Niagara
River
Toxics
Management
Plan
PROGRESS REPORT and WORK PLAN
June 2000
By the Niagara River Secretariat
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
PROGRESS REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 THE UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM MONITORING PROGRAM 2
Changes in "Priority Toxics", 1986/87 -1996/97
Chlorobenzenes (CBs) 3
Organochlorines (OCs) 3
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 4
Industrial By-Product Chemicals 4
Metals 4
Trend Graphs 4
3.0 STATUS AND TRENDS RELATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES 4
Comparison with Water Quality Criteria 5
Fish Consumption Advisories 7
Trends of PCB in Lake Ontario Fish 9
4.0 THE BIOMONITORING PROGRAM 9
5.0 SUMMARY 12
6.0 REFERENCES 13
WORK PLAN
2000 NRTMP Annual Work Plan W-1
11
-------
Niagara River Toxics Management Plan
Progress Report and Work Plan
June 2000
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, fishing grounds, and vacation spots. It generates
electricity and provides employment to millions of people. Unfortunately, the River is also
the recipient of toxic wastes that pollute its waters and prevent us from fully enjoying its
beneficial uses.
Since 1987, the Niagara River has been the focus of attention for the four environmental
agencies in Canada and the U.S., referred to here as "The Four Parties". In February
1987, Environment Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II, the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (the "Four Parties") signed a "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, because
they were thought to have significant Niagara River sources, were designated for 50%
reduction by 1996. The Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP) is the program
designed to achieve these reductions.
In December 1996, the Four Parties signed a "Letter of Support", pledging their continued
commitment 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.
This year's Progress Report, in addition to presenting results from the
Upstream/Downstream and Biomonitoring Programs, also presents information on the
comparison of ambient water concentrations to water quality objectives, fish consumption
advisories, and trends of contaminants in fish.
The Work Plan, also included as part of this Progress Report, outlines the activities to be
undertaken by the Four Parties to achieve the goals expressed in the Letter of Support,
and to monitor and report progress towards attainment of these goals.
NYSDEC/EPA and MOE have previously presented point source daily load data showing
greater than 50% reductions in the "priority toxics". NYSDEC and EPA have also
presented information on progress in remediation of hazardous waste sites. This
Progress Report presents evidence of progress, to gauge the effectiveness of these
actions. The key sources of information used in assessing progress are:
111
-------
• Changes/trends in the eighteen "priority toxics", determined by using a
statistical model and data from the Upstream/Downstream Program;
• Biomonitoring Program data (juvenile fish and caged mussels), indicating
contaminant bioavailability, cne of the tools which can help us gauge the
effectiveness of remedial programs in reducing chemical inputs to the
Niagara River at various sources;
• Comparison with the most stringent agency water quality criteria available in
1996/97; and,
• Fish consumption advisories.
The primary method of assessment is the Upstream/Downstream Program. The
program collects water and suspended sediment samples once every two weeks from the
head and mouth of the river to measure the changes in the concentrations and loads of
more than 90 chemicals. An advanced statistical model was used to determine trends
for the eighteen "priority toxics" for the period 1986/87 to 1996/97, and to determine with
more certainty, the effectiveness of reductions of chemical loads to the river.
Results show that there have been statistically significant reductions in the concentrations
and loads for most of the eighteen "priority toxics". In many cases the reductions have
been greater than 50%. For some chemicals, the reductions observed are due, in part, to
the effectiveness of remedial activities at Niagara River sources in reducing chemical
inputs to the river.
In 1996/97, concentrations of most of the "priority toxics" were below their 1996/97 most
stringent agency criteria. The exceptions were hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and the
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). This is a positive indicator of progress.
Recently, the New York State Department of Health has made some fish consumption
advisories in the Niagara River and Lake Ontario less restrictive. Biomonitoring Program
results, using caged mussels, continue to show that remedial activities at specific
hazardous waste sites have been successful in reducing inputs of chemicals to the Niagara
River. Where the data show there might be some residual contamination, both EPA and
DEC have taken steps to ensure that appropriate follow-up action is taken.
Each of the above results supports the conclusion that remedial activities have had an
effect in reducing the loads of chemicals to the river. This is the overall goal of the Niagara
River DOI and the NRTMP.
iv
-------
Despite the successes to date, more work needs to be done. Some chemicals are still at
levels that exceed the most stringent agency water quality criteria in the River. Advisories
to limit consumption of sportfish caught in the Niagara River continue due to contamination
by toxic substances. There is evidence of continuing sources of chemical contamination in
the River. Inputs from Lake Erie are also important for some chemicals. The activities in
the 2000 Work Plan reflect the commitment of the Four Parties to continue to reduce toxic
chemical inputs to the River and to monitor the progress. This commitment includes:
• 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, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (the "Four Parties") signed a "Declaration of Intent" (DOI). The
purpose of this Declaration is to achieve significant reductions of toxic contaminants in the
Niagara River. Eighteen "priority toxics" were specifically targeted for reduction (Table 1),
ten of which, because they were thought to have significant Niagara River sources, were
designated for 50% reduction form Canadian and U.S. point and non-point sources by
1996. The Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP) is the program designed to
achieve these reductions. The NRTMP Work Plan identifies activities taken by the Four
Parties to remediate sources and to monitor progress toward protecting the River.
The Four Parties have used a variety of information to assess progress. For example,
NYSDEC/EPA and MOE have presented point source daily load data showing greater
than 50% reductions in the "priority toxics". NYSDEC and EPA have presented information
on progress in remediation of hazardous waste sites. Reductions in inputs of certain
priority toxic chemicals to the river from Niagara River sources have also been shown by
ambient river and biomonitoring data.
In particular, past NRTMP Progress Reports have focused on the corroborative evidence
from the Upstream/Downstream and Biomonitoring programs, along with sediment core
data from the Niagara River depositional zone in Lake Ontario.
The information has been useful for assessing progress in meeting the 50% reduction goal
and in documenting successes in "cleaning-up" the Niagara River. These reports have
presented at least two consistent messages as follows:
• Concentrations of many of the 18 NRTMP "priority toxics" in the Niagara
River have decreased and the river is getting "cleaner"; and,
• Decreases in the concentrations/loads of many of these "priority toxics"
have exceeded 50%.
Past reports have also stated that, notwithstanding the work and successes to date, more
work still needs to be done. Several examples of current concerns were noted in last
year's report. These included exceedences of water quality criteria in the river; fish
consumption advisories for fish from the river; and biomonitoring program results indicating
the continuing presence of particular priority toxics in areas where remediations have
occurred. Current trackdown efforts will determine if there are sources of priority toxics to
the Niagara River that may require attention.
The Four Parties are committed to further reducing toxic chemical inputs to the Niagara
River, and to assessing the effectiveness of remedial activities at Niagara River sources in
reducing the concentrations of these chemicals in water and biota. In December, 1996, the
l
-------
Four Parties signed a Letter of Support to re-affirm their commitment to the NRTMP. The
revised goal statement in that Letter reads as follows:
To reduce toxic chemical concentrations in the Niagara River by reducing inputs from sources
along the River. The purpose is 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.
In addition to presenting results from the Upstream/Downstream and Biomonitoring
Programs, this year's Progress Report presents additional information on the comparison
of ambient water concentrations to water quality objectives, fish consumption advisories,
and trends of contaminants in fish.
The Work Plan, also included as part of this Progress Report, outlines the activities to be
undertaken by the Four Parties to achieve the above goal, and to monitor and report
progress.
2.0 THE UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM MONITORING PROGRAM
Since 1986, the Upstream/Downstream Program has been used to estimate the annual
mean concentrations and loads with their 90% confidence limits for each of the chemicals,
in both phases, at both stations. Results have been summarized and released in annual,
Four Party Upstream/Downstream reports (e.g., NRDIG 1999).
The Program collects both water and suspended sediment samples from the head (Fort
Erie = FE), and mouth (Niagara-on-the-Lake = NOTL) of the Niagara River, once every two
1
weeks , to measure the changes in the concentrations and loads of over 90 chemicals in
the water entering and leaving the river. 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 allowed by the detection limits used in source monitoring
programs.
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. Compounding this difficulty was the fact that the concentrations of many
chemicals, particularly organic chemicals, were so diluted (due to the river's high rate of
flow) that they were often below analytical detection limits. Furthermore detection limits
changed during the period of record. To determine reliable trends overtime with known
confidence for measured chemicals, a statistical procedure was developed that dealt with
"censored" and missing data, auto-correlation and seasonality, as well as changing
analytical limits of detection (El-Shaarawi and Al-lbrahim 1996).
1 Prior to April 1997, sampling was done on a weekly basis.
2
-------
A detailed analysis of the Upstream/Downstream Program data collected over the eleven-
year period 1986/87 to 1996/97 to determine trends was recently completed by Williams et
al (2000). The model was run on each of the chemicals, in each phase individually [whole
water for metals], at both stations for the entire period of record. The ratio of the means
2
(expressed as a percent) for the end year (1996/97) to the base year was used to
calculate an index of change over the eleven-year period of record- Table 2 shows the
3
percent change in the annual mean concentrations/loads for the 18 NRTMP "priority
toxics", in both phases, at both stations, between the base year and end year (1996/97)
generated by the model. 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,
and a negative number a significant decrease, in the model estimates of annual mean
concentrations/loads between the base year and 1996/97. "NS" signifies no significant
change in the model estimates over the period of record.
