EPA-903/9-7^-012
DISTRIBUTION OF METALS IN
BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENTS
January 197'k
Technical Report 59
Annapolis Field Office
Region III
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA-903/9-7U-012
Annapolis Field Office
Region III
Environmental Protection Agency
DISTRIBUTION OF METALS IN BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENTS
Technical Report 5>9
Orterio Villa, Jr.
Patricia G. Johnson
Annapolis Field Office Staff
Johan A. Aalto Sigrid R. Kayser
Maryann L. Bonning Donald W. Lear, Jr.
Tangie L. Brown Norman L. Lovelace
Leo J. Clark James W. Marks
Gerald W. Crutchley Margaret S. Mason
Daniel K. Donnelly Evelyn P. McPherson
Gerard R. Donovan, Jr. Margaret B. Munro
Margaret E. Fanning Maria L. O'Malley
Bettina B. Fletcher Thomas H. Pheiffer
Norman E. Fritsche Susan K. Smith
Victor Guide Ear C. Staton
George H. Houghton William M. Thomas, Jr.
Ronald Jones Robert L. Vallandingham
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I Introduction 1-1
II Summary and conclusions II-l
III Geographical description III-l
IV Experimental o IV-1
V Results and discussion . y_]_
VI Appendix I - Data tables and figures. = VI-1
I VII Appendix II - Main channel data, Kent Island
disposal area data .. VTI-1
g VIII Appendix III - Toxicity of metals to marine life, VIII-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
TABLES
Page
I. Physical Characteristics of Baltimore Harbor III-lj
II. Operating Parameters IV-2
III. Geographical Distribution of Metals in Baltimore Harbor.. V-2
IV. Sulfide Ratios in Baltimore Harbor Sediments V-5
V. Metals in Baltimore Harbor and Elizabeth River V-8
VI. Metals in Baltimore Harbor and Chesapeake Bay V-10
VII. Metals in Baltimore Harbor, Delaware River, Potomac River
and James River V-ll
VIII. Metals Concentration in the Earth's Crust V-12
IX. Cadmium - Baltimore Harbor Sediment Study VI-2
X. Chromium - Baltimore Harbor Sediment Study VI-3
_ XI. Copper - Baltimore Harbor Sediment Study VI-lj.
* XII. Lead - Baltimore Harbor Sediment Study VI-5
I XIII. Manganese - Baltimore Harbor Sediment Study VI-6
XIV. Mercury - Baltimore Harbor Sediment Study VI-7
XV. Nickel - Baltimore Harbor Sediment Study ................. VI-8
XVI. Zinc - Baltimore Harbor Sediment Study ................... VI- 9
XVII. Metals Concentration in Main Channel of Harbor ........... VII-2
XVIII. Metals Concentration in Kent Island Disposal Area ........ VII-3
XIX. Toxicity of Metals to Marine Life ........................ VIII-2
XX. Trace Metals - Uses and Hazards .......................... VIII-3
I
I
I
-------
-------
I
I
I
FIGURES
Page
I
I
I
1. Area Map - Baltimore Harbor and vicinity III-2
8 2. Subdivisions of Baltimore Harbor III-5
3. Sampling Stations III-7
VI-26
k- Cadmium - Outer Harbor VI-10
5. Cadmium - Inner Harbor VI-11
6. Chromium - Outer Harbor VI-12
« 7. Chromium - Inner Harbor VI-13
* 8. Copper - Outer Harbor VI-l/i
8 9. Copper - Inner Harbor Vl-lf?
10. Lead - Outer Harbor VI-16
11. Lead - Inner Harbor VI-17
12. Manganese - Outer Harbor VI-18
13- Manganese - Inner Harbor VI-19
ill. Mercury - Outer Harbor VT-20
15. Mercury - Inner Harbor VI-21
16. Nickel - Outer Harbor VI-22
17. Nickel - Inner Harbor VI-23
18. Zinc - Outer Harbor VI-2l|
19. Zinc - Inner Harbor VI-25
20. Kent Island Disposal Area Sampling Stations VII-Ij.
-------
-------
I
ABSTRACT
In order to develop a current inventory of metals contam-
« ination of Baltimore Harbor, sediment samples were collected at
* 176 stations and analyzed for Pb, Cu, Gr, Cd, Zn, Ni, Mn and Hg
using atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Concentration levels
were compared with levels found in another highly industrialized
harbor complex, other estuarine systems and in Chesapeake Bay
sediments geographically removed from the Harbor. Distribution
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
patterns of various metals were related to industrial/municipal
inputs.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-1
INTRODUCTION
I Baltimore Harbor (the Patapsco River Estuary) is a large
industrial port which transfers 50 million short tons of cargo
per year and supports numerous industries located on or near the
waterfront. The Harbor receives wastewater effluents from the
municipal and industrial facilities surrounding this complex, the
8 most critical problem emanating from large quantities of toxic
industrial wastes. Any geographical area subjected to such a
high concentration of commercial facilities would be expected to
fl show the effects of such stress in terms of environmental
degradation. This survey attempts to show the results of this
stress in the accumulation of heavy metals in sediments of the
_ Harbor.
* Sampling programs spanning several years have been carried
out by various private and public institutions. Each study
usually selected one geographical area of the Harbor to be in-
vestigated for a particular project. Knowledge of heavy metals
content in sediments is necessary for future bridge or tunnel
9 excavations, utility crossings, pier expansions and especially
dredging projects. All of these various programs provided data
that fulfilled immediate needs but did little to present an
overview of the metals accumulation, in the Harbor. This study
is an effort to provide a synoptic picture of the heavy metals
-------
I
contamination of Baltimore Harbor as it presently exists.,
It is not the purpose of this effort to examine toxico-
logical effects in any detail. The toxicity of various heavy
metals has been well documented (l, 2, 3) and the occurrence
of large scale outbreaks of metal poisoning fit, 5, 6, 7, 8) have
illustrated the potential health hazard of these substances. M
However, it would be simplistic to directly correlate a given,
measured concentration of a metal to a specific toxic level.
Considerations such as chemical bonding of the metallic species
(9), particle size of the substrate (10), valence state, humic |
acid availability (11, 12), synergistic and antagonistic median-
isms all relate to the reactivity of a given metal.
Effects of long term exposure to low levels of trace metals,
in whatever form, are not well defined. The toxicity of some
heavy metals is presented in Appendix III.
Appendix II contains information pertinent to the programs _
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
II-l
I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1) This report presents an inventory of present con-
ditions relating to metals contamination of Baltimore Harbor
sediments.
2) Concentrations of all metals analyzed from the Harbor
were about three (3) to fifty (50) times greater in value than
their counterparts from the Chesapeake Bay.
3) Distribution of metals generally reflected the inputs
from the large industrial complex which Baltimore Harbor supports.
i^) Heavy metals accumulations in bottom deposits and the
disrupted benthic community show similar distribution patterns
indicating & possible correlation in the study area.
5) Solubilities of divalent sulfide compounds indicate that
B in black colored sediments mercury, copper, lead and cadmium
t* probably exist as sulfides.
6) Particle size can play a significant role in adsorption
reactions of metallic species. Baltimore Harbor and the Chesapeake
Bay have generally similar sand, silt and clay ranges, with both
P averaging about Qk% silt and clay. Differences in concentration
_ between the 2 systems were therefore not attributed to variations
in particle size.
