toxics Into I A, I B, I C, I D and
I E For Lake Ontario.
Category I A
PCB
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Chlordane
Mirex
Mercury
Copper
Iron
Aluminum
Category I B
DDT + Metabolites
Octachlorostyrene
Hexachlorobenzene
Dieldrin
Category I C
Total Hexachlorocyclohexanes
Heptachlor Epoxide\Heptachlor
Aldrin
Endrin
1.2-Dichlorobenzene
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
1.2.3-Trichlorobenzene
1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene
1.3.5-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
Nickel
Zinc
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Category I D
Toxaphene
Cadmium
Category I E
Pentachlorobenzene
Polyfluorinated Biphenyls
Other Dioxins (except 2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans
Heptachlorostyrene
Tetrachloroanisole
Pentachloroanisole
Chloropheny1-[chloro(tr i fluoromethy1)phenyl]methanone
1,1'-(Difluoromethylene)bis-dichloro-mono(trifluoromethy1)-
benzene
Pentachlorotoluenes
Endosulfan
Cis-nonachlor
Trans-nonachlor

-------
Table 9. Categorization Of Toxics Into II A For Lake Ontario,
As Well As Data Sources Of Information.
Category II A
Data Sources of Information
Halogenated Alkanes
Methylene Chloride	(S) , (T) , (Q), (V)
Dichloro(trif luoromethyl )-a-a-d"> fluoro diphenyl methane
(W)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichlorobromomethane
Dibromochloromethane
Trichloromethane
l,2-Dichloropropane
(K)
(K)
(K)
(R)
(P)
(Q)
(P)
(W)
(K)
(R)
(V)
(R), (Q)
(Q)
(W)
(T), (V)
Halogenated Alkenes
Endosulfan Sulfate	(L),
Hexachlorobutadiene	(V)
Cis-1,3-dichloropropene	(V)
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene	(V)

-------
Ethers
Diethyl ether	(K)
Haloethers
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether	(V)
Pentachlorophenyl methyl ether (w)
Tribromoanisole	(F)
Dibromochloroanisole	(F)
Bromodichloroanisole	(F)
Amines
Benzidine	
-------
21
Benzo(b)fluoranthene	(M), (P)
Benzo(j)fluoranthene	(M)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene	(M), (P)
Benzo(b)chrysene	(M)
Benzo(a)anthracene	(M), (P)
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene	(M), (V)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene	(M), (V)
Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene	(M)
Hydroxy Compounds
Tribromocresol	(F)
Nitro and Nitroso Compounds
Nitrobenzene	(V)
Styrenes (Alkenylbenzene)
Hexachlorostyrene	(W)
Pentachlorostyrene	(W)
Pesticide Active Ingredients
Methoxychlor	(L), (0), (M)
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid	(0)
Carbon Tetrachloride	
-------
22
Hydrocarbons
Benzene	(V)
Metal Containing Componds
Butyltin	(W)
Dibutyltin	(W)
Methyltin	(W)
Dimethyltin	(W)
Tributyltin	(W)
Alkyl-lead*	(P)
Metals
Barium	(V)
Antimony	(K)
Beryllium	(K)
Molybdenum	(K)
Silver	(S), {T) , (Q), (V)
Strontium	(V)
Selenium	(K) , (S)
Tin	(W)
Titanium	(V)
Thallium	(K)
Non Metals
Cyanide	(K), (T), (Q)
Other Substances
Silvex	(K)
Dacthal	(F)
* - IJC critical pollutant

-------
23
Table 10. Media Which Contributed To The Classification
of chemicals Into I A, IB, IC, ID, and I E
For Lake Ontario.
Chemical Fish
Tissue
Water Column
Summary
PCB*
A
A
A (FT, WC)
Dioxin*
A
D
A(FT)
2,3,7,8-TCDD)



Chlordane
A
C
A (FT)
Mirex*
A
ND
A (FT)
{Mi rex + Photomirex)



Mercury*
A
ND
A (FT)
Copper
ND
A
A(WC)
Iron
ND
A
A(WC)
Aluminum
ND
A
A( WC)
DDT + Metabolites*	B
Octachlorostyrene	B
Hexachlorobenzene*	B
Dieldrin*	B
B	B(FT,	WC)
ND	B< FT >
B	B< FT,	WC)
B	B< FT,	WC)
Hexachlorocyclo-
C
C
C (FT,
Hexanes (including



(Lindane + a-BHC)



Heptachlor/
C
C
C (FT,
Heptachlor Epoxide



Aldrin
C
ND
C (FT)
Endrin
C
C
C (FT,
1,2-Dichloro B.
ND
C
C(WC)
1,3-Dichloro B.
ND
C
C(WC)
1,4-Dichloro B.
ND
C
C(WC)
1,2,3-Trichloro B.
ND
C
C(WC)
1,2,4-Trichloro B.
ND
C
C(WC)
1,3,5-Trichloro B.
ND
c
C(WC)
1,2,3,4-Tetra-
ND
c
C(WC)
Chloro B.



