Ch 17 Reports

Study really didn't present to support the position that the river is ravaged. Fact that Cole's report really of deceit. Dr Cox is trying to mislead the public. I think we have to stop discharging the toxic organic chemicals into the river. As for me to water to drink. Drink it. On Channel 17 reports this week we'll examine the controversial issue of the mighty Niagara River which serves as the watering hole for some three hundred eighty thousand U.S. and Canadian residents. We'll explore the many charges that

hundreds of millions of gallons of industrial toxic wastes discharge daily into the Niagara are poisoning the river turning it into an industrial sewer. And we'll hear from those who claim these reports are in error and without scientific credence which leaves us with one very important question. Is it safe to drink the water. A beautiful Niagara river float was some thirty six miles linking Lake Erie to Lake Ontario serving as a border between the United States and Canada and culminating in its majestic waterfalls which attract millions of visitors to both countries annually. Following its one hundred sixty seven foot plunge into the Niagara gorge the river makes its way northward to Lake Ontario. At the turn of the century the lure of cheap hydroelectric power an ample water supply resulted in the settlement of major chemical steel and manufacturing facilities and their subsequent ominous toxic wastes. For years the public was made aware of

alleged health problems stemming from the many toxic mixtures discharged into the Niagara in conjunction with a CBS 60 Minutes report on the quote poisoned river on October 12th. The research center of the New York Public Interest Research Group released a two hundred sixty page study the following day. Staff scientist Walter Hank concluded that the Niagara river pollution problems are far more serious and numerous than was previously known. According to the three and a half years study toxic contamination of the Niagara River tests identified the presence of cancer causing chemicals and adequate regulation of toxic discharges water purification and monitoring. The report sparked a continuous intense controversy with equally vocal equally self-assured positions on every part of the river puzzle. I always speak as an individual I never for organizations or institutions in this way. I have an opportunity to say exactly what I believe. What is your assessment of the night for the report. I think that it has been

a useful report. It gives a rather clear picture of what is going into the Niagara River and. The. Overall. Picture of the pollution. It's a compilation. Of many different reports and practically all of them are from official sources so there really isn't very much to quibble about with regard to these reports are simply measurements about what's going in and how much is going in and so forth. And the main thing that the report has done is focused attention on just the total burden that's going into the Niagara River and raise the question of the possible dangers from this burden of toxins. Dr. GERALDINE COX vice president and technical director of the Chemical Manufacturers Association is the chief spokesman for the 194 members of the national trade association which produces 90 percent of the basic

industrial chemicals in the United States. The surprising study really presented to support the position that the river is ravaged fact I call the report really the end of deceit. I think it was well-intentioned but very poorly written. The data that are there show that the water quality is really quite good. There's been a lot of progress in this area. The industry here really is committed to good water quality. We have a new round of permits coming out which do control toxic substances this was not mentioned in the report. A lot of monitoring of the discharges has been done. Hawk six identified and pollution control systems put into place that this area is well ahead of the rest of the nation and has the best available technology right now which is far ahead of the rest of the country.

Walter herring a graduate of the University of Buffalo and one time researcher at Roswell Park Memorial Institute was a co-author of The Independent Investigation of toxic pollution in the Niagara River. Over the last several years the problem of toxics was getting some attention people knew that there were dumps out there they knew that there were industries discharging but they didn't know the specifics and the public had been led to believe by the authorities that everything was under control. Our study reviewed the whole problem of toxics together drinking water industrial discharges sewage discharges landfills and it shattered the myth that these programs were effective and more important it plug the holes by going out and doing testing which were the first time identified specifically what which toxic chemicals were being destroyed in what amounts to see possible dangers. Yes I certainly do. I think the. Big problem in dealing with the. Dumping in a river. Arises from two

confusions. One handers a confusion between a legal requirement and on the other hand the scientific requirement a health situation. On the legal side. There is compliance that is to say meeting a certain standards set by EPA or other agencies and if the standards are met then they are in compliance that is a legal question. No the question that arises is are things that are in compliance safe. This is what really matters. And in fact things are in compliance with federal standards are not necessarily safe. Now I don't know of a single public health scientist and as a leader in this area I either know or know by reputation practically all of the important public health scientists in this country and I don't know a single scientist who has ever said. That these hazards are not existed or that these levels are safe scientists don't say this public out scientists don't say this. People who don't know what they're talking about may say this because that's not their area of expertise at all.

Yet the NIE period study says there were hundreds. Of companies those with or without the permits dumping something like 500 million gallons of waste water into the Niagara. Well that number may be accurate but the question is waste water and how polluted. I mean you know that number sounds absolutely outrageous. But if you're only talking about a couple of pounds and all of that volume talking about very much at all. For it material to be a problem it has to have talks of properties originally. It has to be present in sufficient concentration and for a sufficient length of time. What we're dealing with here are extremely low levels of material that are there but not in any level. That is a problem. The chemical analysis that they were presented for a standard industrial classification codes are wrong there to append a

season in the Nipe heard report. One is based on a verse or report that was published in 1976. And that report had a lot of data that were over 10 years old in them. In fact some of the references in there are older than I am. And you know very well that the chemical industry has changed dramatically in that period of time so analyses there are meaningless. Dr Cox is basically a hired gun for the chemical industry. Her main purpose is not to reveal the truth but rather to protect the profits of the corporations. And that means that they should be basically allowed to continue to do what they've been doing which is dump toxic chemicals in an uncontrolled fashion. Our study has basically withstood peer review and in fact on 60 Minutes the chemical industry said it was true. The Environmental Protection Agency the regional administrator Charles warned. He said it was true and in fact that recent hearings at the New York State legislature

held of authorities from the State Health Department and from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation also said basically the findings of the uncontrolled dumping is true they also promised at the same time to cope with these problems in the future and that's I guess a slight warning. The people who head up the departments responsible for drinking water in Buffalo the tunnel Tonawanda Niagara Falls are not in agreement with the knight bridge report. Is it safe to drink the water in the tunnel Tonawanda Kenmore. Absolutely. What kind of tests have you done to bear out your additional the normal tests required by the state health department. We took samples drinking water for a hundred fourteen organic toxic pollutants and we do not detect a single one in any of the tests of. Incoming water.

A tele town wanders off a little bit upset. You say the water wasn't safe to drink. According to the report and Theodore credible says a report contains errors omissions and misstatements. Again he's basically saying the water is safe to drink. We're not saying that the water is unsafe. What we're saying is that we're really applying 19th century standards to 20th century problems. The water meets all the standards everywhere just about in America. The water meets the standards. But more than 700 organic compounds have been found in drinking water supplies. We don't think the public should be allowed to consume the toxics in the water. Many of the municipal authorities think that's OK because it still needs the standards and I don't think that there's any doubt now that in fact the Niagara River is heavily contaminated by toxic discharges for I can't believe it's a rumor reached rumor. Although I don't swim anymore I wouldn't object to swimming in it. We should watch it. I think I think

in calling it to our attention. And the town of Tonawanda is going to monitor. Our incoming water and what we're putting back in. And we're also going to update our. Sure if there's any holes will tighten them up. And work with industry to make sure. We take in you clean water. And put back clean water. The water in Buffalo is of the highest possible quality. It's tested regularly and the tests that the city runs on the water are surveillance by different jurisdictions such as the county the state and the federal government. Rather hang the scientists from Knight Briggs says that the water we draw from the lake for drinking goes through chlorination which can cause health problems. Is this true.

No. There is no threat to health as far as the drinking water in Buffalo goes. There is a byproduct of the Coronation process that's known as methane. And the federal government in response to this problem has mandated that regular and frequent tests be done on the water. The Niagara River is not the supply of water for the city of Buffalo. However I think that in general the public's perception is that what goes for the Niagara River goes for the area. And from this standpoint the report has been harmful. This area is making vigorous and determined efforts for economic recovery. Statements regarding the poor quality of water served to diminish investor confidence in the area as well as needlessly alarm consumers in an area where there is no reason for alarm. Many scientist for my probe says a water intake tunnel at your Falls water treatment plant is crumbling and

