•t'•"
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA905-R96-009
July 1996
Assessment and
Remediation
of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS) Program
ASSESSMENT OF SEDIMENT IN THE
INDIANA HARBOR AREA OF
CONCERN
United States Areas of Concern
ARCS Priority Areas of Concern
-------
ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS (ARCS)
Assessment of Sediments in the
Indiana Harbor Area of Concern
February 17, 1996
Submitted to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted by:
Science Applications International Corporation
53 West Jackson Blvd.
Suite 1757
Chicago, Illinois 60604
U.S. Envifohr. .lection Agency
Region 5, Library .rL-12J)
/'> V/est Jackson Boulevard 12th F-'--.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590 '
EPA Contract No. 68-D3-0030, Work Assignment No. 11-48
SAIC Project No. 01-0833-07-3824-300
-------
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Overview of the ARCS Program 1
1.2 Overview of the Indiana Harbor Area of Concern 3
1.3 Purpose and Organization of the Report 3
2. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY 7
2.1 Collecting and Processing Sediment Samples 8
2.1.1 Sampling Vessel 8
2.1.2 Grab Samples 8
2.1.3 Core Samples 8
2.1.4 Core Documentation 8
2.2 Characterizing Sediment by Remote Sensing 8
2.2.1 Geophysical Survey Design 9
2.3 Collecting, Storing and Handling Sediment Samples for Chemical Analyses and
Bioassays 10
2.4 Quality Control and Quality Assurance 12
3. RESULTS 15
3.1 Introduction 15
3.2 Availability of Sediment Quality Guidelines 15
3.2.1 Background on EPA EqP-Based Criteria 16
3.2.2 Background on Long and MacDonald (1995) Sediment Quality
Guidelines 18
3.2.3 Background on the Province of Ontario's Sediment Quality
Guidelines 19
3.3 Analysis of Chemical-Specific Data 23
3.3.1 Explanation of Data Presentation 24
3.3.2 Analysis by Chemical Parameter 25
3.3.3 Ranking by Chemical Parameter 70
3.3.4 Analysis by Sample Location 72
4. CONCLUSIONS 79
4.1 Metals '. 79
4.2 Organic Chemicals 79
5. REFERENCES 81
APPENDIX A: ARCS SEDIMENT DATA TABLES A-l
APPENDIX B: ARCS RAW SEDIMENT DATA MAPS B-l
Page i
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
FIGURE 1.1 ARCS PROGRAM DEMONSTRATION AREAS 2
FIGURE 1.2 INDIANA HARBOR AREA OF CONCERN 4
FIGURE 3.1 INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 1 & 2 SAMPLE LOCATIONS 17
FIGURE 3.2 ARSENIC CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 26
FIGURE 3.3 CADMIUM CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 27
FIGURE 3.4 CADMIUM CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 27
FIGURE 3.5 CADMIUM CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH CORE
SAMPLES 28
FIGURE 3.6 CADMIUM CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM 2ND AND 3RD CORE SAMPLES8
FIGURE 3.7 CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 29
FIGURE 3.8 CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 30
FIGURE 3.9 CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH CORE
SAMPLES 31
FIGURE 3.10 CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM 2ND AND 3RD CORE
SAMPLES 31
FIGURE3.il COPPER CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 32
FIGURE 3.12 COPPER CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 33
FIGURE 3.13 COPPER CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH CORE
SAMPLES 34
FIGURE 3.14 COPPER CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM 2ND AND 3RD CORE SAMPLES 34
FIGURE 3.15 IRON CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 35
FIGURE 3.16 IRON CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 36
FIGURE 3.17 IRON CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH CORE
SAMPLES 36
FIGURE 3.18 IRON CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM 2ND AND 3RD CORE SAMPLES . . 37
FIGURE 3.19 LEAD CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 38
FIGURE 3.20 LEAD CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 38
FIGURE 3.21 LEAD CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH CORE
SAMPLES 39
FIGURE 3.22 LEAD CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM 2ND AND 3RD CORE SAMPLES . 40
FIGURE 3.23 MANGANESE CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 41
FIGURE 3.24 MERCURY CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 42
FIGURE 3.25 NICKEL CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 43
Page ii
-------
Table of Contents
FIGURES (Cont.)
FIGURE 3.26 NICKEL CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 43
FIGURE 3.27 NICKEL CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH CORE
SAMPLES 44
FIGURE 3.28 NICKEL CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM 2ND AND 3RD CORE SAMPLES 45
FIGURE 3.29 SILVER CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 46
FIGURE 3.30 ZINC CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 47
FIGURE 3.31 ZINC CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM SURFACE AND FIRST CORE
SAMPLES 47
FIGURE 3.32 ZINC CONCENTRATION - DOWNSTREAM 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH CORE
SAMPLES 48
FIGURE 3.33 ZINC CONCENTRATION - UPSTREAM 2ND AND 3RD CORE SAMPLES . . 49
FIGURE 3.34 ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 50
FIGURE 3.35 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED ANTRHACENE - SURFACE SAMPLES 50
FIGURE 3.36 BENZ(A)ANTRHACENE CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 51
FIGURE 3.37 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED BENZ(A)ANTRHACENE - SURFACE
SAMPLES 52
FIGURE 3.38 BENZO(A)PYRENE CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 53
FIGURE 3.39 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED BENZO(A)PYRENE - SURFACE SAMPLES3
FIGURE 3.40 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE - SURFACE
SAMPLES 54
FIGURE 3.41 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE - SURFACE
SAMPLES 55
FIGURE 3.42 CHRYSENE CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 56
FIGURE 3.43 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED CHRYSENE - SURFACE SAMPLES . . 57
FIGURE 3.44 FLOURANTHENE CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 58
FIGURE 3.45 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED FLUORANTHENE - SURFACE SAMPLES58
FIGURE 3.46 FLOURENE CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 59
FIGURE 3.47 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED FLUORENE - SURFACE SAMPLES . . 60
FIGURE 3.48 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED INDENO[1,2,3]CHRYSENE - SURFACE
SAMPLES 61
FIGURE 3.49 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES ... 62
FIGURE 3.50 NAPHTHALENE CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 63
FIGURE 3.51 PHENANTHRENE CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 64
FIGURE 3.52 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED PHENANTHRENE - SURFACE SAMPLES65
FIGURE 3.53 PYRENE CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 66
FIGURE 3.54 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED PYRENE - SURFACE SAMPLES .... 66
FIGURE 3.55 TOTAL PAH CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 67
FIGURE 3.56 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED TOTAL PAH - SURFACE SAMPLES . . 68
FIGURE 3.57 TOTAL PCB CONCENTRATION - SURFACE SAMPLES 69
FIGURE 3.58 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED TOTAL PCB - SURFACE SAMPLES . . 70
Page iii
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1 INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 2 - CROSS REFERENCE TABLE 16
TABLE 3.2 ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES 20
TABLE 3.3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RELATIVE RANKS FOR CHEMICAL
PARAMETERS IN SURVEYS 1 & 2 71
TABLE 3.4 TOTAL NUMBER OF L&M ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION SURVEY 1 72
TABLE 3.5 TOTAL NUMBER OF L&M ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE LOCATION
SURVEY 2 73
TABLE 3.6 SURVEY 1 MEAN EXCEED ANCE VALUES AND RANKS FOR METALS AND
ORGANICS 75
TABLE 3.7 SURVEY 2 MEAN SITE EXCEEDANCES AND RANKS FOR METALS .... 76
Page iv
-------
Chapter 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview of the ARCS Program
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, in Section 188(c)(3), authorized the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) to coordinate
and conduct a 5-year study and demonstration project relating to the control and removal of toxic
pollutants in the Great Lakes, with emphasis on removal of toxic pollutants from bottom sediments. Five
areas were specified in the Clean Water Act as requiring priority consideration in locating and conducting
demonstration projects: Saginaw Bay, Michigan; Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin; Grand Calumet River,
Indiana; Ashtabula River, Ohio; and Buffalo River, New York (see Figure 1.1). In response, GLNPO
undertook the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. ARCS was
an integrated program for the development and testing of assessment and remedial action alternatives for
contaminated sediments. Information from the ARCS Program activities is used to guide the development
of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for the 42 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs, as identified by the
International Joint Commission), as well as Lakewide Management Plans.
Although GLNPO is responsible for administering the ARCS Program, it is a multi-organization
endeavor. Other participants in the ARCS program include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE),
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), EPA headquarters offices, EPA Regions 2,3, and 5, Great Lakes State Agencies, numerous
universities, and public interest groups.
The Management Advisory Committee provides overall advice on ARCS Program activities. The
Management Advisory Committee is made up of representatives from the organizations noted above.
Three technical Work Groups identify and prioritize tasks to be accomplished in their areas of expertise.
These are the Toxicity/Chemistry, Risk Assessment/Modeling, and the Engineering/Technology Work
Groups. The Communication/Liaison Work Group oversees technology transfer, public information, and
public participation activities. The Activities Integration Committee coordinates the technical aspects of
the work groups' activities.
The overall objectives of the ARCS Program are:
• To assess the nature and extent of bottom sediment contamination at selected Great Lakes
Areas of Concern;
• To evaluate and demonstrate remedial options, including removal, immobilization and
advanced treatment technologies, as well as the "no action" alternatives; and
• To provide guidance on the assessment of contaminated sediment problems and the
selection and implementation of necessary remedial actions in the Areas of Concern and
other locations in the Great Lakes.
The primary aim of the ARCS Program is to develop guidelines that can be used at sites
throughout the Great Lakes. Another goal of the ARCS Program is to develop and demonstrate sediment
remediation procedures that are scientifically sound, and technologically and economically practical. The
intent is to provide the environmental manager with methods for making cost-effective, environmentally
sound decisions. As a result, application of existing techniques is stressed over basic research into new
ones.
Page 1
-------
era
en
to
Figure 1.1 ARCS Program Demonstration Areas
Saginaw River, Ml
Sheboygan Harbor, Wl
Buffalo River, NY
Ashtabula River, OH
VI
vi
n>
VI
VI
n
&
I
en
5'
cr
o
O
n
Indiana Harbor, IN
-------
Chapter 1
It is important to stress that the ARCS Program is not a cleanup program, and will not solve the
contaminated sediment problems at the five priority consideration areas. The Program will, however,
provide valuable experience, methods, and guidance that could be used by other programs to actually
solve the identified problems.
There are several important aspects of the management of contaminated sediments that will not
be fully addressed by the ARCS Program. Regulatory requirements and socioeconomic factors in
decision-making are two such aspects that will be critical in the choice of a remedial alternative (or
whether to remediate at all). While not addressing such issues in depth, the ARCS Program will identify
issues that need to be resolved before sediment cleanups can go forward.
1.2 Overview of the Indiana Harbor Area of Concern
This report will focus on the Indiana Harbor Area of Concern (see Figure 1.2). From the early
1900s through the 1960s, Indiana Harbor and its upstream feeders, the Indiana Harbor canal and the
Grand Calumet River, were at the center of one the most heavily industrialized corridors in the country.
This industrial activity peaked from World War II until the early 1970s when the 13 miles of river and
canal supported three major steel mills, three major publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), several
chemical manufacturing facilities, a lead processing facility, oil refineries, metal finishers, and numerous
other industries. During this time most of these facilities discharged wastewater of varying treatment
levels directly and indirectly to the river and canal. Since discharge permits were first issued in the early
1970s, water quality has improved somewhat. However, numerous violations of discharge permits still
occur for a number of dischargers, indicating that pollution of the harbor area is an ongoing problem.
Sediment quality throughout the reach is generally quite poor. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, which is responsible for maintainence of the federal navigation channel in the harbor and
canal, has not been able to perform maintainence dredging in the area since 1972 due to the contaminated
nature of the sediments. The toxic nature of the sediments makes them unfit for open water disposal in
Lake Michigan and the selection of a suitable location for upland disposal has sparked public concern
over the safety of such a site.
Due to the varied nature of the dischargers within the harbor area, a wide variety of contaminants
are found within the sediments. Contaminants found at elevated levels include heavy metals,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), oil and grease, and biological and
chemical oxygen demand. The water table in the area is known to be covered with a layer of oil that is
several feet thick in some areas.
1.3 Purpose and Organization of the Report
The purpose of this report is to summarize and analyze two ARCS sediment sampling surveys.
Survey 1 was performed in August 1989 and consisted of grab samples taken at seven Master Stations,
and Survey 2, sampled in November 1990, consisted of core samples taken at 37 locations.
Chapter 2 provides a complete description of the sampling and analytical methods used in the
collection and analysis of sediment samples from Indiana Harbor and draws heavily from documents
produced by the ARCS Toxicity/Chemistry Workgroup.
Page 3
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
oc
oc
H
U
o
«8
m
Figure 1.2
Indiana Harbor AOC
•o
m
M
I
Lake Michigan
\
N
Columbus Dr.
Page 4
-------
Chapter 1
Chapter 3 contains a summary and analysis of the data from the two sampling surveys. The data
are analyzed both by chemical and by location and includes a complete description of the guidelines and
criteria used for the analysis.
Chapter 4 presents the general conclusions which can be drawn from the results of the analysis.
Page 5
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Page 6
-------
Chapter 2
2. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
This chapter summarizes the methodologies used to sample and analyze the sediments in the
Indiana Harbor area of concern (AOC). The methodology is discussed only to allow for an understanding
of the nature of the samples used to generate the data presented in this report. The majority of the
material in this chapter was taken from the report entitled ARCS Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group Sediment
Assessment Guidance Document (Filkins, et.al. 1993). The methodologies have been edited from this
reference for the purposes of presenting only the highlights of the sampling methodology. More detailed
information can be found in the original report.
Assessment of sediment quality must begin by locating deposits of polluted sediments and by
collecting representative samples of them. The overall quality of the assessment depends on this, since
investigations based on non-representative samples should not be used to support any decision-making
processes.
In general, contaminants tend to be associated more with silty sediments of high organic content
than with clay or sand. Silts originate in part from suspended organic particles that absorb various
contaminants from the water column. Once they settle and are buried over time by newer sediments, the
original link with pollutant sources and water quality in general may be broken.
Waters and sediments of each harbor in the Great Lakes possess a unique mosaic of chemical and
physical characteristics that reflects the sum of all its historic, anthropogenic alterations. These mosaics
of chemical and physical characteristics are sufficiently complex that conducting even a general inventory
is very difficult. Complete accounts of historic waste compositions, treatment and disposal practices are
seldom available. Changing industrial locations can sometimes be mapped, but provide little information
on waste disposal practices. Almost no prior surveys of contaminated sediments include the third
dimension of depth, since collecting long cores has been difficult until recently. Consequently, studies
of contaminated sediments usually involve a limited number of chemical and toxicological assays
performed on surficial samples. These conventional assays are usually expensive, time-consuming and
require relatively large volumes of material.
In most urban-industrial harbors, like those studied in the ARCS Program, contaminant
distribution in sediments may be highly variable and "patchy". In shipping channels or wherever
navigational dredging occurs regularly, deposits of polluted sediments are likely to be thin. However,
where dredging was once practiced and then ceased years ago, thick layers of contaminated material may
accumulate. Sediment quality in these depositional areas can reflect a complex history of pollution events
occurring over a span of decades. Consequently, it is unrealistic to think that a few grab samples of
surficial sediment will accurately represent sediment quality. Too often, however, this approach to
sampling has formed the only basis for sediment quality assessment. Significant laboratory resources
have been spent analyzing sediment samples that may not adequately characterize the system.
The ARCS Program addressed this dilemma by conducting two suites of assays: a set of quick,
less expensive assays ("indicator assays") at a large number of reconnaissance stations, and conventional
chemical and toxicological assays, performed at a limited number of "Master" stations throughout the
study area. Multivariate equations relating the indicator values to the conventional assays were then
generated and used to predict endpoints for the conventional assays at the many stations at which only
the indicator assays were conducted. The following sections provide details of the field, laboratory, and
statistical procedures employed.
Page 7
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
2.1 Collecting and Processing Sediment Samples
2.1.1 Sampling Vessel
The sampling vessel, the Research Vessel Mudpuppy, capable of operating in shallow waters of
less than three feet (1m), was needed for the ARCS work. It had a climate controlled cabin for electronic
equipment and was capable of lifting a ton (900 kg) of weight and 20 foot (6 m) sediment cores onto the
deck. Electronic instruments used in the vessel operations included: a marine radio, a fathometer, a
Global Positioning System (GPS), computers for data logging and ship's navigation, and a Loran-C
receiver serving as a backup for the ship's positioning system.
2.1.2 Grab Samples
Grab samples of surficial sediments were collected by steel Ponar or Van Veen grab samplers at
each master station and at a few reconnaissance stations where coring was not possible. Benthos samples
were collected prior to grab sampling for contaminants and bioassay analysis, to minimize disturbance
of the organisms. Five replicate samples were collected at each of the master stations. For more details
see EPA (1994).
2.1.3 Core Samples
Sediment cores were collected at each of the reconnaissance stations and at most of the master
stations. The coring unit used in Indiana Harbor was a model P-4 Vibrocorer, manufactured by
Rossfelder Corporation (La Jolla, California). This unit proved powerful enough to collect cores over 16
feet (5 meters) in length, even when they included several feet of clay. However, it should be noted that
few cores longer than 16 feet were collected even when the 20 foot core tube fully penetrated the bottom.
One obvious reason was that the cross-sectional area inside the core nose was about 10 percent less than
that of the core tube inner diameter, reducing the collected sediment volume by that much. Another
reason may be that friction inside the core tube can exceed the bearing strength of soft sediments,
resulting in a plugged core tube that continues to penetrate without collecting more sediment. In addition,
gaseous sediments may compress slightly when cored.
During the ARCS Program, each core was described and subsampled on board the sampling
vessel. In subsequent, post-ARCS sediment surveys, cores were cut into 3 foot (1 meter) sections and
transported to a shore-based facility where they were examined, described, and subsampled. This required
a slightly larger field crew, but increased the number of cores that could be collected in a day and also
facilitated in-field analyses of selected subsamples.
2.1.4 Core Documentation
Proper identification of individual cores and their subsamples was especially important in this
project because of both the number of samples collected and the number of laboratories receiving splits
of those samples. The visual characteristics of each sediment core total length, position of layers within
the core, and color, texture, and composition of the material were recorded. Ancillary information
collected in the field included percent fullness of the Ponar sampler and water chemistry information
(dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, and reduction potential) measured with a Hydrolab sonde
positioned 3 feet (1 meter) above the bottom.
2.2 Characterizing Sediment by Remote Sensing
In larger areas, remote sensing or profiling as a supplement to coring provides a means to
interpolate sediment quality between infrequent sampling points. Remote sensing ensured that the
Page 8
-------
Chapter 2
locations of all principal sediment types were directly sampled for chemical analysis. Remote sensing
also measured whether sediment chemical contamination was associated primarily or entirely with selected
sediment deposits which have been geophysically mapped, or distributed in a fashion apparently
independent of the mapped deposits. Seismic subbottom profiling and electrical resistivity are two
geophysical profiling techniques used for remote sensing sediment characterization. Seismic subbottom
profiling of sediments utilizes the reflection of sound waves from different subsurface sediment layers.
These layers, exhibiting interfaces of different elasticity of density, are distinguished as distinct layers
within the profile trace. Fine-grained sediments, such as clay, demonstrate high porosity, and are, if
uncompacted, poor acoustical reflectors. Coarse-grained sediments, such as sand, exhibit lower porosity
and tend to be good reflectors (Guigne' et al. 1991).
Electrical resistivity or conductivity profiling is the most common geophysical approach to
pollution-related land studies. Despite a wide range of instrumentation and procedures, all of these
techniques attempt to measure lateral and vertical variations in electrical resistivity or its reciprocal,
electrical conductivity. With the exception of clay-rich material, the electrical resistivity of sediments
is determined primarily by porosity, and pore fluid chemistry. For clay-rich sediments, the clay
mineralogy is also a significant factor. While it is generally not possible to separate the effects of
porosity, pore fluid chemistry, or mineralogy on resistivity measurements, the method is regularly used
in land studies for the detection and mapping of clay units or inorganically contaminated groundwater.
Thus, electrical resistivity surveys provide a reasonable supplement to the acoustic measurements.
Comparison of the electrical properties with actual cores would then provide a basis for associating the
electrical properties with sediment types.
In theory, the interpretation of the seismic trace is accomplished by "ground truthing" using
sediment cores collected at selected points along the ship's track followed during the seismic survey. The
visual description of core stratigraphy is compared to the seismic profile record for that position. A
comparison of the core profile to the seismic record allows interpretation of seismic reflectors (layers)
as sediment types, such as gravel, sand, silt and clay. The characterization of sediment stratigraphy
between cores is mapped using the interpreted seismic profiles, providing a complete picture of sediment
distribution in the study area.
2.2.1 Geophysical Survey Design
In portions of the study areas which were less than 100 meters wide, three equally spaced lines
parallel to the shoreline were surveyed. In wider portions of the study areas, three parallel lines were
utilized with an additional series of diagonal lines forming a diamond pattern overlying the parallel lines.
