|
|
|
NIAGARA RIVER |
Table of Contents | ||||||||
|
Introduction 1 Remedial Action Plans
1 and Areas of Concern The Status Assessment Process 2
Current Status Assessment 2
The Niagara River Area of Concern 3
History of the Niagara River Setting and Sources Human Health Considerations 4
Findings 8 Setting and Sources Human Health Considerations 4
Concluding Remarks 16
Literature Cited 17
Schedule of Consultations 20
Table
1. Beneficial Use Impairments Figure
1. PCB Loads Entering Lake Ontario
via the Niagara River 8 | |||||||||
|
The International Joint Commission (Commission)
was established by the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty
(the Treaty). The treaty recognizes that each country
is affected by the other's actions in the lake and
river systems along their common border, and provides
that "boundary waters and waters flowing across
the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to
the injury of health and property on the other". The
primary purpose of the Treaty is to prevent and resolve
disputes concerning these shared waters. In 1972,
the governments of the United States and Canada signed
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Agreement).
In 1978, the two governments signed a new
Agreement which included additional commitments to rid the
Great Lakes of persistent toxic substances. Its purpose is
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes
basin ecosystem. The Commission was given the
responsibility to assess and evaluate the governments' programs
and progress under the Agreement and assist in its implementation.
| |||||||||
|
ISBN 1-894280-30-X | |||||||||
|
Glossary of ACRONYMS
AOCs Areas of Concern
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
DNAPL Dense Nonaqueous-Phase Liquids
DOI Declaration of Intent
IJC International Joint Commission
NRC National Research Council
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOH New York State Department of Health
NFPIO Niagara Falls Public Information Office
NPCA Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
NRTMP Niagara River Toxics Management Plan
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RAPs Remedial Action Plans
TCE Trichloroethylene
2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. GAO United States General Accounting Office | ||
|
Introduction
Remedial Action Plans
| ||||||
For More Information
For more information
regarding the Commission, you may contact Commission public
information services at:
Canadian Section
234 Laurier Avenue West
22nd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6K6 (613) 995-2984
United States Section
1250 23rd St. N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20440
(202) 736-9000
Information concerning this
Status Assessment can be
obtained by contacting the Great Lakes In Canada- 100 Ouellette Avenue
8th Floor
Windsor, ON N9A 6T3
(519) 257-6734
In the United States-
P.O. Box 32869
Detroit, MI 48232
(313) 226-2170
Information can also be
obtained from the Commission web page at
www.ijc.org or by e-mail to commission@windsor.ijc.org(.) | ||||||
|
| ||||||
The Status Assessment Process
Status Assessments are intended to: examine and encourage progress toward restoration and
protection of beneficial uses; assess program implementation relative to necessary remedial and
preventive actions; and identify and make recommendations on specific activities that could be taken to
overcome challenges and make measurable progress in restoring beneficial uses in the area. Status
Assessments are not comprehensive environmental audits, but rather, assessments of ongoing efforts
and activities of the responsible governments and organizations. The Status Assessment process is
intended to promote the restoration of beneficial uses through the collection of information and
transfer of successful methods and experiences among different AOCs and facilitation of constructive
interaction among various agencies and organizations that may have limited opportunity to
exchange ideas. The Niagara River AOC Status Assessment is the fourth such assessment undertaken by
the Commission.
Current Status Assessment
The Status Assessment of the Niagara River AOC was conducted between
May 2000 and April 2002 and included consultation between representatives of
the Commission, including Commissioners, staff members and Science Advisory
Board members, and citizens, government agencies, local industries, Niagara
River Restoration Council, Niagara River Remedial Action Committee, the
Tuscarora Nation, and Great Lakes United. This consultation process included a
public meeting conducted by the Commission's Science Advisory Board.
The Status Assessment process included an examination of funding,
institutional structure, roles of the Parties, jurisdictions and other sectors, and
public consultation. This evaluation also examines those activities occurring outside
of the RAP structure that foster restoration and protection of beneficial uses
within the AOC. | ||||
|
| ||||
|
The Niagara River
Area of Concern
Background information is provided in
the following three sections to assist the public
in better understanding the scope of the complex
environmental conditions in the Niagara River AOC
for which the Parties have taken corrective actions to address.
