NIAGARA RIVER
TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN (NRTMP)
PROGRESS REPORT
AND
WORK PLAN
June 2003
Prepared by:
Donald J. Williams, Environment Canada
and
Marie L. O'Shea, USEPA
For the Niagara River Secretariat
i+i
Environment Canada
Environnement Canada
S-EPA
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Ontario
Ministry of the
Environment
New York State
Department of
Environmental
Conservation
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary iii
PROGRESS REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 THE UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM MONITORING PROGRAM 1
Changes in the Concentrations/Loads
Over the Period 1986/87 to 2000/01 2
Chlorobenzenes (CBs) 3
Organochlorines Pesticides (OCs) and PCBs 3
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 4
Industrial By-Product Chemicals 4
Metals 4
Trend Graphs 4
3.0 THE BIOMONITORING PROGRAM 5
Background 5
Results 6
PCBs 7
Organochlorine Pesticides (OCs) 9
Chlorinated Benzenes (CBs) and Industrial Compounds 10
Dioxins and Furans 11
Long Term Mussel Deployment Study 12
Summary 13
4.0 STATUS AND TRENDS RELATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES 13
The Significance of Niagara River Sources 13
Comparison with Water Quality Criteria 15
Fish Consumption Advisories 16
Ontario Advisories 16
Upper Niagara River 16
Lower Niagara River 17
New York State Advisories 17
5.0 U.S. TRACKDOWN INITIATIVES 18
Two Mile Creek 18
Falls Street Tunnel 19
-------
6.0 SUMMARY 20
7.0 REFERENCES 22
WORK PLAN
2003 NRTMP Annual Work Plan W-1
ii
-------
Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP)
Progress Report and Work Plan
June 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Niagara River flows 60 kilometres or 37 miles from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario. It
serves as a source for drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat and recreation. It
generates electricity and provides employment to millions of people. Unfortunately, the
River is also the recipient of toxic chemicals that pollute its waters, and prevent us from
fully enjoying its beneficial uses.
In February 1987, Environment Canada (EC), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region II (USEPA), the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)—the "Four Parties"-
- signed the Niagara River Declaration of Intent (DOI). The purpose of the DOI is to
reduce the concentrations of toxic pollutants in the Niagara River.
Eighteen "priority toxics" were specifically targeted for reduction, ten of which were
designated for 50% reduction by 1996 because they were thought to have significant
Niagara River sources. The Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP) is the
program designed to achieve these reductions.
The Four Parties re-affirmed their commitment to the NRTMP in a "Letter of Support"
signed in December, 1996. The revised goal, as stated in that letter, is " to reduce toxic
chemical inputs to the Niagara River to achieve ambient water quality that will protect
human health, aquatic life, and wildlife, and while doing so, improve and protect water
quality in Lake Ontario as well".
The format of this Progress Report is the same as past Reports. It presents the most
recent results from the Upstream/Downstream and Biomonitoring Programs. Also
included are discussions on comparison of ambient water concentrations to the most
sensitive, agency water quality standards/criteria, fish consumption advisories, and U.S.
trackdown activities to identify sources of "priority toxics" to the Niagara River that may
require further attention. The Work Plan, included as part of this Progress Report,
outlines the activities to be undertaken by the Four Parties to achieve the goal
expressed in the Letter of Support, and to monitor and report progress towards
attainment of that goal.
The primary method for assessing progress under the NRTMP is the
Upstream/Downstream Program. The most recent results from this Program (up to
2000/01) indicate continuing, statistically significant reductions in the
concentrations/loads of most of the "priority toxics" for which there are data. Reductions
since 1986/87, when the Program began, have exceeded 70%. The reductions for most
chemicals have been due to the effectiveness of remedial activities at Niagara River
iii
-------
sources in reducing chemical inputs to the river. For other chemicals (eg., dieldrin) the
reductions have been due to reduced inputs to the river from Lake Erie/upstream.
Results from the Biomonitoring Program corroborate the decreasing trends seen in the
Upstream/Downstream data reflecting continuing improvement in the Niagara River and
its tributaries. Both the YOY (Young-of-Year)-fish, and mussel contaminant data also
reflect the effectiveness of remedial activities at hazardous waste sites. However, while
the data for most locations indicate decreasing trends, there are some locations (eg.,
upstream Gill Creek, Cayuga Creek, and downstream of Gratwick Riverside Park)
where the data suggest the new or continuing presence of contaminants. Further
monitoring will be needed to evaluate these locations. The continuing presence of
dioxins and furans in the Pettit Flume cove also needs additional assessment.
Comparison of the upper 90% confidence interval ambient water concentration data for
1999/2000 and 2000/01 with the strictest, agency water quality standards/criteria
indicates that these were exceeded for many of the NRTMP "priority toxics" at both Fort
Erie (FE) and Niagara-on-the-Lake (NOTL). The Four Parties have traditionally applied
the most stringent surface water quality criteria as part of their assessment of water
quality in the Niagara River. As noted in the 2001 NRTMP Progress Report, NYSDEC
adopted new standards pursuant to the U.S. Great Lakes Initiative in February, 1998.
For some chemicals, these new standards, in addition to being the most stringent of the
Four-Party water quality criteria, were also more stringent than the NYSDEC standards
existing prior to 1998. The exceedences in 1999/2000 and 2000/01 are due, largely, to
comparing the data to these more stringent standards, rather than significant increases
in the water concentrations of these chemicals in the river.
The 1999/2000 and 2000/01 data also indicate that the loads from Lake Erie to the
Niagara River of many of the "priority toxics", particularly the PAHs, may be increasing.
Future monitoring will confirm if, indeed, this "trend" continues. This points to the
growing importance of Lake Erie as a source of many of these contaminants to the
Niagara River, and ultimately Lake Ontario.
No changes to New York State fish consumption advisories for the Niagara River have
been issued since 1999. Re-testing of several species of fish from the upper and lower
Niagara River in 2002 by Ontario (MOE), however, resulted in the issuance of a mixture
of less restrictive and more restrictive fish consumption advisories for some size
classes, and species of fish. MOE has prepared a "Guide to the Guide" pamphlet on fish
consumption advisories Health Canada translated into 12 languages. The one page
explanation helps the various ethnic communities understand how to interpret and use
the information in the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish (MOE 2003).
NYSDEC trackdown activities in Two Mile Creek and in the Falls Street Tunnel (FST)
have verified the presence of PCBs in the Creek and PCBs and polychlorinated
dibenzo-dioxins and furans in the FST. Additional trackdown efforts and control
measures, respectively, are planned to address these findings.
iv
-------
As stated repeatedly in previous Progress Reports, despite the successes to date, and
the continued documented improvements in the Niagara River, more work needs to be
done. The adoption of new standards by NYSDEC sets new "goals" to be achieved in
terms of river water quality. Biomonitoring Program results provide evidence of the
continuing presence of low level chemical contamination in the river. Advisories to limit
consumption of sportfish caught in the Niagara River continue due to contamination by
toxic substances. And, inputs from Lake Erie might be increasing, and becoming
increasingly more important for some chemicals, which will require additional efforts
upstream. In the past year, much work has been done to define the actions necessary
to assure continued reductions of toxic chemicals in the Niagara River, and there are
substantial commitments to address current concerns as indicated in the Work Plan
accompanying this Report. Trackdown activities such as those noted above are but one
example of these. These commitments include:
• Completing the actions described in prior NRTMP Work Plans;
• Ensuring that these actions have been effective;
• Implementing additional actions to protect and restore the River; and
• Continuing and improving the public reporting of progress.
v
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In February 1987, Environment Canada (EC), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region II (USEPA), the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)—the "Four Parties"-
- signed the Niagara River Declaration of Intent (DOI) with the goal "to reduce the
concentrations of toxic pollutants in the Niagara River".
Eighteen "priority toxics" were specifically targeted for reduction, ten of which were
designated for 50% reduction from Canadian and U.S. point and non-point sources by
1996 because they were thought to have significant Niagara River sources (Table 1).
The Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP) is the program designed to
achieve these reductions, and the context for reporting progress to the public.
In December 1996, the Four Parties re-affirmed their commitment to the DOI in a "Letter
of Support". The revised goal, as stated in that letter, is "to reduce toxic chemical inputs
to the Niagara River, to achieve ambient water quality that will protect human health,
aquatic life, and wildlife, and while doing so, improve and protect water quality in Lake
Ontario as well".
Detailed Progress Reports on the NRTMP and the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management
Plan (LaMP) are now provided in alternate years. 2003 is the year for the detailed
Progress Report on the NRTMP.
The format of this 2003 Progress Report is similar to previous NRTMP reports focussing
on the results from the Upstream/Downstream and Biomonitoring Programs. Additional
concerns related to water quality are also discussed. These include comparison of
ambient water concentrations of "priority toxics" to the most stringent agency water
quality standards/objectives, fish consumption advisories, and U.S activities to
trackdown additional suspected sources of "priority toxics" to the Niagara River that may
require further attention.
The Work Plan, included as part of this Progress Report, outlines the activities to be
undertaken by the Four Parties to achieve the revised goal, and to monitor and report
on progress.
2.0 THE UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM MONITORING PROGRAM
Since 1986, the Upstream/Downstream Program has collected both water and
suspended sediment samples from the head (Fort Erie=FE), and mouth (Niagara-on-
1
the-Lake=NOTL) of the Niagara River, once every two weeks , to measure the changes
in the concentrations and loads of about 70 chemicals entering and leaving the river.
Annual mean concentrations and loads, with their 90% confidence limits, have been
estimated for each of the chemicals, in both phases, at both stations, and the results
1 Prior to April 1997, sampling was done on a weekly basis.
1
-------
summarized and released in annual, Four Party Upstream/Downstream reports (e.g.,
NRDIG 2002). Using state-of-the-art sampling and analytical methodologies, the
program has been able to detect chemicals at very low concentrations - much lower
than those attainable at sources using source monitoring program detection limits.
Both seasonal and large, week to week, fluctuations in the Niagara River
Upstream/Downstream data made discernment of trends in the concentrations and
loads difficult. This difficulty was further exacerbated by concentrations of many
chemicals, particularly organic chemicals, being below their analytical detection limits
(due to dilution by the river's high rate of flow), and the fact that the detection limits for
some chemicals changed during the period of record. A statistical procedure (model)
that dealt with "censored" (i.e., below detection) and missing data, auto-correlation and
seasonality, as well as changing analytical limits of detection was developed to
determine reliable trends over time with known confidence for measured chemicals (El-
Shaarawi and Al-lbrahim 1996).
Loads and trends for all chemicals collected as part of the Upstream/Downstream
Program over the eleven-year period 1986/87 to 1996/97 have been summarized by
Environment Canada (Williams et al. 2000). The model was run on each chemical, in
each phase (whole water for metals), at both stations for the entire period of record.
2
The ratio of the means for the end year (1996/97) to the base year (expressed as a
percent) was used to calculate an index of change over the eleven-year period of record
for each chemical. The 2001 Progress Report updated this information to 1998/99 for
the NRTMP "priority toxics". This Progress Report updates this information for the
fifteen years up to 2000/01.
Changes in the Concentrations/Loads Over the Period 1986/87 to 2000/01
3
Table 2 shows the percent change in the annual mean concentrations/loads generated
by the model in both phases, at both stations, between the base year and 2000/01 for
those NRTMP "priority toxics" for which there are data.4 A dashed line in the Table
indicates that the chemical either had too few data to run the model (e.g., most values
below detection), or insufficient data to have confidence in the model output. A positive
number indicates a significant increase (p<0.001), and a negative number a significant
decrease over this time period. "NS" signifies no significant change. [NOTE: PCB
estimates for the suspended sediment phase only are presented in the Table because
of known laboratory contamination problems with the dissolved phase analyses.] In
April, 1998, the analytical protocol for PCBs was changed to measure congeners rather
than total-PCBs (i.e., based on Aroclors). The higher PCB concentrations, starting in
2 The base year varies for different chemicals; while the program was initiated in 1986 (identified base
year in the NRTMP), additional chemicals were added to the Niagara River protocol as analytical
methods became available.
3 Note that "annual" refers to April 1 to March 31, rather than calendar year.
4 Loads were calculated using the paired particulate contaminant concentration and the suspended
sediment concentration for each individual sample (rather than the annual means), multiplied by the
mean annual flow (mean annual flow was used, because the variation in flow is relatively small).
2
-------
1998/99, are due to this change in analytical methodology. This change in protocol also
means that the decrease reported in Table 2 between the base year and 2000/01 is
probably slightly less than what would have been reported had the analytical
methodology not changed. It is also important to note that the analytical detection limits
used in the Upstream/Downstream Program were lowered considerably starting in April
1999. This is true for both the particulate and dissolved phase concentrations of all
contaminants. The change in some cases was as much as an order-of-magnitude. For
example, the detection limit for the dissolved phase concentration of benzo(a)pyrene
[B(a)P] changed from 0.24 ng/L to 0.01 ng/L. Similarly, the detection limit for the
particulate phase changed from 161 ng/g to 33.7 ng/g. The result of these changes is
that many chemicals, which were previously at "less than detection", are now above the
detection limit (i.e., "detected"). This has the effect of lowering the tail (right hand end)
of the trend graph, making the changes observed between the base year and 2000/01
greater than had use of the old detection limits been continued.
In addition, it should be noted that the mean flow of the Niagara River in 1999/2000 and
2000/01 was the lowest since the Upstream/Downstream Program began in 1986/87
(Figure 1). Since the mean annual flow is used to calculate loads as noted above, the
loads in these two years would also be reduced. This means that the change in loads
observed between the base year and 2000/01 would be greater.
The effects of the lower detection limits and reduced mean annual flows on trends are
evident in the results presented in Table 2. For example, some chemicals (a-chlordane,
ppDDT, ppDDE), which were previously reported (in the 2001 Progress Report) as
showing no significant trend (NS), now exhibit significant decreases in concentrations
and/or loads. Thus, the larger decreases in concentrations/loads reported in Table 2
may be due, in large part, to the use of the much lower detection limits starting in April,
1999. Notwithstanding this, the results presented in this Progress Report still confirm
those presented in previous reports. The statistically significant downward trends still
continue. Briefly, the results show the following:
Chlorobenzenes (CBs)
The reduction in the dissolved phase concentrations and loads of hexachlorobenzene
(HCB) at NOTL over the period 1986/87 to 2000/01 has been greater than 70%. The
decrease over this fifteen-year period differs only by a few percent from that estimated
up to 1998/99 reported in the 2001 Progress Report. Although the decrease at FE was
also significant, the model output was discarded because most of the concentrations
were "trace" (i.e., below the detection limit). As noted in previous Progress Reports,
these results clearly indicate that the reductions observed at NOTL are due to reducing
HCB inputs to the Niagara River from Niagara River sources.
Organochlorine Pesticides (OCs) and PCBs
In general, both the concentrations and loads of nearly all NRTMP OC "priority toxics"
(and PCBs) have continued to decrease significantly, in one or both phases, at both FE
3
-------
and NOTL. Decreases in only one phase was most often due to insufficient data in the
other phase to determine change. This is probably due to the different partitioning of
the chemical between the dissolved and particulate phases. The decreases (in
concentrations and/or loads) ranged between 27.6% (mirex) and 92.4% (dieldrin).