In all cases, the intervals between survey lines were approximately one third of the channel width or finer
resolution. This survey geometry was efficient while it provided adequate coverage and an acceptable
number of tie-points (line intersections). The tie-points serve to evaluate the how reproducible of seismic
measurements taken at the "same point". The reproducibility of these measurements is a function of the
reproducibility of the acoustical profiler and the ship's positioning system. In a quality assurance sense,
the number of tie-points used depends on the requirements established in the Quality Assurance Project
Plan. It ensured the geophysical profiling of all sediment areas with linear dimensions equal to one
quarter of the channel width.
The accuracy of sediment strata thickness and depth measured from the seismic record was limited
by the extent to which subsurface velocities were known. Marker beds seen within the "ground truthing"
cores were compared to the seismic record for depth correction. When using cores for "ground truthing"
seismic records consideration must be given to core compaction which may occur during sample
collection. Compaction can be variable throughout the core with greater compaction occurring in the
Page 9
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
upper core containing less consolidated sediment. The sediment character, corrected depth and thickness
of the strata were then mapped between core sites using seismic records.
2.3 Collecting, Storing and Handling Sediment Samples for Chemical Analyses and Bioassays
About 10 liters (L) of bulk sediment grab samples or 4 L of bulk core samples were collected
from 10 stations in Indiana Harbor, IN in August 1989. All chemical analyses of sediment samples were
provided by Battelle Laboratory in Sequim, Washington. The chemical samples were collected by
personnel of the Large Lakes Research Station (LLRS) in Grosse Isle, Michigan. For analyses, the
samples were divided as follows:
1. 50 grams (g) for metals, percentage solids, and total organic carbon (TOC);
2. 250 g for PAHs;
3. 50 g for tributyltin;
4. 20 g for acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and 20 g for methylmercury; and
5. 100 g for Ames and Mutatox assays.
The percentage solids in each sediment sample was estimated by freeze drying the sample and
then comparing wet and dry weights. Freeze drying provided a fine, powdery sample that could be more
uniformly homogenized. The TOC in samples was determined with a Leco Model WR-12 carbon
determinator. Samples were pre-treated with concentrated hydrochloric acid to remove inorganic carbon.
Then the samples were burned at 800 °C in an oxygen atmosphere connected to a boat inlet that
transferred the evolved carbon dioxide (CO^ directly into an organic carbon analyzer. Particle size was
determined with a Gilson Model WV-2 wet sieve, using U.S. Standard #18 (1 mm), 60 (250 urn), 230
(63 um) and 400 (38 urn) sieves. Acid volatile sulfides (AVS) were determined according to the method
of Cutter and Oattes (1987).
The sediment samples were analyzed for total metals concentrations using USEPA Method 200.4
(USEPA 1990). These techniques are not intended to measure the biologically significant portion of
metals. The samples were completely dissolved by digestion with nitric, perchloric and hydrofluoric
acids in TeflonR pressure vessels and then analyzed by use of cold vapor atomic absorption, or graphite
furnace atomic absorption. For crustal elements that are difficult to dissolve with strong acids, a portion
of the freeze-dried samples was ball-milled to about 120 mesh, pelletized, and analyzed with x-ray
fluorescence (Nielson and Sanders 1983).
In methylmercury analyses, the homogenized samples were digested in 10 milliliter (mL) of a 25
percent solution of potassium hydroxide in methanol at 60 °C for 2 to 4 hours. Samples were allowed
to cool for 24 hours and an additional 10 mL of methanol was added and mixed well by shaking. Before
analysis undissolved solids were allowed to completely settle. The samples were analyzed with a cold
vapor atomic fluorescence technique (Bloom 1989). The technique is based on the emission of 254 run
radiation by exiting mercury atoms in an inert gas stream. An ethylating agent, sodium tetraethylborate,
was added to the sample digestate to form a volatile methylethylmercury derivative. The derivative was
then purged onto graphite carbon traps for pre-concentration and removal of interferences. Then the
samples were subjected to cryogenic chromatography and pyrolytic degradation to elemental mercury,
which was quantified with a cold vapor atomic fluorescence detector.
During analyses for organotins, samples were extracted with 0.2 percent tropolone in methylene
chloride, then filtered through glass wool. The filtrates were derivitized with 1 mL hexyl magnesium
bromide, a Grignard's reagent, and cleaned-up with a Florisil column. Organotin concentrations were
measured with a Hewlett Packard Model 5890 gas chromatograph equipped with a flame photometric
detector.
Page 10
-------
Chapter 2
Three groups of organic chemicals were measured for each sediment sample: PAHs, PCBs and
chlorinated pesticides, and PCDDs and PCDFs. The analytical procedure for each chemical group
included solvent extraction, extract purification with column chromatography, and chemical quantification
with capillary column gas chromatography. In the analyses for pesticides and PCBs, aldrin, beta-BHC,
garnma-chlordane, 4,4'-ODD, endrin, endrin aldehyde, endrin ketone, heptachlor epoxide, Aroclor 1242
and 1254 were detected in some samples, but either a less than 25 percent difference between the two
gas chromatography columns for detected concentrations was observed, or the analyses were conducted
at secondary sample dilution factors.
PAHs in sediment samples were extracted according to the USEPA Method 3550 (USEPA 1986).
Before extraction, three isotopically labelled surrogate PAH compounds (DIO-fluorene, DIO-anthracene,
DIO-pyrene) were added to the samples. Then the samples were extracted with methylene chloride in
a Soxhlet extractor. Potential interferences by pigments, lipids and other macromolecules were removed
by the use of the USEPA gel permeation chromatography (GPC) Method 3540 (USEPA 1986). Then
the extracts were exchanged into hexane and analyzed with the USEPA Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS) Method 8270 (USEPA 1986).
Aroclors quantified were 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254 and 1260. Aroclors were
extracted from the sediment samples according to the USEPA Method 3550 (USEPA 1986). The GC
surrogate compound dibutyl chlorendate (DEC) was added to the samples, and the samples were
subsequently extracted with methylene chloride using sonication. Potential interferences by oily-type
materials from highly contaminated sediments, lipids, and other macromolecules were eliminated by use
of GPC or alumina column chromatography (USEPA 1986, Methods 3540 and 3610). Aroclors were
quantified by USEPA Method 8080 (USEPA 1986) using a DB-5 fused silica capillary column (0.25 mm
diameter x 30 m) and a Hewlett-Packard 5890 gas chromatography equipped with an electron capture
detector (GC/ECD) and a computer for data acquisition. A dual column analysis was always performed
simultaneously and the results from both columns were accepted if they showed no more than a 50
percent variation.
The USEPA isotope dilution Method 8290 (USEPA 1986) was used to extract and clean-up the
sediment samples for analysis of PCDDs and PCDFs. Isotopically labelled PCDDs and PCDFs were
added to the samples before extraction. The samples were extracted with benzene in a Soxhlet extractor
for 18 hours. Then a three step column chromatography procedure with acidified silica gel, alumina, and
AX-21 activated carbon on silica gel was used to enrich the samples and remove interferences.
Isotopically labelled 2,3,7,8-TCDD was added to the samples before the enrichment to determine the
efficiency of the method. Two internal standards were added to the samples after sample enrichment to
determine percent recoveries. The PCDDs and PCDFs were quantified with capillary columns gas
chromatography of groups of ion masses described in the USEPA Method 8290 (USEPA 1986).
Pore water samples were prepared by Battelle's Marine Sciences Laboratory in Sequim,
Washington from about 40 L of sediment samples. Aliquots of the 40 L samples were extracted in acid-
cleaned 500 mL Teflon jars by centrifugation in a modified clothing extractor at 2,000 RPM for 15
minutes. The pore water was decanted into clean 150 mL glass centrifuge tubes and then centrifuged
again at 2000 RPM for one hour. The pore water was then pipetted without filtration into 500 mL acid-
cleaned Teflon bottles, acidified to pH 2 with nitric acid (HNO3), and stored at room temperature for
metal analyses.
Immediately after preparation, water quality characteristics of the dilution water and 100 percent
elutriate samples were determined (APHA et al., 1975). Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) was measured with
a YSI Model 54-A oxygen meter. Conductivity (umhos/cm, corrected to 25 °C) was measured with a
YSI Model 33 S-C-T conductivity meter. The pH and alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) was determined by
Page 11
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
burette titration. Ammonia (mg/L) was measured with an Orion 940E ionalyzer and a 95-12 ammonia
electrode. Turbidity (NTU) was measured with a Cole-Palmer Model 8391-35 turbidity meter.
Unionized ammonia was determined by converting the total ammonia measured in the samples to
unionized ammonia, and then correcting for pH and temperature (Thurston et al. 1974). After
preparation of the dilution water and 100 percent elutriates, samples for chloride (mg/L) were placed in
250 mL I-CHEM bottles, labeled, and stored at 4 _+ 3°C until analysis with an Orion 940E ionalyzer and
a 94-17B electrode. The pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity were measured at the beginning and
end of each daphnid test in the 100 and 25 percent treatments, and in the dilution water control. About
500 mL of each 100 percent elutriate sample were placed in Teflon bottles, acidified to pH 2 with
redistilled hydrochloric acid, and shipped via overnight courier to Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory
in Sequim, Washington for metals analyses.
Elutriate and pore water samples were analyzed for silver (Ag), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd),
chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), selenium (Se), and zinc (Zn). With
the exception of Hg and Zn in elutriates, all pore water and elutriate samples were analyzed without
sample preparation. The Zn in elutriates was quantified by flame atomic absorption. The Hg in elutriates
were analyzed for metals by cold vapor atomic fluorescence with sub-nanogram per liter (ng/L) detection
limits. Organics prevalent in many of the samples were broken down before Hg analysis by use of a
bromine monochloride/UV oxidation procedure (Bloom and Crecelius 1983).
2.4 Quality Control and Quality Assurance
Accuracy and precision of the chemical analyses were determined by analysis of one blank, one
matrix spike, one certified reference material, and one sample in duplicate or triplicate for each set of
20 samples. Acceptable recovery values ranged from 85 to 115 percent of the spike concentration for
organics and organometals. Analytical values for reference materials were acceptable if they were within
20 percent of the certified ranges. The acceptable coefficient of variation for duplicate or triplicate
sample analyses was _<_ 20 percent.
During chemical analyses, three to five standards containing concentrations that bracketed the
expected range of concentrations in the samples were used for daily instrument calibrations. In analyses
of samples for metals by atomic absorption spectrophotometry, these standards were analyzed as matrix
spikes, and the slopes from linear regression analyses were used to estimate sample concentrations. The
minimum acceptable r2 in the regression analyses was 0.97. The standards for each sample set were
analyzed at the beginning and end of each analytical run. The analytical results were accepted if the
values for standards were within 90 to 110 percent of their certified values. For some samples analyzed
by atomic absorption, average response factors, rather than linear regression, were used for instrument
calibration. The accuracy of this calibration method was checked by dividing each response factor by
the average response value. The calibration values were accepted if they were within 5 percent of the
average response value.
During chemical analyses, the method's detection limits (MDL) was estimated according to
procedures in the USEPA Federal Register (1984).
Three sample matrices were analyzed; whole sediment (grain size, total and volatile solids,
metals, solvent extractable residue, organohalogens, and TOC), sediment elutriates (ammonia and
Microtox), and sediment pore water (conductivity). The elutriate creation procedure was originally
designed to mimic the rapid desorption of contaminants from sediments resulting from the open-water
disposal of dredged materials (Plumb 1981). Elutriates are cheaply and easily prepared, but the mixing
of the sediment and water may influence the availability of some contaminants by changing their oxidative
states. Pore water sampling better reflects the interstitial concentration of contaminants resulting from
the partitioning of chemicals from sediments, and appropriate sampling techniques probably have a lesser
Page 12
-------
Chapter 2
impact on the chemistry of the contaminants than the elutriate procedure. Pore water squeezers and
extractors are more expensive than the equipment required for elutriate preparation, however, and require
a greater volume of sediment to produce a comparable volume of liquid test media.
Data storage, retrieval and manipulation were performed using Paradox, a PC-based relational
database program. To facilitate use of the data, a user "shell" was created using the Paradox Applications
Language (PAL). The user shell was designed to allow easy access to the data, calculate RPDs for QC
checks, search for missing samples, format data for creation of icons and provide significant figure-
formatted output. Analytical data were checked for entry accuracy by the analyst, and the quality of the
data was verified by both the analyst and the project QC coordinators by examination of the QC data
associated with each assay (blanks, replicate RPDs, reference materials, etc.). Data were not used for
statistical calculations (nor released to GLNPO) until all applicable QC criteria were met. Raw data from
this study are archived by GLNPO in their Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES) database.
Page 13
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Page 14
-------
Chapter 3
3. RESULTS
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a summary and analysis of the sediment chemical data collected from
the Indiana Harbor AOC based on the two major sampling surveys performed by the ARCS Program.
The purpose of the analysis is to provide a preliminary examination of the potential for chemical
contaminants to cause adverse impacts to aquatic life or uses of the Indiana Harbor system. Since the
data presented are chemical only and not biological, the analysis is limited in its ability to predict
biological effects.
The data in this chapter are analyzed in two ways:
• On a chemical-by-chemical basis comparing the sediment contaminant concentrations
to known guidelines, and
• On a sample-by-sample basis, providing an analysis of which locations contain
elevated levels for the greatest number of contaminants.
The first type of analysis aids in the determination of which chemicals are of greatest concern.
The second analysis assists in determining which areas of the AOC suffer the greatest levels of
sediment contamination. The analysis relies on the comparison of measured sediment concentrations
to chemical-specific guidelines or criteria.
The data presented in this section are based on the results of two primary sampling surveys;
Survey 1, performed in August 1989, and Survey 2, performed in November 1990. Survey 1
consisted of grab samples taken at seven Master Stations (IH 03- IH 10) throughout the AOC.
Survey 2 consisted of 0-14 foot cores taken at 37 different locations. To simplify the cross references
between the maps, graphs and text and to aid in examining upstream or downstream contaminant
trends, the stations for Survey 2 were renumbered from downstream to upstream. Table 3.1 presents
the original station identification numbers from Survey 2 with its corresponding new station
identification. Figure 3.1 shows the sampling stations for both surveys. Methods for sample
collection and analysis are more fully described in Chapter 2.
3.2 Availability of Sediment Quality Guidelines
In order to estimate potential effects, benchmark criteria or guidelines were necessary against
which the potential for a given concentration of sediment contamination to cause environmental harm
could be assessed. USEPA has currently endorsed an equilibrium partitioning (EqP) based approach
that utilizes the concentration of organic carbon in sediments along with a measure of the relative
tendency of a contaminant to bind with organic carbon (the partitioning coefficient) to predict the
interstitial water concentration of the contaminant within a particular sediment (USEPA, 1993b-f).
Unfortunately, this method has only been fully developed for a limited number of heavy organic
contaminants.
Other efforts have focused on the use of standardized bioassays, comparisons of concentration
and effects data (e.g., Apparent Effects Threshold Approach), and leachate and elutriate testing,
among others. A complete overview of the available sediment assessment methods can be found in the
Sediment Classification Methods Compendium (USEPA, 1992). Three sets of guidelines, EPA's EqP-
Page 15
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
TABLE 3.1 INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 2 - CROSS REFERENCE TABLE
CHART ID
1
3
4
5
6
6D
7
9
10
10D
11
12
14
14D
15
16
17
18
20
21
SAMPLE ID
IH20201
IH22701
IH20301
IH22801
IH20403
IH20403D
IH20402
IH20401
IH22001
IH22001D
IH22401
IH22501
IH20501
IH20501D
IH22601
IH21901
IH21902
IH20602
IH20601
IH21801
CHART ID
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
41
42
42D
43
SAMPLE ID
IH21701
IH22101
IH21601
IH22202
IH22201
IH21502
IH21501
IH21401
IH21402
IH20701
IH21302
IH21301
IH20801
IH22301
IH22302
IH21202
IH21201
IH21001
IH21101
IH21101D
IH21102
Based Criteria, Long and MacDonald's effects ranges (Long and MacDonald, 1995) and Ontario's
Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (Persaud, et al, 1993) were utilized for analysis in this report
and are briefly discussed in the following sections.
3.2.1 Background on EPA EqP-Based Criteria
EPA has selected the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) method as its primary approach to
developing numeric sediment quality criteria for contaminated sediments. The EqP approach is based
on three primary observations about the toxicity of organic contaminants in sediment (USEPA, 1993b-
f). These are:
• The toxicity of non-ionic organic contaminants in sediments is most closely related to
the interstitial water concentrations of the contaminant rather than the bulk sediment
concentration of the contaminant;
• Non-ionic organic contaminants bind primarily to the organic carbon within the
sediment and partitioning models can relate the relative concentrations of contaminants
bound to organic carbon and in pore water; and
Page 16
-------
Chapter 3
Lake Michigan
Figure 3.1 Survey 1 & 2
Sample Locations
N
^Columbus Dr.
^43
Page 17
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
• Benthic and water column organisms show similar sensitivities to chemicals so that
currently established water quality criteria can be used to determine acceptable pore
water chemical concentrations.
The EqP model uses the bulk concentration of contaminant and organic carbon in the
sediment and a chemical-specific partitioning coefficient to predict the pore water concentration of the
contaminant at equilibrium conditions. The term "equilibrium conditions" indicates that sediment
conditions are not in a state of flux and that sufficient time has passed for sediment and pore water
concentrations to stabilize. Examples of non-equilibrium conditions include situations where there is
significant erosion or deposition of sediments or changes in contaminant concentrations.
There are several limitations to the EqP-based approach. The most obvious is that the method
is currently only applicable to non-ionic organic contaminants. This eliminates the approach as a tool
for determining the potential toxicity of lighter organic contaminants and toxic metals. Another
drawback is that complete criteria are currently developed for only five contaminants. These
contaminants are the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) phenanthrene (USEPA, 1993f),
acehapthene (USEPA, 1993b), and fluoranthene (USEPA, 1993e), and the pesticides dieldrin
(USEPA, 1993c) and endrin (USEPA, 1993d).
For the five EqP-based criteria that are currently available, only phenanthrene and
fluoranthene were analyzed for at the Indiana Harbor Master Station locations. A complete list of
analytes for the two Indiana Harbor surveys and the applicable sediment quality criteria are presented
in Table 3.2.
3.2.2 Background on the Long and MacDonald (1995) Sediment Quality Guidelines
Long and MacDonald, updating and utilizing the biological effects database for sediments
(BEDS) that was initially developed by Long and Morgan (1990), developed guideline values that
were rarely, occasionally or frequently associated with adverse effects. The data from BEDS, which
contains sets of sediment contaminant concentrations and associated biological impact data, was
arranged in order of concentration and the distributions of effects data were determined using
percentiles. Two guideline values were determined;
• the Effects Range-Low (ER-L) which corresponds to the lower 10th percentile of the
effects data for each chemical; and
• the Effects Range-Median (ER-M) which corresponds to the median, or 50th
percentile of the effects data for each chemical.
Concentrations that fall below the ER-L represent a range intended to estimate conditions in
which effects would rarely be observed. Concentrations that are greater than the ER-L, but less than
the ER-M, represent a possible-effects range where effects would occasionally occur; concentrations
above the ER-M represent a probable-effects range where effects would frequently occur.
The ER-M and ER-L values are not official standards but are intended to be used as guidance
in the evaluation of bulk sediment chemistry data. Exceedances of chemical concentrations of ER-L
and ER-M levels are not an absolute indicator of effects, but rather define ranges where effects could
possibly or probably occur.
Page 18
-------
Chapter 3
A listing of Long and MacDonald's applicable ER-Ls and ER-Ms for the sediments analyzed
in the ARCS Indiana Harbor surveys is provided in Table 3.2.
3.2.3 Province of Ontario Sediment Quality Guidelines
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment developed three levels of Provincial Sediment
Quality Guidelines to provide guidance for making freshwater sediment-related decisions. These
guidelines replace the Open Water Disposal Guidelines published by the Ministry in 1976. After
reviewing the advantages and limitations of various approaches, the Ministry decided to utilize an
equilibrium partitioning approach and the Screening Level Concentration (SLC) approach to derive
the following three guidelines:
1. No Effect Level (NED: Level at which no toxic effects have been observed on aquatic
organisms or the level at which no biomagnification through the food chain is expected.
Sediment that has a NEL rating is considered clean and may be placed in rivers and lakes
provided it does not physically affect the habitat. The NEL is established using a chemical
equilibrium partitioning approach and since reliable partition coefficients can only be derived
for the nonpolar organics, a NEL cannot be calculated for metals and polar organics.
2. Lowest Effect Level (LED: Level of sediment contamination that can be tolerated by the
majority of benthic organisms. The LEL is based on the 5th percentile of the SLC.
Sediments at this level are considered to be clean to marginally polluted and sediments that
exceed the LEL may require further testing.
3. Severe Effect Level (SED: Level at which pronounced disturbance of the sediment-dwelling
community can be expected. A compound found at this concentration would be considered to
be detrimental to the majority of benthic species. The SEL is based on the 95th percentile of
the SLC.