History of the Niagara River Area of Concern
The Commission's first examined the water quality conditions in the Niagara River in response to a
1912 reference from the governments to examine the extent and causes of pollution in the boundary
waters between the United States and Canada. A more specific reference concerning pollution of the
Niagara River was received by the Commission from the governments in 1948. Reports in response to
these references were issued in 1918 (IJC 1918) and 1950 (Board of Technical Advisers 1950).
Subsequently, other issues including the presence of persistent toxic substances were identified in the Niagara
River along with other areas of the Great Lakes basin. The 1978 Agreement and the 1987 Protocol
required that these problems and others be addressed in the RAPs.
Stage 1 (problem identification) and Stage 2 (selection of remedial measures) RAPs have
been prepared for the Ontario and New York portions of the Niagara River AOC. The Implementation Annex
of the 1995 Stage 2 Ontario RAP and the accompanying Welland River Watershed Strategy were
subsequently made available in November 2000 (Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority 2000).
The Ontario and New York RAP activities operate within the Niagara River AOC independently of each other. | ||||
|
| ||||
|
In February 1987, Environment Canada, the U.S. Environment Protection Agency, the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(1999), the Four Parties, signed a Declaration of Intent (DOI). The purpose of the DOI is to achieve
significant reductions of toxic contaminants in the Niagara River. Based on the DOI, a
contaminant-specific Niagara River effort called the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP) was designed to
achieve reductions in contaminant loadings to the Niagara River. Upstream/Downstream monitoring and
bio-monitoring, important subsets of the NRTMP, are conducted by Environment Canada and the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, respectively. Data from this monitoring of NRTMP implementation
efforts provide evidence of progress toward the goals of the DOI.
Environmental problems in the Niagara River AOC include: inactive hazardous waste sites,
contaminated sediment, combined sewer overflows, habitat degradation, and nonpoint source
pollution, including urban and rural runoff (Environment Canada 1997) (U.S. EPA 1997).
Table 1, pursuant to Annex 2 of the Agreement, presents the 14 possible beneficial use
impairments, their reported status by jurisdiction, and comments of the Commission concerning the
reported status.
Setting and Sources of Contamination
The Niagara River is the connecting channel between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The flow of
the drainage basin of the upstream Great Lakes system drains into the Niagara River. The Niagara
River carries an average flow of approximately 200,000 cubic feet per second (5,666 cubic meters per
second). This flow represents 83 percent of the tributary flow to Lake Ontario (New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation 1994). Discharge from the Ontario portion of the AOC contributes
less than 1 percent to the total flow in the Niagara River (Environment Canada 1997).
Prior to the 1940's, the Niagara River was subject to pollutants such as excessive levels of
bacteria, oil, phosphorus, chloride, phenol, mercury and discoloration (NYSDEC 1994). During and after
World War II, an increasing array of compounds were discharged from chemical plants to the municipal
sewerage system. In its examination of the municipal/industrial waste situation, the Lakes
Erie-Ontario Advisory Board (1967) to the Commission on Control of Pollution of Boundary Waters noted the
complexity of rectifying this problem. At that time, waste received by the Niagara Falls, New York
sewage treatment plant was 75 percent industrial in origin. Consequently, loading information for the
sewage treatment plant indicated it to be a larger contributor to the trace organics load in the Niagara
River than all Ontario point sources combined (Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of the
Environment 1981).
Numerous point sources primarily on the New York side historically discharged to the
Niagara River. In 1981, 12 municipal wastewater treatment plants and 89 industrial facilities were permitted
to discharge to the Niagara River or its tributaries (Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of the
Environment 1981). Within the New York drainage area of the Niagara River, over 310 industrial
operations were documented to discharge via municipal wastewater treatment plants. The Buffalo River flows
into Lake Erie near the headwaters of the Niagara River, hence pollution in the Buffalo River may
contribute to water quality impairments of the Niagara River.
Land use in the Niagara River AOC includes industrial, residential, urban, agricultural,
natural areas and parks. Most industrial dischargers are located within the New York portion of the AOC.
