NIAGARA RIVER
TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
PROGRESS REPORT
AND
WORK PLAN
October 2001
By the Niagara River Secretariat
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ii
PROGRESS REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 THE UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM MONITORING PROGRAM 2
Chlorobenzenes (CBs) 3
Organochlorines (OCs) 3
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 4
Industrial By-Product Chem icals 4
Metals 4
Trend Graphs 4
3.0 STATUS AND TRENDS RELATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES 5
The Significance of Niagara River Sources 5
Comparison with Water Quality Criteria 7
Fish Consumption Advisories 9
New York State Advisories 9
Ontario Advisories 9
Upper Niagara River 9
Lower Niagara River 10
4.0 THE BIOMONITORING PROGRAM 10
Young-of-the-Year (YOY) Forage Fish Contaminant Monitoring 11
5.0 SYNTHESIS OF DATA FOR U.S. TRIBUTARIES AND POINT SOURCES 11
Contamination in Sediments, Biota and Water of U.S. Tributaries 12
Contamination in Point Sources 13
6.0 SUMMARY 14
7.0 REFERENCES 15
WORK PLAN
-------
2001 NRTMP Annual Work Plan
-------
Niagara River Toxics Management Plan
Progress Report and Work Plan
October 2001
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. 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 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 Progress Report continues to focus on concerns related to water use in addition
to presenting the results from the Upstream/Downstream and Biomonitoring
Programs. Included are discussions on comparison of ambient water concentrations
to water quality criteria, fish consumption advisories, contaminant concentrations in
juvenile fish, and U.S. efforts to determine if there are sources of "priority toxics" to the
Niagara River that m ay require further attention.
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.
iii
-------
The primary method of assessing progress is the Upstream/Downstream Program.
This 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 about 70 chemicals. An advanced statistical model was
used to determine trends for the eighteen "priority toxics" for the period 1986/87 to
1998/99, and to determine with more certainty the effectiveness of reductions of
chemical loads to the river.
The most recent results show continuing, statistically significant reductions in the
concentrations/loads of most of the "priority toxics" for which there are data. The
reductions since 1986/87 have, in many cases, been greater than 60%. 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 1998/99, the upper 90th percentile concentrations of NRTMP "priority toxics" for
which there are data at Niagara-on-the-Lake (NOTL), with the exception of the DDT
metabolite TDE, arsenic (As) and lead (Pb), exceeded their most stringent agency
criterion. At Fort Erie (FE), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dieldrin, and
some of the DDT metabolites exceeded their most stringent agency criteria. This can
be contrasted with the information in lastyear's Progress Report which indicated that
most of the "priority toxics", with the exception of hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and the
PAHs, were below their relevant most stringent agency criteria.
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. In February
1998, NYSDEC adopted new standards pursuant to the U.S. Great Lakes Initiative.
For some chemicals, these new standards, in addition to being the most stringent of
the Four-Party water quality criteria, are also more stringent than the NYSDEC
standards existing prior to 1998. Now Upstream/Downstream Program data are
available for the period for which the new standards were in effect. The increases in
exceedences in 1998/99 are the result of comparing the data to the more stringent
standards rather than significant increases in the water concentrations of these
chemicals in the river. As noted above, the continuing decreasing trends in the
concentrations/loads for most of the NRTMP "priority toxics" attest to the continuing
improvement in Niagara River water quality.
While there were no changes to New York State fish consumption advisories, re-
testing of several species offish from the upper and lower Niagara River by Ontario
(MOE) resulted in less restrictive consumption advisories for several species. It also
resulted in a new consumption advisoryfor rock bass, and a more restrictive advisory
for freshwater drum due to mercury levels exceeding guidelines.
iv
-------
PCB and DDT were detected in juvenile fish from all nine sites sampled by MOE in the
upper and lower Niagara River in 1999. PCB concentrations have decreased at each
of the sites since monitoring was started (around 1980). Concentrations at Fort Erie
and Frenchman's Creek in the upper Niagara River are now less than the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) aquatic life guideline (100 ng/g).
Concentrations at all four sites in the lower Niagara River were below or only slightly
above the guideline.
As the Four Parties have previously reported, despite the successes to date and the
continued improvements now being reported, more work needs to be done. With the
adoption of new standards by NYSDEC, most of the NRTMP "priority toxics" now
exceed their 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. 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 new action commitments to address current concerns. For
example, the U.S. parties have recently completed three assessments based on a
variety of Niagara River data with the objective of identifying potential priorities for
further action. The principal findings of these assessments have been summarized
in this Progress Report, and specific actions are included in the Work Plan. The
activities in the 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 (EC), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region II (EPA), the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-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 from 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 corroborated by data from the Upstream/Downstream and Biomonitoring
programs, and sediment core data from the Niagara River depositional zone in Lake
Ontario.
The messages in the last few NRTMP Progress Reports have been clear and
consistent:
• The concentrations/loads of many of the 18 NRTMP "priority toxics" in
the Niagara River have decreased and the river is getting "cleaner";
and,
• The decreases since 1986/87 in nearly all cases have surpassed
50%.
The same reports, however, also acknowledged that more work still needs to be
done.
The commitment 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 was re-affirmed in
a Letter of Support signed by the Four Parties in December, 1996. That Letter
included the following revised goal statement:
l
-------
"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."
This goal statement clearly links the reason for reducing toxic chemicals in the river
and uses of the water. Some of the current concerns related to use were noted in the
two previous Progress Reports. These included, for example, exceedences of water
quality criteria in the river and fish consumption advisories for fish from the river.
This Progress Report continues to focus on concerns related to water use in addition
to presenting the results from the Upstream/Downstream and Biomonitoring
Programs. Included are discussions on comparison of ambient water concentrations
to water quality standards/objectives, fish consumption advisories and U.S efforts to
determine if there are sources of priority toxics to the Niagara River that may require
further attention.
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 collected both water and
suspended sediment samples from the head (Fort Erie = FE), and mouth (Niagara-
1
on-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 summarized and released in annual, Four Party Upstream /Downstream
reports (e.g., NRDIG 1999). 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
1 Priorto April 1997, sampling wasdone on a weekly basis.
2
-------
(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" 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-
Ibrahim 1996).
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 (expressed as a percent) for the end year (1996/97) to the
2
base year was used to calculate an index of change over the eleven-year period of
record. This Progress Report updates this analysis to include the thirteen years up to
1998/99.
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
1998/99 for those NRTMP "priority toxics" for which there are data. Adashed 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 (p<0.001), in the model estimates of annual mean
concentrations/loads 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.] The analytical protocol was changed in 1998/99 to measure PCB
congeners rather than Aroclors. Analysis of congeners gives higher values than
analysis of PCBs using the Aroclor method. This results in an increase in
concentrations caused by the methodology change.
The results are consistent with those presented in previous Progress Reports.
Briefly, they show the following:
Chlorobenzenes (CBs)
The reduction in both the dissolved and particulate phase concentrations and loads of
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) at NOTL over the thirteen-year period was greater than
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, ratherthan calendaryear.
3
-------
60%. The decrease over the period up to 1998/99 only differs by a few percent from
that estimated for the period up to 1996/97 reported in last year's Progress Report. At
FE, the output from the model was discarded because significance was based
almost entirely on "trace" (i.e., below the detection limit) values. As noted in previous
Progress Reports, this clearly suggests that reductions atNOTL are due to reductions
in the inputs of hexachlorobenzene to the Niagara River from Niagara River sources.
Organochlorines (OCs)
In general, both the concentrations and loads of nearly all the NRMTP OC "priority
toxics" 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 40.1% (p,p'-TDE) and 71.5% (dieldrin) and
were, generally, of similar magnitude at both stations, a-chlordane exhibited no
significant change at either station. Mirex concentration and load at NOTL has
decreased by greater than 55%. Because it is only detected at NOTL, these
reductions are due to the effectiveness of remedial activities at Niagara River sources.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Of all the chemicals analyzed in the Upstream/Downstream Program, results for the
PAHs were the most variable. For those PAHs having sufficient data to run the model,
the concentrations and/or loads between the base year and 1998/99 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 concentration, but a significant decrease in load only at FE over
the thirteen-year period. This reduction in B(a)P load is probably due to a decrease in
the suspended particulate material (SPM) concentrations that have occurred over this
time 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. Its particulate phase
concentration and load decreased significantly (greater than 80%) over the thirteen-
year period up to 1998/99. 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. These
results clearly suggest success in controlling inputs of OCS from Niagara River
4
-------
sources.
Metals
The concentrations/loads of lead continued to exhibit a significant decrease
(p<0.001). The trend for arsenic is no longer significant at either station. Analysis of
mercury in water was discontinued in 1996/97 until a more sensitive detection limit is
available. Analysis is scheduled to recommence in 2001/02.
Trend Graphs
In generating the output for Table 2, the model also generated time series plots (i.e.,
trends) of the dissolved and suspended sediment phase concentrations at both
NOTL and FE for each of the "priority toxics" shown in the Table.
