United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
&EPA
Great Lakes National
Program Office
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
EPA 905/4-84-002
Great Lakes National
Program Office
Harbor Sediment Program
Lake Ontario 1981:
Rochester, New York,
Oswego, New York,
Olcott, New York
-------
EPA-90S/4-84-002
April 1984
f-0
-4
O
GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
HARBOR SEDIMENT PROGRAM
LAKE ONTARIO 1981 :
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK
OSWEGO, NEW YORK
OLCOTT, NEW YORK
Anthony G. Kizlauskas
David C. Rockwell
Roqer E. Claff
for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
536 SOUTH CLARK STREET, ROOM 958
CHICAGO, TLLINDIS 60643
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GLNPO Library Collection (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names of
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Table of Contents
Foreword ,. iii
Tables iv
Figures v
Acknowledgements vi
Introduction 1
Background 1
Samp! ing Methodology 3
Sampl ing Equipment 4
Analytical Methodology 4
Results: Rochester, New York 9
Oswego, New York 23
Olcott, New York 35
References. 46
Appendix A - Guidelines for the Pollutional Classification of
Great Lakes Harbor Sediments A-l
-------
FOREWORD
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency was established in Region V, Chicago, to
focus attention on the significant and complex natural resource represented
by the Great Lakes.
GLNPO implements a multi-media environmental management program drawing on
a wide range of expertise represented by universities, private firms, State,
Federal, and Canadian governmental agencies, and the International Joint
Commission. The goal of the GLNPO program is to develop programs, practices
and technology necessary for a better understanding of the Great Lakes Basin
ecosystem and to eliminate or reduce to the maximum extent practicable the
discharge of pollutants into the Great Lakes system. GLNPO also coordinates
U.S. actions in fulfillment of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1978 betweeen Canada and the United States of America.
111
-------
Tables
1. Field Observations: Rochester, New York, May 3, 1981 12
2. Sediment Concentrations of Some Conventional Pollutants and Metals:
Rochester, New York, May 3, 1981 13
3. Sediment Concentrations of PCBs and Pesticides by the GC/FC Method:
Rochester, New York, May 3, 1981 14
4. Organic Compounds Sought in Sediments by the GC/MS Method and Maximum
Detection Limits: Rochester, New York, May 3, 1981 15
5. Organic Compounds Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS Method:
Rochester, New York, May 3, 1981 19
6. Organic Compounds Tentatively Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS
Method: Rochester, New York, May 3, 1981 21
7. Field Observations: Oswego, New York, April 28, 1981 26
8. Sediment Concentrations of Some Conventional Pollutants and Metals:
Oswego, New York, April 28, 1981 27
9. Sediment Concentrations of PCEs and Pesticides by the GC/EC Method:
Oswego, New York, April 28, 1981 28
10. Organic Compounds Sought in Sediments by the GC/MS Method and Maximum
Detection Limits: Oswego, New York, April 28, 1981 29
11. Organic Compounds Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS Method: Oswego,
New York, April 28, 1981 33
12. Organic Compounds Tentatively Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS
Method: Oswego, New York, April 28, 1981 34
13. Field Observations: Olcott, New York, August 30, 1981 37
14. Sediment Concentrations of Some Conventional Pollutants and Metals:
Olcott, New York, August 30, 1981 38
15. Sediment Concentrations of PCBs and Pesticides by the GC/EC Method:
Olcott, New York, August 30, _1981 39
16. Organic Compounds Sought in Sediments by the GC/MS Method and Maximum
Detection Limits: Olcott, Mew York, August 30, 1981 40
17. Organic Compounds Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS Method:
Olcott, New York, August 30, 1981 44
18. Organic Compounds Tentatively Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS
Method: Olcott, New York, August 30, 1981 45
iv
-------
Figures
1. Rochester, New York Sediment Sampling Sites, May 3, 1981 11
2. Oswego, New York Sediment Sampling Sites, May 3, 1981 25
3. Olcott, New York Sediment Sampling Sites August, 30, 1981 36
-------
Acknowledgements
A great deal of credit goes to our colleagues within the Great Lakes National
Program Office for support in planning, site selection, collection of sedi-
ments, compilation of data, data management, and interpretation of results.
In particular David DeVault, Rossetta McPherson, Michael Pandya and
Stanely Witt deserve special mention for their efforts in this project.
We want to thank Clifford Risley, Jr., and Vacys Saulys for their reviews
of the manuscript.
The chemical analysis of the sediments has been undertaken by Central Regional
Laboratory, USEPA Region V, via contract to BIONETICS. Ms. Andrea Jirka
provided the information on analytical methodology.
Ms. Gaynell Whatley is to be commended for her typing of the report and the
extensive tables.
VI
-------
Introduction
This report contains sediment chemistry data from three areas on Lake
Ontario that were sampled in 1981 under the Great Lakes National Program
Office (GLNPO) Harbor Sediment Program: Rochester, New York; Oswego, New
York; and Olcott, New York.
Background
Harbor Sediment Program
Toxic substances are being introduced into the environment from many sources.
Secondary compounds from these toxicants are often found in the environment.
Some of these secondary compounds are more hazardous than the primary
chemicals from which they came (i.e., dioxins vs. pentachlorophenol, re-
spectively) .
Sediments serve as a sink as well as a potential source for toxic and conven-
tional pollutants. Even if discharges of pollutants are completely eliminated,
contaminated sediments can serve as a source of pollution to aquatic life,
the Great Lakes, and the populations using the water bodies for drinking
water supplies for many years to come. If one names the toxic substances
problem areas around the Great Lakes: Waukegan, Illinois; Indiana Harbor
Canal/Grand Calumet River, Indiana; Ashtabula, Ohio; Saginaw River and Bay,
Michigan; Sheboygan River, Green Bay, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Buffalo and
Niagara, New York the "problem" is invariably linked with toxics in the
sediments.
Some 10 million cubic meters of sediments are dredged annually to maintain
navigation in Great Lakes' ports (ref.). Many of these ports contain
sediment contaminated with toxic substances, environmentally safe dredging
and disposal is necessary to protect the lakes, wildlife, and the public
while maintaining the economic viability of water borne commerce.
1
-------
Due to the relatively recent identification of in-place pollutants as major
remaining sources of contaminants and availability of the analytical cap-
ability to allow the measurement of toxic organics, only a very limited
and disjointed data base exists for organic contaminant levels in sediments.
To fill the void, GLNPO has embarked on a multi-year effort to determine
the level of toxic substances in Great Lakes river and harbor sediments.
Sampling priorities are being determined by examining fish flesh contaminant
data, locations of likely industrial sources, and by review of USEPA and
other agency data.
Nineteen surveys were completed in 1981 including the Buffalo and Niagara
River area. This report summarizes the results from the three surveys in
the Lake Ontario Basin.
The information generated by this program will be used in making regulatory
decisions on dredging and disposal and to identify environmental "hot spots"
requiring further remedial activity including identification and control of
sources. Chemicals monitored in the sediments will form a new information
data base for the Great Lakes. Selected samples will be scanned for organics
and metals using best available methods. Gas chromatography mass spectrornetry
(GC/MS) organic scans involve acid, base and neutral extractions of volatile
and non-volatile substances. Quantification is routinely done by gas chro-
matograph electron capture technology (UC/EU) for FCBs and some 30 pesticides.
-------
Sampling Methodology
Sediment samples were collected in the manner described in the Methods
Manual for Bottom Sediment Sample Collection (USEPA, 1982). This Manual
provides detailed procedures for survey planning, sample collection, document
preparation and quality assurance for sediment sampling surveys.
Each site survey is designed by determining and plotting on a large scale map
the location of sewage treatment plant discharges, combined sewer discharges
(particularly those carrying industrial waste), industrial discharges and any
other feature that might result in contaminated sediments. To this is added
any data on sedimentation patterns that may exist from dredging records, and
existing data on sediment quality. This information is used to identify
locations where contaminated sediments are most likely to be found. Because
sample sites are chosen to find worst-case conditions, the analytical data
do not necessarily represent the ambient sediment contaminant levels in the
area.
Two categories of sampling sites are selected. Primary sites are sites
that are most likely to be contaminated and are scanned and run for specific
compounds which are known to be used in the area or have been found in fish
from the area. Secondary sites are sites which will be run if the primary
sites indicate significant contamination exists and will be used to define
the extent of the contamination. Secondary samples would only be analyzed
for the specifc compounds indicated as significant contaminants at primary
sites.
In general, the finer and more polluted sediments will deposit along the edges
of a navigation channel, on the inside edge of a curve in a river, on the down
drift side of the littoral drift beach zone, or on deltas off of river mouths.
Samples are, therefore, generally collected in these areas rather than mid-
3
-------
channel. Sounding charts are extremely helpful for sample site selection
since they show the areas requiring the most dredging and, therefore, where
the shoal material is depositing. On a straight channel, lacking sounding
information, a good approach is to select sites on alternating sides of
the channel.
Areas likely to show the pollutional effects of man's activity are sampled.
Therefore, when applicable, sample sites are located in the vicinity of
marinas, loading docks, and industrial or municipal outfalls.
Due to laboratory resource constraints not all primary sites could be
analyzed. Based upon field evaluations of the quality of sediments, benthos,
and potential sources, those sites which appeared to be the "worst" were
selected for analysis. Samples from the remaining sites were logged, pre-
served, and stored for future analysis should additional data be required.