Availability of abundant hydro power for industrial operations has resulted in a legacy of
hazardous waste sites, the best known of which is Love Canal. | ||||
|
| ||||
|
In the 1920s, a partially dug section of Love Canal, located in the southeast corner of
Niagara Falls, New York, became a chemical and municipal disposal site for several chemical companies and
the city of Niagara Falls (NYSDOH 1978). An unknown array and quantity of chemicals were buried
on-site until the waste site was capped in 1953. Estimates of hazardous waste in this landfill range
from 22,000 tons (19,954 tonnes) (U.S. EPA 1996) to 176,000 tons (159,632 tonnes) (Online Ethics
Center 1999). In the late 1950s, homebuilding began adjacent to the Love Canal landfill,
subsequently breaching the cap. By 1978, compounds identified at this site included: benzene, toluene,
benzoic acid, lindane, trichloroethylene (TCE), dibromoethane, benzaldehydes, methyl chloride, carbon
tetrachloride, and chloroform (NYSDOH 1978).
The Occidental Chemical-Hyde Park (then Hooker Chemicals and Plastics) site, from 1953
to 1975, received approximately 80,000 tons (72,560 tonnes) of chemical waste (U.S. EPA and
NYSDEC 1999). This included approximately 0.7 tons (.6 tonnes) to 1.6 tons (1.5 tonnes) of
2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). The former drainage stream of the landfill, Bloody Run, which
flows into the Niagara River, was historically contaminated with organic chemicals including 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Compounds from this site, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD, were previously detected approximately 1,600
feet (488 meters) away in contaminated groundwater seeping from the Niagara River gorge face (U.S.
EPA and NYSDEC 1999). After remediation, which included purge wells to capture aqueous-phase liquids
at the gorge face, concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the gorge face seepage are below the 10
micrograms per liter specified in the Record of Decision.
These and other waste sites contributed to extensive groundwater contamination problems
that have adversely affected beneficial uses (see Table 1) in the Niagara River AOC. For example, the
102nd Street Landfill, a 22.4 acre (9 hectares) site, received about 23,500 tons (21,315 tonnes) of
mixed organic solvents, organic and inorganic phosphates, and related chemicals in the period 1943
until 1971 (U.S. EPA and NYSDEC 2000). The presence of groundwater contamination is complicated
by complex intersecting network of fractures and tectonic faults in the bedrock of the Niagara
Frontier and the Western Lake Ontario basin (Yager and Kappel 1987). The deeply fractured bedrock
that underlies the Niagara Region provides a direct pathway for groundwater contaminated by dense
nonaqueous-phase liquids (DNAPL) to migrate from hazardous waste sites to the Niagara River and
Lake Ontario (IJC 1993). Typical DNAPL components include: tetrachloroethylene, TCE,
1,2-dichloroethylene, trichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride (NRC 1999). Substances, such as 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), also may be present. In addition, metabolites of carbon
tetrachloride and TCE can be expected in dissolved-phase plumes emanating from certain DNAPL source zones
(NRC 1999). For example, when TCE is not fully degraded, vinyl chloride is formed (NRC 2000).
Vinyl chloride is more carcinogenic than TCE (NRC 2000).
Transport of contaminants by the Niagara River has resulted in downstream effects.
Contaminant-related impacts of mirex and 2,3,7,8-TCDD, derived from Niagara River sources, to Lake
Ontario fish and wildlife were noted as a concern by Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of the
Environment (1981). Contaminants from the Niagara River AOC, which previously migrated into the
Niagara River, have been conveyed downstream to Lake Ontario. For example, the inventory of
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans sequestered in Lake Ontario sediment has been estimated
at 5,800 kilograms (12,787 pounds) (Pearson et
al. 1997). Impacts to commercial fishing in
specific areas within Lake Ontario due to Niagara River sources of mirex and PCBs were also identified.
In September 1976, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) began investigation of issues related to Love Canal (NYSDOH 1978). By September 1978,
scientific analyses had identified 82 chemical compounds in the landfill (NYSDOH 1978). In 1979, 215
chemical waste sites were identified in the Niagara and Erie counties area of New York. Of these, at least four
are known to have leaked contaminants into the Niagara River (Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of | ||||
|
| ||||
|
the Environment 1981). In 1984, 164 sites within three miles (4.8 kilometers) of the Niagara River
were considered as potential contaminant sources to the Niagara River (Niagara River Toxics Committee 1984).