7) Comparison of Baltimore Harbor data with other estuaries
revealed the following:
a) The James River showed little accumulation of
I
I
-------
II-2
heavy metals with most levels being about equal to Chesapeake ^
Bay values;
b) The Potomac Estuary showed some metallic depo- I
sition with most levels being about twice those found in the
James River and the Bay; |
c) The Delaware Estuary showed considerable build-
up of metals in sediments but still less than the levels found B
in Baltimore Harbor.
8) Examination of the seven major Harbor divisions re-
vealed the following:
a) The Northwest Branch contained very high concen-
trations of chromium, copper and zinc with slightly lesser m
amounts of mercury and lead present;
b) The Middle Branch sediments showed considerably
lower metals levels than other harbor areas. A few isolated
high lead and zinc levels were found;
c) Curtis Bay had some high zinc, copper and mercury |
levels with lesser amounts of cadmium, chromium and lead;
d) Colgate Creek was found to be contaminated in
specific, isolated areas with lead, copper, mercury, cadmium,
zinc and chromium:
e) Bear Creek was found contaminated with chromium
and zinc, and with some lesser, but still high, amounts of _
lead, mercury, copper and cadmium;
I
I
-------
I
I
ft f) Old Road Bay was grossly contamined with lead
and zinc and also contained high chromium and mercury levels;
g) The Outer Harbor contained high levels of chrom-
ium between Hawkins Point and Sellers Foint and generally con-
tained high zinc levels.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H-3
-------
-------
I
I
GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION
Baltimore Harbor, or the tidal Patapsco River, is a trib-
m utary embayment to the Chesapeake Bay and is located on the
m upper west side of the Bay about 160 miles from the Virginia
Capes. It is bounded on the north by Baltimore County, Anne
Arundel County on the south and Baltimore City at its western
end (see Figure l). The Harbor is the fourth largest port in
| the nation, for ocean and coastal traffic and a major industrial
. center.
The Harbor is a shallow embayment consisting of approximately
f| 3k square miles of the lower portion of the Patapsco River and
measures 10 nautical miles along the channel from a line between
North Point and Rock Point to the extremity of the Northwest
Branch (see Figure 2). Most of the shoreline, except for the
lower south shore, upper Bear Creek, eastern Old Road Bay and
upper Curtis Creek is occupied by manufacturing industry or
marine or commercial establishments. Heavily industrialized
tributaries are lower Bear Creek, Colgate Creek, Curtis Bay and
Curtis Creek. Two non-tidal tributaries - Jones Falls and Gwynns
Falls - and the Patapsco River drain many heavy industrial or
m commercial districts in their lower urban reaches. The Harbor,
bordered to a great extent by concentrated development, has
III-l
received heavy loads of polluting material.
I
I
-------
BALTIMORE HARBOR
AND
VICINITY
STUDY AREA
III-2
Figure 1
SALISBURY
{ *
-------
I
I
III-3
Three natural streams flow into the Harbor: Patapsco River
(drainage area 36? sq. mi.) and Gwynns Falls (drainage area 69 sq.
mi.) enter the Middle Branch and Jones Falls (drainage area 6k
sq. mi.) enters the Northwest Branch. Minor coastal plain
| tributaries have an aggregate drainage area of 111 sq. mi. The
« width of the Harbor increases from about one to four miles between
Fort McHenry and the mouth of the Harbor. Except in the dredged
tt areas, water depths in the Harbor are generally less than 20 feet.
The main channel in the Outer Harbor is lj.2 feet deep and approx-
imately 800 feet ttide. In addition to the main channel, there
_ are also maintained channels in the Northwest Branch, lower
Middle Branch and Curtis Bay. The mean water depth (below mean
low water) for the Outer Harbor is 18.7 feet, and the mean
depth for the Inner Harbor is 16.1 feet, with a volume of lf>
billion cubic feet. The surface area, mean depth and volumes
for the major Harbor divisions are tabulated in Table I.
Some ambiguity exists as to the nomenclature of the areas
of the Harbor. For the purposes of this study the Harbor was
subdivided into six divisions (see Figure 2). These divisions
are Northwest Branch (to the north and west of a line extended
directly east of Ft. McHenry) and the Middle Branch (west of a
| line extended directly south from Ft. McHenry), Patapsco River,
g Curtis Bay, Colgate Creek, Bear Creek and Old Road Bay. The
* "Inner Harbor" includes the Northwest and Middle Branches.
I
I
-------
III-U
TABLE I
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BALTIMORE
Major Harbor Division
Northwest Branch
Middle Branch
Curtis Bay
Colgate Creek
Bear Creek
Old Road Bay
Outer Harbor
TOTAL
Surface Area
1C sq. ft.
38.4
74.4
79.2
5-3
75.1
34.1
580.0
886.5
HARBOR20
Mean Depth
Feet
24.6
11.9
14.2
13-4
10.9
6.5
18.7
1^.7
Volume
10 cu. ft.
941
992
1,121
71
820
221
10,282
14,448
NOTE: 1. All values are based on mean low water
2 . Soundings shown on
used to compute the
3 . The values for the
Garland's study(l)
U.S. and C+GS Charts 541? and
values for the Outer Harbor
other divisions
549 were
were taken from
20.
Table from Quirk, Lawler and Matusky Engineers, Environmental
Science and Engineering Consultants (Tappan, W.Y.) "Water
Quality of Baltimore Harbor", QLM Project No. 224-1, March, 1973
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
in-*
Figure 2
BALTIMORE HARBOR
INNER
HARBOR'
CURTIS
BAY
STONY PT.
I
'OUTER
HARBOR
-------
III-6
The "Outer Harbor" refers to the Patapsco River from the Inner
Harbor to North Point exclusive of the tributary creeks and bay.
fhe sampling stations used in this study are shown in
Figure 3«
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
III-7
Figure 3
BALTIMORE HARBOR
I
-------
-------
1
1
I
IV-1
EXPERIMENTAL
Samples were taken with a Phleger core. The top five cm
I representing substantial sediment-water interface were discarded
and the sediment between five and fifteen cm was taken as the
sample to be analyzed. Twenty-four samples were also taken at
£ a thirty to forty cm depth.
A known volume of well-mixed wet sediment was put in a
125 ml glass-stoppered flask. Distilled water washings were
made in the transfer so that the addition of 25 mis of concen-
I trated HNO^ would result in a 50-75 ml digestion solution.
tm (Determinations of wet and dry weights were made concurrently
for conversion of analytical results to desired units.) This
solution was heated at I|8-50°C (29) for It-6 hours in a shaking
hot water bath. After digestion, the samples were cooled and
J| filtered through a . 1;5 micron millipore filter and the volume
_ adjusted to 100 mis. Blank solutions were run throughout the
same extraction procedure. (30, 31)
Filtered acid extracts were analyzed for Pb, Cd, Cr, Cu,
Zn, Mn and Ni using a Perkin Elmer 303 atomic absorption spectro-
photometer equipped with a standard pre-mix burner. Air and
acetylene were used for all flame techniques. Cr and Cd were
m analyzed using a graphite atomizer attachment which provided
fe greater stability and sensitivity for these elements. Standard
operating parameters are shown in Table II.