Briefly, the results for the 18 NRTMP "priority toxics" show the following.
Chlorobenzenes (CBs)
The reduction in both the dissolved and particulate phase concentrations and loads of
hexachlorobenzene at NOTL exceeded 50%. At FE, the output from the model was
discarded because significance was based almost entirely on "trace" (i.e., below the
detection limit) values. This clearly suggests that reductions at NOTL are due to reductions
in the inputs of hexachlorobenzene to the Niagara River from Niagara River sources.
Organochlorines (OCs) and PCBs
In general, both the concentrations and loads of nearly all the NRMTP "priority toxics" OCs
decreased significantly in one or both phases at both FE and NOTL. Decreases were
often observed only in one phase because there were insufficient data in the other phase
to determine change. This may be related to the partitioning of the chemical between the
dissolved and particulate phases. The decreases (in concentrations or loads) ranged
between 23% (p,p'-DDE) and 83% (PCB) and were, generally, of similar magnitude at
both stations. Exceptions to these generalities were "-chlordane, for which the trend was
not significant, and mirex which was detected only at NOTL.
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.
3
-------
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Of all the chemicals analyzed in the Upstream/Downstream Program, the PAHs exhibited
the most varied results. For those chemicals having sufficient data to run the model, the
concentrations and/or loads between the base year and 1996/97 decreased for some,
increased for others, and for yet others, exhibited no significant change. Depending on the
PAH, these changes occurred only in the dissolved phase, only in the particulate phase, or
in both. Furthermore, changes for some PAHs were significant at only one of the stations.
For example, benzo(a)pyrene B(a)P exhibited a significant increase in both concentration
and load only at FE over the eleven-year period. Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene showed no
significant change in either phase at either station.
Industrial By-Product Chemicals
Octachlorostyrene (OCS) was detected only at NOTL. The concentrations and loads of
OCS decreased significantly (>80%) in the particulate phase. There were insufficient data
in the other phase to determine change. As noted for the OCs, this may be related to the
different partitioning of these chemicals between the dissolved and particulate phases.
The results clearly suggest success in controlling inputs from Niagara River sources.
Metals
The concentrations and/or loads of the three NRTMP "priority toxics" metals at both FE and
NOTL decreased significantly ranging from 3.1 % (arsenic) to >86% (lead).
Trend Graphs
In generating the output for Table 2, the model also generated time series plots (i.e.,
trends) of the dissolved and suspended particulate phase concentrations at both NOTL
and FE for each of the "priority toxics" shown in the Table. The plots for most of the
chemicals showed a statistically significant decrease. The pattern of change, however, was
not the same for all chemicals. In contrast, the plot for B(a)P showed an increasing trend,
while that for "-chlordane showed no significant change/trend. Figures 1 to 4 are examples
of the results for hexachlorobenzene, PCBs, dieldrin and octachlorostyrene, respectively,
which exhibited a statistically significant trend over the 1986/87 to 1996/97 time period.
3.0 STATUS AND TRENDS RELATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
The Niagara River is the largest tributary to Lake Ontario, providing over 80% of all the
water that flows into the lake. Along with the contribution of water, the Niagara River also
transports contaminants from the waters of the upper Great Lakes and from sources along
the river from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario. Therefore, there is a critical link between the
inputs to the Niagara River from the upper Great Lakes, inputs from sources along the
river, and the water quality of Lake Ontario. Improvements in both the Niagara River and
Lake Ontario are related to completion of site specific remediations, control of point
4
-------
source discharges and encouragement of the implementation of pollution prevention
techniques. These improvements are evidenced by the results of the
Upstream/Downstream program, analysis of contaminant levels in the tissues of fish or
mussels and collection and analysis of sediments.
Inputs of chemicals to the Niagara River can impact both the river and Lake Ontario
including, for example, contributing to the exceedences of water and sediment quality
criteria, and issuance of fish consumption advisories. Surficial sediment chemical
distribution patterns in Lake Ontario point to the Niagara as a major source of many
chemicals to the lake (Thomas et al 1988). Similarly, depth distributions of chemicals in
dated cores collected from Lake Ontario in the vicinity of the Niagara River mirror the
production history of the chemicals (Durham and Oliver 1983) and the reduction of Niagara
River inputs, either as a result of better control of sources along the length of the river, or
reductions in inputs from Lake Erie/upstream (Mudroch 1983; Stewart et al 1996). The six
critical pollutants for the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) are also
NRTMP "priority toxics" (Table 3). Critical pollutants for Lake Ontario are chemicals which
are causing beneficial use impairments on a lakewide basis. The threat to aquatic life and
the real or potential impairment of beneficial uses such as restrictions on fish consumption
can be assessed by comparing the Niagara River Upstream/Downstream Program data to
available water quality criteria.
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).
It is appropriate, therefore, to compare the current concentrations of these "priority toxics"
in the river to their criteria as an indicator of progress. Since its inception, the NRTMP has
used the most stringent agency criteria4 of either Canada, the United States, Ontario, or
New York State (see below).
The approach used by the Four Parties in their annual Niagara River
Upstream/Downstream Reports (e.g., see NRDIG 1999) has been to compare the upper
90th percentile recombined whole water (RWW) concentrations (i.e., dissolved +
particulate phases) of a chemical to the most stringent agency criterion for that chemical.
Using the upper 90th percentile, rather than the annual mean, provides a more protective
estimate of criteria exceedences. This approach has also been used in this report.
4 Although criteria have changed over the period of record of the NRTMP, in this report, all data were compared to the most
stringent agency criteria available in 1996/97.
5
-------
Figures 5 and 6 show the results for the organochlorine (OCs) and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAHs) "priority toxics" at Niagara-on-the-Lake (NOTL) and Fort Erie (FE),
respectively. The most stringent agency criterion concentration is noted for each chemical
and is plotted as a solid line on the graph when its concentration is reasonably close to the
observed chemical concentrations. Plotting NOTL and FE data on the same graph
facilitates comparison of the results at the two stations simultaneously. Because none of
the metals exceeded their criteria at either station the data were not plotted. Briefly, the
results show the following.
Of the OCs (Figure 5), only hexachlorobenzene (HCB) still exceeds its criterion at NOTL.
over the eleven years of sampling (1986/87 to 1996/97), the magnitude of the
exceedences has declined. PCB concentrations have decreased since 1986/87 with
concentrations in 1996/97 being below the criterion for the first time over the eleven-year
period.
For the PAHs (Figure 6), both benzo(b,k)fluoranthene and chrysene/triphenylene exceeded
the most stringent agency criteria at both FE and NOTL. Benzo(a)pyrene has been above
its criterion at NOTL for the past three years and benz(a)anthracene has been slightly
below its criterion for the past six years.
The higher concentrations for some of these chemicals (e.g., HCB, chlordane) at NOTL
infer the presence of inputs from Niagara River sources. The similar concentrations of
others (e.g., dieldrin, PCBs) at both stations, and the higher concentrations of DDT and
metabolites at FE, suggest that Lake Erie/upstream is the major source. This is consistent
with the conclusions reached in past NRTMP Progress Reports.
In 1998, New York State completed the adoption of water quality standards under the U.S.
Great Lakes Initiative. For some chemicals, these new standards are now the most
stringent of the Four-Party water quality criteria. For example, the most stringent criterion
for dieldrin was 0.9 ng/L and is now 0.0006 ng/L. Similarly, the most stringent criterion for
PCB was 1.0 ng/L and is now 0.001 ng/L. New York State Water Quality Standards are
shown in BOLD in Table 4. Future NRTMP Progress Reports will compare the data
collected beginning in 1998 to these new criteria.
It is also worth noting that ambient "priority toxics" concentrations already are below many
of the most stringent agency criteria for other categories such as the protection of drinking
water, protection of aquatic life, etc. (Table 4).
Notwithstanding the above, two additional points should be noted. First, despite the low
concentrations of contaminants in the Niagara River, the high flow of the river (>5300
m3/sec) means that it may still be contributing substantial loads of contaminants 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
Niagara River inputs and other upstream sources for some time to come.
6
-------
Lastly, it was mentioned briefly in last year's report that some chemicals (particularly the
PAHs), not currently considered "priority toxics", also exceeded their strictest agency
criteria in the river. For example, Figure 7 shows that fluoranthene and benzo(ghi)perylene
have consistently exceeded their criteria at both NOTL and FE since they were first
measured. Anthracene also exceeded its criterion about half the time over the last eleven
years. As noted above (Section 2.0), the river data on PAHs is particularly complex. The
NRS will be reporting further on these chemicals in 2001.