Nickel
ND
c
C(WC)
Zinc
ND
c
C(WC)
Chromium
ND
c
C(WC)
Lead
ND
c
C(WC)
Manganese
ND
c
C(WC)

-------
24
Toxaphene
Cadmium
D
ND
ND
D
D (FT)
D(WC)
Pentachloro B.	E C E(FT)
Polyfluorinated	E ND E(FT)
Biphenyls
Other Dioxins	E ND E(FT)
(Ex. 2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Polychlorinated	E ND E(FT)
Dibenzofurans*
Heptachlorostyrene	E ND E(FT)
Tetrachloroanisole	E ND E(FT)
Pentachloroanisole	E ND E(FT)
Chlorophenyl-[chloro	E ND E(FT)
(trifluoromethyl)
phenylJmethanone
1,1(Difluoromethylene) E	ND E{FT)
bis-dichloro-mono	E ND E(FT)
(trifluoromethyl)-
benzene
Pentachlorotoluenes	E ND E(FT)
Endosulfan	E ND E(FT)
Nonachlor (Cis + Trans)	E ND E(FT)
ND- No data available after initial review by the TCW
FT- Based on fish tissue data
WC- Based on water column data
* - IJC critical pollutant
B.- Benzene

-------
25
Table 11. Information In Support Of The Toxic Chemicals
Categorized Into IA, IB, IC, ID, And I E For Lake
Ontario.
Ambient Value
Standard/Criteria
Source
Polvchlorinated Biphenvls
Tot. PCB A
Lake Trout
6134 ug/kg
11.15 ppm
6.230 ug/g
Brown Trout
4.565 ug/g
Rainbow Trout
4.870 ug/g
Carp
4.280 ug/g
2000 ug/kg (FDA, NYSDEC, HWC)
2.00 ppm (FDA, NYSDEC, HWC)
2.0 ug/g (HWC, NYSDEC, FDA)
2.0 ug/g (HWC, NYSDEC, FDA)
2.0 ug/g (HWC, NYSDEC, FDA)
2.0 ug/g (HWC, NYSDEC, FDA)
(H)*1
(D)*2
(A)*3
(A)
(A)
(A)
Tot. PCB A^
Water column
2.49 ng/1*5
1.0 ng/1 (NYSDEC, MOE)
(C)
*6
PCB 17.5 4
Coho Salmon
2343 ug/kg
2000 ug/kg (FDA, NYSDEC, HWC)
(G)*1 , (I)
*8
Dioxin
2.3.7.8TCDD
Lake Trout
82.7 ng/kg
46.0 ng/kg
51 ng/kg
10 ng/kg (NYSDEC)
10 ng/kg (NYSDEC)
10 ng/kg (NYSDEC)
(J)*9
(J)
(E)*10

-------
26
Rainbow Trout
17 ng/kg
White Perch
26 ng/kg
Coho Salmon
26 ng/kg
21 ng/kg
10 ng/kg (NYSDEC)
10 ng/kg (NYSDEC)
10 ng/kg (NYSDEC)
10 ng/kg (NYSDEC)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
Pesticide Active ingredients
Tot. Chlordane A
Lake Trout
316 ug/kg
0.62 ppm
300 ug/kg (FDA, NYSDEC, HWC)
0.3 ppm (FDA, NYSDEC, HWC)
(H)
(D)
a-Chlordane
Water Column
0.07 ng/1
0.46 ng/1 (USEPA)
(C)
Mirex (Mirex +
Photomirex)	
Brown Trout
0.284 ug/g
Channel Catfish
0.121 ug/g
Carp
0.214 ug/g
0.300 ug/g
Chinook Salmon
0.364 ug/g
0.1 ug/g (HWC, FDA)
0.1 ug/g (HWC, FDA)
0.1 ug/g (HWC, FDA)
0.1 ug/g (HWC, FDA)
0.1 ug/g (HWC, FDA)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)

-------
Lake Trout


0.70 ppm
0.1 ppm (HWC, FDA)
(D)
885 ug/kg
100 ug/kg (FDA, HWC)
(H)
1116 ug/kg
100 ug/kg (FDA, HWC)
(H)
0.26 6 ug/g
0.1 ug/g (HWC, FDA)
(A)
3.040 ug/g
0.1 ug/g (HWC, FDA)
(A)
Coho Salmon


152 ug/kg
100 ug/kg (FDA, HWC)
(G), (I)
0.28 7 ug/g
0.1 ug/g (HWC, FDA)
(A)
Brown Bullheads


0.224 ug/g
0.1 ug/g (HWC, FDA)
(A)
Rainbow Trout


0.196 ug/g
0.1 ug/g (HWC, FDA)
(A)
0.290 ug/g
0.1 ug/g (HWC, FDA)
(A)
0.170 ug/g
0.1 ug/g (HWC, FDA)
(A)
Metals


Mercurv A


Rainbow Trout


0.620 ug/g
0.5 ug/g (HWC, MOE)
(A)
Channel Catfish


1.00 ug/g
0.5 ug/g (HWC, MOE)
(A)
Northern Pike


0.550 ug/g
0.5 ug/g (HWC, MOE)
(A)
Brown Bullhead


0.680 ug/g
0.5 ug/g (HWC, MOE)
(A)
CoDDer A^l


Water Column


3.08 ppb*12
2.0 ppb (NYSDEC)
(B)*13

-------
28
Iron
*14
Water Column
661.9 ppb*15
Aluminum
Water Column
230.1 ppb*17
1*16.
300 ppb (NYSDEC)
100 ppb (NYSDEC)
(B)
(B)
Pesticide Active Ingredients
Dieldrin B
Lake Trout
147 ug/kg
193 ug/kg
0.18 ppm
Coho Salmon
26 ug/kg
Water Column*18
0.88 ng/1*19
0.370 ug/kg (USEPA)
0.370 ug/kg (USEPA)
0.00037 ppm (USEPA)
0.370 ug/kg (USEPA)
(H)
(H)
(D)
(G), (I)
0.071 ng/1 (USEPA: Aldrin + Dieldrin) (C)
Tot. Chlordane
B
Rainbow Trout
0.050 ug/g
Carp
0.260 ug/g
0.0068 ug/g (USEPA)
0.0068 ug/g (USEPA)
(A)
(A)
Chlorinated Benzenes
Hexachlorobenzene B
Coho Salmon
< 50 ppb
6.4 ppb (USEPA)
(G), (I)

