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

-------

-------

-------