Comparison of the ambient concentrations of "priority toxics" in water to the strictest
agency criteria in use in 1996/97 clearly indicates progress. As noted, however, the
criteria for a number of chemicals were made even more stringent in 1998. Continuing
work will need to be done to ensure that concentrations of these chemicals in the river are
eventually below these new agency criteria.
Fish Consumption Advisories
New York State and Ontario issue advice regarding consumption of sport fish caught in
their waters.
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 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.
NYSDOH has a general advisory to eat no more than one (half-pound) meal per week of
sportfish from all New York State fresh waters (and some marine waters at the mouth of the
Hudson River). The United States federal government sets standards for chemicals in food
that is sold commercially, including fish. In New York State, the Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) monitors contaminant levels in fish and game.
NYSDOH issues specific advisories (i.e., "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.
For the Niagara River and Lake Ontario system, specific sportfish advisories have seen
some important changes in the past several years. In 1999, the previous advisory (all
species, "eat none") for Gill Creek from the Hyde Park Dam downstream to its mouth on
the Niagara River was removed based on new data showing lower PCB levels in black
crappie, largemouth bass, white perch, brown bullhead and bluegill. Contaminated
sediment was removed from Gill Creek before the fish were sampled. The current advisory
for the upper Niagara River and tributaries of "eat no more than one meal per month of
7
-------
carp" now also applies to Gill Creek In 1998, NYSDOH made advisories for certain sizes
of rainbow trout, lake trout and coho salmon from Lake Ontario and the lower Niagara River
less restrictive because of lower concentrations of PCB and mirex in more recent
collections of these fish. The 1998/1999 New York State advisories for the Niagara River
are summarized in Table 5.
NYSDEC staff will be analyzing data to evaluate temporal trends in contaminant
concentrations in fish from the Niagara River. It is known, however, that between 1993 and
1996 most contaminant concentrations in sportfish from Lake Ontario (central and eastern
sections) have generally declined, especially PCBs and mirex. Several factors are
probably responsible for these changes. First, management actions implemented in the
late 1970s and the 1980s (e.g., chemical production bans, use restrictions, improvements
in waste water treatment, and the remediation of hazardous waste sites) have reduced
PCB and mirex inputs to the lake. Also, the biotic community continues to undergo
dramatic changes based, at least in part, on the introduction of exotic species. These
community changes may be changing the dynamics of contaminant uptake by fish through
alterations in the food web.
Similarly, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment issues advice contained in the biennial
Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish. Consumption advice on a total of 18 species of fish
from two locations on the Niagara River is included in the Guide. The consumption advice
is based on health protection guidelines developed by Health Canada. Table 5 is taken
from the 1999-2000 Guide (MOE 1999). The consumption table shows less restrictive
consumption advice for Chinook salmon, rainbow trout and lake trout in the lower Niagara
River than the 1997-1998 Guide. Elevated concentrations of mercury, PCBs, and
mirex/photomirex continue to be the major contaminants causing Ontario consumption
advisories for the sport fish found in the Niagara River.
In 1999, northern pike and smallmouth bass were collected in the upper Niagara and
walleye and smallmouth bass in the lower Niagara River. In 2000, a broad range of
species will be collected from both the upper and lower Niagara River. The results will be
available for the 2001 NRTMP Progress Report and for the 2001/02 Guide to Eating
Ontario Sport Fish.
Historical data from the MOE Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program are currently
being analyzed to evaluate temporal trends in contaminant concentrations in sportfish from
the upper and lower Niagara River and western Lake Ontario. Sport fish from western
Lake Ontario have been included because their contaminant concentrations appear to
reflect the concentrations found in lower Niagara River sport fish.
Temporal trends for PCB concentrations in the edible portion of lake trout and Chinook
salmon from western Lake Ontario are shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. PCB
concentrations in both species declined substantially between the 1970s and mid-1980s.
Reductions in PCBs after 1983 appear to be modest.
8
-------
Trends of PCB in Lake Ontario Fish
The statement above for trends of PCB in edible portion of lake trout can be compared
with the trends for whole fish shown in Figure 10 based on several data sets and the
estimated trend based on the LOTOX (Lake Ontario Toxics) model. Despite the
differences among the data sets, a continuing trend of PCBs in fish is indicated. For
example, Huestis et al (1996) using a data set which is internally consistent, concluded that
from 1977 to 1993, most measured contaminants showed significant decreasing trends.
The LOTOX model simulation for PCB concentrations in lake trout based on estimates of
the PCB loads to the lake reinforces this conclusion.
4.0 THE BIOMONITORING PROGRAM
Many chemicals can concentrate in the tissues of aquatic organisms and reveal the
presence of contaminants that cannot otherwise be directly detected in water, because of
dilution. Since 1980 the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) has conducted both
routine and specialized biomonitoring of contaminants in the Niagara River using caged
mussels {Elliptic* complanata) as part of Ontario's commitment to the NRTMP. The
principle behind the mussel biomonitoring program is to take mussels (biomonitors) from
an uncontaminated site and place them in an environment that is known or suspected of
being contaminated with persistent bioaccumulative substances. The biomonitors are left
for a specified time to accumulate contaminants and are then analysed to determine tissue
contaminant concentrations. The Biomonitoring Program has provided information on
suspected contaminant sources and source areas in the river between Fort Erie and
Niagara-on-the-Lake.
In 1997 mussels were deployed at 32 stations on the American as well as Canadian side
of the river. In general, results indicated spatial distributions of contaminant concentrations
in mussel tissue similar to those observed since 1980. On the Canadian side of the river,
mussels had no detectable concentrations of chlorinated benzene compounds, PCBs or
organochlorine pesticides, with the exception of trace concentrations of p,p'-DDE (a
metabolite of the pesticide DDT).
On the U.S. side of the river, organochlorine pesticides were detected sporadically at
several stations at concentrations similar to those in past surveys. Mirex was detected in
mussels deployed at sites associated with the Occidental Chemical Corporation. PCBs
and chlorinated benzene compounds were detected at almost all stations.
Hexachlorobenzene, pentachlorobenzene and 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene were the most
frequently detected chlorinated benzenes.
After completion of remedial activities at the 102nd Street hazardous waste site in
December, 1998, mussel tissue concentrations of almost all parameters were below the
detection limit. This was in contrast to high tissue concentrations of these compounds
9
-------
observed prior to site remediation. In particular, dioxin and furan concentrations in mussels
deployed at 102nd Street Landfill were low and reflect the success of the site remediation
and removal of contaminated sediment. Figure 11 shows the dioxin data for the period
1987-97. No dioxins and furans were detected in the sediment sample collected from the
site.
Concentrations of dioxins and furans in exposed sediment at the Niagara River shoreline
at the mouth of Bloody Run Creek, which runs through the Hyde Park hazardous waste site,
although lower than pre-remediation concentrations, were still high relative to sediment
concentrations observed throughout the Great Lakes basin. Characteristic of the
congener/isomer patterns for Bloody Run Creek all the tetra-dioxin was in the form of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin which is the most toxic form of dioxin (45,000 pg/g).
The presence of dioxins and furans in mussels at this site suggest that these compounds
were bioavailable to aquatic life at this location (Figure 12). The TEQ (concentration of
toxicity equivalents) for Bloody Run Creek sediment was 58,543 pg/g. Toxicity Equivalency
Factors (TEQs) are used as a measure to express the toxicity of different dioxins and
furans on a common basis. TEQs are assigned to individual dioxins and furans on the
basis of how toxic they are in comparison with the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dibenzodioxin, which is assigned the value of 1.0. 2,3,7,8-TCDF is one tenth as toxic and
has a toxic equivalent of 0.1. This site is under further investigation by EPA. It should be
noted that follow up sediment sampling by EPA in 1999 at the mouth of Bloody Run Creek
also indicated possible continuing concerns due to dioxin contamination. EPA will assess
the human health risk of the contamination. A more detailed characterization of the area
will be performed.
It is also important to note that the monitoring at the base (mouth) of Bloody Run does not
adequately reflect the effectiveness of the Hyde Park Landfill remedial systems. The
remedial plan for the Niagara gorge face was based on human-health exposure scenarios.
The remedial systems in place to date have been successful in drying up the gorge-face
seeps and have substantially reduced chemical loadings from the site into the river.
However, the area of the Bloody Run within the gorge was not remediated and residual
contamination exists. The Hyde Park settlement agreement recognized that there would
be residual contamination. To limit human exposure, access to the area is restricted.
Concentrations of chlorinated benzenes in mussels deployed at the Pettit Flume inlet cove
were low relative to previous years of sampling before the remediation of the cove in 1994
(Figure 13). By removing contaminated sediment from the cove, an important non point
source of chlorinated benzenes and phenols to the Niagara River was eliminated.