-------
Lake Trout
66 ppb
0.034 ug/g
Carp
0.022 ug/g
Brown Trout
0.036 ug/g
Water Column*2
0.10 ng/l*21
DDT + Metabolites
DDT + Metabolites B
DDT
Lake Trout
3.13 ppm
96 ug/kg
248 ug/kg
768 ug/kg
1510 ug/kg
Brown Trout
1173 ug/kg
Coho Salmon
53 ug/kg
Carp
1200 ug/kg
500 ug/kg
Brown Bullheads
298 ug/kg
400 ug/kg
Northern Pike
334 ug/kg
29
6.4 ppb (USEPA)	(D)
0.0064 ug/g (USEPA)	(A)
0.0064 ug/g (USEPA)	(A)
0.0064 ug/g (USEPA)	(A)
0.072 ng/l (USEPA)	(C)
0.013 ppm (USEPA)	(D)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)	(H)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)	(H)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)	(A)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)	(A)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)	(A)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)	(G), (I)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)	(A)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)	(A)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)	(A)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)	(A)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)	(A)

-------
30
P-P'-DDD
Coho Salmon
49 ug/kg
203 ug/kg
Lake Trout
151 ug/kg
13 ug/kg (USEPA)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)
(G)
(I)
(H)
(H)
P-P'-DDE
Coho Salmon
516 ug/kg
Lake Trout
1359 ug/kg
1617 ug/kg
P-P*-DDE
Water Column*22
0.08 ng/1*23
13 ug/kg (USEPA)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)
13 ug/kg (USEPA)
0.024 ng/1 (USEPA)
(G), (I)
(H)
(H)
(C)
Chlorinated Stvrenes




Octachlorostvrene B




Brown Trout




0.047 ug/g
0.02
ug/g
(NYSDEC)
(A)
Rainbow Trout




0.026 ug/g
0.02
ug/g
(NYSDEC)
(A)
0.038 ug/g
0.02
ug/g
(NYSDEC)
(A)
0.058 ug/g
0.02
ug/g
(NYSDEC)
(A)
Carp




0.084 ug/g
0.02
ug/g
(NYSDEC)
(A)
0.051 ug/g
0.02
ug/g
(NYSDEC)
(A)
Channel Catfish




0.021 ug/g
0.02
ug/g
(NYSDEC)
(A)
Brown Bullheads




0.036 ug/g
0.02
ug/g
(NYSDEC)
(A)

-------
31
Chlorinated Benzenes
1.2-Dichlorobenzene	C
Water Column
0.00356 ppb	2.5 ppb (MOE)	(C)
400.0 ppb (USEPA)
1.3-Dichlorobenzene	C
Water Column
0.00115 ppb	2.5 ppb (MOE)	(C)
400.0 ppb (USEPA)
1.4-Dichlorobenzene	C
Water Column
0.0039 3 ppb	4.0 ppb' (MOE)	(C)
400.0 ppb (USEPA)
1.2.3-Trichloro-	C
benzene	
Water Column
0.00052 ppb	0.9 ppb (MOE)	(C)
50 ppb (USEPA: Chlorinated Benzenes)
1.2.4-Trichloro-	C
benzene	
Water Column
0.00207 ppb	0.5 ppb (MOE)	(C)
50 ppb (USEPA: Chlorinated Benzenes)
1,3 ,5-Trichloro- C
benzene	
Water Column
0.00010 ppb
0.6 5 ppb (MOE)	(C>
50 ppb (USEPA: Chlorinated Benzenes)

-------
1,2,3,4- Tetra- C
chlorobenzene	
Water Column
0.00068 ppb	10 ppb (NYSDEC, Aesthetic Std.) (CJ
38 ppb (USEPA)
Tot. Hexachloro- C
cvclohexanes	
Fish Species (Lake Trout, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, Chinook
Salmon, Coho Salmon, Channel Catfish) (includes Lindane)
ND*24	0.3 ppm (MOE)	(D)
0.1 ppm (NYSDEC: Fish Consumption
By Wildlife)
All Fish Species (Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Rainbow Trout,
Brown Trout, Lake Trout, Channel Catfish, Carp, Brown Bullhead,
Northern Pike) (Just Lindane)
0.012 ug/g	0.3 ug/g (IJC)	(A)
Water Column
(includes a-BHC +
Lindane)
6.22 ppt	10 ppt (MOE)	(C)
12 ppt (USEPA)
Pesticide Active Ingredients
Aldrin C
Fish Species (Lake -Trout, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, Chinook
Salmon, Coho Salmon, Channel Catfish)
ND	0.3 ppm (FDA)	(D)
0.022 ppm (NYSDEC: Fish Consumption
By Wildlife)
All Fish Species (Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Rainbow Trout,
Brown Trout, Lake Trout, Channel Catfish, Carp, Brown Bullhead,
Northern Pike)
0.005 ug/g
0.022 ug/g (NYSDEC)
(A)

-------
33
Endrin C
Fish Species (Lake Trout, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, Chinook
Salmon, Coho Salmon, Channel Catfish)
ND	0.3 ppm (IJC)	(D)
0.025 ppm (NYSDEC: Fish Consumption
By Wildlife)
Water Column
0.27 ng/1	2.0 ng/1 (NYSDEC)	(C)
Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide	Q
Fish Species (Lake Trout, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, Chinook
Salmon, Coho Salmon, Channel Catfish)
ND	0.3 ppm (FDA:Heptachlor +	(D)
Heptachlor Epoxide)
0.2 ppm (NYSDEC: Fish Consumption
By Wildlife)
All Fish Species (Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Rainbow Trout,
Brown Trout, Lake Trout, Channel Catfish, Carp, Brown Bullhead,
Northern Pike)
ND	0.0031 ug/g (USEPA)	(A)
Water Column
0.18 ppt	1 ppt (MOE: Heptachlor)	(C)
0.28 ppt (USEPA:Heptachlor)
Metals
Lead C
Water Column
1.81 ppb*25	2.0 - 25 ppb (MOE: pH dependent) (B)
Manganese	C
Water Column
14.8 ppb*26
300 ppb (NYSDEC)
50 ppb (USEPA)
(B)