The plots for most of the chemicals continue to show a statistically significant
(p<0.001) decreasing trend.4 Figures 1 to 5 show the statistically significant trends for
hexachlorobenzene, PCB, dieldrin, octachlorostyrene, and mirex respectively over the
period 1986/87 to 1998/99.
To recap, both the concentrations and loads of most of the NRTMP "priority toxics"
shown in the Table continue to decrease.5 The rate of change, however, has slowed
considerably. For example, for many of the NRTMP "priority toxics", the decrease in
concentrations/loads over the period base-year to 1998/99 is generally only slightly
greater (about 10-15%) than that reported in last year's Progress Report for the period
base-year to 1996/97. The reason for this is obvious from the trend graphs which
show that the trends have flattened out considerably compared to the more rapid
changes observed at the beginning of the Upstream/Downstream Program. For a
number of the "priority toxics" (eg., HCB, OCS, mirex), the trend has almost become a
horizontal straight line. Perhaps the notable exception is dieldrin which continues an
almost linear decrease. Similar decreases have been noted in Lake Erie
concentrations and are probably due to the "outgassing" of dieldrin from the Lake
(Williams eta/2001).
Thus, while improvements are still occurring as evidenced bya continuing, significant
downward trend in the Upstream/Downstream program data, the changes are
occurring much more gradually. This means that significant changes in trends in the
Upstream/Downstream Program data will not be as evident as in the past.
4 The plot for B(a)P showed an increasing trend, while that for a-chlordane showed no significant
change/trend.
5 The exception is benzo(a)pyrene [B(a)P] for which the concentration at FE continuesto increase.
5
-------
3.0 STATUS AND TRENDS RELATIVE TO ENVIRONM ENTAL OBJ ECTIVES
The Niagara River is the largest tributary to Lake Ontario, providing over 83% of all the
tributary water that flows into the lake. Along with the contribution of water, the Niagara
River also contributes contaminants to Lake Ontario originating from the waters of the
upper Great Lakes and Lake Erie, and from sources along the river. There is,
therefore, a critical link between the inputs of contaminants to the river from both
upstream and Niagara River sources and the water quality of Lake Ontario. By
inference, this means there is also a close link between the NRTMP and the Lake
Erie and Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs). For example, the six
critical pollutants identified in the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan (Table 3)
are also identified as "priority toxics" in the NRTMP. Critical pollutants are chemicals
which are causing beneficial use impairments on a lakewide basis.
The Significance of Niagara River Sources
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 offish 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 etal 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; Swart ef al
1996).
Estimates of the relative significance of Niagara River versus upstream sources visa
vis Niagara River loads to Lake Ontario can be obtained for the various NRTMP
"prioritytoxics" using the ratio,
(NOTL-FE)
NOTL
where, NOTL and FE represent the recombined whole water (RWW) loads (ie.
dissolved + suspended sediment) 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 value of the ratio will vary between zero and one. The higher
the value, the greater the relative contribution of Niagara River sources to the total load
entering Lake Ontario. A ratio of 1.0, for exam pie, indicates that the load to the lake is
due primarily to inputs from Niagara River sources.
For the chemicals shown in Table 2, the ratios were calculated for each of the years
6
-------
over the period 1986/87 to 1998/99.6 Results are presented in Table 4, ordered by
decreasing mean ratio. The ratio varies from 1.0 for mirexand octachlorostyrene
(OCS), to negative values for DDT and its metabolites (because the differential loads
are negative). This indicates that the loads of mirexand OCS entering Lake Ontario
from the river are due principally to Niagara River sources, while the loads of DDT and
its metabolites to the lake from the river originate primarily from sources upstream of
the Niagara River. A study conducted in 1993 comparing the concentrations of
NRTMP "priority toxics" at the Buffalo Water Intake and the FE station to determine the
representativeness of the FE station vis a vis Lake Erie inputs to the Niagara River
found that p,p'- and o,p'-DDT were detected at FE, but not at the Buffalo Water Intake
(D.J. Wlliams, Environment Canada, personal communication). This finding
corroborates that there is probably a Canadian nearshore source of DDT to the
Niagara River from Lake Erie. A ratio of 0.8 for HCB suggests that the loads ofHCBto
Lake Ontario from the Niagara River are principally due to inputs from Niagara River
sources. In contrast, ratios of 0.4 and 0.1 for total chlordane and dieldrin, respectively,
suggest that Lake Ontario loads from the river originate primarily from sources
upstream of the Niagara River. For the PAHs, about half the load to the lake appears
to come from Niagara River sources, while the other half comes from sources
upstream of the river. The other point of note in Table 4 is the consistency of the ratio
over time for most of the "priority toxics". For example, since the inception of the
Upstream/Downstream Program, Niagara River sources have always been
implicated for mirex, OCS and HCB. Conversely, upsteam sources have always been
implicated for DDT + metabolites and dieldrin. This consistency lends considerable
credibility to these observations.
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). The threat to aquatic life and the real or potential im pairm ent of beneficial uses
can be assessed by comparing the Niagara River Upstream/Downstream Program
data to available water quality criteria. Such a comparison can also be used as an
indicator of progress. Since its inception, the NRTMP has used the most stringent
agency criteria of either Canada, the United States, Ontario, or New York State. It is
important to note, that the increases in exceedences reported below are the result of
comparing Upstream/Downstream Program data to more stringent criteria recently
adopted rather than significant increases in concentrations.
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 recom bined whole water (RWW) concentrations (i.e., dissolved +
6 Ratios were not calculated for PCBs for the same reasons as stated previously.
7
-------
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 is also used in this
report.
Table 5 compares the upper 90th percentile concentration from the 1997/98 and
1998/99 Upstream/Downstream Program data to the pre-1998 and 1998 most
stringent agency water quality criteria. Table 5A summarizes the results for the
NRTMP "priority toxics" contaminants, while Table 5B summarizes the results for
other chemicals collected as part of the Upstream/Downstream Program. Briefly, the
Table shows that in 1998/99, the upper 90th percentile concentrations of all NRTMP
"priority toxics" for which there are data at NOTL, with the exception of TDE [NOTE:
TDE=DDD], As and Pb, exceeded their most stringent agency criterion.7 At FE, the
PAHs, dieldrin, and some of the DDT metabolites exceeded their most stringent
agency criteria. Of the other chemicals measured in the Upstream/Downstream
Program, only fluoranthene, anthracene, benzo(ghi)perylene and
indeno(123cd)pyrene exceeded their most stringent agency criteria at NOTL. All but
anthracene also exceeded their criteria at FE.
In February 1998, NYSDEC adopted new standards pursuant to the U.S. Great Lakes
Initiative. For some chemicals, these new standards, in addition to being the most
stringent of the Four-Party water quality criteria, are also more stringent than the
NYSDEC standards existing prior to 1998. 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 mirexwas 1.0 ng/L and is now 0.001 ng/L. Now Upstream/Downstream
Program data are available for the period for which the new standards were in effect.
The increases in exceedences in 1998/99 are the result of comparing the data to the
more stringent standards rather than significant increases in concentrations. It is
important to note that despite the apparent worsening of water quality when
comparison is made to these more stringent standards, Niagara River water quality
continues to improve. As indicated above, the decreasing trends for most of the
NRTMP "priority toxics" continue, albeit at a much slower rate.
USEPAand NYSDEC have recently completed an assessment of water quality in the
Niagara River against New York State's more stringent Water Quality Standards.
Because NYSDEC standards are also the most stringent agency criteria for many
chemicals, as indicated by Table 5, the U.S. assessment is similar to the Four-Party
assessment presented here. The U.S assessment includes a number of specific
actions to address the chemicals exceeding New York water quality standards in the
7 The PCB data in the Table are based on particulate concentrations only because of the dissolved
phase contamination problems noted previously. Notwithstanding this, the concentrations in the
particulate phase alone are sufficient to exceed the strictest agency criterion.
8
-------
Niagara River, including the development of TMDLs/WLAs/LAs8. These actions have
been incorporated into the 2001 NRTMP Work Plan.
The most stringent NYSDEC criteria are generally based on human health. While the
1998/99 90th percentile concentrations for most of the NRTMP "priority toxics" exceed
these criteria, it is also worth noting that ambient concentrations of these same
chemicals are already below many of the most stringent agency criteria for other
categories [e.g., protection of drinking water, protection of aquatic life] (Table 6).
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 Wlliams 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.
Lastly, it has been noted in previous Progress Reports, that some chemicals
(particularly the PAHs), not currently considered "priority toxics", also exceeded their
strictest agency criteria in the river. Figure 6, for example, shows that fluoranthene,
anthracene, benzo(ghi)perylene and indeno(123cd)pyrene exceed their most stringent
agency criteria at NOTL. More interestingly, the concentrations of these and some
other PAHs are increasing. The reasons for this are speculative at this time. It may
be due to atmospheric loads to Lake Erie and upstream. It maybe due to changing
sediment characteristics in Lake Erie (e.g., smaller particle size, higher organic
carbon content) as a result of Dreissena spp invasion/colonization. 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 Howell 1997). Regardless of the causes of the
increases, chemicals exceeding criteria will continue to be a focus of Four Party action
under the NRTMP.
