The Mahoning River Education Project
 History of Ecological Abuse

Ecological Abuse of the Mahoning River:  How Polluted Is It?

     There is a contact ban (swimming, fishing, or wading) along the industrialized zone of the Mahoning River (from Warren to Lowellville) due to the severity of hazardous material found in the sediment.  It was issued because this river was “an industrial sewer” for many decades and, during that time, experienced an unbelievable amount of use/abuse for a river of its size.

OVERVIEW

     To better understand the need for the Mahoning River ecological restoration project (also known as the dredging project) it is important to know what the contamination is (specifically) and the impact of it on the ecosystem.  Additionally, it is useful to know why it was so badly abused:  what reasoning was given for this and what efforts were made to stop it.  For years the Mahoning River endured a history of industrial and municipal waste that was not viewed as a problem for many residents and businesses of the area—because the steel mills were providing thousands of jobs for people and that was seen as more important than the condition of the river.  Not until the residents of Beaver, Pennsylvania complained about the pollution in the 1960s to the federal government was there any real debate about the need for cleanup (the community of Beaver was receiving the daily pollution because they were downriver from the steel mills). 

     Since that time, the effects of pollution have become better understood. The decision to restore the Mahoning River was made by the federal government—which has charged the US Army Corp of Engineers with that responsibility.  It is an enormous and complicated undertaking.  (To learn more about the ecological restoration project, see Mahoning River Restoration.)

CONTENTS:

How Did the Mahoning River Become Contaminated and What is the Contamination? 

     During the 19^th century, raw sewage and industrial waste went directly into the Mahoning River .  During the 20^th century, the steel mills became a mammoth industry along the river banks, pouring tons of oil, grease, heavy metals, and toxins into the river, while raw sewage from households and businesses continued to go into the river untreated until 1965 (when a sewage treatment plant was built).

     A statistic from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reveals how much pollution our river was enduring:  In 1977, when all nine major steel mills were running, the following toxins were being poured into the river:

•  400,000 pounds per day of suspended solids
• 70,000 pounds per day of oil and grease
• 9,000 pounds per day of ammonia-nitrogen
• 800 pounds per day of zinc
• 600 pounds per day of phenolics
• 500 pounds per day of cyanide

Levels:  How “Toxic” or “Hazardous” is the Mahoning River Water & Sediment? 

     What levels of toxicity are acceptable? What are the effects of the hazardous levels?  When are such substances useful for human consumption?

     First, understand that the sediment in the river bottom is where most of the industrial chemicals reside and, in some sections of the river, there’s more pollution than in other sections (this is especially true behind the 10 low-head dams that were built for the steel industries to have reservoirs of water in front of each steel mill complex).  In comparison, the water itself is much less impacted by the toxins because it flows continually and—except during heavy rains—does not contain much sediment compared with the huge amounts in the riverbed. 

     It is also important to understand that there are different 'allowable" amounts of toxicity depending on what creature you are trying to protect.  For example, the Ohio EPA has water standards to protect (1) aquatic life (fish and invertebrates), and (2) humans that might drink water or eat fish that live in the water.

     The major pollutants of the industrialized Mahoning River are PAHs (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), and heavy metals including mercury, lead, zinc, copper, cadmium, & silver.  The following list addresses what the allowable levels are for human and wildlife health, and how those levels compare with the water in the Mahoning River and the sediment in the bottom of the river.  

PAHs (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)

     PAHs from industrial grease and oils are found as a  “black mayonnaise” layer in the sediment.  While the river water itself does not contain PAHs in any significant amount, levels in the industrialized sections of the Mahoning River sediments can be 100 times more than is permitted.  

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) & Heavy Metals  

     Below is a "table of different allowable amounts."  The table is broken into five perspectives:  1. Allowable amounts for fish and other aquatic life;  2. Allowable amounts in the water for human use, non-drinking;  3. Allowable “low-effect levels”**;  4. Allowable “high-effect levels”**; and 5.  Drinking water for humans.

     Included in the list is drinking water criteria from Ohio water quality standards.   Note that these values are in ug/l (ppb)*** and ug/g (ppm)****.  It is an interesting exercise to compare the drinking water standards against the water standards that protect for aquatic life.  There are some drastic differences due to different sensitivities of aquatic wildlife and humans.

 TABLE VALUES for PCBs & Heavy Metals in Mahoning River Water & Sediment  

===============================================

===============================

* Many of the heavy metals (all those with*) have allowable limits in water, based on the water hardness.  This report uses a hardness of 200 for the table below (in fact, the average hardness of the Mahoning River is somewhat less than 200, so the tabled values would need to be a bit lower to protect aquatic life).  