-------
Nickel c
Water Column
2.32 ppb*27
Zinc C
Water Column
3.32 ppb*28
Chromium C
Water Column
1.54 ppb*29
25 ppb (NYSDEC)
100 ppb (USEPA)
(B)
30 ppb (NYSDEC)	(B)
110 ppb (USEPA: Hardness Dependent)
50 ppb (NYSDEC, USEPA:
Total Chromium)
(B ]
Pesticide Active Ingredients
Toxaphene D
All Fish Species (Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Rainbow Trout,
Brown Trout, Lake Trout, Channel Catfish, Carp, Brown Bullhead,
Northern Pike)
ND	5.0 ppm (FDA)	(A)
(D.L. =0.2 ppm)	0.0096 ppm (USEPA)
Metals
Cadmium D
Water Column
0.156 ppb
(D.L.= 0.1 ppb)
0.2 ppb (MOE)	{B)
1.1 ppb (USEPA: Hardness Dependent)

-------
35
Chlorinated Benzenes
Pentachlorobenzene E
Carp/Go 1 df i sh/Ca t f i sh/Sucker
300 ng/g Fat	No Std./Crt.	(F)*30
Water column
0.00053 ppb	0.03 ppb (MOE)	(C)
74 ppb (USEPA)
Haloaenated Aromatics
Polvfluorinated Biphenvls E
Carp/Goldfish/Catfish/Sucker
92 ng/g Fat	No Std./Crt.	(F)
Other Dioxins*31 E
(except 2.3.7.8-TCDD)
Walleye/Lake Trout
8.38 ng/kg*32	No Std./Crt.	(J)
Polvchlorinated Dibenzofurans^^ E
Walleye/Lake Trout
20.10 ng/kg*34	No Std./Crt.	(J)
Chlorinated Stvrenes
Heptachlorostvrene E
Carp/Goldfish/Catfish/Sucker
430 ng/g Fat	No Std./Crt.	(F)

-------
36
Haloethers
Tetrachloroanisole E
Carp/Goldfish/Catfish/Sucker
78 ng/g Fat	No Std./Crt.	(F)
Pentachloroanisole E
Carp/Goldfish/Catfish/Sucker
300 ng/g Fat	No Std./Crt.	(F)
Pesticide Active Ingredients
Endosulfan E
Carp/Goldfish/Catfish/Sucker
290 ng/g Fat	No Std./Crt.	(F)
Cis/Trans Nonachlor (Decomposition Products Of Chlordane) E
Chlorophenvl-\chloro(trifluoromethvl)phenyl"lmethanone
Carp/Goldf i sh/Catf ish/Sucker
4 ng/g Fat	No Std./Crt.
(F)

-------
1,1'~Difluoromethylene bis-dichloro-mono E
(trifluoromethyl)-benzene	
Carp/Goldfish/Catfish/Sucker
160 ng/g Fat	Wo Std./Crt.	(F)
*1 one tailed t-test, 90 % upper confidence limit
*2 two tailed t-test, 90 % upper confidence limit
*3 two tailed t-test, upper range boundary
*4 categorization based on exceedances in zones
1, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 & 6
*5 greatest 90 % upper confidence limit for all zones
*6 two tailed t-test, 90 % upper conTidence limit
*7 one tailed t-test, 90 % upper confidence limit
*8 one tailed t-test, 90 % upper confidence limit
*9 one tailed t-test, 90 % upper confidence limit
*10 mean value
*11 categorizaation based on exceedance within zones
3, 4, and 5
*12 greatest 90% upper confidence limit for six zones
*13 two tailed t-test, 90 % upper confidence limit
*14 categorization based on exceedance within zones
3 and 4
*15 greatest 90% upper confidence limit for six zones
*16 categorization based on exceedance within zones
3 and 4
*17 greatest 90% upper confidence limit for six zones
*18 categorization based on exceedances in zones
1,2, 3,4, 5 &6
*19 greatest 90 % upper confidence limit for all zones
*20 categorization based on exceedance in zones
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6
*21 greatest 90 % upper confidence limit for all zones
*22
categorization based on exceedances
in zones


1, 2, 3, 4, 5
& 6





*23
greatest 90 %
upper
confidence
limit
for
all
zones
*24
not detected






*25
greatest 90 %
upper
confidence
limit
for
six
zones
*26
greatest 90 %
upper
confidence
limit
for
six
zones
*27
greatest 90 %
upper
confidence
limit
for
six
zones
*28
greatest 90 %
upper
confidence
limit
for
six
zones
*29
greatest 90 %
upper
confidence
limit
for
six
zones
*30
greatest value
recorded in study



*31
including 1,2,
3,7,8-
-PeCDD, 1,2,
3,4,7
, 8-HxCDD,

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,9-HpCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD, OCDD
*32 greatest mean value for the dioxins
*33 including 2 ,3 ,7 , 8-TCDF, 2 , 3,7,8-PeCDF,
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF , 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF,
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,8,9-HpCDF, OCDF
*34 greatest mean value for the furans

-------
38
Figure 1. The Zonation Scheme For Lake Ontario And Application
To The Water Column Data.
M.A. Neilson and R.J.J. Stevens (1986)* have presented a
classification scheme which identifies distinct water masses of
similar water quality in Lake Ontario. Fourteen parameters were
sampled at 94 stations during 1977, 1981 and 1982 cruises. The
above map indicates water masses of similar water quality.
o Zone l - Shallow northeastern region of Lake Ontario
(Kingston Basin)
o Zone 2 - Transitional zone between Kingston Basin and midlake,
encompassing also the eastern shoreline
o Zone 3 - Southern nearshore region
o Zone 4 - Western nearshore region
o Zone 5 - West midlake
o Zone 6 - East midlake
Data for trace metals and trace organic contaminants in surface
waters (1 m) of Lake Ontario were summarized according to the
above six zones displaying significantly distinct water quality.
Trace metal data were from a November 1985 survey, while trace
organics were from April 1986. All data were log transformed and
all non-detects set at the detection limit.
* Neilson, M.A. and R.J.J. Stevens. 1986. Determination of water
quality zonation in Lake Ontario using multivariate techniques.
Pages 99 - 116 In: Statistical Aspects of Water Quality
Monitoring, Developments in Water Science, Volume 27, A.H. El-
Shaarawi and R.E. Kwiatkowski (eds.). Elsevier, New York.
502 pp.