The SLC approach, as developed by Neff et al (1986), is an effects-based approach using field
data on the co-occurrence of benthic infaunal species in sediments and different concentrations of
contaminants. To calculate a SLC, a species specific SLC is derived by plotting the sediment
concentrations at all locations where the species is found. The 90th percentile of this concentration
distribution is determined for each species. Then, these 90th percentiles for all of the species present
are plotted in order of increasing concentration and from this plot, the 5th and 95th percentiles are
calculated.
Concentrations of contaminants within the Indiana Harbor AOC were compared to the SEL
only. Table 3.2 provides a complete listing of the Province of Ontario's SELs for freshwater
sediments.
Page 19
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
TABLE 3.2 ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
CHEMICAL
Parameters Analyzed
Survey 1
Survey
2
Sediment Quality Guidelines
L&M
ER-L
L&M
ER-M
Ontario
SEL
EPA EqP
Criteria
PAHS
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dimethyl phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Indeno(l ,2,3)pyrene
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
261 ng/g
430 ng/g
160 ng/g
70 ng/g
19 ng/g
240 ng/g
85.3 ng/g
600 ng/g
665 ng/g
384 ng/g
1,600 ng/g
1 ,600 ng/g
2,100 ng/g
670 ng/g
540 ng/g
1,500 ng/g
1,100 ng/g
5,100 ng/g
2,600 ng/g
2,800 ng/g
l,480ug/g
OC
1,440 ug/g
OC
1,340 ug/g
OC
160 ug/g
OC
950 ug/g
OC
370 ug/g
OC
1,020 ug/g
OC
850 ug/g
OC
460 ug/g
OC
320 ug/g
OC
180 ug/g
OC
620 ug/g
OC
Page 20
-------
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.2
ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
CHEMICAL
Benzo(g ,h , i)pery lene
Total PAH
Parameters Analyzed
Survey 1
X
X
Survey
2
Sediment Quality Guidelines
L&M
ER-L
4,022 ng/g
L&M
ER-M
44,792
ng/g
Ontario
SEL
320 ug/g
OC
10,000
ug/g OC
EPA EqP
Criteria
PESTICIDES/MISCELLANEOUS ORGANICS
Chlordane, gamma
Chlordane, alpha
4,4 ODD
4,4 DDE
4,4 DDT
Dieldrin
Aldrin
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan (alpha)
Endosulfan (beta)
Endosulfan sulfate
Toxaphene
Lindane
Methoxychlor
a-BHC
b-BHC
c-BHC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2.2 ng/g
27 ng/g
6 ug/g OC
19 ug/g
OC
91 ug/g
OC
8 ug/g OC
130 ug/g
OC
10 ug/g
OC
21 ug/g
OC
1 ug/g OC
11 ug/g
OC
Page 21
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
TABLE 3.2
ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
CHEMICAL
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Dioxins and Furans
Parameters Analyzed
Survey 1
X
X
X
Survey 2
Sediment Quality Guidelines
L&M
ER-L
L&M
ER-M
Ontario
SEL
5 ug/g OC
EPAEqP
Criteria
PCBS
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Arocior 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Total PCBs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
22.7 ng/g
180 ng/g
53 ug/g
OC
150 ug/g
OC
34 ug/g
OC
24 ug/g
OC
530 ug/g
OC
METALS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Selenium
Silver
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1.2 ug/g
81 ug/g
34 ug/g
20.9 ug/g
46.7 ug/g
150 ug/g
1.0 ug/g
9.6 ug/g
370 ug/g
270 ug/g
5 1.6 ug/g
218 ug/g
410 ug/g
3.7 ug/g
10 ug/g
110 ug/g
110 ug/g
4 %
75 ug/g
250 ug/g
820 ug/g
Page 22
-------
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.2
ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
CHEMICAL
Arsenic
Mercury
Manganese
Methylmercury
Tributyltin
Monobutylin
Dibutyltin
Parameters Analyzed
Survey 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Survey 2
Sediment Quality Guidelines
L&M
ER-L
8.2 ug/g
0.15 ug/g
L&M
ER-M
70 ug/g
0.71 ug/g
Ontario
SEL
33 ug/g
2 ug/g
1,100 ug/g
EPA EqP
Criteria
NON-METALS
Total Organic Carbon
Acid Volatile Sulfides
Extractable Residue
PH
Conductivity
Percent Solids
Solids, Total
Volatile Solids
Microtox
Moisture Fraction
Grain Size
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10 %
3.3 Analysis of Chemical-Specific Data
This section reviews the analytical data on a chemical by chemical basis to aid in determining
sampling locations associated with exceedances of criteria or guidelines for a specific contaminant.
For the application of EqP-based criteria and the Ontario SELs for PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides, data
were normalized using the sediment concentration of organic carbon. The Long and MacDonald
Page 23
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
(L&M) effects ranges and the Ontario SELs for metals were applied on a bulk chemistry basis. As
stated previously, an exceedance of a guideline is not an absolute indicator of a biological impact, but
rather, heightens the possibility of an impact.
3.3.1 Explanation of Data Presentation
The data in this section of the report are presented both in narrative and graphical forms. The
narrative section provides:
• A table including summary statistics in the form of minimum, maximum, and median
concentrations and the applicable sediment quality criteria and/or guidelines; and
• A narrative explanation of the graphs identifying the areal distribution of high
concentration data.
The summary statistics are chosen to indicate the range of concentrations present (through the
minimum and maximum) and the central concentration (through the median) of a chemical. The use
of the median rather than average concentrations eliminates the effect of outliers and the averaging of
non-detect data. It should also be noted that the summary statistics presented for Survey 2 are
independent of core depth (i.e., the minimum value may be from a 0-2 foot core and the maximum
value from a 6-8 foot core depth).
Core depths varied greatly by sample site, and therefore, so did the length of the core
segments. For purposes of presentation of the data, reference is made to the first, second, third and
fourth core segment. In general, the first core was taken at a depth between 0-2 feet; the second core
was a two foot core taken within the 2-7 foot range; the third core was a two foot core taken within
the 6-10 foot range; and finally, the two fourth core segments were taken at depths of 13-15 feet and
8.5-10.5 feet. The depth of each maximum core concentration is identified in the text, but for a
complete listing of all of the core depths, refer to Appendix A which contains all of the data,
including core depth, for both surveys.
The graphical portion of the analysis consists of bar graphs plotting the contaminant
concentrations from downstream to upstream and comparing them to sediment quality guidelines. The
use of bar graphs was chosen over maps since the number of sampling points and the number of
sampling depths in the various surveys make it difficult to present the data on maps in a way in which
data from the multiple sampling depths could be directly compared. However, for reference, maps
containing the data plotted for all surveys are provided in Appendix B.
The Survey 2 data was plotted with the Survey 1 data. Due to the number of sampling
locations and the number of cores, four graphs are used to display the data: two graphs containing the
upstream data, one for surface samples and the first core segments and one for the second, third and
fourth core segments; and two graphs containing the downstream data organized in the same fashion.
As stated previously, the station locations were renumbered so that they are plotted from downstream
to upstream.
The following features of the bar graphs should be noted:
• The numbers under each of the graphs correspond to the revised sample numbers for
the surveys presented in Figure 3.1.
Page 24
-------
Chapter 3
The dotted lines through the graphs indicate the level of the applicable criteria or
guideline values for the contaminant, either L&M effects ranges, EPA EqP SQC or
Ontario's SELs.
3.3.2 Analysis by Chemical Parameter
This section focuses only on the chemicals for which either L&M effects ranges, EPA SQC or
Ontario SELs are available. AH other data are provided in Appendix A.
Arsenic
Survey
1
2
Minimum
32
N/A
Median
56
N/A
Maximum
93
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
8.2
L&M
ER-M
70
SEL
33
N/A - Not Available
(AH units are in ug/g)
As Figure 3.2 shows, all seven surface samples from Survey 1 exceeded the ER-L of 8.2 ug/g
with the minimum value of 32 ug/g detected at station IH 04 located downstream in the turning basin.
The maximum value of 93 ug/g was found at station IH 07 located at the forks and was the only
station that exceeded the ER-M of 70 ug/g. Six of the seven stations exceeded Ontario's SEL of 33
ug/g with the seventh station being just under the SEL at 32 ug/g.
Arsenic was not sampled for in Survey 2.
Cadmium
Survey
1
2
Minimum
5.2
0.0 PNQ
Median
11.7
9.3
Maximum
24.2
45
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
1.2
L&M
ER-M
9.6
SEL
10
N/A - Not Available
PNQ - Present but not quantified
(All units are in ug/g)
Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show the results of the Survey 1 surface samples and the first core
segments of Survey 2 for cadmium. All seven surface samples exceeded the ER-L of 1.2 ug/g, with
the minimum concentration detected being 5.2 ug/g. Five of the seven Survey 1 samples exceeded
both the ER-M of 9.6 ug/g and Ontario's SEL of 10 ug/g. The maximum detected Survey 1
concentration for cadmium, 24.2 ug/g, was found at station IH 07 located at the forks.
Page 25
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Figure 3.2 Arsenic Concentration - Surface Samples
100
I
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07 IH 08 IH10
Master Station Sample Number
For Survey 2, of the 41 first core segment samples, 37 exceeded the ER-L, 15 exceeded the
ER-M, and 15 exceeded the SEL. The maximum concentration detected in the first core samples, 34
ug/g, was found at station 4 (core depth: 0-24 inches) located downstream near Lake Michigan.
Figures 3.5 and 3.6 show the results of the second, third, and fourth core samples for
cadmium. Of the 36 second core samples, 29 exceeded the ER-L, 24 exceeded the ER-M, while 22
exceeded the SEL. The maximum concentration for the second core samples, 28 ug/g, was detected
at station 6 (core depth: 60-84 inches) situated on the west bank of the turning basin.
The maximum detected cadmium concentration found in Survey 2 (45 ug/g) was detected in a
third core segment at station 14 (core depth: 72-96 inches) situated just downstream of the ConRail
railroad tracks. Of the 29 third core samples, 21 exceeded the ER-L, 12 exceeded the ER-M, and 12
exceeded the SEL. Finally, of the two fourth core samples taken as duplicates, both exceeded the
ER-L and ER-M. The maximum detected concentration of 23 ug/g exceeded the SEL and was found
at the same location where the third core maximum was found, station 14 (core depth: 156-179
inches).
Page 26
-------
Chapter 3
Rgure 3.3 Cadmium Concentration - Downstream Surface and Rrst Core Samples
35
30
25
20
I
15
10
ER-L = 1
Surface Sample I I Rrst Core Segment
SEL = 10
ER-M = 9.6
.as.
JL
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 6D 7 IH 04 9 10 10D 11 12IH0514 14D 15 16 17 18IH0620
Station Sample Number
Figure 3.4 Cadmium Concentration - Upstream Surface and Rrst Core Samples
35
30
25
20
I
15
10
ER-L
Surface Sample | | First Core Segment
LLS
_JL
LLS
JL
SEL = 10
ER-M = 9.6
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH 07 33 34 35 36 IH 08 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43IH10
Station Sample Number
Page 27
-------
ARCS - Assessment .of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Rgure 3.5 Cadmium Concentration - Downstream 2nd, 3rd and 4th Core Samples
46
35
30
25
20
15
10
ER-L = 1
H Second Core Segment I I Third Core Segment [™
OS
-
"*"
-
PNQ •PNQ "
PNQ
-i
I
.SB, = 10
ER-M = 9.6
OS
111)
11 II
us
PNQ
1
Fourth Core Segment
.4.(K.. MS
• •
>NQ
1
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 6D 7 IH04 9 10 100 11 12 IH 05 14 14D 15 16 17 18 IH 06 20
Station Sample Number
Rgure 3.6 Cadmium Concentration - Upstream 2nd and 3rd Core Samples
35
30
25
20
I
15
10
ER-L
Second Core Segment
Third Core Segment
LDL
JE.
SEL = 10
ER-M = 9.6
PNQ
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH 07 33 34 35 36 IH 08 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43IH10
Station Sample Number
Page 28
-------
Chapter 3
Chromium
Survey
1
2
Minimum
407
3.4 LLS
Median
780
345
Maximum
2,610
1,800
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
81
L&M
ER-M
370
SEL
110
N/A - Not Available
LLS - Less than the lowest standard. Value reported is measured value.
(All units are in ug/g)
Figures 3.7 and 3.8 show the results of the Survey 1 surface samples and the Survey 2 first
core segments for chromium. All seven surface samples exceeded both the ER-L and ER-M as well
as Ontario's SEL. The maximum concentration of 2,610 ug/g is more than seven times the ER-M of
370 ug/g and more than 23 times the SEL of 110 ug/g. The maximum concentration was found at
station IH 07 located at the forks.
Of the 41 first core segment samples in Survey 2, 35 exceeded the ER-L, 22 exceeded the
ER-M, and 34 exceeded the SEL. The maximum concentration of 1,600 ug/g, which is more than
four times the ER-L, occurred upstream of Canal Street at station 30 (core depth: 0-24 inches).
Figure 3.7 Chromium Concentration - Downstream Surface and Rrst Core Samples
3,000
2,500
2,000
•
1,500
1,000
500
ER-L = 81
0
Surface Sample
I I Rrst Core Segment
SEL =110
ER-M = 370
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 6D 7 IH04 9 10 10D 11 12IH0514 14D 15 16 17 18IH0620
Station Sample Number
Page 29
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Figure 3.8 Chromium Concentration - Upstream Surface and Rrst Core Samples
3,000
2,500
2,000
"S> 1,500
1,000
500
SEL = 110
ER-L = 81
Surface Sample
ER-M = 370
JL
I I Rrst Core Segment
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH 07 33 34 35 36 IH 08 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43 IH10
Station Sample Number
Figures 3.9 and 3.10 show the results of the Survey 2 second, third, and fourth core segments
for chromium. Of the 36 second core samples, 28 exceeded the ER-L, 19 exceeded the ER-M, while
28 exceeded the SEL. The maximum concentration for the second core samples of 1,800 ug/g
occurred at the same location where the maximum was detected in the first core segments, station 30
(core depth 48-72 inches) located upstream of Canal Street, and is also the maximum detected
chromium concentration for Survey 2.
Of the 29 third core samples, 18 exceeded the ER-L, 9 exceeded the ER-M, and 17 exceeded
the SEL. The maximum concentration for the third core samples, 1,700 ug/g, occurred at station 40
(core depth: 84-109 inches), just downstream of Columbus Drive. Finally, of the two fourth core
samples, both exceeded the ER-L, none exceeded the ER-M, and one exceeded the SEL. The
maximum value of 370 ug/g for the fourth core segment, which is below the ER-M, occurred in a
duplicate sample at station 10 in the southeast corner of the turning basin at a depth of 101-125
inches. In general, for both surveys, the concentration of chromium increased upstream of Canal
Street.
Page 30
-------
Chapter 3
Rgure 3.9 Chromium Concentration - Downstream 2nd, 3rd and 4th Core Samples
3,000
2,500
2,000
o>
1,500
1,000
500
ER-L = 8t
0
Second Core Segment
Third Core Segment fl Fourth Core Segment
ER-Mc370
.50. = 110
I
m
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 6D 7 IH04 9 10 10D 11 12 IH 05 14 14D 15 16 17 18 IH 06 20
Station Sample Number
Rgure 3.10 Chromium Concentration - Upstream 2nd and 3rd Core Samples
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
ER-L = 81
0
Second Core Segment
Third Core Segment
a
I i
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH 07 33 34 35 36 IH 08 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43 IH 10
Station Sample Number
Page 31
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Copper
Survey
1
2
Minimum
182
4.5 LLS
Median
284
275
Maximum
379
880
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
34
L&M
ER-M
270
SEL
110
N/A - Not Available
LLS - Less than the lowest standard. Value reported is measured value.
(All units are in ug/g)
Figures 3.11 and 3.12 show the results of the Survey 1 surface samples and the Survey 2 first
core segments for copper. All seven surface samples exceeded both the ER-L of 34 ug/g and the
SEL of 100 ug/g with the minimum detected concentration of 182 ug/g found in the turning basin
(station IH 04). Three stations exceeded the ER-M of 270 ug/g with the maximum concentration of
379 ug/g occurring at Dicky Road (station IH 06).
For Survey 2, of the 41 first core segment samples, 36 exceeded the ER-L, 21 exceeded the
ER-M, and 34 exceeded the SEL. The maximum concentration for these samples, 540 ug/g, which is
twice the ER-M of 270 ug/g, was detected near the end of the federal navigation channel at Columbus
Drive at station 43 at a depth of 0-24 inches.
Figure 3.11 Copper Concentration - Downstream Surface and First Core Samples
1,000
800
i
600
400
200
ER-L = 34
0
Surface Sample
I I First Core Segment
SEL = 110
ER-M = 270
LLS
JL
Jl
LLS
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 6D 7 IH 04 9 10 10D 11 12 IH 05 14 14D 15 16 17 18 IH 06 20
Station Sample Number
Page 32
-------
Chapter 3
Figure 3.12 Copper Concentration - Upstream Surface and First Core Samples
I.UUU
800
600
»
1
400
200
ER-L = 34
n
B Surface Sample 1 1 First Core Segment
—
-
-
- ER-M = 270
—
LLS
"fl"
n
n
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH07 33 34 35 38 IH08 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43 IH10
Station Sample Number
The maximum detected concentration of copper for Survey 2 was found in a second core
segment, station 26 (core depth: 36-60 inches) located halfway between Canal Street and Rt. 912.
This concentration of 880 ug/g is more than three times the ER-M and more than twice the maximum
value detected in the surface samples. Figures 3.13 and 3.14 show the results of the Survey 2 second,
third, and fourth core samples for copper. Of the 36 second core samples, 29 exceeded the ER-L, 20
exceeded the ER-M, while 28 exceeded the SEL.
Of the 29 third core samples, 21 exceeded the ER-L, 12 exceeded the ER-M, and 17
exceeded the SEL. The maximum concentration for the third core samples, 530 ug/g, occurred at
station 39 (core depth 104-128 inches), just downstream of Columbus Drive. Finally, of the two
fourth core samples, both stations exceeded the ER-L and Ontario's SEL, and the maximum value of
400 ug/g exceeded the ER-M and was detected in a duplicate sample at station 10 (core depth: 101-
125 inches) in the southeast corner of the turning basin.
Iron
Survey
1
2
Minimum
12.1
N/A
Median
19.7
N/A
Maximum
28.8
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
N/A
L&M
ER-M
N/A
SEL
4
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in %)
Page 33
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Rgure 3.13 Copper Concentration - Downstream 2nd, 3rd and 4th Core Samples
1,000
800
600
400
200
B Second Core Segment I I Third C
ER-M = 270
SB. = 110 1 I
ER-L = 34 1 II
as "as l^ II "
1
ore Segment
1
p") Fourth Core Segment
QOS
1
|
;
1 1
OS
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 6D 7 1H04 9 10 10D 11 12IH0514 14D 15 16 17 18 IH06 20
Station Sample Number
Rgure 3.14 Copper Concentration - Upstream 2nd and 3rd Core Samples
I
,uuu
800
600
400
200
n
H Second Core Segment 1 1 Third Core Segment
-
ER-M = 270
-
-I't
i
i
"SI
n
out
SEL = 110
ER-L = 34
I 1
1
]
1
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH 07 33 34 35 36 IH 08 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43 IH 10
Station Sample Number
Page 34
-------
Chapter 3
Figures 3.15 and 3.16 show the results of the Survey 1 surface samples and the first core
segments of Survey 2 for iron. As the figures show, all seven surface samples exceeded the SEL of
4% with the minimum concentration detected being 12.1%, or three times the SEL. The maximum
detected concentration of iron, 28.8%, was found at station IH 07 located at the forks.
For Survey 2, of the 41 first core segment samples, 36 exceeded the SEL. The maximum
detected concentration of 23% was found at two different locations; station 4, located downstream
near Lake Michigan, and station 10, located at the southeast corner of the turning basin. Each of
these first core segments represented a depth of 0-24 inches.
Figures 3.17 and 3.18 show the results of the second, third, and fourth core samples for iron.
Of the 36 second core samples, 29 exceeded the SEL of 4%. The maximum concentration of 30%,
which is more than seven times the SEL, was found at station 40 located upstream of the forks in the
Indiana Harbor Canal. Of the 29 third core segments, 19 exceeded the SEL. Station 31, located at the
forks with surface station IH 07, had the maximum concentration found in both the third core as well
as in Survey 2. This maximum concentration of 31% was found at a depth of 96-113 inches and is
higher than the maximum detected concentration in the surface sample found at almost the exact same
location. Finally, of the two fourth core samples taken as duplicates, both exceeded the SEL. The
maximum detected concentration of 27% (core depth: 101-125 inches) was found in the southeast
corner of the turning basin at station 10.
