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) ------- |