However, high concentrations of dioxins and furans were detected in mussels and
sediment. Given the recent extensive remedial activities at this site, the source of the
dioxins and furans is unclear. The congener patterns in the sediment and mussel sample
were consistent with samples from 1993 before remedial activities suggesting a common
source. Figure 14 shows the dioxin and furan isomer patterns in caged mussels from the
Pettit Flume for 1993 and 1997. NYSDEC is presently investigating possible sources and
the extent of contamination in the cove. The high concentrations in mussel tissue showed
10
-------
that these compounds were still bioavailable in this cove. Fish, other aquatic biota and
waterfowl move freely in and out of the cove to feed and sediment is transported from the
cove to the Little Niagara River. All these factors suggest that dioxins and furans in this
cove were bioavailable to the Niagara River. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8 T4CDD in
sediment from the Pettit Flume site were 350 pg/g and the TEQ for the Pettit Flume cove
sediment was 20,073 pg/g.
Recent sampling of sediment in the Pettit Cove has confirmed the presence of dioxin and
furans indicative of Occidental Chemical, Durez. However, due to the absence of volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) within the recently deposited sediment, it is hypothesized that
the contamination is an historical remnant of past sewer cleaning operations within the
Pettit Flume and not a new source. In response, Occidental Chemical has mobilized a
remedial contractor to conduct maintenance dredging of the Pettit Cove. Approximately,
200 cubic yards of sediment will be hydraulically dredged out of the cove in spring 2000.
Dioxins and furans were not detected in mussels deployed at Fort Erie on the Canadian
side of the river. Sediment concentrations of dioxins and furans at the Fort Erie site were
low and similar to concentrations measured in sediment in 1995 from Fort Erie. The TEQ
for Fort Erie was 11.3 pg/g.
The mussel monitoring program will be repeated in July 2000.
li
-------
5.0 SUMMARY
The messages in this Progress Report reiterate the consistent messages of the past few
Progress Reports. Specifically, these are that:
• Concentrations of many of the 18 NRTMP "priority toxics" in the Niagara
River have decreased and the river is getting "cleaner"; and,
• Decreases in the concentrations/loads of many of these "priority toxics" have
exceeded 50%.
The "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 current concentrations of these "priority toxics" in the river to the 1996/97
most stringent agency criteria as an indicator of progress shows that only
hexachlorobenzene and some of the PAHs still exceed their criteria at NOTL. Decreasing
concentrations over the last eleven years, however, has resulted in the magnitude of the
exceedences in 1996/97 being less than what they were in 1986/87. Furthermore,
decreasing PCB concentrations since 1986/87 have resulted in concentrations in 1996/97
being below the criterion for the first time over the eleven-year period. These are positive
indicators of progress. Data from the New York State Department of Health shows that
some of the ecent fish health advisories in the Niagara River and Lake Ontario have
become less stringent. This is due, at least in part, to the beneficial remedial efforts at
Niagara River and Lake Ontario sources. Data from the Biomonitoring Program, using
caged mussels, continue to show that remedial activities at specific hazardous waste sites
have been successful in reducing inputs of chemicals to the Niagara River. Where the data
show there might be residual contamination occurring, both EPA and DEC have taken
steps to ensure appropriate follow-up action is taken.
There have clearly been successes under the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan and
progress continues to be made. This is the overall purpose of the NRTMP and the Letter of
Support signed by the Four Parties in December, 1996, to re-affirm their commitment to
the NRTMP.
12
-------
6.0 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.
DePinto, J.V., T.C. Young, and W.G. Booty. 2000. Lake Ontario Toxics Modeling Project
(LOTOX) in Support of the Lake Ontario LaMP. Lake Ontario LaMP Update, April, 2000.
DeVault, D.S., R. Hesselberg, P.W. Rodgers, and T.J. Feist. 1996. Contaminant trends in
lake trout and walleye from the Laurentian Great Lakes. J. Great Lakes Res. 22(2):884-
895.
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. 1989. Inference about the mean from censored water quality data.
Wat. Resour. Res. 25(4)685-690.
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.
Huestis, S.A., M.R. Servos, D.M. Whittle, and D.G. Dixon. 1996. Temporal and age-
related trends in levels of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and organochlorine
contaminants in Lake Ontario lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). J. Great Lakes Res.
22(2):310-330.
MOE. 1999. Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, 1999-2000. 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. Wlliams. 1989. Suspended sediments and the distribution of bottom
sediments in the Niagara River. J. Great Lakes Res. 15(3):427-436.
NRDIG. 1999. Joint Evaluation of Upstream/Downstream Niagara River Monitoring Data
1996-1997. Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
13
-------
NYSDOH. 1998. Health Advisories, Chemicals in Sportfish and Game, 1998-1999. New
York State Department of Health. Revised September 1998.
Stewart, 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.
14
-------
Table i. Niagara River Toxics Management Plan
Eighteen Priority Toxic Chemicals
Chlordane
Mirex/Photomirex*
Dieldrin
Hexachlorobenzene*
DDT & metabolites
Toxaphene
Mercury*
Arsenic
Lead
PCBs*
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)*
Octachlorostyrene
T etrachloroethylene*
Benz(a)anthracene*
Benzo(a)pyrene*
Benzo(b)fluoranthene*
Benzo(k)fluoranthene*
Chrysene/T riphenylene
* Chemicals designated for 50% reduction by 1996.
-------
Table 2. Percent Change in Concentrations and Loads of Upstream/Downstream Program
Chemicals between the Base Year and 1996/97.
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.
Chlorobemenes
Hexachlorobenzene
1986-1997
-
-
-
-
-69.6
-51.0
-67.3
-63.5
Chlorinated Pestick
a-chlordane
1986-1997
-
NS
-
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
g-chlordane
1986-1997
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
p,p'-DDT
1986-1997
-
-42.1
-
-75.6
-
-35.2
-
-51.8
o,p'-DDT
1986-1997
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P.P'-TDE
1986-1997
-25.5
NS
-33.6
NS
NS
-29.1
NS
-47.3
p,p'-DDE
1986-1997
NS
-25.3
NS
-68.5
NS
-23.2
NS
-42.8
Dieldrin
1986-1997
-58.6
-38.2
-63.1
-74.0
-56.5
-60.1
-61.5
-70.3
Mi rex
1986-1997
-
-
-
-
-
-49.6
-
-62.5
PCBs
1986-1997
-58.5
-59.5
-63.1
-82.9
-59.0
-75.5
-63.6
-81.8
PAHs
Benz(a)anthracene
1986-1997
-59.1
-17.7
-63.6
-65.3
-40.8
-33.8
-47.5
-50.7
Benzo(a)pyrene
1988-1997
-
+81.1
-
+7.1
-
NS
-
NS
Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene
1986-1997
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Chrysene-triphenylene
1986-1997
-30.6
NS
-38.2
NS
NS
-22.0
NS
-41.9
Industrial By-products
Octachlorostyrene
1989-1997
-
-
-
-
-
-89.6
-
-84.0
s in Whole Water
Whole Water
Whole Water Load
Whole Water
Whole Water Load
Concentration
% Change
Concentration
% Change
% Change
% Change
Lead
1986-1997
-84.4
-86.2
-68.9
-72.4
Arsenic
1986-1997
-3.1
-14.3
NS
NS
Mercury
1986-1997
-83.6*
-85.5*
-
-
Notes:
* Raw data shows a decreasing trend, although caution must be exercised since early mercury data considered unreliable due to the likelihood of contamination.
NS No significant trend was detected by the model for the period of record.
Too few values above the detection limit to run the model.
-------
Table 3. Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan
Critical Pollutants
Chemical Name
Causes Lakewide
Beneficial Use
Impairments
Likely to Cause
Lakewide Beneficial
Use Impairments^
Loading entering
Lake from Niagara
River3
PCBs
•
•
DDT/ metabolites
•
•
Mi rex
•
•
Dieldrin
•
•
Dioxins
•
NE
Mercury
•
NE
1 Based on direct evidence that the chemical is causing lakewide use impairments.
2 Based on "indirect" evidence that the chemical is causing lakewide beneficial use impairments
because the chemical exceeds the most stringent government standard, criteria, or guideline.
3 Based on Upstream/Downstream Monitoring Program, 1992/1993.
NE = Not estimated, because concentrations were below the analytical detection limit.