Decreases at both stations were, generally, of similar magnitude. While the particulate
phase concentration of mirex at NOTL has decreased only slightly, the load has
decreased by greater than 75%. This is probably because mirex appears only, as
intermittent "spikes", in the particulate phase. However, because mirex is only detected
at NOTL, this reduction is clearly due to the effectiveness of remedial activities at
Niagara River sources. The recent reduction in mirex concentrations in coho
('Onorhynchus kisutch) and Chinook (0. tshawytscha) salmon from Lake Ontario have
resulted from reduced loads to the lake. These reduced loads were attributed to
remedial actions taken at the Occidental Chemical, Buffalo Avenue plant, and at the
Hyde Park hazardous waste site (Makarewicz et al. 2003).
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Of all the chemicals analyzed in the Upstream/Downstream Program, results for the
PAHs have been the most variable. The concentrations and/or loads between the base
year and 2000/01 decreased for some, increased for others, and for yet others,
exhibited no significant change. For several of the PAHs, changes were significant at
only one of the stations or in only one phase. For example, benzo(a)pyrene [B(a)P]
exhibited a significant increase in particulate phase concentrations, but a significant
decrease in particulate phase loads at both FE and NOTL over the fifteen-year period.
This reduction in B(a)P load is probably due to a decrease in the suspended particulate
material (SPM) concentrations, as well as the reduction in flows, that have occurred
over this time period as noted above.
Industrial By-Product Chemicals
Octachlorostyrene (OCS) was detected only in the particulate phase at NOTL. Its
concentration and load have decreased by greater than 90% over the fifteen-year
period up to 2000/01. Again, this clearly indicates success in controlling inputs of OCS
from Niagara River sources.
Metals
The concentrations/loads of lead have decreased by greater than 65% at FE and
greater than 80% at NOTL between 1986/87 and 2000/01. Arsenic continues to exhibit
no significant trend at either station. Analysis of mercury in water was discontinued in
1996/97 pending development of an analytical method with a more sensitive detection
limit. Analysis of mercury recommenced in 2001/02.
4
-------
Trend Graphs
In generating the output for constructing Table 2, the model also generated trend plots
for both the dissolved and suspended sediment phases, at both stations, for each of the
"priority toxics" shown in the Table. Figures 2 to 5 show the trends for HCB, dieldrin,
PCB, and OCS respectively, at NOTL over the period 1986/87 to 2000/01. As noted
above, the step increase in PCB concentrations in April 1998 is due to the change in the
analytical methodology from total-PCBs (i.e., Aroclors) to PCB congeners.
In summary, both the concentrations and loads of most of the NRTMP "priority toxics"
shown in Table 2 continue to decrease, indicating continuing improvements in Niagara
River water quality.5 The larger decreases in concentrations/loads reported in this year's
Progress Report vis a vis those reported in 2001 may be due, in large part, to the effect
of lowering the detection limits in April, 1999. The reduced loads may also be due to
the significantly reduced flows in 1999/2000 and 2000/01. As stated in previous
Progress Reports, the overall rate of change, has slowed considerably in recent years
as evidenced by the plots for HCB, PCB and OCS. The trends have flattened out
considerably compared to the more rapid changes observed at the beginning of the
Upstream/Downstream Program in 1986/87. The notable exception is dieldrin, which
continues an almost linear decrease at both stations. Similar decreases have been
noted in Lake Erie dieldrin concentrations and are probably due to the "outgassing" of
dieldrin from the lake (Williams et al. 2001).
3.0 THE BIOMONITORING PROGRAM
Background
Many chemicals that would not otherwise be detected in water because of their low
concentrations, concentrate in the tissues of aquatic organisms. In the Niagara River,
three long-term biomonitoring efforts have been used to track the concentration of
contaminants in aquatic organisms collected from, or deployed within, the Niagara River
and its tributaries.
Since 1980, MOE has conducted both routine and specialized biomonitoring of
contaminants in the Niagara River using caged mussels (Elliptic) complanata). Mussels
(biomonitors) from an uncontaminated (control) site are placed for a specified time to
accumulate contaminants in an environment that is known, or suspected, of being
contaminated with persistent bioaccumulative substances. They are then removed and
analyzed to determine tissue contaminant concentrations. This program has provided
information on suspected contaminant sources/source areas in the river between FE
and NOTL. The location of sampling stations in the Niagara River have remained fairly
consistent, although different stations may have been sampled in different years.
Sampling frequency has recently changed from every two years to every three years,
with the most recent surveys having been conducted in 1997 and 2000. In July 2000,
5 The exceptions are benzo(a)pyrene [B(a)P] and benzo(b/k)fluoranthene.
5
-------
caged mussels were deployed for 21 days at 30 stations on the Canadian and U.S.
sides of the Niagara River (Figure 6). Caged mussels were also placed for a period of
four months at a station in Two Mile Creek to determine the pattern of PCB uptake over
time. Mussels were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCs), total PCBs,
chlorinated benzenes (CBs) and industrial compounds. Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDDs, PCDFs) were analyzed in a
composite mussel sample (4 mussels) from eight of these sites, and surficial sediments
were collected from nine of the sites for PCDD/PCDF analyses (for specific locations
see Table 3). The spatial distribution of contaminant concentrations observed in the
mussel tissue in the 2000 survey were similar to those observed in previous surveys.
Highlights are briefly summarized below. More detail can be found in Richman (2003).
Juvenile (young-of-year; YOY) forage fish, principally spottail shiners (Notropis
hudsonius), have been collected by both MOE and NYSDEC from several sites in the
Niagara River and analyzed for contaminants. YOY-fish have limited home ranges near
shore, and are of known age, making them useful indicators of local, recent, chemical
inputs to the aquatic ecosystem.
MOE has collected YOY-fish at NOTL since 1975, and from several other Canadian and
U.S. locations at least every other year since the early 1980s. The most recent
collections were in 1999, 2000 and 2001 (Figure 7). In 2000, MOE collected spottail
shiners (Notropis hudsonius) from eight locations in the upper and lower Niagara River
(see Table 5). Common Shiners (Notropis cornutus) were collected as an alternative
species at one location in the upper Niagara River, where spottail shiners were not
available. In 2001, MOE collected spottail shiners from eleven locations in the upper
and lower Niagara River.
NYSDEC has collected YOY-fish as part of its continuing contaminant monitoring
program initiated by the Department in the late 1970s. Surveys are now performed on a
5-year basis, as program resources allow. The most recent collection was in 1997. In
August and September 1997, composite samples of YOY-fish were collected from 35
near-shore locations in New York's Great Lakes Basin, including 14 from the Niagara
River (between Strawberry Island and the Lewiston Boat Launch) and its U.S. tributaries
(Figure 8). Samples were analyzed for PCBs (Aroclor 1016/1248, Aroclor 1254/1260
and PCB congeners), organochlorine pesticides (DDT and metabolites, mirex and
photomirex, dieldrin, chlordane, hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and lindane [y-HCH]) and
mercury. Composite samples from eight of the Niagara River locations were also
analyzed for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and furan congeners. In general,
comparison of the 1997 results with those for previous years indicated that the
concentrations of nearly all contaminants continued to decrease, or remained stable at
low levels. Highlights are briefly summarized below. More detail can be found in
Preddice et a/. (2002).
6
-------
Results
Results for the Biomonitoring Program are presented below by
contaminant/contaminant class. For each of these, findings are presented in
chronological order, starting with the NYSDEC YOY-fish monitoring (1997), and
proceeding through MOE's mussel biomonitoring program (2000), and then the MOE
YOY-fish monitoring results (2000/01). At some commonly monitored areas additional
remediation has occurred subsequent to NYSDEC's 1997 monitoring, but prior to
MOE's mussel deployment and YOY monitoring. Where possible, findings from these
three data sets are compared to examine the success of these remedial activities.
(NOTE: all concentrations are expressed on a wet weight basis).
PCBs
Table 4 presents the concentrations of PCBs, and other priority contaminants, found in
NYSDEC's YOY-fish at various locations that exceeded protective wildlife criteria in
1997. Of the 14 locations sampled by NYSDEC's YOY monitoring program, PCB
concentrations at five locations were either non-detect, or below the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Aquatic Life Guideline of 100 ng/g for the protection offish
consuming wildlife. Exceedences were observed at nine locations, with the most
elevated concentrations occurring at lower Gill Creek (2190 ng/g); Bergholtz Creek (594
ng/g); and, Gratwick Riverside Park (259 ng/g). Follow-up monitoring is recommended
for Bergholtz Creek, where remedial systems brought on line upstream of the site in the
late 1990s may have lowered PCB levels; and, Gratwick-Riverside Park where landfill
remediation was completed in 2001, but observed PCB concentrations suggest an
upstream source. Similarly, for Gill Creek, contaminated sediment removed upstream
of the site in 1998-1999 may result in lower PCBs. Follow-up YOY-fish monitoring is
suggested to confirm this. MOE's 2000 mussel data, however, does suggest that
removal of the contaminated sediment has, indeed, lowered the PCB concentrations
upstream, at least in mussels.
Similar to NYSDEC's findings for YOY-fish collected from lower Gill Creek, just
upstream of Buffalo Avenue, previous MOE mussel data for Gill Creek indicated high
total PCB concentrations observed in mussels deployed at a MOE's nearby site (i.e.,
upstream of Buffalo Avenue=Route 384). Note that both sites are upstream of the area
of the Creek that was previously remediated in 1992 (from the creek mouth up to
Buffalo Avenue). The high PCB concentrations in mussels previously deployed near
Buffalo Avenue appear to corroborate NYSDEC's explanation for the high PCB
concentrations observed in YOY-fish collected from that area. Namely, that as a result
of the daily flow reversals in the Creek, which occur when water is withdrawn from the
Niagara River for power generation, contaminated sediment from the lower Creek had
been transported upstream and probably settled-out in the deeper, slower moving
section of the Creek upstream between Buffalo Avenue and Falls Street. After
remediation of this sluggish section of the creek in 1998-1999, the concentrations of
PCBs in mussels deployed at MOE's site upstream of Buffalo Avenue in 2000 were
similar to those observed in mussels at most sites along the Niagara River (i.e., mean of
7
-------
80 ng/g). This can be contrasted with pre-sediment remediation mussel PCB
concentrations of 157 ng/g (SD 27.7 ng/g), and 200 ng/g (SD 138.5 ng/g) in 1993 and
1995, respectively and suggests that the 1998-99 upstream removal of the
contaminated sediment has, indeed, lowered the PCB concentrations in mussels at the
this site. A similar decline in total PCB mussel concentrations was previously observed
at MOE's site near the mouth of Gill Creek after the 1992 remediation of contaminated
sediments upstream of that station [e.g., mean concentrations ranged from a high of
2,623 ng/g (SD 745 ng/g) in 1991 to 50 ng/g (SD 12 ng/g) in 2000], Additional data
collection is recommended to see if similar trends are observed in YOY-fish collected
from the Creek.
The presence/absence of PCBs, and other contaminants, in mussels at Canadian and
other U.S. sites are shown in Table 3. Trace concentrations of PCBs were detected in
Lyons Creek and at NOTL on the Canadian side, and at most stations on the U.S. side.
The source of PCBs to Lyons Creek is currently being investigated, as is the feasibility
of doing sediment remediation. PCBs detected at NOTL likely reflect concentrations in
the lower Niagara River rather than a local point source. Future biomonitoring will verify
the presence/trends in PCBs at the NOTL site.
PCB concentrations in mussels at all U.S. sites were generally similar, with the
exception of the high concentrations (range 240 to 340 ng/g) at a site located about 15
m downstream of an inactive sewer associated with Occidental's Buffalo Avenue plant.
PCB concentrations in mussels deployed at all remaining sewers associated with the
Occidental plant tended to fall within the range detected in mussels deployed at other
Niagara River stations. High concentrations have previously been detected in mussels
deployed at this specific outfall (eg., 322 ng/g and 260 ng/g in 1993 and 1995,
respectively). The anomalously elevated concentrations at this location provide strong
evidence of increased exposure to PCBs, particularly when viewed in conjunction with
1993 and 1995 data. This data anomaly should be investigated further.
The results of MOE's YOY monitoring for PCBs from 1975 to 2002 are shown in Figure
9. The more recent results for PCBs as well as other contaminants (total-DDT, mirex,
OCS and HCB) over the period 1999-2001 are summarized in Table 5. Figure 9 shows
that PCB concentrations at all five MOE YOY sites in the upper Niagara River have
decreased since the program began. However, the more recent data suggest that there
has been very little change in PCB concentrations over the period 1999-2001. Samples
collected at Fort Erie and Frenchman's Creek, on the Canadian side, remain below the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Aquatic Life Guideline of 100 ng/g. At
Wheatfield and 102nd Street, on the U.S. side of the upper river, PCB concentrations
remain above the Aquatic Life Guideline, but are below 200 ng/g. PCB concentrations
in forage fish at Cayuga Creek still remain over 200 ng/g. In 2001, MOE collected
spottail shiners at a new location near the North Grand Island Bridge. In future, this
location will replace the Search and Rescue location where forage fish are difficult to
collect. PCB concentrations at this new location exceeded the Aquatic Life Guideline,
whereas at the Search and Rescue location concentrations were below it.
8
-------
In general, the PCB mussel and YOY-data for most of the sites are consistent with
those obtained from previous sampling efforts. As noted above, data from the
Upstream/Downstream Program clearly show that PCB contamination in the river has
been reduced, probably in response to the remediation of hazardous waste sites, in
addition to other sources. The continuing detection of PCBs in Niagara River biota,
however, attests to the pervasiveness of PCB contamination in the river. Given the
ubiquitous nature of PCBs, it is likely that this contamination will continue some time into
the future.
Organochlorine Pesticides (OCs)
DDT and metabolites, especially DDE (a metabolite of the pesticide DDT), were
detected in NYSDEC YOY-fish samples from all 14 locations, but none of the
concentrations exceeded protective wildlife criteria. The highest concentration of total
DDT (44.0 ng/g) was found in YOY-fish from Gill Creek and may suggest an upstream
source (Table 4). This concentration, however, was less than five percent of the
GLWQA most protective criterion for total DDT (1000 ng/g). Similarly, MOE mussel
data indicated trace concentrations of ppDDE at three of the five stations on the
Canadian side of the river, and at almost all stations on the U.S. side (Table 3). The
presence of ppDDE in both mussels and fish is probably due to the historical use of
DDT in the Lake Erie and the Niagara River watersheds. Concentrations of the DDT
found in MOE YOY-fish samples from the upper Niagara River are low and appear to be
similar to previous collections (Table 5).
Low concentrations of mirex in NYSDEC YOY-fish samples at nine of the 14 locations
exceeded the GLWQA protective wildlife criterion of "less than detection". The highest
mirex concentration (97.3 ng/g) was observed in a composite sample from Cayuga
Creek, at Porter Road. This concentration, however, was still below the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (USFDA) fish consumption criterion (100 ng/g) designed to protect
the human fish consumer (Table 4). No photomirex was detected in any NYSDEC YOY-
fish samples from the Niagara River. Mirex was not detected in any of the mussels
deployed in the river in 2000 by MOE, or in any of the 2001 MOE YOY-fish from either
the upper or lower Niagara River. The absence of mirex in these mussels and fish,
however, does not mean that it is no longer entering the river as is clearly shown by the
Upstream/Downstream Program data.