Evaluation of the sites (U.S. EPA and NYSDEC 2000) identified 26 locations as significant
hazardous waste sites responsible for over 99 percent of the estimated input from all such sites on the
U.S. side of the Niagara River basin. Remediation of the sites is intended to virtually eliminate the
migration of toxic pollutants from the sites. Current schedules call for all sites to be remediated by
2003 (U.S. EPA and NYSDEC 2000).
Human Health ConsiderationsUncontrolled hazardous waste sites have been documented as a major environmental and public
health concern (Johnson and DeRosa 1997) (Lichtveld and Johnson 1993). Specifically in regard to the
Love Canal area, health studies documented apparent increases in miscarriages (NYSDOH 1978) and low
birth weight (Vienna and Polan 1984), and increased prevalence of seizures, learning problems,
hyperactivity, eye irritation, skin rashes, abdominal pain, and incontinence (Paigen
et al. 1985). The NYSDOH (2000) conducts follow-up health study activities and publishes a newsletter that serves as a
health information clearinghouse for citizens.
Information on the general health status and selected health outcomes for populations
living within the Ontario portion of the Niagara River AOC has been compiled (Health Canada 2000a).
Consumption of sport fish caught from the Niagara River and downstream waters of Lake Ontario remains
a principal route of human exposure to persistent toxic substances. Concerns were raised over risks
to susceptible populations during the Commission's public consultation session conducted as part of
the Niagara River Status Assessment. In particular, concern was expressed regarding non-English
speaking urban poor who fish within the AOC and may consume sport fish on a subsistence basis.
Contaminants of concern include 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PCBs, mirex/photo-mirex and mercury. It has been demonstrated
that the consumption of PCB-contaminated foods is the most significant route of exposures to PCBs for
the general population (NRC 2001). The human health implications associated with PCBs, the exposure
to which occurs primarily through consumption of fish, have been documented by the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Johnson
et al. (1999). Monitoring of PCB levels in juvenile fish from nine sites sampled since 1980 has shown decreases
at each site (Niagara River Secretariat 2001).
The effectiveness of fish consumption advisories has been questioned (NRC 2001).
Health Canada's Great Lakes Health Effects Program funded a survey of shoreline fishing and fish
consumption in the Ontario portion of the Niagara River AOC. Of the fishers surveyed, 32 percent reported that
they ate some, or all, of their catch during the previous 12 months (Health Canada 2000b). Of these
fish consumers, the survey found that 33 percent of survey participants who had eaten their catch
the previous year reported using the publication
Guide To Eating Ontario Sport Fish. Accordingly, a
considerable percentage of Niagara River shoreline fishers who consume their catch may not be aware of
the up-to-date information contained in the Guide To Eating Ontario Sport
Fish or the potential human health effects from eating contaminated fish. Recently, the Niagara Peninsula Conservation
Authority, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy and Environment Canada have begun outreach
efforts devoted to reaching and influencing fishers who read certain languages other than French or English. | ||||
|
| ||||
Findings
The Commission's Status Assessment confirmed successes as well as challenges in the restoration of beneficial uses within the Niagara River AOC. Examples are detailed in the following section to document and promote successful activities and help meet any remaining challenges.
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
FE Fort Erie, representing the contribution of sources in Lake Erie and upstream
NOTL Niagara-on-the-Lake
Diff Differential load (NOTL - FE), representing the contribution of Niagara River sources
Source: U.S. EPA, Region II | |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
Figure 1: PCB Loads Entering Lake Ontario via the Niagara River | |||||||||
Notable Successes
•
Considerable reductions in contaminant loadings have been achieved.
Implementation of the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan has resulted in significant
reductions of the loading of toxic chemicals to the Niagara River. For example, it is estimated
that actions by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to remediate hazardous waste sites have resulted in a reduction of
potential inputs to the River from hazardous waste sites by about 90 percent since 1989.
• Significant contributions toward achieving the goals of the Lake Ontario
Lakewide Management Plan have been
made.
Loading reductions achieved through implementation of Niagara River Toxics Management
Plan are contributing toward the goals of the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan.
Eighteen persistent toxic substances including PCBs have been targeted. Figure 1 demonstrates
the reduction in contributions from Niagara River sources to the PCB load entering Lake Ontario
via the Niagara River.