-------
Dear Interested Citizen:
The Lake Ontario Toxics committee thanks you for participating in
the review of the draft Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan.
The Committee is currently preparing the final Plan; The
enclosed summary gives a preliminary indication of how the draft
Plan is being modified in response to public comment. A more
comprehensive Public Responsiveness Document will accompany the
final Plan.
The Lake Ontario Toxics Committee currently projects completion
of the final Plan in September, upon approval by the four
involved agencies, the final Plan and Public Responsiveness
Document will be distributed to the public.
If you have any questions, please contact;
Kevin Bricke
Deputy Director
Water Management Division
USEPA-Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
(212} 264-2513
or
R.C.J. Sampson
Great Lakes Environment Office
Environment Canada
25 St. Clair Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario M4T 1H2
(416) 973-1098
Sincerely,
The Lake Ontario Toxics Committee
Kevin Bricke
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
/JL
Robert L". Collin
NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation
Enclosure
R.C.J^ Sampson
Environment Canada
Yousry iiamay
Ontario Ministry of
Che Environment
U.S. EPA Begion \\ Library
290 Broadway, 16th Fi.
NsiiV York, MY 10007-1866

-------
U,S. EPA Region 55 Library
290 Broadway, 16th Fi.
Yo^k, MY 10007-1868
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PUBLIC COMMENT
AND
RESPONSES
DRAFT LAKE ONTARIO TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN

-------
1
INTRODUCTION
On February 4, 1987, the Four Parties (Environment Canada, the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, and the New York State
Department of Environmental conservation) signed a Declaration of
intent that included a commitment to develop a Toxics Management
Plan for Lake Ontario.
The Four Parties formed a Lake Ontario Toxics Committee, under
the direction of the existing policy level Coordination
Committee, to develop the Plan.
On January 28, 1988, at an open public meeting in Niagara Falls,
New York, the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee presented a draft
Plan to the Coordination Committee. At that meeting, the
Coordination Committee directed the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee
to:
o Pursue an aggressive public outreach effort to ascertain the
public's views on the draft plan; and
o Continue its efforts to develop supplemental information and
data to improve the Plan.
Since that time, the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee has:
o Developed a summary of the draft Plan entitled "Draft Lake
Ontario Toxics Management Plan: Summary and Issues for
Public Discussion";
o Made the draft Plan and summary available at repositories
around the basin;
o Mailed approximately 6500 copies of the Summary to the
public;
o Conducted five public meetings;
Toronto, Ontario - 57 in attendance
Rochester, N.Y. - 26 in attendance
Watertown, N.Y. - 34 in attendance
Niagara Falls, N.Y. - 22 in attendance
Oswego, N.Y. - 27 in attendance
o Responded to requests for 178 copies of the draft Plan;
o Received 39 sets of written comments on the draft Plan,
including one letter co-signed by representatives of twenty
organizations.

-------
2
As a first step in revising the Plan to reflect the views
expressed by the public, the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee has
prepared this "Executive Summary: Public Comment and Responses".
The "Executive Summary" reflects only comments received as of
April 30, 1988. The Public Responsiveness Document that will
accompany the final Plan will address all comments submitted by
the public. With the approval of the Coordination Committee, the
"Executive Summary" is being mailed as preliminary feedback to
all those who attended the public meetings or commented in
writing on the draft Plan.
Concurrently, the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee is beginning
preparation of the final Plan. Considering the extensive nature
of the supplemental information and data that has been collected
and the extensive public comment that has been received, the Lake
Ontario Toxics Committee now projects that a final Plan will be
available in September.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment is discussed below in seven categories:
1.	The Toxics Problem in Lake Ontario
2.	Goals
3.	Today's Programs
4.	Geographic Areas of Special Concern
5.	Future Approach
6.	Communication and Reporting; and
7.	General
These categories correspond to those used in the Plan Summary.
For each category there are sections summarizing:
o What the Draft Plan Says;
o What the Public Says; and
o Proposed Response.

-------
3
1. THE TOXICS PROBLEM IN LAKE ONTARIO
What The Draft Plan Savs
The draft Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan concludes that:
o Toxics are a problem in fish flesh because they accumulate
to levels unsafe for human consumption;
o The ecosystem may be under stress from chemical
contamination, but more information is needed to understand
what is taking place;
o Toxics are considered by health agencies not to be a problem in
treated drinking water;
o Toxics in the Lake, and toxics continuing to enter the Lake
are a problem because they make it impossible to achieve the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement goal of virtual
elimination of persistent toxics.
What The Public Savs
There was no one who disagreed with the statement that
bio-accumulated toxics in fish flesh are a problem.
Most felt that the ecosystem is under stress. Some felt that
toxics are clearly the cause; others accepted the Plan's
premise that the cause/effect link still needs to be
established. Some suggested additional references that may
prove useful in evaluating cause and effect; others emphasized
the need for further research.
Many saw the need to take a more holistic view of the impact
of toxics on human health; they emphasized that we don't fully
understand the impact of toxics from Lake Ontario on humans.
Some saw the need for epidemiological studies which would show
the integrated effect of toxics from all sources on humans in
the basin.
Most were extremely uncomfortable with the statement, "In
drinking water, toxics are considered by health agencies not to
be a problem". Some felt that toxics in treated drinking water
are a problem; others felt that it is premature to say that
toxics in treated drinking water are not a problem.
The concept of virtual elimination was generally discussed in
the context of goals, and ncrt in the context of the toxics
problem in Lake Ontario.