Dieldrin was detected at low concentrations (<6 ng/g) only in NYSDEC YOY-fish from
upstream Cayuga Creek, at Porter Road. The concentrations were less than one-
quarter of the most protective wildlife criterion (22 ng/g dietary criterion for mink).
Similarly, low concentrations of chlordane (<18 ng/g) in YOY-fish were detected only in
upstream Cayuga Creek, at Porter Road. These concentrations were an order-of-
magnitude less than the most protective wildlife criterion (370 ng/g dietary cancer
criterion for mink). However, the YOY-fish data for dieldrin and chlordane (as well as
PCBs, DDT, and mirex) suggest a contaminant source upstream from Porter Road.
9
-------
MOE mussel data for chlordane, like other OCs, was sporadic with concentrations being
similar to those seen in previous surveys.
The insecticide y-HCH (lindane) was found at low levels in NYSDEC YOY-fish only from
Gill Creek and Cayuga Creek, at Cayuga Drive (Table 4). Its concentration in fish
collected from lower Gill Creek just upstream of Buffalo Avenue (104 ng/g) exceeded
the most protective wildlife criterion (100 ng/g for fish consuming wildlife), but was less
than the dietary cancer criterion (510 ng/g) for mink. Similarly, MOE mussel data
indicate HCH has been consistently detected at Gill Creek since 1987, either at the
mouth, or at MOE's upstream station (north of Buffalo Avenue=Route 384) (Table 3). In
2000, the highest concentrations (2 to 26 ng/g, ) of all three HCH isomers (a-HCH, p-
HCH and y-HCH) were found in Gill Creek at MOE's upstream station. Although the
2000 mussel data indicate somewhat lower concentrations than the 1997 pre-
remediation NYSDEC data, the detection of HCH in both YOY-fish and mussels
collected from this creek indicate the need for follow-up monitoring. In contrast, at the
102nd Street site, all three HCH isomers were consistently detected prior to site
remediation in 1996 when construction of a coffer dam and slurry wall were completed.
The absence of HCH in mussels in 1997 and 2000 suggests that these remedial
activities have been effective in reducing the presence and bioavailability of this
contaminant.
Chlorinated Benzenes (CBs) and Industrial Compounds
HCB was most commonly detected in NYSDEC YOY-fish from the Pettit Flume, lower
Gill Creek, and all three Cayuga Creek locations. As was the case for several of the
contaminants noted above, the highest concentration (<8 ng/g) was found in upstream
Cayuga Creek, at Porter Road. The concentrations, however, were well below the most
protective criterion (200 ng/g dietary cancer criterion for mink). MOE's mussel data for
chlorinated benzenes and industrial compounds, indicate the most frequently detected
compounds at U.S. sites were HCB, pentachlorobenzene and hexachlorbutadiene
(HCBD), with the highest concentrations of HCB, pentachlorbenzene and 1,2,3,4-
tetrachlorobenzene, found at the mouth of Bloody Run Creek and at Occidental's
Buffalo Avenue Sewer 003 (Table 3). HCB and pentachlorobenzene concentrations at
both these sites in 2000 were consistent with those previously observed throughout the
1990s. In contrast, no tri- to hexachlorobenzenes were detected in mussels deployed at
the 102nd Street hazardous waste site in 2000. This is similar to the results obtained in
1997. As noted for HCH above, these observations appear to further corroborate that
the installation of the slurry wall around the site and removal of contaminated sediment
from the river in 1996 have successfully prevented contaminants getting from the site to
the river. Similarly, the concentrations of chlorinated benzenes in mussels deployed at
the Pettit Flume have been consistently low since the site was remediated in 1995
suggesting that remediation has been successful in reducing the bioavailabilty of
chlorinated benzenes to mussels. HCB was detected in YOY-fish collected by MOE at
most U.S. sites, but no Canadian sites, in the upper Niagara River. Concentrations in
the upper river were low and appeared to be similar to those observed in previous
collections. In contrast, HCB was detected at all four sampling locations in the lower
10
-------
Niagara River at concentrations slightly higher than those in the upper river (Table 5).
This is probably due to water in the lower river being well-mixed by the rapids, the Falls,
the whirlpool and the power plant inputs. The Upstream/Downstream Program results
clearly show that HCB is entering the river from Niagara River sources.
Trace concentrations of octachlorostyrene (OCS) were observed only in mussels
deployed between sewer C and sewer 003 at Occidental's Buffalo Avenue Plant. As
with HCB, concentrations of OCS in MOE's YOY-fish samples from the upper Niagara
River are low and appear to be similar to previous collections. In the lower Niagara
River, OCS was detected at low concentrations at all four locations in 2000, but was not
detected in 2001. The highest concentrations of HCBD were found in mussels at
Occidental sewer 003 (46+5.3 ng/g) and Gill Creek (19+2.1 ng/g). Their presence at
these sites was consistent with the observations from previous surveys.
Dioxins and Furans
NYSDEC 1997 YOY-fish data indicated total dioxin and furan congener concentrations
(including estimated maximum possible concentration; EMPC) have decreased an
average of 41 percent since 1992. The most elevated concentrations occurred at the
upstream Little River (132.34 pg/g), Pettit Flume (111.87 pg/g), downstream Little River
(88.51 pg/g), and Gratwick-Riverside Park (61.47 pg/g) locations. Concentrations at the
upstream and downstream Little River sites in 1997 were 14% and 80% less at these
two sites, respectively, than the concentrations observed previously in 1992. A spatial
comparison of Niagara River YOY dioxin and furan data indicated the Pettit Flume to be
a significant source of dioxins and furans to the Niagara River. The data further
suggested a source of dioxins and furans may be present between Gratwick-Riverside
Park and the upstream Little River site. However, given the recent remediation of the
Gratwick-Riverside and 102nd Street landfills, follow-up post-remediation monitoring is
recommended to confirm this.
The concentrations of dioxins and furans in mussels were low (TEQ<1.0 pg/g) at all
sites, with the exception of Pettit Flume (TEQ=78.4 pg/g) and in the Niagara River in the
vicinity of Bloody Run Creek (TEQ=23.7 pg/g). Figure 10 shows the mussel data for
dioxin and furan isomers at the Pettit Flume. The similarity in the isomer patterns seen
in the mussels (and sediment, see below) in 1993, 1997 and 2000 suggests a common
source. Similarly, dioxin and furan concentrations in sediment were generally low
(TEQ<20 pg/g) with the exception of the sites noted below. Note that the
concentrations of dioxins and furans in mussels and sediment are expressed in terms of
total toxic equivalents (TEQ). Briefly, the TEQ provides an indication of the toxicity of
dioxins and furans in the sample relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the most toxic dioxin isomer.
The higher the TEQ, the more contaminated the sample. The calculated TEQs can be
compared to sediment quality guidelines and tissue sediment guidelines (SQG), where
available, to put them into perspective.
Similar to the NYSDEC YOY-fish and MOE mussel data, high concentrations of dioxins
and furans were also found in sediment at the Pettit Flume inlet cove in 2000 (Figure
11
-------
11). The sediment TEQ of 30,250 pg/g indicated extremely contaminated sediment.
The source of these dioxins and furans is unclear given the recent, extensive remedial
activities at the site, which occurred just months prior to mussel deployment. The
continuing presence of dioxins and furans in the cove requires further monitoring.
The concentrations of dioxins and furans in sediments (and mussels) from the Niagara
River shoreline in the vicinity of Bloody Run Creek were considerably lower in 2000,
than those observed in previous surveys. However, the sediment along the shoreline
has not been remediated, so the 2000 data likely reflected the variability in local
contamination rather than an improvement or decrease in sediment contamination.
Concentrations of dioxins and furans in both mussels and sediments still suggest that
this site is contaminated (sediment TEQ of 3,732 pg/g) and should continue to be
monitored.
Sediment collected from Two Mile Creek, and from the station in Gill Creek upstream of
the creek mouth, were contaminated with dioxins and furans. The TEQs for the
sediment samples were 81 and 100 pg/g respectively. The sediment collected from Gill
Creek is of particular interest, since the area was remediated in 1998. These data
suggest a recent source of dioxins and furans.
As noted above, these sediment concentrations can be put into perspective by
comparing them with sediment quality guidelines. Ontario does not have a Sediment
Quality Guideline (SQG) for dioxins and furans, at present. However, the interim "No
Effect Level" guideline for 2,3,7,8-T4CDD has been set at 25.7 pg/g. Similarly, the
Canadian Environmental Quality "probable effect level" Guideline has been set at 21.5
pg/g (CCME2001).
Long Term Mussel Deployment Study
Results from the MOE long-term deployment study of mussels from July to October,
2000 (up to 105 days) showed that mussels rapidly accumulate PCBs over the first 48
hrs, after which time, concentrations level off. Concentrations tend to remain at this
level unless the mussels are exposed to an increase in ambient PCB concentrations. If
they are, mussel tissue concentrations again rapidly increase and then level off at a new
steady state. These results confirm that 21 days is sufficient exposure time for PCB
accumulation by Elliptic) complanata providing there are no changes in the exposure
environment.
The staggered deployment and retrieval of mussels in this study provided a better
understanding of the patterns of PCB bioaccumulation than the study design in 1997
(Richman 1999). The results from the 1997 study suggested that 21 days may be
insufficient to assess maximum PCB accumulation. However, it was not known if
mussel tissue concentrations increased over time due to a change in water quality or
due to a delay in reaching steady state. However, the results from Two Mile Creek in
2000 suggested that the 21 day survey was sufficient to provide a good indication of the
contamination of the area in which the mussels were deployed provided there were no
12
-------
changes in exposure. In addition to physiological changes that may occur and have not
been accounted for in this study, the environment is in a constant state of flux due to
external forces such as storm events or fluctuations in contaminant loadings from local
industries. The data suggest that the mussel tissue concentrations will respond to this
dynamic environment. The disadvantage of a short term monitoring program using
introduced organisms is that significant contaminant inputs can be missed if they occur
outside the designated period of biomonitoring.
Summary
The data from all Biomonitoring Program activities corroborate the decreasing trends
seen in the Upstream/Downstream data reflecting continuing improvement in the
Niagara River and its U.S. tributaries. Both the YOY-fish, and mussel contaminant data
also reflect the effectiveness of remedial activities at hazardous waste sites. However,
while the data for most locations indicate decreasing trends, there are some locations
(eg., upstream Gill Creek, Cayuga Creek, and downstream of Gratwick Riverside Park)
where the data suggest the new or continuing presence of contaminants. Further
monitoring will be needed to evaluate these locations. The continuing presence of
dioxins and furans in the Pettit Flume cove also need additional assessment.
4.0 STATUS AND TRENDS RELATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
The Niagara River contributes 83% of the total tributary inflow to Lake Ontario.
Contaminants originating from the upper Great Lakes, Lake Erie, and from sources
along the river enter the lake with this inflow. There is a critical link between the water
quality of Lake Ontario, and contaminants entering the lake from the river. For example,
the six critical pollutants identified in the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan
(PCBs, DDT and metabolites, dieldrin, mirex, TCDD and mercury) are also designated
as "priority toxics" in the NRTMP. Critical pollutants are chemicals, which are causing
beneficial use impairments on a lakewide basis. Similarly, many of the NRTMP "priority
toxics" have also been identified in the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan as
causing beneficial use impairments. Thus, the NRTMP is closely linked to both the Lake
Ontario and Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs).
The Significance of Niagara River Sources
Chemical inputs to the Niagara River impact both the river and Lake Ontario. For
example, these chemicals can contribute to exceedences of water and sediment quality
criteria, and/or necessitate the issuance of fish consumption advisories. The Niagara
River is a major source of many chemicals to Lake Ontario as indicated by the surficial
sediment chemical distribution patterns in the lake (Thomas et al. 1988). The depth
distributions of chemicals in dated sediment cores collected from Lake Ontario in the
vicinity of the Niagara River also show the changes in Niagara River inputs over time.
For example, the changes in concentrations of some chemicals along the length of the
core mirror their production history at plants located along the river (Durham and Oliver
1983). For other chemicals, the changes relate both to the effectiveness of remediation
13
-------
of sources along the length of the river, and reductions in inputs to the river from Lake
Erie/upstream (Mudroch 1983; Swart ef al. 1996)
The relative significance of Niagara River sources versus those in Lake Erie and
upstream vis a vis the loads of the "priority toxics" to Lake Ontario can be estimated
from the ratio:
(NOTL - FE)
NOTL
where, NOTL and FE represent the recombined whole water (RWW; dissolved +
suspended sediment) loads at Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie, and (NOTL-FE),
called the "differential load", represents the load from sources along the river (Williams
et al. 2000). The ratio should vary between zero and one. The higher the value, the
greater the relative contribution of Niagara River sources to the load entering Lake
Ontario. A ratio of one, for example, indicates that the load to the lake is due primarily
to inputs from Niagara River sources. Conversely, a ratio of zero, indicates that most of
the load to Lake Ontario comes from Lake Erie and sources upstream.
Table 6 shows the ratio for each of the years from 1986/87 to 2000/01, for each of the
chemicals in Table 2 with the exception of PCBs and mercury. The chemicals have
been ordered in terms of decreasing overall mean ratio for this period. Excluding the
negative results for DDT (see below), the overall mean ratio varies from 1.0 for mirex
and OCS to 0.0 for dieldrin and lead. This indicates that the loads of mirex and OCS to
Lake Ontario from the river come principally from Niagara River sources, while those for
dieldrin and lead, come primarily from sources in Lake Erie and upstream. For the
PAHs, about half the load to Lake Ontario appears to come from Niagara River sources,
while the other half comes from sources upstream of the river. Similarly, nearly all the
arsenic and lead come from sources upstream of the river. The general consistency of
this ratio over time for most of the "priority toxics" lends credibility to the usefulness of
this approach. For example, Niagara River sources have been implicated since the
inception of the Upstream/Downstream Program in terms of the loads of mirex, OCS
and HCB to Lake Ontario. Conversely, Lake Erie and upsteam sources have been
implicated consistently in terms of DDT + metabolites and dieldrin loads to the lake.
Table 6 clearly points to the growing importance of Lake Erie as a source of many of the
NRTMP "priority toxics" to the Niagara River, and ultimately Lake Ontario. For example,
the 2000/01 data in Table 6 show that the ratio of the differential load to the load at
NOTL is negative for the PAHs and the organochlorine pesticides. This is because the
differential load is negative. This means that loads coming into the river from Lake Erie
are higher than the loads going from the river into Lake Ontario. Previous Progress
Reports have commented on the increases in PAHs entering the river from Lake Erie
and speculated on the possible reasons. For example, several principal investigators
have documented the increases in bottom sediment PAH concentrations in Lake Erie
related to mussel colonization of the eastern basin (Howell et al. 1996; Marvin and
14
-------
Howell 1997). As changes in sediment characteristics (e.g., smaller particle size, higher
organic content) are associated with mussel colonization, it is not surprising that the
increases in PAH loads occur principally in the particulate fraction where contaminant
concentrations are related to the particle's organic content. Regardless of the reasons
for these apparent increases, the Four Parties will be carefully monitoring this situation
to determine if it is indicative of a continuing "trend".
Comparison with Water Quality Criteria
The 18 NRTMP "priority toxics" were selected based on their exceedence of water, fish
or sediment criteria in the Niagara River or Lake Ontario (Categorization Committee
1990). Comparing the Niagara River Upstream/Downstream Program concentration
data to available water quality criteria is one way of assessing the threat to aquatic life,
and the real, or potential, impairment of beneficial uses. Such a comparison can also
serve as an indicator of progress. The approach used by the Four Parties, since the
inception of the NRTMP, has been to compare the upper 90% confidence interval
recombined whole water (RWW) concentrations (i.e., dissolved + particulate phases) of
a chemical to the most stringent agency criterion for that chemical (e.g., see NRDIG
2002). The upper 90% confidence interval concentration provides a more protective
estimate of criteria exceedences than the annual mean. This approach is also used in
this report. It is important to note, that the increases in exceedences reported below
result largely from comparing Upstream/Downstream Program data to more stringent
criteria adopted in 1998, rather than significant increases in concentrations.
Table 7 shows the upper 90% confidence interval RWW concentrations from the
1999/2000 and 2000/01 Upstream/Downstream Program data and the 1998 most
stringent agency water quality criteria. The pre-1998 criteria are also shown for
comparison. Briefly, the Table shows that in both 1999/2000 and 2000/01, the upper
90% confidence interval concentrations for the majority of NRTMP "priority toxics" were
exceeded at NOTL. The exceptions were total chlordane, ppTDE, total-DDT, OCS and
the metals.6 HCB, ppTDE, total DDT, mirex, OCS (both only detected at NOTL) and
the metals never exceeded criteria at FE. Total chlordane, and B(a)P exceeded criteria
in 2000/01, but not in 1999/2000.
For many of the "priority toxics", the NYSDEC standards are the most stringent Four
Party water quality criteria. In February 1998, NYSDEC adopted new standards
pursuant to the U.S. Great Lakes Initiative. For some chemicals, the new standards
were much more stringent than the standards existing prior to 1998. For example, the
most stringent pre-1998 criterion for dieldrin was 0.9 ng/L and is now 0.0006 ng/L.
Similarly, the most stringent pre-1998 criterion for mirex was 1.0 ng/L and is now 0.001
ng/L. As stated in the 2001 Progress Report, the increase in criteria exceedences
subsequent to 1997/98 resulted largely from comparing the data to these more stringent
standards, rather than significant increases in chemical concentrations.
® Although RWW concentrations for PCBs were not calculated because of dissolved phase
contamination problems, it should be noted that the concentrations in the particulate phase alone are
sufficient to exceed the strictest agency criterion.
15
-------
The most stringent NYSDEC criteria are generally based on human health. The
1999/2000 and 2000/01 upper 90% confidence interval RWW concentrations for many
of the NRTMP "priority toxics" exceed these criteria. It is worth noting, however, that the
ambient concentrations of these same chemicals are already below many of the most
stringent agency criteria for other categories such as the protection of drinking water
and the protection of aquatic life (Table 8).
As with Table 6, Table 7 also points to the growing importance of Lake Erie as a source
of many of the NRTMP "priority toxics" to the Niagara River, and ultimately Lake
Ontario. The Table shows, for example, that the concentrations of a number of the
NRTMP "priority toxics", particularly the PAHs, exceed the most stringent agency
criteria at FE as well as NOTL.
It is also worth noting that low concentrations of contaminants in the Niagara River,
when multiplied by the high flow of the river (>5300 m3/sec) may still translate into
substantial contaminant loads to Lake Ontario (Mudroch and Williams 1989). Given the
persistence of many of these chemicals, this means that there may still be the potential
for problems in Lake Ontario related to inputs from Niagara River and other Lake
Erie/upstream sources for some time to come.
Fish Consumption Advisories
Both New York State and Ontario issue advice regarding consumption of sport fish
caught in their waters.
Ontario Advisories
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment issues advice regarding consumption of sport
fish caught in their waters in the biennial Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish (MOE
2003). The 2003-2004 edition of the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish provides
consumption advice for 14 species of fish in the Upper Niagara River and 19 species in
the Lower Niagara River. The current Ontario advisories for fish taken from the Niagara
River are summarized in Table 9. The 2003-2004 Guide or portions, thereof, are
available from http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/guide/index.htm.
Upper Niagara River
In 2002, seven species of fish were collected for testing by the MOE. These included
largemouth bass, yellow perch, white perch, rock bass, brown bullhead, carp and
freshwater drum. Six of these species provided updated information to the Guide. White
perch were collected for the first time at this location.
The following changes and additions were made to the Guide using the new information
collected in 2002. Consumption of largemouth bass between 35 and 45 cm is now
restricted to four meals per month. Previously, consumption was not restricted
16
-------
(advisory of up to eight meals per month) in this size range. Consumption of carp 55
cm and larger is now restricted. Previously, carp were restricted at 65 cm and larger.
Freshwater drum, which were previously restricted at 35 cm, now do not have any
consumption restrictions. Advice for white sucker has been added in the 45-55 cm size
range, and consumption is now restricted for white sucker between 45 and 55 cm.
Additional advice has been added for smallmouth bass between 45-55 cm in size, with
consumption restricted to four meals per month.
As a result, of the 14 species in the Upper Niagara River listed in the 2003-2004 Guide,
seven have no consumption restrictions. Of the remaining seven species, smallmouth
bass, white bass, carp, white sucker and rainbow smelt have consumption restrictions
due to PCBs. Largemouth bass and redhorse sucker have consumption restrictions due
to mercury.
Lower Niagara River
In 2002, eight species were collected for testing by the MOE. These included
smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, white perch, rock bass, brown bullhead, carp,
freshwater drum and american eel. Brown trout information was included for the first
time.
The additional information resulted in several changes to consumption advisories.
Largemouth bass are now restricted at 35 cm due to mercury, whereas previously, they
were not restricted. Less restrictive advice is now given for Chinook salmon, white
perch and carp.
As a result, of the 19 species for the Lower Niagara River listed in the Guide, two have
no consumption restrictions (bluegill and freshwater drum). Of the remaining species,
chinook salmon, brown trout, lake trout, white perch, white bass, brown bullhead,
channel catfish, carp, white sucker, redhorse sucker and rainbow smelt have
consumption restrictions due to PCBs. Rainbow trout and american eel are restricted
due to photomirex. Smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, yellow perch and rock bass
have consumption restrictions due to mercury.
MOE has prepared a "Guide to the Guide" pamphlet on fish consumption advisories
Health Canada translated into 12 languages. The one page explanation helps the
various ethnic communities understand how to interpret and use the information in the
Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish. MOE through the 2002 Canada Ontario
Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem is working with the Niagara
River Remedial Action Plan Coordinator to distribute the translated "Guide to the Guide"
at various community events.
New York State Advisories
The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) issues an annual booklet titled
Health Advisories: Chemicals in Game and Sportfish. This booklet provides advisories
on eating sportfish and game, since some of these foods contain chemicals at levels
17
-------
that may be harmful to human health. The health advisories provide general advice on
sportfish taken from the waters in New York State and on game species. The
information is presented so that it is easy to understand the guidance for a particular
species from a specific waterbody. The advisories explain how to minimize exposure to
contaminants from sportfish and game, and reduce whatever health risks are
associated with them.
In New York State, NYSDEC monitors contaminant levels in fish and game. NYSDOH
issues specific advisories (e.g., "eat none" or "eat no more than one meal per month")
when sportfish have contaminant levels greater than federal standards. NYSDOH also
advises women of childbearing age, infants and children under the age of 15 to eat no
fish from waters that have specific advisories for any fish species.
The most recent change in health advisories for fish in the Niagara River area was in
1999, when restrictions (all species, "eat none") were removed for Gill Creek from the
Hyde Park Dam downstream to its mouth on the Niagara River. The current advisories
for fish taken from the Niagara River and its U.S. tributaries are summarized in Table
10. [NOTE: NYSDOH fish advisories for Lake Ontario also apply to the lower Niagara
River, below Niagara Falls.] The current 2002-2003 Advisories are also available on the
NYSDOH website at: http://www.health.state.nv.us/nvsdoh/environ/02fish.pdf.
5.0 U.S. TRACKDOWN INITIATIVES
Two Mile Creek
The NYSDEC sampled Two Mile Creek, in the City and Town of Tonawanda, Erie
County, New York, twice at four locations, during dry weather on May 10, 2000, and
again at the same stations during a wet weather event on August 29, 2000.
The sampling sites, from upstream to downstream, were:
Twin Cell Site - located immediately downstream of a twin-cell storm sewer
discharging to the creek over an impoundment dam face north of Sheridan Drive
(Route 324);
Oriskany Site - located at a small bridge over Two Mile Creek on the Sheridan
Park Golf Course. The Oriskany Street storm sewer services an area containing
the General Electric transformer repair facility and discharges to Two Mile Creek
just upstream of this sampling site;
Fire Tower Site - located downstream of both the former wastewater treatment
plant (no discharge to Two Mile Creek) and the fire training tower; and,
River Road Site - downstream of River Road and before Two Mile Creek enters
the Niagara River (Rattlesnake Creek enters Two Mile Creek upstream of this
sampling site).
18
-------
Analytical results confirmed the presence of PCBs at all locations in both the dry and
wet weather flows, with concentrations being higher during wet weather.
PCB concentrations increased at each subsequent downstream site during both wet
and dry weather sampling. While the homolog distribution pattern of PCBs at each of
the stations were closely correlated during the wet weather sampling, there was little
similarity in the homolog distribution in the dry weather samples.
Any attempt to explain the reasons for the differences between the wet and dry weather
sampling results would be speculative. It would also be further complicated because
sampling was conducted at the same time the General Electric transformer repair facility
was undergoing site investigation and remediation under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). This facility is served by the Oriskany Street storm sewer,
which is tributary to Two Mile Creek just upstream of the Oriskany Site sampling
location.
While the General Electric transformer repair facility is a possible source of
contaminants to the downstream portion of Two Mile Creek, the presence of PCBs at
the Twin Cell sampling site, at a wet weather concentration of 89.9 ng/L, is significant.
This finding indicates the likely existence of an unidentified source that flows to the twin
cell storm sewer.
Remediation of the General Electric transformer repair facility site has now been
completed. DEC is planning to conduct post-remediation sampling of Two Mile Creek in
2003 to assess the effectiveness of the remediation, identify the source of the wet
weather PCBs in the twin cell storm sewer, and determine if future remedial work or
other action is necessary.
Falls Street Tunnel
The Falls Street Tunnel (FST), a major unlined interceptor sewer cut into the bedrock
under the City of Niagara Falls, receives combined sewer overflows primarily from
residential and commercial areas within the City, in addition to the infiltration of
potentially contaminated groundwater. Early comparative studies of pollutant point
sources discharging into the Niagara River identified the FST as a significant source of
toxic pollutants. In the early 1990s, EPA and DEC required the City of Niagara Falls to
treat all of the FST flow during dry weather. As a result, flow of up to 10 million gallons
per day (mgd) from the FST is being diverted to the City of Niagara Falls wastewater
treatment plant (NFWWTP) to preclude dry weather discharges, and to reduce wet
weather overflows. In addition, recent grouting undertaken by the City, has reduced
daily dry weather flow in the tunnel from 6 to 8 mgd to about 3 to 4 mgd. Although
grouting and the diversion and treatment of dry weather flows have significantly reduced
both the frequency and volume of wet weather overflows from the FST, occasional wet
weather overflows are likely to occur during significant rainfall or snowmelt.
19
-------
As part of a continuing effort to evaluate the effectiveness of these and other
improvements, the FST was sampled twice at four locations, during dry weather on
December 5, 2001, and again at the same stations during a wet weather event, on May
13, 2002. Samples were analyzed for PCBs and chlorinated dibenzo dioxins and
chlorinated dibenzo furans. The analytical results (using congener-specific methods)
confirmed the presence of these chemicals at all locations in both the dry and wet
weather flows. The concentrations of these compounds were significantly higher during
wet weather. The sampling data suggest that PCBs and chlorinated
dibenzodioxins/dibenzofurans are ubiquitous within the FST, while the data provide no
suggestion of the source or sources of these compounds.
In early 2003, NYSDEC substantively modified the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (SPDES) permit for the Niagara Falls Sewage Treatment Plant. Included in the
permit renewal were new requirements to control discharges from the sewage treatment
plant outfall, the storm sewer outfalls, and the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) within
the sewer system, including the Falls Street Tunnel.
Permit requirements for CSOs were updated to include all of NYSDEC's fifteen best
management practices (BMPs), as well as the requirement to develop and implement a
Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) to mitigate impacts from CSOs. As part of the LTCP,
the permittee will be required to comprehensively characterize the combined sewer
system; develop, evaluate, and select a range of CSO control alternatives; and, for
selected measures, provide an implementation and construction schedule. Special
monitoring and interceptor requirements are also included to prevent dry weather
wastewater discharges from the Falls Street Tunnel outfall.
The permit also establishes water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) for pollutants
for which the sewage treatment plant discharge has been determined to have
reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards. In the case of mirex, mercury,
total-DDT, PCBs, and HCB, for which calculated WQBELs were below the practical
quantification level for the analytical methods specified for compliance monitoring, the
permittee is required to implement a pollutant minimization program (PMP) to reduce
the potential for discharge of these pollutants. The PMP requirements included
additional effluent monitoring using highly sensitive analytical methods, source
identification, evaluation, and prioritization, and a control strategy that includes BMPs to
reduce discharges through cost-effective control measures. Finally, the permit also
requires periodic whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing to assess the synergistic effect of
pollutants with toxic characteristics. Based on the WET results, the State may require a
Toxicity Reduction Evaluation to identify and reduce the discharge of these toxics.
20
-------
6.0 SUMMARY
The principal messages in this Progress Report further emphasize the consistent
messages of past Progress Reports.
• The concentrations/loads of many of the 18 NRTMP "priority toxics" in
the Niagara River have decreased significantly substantiating that the
river is getting "cleaner"; and,
• The decreases in nearly all cases have exceeded 70% since 1986/87.
The 2001 NRTMP Progress Report indicated that comparison of the upper 90%
confidence interval ambient concentrations of NRTMP "priority toxics" to the 1998 most
stringent agency criteria resulted in these criteria being exceeded for many of the
"priority toxics" at both FE and NOTL. It was also stated that these exceedences were
due to the much more stringent standards adopted by NYSDEC in 1998, rather than
increases in the concentrations of these chemicals in the river. The same is true for the
1999/2000 and 2000/01 data presented in this report. In counterpoint, comparing the
2000/01 data to those from 1986/87 shows that the downward trends in
concentrations/loads over the fifteen-year continues. For a number of chemicals,
decreases are greater than 70%.
Biomonitoring has proven to be an effective tool to measure progress in the reduction of
toxic substances in the Niagara River and its tributaries. In general, the spatial
distributions of contaminant concentrations in mussel tissue during the three-week
exposure of mussels in July 2000 were similar to those observed in previous surveys.
High concentrations of dioxins and furans continued to be bound in mussels and
sediment at the Pettit Flume site, despite recent remediation activities. The source of
these dioxins and furans is unclear given the recent, extensive remedial activities at the
site and requires further monitoring. Similarly, the concentrations of dioxins and furans
in mussels and sediments from the Niagara River shoreline in the vicinity of Bloody Run
Creek, while considerably lower in 2000, than in previous surveys, still suggest that this
site is contaminated and should continue to be monitored.
Results from a 1997 DEC survey of juvenile fish indicated that, while there were criteria
exceedences for some chemicals, at some locations in the Niagara River, overall,
contaminant concentrations for nearly all contaminants sampled between 1997 and
previous years continued to show a decreasing, or low stable, trend. Similarly, surveys
of juvenile fish in 2000 and 2001 by MOE showed that PCB concentrations in the lower
Niagara River are declining, and that concentrations at a number of sites in the river
now meet or are very close to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement's aquatic life
guideline of 100ng/g. Furthermore, concentrations have decreased at most of these
sites since monitoring first started in about 1980.
21
-------
Re-testing of sport fish in 2002 by Ontario has resulted in both more restrictive and less
restrictive consumption advisories for several species from the upper and lower River.
There were no new consumption advisories for New York State.
NYSDEC trackdown activities in Two Mile Creek in 2000, confirmed the presence of
PCBs at all locations in both the dry and wet weather flows, with concentrations being
higher during wet weather. In particular, the presence of PCBs at the Twin Cell
sampling site indicated the likely existence of an unidentified source within the drainage
area of the twin cell storm sewer. Sampling of Two Mile Creek is planned for 2003 to
identify the source of the wet weather PCBs in the twin cell storm sewer, and determine
if future remedial work or other action is necessary. Similarly, NYSDEC sampling of the
Falls Street Tunnel indicated that PCBs and chlorinated dibenzodioxins/dibenzofurans
are ubiquitous within the tunnel, although the data provide no suggestion of the source
or sources of these compounds. NYSDEC has recently renewed the City of Niagara
Falls' State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit and has included
several terms and conditions to address discharges from this outfall.
The improvements in the Niagara River are due, at least in part, to the beneficial
remedial efforts at Niagara River sources. As has been consistently stated in previous
Progress Reports, despite the successes to date and the continued improvements now
being reported, more work still needs to be done, and is being done. The actions
necessary to assure continued reductions of toxic chemicals in the Niagara River have
been defined, and there are substantial new action commitments to address current
concerns. These are outlined in the 2003 NRTMP Work Plan.
7.0 REFERENCES
Categorization Committee. 1990. Categorization of Toxic Substances in the Niagara
River. A Joint Report of Environment Canada, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
CCME. 2001. Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic
Life: Polychlorinated Dioxins and Furans (PCDD/Fs). In: Canadian Environmental
Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.
Durham, R.W., and B.G. Oliver. 1983. History of Lake Ontario contamination from the
Niagara River by sediment radiodating and chlorinated hydrocarbon analysis. J. Great
Lakes Res. 9(2): 160-168.
El-Shaarawi, A.H., and Al-lbrahim. 1996. Trend Analysis and Maximum Likelihood
Estimation of Niagara River Data (1986-1994). National Water Research Institute and
McMaster University, Burlington, Ontario.
GLWQA. 1987. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978; As amended
by Protocol Signed November 18, 1987.
22
-------
Howell, T.E., C.H. Marvin, R.W. Bilyea, P.B. Kauss, and K. Sommers. 1996. Changes
in environmental conditions during Dreissena Colonization of a monitoring
station in eastern Lake Erie. J. Great Lakes Res. 22(3):744-756.
Makarewicz, J.C., E. Damaske, T.W. Lewis, and M. Merner. 2003. Trend analysis
reveals a reduction in mirex concentrations in coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Chinook
(0. tshawytscha) salmon from Lake Ontario. Environ. Sci Techno!. 37:1521-1527.
Marvin, C.H., and E.T. Howell. 1997. Contaminant burdens in sediments colonized by
Dreissena at two nearshore sites in the lower Great Lakes, pp. 209-224. in D'ltri, F.M.
[ed.] Zebra Mussels and Aquatic Nuisance Species. Ann Arbor Press Inc., Chelsea,
Michigan.
MOE. 2003. Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, 2003-2004. Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, Toronto, Ontario.
Mudroch, A. 1983. Distribution of major elements and metals in sediment cores from
the western basin of Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 9(2): 125-133.
Mudroch, A., and D. Williams. 1989. Suspended sediments and the distribution of
bottom sediments in the Niagara River. J. Great Lakes Res. 15(3):427-436.
Newell, A.J., D.W. Johnson and L.K. Allen. 1987. Niagara River Contamination Project
Fish Flesh Criteria for Piscivorous Wildlife. Tech. Rep. 87-3, Division of Fish and
Wildlife, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, N.Y.
NRDIG. 2002. Upstream/Downstream Niagara River Monitoring Program Final Report
1997-98 & 1998-99. (prepared by John Merriman and K.W. Kuntz, Environment
Canada) Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
NYSDOH. 2002. 2002-2003 Health Advisories, Chemicals in Sportfish and Game,
2002-2003. New York State Department of Health. Revised May 9, 2002.
Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and
Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, Toronto, Ontario.
Preddice, T.L., S.J.J. Jacking, and L.C. Skinner. 2002. Contaminants in Young-of-year
Fish from Near-shore Areas of New York's Great Lakes Basin, 1997. Bureau of Habitat,
Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
23
-------
Richman, L. 2003. Niagara River Mussel Biomonitoring Program, 2000. Water
Monitoring Section, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Ontario Ministry of
the Environment, Toronto, Ontario.
Swart, J., F. Estabrooks, and R. Bopp. 1996. Lake Ontario Sediment Survey: 1995
Sediment Coring Results. Bureau of Watershed Management and Research, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (November 1996).
Thomas, R.L., J.E. Gannon, J.H. Hartig, D.J. Williams, and D.M. Whittle. 1988.
Contaminants in Lake Ontario - A Case Study. In Schmidtke, N.W. [ed.] Toxic
Contamination in Large Lakes. Vol III. Sources, Fate, and Controls of Toxic
Contaminants. Proceedings of the World Conference on Large Lakes, Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 1988, pp:327-387.
Williams, D.J., M.A.T. Neilson, J. Merriman, S. L'ltalien, S. Painter, K. Kuntz and A.H.
El-Shaarawi. 2000. The Niagara River Upstream/Downstream Program 1986/87 -
1996/97: Concentrations, Loads, Trends. Environment Canada, Environmental
Conservation Branch - Ontario Region, Ecosystem Health Division, Report No.
EHD/ECB-OR/00-01/1.
Williams, D.J., K.W. Kuntz, S. L'ltalien, and V. Richardson. 2001. Great Lakes
Surveillance Program: Organic Contaminants in the Great Lakes, 1992 to 1998. Intra-
and Inter-lake Spatial Distributions and Temporal Trends. Environmental Conservation
Branch - Ontario Region, Ecosystem Health Division, Environment Canada, Report No.
EHD/ECB-OR/01-01/1.
24
-------
Figure 1. Mean Flow (±a) at NOTL, 1986/87 to 2000/01 (m3/sec).
8000 j
7500 — L
7000
6500 'r.
6000 I-
¦ |B
5500 |-[-
5000 -I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
86/87 88/89 90/91 92/93 94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01
Figure 2. Modelled Trend of Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) in Water at NOTL, 1986/87
to 2000/01 (ng/L).
01APRB6 01APR87 01APR88 01APR89 01APR90 01APR91 01APR92 01APR93 01APR94 01APR95 01APR96 01APR97 01APR9B 01APR99 OUPROO 01APR01
Year
25
-------
Figure 3. Modelled Trend of Dieldrin in Water at NOTL, 1986/87 to 2000/01 (ng/L).
01APR88 01APR87 01APR88 01JTO9 01APR90 01/PR91 01APR92 01APR93 01/W94 01APR95 01/PR96 01APR97 01APR98 01OT99 01APR00 OltfROI
Year
Figure 4. Modelled Trend of PCBs on Suspended Sediments at NOTL, 1986/87 to
2000/01 (ng/g).
Year
26
-------
Figure 5. Modelled Trend of Octachlorostyrene (OCS) on Suspended Sediments
at NOTL, 1986/87 to 2000/01 (ng/g).
Year
27
-------
Figure 6. Station Locations for MOE Niagara River Mussel Biomonitoring
Survey 2000.
Figure 7. MOE YOY-Fish Collection Sites in the Niagara River (1999-2001)
wn
Grand
Island
Chippawa-Stfannel .
Boyers Creek
Lyoos Qfeek
Lake Ontario
Ontario
Fort Erie at
Robertson's!
New York
Bloody Run Creek (Upstreamroownstream ref, sits)
Gill Creek
Occidental Chemical Corp (and associated outfalls)
,102nd Street & (Upstream ref. site)
Gratvwck/Riverside Park &
(Upstream ref. site)
PatSt Flume & (ref. site)
* Ellicott Creek
' Two Mile Creek *"°uth'
Tonawanda Channel
.Buffalo River faouth)
Lake Erie
28
-------
Figure 8. NYSDEC YOY-Fish Sampling Locations in the Niagara River, 1997.
Number and Location
1. Lake Erie, Dunkirk
2. Lake Erie, Smokes Creek
3. Buffalo River
4. Nia. Riv., Strawberry Is.
5. Nia. Riv., Beaver Is. State Park
6. Pettit Flume
7. Nia. Riv., Gratwick-Riverside Park
8. Nia. Riv., N. Grand Is. Bridge
9. Little Riv., upstream of Cayuga Creek
10. Little Riv., downstream of Cayuga Creek
11. Cayuga Creek, Lindberg Ave. Bridge
12. Bergholtz Creek
13. Cayuga Creek, Cayuga Dr. Bridge
14. Cayuga Creek, Porter Rd. Bridge
15. Gill Creek
16. Nia. Riv., Lewiston
(Inset - Cayuga Creek YOY-Fish Sampling Locations)
29
-------
Figure 9. Temporal Trends in Total PCB Concentrations in YOY Spottail Shiners
from the Niagara River, 1975 to 2002 [Mean (+o), ng/g, wet weight].
Year
c§> & & c§> c§> <& C?' cf> (§>
Year
<§>$'<&<$3<83&
Year
1200
1000
___ 800
Si 600
¦S 400
200
0
Cayuga Creek,
N.Y.
s, . !«5{
<§> o>" & <& &
Year
2000
1500
CO *CT)
O 1)1000
500
0
I
Search & Rescue,
N.Y.
ii
s
1 ~
*
Year
500
5 400
™ 300
m 200
o! 100
0
]
Queenston
r i
I
* *
& <&
<$> 0)^ <£> <$p
Year
1000
800
m o) 600
O "gj
O- J, 400
200
0
5
Lewiston, N.Y.
1 f
* ~*
Year
30
-------
Figure 9 (cont'd). Temporal Trends in Total PCB Concentrations in YOY Spottail
Shiners from the Niagara River, 1975 to 2002 (ng/g, wet
weight).
1000
800
co "55 600
O gj
O- s 400
200
0
Niagara-on-the-Lake
5 £
^
&
Year
31
-------
Figure 10. Mussel Concentrations of Dioxin and Furan Isomers at the Pettit
Flume, 2000 (pg/g, wet weight).
_ 500
o>
O) 450
Q.
"c" 400
O
ro 350
I.
§ 300
o
o 250
O
0) 200
3
(A
w 150
i-
aj 100
(A
§ 50
0
Figure 11. Sediment Concentrations of Dioxin and Furan Isomers at the Pettit
Flume, 2000 (pg/g).
32
-------
Table 1. Eighteen "Priority Toxics" Identified in the Niagara River Toxics
Management Plan (NRTMP).
Chlordane
Mirex/Photomirex*
Dieldrin
Hexachlorobenzene*
DDT & metabolites
Toxaphene
Mercury*
Arsenic
Lead
PCBs*
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)*
Octachlorostyrene
Tetrachloroethylene*
Benz(a)anthracene*
Benzo(a)pyrene*
Benzo(b)fluoranthene*
Benzo(k)fluoranthene*
Chrysene/Triphenylene
* = Chemicals designated for 50% reduction by 1996
33
-------
Table 2. Percent Change in Concentrations and Loads of Upstream/Downstream Program Chemicals Between
the Base Year and 2000/01.
Fort Erie
Niagara-on-the-Lake
Chemical
Period of
Concentration
Load
Concentration
Load
record
% change
% change
% change
% change
Dissolved
Susp. Part.
Dissolved
Susp. Part.
Dissolved
Susp. Part.
Dissolved
Susp. Part.
Chlorobenzenes (CBs)
Hexachlorobenzene
1986-2001
-
-
-
-
-72.2
-41.2
-79.1
-80.7
Orqanochlorine Pesticides (OCs) & PCBS
a-chlordane
1986-2001
-
-70.2
-
-87.2
-53.9
-58.0
-66.8
-86.3
g-chlordane
1986-2001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
p,p'-DDT
1986-2001
-
-80.5
-
-89.7
-
-62.7
-
-87.8
o,p'-DDT
1986-2001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P,P'-TDE
1986-2001
-71.7
-54.1
-78.4
-75.7
-74.7
-54.8
-81.0
-85.2
p,p'-DDE
1986-2001
-67.6
-66.7
-72.5
-82.4
-58.9
-42.1
-69.1
-81.1
Dieldrin
1986-2001
-70.4
-76.1
-77.4
-87.3
-71.6
-76.8
-78.6
-92.4
Mi rex
1986-2001
-
-
-
-
-
-27.6
-
-76.3
PCBs
1986-2001
NC
-51.2
NC
-74.2
NC
-51.2
NC
-84.0
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Benz(a)anthracene
1986-2001
-79.3
-23.1
-84.2
-59.4
-65.1
-25.1
-73.7
-75.5
Benzo(a)pyrene
1986-2001
-
+ 129.6
-
-21.4
-77.8
+55.2
-83.3
-49.2
Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene
1986-2001
-50.8
+86.8
-62.4
-1.22
NS
NS
NS
NS
Chrysene-triphenylene
1986-2001
-57.9
NS
-67.8
NS
-33.6
NS
-50.0
NS
Industrial By-products
Octac h lo rosty re n e
1989-2001
-
-
-
-
-
-91.3
-
-94.1
Trace Metals in Whole Water
Whole Water
Whole Water Load
Whole Water
Whole Water Load
Concentration
% Change
Concentration
% Change
% Change
% Change
Lead
1986-2001
-65.9
-74.3
-80.3
-85.2
Arsenic
1986-2001
NS
NS
NS
NS
Mercury
1986-1997
*
*
*
*
Notes:
NC Dissolved phase concentrations and loads not calculated because of known contamination problems with dissolved phase data.
NS No significant (p<0.001) trend was detected by the model for the period of record.
- Too few values above the detection limit to run the model.
* Analysis of mercury in water was discontinued in 1996/97 pending achievement of more sensitive detection limit.
-------
Table 3. Summary of the Presence/Absence of Organochlorine Pesticides, PCBs, Industrial
Compounds and Chlorinated Benzenes in Caged Mussels in the Niagara River.
Canadian Sites
Contaminant
((t).Trace concentrations, interpret with caution)
Fort Erie at Robertson Street1'^
pp'-DDE(t), pentachlorobenzene,t)J
Boyers Creek (mouth)
Chippawa Channel1'^
Niagara-on-the-Lake1
PCBS(t), pp'-DDE(t)
Lyons Creek
PCBS(t), pp'-DDE(t), pentachlorobenzene,t)J
US Sites
Contaminant
((t).Trace concentrations, interpret with caution )
Buffalo River
pp'-DDE(t), PCBs,,,
Tonawanda Channel
pp'-DDE(t), PCBS(t) pentachlorobenzene(t)
Tonawanda Channel (upstream of Two Mile Ck)
pp'-DDE(t), PCBs(t), pentachlorobenzene(t)
Two Mile Creek (mouth)^
pp'-DDE(t), PCBS(t)
Pettit Flume (upstream)1'^
pp'-DDE(t), PCBs,,,
Pettit Flume (site B)1
pp'-DDE(t), PCBS(t), HCB(t), pentachlorobenzene, 1,2,3,4-
tetrachlorobenzene(t), 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene(t), 2,3,6-
trichlorotoluene(t).
Pettit Flume (downstream)1'^
pp'-DDE„), PCBs,,,
Gratwick/Riverside Park (upstream)
pp'-DDE(t), PCBs(t)
Gratwick/Riverside Park
pp'-DDE„), PCBs,,,
102na Street Landfill (upstream)
pp'-DDE„), PCBs,,,
102na Street Landfill
pp'-DDE„), PCBs,,,
Upstream (Occidental) Sewer A
pp'-DDE„), PCBs,,,
(Occidental) Sewer A
PCBs,,), HCB,t)
(Occidental) Sewer B
PCBs,,), HCB,t)
(Occidental) - between Sewer B and Sewer C
PCBs,,), HCB,t)
(Occidental) Sewer C
PCBs,,,, HCB
(Occidental) - (between Sewer C and
Sewer 003)
b-BHC,t), g-chlordane,t), PCBs, pp'-DDE,t),
hexachlorobutadiene,t), HCB, octachlorostyrene,t),
pentachlorobenzene,t), 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene(t), 1,2,4,5-
tetrachlorobenzene,t)
Occidental Sewer 003
g-chlordane,t), pp'-DDE, PCBs,t), hexachlorobutadiene, HCB,
pentachlorobenzene, 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene,1,2,4,5-
tetrachlorobenzene(t),1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene(t, 1,3,5-
trichlorobenzene,t), 2,3,6-trichlorotoluene,t), 2,4,5-
trichlorotoluene,t)
35
-------
Table 3 (cont'd). Summary of the Presence/Absence of Organochlorine Pesticides, PCBs,
Industrial Compounds and Chlorinated Benzenes in Caged Mussels in the Niagara River.
Occidental - Storm Sewer
pp'-DDE(t), PCBS(t), hexachlorobutadiene(t), HCB(t)
pentachlorobenzene(t), 2,3,6-trichlorotoluene(t), 2,4,5-
trichlorotoluene(t), 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzenem
Gill Creek (upstream)^
a-BHC, p-BHC(t), y-BHCj), PCBS(t), pp'-DDE(t),
Gill Creek (mouth)
a-BHC(t), pp'-DDE(t), PCBS(t), hexachlorobutadiene, 1,3,5-
trichlorobenzene(t)
Bloody Run Creek (upstream)1'^
pp'-DDE(t), pentachlorobenzene(t), 2,3,6-trichlorotoluene(t),
Bloody Run Creek1
p-BHC(t), pp'-DDE(t), PCBS(t), hexachlorobutadiene, HCB,
pentachlorobenzene, 2,3,6-trichlorotoluene, 2,4,5-
trichlorotoluene(t), 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene(t), 1,2,3,5-
tetrachlorobenzene(t), 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene(t), 1,3,5-
trichlorobenzenem,dichlorobenzly chloride(t)
Bloody Run Creek (downstream)
pp'-DDE(t), PCBS(t), HCB(t) pentachlorobenzene(t), 2,3,6-
trichlorotoluene(t)
Bolded Values > trace.
1 Composite mussel sample (4 mussels) for dioxins and furan analysis.
2 Sediment samples collected for dioxin and furan analysis.
3 Detected in only one mussel (out of six or more caged mussels) at this site.
36
-------
Table 4. Contaminant Concentrations (wet weight) Exceeding Protective Wildlife Criteria in Young-of-Year Fish from the
Niagara River and U.S. Tributaries, 1997.
Locations
Criteria
PCB
100 2, 110 4
Mirex
100 5, 330 3,
373 4
< detect, limit2
HCH11
1003, 510 4
2,3,7,8-TCDD
3.0 3, 2.34
2,3,7,8-chloro
Dioxin & Furan
Congener TEQ
3.0 3, 2.3 4
(pg/g)
Total TEQ 6
2.34
(pg/g)
Contaminant
PCB
Aroclors
(ng/g)
Mirex
(ng/g)
HCH
(ng/g)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
(pg/g)
Species1
Niagara River
- Strawberry Island
BN, ST, ES
_
_
_
_
_
_
- Beaver Island State
Park
ST, ES
_
3.2
_
_
_
_
- North Grand Island
Bridge
ST
_
_
_
_
_
_
- Lewiston
BN, ST
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Pettit Flume
ST
-
0.29
-
-
4.07[4.31 ]7
5.81 [6.05]
-Gratwick-Riverside Park
BN
259(22.3)8
-
-
-
3.39[3.64]
4.62[4.87]
Little River
- > Cayuga Creek
BN
105(20.7)
1.7
_
_
5.41 [5.47]
5.82[5.88]
- < Cayuga Creek
BN
193(20.9)
9.3
-
4.1, 2.7 9
6.87
7.43[7.56]
Cayuga Creek, Porter
Rd.
BN
191(46.6)
97.3(5.3)
-
-
-
-
- Cayuga Drive
BN
126(28.7)
9.2
-
2 ^ o
2.53
3.75[3.76]
- Bergholtz Creek
BN
594(22.4)
-
-
-
-
30.35[30.83]
Cayuga Creek,
- Lindberg Avenue
BN
184(28.3)
12.3
_
5.9, 5.49
5.77[5.80]
7.35 [7.38]
BN
226
2.0
-
-
-
37
-------
Locations
Criteria
PCB
100 2, 110 4
Mirex
100 5, 330 3,
373 4
< detect, limit2
HCH11
1003, 510 4
2,3,7,8-TCDD
3.0 3, 2.34
2,3,7,8-chloro
Dioxin & Furan
Congener TEQ
3.0 3, 2.3 4
(pg/g)
Total TEQ 6
2.34
(pg/g)
Contaminant
PCB
Aroclors
(ng/g)
Mirex
(ng/g)
HCH
(ng/g)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
(pg/g)
Species1
-Gill Creek 15A
-
-Gill Creek 15B
BN
2190(981)
2.5
104 [295]
-
-
-
1 Species: ST - spottail shiner, BN - bluntnose minnow, ES - emerald shiner
2 Level in fish suggested to protect piscivorous wildlife (GLWQA 1987) - not a regulatory standard
3 NYS DEC non-carcinogenic criterion for the protection offish-consuming wildlife (Newell etal. 1987)
4 NYS DEC 1:100 dietary cancer risk criterion for mink (Newell et al. 1987)
5 FDA level suggested to protect people who consume fish
6 Total TEQ = sum PCB TEQ and 2,3,7,8-dibenzo-p-dioxin and furan congeners TEQ
7 [ ] -includes Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EMPC) values
8 (SD) - standard deviation
9 One outlier value omitted
10
Two other composites from this site had values of <1.4 and 2.1, both less than the 2.3 pg/g criterion
11 Values are not mean but represent individual composites
38
-------
Table 5. Concentrations of Selected Organochlorine Contaminants in Spottail Shiners [Notropis
hudsonius) from Canadian and U.S. Sites in the Upper and Lower Niagara River, 1999,
2000 and 2001 (ng/g, wet weight).
Sampling
Year
n
Total
Lipid
PCB
DDT
Mirex
ocs
HCB
Site
Length (mm)
(%)
(ng/g)
(ng/g)
(ng/g)
(ng/g)
(ng/g]
Uooer Niaaara River
Canada
Fort Erie
1999
5
54-5
1.1-0.5
44-9
8-3
ND
ND
ND
2000
5
52-4
2.1-0.6
76-17
8-2
ND
ND
ND
2001
5
2.5-0.4
28-11
10-3
ND
ND
ND
Frenchman's Creek
1999
5
55-6
0.9-0.2
36-9
8-5
ND
ND
ND
2000
4
56-7
2.7-0.7
60-0
7-2
ND
ND
ND
2001
5
2.3-0.4
28-11
7-2
ND
ND
ND
U. S.
Wheatfield
1999
5
64-2
2.2-0.6
220-42
4-1
ND
ND
ND
2000
5
57-2
2.9-0.4
212-23
2-3
ND
2-1
2-0
2001
5
3.2-0.4
168-18
9-2
ND
ND
2-0
102nd Street
1999
5
66-5
3.3-0.6
236-46
6-3
ND
2-0
2-0
2000
3
65-4
4.5-0.7
207-42
6-2
ND
3-1
3-1
2001
5
3.7-0.4
132-41
7-2
ND
ND
2-1
Cayuga Creek
1999
5
57-5
2.7-0.6
216-36
8-3
ND
1-0
3-2
2000
5 *
49-3
2.8-0.1
220-58
8-3
ND
2-1
2-0
2001
5
2.8-0.9
216-79
11-4
ND
ND
3-1
Grand Island Bridge
2001
5
63-3
3.9-0.3
116-26
6-2
ND
ND
2-1
Search and Rescue
2001
5
2.8-0.8
84-17
4-1
ND
ND
ND
Lower Niaaara River
Canada
Queenston
1999
5
61-4
1.6-0.2
92-22
10-5
ND
ND
ND
2000
5
58-4
3.5-0.2
104-9
16-5
ND
1-0
3-1
2001
5
3.6-0.9
68-23
16-13
ND
ND
1-0
Niagara-on-the-Lake
1999
5
61-6
1.6-0.2
104-26
12-6
ND
ND
ND
2000
5
61-3
5.3-0.5
116-33
23-8
ND
3-1
5-1
2001
5
2.5-0.4
84-30
18-6
ND
ND
1-1
U. S.
Lewi st on
1999
5
60-6
1.7-0.6
100-20
6-3
ND
ND
ND
2000
1
58-0
4.4-0
80-0
10-0
ND
2-0
4-0
2001
5
3.4-0.9
60-14
10-3
ND
ND
1-1
Youngstown
1999
5
57-5
2.4-0.5
112-17
16-5
ND
ND
ND
2000
3
64-7
4.4-0.2
153-70
32-18
ND
2-0
7-6
2001
5
2.9-0.2
72-18
13-5
ND
ND
2-1
*Common Shiner
39
-------
Table 6. Ratio of the "Differential Load" to the Load to Lake Ontario for NRTMP "Priority Toxics".
86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 Mean
Organics1
Mirex
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Octachlorostyrene (OCS)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
Benzo(a)pyrene [B(a)P]
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
-0.8
0.5
Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
-0.7
0.5
Benz(a)anthracene
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
-0.8
0.4
Chrysene/Triphenylene
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
-0.7
0.4
Total Chlordane (a- + g-)
0.0
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.4
-0.1
-0.2
0.4
Dieldrin
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
-0.1
-0.3
0.0
ppDDE
-3.8
-2.0
-0.4
-0.3
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.3
-0.4
-0.6
-0.2
-1.2
-0.7
-0.6
-1.7
-1.0
ppDDT
-2.2
-1.1
0.3
-5.5
-2.3
0.0
-0.4
-0.2
-0.6
-0.6
-3.4
-0.1
-0.3
0.1
-1.2
-1.2
ppTDE
-1.9
-1.3
-2.9
-0.9
-0.6
-1.0
-1.1
-1.0
-0.7
-0.3
-3.1
-2.0
-0.6
-0.7
-0.6
-1.2
PCBs
not calculated
3
Metals2
Arsenic
0.20
0.12
0.12
0.20
0.13
0.17
0.06
0.04
0.07
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.02
-0.04
0.00
0.1
Pb
0.16
0.12
-0.41
0.28
0.42
-0.78
0.38
0.09
-0.40
0.24
0.20
0.33
-0.50
-0.26
0.61
0.0
Hg NA4
1 RWW Concentrations
2 Whole water concentrations
3 No dissolved phase PCB data due to contamination problems
4 Not Available
40
-------
Table 7. Comparison of the 1999/2000 and 2000/01 Upstream/Downstream Program Upper 90 ''
Confidence Interval Data to the Most Stringent Agency Water Quality Criteria (ng/L).
Parameter Pre-1998 1998 Agency Upper 90% CI
Criteria Criteria (RWW Concentrations - ng/L)
1999/2000 1999/2000 2000/01 2000/01
FE NOTL FE NOTL
Total Chlordane
2
0.02
NYSDEC
0.009
0.017
0.028
0.019
Mi rex
1.0
0.001
NYSDEC
ND
0.015
ND
0.007
Dield rin
1
0.0006
NYSDEC
0.110
0.100
0.131
0.120
HCB
20
0.03
NYSDEC
0.024
0.091
0.022
0.061
ppDDT
0.01
NYSDEC
0.020
0.040
0.098
0.027
ppTDE
0.08
NYSDEC
0.061
0.035
0.059
0.031
ppDDE
0.007
NYSDEC
0.061
0.039
0.097
0.029
Total DDT
1.0
0.011
NYSDEC
0.143
0.127
0.258
0.090
PCBs*
0.0006
0.001
NYSDEC
NC
NC
NC
NC
OCS
0.006
NYSDEC
ND
0.006
ND
0.002
Benz(a)anthracene
0.4
0.4
MOE (proposed)
0.583
1.361
3.467
1.325
Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene1
0.2
0.2
MOE (proposed)
1.883
3.856
11.077
4.496
Ch rysene/T ripheny lene2
0.1
0.1
MOE (proposed)
0.964
1.987
4.704
1.786
B(a)P
1.2
1.2
NYSDEC
0.774
1.727
4.894
1.860
As (ug/L)
5
5
MOE (proposed)
0.693
0.672
0.784
0.668
Hg (ug/L)
20
0.7
NYSDEC
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pb (ug/L)
2.5
2.5
USEPA
1.548
1.041
0.721
1.412
RWW = Recombinded Whole Water
ND = not detected
NC = not calculated bcause of dissolved phase contamination problems
NA = not analyzed
bolded values represent Water Quality Criteria exceedences
1 Criterion is for benzo(k)fluoranthene
2 Criterion is for Chrysene
41
-------
Table 8. Surface Water Quality Criteria for Niagara River Toxics Management Plan "Priority Toxics and Lake Ontario
LaMP Critical Pollutants (ug/L).
Substance3
Protection of Human Health
for Consumption of Fish
Protection of
Aquatic Life
(Acute Values)
Protection of Aquatic Life (Chronic
Values)"
Protection of Human
Health for Drinking
Water Source
Protection
of
Piscivorous
Wildlife
NYS
EPAC
HC
NYS
EPA
NYS
EPA
OMOEb
IJC
NYS
HC
IJC
NYS
Arsenic
0.018
340d
340d
150d
150d
5(P)
50
50
50
Benz(a)anthracene
0.0038
0.23
0.03
0.0004(p)
0.002
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.0012
0.0038
0.002
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.0038
0.002
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.0038
0.0002(p)
0.002
Chrysene
0.0038
0.0001 (p)
0.002
Chlordane
2E-5
8.0E-4
0.006
2.4
0.0043
0.06
0.06
0.05
p,p'-DDD
8E-5
3.1 E-4
see
DDT
see DDT
see
DDT
0.3
see DDT
p,p'-DDE
7E-6
2.2E-4
see
DDT
see DDT
see
DDT
0.2
see DDT
p,p'-DDT
1E-5
2.2E-4
0.0016
1.1
0.001
0.0038
0.0038
0.2
1.1E-58
Dieldrin
6E-7f
5.2E-5
0.004f
0.24
0.24
0.056
0.056
0.001f
0.001f
0.004
Dioxins/dibenzofurans
6E-109
5.0E-9h
2E-8(p)g
7E-79
3.1E-9h
Hexachlorobenzene
3E-5
2.8E-4
0.0065
0.0065
0.04
Lead
see
belowld
65^
see
below''d
2.5i,d
5(p)J
25
50
2
Mercury
7E-4d
1.4d
1.4d
0.77d
0.77d
0.2d
0.2d
0.7
0.1k
0.0026d
-------
1.2E-4
to
o
o
CM
O
o»
o
o
o
CD
O
o
00
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
m
00
o
o
o
o
o
o
^r
o
o
CM
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
lO
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
o
CD
o
o
o
m
¦
LU
^r
CD
CD
CD
o
^r
¦
LU
00
c\i
CD
LU
CD
LU
CD
CD
LU
-
CD
LU
CD
Mirex
0
C
0
L_
-l—•
w
o
L_
o
JZ
o
CC
-i—•
o
O
"co
CQ
O
CL
o
c
o
>,
_c
0
o
L_
o
JZ
o
CC
L_
-l—•
0
H
0
c
0
sz
CL
03
X
o
H
E
CB
CD
0)
Q.
>
0)
O
£
•u
o
n
c
&
o
£
CO
0)
L.
CO
CO
¦o
L.
(0
¦o
c
(0
CO
0)
(0
CO
L.
o
>-
&
0)
CO
0)
o
L.
3
o
CO
cc
£
CD
CO
c
o
o
CD
E
c
o
i_
¦>
c
LU
M—
o
H—<
c
CD
E
¦c
CB
Q_
CD
Q
CD
H—<
cc
H—<
CO
i_
o
CO
O)
O)
CD
CO
"i_
CD
CO
CD
O
c
cc
;g
*3
CD
75
c
o
"•4—'
cc
i_
CD
Q_
O
"O
c
cc
7c
o
o
CD
CD
H—<
co
o
'co
¦>
b
CD
H—<
CB
H—<
CO
>-
CN
O
O
CN
s_T
CD
.Q
E
CD
>
o
O
Q
CO
CO
>s
O)
o
o
CD
CD
O
c
0
'o
CO
CD
O
CN
O
O
CN
CD
"i_
CD
H—'
"i_
o
>S
H—'
7c
O
CD
H—<
co
o
Q
E
cc
CD
i_
H—<
CO
Q_
D
cc
cc
>
LU
CN
O)
O)
CO
CD
>
o
CD
5"
o
cc
O
CD
H—<
.C5
CO
'o
>
o
CO
CD
"O
CD
"O
c
CD
E
E
o
o
CD
•S *
c «
o
"•4—'
cc
CD
P
tTo
Q_ -
E ©
8 M
> o
© Q_
O ¦£
Q- !
o c -
CB
co
O)
"O
CD
"O
c
CD
E
. cc
s«
^ S2
CD
CT> 0>
CT> ^
¦*— M—
o
I =
to CD
O) E
g?
"C >S
0 .ti
1 §
|o
E 3
CO .CO
£ g
00 CO
C CD
5
o CO
F ™
CO s-
05 O
00 05
CD °
.C T—
£ X
o CD
CD
H—<
cc
<:
o:
O) ,
cc :
Q_
CD
CD
T~~ CC
CO = CO
E
CO
>- ^
z-<
s&
IS
o
CD
lo*
. o
05 o
2 to t
it; o
„ CO CD
05 c Q.
.S co CO
CO S ™
; cd o
¦ x =2
43
o
CL
CD
CO
_l
o
05
CO
CD
i_
CB
o
CD
H—<
CO
cc
'o
c
¦>
o
i_
Q_
CD
i_
CB
CO
o
Q.
X
CD
CD
H—<
I
O)
c
o
M—
o
CO
o
4—>
cc
CC -ti
8 75
CO
o
X
o
H—<
>s
H—'
o
p.
Q_
O"'
cc -
cc
e>
o
+
i_
CD
H—<
cc
o
"•4—»
Q_
CC ±i
^ *= O
m
z
CD
i_
CB
CD
"O
co"
o
o
o § E
-H- "P
o
CB
O
+
CO
CO
CD
CO
0
Q.
Q.
CC
O)
O)
o
o
o
"E
CB
"O
c
CO
H—<
CO
CD
H—<
cc
H—<
CO
>-
o
+
c
"O
- cc
^3 M—
^ O
"O
"O
cc
±: O
Q
Q
Q.
Q.
CC
LU
Q
Q
Q.
Q.
LU
Q
OOh
_>s
Q.
Q.
CC
CO
CD
>
O
CD
!5"
o
O
h-
O)
CN "-v
if)
1 P
? ~
Q.
Q_
O)
O
CO
? A
.£ o. co
Q. 05
= g
05 "2
CO
CO
CD
CC
CO
h-
CN
-E cc
¦It
C Q.
— CC
£2 CO
^ ¦ s_
CD
H—'
a. b
OJ .2
i_
cc
x
CD
/^~V Vi;
CM p-
1^ OJ ^
^ ^ O
Z. lO
o J ~6
CD
o CO
EX3
Q-'P
Q. 5
o
CO
CD
O
c
o
O
CO
o
*3
O"
CD
CO
co
CN
co
cc
CO
c
cc
CO
CO
§5 ^
p m
Q. P
Q. E
c o
CD
cc
H—<
o
H—<
i_
£
CO
CD
cc
>
5— i- o
«-g -g
& cc ©
^ o
, 0-
00 LiJ
° ^
Cvl ,p
CD LJ-
T- CC
CO
^ CD
3 p
TO 0
O) II ^
¦2
CD c CO
3 " CB
— CD ^
CC ^
> -= CO
o 5 1/5
.9 > CD
C CD c
2 "E
r o co
O < X
co w
p o
O >s
¦s-i:
O Q-
cc
m W
.© CD
Q. =
Q_ CC
< >
CC
O "O CD
-------
Table 9. Sport Fish Consumption Advisories for the Upper and Lower Niagara
Rivers from the 2003-2004 Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish.
Location
Species
Fish Size in Centimetres (Inches)
15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 >75
(6-8) (8-10) (10-12) (12-14) (14-18) (18-22) (22-26) (26-30) >(30)
Lake Ontario
Upper Niagara River
Rainbow T rout5
X
X
X
X
Northern Pike2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Smallmouth Bass5,7
X
X
X
X
4
4
Largemouth Bass2
X
X
X
X
4
Yellow Perch5
X
X
X
X
White Perch5
X
White Bass5
4
Rock Bass5
X
X
Brown Bullhead2,7
X
X
X
X
Carp2,7
X
X
X
X
4
2
2
Freshwater Drum5,7
X
X
X
X
X
White Sucker5
X
X
X
X
X
4
Redhorse Sucker1
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
Rainbow Smelt2
4
Lower Niagara River
Chinnook5
4
2
Rainbow T rout5,7,8,9
X
X
X
4
4
4
Brown Trout2
X
X
4
Lake Trout5
1
1
1
1
Smallmouth Bass5,7
X
X
X
X
4
4
Largemouth Bass2
X
X
X
4
Yellow Perch5,7
X
X
4
4
White Perch2
X
X
1
Y
White Bass5
X
X
X
X
1
Rock Bass2,7
X
X
4
Bluegill2
X
Brown Bullhead3,7
X
X
X
4
Channel Catfish5
X
4
4
Freshwater Drum5,7
X
X
X
X
X
X
Carp2,7
X
X
X
4
2
White Sucker5
X
X
4
4
Redhorse Sucker5
X
4
2
2
American Eel5,7
4
4
4
Rainbow Smelt2
2
X = Consumption of no more than eight meals per month for the general population. Women of childbearing age
and children under 15 are advised to consume only the fish represented by this symbol and to consume
no more than four meals per month
Y = None of these fish should be consumed in any amount by anyone.
1 - 4 = Number of advised meals per month. Women of child bearing age and children under 15 are advised not to
consume these fish in any amount.
NOTE: A meal is considered to be 227 grams (8 ounces).
Contaminants Analyzed (Superscripts)
1 Mercury
2 Mercury, PCBs, mirex/photomirex and pesticides
3 PCBs, mirex/photomirex and pesticides
4 Mercury, PCBs and mirex
5 Mercury, other metals, PCBs mirex/photomirex and pesticides
6 Mercury and other mtals
7 Dioxins and furans
8 Mercury, PCBs, mirex/photomirex, pesticide:
chlorinated phenols and chlorinated benzen
9 Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
44
-------
Table 10. New York State Advisories on the Consumption of Sportfish for Waters
of the Niagara River and its U. S. tributaries (NYSDOH 2002).
Water
Species
Recommendation*
Chemical of
Concern
Niagara River,
above Niagara Falls
Carp
Eat no more than
one meal per month
PCBs
Niagara River,
below Niagara Falls
American eel,
channel catfish,
carp, lake trout over
25", brown trout
over 20", Chinook
salmon, white perch
Eat none
PCBs, mirex, dioxin
Smallmouth bass,
rainbow trout, white
sucker, lake trout
less than 25",
brown trout less
than 20", coho
salmon over 25"
Eat no more than
one meal per month
PCBs, mirex, dioxin
Tonawanda Creek,
Lockport to Niagara
River
Carp
Eat no more than
one meal per month
PCBs
Buffalo
River/Harbor
Carp
Eat none
PCBs
Cayuga Creek
All species
Eat none
Dioxin
• Note the additional advisories, applicable to the Niagara River and U. S. tributaries, recommended by
the NYSDOH to minimize potential adverse health impacts:
• Eat no more than one meal (one-half pound) per week of fish from any New York fresh water.
• Women of childbearing age, infants and children under age 15 years should not eat any fish species
from the waters listed above.
• Observe the above restrictions in tributaries of the above waters to the first impassable barrier
impassable by fish.
Follow trimming and cooking advice described in NYSDOH (2002).
45
-------
NIAGARA RIVER TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN (NRTMP) ANNUAL WORK PLAN [2003]
The Four Parties: EPA =United States Environmental Protection Agency
DEC =New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
EC =Environment Canada
MOE =Ontario Ministry of the Environment
ACTIVITY AND COMMENTS
E
P
A
D
E
C
O m
M
0
E
COMMITMENTS
2002 2003
STATUS
Controlling Point Sources
A.
Report on U.S. Point Sources
X
Periodically
Periodically
Ongoing; see comments
Comments: As of 2003 all regulated facilities in the Niagara River basin are in substantial compliance with State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (SPDES) permits.
B.
Report on Canadian Point Sources
X
-
-
Ongoing; see comments
Comments: Regulatory monitoring and reporting of Ontario point sources as required by Certificates of Approval and Clean Water
regulations will continue.
C.
Report on actions to further address U.S. point
sources discharging NRTMP Priority Toxics.
X
X
Beginning
2002
Update in
2003
Ongoing
Comments: In 2000-2001, DEC/EPA conducted an assessment of information on NRTMP Priority Toxic Chemical discharges to help
prioritize further actions. Among the priorities identified were: the regulatory review and revision, as necessary, of existing permits, the
investigation of contaminants associated with wet-weather overflows from the Falls Street Tunnel (FST); and, nonregulatory or voluntary
pollution prevention programs to further reduce contamination. Permit reviews and revision occur routinely according to programmatic
schedules. See Monitoring, item G, for details. Nonregulatory and innovative voluntary pollution prevention activities have been
implemented locally by DEC, Erie and Niagara counties, and various non-governmental organizations.
Controlling Non-Point Sources
A.
Waste sites/landfills
1. Update progress report on remediation of U. S.
hazardous waste sites. [Progress at most
significant sites summarized below]
X
X
May 2002
June 2003
Completed
W-1
-------
E
D
E
M
COMMITMENTS
ACTIVITY AND COMMENTS
P
A
E
C
c
0
E
2002
2003
STATUS
2. Remediate Occidental Chemical-Buffalo Ave
Completed
a. Complete overburden groundwater collection
X
-
-
system
b. Enhance bedrock groundwater collection
X
-
-
Completed
system
c. Complete remediation of contaminated soils
X
-
See
and off-site groundwater
comments
d. Issue Corrective Measures Implementation
X
-
-
Completed
(CMI) Permit
e. Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation
X
2003
2003
Completed 2000 mussel
using caged mussels
biomonitoring report. Next field
survey scheduled for 2003
Comments: The groundwater stabilization programs were completed in December 1998.
Occidental enhanced its treatment plant for
contaminated bedrock groundwater, and then increased the groundwater extraction rates. The overburden groundwater collection system
was augmented by installation of a tile drain collection system. On December 27, 1999 New York State issued a final permit that
incorporates these and other corrective measures currently in place as part of the Final Corrective Measures for the site. After a public
comment period, the final permit became effective February 10, 2000. The field survey to biomonitor effectiveness of remediation using
caged mussels was completed by MOE in August 2000.
The next surve
y is scheduled for 2003.
3. Remediate Niagara County Refuse Disposal
Completed; operation and
a. Complete construction of site remedy
X
-
-
maintenance ongoing
4. Remediate DuPont, Necco Park site
a. Start construction of final site remedy
X
Nov 2001
-
Ongoing
b. Complete Final Remedy
X
Nov 2005
Nov 2005
See comments
Comments: Remedial design is underway including the installation of additional groundwater wells, which began September 2000.
However, recent progress on the design and construction of the remedy has been delayed due to disagreements between EPA and Dupont
over technical aspects of the design. EPA and Dupont are working to resolve the issue.
See EPA/DEC's Reduction of Toxics Loadings
to the Niagara River from Hazardous Waste Sites in the United States: June 2003, Appendix A, for details.