• Long-term monitoring programs have been established and
maintained.
Upstream/Downstream monitoring and biomonitoring conducted by Environment Canada
and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy, respectively, provide scientifically
defensible data that document the instream and downstream benefits that accrue due to
remedial actions taken within the Niagara River AOC. For example, biomonitoring results have
been useful in both identifying contaminated sediment problems and confirming the benefits
of remedial efforts. As noted by the Commission's Science Advisory Board, these monitoring
and surveillance programs should be considered for replication in the other Great Lakes
connecting channels.
• Unique binational division of labor arrangements have been utilized.
A unique division of labor between Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the
Environment and Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, and New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation toward implementation of the Niagara River Toxics
Management Plan, has proved to be very cost effective. This activity is a notable example of
binational cooperation toward achieving a common goal. | ||||
|
| ||||
|
• Implementation and outreach activities are evolving in an effective
manner.
In Ontario, the federal and provincial governments are funding the Niagara Peninsula
Conservation Authority (NPCA) to undertake the overall coordination and implementation of the
Ontario side of the AOC. The NPCA has formulated and is implementing a comprehensive plan to
address nonpoint pollution-related problems and habitat-related issues in the Welland River basin.
A budget that adequately addresses these necessary actions has been developed. In New
York State, as described below (in Funding A Comprehensive RAP Program), habitat creation
or restoration activities have been initiated along the Niagara River. Public outreach is an
important component of the AOC restoration effort. Outreach activities conducted by NPCA
staff members are contributing to an increased public awareness of the RAP effort in Ontario.
Outreach efforts by U.S. EPA's Niagara Falls Public Information Office on behalf of the Niagara
River Toxics Management Plan, the Niagara River RAP and the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management
Plan have contributed to the public's understanding of remedial programs in the Great Lakes basin. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
Challenges to Restoring Beneficial Uses
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
Contaminated sediment contributes to the impairment of several beneficial uses in the
Niagara River AOC. According to the 2000 Status Report (NYSDEC 2000), sediment remediation has
been completed at three embayment sites and contaminated sediment has been removed at five
locations along the Niagara River and lower reaches of its tributaries. Remedial actions have been initiated
as areas of contaminated sediment are identified through monitoring and funding, usually from
potentially responsible parties, is obtained. For example, contaminated sediment removal from Gill Creek
has resulted in lower PCB levels in black crappie, largemouth bass, white perch, brown bullhead and
bluegill. This remedial action contributed to the removal of a specific fish consumption advisory for
Gill Creek (NYSDOH 1999). No dedicated funding mechanism exists to address contaminated
sediment problems. Determination of the funding required to address the remaining contaminated
sediment sites is needed in order to confirm the overall budget needed to address this environmental problem.
Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are recognized as significant sources of water quality
problems in the AOC. The city of Niagara Falls, Ontario is currently designing a full-scale demonstration
project that will treat a CSO at the point of discharge rather than separating sewers. If successful, this
option would provide treatment for a fraction of the typical cost. In Niagara Falls, New York, efforts to
reduce CSO and groundwater flow from the Falls Street Tunnel to the Niagara River have reduced the input
into the River of mercury by 70 percent, tetrachloroethylene by 85 percent, and four other priority
chemicals by almost 100 percent, relative to the 1980s inputs (U.S. EPA and NYSDEC 2000). CSOs in the
New York portion of the AOC continue to adversely impact water quality. Addressing these water
quality impacts will be difficult and costly.
Recommendation
Quantify Remaining Needed Remedial Actions
and Associated Budget Requirements. To date, considerable expenditures have resulted in significant environmental benefits to the AOC and the downstream waters of Lake Ontario. In the New York portion of the AOC, substantial future expenditures will be required to more fully address issues such as fish or wildlife habitat, contaminated sediment and combined sewer overflows. An outline of the remaining major remedial actions with an estimate of associated funding needs and a subsequent commitment of funding would benefit the long-term effort to fully restore the beneficial uses in U.S. portion of the Niagara River AOC. | ||||
|
| ||||
|
Coordination of Efforts
| |||||
|
| |||||
Maintaining Public Awareness
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
Maintaining the Gains to Date
Containment and pump-and-treat systems are the engineered remedies of choice at the most
critical hazardous waste sites in the Niagara River AOC and elsewhere in North America.