Figure 3.15 Iron Concentration - Downstream Surface and First Core Samples
35
30
25
20
15
10
Surface Sample
I I Rrst Core Segment
_DL
JL
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 6D 7 IH 04 9 10 10D 11 12 IH 05 14 14D 15 16 17 18 IH 06 20
Station Sample Number
Page 35
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Rgure 3.16 Iron Concentration - Upstream Surface and Rrst Core Samples
35
30
25
20
15
10
Surface Sample
Rrst Core Segment
SEL = 4
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH0733 34 35 36 IH 08 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43IH10
Station Sample Number
Figure 3.17 Iron Concentration - Downstream 2nd, 3rd and 4th Core Samples
35
30
25
20
15
10
Second Core Segment I I Third Core Segment |~~] Fourth Core Segment
- SEL =
GUE
LL
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 6D 7 IH 04 9 10 10D 11 12 "r 05 14 14D 15 16 17 18 IH 06 20
Station Sample Number
Page 36
-------
Chapter 3
Rgure 3.18 Iron Concentration - Upstream 2nd and 3rd Core Samples
35
30
25 -
20
15
10
Second Core Segment
Third Core Segment
SEL = 4
I
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH0733 34 35 36 IH 08 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43IH10
Station Sample Number
Lead
Survey
1
2
Minimum
396
1.5 LDL
Median
791
695
Maximum
1,354
3,700
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
46.7
L&M
ER-M
218
SEL
250
N/A - Not Available
LDL - Less than detection limit. Value reported is method detection limit.
(All units are in ug/g)
Figures 3.19 and 3.20 show the results of the Survey 1 surface samples and the Survey 2 first
core segments for lead. All seven surface samples exceeded both the ER-L and ER-M as well as
Ontario's SEL. The minimum detected concentration of 396 ug/g, found at station IH 04 situated in
the turning basin, is well above the ER-M of 218 ug/g and the SEL of 250 ug/g. The maximum
concentration of 1,354 ug/g, which is more than six times the ER-M and more than five times the
SEL, was detected at station IH 07 located at the forks.
For Survey 2, of the 41 first core segment samples, 37 locations exceeded the ER-L and 35
locations exceeded both the ER-M of 218 ug/g and Ontario's SEL of 250 ug/g. The maximum
detected concentration of 2,500 ug/g, which is five times the SEL and more than five times the ER-
M, was found at station 33, downstream of Indianapolis Boulevard (core depth: 0-24 inches) in the
Lake George Branch.
Page 37
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Figure 3.19 Lead Concentration - Downstream Surface and Rrst Core Samples
2,000
1,500
0)
1,000
500
SEL = 250
ER-M = 218
ER-L = 46.7
0
Surface Sample I I First Core Segment
LLS
n
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 6D 7 IH 04 9 10 10D 11 12IH0514 14D 15 16 17 18IH0620
Station Sample Number
Rgure 3.20 Lead Concentration - Upstream Surface and Rrst Core Samples
^,uuu
1,500
"9)1,000
500
SEL = 250
ER-M = 218
ER-L = 46.7
n
-
-
-
(1
H Surface Sample
n
1 I First Core Segment
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH 07 33 34 35 36 IH 08 38 39 40 41 42 420 43 IH 10
Station Sample Number
Page 38
-------
Chapter 3
Figures 3.21 and 3.22 show the results of the Survey 2 second, third, and fourth core samples
for lead. Of the 36 second core samples, 29 exceeded the ER-L, and 28 exceeded both the ER-M
and Ontario's SEL. The maximum value found in the second core segment of 3,700 ug/g was also
the maximum concentration detected in Survey 2. This concentration was found at station 38 (core
depth: 40-64 inches), directly off of Indianapolis Boulevard in the Lake George Branch, and is more
than 14 tunes the SEL.
Of the 29 third core samples, 21 exceeded the ER-L of 46.7 ug/g, 20 exceeded the ER-M of
218 ug/g, and 19 exceeded the SEL of 250 ug/g. The maximum concentration of 2,100 ug/g for the
third core samples occurred at station 29, just upstream from Canal Street, at a depth of 96-120
inches. Finally, of the two fourth core samples, both exceeded both the ER-L and ER-M as well as
Ontario's SEL with a maximum concentration of 740 ug/g occurring in a duplicate sample at a station
directly off of the ConRail railroad tracks (station 14D, core depth: 156 -179 inches).
In general, the higher lead concentrations appear upstream of Dickey Road.
Figure 3.21 Lead Concentration - Downstream 2nd, 3rd and 4th Core Samples
2,000
Second Core Segment | | Third Core Segment
Fourth Core Segment
1,500
1,000
500
ER-L = 46.7
0
SEL = 250
ER-M = 21 8
US
1 IH03 3
G 60 7 IH04 9 10 10D 11 12IH0514 140 15 16 17 18IH0620
Station Sample Number
Page 39
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Figure 3.22 Lead Concentration - Upstream 2nd and 3rd Core Samples
£,UUU
1,500
|> 1,000
500
SEL = 250
ER-M = 218
ER-L = 46.7
n
-
-
B Second Core Segment
I
|«
1 1 S
ux
LLS LLS
I I Third Core Segment
1
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH07 33 34 35 36 IH08 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43 IH 10
Station Sample Number
Manganese
Survey
1
2
Minimum
1,674
N/A
Median
2,420
N/A
Maximum
3,280
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
N/A
L&M
ER-M
N/A
SEL
1,100
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
As Figure 3.23 shows, all seven Survey 1 surface samples exceeded Ontario's SEL of 1,100
ug/g. The maximum concentration, 3,280 ug/g, was detected at station IH 07 which is located at the
forks and is almost three times the SEL. Manganese was not sampled for in Survey 2.
Page 40
-------
Chapter 3
Figure 3.23 Manganese Concentration - Surface Samples
4,000
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
IH10
Mercury
Survey
1
2
Minimum
0.67
N/A
Median
1.77
N/A
Maximum
2.06
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
0.15
L&M
ER-M
0.71
SEL
2
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
The results of the Survey 1 surface samples for mercury are depicted in Figure 3.24. Of the
seven samples, all seven exceeded the ER-L of 0.15 ug/g and six of the seven exceeded the ER-M of
0.71 ug/g. The maximum concentration of 2.06 ug/g was found at station IH 07, located at the
forks, and was the only location that exceeded Ontario's SEL of 2.0 ug/g.
Page 41
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Figure 3.24 Mercury Concentration - Surface Samples
0.5
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
IH10
Nickel
Survey
1
2
Minimum
<50
3.0 PNQ
Median
69
72
Maximum
103
560
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
20.9
L&M
ER-M
51.6
SEL
75
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
Figures 3.25 and 3.26 depict the results of the Survey 1 surface samples and the Survey 2
first core segments for nickel. Of the seven samples taken for Survey 1, five exceeded the ER-L, and
three exceeded both the ER-M and the SEL. The maximum concentration of 103 ug/g was detected
at Dickey Road (station IH 06).
For Survey 2, of the 41 first core segment samples, 38 exceeded the ER-L of 20.9 ug/g, 31
exceeded the ER-M of 51.6 ug/g, and 25 exceeded the SEL of 75 ug/g. The maximum concentration
of 170 ug/g for these samples was detected slightly upstream of Canal St. at station 29 (core depth: 0-
24 inches).
Page 42
-------
Chapter 3
Figure 3.25 Nickel Concentration - Downstream Surface and First Core Samples
300
250
200
e
100
50
ER-L = 20.9
Surface Sample I I First Core Segment
SB, = 75
ER-M = 51.6
1
<50
LLS
n
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 6D 7 IH 04 9 10 10D 11 12IH0514 14D 15 16 17 18IH0620
Station Sample Number
Figure 3.26 Nickel Concentration - Upstream Surface and First Core Samples
300
250
200
150
100
50
ER-L = 20.9
Surface Sample | | First Core Segment
SEL = 75
ER-M = 51.6
<5B
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH 07 33 34 35 36 IH OS 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43 IH 10
Station Sample Number
Page 43
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Figures 3.27 and 3.28 show the results of the Survey 2 second, third, and fourth core samples
for nickel. Of the 36 second core samples, 32 exceeded the ER-L, 25 exceeded the ER-M, while 17
exceeded the SEL. Them maximum concentration for the second core samples, 170 ug/g, occurred
directly off of Columbus Drive at station 42 (core depth: 24-48 inches) near the end of the federal
navigation channel.
Of the 29 third core samples, 23 exceeded the ER-L, 14 exceeded the ER-M, and 9 exceeded
the SEL. The maximum concentration detected in the third core segment (560 ug/g) was also the
maximum value detected for Survey 2 and was found in a duplicate sample at station 42 (core depth
84-108 inches) directly off of Columbus Drive. The third core segments located north of the forks in
the Indiana Harbor Canal had significantly higher concentrations of nickel than any other core or
surface locations. Finally, of the two fourth core samples, both exceeded the ER-L and the ER-M.
The maximum concentration detected, 94 ug/g, which also exceeded the SEL, occurred at a duplicate
sample at the southeast corner of the turning basin (station 10, core depth: 101-125 inches).
Figure 3.27 Nickel Concentration - Downstream 2nd, 3rd and 4th Core Samples
300
250
200
ra
100
50
B Second Core Segment I I Third Core Segment \£
SEL = 75 :
ER-M = 51 .6
US -
- ER-L = 20.9 1 1
v^ilr
1
, —
i
] Fourth Core Segment
-,
ij.-
"" I ItS "
1 1
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 60 7 IH04 9 10 100 11 12IH0514 140 15 16 17 18IH0620
Station Sample Number
Page 44
-------
Chapter 3
Figure 3.28 Nickel Concentration - Upstream 2nd and 3rd Core Samples
470 560^400^
300
250
200
O)
3
100
50
ER-L = 20.9
n
B Second Core Segment | | Third Core Segment
-
-
_
SEL = 75
—
-
ER-M = 51 .6
nllr
4
1
..
i
"
n
T
1
._.
-
...
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH 07 33 34 35 36 IH 08 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43 IH 10
Station Sample Number
SUver
Survey
1
2
Minimum
0.023
N/A
Median
4.67
N/A
Maximum
7.08
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
1
L&M
ER-M
3.7
SEL
N/A
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
Silver concentrations detected in the Survey 1 grab samples are depicted in Figure 3.29. Of
the seven samples, four stations exceeded both the ER-L and the ER-M. The maximum concentration
of 7.08 ug/g was detected at location IH 07 at the forks and is more than twice the ER-M of 3.7
ug/g. As shown in Figure 3.29, silver levels increase significantly upstream of Dickey Road.
There are no Ontario guidelines for silver.
Page 45
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Figure 3.29 Silver Concentration - Surface Samples
0
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
IH10
Zinc
Survey
1
2
Minimum
2,250
20LLS
Median
3,540
3,150
Maximum
7,960
10,000
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
150
L&M
ER-M
410
SEL
820
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
Figures 3.30 and 3.31 show the results of the Survey 1 surface samples and the Survey 2 first
core segments for zinc. All seven samples exceeded both the ER-L and ER-M as well as the SEL.
The minimum concentration of 2,250 ug/g, found at station IH 04, is more than five times the ER-M
of 410 ug/g. The maximum detected value of 7,960 ug/g was detected at station IH 07 at the forks
and is more than 19 times the ER-M of 410 ug/g and more than nine times the SEL of 820 ug/g.
Of the 41 first core segments in Survey 2, 38 exceeded the ER-L, 36 exceeded the ER-M,
and 35 exceeded the SEL. The maximum detected concentration of 9,300 ug/g was found upstream
of Canal Street at station 30 at a depth of 0-24 inches. This concentration is more than 22 times the
ER-M and more than 11 times the SEL.
Page 46
-------
Chapter 3
Figure 3.30 Zinc Concentration - Downstream Surface and First Core Samples
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
SEL = 820
ER-M = 410
Surface Sample
| | First Core Segment
GUS QUS
n GUS
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 6D 7 IH04 9 10 100 11 12IK0514 14D 15 16 17 18IH0620
Station cample Number
Figure 3.31 Zinc Concentration - Upstream Surface and First Core Samples
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
SEL = 820
ER-M-410
ER-L = 150
0
B Surface Sample
—
-
-
-
..
: .. a. .
..
| | First Core Segment
QU
S
(
....
US
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH07 33 34 35 36 IH08 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43 IH10
Station Sample Number
Page 47
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Figures 3.32 and 3.33 depict the results of the Survey 2 second, third, and fourth core
samples for zinc. Of the 36 second core samples, 31 exceeded the ER-L, 29 exceeded the ER-M,
while 29 exceeded the SEL. The maximum detected concentration for the second core samples, as
well as the maximum detected zinc concentration for Survey 2, was 10,000 ug/g and was found
upstream of Canal Street at station 30 (core depth: 48-72 inches). This location also had the highest
zinc concentration for the first core segment.
Of the 29 third core samples, 21 exceeded the ER-L and ER-M, and 19 exceeded the SEL.
The maximum concentration for the third core samples, 9,500 ug/g, occurred at station 40 (84-109
inches), just downstream from Columbus Drive. Finally, of the two fourth core samples, both
exceeded both the ER-L and ER-M as well as the SEL with a maximum concentration of 3,200 ug/g
occurring in a duplicate sample at station 14 (core depth: 156-179 inches) directly off of the ConRail
railroad tracks.
Figure 3.32 Zinc Concentration - Downstream 2nd, 3rd and 4th Core Samples
10,000
8,000
I
6,000
4,000
2,000
SEL = 820
ER-M = 410
ER-L = 1
5Qj
Second Core Segment j | Third Core Segment i ] Fourth Core Segment
1 IH03 3 4 5 6 6D 7 IH 04 9 10 10D 11 12IH05 14 14D 15 16 17 18 IH 06 20
Station Sample Number
Page 48
-------
Chapter 3
Figure 3.33 Zinc Concentration - Upstream 2nd and 3rd Core Samples
10,000
8,000
I
6,000
4,000
2,000
SEL = 820
ER-M = 410
ER-L = 150
0
Second Core Segment
I I Third Core Segment
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IH07 33 34 35 36 IH 08 38 39 40 41 42 42D 43 IH10
Station Sample Number
Anthracene
Survey
1
2
Minimum
1,400
N/A
Median
3,450
N/A
Maximum
300,000
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
85.3
L&M
ER-M
1,100
SEL
370 ug/g OC
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g unless otherwise noted)
Figure 3.34 shows the results of the Survey 1 surface samples for anthracene. Of the eight
samples analyzed (one replicate), all eight exceeded the ER-M of 1,100 ng/g. The maximum
concentration of 300,000 ng/g, found at the replicate sample from station IH 07 located at the forks,
is more than 270 times the ER-M. Station IH 07, with concentrations of 130,000 ng/g and 300,000
ng/g, is far greater than any other sampling location. Station IH 08, located at Indianapolis
Boulevard in the Lake George Branch, had the next highest concentration; 26,000 ng/g. This value
far exceeds the next closest concentration found at Columbus Drive at station IH 10 where a
concentration of 3,500 ng/g was detected.
Figure 3.35 depicts the anthracene concentrations normalized to total organic carbon (the
replicate for station IH 07 did not have a reported value for TOC and therefore is not represented in
the bar chart). When normalized to organic carbon and compared to Ontario's SEL of 370 ug/g OC,
only one location, station IH 07, exceeds the guideline with an organic carbon normalized
concentration of 1,482 ug/g OC. The next highest value is found at station IH 08 with a value of 260
ug/g OC. All other locations are well below the SEL.
Page 49
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
30,000
25,000
20,000
"S> 15,000
10,000
5,000
Figure 3.34 Anthracene Concentration - Surface Samples
130,000 300,000
ER-L = 85.3
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07M IH 07r2 IH 08 IH 10
Master Station Sample Number
Figure 3.35 Organic Carbon Normalized Anthracene - Surface Samples
2,000
IH 05 IH 06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
Page 50
-------
Chapter 3
Benz(a)anthracene
Survey
1
2
Minimum
4,200
N/A
Median
11,650
N/A
Maximum
39,000
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
261
L&M
ER-M
1,600
SEL
1,480 ug/g OC
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g unless otherwise noted)
Figure 3.36 shows the results of the Survey 1 surface samples for benz(a)anthracene. Of the
eight samples analyzed (including one replicate), all eight exceeded the ER-M of 1,600 ng/g. The
minimum concentration of 4,200 ng/g, found at station IH 04 located in the turning basin, is three
times the ER-M while the maximum concentration of 39,000 ng/g, found at the replicate sample from
station IH 07 located at the forks, is more than 24 times the ER-M. Station IH 08, located at
Indianapolis Boulevard in the Lake George Branch had the next highest concentration; 30,000 ng/g.
Figure 3.36 Benz(a)anthracene Concentration - Surface Samples
50,000
40,000
30,000
I
20,000
10,000
ER-M = 1600
ER-L = 261
0
IH 03 IH 04
IH05 IH06 IH07M IH 07r2
Master Station Sample Number
IH 08 IH 10
Figure 3.37 depicts the benz(a)anthracene concentrations normalized to total organic carbon
(the replicate for station IH 07 did not have a reported value for TOC and therefore is not represented
in the bar chart). When normalized to organic carbon and compared to Ontario's SEL of 1,480 ug/g
OC, all locations fall well below this guideline with the maximum concentration of 300 ug/g OC
found at station IH 08. Station IH 07 fell closely behind station IH 08 with an organic carbon
normalized concentration of 285 ug/g OC, even further below the SEL.
Page 51
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Figure 3.37 Organic Carbon Normalized Benz(a)anthracene - Surface Samples
1,000
800
o
o
600
400
200
SEL= 1,480
285
300
95
IH03
IH04 IH05 IH06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
IH10
Benzo(a)pyrene
Survey
1
2
Minimum
5,700
N/A
Median
15,500
N/A
Maximum
41,000
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
430
L&M
ER-M
1,600
SEL
l,440ug/gOC
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g unless otherwise noted)
As shown in Figure 3.38, all eight samples analyzed (including one replicate) for
benzo(a)pyrene exceeded the ER-M of 1,600 ng/g. The minimum concentration of 5,700 ng/g, found
at station IH 05 located by the ConRail railroad tracks, is more than three tunes the ER-M while the
maximum concentration of 41,000 ng/g, found at the replicate sample from station IH 07 located at
the forks, is more than 25 times the ER-M of 1,600 ng/g. Station IH 08, located further upstream hi
the Lake George Branch had the next highest concentration of 29,000 ng/g, also well above the ER-
M.
Figure 3.39 depicts the benzo(a)pyrene concentrations normalized to total organic carbon (the
replicate for station IH 07 did not have a reported value for TOC and therefore is not represented in
the bar chart). When normalized to organic carbon and compared to Ontario's SEL of 1,440 ug/g
OC, all locations fall well below this guideline. The maximum concentration of 290 ug/g OC was
found at station IH 08 situated in the Lake George Branch. Station IH 06, located at Dickey Road,
falls closely behind station IH 08 with an organic carbon normalized concentration of 250 ug/g OC.
Page 52
-------
Chapter 3
Figure 3.38 Benzo(a)pyrene Concentration - Surface Samples
50,000
40,000
IH 03 IH 04
IH05 IH06 IH07M IH 07r2
Master Station Sample Number
IH 08 IH 10
Rgure 3.39 Organic Carbon Normalized Benzo(a)pyrene - Surface Samples
350
300 -
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07 IH 08
Master Station Sample Number
IH10
Page 53
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Benzo(g, h, i)perytene
Survey
1
2
Minimum
76
N/A
Median
125
N/A
Maximum
310
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
N/A
L&M
ER-M
N/A
SEL
320
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g OC)
Organic carbon-normalized concentrations for benzo(g,h,i)perylene for the seven surface
samples from Survey 1 are shown in Figure 3.40. As indicated in the chart, none of the locations
exceed the SEL of 320 ug/g OC. The maximum concentration of 310 ug/g OC was found at station
IH 08 located at Indianapolis Boulevard in the Lake George Branch. Stations IH 06 and IH 07,
located by Dickey Road and at the forks, are where the next highest values of 280 ug/g OC and 239
ug/g OC were found.
There are no L&M effects ranges for benzo(g,h,i)perylene.
Figure 3.40 Organic Carbon Normalized Benzo(g,h,i)perylene - Surface Samples
350
300
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07 IH 08 IH 10
Master Station Sample Number
Page 54
-------
Chapter 3
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Survey
1
2
Minimum
51
N/A
Median
131
N/A
Maximum
230
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
N/A
L&M
ER-M
N/A
SEL
1,340
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g OC)
Figure 3.41 shows the organic carbon-normalized benzo(k)fluoranthene concentrations for the
seven surface samples from Survey 1. As indicated in the barchart, none of the locations exceed the
SEL of 1,340 ug/g OC. The maximum concentration of 230 ug/g OC, found at station IH 06 at
Dickey Road, is well below the SEL. Station IH 08, located at Indianapolis Boulevard in the Lake
George Branch falls closely behind station IH 06 with a concentration of 210 ug/g OC.
There are no L&M effects ranges for benzo(k)flouranthene.
