•
*
Section 319
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM SOGGESS STORY
Remediation of Hazardous Waste Nonpoint Sources Partially Restores Water Quality
W3t6rbodl6S ImprOVGd
New York's Niagara River flows 38 miles from Lake Erie to Lake
Ontario, forming the border between western New York State and
the Province of Ontario, Canada. The Niagara River watershed, with its access to inexpensive hydroelec-
tric power and close proximity to rail and shipping routes, was a magnet for heavy industry and chemi-
cal manufacturing companies beginning in the early 1900s. By the 1960s, decades of poor management
of industrial and hazardous waste had severely impaired Niagara River's water quality. In 1998 New York
included the river on its 303(d) list of impaired waters for priority organics. Since then, significant reme-
diation efforts at many sites have improved water quality, prompting New York to propose removing
four contaminants from its 2008 303(d) list for both the upper and lower segments of the river.
Problem
The Niagara River's pollution affected both the
United States and Canada. In 1987 four environmen-
tal agencies—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Environment Canada, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC), and the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment—signed a binational Declaration of
Intent (DOI), committing to developing and imple-
menting a plan to reduce concentration of toxic
chemicals in the Niagara River. The DOI and work
plan together form the Niagara River Toxics
Management Plan (NRTMP). Environmental monitor-
ing data collected for the NRTMP identified 18
priority toxics in the Niagara River that exceeded
water quality criteria (Table 1).
New York State included the entire length of the
Niagara River on its 1998, 2002, 2004, and 2006
303(d) lists for not meeting beneficial uses of
aquatic life and fish consumption due to priority
organics. These priority organics, the same organic
chemicals that are included on the NRTMP priority
toxics list, are identified as originating from contam-
inated sediments and land disposal. Beginning in
2004, New York began listing the upper mainstem
and lower mainstem of the Niagara River as two
separate segments.
of U.S. hazardous waste sites responsible for
approximately 700 Ibs/day of priority toxics load-
ings to the river. In response, hazardous waste
remediation programs under Superfund, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and state
hazardous waste program authority focused on
remediation of these sites. These efforts addressed
the most significant nonpoint sources of toxic
contamination to the Niagara River.
Results
To date, remediation is complete at 21 of the 26
priority waste site clusters. Remediation costs
have exceeded $400 million, paid mostly by
Potentially Responsible Parties. Remedial actions
continue at the five remaining sites. The efforts
Table 1. NRTMP Priority Toxics
Project Highlights
Through the NRTMP process, the four participat-
ing environmental agencies evaluated all potential
sources of priority toxics and identified hazard-
ous waste sites as the most significant nonpoint
sources of priority toxics loading. A 1988 EPA
hazardous waste site study identified 26 clusters
Chlordane
Mirex/PhotoMirex*
Dieldrin
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)*
DDT and metabolites
Toxaphene
Mercury*
Arsenic
Lead
PCBs*
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)*
Octachlorostyrene (OCS)
Tetrachloroethylene*
Benzo(a (anthracene*
Benzo(a)pyrene B(a)P*
Benzo(b)fluoranthene*
Benzo(k)fluoranthene*
Chrysene/Triphenylene
* Targeted for 50% Niagara watershed point and nonpoint
reduction from 1987 baseline.
-------
are working—total priority toxics loads to the
river have decreased more than 90 percent, from
approximately 700 Ibs/day to less than 50 Ibs/day.
Remediation at sites such as the Cherry Farm/
Roblin Steel federal Superfund site (Figure 1), which
included capping contaminated sediments, has con-
tributed to this decrease by significantly reducing
the amount of priority toxic contaminants reaching
the Niagara River from nonpoint sources.
Figure 1. These pic-
tures of the Cherry
Farm/Roblin Steel
federal Superfund
site show the differ-
ence between the
actively polluting site
in 1960 (left) and the
post-remediation site
in 2001 (right).
Niagara River surface water quality data show that
water quality has improved over the past decade in
response to the remediation projects. Data show
that concentrations of most of the NRTMP priority
toxics have decreased significantly, and several are
now meeting water quality standards. For example,
monitoring data collected from April 2004 through
March 2005 at the head of the Niagara River (Fort
Erie) and at the mouth of the Niagara River (Niagara-
on-the-Lake) show that annual average concentra-
tions of total chlordane (organochlorine pesticide),
p,p'-DDD (organochlorine pesticide metabolite of
DDT), octachlorostyrene, and benzo(a)anthracene (a
polycyclic aromatic hyrocarbon) are now below New
York's water quality standards (Table 2).
As a result, New York has proposed removing these
four contaminants from its 2008 303(d) list for both
the upper and lower segments of the river. This
continues a long-term trend in decreasing concen-
trations of NRTMP priority toxic chemicals in the
Niagara River.
Partners and Funding
Since its inception, implementing the NRTMP in the
United States has been a joint EPA Region 2 and
NYSDEC water program priority. These agencies
played key roles in setting overall NRTMP priorities,
developing program work plans, and overseeing
environmental monitoring and public reporting of
success. Funding support for the Niagara River
Toxics reduction efforts came from a variety
of sources including Performance Partnership
Agreement/Grant (PPG) funds, which include specific
program outputs for NRTMP. EPA Region 2 awards
Clean Water Act section 319(h) nonpoint source
program funds to NYSDEC through the annual PPG
process. In fact, Section 319(h) funds have been
included in all of New York State's PPG Work Plans
since the inception of the partnership process in
1996.
Table 2. The 2004/2005 annual average Niagara River surface water concentrations for
contaminants proposed for 303(d) delisting compared to New York's water quality standards
Parameter
Total Chlordane
Upper 90% confidence interval (ng/L)
Predicted mean (ng/L)
NYWQS(ng/L)
0.02
0.009
0.012
0.008
0.011
p,p'-DDD
0.08
0.052
0.015
0.049
0.013
OCS
0.006
ND
0.005
ND
0.004
Benzo(an)anthracene
2.0
0.948
1.960
0.835
1.842
NYWQS = New York Water Quality Standards; ND = Non-detect; FE = Fort Erie (at the head of the Niagara
River); NOTL = Niagara-on-the-Lake (at the mouth of the Niagara River); ng/L = parts per trillion (Adapted from
Table 3 in the October 2007 NRTMP report)
*>„
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
EPA841-F-08-001H
July 2008
For additional information contact:
Frederick Luckey, EPA Region 2 Resources District
212-637-3853
luckey.frederick@epa.gov
Jeff Myers, NYSDEC
518-402-8286
jamyers@gw.state.dec.ny.gov
------- |