-------
4
Response
We agree that the ecosystem is under stress. We welcome
additional references that may assist in evaluating the causes
of this stress. However, although it appears likely that toxics
contribute to the stress, conclusive cause/effect evidence is not
available. The Plan calls for the establishment of an Ecosystem
Objectives Sub-committee. One charge to the Sub-committee will
be to identify the research required to better understand the
role of toxics in causing ecosystem stress. The Ecosystem
Objectives Sub-Committee will also be responsible for developing
a holistic assessment of the impacts of toxics in Lake Ontario on
human health.
We recognize that the brief discussion of toxics in treated
drinking water that is contained in the draft Plan is
inadequate. The final Plan will include a much more in-depth
evaluation of toxics in treated drinking water. To the extent
that problems in treated drinking water are associated with raw
water quality, they fall within the scope of this Plan. To the
extent that they are associated with the water treatment process,
they fall outside the scope of this Plan.
A Canadian federal interdepartmental task group comprised of
representatives from Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, and Health and Welfare Canada has been formed to prepare
a report on the effects of"toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes.
Part I of the two part report will be primarily a data compendium
describing concentrations and levels of chemicals in Great Lakes
media. The second part will interpret this information and
describe the effects of these chemicals in the Great Lakes Basin.
The report will be issued in July, 1989. The Lake Ontario Toxics
Committee will review the results of the report to determine its
applicability to the LOTMP and to our understanding of the human
health impacts of toxics in Lake Ontario.
2. GOALS
What The Draft Plan Savs
The draft Plan outlines the following goals:
o Short term - reduction of chemical inputs,
o Intermediate - achievement of protective ambient levels,
o Long term - virtual elimination of persistent toxics in the
Lake.

-------
5
What The Public Savs
Many stated that we need a more visionary statement of our
goals.
Many emphasized the need to associate deadlines with our goals.
Many felt there is a need to quantify our load reduction goals.
Many supported the step-wise movement towards the virtual
elimination of toxics in Lake Ontario:
o Load reduction, as a first step, had almost universal support,
o Further load reduction for problem toxics, such that
protective ambient standards are attained, had substantial
support.
o Load reduction to zero also had substantial support.
Many felt that virtual elimination was a reasonable goal;
others felt that it was too Utopian and needed to be tempered
based on economic impacts; still others felt that, although
Utopian, virtual elimination should still be retained as a
long-term goal- "it's ok if goals are unachievable". There were,
however, many different definitions of what virtual
elimination means. For example:
o Zero discharge to the Lake;
o Non-detect in the Lake;
o Present in the Lake at levels that do not harm human health
and the ecosystem.
Some suggested that virtual elimination should apply to all
toxics, not just persistent toxics.
Response
The final plan will contain only one goal, a long-term goal.
The goal will be a Lake Ontario that provides drinking water and
fish that are safe for unlimited human consumption; and allows
natural reproduction within the ecosystem of the most sensitive
native species, such as bald eagles, osprey, mink and otters.
The plan will also include objectives that move us towards the
long-term goal. Many of the activities carried out to fulfill
these objectives can be undertaken concurrently. To the extent
possible, the objectives will be quantified and will include
target dates.

-------
6
Objective 1. Reductions Driven Bv Existing And Developing
Programs - Reduction of toxic inputs through the
full implementation of existing and developing
programs initiated prior to the Lake Ontario
planning effort.
a.	The final Plan will include a target date for
the full implementation of existing and
developing programs; many dates for the
implementation of individual programs were
included in the draft Plan.
b.	The final Plan will not include an aggregated
load reduction estimate associated with the
implementation of all existing and developing
programs; it will include load reduction
estimates for sources where data are
available; for those sources for which data
are not yet available, estimates will be
developed for inclusion in Plan updates.
Objective 2. Further Reduction Driven Bv Lake-wide Analysis Of
Pollutant Fate - Further reduction of inputs for
problem toxics such that we meet our goal for Lake
Ontario. Our intention is to identify the input
reductions required for problem toxics based on
increasingly sophisticated analyses over time.
a.	Preliminary models of fate* for toxics
exceeding standards or criteria will be
developed within one year. It is our
intention to apply these preliminary models
to identify the required input reductions.
It is also our intention to identify target
dates for the attainment of the required
input reductions.
b.	More fully-developed models of fate will be
generated as necessary, after a careful
evaluation of the preliminary models.
c.	If standards and criteria are attained, but
ecosystem objectives are not attained,
further reduction of problem toxics will be
required.
* In this "Executive Summary" the term "preliminary model of
fate" is synonymous with the term "mass balance model".

-------
7
Objective 3. Zero Discharge - Further reduction of toxic inputs
to zero through advances in technology and through
restrictions or voluntary elimination of the
manufacture and use of certain toxics.
a.	The technology-based limits for some
industrial categories (e.g. the paint
formulation category in the United States)
already call for zero discharge; as toxics
control technology evolves, zero discharge
can be required for additional industrial
categories.
b.	We cannot quantify this objective nor can we
associate any target dates with it.
The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan deals with all toxics,
not just persistent toxics.
3. TODAY~S PROGRAMS
What The Draft Plan Savs
In New York state, present pollution controls are based
principally on the use of technology to prevent toxic
substances from entering the environment. Controls such as
wastewater discharge permits and hazardous site remedial plans
usually specify use of the best technologies available. Where it
can be shown that application of the most effective technology is
not sufficient to protect public health or the environment,
additional control measures are required.
In Ontario, effluent guidelines are set in legally-enforceable
Control Orders or Certificates of Approval, based on both
technology and water quality factors. The Provincial Ontario
Municipal-industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA), begun in
June, 1986, will set monitoring regulations and effluent
limit regulations based on best available technology (BAT).
The draft Plan describes existing toxics control programs and the
activities that will be undertaken in the near future to fill
gaps in these programs.