Figure 3.41 Organic Carbon Normalized Benzo(k)flouranthene - Surface Samples
300
250
200
O
o
o>150
100
50
SEL = 1,340
230
210
131
97
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07 IH 08 IH 10
Master Station Sample Number
Page 55
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Chrysene
Survey
1
2
Minimum
5,200
N/A
Median
16,700
N/A
Maximum
39,000
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
384
L&M
ER-M
2,800
SEL
460 ug/g OC
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g unless otherwise noted)
Figure 3.42 shows the results of the Survey 1 surface samples for chrysene. Of the eight
samples analyzed (including one replicate), all eight exceeded the ER-M of 2,800 ng/g. The
maximum concentration of 39,000 ng/g, found at the replicate sample from station IH 07 located, at
the forks is almost 14 times the ER-M. Station IH 08, located at Indianapolis Boulevard, had the
next highest concentration with 33,000 ng/g. The lowest concentration was found at station IH 04
situated in the turning basin with a concentration of 5,200 ng/g, well above the ER-M.
Figure 3.42 Chrysene Concentration - Surface Samples
50,000
40,000 ~
30,000
I
20,000
10,000
ER-M = 2800
ER-L = 384
0
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07r1 IH07r2
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
IH10
Figure 3.43 depicts the chrysene concentrations for the Survey 1 surface samples as
normalized to total organic carbon (the replicate for station IH 07 did not have a reported value for
TOC and therefore is not represented in the bar chart). When normalized to organic carbon and
compared to Ontario's SEL of 460 ug/g OC, none of the locations exceed the guideline. Station IH
07 (at the forks) comes closest with a concentration of 445 ug/g OC. Station IH 08 is next with a
concentration of 330 ug/g OC.
Page 56
-------
Chapter 3
Rgure 3.43 Organic Carbon Normalized Chrysene - Surface Samples
500
0
Fluoranthene
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
IH10
Survey
1
2
Minimum
4,800
N/A
Median
11,800
N/A
Maximum
120,000
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
620
ug/g OC
L&M
ER-L
600
L&M
ER-M
5,100
SEL
1,020 ug/g OC
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g unless otherwise noted)
Flouranthene concentrations found in Survey 1 are depicted in Figure 3.44. Of the eight
samples analyzed (including one replicate), seven exceeded the ER-M of 5,100 ng/g and all eight
exceeded the ER-L of 600 ng/g. The maximum concentration of 120,000 ng/g, found at the replicate
sample from station IH 07 located at the forks, is more than 20 times the ER-M. Station IH 08 at
Indianapolis Boulevard had the next highest concentration; 56,000 ng/g. The lowest concentration
was found in the turning basin at station IH 04 with a concentration of 4,800 ng/g, well above the
ER-L, but below the ER-M.
Figure 3.45 depicts the flouranthene concentrations as normalized to total organic carbon
(replicate 2 for station IH 07 did not have a reported value for TOC and therefore is not represented
hi the bar chart). When normalized to organic carbon and compared to Ontario's SEL of 1,020 ug/g
OC, all the locations fall well below this guideline with a maximum value of 560 ug/g OC found in
the Lake George Branch at station IH 08. Station IH 07 had the second highest concentration with a
reported value of 456, even further below the SEL.
Page 57
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
60,000
50,000
Figure 3.44 Ruoranthene Concentration - Surface Samples
120,000
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07r1 IH 07r2 IH 08 IH10
Master Station Sample Number
Figure 3.45 Organic Carbon Normalized Ruoranthene - Surface Samples
SEL = 1,020
1,000 -
IH 03 IH 04
IH 05 IH 06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
IH08 IH10
Page 58
-------
Chapter 3
As indicated in Figure 3.45, when the organic carbon normalized values are compared to
EPA's EqP SQC of 620 ug/gOC, all locations fall below this guideline.
Fluorene
Survey
1
2
Minimum
<61
N/A
Median
3,200
N/A
Maximum
61,000
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
19
L&M
ER-M
540
SEL
160 ug/g OC
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g unless otherwise noted)
Figure 3.46 shows the results of the surface samples from Survey 1 for fluorene. Of the eight
samples, seven exceeded both the ER-L and the ER-M. The maximum and minimum concentrations
for fluorene were found at the same location, station IH 07. The maximum concentration of 61,000
ng/g is more than 100 times the ER-M and is much higher than the second highest concentration of
12,000 ng/g found at station IH 08 located in the Lake George Branch. The minimum value detected,
<61 ng/g, was found at the replicate for station IH 07 which is located at the forks.
8,000
"I! 4,000
Figure 3.46 Ruorene Concentration - Surface Samples
61,000 12,000
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07r1 IH 07r2
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
IH10
Page 59
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Figure 3.47 depicts the fluorene concentrations as normalized to total organic carbon
(replicate 2 for station IH 07 did not have a reported value for TOC and therefore is not represented
in the bar chart). When normalized to organic carbon and compared to Ontario's SEL of 160 ug/g
OC, only one location, station IH 07 located at the forks with a concentration of 696 ug/g OC,
exceeded this guideline. This concentration far exceeded the next highest concentration of 115 ug/g
OC found at station IH 08 located in the Lake George Branch. All the other stations fell well below
the SEL.
Figure 3.47 Organic Carbon Normalized Ruorene - Surface Samples
800
600
O
O
.0)400
u)
200
696
SEL = 160
IH03
IH04
IH 05 IH 06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
Indeno[l, 2,3-cd]chrysene
Survey
1
2
Minimum
58
N/A
Median
95
N/A
Maximum
220
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
N/A
L&M
ER-M
N/A
SEL
320 ug/g OC
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g OC)
Page 60
-------
Chapter 3
The organic carbon-normalized concentrations for indeno[l,2,3]chrysene for the seven surface
samples from Survey 1 are depicted in Figure 3.48. As indicated in the bar chart, none of the
locations exceed the SEL of 320 ug/g OC. The maximum concentration of 220 ug/g OC was found
at station IH 06 located at Dickey Road. The second highest concentration of 190 ug/g OC was
found at station IH 08 located in the Lake George Branch.
There are no L&M effects ranges for indeno[l,2,3-cd]chrysene.
Figure 3.48 Organic Carbon Normalized lndeno[1,2,3-cd]chrysene - Surface Sample
250
200
150
U
O
I
100
50
IH03
2-Methylnaphthalene
IH04 IH05 IH06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
IH10
Survey
1
2
Minimum
<31
N/A
Median
2,600
N/A
Maximum
42,000
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
70
L&M
ER-M
670
SEL
N/A
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g)
Figure 3.49 shows the results of the surface samples from Survey 1 for 2-methylnaphthalene.
Of the eight samples, seven exceeded both the ER-L and the ER-M. The maximum concentration of
42,000 ng/g was found at station IH 07 at the forks. This concentration exceeds the ER-M of 670
ng/g by more than 60 times. This concentration is twice as high as the second greatest concentration
of 20,000 ng/g found at station IH 08 located in the Lake George Branch.
Page 61
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
8,000
7,000
Figure 3.49 2-Methylnaphthalene Concentration - Surface Samples
42,000 20,000
..£H-L« 70.
IH 03 IH 04
IH05 IH06 IH07M IH 07t2
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
IH10
Naphthalene
Survey
1
2
Minimum
3,600
N/A
Median
6,200
N/A
Maximum
24,000
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
160
L&M
ER-M
2,100
SEL
N/A
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g)
Figure 3.50 shows the results of the surface samples from Survey 1 for naphthalene. All of
the eight samples exceeded the ER-M of 2,100 ng/g with the maximum concentration of 24,000 ng/g
found upstream of the forks at Columbus Drive (IH 10). This sample is more than 10 times the ER-M
and is almost three times more than the next highest concentration of 8,500 ng/g found at station IH
06 located at Dickey Road.
Page 62
-------
Figure 3.50 Naphthalene Concentration - Surface Samples
10,000
8,000
Chapter 3
24,000
6,000 -
I
4,000
ER-M = 210C
2,000
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07 r1 IH 07 r2 IH 08 IH 10
Master Station Sample Number
Phenanthrene
Survey
1
2
Minimum
3,400
N/A
Median
11,450
N/A
Maximum
270,000
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
180
ug/g OC
L&M
ER-L
240
L&M
ER-M
1,500
SEL
950 ug/g OC
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g unless noted otherwise)
Figure 3.51 shows the results of the surface samples from Survey 1 for phenanthrene. All
eight samples exceeded the ER-M of 1,500 ng/g with the maximum concentration of 270,000 ng/g
located at station IH07 at the forks exceeding the ER-M by 180 times. This concentration is more
than three tunes greater than the second highest concentration of 79,000 ng/g found at station IH 08
located in the Lake George Branch. The minimum value detected, 3,400 ng/g, was found at station
IH 04 further downstream in the turning basin and is more than twice the ER-M.
Page 63
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
40,000
Figure 3.51 Phenanthrene Concentration - Surface Samples
270,000 79,000
30,000
"
20,000
10,000 -
ER-M = 1500
ER-L = 240 -
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07M IH 07r2 IH 08 IH 10
Master Station Sample Number
Figure 3.52 depicts the phenanthrene concentrations normalized to total organic carbon
(replicate 2 for station IH 07 did not have a reported value for TOC and therefore is not represented
in the bar chart). When normalized to organic carbon and compared to Ontario's SEL of 950 ug/g
OC, all of the locations fall well below the guideline. The maximum value of 790 ug/g OC was
detected at station IH 08 located in the Lake George Branch.
However, when compared to EPA's EqP SQC of 180 ug/g OC, two locations, IH 08 and IH
07 with respective concentrations of 790 ug/g OC and 376 ug/g OC, exceed this criteria. All other
sampling locations fall below the SQC.
Pyrene
Survey
1
2
Minimum
5,500
N/A
Median
27,000
N/A
Maximum
55,000
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
665
L&M
ER-M
2,600
SEL
850
ug/g
OC
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g unless otherwise noted)
Page 64
-------
Chapter 3
Figure 3.52 Organic Carbon Normalized Phenanthrene - Surface Samples
1,000
800 -
600 -
400
200 -
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
IH10
As Figure 3.53 shows, all of the surface samples from Survey 1 for pyrene exceed both the
ER-L and the ER-M. The minimum detected value of 5,500 ng/g found at station IH 04 in the turning
basin is more than twice the ER-M of 2,600 ng/g. The maximum detected concentration of 55,000
was found at the first replicate sample from station IH 07 (located at the forks).
Figure 3.54 depicts the pyrene concentrations normalized to total organic carbon (replicate 2
for station IH 07 did not have a reported value for TOC and therefore is not represented in the bar
chart). When normalized to organic carbon and compared to Ontario's SEL of 850 ug/g OC, all of
the locations fall well the guideline. The maximum value of 627 ug/g OC was detected at station IH
07 located at the forks.
Page 65
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Figure 3.53 Pyrene Concentration - Surface Samples
60,000
50,000
40,000
'
i 30,000
20,000 -
10,000
ER-M = 2600
ER-L = 665
0
IH 03 IH 04
IH05 IH06 IH07M IH 07r2 IH 08
Master Station Sample Number
IH10
Rgure 3.54 Organic Carbon Normalized Pyrene - Surface Samples
1,000
800
U
o
s
600
400
200
SB. = 850
209
IH03
IH04 IH05 IH06 IH 07 IH 08
Master Station Sample Number
IH10
Page 66
-------
Chapter 3
Total PAH*
Survey
1
2
Minimum
67,971
N/A
Median
304,045
N/A
Maximum
941,340
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
4,022
L&M
ER-M
44,792
SEL
10,000 ug/g OC
N/A - Not Available
(All units are ng/g unless otherwise noted)
* Sum of detected PAHs
Figure 3.55 shows the results of the surface samples from Survey 1 for Total PAHs. All
eight samples exceeded the ER-M of 44,792 ng/g with the maximum concentration of 941,340 ng/g
located at station IH 07, situated at the forks, exceeding the ER-M by more than 20 times. The
second highest concentration of 597,480 ng/g was found at station IH 06 at Dickey Road. The
minimum value detected, 67,971 ng/g, was found at station IH 04 further downstream in the turning
basin and is well above the ER-M.
Figure 3.55 Total PAH Concentration - Surface Samples
941,340
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
ER-M = 44,792
ER-L = 4,022 Q
IH 03 IH 04
IH05 IH06 IH07M IH 07r2
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
IH10
Page 67
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Figure 3.56 depicts the total PAH concentrations normalized to total organic carbon (replicate
2 for station IH 07 did not have a reported value for TOC and therefore is not represented in the bar
chart). When normalized to organic carbon and compared to Ontario's SEL of 10,000 ug/g OC, all of
the locations fall well below the guideline. The maximum value of 5,416 ug/g OC was detected at
station IH 07 which is located at the forks.
Figure 3.56 Organic Carbon Normalized Total PAHs - Surface Samples
6,000
5,000
IH03 IH04 IH05 IH 06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
IH08
IH10
Total PCBs*
Survey
1
2
Minimum
4,000 PD
N/A
Median
12,0000
N/A
Maximum
43,000 PD
N/A
EPA
EqP
Criteria
N/A
L&M
ER-L
22.7
L&M
ER-M
180
SEL
530 ug/g OC
N/A - Not Available
P - Greater than 25% difference between analytical columns. Lower value is reported.
D - Analyzed at secondary dilution factor.
(All units are in ng/g unless otherwise noted)
* Total PCB concentration is the sum of detected aroclors.
Figure 3.57 shows the total PCBs (sum of detected aroclors) for Survey 1. As the figure
indicates, all samples exceed both the ER-L and the ER-M. Station IH 07, situated at the forks, with
a concentration of 43,000 ng/g exceeds the ER-M by over 5,000 times.
Page 68
-------
Chapter 3
20,000
Rgure 3.57 Total PCB Concentration - Surface Samples
24,0000 43,000 PD
15,000
10,000
5,000
ER-M = 180
ER-L 22.7
0
IH 03 IH 04 IH 05, r1 IH 05, r2 IH 05, r3 IH 06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
IH 08 IH 10
As shown in Figure 3.58, when normalized to organic carbon, none of the surface samples
exceed the SEL of 530 ug/g OC. The maximum concentration, still found at station IH 07 located at
the forks, is 490 ug/g OC. The minimum concentration of 71 ug/g OC is well below the SEL and is
found at station IH 04 located in the turning basin. For the four aroclors for which there are SELs
(aroclors 1016, 1248, 1254 and 1260), only aroclor 1254 was detected at two locations (IH 04 and IH
07) and when these concentrations are normalized to organic carbon, they fall below the SEL
guideline of 34 ug/g OC.
Pesticides
No pesticides were analyzed for in Survey 2 . However, in Survey 1, pesticides were
monitored for, and the majority of sample values were found below detection limits. However, for
4,4 DDE, the one analyte for which an ER-M is available and for which sampling was performed,
all stations except for station IH 04 located in the turning basin, exceeded the ER-M. However,
when any of the sampled concentrations for which there are SELs (4,4 ODD, 4,4 DDE, dieldrin,
aldrin, endrin, a-BHC, b-BHC and c-BHC) or an SQC (dieldrin) are normalized to organic carbon,
all locations fall below either guideline.
Page 69
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Rgure 3.58 Organic Carbon Normalized Total PCB - Surface Samples
600
500 -
100
IH 03 IH 04
IH 05, r1 |H 06 IH 07
Master Station Sample Number
IH08 IH10
3.3.3 Ranking by Chemical Parameter
To provide a preliminary indication of which chemicals may be of concern in the Indiana
Harbor AOC, a simple comparative analysis was performed based on the relative exceedance of the
ER-M value. In particular, the mean measured value of each parameter (assuming zero for any
nondetect value) was compared to the ER-M value for the parameter. The resulting ratio (herein
referred to as the "Mean Exceedance") was calculated for each chemical within each survey. Data
between the two surveys are not combined, therefore, if the parameter was analyzed in both surveys,
each parameter may have two mean exceedance values. The ER-M was chosen for comparative
purposes since one was available for almost all of the chemicals discussed in Section 3.3.2.
Once mean exceedance values were determined, the values were ranked. For the purposes of
ranking, metals and organic parameters were ranked separately and separate ranks were determined
for each survey. The results of the ranking for Surveys 1 and 2 are presented in Table 3.3.
Of the toxic metals analyzed for in Surveys 1 and 2, zinc and lead rank the highest of the
metals in both surveys. The high concentrations for both of these parameters were found upstream of
Canal Street, particularly in the Lake George Branch.
Page 70
-------
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RELATIVE RANKS BY CHEMICAL
PARAMETER IN SURVEYS 1 AND 2
Chemical
Survey 1
Mean
Exceedance
Relative Rank
Survey 2
Mean
Exceedance
Relative Rank
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
Total PCBs
0.82
1.36
2.89
1.02
3.70
2.02
1.07
0.90
9.70
32.97
9.13
10.44
6.17
5.05
14.15
11.67
4.11
25.61
9.73
7.07
88.62
9
5
3
7
2
4
6
8
1
Organics
2
8
6
10
11
4
5
12
3
7
9
1
NA
0.95
1.25
1.03
3.33
NA
1.51
NA
2.97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
4
5
1
NA
3
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA - Not analyzed.
Page 71
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
As for the organic chemicals, the highest mean exceedances in Survey 1 surface samples
(organics were not analyzed for in Survey 2) were found for total PCBs and the PAHs anthracene and
phenanthrene. Total PCBs had the highest mean exceedance (on average a sample was found at about
89 times the ER-M value). The PAHs anthracene and phenanthrene exceed the ER-M on average by
about 33 and 26 times respectively. The highest exceedances for total PCBs, as well as the PAHs
anthracene and phenanthrene, were found upstream of Dickey Road, with the maximum concentration
found at the forks.
3.3.4 Analysis by Sample Location
The second portion of the analysis of Indiana Harbor sediment samples focuses on which
sample locations are of concern. For purposes of this analysis, sample locations are examined in one
of two ways; the number of chemicals that exceed the ER-M guidelines at a sample site, and the
relative exceedance of the guidelines at the site.
One difficulty in directly comparing sampling locations stems from differences in the number
of parameters and number of samples collected from different locations. While most Survey 2
locations were sampled at three sediment core depths, some were sampled at two or only one.
Several parameters, including mercury and arsenic, were sampled for only in Survey 1. In light of
these differences, an analysis by sample location was still performed to provide a preliminary
indication of the areas of concern within the Indiana Harbor AOC.
As shown in Table 3.4, sediment samples taken at the stations upstream of Dickey Road
exceeded the ER-M for eight of the nine toxic metals analyzed for in Survey 1. Of the twelve organic
parameters analyzed at the seven different stations, samples at five locations (upstream of the turning
basin) exceeded the ER-M for all twelve parameters, and samples at the remaining two stations
exceeded eleven of the twelve ER-Ms.
TABLE 3.4 TOTAL NUMBER OF L&M ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION - SURVEY 1
Sample Site
IH03
IH04
IH05
IH06
IH07
IH08
IH10
Metals
4
3
5
8
8
8
8
Organics
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
Table 3.5 shows the total number of exceedances by sample location for Survey 2. For the six
toxic metals analyzed for in Survey 2, the ER-M was exceeded for all six metals at 18 of the 37
Page 72
-------
Chapter 3
different locations in the first core segment. All but one of these locations are found upstream of the
ConRail railroad tracks. In the second core segment, the six ER-Ms were exceeded at 14 of the 32
locations. All but two of these locations are upstream of the ConRail railroad tracks. Finally, in the
third core segment, six of the 26 locations exceeded the ER-M for all six metals. Again, all of these
stations are upstream of the ConRail railroad tracks.
TABLE 3.5 TOTAL NUMBER OF L&M ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION - SURVEY 2
Sample Site
1
3
4
5
6
6D
7
9
10
10D
11
12
14
14D
15
16
17
18
20
21
Metals
First Core
Segment*
0
2 .
6
3
3
3
0
2
4
4
0
2
5 '
3
6
6
6
0
6
1
Second Core
Segment*
0
0
2
5
6
5
—
4
4
4
—
6
2
5
6
0
0
—
6
—
Third Core
Segment*
—
0
0
2
1
—
—
4
3
2
—
0
4
2
6
—
—
—
0
—
Fourth Core
Segment*
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
Page 73
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
TABLE 3.5 TOTAL NUMBER OF L&M ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION - SURVEY 2
Sample Site
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
41
42
42D
43
Metals
First Core
Segment*
2
6
6
5
6
0
6
6
6
6
4
6
6
5
5
6
6
6
3
3
6
Second Core
Segment*
3
4
1
6
6
—
0
6
6
6
4
0
0
5
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
Third Core
Segment*
0
2
0
5
5
—
0
4
3
4
—
—
—
2
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
Fourth Core
Segment*
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
~
—
—
—
—
— No Data
* Core depths vary by segment.
Page 74
-------
Chapter 3
The second analysis performed provides a preliminary indication of which locations may be of
concern in the Indiana Harbor AOC, using a simple comparative analysis based on the relative
exceedance of the ER-M value. Specifically, the average of the mean exceedances of chemical
concentrations (shown previously in Table 3.3) was compared to the ER-M value. For Survey 1, two
different mean exceedances were calculated for each sample location; one for all metals and one for
all organic chemicals (PAHs and PCBs). For Survey 2, a metals mean exceedance was calculated for
each core segment (organics were not analyzed for). The ER-M was chosen for comparative purposes
since one was available for most of the chemicals discussed in Section 3.3.2, and was assumed to be a
better indicator for concern (as particularly compared to the ER-L).