Sampling Equipment
Grab samples were retrieved using a Ponar dredge. Core samples were taken
using a Wildco brass core tube 20" long with a 2" inner diameter and clear
Lexan plastic liner tube. The sediments were preserved by refrigeration
at 4°C. Multiple grabs or core samples had to be composited at some sites
to obtain sufficient volumes. Duplicate samples were collected on at least
ten percent of the sample sites.
Analytical Methodology
Prior to non-volatile organic analysis, the sediment samples were allowed
to thaw to 15-25°C. Each sample was manually mixed and allowed to air dry.
All samples were ground with a mortar and pestle. Any sample requiring
further homogenization (discretion of analyst) was then passed through a
20 mesh polypropylene sieve. The percent solids of the sample was determined
on a separate aliquot dried at 103-105°C.
4
-------
The presence of a broad range of volatile and non-volatile organic con-
taminants was determined by GC/MS scans. The non-volative organics were
removed from the sediments by Soxhlet extraction with a 1:1 mixture of
acetone and hexane. A portion of the extract was passed through florisil
and silica gel columns for PCB and pesticide separation and analyzed by
GC/EC. The organic extracts were then injected into a Hewlett-Packard
5985 Gas Ghromotograph/Mass Spectrometer. Volatile organic analysis was
done on wet sediment diluted with organic-free water. Concentration is
later corrected for percent solids and reported on a dry weight basis.
The sediment and dilution water was purged with helium and the volative
organics were trapped on Tenax. The trap was desorbed onto the GC column
of a Hewlett-Packard 5985 GC/MS. All GC/MS scans and specific GC analyses
followed USEPA standard procedures for dealing with priority pollutants.
(Methods 608, 624, 625 Federal Register December 3, 1979).
Quantification of PCBs and pesticides was determined by subjecting the
sediment extracts to gas chromatcgraphy with electron capture detector
(GC/EC). Samples were air dried and sieved. Organic components were
removed from 20 grams of sample using Soxhlet extraction of 16 hours with
a solvent consisting of a 1:1 acetone/hexane (V:V) mixture. The extract
was concentrated and partitioned through florisil for the elimination of
interferences and separation of various pesticide mixtures. Further
separation of PCBs from pesticide components was done with silica gel.
Quantitative determination and confirmation was done using dual-column
GC/EC on the extracts. The GC/EC extracts were also analyzed by GC/MS
for additional confirmation.
-------
Heavy metals were determined by first digesting the sediment samples in
a mixture of concentrated nitric and sulfuric acids. The acid extracts
were analyzed for arsenic, mercury, and selenium using standard USEPA
flameless atomic absorption spectrometry. In addition, a scan for over
20 metals was made using Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma (ICAP) techniques.
All metals and organic contaminants were reported as milligrams per kilo-
gram (ppm) dry weight.
The following seven determinations of conventional pollutants were run on
all sediments.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). COD was determined based on a catalyzed reaction
with potassium dichromate. A homogenized, acidified wet sediment sample was
mixed with standarized potassium dichromate, silver sulfate-sulfuric acid
and mercuric oxide and refluxed for 2 hours. The COD of the sample is
proportional to the amount of dichromate chemically reduced during the
procedure. Values are reported as mg/kg COD.
Cyanide. Cyanide is converted to HCN by means of a refux-distillation
catalyzed by copper chloride which decomposes metallic cyanide complexes.
Cyanide is determined spectrophotometrically as the cyanide is absorbed
in a 0.2 N NaOH solution. Cyanide concentrations are reported as mg CN -
/kg dry sediment.
Phenol. Manual distillation of phenolic compounds was used to remove inter-
ferences. The distillate reacts with buffered ferri-cyanide and 4 aminoanti-
pyrine spectrophotometrically at 505 nm. Phenol concentrations in the
sediment are reported as mg/kg dry sediment.
-------
Phosphorus (total). Phosphorus was determined using a Technicon II Auto
Analyzer after block digestion of the sample. A 0.5 g dry weight sample
was suspended in an HgO-Ks04-H2S04 solution and digested at 200°C for 1
hour and at 370°C for 1 hour. Phosphate in the digestate was quantified
using the Automated Ascorbic Acid procedure. Phosphorus concentrations
were reported as mg/kg dry sediment.
XSolids. A known weight of homogenized, moist sediment was dried at 105°C.
The total solids are calculated as:
%Solids = dry weight g x (100%)
wet weight g
Volatile Solids. Volatile solids were determined by igniting the residue
from the total solids determination at 550°C to a constant weight. Volatile
solids were expressed as a percentage of the total solids in the sample.
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN). TKN was determined on the
sediment digest analyzed for total phosphorus. Nitrogen was quantified
as ammonia using the alkaline phenol -hypochlorite procedure.
Quality assurance procedures set variance limits for reference samples,
sample splits, and spike samples. Any results obtained outside USEPA
acceptance limits were flagged as out-of-control and the samples rerun,
if possible.
-------
More detailed descriptions of the methodology for sediment analysis can
be obtained from USEPA, Region V, Central Regional Laboratory, 536 S. Clark
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60605.
-------
RESULTS
Rochester, New York
Sediment samples were collected at 14 locations on the Genessee River at
Rochester, New York on May 3, 1981 (see Figure 1 and Table 1). All samples
were analyzed.
The conventional pollutants and metals analyses of the sediments (Table 2)
generally show low* to moderate levels of pollution at most sites. Sediments
from the Riverview Yacht Basin (sample site ROC81-03 and 03B) had high levels
of most guidelines parameters. Sediments at this site had high total volatile
solids and COD levels. These sediments would be expected to have high pollutant
levels due to the affinity of pollutants to organic matter. Sediments from
site ROC81-08 had moderate to high metals levels and low organic (COD, TVS)
levels. This site is right at an Eastman Kodak Company outfall.
PCBs and pesticides levels (Table 3) were at trace to low levels at all
sites. Levels were highest in the sample from the Riverview Yacht Basin
site (ROC81-03).
Table 4 lists the organic compounds sought in the samples by the GC/MS
method and their maximum detection limits. Table 5 shows the organic
compounds identified in the sediment samples by the GC/MS method. Most
detected organics were present at low levels. The sample from site
ROC81-02 had the greatest variety of organics and is located near the
sewage treatment plant outfall.
*The terms low, moderate, high used in this report are derived by com-
parison of the observed sediment concentrations to the USEPA Guidelines
for the Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments (Appen-
dix A) for the parameters covered by the guidelines. For the parameters
for which guidelines have not been published, the terms are defined by
comparing the concentrations qualitatively to concentrations observed
by the authors in other Great Lakes harbor and river sediments.
-------
Table 6 contains the data for organic compounds that were tentatively identi
fied by tiC/MS. This means the compounds had a high similarity ratio to
the library mass spectra of the listed compound, but they were not con-
firmed or quantified accurately by being run against actual standards of
the tentatively identified compound. The samples from sites ROC81-12 and
14 had the greatest variety of tentatively identified compounds. Triphenyl
phosphate was tentatively identified in the samples from sites KUC81-U7 and
08, off of an Eastman Kodak Company outfall. This compound is used as a
plasticizer for cellulose acetate and nitrocellulose.
Conclusions
In summary, sediments in the lienessee River at Rochester, New York were
found to have low to moderate levels of pollutants. Sediments in the
Riverside Yacht Basin had high levels of conventional pollutants and
metals and were organic in nature. From the perspective of sediment
contamination there appears to be evidence of the influence of the
Eastman Kodak Company discharges on the river sediments as evidenced
by the limited extent of triphenyl phosphate. This impact does not
appear to be severe and seems to affect only a small part of the river
near the discharges. Although there is a wide variety of organic con-
taminants, there is no clearly defined source(s) in the area of the
river which was sampled. The widest variety of organic contaminants
was found at a site near the sewage treatment plant outfall. The con-
taminant concentration levels found were low when compared with levels
found in the Buffalo, New York Sediment Survey (Rockwell et al 1984).
10
-------
LAKE ONTARIO
IRONDEQUOIT
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK
Sediment Sampling Sites
May 3,1981
Great Lakes National Program Office
USEPA Chicago, IL.
ROCHESTER
11
-------
Table 1
Field Observations: Rochester, New York
May 3, 1981
Sample Site
STORE! Station No,
ROC81-01
ROC81-02
ROC81-03
and 03B
ROC81-04
ROC81-05
ROC81-06
ROC81-07
ROC81-08
ROC81-09
ROC81-10
ROC81-11
ROC81-.12
ROC81-14
Sample Site and Sediment Description
Rochester Yacht Club Harbor - no benthos or odor.
Near storm sewer - blood midges and leeches - west
bank of Genessee River.
Riverview Yacht Basin-taken with corer-some oligochaetes
and midge (blood red) larvae.
Genesee Dock west side of River - silty clay.
Oligochaetes, midge larvae, clams.
Kodak Treatment Plant - upstream - sandy
Kodak Treatment Plant - upstream - muddy, organic odor
Off outfall from Kodak-muddy, organic chlorinated
chemical smell.
Right at outfall pipe of sample site ROC81-07.
Just downstream from Kodak Plant.
Sample in marsh area at north end of Rattlesnake
Pt. in Genessee River.
Sandy material-chlorinated chemical odor from outfall -
of Kodak Treatment Plant. Site was right at the end
of the pipe.
At end of small island just off Seneca Park in
Genessee River.
Sample at Portland Cement dock in Genessee River.
12
-------
Parameter
Sediment Concentrations of Some Conventional Pollutants and Ketals
Rochester, New York
Kay 3, 1981
(All values are mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Location Sample Site Number
Tot. Solids (%)
Tot.