Pump-and-treat requires continued investment in operation and maintenance (O&M) of the remedial system.
These O&M activities can be expected to continue for decades and, in some cases, indefinitely (U.S.
GAO 1995).
The Commission commends the implementing agencies for their success in achieving
considerable reductions in the contaminant loadings to the Niagara River. However, as long as the
contaminants remain in hazardous waste landfills located on the fractured bedrock close to the river there is
a continuing risk of leakage to the Niagara River in the event of a major event such as an
earthquake, technology failure or inability to maintain the funding required for operation and maintenance.
Concern remains over the dense nonaqueous-phase liquids (DNAPLs) remaining in some containment sites.
While promising technologies for treating DNAPL source zones and dissolved plumes emanating
from DNAPL source areas have been identified by the National Research Council (NRC 1999), many of
these technologies remain unproven particularly under the conditions present within the Niagara AOC.
The Commission remains concerned over the potential human health threat that is posed by
the residual DNAPL contamination of some sites. Ongoing risk reduction efforts might benefit from
more aggressive technology development and bench or pilot testing of alternative technologies.
Recommendation
Consider Appropriate Technologies for Long Term Solutions. Companies and agencies need to continue assessing new technologies that might be appropriate for permanent solutions to ensure that contaminants from the existing hazardous waste sites do not migrate into the Niagara River and jeopardize the progress to date. | ||||
|
| ||||
|
Concluding
Remarks
The success of the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP) is
an important, but under-publicized, Great Lakes remediation success story.
The continued documentation provided by the upstream/downstream monitoring
and related biomonitoring is needed to ensure the protection of beneficial uses
as they are restored. The level of cooperation displayed by agencies
in implementing the NRTMP serves as a model for cost-effective planning
and implementation. In particular, its monitoring activities and progress
reporting to the public should be considered a model for possible use elsewhere in
the Great Lakes basin.
In order to fully restore beneficial uses in this connecting channel, a
clear statement of required actions is needed and adequate funding, toward the
timely implementation of the planned actions, is necessary. Enhanced efforts
devoted to public consultation also are required. Continued coordination among the
New York RAP, the Ontario RAP and the NRTMP will sustain public interest
and maintain focus on the restoration of beneficial uses. Steps must also be taken
to protect the considerable progress achieved in reducing the
contaminants reaching the Niagara River from the hazardous waste sites. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
Literature Cited
Board of Technical Advisors. Report on the Pollution of International Boundary Waters.
1948-1949 Investigation: Niagara River-Lake Erie-Lake Ontario Section. May 1950, 213 pp. Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1981. Environmental Baseline Report
on the Niagara River: November 1981 Update.
Environment Canada, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. Niagara River
Toxics Management Plan: Progress Report and Work Plan. Accessed on May 7, 2001.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakeont/nrtmp/pr&wp99/index.html
Health Canada. 2000a. Niagara River (Ontario) Area of Concern: Health Data and Statistics for
the Population of the Region (1986-1992). Ottawa, Ontario. 133pp. Accessed on May 9, 2001.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/bch/bioregional/niagara_river.pdf
Health Canada. 2000b. Great River Resource: A Profile of Shoreline Fishing and Fish Consumption in
the Niagara River Area. 54pp. Accessed on May 8, 2001.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/catalogue/bch_pubs/niagara.pdf
International Joint Commission. Final Report of the International Joint Commission on the
Pollution of Boundary Waters Reference. Washington, DC and Ottawa, Ontario, September 1918. 56pp.
International Joint Commission. 1993. Groundwater Contamination in the Great Lakes Basin: A
Summary Report by Staff of the IJC. Windsor, Ontario. 37pp.
Johnson, B.L., and DeRosa, C.T. 1997. The Toxicologic Hazard of Superfund Hazardous Waste
Sites. Reviews on Environmental Health 12(4):235-251. Accessed on May 8, 2001.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxhazsf.html
Johnson, B.L., Hicks, H.E., Cibulas, W., Farron, O., Ashizawa, A.E., DeRosa, C.T., Cogliano, V.J., and
Clark, M. 1999. Public Health Implications of Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls. 42pp.
