OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000002QO\tiff\200073D3.tif): Unspecified error

-------
                                              EPA 905/4-87-003
                                              6LNPO Report No. 87-11
                                              July 1987
           1982 Detroit Michigan
            Area Sediment Survey
                Prepared by
          Pranas E. Pranckevicius
           Remedial Program Staff
    Great Lakes National Program Office
United States Environmental Protection Agency
                    for
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Great Lakes National Program Office
         230 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, Illinois 60604

-------
                                 FOREWORD
The Great Lakes National  Program Office (GLNPO)  of the United  States
Environmental  Protection  Agency was established  in Region V,  Chicago,
to focus attention on the significant and complex natural resource
represented by the Great  Lakes.

GLNPO implements a multi-media environmental  management program drawing
on a wide range of expertise represented by universities, private firms,
State, Federal, and Canadian governmental agencies, and the International
Joint Commission.  The goal  of the GLNPO program is to develop programs,
practices and  technology necessary for a better  understanding  of the
Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, and to eliminate or reduce to the maximum
extent practicable the discharge of pollutants into the Great  Lakes system,
GLNPO also coordinates the United States' actions in fulfillment of the
Agreement between Canada  and the United States of America on  Great Lakes
Water Quality of 1978.

-------
                                DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National  Program Office,
United States Environmental  Protection Agency, and  approved for publication,
Approval  does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
                                      m

-------
                                 ABSTRACT

Twenty-eight sediment grab samples  from the  western  bank  of the  Detroit
River and three of its tributaries  were chemically analyzed.   Sampling
sites were chosen to find  worst-case conditions.  High  levels  of conven-
tional  pollutants and metals  were found throughout most of the study  area.
Hydrophobic organic contaminants  found  in  a  wide  range  of concentrations
included:  polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons,  polychlorinated  biphenyls,
various pesticides, and volatile  organic compounds.   Contaminant distribu-
tions suggest recent inputs from  local  sources.   Highest  contaminant  levels
were found in the Rouge River, the  northern  Trenton  Channel and  Conners
Creek in the Belle Isle Area.  The  City of Detroit Wastewater  Treatment
Plant, combined sewer overflows,  local  steel  and  chemical  industry and oil
refineries are implicated  as  likely sources.  Several  contaminants including
volatile organics, PCBs and hexachlorobenzene, seem  to  have major  upstream
sources, perhaps in Lake St.  Clair  or the  St.  Clair  River.

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                          Page
FOREWORD
DISCLAIMER
ABSTRACT
TABLES
FIGURES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Summary and Conclusions

INTRODUCTION

  Harbor Sediment Program
  Sampling Methodology
  Sampling Equipment
  Analytical Methodology
  Metals
  Quality Assurance

SETTING

  Urban and Industrial Development
  Geology and Hydrogeology
  Hydrology
  Mineralogy

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

  Sampling Sites and Reporting
  Field Observations
  Conventional Pollutants
  Organic Contaminants
    Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
    PCBs
    Pesticides
    Volatile Organics
    Phenolics
    Substituted Benzenes and Substituted Cyclic Ketones
     (Chlorinated Benzenes)
    Phthalate Esters
                                               ii
                                              iii
                                               iv
                                               vi
                                              vii
                                             viii

                                                1
                                                6
                                                9
                                               10
                                               10
                                               11
                                               13
                                               14
                                               14
                                               15
                                               16
                                               17
                                               19
                                               20
                                               28
                                               28
                                               32
                                               36
                                               38
                                               39
                                               39

                                               40
REFERENCES

APPENDIX A:


APPENDIX B:

APPENDIX C:

APPENDIX D:
Guidelines for the Pollutional Classification
of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments

Analytical Method Documentation and Data Quality Assessment

Tables

Figures

-------
                                      TABLES
                                                                    PAGE

Table 1.  Organic compounds sought in sediments by the GC/MS        Cl-5
          method and maximum detection limits

Table 2.  Pesticides and PCBs sought in sediments by the GC/EC      C6
          method

Table 3.  Metals analyzed and their detection limits                C7

Table 4.  Field observations                                        C8

Table 5.  Conventional  pollutants                                   C9

Table 6.  Metals                                                    CIO

Table 7.  Trace metals                                               Cll

Table 8.  Major metals                                               C12

Table 9.  Metals summary                                            C13

Table 10. Organics summary table                                    C14

Table 11. Polyaromatic  Hydrocarbons (PAHs) (A) and (B)              C15-16

Table 12. Hazardous PAHs                                            C17

Table 13. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)                          CIS

Table 14. DDT and metabolites                                       C19

Table 15. Pesticides                                                C20

Table 16. Volatile organics (A) and (B)                             C21-22

Table 17. Phenols                                                   C23

Table 18. Substituted benzenes, substituted cyclic ketones and      C24
          polycyclic aromatics.
                                      VI

-------
                                   FIGURES
Figure   1.



Figure   2.



Figure   3.



Figure   4.



Figure   5.



Figure   6.



Figure   7.



Figures  8 -



Figures 15 -



Figures 38 -



Figures 48 -



Figure 52.



Figure 53.



Figure 54.



Figure 55.



Figure 56.



Figure 57.



Figure 58.



Figure 59.



Figure 60.
                                                       PAGE



     Detroit area industry                             01



     Bedrock surface topography                        D2



     Detroit River study area                          03



     Hydrographs                                       04



     Detroit 1982 sediment sampling sites              05



     Huron River sediment sampling sites               06



     Detroit Area Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)       D7



14.  Conventional Parameters                           08-9



37.  Metals                                            D9-15



47.  Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons                 015-17



51.  Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)                  018



     Gamma Chlordane                                   019



     Beta - BHC                                        019



     Dichloromethane                                   019



     Trichloromethane                                  019



     Phenol                                            020



     Para-cresol                                       020



     Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)                           020



     Dibenzofuran                                      020



     Bis(2-ethy1 hexyl)phtha!ate                       D21

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The  direction  and   extensive review of   Mr.  Vacys   J.  Saulys,   Remedial
Programs  Staff  Chief  at  fireat   Lakes   National   Program   Office,   and
Mr. Anthony G. Kizlauskas,  USEPA  Region  V  Dredging  Expert  are   greatly
appreciated.

The  author  wishes  to  acknowledge the   cooperation  and  assistance   of
several   other persons who have contributed to  the   development  of  this
report:

  Mr. Larry Fink for his advice on matters relating  to organic chemistry,
    and  his peer review of the report.

  Mr. Frank Horvath,  Michigan Department of  Natural  Resources,   for  his
    review of the report.

  Dr. John Hartig, International Joint Commission,   for his  review of  the
    report.

  Mr.  navid  PeVault  for  his advice   concerning   laboratory   quality
    assurance.

  Mr. .lohn Forwalter for his editorial assistance.

  Ms. Rosetta McPherson, and Mr. Walter  V. Jessering for data entry  and
    editing.

  Special  thanks go  to Ms. Aldona  fiaizutis and  Ms.  Raynell  Whatley  and
    Ms.  Dianne Watts for their patience  and typing support.
                                  vi ii

-------
SUMMARY



The objective  of the  1982  Detroit,  Michigan  Sediment  Survey  was  to



determine the  degree of contamination  of the river and  harbor sediments



by toxic substances.   Sediments in areas of suspected contamination along



the western side of the Detroit River, and in the major tributaries on the



western  shore of the  Detroit River were  sampled.   Sediment contaminant



data generated  by this study will be  used for reporting  on the environ-



mental   status of the area and  identification of problem  areas requiring



remedial activity.





Sampling site locations were chosen in areas where contaminanted sediments



were most likely to be found.   Locations of industrial and municipal out-



falls and  other suspected  sources of  contamination to  river  sediments



strongly affected  decisions, as did sedimentation  patterns  and existing



sediment  quality data.   Sixty-five  samples were  retrieved.   Of these,



twenty-eight  samples were  analyzed.   1982 Detroit  sediment contaminant



levels were evaluated in terms of USEPA (1977) Sediment Guidelines for the



Pollutional  Classification of  Great Lakes  Harbor Sediments,  Appendix A



(Sediment Guidelines), where possible.  However, these guidelines for pol-



lutional  classification have been set for  only 18 of the 109  parameters



which were analyzed.  As no other guidelines exist, evaluation of the sev-



erity of contamination by the  remaining 91 parameters required individual



interpretation.





CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS



Comparison of the concentrations of conventional pollutants against the USEPA



Sediment  Guidelines  indicates that  sediments at all stations  sampled  and



analyzed by  EPA GLNPO in 1982  in the Detroit  area were highly contaminated

-------
with a few exceptions:   Some  stations  in the  area from Belle Isle to down-



town Detroit (PTR8P-D1,  nTR82-OSA, and  DTRR2-13), and all  stations in the



Huron River area had  moderate to  low levels of contamination.  The highest



levels of  ammonia, total   volatile solids,   chemical oxygen demand (COP),



total Kjeldahl  nitrogen  (TKN),  and cyanide were  found  in the Rouge River



downstream from the  Dearborn Ford Plant.   Phosphorus levels were highest



in the  southern Trenton Channel.   Oil and grease levels  were highest in



the northern Trenton  Channel, north of  Belle  Isle in Conners Creek, and in



the Rouge River.






METALS



Comparison of concentrations  of   heavy metals against.  Sediment Guidelines



shows  that the sediments  were  highly contaminated throughout most of the



study area.  The only exceptions  were  stations PTR82-01  and PTR82-05A near



Belle Isle, and the three  stations in  the  Huron River area.






Three portions of the  study area had  particularly  high levels of certain



metals, possibly indicating sources in  those  areas or upstream: 1) Conners



Creek, in the Belle Isle area, ?) Rouge  River, 3  ) northern Trenton Chan-



nel.   Lead and barium were very  high  in  Conners Creek.    Iron and cadmium



concentrations were notably high  in the Rouge River.  The  northern Trenton



Channel  had very  high  levels of  chromium, mercury,  nickel and  zinc.




Level of most metals  in  sediments  at  the  Huron River mouth were  low rela-



tive to the  other  stations in   the  study  area.   Huron  River   manganese



levels, however, were far higher  than  elsewhere.
                                    - 2 -

-------
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS



Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)



Total PAH  values range  from a low value of  620 ug/kg (ppb)   in the Huron



River to an  area-wide high of 125,200 ug/kg in the lower Rouge River.  The



highest levels of  total PAHs were  found along the Detroit City riverfront



and in  the lower  Rouge River.   The greatest  concentrations of hazardous



PAHs were found in the lower Rouge River and in the main stem of the Detroit



River below Belle Isle.  Possible  sources are the local steel industry and



Detroit CSOs.





Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)



The highest concentrations of total PCBs were found near  Belle Isle (9,897



ug/kg),  below the  mouth  of  the Rouge  River  (9,726 ug/kg),  and in the



Trenton Channel  (13,870 ug/kg).   The Aroclors PCB 1248 and  PCB 1254 pre-



dominated.  USEPA Sediment Guidelines for total PCBs were exceeded at three



stations in the northern Trenton Channel .





DDT and Metabolities
The highest  levels of total DDT and its  metabolities were  found at Belle



Isle, (2,265 ug/kg)  and were  dominated by ODD.  High  levels of unmetabo-



lized DDT were  found at the Rouge  River mouth and in the Trenton Channel,



possibly indicating recent additions that have not yet been degraded.





Other Pesticides



Beta-BHC concentrations were elevated at Belle Isle (170 ug/kg),  above the



Ecorse  River (195 ug/kg) and  below the Ecorse River (160 ug/kg).   Gamma-



Chlordane was  found throughout  the study area with peaks at Conners Creek
                                     -  3 -

-------
(145 ug/kg) and in the  Fcorse River (149 ug/kg).    Concentrations  of  other



pesticides did not show regular patterns.





Volatile Drganics



Dichloromethane, trichl oroethene, methyl  benzene,  ethyl  benzene and dimethyl



benzenes  were widely  present throughout  the  study area.   Their high back-



ground levels nay  indicate upstream sources.    Peak concentrations of these



volatile substances were found in the Rouge River  area,  and   down river,  in-



dicating  probable  sources in  these areas such  as Detroit  CSOs  and local



steel and chemical industry.





Phenol and Phenolics



Concentrations  of phenol  and   other phenolics  ranged widely  from  zero to a



high value of 25,100 ug/kg for  2,4 dimethyl  phenol  in the   northern Trenton



Channel.





Substituted Benzenes and Substituted Cyclic Ketones



Hexachlorobenzene  (HCB) is widely  present  throughout  the   study  area,  im-



plying  upstream  sources.   Highest  levels of  HCR  (106 ug/kg)   and other



benzenes and cyclic ketones were found in the Trenton Channel.





Other Polycyclic Aromatics and Phthalate Esters



Dibenzofuran concentrations  are high below  downtown Detroit  (3,620  ug/kg)



and  in the lower Rouge River (1,910 ug/kg).   Peaks  for  di-n-butyl  phthalate



(5,fi90 ug/kg) and Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate  (47,000 ug/kg) are found in



Conners Creek, the lower Rouge River, and below the  Ecorse  River.
                                       - 4 -

-------
CONCLUSIONS



Although  Detroit  River  sediments   are generally   heavily   polluted,  three



areas stand out as centers of contamination:



    1) Rouge  River  sediments  display  high   levels   of every



       contaminant category  indicating the proximity  of sources.



    2) Trenton Channel  sediments also had high contaminant levels



       in  all  categories,  indicating proximity  of  sources,  or



       deposition of  sediments contaminanted  by upstream sources.



    3) Conners  Creek  sediments had  high levels  of  conventional



       pollutants, metals and several categories of  organic  con-



       taminants:  (i.e., PAH, DDT,  PCBs, pesticides,  phthalates).



       Conners Creek is thus a major source of contamination to



       the Detroit River.





In contrast, sediments in both the  northern Detroit  River  near   Belle Isle



and in the Huron River had low to moderate contaminant levels.





Sources



It is unclear at this point  what  the relative  impacts are  from  the  many



potential sources of contamination.   Ambient,  or  background and   historical



levels of the various contaminants must be known  before  the load   entering



the  Detroit  River  can be  determined.   Several   contaminants,   including



volatile organics, HCB, and PCBs seem to have  major  upstream sources,  per-



haps in Lake St.  Clair, or the St.  Clair River.





The many industrial and municipal point sources clearly have strong  impacts



upon sediment quality.  The City of Detroit Wastewater Treatment   Plant and
                                     - 5 -

-------
combined  sewer  overflows, and local   steel   and   chemical   industry and oil
refineries are  implicated as  major  contaminant  sources.    It   is  presently
unclear whether most sediment contamination results from on-going discharges,
historical discharges,  or some combination  of the  two.
The effects of non-point sources, such  as  runoff   and  groundwater seepage to
the river  are even  more  difficult to evaluate.    This would   require a sy-
stematic  study  involving an  inventory of these   sources  and   monitoring of
their releases.

Interpretation
Knowledge of sediment particle size  and total   organic carbon   (TOC) content
are essential for an understanding of  solid state  contaminant  transport and
estimation  of  releases  to  the water  column.   Normalization of   sediment
chemistry data by comparison  to TOC, particle  size,  or conservative metals,
such as  aluminum or silicon, would enable  one to  interpret  degrees  of pollu-
tion of sediment in inhomogeneous  substrates,  based   upon  absolute chemical
concentrations alone.
                                    -  6  -

-------
INTRODUCTION



This report evaluates  sediment chemistry  data from  the Detroit  River  and



its three  major U.S. qtrihutaries; the Rouge River,  the Ecorse River,  and



the Huron River.  The sediment samples were  collected  October 26,  through



October 28, 1982  by Great Lakes National  Program Office  staff as  part of



its Harbor Sediment Program.





Harbor Sediment Program



Toxic  substances  are being  introduced  into the  environment from many



sources.  Secondary compounds from these toxicants  are often found  in   the



environment.  Some of these secondary compounds are more hazardous than  the



primary chemicals from which they came.





Sediments serve as a sink, as well as a potential  source for toxic and con-



ventional pollutants.   Even if  discharges  of pollutants  were completely



eliminated, contaminated sediments could serve as  a source of  pollution to



the Great Lakes, to aquatic  life, and to the  populations  using  the water



supplies for many years to come.  Sediments typically concentrate  contamin-



ants to many times their concentration in water or effluents because of  the



adsorptive  properties of  fine particles.  Sediments can, therefore, serve



as an  early warning for the  particular  contaminants to be  looked for in



effluents,  waste disposal  or treatment  lagoons, etc.  If one names   the



toxic  substances Areas of Concern around the Great Lakes, the "problem" is



invariably linked with toxic  substances in the sediments: Waukegan  Harbor,



Illinois;  Indiana Harbor  Canal/Grand  Calumet River,  Indiana;   Ashtabula



River, Ohio;  Saginaw  River and Bay,  and the Titabawasee River,  Michigan;
                                    -  7 -

-------
Sheboygan River, Green Bay,  and Milwaukee Estuary,  Wisconsin;  Hamilton Har-



bor, Ontario; and the Buffalo and Niagara Rivers,  New York.



The problem of assessing the sources of contaminants  in Great  Lakes  Harbors



is complicated because these harbors are often  located at   ributary  mouths.



The concentrations  and distributions of toxic  substances  in the   sediments



reflect  upstream  contributions, as well as  local  industrial  and  municipal



activity.  Discharge of contaminated  groundwater   into  surface   waters is



gaining recognition as a potentially significant source of sediment contami-



nation.  (Swain, 1985).





Some 10 million  cubic meters of sediments are  dredged annually to maintain



navigation in  Great Lakes'  ports.  Many  of  these   ports  contain   sediment



that is  heavily  contaminated with  toxic substances. Environmentally safe



dredging and disposal practices are  necessary  to  protect   the lakes, wild-



life, and the public while maintaining the economic viability  of waterborne



commerce.





"In-Place" pollutants  in the sediments  have only recently been  recognized



as a  major  source   of  ecosystem degradation.  Also, the analytical  capa-



bility to   allow  meaningful  analysis  of  sediments  for  toxic  organic



substances has improved significantly in recent years. This has resulted in



a limited historical database  for  organic  contaminant levels  in  sediments.



To fill  this  void, GLNPO is implementing a multiyear  effort to  determine



the degree  of  contamination  of Great Lakes'  river and  harbor sediments by



toxic substances.   Sampling  priorities  are  determined  by examining  fish



flesh contaminant  data,  locations  of  likely  industrial  sources,   and  by



review  of USEPA  and  other agency data.
                                     - 8 -

-------
Nineteen surveys were  completed  in 1981, including a  survey of the  Buffalo



River and the  Niagara  River.  Ten  surveys  of  Lake Erie  harbors  were  com-



pleted in 1982, including surveys of the Cuyahoga River and Cleveland Harbor,



and the Maumee River.   This  report summarizes the results from the 1982 survey



of the Detroit River,  Rouge River and Huron River, Michigan.





The information generated by  this  program will  be used  in  making  regulatory



decisions on  dredging  and  disposal.   It  will   also  help   identify  environ-



mental "hotspots" requiring further  remedial  activity, including identifica-



tion and control of sources.   The chemicals monitored  in  the  sediments  will



form a  new  information base  for the Great  Lakes.  The GLNPO  sediment  data



base may  be  the   largest  collection   of  sediment contaminant data  in the



United States that is  based on consistent sampling and analytical methodology



(Palmer, 1985).





SAMPLING METHODOLOGY



Sediment samples were  collected  in  the  manner   described  in  the  Methods



Manual for  Bottom  Sediment  Sample Collection  (Palmer, 1985).  This  manual



provides detailed  procedures   for  survey  planning,   sample  collection  and



handling, document preparation  and quality  assurance  for  sediment  sampling



surveys.





Each site  survey  was  designated by  determining  and  plotting,  on  a  large



scale map,  the  location   of   sewage  treatment  plant  discharges,  combined



sewer discharges (particularly those  carrying industrial  waste),  industrial



discharges, and any other feature that may  give rise to  contaminated  sedi-



ments.  To this were added  any data  on  sedimentation patterns that may exist
                                     -  9  -

-------
from dredging records, and existing data on  sediment quality.   Supplementary
information, for example, locations  of areas  of suspected  contaminated  ground
water discharge,  was used to   help site sampling locations when  available.
All the above information  was  used  to identify locations where  contaminated
sediments were most likely to  be  found.   Since sample  sites were chosen  to
find worst-case  conditions, the analytical  data do not  represent the ambient
sediment contaminant levels in the  area.   Site locations were determined  in
the field  by  triangulations  to  easily  identifiable  landmarks.  The derived
locations were then plotted  on large-scale charts to determine  latitude  and
longitude.

In general, sediments will deposit  along the edges of  a  navigation  channel,
on the inside edge  of a  bend of a  river,  and  on  the down-drift side  of  the
littoral drift beach zone.   Samples were,  therefore, generally  collected  in
these areas rather than mid-channel.   Sounding  charts were  extremely helpful
for sample  site  selection  since  they  show the  areas  requiring  the  most
dredging and, therefore,  areas where the shoal  material  is depositing.   Areas
most likely to  show the  pollutional effects  of man's activity were  sampled.
Therefore, when   applicable,  sample  sites  were located  in  the  vicinity  of
marinas, loading docks,  and industrial or municipal outfalls.

SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
Grab samples  were  retrieved  using  a  Ponar  grab  sampler. Core  samples  were
taken using a Wildco brass corer,  with a two foot long  core tube having a 2"
inner diameter,  and  a clear Lexan® plastic  liner tube.  The  sediments  were
stored  at  4°C.   Grab  samples  were  homogenized  in  a stainless steel tub prior
to placement  into  one quart  glass  jars.   Cores were extruded  into  a  stain-
                                     - 10 -

-------
less steel tub, and the surficial  portions of cores were homogenized  prior  to
placement into one quart glass jars.  A more detailed discussion  of sampling
methodology is available in "Methods Manual  for Bottom Sediment  Sample  Collec-
tion," (Palmer, 1985).

ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
Prior to non-volatile organic analysis, the sediment samples were allowed to
thaw to 15-25°C.  Each sample was manually mixed and allowed to  air dry.  All
samples were ground with a mortar and pestle.  Any sample requiring  further
homogenation, at the analyst's discretion, was then passed through a  20 mesh
polypropylene sieve.  The percentage of solids of the sample was  determined
from a separate aliquot dried at 103-105°C.

Organic Contaminants
Samples were scanned for organic contaminants using gas chromatography  tech-
niques.  Gas chromatography mass spectrometer (GC/MS) organic scans  involve
acid, base and neutral extractions of volatile and semi-volatile priority
pollutants.  Electron capture gas chromatographic analysis is the preferred
method for quantitative determination of pesticides and PCBs.  Detection
limits for particular compounds vary from one sample to the next due  to
matrix effects presented by other compounds contained in the sample.   Tables
1 and 2 list organic pollutants scanned for and their detection  limits.

Metals
Total mercury concentrations were determined by first digesting  the sediment
samples in a mixture of concentrated nitric and sulfuric acid, then analyzing
                                   -  11 -

-------
the acid  extracts  using  USEPA  cold  vapor  atomic  absorption  spectrometry



methods.  A scan  for  24 additional metals  was made using Inductively Coupled



Argon Plasma (ICAP) techniques.  Table 3 lists the  analyzed  metals and their



detection limits.   All  metals  values  are  reported  as mg/kg  dry  weight.





The following eight analyses of conventional  pollutants  were  also  run on all



sediments:





Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)



COD was determined  based  on a catalyzed reaction  with  potassium dichromate.



A homogenized,   acidified  wet  sediment  sample  was  mixed with  standardized



potassium dichromate,  silver  sulfate-sulfuric acid  and mercuric  oxide,  and



was refluxed for 2  hours.   The COD  of the  sample  is proportional  to  the



amount of dichromate chemically reduced during the procedure.  COD values are



reported as mg/kg.





Oil and Grease



The acidified  sediment  is  dried  with  magnesium   sulfate  monohydrate  and



extracted with freon  in a soxhlet  apparatus  for  four  hours.   This method is



applicable to  the  measurement  of freon  extractable  matter  from sediments



which contain  relatively  non-volatile  hydrocarbons, vegebable  oils, animal



fats, soaps,  waxes,  greases  and  related  compounds.   This   method   is  not



applicable to  the  measurement  of  light   hydrocarbons  that  volatilize  at



temparatures below  70°C.   Petroleum  fuels  from gasoline  through  #2 fuel  oil



are completely,  or  substantially lost in the  solvent extraction process.  Oil



and grease  values  are  reported as  mg  Freon Extractables/kg dry sediment.
                                    -  12 -

-------
Cyanide
Cyanide was converted to  HCN  by means of a  reflux-distillation  catalyzed  by
copper chloride  which  decomposes  metallic  cyanide  complexes.   Cyanide  was
determined spectrophotometrically as the cyanide  is  absorbed  in  a  0.2  N NaOH
solution.  Cyanide  concentrations  are  reported  as  mg  CN/kg dry  sediment.

Total Phosphorus
Phosphorus was determined using  a  Technicon  II  Auto  Analyzer after block di-
gestion of the  sample.   A 0.5  g dry weight sample was  suspended  in  an HgO-
K204-H2S04 solution  and   digested  at 200°C  for  1  hour.   Phosphate   in  the
digestate was quantified using the Automated Ascorbic Acid procedure.
Phosphorus concentrations were reported as mg/kg dry sediment.

Solids
A known  weight  of homogenized,  moist  sediment was  dried  at  105°C.   The
total solids were calculated as:  % Solids = dry weight g x (100%).
                                             wet weight g

Volatile Solids
Volatile solids  were  determined  by   igniting  the  residue  from  the  total
solids determination  at  550°C to  a constant  weight.  Volatile  solids were
expressed as a percentage of the total  solids in the sample.

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
TKN was determined  on the  HgO-K2S04-H2S04  sediment digest analyzed for total
phosphorus.  Nitrogen  was  quantified  as  ammonia  using  the  alkaline phenol
hypochlorite procedure.   Values  are   reported  as  mg  TKN-N/kg  dry  weight.
                                     - 13 -

-------
Ammonia



Alkaline phenol  and   hypochlorite  react  with  ammonia  in  the  presence  of



sodium nitroprusside   to  form  indophenol  blue.   The  intensity  of the  blue



color is proportional  to  the concentration  of  ammonia.  Ammonia  concentra-



tions are reported as mg N/kg dry sediment.





Quality Assurance



Quality assurance  procedures  set  variance  limits  for  reference  samples,



sample splits, and spike samples.  Any  results  obtained outside  USEPA accep-



tance limits were flagged  as out-of-control,  and the samples rerun.





More detailed  descriptions   of  the  methodology  for  sediment  analysis  and



quality assurance are available in the Upper Great  Lakes  Connecting  Channels



(UGLCC) Work/Quality  Assurance Plan  for:   1982  Detroit, Michigan  Area  Sedi-



ment Survey and in Appendix B of this report.





THE SETTING



Urban and Industrial  Development



The Detroit  River,  one of  the busiest  commercial  waterways  in  the  world,



flows thirty-two  miles  southeast  from  Lake  St.  Clair,   past  an  area  of



intense urban and  industrial  development, to Lake Erie.  The  IJC  has  class-



ified the  river  as an  Area of  Concern  due  to  degraded water  and  sediment



quality, primarily along the west  bank  below the Rouge  River  mouth.   Steel,



auto, and chemical industries are  concentrated  on the  banks of the river and



its tributaries,  and  utilize the  waters  for  cooling  and  processing  water.



(Figure 1,  Detroit area industry).  The Detroit  Rivers  major  tributary, the



Rouge River,  is  also  classified as an  IJC Area of Concern primarily  due to



contaminated  sediments (IJC, 1985).
                                    -  14 -

-------
Geology and Hydrogeology
Glacial drift, ranging in thickness from zero to over three hundred  feet  is
the dominant surficial geological  material  in the Detroit area.   The drift
is underlain by bedrock of Early Mississippian to Early Devonian  age, dip-
ping gradually to the north and west.  Rocks of the Devonian Detroit River
Group and the Silurian Salina formation outcrop in the lower reaches of the
Detroit River in Trenton, and on Grosse lie.  Glacial deposits,  for  the
most part, are poorly sorted fine materials consisting mostly of  lacustrine
and morainal deposits and till plains, having low hydraulic conductivites.
Distribution of the glacially-derived materials is non-homogeneous,  however.
Patches of beach sand and coarse-grained outwash deposits with high  hydraulic
conductivities are found scattered  throughout the area.  Other  coarse-
grained  deposits,  originating during  pre-glacial conditions,  or water-
sorted deposits from earlier stages of glaciation in some areas  underlie  the
most recent glacial materials, and are often good groundwater reservoirs.
Coarse alluvial sediments, resulting from the pre-glacial drainage system,
lie below Highland Park and Hamtramck, and extend out to Belle Isle  (Figure
2, Bedrock Surface Topography).  Such deposits may be important  pathways  for
contaminant transport to Detroit River sediments.  An area-wide  groundwater
study  is necessary to determine the impacts of groundwater seepage upon the
river  sediments and the Detroit River as a whole.

Hydrology
Mean Detroit River discharge, from 1900 to 1978, is roughly 184,000  cfs (G.L.
Water  Levels Facts, 1984).  The river falls about three feet from Lake St.
Clair  to Lake Erie, and average velocities vary from one to over two feet per
second.  Water depths and flow are dependent upon Lake St. Clair and Lake
                                     - 15 -

-------
Erie levels which fluctuate seasonally.    Superimposed  upon  the  seasonal
fluctuation are storm-related  short-term  variations, which affect  and  may  at
times, even reverse the Detroit  River  flow (  Figure  3,  Detroit River study
area).

The Detroit River has two well-defined  reaches  having distinct hydraulic
characteristics.  The upper stretch  of the river,  from  Lake  St.  Clair  to just
above Fighting Island (above the Ecorse River)  is  a  broad bend about thirteeen
miles long flowing as a single channel  2,000  to 3,000 feet wide.  The  river
is 30-50 feet deep mid-channel.   Its narrowest  section  is at the Ambassador
Bridge where it is 1900 feet wide.   Maximum mid-channel  velocities here
approach four feet per second.

In the lower reaches, the river  is one mile to  two miles wide, and shallow.
The flow here is considerably  slower requiring  continuous dredging. The
river is divided by islands into several  major  channels. Depths are maintained
at twenty-seven to twenty-eight  feet by dredging.  The  Trenton Channel is  a
second major channel about one thousand feet  wide  between Grosse Isle  and  the
Michigan mainland.  Navigation depths  are maintained at twenty-seven and
twenty-one feet in the northern  portion of the  Trenton  Channel,  while  natural,
undredged depths at the southern end are  less than ten  feet  (Station DTR82-
45, and below).  Rocks of the  Detroit  River Group  outcrop  in the lower reaches,
and shipping channels have been cut  through this exposed bedrock to a  depth
of thirty feet.

Flow  information for the Detroit River and flow  hydrographs for the Rouge and
Huron Rivers  indicate that the sampling  period in late October  is typically a
time  of relatively  low flow (Figure 4, Hydrographs)  implying  net  accretion  of
                                    -16  _

-------
sediments, including some fine sediments.  Similarly, Manuscripts  for the 1982



Water Year indicate that  October 1982 was a period of baseflow  for the tribu-



taries (USGS, 1983).   Therefore  the influence  of   groundwater  discharge  upon



the streams, especially the Rouge River,  was  at a  maximum at this  time.  Also,



during periods of low  flow,  Detroit River water and  sediments  are carried up



the Michigan tributaries, especially when  winds are out of the  east.





Mineralogy



A. Mudroch  (1984),  using  non-quantitative  powder  x-ray diffraction techniques,



found the mineralogy   of the Detroit River sediments to  be  composed  primarily



of calcite  and dolomite, quartz,   feldspars  and   the  clay minerals;   illite,



chlorite and kaolinite.   Quartz  and calcite  comprise  the >63 urn, or sand size



category.   Dolomite and the  feldspars largely made up the 4-63 urn,  or silt-



sized category.   Illite, chlorite,  kaolinite and  "other" minerals  made  up the



<4 urn, or clay-sized category.





RESULTS AND DISCUSSION



Sampling Sites and Reporting



Sediment grab samples  were  collected  at  sixty-five locations along the  western



bank of the Detroit River and three  of its  tributaries:  the Rouge River,  the



Ecorse River, and the Huron River from  October 26 to  October  28,  1982  (Figure



5, USEPA Detroit 1982  Sediment Sampling Sites;  Figure  6, Huron  River Michigan



Sediment Sampling Sites).   In tables and  figures throughout this  report, sedi-



ment stations  will be  listed in a  downstream  order   for easy  geographical



correlation.   Although some of  the parametric  data  displayed  in histograms



appears to  be grouped in  some way,  the  histograms are  not   intended to imply



any kind of continuity  from one  sample to the next.   Sediment data is  rather
                                      - 17 -

-------
patchy by nature.   To further ease  comparisons  and   correlations,   the study



area has been divided into eight  sub-areas,  each  having  rather  distinct  hydro-



logical  and cultural  characteristics:





BELLE ISLE (Stations  DTR82-01, DTR82-03,  DTR82-05A)



Belle Isle itself  is a recreational  area,    The  channel  west of  the  island  is



characterized by extensive shoal  areas.   Loading  docks,  marinas,  light  industry,



a major tire company and a coal-fired power  plant are  located along the  Michigan



mainland.  Conners Creek (DTR82-03) is  below a  major automobile assembly plant,



and below a major structure  of the City  of  Detroit Combined  Sewer  system, the



Conners Creek Backwater Gate.  (Figure  7, Detroit area CSOs).





DOWNTOWN DETROIT (Stations DTR82-08, DTR82-13)



This sub-area extends from the south end  of  Belle Isle,   past downtown  Detroit



to the  Ambassador  Bridge.   Land use  along the   shore  of this  fast flowing,



narrow portion of the river is characterized by  light industry and commercial/



residential uses.  Over thirty Detroit  Combined Sewer  Overflow  (CSO)  points  are



located along the Detroit River in this sub-area.





ROUGE RIVER (Stations DTR82-19, ROR82-07, ROR82-06, ROR82-02)



The Rouge River sub-area includes the Detroit River between the Rouge Old Chan-



nel and the  Rouge Short-cut Canal, and the   Rouge River itself  below the Ford



Dearborn plant.  The entire area is heavily  developed  with automobile assembly,



steel,  paper and pulp,  and oil  refining industry.    In addition,   the Detroit



waste water treatment plant  (WWTP) and 180 CSOs discharge to the  Rouge River.
                                    - 18 -

-------
ROUGE RIVER to ECORSE RIVER (Stations DTR82-22,  DTR82-23,  DTR82-25,  DTR82-26,
DTR82-27)

The portion of the  Detroit River between the  Rouge River mouth  and the  Ecorse

River mouth is a transitional   area where the river changes from  a  narrow fast-

flowing channel to a broad channel divided by islands.   It is characterized  by

heavy steel manufacturing and oil refining industry.


ECORSE RIVER (Stations DTR82-52, DTR82-53, DTR82-29, DTR82-30)

The north and south branches of the Ecorse River and the portion  of the Detroit

River immediately  downstream of the Ecorse River mouth comprise  this sub-area.

Heavy steel manufacturing and chemical industry which discharges  to the Detroit

River are the major land uses.   Fighting Island, Mud Island, Grassy Island and

the northernmost point of Grosse lie  have been used for disposal of industrial

waste and dredged material .


NORTHERN TRENTON CHANNEL (Stations DTR82-32, DTR82-38, DTR82-56,  DTR82-49)

The northern  portion of the Trenton Channel is  dredged to a  depth of twenty-

seven feet to accommodate large ships.  Chemical industry and residential areas

characterize  the mainland  land  use in the  extreme northern  portion  of the

channel above the northern tip of Grosse Isle.   Heavy steel  and  chemical manu-

facturing is the characteristic land use below the town of Wyandotte.  Hunting-

ton/Monguogon Creek drains a  heavily industrialized area  containing landfills

into the  Trenton Channel at  station DTR82-38.   Grosse lie itself is  largely

residential, except the northern tip, which is a former waste disposal area.


SOUTHERN TRENTON CHANNEL (Stations DTR82-43, DTR82-45, DTR82-48)

The southern Trenton Channel is shallow and undredged. Although it  is generally

an industrial area,  characterized by power,  steel and  chemical industry, the
                                     - 19 -

-------
level of industrial  activity is less than that in  the northern  Trenton  Channel.



Several  small tributaries  drain into the southern Trenton  Channel.    Extensive



shallow  sediment depositional   areas are found  at  the  southern   end  of  Hrosse



Isle.





HURON RIVER (Stations HDRR2-01, HDRR2-0?, DTRR2-57)



This  sub-area is  comprised of the  downstream  reach and  mouth  of   the Huron



Piver. The river mouth and  the surrounding wetlands  comprise  the  Pointe Mouilee



State Game Area.   A confined disposal   facility is   under  construction  at  the



mouth of the river.   Upstream sources of contamination on the Detroit  River  may



impact this area when  westerly winds on the  Detroit River and  Lake  Erie move



contaminated water and sediments upstream.  In addition9 the  Huron River  drains



with potential municipal  and rural  sources of contamination.





Field Observation.  (Table  4, Field Observations)



Field observations indicate sediment from  about half of the  stations  contained



sand or coarser-grained materials.    Sediment from ten of twenty-eight  stations



was  said to contain "muck" or "ooze",   indicating input of recent  and organic



material.   Rravel was  observed in two  stations  in the study area   below  the



Ecorse River mouth,   and in the Huron River,  perhaps indicating   an  energetic



flow  regime.   An oily  sheen,  or an oily or  chemical  odor  was  observed in



eleven of twenty-eight samples and  in stations from all  the  sub-areas  with  the



exception of the  Huron River area.





CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS



Conventional pollutant levels (total volatile solids, oil  and grease,  COD, TKN,



ammonia,  phosphorus  and  cyanide)   indicate  severe  sediment   contamination
                                  - 20 -

-------
throughout most  of the  study area.    Sampling   sites  near   Belle  Isle  to the



north,  and in the  Huron River  to  the south,  have  less extreme   contaminant



levels.   The  Rouge River  sediments  stand  out as   the most  contaminated  by



conventional  pollutants:   the very highest   levels in  the   study area of total



volatile solids, COD, TKN,  ammonia and cyanide  are all found  in  one sample up-



stream on the Rouge River (ROR8P-D7).  The highest  levels of phosphorus  and oil



and grease are found in sediments from the central  portion of the Trenton Chan-



nel (Table 5, Conventional Pollutants).





Total Volatile Solids.   Total volatile solids  levels  are high throughout most



of the study area, and range from 2.4% to 23.4%.  The IISEPA  Sediment Guidelines



for the "heavily polluted" categories were  exceeded  in 71%  of the  samples, 14%



are  moderately polluted  and 14% are "unpolluted."   The mean %  total volatile



solids level  is 9.53%, and falls in the  "heavily polluted"  category.    Highest



levels  are found in  the Rouge River  sub-area.   (Figure R, %Total  Volatile



Solids.)





Oi1 and Grease



Determinations of oil and grease levels were performed  as supplemental analyses



in ]98B.   Only eighteen of the  samples had  sufficient material for analysis.



Of these eighteeen, sixteen,  or 89% exceeded US EPA Sediment Guidelines  for the



the "heavily polluted" category.   The remaining two  sites,   in the Huron River



subarea, had  "moderately polluted" oil and grease levels.    The range in values



values was  very broad,  from 1,75? mg/kg to   38,990  mg/kg.    The mean   oil and



grease level  is lfi,??5 mg/kg, falling well into  the "heavily polluted" category.



The highest levels were found in the northern Trenton Channel, in Connors Creek,



above the Ecorse River mouth and in the Rouge River (Figure  9, Oil  and Grease).
                                  -  21 -

-------
Chemical Oxygen Demand.   COD levels  are  high throughout most of the study area,



ranging  from 31,000 mg/kg  to  300,000 mg/kg.    IISEPA  Sediment  Guidelines for



"heavily polluted"   are  exceeded  in  75%  of the samples, 18% are moderately pol-



luted, and 7% are  "unpolluted."   The mean COD  level  of the study  is 142,000



mg/kg and falls  in the  "heavily  polluted" category.   Highest levels are found



in the Rouge River  and the northern  Trenton Channel sub-areas (Figure 10, COD).





Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen.   TKN  levels are  high in  many of the study area sedi-



ment samples, and range  from 640  mg/kg to 8600 mg/kg.   54% of the samples have



TKN levels which exceed   USEPA  Sediment  Guidelines for  "heavily polluted," 35%



are moderately polluted,  and 10% are "unpolluted."   The mean TKN level in the



study area  is 247? mg/kg and   falls in  the  "heavily polluted" category.   The



highest TKN level is found in the Rouge  River (Figure 11, TKN).





Ammonia.   Ammonia  levels are very  high in most of  the study area,  and range



from 50 mg/kg to 1400 mg/kg.   57% of the  samples  exceed  IISEPA Sediment Guide-



lines for  "heavily polluted,"  25%  are   "moderately polluted"  and 18%  of the



samples are  "unpolluted."   The  mean ammonia  level in the  study area is  365



mg/kg, which is in  the "heavily polluted"  category.  The highest ammonia levels



were found in the Rouge  River,  and downstream in the area between the Rouge and



Fcorse Rivers, perhaps indicating a  major source in the Rouge River (Figure 12,



Ammonia).





Phosphorus.  Phosphorus  levels  are very  high throughout most of the study area,



exceeding IISEPA Sediment Guidelines  for   "heavily  polluted"  in 86% of the sam-



ples.  7% of the sediment samples are "moderately  polluted," and another 7% are



"unpolluted."  The mean phosphorus  level  of  2604  mg/kg   falls in the   "heavily
                                  - 22 -

-------
polluted" category.   Phosphorus values  range  from 350 trig/ kg to 6700 mg/kg, and



the highest  levels are found   above  the Ecorse  River  mouth and in the Trenton



Channel  (Figure 13, Phosphorus).






Cyanide.   Cyanide levels are very high  throughout most  of the study area rang-



ing from  0.] ng/kg to  33.0 mg/kg.   IISEPA   Sediment  Guidelines  for  "heavily



polluted" were exceeded in 71% of the samples.   The mean cyanide level over the



whole study area is  B.85 mg/kg, and  falls  in  the  "heavily polluted" category.



Peak levels are seen in  Conners Creek,  in the   Rouge River,  above the  Ecorse



River mouth, and in the northern Trenton Channel.  Detection levels for cyanide



exceed the  "heavily polluted" category, therefore, caution should be excerised



in interpreting these data (Figure 14, Cyanide).





DISCUSSION



Figures 8-14 illustrate clearly that all the   sub-areas  with the exception of



the Ecorse River and the Huron River  are heavily polluted.   Furthermore, three



sub-areas seem to be exceptionally polluted: the Rouge River,  the area between



the Rouge and the Ecorse River mouths,  and the  northern Trenton Channel.   The



largest concentrations of  heavy industry in the study area  are found in these



sub-areas.  The large number of CSOs  in  the Rouge River  undoubtedly affect con-



ventional  pollutant levels there.  The  anomalously high levels of conventional



pollutants in Conners Creek relative  to  the other  Belle Isle area stations in-



dicate the  influence of the automobile   assembly plant  and Detroit  CSO's upon



sediment quality.   The levels of all  the individual  conventional pollutants,



averaged over the whole study area, fall  in the  "heavily polluted" category.
                                  - 23 -

-------
METALS



The levels of heavy metal s,  for which   HSFPA  Sediment Guidelines have been set,



indicate  that metals   contamination of  sediments in the Detroit  area is both



severe and  wide-spread.    Mean levels   for all ten of  these  metals (cadmium,



chromium, mercury,   nickel,  zinc,  cooper,  barium, iron,  lead and maganese) ex-



ceed the IISEPA Sediment Guidelines for  "heavily polluted."   Metals  contami-



nation is less significant  in  two  sub-areas:   two stations in the   Belle Isle



area, and three  stations  in the  Huron  River   area have low to  moderate metals



contamination levels (Table  6, Metals).