Volatile Solids (%)
Tot. Kjeldah Nitrogen
Tot. Phosphorus
COD (mg/g)
Mercury
Silver
Boron
Barium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Lithium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Tin
Strontium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zi nc
Calcium (mg/g)
Potassium (mg/gj
Magnesium (mg/g)
Sodium (mg/g)
Aluminum (mg/gj
Iron (mg/g)
ROC 81
01
62.2
3.19
1200
650
32
0.1
4.8
8.0W
82
1.0
10
20
30
26
580
LOW
25
24
4.0W
36
15
12
100
12
0.9
7.0
0.1W
10
23
ROC 81
02
65.3
3.91
1300
770
36
0.3
14
8.0W
100
4.1
9.0
24
51
24
390
1.2
23
67
4.7
39
16
10
170
13
0.9
7.0
0.1W
9
21
ROC 81
03
37.6
12.0
3200
1400
16
0.5
23
8.0W
410
29
14
65
98
35
470
1.6
37
250
4.0W
73
25
14
780
17
1.4
12
0.2
15
31
ROC 81
03 B
41.6
6.65
2100
970
150
0.3
5.8
8.0W
140
6.5
14
38
58
40
510
LOW
36
170
4.0W
53
27
15
280
17
1.9
13
0.2
17
32
ROC 81
04
63.4
3.06
1200
720
28
0.4
8.5
8.0W
86
2.3
9.2
19
28
23
440
LOW
24
31
4.0W
35
14
9.8
120
12
0.7
6.8
0.1W
8.8
20
ROC 81
05
77.2
1.29
170
440
9
0.1W
2.1
8.0W
32
0.2W
5.9
11
15
14
240
LOW
16
15
4.0W
16
9
6.6
51
6
0.5
3.9
C.1W
5.5
14
ROC 81
06
66.1
2.74
620
500
2.8
0.1
4.4
8.0W
45
0.5
7.6
14
27
17
300
LOW
20
34
4.0W
20
10
7.1
80
7.2
0.5
4.7
0.1W
6.7
16
ROC 81
07
66.0
2.54
750
560
22
0.1
9.2
8.0W
64
4.2
7.5
16
28
18
330
LOW
19
39
4.0W
23
11
7.7
95
8.2
0.5
5.1
0.1W
7.2
17
ROC 81
08
62.5
2.36
270
530
15
0.4
30
19
240
9.1
18
37
73
21
230
LOW
24
130
5.9
200
24
13
220
91
0.8
17
0.6
9.2
23
ROC 81
09
67.7
2.42
650
550
19
0.2
4.7
8.0W
48
0.9
7.1
13
21
17
• 330
1.1
18
24
4.0W
27
10
7.9
76
9.0
C.5
5.1
0.3
6.6
16
ROC 81
10
56.8
2.88
990
670
25
0.2
11
8.0W
86
3.1
9.1
21
28
23
380
LOW
23
34
4.0W
35
14
9.6
140
12
0.6
6.9
0.1W
8.6
19
ROC 81
11
66.5
1.83
55P
56P
1?
KP.l
2.7
E.OW
49
0.6
7.1
12
16
18
320
LOW
17
14
4.0W
20
11
8.2
62
7.2
0.7
4.8
0.1W
7.0
15
ROC 81
12
67.5
1.40
180
470
15
0.2
0.4
8.0W
30
0.4
6.2
11
17
13
190
LOW
14
31
4.0W
17
8.9
6.5
55
6.5
0.5
3.9
0.1W
5.2
12
ROC 81
14
59.0
2.36
1000
680
25
0.2
6.6
8.0W
72
1.5
8.5
17
25
22
410
1.1
21
27
4.0W
35
12
9.3
99
1
0.6
6.8
0.1W
8.3
19
,4
Reporting Codes:
A "W" notation means the concentration was below the stated level, which was the minimum instrument response level.
A "K" notation means the chemical was present but below the stated concentration, which is the normal limit of
quantification.
A "T" notation means the chemical was present above the method detection limit hut below the limit of quantification.
A "ND" notation means there was no instrument response at all.
13
-------
Parameters
Table 3
Sediment Concentrations of PCBs and Pesticides by the GC/tC Method:
Kochester, New York
May 3, 1981
(All values are ing/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Location Sample Site Number
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
o.p-DDE
p,p'-DDE
o.p-DDD
p.p'-DDU
o.p-UDT
p,p'-DDT
g-Chlordane
Oxychl ordane
Heptachlor Epoxide
Zytron
b-BHC
g-BHC
Hexachl orobenzene
Triflural in
Aldrin
Heptaclor
Methoxyclor
Endrin
DCPA
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Uieldrin
Di-n-butyl phthalate
ROC 81
01
.02W
.02
.013
.007
.001
.001
.OOlW
.001
ND
.003
.001
NU
ND
.004
.OOlW
ND
.OOlW
ND
NU
NU
ND
ND
NU
ND
NU
.OUIW
.065
ROC 81
01-DUP
.02W
.04
.02
.015
.002
.001
.OOlW
.002
ND
.003
.001
NU
NU
.003
.OOlW
ND
L.OOIW
NU
L.OOI
ROC 81
02
.02W
.046
.05
.025
.007
.004
.003
NU
.006
L .011
.006
.Ul
.002
.012
.001
NU
.002
NU
.002
L ND 1 NU
ND
ND
L.OOIW
ND
NU J
.OOlW
.085
.013
ND
L .005
.OOlW
NU
.002
.173
ROC 81
03
.02W
.22
.31
.19
.033
.019
.088
.049
.009
.016
.023
ND
ND
.053
.005
ND
.001
ND
.016
NU
NU
ND j
ROC 81
04
.U2W
.03
.025
.022
.003
.002
NU
NU
.002
.004
.002
ND
L ND
.006
ND
NU
.001
.013J
ND
L NU
L_ ND
NU
L.OOS L .ouiw
NU
.001
.004
.134
NU
ND
.OUIW
.075
ROC 81
05
.02W
.025
.016
.011
.001
ROC 81
06
.02W
.02
.029
.035
.003
.001W| .001
NU
NU
.UOlW
.003J
.001
NU j
ND
NU
NU
NU
L .ooiw
NU
L NU
L ND
NU
1 NU
.OOIW
L NU
NU
.UOlW
.096
ND
ROC 81
07
.02W
.03
.026
.022
.003
.001
.002
NU NU
.002 .002
L_.002 L -002
.002 .003J
NU .OUl
ROC 81
08 j
.02W
.06
.18
.07
.004
.004
.004 j
.007
L.OOIW j
[_.004_J
ROC 81
09
L NU
.009
.028
.006
.003
.004
|_ NU
.UOb
.001
.006
L_ NU lvU_J
ND
NU .OOIW NU
.007 .009
ND NU
L ND ND
L .ooiw .ooiw
L_.013 .Oll^j
ND L ND
L_ NU NUj
NU
L NU
.002^
L NU
ND
.OUl
.275
ND
ND
L.002J
NU
L ND
L .001
.454
.015
.OOIW ^
NU
.005
ND
L NU
L.U04
.005 ^
.002
L ND
.UU1W
NU
NU j_ ND
ND
.012
NU
NU
ND
L NU
.002
.168
L NU
NU
ND
L.UUI
NU j
.OUl
.001
.125
ROC 81
09-DUP
ND
.OOtf
.017
.008
.002
.002
L-U02 j
NU
.OUIW
.U05
[ NL) J
NU
L-002 |
.OUb
1^003
L NU j
L.UUIW
ND
ND j
[_ NU
L ND
L ND
L-002
ND j
[_.OU2
.OUIW
.113
ROC 81
10
ND
L.032 J
.02-i
.015 j
.001 J
.OU1W__,
ND
NU
NU
.002 _,
NU
NU
NU
RUC 81 ROC 8i
11 12 J
NU NU
[.U27 [.025
.011 .021
ROC 81
, 14
L_ND
L.U17
.009
.005 .OU? .005
.UU1 .UU2
.OOIW .OU2
L NU NU
NU NU
NU .001
LOJU3 i.U41_J
NU
L_ ND
NU
[.UU4 J_.OU4
.UOlW .UU1W
L__ NO j_ NU
.uuiw L.UUIW
NU | ND
[ NU NU
NU j_NU
L.UU2 _^
ND
.002
L.UOI
.UOlW
L_ NU
.001
.UU2
.UU2
NU
L ND | hU
.UU7
.001
[_ NU
L.UUIW
ND
L NU
NU
L NU L NU L NU
NU L NU
.UU2 .UOlW
ND L NL)
.003 L'uuiw
NU .UOlW
.152 .476
NU
.UU1
NU
L.OU3
L.OUIW
.139
.004
.UOlW
NU
[.UUIW
NU
NU
NU
.021
NU
.OU1«
NU
.U02
L.UUIW
.UbO
Reporting Codes:
A "W" notation means the concentration was below the stated level, which was the minimum instrument reponse
level.
A "K" notation means the chemical was present but below the stated concentration, which is the normal limit
of quantifications.
A "T" notation means the chemical was present above the method detection limit but below the limft of
quantification.
A "NU" notation means there was no instrument response at all.
a=alpha; b=beta; d=delta; g=gamma
14
-------
Table 4
Organic Compounds Sought in Sediments by the GC/MS Method and Maximum Detection Limits:
Rochester, New York, May 3, 1981
(Actual detection limits for individual samples may vary as a function of
interferences present, aliquot size, degree of pre-concentration, etc).
(All values are mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted).