FIsh Consumption Advisories
Both New York State and Ontario issue advice regarding consumption of sport fish
caught in their waters.
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
8 Total Maximum Daily Loads/Wasteload Allocation^Load Allocations
9
-------
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.
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 anyfish species.
For 2000, there were no changes from the previous year in health advisories for fish
taken from New York State waters. The most recent change for the Niagara River
area occurred 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 7. [NOTE: NYSDOH fish advisories for Lake Ontario also apply
to the lower Niagara River, below Niagara Falls.]
Ontario Advisories
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment also issues advice regarding consumption of
sportfish caught in their waters in the biennial Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish.
Upper Niagara River
Historically, thirteen species of sport fish from the Upper Niagara River have been
tested for contaminants (Table 8). Seven of these have no advisory restrictions. Of the
remaining six species, three (white bass, carp and rainbow smelt) are currently
restricted because of PCBs and three (smallmouth bass, freshwater drum and
redhorse suckers) are currently restricted because of mercury. [NOTE: The PCB
restrictions on white bass and rainbow smelt are based on pre-1990 data and may
not reflect current conditions].
In 2000, seven species (smallmouth, largemouth and rock bass, yellow perch, brown
bullhead, carp and freshwater drum) were retested. This testing resulted in two
changes in consumption advisories as follows. Freshwater drum were restricted at
35-45 cm because of mercury, whereas they were previously unrestricted. Lower
PCB concentrations in carp resulted in much less stringent consumption restrictions
for this species.
10
-------
Lower Niagara River
Historically, eighteen species of sport fish from the Lower Niagara River have been
tested for contaminants (Table 8). Three of these (largemouth bass, bluegill and
freshwater drum) have no consumption restrictions. The remaining species are
restricted because of PCBs (chinook salmon, white perch, white bass, brown
bullhead, channel catfish, carp, white sucker, redhorse sucker and rainbow smelt),
mirex (rainbow trout), photomirex (lake trout) and mercury (yellow perch and rock
bass). In American eel, PCBs and mirex co-limit consumption, while mercury and
PCBs co-limit the consumption of smallmouth bass.
In 2000, seven species (smallmouth, largemouth and rock bass, yellow perch, brown
bullhead, carp and freshwater drum) were retested, and one species (bluegill) was
tested for the first time. Several changes, mainly of a minor nature, resulted from this
re-testing. Lower concentrations of PCBs and (or) mercury resulted in less restrictive
consumption advice on smallmouth bass, freshwater drum and carp. Larger size
rock bass (25-30 cm) were tested for the first time in 2000 and were restricted
because of mercury.
4.0 THE BIOMONITORING PROGRAM
Many chemicals concentrate in the tissues of aquatic organisms to indicate the
presence of contaminants that would not otherwise be directly detected in water
because of their low concentrations. The Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), as
part of Ontario's commitment to the NRTMP, has conducted both routine and
specialized biomonitoring of contaminants in the Niagara River using caged mussels
(.Elliptic) complanata). This program has provided information on suspected
contaminant sources/source areas in the river between Fort Erie (FE) and Niagara-
on-the-Lake (NOTL). Previous Progress Reports have relied on the results from this
program to corroborate the reduction of contaminant inputs from these sites as a
result of site-remediation activities. The most recent mussel collections were
completed by MOE in July 2000. Unfortunately, the results were not available in time
for inclusion in this report.
Collection of juvenile (young-of-the-year) forage fish, principally spottail shiners
(.Notropis hudsonius), has also been an integral component of the Biomonitoring
Program. These 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.
Both MOE and NYSDEC have collected indigenous, young-of-the-year (YOY) forage
fish from several sites in the Niagara River and analyzed them for contaminants. MOE
li
-------
has collected YOY-fish from NOTL since 1975, and from several other Canadian and
U.S. locations at least every other year since the early 1980s. NYSDEC has collected
fish from locations on the U.S. side of the River annually between 1984 and 1987, and
about every five years since. The following results are based on 1999 MOE data.
Young-of-the-Year (YOY) Forage Fish Contaminant Monitoring
In 1999, MOE collected spottail shiners (Notropis hudsonius) from nine locations in
the upper and lower Niagara River and analyzed them for contaminants. Table 9
summarizes the results for PCB, DDT, mirex, OCS and HCB.
PCB and DDT were always detected at Fort Erie and Frenchman's Creek in the upper
Niagara River, but mirex, OCS and HCB were not detected. PCB and DDT were also
detected at Wheatfield, 102nd Street and Cayuga Creek in the upper river. Mirexwas
not detected at any of the sites, but OCS and HCB were also detected at two of the
three sites (102nd Street and Cayuga Creek). PCB concentrations in YOYfish from
Fort Erie and Frenchman's Creek were less than the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA) Aquatic Life Guideline (100 ng/g). In contrast, PCB
concentrations in fish collected from Wheatfield, 102nd Street and Cayuga Creek
exceeded 200 ng/g.
In the Lower Niagara River, of the five contaminants, only PCB and DDT were detected
at all four sites (Queenston, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Lewiston and Youngstown).
Concentrations of both PCB and DDT were similar at all sites. PCB concentrations
were near, or just above, the GLWQA Aquatic Life Guideline.
Figure 7 shows the trends in PCB concentrations for the nine sites. Briefly, the results
show that PCB concentrations have decreased at all stations since monitoring was
started. Concentrations in the mid- to late 90s have tended to level off or even
increase at some stations (eg., Queenston, Lewiston).
5.0 SYNTHESIS OF DATA FOR U.S. TRIBUTARIES AND POINT SOURCES
As previously noted, USEPAand NYSDEC recently completed three assessments to
synthesize a variety of Niagara River data with the objective of identifying potential
priorities for further action. The assessments are:
• Assessment of Water Quality in the Niagara River with Regard to Toxic
Chemicals and the Significance of Niagara River Sources.
• Characterization of NRTMP Priority Toxic Chemicals in Sediments, Biota
and Water of the Niagara River and Tributaries.
• Summary of Information on Niagara River and Tributary Point Source
Discharges of NRTMP Priority Toxic Chemicals.
12
-------
It is important to recognize that these assessments were undertaken within a U.S. (vs.
Four Party) context, primarily to help define additional U.S. actions in support of the
NRTMP.9 The content of the first assessment above has been included, in a Four
Party context, in the discussion in Section 3.0 of this report. The principal findings of
the latter two assessments are briefly summarized below. U.S. follow-up actions
have been incorporated in the 2001 NRTMP Work Plan.
Contamination in Sediments, Biota and Water of U.S. Tributaries
USEPA and NYSDEC reviewed a number of recent data sets for ambient
contamination by toxic substances in the Niagara River and its U.S. tributaries. The
objective was to identify priority areas for further investigation which may lead to
contaminant source identification, source trackdown, or remediation.
USEPA and NYSDEC recognized that comparisons and conclusions based on the
synthesis of these data were subjective because much of the data was collected for
different objectives, at different time periods, and using different methodologies.
The criteria used to identify priority areas were:
• contam inant levels were elevated relative to the prevailing contam inant
levels in the Niagara River system;
• elevated contaminant levels were observed in more than one type of data
set (eg., elevated levels in sediments corroborated by elevated levels in
biota or water); and,
• there was indication of potential toxic effects on biota by comparison to
available screening criteria.
In general, contaminant levels in sediments, biota and water were found to be
consistent with the substantial improvements in the river that have been reported by
NRTMP. For example, levels of contaminants in sediments seldom exceeded the
"Severe Effect Levels" (i.e. the level at which toxic effects to most sediment-dwelling
organisms are expected) in Ontario's Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines
(Persaud et al 1993). It appears that contaminant levels have decreased in several
tributary areas, and contaminant levels at many sites were not elevated relative to the
prevailing conditions in the river. However, contaminant levels were sometimes
elevated, providing an indication of priority areas for further investigation. For
example:
9 EC and MOE have not reviewed portions of the data summarized in these assessments.
13
-------
• As first reported in the 2000 NRTMP Progress Report, USEPAand NYSDEC are
taking follow-up actions to address dioxin contamination at the mouth of Bloody
Run Creek and in Pettit Flume Cove. Hexachlorobenzene was also elevated at the
m outh of Bloody Run Creek.
• In Gill Creek, monitoring has shown declines in contaminant levels below Buffalo
Avenue, indicating the success of remedial actions in the area. The available data,
however, also indicate the possible presence of mercury and PCB sources in the
creek. The contamination sources may have been addressed by the remediations
completed in 1992 below Buffalo Avenue, and in 1998-1999, above Buffalo Avenue
to Falls Street. Further monitoring is recommended to assess this.
• Sediment concentrations of PCBs at one site in Two-Mile Creek were elevated, as
were the concentrations in some water (passive samplers) and caged mussel
samples. NYSDEC is conducting sampling to investigate potential sources. DDT
was also elevated in a sediment sample in Two-Mile Creek.