-------
Tat Surface Water Quality Criteria for Niagara River Toxics Management Plan
"Priority Toxics and Lake Ontario LaMP Critical Pollutants (ppb)
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
\:va
NYS
EPA
OMOEb
IJC
NYS
HC
IJC
NYS
Arsenic
0.018
340d
340d
150i
150d
5(p)
50
50
50
Benz(a)anthracene
0.0044
0.23
0.03
0.0004(p)
A AAO
0.002
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.0012
0.0044
0.002
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.0044
A AAA
0.002
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.0044
0.0002(p)
A AAA
0.002
Chrysene
0.0044
0.0001 (p)
A AAA
0.002
Chlordane
2E-5
2.1E-3
0.006
2.4
0.0043
0.06
0.06
0.05
p,p'-DDD
8E-5
8.3E-4
see DDT
see DDT
see DDT
0.3
see DDT
p,p'-DDE
7E-6
5.9E-4
see DDT
see DDT
see DDT
0.2
see DDT
p,p'-DDT
1E-5
5.9E-4
0.001c
1.1
0.001
0.003®
0.003®
0.2
1.1 E-5®
Dieldrin
6E-7f
1.4E-4
0.004'
0.24
0.24
0.056
0.056
0.001'
0.001f
0.004
Dioxins/dibenzofurans
6E-101
1.3E-8h
2E-8(p)a
7E-71
3.1 E-9h
Hexachlorobenzene
3E-5
7.5E-4
0.0065
0.0065
0.04
Lead
see
belowid
65i-d
see below"1
2.5M
5(p)J
25
50
2
Mercury
7E-4d
0.050
1.4"
1.4d
0.77"
0.77"
0.2d
0.2d
0.7
0.1fc
0.0026"
Mirex
1E-6
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.03
Octachlorostyrene
6E-6
0.2
PCBs1
1 E-6
1.7E-4
0.001
0.014
0.001
0.09
1.2E-4
-------
Tat Surface Water Quality Criteria for Niagara River Toxics Management Plan
"Priority Toxics and Lake Ontario LaMP Critical Pollutants (ppb)
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
\:va
NYS
EPA
OMOEb
IJC
NYS
HC
IJC
NYS
Tetrachloroethylene
1
0.8
50
A 1
0.7
Toxaphene
6E-6
7.3E-4
1.6
a in
0.73
0.005
0.0002
0.008
0.008
0.06
(New York State Standards are shown in boldface type)
Sources
NY State: Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance Series (1.1.1), June 1998. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, NY.
U.S. EPA: National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. May 21, 1999.
Ontario MOE: (1) Water Management Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives. July 1994. (2) Joint Evaluation of the Upstream/Downstream
Monitoring Program, 1996-1997.
Health Canada: Joint Evaluation of the Upstream/Downstream Monitoring Program, 1996-1997.
IJC: (1) Specific Objectives. Annex 1 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended 1987.
Footliglgsi.
a. All substances shown are NRTMP "priority toxics". Those in italics are also Lake Ontario LaMP critical pollutants.
b. Concentrations designed to be protective of all aquatic life in situations of long-term exposure. For Ontario, values shown are Provincial Water Quality
Obectives, or proposed PWQOs, denoted with (p).
c. Values for protection of human health for consumption of water + organisms.
d. Apples to dissolved form.
e. Applies to sum of pp-TDE, ppDDE and ppDDT.
f. NY State Standard shown applies to dieldrin only. In addition, a NY State standard of 0.001 ppb applies to the sum of aldrin + dieldrin. Ontario PWQO,
Health Canada, and IJC objectives apply to the sum of aldrin + dieldrin.
g. Value is for total dioxins/furans as 2,3,7,8 equivalents.
h. Applies only to 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
i. Chronic value in ppb = {1.46203 - [In (hardenss in ppm) (0.145712)]} exp (1.273[ln(hardness in ppm)] - 4.297). Acute value in ppb = {1.46203 - [In
(hardness in ppm) (0.145712]} exp 1.273[ln(hardness in ppm)] - 1.052).
j. Hardness based criteria. For EPA criterion, 100 mg/L used. Ontario criteria apply at hardness > 80 mg/L.
k. Applies to inorganic mercury.
I. Values apply to sum of PCBs.
-------
Table 5 New York State Advisories on the Consumption of
Sportfish for Waters of the Niagara River and U.S.
Tributaries (NYSDOH, 1998)
Water
Species
Recommendations
Chemicals of
Concern
Niagara River, above Niagara
Falls
Carp
Eat no more than one meal per
month
PCBs
Niagara River, below Niagara Falls
White perch, American eel,
channel catfish, carp, lake trout
over 25", brown trout over 20",
Chinook salmon
Eat none
PCBs, Mirex, Dioxin
Tonawanda Creek, Lockportto
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
Gill Creek, mouth to Hyde Park
Lake Dam
All species
Eat none
PCBs, Dioxin
Note the additional general advisories, applicable to the Niagara River and U.S. tributaries, recommended by
NYSDOH to minimize potential adverse health impacts:
Eat no more than one meal (one-half pound) per week of fish from New York State fresh waters.
& Women of childbearing age, infants, and children under the age of 15 should not eat any fish species
from the waters listed above.
Follow trimming and cooking advice described in NYSDOH (1998).
Observe the above restrictions from these waters and their tributaries to the first barrier impassable by
fish.
-------
Figure 1. Modelled Trend of Hexachlorobenzene in Water at NOTL, 1986/87 to 1996/97
Time Series Plot
Cb
jz
trt
c
P
• _
c
c
c
o
Hexachlorobenzene
FTiase - Water
LOCATION = Niagara on - the - Late
ng/L
Observed Values
*—*¦ Estimated Values
Detection Limrt(s)
i —i—i—¦—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—p—|—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—|-
01APR86 01APR87 01APR&B 01APR89 01APR90 01APH91 01 APRS? 01APR93 01APR94 01APR9S 01APR36 Q1APR97
Year
-------
Figure 2. Modelled Trend of PCB in Water at NOIL, 1986/87 to 1996/97
Time Series Plot : PCB ng/L
Phase - Wa«r
LOCATION = Niagara - on-the - Lake
Year
-------
Figure 3. Modelled Trend of Dieldrin in Water at NOIL, 1986/87 to 1996/97
Time Series Plot ; Dieldrin
Phase - Wafer
LOCATION = Niagara - on - itie - Lake
ng/L
Q1APR8S 01APH87 01APR88 01APRS9 01APR90 01APR91 0?APR92 01APR93 01APR94 Q1AFR95 01APR96 01APH97
Year
-------
Figure 4. Modelled Trend of Octachlorostyrene (OCS) on Suspended Solids
at NOTL, 1986/87 to 1996/97
Time Series Plot
Octachlorostyrene
Phase - Suspended Solids
LOCATION = Niagara on 1he Lake
ng/g
70-
50
Observed Values
Estimated Values
Detection Um*(s)
0 7 , | t t j i
01APHB9 OIAPH90 OlAPRSSl OtAPRSE 01APR93 OlAPftW 01 APRS© Q1APH96 01APR97
Year
-------
Figure 5. Comparison of Upper 90% Confidence Level Whole Water Organochlorine
Concentrations at FE (A) and NOTL (•) to the Most Stringent Agency Water
Quality Criteria, 1986/87-1996/97 (ng/L).*
0.025
; 0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
Mirex (Criterion 1.0 ng/L)
1.200
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.140
0.120
Total Chlordane (Criterion 2.0 ng/L)
Total Dieldrin (Criterion 0.9 ng/L)
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
Hexachlorobenzene (Criterion 0.03 ng/L)
PCBs (Criterion 1.0 ng/L)
DDT + metabolites (Criterion 1.0 ng/L)
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
Octachlorostyrene (Criterion 1.0 ng/L)
1 I I I I
11111
* Solid line where shown represents criterion
-------
Figure 6. Comparison of Upper 90% Confidence Level Whole Water PAH Concentrations
at FE (*) and NOTL (•) to the Most Stringent Agency Water Quality Criteria,
1986/87-1996/97 (ng/L).*
8.000
7.000
i 6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.0<
0.000
Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene (Criterion 0.2 ng/L)
4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
Benz(a)anthracene (Criterion 2.0 ng/L)
4.UUU
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
Benzo(a)pyrene (Criterion 1.2 ng/L)
* Solid line where shown represents criterion
-------
Figure 7. Comparison of
Upper 90% Confidence
Level Whole Water PAH
Concentrations at FE (*)
and NOTL (•) to the Most
Stringent Agency Water
Quality Criteria, 1986/87-
1996/97 (ng/L).*
Fluoranthene (Criterion 0.8 ng/L))
9.000
o> 8.000
¦£• 7.000
§ 6.000
~ 5.000
£ 4.000
S 3.000
c 2.000
O 1.000
00
cd
o
CM
CO
LO
CD
00
00
00
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
to
00
(T)
o
T—
CO
LO
CD
00
00
00
00
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
Benzo(ghi)perylene (Criterion 0.02 ng/L)
00
CD
O
CM
CO
LO
CD
00
00
00
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
00
CD
O
CO
55
CD
00
00
00
00
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
* Solid line where shown represents criterion
-------
Figure 8. PCB Concentrations (jig/kg) in Edible Portion of Western Lake
Ontario Lake Trout (65cm).
5000
4000
g 3000
o
is 2000
1000
0 ^—I 1 1—^—I—^—I 1 ^—I 1 ^—I 1 1 ~
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Year
n Lake Trout
-------
Figure 9. PCB Concentrations (jig/kg) in Edible Portion of Western Lake
Ontario Chinook Salmon (70cm).
8000
7000 -
_ 6000
O)
O)
3. 5000
c
0
1 4000 -H
3000 -
£
d>
O
c
o
o
O 2000
1000 -
i i i i i i i i i i ^ i i i i i i i i ~~r
76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
~
Chinook Salmon
-------
Figure 10. Trend in the Concentration of PCB in Lake Ontario Lake Trout
*
=
o
3
o
im
H
o>
a
h-3
— LOTOX2 Model
De Vault et al., 1996
Huestiset al., 1996
EPA data
1976
1986
1996
2006
2016
year
Temporal profile of total PCB concentration in Lake Ontario adult lake trout. Solid line is LOTOX2 simulation of lakewide average PCB
concentrations in lake trout with revised estimates of historical PCB loadings. Average PCB concentrations measured in lake trout are shown for
comparison with LOTOX simulation. This "base" forecast assumes no PCB load reduction after 1995. (from DePinto et al 2000)
EPA data (pers. com. Sandra Hillman, USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, III.)