** The state of Ohio does NOT have sediment standards.  For the Mahoning River , the Army Corps is using state of New York sediment standards—these are very protective and would work well in Ohio . According to the state of New York sediment criteria document, river sediment is considered to be contaminated if either the low effect level (LEL) or the high effect level (HEL) are exceeded.  If only the LEL is exceeded, then the impact is considered to be "moderate".  If the HEL is exceeded the sediment is considered to be "severely impacted".   Sediment that is not considered contaminated would need to be less than the LEL values for all chemicals of concern.  All of the Mahoning River sediment below the Warren area is considered to be severely impacted.  

***ug/l is called micrograms per liter of water.  Thus it is the unit of measurement used for a liquid.  It is nearly the same as saying (PPB) or "parts per billion".   

****ug/g is a unit of measurement for sediment or a solid material (thus how many micrograms of chemical (x) per gram of sediment).  It is nearly the same as saying (PPM) or "parts per million".

     In general, what you will find is the "water" quality of the Mahoning River (at most sites during dry weather conditions) is below the allowable values.  (During a downfall of rain—especially a heavy downfall—the water becomes churned up and the sediment mixes with the water, so the water would have more of the toxic sediment in it during that time, after which the sediment would settle back to the riverbed).   

     Regarding allowable levels of PCBs, PAHs, and heavy metals in the sediments, however, they are well above the table values (allowable levels), from the Warren area down to the Pennsylvania state line, and beyond.  

Description of Contamination Impact on Wildlif e & Plant Life   
From Dr. Lauren Schroeder professor emeritus, YSU Biology
 

     “The contaminants have caused marked reduction of river animal and plant life.  Many of the fish show symptoms of toxic sediments.   They have deformities, eroded fins, skin lesions and tumors.  The toxicity (carcinogenicity) of the sediments has prompted the Ohio Department of Health to issue an advisory against contact with the sediment. (See contact ban).  Some of the chemicals in the sediments enter and are stored in the fish that live in the river.  Because of the potential health hazard of eating the fish from much of the lower river, the Department of Health has also included an advisory against eating the fish caught in the Mahoning River from Leavittsburg to the Pennsylvania state line. (See Fish Consumption Advisory).   Many fish no longer live in the river because the toxic sediments kill insects and other sediment-dwelling animals that the fish required for food.  The fine sediments themselves are unsuitable for many animals and they cover more desirable substrates [layers of the riverbed].  The many dams that impede water flow drown rapids and swift water-runs that are required by some kinds of fish.  The sluggish water and dark silty sediments favor tolerant species such as carp and gold fish.  In some places of the river, these are the dominant kinds of fish.  The carp root in the muddy sediments increasing water turbidity [amount of sediment floating in the water] and decreasing the suitability of the river for other kinds of fish.  The combination of toxic sediments, fine silty substrates, and undesirable pollution-tolerant fish species has impoverished the fish and other fauna of the river.”

     (See “Fish Facts” to learn more about the current and historical fish population of the Mahoning River.)

Description of the River’s Condition by the US Army Corps of Engineers    
Excerpt: (“The Mahoning River Ecological Restoration Reconnaissance Study”, US Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District, May 1999.)  

     “…1977 US Environmental Protection Agency Region V (Amendola, et al.) reported the average net discharge from the nine major Mahoning River valley steel plants exceeded 400,000 pounds per day (lbs/day) of suspended solids, 70,000 lbs/day of oil and grease, 9,000 lbs/day of ammonia-nitrogen, 500 lbs/day of cyanide, 600 lbs/day of phenolics, and 800 lbs/day of zinc.  The oil discharge was equivalent to over two hundred 55-gallon barrels per day, or the equivalent energy to heat nearly 30,000 average-sized homes.  To put these numbers in perspective, the million gallon Monongahela River Ashland oil spill of 1988 was characterized as one of the most severe inland oil spills in the nation’s history.  However, by comparison, the much smaller Mahoning River chronically received the equivalent of more than four Ashland oil spills every year for decades.  Current levels of oil seeping into the Mahoning River are a minute fraction of the historic quantities.”  (ES-3)

     “Deposition of uncontrolled industrial era residue throughout the lower reach of the Mahoning River has resulted in the degradation of the aquatic ecosystem and has become a threat to public health.  With the construction of low-head water supply dams [for the steel industries] along the mainstem, an oil/silt/contaminant mixture of almost pudding-like consistency was trapped behind the dams.”  (ES-3)

     “Contaminated sediments are the primary limiting factor hindering the biologic and aquatic recovery of the river and must be removed if biological improvement is to be expected.  There are approximately 462,000 cubic yards of contaminated riverbed sediments and 286,000 cubic yards of contaminated material along the shore.”  (ES-5)

Attitudes Toward the Mahoning River During the Steel Mill Era  
From Dr. Lauren Schroeder, professor emeritus, YSU Biology.  (This excerpt is taken from his presentation to the Mahoning Extension Outreach Program, 1999.)  