Lead.   Lead levels are very high  throughout  most of the  study area, and range



from 21.n mg/kg to  81 n mg/kg.  IISEPA Sediment Guidelines for "heavily polluted"



are exceeded in 89% of the  samples.  7% are   "moderately polluted", and only 4%



are unpolluted.   The  mean  lead   level  is  335 mg/kg,  and falls in  the heavily



polluted category.   The highest lead levels are found near Belle Isle in Conners



Creek,  in the Rouge River,  in the Ecorse River,  and in the  northern Trenton



Channel (Figure IB, Lead).





Zinc.   Zinc levels are high throughout most  the study area,  and  range from 76



mg/kg  to 35Dn mg/kg.    US EPA  Sediment   Guidelines  for the  "heavily polluted"



category are exceeded   in 82%  of   the samples, 14% are "moderately  polluted,"



and  4% are "unpolluted."    The mean zinc level is 891 mg/kg,  and falls in the



"heavily polluted"  category.  The highest zinc  levels are  found in the Belle



Isle  area in Conners Creek, in the Rouge River area,  and in the northern Tren-



ton  Channel  (Figure Ifi, Zinc).
                                  - 24 -

-------
Iron.  Iron  levels  are high  throughout  most of  the study area,   and   tiSEPA



Sediment Guidelines for "heavily polluted"   are exceeded in  68% of the  samples.



18% are "moderately polluted"  and  14% are  "unpolluted."    Iron  levels  range



from 10,000 mg/kg to 89,000 mg/kg,  and the mean  level is  38,392 mg/kg falling



in the  "heavily polluted"  category.  Highest  levels  are  found  in the  Rouge



River  area, in the  area  between  the  Rouge  and  Ecorse  River  mouths,  and



in the  Trenton  Channel , thus  implicating  the  local  steel   industry   as  a



source of this contamination (Figure 17, Iron).





Nickel.   Nickel levels are  high throughout  most of the study  area and  range



from 15 mg/kg  to 300 mg/kg.   The USEPA Sediment  Guidelines for the  "heavily



polluted" category are exceeded in 68% of the samples, 25% are "moderately pol-



luted,"  and  7% are "unpolluted."   The mean  nickel level  is 105.7 mg/kg, and



falls  in the  "heavily polluted"  category.   Highest levels are   found  in the



Rouge River  area,  between the  Rouge and   Ecorse  River  mouths,   and in  the



northern Trenton Channel;  a distribution  very much  like the  iron  levels in



Detroit area sediments  (Figure 18, Nickel).





Manganese.  Manganese levels are high throughout most of the study  area.   USEPA



Sediment Guidelines for the "heavily polluted" category are  exceeded in  71% of



the Detroit samples, 18% are  "moderately polluted", and 11% are  "unpolluted."



The mean  sediment  manganese level  is  750 mg/kg,  and falls  in the  "heavily



polluted" category.   Manganese levels range widely, from a  low of  160 mg/kg in



the  Belle Isle  area to  a high  of 2800 mg/kg in  the Huron  River  sediments



(Figure 19, Manganese).  The high manganese level in the  Huron River sediments



may reflect the high high oxidation  state of sandy sediments at this site.
                                    - 25 -

-------
Cadmium.   Cadmium levels are  rather high  in a  large   part  of  the   study  area.
USEPA  Sediment  Guidelines for "heavily polluted"   are exceeded  in  57% of  the
samples, and 43% are "unpolluted."    The mean cadmium  level  in  the  sediments is
11.1 mg/kg,  and falls in the  "heavily polluted" category.   Values range from
0.2 mg/kg to a high of 96 mg/kg in  the Rouge River.  Cadmium levels  are consis-
tently high in the Trenton Channel.  (Figure 20, Cadmium).

Chromium.   Chromium  levels are very high   throughout most  of  the  study  area.
USEPA Sediment Guidelines for the  "heavily polluted"   category are  exceeded in
71% of the study area sediment samples.  14% are "moderately polluted," and  14%
are "unpolluted."   The range in values is  from  9.8 mg/kg in Huron  River  sedi-
ments to a  high of  680 mg/kg  in  the northern  Trenton Channel.    The highest
levels are found in the Rouge River,  between the Rouge and Ecorse River mouths,
and in the northern Trenton Channel,  again  implicating the local  steel  industry
as a source (Figure 21, Chromium).

Bariurn.   Barium levels are very high throughout  almost the entire  study  area,
and range from a low of 36 mg/kg to a high  of 500 mg/kg. USEPA Sediment Guide-
lines  for "heavily  polluted"  are  exceeded in  93%  of the samples,   and  the
remaining 7% are  "moderately polluted."   The mean  barium level  of  194.5  mg/kg
is well above the "heavily polluted"  level.   Peak barium levels   are  found in
the Belle Isle area in Conners Creek, in the Rouge River, between the Rouge  and
and the Ecorse River mouths,  and in the northern  Trenton Channel   (Figure  22,
Barium).

Copper.   Copper levels are high throughout most  of the study  area, and  range
widely, from 17 mg/kg  in the Huron River to a  high of 720  mg/kg  in the  Rouge
River.  USEPA Sediment Guidelines for "heavily polluted" are exceeded in 79% of
                                    - 26 -

-------
the samples, 14% are "moderately polluted,"   and  7%  are   "unpolluted." The mean



copper  level  is  15Q rig/kg,  and  falls   in  the   "heavily  polluted"  category.



Copper level peaks are found in the Rouge River,  above the  Ecorse mouth, and in



the northern Trenton Channel,  again implicating  the local  steel  industry as a



major source.  (Figure 23, Copper).





Mercury.   Mercury levels are high in much of the study  area  sediments.  Values



range from a low of 0.? mg/kg in the  Huron River to a high of  3.6 mg/kg in the



northern Trenton Channel.  USEPA Sediment Guidelines for "polluted"  are exceeded



in $?% of the samples, rendering sediments from these areas unsuitable for open



lake disposal, regardless of what other data  indicate.    The  mean mercury level



of l.lfi mg/kg  falls in the "polluted" category.   Peak values are  found in the



Trenton Channel and the Rouge River, thus implicating the local  steel and chem-



ical  industry as sources of contamination.  (Figure  24,  Mercury).





DISCUSSION



Figures 15 - 24 indicate widespread,  high level  contamination  of  sediments by



the metals for which Sediment Guidelines have been set.   The  highest levels for



the individual metals define four problem areas:  the most serious contamination



is seen in the Rouge River area.  The area between the Rouge  and Ecorse Rivers,



Conners Creek in the Belle Isle area, and the  Trenton Channel  also  have signi-



ficant metals contamination problems.





Levels of the other  trace metals follow  roughly the same  trends as the metals



for which USEPA Sediment  Guidelines  have been  set.   (Table 7, Trace Metals,



Figures 25-33).  It appears that local steel  and   chemical  industry  and perhaps



the Detroit CSOs are responsible for the elevated levels of trace metals in the



study area.
                                  - 27 -

-------
Levels of the  major metals   (Ca,  K,  Mg,  NA and  Al)   are  a  function  of  particle



size and mineralogy. Ca and  Mg levels are attributable  to dolomite particles  in



the sediment.  K and Al  originate  with the dominant  clay  mineral  illite.   Na  is



derived from sodic,  feldspathic  rocks,  but other sources   (chemical industry,



road salt) may have localized effects.   (Table  8, Figures  34-37, Major Metals)



(Tables Q, Hetal s Summary).





A. Mudroch (1984)  analyzed  the metals content of the individual  size fractions



of Detroit sediments,  and  found that the heavy  metals  correlate well  with the



fine size fraction:  Zn, Ni, Cr, and  Pb were found  in  both the   <13 urn and the



48-63um fractions.   Our field observations confirm  the close  relationship bet-



ween metals and particle size:   all  of the highest  metals  values were  found  in



samples composed predominantely of fine materials  (Table  4, Field Observations).



Therefore,  to derive meaningful   interpretations of sediment metals analyses,



one needs accurate particle-size  information.





Most metals are present in  soil and natural  sediments in  significant concentra-



tions,  and  even trace  metals are naturally present  to  some degree.   It  is



important, therefore,  to be able  to  distinguish between  constituents derived



from natural, or ambient conditions,   such as erosion or  weathering of natural



materials,  and anthropogenic  inputs.   Several methods  to  normalize  sediment



metals data are presently in use,  including comparison  to silicon levels,  alum-



inum levels,  or particle size.   While such normalization  may yield meaningful



information, this report merely presents  metals  levels  as they were  found.
                                  - 28 -

-------
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS



Hydrophobic organic  substances are rather easily  adsorbed  from   aqueous  solu-



tions onto  available surfaces,  the amount adsorbed   being  dependent   upon the



nature of the surface.   The adsorption is  strongly  correlated   with  the  Total



Organic Carbon (TOC) content,  and the surface area of the particles,   with TOC



dominating  over surface area in  importance by three  to one.    In  sedimentary



deposits with a high organic content, especially those with  significant amounts



of organic  solvents,  hydrophobic suhstanes  can be   highly mobile   (Griffin &



Chian, 1980).





In the aquatic environment, the fate of hydrophobic organic  contaminants in the



absence of nonpolar organic solvents,  is strongly linked to  sediments as they



are deposited, resuspended, and transported as bedload or suspended  load.   Two



other transport  pathways are available to these compounds once   they enter the



aquatic environment:  1) dissolution in water, the magnitude of  which is deter-



mined by  sediment/water  partition  coefficients  for the  individual   organic



compounds,  or 2) direct  ingestion by  benthic  organisms and   bottom  feeding



fishes,  and nektonic or planktonic organisms in the   water column which ingest



suspended sediments.   These latter two pathways provide the link with the food



chain.





Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).   Polynuclear  aromatic  hydrocarbons



(PAHs)  are widely  recognized  components of fossil   fuels and  of  fossil fuel



combustion products.  They occur naturally in forest  fires, volcanoes, degraded



biological materials, and also in fireplaces, coal furnaces, auto emissions and



incinerators  (Eldridge et a!.,  1984).   Other common sources  of  PAHs include



steel mill foundry  sand,  coal-pile runoff,  coal-ash leachate,  coke,  coal-tar
                                  -  29 -

-------
deposits and  urban street   runoff.    Many PAH   compounds  are   carcinogenic   to



humans and thus are on the  EPA Priority Pollutants  list.   Naphthalene is  widely



used as a  starting material  for various dye  intermediates  and  has  found  some



use as a solvent and lubricant.   Other PAHs  have very  limited  or no  industrial



significance.





Organisms  evolutionarily above the  level  of  insect/invertebrate readily meta-



bolize PAHs,  and these metabolites,  especially epoxides  and diolepoxides,  are



believed  to be the  ultimate carcinogens  for  PAHs (Toxic Chemicals  Issues  and



Research Priorities, 1984).





PAHs are hydrophobic organic  compounds,  and  thus readily  adsorb onto suspended



particulate matter in an  aquatic environment.   They have a close association



with the TOC  content of soils  and  sediments.   PAHs are  associated   with  fine



particles  (<63um),  and higher PAH  concentrations  are   evident with  increasing



silt/clay content (Griffin  &  Chian,  1980).





Sources of PAHs.  There are many potential sources  of PAHs in the Detroit area:



hydrocarbon refineries in Detroit, and upstream in  Sarnia, shipping,  and  spills



of fossil fuels on the Detroit River,  steel  and coking operations in Michigan,



production of coal tar,  and  urban runoff from  both sides  of the river all  con-



tribute to the PAH content  of the sediments.





Total PAH.  Fourteen PAH compounds,  ranging from low molecular  weight naphtha-



lene to high  molecular weight benzo(a)pyrene,   have been  found in the Detroit



198? Sediment  Survey.   (Figure 38-47, PAHs).   A  convenient method to examine



PAH distribution  along the   river is simply to sum  the values  for the indivi-



dual  compounds  and  compare total PAH values (Table  10, Summary Table).   Total
                                   -  30  -

-------
PAH  values in  the  study area  range from  620 ug/kg  on the Huron  River to
125,200 ug/kg in the lower Rouge River (ROR82-02).  Along the river, locations
of total PAH "hotspots"  in the sediments  help identify  major source  areas.
Urban runoff and shipping  spills in downtown Detroit,  industry and municipal
projects on the Rouge River,  the steel industry above the Ecorse River mouth,
and the steel and  chemical industry in the  Trenton Channel   all appear to be
likely sources of PAHs.   Overall mean PAH values are  lower in the downstream
portions of the Detroit River.

Fossil Fuels  Vs.  Fossil Fuel Combustion Products.   Closer  inspection of the
distribution of  individual PAH  compounds yields  additional information which
allows more definitive judgements concerning sources.  PAHs derived from fossil
fuels, or non-combustion PAHs, are characteristically of lower molecular weight
(e.g., naphthalene)  than high  molecular weight  PAHs originating  from fossil
fuel combustion products (e.g. benzo(a) pyrene).  Therefore, compositional pro-
files of PAH distributions provide a useful means of monitoring changes in PAH
content and sources between the sediment stations (Boehm and Farrington, 1984).

The Detroit area PAH compositions are dominated by the heavier 3,4 and 5-ringed
PAHs over the lighter  two-ringed naphthalenes.   Thus, the overall PAH assemb-
lage is  dominated by  fossil  fuel  combustion PAHs  indicating either  greater
additions of high  molecular weight PAHs,  or their preferential  adsorption by
sediments.  (Table 11, PAH).   In certain  areas along the  Detroit River,  the
greater  dominance of  lower molecular  weight PAHs  over the higher  molecular
weight  PAHs may indicate  differing sources  of total PAHs.   Dominance by low
molecular  weight PAHs is  evident at a number of sampling stations:  DTR82-01,
                                     _ 31 _

-------
DTR82-03, DTR82-05A, ROR82-07, ROR82-06,  DTR82-52,  DTR82-53,  HUR82-02,  HUR82-01



DTR82-57 (in the Belle Isle,  Rouge River, Ecorse  River and  Huron  River areas).



These stations, with the exception of the Rouge River  stations,  also tended  to



have  lower than average  total  PAH values.    OTR82-19,   near the   mouth of the



Rouge River, has a rather singular PAH distribution, having the  highest concen-



tration of naphthalene in the study area,  coupled  with   reduced levels of high



molecular  weight PAHs,  suggesting fossil  fuel   spills  as the major source  of



PAHs here.  Station DTR82-32,  in the  Wyandotte  Yacht Club,   shows the highest



relative amounts of both  naphthalene and high molecular weight  PAHs.   Overall



sediment PAH levels are highest in the Rouge River.





Generally,  the important sources seem to be industrial  (fossil  fuel combustion



products) and municipal (urban runoff)  discharges  to  the Detroit  River.   Fos-



sil fuel spills are probably  locally  important sources  at DTR82-03, DTR82-19,



ROR8206,  ROR82-02, and DTR82-32  (Wyandotte Yacht  Club).  The  absence of high



molecular  weight PAHs,  and  overall low total PAH   values found  upstream from



Belle Isle, and up from the mouths of tributary streams, indicate  that  the pre-



dominant sources of PAH are industrial and municipal   sources along the Detroit



River.





PAH Hazard Ranking. Distribution of PAHs along the  Detroit River was also eval-



uated in terms of a hazard ranking of individual  PAH compounds.    The mutagenic



and carcinogenic  activity of a small  number of   specific   PAH  compounds,  for



example, benzo(a)pyrene, is well known.   However,  synergistic and antagonistic



effects between PAH compounds,  and uncertainties about  carcinogenic and muta-



genic   effects  of  PAH  metabolites  complicates  evaluation  of   the   hazards



associated with PAHs.   At best,  a first order approximation of  hazard can  be
                                   - 32 -

-------
made  based on  linear  combinations of  individual  PAH  values.   The six most
hazardous  PAHs  analyzed  for  in  this study,  as   per  Mil liken et al,   are:
benzo(a)pyrene, benz(a)anthracene and chrysene, indeno(l,2,3,c,d)pyrene,  benzo-
(b&k)fluoranthene,  and  phenanthrene.   Two  methods  of  estimating  the  PAH
hazard assocated  with  sediments  were used:  1)  summation  of the  six  most
hazardous PAH and, 2) inspection of benzo(a)pyrene values (Tables 12, Hazardous
PAHs).

Inspection of Table 12 shows:  1) hazardous  PAHs are pervasive  throughout the
study area  2)  less, or none of the most hazardous   PAH compounds are found in
the tributaries,  and upstream from  Belle Isle on the  Detroit River,  3)  the
highest  hazardous  PAH values are  seen at ROR82-02, in the  Rouge River,  and
DTR82-13 and OTR82-08, near downtown Detroit,  indicating sources in urban run-
off or CSOs and industrial sources in the Rouge River.

Thus,  we conclude  that a few major  sources of PAHs  impact  upon the  Detroit
River in the  upstream portion.   Downstream sources  may be continuous,   while
transport and  deposition of sediments  in the lower river  effectively homoge-
nizes PAH distribution.
PCBs
Total PCBs Detroit sediments exceed  USEPA Sediment   Guidelines for  total PCBs
(greater  than 10 mg/kg)  at three stations  in the   northern   Trenton Channel:
DTR82-32, DTR82-38,  and DTR82-49.   Eighteen stations widely   distributed over
the study  area had elevated levels of total  PCBs (1 to 10 mg/kg).   Seven sta-
tions, mainly in the  Belle Isle area and upstream on the Huron River,  had loi
total PCB levels (less than 1 mg/kg) (Table 13, PCBs).
                                  - 33 -

-------
Generally,  the highest PCB values are found in the areas of  heavy industry in



Ecorse,  Wayndotte and Riverview on the northern Trenton  Channel.   However,  the



high levels of total  PCBs in  Conners  Creek in  the   Belle Isle area  and  in  the



downtown Detroit area may implicate Detroit CSOs as major sources  to the  system.





Although PCB loadings in the study area appear  to be high,  upstream sources  may



also add a  significant load upon  Detroit River sediments.    PCB-tainted sedi-



ments from Saginaw Bay  and Lake St. Clair are   resuspended  by storms,   and  the



sediment  bound-PCBs  are  entrained in the  dynamic fluvial   environment  of  the



Detroit River (Thorn!ey and Hamdy, 1984).





Inspection of the distribution of the  Aroclor  components of the PCBs may yield



some information about sources of PCBs.  The PCB mixtures (Aroclors) which were



analyzed  by GC/EC,  range from PCB-1242,   with 42% chlorination,   to PCB-1260,



with 60% chlorination.   The less-chlorinated Aroclors are much more soluble in



water than the  highly-chlorinated Aroclors  which  are more  hydrophobic.   The



highly chlorinated  Aroclor 1260, thus,  has greater adsorption  potential than



the less-chlorinated  Aroclor-1242 (Eisenreich et al., 1983).    PCB-1242  levels



are generally low,  ranging from  zero to 956 ug/kg.    Significant levels  are



found  at  sites  immediately  above and  below the  Ecorse  River  (Figure  48,



PCB-1242).





The  highest levels  of the four  PCB mixtures   are found for  PCB-1248  on  the



Detroit River, between the Rouge and Ecorse River mouths.  PCB-1248 ranges from



zero to 6940 ug/kg.  Strong peaks of PCB-1248 are also found at all stations in



the northern  Trenton  Channel,  and in  Conners  Creek in the  Belle Isle area



 (Figure 49, PCB-1248).
                                   -  34 -

-------
PCB-1254 levels range from zero to 3638 ug/kg.    Peak  levels  are   found  in the
northern  Trenton Chanel,   in the  Belle Isle  area in  Conners Creek,   in the
Detroit area, and  between the Rouge and  Ecorse River mouths  (Figure 50, PCB-
1254).

PCB-1260 ranges from zero to 3946 ug/kg.  Peak  levels  are found in the northern
Trenton  Channel,  on the  Detroit River in  Downtown  Detroit,  and between  the
Rouge and Ecorse River mouths (Figure 51, PCB-1260).

Generally, PCB levels are highest in the northern Trenton Channel,  between  the
Rouge and Ecorse River mouths, and in Conners Creek in the Belle  Isle area,  and
in the northern Detroit River.   The Rouge River did not exhibit  high levels of
any of the PCB mixtures,  nor did either  of the other two  tributaries   to  the
Detroit River, or most of the stations on the northern Detroit  River. This  may
signify the relative  importance of the contributions  of PCBs from CSOs  and  the
chemical industry along the Detroit River.

Oliver and  Bourbonierre (1984),  from comparison of Lake Huron/Lake St. Clair
and Lake Erie sediments, observed that the PCB concentration increases between
Lake Huron/Lake St. Clair and  Lake Erie,  indicating  major  sources along the
Detroit River.  Also they noted that the degree of chlorination increases sub-
stantially  over the same length:   the predominant Aroclor in  Lake Huron/Lake
St. Clair is PCB-1242 while in western Lake Erie it is PCB-1260.   Modelling  of
dilution factors led  them to conclude that a  disproportionately high concen-
tration of Aroclor-1260 is contained in the Detroit River and that the Detroit
River is the major source of PCBs to western Lake Erie.   Although a consider-
able  amount of  PCBs were  found by the  1982 Detroit  Sediment  Survey   to  be
be entering the river, they tended to be Aroclor-1248  rather than Aroclor-1260.
                                  - 35 -

-------
Summations of the  levels of the  four PCB mixtures   over  the   whole study area
give an  indication of  their  relative  importance  in the  Detroit   sediments.
PCB-1248 comprises almost 43% of the total  PCBs,   PCB-1254 is  30%,   PCB-1260 is
26%, and PCB-1242 accounts for only  1.5%.    Thus,  overall, PCB-1248  is  the dom-
inant PCB  mixture observed  in the  sediments.    However,   not all the  stations
exhibit the same proportions of PCB  mixtures (Table  13,  PCB).