W-2
-------
E
D
E
M
COMMITMENTS
ACTIVITY AND COMMENTS
P
A
E
C
C
0
E
2002
2003
STATUS
5. Remediate Hyde Park Site
a. Complete additional remedial measures as
X
-
June 2003
See comments
necessary to achieve hydraulic containment
b. Optimize well pumping rates and evaluate
X
Ongoing
Ongoing
See comments
the containment of contaminated
groundwater. Monitor groundwater level and
conduct chemical sampling
c. Complete all remedial systems
X
-
June 2003
See comments
d. Conduct annual survey of gorge-face seeps
X
-
July 2003
See comments
e. Sample groundwater seeps coming from
X
-
June 2002
See comments
Niagara River Gorge face and analyze for
toxic chemicals.
f. Conduct ecological risk screening of
X
-
Dec 2003
See comments
contamination at mouth of Bloody
Run Creek
g. Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation using
X
2003
2003
Completed 2000 mussel
caged mussels
biomonitoring report. Next field
survey scheduled for 2003
Comments: Most site construction is complete with all overburden groundwater being contained, and in the three bedrock groundwater
zones, approximately 96% of contaminated groundwater being contained. Remedial work to achieve full containment is continuing. Pumping
wells installed in 1998-2000 did not achieve all required inward hydraulic gradients, and a groundwater model was used to locate five
additional extraction wells, installed in 2001. Annual gorge face surveying and seep sampling continue to indicate no need for additional
control or remediation of the area. Sediment sampling conducted by MOEin 1997 and EPA in 1999 at the mouth of Bloody Run Creek
indicated possible continuing concerns due to dioxin contamination. Biomonitoring data from 2000 showed that concentrations of dioxins
and furans in mussels at the mouth of Bloody Run Creek were lower than concentrations detected in 1994, 1995 and 1997. However,
calculated TEQs were still considered high based on samples collected at uncontaminated sites. Risk screening of this contamination by
EPA indicated human health risk to be within its acceptable risk range. EPA will complete an ecological risk screening by December 2003.
See EPA/DEC's Reduction of Toxics Loadings to the Niagara River from Hazardous Waste Sites in the United States: June 2003, for
further details.
W-3
-------
E
D
E
M
COMMITMENTS
ACTIVITY AND COMMENTS
P
A
E
C
C
0
E
2002
2003
STATUS
6. Remediate 102nd Street
a. Complete containment system, including
X
-
-
Completed
barrier wall, drainage system, landfill cap
b. Complete leachate pumping system
X
-
-
Completed Dec 1998
c. Complete site landscaping and optimization
X
-
-
Completed Mar 1999
of the pump-and-treat system
d. Monitor groundwater level to ensure
X
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
effectiveness of remedial systems
e. Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation
X
2003
2003
Completed 2000 mussel
using caged mussels
biomonitoring report. Next field
survey scheduled for 2003
7. Remediate Occidental Chemical, S-Area
X
-
-
a. Finish building new City of Niagara Falls
Fully operational
Drinking Water Treatment Plant (DWTP)
b. Demolish existing DWTP
X
-
-
Completed
c. Construct eastern barrier wall
X
-
-
Completed
d. Complete cap and overburden drain
X
-
-
Completed
collection system for the old DWTP property
e. Secure DWTP intake structures, including
X
-
-
Completed
grouting raw water intake
f. Install final landfill cap
X
May 2002
-
Completed
g. Optimize well pumping rates to prevent
X
2002
2004
See comments
contaminated groundwater from leaving site.
h. Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation
X
2003
2003
Completed 2000 report. Next
using caged mussels
field survey scheduled for 2003
W-4
-------
ACTIVITY AND COMMENTS
E
P
A
D
E
C
O m
M
0
E
COMMITMENTS
2002 2003
STATUS
Comments: Completion of the Remedial Action has been delayed due to the improper installation of a portion of the drain collection system.
The system was replaced in 1999-2000 and construction of the final landfill cap was completed in August 2002. Securement of the raw
water intake structure from the old DWTP, including the grouting of the 5,000-foot long bedrock tunnel was completed in August 2002.
Construction activities for the site are completed. Evaluation and adjustments of the remedial systems are currently being performed.
8. Remediate Solvent Chemical Site
a. Complete remedial design
b. Construct site remedy
c. Complete remedial action
d. Begin performance monitoring
X X X X
Dec 2002
2003
Completed
Completed
Completed; see comments
See comments
Comments: Construction of the groundwater extraction and treatment systems were completed in 2001, but treatment system modifications
were required in early 2002. The remedial system became fully operational in December 2002. A performance monitoring program will
begin in 2003.
9. Remediate Olin plant site
a. Monitor effectiveness of remedial systems
b. Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation using
caged mussels
X
X
X
Ongoing
2003
Ongoing
2003
Ongoing
Completed 2000 mussel
biomonitoring report. Next field
survey scheduled for 2003
10. Remediate Buffalo Color Corporation site
a. Complete site investigation
b. Select site remedy
c. Implement site remedy
X XX
Apr 2002
delayed
Aug 2003
July 2004
Completed
See comments
See comments
Comments:. Public notice and implementation of the final remedy has been delayed due to BCC's Chapter 11 Bankruptcy filing in Oct 2002.
Buffalo Color and Honeywell, a PRP, have recently come to an agreement regarding financial arrangements for implementation of the
remedial measures. However, this agreement requires the approval of the Bankruptcy Court and the issuance of a Consent Order by the
NYSDEC. The overall schedule for corrective action is dependant on these actions as well as on field conditions required. See EPA/DEC's
Reduction of Toxics Loadings to the Niagara River from Hazardous Waste Sites in the United States: June 2003, Appendix A, for
more information.
W-5
-------
ACTIVITY AND COMMENTS
E
P
A
D
E
C
O m
M
0
E
COMMITMENTS
2002 2003
STATUS
11. Remediate Bethlehem Steel site
a. Complete site investigation
b. Select site remedy
c. Begin implementation of site remedy
X XX
X XX
July 2002
Oct 2003
Dec 2004
Dec 2003
Oct 2005
Mar 2007
See comments
See comments
See comments
Comments: Due to delays caused by several problems (see EPA/DEC's Reduction of Toxics Loadings to the Niagara River from
Hazardous Waste Sites in the United States: June 2003, Appendix A, for more information), the proposed schedule, and all target dates,
were extended. EPA has removed approximately 102 acres of the facility from the RFI Order to facilitate brownfields type redevelopment.
This acreage is not believed to be significantly contaminated and may be suitable for redevelopment. BSC and DEC are negotiating a Work
Plan for the investigation of the 102 acre parcel.
12. Remediate Gratwick Riverside Park site
a. Complete construction of site remedy
b. Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation
using caged mussels
X
X
2003
2003
Completed Dec 2000
Completed 2000 mussel
biomonitoring report. Next field
survey scheduled for 2003
13. Remediate Occidental Chemical Durez - North
Tonawanda site
a. Complete construction of site remedy
b. Assess contamination in Pettit Flume Cove
c. Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation
using caged mussels
X
X
X
2003
2003
Completed
See comments
Completed 2000 mussel
biomonitoring report. Next field
survey scheduled in 2003
Comments: The July 2000 mussel biomonitoring study again detected high concentrations of dioxins and furans in deployed mussels and
sediment collected from Pettit Flume. Additional assessment of Pettit Flume Cove will be done in conjunction with OCC's long-term
operation, maintenance and monitoring plan, as well as MOE's ongoing biomonitoring program.
W-6
-------
ACTIVITY AND COMMENTS
E
P
A
D
E
C
O m
M
0
E
COMMITMENTS
2002 2003
STATUS
14. Determine whether trace amounts of
contaminants of concern found at 5 landfills are
moving to groundwater off-site
X
X
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing; see comments
Comments: Groundwater monitoring at these sites has shown that contaminants are not moving to the groundwater and off-site. Further
assessment is not required at this time; however, regulatory monitoring and reporting of these non-point sources as required by certificates
of approval will continue.
B.
Contaminated Sediments
Update NY Great Lake Contaminated Sediment
Inventory
X
Annually
Annually
Update completed Mar 2001
Monitoring
A.
Complete report on results of
Upstream/Downstream sampling
X
X
X
X
-
-
1999/00 and 2000/01 report in
preparation
B.
Collect juvenile spottail shiners or other juvenile fish
and analyze for toxic chemicals, according to
Monitoring Plan
X
X
See
comments
2003
Next MOE and DEC surveys
scheduled for 2003; MOE
technical summary of 2000 and
2001 data completed
Comments: In the fall of 2000, 2001 and 2002 MOE collected juvenile fish on both the Canadian and US sides of the Niagara River.
Technical summaries. A technical summary of the 2000 and 2001 sampling is completed and presented in the 2003 NRTMP Progress
Report. In August 2002, DEC published its summary of its 1997 sampling of YOY fish in near shore areas of New York's Great Lake Basin.
C.
Track down toxic chemicals in tributaries and sewer
systems to identify sources
X
X
Update in
2003
Annual
updates
See comments
1. Perform post-remediation sediment sampling of
Gill Creek
X
2003
See comments
2. Perform follow-up trackdown-related sampling
in Two-Mile Creek
X
2003
See comments
3. Perform sediment sampling in Cayuga Creek
and Little Niagara River
X
2003
See comments
W-7
-------
ACTIVITY AND COMMENTS
E
P
A
D
E
C
O m
M
0
E
COMMITMENTS
2002 2003
STATUS
Comments: DEC and EPA are working cooperatively to oversee the implementation of New York State Great Lakes basin source trackdown
work, including Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and the Niagara River. Through DEC/EPA's assessment of past data collected in the Niagara River
and U. S. tributaries, several priority areas were identified for follow-up monitoring and are scheduled for track-down and/or post-remediation
sampling in 2003 by DEC. Additional trackdown-related sampling may be funded through the Great Lakes National Program Office's FY
2003-2004 Request for Proposals. Trackdown related proposals received in response to this Request are currently being reviewed.
D.
Biomonitor using caged mussels and analyze for
toxic chemicals, according to Monitoring Plan.
X
2003
2003
Completed 2000 mussel
biomonitoring report. Next
survey scheduled for 2003
E.
Study use of zebra and quagga mussels as
biomonitors.
X
2002
2003
Study completed; journal article
to be submitted for review and
publication.
F.
Assess sport fishery in Niagara River, with
contaminant analysis.
X
X
2002
2003
Ongoing. 2003-2004 Guide to
Eating Ontario Sport Fish
released in March 2003. NYS
DOH's Health Advisories:
Chemicals in Game and
Sportfish issued annually.
Comments: MOE collections from the upper and lower Niagara River completed in fall of 2002; next field collection scheduled for 2003.
Contaminant trend analysis (1970-2000) in preparation, with results anticipated to be reported in the 2004 NRTMP Progress Report. The
next NYS Niagara River sampling has yet to be determined.
G.
Collect sample of Falls Street Tunnel (FST) wet
weather discharge and analyze for NRTMP priority
chemicals using techniques to achieve low
detection levels.
X
2002
Completed. See comments
Comments: Wet and dry weather sampling conducted by DEC indicate the presence of certain NRTMP toxics (PCBs and dioxin/furans).
Since all flows <10 mgd are being routed through the City of Niagara Falls' Wastewater Treatment Plant, only extreme wet weather flows
currently discharge into the Niagara River. In early 2003, the SPDES permit for the Plant was modified to include new requirements to
control discharges from its outfalls, including the FST (see also the 2003 NRTMP Progress Report, Section 5.0: US Trackdown Initiatives).
W-8
-------
ACTIVITY AND COMMENTS
E
P
A
D
E
C
O m
M
0
E
COMMITMENTS
2002 2003
STATUS
H
Develop plans for additional assessment of low-
level contaminant discharges from Niagara River
point sources.
X
X
Update in
2003
Annual
updates
See comments
Comments: DEC/EPA's 1999 assessment of recent available information on toxic contaminant discharges from Niagara River point sources
indicate the need for additional assessment of low-level contaminant discharges from point sources in the Niagara River The purpose would
be to help determine additional priorities for control of contaminant discharges from point sources. DEC/EPA are evaluating approaches for
such an assessment and will provide an update in 2004.
Define Additional Actions to Reduce Toxic Chemical Inputs to the Niagara River
A.
Develop additional materials relating information on
Niagara River contamination and contaminant
sources, and incorporate into NRTMP Progress
Report and Work Plan
X
X
X
X
Update in
2003
Annual
updates as
necessary
See comments
Comments: DEC/EPA have completed three synthesis assessments, utilizing a variety of data sources to address: ambient toxic
concentrations, and the significance of Niagara River sources; point sources of toxics; and characterization of toxic contaminants in
sediments, biota and water of the Niagara River and its tributaries. Information and recommended actions from this synthesis effort were
included in the 2001 Progress Report. In the following years, DEC/EPA will update and report on synthesis related efforts as necessary.
Additional information and plans are under development, including a Four-Party technical interpretive report on the US/DS Program and
Biomonitoring Program, and a DEC report summarizing the results of tributary trackdown activities.
B.
Develop plans addressing water-quality limiting
chemicals.
X
X
Beginning
2002
-
See comments
Comments: A DEC/EPA assessment of water quality in the Niagara River indicates exceedences of New York water quality standards for
some NRTMP Priority Toxic Chemicals. Niagara River waters and tributaries have previously appeared on New York's annual list of water
quality-impaired waters (i.e. the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list) due to water quality standard exceedences of PCBs, dioxin, and mirex.
In 2002, the Niagara River was additionally listed under Part 3 the 303(d) list (Waters Previously Listed But Requiring Re-Assessment
Based on New Methodology) due to potential exceedences of most stringent applicable NYS standards for the following PAHs:
benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, benzo(b/k)fluoranthene, and indeno(123-cd)pyrene. Total Maximum Daily Loads/Wasteload Allocations/Load
Allocations (TMDLs/WLAs/LAs) must be developed for waters on the 303(d) list. Since monitoring data suggest several of these
exceedences can be attributed to Lake Erie sources, DEC and EPA have communicated their priorities to the Lake Erie Lakewide
Management Plan committee to ensure that their future strategy to address toxic contamination in Lake Erie be consistent with, and
incorporate NRTMP concerns.
W-9
-------
ACTIVITY AND COMMENTS
E
P
A
D
E
C
O m
M
0
E
COMMITMENTS
2002 2003
STATUS
Public Involvement
A.
Develop a reader-friendly brochure that gives an
overview of the NRTMP and summarizes progress
made on restoring the Niagara River.
X
X
X
X
Completed
B.
Present remediation progress for U.S. hazardous
waste sites at a public meeting in Niagara Falls.
X
X
X
X
2003
2004
See comments
Comments: In June 2003 recent progress in the remediation of the U.S. hazardous waste sites will be summarized in the NRTMP/LO LaMP
annual public meeting. See also Controlling Non-Point Sources, item A1.
C.
Make NRTMP information and reports available on
the Internet. Develop a NRTMP web page.
X
X
X
X
As
available
As
available
See comments
Comments: Summaries of recent Four Party Upstream/Downstream Reports can be found on the GLIMR web site at
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/glimr/search.html (search "joint evaluation'). U.S. wastesite reports (Reduction of Toxics Loadings to the Niagara
River from Hazardous Waste Sites in the United States) from 1998 and NRTMP progress reports are at
http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/lakeont/nrtmp. Additional reports will be added as they become available.
D.
Produce a progress report on the condition of the
Niagara River and NRTMP efforts to restore the
river. Update annual work plan for future actions
X
X
X
X
2003
June 2003
Interim report released in June
2002. Next full report
scheduled for 2003
E.
Hold a public meeting to present above progress
and updated annual work plan
X
X
X
X
2003
June 2003
See comments
Comments: In recent years, NRTMP and LO LaMP public meetings have been jointly held. In June 2003, the meeting will primarily focus on
the NRTMP with the LO LaMP being the secondary component of the meeting. LO LaMP will be the primary focus in 2004 with the NRTMP
being the secondary component of this meeting.
W-10
------- |