I
I
-------
IV-2
Metal
Pb
Cu
Cr
Cd
Zn
Mi
Mn
TABLE II
OPERATING PARAMETERS
Wavelength Current Slit Width
mp- or nm
217 10 ma 7A
32l|. 75 15 ma 7A
357.87 20 ma 2A
228.80 6 ma 7A
21k 15 ma 7A
232 25 ma 2A
279 15 ma 7 A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
IV-3
tm Mercury was analyzed using an automated flameless atomic
absorption technique (13, lU, 15). Mercury analysis was per-
formed by a cold vapor technique employing the Coleman Mercury
Analyzer MAS-50 and a Technicon Autoanalyzer. Concentrated
I sulfuric acid and potassium permanganate were added to oxidize
A the sample. Further oxidation of organomercury compounds was
* assured through the addition of potassium persulfate. Samples
were then heated to 105°C. Hydroxylamine sulfate-sodium chloride
was used to reduce the excess permanganate. The mercury in the
sample was then reduced to the elemental state through the ad-
dition of excess stannous sulfate and a large amount of air.
B The gaseous phase was then analyzed in the MAS-5>0.
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
V-l
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to assemble an up-to-date
« inventory of metals accumulations in Baltimore Harbor. One
£ hundred and seventy-six stations were sampled between January
and March of 1973 and the surface (5-15 cm) analyzed for Pb,
Cd, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Zn and Hg. Twenty-four cores were sampled
at 30-kO cm as well as 5-15> cm.
I In general the concentrations in surface samples were equal
£ to or greater than the values at 30-i|.0 cm, although the opposite
was true in the Northwest Branch. Lead distribution, however,
V was atypical with the 30-i(.0 cm samples being 2-3 times the sur-
face values throughout the entire Harbor area including the
Northwest Branch. It should be noted that many of the stations
_ involved in this dual sampling were located in or near a channel
and are subject to physical changes other than those which would
be naturally occurring.
The distribution of metals by geographical areas is pre-
sented in Table III. The Northwest Branch, Colgate Creek and
Bear Creek are the most severely polluted areas. Old Road Bay
m sediments are also seriously contaminated but not to the degree
m of the aforementioned areas.
Additional investigations should be made in some of the
Harbor tributaries, particularly Bear Creek and Colgate Creek.
The degree of metals contamination in these two areas suggests
-------
V-2
rr*
MH
o
9
«
pi-T
s
o
s
EH
i-3
S
B
H
CO
h3
H
Q
CO CACO
o CA CA
NO 0-
rH
CO -Cj ^J"
XA CA rH
-=t <~r^ r-\
CA 0- O
rH CM V
H
CA O rH
XA CA H
O rH XA
ON ON
oo r
CA
rH
O-3- CA
CM ON rH
ON CO
CM
NO rH ON
XA CA CA
r- O
J-rH
o-
CA
CA
i
XACA H
H rH V
/VN
t M
0)
bfl
nJ
43 fH
bO 0) £
H > 0
S3 0
W -^ i-3
CD 43
H O
T3 f3
73 crj
H ?H
a pq
CO co -=t
0-Cf
H
-^o CA
XACA rH
l>- CA rH
XAO- o
*
H V
CM CM XA
rH H CM
CO -3- rH
NO XA rH
0-NO V
rA rH
OXA rH
CAXA V
XA CM
-O-NO co
CM CO CM
XA rH
O
rH
rH 1 H
NO V
CD
UD
ni
43 !H
M 0 13
H t> 0
133 *
3 o?
o pq
O_=J- ON
CM O OO
-Ct CM
ON NO -J-
o CM CA
CM CA-CJ
CM NO
rH
rH rH H
CM -CJ-NQ
-Cj-CACM
CM O ON
oo o-XA
CM CM CM
CM rH
0
K 0
W -aj i-3
^
^ 0
ni 0
0 fn
pq o
ONO 0
-3- r-j rH
O -d- ON
NO CA
0- CANO
-cf CA CM
H 0- O
co CAXA
*
H rH
0- O-OO
OO CA ON
H ON NO
H
O '-O CM
H CM ON
CACO CM
rH
rH 'O CM
CM rH rH
O O CA
C0-^t O
ON .-A rH
CA
1.
-~~T
CO cirH
-Ct
0
bO
crj
43 JH
ho 0 ^
H > 0
S3 -a! n3
73
05
O
K
73 >^
rH c?
0 pq
00 O rH
XA rH rA
oo r>-
CM
CM CO CM
NO CA rH
CA ON rH
CO NO O
CM V
rH CM ON
CM rH O
O- O CM
CM rH
-Cf C- C
000
XArH
-^NO 0
-H; ON rH
NO rH
CO rA O
CA CM rH
XA CA
rH
ON
CO
1 f
OXArH
rH V
H
0
bO
cti
43 £H
bO 0 ^
H > 0
W «a! i-3
f-(
t-i 0
0 £>
-p T,
2 nJ
0 w
-------
I
I
a need for further studies to determine the effect of these high
levels on the biological lifeforms inhabiting these tributaries.
The effects of the Sparrows Point industrial complex is
A evident in the Bear Creek and Old Road Bay areas. High mercury,
cadmium, zinc and lead levels were found in these sediments.
Figures IV through XIX graphically depict the distribution
patterns of heavy metals in the Harbor.
B Abrupt changes in color from black to grey were noted in
£ many of the core samples. No attempt was made at systematically
correlating metallic content to color. Aside from the organic
contribution to sediment color, Biggs (28) has determined that
the black color is due to FeSnH2d, while the grey color is
indicative of the absence of FeSj^O. Since the order of
solubilities for divalent sulfides is Hg Cu > Pb > Cd > Mi > Zn
Several stations were selected which were predominantly
black and the order of divalent sulfide solubilities were in-
1
V-3
I
-------
I
v-U
I
vestigated. The results are shown in Table IV.
The actual results compare favorably with the expected
order except for zinc which is apparently present in forms tt
other than the sulfide.
Metallic concentration is also affected by sediment particle M
size. High surface area and adsorption capacity make clays a
perfect scavenger for metallic substances. Sediment grain size
can be a significant factor in evaluating the distribution of
heavy metals in bottom deposits. Given the absence of other
contributing causes, particle size is indicative of the ad-
sorption capacity and thus the metallic concentration of sedi-
ments (10). Two stations in the survey located in areas with an |
unusually high percentage of sand (90%} showed very low concen-
trations of metals. However, sand, silt and clay ratios for 2l|
Harbor stations (26) showed a generally similar overall percentage
breakdown as was earlier reported for the Chesapeake Bay proper
(2?) indicating that particle size is not the primary influence I
on metallic distribution patterns when comparing the Harbor with
the Bay.,
The biological effects of the contaminated bottom deposits I
of Baltimore Harbor are discussed in a report by the Chesapeake
Biological Laboratory (26). The benthic community of the Inner
Harbor area was adversely affected with conditions improving
I
I
1
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
TABLE IV
SULFIDE RATIOS IN
BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENTS
Station Order of Decreasing Ratio
J6 Hg > Cr > Cu > Zn > Cd > Fb > Ni
J7 Hg > Cr > Cu > Zn > Fb > Cd > Ni
GG3 Cu > Hg > Cr > Fb > Zn > Cd > Ni
HH2 Cu > Hg > Cr > Fb > Zn > Cd > Ni
III Hg > Cu > Cr > Fb > Zn > Cd > Ni
JJ1 Hg > Cu > Cr > Fb > Zn > Cd > Ni
JJ2 Hg > Cu > Cr > Fb > Zn > Cd > Ni
LLk Hg > Cr > Cu > Fb > Zn > Cd > Ni
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
-------
I
gradually towards the Harbor mouth. Scarcity of some common
benthic species and the deteriorated condition of bottom feeders tt
found in this area show the affects of a stressed environment.