Semi Volatiles
Compound B/N/A Mixtures Maximum Detection Limit
Chlorinated Aliphatics
Hexachloroethane .22
Hexachlorobutadiene .11
Chlorinated Aromatics
1,2-Dichlorobenzene .08
1,3-Dichlorobenzene .23
1,4-Dichlorobenzene .23
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene .11
Hexachlorobenzene .07
2-Chloronaphthalene .04
Chlorinated Phenolics
2-Chlorophenol .16
2,4-Dichlorophenol .12
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol .33
Pentachlorophenol .32
p-Chloro-m-cresol .09
Halogenated Ethers
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether .08
4-bromophenylphenylether .10
bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 43.47
Phenolics
Phenol .08
2,4-Dimethylphenol .31
p-t-butylphenol .06
15
-------
Table 4 Con't
Nitro Aromatics
Nitrobenzene .87
2-Nitrophenol .31
4-Nitrophenol 8.69
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol .94
2,4-Dinitrotoluene .22
2,6-Uinitrotoluene .14
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Naphthalene .02
Acenaphthene .U3
Acenaphthylene .03
Fluorene .04
Anthracene/Phenanthrene .18
Pyrene .05
Benzo(b)fluoranthene .24
Benzo(a)pyrene .44
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene .15
Perylene .32
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.36
Phthalate Esters
Dimethyl phthalate .03
Diethyl phthalate .05
Di-n-butyl phthalate .06
Nitrosamines
N-Nitrosodipropylamine .13
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine .08
Miscellaneous
Isophorone .04
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine .74
16
-------
Table 4 Con't
Pesticides
Triflan(Trifluralin) .21
g-BHC (lindane) .57
Hexachlorobenzene .07
2,4-D, Isopropyl Ester .67
b-BHC 2.89
a-BHC 4.06
Heptachlor .97
Zytron .31
Aldrin .71
DCPA .16
Isodrin .60
Heptachlor Epoxide .47
Oxychlordane 1.81
g-Chlordane .39
o,p-DDE .22
Endosulfan-I 4.78
p,p'-DDE .18
Dieldrin .72
o.p-DDD .16
Endrin .69
Chlorobenzilate .27
Endosulfan-II 5.48
o.p-DDT & p.p-DDD .20
Kepone(Chlordecone) .97
p,p'-DDT 1.07
Methoxychlor .90
Tetradifon 1.23
Mi rex .50
PCB's
Monochlorobiphenyl .39
Dichl orobiphenyl(1) .30
Dichlorobiphenyl(2) 1.82
Trichl orobiphenyl(1) .62
Trichlorobiphenyl(2) .06
Trichl orobiphenyl(3) 3.86
Trichlorobiphenyl(4) .49
Tetrachlorobiphenyl(1) .27
Tetrachlorobiphenyl(2) .27
Tetrachlorobiphenyl(3) .70
Tetrachlorobiphenyl(4) .28
Tetrachlorobiphenyl(5) .23
Tetrachlorobiphenyl(6) 2.62
Tetrachlorobiphenyl(7) 4.32
Pentachlorobiphenyl(1) .24
Pentachlorobiphenyl(2) 8.20
Pentachlorobiphenyl(3) 5.97
Pentachlorobiphenyl(4) 1.46
Pentachlorobiphenyl(5) 2.26
Pentachlorobiphenyl(6) .09
Hexachlorobiphenyl(1) .22
Hexachlorobiphenyl(2) .20
Hexachlorobiphenyl(3) .17
Hexachlorobiphenyl(4) .14
Heptachlorobiphenyl (1) .09
Heptachlorobiphenyl(2) .10
Heptachlorobiphenyl(3) .10
Heptachlorobiphenyl(4) .12
Heptachlorobiphenyl(5) .15
17
-------
Table 4 Con't
VOLATILES
Halomethanes
Dichloromethane .0099
Trichloromethane .0026
Tetrachloromethane .0053
Tribromomethane .0023
Dibromochloromethane .0022
Bromodichloromethane .0024
Trichlorof1uoromethane .0258
Chlorinated Ethanes
1,1-Dichloroethane .0119
1,2-Dichloroethane .0060
1,1,1-Trichloroethane .0043
1,1,2-Trichloroethane .0054
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .0031
Chlorinated Ethylenes
1,1-Dichloroethylene .0305
1,2-Dichloroethylene .0049
Trichloroethylene .0030
Tetrachloroethylene .0032
Chlorinated Propanes and Propenes
1,2-Dichloropropane .0051
cis-1,3-Dichloro-l-propene .0030
trans-l,3-Dichloro-l-propene .0031
Aromatics
Benzene .0016
Methylbenzene .0011
Ethyl benzene .0010
1,3-Dimethylbenzene .0013
1,2- and 1,4-Dimethylbenzene .0012
Chlorobenzene .0015
18
-------
Table 5
Organic Compounds Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS Method:
Rochester, New York, May 3, 1981
(All values are mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Location Sample Site Number
Parameter
Chlorinated Aliphatics
Hexachl orobutadiene
Chlorinated Aromatics
1, 2, 4-Trichl orobenzene
— j> Hexachl orobenzene
Phenol ics
p-t-Butyl phenol
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
-— -^ Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
-—^Phenanthrene/ Anthracene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
-- ^Benzo (a) Pyrene
v Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene
Phthalate Esters
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl ) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
ROC 81
-01
.04
.02
.04
.02
.16
.42
.04
.07
.49
.04
ROC 81
-01 DUP
.04
.01
.03
.17
.10
.30
.03
.07
.23
.04
ROC 81
-02
.10
.16
.15
1.0
.23
.22
.221
.04
.90
.60
1.4
2.30
.04
0.6
.04
.10
ROC 81
-03
.06'
.06
.02
.63
.05
.40'
.24
.59
.05
.13
.38
KUL 81
-04
.24
.20
.18
.47
.07-11
1.0
KUt 01
-05
.21
.25
.20
.46
.ll-.l-
1.12
KUL OJ.
-06
3.15
.4
.5
.41
.82
.75
KUt ol
-07
3.16
.54
.42
.31
.74
.07 .
.62
3.07
-08
.08
.15
.20
.53
11-. 13
.34
1.99
19
-------
Table 5
Organic Compounds Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS Method:
Rochester, New York, May 3, 1981
(All values are mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Location Sample Site Number
Parameter
Phenol ics
p-t-Butyl phenol
Phenol
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Phenanthrene/Anthracene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene/Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoanthene
Acenaphthylene
Phthalate Esters
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-Butyl phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexy) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
ROC 81
-09
0.50
0.60
0.1
0.04
0.48
0.05
0.63
0.51
1.67
0.17
0.33
ROC 81
-09 Dup
ROC 81
-10
ROC 81
-11
ROC 81
-12
Semivolatiles (B/N/A) Analysis
0.60
0.55
0.35
0.02
0.4
0.04
0.43
0.33
1.12
0.08
0.38
.14
.14
.05
.01
.12
.18
.19
2.09
.64
1.21
.03
.07
.41
.08
.04
.10
.01
.08
.08
.85
.26
.47
.02
.05
.22
.07
.03
.02
.01
.13
.01
.20
.19
2.22
.14-. 2
1.11
.009
.04
.35
.09
ROC 81
-14
.15
.06
.01
.16
.02
.25
.21
2.44
.33-. 41
1.35
.01
.07
.58
.05
20
-------
Table 6
Organic Compounds Tentatively Identified in Sediments by the 6C/MS Method:
Rochester, New York, May 3, 1981
(i.e., compounds with high similarity to library mass spectra of the
compound, but not run against actual standards of the compound)
Location Sample Site Number
Parameter
Phenol ics
2-Ethyl-p-cresol
5-Ethyl -o-cresol
2,4-di i sopropyl phenol
Ethers
Diphenyl ether
2-Phenoxy-l,l-biphenyl
Phtcycl ic Esters
Methyl vinyl terephthalate
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydro-
carons and Derivations
4H-Cyclopenta(d,e,f)
phenathene
Methyl naphthalene
Methyl phenanthrene
Dimethyl phenanthrene
Miscellaneous
3,5-Dimethyl -2-cycohexen
-1-one
Triphenyl phosphate
Hydrocarbons
Diethyl ether
3,4-Dimethyl -1-hexane
Heptane
ROC 81
-01
*
*
*
*
ROC 81
-01DUP
*
*
*
*
ROC 81
-02
Semi volt
Volatile
ROC 81
-03
itiles
*
*
*
*
>S
ROC 81
-04
B/N/A)
*
*
ROC 81
-05
Analys
*
*
ROC 81
-06
s
*
*
*
ROC 81
-07
*
*
*
*
*
*
ROC 81
-08
*
*
*
*Compound tentatively identified in sample from this site.
21
-------
Table 6 Con't
Organic Compounds Tentatively Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS Method:
Rochester, New York, May 3, 1981
(i.e., compounds with high similarity to library mass spectra of the
compound, but not run against actual standards of the compound)
Location Sample Site Number
Parameter
Phenol ics
Cresol
o-Cresol
o-Isopropyl phenol
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
and Derivative
Benzo(c)phenanthrene
Benzo(g,h,i )fluoranthene
llH-Benzo(a)fluorene
HH-Benzo(a)fluorene-l-methy1 pyrene
llH-Benzo(d,e,f)fluorene
4H-cyclopenta(d,e,f) phenanthrene
Methyl naphthalene, Total
Methyl phenanthrene
Dimethyl naphthal ene
Trimethyl naphthal ene
Pentamethyl naphthal ene
Phenyl naphthalene
Dimethyl phenanthrene
Trimethyl phenanthrene
Methyl fluoranthene
Methyl pyrene
Dimethyl pyrene
Methyl benz(a)anthrene
Methyl dibenzothiephene
l-Chloro-2,3-dihydro-lH-indene
Ketones
3-Hexen-2-one
3,5-Dimethyl -2-cyclohexen-l-one
Dimethyl -2-cyclohexen-l-one
Trimethyl -2-cycl ohexen-1-one
Phthalate Esters
Dimethyl isophthalate
Miscellaneous
Methyl toluate
1,1-Biphenyl
Methyl -1 ,1-biphenyl
Hydrocarbons
Diethyl ether
2-(2-methoxyothoxy)ethanol
Dibromomethane
ROC 81
-09
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ROC 81
-09DUP
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ROC 81
-10
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
VOLATILES
ROC 81
-11
*
*
*
*
*
*
ROC 81
-12
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ROC 81
-14
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*Compound tentativley identified in sample from this site.