Inspection of the distribution of Aroclors in the  Detroit  River sediments  shows
that there  are three characteristic  types of  sediments in terms of chlorina-
tion:   the  majority of the  sediment  samples were  heavily   weighted toward
either PCB-1248 or PCB-1260.  The rest show approximately  equal   proportions of
of the various isomers.     Furthermore,  all the stations   exceeding USEPA Sed-
iment Guidelines for total  PCBs are   highly skewed towards the less  chlorinated
Aroclors  (PCB-1248).   Those  samples  having   total  PCB   levels in the  range
from  1,000 ug/kg to  10,000 ug/kg are skewed  either towards  PCB-1248, or PCB-
1260.   Samples  with  low  total PCB levels  represent  background   levels and
tend to  have a more even  distribution of the  PCB  mixtures.    Thus,  PCB-1248
dominates the sediments  having the highest total  PCB levels.

This appears to contradict Oliver and Bourbonnierre's  conclusions that Detroit
is the major  source of   PCB-1260 to  western Lake Erie.   Although  a heavy PCB
load enters the Great Lakes at Detroit,  these PCBs  are of lower %  chlorination
than those found in western Lake Erie.

A possible cause of this  discrepancy may be  subsequent weathering   of PCBs by
volatilization and  degradation,  which would alter  the composition  of  PCB mix-
tures  (Armstrong and Swackhammer, 1983).   Aroclor-1248 is much more soluble in
                                  -  36 -

-------
water,  and thus more  susceptible to volatilization out of the system.    Also,



lower-chlorinated  isomers are  more easily  degraded by  micro-organisms   than



higher-chlorinated isomers (Griffin and Chian, 1980).   The increase in  percen-



tage of chlorination going downstream from Lake Huron/Lake St.  Clair to  western



Lake Erie may be mostly a function of residence time in the system.   Therefore,



use of Aroclor 1260 as a conservative tracer of Detroit inputs  is inappropriate.



The effects of residence time upon  chlorination of PCBs may  indicate a larger



contribution of  PCBs to western  Lake Erie from sources  upstream from  Detroit



than were previously suspected.





In Detroit  the sediments  violating the USEPA  Sediments Guidelines  which are



relative lower in chlorination,  are relatively  recent additions  to the  sedi-



ments.   Those  with  lesser PCB  concentrations and  having greater  degree of



chlorination have spent more time being subjected to volatilization and  degrad-



ation in the aquatic system, either in transport  from St. Clair River/Lake St.



Clair, or within the Detroit River system.   The higher chlorinated isomers are



less soluble in water,  preferentially  adsorbed by sediments,   less degradable



by micro-organisms, and less volatile from water than lower chlorinated  isomers



(Griffin and Chian, 1980).   The samples showing  the low PCB  levels represent



ambient conditions and may signify substantial upstream sources.





PESTICIDES



DDT and its Metabolites.  DDT, although usually considered to be very resistant



to metabolic  breakdown,  does metabolize  nonetheless to  ODD and to DDE,  DDE



being the  more resistant of  the two  (Tinsley, 1979).   Levels of  DDT and of



these metabolites were summed to arrive at total DDT levels.   Total DDT ranges
                                   - 37 -

-------
from zero to 2265 ug/kg with a mean total  DDT level  of  360 ug/kg in the Detroit
study area.  As DDT is metabolized to ODD,  or more  completely to DDE,  the con-
figuration of the parent material  (p,p or o,p) is  maintained.   Overall, the p,p
configuration is  encountered in 62% and  o,p in 39% of the total DDT.    (Table
14, DDT and Metabolites).

In fish total   DDT is dominated by DDE  (DDE>DDT>DDD)$   which  is the  more com-
pletely metabolized product (DeVault, 1985).    Detroit  sediments,  however, are
dominated  by ODD overall  (DDT-12.2%, DDD-52.8%,  DDE-34.9%),  indicating less
complete  metabolism,  or a different  metabolic   pathway   than in  fish.

The highest total  DDT value occurs at DTR82-03,  near Belle Isle  (2265 ug/kg),
and is  predominantly ODD (69.3%).   Stations DTR82-19  and DTR82-38 call  atten-
tion to  themselves because  their  distributions  of DDT   and metabolites  are
predominantly DDT (>50%).  Station DTR82-38 contains the second highest concen-
tration of total DDT  in the study area.   The predominance of DDT at these two
sites seems to indicate  a more recent addition of  DDT which  has  not yet been
metabolized.   Thus, the greater proportion of DDT may  indicate a source of the
contaminant in the study area.   Alternately, conditions here  may not be favor-
able for DDT metabolism.

Other Pesticides
Gamma-chlordane  is the only  other pervasive  pesticide  in the  Detroit area.
Gamma-chlordane peaks are found in Conners Creek (145 ug/kg), in the Belle Isle
area (95 ug/kg),  and in the Ecorse River (149 ug/kg).   Relatively high levels
are evident in the  northern Trenton  Channel and the  Rouge River  (Figure 52,
Gamma Chlordane).
                                  -  38 -

-------
Beta-BHC levels are  generally low but peaks were found  in   Conners  Creek   (170
ug/kg) and above,  and below the Ecorse River (195 ug/kg)(Figure 53, Beta-BHC).
Low levels of the other pesticides appear sporadically in  the study  area (Table
15, Pesticides).

Volatile Organics.  Dichloromethane ranges from 4 ug/kg  to 91 ug/kg  and  is  pre-
sent almost  everywhere in  low concentrations.   Highest   concentrations   were
found between the  Rouge and Ecorse Rivers (Figure 54, Dichloromethane).   Tri-
chloroethene is  widely present,  and  ranges  from 3 ug/kg  to 50 ug/kg.    The
highest levels are just  above the entrance to the Trenton Channel   (Figure 55,
Trichloroethene).  Methyl  benzene,  ethyl benzene, 1,-3-dimethylbenzene  and 1,2
and 1,4-dimethylbenzene were  frequently found in the study area.   Upstream on
the Rouge River,  all four of these volatile  organic compounds  exhibit values
over an order of magnitude higher than elsewhere in the  study area,   indicating
the proximity of a source.  (Table 16, Volatile Organics).

High  background levels of  dichloromethane, trichlorornethane,  methyl benzene,
ethyl benzene and dimethyl benzenes may indicate upstream  sources of volatiles,
perhaps on the St. Clair River.   Concentrations of other  volatile contaminants
in Detroit sediments are consistently lower.   Of the thirteen volatile  organic
contaminants found  in the study area,  nine are present  near the mouth of the
Huron River where levels of most other groups of  contaminants have  been rather
low.   In general, however,  the various volatile organics were found mainly in
the  Rouge River area  and the northern  Trenton Channel.    Sources  originating
from the  steel and  chemical industry,  CSOs and sewage  treatment  plants   are
implied.
                                  -  39 -

-------
Phenols.   Phenol, p-cresol  and 2,4-dimethyl   phenol  are present in the Detroit



study area.  Phenol  ranges widely from 30 ug/kg to 9500 ug/kg.   Relatively high



values are observed  in Conners Creek in the Belle  Isle area,  in  the Rouge River



and very high values are observed in the northern  Trenton Channel.   (Figure 56,



Phenol).  P-cresol similarly has highs at Belle Isle,  at the  mouth  of the Rouge



River, and in the northern Trenton Channel.  Levels range from 20 ug/kg to 9910



ug/kg.  (Figure 57,  P-cresol).





2,4-dimethyl  phenol   is found primarily in the  northern Trenton Channel.   The



occurence of  the  enormously  high values  in  this area  (up to 25,100 ug/kg)



implicate coking and casting operations as a  probable source of these contami-



nants to the  sediments (Table 17, Phenols).





Substituted Benzenes and Substituted Cyclic Ketones



Aniline, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene,  1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-



trichlorobenzene  and  isophorone  are  present in  varying  quantities in the



Detroit  area sediments.   Their highest  levels occur in  Conners  Creek in the



Belle Isle area, in  the Rouge River and in the Trenton Channel   (Table 18, Sub-



stituted Benzenes).





Hexachl orobenzene  (HCB) is widely  present throughout the Detroit area.   Its



values range from trace levels to 106 ug/kg (Figure 58, HCB).   Highest concen-



trations are  found   in the  Trenton Channel.   HCB  concentrations  are fairly



uniform throughout the study area implying major sources upstream from Detroit,



possibly in  the Sarnia area.   Local sources from the chemical   industry would



explain the elevated levels in the Trenton Channel.   Dibenzofuran  levels range



range  from  zero to 3620 mg/kg.    Highest levels  are found in  the   Rouge River



area   (Figure 59, Dibenzofuran).
                                  - 40 -

-------
Phthalate Esters
Di-n-butyl  phthalate  and  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate  levels are  rather high
throughout most of the study area;  however,   the laboratory analytical  reports
indicate that  impurities may have been  introduced in the  course of analysis.
Blanks  contained  up to 420 ug/kg Di-n-butyl   phthalate  and up  to 540  ug/kg
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl phthalate).   The results  should  therefore be  used  with   a
degree of caution.   Di-n-butyl phthalate levels range from zero to 5690 ug/kg.
Peaks are found in  Conners Creek in the  Belle Isle area,  in downtown  Detroit
(DTR82-08) and above the Ecorse River mouth.

Bis(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate levels range from zero to 47,100 ug/kg.  Peaks are
found  in the  Rouge River,  below the  mouth of the  Ecorse River,  and in the
northern Trenton Channel.  (Figure 60, Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate).
                                    - 41 -

-------
                                REFERENCES
Armstrong, David E., Swackhamer,  Deborah  L.   PCB Accumulation  in  Southern
     Lake Michigan Sediments:   Evaluation from Core  Analysis   in  Physical
     Behavior of PCBs in the Great  Lakes, eds.  Donald  Mackay  et  al.,  Ann
     Arbor, Science, 1983.

Boehm, Paul D.,  Farrington,  John  W.   Aspects of the Polycyclic  Aromatic
     Hydrocarbon  Geochemistry of  Recent  Sediments in the  Georges  Bank
     Region,  Environmental  Science and  Technology,  Vol.  18.,   No.  11.,
     1984.

Comba, M.E. and Kaiser, K.L.E.  Volatile  Halocarbrons in the Detroit  River
     River and Their Relationship with Contaminant Sources, J. Great  Lakes
     Res., 11(3):404, 1985.

DeVault, David. USEPA-GLNPO, Personal  Communication, 2/4/85.

Eisenreich, S.J., Catel, P.O., Looney, B.P.   PCB Dynamics in Lake Superior
     Water  In Physical  Behavior of PCBs in the  Great Lakes  eds.  Donald
     Mackay et^ jil_., Ann Arbor Science, 1983.

Eldridge,  J.E., Shanmugam,  K.,  Bobalek, E.G., Simard, G.L. PAH  Emissions
     From Paving Asphalt in  Laboratory Simulation, In Polynuclear Aromatic
     Hydrocarbons: Formation Metabolism and  Measurement, eds.  Marcus  Cooke
     Anthony J. Dennis. Battelle Press, 1984

Fall on, M.E., and Horvath, R.J.  Preliminary Assessment of Contaminants in
     Soft  Sediments of the   Detroit River,   J. Great  Lakes Res.,  11(3):
     373-378, 1985.

Great Lakes Water Levels Facts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,  Detroit Dis-
     trict 1984-755-925,  1984

Griffin,  R.A. and Shimp,  N.F.  Attenuation of  Pollutants  in   Municipal
     Landfill Leachate by Clay Minerals,  EPA-600/2-78-157, August, 1978.

Griffin, R.A.,  Chian E.S.K. Attenuation  of Water Soluble  Polychlorinated
     Biphenyls by Earth Materials,  EPA-600/2-80-027, 1980.

Guidelines for the Pollutional Classification of  Great Lakes  Harbor Sedi-
     ments.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Region V  Chicago,
      Illinois, April, 1977

IJC, Great  Lakes Water  Quality Board,  1985 Report on  Great Lakes Water
     Quality, June, 1985.

Milliken,  J.O.,   Leadbetter, M.R.,   Carrol, R.J.  Indicates of  Hazard for
      Polycyclic   Organic  Matter,  in Polynuclear  Aromatic  Hydrocarbons:
      Formation, Metabolism and Measurement, ed. Marcus Cooke and Anthony J,
      Dennis,  Battelle  Press, Columbus, 1984.


                                   - 42 -

-------
                                REFERENCES (con't)
Mozola, A.J.   Geology for Land and Groundwater  Planning in  Wayne County,
     Michigan:   Report of  Investigation 3,  Michigan  Geological  Survey,
     1969.

Mudroch, Alena.   Geochemistry of the  Detroit River  Sediments,  National
     Water Research Institute Canada Center for Inland Wates,  Burlington,
     Ontario, July, 1984.

Oliver,  B.G.,  Bourbonnierre,  R.A. Chlorinated Contaminants in Surficial
     Sediments of Lakes Huron, St. Clair and Erie:   Implications Regarding
     Sources  along the  St. Clair  and  Detroit  Rivers,  National   Water
     Research Institute,  Canada Center for Inland  Waters, 1984.

Palmer, Marvin.   Methods Manual for  Bottom Sediment  Sample  Collection,
     USEPA Region V,  May, 1985.

Swain, Lindsay.   "The Potential for Great Lakes  Contamination by Ground-
     water in the United States."   1983 Annual Report Appendix II Ground-
     water Contamination.  Prepared by the Groundwater  Contamination Task
     Force of the  Science Advisory Board of the  International Joint Com-
     mission, February, 1985, Windsor, Ontario.

Thornley, S.,  Hamdy, Y.  An Assessment of the Bottom Fauna and  Sediments
     of the Detroit River,  Ontario Ministry of the Environment, February,
     1984.

Tinsley,  Ian J. Chemical C oncepts in Pollutant Behavior,  John Wiley and
     Sons, New York, 1979.

Toxic Chemical Issues and Research Priorities 1985-1986, Great Lakes Water
     Quality Program.   In the Department  Committee on  Water/Great Lakes
     Working Group/Toxic Chemicals Committee, September, 1984.

Water  Resources Data for  Michigan,  Water Year 1983  USGS WRD,  Lansing,
     Michigan, 1983.

Wisler, C.O., Stramel,  G.J., Laird, L.B.   Water Resources of the Detroit
     Area Michigan, U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 183, 1952.

Work Quality Assurance Plan.  1982 Detroit,  Michigan Area Sediment Survey
     Work/Quality  Assurance Plan,  USEPA  Great  Lakes  National  Program
     Office Chicago, Illinois, 1985.
                                 - 43 -

-------
                  Appendix A










Guidelines for the Pollutional Classification



       of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



                   Region V



              Chicago, Illinois



                 April , 1977

-------
Guidelines for the  evaluation  of  Great  Lakes  'harbor  sediments,  based on bulk



sediment analysis,  have been developed  by   Region V of the  U.S. Environmental



Protection Agency.   These  guidelines, developed under the pressure of the need



to make immediate decisions regarding the dispoal of dredged material, have not



been adequately  related to the  impact  of  the  sediments on the  lakes and are



considered  interim guidelines  until more   scientifically sound guidelines  are



devel oped.





The guidelines are based on the following facts and assumptions:



     1.  Sediments that  have been  severely  altered by  the activities of



         man are most likely to have  adverse environmental impacts.





     2.  The variability of the sampling and  analytical techniques is



         such that the  assessment of  any sample  must be based on all



         factors and not on any single  parameter with  the exception of



         mercury and polychl orinated  biphenyls  (PCRs).





     3.  Hue to the documented  bioaccumulation  of mercury and  PCBs, rigid



         limitations are used  which override all other considerations.





Sediments are classified as heavily polluted,   moderately polluted,  or  nonpol-



luted  by  evaluating each parameter  measured  against  the   scales   shown  below.



The  overall  classification of the  sample is  based  on the  most   predominant



classification of the   individual  parameters.    Additional  factors  such  as  elu-



triate  test  results,  source of contamination,   particle   size   distribution,



benthic  macroinvertebrate  populations,  color, and  odor are   also  considered.



These  factors are  interrelated in a complex manner and their  interpretation  is



necessarily somewhat  subjective.






                                        A2

-------
The following ranges,  used to classify sediments from  Great Lakes harbors  are

based on compilations of data from over 100 different harbors since 1967.

                         NONPOLLUTEn   MODERATELY POLLUTED   HEAVILY POLLUTED

Volatile Solids (%)        <5                5-8                 >8

COP (ng/kg dry weight)     <40,000           40,000-80,000       >80,000

TKN (mg/kg dry weight)     < 1,000            1,000- 2,000       > 2,000

Oil and Grease             < 1,000            1,000- 2,000       > 2,000
 (Hexane Solubles)
 (mg/kg dry weight)

Lead (mg/kg dry weight)    <40                40-60              >60

Zinc (mg/kg dry weight)    <90                90-200             >200


The following supplementary ranges used to  classify sediments from Great  Lakes

harbors have been  developed to the point where  they are usable  but are  still

subject to modification by the addition of new data.  These ranges are based on

260 samples from 34 harbors sampled during 1974 and 1975.


                         NONPOLLUTED   MODERATELY POLLUTED   HEAVILY POLLUTED
Ammonia (mg/kg dry weight)
Cyanide
Phosphorus " "
Iron " "
Nickel
Manganese " "
Arsenic
Cadmi urn " "
Chromium
Barium " "
Copper " "
<75
<0.10
<420
<17,000
<20
<300
<3
*
<25
<20
<25
75-200
0.10-0.25
420-650
17,000-25,000
20-50
300-500
3-8
*
25-75
20-60
25-50
>200
>0.25
>650
>25,000
>50
>500
>8
>6
>75
>60
>50
    *Lower limits not established
                                     A-3

-------
The  guidelines  stated   below for  mercury and   PCB's  are  based   upon  the  best



available  information  and  are  subject  to  revision   as new information becomes



avail able.





Methylation of  mercury at  levels  >_ 1  mg/kg has  been  documented   (1,2).  Methyl



mercury is directly available for  bioaccumulation in  the  food chain.





Elevated  PCB levels in   large fish have been   found  in all  of the  Great  Lakes.



The accumulation  pathways  are not well  understood.   However,  bioaccumulation



of PCPs at levels >_ 10  mg/kg in fathead  minnows  has been  documented (3).





Because of the  know bioaccumulation of   these  toxic  compounds, a  rigid limita-



tion is used.  If the guidelines values  are exceeded, the sediments are classi-



fied as  polluted and unacceptable  for  open lake disposal,  no matter  what the



other data indicate.



                                                POLLUTED



                            Mercury              _> 1  mg/kg  dry weight



                            Total  PCBs           _>_ 10 mg/kg dry weight



The pollutional classification of  sediments with total PCB concentrations  bet-



between 1.0  mg/kg and  10.0 mg/kg  dry  weight will be  determined  on  a  case-by-



case basis.





a.  Flutriate Test Results



    The elutriate test   was designed to  simulate the  dredging and  dispoal  pro-



    cess.  In the test, sediment and dredging  site water  are mixed  in the ratio



    of  1:4 by volume.  The  mixture is  shaken for 30 minutes, allowed to  settle



    for 1 hour, centrifuged,  and  filtered   through a 0.45  u filter.    The  fil-



    tered water  (elutriate  water)  is then chemically  analyzed.
                                     A-4

-------
A sample  of the dredging  site water  used  in  the   elutriate test  is filtered
through a 0.45 u filter and chemically analyzed.

A comparison of the  elutriate water with the  filtered  dredging site water for
for like constituents indicates  whether a constitutent was or was  not released
in the test.

The value of elutriate test results  are limited  for overall pollutional class-
ification because they reflect only immediate  release to the water  column under
aerobic and near neutral  pH conditions.   However, elutriate test results can be
used to  confirm releases of  toxic materials  and to influence decisions where
bulk sediment  results are marginal  between  two  classifications.   If there is
release or non-release, particularly of a more  toxic constituent, the elutriate
test results can shift the classification toward  the more  polluted  or the less
polluted range, respectively.

b.  Source of Sediment Contamination

In many cases the sources of sediment contamination  are readily apparent.  Sed-
iments reflect the inputs of paper mills, steel mills,  sewage discharges,  and
heavy industry very faithfully.   Many sediments  may have moderate  or high con-
centrations of TKN,  COD,  and volatile  solids  yet  exhibit no  evidence of man
made pollution.   This usually occurs when drainage  from  a swampy  area reaches
the channel  or harbor,  or when the project   itself is located  in a low lying
wetland area.   Pollution in these projects may be   considered natural and some
leeway nay be given in the range values  for TKN,  CODS  and volatile solids pro-
vided that toxic materials are not also  present.
                                     A-5

-------
c.  Field Observations
Experience has shown  that  field  observations  are a most reliable indicator of
sediment condition.    Important  factors  are color,  texture, odor,  presence of
detritus, and presence  of oily material.

Color.   A general  guideline  is  the  lighter the color the cleaner the sediment.
There are  exceptions to  this rule  when  natural deposits  have a darker color.
These conditions are  usually  apparent to the sediment sampler  during the sur-
vey.

Texture.   A general  rule  is the finer  the  material the more  polluted it is.
Sands and gravels  usually  have  low  concentrations  of pollutants,  while silts
usually have higher concentrations.   Silts are frequently carried from polluted
upstream areas, whereas,   sand usually comes from lateral drift along the shore
of the lake.  Once again,  this  general  rule can have exceptions and it must be
applied with care.

Odor.   This is the odor   noted  by the   sampler when the  sample is  collected.
These  odors can  vary  widely with  temperature and  observer and  must be used
carefully.  Lack of odor, a beach odor,  or a fishy odor tends to denote cleaner
samples.
netritus.  Detritus may cause higher values  for the organic parameter COD, TKN,
and volatile solids.   It  usually denotes  pollution from natural sources.  Note:
The detemination  of the "naturalness"   of  a sediment depends  upon the estab-
lishment of a natural  organic source and a  lack of man made  pollution sources
with low values for metals  and oil  and  grease.  The  presence of detritus is not
decisive in itself.
                                     A-6

-------
                                    REFERENCES
Halter, M.T., and Johnson,   H.E.,   "A Model  System to Study the Release of
     PCB from  Hydrosoils and Subsequent Accumulation by Fish,"  presented
     to American Society for  Testing and Materials,   Symposium on Aquatic
     Toxicology and  Hazard Evaluation,"   October 25-26,  1976,  Memphis,
     Tennesse.