could collapse at any time causing water contaminated from an adjacent chemical dump to inundate your water supply and contaminate the drinking water of your 80000 people out here. That's an absolute false statement. Again we get it. Misinterpretations of what people see at the end shore end of the tunnel. There is some contamination sent addict organic contamination coming into that tunnel. So that means that we are bringing the raw water clean raw water out of the river relatively clean it has River sediments and over a contaminated zone. When we discovered this three years ago we shut that

access down. To the degree that we could. There's still some some leakage around the device that we use to shut it off and there's a lot of water involved here. And whenever you put a dam into a big volume of water you are going to be absolutely successful in stopping it. And so we still get ore about 10 percent of our water coming in over this contaminated area. The remainder of our water for and for the last three years has been coming in through emergency and take which is an entirely different structure. As far as the structural integrity goes of the closed main entry which is absolutely wrong it has been shut off but that doesn't mean that water

isn't coming through the line. And in fact up to about 25 percent of all the water supplied by the Niagara Falls City system comes through this intake line which is contaminated from toxics that infiltrate right through the ground into the line from the hooker s area which is approximately three times as large in terms of chemical waste than the Love Canal. And I am told by Robert Mathews that up to four tons of chemically contaminated material has to be removed from inside the water treatment plant by the authorities every six months. And in 1978 on the order of 34 tons of chemically contaminated material was removed from inside the water treatment facility and again that material is believed to come from the hooker s area which has a tremendous amount of dioxin. How can you say that line is shut down. You know it's continuing to supply water. The city's supply system continues to have problems that it's time for the public to you know press for this sealing off of

that sure Sheff intake system. And I don't want to minimize sayings. I do need farms to repair the water system and maybe that's what is good about this interest that that's being generated will cut enough of citizens NRA fallers interested so that the. Money will be available. We will have those fiscal constraints any more and we we were not will be able to watch on two major revamping of the water system. On December 9th and 10th state lawmakers converged on the Niagara Falls convention center to review a night per ravaged river report. The joint Senate Assembly hearing was conducted by the subcommittee on toxic and hazardous waste. The data is there that and then you have to make a judgment. Let's take the Niagra whether or not we should drink the water. There are people everybody on the same data

we have the same data. The Department of Health is so right to drink water so you cannot go fall says it's all right to drink the water the Environment Canada says it's not right to get water. The Niagara County Health Department says all right drink water but there are people such as Mr. Hank Dr. pagan today who said no they wouldn't drink the water. That's an individual judgment. I don't know I'm not a scientist I can't you can give me a glass of water right now and I couldn't tell you what's in it. We have to select our experts and then we have to go to them and say OK is that tell me what you know. Is the water safe to drink what's in the water. There are people as I said who feel to looking at the contents of the water don't want to drink it. That's their individual judgment. I feel that the night the water the Niagara River as distributed by Niagara Falls is is is safe to drink it. I drink in my family

drinks it. I think I've been told by experts I respect the fact the Niagara River water is as good if not better than water throughout the country. From my point of view I think we need much better monitoring devices than we have in place now. I would go so far as to say that. The system we have now of self-monitoring is one that we cannot rely on entirely. We heard testimony today and we have known from other sources that self-monitoring simply cannot be relied upon because self-interest takes precedence over self monitoring and the when the monitoring goes against the self-interest of those doing the monitoring. You can bet your life that there they're going to edit it in various ways and we have evidence seen evidence and strong allegations of that happening. So we need better we need better monitoring systems.

We heard both sides and we were able to differentiate between what was fact what was fiction I believed and hearing generally Cox's testimony that the river is not as good as she makes it out to be. I don't think that the industries are as clean as he makes them out to be. I don't think they are treating the affluent as good as he makes it out to be she states that. Use the best available technology. But then again in our definition of best available technology she states that the carbon filters are part of the best available technology. Yet there are very few industries which are using carbon filters prior to discharge in the river so I think there's a lot of holes in her testimony. I think that the NIE purport was very responsibly done. I think there is certainly a citizen's activist group would have no motive except to protect the public's best interest in issuing a report as they did