22
-------
Oswego, New York
Sediment samples were collected at 4 locations on Wine Creek at Oswego,
New York (see Figure 2 and Table 7) on April 28, 1981. Samples from three
of the sites (OSW81-01, 02, and 04) were analyzed. Wine Creek was sampled
to assess the impact (as measured by sediment contamination) of a former
hazardous waste incinerator run by Polllution Abatement Services, Inc
which was located along the creek. This hazardous waste site has resulted
in groundwater and soils contamination in the area and was the object of
an EPA clean up in 1977 (Scrudato, et al, 1980).
Levels of conventional pollutants and metals (Table 8) were low at sites
OSW81-01 and 04 when compared to the USEPA Great Lakes sediment guidelines
(USEPA, 1977).'; Pollutant levels were high at site 0$W81-62?\ This sample
t; -- "
was taken in a swampy area to the east of Wine Creek. The sample was
very organic (high total volatile solids, COD, nutrients). Thus, the
elevated levels of metals are not unexpected.
Sediment concentrations of PCBs and pesticides (Table 9) were trace to low
at the sites analyzed except for PCBs at site OSW81-02. PCBs at that site
(2.39 mg/kg total PCBs) were elevated above the typical "background" levels
found in Great Lakes sediments which are generally less than 1 mg/kg. Of
the three sites analyzed in this survey of Wine Creek, pesticides were most
frequently detected at site OSW81-02.
Table 10 lists the organic compounds sought by GC/MS and their maximum
detection limits for this set of samples. Table 11 contains the data for
the organic compounds that were identified by the GC/MS method. The greatest
number of compounds detected were found in the sample from site OSW81-02.
Levels were not very high, however. Of the compounds identified, most were
from the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon group.
23
-------
Table 12 contains data on organic compounds that were tentatively identified
in the samples (i.e., had a high similarity to a library mass spectra, hut
which were not confirmed against actual standards). Of the three sites
analyzed, the sample from site OSW81-02 had the greatest variety of compounds
tentatively identified.
Conclusion
Sediments in Wine Creek did not show severe contamination from the Pollution
Abatement Services site. Some possible PCB contamination was detected in
the sample from a swampy area (OSW81-02) near the former hazardous waste
facility.
24
-------
Figure 2
OSWEGO, NEW YORK
Sediment Sampling Sites
April 28, 1981
Great Lakes National Program Office
USEPA Chicago. IL.
• Samples Analyzed
-------
Table 7
Field Observations:
Oswego, New York, April 28, 1981
Sample Site
STORE! Station No.
OSW81-01
CSW81-02
OSW81-03
OSW81-04
Sample Site and Sediment Description
Wine Creek Downstream of Pollution Abatement
Services, Inc. Site - sample at P*outh of Creek
and Lake Ontario.
Wetland swampy area draining to Wine Creek about
1/4 Mile South of Lake Ontario.
Wine Creek about 20 yards South (upstream) of
wet land drainage.
Oil slick on bank of Wine Creek just upstream of
wet land drainage.
NOTE: The Wine Creek junction of Lake Ontario
was littered with dead fish, including
Coho, N. Pike, Drum, Shad, Carp.
26
-------
Table 8
Sediment Concentrations of Some Conventional Pollutants and Metals:
Oswego, New York, April 28, 1981
(All values are mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Location Sample Site Number
Parameter
Total Solids (%)
Volatile Solids (%)
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
COD (mg/g)
Phenol
Total Mercury
Silver
Boron
Barium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Lithium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Tin
Strontium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Calcium
Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Aluminum
Iron
mg/g
mg/g
mg/g
mg/g)
mg/g)
mg/g,
OSW81
01
73.6
0.87
130
330
26
O.IT
0.1W
0.3W
8.0W
36
0.2W
4.1
8.3
16
18
860
LOW
9.6
42
4.0W
77
10
10
33
53
0.46
11
0.1
5.7
14
r OSW81
02
12.3
19.4
3800
850
190
2.1
0.5
0.3W
10
90
11
7.2
18
49
20
330
2.0
44
83
7.5
42
39
11
150
20
0.9
12
0.3
8.5
18
OSW81
04
54.3
3.70
1500
860
52
0.3
0.1W
0.3W
8.0W
62
0.3
2.6
5.0
7.3
5.6
340
LOW
5.9
9.2
4.2
6.8
7.7
3.3
X39
1.3
0.2
1.1
0.1W
2.9
7.2
Reporting Codes:
A
"W" notation means the concentration was below the stated level, which was
the minimum instrument response level.
A "K" notation means the chemical was present but below the stated concentration
which is the normal limit of quantification.
A "T" notation means the chemical was present above the method detection limit
but below the limit of quantification.
A "ND" notation means there was no instrument response at all.
27
-------
Table 9
Sediment Concentrations of PCBs and Pesticides by the GC/EC Method:
Osweqo, New York, April 28, 1981
(All values are mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Location Sample Site Number
Parameters
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
o.p-DDE
p,p'-DDE
o.p-DDD
p.p'-DDD
o.p-DDT
p.p'-DDT
g-Chlordane
fixychlordane
Heptachlor epoxide
Zytron
b-BHC
g-BHC
Hexachl orobenzene
Trifluralin
Aldrin
Heptaclor
Methoxychlor
Edrin
DCPR
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Dieldrin
Di-n-butyl phthalate
OSW81
-01
ND
.019
.012
.004
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.001W
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.001W
ND
.003
.001W
.072
OSW81
-01 DUP
ND
.010
.009
.004
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.005
.001
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.001W
ND
.001W
.001W
.123
OSW81
-02
ND
1.07
1.09
.227
ND
.005
.004
.032
.023
.01
.005
ND
ND
.067
.015
ND
.012
ND
ND
ND
.04
.004
.013
ND
.013
.006
.938
OSW81
-04
NO
.446
0.26
.065
.007
.001W
ND
ND
.001
.049
.005
ND
ND
ND
.002
ND
.005
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.001W
ND
.002
.005
.087
Report Codes:
A "W" notation means the concentration was below the stated level, which
was the minimum instrument response level.
A "K" notation means the chemical was present but below the state concen-
tration which is the normal limit of quantification.
A"T" notation means the chemical was present above the method detection
limit but below the limit of quantification.
A "ND" notation means there was no instrument response at all.
28
-------
Table 10
Organic Compounds Sought in Sediments by the GC/MS Method and Maximum Detection
Limits:
Oswego, New York, April 28, 1981
(Actual detection limits for individual samples may vary as a function of
interferences present, aliquot size, degree of pre-concentration, etc).