• PAHs were elevated in some samples in Cayuga Creek (Niagara County). Dioxins
in several sediment samples in the Little Niagara River above the Cayuga Creek
mouth were around 1 ppb TEQ (Toxic Equivalency Quotient)10.
It should be noted that the 1999 MOE young-of the-year fish contaminant monitoring
data presented above were included in the U.S. assessment. The results helped to
corroborate the identification of priority areas.
Contamination in Point Sources
USEPA and NYSDEC characterized recent information on discharges of NRTMP
Priority Toxic Chemicals from point sources in the Niagara River and tributaries. The
purpose was to help determine priorities for further actions to address discharges
which may have chemical concentrations that are elevated relative to other point
sources, and/or may contribute chemical loadings that are large relative to other point
sources.11
The information available included a limited number of observations of chemical
concentrations from self monitoring by permittees, and two studies carried out by
10 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-tetracholor-dibenzodioxin, which is assigned the value of 1.0.
2,3,7,8-TCDF is one tenth astoxic and has a toxic equivalent of 0.1.
It is important to note that the U.S. Parties to the NRTMP have been focusing on reduction of
toxic chemical inputs from point sources for many years. There is a high rate of compliance with
existing New York State point source discharge permit conditions, and identification of a discharge
containing toxic chemicals does not constitute a permit violation. The U.S. Parties have also been
working with several dischargers in the Niagara River and Lake Ontario on a voluntary basis on
contaminant trackdown programs.
14
-------
NYSDEC and USEPA using special techniques designed to achieve very low
detection levels (e.g. Trace Organics Platform Sampler [TOPS]).
The concentrations of contaminants found in point source discharges to the Niagara
River and tributaries were very low (low parts per billion range and lower). Though the
concentrations were low, the data suggested that the concentrations (and associated
load estimates) vary considerably among discharges. It is USEPA's and NYSDEC's
policy to address on a priority basis, discharges where there is evidence of elevated
levels of toxic chemicals.
A retrieval of 1995-1998 effluent monitoring data for six NRTMP Priority Toxic
Chemicals (dieldrin, mercury, PCBs, TDE, mirex, dioxin) was conducted for all
facilities in the U.S. Niagara River Basin using USEPA's Permit Compliance System
(PCS). The PCS is the U.S. national data base for tracking information on point
source discharge permits. One or more detections were reported for five of these
chemicals including mercury, PCBs, TDE, dioxin and mirex. Only four facilities had
more than one reported detection for any of the chemicals. All detections were within
allowable permit levels. The occasional detection of these chemicals suggests the
need for follow-up on Niagara River point sources in general, including additional
assessment of discharge concentrations and loads.
A small number of observations at low detection levels was available, through the
special efforts of NYSDEC and USEPA noted above. In 1996, effluent discharges
from two Niagara River basin POTWs12 (Alden, Tonawanda) and three Lake Ontario
basin POTWs (Carthage, Lockport, Rochester) were characterized. In 1999, the wet
weather discharge from the Falls Street Tunnel was characterized. The information
indicated the presence of certain NRTMP priority chemicals in point source
discharges. Chemical concentrations ranged from the low parts per billion range to
as low as the parts per quintillion range for dioxin found in some POTWeffluents.
Within this range, the concentrations of individual chemicals may vary over several
orders of magnitude among discharges. The wet weather discharges from the Falls
Street Tunnel (FST) had the highest concentrations of many chemicals. The final
effluent from POTWs had lower concentrations.
Chemical concentrations in the POTW effluents were usually much higher than the
most stringent ambient water quality criteria. Some of the concentrations, however,
were below or only slightly above the most stringent criteria [e.g., total DDT
(Tonawanda, Lockport), chlordane (Carthage, Lockport, Alden), and
hexachlorobenzene (Lockport, Alden)].
6.0 SUMMARY
12 Publicly Owned Treatment Works
15
-------
This Progress Report reiterates the consistent messages of the past Progress
Reports. Specifically, these are that:
• The concentrations/loads of many of the 18 NRTMP "priority toxics" in
the Niagara River have decreased and the river is getting "cleaner";
and,
• The decreases in nearly all cases have exceeded 50% since 1986/87.
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
1998 most stringent agency criteria shows that all the chemicals for which there are
data, with the exception of TDE, arsenic (As) and lead (Pb), now exceed these criteria.
These exceedences are due to the much more stringent standards adopted by
NYSDEC in 1998 rather than increases in the concentrations of these chemicals in
the river. Indeed, the latest Upstream/Downstream data show that the downward
trend in concentrations/loads continues, with the decreases for most chemicals over
the thirteen-year period since 1986/87 now being greater than 60%. Re-testing of
sport fish in 2000 by Ontario has resulted in less restrictive consumption advisories
for several species from the upper and lower River. Data from the Biomonitoring
Program show that PCB concentrations in juvenile fish from 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. These improvements are
due, at least in part, to the beneficial remedial efforts at Niagara River sources.
As has been previously stated, despite the successes to date and the continued
improvements now being reported, more work needs to be done. Perhaps the
additional message in this Progress Report is that 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.
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.
16
-------
Durham, R.W., and B.G. Oliver. 1983. Historyof 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.
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.
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. 2001. Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, 2001-2002. 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.
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.
NYSDOH. 2001. Health Advisories, Chemicals in Sportfish and Game, 1998-1999.
New York State Department of Health. Revised September 1998.
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.
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).
17
-------
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.
Wlliams, D.J., MAT. Neilson, J. Merriman, S. L'ltalien, S. Painter, K. Kuntzand 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.
Wlliams, 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.
18
-------
Figure 1. Modelled Trend of Hexachlorobenzene in Water at NOTL, 1986/87 to
1998/99.
Figure 2. Modelled Trend of PCB in Suspended Solids at NOTL, 1986/87 to
1998/99.
-------
Figure 3. Modelled Trend of Dieldrin in Water at NOTL, 1986/87 to 1998/99.
Ti rTv° rtga P lot : Di? W rf n
PhdB* - Woldr
I flefllfar^ N Sag era— ert— *¦*— Li"Mi
rt-a/L
<1JL3 "
U.4S-
¦a.-cg -
¦a.44 -
<1.43 -
UM -
¦a jg -
_
¦a_w -
—I
dj3-
•s
¦a_n -
u£s-
•fi
-
i
13^4-
V
*3*2-
q£q -
¦a.ts-
¦a.-tg -
a.U -
U.i;2 -
ti.ta -
nas-
¦aikg -
d±J4- -
-
ti
-3
-{>
il
D
d
tl
tl
b
-a
A
D
d
¦f
f
f
1
f
1
f
"f
f
1
f
f
1
f
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R.
R
R
R
R
R.
H
R
R
R
R
R
R.
R
fl"
*
tt
*
?
fr
*
*
$¦
&
*
7
7
y
1
1
¦3
+
¦5
*
7
*
$
Figure 4. Modelled Trend of Octachlorostyrene (OCS) on Suspended Solids at
NOTL, 1986/87 to 1998/99.
> «
s
I
I
S jo
5
.3d
Ti me '^5 ries. P let: h kn'-cs.tyr'-ert-e
PKiaiji - ajapardad -3a Feb.
I aeaUcfr- H lag or a- en-1*- L^-ar
nfl/g
£h2*r.*d VdLHU.
E4lfh)fll*SI VflLifcl
~ *1^11^ Lining
dUPFWi dfAPRiO OftfT?£rf dUPftii dl'APHiJ dfAFR-J* dl'tfTtihS dl'APftig dfJPRiH? OfAFTtiff dfAPR&£
-------
Figure 5. Modelled Trend of Mirex on Suspended Solids at NOTL, 1986/87 to
1998/99.
Tltrvs Plot : kitlrflx Og/'-g
Ptat* - •iup*ird*d -So Id*
lotoUeri— N lag ito- cr*— t-*—
¦tir-tc—tr QtatprAUi VdLJH:.
* * * Efl:1lrdfll*d VflUfcl
~¦tetre^Lrrrff^a).
o
a
-3
¦a
•G
D
D
d
d
ti
1J
d
it
¦a
f
f
f
f
1
1
1
1
¦f
¦r
f
i
f
f
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
P
P
P
P
l>
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
H
R
R:
R
P;
R.
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
b
*
4
4
A
£
&
$
e
*
7
<5-
1
2
£
4
3
7
*
-------
Figure 6. Additional PAHs Whose Upper 90th Percentile Recombined Whole Water (RWW)
Concentrations at FE (*)and NOTL (•) Exceed the Most Stringent Agency Water Quality
Criteria, 1986/87 -1998/99 (ng/L).*
Fluoranthene (Criterion 0.8 ng/L)
Anthracene (Criterion 0.8 ng/L)
Benzo(ghi)perylene (Criterion 0.02 ng/L)
Solid line represents criterion concentration
-------
Figure 7. Trends in PCB Concentrations in Spottail Shiners (Notropis hudsonius)
at Selected Sites in the Niagara River, 1975-1999.