The distribution of eggs, larvae and juvenile fish suggests
that the mouth of the Harbor is in a relatively healthy state. .
This same study reported large fish populations, especially of
white perch, but the absence of bottom fish was noted.. tt
Heavy metals contamination of bottom deposits may be a major
contributing factor to the biological deterioration of the iff
Baltimore Harbor benthic community.
concentration levels of a metal are, in fact, above the "normal" £
background level. However, a realistic attempt to define metal-
lic pollution must be made if the observed data are to have any
meaning. In attempting to evaluate the degree of heavy metals
contamination in Baltimore Harbor, comparisons of the concentra- |
tions found in the Harbor were made with those found in: _
1) Another highly industrialized harbor area, namely
the South Branch of the Elizabeth River in Norfolk, Virginia
(Table V);
2) The open regions of the Chesapeake Bay (Table VI); I
3) Other estuarine environments, in this case the Delaware,
Potomac and James River estuaries (Table VII); and
It) The earth's crust (average values at best) (Table VIII).
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
i
V-7
Appendix I, Tables IX through XVI, contains the results for
all the metals analyzed in this survey. A map showing sampling
stations is at the end of Appendix I (Figure 3).
The South Branch of the Elizabeth River is similar to the
Baltimore Harbor area in that it, too, supports a highly indus-
trialized port facility. Table V provides a comparison of Cu,
Pb, Zn and Hg levels in these two harbors.
Average lead and zinc concentrations in Baltimore Harbor are
two to three times the levels found in the South Branch of the
Elizabeth River. Copper, on the other hand, is more concentrated
in the Elizabeth River sediments by a factor of three times.
For all metals compared, Baltimore Harbor had higher "high"
values than the Elizabeth River.
I
Table VI is a comparison of the Harbor values with those
found in the open Chesapeake Bay (approximately 5> miles from
the Magothy River in mid-Bay to Cove Point). For all metals
| analyzed the average and high Harbor values exceeded the open
*+ Bay values. Ignoring for the time being the low and high values
w as being extreme, the average chromium, copper and lead Harbor
values are 20, $0 and 13 times their Bay values. The average
manganese values in the Bay and Harbor are approximately equal.
g The average cadmium value for the Harbor is 6.3-6.6 and at least
six times the value in the Bay.
All Harbor metals investigated but manganese were 3 to $0
-------
TABLE V
METALS IN BALTIMORE HARBOR AND ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
Metal
Mercury, mg/kg
Low <.01 .30
V-8
I
I
I
Baltimore Harbor22 Elizabeth River1" |
Copper, mg/kg
Low <1 20
Average 3i;2 900
High 2926 1500
Lead, mg/kg A
Low <1 10 g
Average 3ljl 100
High 13890 500
Zinc, mg/kg
Low 31 80 *
Average 888 350 jj
High 60hO 1300
i
Average 1.17 .90
High 12.20 3.00 |
|
I
I
i
i
I
I
-------
I
I
times greater than their Bay counterparts. These factors
should be carefully weighed when considering the disposal of
dredged spoil in any open bay areas.
~ The Delaware, Potomac and James Estuaries provide another
M opportunity to evaluate Baltimore Harbor data. While none of
these three estuaries have the concentrated industrial complex
to the extent Baltimore Harbor does, they do provide for com-
parisons primarily with an industrialized tidal system (Delaware
River), an estuary with mainly municipal inputs (Potomac River)
* and a third, more remote, system with a lesser degree of both
municipal and industrial inputs (James River). The James River
sediments contain the least amounts of zinc and lead, and in
fact, the average values of the James (Table VII) are remark-
ably similar to the open Bay (Table VI). Potomac Estuary sedi-
_ ments exhibit greater ranges of values than the James but are
no more than two times greater than Bay concentrations.
The Delaware Estuary shows consistently higher levels than
the James or Potomac but still considerably less than levels
found in Baltimore Harbor. The chromium and copper averages
are about £-6 times greater in the Harbor than in the Delaware
P while lead and zinc values are twice as great in the Harbor.
Table VIII shows average concentrations of heavy metals in
the earth's crust. As can be seen these concentration ranges
I
I
I
are far less than those found in Baltimore Harbor. Those values
V-9
-------
TABLE VI
METALS IN BALTIMORE HARBOR AND
Metal Baltimore Harbor22
Chromium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Copper, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Lead, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Zinc, mg/kg
Low
Average
Hgih
Cadmium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Nickel, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Manganese, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Mercury, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
10
1*92
571*5
<1
31*2
2926
<1
31*6
13890
31
888
601*0
<1
6.3-6.6
651*
12
36
91*
121
739
2721
<. 01
1.17
12.20
CHESAPEAKE BAY SEDIMENTS
Chesapeake Bay22
18
25
1*2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE VII
METALS
IN BALTIMORE
POTOMAC RIVER AND
Metal
Chromium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Copper, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Lead, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Zinc, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Cadmium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Nickel, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Manganese, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Mercury, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Baltimore
Harbor22
10
k92
571;5
<1
3l|2
2926
<1
3 111
13890
31
888
60i;0
<1
6.3-6.6
65k
12
36
9k
121
739
2721
<.01
1.17
12.20
HARBOR, DELAWARE RIVER,
JAMES RIVER
Delaware
River22
8
58
172
k
73
201
26
llr5
805
137
523
1361;
<1
2.9-3.1
17
NO
DATA
NO
DATA
<. 01
1.99
6.97
SEDIMENTS
Potomac
Riverl7
20
--
80
10
--
60
20
--
100
125
1000
<1
--
.60
20
Ii5
500
kQoo
.01
.03
James
Riverl6
NO
DATA
NO
DATA
k
27
55
10
131
708
NO
DATA
NO
DATA
NO
DATA
.02
.32
1.00
V-ll
Data taken from tables - ranges only
-------
V-12
TABLE
CONCENTRATION OF HEAVY METALS
Metal
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Nickel
Manganese
Mercury
23 24
VIII0'
IN EARTH'S CRUST, AVG. RANGE
Range,
.10
4.00
7.00
16.00
-05
2.00
50.00
.03
mg/kg
- 100.00
- 55-00
20.00
- 95-00
.30
- 75.00
- 1100.00
.40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
from Chesapeake Bay and the James River are just slightly
higher than the values in Table VIII. For the Potomac sedi-
_ ments, Pb, Zn, Cd and Mn values are in excess of the averages
W while Cr, Cu, Ni and Hg are within the specified ranges.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
V-13
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VI-1
APPENDIX: i
-------
TABLE IX
Location
A 1
2
3
k
5
B 1
2
3
k
5
C 1
2
3
3*
U
5
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
1*
5
6
6*
F 1
2
3
u
5
5*
6
G 1
2
3
1;
5
H 1
2
NS No
CADMIUM BALTIMOEE HARBOR SEDIMENT STUDY
rug/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
NS
<1
<1
<1
<1
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE X
Location
A 1
2
3
k
5
B 1
2
3
It
5
C 1
2
3
3*
k
5
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
4
5
6
6*
F 1
2
3
k
5
5-x-
6
G 1
2
3
4
5
H 1
2
CHROMIUM BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENT STUDY
mg/kg
111
157
60
28
53
29
31
6k
160
84
NS
10
86
88
141
185
103
231
208
NS
89
21
161
111;
220
15
206
310
980
112
72
85
161
195
402
282
51*7
225
7k
119
618
183
231*
NS
113
91
36
159
229
116
Location
H 3
k
k*
5
I i
2
3
k
5
6
6*
J 1
2
3
4
4*
5
6
7
8
9
K 1
2
3
4
5
6
6*
7
L 1
2
2*
3
4
M 1
2
3
4
1**
N 1
2
2-x-
3
k
5
6
0 1
2
2*
3
rag/kg
42
196
3k
536
140
457
193
652
299
kkk
Ik
293
190
624
1397
950
1538
2401
5745
1044
1432
267
75
568
1261
1336
1120
56o
876
599
274
38
860
NS
432
372
162
149
965
765
409
4oo
405
378
363
NS
664
569
203
141
Location
o 4
5
6
p 1
2
2*
3
4
Q 1
2
3
3*
4
5
6
R 1
2
2*
3
4
S 1
2
3
T 1
2
3
3*
U 1
2
2-x-
3
V 1
2
3
₯ 1
2
2-«.