(All values are mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Semi - Volatiles
B/N/A Analysis
Chlorinated Aliphatics
Hexachloroethane .06
Hexachlorobutadiene 2.11
Chlorinated Aromatics
1,2-Dichlorobenzene .02
1,3-Dichlorobenzene .02
1,4-Dichlorobenzene .03
1,2,4-Tn'chlorobenzene .02
Hexachlorobenezene .03
2-Chloronaphthalene .01
Chlorinated Phenolics
2-Chlorophenol .02
2,4-Dichlorophenol .02
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol .05
Pentachlorophenol .18
p-chloro-m-cresol .03
Halogenated Ethers
bis(2-Chloroesthyl) ether .16
4-Bromophenylphenyl ether .04
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane .02
Phenolics
Phenol .03
2,4-Dimethylphenol .03
p-t-Butylphenol .02
Nitro Aromatics
Nitrobenzene .38
2-Nitrophenol .05
4-Nitrophenol 2.38
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 1.06
2,4-Dinitrotoluene .05
2,6-Dinitrotoluene .04
29
-------
Table 10 Con't
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Naphthalene .005
Acenaphthene .005
Acenaphthylene .005
Fluorene .005
Fluoranthene .01
Pyrene .94
Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene .08
Benzo(b)fluoranthene .02
Benzo(a)pyrene .05
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene .07
Perylene .14
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene .59
Phthalate Esters
Di-n-butyl phthalate .01
Di-n-octyl phthalate .08
Butyl benzyl phthalate .02
bis 2-Ethylhexyl phthalate .03
Nitrosamlnes
N-Nitrosodipropylamine .03
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine .03
Miscellaneous
Isophorone .06
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine .02
Dibromobiphenyl .05
30
-------
PCBs Table 10 Con't
Monochlorobiphenyl .14
Dichlorobiphenyl (1) .13
Dichlorobiphenyl (2) .76
Trichlorobiphenyl(1) .33
Trichlorobiphenyl(2) 2.71
Tn'chlorobiphenyl (3) 1.90
Trichlorobiphenyl(4) .07
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (1) .22
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (2) .22
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (3) .59
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (4) 1.90
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (5) .44
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (6) 1.06
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (7) .38
Pentachlorobiphenyl (1) .25
Pentachlorobiphenyl (2) 9.50
Pentachlorobiphenyl (3) 1.06
Pentachlorobiphenyl (4) 1.27
Pentachlorobiphenyl (5) .90
Pentachlorobiphenyl (6) .42
Hexachlorobiphenyl (1) .61
Hexachlorobiphenyl (2) 1.00
Hexachlorobiphenyl (3) .61
Hexachlorobiphenyl (4) .68
Heptachlorobiphenyl (1) .27
Heptachlorobiphenyl (2) .40
Heptachlorobiphenyl (3) .30
Heptachlorobiphenyl (4) .49
Heptachlorobiphenyl (5) .07
PESTICIDES
Triflan(Trifluralin) .08
Gamma-BHC (Indane) .13
Hexachlorobenzene .04
2,4-D, Isopropyl ester .19
b-BHC 1.12
a-BHC .35
Heptachlor 1.36
Zytron .20
Aldrin .22
DCPA .08
Isodrin .46
Heptachlor Epoxide .21
Oxychlordane 1.00
g-Chlordane .19
o.p-DDE .09
Endosulfan I 1.58
p,p'-DDE .13
Dieldrin .73
o,p-DDD .11
Endrin 1.90
Chlorbenzilate .22
Endosulfan II 3.17
o.p-DDT [& p,p'-DDD] .61&[.66]
Kepone (Chlorodecone) .06
p,p'-DDT 1.06
Methoxychlor .42
Tetrad ifon 1.73
Mi rex .35
31
-------
Table 10 Con't
Volatile Orgam'cs
alomethanes
ichloromethane .0073
richloromethane .0016
etrachloromethane .0018
ribromomethane .0047
ibromochloromethane .0054
romodichloromethane .0016
richlorof1uoromethane .0068
hlorinated Ethanes
,1-Dichloroethane .0136
,2-Dichloroethane .0039
,1,1-Trichloroethane .0014
,1,2-Trichloroethane .0079
,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .0064
:h!orinated Ethylenes
.,1-Dichloroethylene .0056
L,2-Dichloroethylene .0038
Frichloroethylene .0023
Fetrachloroethylene .0024
Chlorinated Propanes and Propenes
1,2-Dichloropropane .0059
cis-1,3-Dichloro-l-propene .0036
trans-1,3-Dichloro-l-propene .0038
Aromatics
Ethyl benzene .0007
1,3-Dimethylbenzene .0008
1,2-and 1,4-Dimethylbenzene .0009
Chlorobenzene .0014
32
-------
Table 11
Organic Compounds Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS Method:
Oswego, New York, April 28, 1981
(All values are mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Location Sample Site Number
Parameter
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Naphthalene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fl uoranthene
Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fl uoranthene
Pyrene
, - Eenzo(a)pyrene
Phthalate Esters
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (6)
Benzene
Toluene
OSW 81
01
OSW 81
01-Dup
OSW 81
02
Semi Volatile
Ba;
.01
.01
.01
.012
.005
;e Neutral I
.03
.01
.01
.03
.01
.06
PCB's
Volatile
.015
.003
\cid
.05
.03
.26
1.15
.06
1.64
6.18
1.04
1.36
1.09
.03
.27
.56
.41
1.11
.44
Organics
.015
.006
OSW 81
04
.02
.02
.04
.06
.020
.012
33
-------
Table 12
Organic Compounds Tentatively Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS Methods:
Oswego, New York, April 28, 1981
(i.e., compounds with high similarity to library mass spectra of the compound,
but not run agains actual standards of the compound).
Location Sample Site Number
Parameter
Phenol ics
p-cresol
Ketones
*4-Methyl -3-penten-2-one
*4-Methyl -4-hydrexy-2-pentanone
3,5-Dimethyl-2-cyclohexen-l-one
Trimethyl -2-cycl ohexen- 1-one
*SUSPECTE
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Benzo(c)phenanthrene
HH-benzo(a)fl uorene
4H-Cycl openta (d ,e,f )phenathrane
Dibenzofuran
1,2-Benzothiazole
Dibenzothiophene
Benzo(b)naphtho(l,2-d)thiophene
Methyl naphthalene
Dimethyl naphthal ene
Trimethyl naphthal ene
Methyl phenanthrene
Dimethyl phenanthrene
Methyl fluoranthene
Methyl pyrene
3-Methyl-lH-Indole
Methyl dibenzot hi ophene
Phthalate Esters
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Miscellaneous
2,3-Dimethyl -2-pentene
3-Cycl ohexen-1-methanol
VO
Benzaldehyde
OSW 81
01
Semi
Aci
*
*
*
ID LABORATC
and Deriv
*
*
LATILE ORGJ
OSW 81
01-DUP
Volatile
d Base Me
*
*
*
)RY CONTAI*
atives
*
*
\NICS
OSW 81
02
Organics
>utral
*
*
*
1INANTS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
OSW 81
04
*
*
*
*
*
*Compound tentatively identified in sample from this site,
34
-------
Olcott, New York
Sediment samples were collected at 5 locations along Eighteen Mile Creek
at Olcott, New York on August 30, 1981 (See Figure 3 and Table 13). Four
of the samples (sites OLC81-01, 02, 03 and 04) were analyzed. The sample
from site OLC81-01 was a sample of a slick of floating mud, clay, and oil.
A dredge was in the harbor but was not operating at the time of sampling.
Levels of conventional pollutants and metals (Table 14) were low in the up-
stream most sample (OLC81-02), and moderate to high downstream of that site
when compared to the USEPA Great Lakes sediment guidelines (USEPA, 1977). All
samples were highly organic (high total volatile solids, COD, nutrients). Metals,
including mercury, copper, lead and zinc were present in high concentrations.
PCBs and pesticides (Table 15) were present in trace amounts in the sample
from OLC81-01. They were not detected at the other sites.
Table 16 lists the organic compounds sought by the GC/MS method and their
maximum detection limits for this set of samples. Table 17 contains the data
for the organic compounds that were identified by GC/MS. The greatest variety
of compounds identified were in the sample from OLC81-03. The compounds that
were identified in the samples from Olcott were all at trace to low levels.
Data for compounds that were tentatively identified by the GC/MS method (high
similarity with a library mass spectra but not confirmed with an actual stand-
ard of the compound) is presented in Table 18. Out of the four sites, the
greatest variety and highest levels of such compounds was in the sample of
floating material (OLC81-01). These compounds (listed under "Miscellaneous")
in Table 18 are non-toxic and can be expected to bio-degrade readily.
Conclusions
Sediments from the lower end of Eighteen Mile Creek were found to be highly
polluted with conventional pollutants and metals.
35
-------
LAKE ONTARIO
78»42-30"
Figure 3
OLCOTT'NEW YORK
Sediment Sampling Sites
August 30,1881
Great Lakes National Program Office
USEPA Chicago, IL.
* Samples Analyzed
43°17'30"-
78°42-30-
-w-
-------
Table 13
Field Observations:
Olcott, New York, August 30, 1981
Sample Site
STORE! Station No.
OLC81-01
OLC81-02
OLC81-03
OLC81-04
OLC81-05
Sample Site and Sediment Description
Sample taken from floating mud-clay-oi'l
slick about 100 yards North of pier head.
Dredge in harbor but not operating. Slick
covers area of about 50x50 yards.
Sample in 3' of water. Mostly mud, some
gravel.
Sample in 5' of water mostly mud and some
gravel. Oily.
Primary sample in 15' of water 25 yards from
shore. Sample mud-organic clay with oil evident.
No benthos.
Sample midway in channel at pier head. Sample
consists of clay-mud with oil evident. No
benthos.
37
-------
Table 14
Sediment Concentrations of Some Conventional Pollutants and Metals:
Olcott, New York, August 30, 1981
(All values are trig/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Location Sample Site Number
Parameter
Total Solids (%)
Volatile Solids (%)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
COD (mQ/g)
Mercury
Silver
Boron
Barium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Lithium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Tin
Strontium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Calcium (mg/g
Potassium (mg/g
Magnesium (mg/g
Sodium (mg/g
Aluminun (mg/g)
Iron (mg/g)
Phenols
Cyanide
OLC 81
01
11.7
15
9300
1200
180
WO.l
WO. 3
9.1
88
0.9
9.1
30
49
29
680
Wl.O
37
43
W4.0
140
19
13
190
79
1.5
9.3
0.2
9.4
16
7.1
3.5
OLC 81
02
50.5
11 " '
1900
570
170
WO.l
WO. 3
W8.0
44
WO. 2
11
15
13
32
240
Wl.O
28
W7.0
W4.0
70
18
14
66
3.6
1.1
5.4
0.6
8.9
16
1.4
1.2
OLC 81
03
50.2
10
2700
850
160
3.0
0.8
W8.0
330
0.3
13
88
130
36
260
Wl.O
32
290
11
35
21
15
350
3.7
1.2
6.5
0.2
13
21
1.4
1.2
OLC 81
04
47.1
"'9.5 '
2500
1100
120
1.9
0.7
W8.0
290
0.4
11
60
110
30
400
Wl.O
25
230
13
44
18
14
320
11
1.0
8.2
0.1
11
19
1.5
4.1
Reporting Codes:
A "W" notation means the concentration was below the stated level, which
was the minimum instrument response level.
A "K" notation means the chemical was present but below the stated con-
centration, which is the normal limit of quantification.
A "T" notation means the chemical was present above the method detection
limit but below the limit of quantification.
A "ND" notation means there was no instrument response at all.