-5* 8 00
CQ
DL 4 00
Fort Erie
T .
7 5 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 9 3 95 97
Year
O
Q- 4 00
102nd Street, N.Y.
E il1
-I I I I I I I I I I I
75 77 79 81 83 85 8 7 89 91 93 95 97 99
Year
75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99
Year
® 80 0
75 77 79 81 83 85 8 7
Year
91 93 95 97 99
-------
Table 1. Niagara River Toxics Management Plan
Eighteen Priority Toxic Chemicals
Chlordane
Mirex/Photomirex*
Dieldrin
Hexachloro benzene*
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/T riphenylene
Chemicals designated for 50% reduction by 1996.
17
-------
Table 2. Percent Change in Concentrations and Loads of Upstream/Downstream Program Chemicals
between the Base Year and 1998/99.
Fort Erie
N iagara-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
Hexachlorobenzene
1986-1999
-
-
-
-
-70.7
-60.9
-74.7
-62.4
Chlorinated Pesticides & PCBS
a-chlordane
1986-1999
-
NS
-
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
g-chlordane
1986-1999
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
p,p'-DDT
1986-1999
-
NS
-
NS
-
-46.4
-
-48.1
o,p'-DDT
1986-1999
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P.P'-TDE
1986-1999
-46.7
NS
-53.6
NS
-40.1
-48.3
-48.2
-46.5
p,p'-DDE
1986-1999
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
-32.2
NS
-34.8
Dieldrin
1986-1999
-64.2
-59.9
-68.8
-85.5
-57.7
-70.4
-63.4
-71.5
Mi rex
1986-1999
-
-
-
-
-
-56.3
-
-58.0
PCBs
1986-1999
NC
-57.1
NC
-84.5
NC
-76.6
NC
-77.8
PAHs
Benz(a)anthracene
1986-1999
-67.0
-25.4
-71.3
-73.1
-26.0
-38.7
-36.0
-41.0
Benzo(a)pyrene
1986-1999
-
+122.7
-
-19.5
NS
NS
NS
NS
Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene
1986-1999
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Chrysene-triphenylene
1986-1999
-43.8
NS
-50.7
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Industrial By-products
Octach lo rosty ren e
1989-1999
-
-
-
-
-
-85.1
-
-79.6
Trace Metals in Whole Water
Whole Water
Whole Water Load
Whole Water
Whole Water Load
Concentration
% Change
Concentration
% Change
% Change
% Change
Lead
1986-1999
-79.5
-82.2
-72.2
-76.0
Arsenic
1986-1999
NS
NS
NS
NS
Mercury
1986-1997
*
*
*
*
Notes:
18
-------
NC Dissolved phase concentrations and loads not calculated because of known contamination problems with dissolved phase data.
NS No significant trend wasdetected by the model forthe period of record.
Too few values above the detection limit to run the model.
* Analysisof mercury in water was discontinued in 1996/97 pending achievement of more sensitive detection limit.
19
-------
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
River^
PCBs
•
•
DDT/
metabolites
•
•
Mirex
•
•
Dieldrin
•
•
Dioxins
•
NE
Mercury
•
NE
^ 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.
20
-------
Table 4. 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 Mean
Mi rex
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
Octachlorostyrene (OCS)
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
0.8
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
0.6
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
0.5
B enzo( b/k)fl uorant hen e
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
C hryse ne/T riph eny le ne
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
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
0.4
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
DDE
-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
-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
-1.3
TDE
-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
-1.3
PCBs not calculated
21
-------
Table 5. Comparison of the 1997/98 and 1998/99 Upstream/Downstream Program Upper 90th
Percentile Data to the Most Stringent Agency Water Quality Criteria for
Pre-1998 and 1998 (ng/L).
A. Fromthe List of 18 "Priority Toxics"
Parameter Pre-1998 1998 Agency Upper 90% CI
Criteria Criteria (RWW Concentrations - ng/L)
97/98 n 97 /98f 98/99n 98/99f
Total Chlordane
2
0.02
NYSDEC
0.048
0.025
0.029
0.018
Mirex
1.0
0.001
NYSDEC
0.010
ND
0.027
ND
Dieldrin
1
0.0006
NYSDEC
0.228
0.177
0.166
0.134
HCB
20
0.03
NYSDEC
0.082
0.036
0.085
0.018
ppDDT
0.01
NYSDEC
0.159
0.065
0.021
0.024
TDE
0.08
NYSDEC
0.145
0.248
0.051
0.080
DDE
0.007
NYSDEC
0.233
0.233
0.056
0.092
Total DDT
1.0
NYSDEC
0.621
0.577
0.251
0.225
PCBs*
0.0006
0.001
NYSDEC
0.364
0.130
0.683
0.218
OCS
None
0.006
NYSDEC
0.005
ND
0.021
ND
Be nz(a)a nt hra cen e
0.4
0.4
MOE (proposed)
2.605
0.857
2.245
0.482
Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene
0.2
0.2
MOE (proposed)
6.475
2.151
6.075
1.555
Ch rvsene/Trip he nvl ene
0.1
0.1
MOE (proposed)
2.993
1.021
3.220
0.830
B(a)P
1.2
1.2
NYSDEC
2.662
1.224
2.646
0.629
As (ug/L)
5
5
MOE (proposed)
0.684
0.580
0.580
0.580
Hg (ug/L)
0.02
0.02
NYSDEC
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pb (ug/L)
2.5
2.5
USEPA
0.784
0.635
0.784
1 .493
B. Other Contaminants Measured in the Upstream/Downstream Program
Parameter Pre-1998 1998 Aoencv Upper 90% CI
Criteria Criteria (RWW Concentrations - ng/L)
97/98 n 97/98f 98/99n 98/99f
Methoxvchlor
30
30
NYSDEC
ND
ND
ND
ND
Hep Epoxide
1.0
0.3
NYSDEC
0.076
0.075
0.061
0.053
Total Endosulfan (a- + -b)
3.0
3.0
MOE (proposed)
0.076
0.031
0.045
0.021
a-BHC
10
2.0
NYSDEC
0.627
0.486
0.553
0.404
g-BHC
10
8.0
NYSDEC
0.447
0.371
0.401
0.389
Aldrin
1.0
1.0
NYSDEC
ND
ND
ND
ND
Endrin
2.0
2.0
NYSDEC
ND
ND
0.039
0.026
HCCPD
450
450
NYSDEC
0.026
ND
0.015
ND
HCBD
500
10
NYSDEC
0.077
0.004
0.065
ND
Anthracene
0.8
0.8
MOE (proposed)
0.748
0.857
1.011
0.482
Fl uoranthene
0.8
0.8
MOE (proposed)
6.727
3.321
6.754
2.252
Fl uorene
200
200
MOE (proposed)
1.995
0.926
1.185
0.724
Pyrene
50000
4600
NYSDEC
5.999
2.740
5.620
1 .603
Phenanthrene
30
30
MOE (proposed)
8.377
4.357
6.01 1
2.502
lndeno(123cd)pyrene
0.02
0.02
MOE (proposed)
3.084
8.709
2.427
0.798
Benzoic! hi toervlene
0.02
0.02
MOE (proposed)
2.275
0.723
2.699
0.731
bolded values represent Water Quality Criteria exceedences
n = NOTL; f= FE
ND = not detected
* only particulate data considered
NOTE: 98/99 data are for congeners which give higher results than total-PCBs
NA = not analyzed
HCCPD = Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
HCBD = Hexachlorbutadiene
22
-------
Table 6. 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)13
Protection of Human
Health for Drinking
Water Source
Protectio
n of
Piscivorou
s 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
0.0044
0.23
0.03
0.0004(p)
0.002
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.0012
0.0044
0.002
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.0044
0.002
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.0044
0.0002(p)
0.002
Chrysene
0.0044
0.0001 (p)
0.002
Chlordane
2E-5
2.1 E-3
0.006
2.4
0.0043
0.06
0.06
0.05
p,p'-TDE [=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
0.0016
1.1
0.001
0.0038
0.0038
0.2
1.1 E-5e
Dieldrin
6E-7f
1.4E-4
0.004f
0.24
0.24
0.056
0.056
0.001f
o
o
o
—h
0.004
Dioxins/dib enzofuran
s
6E-109
1.3E-8h
2E-8(p)g
7E-79
3.1 E-9h
Hexachlorobenzene
3 E-5
7.5E-4
0.006
5
0.0065
0.04
Lead
see
belowl,d
65j'd
see
be lowl,d
2.5j'd
5(p)J
25
50
2
23
-------
Mercury
7E-4d
0.050
1.4d
1.4d
0.77d
0.77d
0.2d
0.2d
0.7
0.1k
0.0026d
Mirex
1E-6
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.03
Octachlorostyrene
6E-6
0.2
PCSs'
1 E-6
1.7E-4
0.001
0.014
0.001
0.09
1.2E-4
Tetrachloroethylene
1
0.8
50
0.7
Toxaphene
6 E-6
7.3E-4
1.6
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. Annexl of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended 1987.
