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)

-------