Table 3.6 presents the mean exceedance values determined for each Survey 1 sample location,
and ranks them in relation to all other locations. As the table shows, all locations possess mean
exceedances greater than one for both metals and organics. Sample location IH 07, located at the
forks, is the highest ranked site for both metals and organics with a mean exceedance for metals of
4.71 and a mean exceedance of 60.5 for organics. Station IH 06, located at Dickey Road, had a
metals mean exceedance of 3.06; station IH 10 near the end of the federal navigation channel at
Columbus Drive had a mean exceedance of 3.02 for metals. For the organics, the second highest
mean exceedance (26.48) was found at station IH 08 located at Indianapolis Boulevard in the Lake
George Branch. Station IH 06 located at Dickey also had a high mean exceedance (18.95) for
organics.
TABLE 3.6 SURVEY 1 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RANKS FOR METALS
AND ORGANICS
Sample Site
IH03
IH04
IH05
IH06
IH07
IH08
IH10
Metals
Mean
Exceedance
1.90
1.33
1.43
3.06
4.71
2.79
3.02
Relative Rank
5
7
6
2
1
4
3
Organics (PAHs and PCBs)
Mean
Exceedance
3.51
3.65
8.29
18.95
60.5
26.48
9.70
Relative Rank
7
6
5
3
1
2
4
As shown in Table 3.7, for the first core segments, station 30, located just downstream of the
forks, with a mean exceedance of 7.54, ranked the highest. The top six ranked stations all occur
upstream of Dickey Road. Station 35, located in the Lake George Branch was ranked second with a
mean exceedance of 6.31. Station 30 also had the highest mean exceedance for the second core
segments. Station 29, adjacent to station 30 just upstream of Canal Street, was ranked second with a
mean exceedance of 7.78. The top six ranked stations for the second core segment were all found
Page 75
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
upstream of Canal Street. For the third core segment, the top ranked seven stations were found
upstream of Canal Street. The highest mean exceedance, 7.64 was found at station 40 located
upstream of the forks halfway to Columbus Drive. The duplicate sample at station 42 was second
with a mean exceedance ranking of 7.27. Finally, both fourth core segments had mean exceedance
values greater than one.
TABLE 3.7 SURVEY 2 MEAN SITE EXCEEDANCES AND RANKS FOR METALS
Site
1
3
4
5
6
6D
7
9
10
10D
11
12
14
14D
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
First Core Segment*
Mean
Exceed-
ance
0.05
1.87
4.98
2.45
2.39
2.63
0.08
1.96
1.85
2.08
0.17
2.05
2.74
1.86
2.71
0.79
2.80
0.02
5.21
0.38
2.21
4.06
4.14
2.61
4.11
Relative
Rank
40
33
7
25
26
23
39
32
35
29
38
30
20
34
21
19
18
41
5
37
28
11
8
24
9
Second Core Segment*
Mean
Exceed-
ance
0
0.13
2.03
2.12
5.20
4.78
-
2.82
2.0
1.%
-
4.33
2.87
3.63
5.76
.91
0.13
-
4.39
-
4.45
2.29
0.81
5.09
4.65
Relative
Rank
36
34
26
25
8
10
-
23
27
28
-
14
22
19
7
30
32
-
13
-
12
24
29
9
11
Third Core Segment*
Mean
Exceed-
ance
-
0.02
0
1.30
0.83
-
-
1.98
1.17
0.66
-
0.16
4.17
2.55
3.74
-
-
-
0.02
--
0.02
1.32
0.02
4.15
4.41
Relative
Rank
-
27
29
17
20
-
-
15
19
21
-
24
10
14
12
-
-
-
26
-
25
16
28
11
8
Fourth Core Segment*
Mean
Exceed-
ance
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
2.75
-
-
-
2.95
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Page 76
-------
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.7 SURVEY 2 MEAN SITE EXCEEDANCES AND RANKS FOR METALS
Sample
Site
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
41
42
42D
43
First Core Segment*
Mean
Exceed-
ance
0.45
3.91
5.01
7.54
5.34
5.95
3.31
6.31
2.69
3.65
4.08
3.59
3.48
2.02
2.37
3.89
Relative
Rank
36
12
6
1
4
3
17
2
22
14
10
15
16
31
27
13
Second Core Segment*
Mean
Exceed-
ance
--
0.05
7.78
8.22
7.15
6.33
0.13
0.15
3.06
6.56
4.16
7.51
3.87
3.58
3.93
3.94
Relative
Rank
--
35
2
1
4
6
33
31
21
5
15
3
18
20
17
16
Third Core Segment*
Mean
Exceed-
ance
--
0.18
6.13
4.29
5.01
-
-
--
1.19
0.18
6.73
7.64
4.68
3.67
7.27
5.92
Relative
Rank
-
23
4
9
6
-
-
-
18
22
3
1
7
13
2
5
Fourth Core Segment*
Mean
Exceed-
ance
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No Data
*Core depths vary by segment.
Page 77
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Page 78
-------
Chapter 4
4. CONCLUSIONS
This report summarizes the results from two sediment sampling surveys performed in the Indiana
Harbor AOC. This section presents several preliminary conclusions based on examination of the data
resulting from the surveys.
4.1 Metals
Metal concentrations for all ten parameters sampled exceeded either the Long and MacDonald
effects ranges or Ontario's SELs and all parameters could be considered to be contaminants of concern
in both surficial, as well as deeper sediments. Comparison of bulk sediment concentrations to Long and
MacDonald's ER-M indicate that zinc and lead pose the highest potential risk for biota in the Indiana
Harbor. Only two parameters, arsenic and silver, had mean exceedances of less than one. Though silver's
mean exceedance may not be excessively high, all the stations upstream of Dickey Road exceeded the ER-
M and at these locations, silver could be considered to be a contaminant of concern. Arsenic
concentrations exceeded the ER-M only at the fork of the Indiana Harbor Canal and the Lake George
Branch.
Comparison of bulk sediment concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
manganese, mercury, nickel and zinc to Ontario's SELs indicate all parameters would be of concern in
some location, if not throughout the AOC. Though metal levels were elevated throughout the Harbor,
concentrations were most elevated upstream of Dickey Road, in particular, at the forks of the Lake
George Branch and the Indiana Harbor Canal.
4.2 Organic Chemicals
Organic chemicals were not analyzed for in Survey 2; therefore, all conclusions are based on the
Survey 1 surface samples results. Based on the Long and MacDonald guideline numbers, total PCBs is
the organic pollutant that poses the greatest risk in contaminated sediment in the Indiana Harbor AOC.
On average, the total PCB concentration at a site was almost 90 times higher than the ER-M guideline.
All the organics had a mean exceedance of the ER-M that was greater than one. The PAHs anthracene
and phenanthrene had mean exceedances greater than 25. In general, the highest concentrations of the
organics were found at the fork of the Lake George Branch and in the Indiana Harbor Canal.
When normalized to total organic carbon and compared to either the EPA endorsed EqP-based
criteria or the Ontario SELs, a different conclusion may be drawn. When compared to Ontario's SELs,
only two organics, anthracene and flourene; exceed the Severe Effect Level at only one location - at the
fork of the Lake George Branch and the Indiana Harbor Canal. The examination of organic carbon
normalized data for flouranthene and phenanthrene (the two PAHs for which EPA-based criteria are
available and that were sampled in Survey 1) indicate that only phenanthrene would be of concern.
Phenanthrene exceeds the SQC at the forks and in the Lake George Branch; most of the other locations
are about half of the SQC. Flouranthene's SQC is not exceeded at any location with the highest
concentration of 560 ug/g OC falling 40 ug/g OC below the SQC of 620 ug/g OC. For all of the
organics, the highest concentrations are generally found either at the forks, or by Indianapolis Boulevard
in the Lake George Branch.
Page 79
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Page 80
-------
Chapter 5
5. REFERENCES
APHA (American Public Health Association), American Water Works Association and Water Pollution
Control Federation. 1975. Standard method for the examination of water and wastewater,
14th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
Bloom, N. 1989. Determination of picogram levels of methylmercury by aqueous phase ethylation,
followed by cryogenic gas chromatography with cold vapor atomic fluorescence detection.
Canada Journal of Fish. Aquatic Sci. 46(7):1131-1140.
Bloom, N. and E. Crecelius. 1983. Determination of mercury in seawater at sub-nanogram per liter
levels. Mar. Chem. 14:49-59.
Brandon, D.L., C.R. Lee, J.G. Skogerboe, J.W. Simmers, and H.E. Tatem. 1989. Information
Summary Area of Concern: Saginaw River, Michigan. Miscellaneous Paper D-89-xx, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Brannon, J.M., D. Gunnison, D.E. Averett, J.L. Martin, R.L. Chen, and R.F. Athow, Jr.. 1989.
Analyses of Impacts of Bottom Sediments From Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor
Canal on Water Quality. Miscellaneous Paper D-89-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Cutter, G.A. and T.J. Oattes, 1987. Determination of dissolved sulfide and sedimentary sulfur
speciation using gas chromatography and photoionization detection. Anal. Chem. 59:717.
Guigne', J.Y., N. Rukavina, P.H. Hunt, and J.S. Ford. 1991. An Acoustic Parametric Array for
Measuring the Thickness and Stratigraphy of Contaminated Sediments. J. Great Lakes Res.,
Filkins, J.C., V.E. Smith, J.E. Rathburn, and S.G. Rood. 1993. ARCS Toricity/Chemistry Work
Group Sediment Assessment Guidance Document (Chapters 3-5). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth, Large Lakes and Rivers
Research Branch, Grosse Island, MI.
International Joint Commission. 1987. Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. Appendix A. Progress
in Developing Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin. Report
to the International Joint Commission Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Windsor, Ontario.
Lee, C.R., D.L. Brandon, J.W. Simmers, H.E. Tatem, and J.G. Skogerboe. 1989. Information
Summary Area of Concern: Buffalo River, New York. Miscellaneous Paper EL-89-xx, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Long, E.R., D. MacDonald, S. Smith and F. Calder. 1995. Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects
Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments.
Environmental Management Vol. 19, No. 1. pp. 81-97.
Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan, 1990. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed
Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington.
Page 81
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Indiana Harbor AOC
Neff, J.m., D.J. bean, B.W. Cornaby, R.M. Vaga, T.C. Gulbransen and J.A. Scanlon. 1986. Sediment
Quality Criteria Methodology Validation: Calculation of Screening Level Concentrations
from Field Data. Battelle Washington Environmental Program Office for U.S. EPA 60 p.
Nielson, K.K. and R.W. Sanders. 1983. Multielement analysis of unweighed biological and geological
samples using backscatter and fundamental parameters. Adv. X-ray Anal. 26:385-390.
Persaud,D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of
Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Ministry of the Environment, Standards Development
Branch and Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Ontario, Canada.
Plumb, R. 1981. Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water Samples.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report EPA/CE-81-1.
Thurston, R.V., R.C. Russo and K. Emerson. 1974. Aquaeous ammonia equilibrium catenations.
Technical Report No. 74-1 (MSU-FBL TR 74-1), Fisheries Bioassay Laboratory, Montana State
University, Bozeman, MT.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993a. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Benthic Organisms: Acenapthene. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Health and
Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993b. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Benthic Organisms: Dieldrm. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993c. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Benthic Organisms: Endrin. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993d. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Benthic Organisms: Fluoranthene. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Health and
Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993e. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Benthic Organisms: Phenanthrene. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Health and
Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Sediment Classification Methods
Compendium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Method 200.4. Sample preparation procedure
for spectrochemical analyses of total elements in sediments. Version 1.0. Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1986. Test methods for evaluating solid waste:
physical/chemical methods. 3rd Ed. SW-846, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
Page 82
-------
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
Page A-l
-------
TABLE 1. INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 1 - INORGANICS (dry wt)
IH
IH
IH
IH
IH
IH
IH
IH
IH
IH
IH
IH
IH
IH
IH
IH
SAMPLE ID
03
04
05
06
07
08
10
SAMPLE ID
03
04
05
06
06, REP
07
07, REP
08
10
AG
(ug/g)
0.244
0.037
0.023
5.99
7.08
4.67
5.2
TOC
(wt %)
7.65
5.64
11.1
11.58
8.77
10.41
12.25
AS
(ug/g)
60
32
45
52
93
56
63
AVS
CD
(ug/g)
9.1
5.2
10.4
11.7
24.2
12.4
18.4
SOLIDS
(uM/g) (% dry wt)
33.5
15.7
21.8
52.6
71.4
53.9
54.1
31.7
40.76
44.76
50.23
29.8
46.67
23.02
19.58
CR
(ug/g)
572
407
580
1132
2610
780
1412
METHYLM
(ng/g)
<0.1
2.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
1.4
<0.1
CU
FE
(ug/g) (%)
226
182
219
379
287
284
354
TBT
19.7
14.4
23.4
17.9
28.8
12.1
21.4
DBT
(ng/g) (ng/g)
240
110
300
1500
<14
19
370
530
47
32
58
370
<11
28
110
160
HG MN Nl PB SE
(ug/g) (ug/g) (ug/g) (ug/g) (ug/g)
0.91 2420 50 589 2.6
0.67 1970 50 396 2.3
0.91 2740 <50 415 2.0
1.86 2410 103 878 3.8
2.06 3280 <58 1354 3.1
1.77 1674 95 1223 3.9
1.85 2450 88 791 3.3
MBT
(ng/g)
7.4
7.2
17
39
12
<12
12
26
ZN
(ug/g)
3250
2250
2290
4460
7960
3540
4080
KEY
AG = Silver
AS = Arsenic
CD = Cadmium
CR = Chromium
CU = Copper
FE = Iron
HG = Mercury
MN = Manganese
Nl = Nickel
PB = Lead
SE = Selenium
ZN = Zinc
TOC = Total Organic Carbon
AVS = Acid volatile Sulfides
METHYLM = Methylmercury
TBT= Tributylin
DBT = Dibutylin
MBT = Monobutylin
-------
TABLE 2. INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 1 - PAHS (ng/g dry wt)
SAMPLE ID
1,4 DCS NAPH 2-MNAPH DM PH
DBF
FLUORE PHEN ANTH FLUORA PYRENE BBPH
IH03
IH04
IH05
IH06
IH 07, REP1
IH 07, REP2
IH08
IH10
SAMPLE ID
IH03
IH04
IH05
IH06
IH 07, REP1
IH 07, REP2
IH08
IH10
82
31
45
380
110
140
160
930
BAANTH
7300
4200
5800
16000
25000
39000
30000
6900
7300
3600
6300
8500
5000
4100
6100
24000
BISPH
10000
4700
3800-
290000
8400
5900
18000
15000
2000
930
1200
5400
<31
42000
20000
4200
CHRYS
8600
5200
7200
26000
39000
24000
33000
9400
<68
<43
<25
<95
<37
<68
<110
<95
DNOPH
1900
4100
430
37000
<90
<170
2600
<240
2300
920
1200
5700
53000
<61
6900
2400
BBFLUOR
7800
5600
6300
24000
22000
19000
26000
8900
2400
790
1400
3200
61000
<61
12000
3200
BKFLUOR
10000
4200
5100
23000
12000
15000
21000
9700
7000
3400
5100
9900
33000
270000
79000
13000
BAPYR
10000
7000
5700
25000
21000
41000
29000
9200
2400
1400
2200
3400
130000
300000
26000
3500
INDPYR
7300
5300
6600
22000
11000
9200
19000
5800
8600
4800
7200
14000
40000
120000
56000
9600
BGHIPER
9600
6300
8800
28000
21000
14000
31000
7600
16000
5500
10000
40000
55000
38000
43000
16000
TOTAL PAH*
120582
67971
84375
597480
536510
941340
458760
149330
<160
<100
<58
16000
<85
<160
<240
<220
KEY
1,4 DCB = 1,4-dichlorobenzene
NAPH = Naphthalene
2-MNAPH = 2-Methylnaphtalene
DM PH = Dimethyl phthalate
DBF = Dibenzofuran
FLUORE = Fluorene
PHEN = Phenanthrene
ANTH = Anthracene
FLUORA = Fiuoranthene
PYRENE = Pyrene
* The sum of the detected PAHs.
BBPH = Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
BAANTH = Benz(a)anthracene
BISPH = Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
CHYRS = Chrysene
DNOPH = di-n-octyphthalate
BBFLUOR = Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
BKFLUOR = Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
BAPYR = Benzo(a)pyrene
INDPYR = lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
BGHIPER = Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
A-3
-------
TABLE 3. INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 1 - DIOXINS AND FURANS (pg/g dry wt)
SAMPLE ID
IH03
IH04
IH05
IH06
IH07
IH 07.REP
IH08
IH 10
SAMPLE ID
IH03
IH04
IH05
IH06
IH07
IH 07, REP
IH08
IH 10
2378-
TCDF
290
27
11
600
480
740
320
310
TOTAL
HXCDF
700
250
220
1900
3500
3700
2100
920
TOTAL
TCDF
860
400
170
3700
2400
4500
2200
1700
123478-
HXCDD
53
13
17
130
560
220
<47
32
2378-
TCDD
130
ND
ND
<59
<37
<110
<39
<18
123678-
HXCDD
73
23
31
210
360
480
230
99
TOTAL
TCDD
190
37
32
490
160
230
230
110
123789-
HXCDD
97
14
19
380
520
<800
290
260
12378-
PECDF
27
12
3.8
56
28
<180
27
30
TOTAL
HXCDD
950
350
420
2500
9000
4600
2600
1700
23478-
PECDF
29
21
7.8
120
82
130
89
68
1234678-
HPCDF
<38
180
220
1600
3300
3000
340
810
TOTAL
PECDF
340
190
76
1300
1300
1400
680
720
1234789-
HPCDF
660
ND
8.8
81
120
72
700
36
12378-
PECDD
<52
ND
ND
42
84
<76
29
20
TOTAL
HPCDF
660
380
510
4200
8800
6600
8200
1500
TOTAL
PECDD
ND
22
35
510
1900
ND
140
66
1234678-
HPCDD
1400
410
580
5100
15000
6500
4700
1600
123478-
HXCDF
41
16
15
130
240
210
95
86
TOTAL
HPCDD
3300
980
1200
9300
31000
15000
5300
3100
123678-
HXCDF
<66
12
6.8
76
86
110
<45
43
OCDF
1600
180
250
6900
32000
2600
12000
2500
123789-
HXCDF
32
10
5.2
55
56
<99
32
30
OCDD
6700
2300
2900
43000
46000
41000
25000
12000
234678 -
HXCDF
<5.6
ND
ND
13
<31
<140
<13
<18
KEY
TCDF = Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
TCDD = Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
PECDF = Pentachlorodibenzofuran
HXCDF = Hexachlorodibenzofuran
HXCDD = Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
HPCDF = Heptachlorodibenzofuran
HPCDD = Heptachlorodibenzodioxin
OCDF = Octachlorodibenzofuran
OCDD = Octachlorodibenzodioxin
ND = Not detected
A-4.
-------
TABLt 4. INUIMNM rmncn^n ounvci i -
SAMPLE ID ALDRIN
A-BHC
B-BHC C-BHC
CHLORDANE CHLORDANE
(GAMMA) (ALPHA) 4,4 ODD 4,4 DDE
ENDOSULFAN
4,4 DDT DIELDRIN (ALPHA)
IH103
IH 104
IH 105.REP1
IH 105,REP2
IH 105 REP3
IH106
IH 107
IH108
IH110
SAMPLE ID
IH103
IH 104
IH 105.REP1
IH105,REP2
IH 105 REPS
IH 106
IH107
IH 108
IH110
84 D
34 D
98 D
100 D
63 D
190 PD
330 D
160 D
78 PD
ENDOSULFAN
(BETA)
55 PD
36 U
160 PD
36 U
34 U
50 U
41 U
49 U
69 U
36 U
36 U
34 U
36 U
34 U
50 U
41 U
49 U
69 U
ENDOSULFAN
(SULFATE)
36 U
36 U
34 U
36 U
34 U
50 U
41 U
49 U
69 U
88 PD
47 D
34 U
36 U
34 U
50 U
290 D
49 U
69 U
ENDRIN
36 U
36 U
34 U
36 U
34 U
50 U
44 D
49 U
69 U
36 U
36 U
34 U
36 U
34 U
50 U
41 U
49 U
69 U
ENDRIN
ALDEHYDE
36 U
36 U
47 PD
36 U
34 U
65 PD
51 PD
49 U
69 U
66 PD
36 U
84 PD
86 PD
50 PD
150 PD
170 PD
100 PD
74 D
HEPT-
ACHLOR
48 PD
36 U
70 PD
73 PD
34 U
100 PD
320 PD
74 PD
69 U
36 U
36 U
34 U
36 U
34 U
50 U
41 U
49 U
69 U
HEPTACHLOR
EPOXIDE
36 U
36 U
63 PD
200 PD
40 PD
320 PD
270 PD
260 PD
79 PD
36 U
36 U
34 U
36 U
34 U
50 U
70 PD
49 U
69 U
LINDANE
(G-BHC)
36 U
36 U
34 U
36 U
34 U
50 U
41 U
49 U
69 U
49 PD
36 U
120 PD
84 PD
55 PD
100 PD
210 PD
78 PD
95 D
TOXA-
PHENE
360 U
360 U
340 U
360 U
340 U
500 U
410 U
490 U
690 U
36 U
36 U
79 PD
36 U
34 U
100 PD
41 U
100 PD
69 U
METHOXY-
CHLOR
180 U
180 U
170 U
180 U
170 U
250 U
200 U
240 U
340 U
280 D
36 U
343 D
36 U
34 U
330 PD
48 PD
280 PD
69 U
36 U
36 U
34 U
36 U
34 U
50 U
41 PD
49 U
69 U
KEY
U = Indicates compound was not detected at dection limit shown
P = This flag is used for a pesticide target analyte when there is greater than 25% difference for detected
concentrations between the two GC columns. The lower of the two values is reported.