Footnotes:
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. Applesto dissolved form.
e. Applies to sum of pp-TDE, ppDDE and ppDDT
f. NY State Standard shown appliesto dieldrin only. In addition, a NY State standard of 0.001 ppb appliesto the sum of aldrin + dieldrin. Ontario
PWQO, Health Canada, and IJC objectives apply to the sum of aldrin + dieldrin.
g. Value isfortotal dioxin^furansas2,3,7,8 equivalents.
h. Applies only to 2,3,7,8-TCDD
24
-------
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. Appliesto inorganic mercury.
I. Values apply to sum of PCBs.
25
-------
Table 7. New York State Advisories on the Consumption of Sportfish for Waters
of the Niagara River and its U. S. tributaries (NYSDOH 2000-2001).
Water
Species
Recommendation*
Chemical of
Concern
Niagara River,
Carp
Eat no more than
PCBs
above Niagara
one meal per
Falls
month
Niagara River,
American eel,
Eat none
PCBs, mirex, dioxin
below Niagara
channel catfish,
Falls
carp, lake trout over
25", brown trout
over 20", Chinook
salmon, white
perch
Smallmouth bass,
Eat no more than
PCBs, mirex, dioxin
rainbow trout, white
one meal per
sucker, lake trout
month
less than 25",
brown trout less
than 20", coho
salmon over25"
Tonawanda Creek,
Carp
Eat no more than
PCBs
Lockportto Niagara
one meal per
River
month
Buffalo
Carp
Eat none
PCBs
River/Harbor
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 offish from any New York
fresh water.
• Women of childbearing age, infants and children underage 15 years should not
eatanyfish species from the waters listed above.
• Observe the above restrictions in tributaries of the above waters to the first
impassable barrier impassable byfish.
• Follow trim m ing and cooking advice described in NYSDOH (2000-2001).
26
-------
Table 8. Sport Fish Consumption Advisories for the Upper and Lower Niagara
Rivers from the 2001-2002 Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish.
Location
Species
Fish Size in Centimetres (Inches)
15-20 20-25 25-30 30-3 5 35-45 4 5-5 5 55-65 6 5-75 >75
(6-8) (8-10) (10-12) (12-14) (14-18) (18-22) (22-26) (26-30) >(30)
Lake Ontario
Upper Niagara River
Rai nh nw Trni it5
X
X
X
Mnrthp rn Pikp 2
Y
Y
Y
Smallmouth Bass5,7
X
X
X
X
4
I arnpmnnth Rass2
X
X
X
X
X
Ypllnw Pprnh
X
X
X
White Rass5
4
Rnrk Rass5
X
X
Rrnwn Ri I llhparl2,7
Y
Y
Y
Y
CarD2'7
X
X
X
X
X
4
4
X
X
X
4
4
Whifp Siirkpr5
X
X
X
X
X
RpH hnrsp Rimkpr1
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
Rai nbowSmelt2
4
X = Consumotion of no more than eiaht meals Der month for the aeneral Domlation. Women of childbearina aae
and children under 15 are advised toconsume 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 chi Idren under 15 are advised not to
consume these fish in any amount.
NOTE: A meal is considered to be227grams (8ounces).
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, pesticides
chlorinated phenols and chlorinated benzenes
9 Polynucleararomatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
27
-------
Table 9. Concentrations* of Selected Organochlorines in Spottail Shiners (Notropis hudsonius)
from Canadian and U.S. Sites in the Upper and Lower Niagara River, 1999.
Sampling Year n
Site
Total Lipid
Length (mm) (%)
PCB DDT Mirex OCS HCB
(ng/g) (ng/g) (ng/g) (ng/g) (ng/g)
UPPER NIAGARA RIVER
Canada
Fort Erie
1999 5 54-5
ND
Frenchman's
Creek
ND
1999 5 55-6
1.1-0.5
0.9-0.2
44-9 8-3 ND ND
36-9 8-5 ND ND
U.S.
Wheatfield (NY)
1999 5 64-2
ND
2.2-0.6
220-42 4-1 ND ND
102nd Street (NY)
1999 5 66-5
2-0
3.3-0.6
236-46 6-3 ND 2-0
Cayuga Creek (NY)
1999 5 57-5
3-2
2.7-0.6
216-36 8-3 ND 1-0
LOWER NIAGARA RIVER
Canada
Queenston
ND
1999 5 61-4
1.6-0.2
92-22 10-5 ND ND
Niagara-on-the-Lake
1999 5 61-6
ND
1.7-0.3
104-26 12-6 ND ND
U.S.
Lewiston (NY)
28
-------
1999 5 60-6 1.7-0.6 100-20 6-3 ND ND
ND
Youngstown (NY)
1999 5 57-5 2.4-0.5 112-17 16-5 ND ND
ND
* X-Y = mean-standard deviation
29
-------
NIAGARA RIVER TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN (NRTMP) ANNUAL WORK PLAN [2001]
The "Four Parties'
EPA
DEC
EC
MOE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
o m
M
0
E
2000
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
2001
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
I.
Controlling Point Sources
A
Report on U.S. Point Sources
*
Perio-
dically
Perio-
dically
See Note A
B.
Report on Canadian Point Sources
(1994/95)
*
Completed Nov96
See Note B
C.
Report on actions to further address
U.S. point sources discharging
NRTMP Priority Toxic Chemicals
*
*
Beginning
2002
See Note C
w-1
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
o m
M
0
E
2000
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
2001
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
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 00
Completed Oct00
2002
See "Public
Involvement"
section (V.B).
2.
Remediate Occidental Chemical-
Buffalo Ave site
a.
Complete overburden groundwater
collection system.
*
—
Completed Dec98
—
See Note D
b.
Enhance bedrock groundwater
collection system.
*
—
Completed Dec98
—
See Note D
c.
Complete remediation of contaminated
soils and off-site groundwater
*
>
See Note D
d.
Issue Corrective Measures
Implementation (CMI) Permit
*
—
Completed.
—
See Note D
e.
Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation
using caged mussels
*
2000
Completed field
survey in Aug 2000.
2003
Next field survey.
W-2
-------
E
D
E
M
2000
2001
P
E
C
0
Commit-
Status/Comments
Commit-
Status/Comments
ACTIVITY
A
C
E
ment
ment
3. Remediate Niagara County Refuse
Disposal
a. Complete construction of site remedy.
*
Sep 00
Completed Sep 00
Construction of
the landfill cap
was completed
June 2000. Afinal
inspection was
conducted in
September 2000.
Operation and
maintenance
activities and
monitoring have
commenced.
4. Remediate DuPont, Necco Park site
W-3
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
o m
M
0
E
2000
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
2001
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
a.
Start construction of final site remedy
*
Jun 00
Delayed >
Nov01
See Note E
b.
Complete final remedy
*
Mar 03
Delayed >
Oct 03
5.
Remediate Hyde Park Site
a.
Complete additional remedial
measures as necessary to achieve
hydraulic containment,
*
—
Jun 02
See Note F
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.
*
Dec 00
Delayed >
Jun 02
d.
Conduct annual survey of gorge-face
seeps.
*
Jul 00
Completed
Jul 01
See Note F
W-4
-------
E
D
E
M
2000
2001
P
E
C
0
Commit-
Status/Comments
Commit-
Status/Comments
ACTIVITY
A
C
E
ment
ment
e. Sample groundwater seeps coming
*
Dec 00
Completed.
Jun 02
Results of 2001
from Niagara River Gorge face and
Sampling
sampling.
analyze for toxic chemicals.
conducted annually
in 1997, 1998, 1999.
See Note F
Results continue to
indicate no need for
additional control or
remediation of the
seep areas.
f. Assess contam ination at Bloody Run
Creek mouth
g. Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation
using caged mussels
*
*
2000
2000
Completed
Completed field
survey in Aug 2000.
2001
2003
Underway
See Note F
Next field survey.
6. Remediate 102nd Street
a. Complete containment system,
including barrierwall, drainage system,
landfill cap.
*
—
Completed
—
W-5
-------
E
D
E
M
2000
2001
P
E
C
0
Commit-
Status/Comments
Commit-
Status/Comments
ACTIVITY
A
C
E
ment
ment
b. Com plete leachate pum ping system.
*
Completed Dec98
Eliminates
potential off-site
loadings
c. Complete site landscaping and
*
Jul 99
Completed Mar99
optimization of the pump-and-treat
system.
d. Monitor groundwater level.
*
On-
On-going
To ensure
going
effectiveness of
remedial systems.
e. Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation
*
2000
Completed field
2003
Next field survey.
using caged mussels
survey in Aug 2000.
7. Remediate Occidental Chemical, S-
Area site
a. Finish building new City of Niagara
Falls Drinking Water Treatment Plant
(DWTP)
b. Demolish existing City of Niagara Falls
DWTP.