Jensen, S., and Jernelov, A., "Biological  Methylation of Mercury in Aquatic
     Organisms," Nature, 223, August 16, 1969 pp 753-754.


Magnuson, J.J., Forbes,  A., and Hall, R., "Final  Report - An Assessment of
     the  Environmental   Effects  of  Dredged  Material  Dispoal  in  Lake
     Superior - Volume 3:  Biological  Studies,"   Marine  Studies  Center,
     University of Wisconsin, Madison, March, 1976.

-------
                                     APPENDIX B
                          Analytical  Method Documentation
Parameters
Units
 Title/Description
Non-volatil e
  organics:
  acidic &
  base
  neutral s,
  other
  organics
  hy GC/MS
mg/kg
dry
weight
Volatile
  organic
  by/purge
  & trap
  RC/MS
ug/kg
 dry
 weight
 basis
PCBs
  Pesti-
  cides
  GC/EC
mg/kg
 dry
weight
basis
"Standard Operating  Procedure for the analysis  of
  sediments for Non-volatile Organic  Compounds:
  Embayment and Nearshore Program CRL Method  No.:
  "TOX105631"  Based  on  USEPA Method 625  [Federal
  Register 1979].
  Sediments are air dried,  sieved  and  soxhlet extracted
  with 1:1 acetone/hexane for 16 hours.   Extracts  are
  screened by fiC/FID and  diluted or concentrated as
  needed.  GC/MS protocol  found  in "Standard  Operation
  Procedure GC/MS/DS Analysis of Non-Volatile Organic
  Compounds CRL Method  No.:  TOX9561, TOX9571, TOX95631,
  TOX95731".

  Compounds are quantitated  against standards when
  available or an estimated  concentration is  reported
  on the basis of the response of  the  internal  standard,
  n-10 phenanthrene.

 "Analysis of Volatile  Organic Compounds  in Fish,
  Sediment, and Water Samples Using GC/MS,  CRL Method No.
  TOX10B631, 105731, 10561,  10571" Based  on USEPA  Method
  624 [Federal  Register 1979].

  Wet samples are purged  with helium for  4 minutes and
  the organics are trapped   on a Tenax trap.   The  trap
  is desorbed onto the  GC  column for analysis.  Compounds
  are quantified using  standards when  available, or  are
  estimated against the response of the internal standard
  2-bromo-l-chloropropane.

 "Analysis of Pesticides,  Phthalates,  and Polychlorinated
  Biphenyls in Soils and  Bottom Sediments, CRL Method No.
  PES1262-84, 17119-17125"  Based on USEPA Method 608
  [Federal  Register 1979].

 Samples are air dried, sieved and soxhl et extracted
 with 1:1  acetone/hexane  for 16 hours.  Extracts are
 cleaned up by Florisil column chromatography.  Further
 separation of PCBs from  Pesticides is done with
 silica  gel  column chromatography.  The extracts are
 screened by GC/EC.  Samples are quantified and
 confirmed by GC/EC. GC/MS  analysis of the ABN extracts
 is  used for additional confirmation.
                                    B-l

-------
                                     APPENDIX B (con't)
      Parameters
 Units
 Title Description
      Ag, Al , B, Ba,
      Be, Cd, Co, Cr
      Cu, Fe, Li, Mn
      Mo, Ni, Pb, Sn
      Sr, V, Y,  Zn,
      Ca, K, Mg, Na
CN
Phenol
Ammonia as N
Sediment Sample
preparation
Total Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
as N

Chemical Oxygen
Demand

Mercury
Arsenic
Sel eni urn
Volatile Solids
% Solids
Oil & Grease
 mg/kg
 dry
 weight
 basis
 mg/kg dry
 weight basis

 mg/kg dry
 weight basis
mg/kg dry
weight basis
mg/kg dry
weight basis
  mg/ kg d ry
  weight basis

  mg/ kg dry
  weight basis

  mg/ kg dry
  weight basis
  % of
total  solids
% dry weight (g)
  wet weight (g)

 mg/kg dry
 weight
"Preparation of Sediments and Other Solids for
 ICAP  Analysis" Central  Regional  Laboratory
 (CRL) Method #MET 413.   "Standard Operative
 Procedure (SOP) for the  Determination of Total
 Metals in Water by ICAP  CRL Method #MET 111"
 Reference IJSEPA 1979a.

"SOP for Total  Cyanide,  CRL Method #MIN 71919"
 Reference IJSEPA 1979b.

"SOP:  Phenols, Total  Recoverable, CRL Method
 #MIN74818" Reference USEPA 979b.

 CRL SOP for preparation  of sediment and solids fo
 Ammonia - N, TKN, TP and COD

"SOP:  Ammonia Nitrogen,  CRL Method #MIN 7294"
 Reference USEPA 1979b.   "SOP for  Total Phos-
 phorus and Total  Kjeldaahl  Nitrogen, CRL Method
 #MIN 7315, MIN 7304," Reference USEPA 1979b.
 "SOP:   COD, CRL Method #MIN 7336" Reference USEPA
  1979b.

 "SOP:   Total  Mercury in Fish and Sediments, CRL
  Method #Min  7336"  Reference USEPA 1979b.

 "SOP for the  Determination of Arsenic and Sel eniui
  in sediments and Other Solids by Furnace AA,  CRL
  Method #MET  463, Met 4213" Reference USEPA 1979b

 "SOP for Total  Volatile Solids (%) in Sediments
  and Solids,  CRL Method #447" Gravimetric deter-
  mination at  550°C  + 50°C.

 "SOP for Total  Residue (% Solids), CRL Method
  #444" Gravimetric  determination.

  PES 10423643
                                              B-2

-------
          APPENDIX R (con't)
Data Quality Requirements and Assessments
Parameter
Total solids
Volatil e solids
COD
Total Kj el da hi N
Total P
Hg
Ammonia N
Cyanide
ICAP metal s
Acid , Rase,
Neutral
Priority
Pollutants
Pesticides
PCRs
Volatile
Priority
Pol lutants
Oil & Grease
Arsenic
* See Table 1
Sam pi e
Matrix
Sediment











Detection
Limit
1%
1%
100 mg/kg
0.05 mg/kg
0.02 mg/kg
0.1 mg/kg
0.1 mg/kg
0.1 mg/kg
*
*
*
*
650 mg/ kg
2 mg/kg

Estimated
Accuracy
10%
10%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
5%
50%
50%
50%

i 10%

Accuracy
Protocol
1 Spike
For
Every
10
Sam pi e










Estimated
Precision
10%
10%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
50%
50%
50%
To be
estab-
1 i shed
2 ug/kg

Precision
Protocol
One
Duplicate
For
Every
10
Sampl es











                   B-3

-------
Table 1.   Organic Compounds Sought in Sediments  by the GC/MS  Method and
           Maximum Detection Limits

(Actual  detection limits for  individual  samples may vary as a function of
interferences  present,  aliquot size,  degree of  pre-concentration, etc.
Actual  detection limits for some subsets of the  overall data base were up
to an order to  magnitude  less than the  maximum detection  limits listed
here.)

               BASE AND NEUTRAL NON-VOLATILE ORGANICS (GC/MS)

                                                        MAXIMUM
                                                       DETECTION
     NAME                                             LIMIT (ug/kg)

Aniline                                                    50
Bis(2-Chloropthyl) ether                                    50
1,3-Dichlorobenzene                                        60
1,4-Dichl orobenzene                                        60
1,2-Dichlorobenzene                                        60
Benzyl  Alcohol                                            150
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether                               160
Hexachl oroethane                                          140
N-nitrosodipropyl  amine                                    90
Nitrobenzene                                               70
Isophorone                                                 30
Bi s(2-Chl oroethoxy)methane                                 50
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene                                     70
Naphthalene                                                20
4-Chloroaniline                                            60
Hexachlorobutadiene                                       120
2-Methylnapthalene                                         30
Hexachl orocyclopentadiene                                 230
2-Chloronaphthalene                                        40
Acenaphthylene                                             30
Dimethyl phthal ate                                          30
2,fi-ninitrotoluene                                        160
Acenaphthene                                               40
3-Nitroanil ine                                            250
Dibenzofuran                                               40
2,4-Dinitrotoluene                                        170
Fluorene                                                   50
4-Chl orophenyl phenyl  ether                                90
Diethyl phthal ate                                           40
4-Ni troanil ine                                            570
Diphenylamine (N-Nitroso-)                                 80
l,?-Di phenylhydrazine                                      50
4-Bromophenylphenyl ether                                 160
Hexachl orobenzene                                         130
Phenanthrene                                               70
Anthracene                                                 70
Di-N-butyl phthal ate                                       260


                                  Cl

-------
                                 TARLF 1 (con't)

                   RASE AND NEHTRALNON-VOLATILE ORGAN1CS (GC/MS
                                                     MAXIMUM
                                                    DETECTION
      NAME                                         LIMIT (ug/kg)

Fluoranthene                                            150
Pyrene                                                  170
Benzyl butyl phthal ate                                   420
Benzo(a)anthracene & Chrysene                           830
B1s(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate                              270
ni-N-octylphthlate                                      370
Benzo(R«/K)fluoranthene                                1260
Benzo(A)pyrene                                         1500
Indeno[l,2,3-Cnlpyrene                                 1570
Dibenzo(A,H)anthracene                                 2030
Benzo(GHI)perylene                                     1570
                       ACIDIC NON-VOLATILE ORRANICS (GC/MS)
Phenol                                                    50
2-Hhl orophenol                                           60
2-Methyl phenol                                           70
4-Methylphenol                                           50
?-Nitrophenol                                           120
2,4-nimethylphenol                                       70
2,4-Dichlorophenol                                       70
Renzoic Acid                                            160
4-Chl oro-3-methylphenol                                  90
(2,4,5 & 2,4,6)-Trichl orophenol                         150
2,4-Dinitrophenol                                      1360
4-Nitrophenol                                           680
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol                              770
Pentachlorophenol                                       720
                                    C2

-------
                              TABLE 1 (con't)

                         VOLATILE ORGANICS (RC/MS)
  Name

Dichloromethane
1,1-nichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloromethane
1,2-Dichl oroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
1,2-Dichl oropropane
1,3-Dichloro-l-propene (Trans)
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Dibromochl oronethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,3-Dichloro-l-Propene (Cis)
Tribromomethane
1,1,2,?,-Tetrachl oroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Methyl benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
1,3-Dinethyl benzene
!,?-&!,4-nimethylbenzene
  Maximum
 Detection
Limit (ug/kg)

    0.3
    0.2
    0.1
    0.2
    0.1
    0.3
    0.2
    0.2
    0.2
    0.2
    0.1
    0.2
    0.1
    0.2
    0.3
    0.3
    0.5
    0.2
    0.2
    0.1
    0.1
    0.1
    0.1
    0.1
                                C3

-------
                             TABLE 1 (con't)

                             PESTICIDES
                                                  Maximum
                                                 Detection
 Name                                           Limit (ug/kg)

Triflan(Trifluralin)                                180
Alpha-BHC                                           330
Hexachlorobenzene                                   150
2,4-D, Isopropyl ester                              400
Gamma-BHC                                          3140
Reta-BHC                                            540
Heptachlor                                          450
Pi-butylphthal ate                                   240
Zytron                                              280
Aldrin                                              470
DCPA                                                220
Isodrin                                             410
Heptachlor epoxide                                  660
Oxychlordane                                       2860
Gamma chlordane                                     490
o,p ODE                                             250
Endosulfan-I                                       1900
p,p DDE                                             380
Dieldrin                                            150
o,p nnn                                             230
Endrin                                             1120
Chi orobenzi late                                     300
Endosulfan-II                                      2620
O,P-DDT & p,p-nnn                                   530
Kepone(chlordecone)                                 950
p,p DDT                                             400
Methoxychlor                                        330
Tetradi fon                                         2730
Mi rex                                               480
                                C4

-------
                                TABLE 1  (con't)

                                 PCBs (GC/MS)
  Name

Monochlorobiphenyls  (total)
Di chl orobi phenyl s    (total)
Trichl orobiphenyls   (total)
Tetrachl orobi phenyl s (total)
Pentachlorobiphenyl s (total)
Hexachl orobiphenyl s  (total)
Heptachl orobiphenyls (total)
  Maximum
 Detection
Limit (ug/kg)

   410
   290
   390
   520
   520
   330
   580
                                   C5

-------
Table 2.  Pesticides and PCRs Sought in Sediments by the GC/EC Method
Aroclor  124?
Aroclor  1248
Aroclor  1254
Aroclor  1260
o.p-DDE
p.p-DFE
o,p-nnn
p,p-nnn
o,p-nni
p.p-DDT
G-Chlordane
Oxychl ordane
Heptachlor epoxide
Zytron
B-RHC
G-BHC
Hexachlorobenzene
Trifluralin
Aldrin
Mi rex
Heptachlor
Methoxychlor
Endrin
DC PA
Endosulfan-I
Endosulfan-II
Dieldrin
                                   C6

-------
Table 3.  Metals Analyzed and Their Detection Limits
  Metal
Silver
Al umi num
Boron
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lithium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Tin
Strontium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Calcium
Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Mercury
jletection  Limit  (mg/kg)

            0.3
            8
            8
            0.5
            0.1
            0.2
            0.6
            0.8
            0.6
            8
            1
            0.5
            1
            1.5
            7
            4
            1
            0.5
            0.5
            4
           50
         100
           10
         100
            0.2
                                   C7

-------
STATION #    LATITUDE
     TABLE 4




LONGITUDE
DTR82-01
DTR82-03
DTR82-05A
DTR82-08
DTR82-13
DTR82-19
ROR82-07
ROR82-06
ROR82-02
DTR82-22
DTR82-23
DTR82-25
DTR82-26
DTR82-27
DTR82-52
DTR82-53
DTR82-29
DTRS2-30
DTR82-3?
DTR82-38
DTR82-56
PTR82-49
DTR82-43A
DTR82-45
DTR82-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
DTR82-57
42 21 24
42 21 22
42 21 20
42 20 04
42 18 48
42 16 41
42 17 23
42 17 45
42 16 53
42 15 39
42 15 35
42 15 21
42 14 37
42 14 31
42 14 38
42 14 00
42 14 06
42 13 38
42 12 36
42 10 25
42 03 02
42 08 53
42 07 15
42 06 51
42 03 42
42 03 39
42 02 31
42 03 02
82 56 10
82 57 13
82 58 22
83 01 08
83 04 41
83 06 30
83 10 04
83 09 12
83 07 07
83 07 02
83 07 06
83 07 16
83 08 01
83 08 13
83 09 35
83 09 45
83 08 51
83 08 49
83 08 39
83 09 53
83 12 48
83 10 25
83 10 55
83 10 53
83 11 23
83 14 48
83 12 50
83 12 48
 DETROIT 1982 FIELD OBSERVATIONS


                DEPTH

DATE     TIME   (FEET)    COLOR
DESCRIPTION
ODOR
OIL
82/10/28
82/10/28
82/10/28
82/10/28
82/10/27
82/10/27
82/10/28
82/10/28
82/10/28
82/10/27
82/10/27
82/10/27
82/10/27
82/10/27
82/10/28
82/10/28
82/10/27
82/10/27
82/10/27
82/10/27
82/10/27
82/10/27
82/10/26
82/10/26
82/10/26
82/10/28
82/10/28
82/10/28









11 15
11 00
10 30
09 45
17 30
16 40
13 40
13 50
12 35
16 45
16 30
16 10
15 14
15 05
15 55
16 10
14 56
14 45
14 20
12 35
12 05
11 59
17 04
15 52
15 00
17 49
17 29
17 20









05
17
11
09
10
16
05
17
21
14
21
05
23
08
0
0
04
03
04
01
02
02
29
04
03
02
01
02










DK GRA/BLK
GRA/BRN
BRN/BLK
GRA/BRN
BLK
BLK
-
BRN
BLK/BRN
GRA/BLK
GRA
GRA
GRA
BLK/GRA
BLK
GRA/BRN/BLK
BRN
GRA
GRA/BLK
BLK/DK GRA
BLK
BLK
BLK
BRN/GRA
GRA/BRN
GRA/BRN
OK GRA
BLK=BLACK
GRA=GRAY
BRN=BROWN
DK=DARK






ST/CL
ST/CL
SD/ST
CL
MK/CO
BUB.MK
-
SD/MK
MK
MK
ST/SD
CL
ST/CL
SD/ST
MK
SD/CL
CL/SD/GRV
CL/SD
MK
CL/SD/MK
CL/ORG OZ
ST/CL
ST/SD
SD/ST/CL
SD
CL/SD/GRV
ORG OZ/CL
CL=CLAY
SD=SAND
ST=SILT
MK=MUCK
CO=COAL
BUB=BUBLING
ORG=ORGANIC
OZ*OOZE
GRV=GRAVEL

0
E
0
C
0
-
-
-
0
E/0
E
E
0
0
0/C
E
E
N
0
E
S
E
E
E
E
E
E
E= EAR THY
0=OILY
C=CHEMICAL
S=SEPTIC
N=NONE





Y
N
Y
N
Y
-
-
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
-
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
-
N
Y=YES
N=NO







                                                                                                                    00
                                                                                                                    o

-------
TABLE 5  CONVENTIONAL POLLIfTANTS  IN DETROIT  19R2 SEDIMENTS
             (1977 USEPA SEDIMENT GUIDELINES)


TOTAL
TOTAL VOLATILE

TAT I ON f
TR82-01
1 r\ \tc. * ' A
TR82-03
TR82-05A
TR82-08
TR82-13
TR82-19
OR82-07
OR82-06
OR82-02
TR82-22
(TR82-23
TR82-25
)TR82-26
ITR82-27
1TR82-52
ITR82-53
JTR82-29
)TR82-30
1TRS2-32
)TR82-38
VTR82-56
1TR82-49
1TR82-43A
)TR82-45
1TR82-48
-UJR82-02
HHR82-01
VTR82-57
LEGEND:

HIGHEST
T=Value
W=Value
under
SOL I PS
SOLIDS
(PERCENT) ^PERCENT)
65.7
37.7
43.5
28.7
58.4
40.7
25.2
39.9
50.4
51.3
43.9
37.6
49.8
51.4
49.4
33.3
46.5
52.2
49.9
36.9
49.9
49.0
58.1
45.5
48.4
62.6
50.5
48.8
HEAVILY POLLIFTEn
MODERATELY POLLUTED
NON-POLLUTED
LEVEL IN STUDY AREA
reported is less than
reported is less than
"r code.
5.6+
11.6*
4.2
10.0*
5.6+
18.4*
23.4**
10.4*
8.1*
9.5*
10.2*
10.1*
3.6
11.2*
10.4*
10.3*
10.0*
7.4+
10.0*
12.2*
12.7*
10.6*
8.1*
10.0*
9.6*
?.d
6.4+
4.9
= *"
= +
=
= **
OIL
A
GREASE
(ng/kg)

36390*
5215*



31100*

5769*
22350*
15060*


35550*
5407*

12040*

23400*
15250*
13940*
38990**
8345*
14830*
3087*

1752+
1795+



cr teria of detect
lowest
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(mg/kg)
46000+
180000*
65000+
160000*
67000+
150000*
300000**
190000*
130000*
170000*
180000*
170000*
33000
200000*
180000*
130000*
150000*
150000*
170000*
230000*
220000*
170000*
110000*
150000*
140000*
31000
54000+
56000+



ion
TOTAL
KJELDAHL
NITROGEN
(mg/kg)
870.0
3300.0*
1000.0+
2800.00*
1200.0+
2400.0*
8600.0**
2600.0*
2800.0*
1900.0+
3100.0*
3700.0*
720.0
3400.0*
3100.0*
3300.0*
2800.0*
1900.0+
1900.0+
3200.0*
3300.0*
2000.0+
1400.0+
1500.0+
2500.0*
640.0
1300.0+
2000.0+





AMMONIA
-M
(mg/kg)
50.0
530.0*
70.0
470.0+
110.0+
190.0+
1400.0**
470.0*
60.0
300.0*
640.0*
970.0*
50.0
1000.0*
100.0+
340.0*
510.0*
310.0*
370.0*
510.0*
650.0*
260.0*
210.0*
230.0*
180.0+
60.0
100.0+
90.0+





PHOSPHORUS
-P
(mg/kg)
350.0
2100.0*
480.0+
2100.0*
540.0+
910.0*
3300.0*
2000.0*
1200.0*
2900.0*
2200.0*
2300.0*
670.0*
6400.0*
1300.0*
1400.0*
2700.0*
2600.0*
3300.0*
4700.0*
6200.0*
4800.0*
6700.0**
6200.0*
3700.0*
370.0
790.0*
720.0*






CYANIDE
(mg/kg)
0.10W+
12.00 *
0.10W+
7.90 *
7.10 *
15.00 *
33.00 **
5.80 *
3. DOT*
3.00T*
4. DOT*
3.00T*
0.10W+
19.00 *
2.00T*
0.10W+
4.00T*
4.00T*
5.10 *
12.00 *
14.00 *
3.00T*
LOOT*
5.00 *
0.10W+
0.10W+
0.10W+
0.10W+




value reported
                                                                                           en

-------
                  TABLE f)  METALS  IN DE FRUI ! iy»Z bklHMhNIb
                               (1977 USEPA GUIDELINES)