-------
8
What The Public Savs
There was general agreement that the full implementation of
existing and developing programs will achieve a significant
reduction of toxic inputs to the Lake.
There were a number of suggestions that the Plan include
additional programs. Of particular note were concerns related
to shock loadings and the need for source reduction.
There were also a number of specific comments on the individual
programs.
Response
The final Plan will include descriptions of additional programs
and commitments for their full implementation. They are:
-	Air Toxics
-	Spills
-	Dredging and Dredged Spoil Disposal
-	Product Control
-	source Reduction
o Waste Minimization
o Waste Exchanges
o Household Chemicals
-	Sludge Disposal
-	Solid Waste
-	Water Monitoring
-	Potable Drinking Water
-	Program Integration Mechanisms
Specific comments on the individual programs will be addressed
in the Public Responsiveness Document.
4. GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN
What The Draft Plan Savs
The Plan recommends focusing corrective activities on specific
geographic areas around Lake Ontario: the Niagara River and
seven Remedial Action Plan (RAP) areas located around the Lake.
What The Public Savs
The public fully supports intensive efforts focussed on
geographic areas of special concern. They also believe this
focus will have a marked positive effect. However, localized
efforts to remediate these designated sites should not result
in increased ambient Lake contamination.

-------
9
Many emphasized the importance of the Niagara River and the
upstream Great Lakes as sources of toxics to Lake Ontario.
A few want to expand the study area to include the St. Lawrence
River.
Many would like for a process to list and de-list Areas of
Concern.
Many see the need to coordinate the Lake-wide and RAP planning
efforts.
Response
The Lake Ontario Toxics Committee acknowledges the importance of
the Niagara River and the upstream Great Lakes as sources of
toxics to Lake Ontario. The Lake Ontario Plan, using mass
balance techniques, will identify the relative contributions of
problem toxics entering the Lake from various sources, including
the Niagara River and the upstream Great Lakes. This will, in
turn, facilitate identification of proposed reduction targets and
implementation of appropriate management responses.
The Niagara River Toxics Management Plan will be used as the
vehicle to identify the required management responses within the
Niagara River Basin. The Niagara River Toxics Management Plan
will also be used as the vehicle for referring proposed reduction
targets for the upstream Great Lakes to the appropriate
jurisdictions for response.
The general process for listing and de-listing Areas of Concern
is outlined in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. To the
extent that the Plan identifies additional Areas of Concern,
they will be brought to the attention of the individual
jurisdictions for appropriate action.
In order to better coordinate the Lake-wide and RAP planning
efforts, the following steps will be taken:
o The Lake Ontario Toxics Committee will prepare letters to the
jurisdictions responsible for the individual raps, identifying
chemicals that are problems on a Lake-wide basis, and seeking
assistance in obtaining load reductions for these chemicals
to the extent that they have been identified as problems
in the Areas of Concern.
o Information exchanges between the LOTC and the
individual RAPs will be encouraged.
o Public involvement efforts will be coordinated
(See Communication and Reporting).

-------
5. FUTURE APPROACH
What The Draft Plan Savs
Future controls will limit toxics on a chemical-by-chemical
basis to ensure protection of human health and the ecosystem.
Ecosystem objectives will be established to evaluate the
effectiveness of the chemical-by-chemical approach.
What The Public Savs
The chemical-by-chemical approach is seen as having advantages
and disadvantages.
-	The three major advantages are:
o It allows us to set clear priorities;
o Existing regulatory programs can deal with problems
identified on a chemical specific basis; and
o It is cost effective.
-	The two major disadvantages are:
o It ignores cumulative and synergistic effects; and
o We don't have the knowledge to set adequately protective
standards.
One element of the chemical-by-chemical approach, the
development of mass balances for problem toxics, has wide
support. There are, however, concerns about acceptability and
enforceability of the results of the mass balance efforts.
To the extent that a chemical-by-chemical approach is used,
there is a need for uniform standards and advisories.
The use of an ecosystem-based approach in parallel with the
chemical-by-chemical approach is one of the most popular
elements of the plan.
Many emphasized the need for broad involvement in establishing
ecosystem objectives; representation of the public, particularly
academics, were frequently recommended for involvement on the
Ecosystem Objectives Sub-committee.
There were some suggestions for ecosystem objectives; many
suggested that the ecosystem be defined to include humans.

-------
11
Response
The Plan will retain the parallel chemical-by-chemical and
ecosystem approaches. Each has advantages and disadvantages;
they work well together. The mass balance approach is essential
to the establishment of quantifiable input reduction targets on a
chemical specific basis.
As outlined in the section on goals, preliminary mass balance
estimates can be used to establish preliminary input reduction
targets within one year. The cost to the Four Parties will be
approximately $100,000 (U.S.).
Decisions on incurring the substantial costs required to
construct fully-developed mass balance estimates will be deferred
until the completion of the preliminary models.
The Four Parties will move towards more uniform standards and
advisories by referring differences to the Sub-committee on
Criteria and Standards. The Sub-committee will develop
recommendations on resolving differences for consideration by
the individual jurisdictions.
The Ecosystem Objectives sub-committee will include representa-
tives from the public, including academics. There will be costs
to the Four Parties to cover invitational travel.
Specific suggestions for ecosystem objectives will be referred
to the Sub-committee.
In establishing ecosystem objectives for Lake Ontario, the
ecosystem will be defined to include humans.
6. COMMUNICATION AND REPORTING
What The Draft Plan Savs
The draft Plan includes a number of continuing public
involvement commitments. These are:
o Coordination Committee meetings, open to the public, will be
held at locations around the Lake.
o The Plan will be updated every two years; status reports will
be issued in alternate years.
o Mailing lists will be maintained. Those on mailing lists will
receive Plan updates, status reports and bibliographies of
technical reports.