Completed Mar97
Completed winter
98
Fully operational
W-6
-------
E
D
E
M
2000
2001
P
E
C
0
Commit-
Status/Comments
Commit-
Status/Com m e nts
ACTIVITY
A
C
E
ment
ment
c. Construct eastern barrier wall
*
Jul 98
Completed May98
Other three sides
of site already
enclosed by
*
barrier walls.
d. Com plete cap and overburden drain
Completed Sep 99
See Note G
collection system for the old DWTP
property.
e. Securement of the DWTP intake
*
Jul 00
Began Aug 00
Confirmatory
structures, including grouting of DWTP
tunnel borings
raw water intake.
2001. See Note G.
f. Install final landfill cap.
*
Dec 00
Began Aug 00
Aug 01
See Note G
g. Optimize well pumping rates and make
sure that contaminated groundwater is
no longer flowing off site.
h. Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation
using caged mussels
*
*
Apr01
2000
Evaluation report
submitted Apr 01
Completed field
survey in Aug 2000.
2002
2003
See Note G
Next field survey.
8. Remediate Solvent Chemical site
W-7
-------
E
D
E
M
2000
2001
P
E
C
0
Commit-
Status/Comments
Commit-
Status/Comments
ACTIVITY
A
C
E
ment
ment
a.
Complete remedial design
*
—
Completed
—
b.
Construct site remedy
*
—
On-going
—
See Note H
c.
Complete remedial action
*
Jan 01
Delayed >
Aug 01
9.
Remediate Olin plant site
a.
Monitor effectiveness of remedial
*
*
On-
On-going
Remedial system
systems.
going
completed Oct97
b.
Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation
*
2000
Completed field
2003
Next field survey.
using caged mussels
survey in Aug 2000
10.
Remediate Buffalo Color Corporation
site
a.
Complete site investigation
*
Completed Apr 99
—
See Note J
b.
Select site remedy
*
Aug 00
Completed
—
See Note J
c.
Implement site remedy.
*
Jul 01
Delayed
Jun 02
W-8
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
o m
M
0
E
2000
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
2001
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
11.
Remediate Bethlehem Steel site
a.
Complete site investigation
*
*
Apr01
Delayed >
Mar 02
See Note K
b.
Select site remedy
*
*
Oct 02
Jun 03
c.
Begin implementation of site remedy
*
*
Dec 03
Dec 03
12.
Remediate Gratwick Riverside Park site
a.
Start construction of site remedy.
*
—
Began Jun 99
—
b.
Complete construction of site remedy
*
Comple-
ted 2001
Construction
completed Dec00.
Awaiting testing and
verification.
c.
Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation
using caged mussels
*
2000
Completed field
survey in Aug 2000.
2003
Next field survey.
13.
Remediate Occidental Chemical Durez
- North Tonawanda Site
a.
Complete construction of site remedy
*
—
Completed 1994.
See Note L.
W-9
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
o m
M
0
E
2000
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
2001
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
b.
Assess contamination in Pettit Flume
Cove
*
—
c.
Biomonitor effectiveness of remediation
using caged mussels
*
2000
Completed field
survey in Aug 2000.
2003
Next field survey.
14.
Determine whether trace amounts of
contam inants of concern found at 5
landfills are moving to groundwater off-
site.
*
*
Completed.
See Note M.
B.
Contaminated sediments
1.
Update NY Great Lakes Contaminated
Sediments Inventory
Every 2
years
Data update
completed Mar
2001 and submitted
to national
database.
Annually
Inventory of data
on contaminated
sediments is
available to
evaluate sampling
and remediation
actions.
III. Monitoring
w-10
-------
E
D
E
M
2000
2001
P
E
C
0
Commit-
Status/Comments
Commit-
Status/Comments
ACTIVITY
A
C
E
ment
ment
A Complete report on results of
*
*
*
*
Dec 98
Final report
Dec 01
97-98 report.
Upstream/Downstream sampling.
(for 96-
completed and
(Revised Format)
97
distributed.
report)
B. Collect juvenile spottail shiners or other
*
*
MOE
MOE
MOE
juvenile fish and analyze for toxic
chemicals, according to Monitoring
Apr 02
Technical summary
Apr 02
Prepare technical
Plan.
of 1999 collection
summary of 2000
See Note 0
completed Apr.
collection
2001
2000
Apr 02
Spottails to be
Spottail shiners
collected
were collected in
Aug. 2000.
DEC
DEC:
Final report on
May
DEC: Draft report
Dec 2001
1997 collections.
2000
on 1997 collections
Subsequent
underway.
collections to
follow on a five-
year basis (next
collection in 2002)
W-11
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
o m
M
0
E
2000
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
2001
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
C. Track down toxic chem icals in
tributaries and sewer systems to
identify sources.
*
*
Spring-
Fall
2000
Monitoring
completed in Two
Mile Creek.
Additional priority
areas identified.
See Note P.
Spring-Fall,
2000
Complete PCB
trackdown in
Two Mile Creek.
See Note P
D. Biomonitor using caged mussels and
analyze for toxic chemicals, according to
Monitoring Plan.
*
Every 3
years
Complete field
survey in Aug 2002.
2003
Next field survey
E. Study use of zebra and quagga
mussels as biomonitors
*
Dec 02
Completed Abstract
paper for 1997
Study
W-12
-------
E
D
E
M
2000
2001
P
E
C
O
Commit-
Status/Comments
Commit-
Status/Comments
ACTIVITY
A
C
E
ment
ment
F. Assess sport fishery in Niagara River,
*
MOE:
MOE:
MOE:
with contaminant analysis.
Complete the review of sport fish
Apr 00
Delayed >
Dec 01
contaminant trends in the Niagara
River/Western Lake Ontario from 1970-
2000.
Apr 00
Sport fish collected
Apr 00
from the Niagara
River.
Apr 01 Released 2001 -
2002 AAGuide to
Eating Ontario Sport
Fish in March 2001.
Apr 01
Apr 02
Prepare and
Release 2003-
2004 "Guide to
Eating Ontario
Sport Fish."
W-13
-------
E
D
E
M
2000
2001
P
E
C
0
Commit-
Status/Comments
Commit-
Status/Comments
ACTIVITY
A
C
E
ment
ment
G. Collect sam pie of Falls Street Tunnel
*
Jun 00
Sample collected
wet weather discharge and analyze for
fall 1999. Analysis
NRTMP priority chemicals using
and report
techniques to achieve low detection
completed Jan 01.
levels.
H. Develop plans for additional
*
*
—
2002
See Note Q.
assessment of low-level contam inant
discharges from Niagara River point
sources.
W-14
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
o m
M
0
E
2000
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
2001
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
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.
*
*
*
*
May 01
Materials included
in 2001 report
Oct 02
Update existing
materials as
necessary and add
additional
materials. See Note
R
B. Develop plans addressing water-
quality limiting chemicals.
*
*
—
Beginning
2002
See Note S
W-15
-------
ACTIVITY
E
P
A
D
E
C
o m
M
0
E
2000
Commit-
ment
Status/Comments
2001
Commit-
ment
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 00
Completed
2002
See "Controlling
Non-Point
Sources" section
(II.A1).
C.
1. Make NRTMP information and
reports available on the Internet.
*
*
*
*
As
available
On-going. See Note
T
As
availabl
2. Develop a NRTMP web page
*
*
*
*
Sep 99
Delayed
6
Delayed
until Jun
02
NRTMP web page
to be developed on
EPA/GLNPOweb
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 01
Delayed until Sep 01
No later
than
Sep 02
Annually.
E.
Hold a public meeting to present
*
*
*
*
Jun 00
Jun 00 completed
No later
Annually.
W-16
-------
E
D
E
M
2000
2001
P
E
C
0
Commit-
Status/Comments
Commit-
Status/Comments
ACTIVITY
A
C
E
ment
ment
above progress report and updated
Jun 01
Jun 01 delayed until
than Oct
annual work plan.
Oct 01
02.
W-17
-------
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 C: Report on actions to further address U.S. point sources
discharging NRTMP PrioritvToxicChemicals.
EPA and DEC have completed an assessment of recent information on
discharges of NRTMP Priority Toxic Chemicals from point sources in the
Niagara River and tributaries. The purpose is to help determine priorities for
further actions to address discharges which may have chemical concentrations
that are elevated relative to other point sources, and/or may contribute chemical
loadings that are large relative to other point sources. In general, the levels of
contaminants found in point source discharges to the Niagara River and
tributaries are very low. The parties to the NRTMP have been focusing on
W-18
-------
reduction of toxic chemical inputs from point and non-point sources for many
years, and these efforts have been very successful reducing contaminant
inputs to the river. Though the concentrations of contaminants in U.S. point
source discharges are generally low, there is evidence that the concentrations
(and associated load estimates) vary considerably among discharges. It is
EPA's and DEC'S policy to address discharges where there is evidence of
elevated levels of toxic chemicals on a priority basis. On this basis, EPA and
DEC have identified several priority actions to address point source discharges
in New York's Great Lakes basin. Among the priorities is to address
contaminant discharges occurring due to wet-weather overflows from the Falls
Street Tunnel (FST). DEC is currently reviewing the City of Niagara Falls
Wastewater Treatment Plant (NFWWTP) SPDES permit under the
Environmental Benefits Permit Strategy, which prioritizes the review of SPDES
discharge permits. This permit currently includes conditions to control
pollutants from CSOs including the FST. These conditions will be reviewed
and revised as necessary. EPA and DEC will report further on the status of
efforts to address the FST, including specific plans as they are developed,
beginning in 2002. EPA and DEC also intend to develop voluntary programs to
help address contamination appearing in Niagara River point source
discharges, and will report further in 2002.
Note D. Remediate Occidental Chemical-Buffalo Ave site
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.
Note E: Remediate DuPont. Necco Park site.
Remedial design is underway including the installation of additional
groundwater wells, which began September 2000. The wells will serve as
component parts of the hydraulic containmant portion of the final remedy. The
completion date will allow time to address any com plications 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.
W-19
-------
Note F:
Remediate Hyde 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 pumping wells were installed in 1998
and 1999; one pumping well and five monitoring wells were installed in 2000.
However, OCC still did not achieve all required inward hydraulic gradients.
OCC completed a groundwater model, to better understand the groundwater
flow in the vicinity of the site, in February 2001. The output of the model was
used to design five additional extraction wells in the bedrock. The model
predicts that 100% of the contaminated groundwater coming from the site will
be captured when these wells are operational. OCC began installing the five
new extraction wells and the associated monitoring wells in June and should
be com pleted by Decern ber 2001.
To ensure that remediation of the groundwater seeps in the Niagara River
Gorge face has been effective, a 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 performed a human health risk screening of this
contamination and found the human health risk to be within its acceptable risk
range. EPA will perform an ecological risk screening this year.
Note G: Remediate Occidental Chemical S-area site.
The drain collection system and cap for the old Drinking Water Treatment Plant
property were completed in 1999. Operation of the drain collection system for
the landfill portion of the site began in 1996. However, a portion of the system
was improperly installed and did not function as designed. The system was
replaced in 1999-2000. This has delayed completion of the Remedial Action.
Construction of the final landfill cap began in August 2000, was shut down for
the winter, and is being completed in the Summer of 2001. Securement of the
raw water intake structure from the old DWTP was completed in August2000.
The phase 3 evaluation of the bedrock pumping program indicated the need for
W-20
-------
additional bedrock wells. Additional wells will be installed. Completion of the
Remedial Action is expected in 2002.
Note H: Remediate Solvent Chemical site.
Construction began in early 1998, but was delayed by lack of access
agreements with adjacent property owners. Construction has now resumed.
Construction of the groundwater remedial systems began in 1999 and will
continue through summer 2001. The groundwater pre-treatment system is
scheduled to go on-line in summer2001.
Note J: 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. The Corrective Measures Study Report was approved in July
2000. A Statement of Basis which will incorporate the final remedy (corrective
measures) into the perm it will be public noticed. The Statement of Basis was
delayed in order to address additional coordination procedures with the local
authorities. The proposed Corrective Measures alternative include an Area A
groundwater extraction system, institutional controls, groundwater monitoring,
the repair of a sheet piling breach in Area E and Area Abank erosion control.
Note K: Remediate Bethlehem Steel site
BSC has completed the field work for the site investigation, and is preparing
RFI and human health risk assessment reports. However, these have been
delayed due to negotiations over the scope and the need to collect additional
data. The additional data needed to complete the Ecological Risk Assessment
was collected spring 2001. In the interim, BSC is drafting the remaining
portions of the RFI Report, including the SWMU assessment reports.
Submittal of the Draft Final RFI report is anticipated by December 2001. BSC
has also completed limited remedial technology studies for several SWMUs
and for two areas that appear to be the primary sources of groundwater
contamination (the Acid Tar Pits and Coke Oven Areas). BSC has submitted a
W-21
-------
Pre-design Investigation Report for the remediation of the Benzol Plant Area
(i.e., coke oven area), however a dispute over waste characterization has
delayed implementation. BSC also submitted an application for two Corrective
Action Management Units (CAMUs) to NYSDEC and EPA NYSDEC
determined that BSC's application was "substantially complete". This will
allow the potential for CAMUs to be utilized as part of a future remedy at the
facility. While the RFI activites are being completed, 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 maybe suitable for redevelopement. BSC and
NYSDEC are negotiating a Work Plan for the investigation of the 102 acre
parcel. Anyfuture CMS or CMI activities will require a new order, perm it or other
agreement.
Note L: Remediate Occidental Chemical Durez- 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.
Biomonitoring sampling bythe Ontario Ministry of the Environment in 1997, and
recent water quality sampling bythe NYSDEC, detected the possible release of
OCC Durez contaminants of concern into the post-remedial Pettit Creek Cove.
The extent of the sampling was limited to a verysmall area at the mouth of the
Pettit Creek Flume storm sewer. As a result, OCC agreed to undertake a
supplemental investigation of the Pettit Creek Cove to ascertain the cove=s
current condition and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the completed
remedial programs. Sampling of cove sediment, completed October 1999,
found that low levels of Durez contaminants were present in recently deposited
sediment emanating from the Pettit Flume storm sewer. OCC believes the
contamination to be residual from the sewer cleaning project of 1994. In
response, OCC completed maintenance dredging of 400 cubic yards of the
recently deposited sediment in May2000.
W-22
-------
Note M: 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 0: Collect juvenile spottail shiners or other juvenile 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 andfurans at several stations. A report is in preparation.
Note P: Track down toxic chemicals in tributaries and sewer systems to
identify sources
Trackdown is a key program to identify continuing sources of toxic chemicals in
the Niagara River and its tributaries. DEC and EPAare 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 for Two-mile Creek
W-23
-------
was completed in 2000, and analysis of results is underway. Additional U.S.
plans are being developed in consideration of available resources. DEC and
EPA have completed an assessment of information collected over the past
several years in the Niagara River and U.S. tributaries. This is helping to
determine priorities for further monitoring efforts which may lead to
identification of point and non-point sources impacting the river. For exam pie,
the DEC/EPA assessment indicates several priority areas for follow-up
monitoring. Among these areas are Hyde Park/Bloody Run Creek, Cayuga
Creek (Niagara County), and Gill Creek. DEC and EPA will be developing
plans for follow-up monitoring efforts, and implementing additional efforts as
feasible. DEC and EPA will report further in 2002.
Note Q: Develop plans for additional assessment of low-level
contaminant discharges from Niagara River point sources.
DEC and EPA have completed an assessment of recent information on toxic
contaminant discharges from Niagara River point sources. The information
available indicates 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. EPA and DEC will develop plans for such an
assessment, and intend to report further in 2002.
Note R: 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, NRTMP set out in
1999 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:
W-24
-------
Develop an im proved description of contam inant 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) point source contaminant
concentrations and loadings. The effort to develop the synthesis is underway.
Some information was incorporated into the NRTMP 2000 Progress Report
and Work Plan (e.g., fish advisory information, data comparison to water quality
criteria). This information has been updated in the 2001 report, including the
incorporation of Upstream/Downstream data for 1997/1998 and 1998/1999. In
addition, the U.S. parties have completed several U.S. "Synthesis Papers",
which use a variety of data sources to help determine U.S. actions under the
NRTMP toward the goals of the Letter of Support and the Declaration of Intent.
The Synthesis Papers address (1) assessment of water qualityfor toxics in the
Niagara River, and the significance of Niagara River sources; (2) point sources
of toxics; and (3) toxic contamination in the sediments, biota and water of the
river and tributaries. Information from the U.S. assessments is incorporated
into the 2001 Progress Report and Work Plan. In the next year, NRTMP will
update this information as necessary. Also, additional information is under
development, including the preparation of a Four-Party technical interpretive
report on the US/DS Program and Biomonitoring Program. NRTMP will report
on the status of the Synthesis effort in 2002.
Note S: Develop plans addressing water-quality limiting chemicals.
DEC and EPA have completed a U.S. assessment of water quality in the
Niagara River using US/DS Program data. The assessment indicates
exceedances of New York water quality standards for some NRTMP Priority
Toxic Chemicals. It is DEC'S and EPA's intent to address sources of toxic
substances determined to exceed water quality standards in the Niagara River.
Niagara River segments determined to be water-quality limited will be added
to New York's 2002 list of impaired waterbodies (i.e. the Clean Water Act
W-25
-------
Section 303(d) list). Total Maximum Daily Loads/Wasteload Allocations/Load
Allocations (TMDLs/WLAs/LAs) will be developed for these segments. EPA
and DEC, in coordination with the Four-Parties, will communicate priorities to
the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan to help ensure implementation of
programs that address water-quality limiting chemicals in the Niagara River.
Note T: Make NRTMP information and reports available on the Internet.
The Four Party Upstream/Downstream Reports for 1991/92, 1993/94, 1995/96,
and 1996 197 can be found on the GLIMR web site at
http://www.cciw.ca/glimr/search.html (search "joint evaluation"). U.S. wastesite
reports from 1998 through 2000 are at
http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/lakeont/nrtmp. Additional reports will be added as
they become available.
W-26
------- |