and industry although they will take issue repeatedly what the report has historically shown that they cannot be trusted their credibility is zero. They again are concerned with corporate gain where as a grassroots organization is concerned with people's lives and that's of course what we have to consider very has to be the top priority. If it isn't the elected officials who do not priority should not be sitting where they are. Have you compared the death rates in other areas of the states. Yes this is really one of the focuses of my own the testimony of the hearing which has to do with the question. If these assurances of safety are correct and we've been hearing them for instance for the chemical industry not for just this column but for the last 10 20 30 40 years. And so if these assurances are correct and that the hazards are the workers are not exposed and Dr Cox insisted that was true also that there wasn't

much danger to the workers either. And if the public is not exposed and so forth then in fact Niagara Falls ought to be said with respect to cancer rates a very safe place to live. But it isn't. And when you look at the actual data you find that there have been hundreds of excess deaths caused by the chemical pollution in Niagara Falls. Now we cannot identify specific sources we can't say this is water or this is a particular chemical but we know that in aggregate. The risks in Niagara Falls are substantially higher. Than the risk statewide or the median risk nationwide and in fact with respect to those cancers which we know are caused by chemicals or can be caused by chemicals such as bladder cancer esophagus cancer lung cancer with respect to all of these cancers there is what's called the highest in the nation other words. It's in the top 10 percent of the counties a dubious

distinction in death rates for these chemically related cancers. So there is very little question that the hazards are there. Dr. Cox also mentioned to us that EPA scientists told her that the contamination level in the Niagara River was so low as to not create any type of a health problem. Now these are supposed to be EPA scientists telling her this. Do you know anything to the contrary. I don't know what EPA scientists she talked to but certainly the Niagara River is the bottom sediments are concerned. Now it is true that these chemicals that are being put into the river tend to settle in the food chain and ultimately into our fish and that is where the serious health hazard is. She never talked about that.

She avoided it completely. She kept talking about samples of the characteristic of a kind of toxic chemicals that are being put into the river by industry is that they are not water. They're down there in the mud. What you recommend any kind of study more or less set the record straight by any established group. I'd love to see who could do it. Well take the American Association for the Advancement of song the. National Academy of Sciences the National Academy of Engineering. Something like the Sloan Kettering Memorial Institute for tourists could definitely show held incorrect. The cancer data were that are presented in the report. Any group like. That is. YOU KNOW IT professionals in the field. You would think that your industry would would get some accredited group like that to you know

honor of these Let me explain that if we paid for it no matter who they were they would be considered an employee of the industry so therefore why and why do that. I'm urging that the state or whoever else is really concerned and interested get a group like this because if we pay for it we'll still be suspect. One of the things that the federal government said soon after our study came out was that they were going to initiate a far more expanded program to identify where the toxics are so again I don't think that this chapter has been closed by any means. And I would urge the authorities you know to avoid trying to deal politically by saying everything is OK. We're on top of the public don't be concerned what I would urge them to do is to say we've made a lot of progress which we concur with. But in fact we have now recognized that there are problems that were not dealt with over the last 10 years the water looks better it smells better the fish are coming

back but the toxics problem is more serious than ever and that's why you can eat the fish. And that's why there is now expanded concern about low level carcinogenic substances in drinking water. Do you see a solution to this problem in the Niagara River. It's tough. What has to be done. I think we have to start charging these toxic chemicals into the river and hope that Mother Nature will clean up the river. The companies are ingenious enough to do these things and I would if you just say you can word so much and it's a miracle. They say we can operate if we can't put more than that in but experience has been that the chemical industry is a cousin to working this kind of technological miracle when it's competitive. And if you just said no more than so-and-so Absolutely. Then strangely enough I think within a

week or maybe a year at the most. That's all of the going in. Let's look at it. Let's analyze it cool. Let's be objective about the things that we do and let's keep forever the objective in our mind that the river is the best resource that this region has and the one thing that we should do in the river and for that I should say for future generations is to make sure we can't afford to take a chance that one is right the person saying it's in beautiful shape is right and someone is telling us the river is in bad shape is wrong we just can't afford to take that chance. So we have to go and find out ourselves I don't know a better way of doing it.