LEAD      ZINC       IRON       NICKEL   MANGANESE  CADMIUM   CHROMIUM   BARIUM    COPPER    MERCURY
j I r\ i i * " - rr
DTR82-01
TTR82-03
3TR82-05A
1TR82-08
1TR82-13
TTR82-19
WR82-07
}OR82-06
?OR82-02
1TR82-22
1TR82-23
1TR82-25
1TR82-26
TTR82-27
TTR82-52
TTR82-53
VTR82-29
VTR82-30
DTR82-32
TTR82-38
DTR82-56
TTR82-49
1TR82-43A
VTR82-45
1TR82-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
3TRR2-57
LEGEND:
HIGHEST
T= Value
67.0* 90.0+
81D.O** 1300.0*
86.0* 170.0*
600.0* 1100.0*
210.0* 230.0*
670.0* 2900.0*
590.0* 1100.0*
500. n* 1100.0*
230.0* 470.0*
340.0* 1300.0*
360.0* 1100.0*
220.0* 580.0*
46.0+ 160.0+
510.0* 1300.0*
620.0* 750.0*
380.0* 470.0*
330.0* 650.0*
280.0* 750.0*
340.0* 930.0*
570.0* 3500.0**
490.0* 1500.0*
400.0* 1000.0*
210.0* 710.0*
280.0* 970.0*
99.0* 420.0*
42.0+ 140.0+
21.0 76.0
73. 0* 190.0+
HEAVILY POLLUTED = *
MODERATELY POLLUTED = +
NON-POLLUTED =
LEVEL IN STUDY AREA =**
reported Is less than en
10000.0
26000.0*
13000.0
25000.0+
19000.0+
66000.0*
42000.0*
40000.0*
20000.0+
89000.0**
71000.0*
42000.0*
30000.0*
44000.0*
25000.0+
28000.0*
40000.0*
49000.0*
43000.0*
39000.0*
63000.0*
50000.0*
59000.0*
61000.0*
25000.0+
11000.0
29000.0*
16000.0

16.0
130.0*
27.0+
83.0*
26.0+
84.0*
200.0*
65.0*
84.0*
220.0*
130.0*
96.0*
34.0+
290.0*
35.0+
42.0+
89.0*
150.0*
150.0*
190.0*
160.0
930.0*
220.0
450.0+
450.0+
1500.0*
720.0*
790.0*
410.0+
1100.0*
830.0*
630.0*
580.0*
760.0*
820.0*
580.0*
560.0*
540.0*
630.0*
750.0*
300.0** 1100.0*
180.0*
97.0*
110.0*
67.0*
15.0
22.0+
28.0+


teria of
detection
880.0*
810.0*
850.0*
430.0+
410.0+
2800.0**
290.0



0.3
24.0*
2.0
11.0*
0.6
7.9*
96.0**
10.0*
4.2*
6.9*
6.9*
4.9
0.4
16.0*
4.4
2.2
4.9
8.4*
13.0*
19.0*
25.0*
15.0*
8.1*
13.0*
5.4
0.6
0.2T
1.0
18.0
210.0*
30.0+
150.0*
65.0+
86.0*
630.0*
270.0*
95.0*
230.0*
180.0*
130.0*
32.0+
560.0*
99.0*
56.0+
170.0*
280.0*
320.0*
440.0*
680.0**
420.0*
160.0*
240.0*
92.0*
9.8
15.0
22.0
36.0+
500.0**
64.0*
260.0*
120.0*
120.0*
370.0*
210.0*
130.0*
170.0*
140.0*
130.0*
99.0*
410.0*
170.0*
190.0*
180.0*
230.0*
240.0*
300.0*
370.0*
260.0*
160.0*
250.0*
110.0*
48.0+
110.0*
70.0*
28.0+
160.0*
42.0+
160.0*
99.0*
110.0*
720.0**
280.0*
130.0*
200.0*
180.0*
140.0*
46.0+
270.0*
99.0*
110.0*
130.0*
180.0*
220.0*
220.0*
290.0*
190.0*
120.0*
190.0*
75.0*
17.0
22.0
28.0+
                                                                                               0.3
                                                                                               1.2*
                                                                                               0.4
                                                                                               1.4*
                                                                                               0.3
                                                                                               0.8
                                                                                               2.4*
                                                                                               1.1*
                                                                                               0.7
                                                                                               0.6
                                                                                               0.8

                                                                                               0.3
                                                                                               1.0*
                                                                                               0.4
                                                                                               0.7
                                                                                               1.2*
                                                                                               1.1*
                                                                                               1.3*
                                                                                               3.6**
                                                                                               1.8*
                                                                                               3.0*
                                                                                               1.6*
                                                                                               3.4*
                                                                                               1.2*
                                                                                               0.2T
                                                                                               0.3
                                                                                               0.2T

-------
                            TABLE 7   TRACE METALS IN DETROIT 1982 SEDIMENTS (mg/kg)
STATION #
DTR82-01
DTR82-03
DTR82-05A
DTR82-08
DTR82-13
DTR82-19
ROR82-07
ROR82-06
ROR82-02
DTR82-22
OTR82-23
DTR82-25
DTR82-26
DTR82-27
DTR82-52
DTR82-53
DTR82-29
DTR82-30
DTR82-32
DTR82-38
DTR82-56
DTR82-49
DTR82-43A
DTR82-45
DTR82-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
DTR82-57
                                                   MOLYB
SILVER     BORON    BERYLIUM   COBALT   LITHIUM    DENUM     TI_N    STRONTIUM  VANADIUM
 0.3T
 2.5
 0.3T
 1.5
 0.3T
 0.3T
 4.9
 2.3
 1.8
 0.3T
 0.3T
 0.3T
 0.3T
 5.9**
 0.3T
 0.8
 i.n
 1.7
 3.0
 3.9
 5.4
 2.7
 0.3T
 0.3T
 0.3T
 0.3T
 0.3T
 0.3T
 8.0T
18.0
 9.5
27.0**
 9.2
 9.8
14.0
13.0
11.0
25.0
 8.8
11.0
12.0
15.0
13.0
 8.6
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
11.0
 8.0T
 8.0T
 8.3
12.0
0.2
O.IT
O.IT
0.1
8.9
O.IT
0.9
0.8
0.5
9.8**
O.IT
O.IT
O.IT
0.3
1.0
0.8
O.IT
O.IT
0.4
0.3
O.IT
0.1
O.IT
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.5
5.0
13.0
8.2
12.0
17.0**
9.9
12.0
10.0
10.0
16.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
14.0
9.5
12.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
11.0
9.0
11.0
7.9
4.7
9.2
7.5
13.0
27.0
16.0
22.0
21.0
16.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
22.0
25.0
28.0**
27.0
24.0
25.0
21.0
23.0
22.0
28.0**
25.0
25.0
16.0
21.0
16.0
14.0
21.0
19.0
LOT
7.7
LOT
3.9
7.3
2.1
10.0
16.0**
3.2
14.0
8.7
3.4
1.9
8.7
2.6
4.2
7.0
5.8
7.0
5.7
9.7
6.7
7.5
6.1
2.2
1.6
3.3
1.8
5.4
62.0**
5.3
27.0
31.0
46.0
29.0
37.0
12.0
14.0
23.0
15.0
6.0
41.0
14.0
16.0
19.0
16.0
29.0
45.0
55.0
32.0
13.0
21.0
8.0
4.0T
4.0T
8.1
25.0
93.0
34.0
75.0
84.0
79.0
110.0
80.0
47.0
59.0
50.0
54.0
160.0
78.0
120.0
110.0
76.0
81.0
160.0
220.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
230.0**
57.0
90.0
94.0
190.0
14.0
28.0
17.0
26.0
34.0
22.0
40.0**
31.0
23.0
22.0
23.0
25.0
22.0
28.0
36.0
33.0
26.0
26.0
23.0
32.0
30.0
27.0
22.0
23.0
17.0
12.0
22.0
20.0
                                                                                                            YTTRIUM
 5.6
10.0
 7.5
 8.9
 8.9
 7.4
10.0
10.0
 8.5
 7.7
 8.7
 9.3
10.0
 9.3
12.0**
11.0
 9.1
 9.0
 9.1
 9.9
 8.9
 8.9
 7.5
 8.0
 9.0
 6.9
 9.8
 8.8
** Highest value in study area.

T=Value reported is less than criteria of detection.

-------
             TABLE 8  MAJOR METALS  IN  DETROIT  1982 SEDIMENTS  (tng/kg)

STATION I            CALCIUM    POTASSIUM   MAGNESIUM   SODIUM    ALUMINUM

DTR82-01
DTR82-03
DTR82-05A
DTR82-08
DTR82-13
DTR82-19
ROR82-07
ROR82-06
ROR8P-02
DTR82-22
DTR82-23
DTR82-25
DTR82-26
DTR82-27
DTR82-52
DTR82-53
DTR82-29
DTR82-30
DTR82-32
DTR82-38
DTR82-56
DTR82-49
DTR82-43A
DTR82-45
DTR82-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
DTR82-57

T=Value reported is less than criterion of detection.
28000.0
62000.0
31000.0
58000.0
46000.0
46000.0
44000.0
43000.0
43000.0
43000.0
41000.0
41000.0
92000.0
50000.0
47000.0
42000.0
41000.0
44000.0
92000.0
87000.0
54000.0
59000.0
54000.0
81000.0
31000.0
86000.0
66000.0
44000.0
600.0
1500.0
0.0
1200.0
900.0
1000.0
2000.0
1500.0
1100.0
1100.0
1000.0
1100.0
1800.0
1800.0
1500.0
1400.0
1300.0
1500.0
1300.0
1600.0
1400.0
1500.0
1000.0
1000.0
900.0
700.0
700.0
1300.0
14000.0
17000.0
17000.0
14000.0
17000.0
13000.0
14000.0
14000.0
20000.0
17000.0
19000.0
17000.0
18000.0
17000.0
15000.0
14000.0
15000.0
15000.0
16000.0
17000.0
18000.0
22000.0
16000.0
19000.0
10000.0
14000.0
17000.0
9400.0
100. OT
300.0
100.0
200.0
200.0
300.0
700.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
300.0
500.0
600.0
200.0
200.0
400.0
500.0
300.0
300.0
1600.0
500.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
5000.0
12000.0
7000.0
11000.0
9400.0
7300.0
15000.0
12000.0
8500.0
8200.0
9200.0
10000.0
10000.0
12000.0
13000.0
12000.0
10000.0
9600.0
8700.0
12000.0
11000.0
10000.0
7000.0
8100.0
8100.0
4500.0
9700.0
9200.0
IRON
                                         C12

-------
               TABLE 9   DETROIT 1982  METALS SUMMARY (mg/kg)
                       MEAN
STD DEV
SUM
MINIMUM    MAXIMUM
METAL

CD
CR
HG
NI
ZN
AG
B
CU
BA
CA
K
MG
NA
FE
BE
CO
PB
LI
MN
MO
SN
SR
V
Y
* Mean values for 10 metals,  for which  USEPA 1977  Guidelines  exist,
  exceed guidelines for heavily polluted.
28
28
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
11.118*
203.207*
1.159*
105.714*
891.286*
1.496
12.543
159.143*
194.536*
53428.571
1203.571
15907.143
332.143
38392.857*
0.964
10.818
334.786*
21.750
749.286*
5.718
22.779
99.500
25.143
8.918
18.029
189.189
0.952
79.941
783.299
1.718
4.543
135.142
114.708
18470.053
419.419
2730.612
289.384
19846.334
2.387
2.750
218.247
4.248
494.705
3.801
16.050
51.624
6.468
1.285
311.3
5689.8
31.3
2960.0
24956.0
41.9
351.2
4456.0
5447.0
1496000.0
33700.0
445400.0
9300.0
1075000.0
27.0
302.9
9374.0
609.0
20980.0
160.1
637.8
2786.0
704.0
249.7
0.2
9.8
0.2
15.0
76.0
0.3
8.0
17.0
36.0
28000.0
0
9400.0
100.0
10000.0
0.1
4.7
21.0
13.0
160.0
1.0
4.0
25.0
12.0
5.6
96.0
680.0
3.6
300.0
3500.0
5.9
27.0
720.0
500.0
92000.0
2000.0
22000.0
1600.0
89000.0
9.8
17.0
810.0
28.0
2800.0
16.0
62.0
230.0
40.0
12.0
                                     C13

-------
                          TABLE 10    SUMMARY TABLE (ug/kg)
STATION #
  TOTAL
  PAH's
TOTAL
DDT & -
METABO
LITES
  TOTAL
  PCB's
DTR82-01
DTR82-03
DTR82-05A
DTR82-08
DTR82-13
DTR82-19
ROR82-07
ROR82-Ofi
ROR82-02
DTR82-22
DTR82-23
DTR82-25
DTR82-26
DTR82-27
DTR82-52
DTR82-53
DTR82-29
DTR82-30
DTR82-32
DTR82-38
DTR82-56
DTR82-49
DTR82-43A
DTR82-45
DTR82-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
DTR82-57
             MEAN=
  5150.0
 25820.0
  2350.0
 80660.0
 60700.0
 97302.0
 60800.0
 66000.0
125200.0
 70000.0
 40300.0
 35300.0
 39300.0
 33600.0
 23700.0
  8820.0
 62800.0
 20600.0
 60910.0
 55800.0
 48170.0
 44300.0
 55770.0
 41170.0
 32960.0
   620.0
  1000.0
  1150.0

 42866.0
 373.0
2265.0
 122.0
 361.0
  58.0
 116.0
 645.0
 487.0

 308.0
 242.0
 227.0
  16.0
 118.0
 597.0
  30.0
 445.0
 830.0
  54.0
 847.0
 235.0
 341.0
 142.0
 238.0
  79.5
  68.0

  35.0

 360.0
  116.0
 9133.0
  290.0
 9897.0
 1229.0
 5041.0
 1546.0
 2838.0

 5160.0
 9726.0
 5220.0
  322.0
 7486.0
 1410.0
 1177.0
 3693.0
 7963.0
11329.0
13870.0
 9173.0
10106.0
 3332.0
 6326.0
 2827.0
   22.0

  106.0

 4618.0
                                          C14

-------
STATION #
                      TABLE 11(A)
  NAPTHA
   LENE
                 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH) IN DETROIT 1982 SEDIMENTS
                                        (UG/KG)
2-METHYL
 NAPTHA-
 LENE
ACENAPH
THYLENE
ACENAPH
 THENE
FLUORENE
ANTHRA
 CENE
PHENAN-
 THRENE
DTR82-01
DTR82-03
DTR82-05A
DTR82-08
DTR82-13
DTR82-19
ROR82-07
ROR82-06
ROR82-02
DTR82-22
DTR82-23
DTR82-25
DTR82-26
DTR82-27
DTR82-52
DTR82-53
DTR82-29
DTR82-30
DTR82-32
DTR82-38
DTR82-56
DTR82-49
DTR82-43A
DTR82-45
DTR82-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
DTR82-57
  120.0
  980.0
  120.0
 1430.0
 3960.0
11040.0
 1300.0
 3300.0
 6500.0
 1100.0
  800.0
 1400.0
 1200.0
 1100.0
  400.0
  180.0
  800.0
  400.0
 7490.0
 1500.0
 5210.0
 1790.0
  550.0
  900.0
  370.0
   50.0
  100.0
   50.0
4610.0

1580.0
1190.0
2780.0
1500.0
1800.0

 700.0
 300.0
 400.0
 200.0
 600.0
 500.0
 190.0
 700.0
 200.0
3960.0
 500.0
3240.0
1840.0
 300.0
 530.0
 170.0
  40.0
 100.0
  70.0
 510.0
 140.0
1340.0
 300.0

 310.0
 200.0
 100.0
  70.0
  90.0
 150.0
  90.0

  40.0
 860.0
1570.0
3370.0
 900.0
1500.0
2200.0
 200.0
 100.0

 300.0
              130.0
              400.0
              500.0
 170.0
 110.0
  70.0
  20.0
  160.0
 2800.0
   60.0
 1020.0
 2000.0
 4420.0
 1500.0
 1900.0
 2310.0
  500.0
  200.0

  300.0

  300.0
  150.0
  400.0

 1670.0
  800.0
  260.0
  260.0
   90.0
   20.0
                                                               180.0
1260.0
2140.0
3650.0
1600.0

3940.0
1000.0
 700.0
 800.0
1300.0
                                  220.0
                                 1300.0

                                  840.0
 750.0
 680.0
 380.0
 450.0
  880.0
 6480.0
  460.0
 4610.0
 8620.0
15320.0
10200.0
 8200.0
 9800.0
 2900.0
 1600.0
 1700.0
 2800.0
 3600.0
 2000.0
  940.0
 3700.0
  800.0
 4410.0
 4200.0
 1790.0
 2710.0
 3220.0
 1650.0
 1020.0
  100.0
  200.0
  120.0
                                                                       LO
                                                                       i—t
                                                                       o

-------
                     TABLE 1KB)  POLYNUCLFAR  AROMATIC  HYDROCARBONS  (PAH)  IN  DETROIT 1982 SEDIMENTS
                                                         (ug/kg)
STATION #
PTR82-01
PTR82-03
DTR82-05A
PTR82-08
PTR8P-13
PTR82-19
ROR82-07
ROR82-06
ROR82-02
DTR82-22
OTR82-23
DTRR2-25
PTR82-26
PTR82-27
DTR82-52
DTR82-53
OTR82-29
PTR82-30
DTR82-32
PTR82-38
OTR8?-56
DTR82-49
DTR82-43A
DTR82-45
DTR82-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
PTR82-57
FLIIORAN-
 THRENE
  1240.0
  1860.0
   600.0
  4100.0
  9320.0
 13040.0
 13600.0
 13800.0
 11440.0
  7200.0
  3900.0
  3700.0
  3900.0
  4200.0
  6200.0
  2390.0
  5600.0
  1400.0

  4300.0
  1780.0
  2010.0
  5080.0
  2400.0
  2630.0
   210.0
   300.0
   230.0
 PYRENE
 1010.0
 1950.0
  500.0
 5340.0
 8530.0
 9440.0
14300.0
16200.0
 9350.0
 7000.0
 4000.0
 3600.0
 4300.0
 3800.0
 6000.0
 2000.0
 7100.0
 1500.0

 3600.0
 1760.0
 1980.0
 4550.0
 2450.0
 3030.0
  180.0
  300.0
  200.0
CHRYSENE
XRENZO(A)
ANTHRACENE
1470.0
7140.0
570.0
9210.0
8060.0
5620.0
15600.0
19300.0
14850.0
14900.0
9300.0
8500.0
8700.0
6200.0
8300.0
2620.0
12900.0
4100.0

8000.0
5300.0
6180.0
11600.0
10100.0
8510.0
BENZO
(R/K)FLUO
RANTHENE



13840.0
57900.0
9080.0


20080.0
12600.0
7000.0
7200.0
5700.0
4500.0


11100.0
3900.0
12580.0
11000.0
9270.0
8720.0
10050.0
3510.0
6100.0
RENZO
(GHI)
PERYLENE



106.10.0
2060.0
4120.0


12600.0
4200.0
3100.0

1900.0
2500.0


3900.0
1800.0
7700.0
5400.0
5560.0
5510.0
3900.0
3420.0
1800.0
                                                                                      BENZO
                                                                                       (A)
                                                                                     PYRENE
                                               INDENO
                                              (123-CD)
                                               PYRENE
                                   19230.0
                                    5950.0
                                   10720.0
                                   23670.0
                                   13900.0
                                    7400.0
                                    8000.0
                                    7100.0
                                    5200.0
                                   11900.0
                                    4800.0
                                   16800.0
                                   12200.0
                                   10360.0
                                    9040.0
                                   12120.0
                                   12970.0
                                   7010.00
7060.0
1370.0
3362.0
8150.0
3600.0
1900.0

1500.0
1900.0
3000.0
1700.0
5460.0
3800.0
3900.0
3770.0
3220.0
2400.0
1560.0
480.0
                                                                                TOTAL
                                                                                PAH's
  5150.0
 25820.0
  2350.0
 80660.0
 60700.0
 97302.0
 60800.0
 66000.0
125200.0
 70000.0
 40300.0
 35300.0
 39300.0
 33600.0
 23700.0
  8820.0
 62800.0
 20600.0
 60910.0
 55800.0
 48170.0
 44300.0
 55770.0
 41170.0
 32960.0
   620.0
  1000.0
  1150.0
ID

-------
                 TABLE 12   "HAZARDOUS"  PAH's  IN  DETROIT  1982  SEDIMENTS
                                         (ug/kg)
'STATION #
 DTR82-01
 DTR82-03
 DTRR2-05A
 DTR82-08
 DTR82-13
 DTR82-19
 ROR82-07
 ROR82-06
 ROR82-02
 DTR82-22
 DTR82-23
 DTR82-25
 DTR82-26
 DTR82-27
 DTR82-52
 DTR82-53
 PTR82-29
 DTR82-30
 DTR82-32
 DTR82-38
 DTR82-56
 DTR82-49
 DTR82-43A
 DTR82-45
 DTR82-4S
 HUR82-02
 HURR2-01
 PTR82-57
 19230.0**
  5950.0*
 10720.0*
 23670.0**
 13900.0*
  7400.0*
  8000.0*
  7100.0*
  5200.0*
 11900.0*
  4800.0*
 16800.0*
 12200.0*
 10360.0*
  9040.0*
 12120.0*
 12970.0*
  7010.0*
CHRYSENE
&BENZO(A)
ANTHRACENE
1470.0
7140.0
570.0
9210.0
8060.0
5620.0
15600.0
19300.0
14850.0
14900.0
9300.0
8500.0
8700.0
6200.0
8300.0
2620.0
12900.0
4100.0

8000.0
5300.0
6180.0
11600.0
10100.0
8510.0


480.0
INDENO
(123-CD)
PYRENE



7060.0
1370.0
3362.0


8150.0
3600.0
1900.0

1500.0
1900.0


3000.0
1700.0
5460.0
3800.0
3900.0
3770.0
3220.0
2400.0
1560.0



BENZO
(B/K)FLUO
RANTHENE



13840.0
57900.0
9080.0


20080.0
12600.0
7000.0
7200.0
5700.0
4500.0


11100.0
3900.0
12580.0
11000.0
9270.0
8720.0
10050.0
3510.0
6100.0




PHENAN-
THRENE
880.0
6480.0
460.0
4610.0
8620.0
15320.0
10200.0
8200.0
9800.0
2900.0
1600.0
1700.0
2800.0
3600.0
2000.0
940.0
3700.0
800.0
4410.0
4200.0
1790.0
2710.0
3220.0
1650.0
1020.0
100.0
200.0
120.0
 2350
13620*
 1030
53950*
81900**
44102*
25800*
27500*
76550**
47900*
27200*
25400*
25800*
21400*
10300*
 3560
42600*
15300*
39250*
39200*
30620*
30420*
40210*
30630*
24200*
  100
  200
  600
* = >1,000