38
-------
Table 15
Sediment Concentrations of PCBs and Pesticides by the GC/EC Method:
Olcott, New York, August 30, 1981
(All values are mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Location Sample Site Numbers
Parameters
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
o,p-DDE
p,p'-DDE
o.p-DDD
p,p'-DDD
o,p-DDT
p,p'-DDT
g-Chlordane
Oxychlordane
Heptachlor epoxide
Zytron
b-BHC
g-BHC
Hexachlorobenzene
Trifluralin
Aldrin
Heptaclor
Methoxychlor
Endrin
DCPR
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Dieldrin
Di-n-Butyl phthalate
OLC 81
01
0.118
0.012
0.033
TO. 001
0.003
0.006
0.003
OLC 81
01-DUP
0.128
0.015
0.036
0.003
0.004
0.003
OLC 81
02
OLC 81
03
OLC 81
04
BLANK = NO = NOT DETECTED
Reporting Codes:
A "W" notation means the concentration was below the stated level, which
was the minimum instrument response level.
A "K" notation means the chemical was present but below the stated con-
centration, which is the normal limit of quantification.
A "T" notation means the chemical was present above the method detection
limit but below the limit of quantification.
A "ND" notation means there was no instrument response at all.
39
-------
Table 16
Organic Compounds Sought in Sediments
by the
GC/MS Method and Maximum Detection Limits:
Olcott, New York, August 30, 1981
(Actual detection limits for individual samples may vary as a function of
inteferences present, aliquot size, degree of pre-concentration, etc).
(All values are mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Semi Volatile
B/N/A
Chlorinated Alilphatics
Hexachloroethane .4
Hexachlorobutadiene .5
Chlorinated Aromatics
1,2-Dichlorobenzene .2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene .1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene .1
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene .2
Hexachlorobenzene .4
2-Chloronaphthalene .1
Chlorinated Phenolics
2-Chlorophenol .2
2,4-Dichlorophenol .1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol .2
Pentachlorophenol .8
p-Chloro-m-cresol .1
Halogenated Ethers
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether .2
4-Bromophenylphenyl ether .3
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane .1
Phenolics
Phenol .5
2,4-Dimethylphenol .1
p-t-butylphenol .1
Nitro Aromatics
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenoi .2
4-Nitrophenol .1
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol .6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene .4
2,6-Dinitrotoluene .2
40
-------
Table 16 Con't
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene .1
Acenaphthylene .1
Fluorene .1
Anthracene/Phenanthrene .02
Fluoranthene .1
Pyrene .1
Chrysene/Benz(a)anthracene .2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene .1
Benzo(a)pyrene .4
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene .5
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene .4
Phthalate Esters
Dimethyl phthalte .1
Butylbenzyl phthalate .04
Nltrosamines
N-Nitrosodipropylamine .2
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine .1
Miscellaneous
Isophorone 100.4
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine .1
Dibromobiphenyl .3
41
-------
Table 16 Con't
PCBs
Monchlorobiphenyl .4
Dichlorobiphenyl .4
Trichlorobiphenyl (1) .6
Trichlorobiphenyl (2) .5
Trichlorobiphenyl (3) .3
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (1) .7
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (2) .6
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (3) .6
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (4) .6
Tetrachlorobiphenyl (5) .5
Pentachlorobiphenyl (1) .6
Pentachlorobiphenyl (2) .4
Pentachlorobiphenyl (3) .4
Pentachlorobiphenyl (4) .4
Hexachlorobiphenyl (1) .4
Hexachlorobiphenyl (2) .5
Hexachlorobiphenyl (3) .5
Heptachlorobiphenyl (1) .8
Heptachlorobiphenyl (2) .6
Heptachlorobiphenyl (3) .5
Heptachlorobiphenyl (4) .4
Heptachlorobiphenyl (5) .6
PESTICIDES
Triflan(Trifluralin) .4
g-BHC 2.1
Hexachlorobenzene .4
2,4-D,Isopropyl ester .6
b-BHC & a-BHC .8
Heptachlor .7
Zytron .6
Aldrin 1.0
DCPA .3
Isodrin .7
Heptachlor Epoxide 1.1
Oxychlorodane 5.0
g-Chlordane .9
o,p-DDE .3
Endosulfan I 5.6
p,p'-DD .5
Dieldrin 4.4
o.p-DDD .3
Endrin 1.4
Chlorobenzilate .4
Endosulfan II 10.0
o.p-DDT & p,p'-OnD .4
Kepone(Chlordecone) 1.2
p,p'-DDT .5
Methoxychlor .4
Tetradifon .4
Mi rex 4.6
42
-------
Table 16 Con't
Volatile Organics
Halomethanes
Dichloromethane 4.0
Tetrachloromethane 4.2
Tribromomethane 7.2
Dibromochloromethane 4.6
Bromodichloromethane 3.0
Chlorinated Ethanes
1,1-Dichloroethane 2.1
1,2-Dichloroethane 7.4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 4.0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5.5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.9
Chlorinated Ethylenes
1,1-Dichloroethylene 3.6
1,2-Dichloroethylene 2.7
Tetrachloroethylene 2.6
Chlorinated Propanes and Propenes
1,2-Dichloropropane 2.6
cis-l,3-Dichloro-l-propene 7.2
trans-l,3-Dichloro-l-propene 2.1
Aromatics
Benzene 1.2
Methyl benzene 1.1
Ethyl benzene 1.0
1,3-Dimethylbenzene 1.3
1,2-and 1,4-Dimethylbenzene 1.3
Chlorobenzene 1.7
43
-------
Table 17
Organic Compounds Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS Method:
Olcott, New York, August 30, 1981
(All values are mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Location Sample Site Number
Parameter
Polynuclear Aromatics Hydrocarbons
Naphthalene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Fl uorene
Fluorenthene
Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene
Pyrene
Phthalate Esters
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthaate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
VOl
Halomethanes
Dichloromethane
Trichloromethane
Tribromomethane
Chlorinated Ethanes
1 ,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorinated Ethylenes
Trichloroethene
Aromatics
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
OLC 81
-01
B/N/A N
0.17
0.4
0.6
1.7
0.49
0.8
.ATILES
.0147
.0167
.0226
.0146
.0026
OLC 81
-01D
lixtures
0.2
0.4
0.7
2.3
0.7
0.8
.0082
.0145
.0187
.0120
.0043
OLC 81
-02
- Semi
0.06
0.1
0.66
0.18
0.28
.0066
.0295
.0199
.0032
OLC 81
-03
Volatiles
0.06
0.14
0.1
0.18
0.08
0.04
0.2
0.12
.0149
.0382
.0544
.1026
.0847
.004
OLC 81
-04
0.12
0.3
0.04
0.28
0.5
0.24
0.04
0.62
0.46
.0228
.0272
.0511
44
-------
Table 18
Organic Compounds Tentatively Identified in Sediments by the GC/MS Method;
Olcott, New York, August 30, 1981
(i.e., compounds with high similarity *.:: library mass «.,pei;r«? of the
compound, but not run against actual standards of the compound)
Location Sample Site Number
Parameter
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
and Derivatives
Methyl naphthalene
Tetramethyl phenanthrene
Miscellaneous
Trimethyl pentadecanone
Pentacosane
Cholestan-3-ol
Cholest-5-en-3-ol
l-(2-butoxyethoxy)ethanol
Hydrocarbons (3)
Hydrocarbons (5)
Hydrocarbons (6)
Volai
Ethane, Dibromo
OLC 81
-01
Semi -
*
*
*
*
*
,ile Orgc
OLC 81
-01D
Volatile
*
*
*
*
*
inics
OLC 81
-02
; Organic
*
*
*
OLC 81
-03
:s
*
*
*
*
OLC 81
-04
*
*
*
*
*Compound tentatively identified in sample from this site.
45
-------
REFERENCES
U.r.. Environmental Protection Agency (USFPA) 1982, Methods Manual for Bottom
Sediment Sample Collection, Great LaKes National Program Office, Region V
Chicago, Illinois
USEPA 1979a. Chemistry Laboratory Manual for Bottom Sediments and Elutriate
Testing, NTIS PB-294596.
USEPA 1979b. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. Cincinnati
USEPA 600/4-79-020.
Rockwell D.C., R.E. Claff and D.W. Kuehl 1984, 1981 Buffalo, New York,
Area Sediment Survey (BASS) USEPA 905/3-84-001 p. 184.
Scrudato, R.J., Schnieder, R., Hinrichs, R., and P. Goliber, Case Studies
on the Migration of Pollutants in Groundwater, USEPA Conference on
Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, October 15-17,
Washington, D.C.
46
-------
Appendix A
GUIDELINES FOR THE POLLUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
OF GREAT LAKES HARBOR SEDIMENTS
•U.S. EK7IROAMEXTAL PI.OTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, IiLlKOIS
April, 1977
A-l
-------
Guidelines for the evaluation of Great Lakes harbor sediments, based on bulk
sediaent analysis, have been developed by Region V of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. These guidelines, developed under the pressure of the need
to Bake Immediate decisions regarding the disposal of dredged material, have
not been adequately related to the impact of the sediments on the lakes and are
considered interim guidelines until core scientifically sound guidelines are
developed.
The guidelines are based on the following facts and assumptions:
1. Sediments that have been severely altered by the activities of
man are most likely to have adverse environmental impacts.
2. The variability of the sanpling and analytical techniques is
sucli that the assessment of any sanple must be based on all
factors and not on any single parameter with the exception of
mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's).
3. Due to the documented bioaccumulation of mercury and PCB's, rigid
limitations are used which override all other considerations.