-------
Figure 11. Concentrations of Dioxins in Caged Mussels at 102nd Street Landfill, 1987-97
700-
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
0
ND
n r n m s
00 0) 0) 0) 0)
0)0)0)0)0)
ND
2.5 ND
ND
N T" (1 U) S
00 0) 0)0)0)
0)0)0)0)0)
N T- (1 U) N
CO 0) 0) 0) 0)
0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
ND
n r n m s
00 0) 0) 0) 0)
0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
N r (1 U) N
CO 0) 0) 0) 0)
0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
T4CDD
P5CDD
H6CDD
H7CDD
08CDD
-------
Figure 12. Dioxin and Furan Isomer Patterns in Caged Mussels from Bloody Run Creek, 1997
O)
D)
Q.
O
¦ mm
IS
<1)
O
C
o
o
00
to
cm"
Q
00
LL
LL
Q
00
Q
00
Q
LL
LL
LL
LL
00
00
00
00
00
(7>
h-"
oo"
00
co
co
CD
CD
CD
cm"
CM
co
to"
to"
to"
to"
to"
to"
v-"
cm"
cm"
cm"
cm"
to"
cm"
cm"
cm"
v-T
v-"
v-"
cm"
T-"
T-"
T-"
00
h-~
CD
to
cm"
o>
oo"
CD
to"
cm"
-------
Figure 13. Concentrations of Chlorobenzenes in Caged Mussels from the Pettit Flume,
1995-97
C)
O)
O
¦
13
o
o
c
o
o
1600 1
1400 -
1200 -
1000 .
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
0 -
150
_NEL
i
513
ND.
u
li
]=L
ifi N C3) t- CO lO S
00 00 00 O) O) G) O)
G> G> G> G> G> G> G>
ifi N C3) t- CO lO S
00 00 00 O) O) G) O)
G> G> G> G> G> G> G>
LO h- CD •?- CO LO h-
00 00 00 O) O) O) o>
G> G> G> G> G> G> G>
Hexachlorobenzene Pentachlorobenzene 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
-------
Figure 14. Dioxin and Furan Isomer Patterns in Caged Mussels from the Pettit Flume,
1993 and 1997
500
400
300 -
-P 200 -
100 -
0
Q
LL
Q
Q
LL
Q
Q
Q
LL
LL
LL
LL
Q
LL
LL
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
ch
CO
CO
CO
ch
CO
CO
ch
h-~
h-~
h-~
h-~
h-~
co"
h-~
h-~
h-~
co"
h-~
h-~
co"
co"
co"
c*)
00
^r
^r
CO
h-~
CO
<£>"
h-~
<£>"
<£>"
h-~
c\f
c\f
c\f
CN
co"
co"
co"
co"
co"
co"
co"
^r
<£>"
CN
c\f
c\f
c\f
co"
C\f
C\f
c\f
co"
co"
c\f
c\f
c\f
CO
Q Ll
Q Q
CO CO
O O
O O
-------
NIAGARA RIVER TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN (NRTMP) ANNUAL WORK PLAN [2000]
The "Four Parties"
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EC = Environment Canada
DEC = New York State Department of Environmental Conservation MOE = Ontario Ministry of the Environment
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
E
C
M
0
E
1999
Commitment
Status/Comments
2000
Commitment
Status/Comments
I.
Controlling Point Sources
A.
Report on U.S. Point Sources
*
Periodically
Periodically
See Note A
B.
Report on Canadian Point Sources (1994/95)
*
Completed Nov 96
See Note B
II. 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.]
*
*
Oct 99
Completed Oct 99
Oct 00
See "Public Involvement"
section (V.B).
2.
Remediate Occidental Chemical-Buffalo Ave site
a.
Complete overburden groundwater collection system.
*
—
Completed Dec 98
—-
See Note C
b.
Enhance bedrock groundwater collection system.
*
—
Completed Dec 98
—-
See Note C
c.
Complete remediation of contaminated soils and off-
site groundwater
*
See Note C
d.
Issue Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI)
Permit
*
Apr 99
Completed. Draft permit
issued Sep 99.
—
See Note C
e.
Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation using caged
mussels
*
June 1999
Completed report issued
in September 1999.
2000
Next field survey.
W-1
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
E
C
M
0
E
1999
Commitment
Status/Comments
2000
Commitment
Status/Comments
3.
Remediate Niagara County Refuse Disposal
a.
Complete construction of site remedy.
*
Sep 00
On schedule
Sep 00
Installation of the leachate
collection system and its
tie-in to the municipal
sanitary sewer system has
been completed and the
system is operational.
Construction of the landfill
cap is 95% complete.
4.
Remediate DuPont, Necco Park site
a.
c.
Start construction of final site remedy
Complete final remedy
*
*
Dec 99
Sep 01
Delayed >
Delayed >
Jun 00
Mar 03
The completion date will
allow time to address any
complications that may
arise in achieving effective
hydraulic containment in
the fractured bedrock
beneath the site, and to
allow the remedial
systems to be tested and
optimized.
5.
Remediate Hyde Park Site
a.
Complete construction of additional remedial systems
(includes installing 3 additional pumping wells and
force main, and additional measures as necessary).
Sep 99
Completed Dec 99
See Note D
b.
Optimize well pumping rates and evaluate the
containment of contaminated groundwater. Monitor
groundwater level and conduct chemical sampling
*
On-going
On-going
c.
Complete all remedial systems.
*
Sep 00
Delayed >
Dec 00
W-2
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
E
C
M
0
E
1999
Commitment
Status/Comments
2000
Commitment
Status/Comments
d.
Conduct annual survey of gorge-face seeps.
*
Jul 99
Completed
Jul 00
See Note D
e.
f.
Sample groundwater seeps coming from Niagara
River Gorge face and analyze for toxic chemicals.
Assess contamination at Bloody Run Creek mouth
*
*
Dec 98
Completed. Sampling
conducted annually since
1997. Results indicate
no need for additional
control or remediation of
the seep areas.
Dec 00
2000
Results of 2000 sampling.
See Note D
See Note D
g.
Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation using caged
mussels
*
June 1999
Completed report issued
in September 1999.
2000
Next field survey.
6.
Remediate 102nd Street
a.
Complete containment system, including barrier wall,
drainage system, landfill cap.
*
----
Completed
----
b.
Complete leachate pumping system.
*
—
Completed Dec 98
—-
Eliminates potential
off-site loadings
c.
Complete site landscaping and optimization of the
pump-and-treat system.
*
Jul 99
Completed Mar 99
d.
Monitor groundwater level and conduct chemical
sampling.
*
On-going
On-going
To ensure effectiveness
of remedial systems.
e.
Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation using caged
mussels
*
June 1999
Completed report issued
in September 1999.
2000
Next field survey.
W-3
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
E
C
M
0
E
1999
Commitment
Status/Comments
2000
Commitment
Status/Comments
7.
Remediate Occidental Chemical, S-Area site
a.
Finish building new City of Niagara Falls Drinking
Water Treatment Plant (DWTP)
*
----
Completed Mar 97
----
b.
Demolish existing City of Niagara Falls DWTP.
*
----
Completed winter 98
----
c.
Construct eastern barrier wall
*
Jul 98
Completed May 98
Other three sides of site
already enclosed by
barrier walls.
d.
Complete cap and overburden drain collection
system for the old DWTP property.
*
Dec 98
Completed Sep 99
----
See Note E
e.
f.
Grout DWTP raw water intake.
Install final landfill cap.
*
*
2000
2000
July 00
Dec 00
See Note E
g.
Optimize well pumping rates and make sure that
contaminated groundwater is no longer flowing off
site.
*
2000
Delayed >
Apr 01
See Note E
h.
Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation using caged
mussels
*
June 1999
Completed report issued
in September
1999.
2000
Next field survey.
W-4
-------
E
D
E
M
1999
2000
ACTIVITY
P
A
E
C
C
0
E
Commitment
Status/Comments
Commitment
Status/Comments
8.
Remediate Solvent Chemical site
a.
Complete remedial design
*
Sep 99
Completed
—-
b.
Construct site remedy
*
On-going
Construction began early
1998
Construction of the
groundwater remedial
systems began in 1999
and will continue
throughout 2000. Pump
tests on installed portions
of the groundwater
systems will allow design
of the groundwater pre-
treatment system to be
completed by mid-2000.
Final cover is anticipated
to be installed by fall
2000, and the pre-
treatment system is
scheduled to go on-line in
Jan 2001.
c.
Complete remedial action
*
Sep 00
Delayed >
Jan 01
9.
Remediate Olin plant site
a.
Monitor effectiveness of remedial systems.