Accessed on May 7, 2001.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/DT/pcb007.html | ||||
|
| ||||
|
Lakes Erie-Ontario Advisory Board. 1967. Summary Report on Pollution of the Niagara River. 43 pp. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/cx1c.html
National Research Council. 1999. Groundwater and Soil Cleanup: Improving Management of
Persistent Contaminants. Washington DC. 285pp.
National Research Council. 2001. A Risk-Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments.
Washington DC. 432pp.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1994. Stage 2 Remedial Action Plan.
Albany, NY.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2000. Niagara River Remedial Action
Plan Status Report. Albany, NY.
New York State Department of Health. 1978. Love Canal-Public Health Time Bomb. Albany, NY. 32pp.
Accessed on February 8, 2001.
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/lcanal/lctimbmb.htm
New York State Department of Health. 2000. Love Canal Follow-up Health Study-March 2000 Newsletter.
Accessed on January 18, 2001.
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/lcanal/lovecan.htm
Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. 1999. Welland River Watershed Strategy. Welland, Ontario.
35pp.
Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. 2000. Niagara River Remedial Action Plan,
Implementation Annex. Welland, Ontario. 65pp.
Niagara River Secretariat. 2000. Niagara River Toxics Management Plan: Progress Report and Work
Plan, June 2000. Accessed on February 6, 2001.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakeont/nrtmp/prwp00/index.html
Niagara River Secretariat. 2001. Niagara River Toxics Management Plan: Progress Report and Work
Plan, October 2001. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
|
Niagara River Toxics Committee. 1984. Report of the Niagara River Toxics Committee.
Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science. 1999. Love Canal History. Accessed on January
18, 2001.
http://onlineethics.org/cases/l.canal/history.html
Paigen, B., Goldman, L.R., Highland, J.H., Magnant, M.M., and Steegman, A.T. 1985. Prevalence
of Health Problems in Children Living Near Love Canal. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous
Materials 2(1):22-43.
Pearson, P.F., Swackhamer, D.L., Eisenreich, S.J., and Long, D.T. 1997. Concentrations,
Accumulations, and Inventories of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans in Sediments of
the Great Lakes. Environmental Science and
Technology, 31(10):2903-09.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
December 1994. Six Month Update To: Reduction of Toxics Loadings to the Niagara River
from Hazardous Waste Sites in the United States: June 1994. 24pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Niagara River Area of Concern. 13 pp. Accessed on
February 6, 2001.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/niagara.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation: October 1999. Reduction of Toxics Loadings to the Niagara River from Hazardous Waste
Sites in the United States.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation: October 2000. Reduction of Toxics Loadings to the Niagara River from Hazardous Waste
Sites in the United States.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1995. Superfund: Operations and Maintenance Activities Will
Require Billions of Dollars. GAO/RCED-95-259. Washington, D.C. 15pp.
Vienna, N.J., and Polan, A.K. 1984. Incidence of low birth weight among Love Canal residents.
Science 226: 1217-1219.
Yager, R.M. and Kappel, W. 1987. Detection and Characterization of Fractures and Their Relation
to Groundwater Movement in the Lockport Dolomite, Niagara County, New York. In Pollution
Risk Assessment and Remediation in Groundwater Systems, Khanelivadi and Fillous, eds.
University of New York, Public Science, 149-195. | ||||
|
| ||||
|
Schedule of Consultations
May 24, 2000 Representatives of New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, IJC Commissioner, Secretary of IJC's U.S. Section and IJC staff member
May 25, 2000 Representatives of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, IJC
Commissioner, Secretary of IJC's U.S. Section, and IJC staff member
November 15, 2000 Representatives of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and IJC
staff members
November 29, 2000 Members of the Public, Mayor of Niagara Falls, NY, Representatives of
Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Environment, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, IJC
Commissioner, Secretary of IJC's U.S. Section, members of IJC's Science Advisory
Board, and IJC staff members
January 10, 2001 Representatives of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, Niagara
River Restoration Council, Niagara River Action Committee and Great Lakes United,
IJC Commissioner, and IJC staff members
January 10, 2002 Representatives of Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Environment,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, and IJC staff members
April 30, 2002 Conference call with representatives of Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry
of Environment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation and IJC staff members | ||||
|
| ||||