** = HIGHEST
     CONCENTRATIONS
                                                                                 * = >10,000

                                                                                 ** = HIGHEST
                                                                                      CONC.
                                            C17

-------
                   TABLE 13     PCB'S IN DETROIT 1982 SEDIMENTS (ug/kg)
STATION #
DTR82-01
DTR82-03
DTR82-05A
DTR82-08
PTR82-13
DTR82-19
ROR82-07
ROR82-06
ROR82-02
DTR82-22
DTR82-23
DTR82-25
PTR82-26
DTR82-27
DTR82-52
DTR82-53
DTR82-29
DTR82-30
DTR82-32
DTR82-38
DTR82-56
DTR82-49
DTR82-43A
DTR82-45
DTR82-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
DTR82-57
PCB-1242  %    PCB-1248  %    PCB-1254  %   PCB-1260  %
                                                      7
                                                      21
                                                      39
                                                      63
                                                      50
                                                      26
                                                      30
   79.0
   75.0
  956.0   13
253.0
563.0
          7
          7
58.0
5034.0
109.0
2612.0
154.0
940.0
552.0
911.0
1150.0
6940.0
605.0
199.0
3630.0
363.0
435.0
2280.0
4950.0
6562.0
6397.0
2943.0
4082.0
871.0
2507.0
708.0
22.0
50
55
38
26
13
19
36
32
22
71
12
62
48
26
37
62
62
58
46
32
40
26
39
25
100
58.0
3482.0
119.0
3467.0
294.0
1584.0
593.0
1072.0
1620.0
987.0
1930.0
123.0
2900.0
492.0
411.0
1160.0
2450.0
2863.0
3638.0
2284.0
3076.0
994.0
2194.0
1012.0

50
38
41
35
24
31
38
38
31
10
37
38
39
35
35
31
30
25
26
25
30
29
34
36


617.0
62.0
3818.0
781.0
2517.0
401.0
855.0
2390.0
1720.0
2610.0


555.0
331.0


1904.0
3835.0
3946.0
2948.0
1467.0
1625.0
1107.0

                                                    46
                                                    18
                                                    50
                                                      39
                                                      28
                                                      17
                                                      28
                                                      43
                                                      29
                                                      44
                                                      25
                                                      39
                  62.0   58
                              44.0
           42
                                                                TOTAL
                                                                PCB's
                       116.0
                      9133.0
                       290.0
                      9897.0
                      1229.0
                      5041.0
                      1546.0
                      2838.0

                      5160.0
                      9726.0
                      5220.0
                       322.0
                      7486.0
                      1410.0
                      1177.0
                      3693.0
                      7963.0
                     11329.0*
                     13870.0*
                      9173.0
                     10106.0*
                      3332.0
                      6326.0
                      2827.0
                        22.0

                       106.0
TOTALS

AVERAGE
LEVELS
 1926
   68
             55076
              1967
388*7
 1387
33489
 1196
129338
  4618
*=Pol1uted (USEPA 1977 Guidelines)
                                           C18

-------
               TABLE 14     DDT A METABOLITES  IN DETROIT 1982 SEDIMENTS (ug/kg)
;TATION
p,p'DDT   p,p'DDD   p.p'DDE
o,p'DDT  o,p'DDD   o.p'DDE
TOTAL
DDT &
METABO-
LITES
)TR82-01
ITR82-03
>TR82-05A
[TR82-08
ITR82-13
|)TR82-19
10R82-07
!OR82-06
[OR82-02
JTR82-22
1TR82-23
[1TR82-25
JTR82-26
(VTR82-27
1TR82-52
i)TR82-53
>TR82-29
!rTR82-30
i)TR82-32
)TR82-38
DTR82-56
1TR82-49
)TR82-43A
3TR82-45
LITR82-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
DTR82-57
14.0
95.0
4.0
15.0
23.0
39.0
107.0
180.0

111.0
70.0
44.0


37.0







13.0


19.0


212.0
1255.0
26.0
177.0
30.0
37.0
205.0
63.0

49.0
73.0
62.0

60.0
158.0

166.0
324.0
8.0
268.0
66.0
157.0
63.0
94.0
35.0
27.0

19.0
43.0
262.0
89.0
67.0
5.0
9.0
37.0
23.0


25.0
28.0

24.0
47.0
28.0
61.0
202.0
21.0
57.0
46.0
94.0
34.0
122.0
16.0
18.0

10.0
9.0
52.0

18.0
18.0
37.0
63.0
38.0




42.0



18.0
431.0




6.0
46.0
309.0
3.0
32.0
13.0
77.0
158.0
110.0
8.0
7.0
16.0

50.0

65.0
173.0

11.0
9.0
37.0
32.0
22.0
17.5
49.0
292.0

52.0

182.0


66.0
86.0

34.0
263.0
2.0
153.0
131.0
7.0
80.0
114.0
53.0


5.0
                                                              4.0
                                                              3.0
                                                          3.0
                                   373.0
                                  2265.0
                                   122.0
                                   361.0
                                    58.0
                                   116.0
                                   645.0
                                   487.0

                                   308.0
                                   242.0
                                   227.0
                                    16.0
                                   118.0
                                   597.0
                                    30.0
                                   445.0
                                   830.0
                                    54.0
                                   847.0
                                   235.0
                                   341.0
                                   142.0
                                   238.0
                                    79.5
                                    68.0

                                    35.0
                                             C19

-------
                    TABLE 15    PESTICIDES IN DETROIT 1982  SEDIMENTS  (ug/kg)
STATION #   BETA BHC
ENDOSULFAN                        6AM1A-       OXY-
   -II        DCPA     DIELDRIN   CHLORDANE   CHLORDANE
                             HEPTACHLOR-  TRI-
                              EPOXIDE   FLURALIf
DTR82-01
PTR82-03
DTR82-05A
DTR82-08
DTR82-13
PTRS2-19
ROR82-07
ROR82-06
ROR82-02
DTR82-22
DTR82-23
DTR82-25
PTR82-26
DTR82-27
DTR82-52
DTR82-53
DTR82-29
DTR82-30
DTR82-32
PTR82-38
DTR82-56
DTR82-49
DTR82-43A
DTR82-45
DTR82-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
PTR82-57
29.0
170.0
15.0
74.0

20.0






39.0
195.0


83.0
160.0










6.0
6.0
1.0
7.0
12.0
10.0












14.0



10.0





                                              14.0

                                              14.0
                                   11.0
4.0
          24.0
         145.0

          17.0
                                   95.0
                                   63.0

                                   39.0
                                   21.0
                                   47.0
                                   13.0

                                  149.0

                                   64.0
                                   10.0
                                   10.0
                                   90.0
                                   45.0
                                   14.0
                                   39.0
                                   21.0
                                    6.0
                                                                    81.0
44.0
87.0
 61.0



106.0

 74.0
                                         25.0

                                         18.0


                                          9.0
                                             C20

-------
TABLE lfi(A)    VOLATILE ORGANICS  IN DETROIT  1982  SEDIMENTS  (ug/kg)



STATION #
DTR82-01
DTR82-03
DTR82-n5A
DTR82-08
DTR82-13
DTR82-19
ROR82-07
ROR82-06
ROR82-02
DTR82-22
DTR82-23
DTR82-25
DTR82-26
DTR82-27
DTR82-52
DTR82-53
DTR82-29
DTR82-30
DTR82-32
DTR82-38
DTR82-56
DTR82-49
DTR82-43A
DTR82-45
DTRS2-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
DTR82-57
1,1,2,2-
TETRA-
CHLORO-
ETHANE






10.0
16.0
14.0







27.0
20.0







13.0
21.0


TETRA-
CHLORO- METHYL
ETHENE BENZENE


3.0

214.0
107.0
5.0

2.0
4.0
6.0
2.0 4.0

6.0
3.0
4.0
6.0

42.0
4.0

13.0





2.0


CHLORO- ETHYL
BENZENE BENZENE



27.0
3.0
201.0
3.0

2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0




3.0 3.0

12.0
1.0 8.0
6.0
8.0


6.0

2.0 3.0


1.3-
DIMETHYL
BENZENE




8.0
181.0
4.0

2.0







3.0

24.0
10.0









1,2&1,4
DIMETHYL
BENZENE
51.0

17.0

9.0
170.0
15.0

8.0






4.0
5.0
18.0
29.0
21.0






3.0

                               C21

-------
                TABLE 16(B)   VOLATILE  ORRANICS IN DETROIT 1982  SEDIMENTS (ug/kg)
STATION *
DICHLORO
METHANE
TRICHLRO  CHLORO-
METHANE    FORM
           1,2-DI
          CHLORO-
          PROPANE
  TRI
CHLORO
ETHENE
BENZENE
DTR82-01
DTR82-03
DTR82-05A
DTR82-08
DTR82-13
DTR82-19
ROR82-07
ROR82-06
ROR82-02
DTR82-22
DTR82-23
DTR82-25
DTR82-26
nTR82-27
DTR82-52
DTR82-53
DTR82-29
RTR82-30
DTR82-32
DTR82-38
DTR82-56
DTR82-49
DTR82-43A
DTR82-45
DTR82-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
DTR82-57
4.0
4.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
6.0
5.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
59.0
60.0
91.0
5.0
5.0
16.0
20.0
11.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
4.0


3.0




6.0

3.0


1.0



10.0
7.0


23.0
22.0
  5.0

  5.0
  6.0
  6.0
 19.0
                                 2.0
17.0

 4.0
 6.0
                                          10.0
                                           4.0
                                          27.0
                      3.0
                               26.0
                               22.0
                               32.0
  3.0

  4.0

  5.0
 41.0
 50.0

  6.0
 29.0
 28.0
 20.0
 26.0
 27.0
 20.0
 14.0
                                                    21.0
                                                    17.0
                                                     3.0
                                                C22

-------
                   TABLE 17   PHENOLS IN DETROIT 1982 SEDIMENTS (ug/kg)
(STATION
                              PHENOL
               P-CRESOL
                 2,4-
                DIMETHYL
                PHENOL
DTR82-01
OTR82-03
DTR82-05A
DTR82-OS
DTR82-13
DTR82-19
ROR82-07
ROR82-06
ROR8P-02
DTR82-22
r>TRS2-?3
DTR82-25
DTR82-26
DTR82-27
DTR82-52
DTR82-53
DTR82-29
DTR82-30
DTR82-32
DTR82-38
DTR82-56
DTR82-49
PTR82-43A
DTR82-45
DTR82-48
HUR82-02
HUR82-01
DTR82-57
 580.0
  90.0
 480.0
 110.0
 370.0

1100.0
 470.0
  80.0
1490.0

9500.0
2460.0
 320.0
 650.0
 100.0
  30.0
1980.0

 630.0
 160.0
1390.0
1500.0
 600.0
 490.0
                                              800.0

                                              200.0

                                              190.0
                                              500.0

                                             4140.0

                                             9910.0
                                             3200.0
                                              280.0
                                              750.0
                                               90.0
                                               20.0
                                                               80.0
                 530.0

               25100.0
               20400.0
                 160.0
                 700.0
                 150.0
                                            C23

-------
                      TABLE  1R    SIIBSTirilTEn BENZENES, SUBSTITUTED CYCLIC KETONES, AND POLYCYCLIC AROMATICS
                                                IN DETROIT 1982 SEDIMENTS (ug/kg)
 STATION  #
DTR82-01
OTR82-03
DTR82-05A
RTR82-08
DTR82-13
DTRR2-19
RORR2-07
RORR?-Ofi
ROR82-02
IUR82-2?
IVTR82-23
(1TIW-25
IIIR 82-26
(1TR82-27
DTR8Z-52
DTRR2-53
DTR82-29
DTR82-30
DTR82-32
RTRR2-38
nTR82-56
HTR82-A9
HTR82-43A
DTR82-45
OTR82-4R
HI IR 82-02
HUR82-01
OTR82-57
i,3-ni 1,4-Di
CHLORO CHLORO
ANILINE BENZENE BENZENE


940.0

300.0
50.0
150.0
500.0
?00.0
130.0
100.0





70.0
100.0

80.0 350.0
200.0
470.0
160.0 190.0

70.0 110.0



1,2-01 1,2,4-TRI HEXA-
CHLORO CHLORO CHLORO-
BENZENE BENZENE BENZENE


21.0
2.0
14.0
3.0
15.0
500.0 30.0
14.0

8.0
9.0
14.0
O.OT
33.0
12.0
17.0
5.0
9.0
180.0 18.0
106.0
520.0 92.0
110.0 110.0 46.0
71.0
60.0 98.0
35.0



4-CHLORO DIBENZO ISO-
ANILINE FURAN PHORONE
50.0


290.0
1150.0
3620.0
300.0 900.0
400.0
1910.0
200.0


100.0


70.0
200.0



1000.0

160.0
200.0
70.0



DI-N-
niETHYL BUTYL
PHTHALATE PHTHALATE
2540
5690
540
5470
320
2320
2700
4900
780





4200
1350


930
1300


660
140
170
20.0 520
2000
30.0 1730
BIS
(2-EH)
PHTHALATE
490
15640
650
11280
8900
5870
33000
2100
4790
23300
16300
14300

28000
12000
4540
47100
4900
11390
25500
30220
21310
3120
5430
1580
460
1000
640
                                                                   CVJ
                                                                   O
O.OT
              T=Valne reported 1s less than criteria of  detection.

-------
                        Figure1
                Detroit Area Industry
(Reprinted by Permission from Thornley and Hamdy, 1984)
                                                   OMroit
                     t»u Siwimg Ltd.
                    amid »»«'«9«t«» Lid.
                          Dl

-------
           Figure 2
Bedrock Surface Topography
  Reprinted From Mozola, 1969
                                                   _ Rl3E

      f~££^  W^^B&WMB^J
               TOPOGRAPHY OF  THE  BEDROCK SURFACE
                    OF WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN
                                by

                           ANDREW J MOZOLA
                          Wayne Stole  Umv«rsity-l967
                               Scot. M M.I.,


                        CONTOUR INTERVAL-fS FEET
              D2

-------
                      Figure 3
             Detroit River Study Area
(Reprinted by Permission from  Thornley and Hamdy,  1984)
                         LAKE, ST. CLAIR
MICHIGAN
                                              ERIE
                                       N
                             MILES
                         D3

-------
                                      Figure 4
                                   Hydrographs
                        (Reprinted from Wisler et a I,  1952)
]  0
                      Hydrograph of Huron River at Barton for a median year.
                      Bydrograph of River Rouge at Detroit for a median year.
                                           D4

-------
FIGURE 5
                          STATUTE MILE
                   •A Vi  1     2     3     4
                 LAKE ERIE
                    DETROIT, MICHIGAN
                   Sediment Sampling Sites
                      October 26-28.1982
               Great Lakes National Program Office
                      USEPA Chicago, IL.
  D5

-------
FIGURE 6
           HURON RIVER, MICHIGAN
            Sediment Sampling Sites
              .   October 28,1982
        Great Lakes National Program Office
               USEPA Chicago, 1L.
        •Samples Analysed
    06

-------
                                       Figure 7
        Detroit Area Municipal and Combined Storm Sewer Facilities
               (Reprinted by Permission from Comba and Kaiser. 1985)
                            MIC HIG AN
                                                            CONNERS
                                                            CHEEK.
                                                                          1^
               «   /
    OUTFALL.          /
             \U
              ^4 m rre^i i •
                                                                              RWERSTP
          WYANDOTTE
 WYANDOTTE STP OUTFALL
        RIVERV1EW
GBRALTAR
                                                                                   5km
 •STP SEVWVGE TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALLS
— COMBINED SEWER OVERFUDWS
 • SEWNGE TREATMENT PLANT LOCATIONS
 A HYDRO FACNJTIES
 E3 SPOIL AREA
 «MUNICIF«M. WKTER INTAKES
                                          D7

-------
                  Fyart 8  TOTAL VOLA TILE SOLIDS IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                            Figurf S  OIL AND GREASE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                 I     I
 IISFPA!
 Gl'inri
ill«E5l
                        I   I
       ST«TIO«S|ni 03 SA|Ofl 13119 R7 Rfi R?
              »EIIF l.|F»TO-l ROIIGF R.
             I        I  «IT|
?? ?3 75 7f ?
 ROIKI R.  TO
1 53 ?9 30)3? 38 56 49|43 '? 73 n If. 77K7 51 ?9 30132 38 56 »9|43 45 48
ROLICF R. TO  I  EfORSE R. |  NORTHERN (SOUTHERN
    ECORSt ».|          |    TRENTON CHANNEL
                  Figure 10  COD IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                            Figure 11   TKN IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS

























H
r.
/
K
R

-
-
?4finoru-
-
-
-
-
»-
.
.
-

W?noo--


-

--
_
,
_
.
IWOO--
-

,-
-
-
-
_
8»f¥MW-















t















HICK
W
1977
IISFM
rapine
If)
I
	
-




IIIEM

L
_
w 3inon—























1


















*








































STATIOH5I01 03 SA|08



1
iELlF

. nETi




















*
1



































T
0
T
A
* L
1





1




























1







.






























3|19 R7 Rfi R?

1 OIT
ROtlfiF R.



































































1

•





























• *


*
























































































• K































J
F
L
n
A
H
L

• f






















I
T
9
* 0




*


























G
t
















N
H
r.
/
K
R


HIGH
Hfih
T57T
• US EPA
* r-uirt
LI NFS

* L(TU
i
>? 23 25 76 27|52 53 29 30|3? 38 66 49|43 45 48|H? HI 57| ?T
ROUGE R. TO
ECORSE R.
ECORSE ft.

NORTtCRN {SOUTtCRN HURON R.I
TRENTON CHANNEL |
86f>0-
"I
„
7010—
_
_
_
„
__
_
„

.
5*?n--

_

.
	
.
_
.
_
WO--
ft


.
.
_
.
??10—
-
I
.
—
.
"
6«0-|









































*





























































•UIOIK n\ 03 S*|OR 13j
8ELLF

-(







































»




















































































































0 R7 R6 R?
ROUGE
R

1 OITl























*


*
























• • •
•
•
•

•


	 -^ 	
*

* •


— f 	 , 	
i
?? ?3 ?5 76 77 5? 53 79 3013? 38 56 49(43 45 48 tf >
ROUHE ft. TO ECORSE R. | NORTtCRN (SOUTHERN HIRO
erMSf R. | TRENTON CHANNEL
                                                                                     D8

-------
               Figurt 12  AMMONIA IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                               Fyurt 13  PHOSPHORUS IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
I*
ES
         IS|01 03 5A[08 H Ifl R7 R$ R?
           IBEtLF I. WTR-  ROIIC.E  R.
                     0!T|
                                   ?? 23 25 26 27|52 53 29 30|32 3S  56 49|43 45 48|H2 HI 571
                                    ROIIOE R. TO    ECORSF R. |  NORTHERN ISOUTHIRNIHURON R.j
                                       ECDR5ER.)          |    TRENTON CHMIKL  |       |















5430- -
P
0
P 41M)--
H
n
R
II
s
K 2890--
r,
iwn—
_
_

1)977 1 HJf.H
Ir.nint
IllNE";

KIP
LOU
320 - *


















1







1
STUTIONSIOl 03 5A|OB 13|


I«FL
1
F r.|nrT»-|
1 ""I








*
1




1
1
1





















<














.









• *
























9 R7 R6 R2I22 23 25
KCIUCf
8
I POJKE ff.


























































*






^










»












































»


















»











































*











» ?7|5? S3 ?9 30132 38 SA 49|43 45 4
TO
fC
I CCOR1E R. |
ORSF R.) KKTWR1 jSOUTtCR
| TRENTON CHANNEL








* *

*
8 H? HI 5
N WRON R

               Figure 14  CYANIDE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                              Figure IS  LEAD IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
7T|

I\K
NESP
                                                                                          1077 JHIR
                                                                                          ciunt	
                                                                                         iLUFSILnu 21.0-
ST»T!0«S|01 03 5A|l)fl I3|I9 R7 R
       IBEUF i.|nETn-| ROnre
       I        I  orTJ
                                 R2|7? n K ?6 ?7|
                                R.  | ROIKE R. TO  i
                                   |     KOKSE e. |
                                                  53  29 30(32 3S 56 49|43 45 48
                                                 ECORSF R.   NORTICRN [SOUTHERN
                                                             TBEHTON CWKNEL
K2  HI 57
HURON R.
ST»TIOIK|01 03 5A|OB 13|19 87 R6 R2|22 23 25 2« ?7|52 53 29 30|3? 3« 56 49|43 45 48|H2 Ml  57|
       IHFLIE i.|ncT»-|  ROIIK R.   ROUGC R. TO    fcnssER.i  «*THre« (SOUTHEMImam  ». I
       I        I  OIT|          |     ECWSE R. I               TRENTON CWNNEL I        I
                                                                                    D9

-------
                  Figure 16  ZINC IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                               Figure 17  IRON IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
Usn.n..
;
761.0—
:
rRTnwr.li
IIISEMIMTOI
.



«
































ir.nltf ILOU 7f.o--' I
IL1NESI
^TATIOIKlOl 03 5A|Of nil" R7 R6 R?l
IRFIIF i.|ntTR-l Rnunr R. I
1 1 on 1
.




RO

•




•





H r
3 ?5 7ft 77
Iff R. Ttl
FrDRSE R.















'
	
S? S3 79 3(1 1
ECHRSF R.|
1

























1 •
! • r
i t ! * 1
NOftTHfRN jSnHTK»»!KiRf>N R.
TKFNTON tVWNNLL |
                                                                                            |IKFP»i W
                                                                                            (niurf I
                                                                                            ILlllESi
574on.n--
4i«no.n.:
-
?<1flnn.n.. *
Hlf.H
WTfi I '
:


1
inooo.n--* | j




































i























j
















1 1



*































































.