*
*
On-going
On-going
Remedial system
completed Oct 97
b.
Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation using caged
mussels
*
June 1999
Completed report issued
in September 1999.
2000
Next field survey.
W-5
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
E
C
M
0
E
1999
Commitment
Status/Comments
2000
Commitment
Status/Comments
10.
Remediate Buffalo Color Corporation site
a.
Complete site investigation
*
Mar 99
Completed Apr 99
See Note F
b.
Select site remedy
*
Aug 00
On schedule
Aug 00
See Note F
c.
Implement site remedy.
*
Jul 01
On schedule
Jul 01
11.
Finish implementing site remedy at Buffalo Color,
Area D
*
Dec 98
Completed Sep 98
Remedy included removal
of river sediments, cap,
groundwater collection
and treatment system,
barrier wall.
a.
Complete wetland restoration
*
Sep 99
Completed
—-
b.
Site monitoring
*
----
On-going
—-
12.
Remediate Bethlehem Steel site
a.
Complete site investigation
*
*
Apr 00
Delayed >
Apr 01
See Note G
b.
c.
Select site remedy
Begin implementation of site remedy
*
*
*
*
Oct 01
Dec 02
Delayed >
Delayed >
Oct 02
Dec 03
13.
Remediate River Road and Niagara Mohawk Cherry
Farm sites
a.
Complete construction of on-site remedy (includes
capping the site with clean soil, and stabilizing the
shoreline).
*
Sept 98
Completed
See Note H
b.
Remove contaminated sediment from Niagara River.
*
Nov 98
Completed
W-6
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
E
C
M
0
E
1999
Commitment
Status/Comments
2000
Commitment
Status/Comments
14
Remediate Gratwick Riverside Park site
See Note J
a.
Start construction of site remedy.
*
mid 99
Began Jun 99
b.
Complete construction of site remedy
*
Dec 00
Delayed >
Apr 01
Final technical summary
from the 1997 study
completed Jun 99.
c.
Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation using caged
mussels
*
June
1999
Completed report issued
in September 1999.
2000
Next field survey.
15.
Remediate Occidental Chemical Durez - North
Tonawanda Site
a.
Complete construction of site remedy
*
—
Completed 1994.
See Note K.
b.
Assess contamination in Pettit Flume Cove
*
----
c.
Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation using caged
mussels
*
June
1999
Completed report issued
in September 1999.
2000
Next field survey.
16.
Determine whether trace amounts of contaminants of
concern found at 5 landfills are moving to
groundwater off-site.
*
*
Completed.
See Note L
B.
Contaminated sediments
1.
Update NY Great Lakes Contaminated Sediments
Inventory
*
Every 2 years
Data update completed
Feb 99 and submitted to
national database.
Annually
Inventory of data on
contaminated sediments
is used to prioritize
sampling and remediation
actions.
W-7
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
E
C
M
0
E
1999
Commitment
Status/Comments
2000
Commitment
Status/Comments
III. Monitoring
A. Complete report on results of Upstream/Downstream
sampling
*
*
*
*
Dec 98 (for
96-97 report)
Final report completed
and distributed.
Dec 00
97-98 report.
(Revised Format)
B. Collectjuvenile spottail shiners or otherjuvenile fish
and analyze for toxic chemicals, according to
Monitoring Plan.
See Note M
*
*
MOE: Dec 99
Dec 99
DEC:
May 2000
MOE: No spottail shiners
collected in 1997.
Collected emerald shiners
at three locations instead.
Collected spottail,
common and emerald
shiners at various
locations in 1998.
Spottail shiners were
collected at 9 locations on
the Niagara River in
1999.
DEC: Final report on
1996 collections
completed May 2000.
MOE
Dec 2000
Dec 00
DEC:
May 2000
Technical summary on
1999 collections.
MOE to collect fish in
2000.
Technical summary of
1999 collection.
Draft report on 1997
collections. Collections to
follow on a five-year basis
(next in 2002)
C. Track down toxic chemicals in tributaries and sewer
systems to identify sources.
*
*
Dec 99
Assess existing
information and plan for
next step.
See Note N.
Spring-Fall, 2000
Complete PCB trackdown
in Two Mile Creek.
See Note N
D. Biomonitor using caged mussels and analyze for
toxic chemicals, accordinq to Monitorinq Plan. See
Note 0
*
Every 3 years
Completed report issued
in September 1999.
Every 3 years
Next field survey in 2000.
W-8
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
E
C
M
0
E
1999
Commitment
Status/Comments
2000
Commitment
Status/Comments
E. Study use of zebra and quagga mussels as
biomonitors
*
Dec 98
>
Dec 00
Sampling and analysis
completed. Abstract
paper due in 2000.
F. Assess sport fishery in Niagara River, with
contaminant analysis.
*
*
MOE:
Apr 99
Sport fish collected in
Niagara River in 1997-
1998.
Sport fish collected in
Niagara River in 1999.
Collect sport fish from the
Niagara River in 2000.
MOE:
Apr 99
MOE
Apr 00
Apr 01
"1999-2000 Guide to
Eating Ontario Sport Fish"
completed.
Complete the review of
sport fish contaminant
trends in the Niagara
River/Western Lake
Ontario from 1970-2000.
Release 2001-2002 "A
Guide to Eating Ontario
Sport Fish".
G. Collect sample of Falls Street Tunnel wet weather
discharge and analyze for NRTMP priority chemicals
using techniques to achieve low detection levels.
*
Jun 00
Sample collected fall
1999. Analysis and
report expected June
2000.
IV. 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.
*
*
*
*
Beginning May
00
Materials included in
2000 report
May 01
See Note P
W-9
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
E
C
M
0
E
1999
Commitment
Status/Comments
2000
Commitment
Status/Comments
V.
Public Involvement
A.
Develop a reader-friendly brochure that gives an
overview of the NRTMP and summarizes progress
made on restoring the Niagara River.
*
*
*
*
Jun 99
Completed Feb 00
B.
Present progress made in the remediation of U.S.
hazardous waste sites at a public meeting in
Niagara Falls.
*
*
Nov 99
Completed
Nov 00
See "Controlling Non-
Point Sources" section
(II.A.1).
C.
1. Make NRTMP information and reports available
on the Internet.
*
*
*
*
As available
On-going. See Note Q
As available
2. Develop a NRTMP web page
*
*
*
*
Sep 99
Delayed >
Sep 00
NRTMP web page to be
developed on EPA/GLNPO
web site
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.
*
*
*
*
May 99
May 00
Completed.
May 01
Annually.
E.
Hold a public meeting to present above progress
report and updated annual work plan.
*
*
*
*
Jun 99
Jun 00
Jun 99 completed; Jun 00
scheduled.
Jun 00
Jun 01
Annually.
W-10
-------
WORK PLAN NOTES
Note A. Report on U.S. Point Sources
DEC regularly monitors a suite of EPA priority pollutants in point sources as part of its
State Permit Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) requirements. Of the 29 most
significant point sources of toxic pollutants existing in 1986, 26 dischargers are still
operating. New York reported an 80% drop in priority pollutants from its 29 significant
point sources between 1981 and 1985. New York also reported a drop of 25% in the
remaining load of "priority pollutants" between 1985 and 1994.
Note B. Report on Canadian Point Sources
In November 1996, MOE released a final report on NRTMP-specific monitoring of its
point sources on the Niagara River.
From 1986 to 1995, MOE has seen an estimated 99% reduction in loadings of the 18
chemicals of concern (COC).
Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) have been set for 14 of the 18 COCs.
Since 1993, effluent quality from these point sources has met all 14 PWQOs. This
means that end-of-pipe concentrations are acceptable against the Standards that Ontario
has set for all surface waters in the Province. As a result, MOE has discontinued
NRTMP-specific monitoring of the Niagara River and focused resources towards
Ontario's biomonitoring program on the River.
Regulatory monitoring and reporting of Ontario point sources required by Certificates of
Approval and Clean Water regulations will continue.
Note i III III
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. The effective date of the permit is February 10, 2000.
W-ll
-------
Note D. Remediate Hvde Park Site
Most site construction is complete. All of the overburden groundwater is being
contained, and in the three bedrock groundwater zones, at least 80% of contaminated
groundwater is being contained. Remedial work to achieve full containment is
continuing. A total of six additional pumping wells were installed in 1998 and 1999.
EPA has evaluated current groundwater contour maps and determined that hydraulic
containment is not being achieved in the north-west corner of the site. The NAPL
plume will be redefined in the north-west corner and additional groundwater pumping
wells will be installed in the 2000 construction season. Drilling commenced 3/27/00.
Completion of construction is scheduled for September 2000, with Remedial Action
completion by December 2000.
To ensure that remediation of the groundwater seeps in the Niagara River Gorge face
has been effective, survey of the gorge face, and sampling of the seeps, is conducted
annually. The survey is a physical inspection of the area, for example, to document
whether any seepage is evident and ensure that physical barriers are sound. The seep
sampling includes analysis of aqueous phase chemical contaminants. Results continue
to indicate no need for additional control or remediation of the area.