D = This flag identifies all compounds identified in an analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
-------
TABLE 5. INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 1 - PCBS (ug/kg dry wt)
SAMPLE ID
PCB 1016
PCB 1221
PCB 1232
PCB 1242
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
PCB 1260 Total PCB*
IH 103
IH104
IH 105, REP 1
IH105, REP2
IH105, REPS
IH 106
IH 107
IH 108
IH 110
360 U
360 U
340 U
360 U
340 U
500 U
410 U
490 U
690 U
360 U
360 U
340 U
360 U
340 U
500 U
410 U
490 U
690 U
360 U
360 U
340 U
360 U
340 U
500 U
410 U
490 U
690 U
10000 U
3000 PD
12000 D
13000 D
7200 D
24000 D
43000 PD
18000 D
7100 PD
360 U
360 U
340 U
360 U
340 U
500 U
410 U
490 U
690 U
360 U
1000 PD
340 U
**3400 PD
**2100 PD
500 U
410 U
490 U
3000 PD
360 U
360 U
340 U
360 U
340 U
500 U
410 U
490 U
690 U
10000 U
4000 PD
12000 D
16,400 PD
9,300 PD
24000 D
43000 PD
18000 D
10100 PD
KEY
* = The sum of detected aroclors only, or the highest undetected limit if no aroclors were detected.
* * = Corrected Values
U = Indicates compound was not detected at detection limit shown
P = This flag is used for an Aroclor target analyte when there is greater than 25 % difference for detected
concentrations between the two GC columns. The lower of the two values is reported.
D = This flag identifies all compounds identified in an analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
-------
TABLES. INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 2- INORGANICS
SAMPLE ID
IH20201C101
IH20201C102
IH20301C101
IH20301C102
IH20301C103
IH20401C101
IH20401C102
IH20401C103
IH20402C101
IH20403C101
IH20403C102
IH20403C103
IH20403C201 D
IH20403C202 D
IH20501C101
IH20501C102
IH20501C103
IH20501C201 D
IH20501C202D
IH20501C203D
IH20501C204D
IH20601C101
IH20601C102
IH20601C103
IH20602C101
IH20701C101
IH20701C102
IH20701C103
IH20801C101
IH20801C102
IH21001C101
IH21001C102
IH21001C103
IH21101C101
IH21101C102
IH21101C103
IH21101C201 D
IH21101C202D
IH21101C203D
Core Depth EXT. RES. (ug/g)
0-24"
24-52"
0-24"
48-72"
97-116"
0-24"
48-72"
84-106"
0-24"
0-24"
60-84"
101-116"
0-24"
60-84
0-24"
48-72"
72-96"
0-24"
72-96"
132-156"
156-179"
0-24"
36-60"
79-103"
0-24"
0-24"
48-72"
96-113"
0-14"
48-66"
0-24"
36-60"
72-100"
0-24"
24-48"
84-108"
0-24"
48-72"
96-121"
120.00 PNQ
260.00 PNQ
42000.00
14000.00
250.00 PNQ
31000.00
42000.00
13000.00
410.00
22000.00
13000.00
2100.00
4600.00
21000.00
19000.00
15000.00
28000.00'
17000.00
30000.00
11000.00
19000.00
59000.00
36000.00
190.00 PNQ
150.00 PNQ
22000.00
45000.00
38000.00
40000.00
55.00
7900.00
11000.00
5700.00
12000.00
12000.00
10000.00
14000.00
9900.00
2900.00
PH
7.93
7.92
7.81
7.87
8.19
7.27
7.92
8.29
7.27
7.30
8.14
7.77
7.51
8.57
8.02
8.81
9.31
7.91
8.40
7.02
7.31
7.23
7.18
7.37
7.64
7.20
7.38
7.66
6.93
7.33
7.04
7.15
7.00
7.21
7.18
6.87
7.17
7.18
7.88
MOISTURE
TOC (%) FRACTION
0.13 LDL
0.20 LDL
9.42
6.74
0.15 LDL
7.74
8.30
5.04
0.99
8.62
10.63
2.16
8.79
8.87
17.73
12.19
8.00
13.26
19.57
4.10
6.25
9.65
7.71
1.77
2.35
11.17
9.50
8.92
14.83
0.93
12.54
12.41
12.71
23.74
34.88
14.48
14.53
13.79
14.14
0.20
0.15
0.64
0.55
0.16
0.50
0.47
0.36
0.24
0.50
0.57
0.32
0.52
0.52
0.46
0.38
0.42
0.43
0.40
0.31
0.33
0.58
0.34
0.17
0.18
0.69
0.38
0.38
0.44
0.18
0.68
0.54
0.55
0.59
0.56
0.55
0.59
0.55
0.58
MICROTOX
(EC 50)
100.00
100.00
67.00
67.00
100.00
8.60
21.00
75.00
100.00
8.70
77.00
93.00
11.00
16.00
7.00
24.00
15.00
4.00
16.00
100.00
100.00
22.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
8.50
1.30
0.86
13.00
100.00
5.80
2.10
1.60
1.80
0.90
1.70
2.60
3.10
2.20
DRY SOLIDS
(fraction)
0.80
0.85
0.36
0.45
0.84
0.50
0.53
0.64
0.76
0.50
0.43
0.68
0.48
0.48
0.54
0.62
0.58
0.57
0.60
0.69
0.67
0.42
0.66
0.83
0.82
0.31
0.62
0.62
0.56
0.82
0.32
0.46
0.45
0.41
0.44
0.45
0.41
0.45
0.42
VOLATILE CONDUCTANCE
FRACTION (uSIemens)
0.160
0.009
0.180
0.099
0.094
0.110
0.130
0.088
0.031
0.120
0.170
0.060
0.130
0.160
0.180
0.110
0.130
0.170
0.073
0.100
0.110
0.200
0.079
0.011
0.035
0.220
0.170
0.150
0.170
0.030
0.220
0.220
0.190
0.120
0.170
0.180
0.130
0.230
0.260
654
632
1800
1500
0 NSQ
1060
1450
1270
0 NSQ
1690
1690
0 NSQ
1390
1580
2400
2360
1660
2000
3340
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
1850
2710
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
2210
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
1940
0 NSQ
2910
4660
0 NSQ
4170
7890
0 NSQ
4260
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
A-7
-------
TABLES. INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 2- INORGANICS
SAMPLE ID
IH21102C101
IH21102C102
IH21102C103
IH21201C101
IH21201C102
IH21201C103
IH21202C101
IH21202C102
IH21202C103
IH21301C101
IH21301C102
IH21302C101
IH21302C102
IH21401C101
IH21401C102
IH21401C103
IH21402C101
IH21402C102
IH21402C103
IH21501C101
IH21501C102
IH21501C103
IH21502C101
IH21601C101
IH21601C102
IH21601C103
IH21701C101
IH21701C102
IH21701C103
IH21801C101
IH21901C101
IH21901C102
IH21902C101
IH21902C102
IH22001C101
IH22001C102
IH22001C103
IH22001C201 D
IH22001C202D
Core Depth EXT. RES. (ug/g)
0-24"
48-72"
84-114"
0-24"
48-72"
84-109"
0-24"
60-84"
104-128"
0-12"
36-61"
0-24"
24-41"
0-24"
48-72"
96-120"
0-24"
48-72"
96-122"
0-24"
42-59"
84-108"
0-12"
0-24"
29-50"
69-93"
0-24"
48-72"
96-120"
0-24"
0-24"
24-48'
0-24"
24-48'
0-24"
36-60"
108-132"
0-24'
24-48'
12000.00
2600.00
3600.00
5600.00
17000.00
17000.00
5600.00
12000.00
6300.00
8000.00
260.00
49000.00
62000.00
23000.00
41000.00
57000.00
40000.00
27000.00
32000.00
16000.00
610.00
0.00 LDL
2800.00
28000.00
7000.00
450.00 PNQ
22000.00
68000.00
740.00
20000.00
16000.00
430.00
11000.00
3900.00
43000.00
68000.00
120000.00
43000.00
78000.00
pH
7.48
7.32
7.75
7.06 EAC
6.78
6.27
7.37
7.44 EAC
7.76 EAC
6.95 EAC
7.30 EAC
7.54 EAC
7.11 EAC
7.57
7.14
6.98
7.17
7.24
7.00
6.98
7.24
7.09
7.06
7.01
7.07
7.12
6.72
7.04
7.30
7.13
7.20
7.33
6.87
7.12
7.43
7.70
7.16
7.76
7.87
MOISTURE
TOC (%) FRACTION
12.71
13.14
13.39
14.46
9.76
9.63
13.95
12.96
13.72
11.64
0.50 PNQ
9.71
11.13
13.59
10.78
11.31
11.37
11.09
9.53
13.77
3.12
1.42
2.28
11.73
1.76
1.15
5.91
10.76
1.32
8.53
4.59
1.87
10.16
1.07
9.77
28.89
46.44
23.54
23.71
0.65
0.58
0.58
0.77
0.47
0.44
0.70
0.58
0.64
0.53
0.20
0.37
0.40
0.63
0.47
0.38
0.60
0.48
0.31
0.66
0.24
0.22
0.25
0.68
0.28
0.20
0.28
0.41
0.22
0.18
0.44
0.20
0.60
0.18
0.57
0.60
0.45
0.53
0.51
MICROTOX
(EC SO)
2.40
0.81
1.80
12.00
34.00
100.00
5.00
1.20
1.70
1.60
12.00
7.00
12.00
0.83
4.00
26.00
18.00
2.90
9.50
1.30
100.00
100.00
73.00
3.40
9.50
100.00
18.00
27.00
100.00
100.00
9.90
100.00
2.40
100.00
29.00
3.20
2.50
5.80
2.10
DRY SOLIDS
(fraction)
0.35
0.42
0.42
0.23
0.53
0.56
0.30
0.42
0.36
0.47
0.80
0.63
0.60
0.37
0.53
0.62
0.40
0.52
0.69
0.34
0.76
0.78
0.75
0,32
0.72
0.80
0.72
0.59
0.78
0.82
0.56
0.80
0.40
0.82
0.43
0.40
0.55
0.47
0.49
VOLATILE
FRACTION
0.190
0.210
0.420
0.190
0.160
0.160
0.220
0.190
0.230
0.140
0.019
0.150
0.170
0.200
0.150
0.160
0.160
0.150
0.170
0.110
0.007
0.015
0.037
0.180
0.045
0.006
0.052
0.200
0.004
0.050
0.080
0.026
0.083
0.009
0.130
0.130
0.200
0.077
0.110
CONDUCTANCE
(uSiemens)
5750
6580 GUS
7660 GUS
3250
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
4780
5560
0 NSQ
2400
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
5190
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
2640
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
2600
1220
0 NSQ
1340
2050
2920
0 NSQ
2820
2430
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
1430
0 NSQ
1390
0 NSQ
1340
1280
0 NSQ
1290
1460
A_D
-------
TABLE 6. INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 2- INORGANICS
SAMPLE ID
IH22001C203D
IH22001C204D
IH22101C101
IH22101C102
IH22101C103
IH22201C101
IH22201C102
IH22201C103
IH22202C101
IH22202C102
IH22202C103
IH22301C101
IH22301C102
IH22301C103
IH22302C101
IH22302C102
IH22302C103
IH22401C101
IH22501C101
IH22501C102
IH22501C103
IH22601C101
IH22601C102
IH22601C103
IH22701C101
IH22701C102
IH22701C103
IH22801C101
IH22801C102
IH22801C103
Core Depth EXT. RES. (ug/g)
72-96"
101-125"
0-24"
36-60"
72-96"
0-24"
36-60"
84-108"
0-24"
48-72'
84-106'
0-24"
24-48'
62-86'
0-24"
40-64"
82-100"
0-24"
0-24"
36-59.5"
90-115"
0-24"
48-72"
96-118"
0-24"
24-48"
48-72"
0-24"
66-90"
90-114"
140000.00
62000.00
25000.00
20000.00
7100.00
14000.00
16000.00
32000.00
16000.00
17000.00
26000.00
22000.00
45000.00
22000.00
42000.00
51000.00
770.00
1400.00
19000.00
44000.00
1900.00
20000.00
20000.00
28000.00
25000.00
380.00 PNQ
490.00 PNQ
16000.00
9000.00
4800.00
PH
8.23
8.44
6.88
6.91
6.71
7.00
7.61
6.76
6.94
6.97
6.94
7.03
7.04
7.02
6.40
7.22
7.26
7.19
6.83
6.73
6.91
6.58
6.99
7.15
7.24
7.25
7.54
6.85
7.14
7.19
MOISTURE
TOO (%) FRACTION
60.21
17.80
11.76
2.89
1.56
9.69
10.43
7.72
11.67
10.70
9.00
5.61
5.56
4.69
10.94
10.85
2.93
0.76 PNQ
9.31
12.43
1.41
13.70
15.60
20.96
3.88
0.08 LDL
0.17 LDL
7.85
4.93
3.99
0.46
0.60
0.64
0.29
0.23
0.62
0.56
0.32
0.62
0.52
0.39
0.48
0.36
0.28
0.47
0.40
0.18
0.22
0.48
0.37
0.32
0.49
0.48
0.34
0.20
0.17
0.14
0.55
0.50
0.43
MICROTOX DRY SOLIDS
(EC 50) (fraction)
1.60
3.30
1.90
21.00
27.00
2.70
4.30
40.00
2.20
31.00
100.00
5.00
18.00
48.00
21.00
13.00
100.00
100.00
4.40
65.00
100.00
8.70
31.00
6.10
83.00
100.00
100.00
21.00
43.00
64.00 RP
0.54
0.40
0.36
0.71
0.77
0.38
0.44
0.68
0.38
0.48
0.61
0.52
0.64
0.72
0.53
0.60
0.82
0.78
0.52
0.63
0.68
0.51
0.52
0.66
0.80
0.83
0.86
0.45
0.50
0.57
VOLATILE CONDUCTANCE
FRACTION (uSIemens)
0.180
0.150
0.150
0.051
0.037
0.180
0.190
0.130
0.180
0.180
0.130
0.140
0.130
0.079
0.150
0.200
0.017
0.028
0.074
0.060
0.035
0.095
0.130
0.082
0.032
0.005
0.008
0.120
0.050
0.044
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
1020
1860
1200
1770
3840
4220
1510
2930
3310
1880
2950
3620
2080
2760
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
1050
2070
0 NSQ
2070
2280
1790
991
0 NSQ
0 NSQ
1170
1080
1370
D - Duplicate sample
LDL - Less than detection limit. Value reported is method limit of detection.
PNQ - Present but not quantified. Value reported is measured value.
EAC - Exceeds accuracy criteria. pH analysis only. QC standard exceeded accuracy criteria by 0.01 pH units.
RPD - Relative percent difference. RPD of normal sample and replicate sample greater than 20%.
NSQ - Not Sufficient Quantity. Conductivity only; insufficient pore water for conductivity analysis. No value reported.