3
X 1
2
3
4
U*
Y 1
2
3
4
5
5*
6
mg/kg
215
134
281;
115
224
161
45
46o
637
97
473
139
578
537
1336
404
520
58
320
193
1124
148
285
730
658
60u
239
573
193
119
477
121
79
328
64
155
159
200
NS
53
42
94
157
46
114
211
109
128
98
140
Location
AA 1
2
2*
3
BB 1
2
CC 1
2
DD 1
1#
2
3
EE 1
2
FF 1
2
3
GG 1
2
2-x-
3
HH 1
2
II 1
2
JJ 1
2
KK 1
2
LL 1
2
3
3*
4
CB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8*
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
VI-3
mg/kg
963
163
42
310
534
558
969
60
940
876
247
39
51
181
92
180
657
46
1656
1564
2137
486
2013
1745
1682
3184
3057
95
1755
34o
746
1292
2102
4756
283
200
57
524
90
149
275
319
216
40
55
32
296
28
208
2k2
WS No sample taken
Same sample 30-ljO cm
-------
TABLE XI
Location
A 1
2
3
h
$
B 1
2
3
h
5
C 1
2
3
3*
k
$
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
4
5
6
6*
F 1
2
3
1*
5
5-x-
6
G 1
2
3
k
5
H 1
2
NS No
COPPER BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENT
mg/kg Location
69 H
112
63
32
68 I
62
32
68
123
79
NS
14 J
97
95
145
216
124
168
173
NS
55
29 K
135
120
231
36
177
142
216
94 L
56
65
122
134
375 M
209
229
13k
73
78 N
389
133
323
NS
110
72
91 0
182
142
90
sample taken
3
k
k*
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
6*
1
2
3
4
4*
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
6*
7
1
2
2-x-
3
k
1
2
3
U
k*
I
2
P-54-
3
k
5
6
l
2
2-x-
3
mg/kg
68
140
57
281
142
334
123
153
230
242
10
177
109
372
390
1*12
541
544
946
333
329
102
25
161*
218
218
283
305
2 Oli
311
217
2
338
NS
272
66
35
67
393
3k7
331
92
288
271
198
NS
531;
405
229
140
-X-
Location
0 h
5
6
P 1
2
2*
3
1*
Q l
2
3
3*
k
5
6
R 1
2
2-x-
3
It
S 1
2
3
T 1
2
3
3*
U 1
2
2-x
3
V 1
2
3
₯ 1
2
2*
3
X 1
2
3
li
It*
I 1
2
3
It
5
5-"-
6
Same sample
STUDT
mg/kg
226
15
58
23lt
252
276
10
21*7
345
65
358
121
277
401
1532
352
291
12
281
185
557
123
229
412
644
619
197
375
174
93
368
134
68
306
104
218
330
362
NS
95
34
278
263
26
164
469
142
198
161
209
30-40 cm
Location
AA 1
2
2*
3
BB 1
2
GC 1
2
DD 1
1-x-
2
3
EE 1
2
FF 1
2
3
GG 1
2
2*
3
HH 1
2
II 1
2
JJ 1
2
KK 1
2
LL 1
2
3
3*
4
CB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8*
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
vi-4
mg/kg
1.616
373
14
324
1665
731
910
143
1389
1315
881
16
24
278
99
243
2926
57
1415
2000
2220
682
2178
1057
1526
1136
1542
13
1426
247
433
354
882
933
330
281
44
427
88
288
304
501
139
<1
189
28
590
12
265
472
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
TABLE XII LEAD BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENT
Location mg/kg Location
A 1
2
3
4
5
B 1
2
3
4
5
C 1
2
3
3*
k
5
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
4
5
7
9
10
E 1
2
3
4
5
6
6*
F 1
2
3
i
4
i-'
5
5*
6
G 1
2
1
4
5
H 1
2
NS No
90
163
138
16
111
34
23
128
174
178
NS
33
161
180
323
301
292
642
1310
NS
138
20
146
156
317
13
1026
682
1006
137
93
132
147
152
380
1008
248
180
128
113
1 r-. ._/
475
564
356
NS
177
122
19
190
130
161
sample taken
H 3
4
4*
5
I 1
2
3
4
5
6
6*
J l
2
3
4
4*
5
6
7
8
9
K 1
2
3
4
5
6
6*
7
L 1
2
2-x-
3
4
M 1
2
3
4
4-x-
N 1
2
2-x-
3
4
5
6
0 l
2
2-x-
3
mg/kg Location
20
176
16
475
174
454
191
379
504
393
9
179
179
262
410
453
489
501
981
581
636
109
28
233
448
291
548
2218
682
180
55
4
301
NS
139
132
36
36
298
81
71
159
120
255
105
NS
393
348
270
144
-X-
o 4
5
6
P l
2
2-x-
3
4
Q 1
2
3
3*
4
5
6
R 1
2
2-x-
3
4
S 1
2
3
T 1
2
3
3*
U 1
2
2-x-
3
V 1
2
3
₯ 1
2
2-x-
3
X 1
2
3
4
4*
Y 1
2
3
4
5
5-x-
6
Same sample
STUDY
mg/kg
161
7
14
119
169
240
7
124
209
26
234
109
216
259
2282
191
228
<1
168
139
363
6l
193
347
269
386
197
457
129
104
188
93
77
169
42
129
318
35
NS
30
23
74
158
9
252
319
134
328
238
364
30-40 cm
Location
AA 1
2
2*
3
BB 1
2
CC 1
2
DD 1
1-x-
2
3
EE 1
2
FF 1
2
3
GG 1
2
2-x-
3
HH 1
2
II 1
2
JJ 1
2
KK 1
2
LL 1
2
3
3*
4
CB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8*
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
vi-5
mg/kg
351
341
6
13890
844
365
448
320
* * ^
384
636
166
6
13
*--'
36
-^ *-^
22
176
729
1 * X
5
466
*-rv v
1170
5ii
336
466
518
477
383
529
S ' s
10
584
254
426
*_f.<~- v
347
889
336
376
360
14
164
30
~/^-'
284
164
231
57
^ 1
<1
~J-
36
.^ ^
3
367
6
237
202
-------
TABLE XIII
Location
A 1
2
3
li
5
B 1
2
3
14
5
C 1
2
3
3*
k
5
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
It
5
6
6-x-
F 1
2
3
14
5
5*
6
G 1
2
3
ii
5
H 1
2
NS Mo
MANGANESE BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENT STUDY
nig/kg
1301
1287
2076
1166
1059
1186
1173
1729
1261
1007
NS
$90
2286
3317
711
I5kk
698
1112
1187
NS
1251*
1227
2721
936
589
587
1129
775
722
k9k
1518
llilil
21*33
1772
7l4l
1026
365
1220
1505
17 kO
71k
609
1327
NS
1657
1622
121*7
873
259
1987
Location
H 3
1*
1**
5
I 1
2
3
14
5
6
6*
J 1
2
3
1*
1**
5
6
7
8
9
K 1
2
3
1*
5
6
6*
7
L 1
2
2*
3
1*
M 1
2
3
1*
1**
N 1
2
PJ/
3
1*
5
6
0 1
2
2-x-
3
mg/kg
11*31
1222
1157
1*61
1588
1*05
2309
353
6k3
kio
1129
961*
11*1*8
71*0
kk7
k9k
515
290
1437
327
367
81*1
2097
211*
266
200
271*
21*5
285
662
1118
U32
396
NS
981^
1)402
1399
11*87
389
530
1176
1128
969
530
1291
NS
367
Iil2
397
1253
sample taken -x-
Location
0 k
5
6
P 1
2
2*
3
li
Q 1
2
3
3*
14
5
6
R 1
2
2*
3
li
S 1
2
3
T 1
2
3
3*
U 1
2
2*
3
V 1
2
3
₯ 1
2
2-*
3
X 1
2
3
14
k*
Y 1
2
3
k
5
5*
6
Same sample
mg/kg
1207
209
363
989
782
875
1287
3714
523
1050
532
267
33k
h21
261
1497
801;
635
539
361
1;60
535
552
5140
698
68$
11314
H5
lj.67
395
U35
1451;
516
383
3kk
296
289
1427
NS
190
350
513
308
1477
1|60
195
339
1527
325
580
30-1*0 cm
Location
AA 1
2
2*
3
BB 1
2
CC 1
2
DD 1
1*
2
3
EE 1
2
FF 1
2
3
GG 1
2
2-x-
3
HH 1
2
II 1
2
JJ 1
2
KK 1
2
LL 1
2
3
3*
1;
GB 1
2
3
li
5
6
7
8
8-x-
9
10
11
12
13
111
15
Vl-6
mg/kg
263
516
578
292
333
1438
385
1489
Iili3
508
Iil8
1*21
300
51*3
199
185
399
121
330
278
Ii67
302
360
259
389
276
261*
185
297
381*
395
32k
212
222
3li8
,1*22
266
$07
$98
180
$1*1
57 li
392
231
221;
125
512
528
313
812
-------
J-AXJliE/ AJ-V
imroji
JKX BALI
±itfiUKJi HAKB01
i bEDIME
Location mg/kg Location mg/kg Location
A 1
2
3
i
1*
5
B 1
2
3
i
li
5
C 1
2
3
3-x-
li
5
6
7
8
D 1
i
4
r-'
5
6
0
0
9
10
E 1
Q
J
k
C"
3
6
6*
F 1
2
3
li
5
5-x-
6
G 1
2
0
J
li
5
H 1
2
NS No
.lli
.70
.19
<.01
.32
<.01
<.01
.56
.72
.26
NS
.03
.67
.1*3
.57
.09
.50
1.81
1.81
NS
<.01
<.01
<.01
-i i-"
.15
1.26
<.01
Ii-'l
51*
.99
1.55
.36
-* r\~i
<. 01
< m
^. WJ_
< 01
^-* W-L
.05
.23
1.69
3.58
.51
2.88
3.70
_^ | *~s
3.06
2.7u
*~ 1 *-r
2.60
3.89
2.31
u- ^ *-
6.66
9.98
.28
2.81*
.81
1.1*0
Ao
.oy
10.98
11.31*
1.28
11 r'
.1*5
.25
.61
.33
1.36
.77
.52
.35
f~ m
<.U1
.18
<.01
1.57
<.01
1.55
1.07
-------
TABLE XV
Location
A 1
2
3
4
5
B 1
2
3
4
5
C 1
2
3
3*
4
5
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
4
5
6
6*
F 1
2
3
4
5
5*
6
G 1
2
3
4
5
H 1
2
NS No
NICKEL BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENT STUDY
mg/kg Location
25 H
48
45
27
62 I
26
30
36
18
52
NS
12 J
48
57
62
54
31
47
37
NS
38
22 K
5i
33
52
16
26
26
32
45 L
31
34
44
51
44 M
48
45
42
24
36 N
49
25
34
NS
38
33
26 o
37
34
37
sample taken
3
4
4-x-
5
i
2
3
4
5
6
6*
1
2
3
4
4*
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
6*
7
1
2
2*
3
4
1
2
3
4
4-x-
i
2
2*
3
4
5
6
1
2
2*
3
mg/kg
25
41
25
47
46
48
44
33
30
38
20
32
30
40
60
38
46
31
71
35
36
52
33
29
30
30
40
39
40
42
39
22
48
NS
44
42
30
32
37
48
4o
38
47
34
36
NS
43
35
38
32
K-
Location
o 4
5
6
p 1
2
2*
3
4
Q 1
2
3
3*
4
5
6
R 1
2
2*
3
4
S 1
2
3
T 1
2
3
3*
U 1
2
2*
3
V 1
2
3
W 1
2
2*
3
X 1
2
3
4
4*
Y 1
2
3
4
5
5*
6
Same sample
mg/kg
34
12
16
44
42
35
26
30
47
30
42
29
31
40
94
37
39
26
41
25
51
28
31
44
4o
31
30
59
32
26
30
29
31
37
23
22
27
35
NS
27
32
29
27
27
46
38
29
40
37
46
30-40 cm
Location
AA 1
2
2*
3
BE 1
2
CC 1
2
DD 1
1-x-
2
3
EE 1
2
FF 1
2
3
GG 1
2
2-x-
3
HH 1
2
II 1
2
JJ 1
2
KK 1
2
LL 1
2
3
3*
4
CB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8*
C)
10
11
12
13
14
15
VI- 8
mg/kg
38
26
22
22
36
35
37
25
36
38
31
24
24
28
18
14
46
21
46
36
58
20
44
37
42
36
48
20
47
35
34
37
41
4o
28
26
13
^-^
48
*-+.''
30
20
31
43
'-(._>
34
f *+
19
~L-x
17
18
48
24
29
54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
TABLE XVI
Location
A 1
2
3
k
5
B 1
2
3
k
$
G I
2
3
3*
k
5
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
li
5
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
k
$
6
6*
F 1
2
3
1*
5
5*
6
G 1
2
3
1*
5
H 1
2
NS No
ZINC
BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENT
mg/kg Location
91
757
1*91*
81*
620
7k
112
353
667
515
NS
69
572
655
91*6
859
910
2951*
1*71*9
NS
kn
92
520
551*
11*09
50
351*o
2300
60l;0
397
280
370
670
610
1330
i860
1^09
808
382
506
1681;
1090
1119
NS
930
71*3
72
662
687
668
sample taken
H 3
k
k*
5
I 1
2
3
k
5
6
6*
J 1
2
3
k
k*
5
6
7
8
9
K 1
2
3
li
5
6
6*
7
L 1
2
2*
3
1;
M 1
2
3
1;
k*
N 1
2
2-x-
3
1*
5
6
0 1
2
2-x-
3
mg/kg
125
7kk
103
2858,
1*05
1331
635
1363
1301
1307
1*8
635
590
1025
1530
1719
2099
3370
5871*
1*616
3021
1*12
151*
71*8
1556
2857
1776
3730
1690
1213
816
56
1571
NS
962
669
390
1*22
11*02
1113
850
711*
920
830
592
NS
975
1220
Ii20
385
-X-
Location
0 1*
5
6
p 1
2
2*
3
1*
Q 1
2
3
3*
1*
5
6
R 1
2
2*
3
1*
S 1
2
3
T 1
2
3
3*
U 1
2
2-x-
3
V 1
2
3
₯ 1
2
2-x-
3
X 1
2
3
1*
li*
Y 1
2
3
1*
5
5*
6
Same sample
STUDY
mg/kg
560
192
263
636
91*3
833
68
556
1010
228
767
189
786
789
1*020
588
6k6
51
121
257
1121;
201;
1*05
862
701*
31
271
1195
268
150
399
291;
21*5
1*03
158
388
320
1*70
NS
215
178
228
1*51
106
571*
930
655
519
1*58
698
30-1*0 cm
Location
AA 1
2
2*
3
BB 1
2
CC 1
2
DD 1
!*
2
3
EE 1
2
FF 1
2
3
GG 1
2
2-x-
3
HH 1
2
II 1
2
JJ 1
2
KK 1
2
LL 1
2
3
3*
1*
CB 1
2
3
1*
5
6
7
8
8-x-
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
VI- 9
mg/kg
937
1*61
69
639
773
801;
1050
103
1031;
1011
k06
68
59
189
83
21*3
1028
1*2
1215
1092
1608
358
1211
1200
991*
11*08
131*1*
38
1308
610
587
732
1066
11*53
671;
1*90
177
1081;
299
1*81*
71*3
81*8
1|88
1*9
210
1*9
81*9
60
509
779
-------
VI-10
igure
CADMIUM (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
PATAPSCO RIVER
-
c
----//v
:.; | V V -/7 *^T "f:J-T-"::.'- ^ V
BAY
10 -
>ioo
100
-------
I
CADMIUM (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
NORTHWEST & MIDDLE BRANCH
vi-u
Figure 5
NAUTICAL MILES
I - 5
5-10
10 - 100
-------
VI-12
Figure 6
CHROMIUM (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
PATAPSCO RIVER
SPARROWS
PT.
OLD ROAD BAY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
CHROMIUM (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
NORTHWEST & MIDDLE BRANCH
o
VI-13
Figure 7
250 - 1,000
> 1,000
-------
COPPER (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
PATAPSCO RIVER
Figure 8
-------
COPPER (rog/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
NORTHWEST & MIDDLE BRANCH
o
NAUTICAL MILES
VI-l'j
Figure 9
J_EGEND_
0-50
50 - 250
250 1,000
> 1,000
-------
VI-16
Figure lo
LEAD (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
PATAPSCO RIVER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
LEAD (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
NORTHWEST & MIDDLE BRANCH
VI-17
Figure li
NAUTICAL MILES
\ -""/""I
/ / v
LEGEND
0-50
50 - 250
250 1,000
>l,000
-------
MANGANESE (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
PATAPSCO RIVER
Vl-18
Figure 12
SPARROWS
PT.
OLD ROAD BAY
0 - 500
500 - 1.000
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MANGANESE (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
NORTHWEST & MIDDLE BRANCH
Vl-19
Figure 1'.
NAUTICAL MILES
'SCO
LEGEND
0 - 500
500 - 1,000
1,000 - 2,500
>2500
-------
VI-20
Figure 1.1).
MERCURY (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
PATAPSCO RIVER
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MERCURY (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
NORTHWEST & MIDDLE BRANCH
VI-21
Figure 15
NAUTICAL MILES
LEGEND
ND
0 - I
I - 5
>5
-------
NICKEL (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
PATAPSCO RIVER
VI-22
Figure 1.6
-------
NICKEL (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
NORTHWEST & MIDDLE BRANCH
NAUTICAL MILES
LEGEND
0-25
25 - 50
50 - 75
>75
VI-23
Figure 17
-------
ZINC (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
PATAPSCO RIVER
VI-2J*
Figure 18
SPARROWS
PT.
OLD ROAD BAY
-------
ZINC (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE HARBOR
NORTHWEST & MIDDLE BRANCH
VI-25
Figure 19
LEGEND
0-50
50 - 250
250 - 1.000
> 1,000
-------
BALTIMORE HARBOR
I jp |
VI-26
Figure 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
VII-1
APPENDIX II
-------
VII-2
TABLE XVII
METALS CONCENTRATION IN MAIN CHANNEL OF BALTIMORE HARBOR
Transect/
Station Cr
A 1*
B 1*
C 3
c 3*
D k
D k*
E 1*
F 1*
F k*
G k
H 1*
H 1**
I 3
J 2
J 2-x-
K 2
L 2
L 2*
M 2
N 3
N 3*
0 3
P 2
P 2*
R 2
R 2#
S 2
T 3
T 3*
AA 1
BB 1
BB 1*
28
160
86
88
161
37
161
119
89
36
196
31*
193
190
1*0
75
271;
38
372
1*05
135
11*1
221;
161
520
58
1148
6ok
239
963
531;
1183
Cu
32
123
97
95
135
6
122
78
61
91
11*0
57
123
109
10
25
217
2
66
288
119
11*0
252
276
291
12
123
619
197
1616
1665
1060
mg/kg
Pb Zn
16
171*
161
180
11*6
6
11*7
113
121*
19
176
16
191
179
12
28
55
/i
132
120
172
11*1*
169
2 1*0
228
<1
61
386
197
351
81*1*
615
81*
667
572
665
520
71
670
506
1*00
72
71*1*
103
635
590
81
151*
816
56
669
920
365
385
91*3
833
61*6
51
201;
31
271
937
773
710
Mn
1166
1261
2286
3317
2721
131*5
21*33
17140
2171
12147
1222
1157
2309
Il4l48
1288
2097
1118
11432
11402
969
1380
1253
782
875
8014
635
535
685
11314
263
333
376
Ni
27
18
148
57
51
19
1*1*
36
21
26
1*1
25
1*1*
30
21
33
39
22
1*2
1*7
22
32
1*2
35
39
26
28
31
30
38
36
32
Cd
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VII-3
TABLE XVIII
METALS CONCENTRATION IN KENT
Station
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
Cr
33
146
55
83
41
22
63
42
23
40
IT
26
30
34
Cu
28
142
29
166
114
16
26
29
47
32
11
10
10
68
Fb
56
21
93
365
315
70
135
156
24
22
48
13
23
136
mg/kg
Zn
274
628
343
1180
175
155
509
353
144
93
146
122
162
169
ISLAM) DISPOSAL AEEA
Mn
3142
146 0
3594
1740
1395
1419
2866
1640
1059
1219
750
2505
861
533
Ni
62
38
51
119
31
27
47
39
28
28
42
41
39
27
Cd
< 1
1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
Hg
.01
.20
.01
.12
< .01
< .01
.01
.07
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
.20
NOTE: No cores were taken at stations 13, 14, 17 and 18 due to
sandy bottom
-------
KENT ISLAND DISPOSAL AREA
VH-k
Figure
SCALE IN NAUTICAL MILES
2
o i
SCALE IN YARDS
1000 0 1000 2000 3000
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
VIII-1
APPENDIX III
-------
VIII-2
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury-
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
TOXICITY
Chemical
Symbol
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Pb
Ni
Zn
25
TABLE XIX
OF METALS TO MARINE LIFE
Range of Concentrations that have
Toxic Effects on Marine Life
(mg/1 or ppm)
2.0
0.01 to 10
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
10.0
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
^r
1
TABLE XX
VIII-.3
TRACE METALS - USES AND HAZARDS
Metals Industrial Use
Arsenic coal, petroleum, deter-
gents, pesticides, mine
tailings
Barium paints, linoleum, paper,
drilling mud
Cadmium batteries, paints, plas-
tics, coal, zinc mining,
water mains and pipes,
tobacco smoke
Chromium alloys, refractories,
catalysts
Lead batteries, auto exhaust
from gasoline, paints
(prior to l?ij.8)
Mercury coal, electrical batter-
ies, fungicides, elec-
trical instruments, paper
and pulp, pharmaceuti-
cals
Nickel diesel oil, residual oil,
coal, tobacco smoke, chem-
icals and catalysts,
steel and nonferrous al-
loys, plating
1
1
Health Effects
hazard disputed, may cause
cancer
muscular and cardiovascular
disorders, kidney damage
high blood pressure, ster-
ility, flu-like disorders,
cardiovascular disease and
hypertension in humans
suspected, interferes with
zinc and copper metabolism
skin disorders, lung can-
cer, liver damage
colic, brain damage, con-
vulsions, behavioral dis-
orders, death
birth defects, nerve dam-
age, death
dermatitis, lung cancer
(as carbonyl)
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
1 Blick, R.A.P., and B. Wisely, "Mortality of Marine Invertebrate
Larvae in Hg, Cu and Zn Solutions," Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res.,
18(1):63 (1967).