Sediment sampling conducted by MOE in 1997 and EPA in 1999 at the mouth of Bloody
Run Creek indicates possible continuing concerns due to dioxin contamination. EPA will
assess the human health risk of the contamination. A more detailed characterization of
the area will be performed.
Note i Jf m
The installation of the final cap for the old Niagara Falls Drinking Water Treatment Plant
property was completed in September 1999. Restoration work for portions of the cap
that were disturbed for replacement of the drain collection system (DCS; see below),
and around portions of the DWTP intake system will begin in spring 2000 and be
completed in fall 2000. Part of the DCS for the landfill portion of the S-area site where
the drain pipe collapsed is being replaced. Completion is expected in April 2000. The
completion of the S-Area Remedial Action is expected in spring 2001. The DCS work is
delaying the start of construction of the final landfill cap until spring 2000. Also, it is
anticipated that modifications to the final bedrock pump and treat system will be
needed. Installation of all systems for bedrock monitoring programs will be completed
by early 2001.
W-12
-------
Note F. Remediate Buffalo Color Corporation Site
The site RFI has been completed. A supplemental investigation was conducted during
summer 1998. A revised RFI report was submitted in December 1998 and approved in
April 1999. A Corrective Measures Work Plan was submitted in May 1999 and
approved in July 1999. During July 1999, a pump test was performed to aid in the
design of an Interim Corrective Measure for Plant Area A, to prevent the discharge of
contaminated groundwater to the Buffalo River. Completion of the CMS Report is
expected in May 2000.
Note G. Remediate Bethlehem Steel Site
BSC has completed the field work for the site investigation, and is preparing RFI and
human health risk assessment reports. These have been delayed due to negotiations
over the scope. Approval is anticipated by April 2001. BSC completed limited remedial
technology studies for two areas that appear to be the primary sources of groundwater
contamination at the facility (the Acid Tar Pits and Coke Oven Areas). EPA and DEC
found the studies to be technically flawed and of limited value. BSC has submitted a
Pre-design Investigation Report for the remediation of the Benzol Plant Area (i.e., coke
oven area), which is currently under agency review. Any future CMS or CMI activities
will require a new order, permit or other agreement.
Note II. Remediate River Road and Niagara Mohawk Cherry Farm Site
Sediment removal and final capping of the sediment disposal area was completed in
July 1999. Recent diver inspection of the dredged areas shows good revegetation and
recolonization by fish. The remedial action also included fish and wildlife habitat
enhancements.
Note J.
Remedial construction began in June 1999. The action involves a cap over the site, a
slurry wall barrier between site and river, collection of contaminated groundwater, and
shoreline stabilization with enhancements for improved habitat value.
Note K. Remediate Occidental Chemical Purez - North Tonawanda Site
The remediation of this site was completed in 1994. The remedial action included
construction of a ground water interceptor trench around the plant perimeter to collect
groundwater for treatment at an on-site carbon treatment system; removal of
contaminated sediments in 22,000 linear feet of sewers off site; and remediation of
Pettit Creek Cove, including sediment and soil removal at the cove, pumping of DNAPL;
and dredging of the Little Niagara River.
W-13
-------
Recent sampling of sediment in the Pettit Cove has confirmed the presence of dioxin
and furans indicative of Occidental Chemical, Durez. However, due to the absence of
volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) within the recently deposited sediment, it is
hypothesized that the contamination is an historical remnant of past sewer cleaning
operations within the Pettit Flume and not a new source. In response, Occidental
Chemical has mobilized a remedial contractor to conduct maintenance dredging of the
Pettit Cove. Approximately, 200 cubic yards of sediment will be hydraulically dredged
out of the cove in spring 2000.
Note L. Determine whether trace amounts of contaminants of concern
found at 5 landfills are moving to groundwater off-site
During the Niagara River Toxics Committee Study (1981-84), four industrial and one
municipal landfills were identified as having the potential to contribute contaminants to
the River. Studies conducted in 1991 and 1993 showed that the landfills have minimal
to no impact on the River. 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.
Regulatory monitoring and reporting of these non-point sources as required by
certificates of approval will continue.
Note M. Collect iuvenile soottail shiners or other iuvenile fish and
analyze for toxic chemicals, according to Monitoring Plan
In 1997 and 1998, spottail shiner capture in the Niagara River was poor despite efforts
of MOE and DEC on the Canadian and U.S. sides of the River. MOE collected emerald
shiners as an alternate species at three locations in 1997 including Queenston,
Lewiston, and Niagara-on-the-Lake. Technical summaries are currently in preparation.
MOE collected juvenile fish from nine locations on both the Canadian and U.S. side of
the Niagara River in 1998. The Canadian locations included Fort Erie (spottail shiners),
Queenston (common shiners), and Niagara-on-the-Lake (spottail shiners). The U.S.
locations included Wheatfield (common shiners), 102nd Street (common shiners),
Cayuga Creek (common and spottail shiners), Search and Rescue (emerald shiners) and
Lewiston (emerald shiners). In 1997, DEC completed collections of spottail shiners and
other young-of-the-year fish at 35 stations throughout the Great Lakes basin in New
York State, including 14 stations in the Niagara River basin. Analysis was expanded to
include PCB congeners and dioxin and furans at several stations. A report is in
preparation.
W-14
-------
Note N. Track down toxic chemicals in tributaries and sewer systems to
identify sources
There is evidence of continuing sources of some of the NRTMP priority toxic chemicals
in the Niagara River and its tributaries. Trackdown is a key program to identify the
sources. DEC and EPA are working cooperatively to oversee the implementation of
New York State Great Lakes basin source trackdown work, including Lake Ontario, the
Niagara River and Lake Erie. DEC and EPA are currently implementing certain plans for
trackdown in the Great Lakes waters including the Niagara River. Trackdown work is
planned for Two-mile Creek for this year. Additional U.S. plans are being developed in
consideration of the needs and available resources. Much relevant information has been
collected over the past several years in the Niagara River and tributaries that is helping
us determine priorities for further efforts to identify point and non-point sources
impacting the river. To develop these plans, the available information is currently under
review and will be summarized in the 2001 and future NRTMP Progress Reports.
Note O. Biomonitor using caged mussefs and anallie for toxic chemjcajs^
according to Monitoring Plan
Since 1981, MOE, with the cooperation of DEC, has conducted routine and specialized
biomonitoring of contaminants in the Niagara River using caged mussels. Studies have
been conducted on both the Canadian and U.S. sides of the River. These studies have
provided information on suspected contaminant sources and source areas, as well as
information on the effectiveness of site remediation in reducing contaminants in the
River between Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake.
In 1997, two complementary studies were initiated by the MOE (a) the routine
deployment of caged mussels at 32 stations on the Canadian and American sides of the
river for 21 days of exposure, and (b) a long term deployment of mussels up to four
months at four stations. Mussels were retrieved after the designated period of
deployment and the tissues were analysed for organochlorine pesticides, total
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated benzenes, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF). The report, Niagara River Mussel Biomonitoring Program,
1997, was released in September 1999 and is available through the Ministry of the
Environment. During the summer of 2000, mussels will be deployed at 34 sites in the
Niagara River.
W-15
-------
Note P. Develop additional materials relating information on Niagara
River contamination and contaminant sources.
The goal of the December 1996 NRTMP Letter of Support is
To reduce toxic chemical concentrations in the Niagara River by reducing inputs from sources
along the river. The purpose is 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.
Though NRTMP has made much progress toward this goal, more work is needed to
determine what additional actions are necessary to improve water quality and reduce
contamination of sediments, fish and wildlife. The task is to examine a variety of
information sources on toxic contamination in the River water, biota, and sediments,
toward the following objectives:
^ Develop an improved description of contaminant status and trends in the Niagara
River, and the relationship to the NRTMP;
Determine the toxic chemicals that continue to exceed criteria or standards for
the protection of human health, aquatic life, and wildlife in the Niagara River;
Determine and describe the sources and loads of those chemicals;
^ Where the above objectives cannot be fully achieved, describe the actions
necessary to achieve them.
Key sources of information for the synthesis include: (1) Upstream/Downstream
monitoring; (2) contaminant biomonitoring; (2) sportfish advisories and
contamination; (5) contaminant source trackdown monitoring; (5) sediment quality
data; (6) waste site contaminant loadings; (7) point source contaminant loadings. The
effort to develop the synthesis is underway. Some information is incorporated into the
NRTMP 2000 Progress Report and Work Plan (e.g., fish advisory information, data
comparison to water quality criteria). Additional information is currently under review
(eg., contaminant trackdown in U.S. tributaries, point sources). This effort will continue
in 2001.
Note Q. Make NRTMP information and reports available on the Internet
The Four Party Upstream/Downstream Reports for 1991/92, 1993/94, 1995/96, and
1996 /97 can be found on the GLIMR web site at http://www.cciw.ca/glimr/search.html
(search "joint evaluation"). The November 1998 and October 1999 U.S. waste site
remediation reports are at http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/lakeont/nrtmp. Additional
reports will be added as they become available.
W-16
------- |