-------
o Technical reports will be maintained in repositories around
the Lake.
What The Public Savs
The Lake Ontario Toxics Committee received a clear message
calling for increased public participation in the development and
implementation of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan. The
message also highlighted needs for more information and increased
dialogue overall. Of particular concern were accountability,
outreach to develop an effective, basin-wide constituency, and
coordination with other related efforts.
Considerable interest was expressed for the establishment of a
citizen's advisory committee (CAC) associated with the Lake
Ontario Toxics Committee. Some proponents indicated a need for
funding to alleviate expenses while a few suggested funding
should include a per diem stipend. Discussion also reflected
concern about public participation in a multiplicity of such fora
and the associated time commitments.
There was strong support for regular Coordination Committee
meetings around the Lake. The suggested frequency ranged from
every two months to every six months.
To ensure accountability, the public wants regular progress
reports on the implementation of the Plan.
There were many suggestions for developing a basin-wide
constituency. These included:
o Making informational materials more widely available by
using local and university library systems;
o Using existing organizations such as the Lake Ontario
Organizing Network;
o	Using citizens to distribute information;
o	Conducting bi-national conferences;
o	Using newsletters;
o	Developing educational curricula; and
o Making special efforts to involve industry, municipal
government, labor groups, and other agencies.

-------
13
The public also saw the need to coordinate with other ongoing
public involvement efforts:
o Coordinate Niagara River Coordination Committee activities
with Lake Ontario Coordination Committee activities; and
o Coordinate with RAP public involvement efforts.
Response
There will be one Coordination Committee for Niagara River and
Lake Ontario issues. Business meetings of this Committee will be
held to review status reports on Plan development and
implementation, and to deal with problems and issues as they
arise. These meetings will be open to the public. Meetings on
the Niagara Plan will be held in Niagara Falls, Ontario or
Niagara Falls, New York. Meetings on the Lake Ontario Plan will
be held at various locations throughout the Lake Ontario Basin.
Following a careful evaluation of the identified needs and
options for ongoing public involvement in the Lake Ontario
effort, the LOTC recommends the Communication and Reporting
component of the LOTMP be expanded considerably from that
proposed in the draft Plan. It is felt the following
recommendation reflects concerns on the part of both the agencies
and of the participating public for an efficient and effective
vehicle of communication. It is also the intent to implement
this proposal for a one year trial and evaluate its effectiveness
in meeting the needs of both the agencies and the public in the
cooperative development and implementation of the LOTMP.
The LOTC recommends that public consultative activities build on
the RAP processes around the Lake Ontario and Niagara River
basins to disseminate information and air concerns for the Lake-
wide activity. This takes advantage of established networks of
stakeholders and concerned interests, focusses work in designated
"hotspots" around the basin within the context of a Lake-wide
program, and promotes coordination between the various interests
at work in the basin. This will be supplemented with bi-national
workshops held at least once a year (coincident with the release
of annual status reports and updates) and additionally as issues
and concerns arise that demand a more Lake-wide focus. The
latter will feature specialists brought together to bring their
collective expertise to bear on specific problems in a public
forum. The LOTMP will not become a prime focus for existing
RAPs, but Lake Ontario can be part of RAP agendas as issues arise
and the responses will set direction for more comprehensive
activities (such as workshops) as need arises.

-------
14
It is felt this approach will better serve the larger juris-
diction of a whole lake system, while, at the same time,
ensuring the most effective use of the resources contributed both
by the agencies and by the public. There is a large and diverse
range of activities that make up the whole. The proposed
strategy provides both the focus needed to effectively address
these components and the mechanism for knitting them into a
comprehensive and holistic plan of attack. The procedure also
facilitates carrying out most of the specific suggestions
referenced above.
7. GENERAL
What The Draft Plan Savs
Not applicable.
What The Public Savs
The public perceived the Plan to be "a good beginning". Many
were impressed with the ability of the Four Parties to work
together to produce a Plan. Most emphasized the need for
further work. A few thought that the Plan was merely a rehash
of existing information.
There were three additional recurring themes:
1.	The Plan should identify the laws that will need to be
created or amended to achieve the goals of the Plan.
2.	The Plan should include a discussion of the costs and
sources of funding for implementation of the Plan.
Some asked that options at different cost levels be
included.
3.	The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan should serve as the
basis for the Lake-wide Management Plan required by the GLWQA;
there should be one plan for the Lake.
Response
We thank the public for its kind remarks, we agree that the
Plan is just a beginning and that extensive further work is
essential. We note that there are many elements of the Plan
(e.g. mass balance, ecosystem objectives) that are new.
The lack of legislative authority has not yet been identified
as an impediment to the implementation of any Plan
recommendations. This is because all implementation activities
thus far included in the Plan fall in the category of existing
and developing programs. However, with the completion of the

-------
15
preliminary mass balance efforts a year from now, we may begin
identifying control needs that do go beyond existing
legislative authority. If so, the Plan will recommend
legislative changes.
Similarly, with regard to the costs of implementation, the Plan
thus far relies on existing and developing programs not
initiated as part of this planning effort. For this reason,
the Plan has not yet imposed any incremental costs on the
regulated community. However, with the completion of the
preliminary mass balance efforts a year from now, we may begin
identifying control needs that do impose incremental costs on
the regulated community. If so, the Plan will estimate the
costs and benefits of those controls.
This Executive Summary does identify incremental costs associated
with continued development of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management
Plan.
The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan will serve as the Lake-
wide Management Plan required by the GLWQA. It may need to be
modified as consultation within the IJC community further defines
the requirements for Lake-wide management plans under the GLWQA.

-------