2 Browning, E., "Toxicity of Industrial Metals," Butterworths,
London, England (196!).
3 Corner, E.D.S., and B.W. Sparrows, "The Mode of Action of Toxic
Agents. I. Observations on the Poisoning of Certain Crustaceans
by Copper and Mercury," Jour. Mar. Eiol. Assoc., V.K. 35;531
(1956).
h Curley, A., et. al., "Organic Mercury Identified as the Cause of
Poisoning in Humans and Hogs," Science, 172 (1971).
5 Axelson, G., and P. Magnus, "Renal Damage after Prolonged
Exposure to Cadmium," A.M.A. Archives of Environmental Health,
Karolinska Institutet, Stockholme, Sweden, p. 360 (1966).
6 Irukayama, K.T. Kondo, F. Kai, and M. Fujiki, "Studies on the
origin of the causative agent of Minamata disease. I. Organic
mercury compounds in the fish and shellfish from Minamata Bay,"
Kumamoto Med. J., lk(k), pp. 157-169 (1961).
7 Schroeder, H.A., "Trace Metals and Chronic Diseases," Metal
Bindings in Medicine, Lippincott, Co., Philadelphia (1960).
8 Kobayashi, J., "Relation between 'Itai-Itai' Disease and the
Pollution of River Waters by Cadmium from a Mine," presented
at the 5th International Water Pollution Research Conference,
held in San Francisco, July-August, 1970, 7 p., 2 Ref., 3 Tab.,
6 Fig., U.S.P'.H.S., Grant WP-00359 (1970).
9 Faust, S., and J. Hunter (eds), Organic Compounds in Aquatic
Environments, Marcel Dekker, Inc., N.Y., Chap. 12 (1971).
10 Oliver, B., "Heavy Metals Levels in Ottawa and Rideau River
Sediments," Environmental Science and Technology, J, No. 2,
p. 135 (February 1973).
11 Martin, D., et. al., "Distribution of Naturally Occurring
Chelators (Humic Acids) and the Selected Trace Metals in some
West Coast Florida Streams, 1968-1969," Univ. of South Florida,,
Professional Papers Series Number 12 (April 1971)
-------
24 Green, J., "Geochemical Table of the Elements for 1959," Bulletin
of the Geological Society of America, 70, pp. 1127-1184 (1959) .
25 National Estuarine Pollution Study, U.S. Dept . of the Interior,
FWPCA, Vol. II, Page TV 356 (November 3, 1969).
I
I
12 Faust, S., and J. Hunter (eds), Organic Compounds in Aquatic
Environments , Marcel Dekker, Inc., N.Y., Chap. 13 (1971) !
13 Goulden, P.D., and B. K. Afghan, "An Automated Method for
Determining Mercury in Water," Technicon, Adv. in Auto, Anal., 2,
p. 317 (1970).
14 Finger, J., Personal communication, Southeast Water Laboratory,
Analytical Services Section (1970) .
15 "Mercury in Water (Automated Cold Vapor Technique)," Environmental
Protection Agency, Southeast Water Laboratory, Chemical Services ^
Section (April 1972) .
16 Bender, M.E., et . al . , "Heavy Metals - An Inventory of Existing
Conditions," J. Wash. Acad. Sci . , 62, No. 2, pp. 144-153 (1972).
17 Houser, M.E., and M.I. Fauth, "Potomac River Sediment Study,"
Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Maryland (1972) .
18 Pheiffer, T., "Heavy Metals Analyses of Bottom Sediment in the
Potomac River Estuary," Annapolis Field Office, Region III,
Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Report No. 49
(January 1972) .
19 "Water Quality Management Plan for Patapsco and Back River
Basins," State of Maryland, Maryland Environmental Services |
(March 1973).
20 Quirk, Lawler and Matusky Engineers, "Water Quality of I
Baltimore Harbor," Environmental Science and Engineering *
Consultants, QL & M Project No. 224-1 (March 1973).
21 "Water Quality Conditions in the Chesapeake Bay System, " 9
Annapolis Field Office, Region III, Environmental Protection
Agency, Technical Report No. 55 (August 1972).
22 Annapolis Field Office data, unpublished (1972-1973) .
23 Bowen, H.J.M., Trace Elements in Biochemistry, Academic Press,
N.Y. (1966). *
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
26 "A Biological Study of Baltimore Harbor," Natural Resources
Institute, University of Maryland, Chesapeake Bay Biological
Laboratory, N.R.I. Ref. Wo. 71-76, unpublished (September 1971).
27 Ryan, Donald J., The Sediments of Chesapeake Bay, Dept. of
Geology, Mines and Water Resources, Bulletin 12, Baltimore (1953)
28 Biggs, Robert B., "Trace Metal Concentration in the Sediments of
Baltimore Harbor at Dundalk Marine Terminal," Chesapeake
Biological Laboratory, CBL Ref. No. 68-97 (December 1968).
29 Carpenter, J., personal communication, Johns Hopkins Univ.
(1970).
30 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewaters,
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 13th Edition, American Public Health
Association,, N.Y. (1971) .
31 Great Lakes Region Committee on Analytical Methods, "Chemistry
Laboratory Manual - Bottom Sediments," FWQA, Environmental
Protection Agency (December 1969)
-------
-------
I
-------
-------
------- |