-------
SAMPLE ID
TABLE 7. INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 2 - METALS (dry wt)
CADMIUM (ug/g) CHROMIUM (ug/g) COPPER (ug/g) IRON ('/.)NICKEL (ug/g)
LEAD (ug/g) ZINC (ug/g)
IH20201C101
IH20201C102
IH20301C101
IH20301C102
IH20301C103
IH20401C101
IH20401C102
IH20401C103
IH20402C101
IH20403C101
IH20403C102
IH20403C103
IH20403C201 D
IH20403C202 D
IH20501C101
IH20501C102
IH20501C103
IH20501C201 D
IH20501C202D
IH20501C203D
IH20501C204D
IH20601C101
IH20601C102
IH20601C103
IH20602C101
IH20701C101
IH20701C102
IH20701C103
IH20801C101
IH20801C102
IH21001C101
IH21001C102
IH21001C103
IH21101C101
IH21101C102
IH21101C103
IH21101C201 D
IH21101C202D
IH21101C203D
IH21102C101
0.00 PNQ
0.30 PNQ
34.00
12.00
0.10 PNQ
5.40
8.10
6.00
1.10 LLS
6.90
23.00
5.40
7.30
28.00 LLS
7.60
26.00 LLS
45.00
5.90
12.00
26.00
23.00
12.00
15.00
0.30 PNQ
0.20 PNQ
17.00
27.00
18.00
14.00
0.50 PNQ
11.00
11.00
12.00
5.60
9.80
11.00
7.40
12.00
18.00
13.00
7.00
5.30 LLS
490.00
56.00
3.40 LLS
220.00
360.00
280.00
32.00 LLS
320.00
620.00
63.00
330.00
650.00
400.00
290.00
240.00
240.00
530.00
140.00
110.00
1100.00
740.00
5.80 LLS
5.30 LLS
920.00
1100.00
190.00
1300.00
29.00
550.00
570.00
790.00
270.00
440.00
600.00
320.00
640.00
960.00
600.00
8.00
5.60 LLS
400.00
160.00
4.50 LLS
220.00
400.00
360.00
34.00 LLS
260.00
330.00
86.00
270.00
340.00
250.00
240.00 GUS
280.00
220.00
250.00
200.00
230.00
370.00
340.00
6.20 LLS
6.10 LLS
440.00
450.00 GUS
370.00
440.00
24.00
390.00
410.00
470.00
220.00
370.00
280.00
240.00
370.00
510.00
540.00
0.75
0.60
23.00
11.00
0.49
13.00
27.00
31.00
2.70
13.00
22.00
5.90
14.00
22.00
15.00
20.00
23.00
12.00
17.00
15.00
22.00
14.00
9.90
0.70
0.70
19.00
24.00
22.00
11.00
2.30
17.00
18.00
16.00
9.10
14.00
13.00
11.00
15.00
15.00
17.00
5.00
4.90 LLS
110.00
34.00 LLS
4.10 LLS
51.00
110.00
120.00
27.00 LLS
59.00
73.00
43.00
63.00
68.00
60.00
60.00
66.00
54.00
62.00
44.00
43.00
99.00
74.00
5.50 LLS
5.10 LLS
120.00
100.00
66.00
130.00
27.00
97.00
120.00
230.00
85.00
170.00
140.00
76.00
170.00
560.00
110.00
6.00
5.60 LLS
930.00
740.00
4.90 LLS
450.00
510.00
290.00
38.00 LLS
520.00
910.00
140.00
590.00
980.00
620.00
580.00
710.00
460.00
660.00
640.00
740.00
1100.00
820.00
4.40 PNQ
6.20 LLS
1200.00
1800.00
1900.00
2000.00
1.90 LDL
790.00
1000.00
1100.00
490.00
840.00
1000.00
580.00
1000.00
1500.00
950.00
38.00
34.00 LLS
5600.00
2200.00
20.00 LLS
2300.00
3200.00 GUS
2000.00
160.00
2800.00 GUS
6700.00
800.00
3100.00 GUS
6700.00
3200.00
4000.00
4500.00
2000.00
4600.00
2400.00
3200.00 GUS
6100.00
5400.00 GUS
39.00
50.00
6000.00
8100.00 GUS
5200.00
6100.00
71.00
3800.00 GUS
4000.00
4300.00
2000.00
3500.00 GUS
3400.00
2500.00
3600.00 GUS
5800.00
4100.00
A-10
-------
SAMPLE ID
TABLE 7. INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 2 - METALS (dry wt)
CADMIUM (ug/g) CHROMIUM (ug/g) COPPER (ug/g) IRON (%) NICKEL jug/g)
LEAP (ug/g)
ZINC (ug/g)
IH21102C102
IH21102C103
IH21201C101
1H21201C102
IH21201C103
IH21202C101
IH21202C102
IH21202C103
IH21301C101
IH21301C102
IH21302C101
IH21302C102
IH21401C101
IH21401C102
IH21401C103
IH21402C101
IH21402C102
IH21402C103
IH21501C101
IH21501C102
IH21501C103
IH21502C101
IH21601C101
IH21601C102
IH21601C103
IH21701C101
IH21701C102
IH21701C103
IH21801C101
IH21901C101
IH21901C102
IH21902C101
IH21902C102
IH22001C101
IH22001C102
IH22001C103
IH22001C201 D
IH22001C202D
IH22001C203D
IH22001C204D
11.00
16.00
12.00
17.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
17.00
9.30
0.40 PNQ
25.00
24.00
13.00
21.00
22.00
20.00
22.00
22.00
11.00
0.40 PNQ
0.40 PNQ
1.40 LLS
12.00
2.10 LLS
0.40 PNQ
9.30
17.00
0.00 LDL
1.30 LLS
8.60
0.60 LLS
8.50
0.70 LLS
6.50
4.50
3.00 LLS
5.00
3.90
2.00 LLS
10.00
570.00
930.00
520.00
1600.00
1700.00
610.00
590.00
1000.00
520.00
17.00
260.00
210.00
820.00
1600.00
200.00
1600.00
1800.00
86.00
620.00
11.00 LLS
34.00
73.00
700.00
160.00
5.80 LLS
370.00
120.00
5.00 LLS
81.00
410.00
35.00
470.00
29.00
250.00
330.00
210.00
300.00
360.00
150.00
370.00
440.00
460.00
400.00
390.00
370.00
460.00
440.00
530.00
300.00
23.00
300.00
330.00
450.00
360.00
380.00
370.00
400.00
310.00
390.00
13.00 LLS
31.00
67.00
420.00
81.00
6.10 LLS
130.00 LLS
260.00
5.00 LLS
34.00
280.00
32.00
310.00
32.00
400.00
460.00
230.00
370.00
430.00
130.00
400.00
18.00
15.00
17.00
30.00 GUS
29.00
17.00
18.00
17.00
12.00
17.00
13.00
15.00
12.00
21.00
17.00
20.00
21.00
13.00
14.00
8.80
2.60
4.10
15.00
3.00
0.60
5.20
14.00
0.60
1.50
11.00
2.60
11.00
2.70 GUS
23.00
28.00
17.00
23.00
27.00 GUS
8.10
27.00
110.00
400.00
100.00
98.00
98.00
120.00
150.00
470.00
100.00
24.00
81.00
80.00
170.00
84.00
82.00
90.00
91.00
30.00
130.00
6.00 LLS
32.00
44.00
110.00
28.00
5.40 LDL
37.00
59.00
3.00 PNQ
11.00 LLS
77.00
32.00
88.00
13.00 LLS
110.00
110.00
62.00
100.00
110.00
32.00
94.00
960.00
1300.00
790.00
1600.00
1500.00
870.00
1100.00
1500.00
810.00
6.70 LLS
2500.00
2700.00
1200.00
1600.00
2100.00
1500.00
1700.00
1500.00
920.00
15.00 LLS
1.50 LDL
77.00
970.00
190.00
2.30 PNQ
440.00
1800.00
4.00 PNQ
98.00
630.00
9.40 LLS
670.00
33.00
620.00
780.00
310.00
540.00
790.00
240.00
670.00
4300.00
4800.00
4000.00 GUS
9100.00
9500.00
4500.00
4100.00 GUS
5400.00
3500.00
61.00
5500.00
6000.00
5200.00
9600.00
6800.00
9300.00
10000.00
4700.00
4100.00
94.00
71.00
350.00
4500.00
900.00
40.00
2600.00
4400.00
41.00
500.00
3100.00
93.00
2900.00
180.00
1200.00
1200.00
1100.00
1900.00
1100.00
490.00
2800.00
A-11
-------
SAMPLE ID
TABLE?. INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY2 - METALS (dry wt)
CADMIUM (ug/g) CHROMIUM (ug/g) COPPER (ug/g) IRON (%) NICKEL (ug/g)
LEAD (ug/g)
ZINC (ug/g)
IH22101C101
IH22101C102
IH22101C103
IH22201C101
IH22201C102
IH22201C103
IH22202C101
IH22202C102
IH22202C103
IH22301C101
IH22301C102
IH22301C103
IH22302C101
IH22302C102
IH22302C103
IH22401C101
IH22501C101
IH22501C102
IH22501C103
IH22601C101
IH22601C102
IH22601C103
IH22701C101
IH22701C102
IH22701C103
IH22801C101
IH22801C102
IH22801C103
11.00
6.00
6.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
12.00
12.00
6.90
13.00
4.10
8.70
17.00
0.50 PNQ
0.40 PNQ
6.00
13.00
0.50 PNQ
7.00
14.00
9.00
6.00
0.50 PNQ
0.20 PNQ
7.00
14.00
7.30
710.00
410.00
130.00
740.00
1000.00
950.00
470.00
960.00
980.00
450.00
530.00
20.00
790.00
240.00
32.00
32.00
280.00
650.00
27.00
440.00
1000.00
610.00
99.00
9.80 LLS
4.10 LLS
270.00
130.00
46.00
430.00
120.00
64.00
450.00
880.00
210.00
270.00
740.00
230.00
220.00
210.00
52.00
260.00
270.00
26.00
32.00
220.00
290.00
31.00
350.00
440.00
320.00
110.00
10.00 LLS
4.50 LLS
240.00
170.00
110.00
14.00
6.30
2.90
13.00
12.00
12.00
7.80
13.00
11.00
5.80
3.90
2.70 GUS
6.40
11.00
2.20
2.50
11.00
20.00
2.50
16.00
21.00
22.00
7.60
1.00
0.50
13.00
14.00
10.00
130.00
32.00
25.00
100.00
130.00
54.00
81.00
150.00
57.00
60.00
59.00
12.00 LLS
85.00
100.00
25.00
31.00
50.00
71.00
27.00
91.00
120.00
77.00
45.00
8.20 LLS
4.70 LLS
55.00
42.00
21.00
920.00
390.00
270.00
930.00
1100.00
840.00
550.00
1200.00
830.00
980.00
1200.00
680.00
1200.00
3700.00
24.00
4.00 PNQ
450.00
820.00
8.20 LLS
610.00
1200.00
640.00
270.00
19.00
7.10 LLS
530.00
570.00
440.00
4300.00
3000.00 GUS
1600.00
4600.00
4900.00
5600.00
2800.00
5400.00
4900.00
2400.00
2400.00
970.00
3300.00
4700.00
95.00
68.00
2400.00
5500.00
82.00
2900.00 GUS
6900.00
4800.00
2600.00
230.00
45.00
3000.00 GUS
2200.00
1300.00
D - Duplicate sample
LDL - Less than detection limit. Value reported is method limit of detection.
PNQ - Present but not quantified. Value reported is measured value.
LLS - Lower than lowest standard. Value reported is measured value.
GUS - Greater than upper standard. Value reported is measured value.
A-19
-------
TABLE 8. INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 2 - GRAIN SIZE
SAMPLE ID
IH20201C101
IH20201C102
IH20301C101
IH20301C102
IH20301C103
IH20401C101
IH20401C102
IH20401C103
IH20402C101
IH20403C101
IH20403C102
IH20403C103
IH20403C201 D
IH20403C202 D
IH20501C101
IH20501C102
IH20501C103
IH20501C201 D
IH20501C202D
IH20501C203D
IH20501C204D
IH20601C101
IH20601C102
IH20601C103
IH20602C101
IH20701C101
IH20701C102
IH20701C103
IH20801C101
IH20801C102
IH21001C101
IH21001C102
IH21001C103
IH21101C101
IH21101C102
IH21101C103
IH21101C201 D
IH21101C202D
IH21101C203D
IH21102C101
IH21102C102
IH21102C103
IH21201C101
IH21201C102
IH21201C103
IH21202C101
IH21202C102
IH21202C103
IH21301C101
IH21301C102
IH21302C101
IH21302C102
IH21401C101
IH21401C102
IH21401C103
IH21402C101
GT38
1.00
2.30
4.70
5.70
0.71
6.40
9.60
12.00
2.10
8.70
5.70
3.90
8.20
5.90
7.30
9.30
10.00
6.90
9.50
4.60
7.40
2.60
3.40
7.20
3.80
8.90
5.70
5.10
4.80
0.94
11.00
7.80
5.70
5.00
7.10
6.50
7.60
5.80
6.00
10.00
10.00
6.70
16.00
6.00
5.80
16.00
9.50
11.00
8.80
0.93
6.90
5.50
11.00
6.80
5.70
15.00
GT63
57.00
80.00
12.00
20.00
54.00
25.00
17.00
58.00
7.70
22.00
13.00
13.00
18.00
10.00
52.00
26.00
19.00
51.00
37.00
37.00
32.00
34.00
43.00
84.00
86.00
12.00
14.00
20.00
29.00
1.20
14.00
14.00
8.60
5.90
16.00
11.00
22.00
13.00
5.70
15.00
9.50
- 5.70
16.00
8.50
11.00
22.00
11.00
5.50
32.00
1.10
27.00
27.00
16.00
14.00
15.00
13.00
GT250
31.00
10.00
1.50
2.50
32.00
2.40
1.80
6.30
2.00
2.00
1.70
7.20
1.10
1.20
11.00
4.80
2.40
9.90
8.70
14.00
7.40
6.20
11.00
3.50
2.50
1.10
2.10
2.00
3.30
1.20
1.90
2.40
2.00
30.00
7.90
3.60
7.70
3.80
1.30
1.60
1.10
0.91
1.90
1.30
3.50
1.00
0.34
0.43
5.10
0.78
2.70
3.40
1.60
2.50
1.40
1.90
GT1000
9.70
2.70
0.37
3.60
10.00
0.14
0.54
0.58
1.30
0.07
0.24
2.80
0.82
0.19
1.10
4.30
3.20
2.50
3.30
2.30
0.77
1.70
4.10
0.48
2.80
0.16
1.40
0.10
1.60
1.30
1.20
0.84
0.70
39.00
9.60
2.40
15.00
4.00
0.94
0.52
0.29
1.10
0.63
0.74
1.50
0.25
0.33
0.15
0.92
0.55
0.84
0.59
1.90
1.10
2.30
8.30
LT38
1.50
2.10
80.00
66.00
1.40
64.00
67.00
23.00
87.00
64.00
77.00
84.00
42.00
80.00
35.00
48.00
66.00
29.00
42.00
42.00
53.00
52.00
32.00
5.20
2.70
75.00
73.00
69.00
43.00
87.00
67.00
72.00
76.00
33.00
55.00
69.00
48.00
73.00
81.00
61.00
79.00
73.00
80.00
82.00
78.00
56.00
77.00
83.00
47.00
95.00
55.00
63.00
67.00
69.00
72.00
75.00
A-13
-------
TABLES. INDIANA HARBOR SURVEY 2 - GRAIN SIZE
SAMPLE ID GT38 GT63 GT250 GT1000 LT38
IH21402C102
IH21402C103
IH21501C101
IH21501C102
IH21501C103
IH21502C101
IH21601C101
IH21601C102
IH21601C103
IH21701C101
IH21701C102
IH21701C103
IH21801C101
IH21901C101
IH21901C102
IH21902C101
IH21902C102
IH22001C101
IH22001C102
IH22001C103
IH22001C201 D
IH22001C202D
IH22001C203D
IH22001C204D
IH22101C101
IH22101C102
IH22101C103
IH22201C101
IH22201C102
IH22201C103
IH22202C101
IH22202C102
IH22202C103
IH22301C101
IH22301C102
IH22301C103
IH22302C101
IH22302C102
IH22302C103
IH22401C101
IH22501C101
IH22501C102
IH22501C103
IH22601C101
IH22601C102
IH22601C103
IH22701C101
IH22701C102
IH22701C103
IH22B01C101
IH22801C102
IH22801C103
5.30
4.80
15.00
26.00
1.90
3.70
11.00
1.60
2.40
2.50
3.90
0.96
1.40
1.90
1.30
4.80
2.60
7.30
12.00
3.50
11.00
8.60
-9.00
6.10
7.70
2.40
3.00
5.60
3.10
3.00
3.80
5.80
5.10
3.90
1.70
3.10
3.20
4.30
1.10
1.40
8.90
9.50
0.27
5.70
6.50
7.70
4.50
0.51
0.10
7.40
7.90
6.50
14.00
25.00
22.00
58.00
3.30
14.00
14.00
44.00
93.00
12.00
56.00
86.00
45.00
5.40
2.20
61.00
88.00
9.70
19.00
8.00
18.00
12.00
-9.00
12.00
19.00
53.00
57.00
22.00
22.00
45.00
17.00
27.00
38.00
36.00
40.00
66.00
45.00
26.00
1.20
2.40
35.00
15.00
2.50
43.00
30.00
8.80
42.00
52.00
14.00
17.00
14.00
33.00
1.80
2.40
3.20
0.34
2.20
8.50
1.60
34.00
0.56
61.00
12.00
3.60
9.50
2.60
1.50
14.00
4.90
1.50
7.10
23.00
8.60
5.90
-9.00
6.60
1.20
11.00
18.00
2.20
2.90
6.20
2.90
4.10
5.50
15.00
15.00
5.10
11.00
1.90
0.18
1.70
4.50
3.40
0.78
9.50
5.20
43.00
17.00
44.00
47.00
1.80
0.80
2.70
0.95
1.40
0.18
0.11
1.70
5.60
0.73
8.00
1.00
2.10
0.68
0.03
2.40
2.30
0.61
3.60
2.40
0.41
3.00
18.00
4.40
4.10
•9.00
6.60
0.32
2.30
5.80
0.20
0.53
0.54
28.00
0.63
0.96
6.40
9.10
0.61
2.40
0.19
0.75
1.40
1.30
0.85
1.30
1.20
2.40
1.70
1.40
2.40
39.00
0.25
0.11
10.00
74.00
61.00
73.00
12.00
91.00
62.00
66.00
4.80
2.80
16.00
37.00
2.00
24.00
80.00
91.00
48.00
1.40
80.00
79.00
22.00
53.00
50.00
-9.00
72.00
67.00
25.00
13.00
65.00
69.00
37.00
59.00
59.00
54.00
36.00
30.00
24.00
30.00
55.00
96.00
95.00
51.00
69.00
97.00
24.00
64.00
35.00
18.00
1.00
0.50
68.00
69.00
50.00
D - Duplicate sample
A-14
-------
Appendix B
APPENDIX B
Page B-l
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 1 Surface Samples
Arsenic and Mercury Concentrations
Lake Michigan
v. ) Arsenic (ug/g)
Mercury (ug/g)
® Sample Locations
B-2
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 1 Surface Samples
Copper and Iron Concentrations
Lake Michigan
Copper (ug/g)
Iron (%)
,»: Sample Locations
N
,354
~-—-
Columbus Dr.
B-3
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 1 Surface Samples
Manganese and Nickel Concentrations
Lake Michigan
Manganese (ug/g)
Nickel (ug/g)
Sample Locations
N
B-4
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 1 Surface Samples
Silver and Tributylin Concentrations
Lake Michigan
Silver (ug/g)
Tributylin (ng/g)
® Sample Locations
N
B-5
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 1 Surface Samples
Lead and Zinc Concentrations
Lake Michigan
Lead (ug/g)
Zinc (ug/g)
® Sample Locations
N
,791
•~—
Columbus Or.
B-6
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 1 Surface Samples
TOC and AVS Concentrations
Lake Michigan
TOC (% wt)
AVS (uM/g)
® Sample Locations
N
Columbus Dr.
B-7
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 1 Surface Samples
Anthracene and Benz(a)anthracene
Lake Michigan
Anthracene (ng/g)
Benz(a)anthracene (ng/g)
® Sample Locations
N
Columbus Dr.
B-8
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 1 Surface Samples
Benzo(a)pyrene and Chrysene
Lake Michigan
Benzo(a)pyrene (ng/g)
Chrysene (ng/g)
Sample Locations
N
Columbus Dr.
B-9
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 1 Surface Samples
Flouranthene and 2-Methylnaphthalene
Lake Michigan
Flouranthene (ng/g)
2-Methylnaphthalene (ng/g)
® Sample Locations
N
^9600
^ —
Columbus Dr.
B-10
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 1 Surface Samples
Dibenzofuran and Flourene
Lake Michigan
Dibenzofuran (ng/g)
Flourene (ng/g)
® Sample Locations
N
MOO
—.
Columbus Dr.
B-11
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 1 Surface Samples
Naphthalene and Phenanthrene
Lake Michigan
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
® Sample Locations
N
^4000
•^-~. •
Columbus Or.
B-12
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 1 Surface Samples
Pyrene and Total PAHs
Lake Michigan
Pyrene (ng/g)
Total Pahs (ng/g)
Sample Locations
N
,16000
1—•—
Columbus Or.
B-13
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Cadmium (ug/g)
First Core
Lake Michigan
N
B-14
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Cadmium (ug/g)
Second Core
Lake Michigan
oc
oc
X
I
CD
3.
^ 17 |
o \ I 0.4 PNQ
•8 \ =5
CQ
\
^l\>
13 27
0.5 PNQ 17
11-
£*•
22
10
N
/^rc°iui
n \
-12
Columbus Dr.
4.5
12
B-15
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Cadmium (ug/g)
Third & Fourth Cores
Lake Michigan
N
0.1 PNQ
-12
Columbus Or.
\
11
Fourth Cores
B-16
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Chromium (ug/g)
First Core Segment
Lake Michigan
1300 26°
300
N
320
600
B-17
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Chromium (ug/g)
Second Core Segment
Lake Michigan
5.1
oc
cc
5 240
o
•a
m
530'
590
•o
m
| 210 960
8- \ 1800
c
440
360
330
640
570
B-18
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Chromium (ug/g)
Third and Fourth Cores
Lake Michigan
280
210
20
Fourth Core
600 930
B-19
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Copper (ug/g)
First Core
Lake Michigan
440
34
220
370
N
220 400
220
Columbus Dr.
240
540
B-20
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Copper (ug/g)
Second Core
Lake Michigan
400
210
410
370
460
N
440
370
B-21
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Copper (ug/g)
Third and Fourth Cores
Lake Michigan
360
52
Fourth Cores
280
510
460
B-22
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2 ° 75
Iron (%) 7 6
First Core
Lake Michigan
11
N
17
B-23
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Iron (%)
Second Core
Lake Michigan
0.6,
28 27GUS
27
N
B-24
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Iron (%)
Third and Fourth Cores
Lake Michigan
31
Fourth Cores
15
B-25
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Lead (ug/g)
First Core
Lake Michigan
38
450
620
630
\
N
790
1200
870
Columbus Dr.
490
580
950
B-26
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Lead (ug/g)
Second Core
Lake Michigan
510
790
N
960 1000 84°
B-27
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Lead (ug/g)
Third & Fourth Cores
Lake Michigan
290
840
1500
1500
Columbus Or.
310
Fourth Cores
1000 1500 130°
B-28
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Nickel (ug/g)
First Core
Lake Michigan
27LLS
N
110
B-29
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Nickel (ug/g)
Second Core
Lake Michigan
110
27
170
170
150
Columbus Dr.
110
N
110
B-30
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Nickel (ug/g)
Third and Fourth Cores
Lake Michigan
120
Fourth Cores
140
400
B-31
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Zinc (ug/g)
First Core
Lake Michigan
160
•o
o
§
CD
3300 •
8. 3500
I 5200
6100 I
IB:
2400 5500
4500
4100
2800
2000
2900 GUS
s
2900
4300
4500
4100
2400
\
2800
4600
-4000 GUS
-3800GUS
N
2000
2500
B-32
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Zinc (ug/g)
Second Core
Lake Michigan
1100
6700 GUS
6900 460°
5400
10000 4900
100
3200 GUS
N
3600 GUS
4300
3500 GUS
B-33
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Zinc (ug/g)
Third and Fourth Cores
Lake Michigan
\
95
5400
5800
4700 5600
9500
4300
Columbus Dr.
N
Fourth Cores
4800
3400
B-34
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Extractable Residue (ug/g)
Second Core
Lake Michigan
42000
260-PNQ
380.PNQ
30000
15000
20000
3900
17000 f
11000
N
45000
2600
9900 12000
B-35
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Extractable Residue (ug/g)
First Core
Lake Michigan
40000
2000
410
11000
49000
5600
Columbus Dr 7900
31000
.43000
43000
59000
22000
8000 28000
2800
\
16000N
20000
25000
N
14000
12000
12000
B-36
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Extractable Residue (ug/g)
Third and Fourth Cores
Lake Michigan
5 770
H
CJ
O
<*
ffl
13000
.2
_c
^s:
/ 3!
22000
17000-
5700
« 57000 \
^ \ OLDL
a \ \
Fourth Cores
B-37
-------
Lake Michigan
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Microtox (EC 50)
First Core
N
100
B-38
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Microtox (EC 50)
Second Core
Lake Michigan
tr 100
cc
18
13
N
0.81
B-39
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Microtox (EC 50)
Third and Fourth Cores
Lake Michigan
75
100
Fourth Cores
B-40
-------
Lake Michigan
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Total Organic Carbon (%
First Core
9.77
N
23.74
14.53
12.71
B-41
-------
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Total Organic Carbon (%
Second Core
Lake Michigan
9.76
34.88
13.79 13.14
28.89
N
B-42
-------
oc
oc
l-j
u
o
«8
m
Lake Michigan
Indiana Harbor Survey 2
Total Organic Carbon
Third and Fourth Cores
4.69
•o
ffl
1
a
•o
2.93
N
Fourth Cores
14.48
14.14
B-43
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996 - 748-159
------- |