     “…in 1966, the federal government through the auspices of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) called a conference in Youngstown on the condition of the Mahoning River.  The recently enacted Federal Water Pollution Control Act required intervention of the federal government when interstate waters were sufficiently polluted to threaten the health of residents in adjoining states.  The Mahoning River at this time was grossly polluted.

     “Steel was supreme in the Valley.  Between Warren and the [ Pennsylvania ] State Line, a distance of about 30 miles, there were 16 blast furnaces and 31 primary steel processing plants, rolling mills, pickling facilities, coke plants, and electroplating facilities.  During this stretch of the Mahoning River up to seven times the low-flow river volume was used for industrial processes.

     “I recently reread the transcripts of this conference.  Participants in the conference included elected governmental officials, directors of state and county health boards, industrial spokespersons, and others who had interest in the water quality of the Mahoning River . Much of the testimony from state and local governmental officials as well as from industrial representatives was devoted to protesting the intervention of the federal government into what was perceived as a local or, at best, a state issue.   And, furthermore, although the participants agreed that the Mahoning River was polluted, they denied any health threat or even significant water degradation in Pennsylvania. 

     “Arguments were presented that the river was not effectively polluted because it was not intended to be used for fishing or other recreational purposes.  If it was fishing that you desired, go to one of the many reservoirs that were constructed on the Mahoning River in order to assure a constant supply of water for industry.  One leading politician argued:  ‘The Mahoning River is not polluted because it carries away the waste from industry, thereby providing jobs for the community and serving the best interest of the public.’

     “The value placed on the Mahoning River at that time was directly economic, i.e.: the value to industry by carrying away the waste from industry and the cities along its banks.   If the federal government intervened and required both industry and domestic pollution abatement, this would increase the cost of doing business, which, at best, would increase the price of steel, and decrease the profits from the steel industry of the Mahoning Valley. Or, at worst, would be too costly for the steel industry and it would simply close.

     “The costs of complying with the federal government standards included pollution abatement in industry (tens and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars) and pollution abatement by municipalities (another tens and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars).

     “The perceived benefits included: reduced nuisance odors at the Beaver Falls water treatment plant.  Perhaps a few fish in the mainstem of the Mahoning River , but certainly not of any significant economic value, particularly when contrasted to the multi-billion-dollar steel industry.  The correct decision in this matter was plain.  Pollution abatement should go slow, the federal government should butt out. 

     “The governmental position was that the polluted Mahoning River posed a significant and persistent threat to the health of people using the river downstream from the Mahoning Valley.   

     “Although the debate was intense, those holding opposing views had the same objectives in mind:  how to provide the highest quality of life for the citizens of the Mahoning Valley, the State, and the country.  One side held that industry and the jobs that industry provided took precedence over minor inconveniences like water pollution.  Others held that water pollution was so severe as to pose significant health hazards, shortening life expectancies and thus depriving people of the essential ingredient for a quality life—life itself.”

Other facts about the pollution of the Mahoning River 

Resources   

This fact sheet answers the most frequently asked health questions about polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).  http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts17.html

US Environmental Protection site regarding the Hudson River ’s pollution by General Electric and the PCBs in the Hudson ’s sediment.  http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts17.html

Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet on PCBs.  http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/0201.html

Chemical analysis of PAHs.  http://www.astrochem.org/PAHs.html

This fact sheet answers the most frequently asked health questions about polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAHs).  http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts69.html

Environmental Protection Agency alphabetical listing & links to all toxins and pollutants.  http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/alphabet.html

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency “Mahoning River Tech Support Manuals, Volumes I & II, 1996”; volume I is available online.

The Ohio Department of Health 1954 report: Report of Water Pollution Study Mahoning River Basin.  

YSU Master Thesis from 1952 by Barna or Volk.  It is called: An Analysis of the Pollution Content of the Mahoning River from its Source to its Outlet.  It is from the Engineering Department at YSU.  

A comprehensive report of the pollution was by the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1965). It is called: “Report on the Quality of Interstate Water-Mahoning River.”   These reports were written before the federal and state Environmental Protection Agencies were formed.

US EPA has reports from 1970s about the Mahoning River . 

US Army Corps has many historical documents regarding the Mahoning River watershed.   

Ohio EPA has 1986 and 1994 reports.  

Support for this project provided in part by the Ohio Board of Regents' Urban University Program