«





1
                                                                                                   STATIOHM"! "3 5«!OR 13119 R7 R6 R?|?Z 73 ?5 ?fi ?7I5? 53 29 30
                                                                                                          IBEUF i.|nfTp.| KOIKSE R. I  ROUGE B. to 1  ECORSE «.
                                                                                                          I        |  OIT|          |     ECORSF R.i
                                                                          32 3R 5fi 49M3 45 48
                                                                           HORTtCRN  |SOUT>CRN
                                                                             TRENTON CHUBNEL
                                                                         H2 HI 57
                                                                         HURON R.
                  Figure 18   NICKEL IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                               Figure 19   MANGANESE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
	 Hir.H
11971 |«Sfi
IIKEP/M
Riiirl
ILIIIESI
      LOW 15.0-'
                                 I   I
              IOl 03 5A OB 13|19 R7 Rft R2 ZZ 23 25 ?6 27 52 53  29 30 32  38 56 49|«3 45 48
              IRFLIF 1. ncTR.|  ROUGE  R.   ROUGf R. TO    ECORSF. R.  MttTICRN JSOUTICRN
                        OIT               ECORSE R.               TOEKIOh CHMmEL
a HI 57
HWON R.
            I1»7T| HIGH
            jlKFRftj »*Mi
             r-iiiiri
             lIUFSi
             	  TOT-
                                                                                                                                   I  !
                                                                                                                                I   I
STATlOJRIni 03 5A|OR 13119 R7 R6 R2I27 73 75 ?S 77|52 53 29 30132 3R 5S 49143 45 48
       IBFIIF I.IHFTR-I torn  R.  I ROUGE R. TP    ecoR^c «.|  «™THERH ISOUTWRN
       I        j  OIT|          |     ECORSE R. I           I    TRFNTO" CHUNBEL
                                                                                       DID

-------
Figurt 20  CADMIUM IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
Fifun 21  CHROMIUM W DETROIT SEDIMENTS
7C.K-
C
A
n
n
' 1 57.7—
III


H
G
1 f
1 «
! r-
3».1—
;
1 -"-
1 '.
I

I 11. •—
i
I
I I
b«o "

f* i
F^ I
"•*"'

























*
1


























'
ST»Tin«|m 03 5«|OR 111
1 IBELIF i.|nETR.|
1 I nni


























546. n—
C
M
R
n
H 4)?.n—
1
n
H
N
r.
1
K _
G
P7S.O--
-
-"-
*

• 144. 0--
-
HK.H
| • • ,','FP',] "nn "I
• • • minri
•||« ' • ' IINFSI
I I 1 I 1*1 1 OS ^~
1 1 1 1 • III II 1 ' ' ' 9.K--I






























































































































































































1



















1 »7 R6 R?|?2 21 75 26 27 ",2 53 29 30132 3ff 56 49143 45 48 K2 HI 57 S7AT»>K|ni 03 5*|nB 13|]« R7 R6 B2|
ROUGE R. | ROUGE B. TO ECORSF R. NORTHERN (SOUTHERN HURON R. IWIIF I.|nCTR.| ROUGE B
I ECORSF R. | TRFNTOIl CHANNEL | OITI

















































































2 23 25 26 2
ROUT* B. TO
ECORSE R




















































































•







•


*


































































*
































•


*


•



— ^ A
* ' 1
7|5? 53 21 30|32 38 56 49|43 45 48 H2 HI 57
CCORSE R. NORTHERN JSOUTNERN HURIW R.
| TRENTON CMNNEL
Figure 22  BARIUM IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
Figure 23  COPPER IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
























- 1
!

3H.O—


-



727.0-









129. 0--

577 |
5EPA
Illlt
[NFS


H1GH
WTT
36. n.
SWT10K




'-•
















n 03
BELLE










1









>A
.
1





























)8 13
1CTO-
01T
































.


































19 R7 R6 B2
ROUGE R.
•



















































1 C





.




.
1







>2 23 25 26 27
ROUGE R. TO
ECORSE R.



























)2 53 29 30
ECORSE R.






















0
P
P
E 430. 0—
R
M
fi
K
• R -










•









!2 38 56 49
NORTHERN
TRENTON






298. 0—

:
158.0--
I
ITOT HIGH
r.nint
LINE^ -•
* LOW 17. n— | |





































*




3 45 48 H2 HI 57 STITIONSIOI 03 5*
OUTtCRN HURON R. |B£LLF 1.
WHNEL |


















































•


























































«













.






38 131 ]0 R7 06 R2|22 23 25 26 2
nCTB-| BOIIRE B. 1 ROllGE R. TO
on| 1 ECOSSE R
























































•
• *
t









7 5? 53 29 30
ECORSE R.











* *
«
»
*
• * 1
P 38 56 49143 45 48 H2 HI 57
NORTHERN ( SOUTHERN HURON R.
                                                Oil

-------
    f igur* 24  MERCURY IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                    Figurt 25  Sli VER IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
.
?.»?--
i I.M--
N
f.
/
«
r.
!.«--
__
1'77 |
U«5l O.M--
__
-



<








t



SWT10»|ni (13 5*108 13
|»FUF i.lnriR-
1 1 °1T|














14 ft 7
BOI/Tf








?6
R








I?








DO








{
3 ?5 ?6
IG£ R. TO
fCORSe








n
».






•
•
52
E
























1
3 29 30
OR5E R.




3?
M



•




m
KT
TR





6
^R
NT







9!
IN




3 '
OU1
M




<



5
1C
IKE




8
II








• 1 •
H? HI 57
HIROH f.
5.W-.
4.7H—
3.6S—
"
?.M--
1.4?.-
_
"
o.in--«
(ftFL
1




1
1
!
1
• 1 •
F l.lrfTR-
1 on







•



•
1
|

KMt ..
                                                                                                                ?3 H ?* ?7|5? 53 ?9 3n|3? 30 66 49143 45 48|HZ
                                                                                                          P.  I KttltTf f. m  I  FCOftSF. ft.   NORT»CRN [SOOTtCBN HUB
                                                                                                                  tcneir». I          I    TKENTOII CHUNHEL |
     Figure 26   BORON IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                     Figure 27  BERRYLIUM IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                 0.1H--I
                                                                                                                                                     I   i
01  03 5*108 13119 117 R6 ft?
BELLE I.|HFTII-| UnilGE  "
       I 1ITI
?2 n n 2« zi
 KOIKE R. TO
    ECORSE R.
2 53 n 30
 ECORSE R.
32  JR 56 49J43 46 48
 •onTHRU ISOUTICRN
   niEHTOK CWKKEL
1C HI 5)
HI*OH R.
S1ATIOHSI01 03 5A|OB 13|19 «7 R6 «2|?2 73 75 26 27J52 53 29 30
        BELLE I.ltTR- ROUGE «.   ROUGE R.  TO  I  ECORSE «.
       I        I  0!T]          I    ECORSE R.|
                                                                                                                                     3? 38 56 49|43 45 48|H2 HI
                                                                                                                                         H»E«TO« CHANNEL |
                                                                    D12

-------
              figure 28  COBALT m DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                  figure 29  LITHIUM M DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                   !  I
                          I   l
           l  I   l
                                I  I   I  I
                                                                                                               I   I
ST«Tin»s|oi  n3 SA|O» n
        BFUF i.inrre-
                 OIT
19 R7 R6 fi7|7? 73 75 76 77
 MURE  ».   ROUGf ». TO
         I    ErO«SF R.
57 53 29 Mi37 W 56 49 43 45 48
  ECORSF R.   NORTHERN  SOUT*KN
          I    TREKTON CWNNEL
H2  HI &7
HIRON R.
STMinNMm 03 «m« n|ia n; itf sr>\?? n 25 ^^ 27152 53 29 30
       IBEIIF l.lnfTR-j ROUff  R.   ROlffiE R. TO  i  ECORSF R.
       i        j  niij          I     EtnssE R. i
                                                                                                                                                    3R 56 49143 45 48
                                                                                                                                                     TDEHTON d*NHEL
               figure 30  MOLYBDENUM IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                             6?.0—   *
                                                                                                 -   I
                                                                                              4.0-|
                                  figure 3t   TIN IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
SWTIOKSjOl 03 5AIOB 13119 R7 R6 «?!?? 23 ?5 26 77152 53 29 30132 38 56 49143 45 481 K2 HI 571
       |«Eur i.|nrTR-| MMGE  ».  I naacs s. TO  I  ECOSSF «.|  NosTHESfi  |SOUTHER«|HI«OII ».|
       I       |   OIT|          |     ECOBSF ».]          i    TBEKTON CHUKNEL  ]       |
                 STATIO»S|ni 03 5A|08 13|19 R7 »6 R?
                   KHtFt  RFLLF I.lnfTR-  ROUCF  R.
                        I        I  OIT|
                                                                                                    27 23 75 26 77
                                                                                                     ROUGE R. TO
                                                                                                         EOWSC S.
                                                                                          52 51 29 30 32 38 56 49143 45 48 H2 H]  57
                                                                                            ECORSE R.   NOKTURN | SOUTHERN HU)ON R.
                                                                                                         TPfNTOB CWUHfl
                                                                                    D13

-------
             Figurf 32  STRONTIUM IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                            Figure 33   VANADIUM IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                   I   I
                                                             I     I  I   I   I
                                                                                                            I  I
      r>l 03 5AI08 13114 «7 Rf R2|?? 23 25 2f 27
      REUF i.lnETR-l »nur,f  «. I  umicf R.  in
             I  OITJ          I     ECORSE R.
5? 53 29 30
  ECORSE R.
32  3B 5* 49143 45 48
  •MTHERN  [SOUTHERN
   TRENTOH CHkNIIEL
H2 HI 57
HWON R.
SI«Tinil5|ni  03 5A|OS )3|1» HI Rfi R21?? ?3 25 ?f 27|5? 53 29 30|32 3S 56 49|«3  45 4S|H2 HI 57
       IBELtr I.JOE111-I SOIICf  R. |  ROUff R. TO  I  ECORSE R. I   HORTHERN |SOUTI€RI(| HURON R.
       |        I   niT|          |     ECORSFK.!          I     TRENTON CHKNNEL I
             Figure 34  CALCIUM IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                       Figure 35   POTASSIUM IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                      I   I
                    I  I
2»w~«  ill)

                                                                                                                         I      I
                                                                                                                    I   I
         03 5A|ri6 13111 >7 Rfi »?!?? 23 ?5 26 27(5? S3 29 3H|32  3D 56 49|43 45 4R|H2 HI  571
     IBELLF i.|ncTR-| DOIKE «. I ROUGE R. TO  I  crnRSE R.  K«TICRN isouTHERNImnoti  R.
     I        I  017|          I    ECORSE «. I          I    TRENTON CMMNEL I        I
                                                    Mnl "3  5*IOS 13119 R7 Rfi R?|2? 23 25 ?f 77152 51 29 30132 -M 56 49143 45 48IH2 HI 57
                                                     I BEILF  i.)nem.| ROI«  R.  | sroire R. TO  |  ECOOSE R.|  KKITHERN |SOUTHERN|HUION R.
                                                     I       I  in',           i    EfOR^F «.|           |    TRENTON CHANNEL |
                                                                                   D14

-------
               fifun 36  SODIUM IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                           Figun37  ALUMINUM IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                       I  I
                                                                                               I   I
STM|IWS|ni H3 5»|OB 13|1« «7 RS R2|?? 23 25 2S 27
       IRFLIF i.|nF7R.| ROIIT.F  R.  I ROUGE H. TO
       I       |  on:          I    ECORsr B.
52 53 79 3D
  EC«1SF ».
3? 3ft 56 19143 45 4fl|H2 HI 57
  NreTHCRN  ISOUTICRN mJtON R.
    TRFMTnil CWNKtl. I
                     |ni n3 5«|ne 13|1« R7 R6 R?
                     JBEtlF l.|ntH)-| ROUGE R.
                     I        I  OIT|
32 3R 56 49143 45 46
  HORTHRH I SOUTHERN
    TDENTON CWHNEL
                         NAPHTHALENE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                      Figure 39  2 -METHYL NAPHTHALENE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
ST«T]0«S|ni r>3 5*|0« I3|!4 R; «t B2|22 23 25 26 27
        8FLLF I.|nETR.| HOIK*  R.   ROUGE R.  TO
       I        I  OITI         |    Ecnesr R.
52 53 2
-------
               Figure 4O  FLUORENE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                    Figure 41  ANTHRACENE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                       R  744(1--
                                                                                       *
                                                                                       c
                                                                                       F
                     I  I   I
                                               I  I
ST«TIO«S|ni 03 5A|0« 13|11 R7 R6 R2|72 23 75 76 77|5?  51 29 30|32 38 56 49|43 45 48
       IKFIIF i.|ocni.| ROUGE R.   ROUGC R.  TO    ECORSE ».   NORTHERN ISOUTKERN
       I        |  niT|          I     ECORSE ».|              TRENTON CWHNEL
H2  HI 571
WCOK ft.
03 5A|nB 13| 19 R7 R6 R?|?2 23 ?5 26 27|52 53 29 30|32 38 56 49|43 45 48
                      IBEUE I.IPCTR-!  ROUGE  R.
                      I        I  OJTI
                           R. ro
                         ECOBSE R.|
  ECODSES.I  MRTICRH |SOUTI€«II
              KEKTOH CWNNEL
                                                               H2 HI 571
              Figure 42  PHENANTHRENE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                    Figure 43  FLUORANTHENE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                             I  I
                                                                                                             I  I
                                                                                                             I  I
                                                                                                             I  I
                                                                                                             I  !   !
SWTIOH5ID! 03 5»|1>8 13|19 R7 RS R2|?2 21 ?5 76 27|5? 53 29 30|32 3« 56 49|43 45 48JH2 HI  57|
       IBFLIF i.|ntTR-| nonet R.   ROIIGF R. TO  I   ECORSE R.|  nmTHEKH JSOUTHERN  HUROH  a.
       I        I  OIT|          |     EfORIER. |           I    TRENTON CWNHEL
                                                                                                       !   I
                       01 03 5AI08 n|lQ R7 »6 R7
                       BELLE I.lneTR-j  ROIIGE  «.

                              I  »IT|
                     22 23 25 26 27
                      ROIKX R.  TO
                         ECOUSE R.
52 53 29 30
  ECORSE R.
32 38 56 49143 45 48
  NORTHERN |SOUTHERN

   TRENTON CHANNEL
K2 HI 57
HURON R.
                                                                                  D16

-------
         Figun44  PYRENE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
Figun 46  CHRYSENE AND BENZOtA) ANTHRACENE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                     I  I
                       I   I  I
 ni in wins nil?
IHFLLF i.|ntT».| ROIIW  R.
I        I  ""I
'1 ?S ?« 27157 53 29 3013? 1H 56 49143 «5 «8|H?  HI 57
ICE R. TO  I  ECORSE «. |  NORTHERN |SOHTHE«N| HIDON R.
 ECORSf R.|          |    TRENTON CHANNEL  |
                                                                                 STATIONS|01  01 5A
                                                                                               OB 13119 R7 R6 R2|72 23 25 ft 27
                                                                                                nrT»-| ROIIGt  R.
                                                                                                               «oua R. TO
                                                                                                                   ECOR'vE ».
                                                    32 38 Sfi 4«|43 45 48
                                                     MDTHERII | SOUTHERN
                                                       TREHTON CWNIIEL
         Figure 46  BENZCXGHIPERYLENE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
             Figure 47  BENZOIAIPYRENE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                            I   I
IBFLLF i.
        OH 13|19 R7 Rfi «?
        rcTR-| ROurr  R.
>2 23 25 ?f 27|52 51 79 30
 Rnunr R. TO
    ECORSE R.
3? 3ft B6 49143 45 48
 NORTHERN {SOUTHERN
   TRENTON CHANNEL
      IRFLLF i.lnfTR-
      I       i  oni
                                                                                                     19 R7 R6 R2I22 23 J5 If, 21
                                                                                                           «. I ROIKE R. TO
                                                                                                              I     ECORSF R.
                                                                                                           32 31! 56 49143 45 48
                                                                                                            NORTHERN {SOUTHER* HtKOH R.
                                                                                                              TRENTON CHANNEL
                                                                         D17

-------
               Figun 48  PCB 1242 IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                         Figun 43  PCB 1248 IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
i  «?;--
                                                                                                                            I  I
S7«Tin«s|ni  03 SA|ns 13
       IRFLLF i.lnere-
                        H7 Rf H7|2? 73 75 ?ft 27|5? S3  79 30J32 3ft 56 49143 45 4K|M?  H)
                            R. | RniPOf 8. TO
                               I     ECndSF 8.I
                         NORTHERN  |SOUTMERN|HORON R. |
                          TRENTON CHANNEL  |        |
                                                                                           
-------
              figun 62  GAMMA CHLORDANC IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                    Figurt 53  KTA BHC IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
r.
A i?n.n-.
                                                   I   I
                                                                                               -I  I
                                                                                                                                         I   I
                                                                                                                               I  I
STATTOKSIOl 03 SA|nR 13|19 H7 Rfi R2
       I8ELLE I. HCTR-  ROIIW R.
                 on|
22 21 25 76 77
 ROW* R. TO
    ECOUSE R.
52 51 29 30
  CCORSE R.
32 38 56 49|«3 45 48
  NORTHERN JSOUTICRN
   TRENTON CHANNEL
K2  HI 57
HL80N R.
sim n3 5A|n« 13)10 R; »
 IBEILF i.|ntTR-| noire
 I        I  0!T|
« »?|?7 21 25 ?6 ?;
 ».   ROIICE «. TO
    I     ECORSE «.
52 53 29 30
  ECOPSE R.
32  3D 56 49143 45 48
 MDTtCRN {SOUTHEliN
   TIENTOD CHAIMEL
H2  HI 57
HIKON R.
              Figure 54   DICHL OROMETHANE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                  Figure 55   TRICHL OROETHENE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                  I  I
             I   I
                     I  I
                            I   I
                                           I   I
                                                                        1  I   I
                                                                                                                                           I   I
STATlOHSfni 03 5»|OB 13|1
-------
        Figure 56   PHENOL IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                 Figure 57  PARA-CRESOL IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                                                                       \   I  I
STATIOHSIOI 03 SAIOR 13111  R7 RS R2I77 23 75 ?6 ?7|52 53 29 30
       IBELLF i.|nfT«-| ROWE  «.  I «OIIGE R. TO    ECORSC R.
               j  OITI          I     ECORSE R.
3? 38 56 49143 «5 48
 NORTHERN I SOUTHERN
   TRENTON CHANNEL
H2 HI 57
MLB ON R.
! 03 W[nn ntlQ H7 Bft P?|7? ?T ?«i ?fi 27 IS? 53 ?" 3ll
"MF l.lnfTB-i  ftnnr.F  H.  ] ROIIRE R. rn    Fcn«SF R.
        OITt           I    ECnRSe H.I
3?  38 5S 41]«3 «b
 NOBTHEPN |SOUTHERN
    TRENTOr, CWNNEL
H2  HI 57
HiPON R.
        f/pure 58  HEXACHLOROBENZENE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                 Figure 59   DIBENZOFURAN IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                                   I
 ST«T|f»IS|01  01 SA]OR 13|1<> R7 RS R?|2? 23 21 26 77|52 51 29 30|32 38 56 »9|43  45 48|H2  HI 57|
        IBELIF i.ineTO-l ROIIW  R.  I ROnrc R. TO  I  ECORSE R.  NORTHERN JSOUTHERH HURON «.|
        I        |  OITI          I     ECORSE R.|          I    TRENTON CHANNEL
                                  ST«Tin«S|ni  03 5A|0«  11111 R7 86 «2|7? 73 ?5 26 27|5Z 53 29  3(1|32 3» 56 49|43 45 49|H2 Ml 57|
                                         IRELir 1.IOETB-I ROUGE  R.  I ROIIff R. TO    ECORSE  R. I  NORTHERN (SOUTHERN HURON R. I
                                                 |  01T|               ECORSF R.            |    TRFNTON CHANNEL |        I
                                                                                   D20

-------
Figure 60  BIS 2 ETHYL -HEXYL PHTHALA TE IN DETROIT SEDIMENTS
                                          j 43 4b aniH? HI S7i
                                           iSOii'HfHNJHtfcON 8. i
                                                       D21

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(titdi rc-J lis*i-u, tun, : o>> l'>i ret in,, be /i". carr.firii'if
) fitPORT NC 2 ... — ,.
EPA-905/4-003
4. TITLE ANDSUBTTLE
1982 Detroit, Michigan Area Sediment Survey
7. AUTHOR(S)
Pranas E. Pranckevicius
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 50604
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCtSS'ON-NO
5 REPORT DATE
July 1987
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
5GL
B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
GLNPO Report No. 87-11
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Sediment 1982
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Great Lakes National Program
Office - USEPA - Region V
 17.
    Twenty-eight sediment grab samples  from  the  western bank of the Detroit River and
    three of its tributaries were chemically analyzed.   Sampling sites were chosen to
    find worst-case conditions.  High levels of  conventional pollutants and metals were
    found throughout most of the study  area.   Hydrophobic organic contaminants found in
    a wide range of concentrations  included:   Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons,
    Polychlorinated biphenyls, various  pesticides,  and  volatile organic compounds.
    Contaminant distributions suggest recent inputs from local  sources.  Highest
    contaminant levels were found in the  Rouge River, the northern Trenton Channel and
    Conners Creek in the Belle Isle Area.  The City of  Detroit  Wastewater Treatment
    Plant, combined sewer overflows, local steel  and chemical  industry and oil
    refineries are implicated as likely sources.  Several  contaminants including
    volatile organics, PCBs and hexachlorobenzene,  seem to have major upstream sources,
    perhaps in Lake St. Clair or the St.  Clair River.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
    Sediment, conventional pollutants,
    metals, organic contaminants,
    Detroit, Michigan
   DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
   Document is available through the
   National Technical Information Service
   Springfield, VA  22161
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                             b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
   Detroit River
   Rouge River
   Huron River
   Conners Creek
   Monguogon Creek
   Trenton Channel
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)

   Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
   Unclassified
                                                                        c. COSATI Field/Group
                           21
                             NO. OF PAGES

                             116
                          22. PRICE

-------