Sediments are classified as heavily polluted, moderately polluted, or nonpolluted
by evaluating each parameter measured against the scales shown below. The
ewerall classification of the sample is based on the most predominant classifi-
cation of the Individual parameters. Additional factors such as elutriate test
results, source of contamination, particle size distribution, benthic nacroin-
vcrtcbrate populations, color, and odor are also considered. These factors arc
interrelated in a complex manner and their interpretation is necessarily somewhat
subjective.
A-2
-------
The following ranges used to classify sediments from Great'Lakes harbors arc
based or. corpilations of data from over 100 different harbors since 1967.
RONPOLLUTED
Volatile Solids (2) <5
COD (mg/kg dry weight) <40,000
TKN " " " <1,000
Oil and Grease <1,000
(Hexane Solubles)
(tag/kg dry weight)
Lead (mg/kg dry weight) <4Q
Zinc " " " <90
The following supplementary ranges used
MODERATELY POLLUTED HEAVILY POLLUTED
5-8
«0, 000-80, 000
1,000-2,000
1,000-2,000
40-60
50-200
to classify sediments from
harbors have been developed to the point where they are usable but
subject to modification by the addition
on 260 samples from 34 harbors sampled
KONFOLLUTED
Aznnonia (eg/kg dry weight) <75
Cyanide " " " <0.10
Phosphorus " " " <420
Iron " " fl <17,000
Kickel " M " <20
Manganese " " " <300
Arsenic " " " <3
Cadmium " " " *
Chromium " " " <25
Barium " " " <20
Copper " " " <25
of new data. These ranges
>8
>80,000
>2,000
>2,000
>60
>200
Great Lakes
are still
are based
during 1974 and 1975.
MODERATELY POLLUTED HEAVILY POT/ VTET3
75-200
0.10-0.25
420-650
17,000-25,000
20-50
300-500
3-8
*.
25-75
20-60
25-50
>200
>0.25
>650
>25,000
>50
>500
>8
>6
>75
>60
^50
*Lowcr limits not established
A-3
-------
The guidelines stated below for mercury and PCB's are based upon the best avail-
able Information and ate subject to revision as new Information becomes available.
Wethylation of mercury at levels j> 1 ing/kg has been documented (1,2). Methyl
nercury is directly available for bioaccumulation in the food chain.
Elevated PCB levels in large fish have been found in all of the Great Lakes. The
accumulation pathways are not well understood. However, bioaccumulation of PCB's
at levels^ 10 mg/kg in fathead minnows has been documented (3).
Because of the known bioaccunulation of these toxic compounds, a rigid limitation
Is used. It the guideline values are exceeded, the sediments are classified as
polluted and unacceptable for open lake disposal no matter what the other data
indicate.
POLLUTED
Mercury >_ 1 «ig/kg dry weight
Total PCB's >_ 10 Eg/kg dry weight
The pollutior.al classification of sediments with total PCB concentrations between
1.0 mg/kg and 10.0 rig/kg dry weight will be determined on a case-by-casc basis.
a. Elutriate, test results.
The elutriate test was designed to simulate the dredging and disposal process.
In the test, sediment and dredging site water are mixed in the ratio of 1:4
by volume. The mixture is shaken for 30 minutes, allowed to settle for 1 hour,
centrifugcd, and filtered through a 0.45 u filter. The filtered water (elu-
triate water) is then chemically analyzed.
A-A
-------
A sample of the dredging site water used in the elutriate test is filtered
through a 0.45 p filter and chemically analyzed.
A comparison of the elutriate water with the filtered dredging site water
for like constituents indicates whether a constituent was or was not released
in the test.
The value of elutriate test results are limited for overall pollutional
classification because they reflect only immediate release to the water
column under aerobic and near neutral pH conditions. However, elutriate
test results can be used to confirm releases of toxic materials and to
influence decisions where bulk sediment results are marginal betwi^n two
classifications. If there is release or non-release, particularly of a
»ore. toxic constituent, the elutriate test results can shift the classifi-
cation toward the more polluted or the less polluted range, respectively.
b. Source of sediment contamination.
In many cases the sources of sediment contamination are readily apparent.
Sediments reflect the inputs of paper mills, steel mills, sewage discharges,
and heavy industry very faithfully. Many sediments may have moderate or
high concentrations of TKN, COD, and volatile solids yet exhibit no evidence
of man made pollution. This usually occurs when drainage from a suampy area
reaches the channel or harbor, or when the project itself is located in a
low lying wetland area. Pollution in these projects may be considered natural
•nd some leeway may be given in the range values for TKR, COD, and volatile
solids provided that toxic materials are not also present.
A-5
-------
Field observations.
Experience has shown that field observations are a most reliable indicator
of sediment condition. Important factors are color, texture, odor, presence
of detritus, and presence of oily material.
Color. A general guideline is the lighter the color the cleaner the sediment.
There are exceptions to this rule when natural deposits have a darker color.
These conditions are usually apparent to the sediment sampler during the surve;
Texture. A general rule is the finer the material the more polluted it is.
Sands and gravels usually have low concentrations of pollutants while silts
usu£lly have higher concentrations. Silts are frequently carried from pol-
luted upstream areas, whereas, sand usually comes from lateral drift along
the shore of the lake. Once again, this general rule can have exceptions
and it must be applied with care.
Odor. This is the odor noted by the sampler when the sample is collected.
These odors can vary widely with temperature and observer and must be used
carefully. Lack of odor, a beach odor, or a fishy odor tends to denote
cleaner samples.
Detritus. Detritus may cause higher values for the organic parameters COD,
TKN, and volatile solids. It usually denotes pollution from natural sources.
Hote: The determination of the "naturalness" of a sediment depends upon the
•
establishment of a natural organic source and a lack of man made pollution
sources with low values for metals and oil and grease. The presence of
detritus is not decisive in itself.
A-6
-------
013y material. This almoot always comes from industry or shipping activities.
Samples showing visible oil are usually highly contaminated. If chemical
results are marginal, a notation of oil is grounds for declaring the sediment
to be polluted.
Benthos.
Classical biological evaluation of benthos is not applicable to harbor or
Channel sediments because these areas very seldom support a well balanced
population. Very high concentrations of tolerant organisms indicate organic
Contamination but do not necessarily preclude open lake disposal of the
pediments. A moderate concentration ex oligochaetes or other tolerant organisms
frequently characterizes an acceptable sacple. The vorst case exists when
ther? is a complete lack, or very limited number of organisms. This nay
Indicate a tpxic condition.
In addition, biological results must be interpreted in light of the habitat
provided in the harbor or channel. Drifting sand can be a very harsh habitat
vhich may support only a few organises. Silty material, on the other hand,
Usually provides a good habitat for sludgeworms, leeches, fingernail clacs,
and perhaps, amphipods. Material that is frequently disturbed by ship's
propellers provides a poor habitat.
A-7
-------
REFERENCES
X, Jeosen, S., and Jernelb'v, A., "Biological Kethylation of Mercury in Aquntic
*6. 19&9 PP 353-754.
2. Mognuson, J.J., Forbes, A., and Hall, R., "Final Report - An Assessment of
the Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Disposal in Lake Superior -
Volume 3: Biological Studies," Marine Studies Center, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, March, 1976.
3. Baiter, M.T., and Johnson, H.E., "A Model Systen to Study the Release of
?CB frosi Hydrosoils and Subsequent Accumulation by Fish," presented to
American Society for Testing and Materials, Synposiur, on Aquatic Toxicology
and Hazard Evaluation," October 25-26, 1976, Memphis, Tennessee
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read /ruiructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-905/4-84-002
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
GLNPO Harbor Sediment Program
Lake Ontario 1981: Rochester, New York,
Oswego, New York and Olcott, New York
5 REPORT DATE
Aoril 1984
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
Anthony G. Kizlauskas,
Roger E. Claff
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
David C. Rockwell
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
FINAL
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Great Lakes National Program
Office-USEPA, Region V
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Undertaken as part of the Great Lakes National Proaram Office Harbor Sediment Program.
16. ABSTRACT
This report oresents sediment chemistry data from three L. Ontario harbors samoled
in 1981:
- Fourteen locations on the Genesee River at Rochester, N.Y. were sampled May 3,
1981 and analyzed. Low to moderate levels of conventional pollutants and metals,
trace to low levels of PCB's and pesticides, and low levels of some organic
pollutants were found at most sites. Exceptions include high conventional
pollutants and metals at the Riverview Yacht Basin, triohenyl phosphate and other
organic contaminants at the Eastman Kodak Company outfall, and a wide variety of
organic contaminants found near the sewage treatment plant outfall.
- Sediment samples from three of four locations on Wine Creek at Oswego, NY taken
April 28, 1981 were analyzed. Severe contamination from the Pollution Abatement
Services waste site was not evident. However, possible PCB contamination in a
swamoy area near the former hazardous waste facility was detected.
- Four of five sediment samples taken August 30, 1981 in Eighteen Mile Creek at
Olcott, NY were analyzed. The sediments near the mouth of the creek were heavily
contaminated with conventional pollutants and metals.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Sediment, Conventional Pollutants,
Organic Contaminants, Metals,
Pesticides, PCB,
Rochester, NY
Oswego, NY
Olcott, NY
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Pollution Abatement
Services Waste Site,
Genesee River
Wine Creek
Eighteen Mile Creek
c. COSATI I idd/Ciroup
IS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Document is available through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield,
VA 22161
19 SECURITY CLASS {This Report)
if n'prl
21 NO OF PAGES
20 SECURITY CLASS (This, page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |