CBP/TRS 102/94
March 1994
903R94014
Chesapeake Bay Basin
Toxics Loading and
Release Inventory
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Commitment Report
TD
225
.C48
C486
199A
Chesapeake Bay Program
Printed on
Recycled Paper
-------
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basin
Toxics Loading & Release
Inventory
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Commitment Report
U.S. EPA Region III
Regional Center for Environmental
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
ktgioiul Center Tor F_n\ u onn-,tii*til Inlormatioii
US TI'A Region 111
1650 Arch St
Phil-idclphia, PA 19103
-------
ERRATA SHEET
Chesaeake. Ra Toxigs landin and eleaxe Inventor
Shortly after publication of this report, the point source total basinwide load estimates
presented in Table 7 (p. 25) and Appendix Tables 3 (p. 91) and 11 (p. 131) were expanded to
include additional facilities and chemicals. . The revised estimates are included in the report,
Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics Loading and Release Inventory: Technical Update - Point Source
Loads by Facility (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1989). The report is available from the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office; call 1-800-YOUR-BAY to request a copy.
p. ii Executive Summary: Industrial releases of toxic substances to the air, water, and
land or transferred off-site. . . , a -decline of 52 percent (not 41 percent) since 1987.
p. iv Acknowledgements: add Brand Niemann, Greg Gwaltney and Marcia Olson for
their timely contributions.
p. 23 Last sentence should read "...available flow and concentration data."
p. 26 Table 7: Chlordane, Total Basinwide Annual Loads = < 1 (not 0).
p. 35 Table 12: Eastern Shore Basin % AFL contributing 4% of Total Basinwide Annual
Load (pounds) should be BFL (not AFL).
p. 45 Table 14: Alachlor, Toxics of Concern column should be "2" (not blank);
Atrazine, Toxics of Concern column should be "1" (not blank).
p. 78 First paragraph, first sentence: Total reported releases and transfers of all TRI-
reported toxic substances declined 52 percent (not 47) from 1987 to 1991.
p. 89 Add to Table 2: Priority Dischargers
Discharge
Facility Name State NPDES Type Basin Fall Line Sub Basin Receiving Waters
USN Sewells Pt VA 4421 Federal James BFL Elizabeth Elizabeth River
Culpepper Wood
Preservers VA 59 145 Industrial Rappahannock AFL Rappahannock Jonas Run
p. 89 Table 2: "Squalon Co." should be "Aqualon Co."
p. 90 Table 2: Patuxent WWTP is in the Patuxent basin, not the West Chesapeake basin.
p. 95 Table 4: James BFL, Elizabeth, Toluene = 14 Ibs (not 2).
p. 96 Table 4: James, BFL, Toluene = 2 Ibs (not 14).
p. 98 Table 4: Blue Plains is a Facility Name (not part of Chemical Name).
-------
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Program developed the Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics
Loading and Release Inventory in response to the 1988 Basinwide Toxics Reduc-
tion Strategy commitment to establish a baseline on point and nonpoint source
loadings of toxic substances to the Bay basin. Point source loadings include
industrial, municipal, and federal facilities while nonpoint source loadings
include urban stormwater, atmospheric deposition, shipping, groundwater, and
agriculture. The inventory will be revised and updated every two years with the
next update scheduled for March, 1996. Technical information for specific
sources will be updated as better data become available and are compiled.
This inventory is the initial compilation of estimates of annual loadings, re-
leases, discharges, and applications of toxic substances from point and nonpoint
sources based on data from a variety of sources. It is not a comprehensive
measure of absolute loadings from the different sources. The availability and
quality of data for each of the sources and the uncertainties in loading estimates
differ widely. Often, these estimates were developed using limited data covering
various time periods and collected for purposes other than calculating loadings
and releases. As a result, many of the loadings and releases presented in this
initial version of the inventory are likely to be no better than order-of-magnitude
estimates. Groundwater loading estimates could not be developed with the
available data; groundwater portions of the report incorporate the results from a
workshop which evaluated the significance of groundwater loads and developed
a strategy to quantify these loads.
The inventory is divided into three broad but distinct categories: loadings, fall
line loadings, and releases. The Loadings category includes point sources
(industrial, municipal, and federal), urban stormwater, atmospheric deposition,
and shipping. The category represents actual discharges to tidal and non-tidal
surface waters.
The Fall Line Loadings category includes the tributary fall line estimates of
annual loads. These estimates, based on measured values, represent combined
loadings of toxic substances to the tidal tributary region from all point and
nonpoint sources above the fall line. It is not possible, however, to subdivide the
fall line loads and assign them to specific sources.
The Releases category includes data from agricultural pesticide usage surveys
and industrial releases to the air, water, and land reported according to
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III requirements
in the Toxic Release Inventory. These estimates represent releases from sources
with an unknown potential to reach Chesapeake Bay tidal and non-tidal waters.
Estimates of releases from this category are distinctly different and cannot be
compared to or summed with data from any of the other categories.
Because of the broad scope of the inventory, multiple data bases, and varying
data quality, numerous limitations exist and must be considered when using the
data. In addition to the distinction between "loadings" and "releases," the
estimated loadings do not account for transformations or degradations that may
occur during transport from sources discharging to non-tidal waters above the
fall line. Direct comparisons between loadings (or between releases) within and
between source categories, therefore, should be made only to evaluate differences
in the order of magnitude. At this early stage in inventory development, larger
loadings or estimates may be indicative of a more comprehensive data base
Executive Summary
-------
rather than identification of a major source. The inventory does not consider
factors such as the toxicity of the compound, concentration, frequency of expo-
sure, or duration of exposure. ;
The major findings from this initial inventory are:
• Urban stormwater runoff is potentially a major source of copper with a
total load of more than a quarter million pounds per year; it is also a
major contributor of other trace metals.
• Fall line loading measurements capture the sum of toxic loads from all
sources above the fall lines of the James and Susquehanna river
basins—the two rivers that are the largest contributors of metals
designated as Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern—with a total load of
more than 1.6 million pounds per year.
• Point source loadings of trace metals, totaling nearly 0.1 million pounds
per year, are significant and may be underestimated.
• Loadings of metals and organics from direct atmospheric deposition to
surface waters of the Bay and tidal tributaries are less significant in
comparison with other major sources; atmospheric deposition of toxic
substances in locations downwind of urban areas, however, is expected to
be significantly greater than around less urbanized areas.
• The atmospheric deposition contribution of toxic substances to land
areas in the Bay watershed and eventual loadings to the Bay's tidal
tributaries are not known. A portion of these loadings is captured in
urban runoff and fall line loading estimates.
• Large amounts of pesticides (e.g., more than 2.3 million pounds of
atrazine) are widely used for pest control, but the amounts actually
reaching the Bay are not known. Fall line loadings of atrazine, which
provide a measure of the amount of pesticides applied that reach the
Bay, ranged from three to 16 thousand pounds in 1990 and 1991. These
numbers indicate that only a small fraction of the amount applied
throughout the watershed reaches the Bay's tidal waters.
• Industrial releases of toxic substances to the air, water, and land or
transferred off-site reported under SAEA Title III requirements totaled
almost 150 million pounds in 1991, a decline of 41percent since 1987.
Both the actual fate of these pollutants and their actual or estimated
loadings to the Bay's tidal waters are uncertain.
• Because of the danger of accidents, there is a potential for a very large
amount of any material transported by shipping to be released directly
into the Bay's tidal waters.
• Estimates of toxics loads transported by groundwater are not currently
available. Preliminary indications suggest that groundwater toxics
loadings are limited locally and are not a significant source of toxics to
the Bay.
In using the information compiled in the inventory, it is important to keep in
mind that:
• There is an incomplete picture of toxic substance loads to the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries.
Executive Summary
-------
The inventory includes releases and applications. These numbers are
not equivalent to loadings, but do reflect usage and provide some esti-
mate of potential loadings.
The data compiled in the inventory were collected from different sources,
cover different time periods, and were originally intended for purposes
other than developing loading estimates.
Confidence levels for each source estimate are only beginning to be
developed in the inventory.
The Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List provides a valuable focus
and direction for the presentation of inventory data.
The inventory provides both recommendations to refine initial estimates
and a framework to build upon.
Executive Summary Hi
-------
Acknowledgements
The Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics Loading and Release Inventory is the product
of the both individual and combined work of members of the Chesapeake Bay
Program Toxic Subcommittee's Toxics Loading Workgroup. Including
representatives from state and federal agencies and the private sector, the
workgroup members balanced their busy schedules to allow this work to go
forward. The membership of the Toxics Loading Workgroup has changed but
included the following people: Joel Baker, University of Maryland; Paul
Gartleman, Nevamar Corporation; George Harmon, Maryland Department of
the Environment; Lt. Commander Steve Hughes, U.S. Coast Guard; Cedric
Karper and Stuart Gansell, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Regulation; George Kennedy, Hampton Roads Sanitation District; John
Kennedy, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; Anita Key, District of
Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs; Robin Laird, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers; Norman LeBlanc, Hampton Roads Sanitation District;
Joseph Macknis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay
Program Office; Sandra Olsenholler, Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments; Chuck Prorok, Computer Sciences Corporation; Ed Stone, Horacio
Tablada, and Peter Tinsley, Maryland Department of the Environment; David
Velinsky, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin; Dale Wismer, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; and Linda Zynjuk, U.S. Geological Survey.
Each has provided valuable assistance at different times in the evolution of this
document.
The workgroup acknowledges the reviewers of the previous drafts of the report
for their comments and insights. Rich Batiuk, Ed Stigall, and William
Matuszeski of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Clay Jones of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and Alan
Pollock of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality are acknowledged
for theu- patience, firm encouragement, and support in completing the report.
Sandi Schwab, Steven Gaber, Cheri Sexton, Katherine Bennett, and Rosie Zahm
are recognized for their timely editorial contributions. Special thanks to Nina
Fisher for editing the report and creating the layout and design.
iv Acknowlegements
-------
Executive Summary i
Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
List of Tables in Appendix viii
List of Figures in Appendix viii
The Toxics Loading Inventory 1
Introduction 1
Inventory Development Approach 5
Inventory Limitations 5
Loadings vs. Releases 6
Comparisons Between Source Loading Estimates 6
Availability of Data 6
Chemical Compound vs. Toxic Substance 7
Uncertainty 7
Inventory Structure 7
Section 1: Loadings 11
Point Source Loadings 13
Introduction 13
Temporal and Spatial Coverage 13
Activities Covered 14
Uncertainty 14
Methodology 16
Discussion 24
Recommendations 27
Urban Stonnwater Loadings 29
Introduction 29
Temporal and Spatial Coverage 29
Methodology 29
Uncertainty 30
Discussion 34
Limitations 37
Recommendations 37
Atmospheric Deposition Loadings 39
Introduction 39
Temporal and Spatial Coverage 39
Methodology 39
Uncertainty 41
Discussion 43
Table of Contents
-------
% Limitations 43
Recommendations 46
Shipping & Boating Loadings 47
Introduction 47
Methodology „• 47
Discussion 48
Limitations 51
Recreational and Commercial Fishing and General Boating Activities ... 52
Recommendations 54
Groundwater Loadings ' 55
Introduction 55
Recommendations 55
Section H: The Fall Line 57
Fall Line Loadings 59
Introduction 59
Temporal and Spatial Coverage 60
Methodology 60
Uncertainty 60
Discussion 61
Recommendations 66
Section HI: Releases 67
Pesticide Use 69
Introduction 69
Temporal and Spatial Coverage 69
Methodology 69
Limitations 71
Discussion 72
Recommendations 72
Industry-Reported Releases 75
Introduction 75
Temporal and Spatial Coverage 75
Activities Covered 75
Discussion 76
Uncertainty 79
Recommendations 79
References 81
Appendix 85
vi Table of Contents
-------
List of Tables
Table 1. Basin wide toxics reduction strategy commitment to
develop a toxics loading inventory 2
Table 2. Previous efforts to estimate toxics loadings to Chesapeake Bay ... 2
Table 3. Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern 8
Table 4. Range in point source loading estimates
based on data sources 15
Table 5. Range in loading estimates based on different treatment
of data reported below detection limits 16
Table 6. Criteria for designating point source Priority Dischargers 16
Table 7. Point source loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
and percentage by major basin 25
Table 8. Chesapeake Bay basin urban land use (1985) 31
Table 9. Area and percentage of five urban land use categories
within the Chesapeake Bay basin 32
Table 10. Urban runoff toxic substance's event mean concentration 33
Table 11. Range in urban stormwater loadings based on
different concentrations 34
Table 12. Urban loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern and
percentage by major basin 35
Table 13. Major basins' surface water area below the fall line 41
Table 14. Atmospheric deposition loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of
Concern and percentage by major basin 44
Table 15. Shipping loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern and
percentage by major basin (in gallons) 49
Table 16. Shipping loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern and
percentage by major basin (in pounds) 50
Table 17. Range of fall line loading estimates 62
Table 18. Fall line loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
and percentage by major basin 64
Table 19. Pesticide releases of loads of Chesapeake Bay
Toxics of Concern and percentage by major basin 73
Table 20. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39 76
Table of Contents vii
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. Major drainage basins in the Chesapeake Bay watershed 9
Figure 2. Priority Chesapeake Bay basin point source discharges 18
Figured. Distribution of urban land use in the ;
Chesapeake Bay watershed ,31
Figure 4. Chesapeake Bay atmospheric deposition monitoring sites 40
Figure 5. Location of reported spills included in shipping category 48
Figure 6. Chesapeake Bay fall line toxics monitoring stations 59
Figure 7. Chesapeake Bay basin industry-reported releases
and transfers of all toxic substances 77
Figure 8. Chesapeake Bay basin industry-reported releases
and transfers of 126 Priority Pollutants 77
Figure 9. Chesapeake Bay basin industry-reported releases
and transfers of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern 78
List of Tables in Appendix
Table 1. Priority pollutants designated under Section 307(a)
of the Clean Water Act 87
Table 2. Priority dischargers by state and basin 89
Table 3. Point source toxics loads and percentage by major basin 91
Table 4. Point source toxics loads at the sub-basin scale 95
Table 5. Urban runoff toxics loads and percentage by major basin 105
Table 6. Atmospheric deposition toxics loads and
percentage by major basin 107
Table 7. Shipping toxics loads and percentage
by major basin (in gallons) Ill
Table 8. Shipping toxics loads and percentage
by major basin (in pounds) 117
Table 9. Fall line toxics loads and percentage by major basin 119
Table 10. Pesticide toxic releases and percentage by major basin 123
Table 11. Initial inventory of point source toxics loads by facility 129
viii Table of Contents
-------
Introduction
Greater understanding of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, along with a potential
increase in the kinds and amounts of toxic substances introduced to the environ-
ment, have combined to heighten concern about the impact of toxic substances
on the Bay's plants and animals. The scientific community is increasingly
aware that even very low levels of some toxic substances have subtle effects on
the reproduction, growth, and survival of the Bay's aquatic species. To evaluate
the effects and potential risks that these toxic substances pose to living re-
sources, it is first necessary to gather information on the sources and amounts of
toxic substances entering the Chesapeake Bay from the surrounding basin.
The Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics Loading and Release Inventory establishes
an initial baseline of point and nonpoint source loadings of toxic substances to
the Bay basin, responding to the Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy pledge to
meet this commitment (Chesapeake Executive Council, 1989) (Table 1).
The inventory provides estimates of point source (industrial, municipal, and
federal facilities) and nonpoint source (urban stormwater, atmospheric deposi-
tion, shipping, groundwater, and agricultural) loadings and releases within the
Bay watershed. These estimates are a major milestone in achieving a more
complete understanding of major sources of toxic substances. The inventory will
be reviewed, expanded, and revised every two years with the next revision
scheduled for March, 1996. Technical information for specific sources will be
updated as better data become available and are compiled.
Nearly all substances in sufficient concentration in the environment can be toxic
to living organisms. Conversely, each substance has a concentration level below
which it is not considered toxic. This toxic threshold varies from substance to
substance. Those chemicals that are toxic to living organisms at relatively low
concentrations are considered toxic substances.
An important distinction exists between the presence of a toxic substance in the
environment and the occurrence of a toxic condition. The inventory provides
estimates of the total quantity of toxic substances being discharged or released
in the Bay watershed; it does not consider whether these toxic substance loads
and releases create conditions that are toxic to living organisms.
The objectives of federal and state regulatory programs are to assess and control
the toxicity of substances discharged to the Bay basin. To accomplish these
objectives, permit limitations or other restrictions are placed on point and
nonpoint sources to limit the amounts and concentrations of toxics to levels
which will not be harmful to the Bay's resources and human health. The
absence of toxicity is determined by compliance with legally adopted numeric
and narrative standards for concentration and toxicity. Consequently, toxic
substances may still be legally discharged to Bay basin waters. In a fully
compliant state regulatory program, however, toxic substance loadings are
limited to amounts that do not create toxic effects.
This initial version of the inventory is the first compilation of readily accessible
data on loadings and releases of toxic substances to the Chesapeake Bay basin.
Previous efforts to compile Bay basin loadings data (Table 2) have generally
focused on a particular source (e.g., industrial point sources) or a particular
region (e.g., Baltimore Harbor).
The Toxics Loading Inventory
-------
Table 1. Basinwide toxics reduction strategy commitment to develop
a toxics loading inventory
"The Signatories commit to develop and maintain a Chesapeake Bay
Basin Toxics Loading Inventory accessible through the Chesapeake Bay
Program Computer Center, for all major point.sources (municipal, indus-
trial and federal facilities) and nonpoint sources (agricultural, urban,
shipping, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition) of toxics.
By December 1989, the signatories commit to develop a. workplan which
describes: the inventory structure and its intended focus on the Bay and
regional and sub-basin scales, where appropriate; signatory roles and
responsibilities for developing, maintaining and expanding the Toxics
Loading Inventory; plans for identifying additional source data needs;
and a schedule for meeting the commitment.
By December 1990, the initial Toxic Loading Inventory will be made
accessible to the program participants and other interested users. The
Toxic Loading Inventory will include point source toxics loads, building
upon the Chesapeake Bay Point Source Atlas now accessible through the
Chesapeake Bay Program Computer, the point sources identified in
accordance with the requirements of Section 304(1) of the Clean Water
Act and any other available data. Nonpoint source loading information
that is available will also be included.
Sources of information will be discharge permits and accompanying
discharge monitoring reports, existing file information on particular point
sources, SARA. Title III Inventory data, NURP study data, pesticide use
surveys, and other source monitoring program data as appropriate.
Source data needs and monitoring programs to collect the necessary
loading information will be identified and described for both point and
nonpoint sources of toxics.
Every two years the Toxic Loading Inventory will be reviewed, expanded
and revised as necessary. This process will include point and nonpoint
sources as investigations identify additional dischargers, monitoring
programs and research studies that refine source estimates, and
additional toxics of concern are identified. Revised and updated versions
of the Toxic Loading Inventory will be completed by December of each
successive two year period after the initial inventory is completed."
Source: Chesapeake Executive Council, 1989
Table 2. Previous efforts to estimate toxics loadings to Chesapeake Bay
1. The National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) conducted studies from
1979 to 1982 in Baltimore and Washington DC to measure toxic and
nutrient loads to the Chesapeake Bay tributaries (USEPA, 1983). These
studies monitored loadings from wet and dry atmospheric deposition and
surface runoff from distinct basins with different land use patterns.
Baltimore County is currently conducting similar studies on a smaller but
The Toxics Loading Inventory
-------
more detailed level. These studies are useful by themselves, but are too
restricted in scale to be combined or extrapolated to provide basinwide
loading estimates.
2. In 1982, the Maryland Geologic Survey estimated the wet and dry
deposition of metals to the Chesapeake Bay based on six sampling sites
around the Bay perimeter.
3. The Monsanto Corporation conducted a program from 1980 to 1982
to develop protocols for characterizing industrial effluents. The study
characterized 80 effluents from 28 industrial categories; both metals and
organics were analyzed. Effluent toxicity evaluations were followed by
analyses to pinpoint the substance(s) causing toxicity, but the study did
not quantify loadings.
4. In 1985, the Department of Defense (DoD) initiated a study to
evaluate the impact of 66 DoD installations within the Bay basin on
surface water quality (DoD, 1987). The program consisted of a screening
phase, followed by more detailed assessments of facilities identified as
having significant impact potential. The study relied on existing infor-
mation and no toxic load estimates were developed.
5. In 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI, 1987). Established as part of Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) Title III
Community Right to Know legislation, this data base contains industry-
reported estimates of toxic releases and discharges of over 300
compounds nationwide. Although the data base covers the entire
Chesapeake Bay basin, it contains information only from dischargers
within select categories of industry that discharge more than a threshold
amount. The loading and release estimates provided by the reporting
industries can be derived by a variety of methods which may not involve
direct measurement.
6. In 1987, Dames and Moore completed a study for Anne Arundel
County, MD to determine the flux of nutrients and metals in Rock Creek,
a tributary to the Patapsco River. The data included loadings from
several sources including baseflow, tidal input, sediment flux, and
stormwater runoff.
7. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
created the National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory (NCPDI) to
estimate loadings of heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and petro-
leum hydrocarbons to the Chesapeake Bay (Pait et al., 1992). It includes
estimates for point sources and non-urban runoff, but is limited to
coastal counties.
8. In 1989, AMS, Inc. completed a prototype toxics loading inventory for
a ten-county area in southeast Virginia, adjacent to the mouth of the Bay
(Wind et al., 1989). The study was intended to develop a prototype
methodology for development of the Basinwide Toxics Loading and
Release Inventory and for comparison of data developed hi the national
Toxics Release Inventory System (TRIS) to information from other data
bases. The prototype inventory included loading data from NPDES
The Toxics Loading Inventory
-------
.compliance monitoring systems. Air emissions (as opposed to loadings)
"data were calculated from EPA's National Emission Data System. Pesti-
cide .application rates in the basin (as opposed to loadings) were also
included. Data from the Virginia Water Control Board Toxics Data Base
and the EPA NURP could not be incorporated into the system. Ground-
water input, urban runoff, and spills were also not included.
9. In 1991, the Chesapeake Research Consortium conducted an assess-
ment of the potential impact of new marinas in Baltimore Harbor to
evaluate toxicant inputs and the effects of increased nutrient loads on
hypoxia in the harbor.
10. In 1991, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
produced an estimate of urban runoff loads for metropolitan areas in the
Bay basin based primarily on data from NURP and a model developed by
the Council of Governments. These loading estimates are presented in
the urban loading section (Olsenholler, 1991).
11. In 1991, the Chesapeake Research Consortium compiled data for a
complete loading inventory of Baltimore Harbor to provide a basis for
long-range planning of water quality improvement in the harbor (Warner
et al., 1992). This effort amassed all available data for both point and
nonpoint source loads of toxic substances to the Patapsco River and
included atmospheric deposition and urban runoff. The project is the
most comprehensive study to date but was limited to the Patapsco River
basin.
12. The Virginia Water Control Board has been conducting intensive
assessments of point source discharges in the Norfolk Harbor area for
several years. The studies include both biological and chemical assess-
ments of industrial discharges (Virginia Water Control Board, 1991).
13. The Strategic Environmental Assessments Division of NOAA's Office
of Ocean Resources, Conservation, and Assessment compiled a national
summary of agricultural pesticide usage in coastal areas (NOAA, 1992).
This summary provides estimates of the agricultural use of 35 commonly
applied pesticides in the 102 estuarine watersheds in NOAA's National
Estuarine Inventory. These estimates are used to rate each watershed
according to inventory pesticides considered hazardous in aquatic
environments. The report includes information on selected physical and
toxicological properties of each pesticide as well as the timing of
application and use patterns within and upstream of coastal areas. The
report also surveys what is known about the impacts of these pesticides
in the nation's estuaries and coastal rivers.
The purpose of this initial version of the Toxics Loading Inventory is to:
• establish a baseline for limited subsets of source categories;
• identify data gaps and monitoring needs; and
• provide recommendations and guidance for future revisions of the
inventory.
The Toxics Loading Inventory
-------
The long-range purpose of establishing a comprehensive baseline of point and
nonpoint source loadings of toxic substances to the Bay basin is to:
• establish a mechanism to measure progress in the reduction of loadings
and releases by source category;
• provide a simple tool for evaluating program effectiveness and setting
priorities for tpxic control efforts beyond correction of currently known
problems;
• assist in targeting opportunities for reducing or preventing loadings
and releases of toxic substances;
• provide a source of loading/release data for use in ranking the
comprehensive list of Bay basin toxic substances to support future
refinements of the Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List;
• identify areas in which additional information and understanding are
required to refine estimates of loadings and releases to the Chesapeake
Bay basin; and
• provide direction for future efforts to quantify the transport of toxic
substances to the Bay's tidal waters from the surrounding basin and
non-tidal tributaries.
Inventory Development Approach
In November 1989, the Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Subcommittee
established a Toxic Loading Inventory Workgroup and charged it with the
responsibility of developing and implementing a workplan to establish the
inventory. In December 1989, the Chesapeake Bay Program's Citizen Advisory
Committee presented the draft Toxic Loading Inventory Workplan at a public
meeting. The committee solicited public review of the scope and content of the
inventory at that meeting. The Toxics Subcommittee then tasked the
workgroup to coordinate state and federal agency contributions to quantify the
various point and nonpoint sources to be included in the inventory.
Sources of information accessed by workgroup members and included in the
inventory include: 1) the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) discharge applications; 2) NPDES permits and accompanying
monthly discharge monitoring reports; 3) existing state file information on
particular point sources; 4) SARA Title III Inventory data reported by
industries (as called for by the Emergency Planning and Community Right to
Know Act); 5) National Urban Runoff Pollution study data; 6) state pesticide
use surveys in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; 7) results from the
Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study; 8) estimates developed by the
Chesapeake Bay Fall Line Monitoring Program; 9) U.S. Coast Guard Marine
Environmental Protection Program data bases; and 10) other appropriate
source monitoring program data.
Inventory Limitations
The inventory is a compilation of estimates of annual loadings, releases, dis-
charges, and applications of toxic substances from point and nonpoint sources
based on data from numerous sources with uncertain quality and confidence
levels and covering various time periods. Several limitations exist because of
the broad scope of the inventory and the numerous and differing quality of the
The Toxics Loading Inventory
-------
data bases accessed for loading and release data. These limitations, described
below, must be considered when using the information contained within the
inventory.
Loadings vs. Releases
The ultimate objective of the inventory is to quantify loadings of toxic sub-
stances to the tidal Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. In the inventory, the
terms "loadings" and "releases" have unique and distinct meanings and signifi-
cance. "Loadings" are estimates of the quantity of toxic substances directly
discharged to or reaching the surface waters of the Chesapeake Bay and/or its
tidal and non-tidal tributaries. With the available data, loading estimates can
be made for point sources, urban stormwater runoff, atmospheric deposition
(direct deposition to tidal surface waters), and shipping.
"Releases" are estimates of the quantity of toxic substances emitted in the Bay's
surrounding watershed or applied to land within the Bay basin and indicate the
amount potentially available to reach the Bay and its tidal and non-tidal tribu-
taries. For some sources, the only available information is the amount of toxic
substance used, released, or applied within the Bay basin. For example, the
information on agricultural pesticide usage included hi the inventory represents
estimates of the amount of pesticides applied. The Basinwide Toxic Reduction
Strategy specifically mandates that pesticide use surveys and SARA Title III
Inventory data be included in the inventory although these estimates do not
represent the actual amount washed from the land, delivered to the receiving
stream, and ultimately transported to the Bay and its tidal tributaries as
loadings.
Comparisons Between Source Loading Estimates
The estimated loadings of toxic substances included in this version of the
inventory do not account for transformations or degradation that may occur
during transport from sources that discharge to non-tidal waters above the fall
line. Direct comparisons between loadings (or between releases) within and
between source categories, therefore, should be made only to understand
differences hi orders of magnitude. Direct comparisons can best be made only at
the river basin, sub-basin, or river segment level, where potential differences hi
the transformation or degradation of toxic pollutants during transport to the
Chesapeake Bay's tidal waters are minimal.
Availability of Data
The Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy recognized "... that existing source
inventories are less than ideal and that the Toxic Loading Inventory will reflect
the availability of information as much as the sources of toxics loadings"
(Chesapeake Executive Council, 1989). The availability of this information
means that larger estimates of loadings or releases from a source or a
jurisdiction do not necessarily indicate that the particular source or jurisdiction
is the major contributor. It may simply indicate a more complete or more
comprehensive data base reflecting increased emphasis by the management
agencies. For example, high loading estimates for a state's point sources may
not necessarily reflect a greater toxic problem within that state. Rather, it may
result from a more rigorous point source monitoring and reporting program.
Likewise, low or missing estimates may reflect the absence of data. Until all
sources are completely and consistently quantified across the entire Bay basin,
such qualifications are necessary when making comparisons both between
source categories and within the same source category.
The Toxics Loading Inventory
-------
Chemical Compound vs. Toxic Substance
The inventory is a compilation of chemical substances that have the potential
for toxicity. It is difficult, however, to quantify at exactly what level a chemical
becomes toxic. Concentration, volume of receiving water, receiving media,
frequency of exposure, and duration of exposure all contribute to the toxicity of a
given compound. The inventory does not provide or consider any information on
the relative toxicity or impact of the substances included. These issues are
addressed through the Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List. In recognition
of the intent and scope of the inventory, the term "toxic substance" is generally
applied to all chemical compounds discussed in this report.
Uncertainty
The loading and release estimates presented here are very elementary. Often
these estimates were developed using data collected for purposes quite different
than for the calculation of loadings and releases and the data often cover
different time periods. Consequently, loading and release estimates in the
inventory have a very high degree of uncertainty. The specific data necessary to
quantify this uncertainty were not collected. Until these data are collected and
available, the documentation of uncertainty will remain at this level. To the
extent possible, available data were used to provide a range of loadings to
illustrate the amount of uncertainty associated with the estimate.
Some sources, such as atmospheric deposition, have a limited number of direct
measurements and our understanding of the fundamental processes is quite
limited. Other sources, such as agricultural pesticides, have estimates which
represent the amount of pesticide applied for pest control with the potential to
reach the Bay. As a result, many of the loadings and releases presented in this
initial version of the inventory are likely to be no more accurate than order-of-
magnitude estimates and should be used for comparisons only within the same
source and basin.
Inventory Structure
To address the above limitations and incorporate information from the data
bases identified in the Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy commitment, the
inventory is divided into three broad yet distinct categories.
The "loadings" category includes industrial, municipal, and federal point
sources, urban stormwater, atmospheric deposition, and shipping. These
sources represent actual discharges to tidal and non-tidal surface waters.
The "fall line loadings" category includes the Susquehanna and James tributary
fall line estimates of average annual loads. The fall line is the geologic bound-
ary between the Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic provinces; waters
above the fall line are non-tidal and those below are tidal. These estimates,
based on measured values from data collected in 1990 and 1991, represent
combined loadings of toxic substances to the tidal tributary region just below the
fall line monitoring station from all point and nonpoint sources above the fall
line. It is not possible, however, to determine the specific contribution from a
given source to the fall line loading.
The "releases" category includes agricultural pesticide usage and industrial
releases to the air, water, and land reported annually according to SARA Title
III requirements in the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). These estimates
The Toxics Loading Inventory
-------
represent releases from sources with an unknown potential to reach Chesapeake
Bay tidal waters. Estimates of releases from this category are distinctly
different from other categories and should not be compared to or summed with
any other categories. Estimates of industry-reported releases to water,
presented in the release category and based on the TRI data base, are not
comparable to the estimates of industrial loadings developed by the states based
on measured values.
To make interpretation more meaningful, the inventory identifies Priority
Pollutants and Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern. Priority Pollutants were
designated under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act to target regulatory
attention towards widely used toxic pollutants with great potential for environ-
mental impact (Appendix Table 1). The Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List
(Chesapeake Bay Program 1989) was developed to fulfill a commitment of the
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy and is intended to establish priorities for
toxics reduction and research (Table 3). The text primarily discusses loadings
and releases of Toxics of Concern. Additional loading and release information on
other toxic substances included in the inventory and at a more detailed spatial
scale is presented in the appendix.
Table 3. Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
• Atrazine • Chrysene • Mercury
• Benzo(a)anthracene • Chromium • Napthalene
• Benzo(a)pyrene • Copper • PCBs
• Cadmium • Fluoranthene • Tributyltin
• Chlordane , • Lead
Estimates of loadings and releases of toxic substances are presented as annual
basinwide totals and the percentage contribution of this total from both above
and below the fall line of the major drainage basins in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Figure 1 shows the major basins and the fall line.
The following background information and data are presented for each source in
the following format:
Introduction: Brief summary of activities that generate releases or discharges of
toxic substances for that source category. Specific loading/release activities
included in the estimates are listed; those not included are indicated.
Temporal and Spatial Coverage: Outline of the time period and the geographic
area captured in the data.
Uncertainty: Discussion of the confidence level associated with the loading or
release estimate and an indication of whether the estimate is an overestimation
or an underestimation.
Methodology: Summary background on the data bases accessed, description of
how the data were compiled to estimate the loads, and specific limitations and
assumptions.
8 The Toxics Loading Inventory
-------
Major Drainage Basins
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Figure 1
Patuxent
River Basin
Chesapeake
Bay
Discussion: Summary of loadings and releases of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of
Concern.
Limitations: Specific issues that should be considered when using the inventory
loading or release estimates.
Recommendations: Recommended approaches to quantify sources more
accurately, reduce data gaps, improve loading/release estimation methodologies,
and improve data reporting and storage.
The Toxics Loading Inventory
-------
The loadings category provides estimates of the actual quantity of toxic sub-
stances directly discharged to or reaching the surface waters of the Chesapeake
Bay and/or its tidal and non-tidal tributaries from point sources, urban runoff,
direct atmospheric deposition, and shipping.
Loadings
-------
-------
Introduction
Point sources are more easily recognized than other sources of pollution because
they discharge pollutants through a discrete pipe. Point source facilities may
also release pollutants through a smokestack to the air or transfer them off-site
for treatment elsewhere. Within the inventory loadings category, point sources
of toxic substances include industrial, municipal, and federal facilities discharg-
ing to surface water.
Industrial point sources have the potential to discharge to the^environment
many of the raw materials, catalysts, solvents, and other chemicals used in the
manufacturing of finished products and materials. These discharges include
process wastewater, coojing water, or other residuals or by-products associated
with the manufacturing of these goods.
A separate section in the "Release" category discusses industrial releases to the
air and land and transfers to municipal facilities from 1987 through 1991, as
reported by industrial facilities to the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) Title III TRI data base. Industry-reported
discharges to surface waters are also presented in the "Release" category but are
not comparable to the state estimates presented here.
Municipal wastewater treatment plants may receive and subsequently
discharge toxic substances originating from industrial sources or household use.
Although there are requirements for pretreatment of municipal waste when it
originates from industry, some of the substances that remain after treatment
may be incompatible with normal wastewater treatment processes and may
disrupt treatment operations, be discharged to surface waters without
treatment, or be removed from the waste stream and deposited in the sludge.
Toxic substances may also be produced as by-products of chlorine disinfection
during treatment at the plant or from the decomposition of nitrogenous organic
matter.
Federal facilities are often involved in manufacturing and waste-generating
activities similar to those of privately-owned industrial facilities or
publicly-owned municipal facilities. In the inventory, federal facilities are
treated identically to municipal or industrial dischargers in terms of load
estimation.
Temporal and Spatial Coverage
There are over 6,000 industrial, municipal, and federal point source dischargers
within the Chesapeake Bay basin. Of these, 320 are classified as "major
dischargers." The inventory includes nearly one third of these major dischargers
in the basin loading estimate presented in this section.
Pennsylvania point source estimates include 304(l)-designated industrial and
municipal dischargers based on 1992 data. Maryland point source estimates
include 304(l)-designated industrial dischargers based on 1989 data, Baltimore
Harbor industrial dischargers based on 1984-1989 data, and municipal
dischargers based on 1992 data. The District of Columbia's point source
estimates include only Blue Plains Municipal Treatment Plant and are based on
1990 data. Virginia point source estimates include 304(l)-designated industrial
Point Source Loadings
13
-------
and municipal dischargers based on data from 1980-1989. In addition, point
source loading estimates from 304(l)-designated facilities in West Virginia were
included in the above fall line point source loadings for the Potomac River
basin.
In response to a Chesapeake Executive Council Directive (Chesapeake
Executive Council, 1993), the inventory is developing loading estimates at the
facility level. Facility-level load estimates from 59 Pennsylvania industrial and
municipal sources, 14 Maryland municipal sources, and 86 additional industry-
reported loadings to surface waters from the TRI data base for all states in the
Bay watershed are presented in Appendix Table 11. These load estimates are
presented at the facility level only and are not summarized by basin. Additional
facilities will be added to establish a baseline inventory to be presented in a
technical update prior to April 1, 1994.
Activities Covered
The inventory's point source loading estimates include industrial, municipal,
and federal point source discharges to surface waters of the Chesapeake Bay
and its tidal and non-tidal tributaries. The focus of these estimates is on
process wastewater, but some of the estimates include cooling water discharges
or industrial stormwater outfalls. The loading estimates presented here were
developed by the states and are based on available measured values.
Uncertainty
The estimates are an underestimation of the total point source loads due to the
limited number of facilities and toxic substances inventoried.
The point source loading estimates presented in the inventory may be based on
only one or two monitoring sessions taken over several years and which were
intended to provide data for purposes other than load estimation (e.g. compli-
ance). Nevertheless, they are based on measured chemical concentrations and
volumes of wastewater discharged. As such, they have a higher level of confi-
dence compared to other inventory source categories based on estimated or
literature values.
There are several sources of point source data. The most reliable source for
quantifying point source discharges to surface water is the states' National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) monitoring program. This
self-monitoring program determines compliance with specific limits on the
concentrations or amounts of pollutants discharged by the regulated facilities.
Specific data provided by this program include monthly discharge monitoring
reports (DMRs) on the amounts of specific pollutants controlled under the
NPDES permit. The NPDES permit application provides results from 24-hour
monitoring for Priority Pollutants and can be up to five years old. Flow and
concentration data may also be obtained from the DMRs. In addition, industries
may have measured and reported point source flow and effluent concentration
data to the states through the 304(1) process.
Table 4 illustrates the range in estimates based on the different sources used in
load calculation. The estimates may vary by orders of magnitude or agree
closely, depending upon the source of the flow and concentration data used to
14 Point Source Loadings
-------
Table 4. Range in point source loading estimates based on data source
Data Source/Loading Estimate
(lbs/yr)
Chemical
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Hexavalent
Chromium
Nickel
Zinc
NPDES
DMR1
19.7
5,200
—
38.8
1,670
—
NPDES
Application2
29.2
6,670
18,800
—
6,220
16,500
304(1)3
248
14.6
1,070
0.110
11,500
2,600
Source: Warner et al., 1992
1 = Data based on 12 analyses
2 = NPDES application data based on 1-2 analyses
3 = Data based on 1-2 analyses
calculate the loading. For example, hexavalent chromium estimates based on
NPDES permit application data are more than 350 times greater than loading
estimates based on 304(1) data. The difference in estimates developed for
hexavalent chromium may result from measurements taken at different tunes.
For example, estimates of annual chromium loadings from Blue Plains
decreased from 41,000 to 2,400 pounds from 1989 to 1990. The difference in the
loading estimates at Blue Plains is attributable to adoption of more appropriate
analytical methods rather than improvements in the treatment process (Bailey,
personal communication).
Another factor contributing to the uncertainty of point source loading estimates
is the manner in which concentrations under the analytical detection limit are
treated. The detection limit represents the lowest value that can be reliably
measured and depends upon the analytical method and/or the laboratory
conducting the analysis. Often, point source concentration data include values
both above and below this detection limit. When combining these values to
develop mean concentrations, values below detection limit may be set equal to
the detection limit, to zero, or to some intermediate value (e.g., half the detec-
tion limit), with each option having a different impact on the resultant loading
estimate.
Table 5 illustrates the range of loading estimates based first on setting these
values equal to zero and then equal to the detection limit. The estimated load
for lead may vary ten-fold depending on whether the below detection limit data
concentration used to calculate the loading is set to the detection limit or to zero.
Point Source Loadings 15
-------
Ta^le 5. Range in loading estimates based on different treatment of data
reported below detection limits
Chemical Loadings (Ibs/yr) Loadings (Ibs/yr)
Concentration Set Concentration Set
to Zero .• to Detection Limit
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
150
500
0
300
5,000
8,900,000
For selenium, the implications are significant. These uncertainties must be kept
in mind when interpreting point source loading estimates. With the exception of
Baltimore Harbor industrial facilities, the estimates presented here treated
values below detection limit as zero.
Methodology
Due to the large number of point sources, efforts to estimate loadings were
targeted to the most significant or "Priority Dischargers." Initially the Toxics
Loading Inventory Workgroup developed criteria to screen point source
dischargers for designation as Priority Dischargers. The criteria focus on direct
surface water discharges and do not consider releases to groundwater, air, or
land. A point source meeting one or more of these criteria is designated a
Priority Discharger (Table 6).
Table 6. Criteria for designating point source Priority Dischargers
1. Major dischargers and significant minor dischargers with the potential
for toxic impacts.
2. Dischargers with existing water quality impact due to toxics.
3. Low dilution (e.g., effluent 1 percent or higher during worst case
periods).
4. Discharger is a primary industry as defined under SIC codes.
5. Municipal dischargers with large loadings (greater than 5 percent of
total influent) from indirect industrial dischargers and with the
requirement to develop a pretreatment plan.
6. Known presence of Priority Pollutants or other toxics above EPA water
quality criteria.
7. History of compliance problems and toxic impacts.
8. Dischargers which release into waters listed under Section 304(1) of the
1987 Clean Water Act and required to develop Individual Control
Strategies to reduce ambient concentrations of Priority Pollutants to
levels below EPA water quality criteria.
9. Dischargers that fail bioassay tests.
16 Point Source Loadings
-------
Appendix Table 2 lists the facilities currently designated as Priority Dischargers
by basin, sub-basin, and state.
In this initial version of the inventory, the states emphasized developing toxic
loading estimates for dischargers designated under Section 304(1) of the Clean
Water Act and required to develop Individual Control Strategies (Criteria #8
from Table 6). The designation "304(1)" refers to a 1987 Clean Water Act section
that requires the states to provide EPA with a list of plants discharging toxic
chemicals, specifically 307(a) Priority Pollutants, in quantities that exceed state
water quality standards. The list of 304(1) plants is a subset of the larger list of
Priority Dischargers and much larger list of Chesapeake Bay dischargers. Figure
2 shows the location of 304(l)-designated facilities and those Baltimore Harbor
industries designated Priority Dischargers. Future updates of the Toxics Loading
Inventory will attempt to quantify all toxic chemicals detected in the discharge
of industrial, municipal, and federal point sources, not only 307(a) Priority
Pollutants.
Efforts have already been undertaken to develop this expanded inventory.
Pennsylvania used DMR data reported to the Permit Compliance System (PCS)
to provide toxic loading estimates for major industrial and municipal facilities
with NPDES toxic limits. Maryland supplied basin-level loading estimates for
Baltimore Harbor dischargers and facility-level loading estimates for 14 major
municipal plants. These data have been merged with industry-reported TRI data
for all states in the Bay watershed to establish a basinwide facility-level point
source loading inventory (Appendix Table 11).
Loading estimates were based on discharge data (not permit limits) since these
data represent the actual loadings of toxic substances more closely. Average
concentrations were used to calculate annual loads; values reported below the
analytical detection limits were set to zero. Each state then applied its own
methodology, as described below, to develop loading estimates of toxic substances
for those point sources designated Priority Dischargers.
Pennsylvania
1) Basis for designation as a Priority Discharger
Pennsylvania initially designated Priority Dischargers as those required to
develop Individual Control Strategies under section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act
(Criterion #8 from Table 6). As part of the 304(1) designation process,
dischargers not in compliance with toxic substances permit limits were
specifically identified for inclusion in the initial 304(1) list. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency finalized the list of these facilities in a letter to
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources dated May 18, 1990.
Pennsylvania subsequently provided facility-level loading estimates for
industrial and municipal dischargers based on NPDES DMR data for 1992.
These data are presented separately in Appendix Table 11.
2) Source of concentration and flow data and time period covered
Effluent and concentration data for Pennsylvania point source dischargers were
obtained from all available sources including the following:
Point Source Loadings 17
-------
Priority Chesapeake Bay Basin
Point Source Discharges
Chesapeake
Bay
NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). Discharge monitoring
report data reported to the Permit Compliance System (PCS) from 1992
were used as the primary source of loading estimation information.
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TREs). Results from these evaluations
were used as one source to designate Pennsylvania's Section 304(1)
dischargers and to estimate the toxic substance loads presented in the
inventory.
18
Point Source Loadings
-------
• Total Maximum Daily Loads I Waste Load Allocation. Both analysis and
modeling were used to provide additional sources of flow and
concentration data.
3) Calculation of annual toxic loads
The annual loadings for the Pennsylvania facilities included as Priority Dis-
chargers in the inventory were calculated using average concentration and flow
data available from the EPA PCS data base for 1992. The following formula was
used to estimate the annual loading of toxics:
Annual Load (Ibs/yr) = Concentration x Flow x 8.34 x 365 days/year
where:
Load = pounds/year (Ibs/yr);
Concentration = milligrams/liter (mg/L);
Flow = million gallons/day (mgd); and
8.34 = a factor for converting mgd and mg/L into Ibs/day
4) Limitations
• Treatment of values reported below detection levels
The PCS data base, used to determine average concentrations, is not consistent
in its treatment of values reported below detection levels. Concentrations
reported "less than" detection limits are set equal to the detection limit.
Concentrations reported as "non-detect" are dropped, increasing the average
concentration since only the highest values are used.
Maryland
1) Basis for designation as Priority Discharger
Maryland Priority Dischargers were identified using the "Criteria For Designat-
ing Priority Dischargers" in Table 6. The criteria were applied to determine
Priority Dischargers as of December 1989.
2) Source of concentration and flow data and time period covered (1989 - 1992)
Effluent concentration data for Maryland point source Priority Dischargers were
obtained from the following sources:
• NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). Discharge monitoring
report data from 1989 were used as one source of loading estimation
information.
• 304(1) List. Discharge concentration data were obtained from two sets of
Priority Pollutant tests during 1988 which Maryland required from
304(l)-listed facilities.
• NPDES Permit Applications. NPDES renewal applications are
submitted by a facility every five years.
Loadings were calculated only for Priority Pollutants from Priority Dischargers.
For each pollutant at each facility, weighted-average concentrations were
calculated using any available data from NPDES applications, DMRs, and/or
Point Source Loadings 19
-------
304(1) testing. For some pollutants at some facilities, however, only a single
data value was available to estimate the average concentration. Data listed as
below detection limit were included in the average calculations as zeros.
Average annual flows were estimated for each facility from either application
data or DMRs.
3) Calculation of annual toxic substance loads
Maryland's annual toxic substance loads were calculated using the equation:
Load = Average Flow x Average Concentration x 365 days/year x C
where:
Load = pounds/year (Ibs/yr);
Average Flow = million gallons/day (mgd)
Average Concentration = milligrams/liter (mg/L); and
C = 8.345 (a factor for converting mgd and mg/L into
Ibs/day).
4) Limitations
• In many cases, the data for a facility indicated the presence of a
pollutant on some occasions and its absence on others. With only two or
three results, this situation could indicate either sampling or testing
deficiencies or unusual events at the facility which would require a
major assumption in translating the data to annualized loadings.
• The most extensive data set for toxic substances was the results from
304(1) test requirements. These data were not available for all Priority
Dischargers however, and incorporate only one or two samples from a
facility.
• The most current and accessible data came from the DMRs. Very few
toxic substances are reported in DMRs, so data availability from this
source is also limited.
5) Additional Priority Dischargers
In addition to the loadings calculated for Priority Dischargers by the above
procedure, Maryland also incorporated industrial facility loadings from a special
study on Baltimore Harbor into the inventory (Warner et al., 1992) and munici-
pal facility loadings based on 1992 NPDES data. The Baltimore Harbor study
was not conducted for the inventory and differs in the methods used for estimat-
ing loadings. Using the results of this study, however, enabled Maryland to
expand its point source loading estimates beyond the 304(1) Priority Dischargers
and include additional Baltimore Harbor dischargers.
The Baltimore Harbor loading estimates should be used only with a full under-
standing of the differences in loading estimation procedures, including the
following limitations and caveats:
• Municipal sources were deleted from the Baltimore Harbor loading
estimates to avoid double counting. The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, in cooperation with the Maryland Department of the
Environment Pretreatment and Enforcement Division, developed
20 Point Source Loadings
-------
municipal toxic loading estimates for 14 plants. These estimates were
based on the same procedures used to calculate the industrial Priority
Discharger loads.
• The Baltimore Harbor project estimated only gross loadings for the six
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company power generating facilities in the
harbor area. To obtain the net loadings needed for the Toxics Loading
Inventory, a rough estimate of 10 percent was applied to the gross
loadings to obtain the net values. These values are conservative as the
limited information currently available indicates that these facilities
generally add only trace amounts to the background concentration of
toxic materials measured in the intake waters.
• The Baltimore Harbor project did not distinguish between a lack of data
for a parameter" and data reported below detection limits. Values
reported below detection limits were simply dropped and not averaged
into the calculations. As a result, estimates of loadings for Baltimore
Harbor dischargers are larger than they would have been if values below
detection limits had been set equal to zero.
District of Columbia
1) Basis for designation as a Priority Discharger
The District of Columbia designated Priority Dischargers as those dischargers
required to develop Individual Control Strategies (ICS) under section 304(1) of
the Clean Water Act (Criterion #8 from Table 6).
2) Source of concentration and flow data and time period covered
Sources used to develop total annual toxic loadings were:
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
applications.
• NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted to EPA in
accordance with effluent monitoring requirements.
• Each facility's influent and effluent data base containing monthly flow
and concentration data for the parameter being monitored.
The annual toxic loadings were calculated using 1990 data.
3) Calculation of annual toxic loads
The District of Columbia calculated annual toxics loads for Priority Dischargers
as follows:
ATL = AF x AC x 365 x C
where:
ATL = annual toxic load (Ibs/yr)
AF = average flow (mgd)
AC = average concentration (mg/L)
365 = number of days of operation for each facility (days/year)
C = 8.345 (a conversion factor to change mgd and mg/L to
Ibs/day)
Point Source Loadings 21
-------
4) Limitations
• Portions of the sewer system serving the Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant consist of combined sewers. Loadings from overflows of
the combined sewers are not included.
Virginia :
1) Basis for designation as a Priority Discharger
• Many plants are required to monitor for toxics in their effluent under
the Virginia Toxics Management Regulation (VR 680-14-03). For
development of the inventory, the 240 plants affected by this regulation
and discharging to the mainstem Bay basin or the Potomac,
Rappahannock, York, James, or Elizabeth river basins were grouped as
Virginia's Priority Dischargers.
• During development of this initial inventory, attention was focused on
304(1) list plants as assigned by the Virginia Water Control Board in
February 1991.
2) Source of concentration and flow data and time period covered
Effluent concentration data for Virginia point source Priority Dischargers were
available from several sources. These sources, presented in the priority order
assigned for use, are:
• Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). A regulatory, self-monitoring
report on the permittee's effluent. Considered to be an accurate and
valid source of toxics data. Relatively few toxic substances were regu-
lated (i.e., permit limits established) during the period of record used for
the inventory, however, so data availability was limited.
• Virginia Toxics Management Program. Information maintained by the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's permit section for
facilities required to monitor under Virginia's Toxics Management
Regulation (VR 680-14-03). The period of record varied depending on
the facility, ranging from one to five years. The majority of data from
this source was not accessible through computers. The information
resided in paper files and included chemical and biological toxicity
testing data generated by facility owners and Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality staff, along with NPDES permit and application
data.
• Virginia Toxics Data Base. Designed initially to house the chemical data
collected under the Virginia Pilot Toxics Strategy with a record extend-
ing back to 1980 for some facilities. The Virginia Toxics Data Base
contains data generated from several programs including toxic "finger-
printing," pretreatment, effluent toxicity testing, and toxics monitoring.
It contains both effluent and ambient water quality data for organics
(volatile and extractable) and metals.
• 304(1) List. Compilation of data from DMRs (July 1987-October 1988),
permit applications (most recent), Virginia Toxics Management Program
data (January 1987-December 1988), and Virginia Toxics Data Base
data (January 1987-October 1988). This compilation was useful as a
reference for cross-checking other data sources, but was limited for use
22 Point Source Loadings
-------
in the inventory. Its utility was limited because it calculated instances
exceeding EPA chronic aquatic life criteria rather than annual toxic
loadings. The focus of the 304(1) list was solely on Priority Pollutants.
In developing the point source load estimates for Virginia, every attempt was
made to maintain the separation of individual data sources when calculating the
mean chemical concentrations to minimize any bias in the final estimate. This
separation was created because of the varying methods used in sample
collection (composite vs. grab) and analysis (depending on the procedure or lab,
different detection levels could be used). The numerical mean of all
observations within a data base was determined with values "below detection
levels" set to zero. If DMR data existed for a particular chemical, these data
alone were used. If only Toxic Management Program or Toxic Data Base data
existed, the average of these data was used. If both Toxic Management Program
and Toxic Data Base data existed for a given toxic substance at a facility, the
average of each data set was calculated separately, an overall mean determined
and the result weighted by the number of observations from each data source.
At least two observations were required from any of the above data sources to
calculate a mean concentration for estimating annual toxic loads.
3) Calculation of annual toxic loads
Virginia annual toxic loads were calculated using the following formula:
ANNLD = AVGFLOW x AVGCONC x C x NUMDAYS
where:
ANNLD = annual load of pollutant in pounds per year;
AVGFLOW = average flow, in millions of gallons per day (mgd),
based on Discharge Monitoring Report flows for calendar
year 1989;
AVGCONC = average concentration of pollutant in milligrams
per liter (mg/L) based on the average of all observations
within selected data source(s). At least two observations
were required so that a mean concentration could be
calculated.
C = conversion factor of 8.34 used for converting mg/L and mgd
to pounds/day.
NUMDAYS = operation days/year; industrial and federal
facilities were assigned either continuous operation (365
days/year) or intermittent operation (250 days/year) if they
had a five-day work week. Municipal plants were assumed
to operate continuously.
4) Limitations
• Lack of matched concentration and flow data
In most cases, little or no data exist on the volume of flow from a tested outfall
at the time of chemical concentration sampling. Although no direct correlation
has been established between concentration and flow values, the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) assumes that a representative
estimate of the annual load is produced by averaging the available flow concen-
tration data.
Point Source Loadings 23
-------
• Pollutants included in Virginia inventory
Only Priority Pollutants for which Virginia has developed water quality
standards were evaluated for inclusion in the inventory.
• Mixed process and stormwater
Currently, the Virginia DEQ has no standard protocol for sampling stormwater
outfalls. Nonetheless, if flow and chemical data were available for an outfall
known to contain stormwater, the DEQ calculated an average flow and
estimated an annual load. As stormwater management regulations are
developed and implemented, the estimate of toxic loadings from stormwater can
be
refined.
• Mixed process and cooling water
The volume of cooling water used in some industrial operations can approach
billions of gallons per day (e.g., electrical power generation). Loading estimates
for those toxic substances that may be added intermittently to these waters,
such as anti-scaling agents or biocides, can be grossly overestimated if large
water volumes are used in the calculation. Although some of the loading esti-
mates contained in this inventory include cooling water, they do not have such
large flow volumes as to cause gross overestimations.
• Net and gross discharges of pollutants
Some industrial facilities use the same body of water for both withdrawals and
discharges of process and/or cooling water. As a result, it is possible to over-
estimate the load into the receiving stream unless the influent characteristics
are known and taken into account when developing the load estimate. The
DMR information will be more closely reviewed prior to future updates of the
inventory to identify the facilities where "net" loading estimates of toxic sub-
stances need to be calculated.
A report, Information Bulletin #592 (August, 1992), entitled "Chesapeake Bay
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy; Virginia Point Source Toxic Loading
Inventory (Phase I)" is available from the Virginia Department of Environmen-
tal Quality, Chesapeake Bay Office in Richmond Virginia.
Discussion
Table 7 presents estimates of the loadings of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
discharged to surface waters from point sources and the percentage of the total
loading from within each basin. Appendix Table 3 presents estimates of the
total loadings of all evaluated toxic substances and the percentage of the total
loading from within each basin. Appendix Table 4 presents point source loading
estimates at the more detailed sub-basin scale.
The Toxics of Concern discharged in the largest amounts are three trace
metals—chromium, copper, and lead—with most of the discharges occurring
below the fall line. Discharges of chromium amounted to 18,000 pounds, 59
percent of which were in the West Chesapeake below the fall line. Copper
24 Point Source Loadings
-------
cc
cs
o
'e?
6
I
O
'S
CO
a>
u
(M
O
CO
I
Ida % "!S*a woijs ujajSBg
IdV % U!se8 3J°MS ujajseg
Ida % u|$eg sauiep
IdV % u|seg sauiBp
Ida % "!seg )IJOA
IdV % u|SBg >|K>A
Ida % U!SB8 )|oouuBU.BddBH
IdV % wsea JioouuBljBddBU
Ida % Ujsea oetuojod
IdV % U|SBa OBlUOJOd
Ida % U|SBg juaxniBd
IdV % U|SBg luaxniBd
Ida % ujSBg a)|BadBsau.o "M
1JV % u|SBg a^BadBsaijo >M
Ida % ujSBg Buueqanbsns
IdV % uiSBg BiiUBqanbsns
sll«f
5|U1
CD —
>.-£
f s
o _a
£5
^ i
o "5 c
h- 0
O
Chemical Name
by Category
in
1
S
1^
o
I
r-
OJ
IT)
O
O
O
r~-
0
co
CJ
o
CO
CO
-
i
o
o
s
.0
I
<
o
<
z
-
CM
CM
O
O
O
o
r-
o
o
0
5
r-
i
v—
s
Tf
c\T
| Cadmium
0
1
Si
•«*•
0
0
o
-
o
CO
-
0
s
o
1
-
s
o
co
| Chromium
o
<
2
r-
•*
o
o
0
o
cS
CO
o
0
CM
Tt
O
<
z
-
B
w.
0
1
CD
CD
O
CO
¥
•D
O
O>
p
U
c
KJ
(A
<
O.
O
1
CO
r-
o
0
CD
o
CD
0
CD
o
o
CM
CM
CD
:<
z
CD
cS
CO
£=
CO
>,
o.
s
o
N
c
CO
CD
CD
^
Z
I
CD
0
0
CD
0
O
CD
O
0
O
O
i
o
CD
CO
c
6
I
e
Q_
O
£
JS
_D
CO
1 t
| 1
E S
E £
8 f
9 £
•i S-
S S
en .E
Point Source Loadings
25
-------
en
CS
CD
bo
I
CD
CO
a
TJ
at
u
§
CD
U
1
CQ
CO
^
C8
a>
P.
CO
cc
01
X
O
•s
CO
U
IH
O
CO
1
•w
e
o
IdS % uiseg ajoqs ujajseg
IdV % u|seg ajoijs ujaisea
IdS % uiseg saiuep
IdV % u;seg saiuep
Idg % uiseg JIJOA
IjV % uiseg )|JOA
Id8 % u;seg Moouueqeddea
IdV % u;seg )|oouueu.eddeu
IdS % U!SB8 oeuioiod
IdV % U!SBS oeuiojod
IdS % u!seg luaxnjBd
IdV % u|seg uiaxnjed
IdS % uiseg a)|eadesau.o 'M
IdV % uiseg a)|eadesau.o 'M
Idg % ujseg euueqanbsns
IdV % u;seg euueqanbsns
'§•=«.'«>'
sill?
*II32
m —"
**
II
^£
c
J2 fe
x *R «
12 1
Chemical Name
by Category
| PAHs (continued):
o
1
8
o
0
CD
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
o
i
o
8
-tc
-
| Fluoranthene
0
1
o
o
0
o
o
0
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
1
o
5
*
-
| Napthalene
_o
o
1
o
I
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
0
^~
*
CM
_c
•D
<
O
i
I
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
1
o
o
*
*-
| Chlordane
CM
s i^
O TO .c; .^
"•5 f-- o E
|*31
= «>£.-§
I|l t
£2 Q_ 03
O. ^-
.C 5 g TO ~
<£ r— (f\ "O »-
llill
* i i! I
g "S S §• i
^- S "<5 *^ P
•§ -I s j i
HI II
III
lis
"3s
JO
•s
SI
*
"o ° S
£ ">< —
S .o «o
•
- •
e- £ -S -S *
S £ « £ £ «
.£ TO
-------
discharges to the Bay were 77,000 pounds, occurring mostly in the Potomac (34
percent), James (17 percent), and West Chesapeake (42 percent) basins, all
below the fall line. A total of 17,000 pounds of lead were discharged to the Bay,
mostly in the West Chesapeake (49 percent) and Potomac (20 percent) basins,
below the fall line.
Point source loadings of zinc, a secondary Toxic of Concern, exceed all others by
a substantial margin, with an estimated 390,000 pounds discharged. The vast
majority of zinc loadings (86 percent) came from sources below the fall line with
the Potomac basin contributing 25 percent of this total, the Western Chesa-
peake basin 51 percent, and the James basin 10 percent. Eleven percent of zinc
loadings above the fall line were in the Potomac Basin.
In addition, point sources discharged cyanide (34,000 pounds), nickel (41,000
pounds), phenol (22,000 pounds), Di(2-ethylhexye) phthalate (110,000 pounds),
dibutyl phthalate (28,000 pounds), and toluene (11,000 pounds)—all Priority
Pollutants. As with the Toxics of Concern point source loadings, the majority of
Priority Pollutant discharges from point sources occurred below the fall line.
Recommendations
• All the criteria developed for designating Priority Dischargers should be
uniformly and consistently applied in evaluating point source
dischargers. For example, Virginia lists more than 200 facilities subject
to its Toxic Management Regulation. Using only 304(1) listing criteria,
however, reduces the number of facilities evaluated as Priority
Dischargers in this initial inventory to 23. Uniform application of the
criteria will result in the development of comparable baselines for each
jurisdiction.
• The approach for developing criteria to designate point source Priority
Dischargers should be applied to individual site-based nonpoint sources
to recognize toxic impacts on groundwater, air, and land from sources
such as Superfund and other hazardous waste sites.
• Inconsistencies in the treatment of concentrations below detection limits
should be resolved.
• The use of the PCS data base as the primary source of data for point
source load estimation should be encouraged and modifications neces-
sary for its use should be implemented.
• Industrial dischargers to surface waters reported to the TRI under
SARA Title III should be used to supplement facility-level point source
estimates from PCS and the states.
• Both upper and lower estimates of point source loading for Toxics of
Concern and other selected pollutants should be developed based on
potential loadings from industrial and municipal facilities. These poten-
tial loadings could be based on default values that characterize concen-
trations of pollutants or types of pollutants that may be discharged as a
result of specific industrial activities or levels of municipal treatment.
• Industrial facilities required to submit stormwater NPDES permit
applications under section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act of 1987 should
be identified. The sampling data required in the permit application
Point Source Loadings 27
-------
should be used to refine estimates of industrial storm water toxic loads.
Subsequent monitoring efforts should provide sufficient data to calculate
these loads.
Industrial facilities and outfalls that contain cooling water should be
identified. The actual usage of scaling and biocide agents should be
determined and considered in estimating the annual load.
Industrial facilities discharging and withdrawing process and/or cooling
water from the same water body should be identified. The influent toxic
"load" should be determined and the net discharged load calculated.
For future upgrades to the inventory, individual state point source data
not reported in PCS should be submitted to the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram Computer Center in accordance with data submittal requirements
as defined in the Chesapeake Bay Data Management Plan (Chesapeake
Bay Program, 1992).
28 Point Source Loadings
-------
Introduction
Urban stormwater runoff contains a mixture of potentially toxic chemical
substances washed from the urban landscape. The major sources of the chemical
substances found in urban runoff include the incomplete combustion of fossil
fuel, metal alloy corrosion, automobiles, pesticide use, industrial manufacturing,
and atmospheric deposition (wet and dry fallout). Each unit area of urban land
contributes varying amounts of surface runoff and chemical substances. The
quality and quantity of the runoff are a function of several variables including
land use activity, percentage of impervious surface area, rainfall patterns and
intensity, densities of automobile traffic, and extent of air pollution just prior to
rainfall.
This section summarizes the results of a detailed study to quantify urban
stormwater pollutant loads for 35 toxic substances presented in the report,
"Annual Loading Estimates of Urban Toxic Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay
Basin" (Olsenholler, 1991).
Temporal and Spatial Coverage
Loading estimates reflect 1985 land use conditions for urban areas throughout
the Bay watershed. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of all urban lands in the
Bay watershed based on remote sensing data recently provided through the EPA
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). Loading
estimates are presented by major basin, both above and below the fall line.
Olsenholler (1991) provides more detailed estimates of urban toxic loads by
major urban areas and by land use category.
Methodology
Estimates of urban runoff toxic substance loadings by urban land use category
for the major sub-basins of the Chesapeake Bay watershed were developed by
applying a load estimation model known as the Simple Method (Schueler 1987).
This model is well suited for applications where watershed-scale, average annual
loading estimates are needed for comparative planning assessments.
The Simple Method mathematically relates annual rainfall, a runoff coefficient
(a linear function of watershed imperviousness), watershed area, and the
flow-weighted mean concentration of a pollutant according to the following
formula:
L = t(P)(Pj)(Rv)/12] (CXAX2.72)
where:
Li = the annual pollutant load exported from each unit area of
land use in pounds. Repetitive runs of the Simple Method
provided loadings for all land use categories.
P = annual rainfall in inches (total basin average is 35.91)
Pj = 0.9 (assumed fraction of storms producing measurable
runoff)
Rv = 0.05 + 0.009 (I), fraction of annual precipitation converted
to stormwater runoff
Urban Stormwater Loadings
29
-------
A = area of land use i (in acres)
I = percent imperviousness for land use i
C = event mean pollutant concentration in mg/L
12, 2.72 = unit conversion factors that reduce acre-feet to cubic
feet/second/day to pounds/acre/year.
The urban land use acreages used to develop the urban toxic load estimates
were based on the Chesapeake Bay Program's 1985 land use data base
developed for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (Table 8) (Olsenholler,
1991; Hannawald, 1990). The Chesapeake Bay Program 1985 land use data
base provides the only basinwide land use data derived from a uniformly applied
classification methodology.
Table 8. Chesapeake Bay basin urban land use (1985)
Watershed Area Urban Land Use
Major
Sub-basin
Susquehanna
Commercial
Eastern Shore
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
Acres
17,344,000
1,317,420
2,445,550
565,750
9,045,550
1,683,880
1,911,310
6,524,900
Percent
43
3
6
1
22
4
5
16
Acres
1,480,938
630,828
227,797
217,526
1,113,050
41,866
126,394
475,869
Percent
34
15
5
5
26
1
3
11
TOTAL 40,838,360 100 4,314,268 100
Sources: Olsenholler, 1991; Hannawald, 1990.
The Simple Method was applied to five broad categories of "urban" land use:
residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and transportational (Table 9).
Each land use category was assigned an average percent imperviousness follow-
ing Hannawald (1990).
The event-mean concentrations of toxic pollutants in urban runoff were derived
from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Priority Pollutant monitor-
ing project and from review of the literature (Olsenholler 1991). The event mean
concentration is a flow-rated value which is the best statistical average for
general analyses such as those conducted in the inventory. A single event-mean
concentration was used to calculate urban stormwater loadings for all categories
of urban land use (Table 10).
Uncertainty
Numerous variables, including climate and land use, account for the tremendous
differences in toxic substance concentrations among stormwater runoff sampling
sites. At the time of inventory compilation, there was no comprehensive
30 Urban Stormwater Loadings
-------
Distribution of Urban Land in
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Chesapeake
Bay
Figure 3
measurement of the concentrations of toxic substances in urban runoff in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. The few sites located in the Bay's drainage basin
where urban stormwater concentrations have been measured have not been
established as statistically typical of any other sites in the basin. Consequently,
a load estimation technique such as the Simple Method was needed to estimate
Urban Stormwater Loadings
31
-------
Table 9. Area and percentage of five urban land use categories within the
Chesapeake Bay Basin.
Urban Percent
Land Use Impervious
Category
Residential1 30
Commercial2 75
Industrial3 80
Institutional4 10
Transportational5 50
Area
(million
acres)
2.9
0.8
0.15
0.24
0.26
Percent of
Total Urban
•. Land Use
67
18
3
6
6
Percent of
Total Water-
shed Area
7
2
0.3
0.5
0.6
TOTAL N/A 4.35 100 10.4
1 = Land used for single family, duplex, multi-family, and group dwellings as well as
yard space.
2 = Concentrated commercial developments, such as central business districts, regional
shopping centers, rural trade centers, major travel service centers, and commercial
strip developments and warehouses.
3 = Land used for manufacturing, product assembly, processing, extraction, and ware-
housing, along with related functions such as research and administration is further
divided into "light" and "heavy" uses. Light industry either manufactures final
products or uses basic products to produce parts for other industries (e.g., clothing,
paper products, printing, furniture, food products). Heavy industry produces basic
products from raw materials (e.g., paper pulp, steel, lumber).
4 = Large-scale groupings primarily of a public and semi-public nature such as educa-
tional campuses, health service centers, libraries, museums, amusement parks,
fairgrounds, and sports fields.
5 = Highways, roads, streets, parking lots, and power plants in addition to all right-of-
ways and all facilities associated with the transportation of water, gas, oil, electricity,
and communications.
loadings of urban stormwater. The Simple Method uses Chesapeake Bay
watershed annual average rainfall and land use along with concentration data
from the literature.
Although it is not possible to establish a range of certainty for each element used
in the Simple Method, it is possible to illustrate the range of uncertainty associ-
ated with the concentration. The range is established by calculating loadings
based on the highest and lowest concentration observed in the determination of
the event mean concentration. The range represents the upper and lower limits
of potential loadings (Table 11). Although the event mean concentration is the
most representative measure, Table 11 shows that loading estimates can vary by
orders of magnitude depending upon local site characteristics and their effect
upon concentration.
For example, the loading for chromium calculated using the event mean concen-
tration is 82,000 pounds. The estimate using the lowest observed concentration
is 13,000 pounds and the estimate using the highest observed concentration is
2,500,000 pounds.
32 Urban Stormwater Loadings
-------
Table 10. Urban runoff toxic substance's event mean concentration
Toxic . Event Mean Toxic Event Mean
Substance Cone.1 Substance Cone.1
(mg/L) (mg/L)
Metals and Inorganics
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Antimony
Beryllium
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
Phenols and Cresols
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,3,4,6-
Tetrachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Pesticides
a-hexachlorocyclohexane
0.00440
0.00110
0.00630
0.01760
0.00990
0.003802
0.01250
0.09680
0.00250
0.01460
0.00020
0.02210
0.00270
0.000043
0.000133
0.000143
0.001503
0.00020
Pthalate Esters
Bis(2-ethylexyl)phthalate
Total Hydrocarbons
Particulate
Soluble
0.00610
3.29000
0.40000
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Napthalane
2-methyhiaphthalene
1-methylnaphthalene
Biphenyl
2-ethylnaphthalene
Flourene
Dibenzothiophene
Phenanthrene
Flour anthene
Pyreene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.000464
0.000164
0.000204
0.0000824
0.000124
0.0000804
0.000254
0.000324
0.000364
0.000284
0.0000874
0.000254
0.000144
0.0000984
1 = Average flow-weighted concentration value; 2 = Represents a 95% assumed reduction
in leaded gasoline; 3 = Excluding institutional sites; 4 = Commercial sites only.
The urban stormwater loading estimates correspond directly with the urban land
use category and intensity of urbanization, represented by the amount of imper-
vious cover. Currently, it is not possible to quantify the uncertainty associated
with these variables. Regulatory requirements, however, may help to refine
these estimates in the future.
The EPA, in response to Clean Water Act requirements, has proposed regulations
to control urban stormwater discharges through the NPDES permit program.
The EPA regulations require municipal areas with populations greater than
100,000 to identify sources of pollution and provide initial estimates of the
quantity of discharged pollutants. Four counties (Anne Arundel, Baltimore,
Montgomery, and Prince Georges) and one city (Baltimore) in Maryland, four
counties (Arlington, Chesapeake, Fairfax, and Prince William) and six cities
(Alexandria, Arlington, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, and Richmond) in
Virginia, and the District of Columbia are subject to these requirements. More
than five million people live in these municipalities which account for 53 percent
of the total urban area within the Chesapeake Bay basin.
Urban Stormwater Loadings
33
-------
Table 11. Range in urban stormwater loadings based on different concentrations
Loadings Based on:
Toxic Substance Event Lowest Highest
Mean Observed Observed
Concentration Concentration Concentration
(1000s of Ibs/yr) (1000s of Ibs/yr) (1000s of Ibs/yr)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Nickel
Zinc
Beryllium
Selenium
Thallium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal
Pentachlorophenol
57
14
82
230
130
160
1,300
190
290
35
79
19
13
1.3
13
13
26
13
130
13
26
13
52
13
660
180
2,500
1,300
3,900
2,400
31,000
640
1,000
180
800
1,500
Discussion
Estimates of urban stormwater loadings include ten Chesapeake Bay Toxics of
Concern; five heavy metals—cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and mercury—
and five polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthene, and naphthalene (Table 12). Copper
exceeds the other heavy metal Toxics of Concern with an estimated 1985 loading
of 230,000 pounds. Zinc, identified as a secondary Toxic of Concern, accounts for
the largest mass loading of all metals—an estimated 1,300,000 pounds for the
1985 base year.
PAHs are the products of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, especially
automotive exhaust. Residential home heating units which burn wood and coal
also produce PAHs. Napthalene exceeds the other PAHs on the Toxics of
Concern List with an estimated annual loading of 1,900 pounds. Chrysene
(1,000 pounds), benzo(a) pyrene (400 pounds), and fluoranthene (1,500 pounds)
are other PAHs discharged, contributing an estimated total of almost 5,000
pounds annually basinwide.
Total particulate hydrocarbon loadings are estimated at 40,000,000 pounds and
soluble hydrocarbons at 5,200,000 pounds annually (Appendix Table 5). Most of
the hydrocarbons in urban stormwater have low solubility and are associated
with particulate matter. Residential land uses account for the largest share of
hydrocarbons followed by commercial land uses.
34 Urban Stormwater Loadings
-------
*
CO
fe
CD
8,
c
CO
o
O
tn
u
x
o
CQ
cu
•a
cu
a
CO
CO
cu
o
co
T3
CO
§
•S
•8
H
IdV % uissg ajoiis luajsBg
IdV % U!SB8 awqs ujajseg
IdS % ujSBg sauiBp
IdV % wseg sauiep
IdS % ujseg )|JOA
*1dV % uiseg )|.IOA
nja o/ uicpa uiniiiipuprifipu
*ijw o/ uicpa vofiiiiipupriripu
IdS % UlSBg OBUIOlOd
HdV % uiseg OBUio^od
IdS % uiSBg uiaxnjBd
IdV % u;sBg juaxniBd
IdS % UISB8 a)|Badesai|o -/|/\
IdV % ujSBg a)|BddBsai|o •jw
IdS % U!SB8 BUUBqanbsns
IdV % U|SBg BuuBi|anbsns
-2« i"
00 *— **
>. c
II
« s
"x •«; O
12 1
Chemical Name
by Category
[ Trace Metals:
z
-
CO
CO
o
in
CO
CM
CO
1
1
S
S
o
m
o
"c
a>
^
-
CO
CO
o
in
CO
CM
CO
1
i
s
g
o
| Cadmium
i
-
co
CO
o
in
CO
CM
CO
1
i
S
g
o
CM"
CO
| Chromium
i
-
CD
CO
O
in
CO
CM
CO
1
1
a
o
§
o
CO
CM
CO
O
i
-
co
CO
o
in
CO
CM
co
i
z
CM
CO
1
T3
a
2
i
-
co
CO
o
in
CO
CM
CO
i
i
a
g
CO
CM"
i
i
^
CO
CO
o
in
CO
CM
co
z
Z
CM
CO
g
o
o
_c
.
O
I
-o £
-------
A
JD
fn
O
'e?
0)
8P
-w
c
a>
o
IV
o
e
o
m
o
1
c?
CQ
v
•a
O)
o.
03
tn
O)
O
w^
tN
i-l
V
IS
IdV % uiseg aioijs ujaiseg
-jjV % "|SBa aioqs ujeiseg
IdS % u!seg sauiep
IdV % u|SBg sauier
IdS % uissg )JJOA
IdV % uiseg )|JOA
"IdS % ugseg >|oouueqeddeu
IdV % u;seg ^oouueqeddBu
"US % uiseg OBUIOIOH
IdV % "Sseg OBiuo»od
IdQ % uiseg luaxnjed
1JV % uisBg limned
IdS % "!SBg a))BadBsano ~M
IdV % u|SBg 9)|BadBsai|o -/A
Ida % u;sBg Buueqanbsns
IdV % uiseg Buueqanbsns
«| S"
11 | S §
i- ^ S -i o
£"* t
>.S
£ CO
o5
-1
.0 te
o o c
- 5
Chemical Name
by Category
CO
1
CO
1
IT}
CO
CO
-
0
o
CM
r«-
CM
CO
f^
eg
i
i
8
o
§
*
| Benzo(a)pyrene
CO
1
in
CO
CO
"-
0
o
CM
r-
CM
CO
r^
CJ
<
•z.
1
8
1
*
| Benz(a)anthracene
CO
i
\n
CO
CO
-
o
o
CM
r~
CM
CO
r^
CM
i
i
8
1
*
CD
i
£
6
CO
1
m
CO
CO
-
0
o
CM
f-
CM
CO
r-~
CM
i
1
%
s
in
*
| Fluoranthene
CO
1
m
CO
CO
i—
0
o.
CM
h-
CM
CO
r^
CM
i
^
z.
5?
§
°i
*
| Naphthalene
co S '
o u>
'•S co
| 8.
I 2.
P
•- co
=i £
h- eg
CD E
I!
•5 7a
£ 1
.S £ CO
S
CD
O>
J3
O
i«1
""cd -2 o
£ c?"S
e-=p
8
8
%
CD
| . «
e 12
:= _
-9 '^ «
O
I-I
o w
•E LU
CO c CO
> O LU
« °
11
M s.
!2
I
i i°
i= (D
S-g
CD .f
S 5
1 s-
CO £Q
o
X
i2
1.2
2 »
%
JO
£
^ ~ ^ -g » £
^•^ ® o "5 c
73 o CD •— -5 —
•D s= 2
2 -S :E
« ff ®
CO <° CO
T3 CO CO
*- TJ TP
CD CO «o
£.-!> o
S S $
.C CD CD
Sf |E
I i g
.2 S
= £
ii n
»- CM
S -E
o
« a:
o s
D- CO
.-& i
-i-i
^553
CO
J?
a.
5 5
.. ii
| 5 cS
E n ii
1 i i
o < m
it
m
o
< 2
D. ..
111 ffl
§8
II
"•H 5
-g §
*1
S
a.
Urban Stormwater Loadings
-------
Limitations
• Event mean concentrations used to develop urban stormwater loading
estimates are not statistically representative of the entire Chesapeake
Bay watershed and are based on national averages from a limited data
set.
• A single event inean concentration was applied to all categories of land
use.
• Event mean concentrations were calculated by making assumptions
other than those used in developing the load estimates in other sections
of the inventory. Specifically, values below detection limits were
assigned values other than zero based on the coefficient of variation.
• Urban stormwater load estimates include loads to non-tidal waters
above the fall line and, therefore, do not represent loads directly
entering the tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay. These loads to non-
tidal tributaries are diminished by chemical and physical degradation en
route to the fall line, where they are measured as part of the total point
and nonpoint source loads. It is not possible to distinguish the urban
stormwater contribution at the fall line.
• The Simple Method used to calculate urban stormwater loadings of toxic
substances does not take into account base flow or the effect of existing
urban stormwater controls.
• The inventory's urban stormwater loading estimates do not include
combined sewer overflows.
Recommendations
• Coordinate the urban stormwater sampling programs for large
municipal population areas within the Bay basin required to comply
with the Clean Water Act to refine estimates of urban stormwater loads
for the Chesapeake Bay basin. Establish comparable sampling, load
estimation, and reporting procedures to develop a stormwater toxics
data base, and a consistent stormwater runoff sampling program for the
Chesapeake Bay basin.
• Update periodically the land use/land cover data for the entire Chesa-
peake Bay basin and define the percentage of pervious and impervious
areas for each land use category.
• Account for the effectiveness of various stormwater management tech-
niques (both structural and nonstructural) already in use throughout the
Chesapeake Bay basin when revising the inventory's estimates of urban
stormwater loadings of toxic substances.
Urban Stormwater Loadings
-------
-------
Introduction
Atmospheric deposition is the gross transport of chemicals from the atmosphere
to land and water. The magnitude of atmospheric deposition (expressed as mass
of chemical per unit area per unit time—e.g., ug/mz.year) is proportional to the
atmospheric concentration of the chemical and is dependent upon the emission
rates and a variety of atmospheric transport and reaction processes. Deposi-
tional loadings also have a complex, non-linear relationship to the micro, local,
and regional-scale meteorology, much in the same way that riverine loadings are
related to hydrology.
Atmospheric deposition results both from wet and dry depositional processes.
Wet deposition includes .washout of atmospheric particles (aerosols) by
precipitation, as well as'washout of gaseous chemicals via dissolution into
raindrops. The magnitude of wet deposition depends directly upon the intensity
and duration of the precipitation, the concentrations of aerosol-bound and gas
phase chemicals in the atmosphere, and the efficiency with which the
precipitation scavenges these chemicals. Wet depositional fluxes may be directly
determined at a specific location by collecting precipitation and analyzing the
chemicals of interest.
Dry deposition results from the advective and diffusive transport of aerosols to
the land or water surface and the absorption of gaseous chemicals into
vegetation, soils, and surface waters. While it is generally accepted that dry
aerosol depositional fluxes are proportional to the concentrations of aerosol-
bound chemicals in the atmosphere, direct field measurement of dry deposition
provides only order-of-magnitude ranges of flux estimates at best.
Temporal and Spatial Coverage
The inventory's atmospheric deposition estimates of toxic substance loadings are
based on 1990 and 1991 sampling results from the Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric
Deposition Study (Figure 4) (Baker et al., 1992; Dickhut et al., 1992). They
include wet and dry atmospheric deposition to tidal tributary surface waters
below the fall line and the mainstem Bay representing an area of 1.15 x 1010 m2,
approximately 6 percent of the Bay watershed. The estimates do not include
atmospheric deposition to non-tidal surface waters above the fall line nor
atmospheric deposition to land areas above or below the fall line.
Methodology
Since mid 1990, integrated atmospheric and precipitation samples have been
collected at three shoreline sites along the main axis of Chesapeake Bay under
the Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study (Baker et al., 1992; Dickhut
et al., 1992). The results from these studies were used to estimate the loadings
presented in this report. Estimates of annual wet and dry loadings of selected
toxic substances from the atmosphere to the Chesapeake Bay's tidal waters are
intended to provide loadings for the initial inventory and to identify areas in
which additional information and understanding are required to further refine
these loading estimates.
Atmospheric Deposition Loadings
39
-------
Chesapeake Bay Air Deposition
Monitoring Stations
Figure 4
40
Atmospheric Deposition Loadings
-------
The annual wet depositional loading of a chemical to the surface of the Chesa-
peake Bay is calculated using the following formula:
Annual Wet Loading = [VWM] x P x A x C
where:
Annual Wet Loading = pounds/year (Ibs/yr);
VWM = Volume weighted annual concentration in precipitation
P = Annual precipitation amount (m3 of precipitation/m2/year);
A = Surface area of the Chesapeake Bay mainstem and tidal
tributaries (1.15 x 1010 m2); and
C = 0.45 x 10"9 (conversion factor for converting units to Ibs/yr).
There are currently no accepted methods to measure dry deposition of toxic
substances in the field directly. Estimates of dry depositional loadings were
calculated from atmospheric aerosol concentrations multiplied by a dry deposi-
tional velocity.
The total baywide wet and dry depositional loading estimates to tidal surface
waters, described above, were then allocated to each major basin area and the
mainstem based on surface water area below the fall line (Table 13).
Table 13. Major basin's surface water area below the fall line (m2 x 106)1
Basin Surface Water Area Percent of Total
Mainstem Bay
Susquehanna
West Chesapeake
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
Eastern Shore
7,466
14
435
278
1,216
452
262
681
694
65
>1
4
2
11
4
2
6
6
Total 11,498 100
1 = To convert square meters to square miles, multiply by 3.861 x 10"
Source: Boynton et al., 1990
Uncertainty
Until recently, few direct measurements of atmospheric deposition loadings were
available. Combined with the limited understanding of the fundamental deposi-
tional processes, the loadings provided in this report are likely to be restricted to
order-of-magnitude estimates. Where possible, an estimate of the uncertainty of
each loadings estimate is presented as well. Uncertainty in these estimates of
atmospheric loadings to the Chesapeake Bay reflects the cumulative errors
Atmospheric Deposition Loadings 41
-------
resulting from both the measurements of contaminants in air and precipitation
as well as those from extrapolating these measured values into baywide tidal
water loadings.
Uncertainty in measuring contaminant concentrations results from the random
errors inherent in any measurement as well as possible systematic biases (e.g.,
calibration errors). Uncertainty in extrapolating these measured values to
estimate loadings largely results from extrapolating data representing one or
more particular locations during a specific time interval to larger spatial and
temporal scales.
Measured wet depositional fluxes contain errors associated with the collection,
storage, transport, and analyses of precipitation samples. The sampling and
analytical procedures used in the Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition
Study result in propagated uncertainties in the concentrations of trace elements
and organic toxic substances in the precipitation of ±10 percent and —20 per-
cent, respectively. Wet depositional fluxes calculated from these measurements
are less certain, as they require extrapolation of the measured values over
spatial and temporal scales.
Very little is known about spatial variability in wet contaminant deposition over
the scales of the Chesapeake Bay region, therefore, the magnitude of this error
cannot be determined with statistical rigor. Baywide wet depositional loadings
calculated from shore-based precipitation samples contain greater than 10-20
percent uncertainty (e.g., the analytical error), but are probably accurate within
a factor of two or three for the time period of the measurements.
Dry aerosol depositional loadings are estimated by modeling the transport of
contaminant-bearing aerosols to the tidal Bay's water surface. For a given
aerosol sample collected under a certain set of meteorological conditions, this
extrapolation from atmospheric concentrations to depositional loadings has a
two to three-fold uncertainty due to the relatively poor understanding of aerosol
depositional processes. Because meteorological conditions and aerosol deposi-
tional rates vary widely with time and location, further extrapolation of mea-
sured aerosol concentrations to spatially and temporally integrated loadings
results in overall uncertainties of at least one order of magnitude.
In summary, the uncertainties in the total (wet + dry) annual atmospheric
loadings to the Chesapeake Bay presented are greater than —20 percent for
chemicals dominated by wet depositional processes and up to 300 percent for
those dominated by dry depositional processes.
The atmospheric loading estimates for pesticides and for the compound N-
alkanes are not based on results from the Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric
Deposition Study, but on bulk precipitation sampling reported in the literature
(Wade, 1983; Williams, 1986; and Glotfelty et al., 1990). For the pesticides,
atrazine, simazine, alachlor, and toxaphene, literature estimates for different
years were averaged. Estimates for toxaphene, a pesticide that had its'
registration cancelled by EPA, are overestimations. Estimated loadings for
other pesticides are based on less than a full year of sampling and represent
underestimations.
42 Atmospheric Deposition Loadings
-------
Discussion
Table 14 presents estimates of wet and dry atmospheric deposition loads of
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern and the percentage of the toxic load from
each major basin. Because the loadings were allocated to the basin areas based
on surface water area, the percentage of the estimated annual load for each toxic
substance is the same for each specific basin.
Lead and copper, both trace metals, are the Toxics of Concern with the highest
atmospheric deposition loadings (32,000 pounds and 24,000 pounds, respec-
tively). The loading is 7,500 pounds for chromium. The largest PAH load is
from fluoranthene, a Toxic of Concern with an annual load of 1,300 pounds. The
annual loading of total PCBs is 130 pounds.
Appendix Table 6 presents additional atmospheric loading estimates for trace
metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) based on Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study samples
collected in 1990 and 1991 and for pesticides based on bulk precipitation samples
collected between 1983 and 1990. The largest annual trace metal load is from
aluminum (650,000 pounds). The pesticides with the largest loadings are
alachlor (5,600 pounds), malathion (3,500 pounds), and atrazine (1,700 pounds).
Limitations
Due to the limited number of high quality deposition measurements and the lack
of calibrated air transport models, these estimates of chemical deposition are
restricted as follows:
• Estimated loadings are to the water surface of the Chesapeake Bay and
its tidal tributaries only and, therefore, underestimate the total atmo-
spheric deposition loading to the Bay basin. The measurements used to
estimate loadings were taken on the shores of the Bay; no information is
available to extrapolate these findings to the Chesapeake Bay water-
shed. Even if estimates of depositional loadings to the watershed were
possible, there is extreme uncertainty in modeling the transport of
deposited toxic substances through the watershed and into the tidal
waters. This same problem is encountered when converting pesticide
application rates to runoff loadings.
• Estimated tidal loadings are the sum of annual wet and dry (total)
depositional estimates. Depositional fluxes of most toxic substances vary
widely throughout the year due either to varying emission rates (i.e.,
current use pesticides) or changes in meteorology. Expressing
atmospheric loadings on an annual basis allows comparison to other
sources, however, large loadings of short duration may be the most
important from an ecological standpoint.
• Dry atmospheric depositional loadings are highly uncertain and may be
underestimated adjacent to urban areas. There are no precise methods
to measure dry atmospheric deposition of trace elements and organic
toxic substances directly. Simple calculations suggest that average
annual dry depositional fluxes are at least equal in magnitude to wet
depositional fluxes for many toxic substances.
Atmospheric Deposition Loadings 43
-------
rt
42
'c?
£
I
|BadBsano 'M
Ida % u|SB8 euuBifanbsns
IdV % u;seg BUUBijanbsns
- S —
^1
*•!
Chemical Name
by Category
| Trace Metals:
in
CD
CO
i
CO
i
CM
i
i
i
CM
i
V
z"
o
o
co
CM
O
"c
O)
in
CD
CO
i
CO
i
CM
1
Z
1
CM
1
V
1
S
CM"
-
| Cadmium
8
CO
i
CO
i
CM
i
i
i
CM
z"
V
i
o
s
-
| Chromium
^
CO
I
CO
1
CM
Z
1
i
CM
i
V
i
CM
-
Q>
Q.
S
CO
Z
CO
i
CM
i
i
i
CM
Z
V
i
o
o
o
-
T3
CO
in
co
CO
i
CO
1
CM
s
z
1
CM
1
V
z
o
o
o_
5>
CM
O
c.
M
So
1
in
co
CO
Z
CO
i
CM
21
i
i
CM
i
V
^
o
o
CO
| Benzo(a)anthracene
in
co
CD
1
CO
1
CM
i
Z
1
CM
1
V
i
o
CO
CM
| Benzo(a)pyrene
in
CD
CO
i
CD
Z'
CM
1
1
i
CM
1
V
Z
0
o>
S
g
in
CD
CO
i
CO
i
CM
i
z
1
CM
i
V
z
3
\ Fluoranthene
in
CD
CD
i
CD
i
CM
i
i
i
CM
i
V
i
s
~s
o
m
1.
m
S
o
s
s
a.
s-
m
-------
_g
'co
-o
O
0)
g
p.
TJ
C
as
(V
u
C
o
O
<*-.
o
en
u
1
PQ
I
OJ
a
CO
co
0)
O
co
g
CD
T)
U
•c
CD
•s,
EQ
O
_g
a
8
w
TJI
i-H
«
Ida % uiaiswew
Ida % u;seg sjoiis ujaiseg
IdV % U!SB9 aj°4S wajsea
Ida % ujseg sauiBp
IdV % wseg sewer
Ida % wsea JIJOA
IdV % wseg ]|JOA
Ida % wseg Moouueqeddeu
IdV % U!SB8 )|3ouueqeddey
Ida % ujseg oeiuojod
IdV % u|seg oeuioiod
Ida % u;seg juaxn»Bd
IdV % "iseg juaxniEd
Ida % uiseg a)|E9dBsaqo -^
Ida % u;seg euueqanbsns
IdV % u;seg euueijanbsns
at
-=1 ^ -oi"
i |s S §
^-^^-'^
F
fS
i
£1
**i
*°3
Chemical Name
by Category
| Pesticides:
£
CO
i
CO
<
z
CM
i
Tt
i
^
i
CM
i
Tf
T—
V
i
o
o
co
in
o
1
<
s
co
<
2
CO
i
CM
<
Z
•*!•
<
Z
^
i
CM
<
Z
tt
^
<
Z
I
o>
c
'«
2!
in
co
CO
1
CO
i
CM
i
•*t
1
-
<
Z
CM
i
•*!•
'v
i
O
o
r-
c\T
CM
| Metolachlor
m
CO
CO
i
co
i
CM
i
T
11 " S •«
*iii
- I
o. >»
-§ m
II
O q> ?T
CO g co
•* Ji £
"2 S E
«o « g
1
-
•g § —
^, o "5
to ^ S
|°|
H> s
£ -8
& E
52 a>
.£ «
O
u. u. £
< to o
-8
s g.
e o
K- T3
15
O
o
E
O
I
45
Atmospheric Deposition Loadings
-------
• Enhanced atmospheric deposition near urban centers is not included in
the loading estimates. Depositional loadings will likely be highly vari-
able but generally larger near urban areas. Specifically, dry deposition
of large aerosols may be quantitatively important within tens of kilome-
ters from cities. No information is available to assess this hypothesis in
the Chesapeake Bay region, however.
Recommendations
To further refine these estimates of atmospheric depositional loadings, the
following steps are required:
• Characterize the influence of localized urban areas where elevated levels
of contaminants in the atmosphere likely result in enhanced deposition
over a scale of tens of kilometers.
• Measure toxic substance concentrations and deposition rates over the
water. Micrometeorological considerations suggest that deposition rates
may differ directly over the water surface relative to shore-based sam-
pling stations. Ah" and precipitation samples collected from research
vessels, liquid natural gas terminals, and buoys would address this
issue.
• Improve dry aerosol deposition estimates by enhanced meteorological
measurements during "intensive" sampling periods.
• Quantify diffusive fluxes of volatile organic contaminants across the air-
water interface. Studies in the Great Lakes and elsewhere suggest that
volatilization is an important sink of organic contaminants from surface
waters during the summer. Conversely, dissolution of gaseous contami-
nants from the atmosphere may be an important source during periods of
local emissions (e.g., agrichemical application) or during colder winter
months.
• Conduct "intensive" deposition studies to: (1) determine the sources of
atmospheric contaminants being deposited; (2) quantify the deposition
mechanisms; and (3) determine the fate, reactivity, and bioavailability of
deposited contaminants. The first of these "intensive studies" is being
conducted as part of the Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study
and these results will provide guidance for further work.
• Continue the Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition network to
document long-term trends in depositional rates. Given the large
inherent variability hi depositional fluxes, trends will only be detected by
using consistent methods to monitor fluxes over seven to ten-year
periods.
46 Atmospheric Deposition Loadings
-------
Introduction
The Chesapeake Bay serves as a major corridor for commerce shipping,
commercial and recreational fishing, and general boating. The toxic substances
associated with these and related activities that have the most potential for
release to the Chesapeake Bay are petroleum products, chemicals for treating
human waste, cleaning fluids, antifreeze, antifouling paints, hazardous
materials in transport, and trash.
Petroleum products have the greatest potential for causing pollution in the Bay
because virtually every vessel carries these products on board as fuel. Tank
ships and barges routinely transport large volumes of petroleum products as
cargo. Of the 37.5 millipn tons of total cargo handled in Baltimore in 1987,
approximately 4.7 million were petroleum products. From 1980 to 1989, 3200
spills from shipping, pipelines, tank trucks, railroad tank cars, tank farms and
other sources released approximately 2.7 million gallons of petroleum products
within the Chesapeake Bay coastal zone.
Non-transport activities, such as commercial and recreational fishing and
boating, can also release toxic substances to the Bay. The daily operation and
maintenance of watercraft and marinas can produce toxic loads similar in type
to those of shipping activities, but on a smaller scale. Estimates of toxics loads
from shipping are included in the inventory. The toxic substances associated
with commercial and recreational fishing and other boating activities are dis-
cussed later in this chapter.
Methodology
Estimates of shipping-related loadings of toxic substances included in the
inventory are limited to water and land-based spills reported to the U.S. Coast
Guard National Response Center within a geographic area outlining the Bay
and adjoining lands (Figure 5).
The spill data presented here, from 1980 to 1989, come from two systems main-
tained by the Coast Guard: the Pollution Incident Reporting System and the
Marine Pollution - Marine Safety Information System. The total quantity of
spillage reported in the ten-year period was summed and divided by ten to yield
an annual average.
The Pollution Incident Reporting System was discontinued and replaced by the
Marine Pollution-Marine Safety Information System on October 1, 1985. The
U.S. Coast Guard uses these data systems in managing its Marine
Environmental Protection Program. These systems also serve as repositories for
information on spills reported under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and Section 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). Section 311 of the CWA requires that any
discharge of an oil or a hazardous substance be reported to the National
Response Center at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC via an 800
phone number listed on the inside front cover of most phone directories.
Likewise, reports of spills required under Section 102 of CERCLA are made to
the National Response Center.
Shipping & Boating Loadings
47
-------
.Location of Reported Spills Included in Shipping Category
Eastern
Shore
Chesapeake
Bay
Figure 5
Discussion
Tables 15 and 16 present annual estimates of shipping and other transport
sources of loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern in gallons and pounds,
respectively, and the percentage of the toxic load from each basin. They also list
the number of spills reported over the ten-year period. Many of the loadings
reported were one-time large events at a single location while other loadings
were the result of numerous small spills at many locations.
48
Shipping & Boating Loadings
-------
j2
"cfl
b/o
_g
• PH
CO
a
&
&
•c?
S
>>
-Q
CD
bo
CD
s
CD
a
T3
£
CD
CJ
O
CO
O
5?
•a
CD
a
CO
co
CU
CO
T3
CO
JD
be
I
I
in
1-H
0)
I
1d8 % uiaiswew
Ida % u|seg ajoijs ujaiseg
Ida % "jsea sauiep
Ida % uisea JJJIOA
Ida % wseg >toouuBi|BddBU
Ida % uiseg 3eiuo)0d
Ida % uiseg luaxnjBj
Ida % uiseg a)|eadesaijo >M
"Ida % u;seg euueqanbsns
•5^2
O ^L
z
— "* S -D *C
s|8ll
-^3^3
.^1
ss
£2
H
ir
z S>
S ^
"I °
li
o
io
«r
Q.
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
•*!•
•X
*-
o>
0>
co
CL
CD
CO
m
o
0.
0
0
CM
CO
o
o
o
o
co
CO
0
r-.
co
*
-
">,
cz
CD
.tz
Q.
la
•o
a>
CO
_C3
"!
o
_Ci
m
8
esticides
Q.
0
0
o
o
o
o
0
g
0
o
*
CNJ
o>
c
CD
"1
X
£
_l
CD
"o
1
1
(O
a>
1
CD
_O
JS
CO
Ic
'o
c
o
s
o
is: Correct interpi
J
S
E
_i
1
i
a>
^o
1
CO
2
i?
"E
CO
o>
CD
C
o
"5
£
c
0
tations and specif
'E
•c
g.
£
LO
T3
C
CO
I~-
0
LO
to
8>
2.
CD
«
1
JO
"a.
Some reported s
•
lied matei
"s-
CO
>.
cz
cd
"5
e-
£
O
CL
3
C
CO
CD
15
£
"c
•s
Data do not accc
•
co"
CL
lc
CO
16
'0
commei
c»
-CD-
"&
1
O
CO
£?
CO
E
Q
2
CO
Data include spil
*
^
8
_ad
S
"S
2
"s
Jg
O
i
2
w
CD
C
1L
•5.
CO
CO
"o
g>^
CO
c:
<
CD*
CO
CO
00
a
«
O
a>
=M
o
£5
c»
e
a.
£•
m
ffi
1
O.
CO
CO
a>
.c
O
s
- ,a-o
Shipping & Boating Loadings
49
-------
3
o
ft
CO
CO
42
go
OS
-t->
g
u
cu
ft
01
u
c
o
X
u
•a
s,
rt
CO
0)
"S
cc
•s
bo
'a
CD
iM
V
Ida % uia)siHe||\|
Ida
% wseg ajoqg ujajseg
Ida % wseg sauicp
Ida % u!sea >H°A
Ida % ujseg )|3ouueu,eddey
Ida % uiseg aeuioiod
Ida % wseg juaxnjBd
Ida0/
Ida
, ujseg a>|eadesai40 -/^
% uiseg euueqanbsns
^ =
UliI
ll
JU §
J«* 8
u
jc ^a
o
w
Q.
8
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
CM
1
*
-
| Naphthalene
_ -5
I!
~o ^
11
CO (0
£ -5
'§- g-
2=6
« %
S £
"E-S
= 2
% i
5 £• ^
I
-i^ 73
o ca
>• "2
li
== £
ions: Correct interpretatic
mitations and specific infc
^
m
I
as
o.
to
• Some reported spills li
• Data do not account f<
• Data include spills froi
4
.*:
:=
Q>
.5-
Q.
g
to
S -c
•= o •
E o.
j £
50
Shipping & Boating Loadings
-------
During the ten-year period, the three recorded naphthalene spills (napthalene is
a Chesapeake Bay Toxic of Concern) resulted in an annual average release of
460 pounds and 4 gallons to the-West Chesapeake basin. Approximately three
gallons of PCBs, also a Toxic of Concern, were released annually to both the
James and the West Chesapeake basins. In addition, a small spill (one pound)
of toxaphene, a secondary Toxic of Concern, also occurred in the West
Chesapeake basin.
Several Priority Pollutants were released into the Chesapeake Bay watershed
during the period of record (Appendix Tables 7 and 8)—benzene and methyl
chloride to the West Chesapeake basin and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane to the
James.
Over the ten-year period, many large one-time spills have occurred in the James
River, likely due to the many commercial shipping centers located within the
basin. Examples of large one-time spills include: 1,700,000 gallons of urea
solution of ammonium nitrate; 1,500,000 gallons of aluminum sulfate (two large
spills); and 1,300,000 gallons of Number 2 fuel oil. While these substances are
not Toxics of Concern or Priority Pollutants, the sheer volume of these spills in
one basin warrants attention.
Approximately 2,700,000 gallons of oil and petroleum products are spilled onto
the land and water annually largely due to numerous small spills. Reported
spills of Number 2-D fuel oil totaling 150,000 gallons were more evenly
distributed, with 36 percent in the West Chesapeake basin, 20 percent in the
Potomac basin, 3 percent in the York basin, 21 percent in the James basin, and
12 percent in the Bay mainstem. Also evenly distributed among the basins were
6,400 gallons of Number 6 fuel oil. The James basin accounted for 25 percent,
followed by the Potomac with 23 percent, the West Chesapeake with 22 percent,
the Eastern Shore with 11 percent, the York with 6 percent, the Patuxent with 5
percent, and the mainstem with 8 percent.
Limitations
The method used to estimate shipping-related loadings to the Bay has
significant limitations. The spill data maintained by the Coast Guard are based
on inputs from the field units that responded to the spills. While these data are
the best available, their use does have limitations. For example:
• The data include spills on land and in the water as well as spills from a
variety of sources (e.g., pipelines, tank trucks, railroad tank cars, etc.)
• Some reported spills likely did not enter the Bay's tidal waters.
• Spill magnitudes are often estimates.
• Initial spill estimates may have been entered and not corrected when
more accurate figures were obtained.
• Data do not account for the cleanup or recovery of any spilled
material.
• Data concerning spills from U.S. Navy vessels may not have been
entered in every instance prior to 1987.
Shipping & Boating Loadings 51
-------
Commercial and Recreational Fishing
and General Boating Activities
In addition to serving as a major commercial shipping corridor, the Chesapeake
Bay also attracts large numbers of recreational and commercial boaters. More
than 180,000 recreational and commercial fishing boats are registered in the
Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay alone. Potential toxic loads from these
boats are similar to those of shipping, but they are treated as a separate
category since they operate at a different scale and involve primarily non-
transport activities associated with daily operation and maintenance. Although
methods to quantify toxic loads from these activities do not exist and loadings
cannot be calculated, these activities may represent significant sources.
Therefore, methods for quantifying these toxic loads-should be developed.
Potential toxic load generating activities associated with commercial and
recreational boating activities include: leaching of chemicals from antifoulant
paints and pressure treated wood; runoff from marinas, shipyards, and coal
stockpiles; and discharge of sewage disinfectants, deodorizers, and other toxic
substances.
Antifoulant Paints and Pressure Treated Wood
Tin and copper-based biocides are used in bottom paints to prevent "fouling"
organisms such as barnacles and seaweed from growing on the underwater
surfaces of boats, docks, buoys, and other marine structures. The highest
concentrations of these substances have been recorded around marinas
(Chesapeake Bay Program, 1987).
Although state and federal laws prohibit the use of tributyltin-based (TBT)
paints on vessels of 25 meters or less in length, several sources of TBT still
remain. Recreational boats painted with TBT prior to the enactment of
legislation (federal legislation was enacted in 1988) will continue to leach these
chemicals until they are repainted. During repainting, TBT-laden paint chips
and dust may wash into the Bay by surface runoff. Also, vessels of over 25
meters in length can still use TBT-based paints and boats painted in foreign
ports are not subject to state and federal laws prohibiting the use of TBT-based
paints.
Copper-based paints are being used as an alternative to TBT-based antifoulant
paints. Cuprous oxide is the most common copper compound used in these
paints although copper hydroxide and metallic copper are also utilized. In some
formulations, the copper content can be as high as 75 percent. TBT and copper
have been identified as Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern because of their
toxicity to marine life.
Copper, chromium, and arsenic, leached from pressure-treated wood used to
construct piers and bulkheads, accumulate in fine-grained sediments close to the
structures. The highest sediment concentrations are found in poorly flushed
areas and adjacent to the newest bulkheads (Weis et al., 1991, 1992). In studies,
copper concentrations were always much higher than either arsenic or cadmium
concentrations.
52 Shipping & Boating Loadings
-------
Runoff from Marinas, Shipyards, and Coal Stockpiles
Runoff from marinas, shipyards, and coal piles has the potential to contribute
significant quantities of toxic substances to Bay waters because of the proximity
of these facilities to the Bay's tidal waters. Materials associated with boat
maintenance, such as solvents, paints, methyl-ethyl ketone, turpentine, acetone,
gasoline, and diesel fuel need only be transported a short distance to enter the
Bay's tidal waters. In addition to discharging oil and grease, oil/water separa-
tors at shipyards can also discharge effluents containing benzenes, toluene,
xylene, aromatic hydrocarbons, and other petroleum hydrocarbons (Virginia
Water Control Board, 1991). Analysis of runoff samples from coal stockpiles
indicates that the runoff contains chloride, sulfate, iron, manganese, silica,
copper, zinc, chromium, aluminum, nickel, calcium, magnesium, lead, mercury,
barium, arsenic, cadmium, selenium, titanium, beryllium, and antimony.
Sewage Disinfectants, Deodorizers, and Other Toxic Substances
Chemicals to treat human waste are used on recreational and commercial boats
and have a high potential for release to the marine environment. Federal law
requires the installation of Marine Sanitary Devices (MSDs) on all vessels with
installed toilet systems. The design, construction, and installation of MSDs are
regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard. Marine Sanitary Devices chemically treat
the sewage or hold the sewage in tanks until it can be pumped out at onshore
facilities. The mixture of human waste and chemical disinfectants is often
improperly discharged to Bay waters.
A recent study of 227 Maryland boaters reports that a third of the recreational
boats registered hi Maryland discharge partially treated wastes into the marine
environment. The remaining vessels employ holding tanks or port-a-potties,
which store the waste until it is removed at a pump-out station. The majority of
boats use Type II MSD units in which chlorine disinfects the sewage prior to
discharge in the water.
Chemical additives used in treating human waste generally contain one of four
active ingredients: formaldehyde, quaternary ammonium, heavy metals, or
phenols. Product formulations for formaldehyde-based products, used for odor
control, disinfection, and as toilet cleaning agents, are quite variable in their
concentrations. They include formaldehyde alone or in combination with methyl
alcohol, zinc sulphate, methanol, dyes, and perfumes. Glutaraldehyde is also
used as an additive for controlling odor. Mixtures of quaternary ammonium,
also used for odor control and disinfection include: dimethyl benzyl and ethyl
benzyl ammonium chlorides; tetrasodium ethyl benediamine, and tetracetate;
and quaternary ammonium compounds (sometimes mixed with perfumes).
Heavy metal-based products are also used for odor control and disinfection and
include the formulations of zinc sulphate, formaldehyde, and aluminum
sulphate. Phenol-based products used as deodorants and cleaners in holding
tanks contain: isopropyl alcohol; o-benzyl-p-chlorophenol; coconut oil and soap;
and ortho phenyphenol.
Antifreezes used to prevent freezing while overwintering are another potential
source of toxic loads. These preparations, which manufacturers often claim are
non-toxic, may be flushed into surrounding waters in the spring. The chemicals
associated with these formulations are: propylene glycol, dipotassium hydrogen
phosphate inhibitors, colorants, and the toxic automobile antifreeze containing
ethylene glycol.
Shipping & Boating Loadings 53
-------
Exhaust from vessel engines is another unmeasured source of air and water
pollutant loads. Engine types vary but include gasoline fueled internal combus-
tion engines, diesel engines common on larger vessels, gas turbine engines, and
steam propulsion engines which may burn coal or oil. Chemical contaminants
associated with engines are composed of petroleum fuel mixtures which contain
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and other compounds.
Recommendations
• Establish a task force to review existing spill reporting, estimating, and
data management procedures and to suggest ways to improve them.
• Review and prioritize the potential loadings of toxic substances
associated with shipping, recreational boating, commercial fishing, and
boating-related activities.
• Compile an inventory of shipping commerce, commercial and
recreational boats, marinas, and shipyards in the Chesapeake Bay.
• Develop loading estimates for shipping and boating-related activities
that have the highest potential to impact the Bay adversely.
54 Shipping & Boating Loadings
-------
Introduction
Load estimates for groundwater could not be developed with existing data. To
address this concern, a Chesapeake Bay Groundwater Toxic Loading Workshop
was held April 15-16, 1992 (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1993). The workshop
participants reviewed and discussed available information on groundwater
studies and results and developed a strategy to provide a first order estimate of
the magnitude of toxic substance loads to the Chesapeake Bay.
The primary conclusions from the workshop were:
• Groundwater delivers more than one-half of the fresh water that enters
the Bay. This water is transported to the Bay as baseflow to non-tidal
streams and tributaries or upwelled directly to the mainstem of the Bay
and tidal tributaries.
• The majority of groundwater contribution to the Bay is from shallow
aquifers that are most sensitive to anthropogenic impact.
• Based on a limited amount of data, toxic substances and nutrients have
been detected in shallow aquifers.
• Surface runoff may be a larger source of agricultural herbicides to
streams and tributaries than groundwater.
• The potential for toxic substance groundwater loads is greatest at the
local scale, close to the source.
• The potential for nutrient loads in groundwater to the Bay is significant
at both local and regional scales.
Recommendations
• Implement initial elements of a strategy to estimate groundwater toxic
loads:
1) Develop an estimate of groundwater toxic load estimates at the fall
line.
2) Define similar hydrographic units below the fall line and compile
existing flow and concentration data.
Groundwater Loadings
55
-------
-------
The fall line is the geologic boundary between the unconsolidated sediments of
the Coastal Plain and the hard crystalline rock of the Piedmont province. It is
that portion of the river where tidal waters meet non-tidal waters and is usually
characterized by waterfalls. Many cities (e.g., Baltimore, Richmond, Frederick,
Washington) were founded along the fall line to take advantage of available
water power and to participate in commerce resulting from changing the
primary transport mode from water to land.
Fall line loading estimates provide a measure of the amount of toxic substances
discharged or released from point and nonpoint sources in the areas above the
fall line which are delivered to the Chesapeake Bay's tidal tributaries.
Discharged loadings and releases from all point and nonpoint sources above the
fall line are captured at the fall line as delivered loads to the tidal Chesapeake
Bay. It is not possible to subdivide the total fall line loading by specific
contributing sources. When compiling loads to the tidal Chesapeake which
include fall line loadings, "above the fall line" loads from the other categories of
point and nonpoint sources should not be considered to avoid double accounting.
The Fall Line
57
-------
-------
Introduction
The Chesapeake Bay Fall Line Toxics Monitoring Program was established as a
pilot study in April 1990 to define the magnitude and timing of toxic inputs to
the tidal Chesapeake above the fall line of two major tributaries—the
Susquehanna and James rivers. The Susquehanna River fall line monitoring
station is located at the Conowingo Dam in Maryland; the James River station is
at Cartersville, Virginia (Figure 6). Combined, these two rivers provide 64
percent of the total fresh water to the Chesapeake Bay. In April 1991, the study
was expanded to include additional monitoring for trace metals, suspended
sediment, and pesticides. In 1992, the study was further expanded to include
fall line monitoring on the Potomac River at Chain Bridge.
Chesapeake Bay Fall Line Toxics Monitoring Stations
Fall line Toxics
Monitoring Station
James
River
Basin
Chesapeake
Bay
Fall Line Loadings
59
-------
The pilot fall line monitoring program provided two years of data on trace
metals and suspended sediments, one and one-half years of data on triazine
herbicides, carbamate insecticides, and organochlorine and organophosphorus
insecticides, and one year of data on the chlorophenoxy acid herbicides. Base
flow samples were collected biweekly and storm event sampling was conducted
throughout the year.
Temporal and Spatial Coverage
The inventory presents average estimates of toxic loads that passed fixed
monitoring points at Conowingo, Maryland and Cartersville, Virginia in 1990
and 1991. The fall line loads represent the total pollutants delivered to tidal
waters from point and nonpoint releases and loadings above these points.
Methodology
Estimates of fall line loads were calculated using one of two load estimation
methods: a regression model or a statistically calculated mean (USGS, 1993).
The regression model used to estimate toxic loadings was the Adjusted Maxi-
mum Likelihood Estimator (AMLE) (Cohn, 1988). The AMLE is a log-linear
model which considers seasonal and temporal fluctuations in flows and concen-
tration to provide essentially unbiased estimates of river-borne trace metals and
pesticides (Cohn et al., in draft). The model was calibrated using water quality
and discharge data for each river from 1978 to 1991. Loading estimates were
then calculated using daily discharge values from 1990 and 1991.
Data requirements of the model include a minimum of 60 water quality analyses
over a two-year period, less than 70 percent censored data (those values below
analytical reporting limits), and a minimum of 12 values above the reporting
limit. The AMLE method is designed to improve the handling of censored data
and to provide an estimate of model and prediction error.
The statistically-calculated mean method was used for constituents which did
not meet AMLE data requirements. These estimates were based on mean
annual concentration and mean annual water discharge and represent a mean
annual load (MAL). The MAL estimates were calculated using the following
equation:
MAL = QxCxK
where:
MAL = the mean annual load (Ibs/yr);
Q = the mean annual water discharge (ft3/s);
C = the mean constituent concentration (ug/1); and
K = 0.00538 (a conversion factor which converts the load
estimates into pounds/year).
Uncertainty
Fall line loadings are dominated by flows which can magnify the importance of
even very small changes in concentrations. The Chesapeake Bay Fall Line
Toxics Monitoring Program emphasized the collection of water quality samples
during periods of high flow because most river-borne trace metal and
Fall Line Loadings
-------
suspended-sediment loadings are associated with storm events. Consequently,
the estimates are a very good measure of fall line toxic loads for 1990 and 1991
rainfall conditions for the Susquehanna and the James. The estimates do not
include fall line toxic loads for the Potomac and many other smaller tributaries
and, therefore, underestimate total loadings from the total watershed area
above the fall line to the tidal Chesapeake Bay.
The AMLE method is designed to address seasonal fluctuations in flows and
concentration and to improve handling of concentrations below analytical
reporting limits. Estimates based on the AMLE method include an estimate of
model and prediction error to indicate the level of confidence in that estimate.
The MAL method was used to estimate loads for those chemical substances
which did not meet the model requirements of the AMLE, primarily pesticides
and dissolved trace metals. Although an estimate of error cannot be computed
with the MAL method, a low and a high annual load estimate were calculated
based on the treatment of values below analytical detection limits. A low
estimate was calculated by assigning a value of zero to concentrations reported
below these limits; a high estimate was calculated by assigning a value equal to
the analytical reporting limit.
Table 17 presents the range or uncertainty in fall line load estimates for the
Susquehanna and James calculated with the AMLE and MAL methods. It
shows that although the estimated annual average for total recoverable copper
calculated using the AMLE method in the Susquehanna is 340,000 pounds, the
loading may vary between 210,000 and 480,000 pounds due to the level of
uncertainty surrounding the estimates and varying rainfall conditions. It also
shows that the manner in which values reported below detection limits are
treated has a major impact on loading values. The detection limit represents the
lowest value that can be reliably measured and depends both upon the
analytical method and the laboratory conducting the analysis. Often, the data
base used to characterize fall line concentrations includes values above and
below the analytical limit. When combining these values to develop mean
concentrations, values below detection limit may be set equal to the detection
limit, zero, or some intermediate value (e.g., one-half the detection limit) with
each option having a different impact on the resultant load estimate. For
example, the estimated annual average of cadmium (dissolved) in the
Susquehanna is 43,000 pounds, but the loading may vary between zero and
95,000 pounds, depending on the treatment of values reported below detection
limits and varying rainfall conditions. Mean annual load estimates are based on
mean annual concentration and mean annual discharge and do not account for
the impact of storm events on flow conditions. There is a higher degree of
uncertainty surrounding MAL estimates compared to estimates based on the
AMLE method.
Discussion
The annual fluctuation in water discharge due to the magnitude and number of
storm events was significant between 1990 and 1991 for the two fall line
stations. Streamflow in 1990 exceeded the long-term average at both river
stations while streamflow in 1991 was lower than average for both rivers. The
annual long-term average water discharge for the Susquehanna River at
Conowingo Dam is 41,000 cubic feet per second (ft3/s); average water discharge
in 1990 and 1991 at this station was 48,500 and 29,700 ft3/s, respectively. The
long-term average water discharge (1898 to 1991) for the James River at
Fall Line Loadings 61
-------
be
A
ft
o
CO
TJ
g
bo
cu
fe
0)
0)
a
CO
T3
C
O
a
d-i
o
CO
c
CO
o
^
as
s
bo
I
es
0)
c
bo
a!
V
I
H
•0 bo
II
60
£
•a
•d
o
03
o
•P4
3
V
A
o
h
>
£
o oq o q o o q q q q
dcbdcidoicodccd
••* CXI C5 Tf Tf t~ CO CO
CO (N CO rH
co q t> q q CM q in q o q oq
inddddi-idi>iot>i>d
IN CO 1C rH CO rH
10
QO co
l-< CO
CO
Oi-li-HOO
Osl
00
OOOi
q
eo
q q q q q q q
oomoooorHoooooir)
00
(N
CO
(N
(N CO CO
eo
CO
CO CO
CO
CO
•
.
2 *- .3 a
a
c .2 -r .3
'
c
c
C C C C C
C C C C C
C
Line Loadings
-------
Legend for Table 17
1 = average of high and low estimates for 1990 and 1991.
2 = not detected above the detection limit; lower estimate = 0, higher estimate =
detection limit.
3 = no value reported below detection limit; low and high estimates are equal.
Diss. = dissolved—more readily available for uptake by biota.
TR = total recoverable—sum of dissolved values plus component adsorbed to
sediment particles.
AMLE = Adjusted Maximum Liklihood Estimator—log-linear regression model
method used to estimate annual loads.
MAL = Mean Annual Load—statistically-calculated mean method used to
estimate annual loads. •'
Cartersville is 7,100 thousand ft3/s; average water discharge in 1990 and 1991
at the James river station was 8,400 and 6,900 ft3/s, respectively. The
fluctuations in streamflow resulted in higher load estimates in 1990. The fall
line loading estimates presented hi the inventory are average loads and do not
reflect this variability.
Table 18 presents annual fall line loading estimates for Chesapeake Bay Toxics
of Concern for the Susquehanna and James rivers. Total recoverable lead
(540,000 pounds), copper (450,000 pounds), and chromium (270,000 pounds)—all
heavy metals—account for the largest loadings of Toxics of Concern. The
Susquehanna accounts for 85 percent of the mean annual flow from both rivers
and contributes between 73 percent and 91 percent of the total estimated load
from both
rivers.
Appendix Table 9 presents load estimates for all toxic substances monitored at
the fall line. Trace metals have a high affinity for suspended sediment.
Loadings are highest, therefore, during periods of high water discharge when a
large percentage of the sediment load is transported. Chlorophenoxy (Dicamba,
picloram, and 2-4D) and triazine (Atrazine, Simazine, and prometone)
herbicides are typically transported in the dissolved phase and represent the
major group of pesticides detected at the fall line stations. The highest
concentrations of these herbicides were found in the late spring and early
summer, following periods of application (U.S. Geological Survey, 1993).
Herbicides detected at both rivers in 1990 and 1991 include Alachlor (6,100
pounds), Atrazine (10,200 pounds), metolachlor (9,000 pounds), prometone
(6,700 pounds), and Simazine (5,600 pounds). Additionally, cyanazine (12,000
pounds) at the Susquehanna River fall line and hexazinone (2,300 pounds),
picloram (150 pounds), dicamba (75 pounds), and 2-4D (160 pounds) at the
James River fall line were detected.
Organochlorine insecticides are generally associated with particulate matter
and are primarily transported during high flow events. These chemicals tend to
accumulate in aquatic organisms and can reach harmful concentrations in then-
tissues even if water concentrations are low. Their use has largely been banned.
DDT (78 pounds) was the only Organochlorine insecticide detected at the James
River fall line stations from 1990 to 1991.
Fall Line Loadings 63
-------
.s
I
1
u
T3
CO
u
CQ
0)
•a
s,
03
cc
GO
•8
0)
CO
fc
00
eg
H
US % uiaisiHBW
IdS % U!SB9 3J°MS ujajseg
Ida % "isea S9Uiep
IdV % u!seg saiuep
Ida % uiseg )|JOA
1JV % uiseg )|JOA
Ida % uiseg ^oouueqeddeu
IdV % u|seg ^oouueqeddeu
Ida % U!SB8 OBiuojOd
IdV % wsea oeiuoiod
Ida % U!SB8 luaxnjBd
IdV % "!sea juaxniBd
Ida % UISBB a)|BadBsaqo ~M
IdV % uissa a)|B9dBsaMO 'M
Ida % u;sBa euuBijanhsng
IdV % u;sBa BUUBqanbsns
Q.
'£ »
cc .£
Fall Line Loadings
-------
en
C3
-D
e
s.
CD
U
§
O
pq
CO
^
cd
§
CO
o>
o
CO
CO
•d
0)
•FN
*J
I
Nw^
00
,c
es
H
Ida % uiajsmew
IdS % U!SB8 3-ioijs ujajsBg
Idfl % u|SBg sauiBp
IdV % u|seg sauiep
Ida % u|SBg )|JOA
IdV % ujSBg )|JOA
"IdS % ujseg ^joouueqeddey
IdV % u!sea MoouueflBddBH
Ida % U|Seg OBUIOJOd
IdV % U|SBg OBUIOJOd
Ida % uiseg )uaxn)Bd
IdV % u;seg iiiaxnied
IdS % "Peg a>|eadBsaiio "M
IdV % u!«a a)|BadBsau.o -/ft
IdS % U!SB8 BuuBqanbsns
IdV % U!SB8 BUUBijanbsns
TS ^ CQ ^3 ^9
U|3|
F
-1
0 .2
*z
i»i
- <5
Chemical Name
by Category
| Trace Metals (continued):
o
1
i
o>
i
i
i
I
<:
z
1
1
<
•z.
<
z
<
z
i
5>
8
CO
h-T
*
-
| Mercury, total recoverable
o
<
Z
<
Z
1^
o
o
T—
CO
CM
O
\
<
C3
^
Z
1
CM
i
<:
z
i
^
z
i
<:
z
i
<
z
1
i
i
CO
co
o
o
o
o"
-
0
c
"isi
2
-------
Organophosphorus insecticides are soluble in water and usually last only days
or weeks before degrading. Diazinon (78 pounds) at the James River and
malathion (490 pounds) at the James and Susquehanna rivers were the only
organophosphate insecticides detected during the 1990 to 1991 sampling period.
Recommendations
• Include comparable fall line loading estimates for the Potomac
River when available.
• Expand and refine fall line monitoring to other tributaries as part of a
systematic plan to characterize toxic loads from above the fall line in all
major basins.
• Apply hydrograph separation techniques to estimate groundwater toxic
loading contributions to fall line estimates.
gg Fall Line Loadings
-------
The release category provides estimates of applications and releases of toxic
substances from sources within the Bay basin for which loadings to Chesapeake
Bay tidal and non-tidal waters can not be estimated. This category includes
pesticide usage and industry-reported releases to the air, water, and land.
These estimates, compiled from state pesticide usage surveys and the Toxic
Release Inventory data base, are distinctly different from other categories and
should not be compared with loadings from other inventory data.
Releases
67
-------
-------
Introduction
The use of pesticides for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes and the
potential of these substances to impact surface and groundwater quality
adversely is a major concern of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Unlike other
nonpoint sources of pollution, pesticides are intentionally applied for an
economic or otherwise beneficial purpose such as protecting man, plants, and
animals from insects, weeds, diseases, and other specific types of pests.
Temporal and Spatial Coverage
The Pennsylvania pesticide use estimates were based on 1990 and 1991 data.
Maryland estimates were based on 1988 data; those for Virginia were based on
1990 data. The estimates reflect only those portions of these states within the
Chesapeake Bay basin.
Methodology
The Toxics Subcommittee's Pesticide Workgroup directed state pesticide usage
surveys to collect information to target areas for implementation of Integrated
Pesticide Management (IPM) practices. This information, although collected for
. a different purpose, was also used to estimate the quantities of pesticides
applied in the Chesapeake Bay basin. Funded through various state and federal
sources, these surveys ranged from field use questionnaires generated through
user interviews to estimates based on national data bases of crop acreage and
product use. Common parameters that the states selected in conducting the
surveys were:
• pesticide active ingredient applied;
• rate of application;
• crop to which application is made; and
• number of acres to which the pesticide was applied.
Variations were made to this list of common parameters to accommodate non-
crop application sites and specialty applications. The approach each state
followed to conduct its pesticide use survey follows.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania estimates of pesticide usage are based on surveys conducted by
the Pennsylvania Agricultural Statistics Service in 1990 and 1991 (Pennsylva-
nia Department of Agriculture, 1990, 1991). The surveys were conducted by
personal interview from a cross-section of farms across Pennsylvania's 67
counties. The responses were summarized by the Pennsylvania Agricultural
Statistics Service to calculate the average rate of application, the number of
applications, and the number of acres treated. The survey results presented
here include only Chesapeake Bay basin counties.
Usage data were collected from two major areas of Pennsylvania agriculture,
field crops (corn, soybeans, potatoes) and fruit (apples). These crops represent
about 75 percent of Pennsylvania agricultural land use (Bingaman, personal
communication).
Pesticide Use
69
-------
Application rates for each crop were determined from the survey and an average
annual application rate for each crop was calculated (Field Crops Summary,
1991). The average pesticide application rate for that crop was multiplied by the
number of treated acres of the crop to estimate pesticide usage within the Bay
watershed for that crop. Pesticide usage for all crops in the survey was then
summed to get a basinwide total of active ingredients applied.
Maryland
In 1989, the Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service, in cooperation with the
Maryland Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Regulation Section, conducted a
survey to estimate 1988 pesticide usage in Maryland (Maryland Department of
Agriculture, 1990). The survey is based on past statewide surveys conducted at
three-year intervals beginning in 1982. It was sent to 2,234 farmers with
operations producing more than $1,000 worth of agricultural products per year:
2,337 private applicators certified to use restricted use pesticides on their own
land; 963 businesses licensed to apply pesticides commercially; and 137 public
agencies registered to apply pesticides. The questionnaire asked the respondent
to list the pesticides applied during calendar year 1988, the counties in which
they were applied, the number of acres treated, the rates per acre, and the total
quantity of product used by specific formulation (e.g., wettable powder, liquid,
granular). Results include both indoor and outdoor applications of pesticides for
structural pests, lawn and tree care, mosquito control, forest pest management,
right-of-way, public health, and research.
Telephone follow-up began approximately four weeks after each mailing and
continued through September 1989. Responses were received from 1,095 farm-
ers, 1,002 certified private applicators, 740 businesses, and 137 public agencies.
Responses by mail or telephone were edited and summarized utilizing computer
data entry and summarization procedures.
The survey sample of certified businesses, public agencies, and private applica-
tors was developed from certification lists maintained by the Maryland Depart-
ment of Agriculture's Pesticide Regulation Section. The names of farm operators
were selected from a list maintained by the Maryland Agricultural Statistics
Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A sample of farm operators
was selected to ensure coverage of tobacco, fruit, and vegetable operations in
addition to general farming operations. The sample of certified private applica-
tors was selected from those names which appeared on both the certification list
of the Pesticide Regulation Section and the list maintained by the Maryland
Agricultural Statistics Service.
After state-level estimates of pesticide application were developed, the quantity
of the 60 most important pesticides was prorated to each county based on the
estimated percentage of the pesticides applied in that county. County data were
not published if the variation was too large for a given application to provide
meaningful information in the estimator's judgment.
Virginia
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service's Office of
Pesticide Management conducted a survey to estimate pesticide use on the 12
major agricultural crops grown in the state in 1990 (Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services 1990). The pesticide use estimates were
conducted by coupling estimates of major agricultural crop acreage in Virginia
with estimates of pesticides applied to the crops by producers in an average
70 Pesticide Use
-------
year. The State Federal Crop Reporting Service provided the latest acreage
estimates for each crop between 1987 and 1990. Twelve crops were selected for
inclusion in the survey: apple, peach, soybean, barley, peanut, tobacco, corn,
potato, tomato, cucumber, snap bean, and wheat. The Virginia estimate does
not include pesticide applications on other agricultural crops, livestock, poultry,
forestry, lawn care, turf, nursery crops, or urban environments.
The total Virginia acreage dedicated to the production of these crops was
1,651,717 acres, approximately 65 percent of the total agricultural crop acreage
in Virginia. In addition to acreage, the crops were selected to provide a geo-
graphical representation of pesticide usage across Virginia and a cross section of
crop groups (i.e., fruits, vegetables, small grains, etc.) grown in the state.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Extension crop specialists
provided the data on pesticide materials. Fourteen specialists in insects, dis-
eases, and weeds were requested to estimate the pesticide materials used by
Virginia producers, the application rates, and the percentage of producers using
the pesticides in production.
The data values supplied by the crop specialists were multiplied by the acreage
estimates from the State Federal Crop Reporting Service to estimate the amount
of active pesticide ingredient applied to a crop in a growing season. Whenever
the crop specialists provided a range of application rates or a number of
applications, the maximum application rate and maximum number of
applications were used to estimate the amount applied to an acre.
Consequently, this procedure tends to overestimate representative pesticide use
in Virginia.
District of Columbia
No estimates of pesticide use are currently available for the District of
Columbia. The district plans to develop a pesticide use survey for commercial
and governmental agencies, including the National Park Service. In the survey,
each applicator will be asked to identify the pesticides being used, the
quantities, and the timing of applications. The district will also attempt to
incorporate data from the commercial sales of pesticides to the public.
Limitations
• Data generated by pesticide use surveys cannot be directly translated
into loadings. Intricate fate and transport mechanisms affect the
delivery of a compound from its application site. Site-specific
environmental factors that influence the transport and fate of applied
pesticides include temperature, soil type, sunlight, rainfall, geology,
topography, land cover, and distance from surface water. The estimates
provided here reflect only the quantities of pesticides applied to meet
specific pest management needs and do not represent loadings to tidal or
non-tidal surface waters or groundwater.
• The results of the state surveys show some variability in data collection
methods.
• The four common data parameters selected by the states to conduct the
individual jurisdictional surveys do not constitute a standard collection
method.
Pesticide Use 71
-------
. • Some respondents were unable to report every pesticide applied due to
the time involved or to incompleteness of their records. As a result, if
one of the states did not survey a particular area of the state or
commodity, the record shows that there was no "loading" in that basin
for the pesticide. It would be more accurate to list "none reported" or
indicate this by a dash rather than reporting an amount of "0."
Discussion
Table 19 presents pesticide application estimates for Chesapeake Bay Toxics of
Concern. Atrazine (2,300,000 pounds), metolachlor (2,300,000 pounds), and
alachlor (1,400,000 pounds)—all herbicides—are the Toxics of Concern applied
in the largest amount. Atrazine is used in corn production and alachlor is used
on corn, peanuts, and soybeans. Appendix Table 11 presents application
estimates for all pesticides included in usage surveys.
Results of the Pennsylvania survey data indicate that herbicides used on corn
and soybeans constitute the majority of pesticides applied in Pennsylvania, due
to the large acreage of these crops in the state (Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture, 1991). Although orchard crops required more frequent pesticide
applications, the number of total acres is smaller. The Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram has funded a monitoring project on the Conestoga River with data collec-
tion from monitoring stations beginning in 1992. Pesticide usage data for the
same area will be collected by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to
establish total loading rates for pesticides. The usage and monitoring data
should provide information on the levels of pesticides reaching surface water
from the application site.
In Maryland, herbicides accounted for 69 percent of the total reported usage of
pesticides, followed by insecticides (19 percent), miscellaneous pesticides (7 per-
cent), and fungicides (5 percent) (Maryland Department of Agriculture, 1991).
In Virginia, the highest quantities of pesticides are used in corn production
(Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1990). Peach
production has the highest per acre active ingredient application at 60.3 pounds
per acre. The production of peanuts uses 37 different active ingredients, the
highest number of any crop.
Recommendations
• Develop and apply a standard survey questionnaire using common
survey parameters and report the results to a single data base in a
consistent format.
• Develop pesticide usage estimates for non-agreement Bay states (New
York, West Virginia, and Delaware).
• Conduct coordinated state studies to link pesticide usage estimates to
the quantity of pesticides delivered to receiving tributaries, ground-
water, and the mainstem Bay. These studies should focus on major crop-
ping practices with significant pesticide usage and significant land uses.
• Design watershed-specific monitoring projects to develop specific data
bases that can be used to assess the accuracy and agreement of predic-
tive models linking pesticide applications and pesticide loadings to
surface waters.
72 Pesticide Use
-------
o
•ff
I
0)
0)
ft
OJ
u
o
o
x
o
CQ
0)
•3
CO
01
u
•43
CO
0i
I-M
V
I
Ida % wsea aj°MS UJ3JSB3
IdV % uiseg ajoijs wajseg
Ida % uiseg sauier
IdV % uiseg sauier
Idg % usseg )|K>A
IdV % wseg JJJOA
Ida % U!SB9 Jjoouueqeddeu
IdV % U!SBS )|3ouu0geddey
Ida % u;sea oeuioioj
IdV % u;seg oewoiod
Ida % u;seg luaxmed
IdV % u;seg luaxnjed
Ida % u!s*8 a)|eadesano 'M
IdV % u;seg a)|eadesai|o -M
Ida % wseg BuuBganbsns
IdV % uiseg euueganbsns
|||||
CD ^t jS Q_
AP? DC !Z^
||
•s-l
o
Pesticide Name
by Category
| Fungicides:
S
2
*
2
in
CO
in
-
CM
-
O
o
0
i
0
o
8
o
o
*
-
c5
ex
CL
6
| Herbiicides:
cr>
CM
i
CM
-
^
in
^
in
-
in
*-
-
CD
i
-
o
CM
1
CM
_O
O
_CC
t
i
••—
^
CM
CM
CM
CO
in
O)
o
o
^
1
-
S?
2,300,000
-
"P5
ra
co
CM
1
-
CM
-
-
-
CM
in
£
-
0
-
i
*-
R
i
CO
CM
CM
| Metolachlor
|
o
i
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
3
CM"
co
CM
i
o
o
o
o
o
co
CM
1
Q
5?
z
0
o
o
o
o
o
CO
o
CO
0
o
co
i
o
-
8
CO
co
CM
| Fenvalerate
CO
1
CM
CO
in
CD
*
in
*-
*
o
o
o
CO
i
o
CO
o
o
o_
CO
CM
| Permethrin
*O)
o co ;§
'•= r~ _
.5= o-
{§ £
«£
« «
c £
« °
w S
E »
S |
CO £
•j; O
CO '-~
CD CD
CL -g;
-I
^ -o
o c:
*" CO
in
co "a
CD e
o> .2
CO >.
°- m
CD ^
CD *
W co-
co 'c
aj 5
trt ^Z.
£-52
ra f5
c:
co
CD CD
•Si
.° °
CO
CO 1=
= -•§
s I
OJ
!§ I
J3 E
"f ~
5 ~o
I I
CD
^ t .2
o co
111"
§8 ?
•55 ~
•E DC =
15 •
-D P
JO O
co J3
II « £
^ ? '«
i -I 2-
Z —I co
< ffi O
t- *
Pesticide Use
73
-------
-------
Introduction
This section examines trends in Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data collected as
a requirement of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA)). These data provide the public with information on the indus-
trial emissions of toxic'substances that may affect human health. Such informa-
tion empowers the community with the specific knowledge required to support
emergency responses to chemical accidents and to provide both local govern-
ments and the public with information on the possible chemical hazards in their
communities.
The SARA requires industries with more than ten employees using 10,000
pounds or more of any one of over 300 chemicals to report on the releases,
discharges, and transfers of these chemicals to the land, air, or water annually.
The TRI requires annual reports of shipments of these chemicals to off-site
facilities which treat, store, or dispose of the wastes. In 1991, the off-site cat-
egory was expanded to include the reporting of wastes transferred off-site for
recycling and/or energy recovery.
No technique is currently available to quantify potential loadings to the Bay's
tidal waters using this data base. In the analysis presented here, the releases to
air and land only have the potential to reach the Bay as loadings. The estimates
of discharges to surface waters differ from those in the loadings section because
they are not based on measured values. The two estimates, therefore, are not
comparable. Nonetheless, the information presented here illustrates that there
are significant releases of toxic substances to media other than surface waters;
more importantly, it delineates the trend in reported releases over the five-year
reporting period.
Temporal and Spatial Coverage
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data presented here span 1987 to 1991. The
first reporting period under SARA was for calendar year 1987; the most recent
reporting period is 1991. The number of industrial facilities reporting to the TRI
has increased from 3,285 facilities in 1987 to 3,924 facilities in 1991. The facili-
ties included here are located in the District of Columbia and in all New York,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and Delaware counties that
are totally or partially included in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Although
some of these facilities may be outside of the Bay watershed, their discharges
may be to the air or transferred to facilities within the watershed; therefore,
they are included here.
Activities Covered
The TRI inventory reporting requirements apply to owners and operators of
manufacturing facilities with ten or more full-time employees that are in
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 30 (Table 20). The
facilities must manufacture, import, process, or otherwise use a listed toxic
chemical in excess of specified threshold quantities. Beginning with the 1991
report, facilities are also required to provide information about pollution
prevention and source reduction activities. These elements, however, are not
included in this analysis.
Industry-Reported Releases
75
-------
Table 20. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39
20 Food and kindred products
21 Tobacco products
22 Textile mill products
23 Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics and other
similar materials
24 Lumber and wood products except furniture
25 Furniture and fixtures
26 Paper and allied products
27 Printing, publishing, and allied industries
28 Chemicals and allied products
29 Petroleum refining and related industries '
30 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
31 Leather and leather products
32 Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products
33 Primary metal industries
34 Fabricated metal products except machinery and transportation
equipment
35 Industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment
36 Electronic and other electrical equipment and components except
computer equipment
37 Transportation equipment
38 Measuring, analyzing, and controlling instruments; photographic,
medical, and optical goods; watches and clocks
39 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
Estimates of releases and discharges of sodium sulphate and aluminum oxide
were not included in the analysis because these substances have low risks and
are no longer reported to the TRI. In addition, the extremely large loadings of
these substances would mask more important trends.
Discussion
Industry-reported data are presented for 1987 through 1991, the most recent
year for which data are available (Figures 7, 8, and 9). Information on annual
releases to different media is presented for several groups of substances: all
pollutants reported; Priority Pollutants; and Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern.
Priority Pollutants and Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern are subcategories of
chemicals targeted by the Chesapeake Bay Program and the 1987 Clean Water
Act.
The media categories that receive wastes are air (fugitive releases through leaks
and cracks and stack releases through vents, ducts, pipes, or any other confined
air stream); POTW off-site (transfers off-site to publicly-owned treatment
works); water (discharges to all receiving streams); other off-site (transfers off-
site for waste treatment and disposal); and land (releases disposed of at a
landfill or are impounded).
76 Industry-Reported Releases
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basin Industry-Reported
Releases and Transfers of all Toxic Substances
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 7. Air = release through smokestack or as fugitive emission; Water =
surface water discharge; Land = landfill disposal; POTW = transfer off-site to
publicly-owned water treatment works; Other = off-site for treatment, storage,
and/or disposal. (Source: Toxic Release Inventory (EPA 1987; 1988; 1989; 1990, 1991)
Chesapeake Bay Basin Industry-Reported
Releases and Transfers of 126 Priority Pollutants
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 8. Air = release through smokestack or as fugitive emission; Water =
surface water discharge; Land = landfill disposal; POTW = transfer off-site to
publicly-owned water treatment works; Other = off-site for treatment, storage,
and/or disposal. (Source: Toxic Release Inventory (EPA 1987; 1988; 1989; 1990,1991)
Industry-Reported Releases
77
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basin Industry-Reported
Releases and Transfers of Chesapeake Bay
Toxics of Concern
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 9. Air = release through smokestack or as fugitive emission; Water =
surface water discharge; Land = landfill disposal; POTW = transfer off-site to
publicly-owned water treatment works; Other = off-site for treatment, storage,
and/or disposal. (Source: Toxic Release Inventory (EPA 1987; 1988; 1989; 1990,1991)
Total reported releases and transfers of all TRI-reported toxic substances have
declined 47 percent from 1987 to 1991 (Figure 7). Air releases represent the
majority of toxic loadings and releases reported, accounting for 44 percent of the
releases in 1987 and 68 percent in 1991. Although the percent of air contribution
is increasing, the total amount released to the atmosphere declined 27 percent
from 1987 to 1991. Discharges to surface waters represent the smallest contribu-
tion, accounting for about 1.5 percent of the total reported releases and transfers
for 1991. Off-site transfers to treatment storage and disposal facilities and
POTWs accounted for 21 and 7 percent, respectively, of the reported 1991 total.
Releases and transfers of all reported pollutants for these two categories are
decreasing.
Priority pollutants account for about one-third of all toxic substances reported to
the TRI by Chesapeake Bay industries in 1991. Total releases and transfers
have decreased 31 percent from 1987 to 1991 with the largest reduction, 26
percent, occurring between 1989 and 1990 (Figure 8). Air releases account for
the majority of priority pollutants—40 percent of the 1987 total and 70 percent
of the 1991 total. The total amount of reported air releases has varied between
1987 and 1991 and no pattern is obvious. Discharges to surface waters represent
the smallest contribution, accounting for less than 1 percent of the total 1991
reported releases and transfers of priority pollutants. Off-site transfers to
treatment, storage and/or disposal facilities account for more than one-quarter of
the total 1991 releases and transfers.
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern account for 6 percent of all toxic substance
reported to the TRI by Chesapeake Bay industries in 1991. Total reported
releases and transfers of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern increased from 1988
78
Industry-Reported Releases
-------
to 1990 and then declined sharply in 1991 (Figure 9). Overall, total amounts
reported have decreased 15 percent from 1987 to 1991 with a 36 percent
decrease from 1990 to 1991. Off-site transfers to storage, treatment and/or
disposal facilities account for the largest percentage of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of
Concern—75 percent of the reported total in 1990 and 80 percent of the 1991
total. Toxic substances transferred to off-site treatment storage and disposal
facilities are generally-rendered inert through remedial treatment or
stabilization. Many of these facilities receive wastes from all over the country
and are not necessarily located within the Bay watershed. Off-site transfers to
POTWs represent the smallest percent contribution, accounting for less than 1
percent of the 1991 reported releases and transfers. Air and water releases have
remained fairly constant in quantity since 1987 and accounted for 7 and 3
percent, respectively, of the 1991 total reported releases and transfers of
Chesapeake Bay Toxics-'of Concern.
Uncertainty
The level of uncertainty associated with TRI-reported estimates is unknown.
The individual reporting facility develops estimates of releases and transfers of
toxic substances. Comparisons of these industry-reported surface water
discharges with NPDES-calculated loads for common toxic substances show good
agreement, strongly suggesting that TRI-reported loads to surface waters have
similar confidence levels.
There are four principal methods for estimating the release and transfer of toxic
substances reported to the TRI. These methods include monitoring data, mass
balance calculations, published emission factors, and engineering calculations or
best engineering judgement. Although the estimate may represent a
combination of these methods, the particular method used to estimate the
largest amount is specified as the method used.
Recommendations
• Analyze the TRI data set to determine the location of sites within and
outside of the Chesapeake Bay watershed receiving toxic wastes for
treatment, storage, and disposal.
• Analyze the TRI data set to identify specific toxic pollutants or facilities
that are increasing or decreasing in the amount of toxic substances
reported or released.
• Use the TRI data for surface water discharges to supplement the devel-
opment of a facility-by-facility inventory of point source toxics loads.
Industry-Reported Releases 79
-------
-------
Bailey, W., 1993, District of Columbia Department of Public Works, May 19,
1993, (personal communication).
Baker, J.E., T.M. Church, J. Ondov, J.R. Scudlark, K. Conko, and D.L. Leister,
1992, Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study. Phase I: Final Report
to Maryland Power Plant and Chesapeake Bay Research Program. Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD.
Batiuk, R., 1987, Survey of Tributyltin and Dibutyltin Concentrations at Selected
Harbors in Chesapeake Bay: Final Report. U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Boynton, W.R., S.E. Stammerjohn, J.M. Barnes, and D.A. Jasinski, 1990, A
Summary of Mean Depths, Surface Areas and Volumes of Chesapeake Bay
and Tributary Rivers. Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies,
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, MD.
Chesapeake Bay Program, 1992, Chesapeake Bay Program Data Management
Plan. U.S. EPA Region III, Philadelphia.
Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommitte and Living Resources
Subcommittee Joint Criteria and Standards Workgroup, 1991, Chesapeake
Bay Toxics of Concern List: Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy
Commitment Report. U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis,
MD.
Chesapeake Executive Council, 1988, Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics
Reduction Strategy: An Agreement Commitment Report from the Chesapeake
Executive Council. Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Chesapeake Executive Council, 1993, Directive No. 93-2, Toxics Reduction
Strategy Reevaluation, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Conn, T.A., 1988, Adjusted Maximum Likelihood Estimation of the Moments of
Lognormal Populations from Type I Censored Samples. U.S. Geological
Survey Open File Report No. 88-350.
Conn, T.A., E.J. Gilroy, and G. Baier, (in preparation), Estimating Fluvial
Transport of Trace Constituents Using a Regression Model With Data Subject
to Censoring. U.S. Geological Survey.
Department of Defense, 1987, Water Quality Assessment of DOD Installations I
Facilities in the Chesapeake Bay Region. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Baltimore, MD.
Dickhut, R.M., G. Cutter, J. Ondov, and D. Burdige, 1992, Southern Chesapeake
Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study Year 1 Report. U.S. EPA, Chesapeake
Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Emmmim, J., G. Colt, and J.J. Wind, 1989, A Prototype Toxics Loading Inventory
for Ten Counties in Southeast Virginia. American Management Systems.
Arlington, VA. GSA Contract GS-OOK-85-AFD-2777.
References
81
-------
Glotfelty, D.E., G.H. Williams, H.P. Freeman, and M.M. Leech, 1990, "Regional
-atmospheric transport and deposition of pesticides in Maryland." In: Long
Range Transport of Pesticides, D.A. Kurtz, ed. Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
Chelsea, MI, pp. 199-221.
Hannawald, J.E., 1990, Land Use for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model.
U.S. EPA, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program, Philadelphia, PA.
Local Government Advisory Committee, 1992, Local Solutions: A Local
Government Guide to Managing Household Hazardous Waste in the
Chesapeake Bay Region. U.S. EPA, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program,
Philadelphia, PA.
Maryland Department of Agriculture, 1990, Maryland Pesticide Statistics for
1988, Annapolis, MD.
Olsenholler, S.M., 1991, Annual Loading Estimates of Urban Toxic Pollutants in
the Chesapeake Bay Basin. Final Report to U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington,
DC.
Pait, A.S., A.E. De Souza, and D.R.G. Farrow, 1992, Agricultural Pesticide Use
in Coastal Areas: A National Summary. Strategic Environmental
Assessments Division, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and
Assessment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville,
MD.
Sanders, J.G., G.F. Riedel, and R.W. Osman, (no date) Arsenic Cycling and
Impact in Estuarine and Coastal Marine Ecosystems. Unpublished
manuscript.
Schueler, T.R., 1987, Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual For
Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Washington, DC: Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments.
U.S. EPA, 1989, The Toxics Release Inventory: A National Perspective, 1987. U.S.
EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Economics and Technology Division,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1983, Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program: Final Report.
U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1993, Chesapeake Bay Fall-Line Monitoring Program:
1990-1991 Results. In cooperation with the Maryland Department of the
Environment, Towson, MD.
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, 1990, Commonwealth
of Virginia Pesticide Use Estimate, Richmond, VA.
Virginia Water Control Board, 1992, Summary Report: Chesapeake Bay
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy; Virginia Point Source Toxic Loading
Inventory (Phase I). Information Bulletin 592.
82 References
-------
Virginia Water Control Board, 1991, Elizabeth River Toxics Initiative First
Biennial Progress Report 1990. Basic Data Bulletin No. 84, Virginia Water
Control Board Chesapeake Bay Office.
Wade, T.L., 1983, Bulk atmospheric deposition of hydrocarbons to lower
Chesapeake Bay. Atmos. Environ., 17, 2311-2320.
Warner, K., S.I. Hartwell, J.A. Mihursky, C.F. Zimmerman, and A. Chaney,
1992, The Lower Patapsco River /Baltimore Harbor Contaminant Data Base
Assessment Project -1991. Chesapeake Research Consortium. CRC
Publication Number 142. Solomons, MD.
Weis, J. and P. Weis, 1992, "Transfer of contaminants from CCA-treated lumber
to aquatic biota," J\Exp. Mar. Biol. EcoL, 161, 189-199.
Weis, P., J. Weis, A. Greenburg, and T. Nosker, 1992, "Toxicity of construction
materials in the marine environment: a comparison of chromated-copper-
arsenate-treated wood and recycled plastic." Arch. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol., 22, 99-106.
Weis, P., J. Weis and L. Coohill, 1991, "Toxicity to estuarine organisms of
leachate from chromated-copper-arsenate-treated wood," Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol., 20 118-124.
Williams, G.H., 1986, Field Measurement of Pesticide Washout in Rain near
Beltsville, Maryland. M.S. Thesis, University of Maryland.
Wilson, S.C., B.M. Hughes, and G.D. Rawlings, 1981, Toxic Point Source
Assessment of Industrial Discharges to the Chesapeake Bay Basin. Phase III:
Protocol Verification Study. Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio.
Wu, T.L., 1981, "Atrazine residues in estuarine water and the aerial deposition
of atrazine into Rhode River, Maryland," Water, Air, and Soil Pollut., 15,
173-184.
References 83
-------
-------
Table 1. Priority pollutants designated under Section 307(a)
of the Clean Water Act 87
Table 2. Priority dischargers by state and basin 89
Table 3. Point source toxics loads and percentage by major basin 91
Table 4. Point source toxics loads at the sub-basin scale 95
Table 5. Urban runoff toxics loads and percentage by major basin 105
Table 6. Atmospheric deposition toxics loads and
percentage by major basin 107
Table 7. Shipping toxics loads and percentage
by major basin (in gallons) Ill
Table 8. Shipping toxics loads and percentage
by major basin (in pounds) 117
Table 9. Fall line toxics loads and percentage by major basin 119
Table 10. Pesticide toxic releases and percentage by major basin 123
Table 11. Initial inventory of point source toxics loads by facility 129
Appendix 85
-------
-------
Table 1
List of Priority Pollutants
CAS#
Priority Pollutant
CAS#
Priority Pollutant
000071556 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
000079345 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
000079005 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
000075343 1,1 -Dichloroethane
000075354 1,1 -Dichloroethylene
000120821 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
000095501 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
000107062 1,2-Dichloroethane
000078875 1,2-Dichloropropane
000122667 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
000156605 1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
000541731 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
000542756 1,3-Dichloropropylene
000106467 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
001746016 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
000088062 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
000120832 2,4-Dichlorophenol
000105679 2,4-Dimethylphenol
000051285 2,4-Dinitrophenol
000112142 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
000606202 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
000110758 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
000091587 2-Chloronaphthalene
000095578 2-Chlorophenol
000534521 2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
000088755 2-Nitrophenol
000091941 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
000205992 3,4-Benzofluoranthene
000059507 3-Methyl-4-chlorophenol
000072548 4,4'-DDD
000072559 4,4'-DDE
000050293 4,4'-DDT
000101553 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
007005723 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
000100027 4-Nitrophenol
000083329 Acenaphthene
000208986 Acenaphthylene
000107028 Acrolein
000107131 Acrylonitrile
000309002 Aldrin
000319846 Alpha-BHC
000959988 Alpha-endosulfan
000120127 Anthracene
007440360 Antimony
007440382 Arsenic
001332214 Asbestos
000071432 Benzene
000092875 Benzidine
000056553 Benzo(a)anthracene
000050328 Benzo(a)pyrene
000191242 Benzo(ghi)perylene
000207089 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
007440417 Beryllium
000319857 Beta-BHC
033213659 Beta-endosulfan
000111911 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
000111444 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
000108601 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
000117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
000075252 Bromoform
000085687 Butylbenzyl phthalate
007440439 Cadmium
000056235 Carbon tetrachloride
000057749 Chlordane
000108907 Chlorobenzene
000124481 Chlorodibromomethane
000075003 Chloroethane
000067663 Chloroform
007440473 Chromium
000218019 Chrysene
007440508 Copper
000057125 Cyanide
000319868 Delta-BHC
000084742 Di-n-butyl phthalate
000117840 Di-n-octyl phthalate
000053703 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
000075274 Dichlorobromomethane
000060571 Dieldrin
Appendix
87
-------
Table 1 (continued)
List of Priority Pollutants
CAS#
Priority Pollutant
CAS#
Priority Pollutant
000084662
000131113
001031078
000072208
007421934
000100414
000206440
000086737
000058899
000076448
001024573
000118741
000087683
000077474
000067721
000193395
000078591
007439921
007439976
000074839
000074873
000075092
000621647
000062759
000086306
000091203
007440020
000098953
012671112
011104282
011141165
001336363
012672296
011097691
011096825
000087865
000085018
000108952
000129000
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Gamma-BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Lead
Mercury
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
007782492
007440224
000127184
: 007440280
000108883
008001352
000079016
000075014
007440666
Selenium
Silver
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Zinc
88
Appendix
-------
Table 2
Priority Dischargers
Facility Name State
Elkton WWTP
Salisbury WWTP
Bonded Fibers Inc.-Buena Vista
General Electric-Charlottesville
Lynchburg WWTP
Lynchburg Foundry
Modine-Buena Vista
Reynolds Metals Richmond
Solite Corp.- New Canton
Squalon Co.
Ft. Eustis-US Army trans.
Holly Farms Glen Allen
Hopewell WWTP
Narox Inc.
Richmond WWTP
Colonna's Shipyard Inc.
Navy Norfolk Shipyard
Norfolk Ship Berkeley
Norfolk Ship Brambleton
W.R. Grace & Co.
Little Patuxent WWTP
Nevamar Corp.
General Electric App Parkeast
Western Branch WWTP
Avtex Fibers Inc.-Front Royal
Genicom Corp.
Merck & Co Inc. Stonewall Plant
PEPCO Benning
Waynesboro Dept.of Utilities
Hagerstown WWTP
W.D. Byron & Sons Inc.
Westminster WWTP
Frederick City WWTP
Upper Potomac Rvr Comm.
Waynesboro WWTP
Naval Ordnance Station
Blue Plains WWTP
Springettsburg WWTP
York WWTP
Loewengart & Co Inc Mercersburg
Huntingdon WWTP
MD
MD
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
VA
VA
VA
DC
VA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
PA
MD
DC
PA
PA
PA
PA
Discharge
NPDES Type
20681
21571
4791
54607
24970
6262
2771
2861
3468
3492
25216
4031
66630
50962
63177
53813
5215
4383
4405
24775
55174
2003
1155
21741
2208
2402
2178
94
25151
21776
53431
21831
21610
21687
20621
3158
21199
26808
26263
9521
26191
Mun '
Mun
Ind
Ind
Mun
Ind :
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Mun
Ind
Mun
Ind
Mun
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Mun
Ind
Ind
Mun
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Mun
Mun
Ind
Mun
Mun
Ind
Mun
Ind
Mun
Mun
Mun
Ind
Mun
Basin
E Shore
E Shore
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
S Susq.
S Susq.
S Susq.
S Susq.
Fall Line
BFL
BFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
BFL
BFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
BFL
BFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
Sub Basin
Elk Rvr
Nanticoke
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Little Pat
Patux Rvr
Severn Rvr
West Br.
Antietam Crk
Conocoheag
Double Pip
Low Monocacy
Low North Br.
Potomac
Low Bear Crk
Up Tidal
Juniata
Juniata
Receiving Water
Big Elk Crk
Wicomico Rvr
Maury Rvr
Herring Br, N Fork-
Rivanna Rvr
James Rvr
James Rvr
Indian Gap Run
Proctor's Crk
Slate Rvr
Cattail Crk
James Rvr
Chickahominy
Gravelly Run-James Rvr
Shand Crk
James Rvr
Eastern Branch
Elizabeth Rvr
Elizabeth Rvr
Elizabeth Rvr
Little Patuxent Rvr
Little Patuxent Rvr,
Deep Run, trib
Picture Sprg Br
Little Patuxent Rvr
W Br. Patuxent Rvr
S. Fork Shndoah
South Rvr
S. Fork Shndoah
Anacostia Rvr
South Rvr, Sec. 3
Shndoah Rvr
Antietam Crk
Conococheague Crk
Little Pipe Crk
Monocacy Rvr, Carroll
Crk
N Br. Potomac Rvr
E Branch Little
Antietam Crk
Potomac
Potomac, Anacostia, &
Piney Rvrs
Codorus Crk
Codorus Crk
Steigers Run
Juniata Rvr
Appendix
89
-------
Facility Name State
Armstrong World Industries
Letterkenny Army Depot
Manheim WWTP
New Freedom WWTP
Penn Township WWTP
PH Glatfelter Co.-waste treat
United Piece Dye Works
Mountaintop Area WWTP
Pennsylvania Electric Co.
Westfield Tanning Co.
Signode Supply Corp.
Crown Central Petroleum Corp.
Raymond Metal Products Co.
BG&E Westport
GM Corp.-electro-motive
Baltimore Gas & Electric-Rvr
Hawkins Point Hazardous Waste
GM Assembly Div. Bait. Plant
Patuxent WWTP
Consolidation Coal Sales Co.
Sod Run WWTP
Curtis Bay Co.
WR Grace Davison Chem. Div.
Chesapeake Park Inc.
Congoleum Ind. Inc. - Cedarhurst
Bethlehem Steel
Bethlehem Steel - tanker clean.
Adell Plastics, Inc.
BG&E Gould Street
Valspar Corp.
Broadneck WWTP
Annapolis WWTP
Chemetals Corp.
Central Oil Asphalt Corp.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
Lever Brothers Co.-Balt Plant
SCM Corp.
SCM Corp.
Shell Oil Co. Wagners Point
Universal Foods Corp.
Exxon Corp. - Boston Str
Mobay Corp.
Petroleum Fuel and Terminal Co.
Eastern Stainless Steel Co.
BG&E Wagner
Patapsco WWTP
Back Rvr WWTP
Town of Aberdeen WWTP
Anchor Hocking Corp.
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
Table 2 (continued)
Discharge
NPDES Type Basin Fall Line
8761
10502
20893
43257
37150
8869
9172
45985
10031
8800
3191
50814
24147
1473
1287
1481
61417
1163
21652
55824
21709
57371
311
2852
1384
1201
2275
57061
1490
990
21644
21814
1775
52809
1449
1627
1261
1279
744
3298
604
1252
57673
981
1503
21601
21555
21563
1414
Ind
Ind
Mun'-
Mun
Mun
Ind
Ind
Mun
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Mun
Ind
Mun
Ind
Ind
Ind
Mun
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Mun
Mun
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Ind
Mun
Mun
Mun
Ind
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
S Susq.
S Susq.
S Susq.
S Susq.
S Susq.
S Susq.
S Susq.
S Susq.
S Susq.
S Susq.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
Chesap.
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
Sub Basin
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
North Br.
West Br.
W. Br.
Bait. Harb
Curtis Bay
Low Bear Crk.
Low Mid Br.
Low N. Br.
Mid Harbor
Mid Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Patux Rvr.
Bush Rvr
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Gunpowder
Liberty Res
Low Bear Crk.
Low Bear Crk.
Low Mid Br
Low Mid Br
Low Mid Br
Low Ches
Low Ches
Mar. Furn.
Mid Harbor
Mid Harbor
Mid Harbor
Mid Harbor
Mid Harbor
Mid Harbor
Mid Harbor
NW Branch
NW Branch
NW Branch
Old Bay Rd
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Patapsco
Swan Crk
Up Mid Br.
Receiving Water
Susquehanna Rvr
Chickies Crk
S Br Codorus Crk
Oil Crk
Codorus Crk
Susquehanna Rvr
Big Wapwallopen Crk
W Br Susq Rvr
Cowanesque Rvr
Bear Crk trib
Cabin Crk
Bear Crk
Patapsco Rvr
Herbert Run
Patapsco Rvr
Thomas Cove
Colgate Crk
Little Patuxent Rvr
Janney Run/city stm
drain/Patapsco
Romney Crk
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Con Pen Crk
N. Br. Patapsco
Baltimore Harbor
Patapsco Rvr
Unnamed trib-Patap
Patapsco Rvr
Patapsco Rvr
Chesapeake Bay
Severn Rvr.
Arundel Cove
Patapsco Rvr.
Patapsco Rvr
Patapsco Rvr
Patapsco Rvr
Colgate Crk
Patapsco Rvr
Colgate Crk
NW Harbor
Patapsco Rvr
Rvr
NW Br Patapsco Rvr
Back Rvr trib
Patapsco Rvr
Patapsco Rvr
Back Rvr
Unnamed trib-Swan
Middle Br Patapsco
Crk
Rvr
90
Appendix
-------
CO
CO
.o
_
"co
CD
CD
CD
O
CD
Q.
T3
CO
CO
CO
CO
O
"x
o
CD
O
CO
"E
£
CO
JK
TJ
i
Ida % ujseg aaoiis ujajsea
.- IdV % UJSBB aj°MS uiajseg
Ida % u;seg saiuer
IdV % uiseg satuep
Ida % uiseg )|JOA
IdV % uiseg )|JOA
Id8 % ujseg >|oouuBi|BddBU
IdV % u;seg ^oouuegeddey
IdS % u^eg oetuoiod
IdV % uiseg oeiuojod
Ida % ujseg juaxnjBd
IdV % u;seg juaxniBd
Ida % uiseg a>|BadBsaMO ~M
IdV % ujseg a^eadesago -/ft
Ida % uiseg BUUBijanbsns
IdV % u;seg euueganbsns
sll«f
MU!
ED "^ '
.^1
X -e
o _
^£
« i
go g
- 5
Chemical Name
by Category
w>
i
1
i-
o
^
z
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
i
s
o
o
CM
in"
| Aluminum (fume or dust)
o
<:
z
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
1
o
o
!•-.
>-,
c
o
'.£=
5
o
i
£
m
0
o
o
r-
0
oo
CM
0
8
*-
<
z
o
o
«
CM
.a
i
<
0
i
O
O
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
i
o
o
m
CM
I
•n
CO
CD
o
i
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
i
0
o
o
in
csf
|
1-
&
0
i
-
CM
CM
CS
O
o
o
f~'
o
o
o
5
r-.
i
-
o
o
•^•
CM"
-
| Cadmium
o
i
CM
OJ
•«*•
O
o
o
-
o
CO
-
o
en
in
o
i
-
o
o
o
oo"
-
| Chromium
o
i
o
o
o
o
CD
O
CO
r~.
CM
o
o
0
o
i
-
o
o
co"
| Chromium, Hexavalent
o
^
z
r-
•
T
0
i
-
8
o
r-"
*-
•o
(O
CO
_l
o
^
z
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
i
o
CD
§
CM
| Manganese
o
i
•*!•
'v
o
o
o
o
-
CD
o
-
!--
r*-
o
1
o
s
CO
-
&•
o
CO
o
i
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
<
z
o
o
§
[ Molybdenum
o
<:
z
CM
CO
o
o
o
0
o
CO
CM
0
s
o
1
•»—
o
3
J?
"53
.*:
.S2
z
0
^
z
oo
-
0
o
o
0
CD
c-
o
0
§3
••-
i
o
§
| Selenium
in
i
t-~.
r-
o
o
o
0
-
•«*•
O
0
in
•«*
o
i
-
§
1
CD
0
i
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
i
o
CM
E
To
.c
o
i
o
CM
o
0
o
o
m
CM
-
o
o
in
o
i
o
t
CO
[ Zinc (fume or dust)
| Other Inorganics:
o
i
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
i
o
o
g
o>
| Ammonium
o
^
z
o
0
o
0
0
o
0
o
o
o
0
0
o
^
z
o
o
8
o>
£=
•=
.0
6
o
<
z
•*1-
-
o
0
o
o
CM
o>
o
0
s
o
i
o
a
o>
•o
'c
CO
>,
o
Appendix
91
-------
co
CO
.0
1_
o
"5T
E
>.
-Q
CD
D>
«J
CD
O
d>
Q.
CO
CO
T3
CO
_O
CO
O
"x
Q)
O
O
CO
CO
O)
x
T3
I.
CL
"Ida % ujssa ajoqs luaissg
IdV % wsBa ajoijs UJ8JSB3
Ida % uisea sauiBp
1dV % wsBg sauiBp
Ida % ujsea >|JOA
"IdV % wsea 5MOA
Ida % U!SB8 )|30uuBi|BddBy
IdV % U|sea )|OOuuBijBddBU
"Ida % UjSBg OBUIO)Od
IdV % WSBg OBlUOJOd
Ida % uisBg )uaxn}Bd
UV % U|SBg juaxnjBd
Ida % ujssg a>|BadBsau.o •&
IdV % USSBB 8)|BadBsano •&
Ida % ufssg BUUBijanbsns
IdV % uiseg BUUBqanbsns
•S— "3"
fl
£1
12 °l
Chemical Name
by Category
er Inorganics (continued):
§
o
i
CD
O
O
O
CD
0
O
0
o
0
o
0
1
8
8
CD
CD
CD
1
U.
0
i
CD
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
CD
0
CD
0
1
8
CO
CO
CO
X
CD
I
CD
CD
O
O
O
0
0
0
CD
0
8
o
i
o
I
cenaphthylene
<
CD
i
8
CD
O
O
o
CD
0
0
CD
0
O
O
1
O
M
<
CD
1
S
CD
CD
O
CD
0
0
0
CD
0
CM
CM
0
i
CD
8
-
enzo(a)pyrene
CD
0
i
8
o
CD
O
O
O
O
O
0
o
o
o
1
0
CO
-
CD
c
CO
.£Z
O
o
i
8
o
CD
O
0
0
CD
0
o
CD
O
0
i
CD
S
-
uoranthene
U.
o
i
CO
o>
0
o
CD
0
0
O
0
o
CD
CM
0
i
0
0>
in
uorene
U-
CD
i
CD
0
0
CD
O
0
O
0
O
O
8
0
i
o
§•
-
aphthalene
z
o
i
8
CD
O
O
CD
O
0
CD
O
0
o
o
i
o
en
c.
CD
>•.
O-
i
to
o>
O
5
CD
i
-
-
o
CD
O
O
O
CM
O
CD
CO
O
i
0
1
CD
"CD
2
2
if
°
i
o
0
0
CD
0
0
O
0
CD
O
8
0
i
CD
r-
1 -Dichloroethane
CD
i
CD
O
CD
O
0
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
O
0
0
i
CD
CO
in
2-Dichlorobenzene
0
1
8
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
i
o
CO
3-Dichlorobenzene
CD
i
§
CD
O
CD
O
CD
CD
CM
0
CD
CD
CD
i
0
8
CO
CM"
4-Dichlrobenzene
CD
i
O
0
CD
CD
O
CD
0
O
0
0
o
o
o
i
0
o
XI
4-Dichlorophenol
CM
O
i
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
0
CD
0
0
CD
CD
O
i
0
in
o>
4-Dimethylphenol
CM
CD
i
O
CD
O
CD
O
O
^
S
O
o
0
0
i
o
o
8.
CO
i
CD
i
^
o
CD
CD
O
CD
O
"*
CD
0
in
o>
o
i
0
t—
enzene
m
o
i
o
CM
O
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
0
CO
O5
O
1
0
s
romodlchloromethane
CD
o
i
0
CD
O
CD
CD
CD
O
0
O
CD
O
CD
i
I
f-.
utoxyethoxyethanol
m
11
(O p
t/j
"o
I
S~
Q
O
8
ct
m
1
Q_
O)
g
X
Review comments at end of table to
interpret these data correctly.
1
92
Appendix
-------
CO
co
JO
o
"co
E
CD
Dl
|oouueu.eddea
IdV % ujseg )|oouueqeddeu
Ida % ujseg oewoiod
IdV % "|SBg OBUIOJOd
Ida % u!$eg )uaxn}Ed
IdV % wseg juaxnjBd
Ida % u|seg aipadesaio *M
IdV % ujseg ajjeadesaqo "M
Ida % uiseg euueifanbsns
IdV % "peg BUUBijanbsns
l|||f
fl
_o 3
o 5
2*|
Chemical Name
by Category
Other Organics (cont.):
CD
1
0
CD
O
CD
O
O
CD
O
o
o
0
0
z
8
CO
| Carbon Tetrachloride
o
i
r-
co
0
CD
CD
CD
O
0
O
o
o
CO
0
z
o
f-
| Chlorobenzene
CD
CM
[ Hydroquinone
0
i
CD
O
O
CD
CD
O
O
o
0
CD
O
0
O
1
CD
O
| Isophorone
0
i
CD
O
O
CD
CD
CD
0
O
O
0
o
o
o
i
CD
O
| N-Nitrosodimethylamine
CD
Z
f-
o
CD
O
CD
-
CD
0
CD
0
CM
O
i
CO
CD
O
CD
CM"
CM
"o
c
CO
CD
1
o
0
o
CD
O
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
O
i
CD
CD
CM
| Phenolics
o
i
&
0
o
CD
CD
CD
O
•*~
O
CD
O
O
1
0
CD
O5
CO
| Tetrachloroethylene
0
i
CD
-
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
—
0
CD
8
o
i
o
8
CD_
CO
1
•2
CD
i
0
CD
0
O
CD
O
O
0
CD
O
CD
0
i
O
CD
Ul
-------
CO
CD
co
o>
D)
CD
O
CD
O.
-o
CO
CO
CO
_p
to
o
"x
o
8
o
CO
"o
Q_
CO
^s
J<
•o
0)
Q.
Q.
IdB % u;seg aioqs luaiseg
IdV % uiseg aioiis ujajsea
Ida % ujseg sauiep
IdV % wseg sauiBp
Ida % uiseg JJJOA.
IdV % uiseg JIJOA
Ida % u;seg )|oouuei|eddey
IdV % uiseg )|oouuBU.BddBU
IdQ % u^eg oeuiojod
IdV % U!SBB oeuioiOjj
Ida % UISBB »uaxn»Bd
IdV % ugseg »uaxnjBd
Ida % uissg %|B3dBsai|3 •&
IdV % u|SBg 9)|BadBsaio *M
Ida % "|SBg BUUBijanbsns
"IdV % Ujssg BUUBijanbsns
ill!!
m —
*i
o 3
*§.
**l
Chemical Name
by Category
| Pesticides:
0
i
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
0
1
o
o
*
CM
c
•c
T3
<
O
1
0
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
I
i
o
o
8
o
c\r
*
| BHC-Gamma (Lindane)
o
1
8
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
1
o
o
"v
*
| Chlordane
Ill
£ co '0
£* I
° 5 E
IH!
_ « 2
£ "o To
5 £
8- S
£ -§
J I
CO "~
•IS
"Eg™
|s!
£ i*
^ '« s,
m ir; >-r
i ^ -I
OJ C 3
E C O
"i '§."§
-Q •- n:
1 S I
= 1 1
« .E CO
cx T: *
in £ c
— ^j ™
111
o o S
u u g
S ^
3
E
!2
CD
1
15
J2
CD
1
S 1 £ 6
O «S
£ €
Q. «
£ CD
.£ co
O CO
i 1
~ . tz S
CO O CO
CD O S
Sol
•o u co
2 'S -
J ± I
O> CTI
-------
Basin
Table 4
Point Source Toxics Loads at the Sub-basin Scale
Fall Line Sub Basin State Facility Name .Chemical Name
Annual Load (Ibs)
E Shore
E Shore
E Shore
E Shore
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabet
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
MD
MD
MD
MD
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Zinc
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Aldrin
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cadmium
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Dichlorobromomethane
Lead
Mercury
Methylene chloride
Nickel
Phenol
Selenium
Silver
Silver
Toluene
Zinc
Anthracene
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cadmium
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Cthylbenzene
Fluorene
Lead
Methylene chloride
Nickel
Phenol
Selenium
Toluene
Trichloroethene(-ylene)
Zinc
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Arsenic
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium
Chlorobenzene
95
0
65
762
6
1
96
56
519
917
768
2,714
202
68
1,805
1
172
1,203
32
7
170
34
2
6,173
1
6
15
1
7
56
100
25
16
5
53
35
41
47
1
2
2
202
77
58
31
2,531
472
75
26
14
Appendix
95
-------
Basin
Fall Line Sub Basin
Table 4 (continued)
State Facility Name Chemical Name
Annual Load (Ibs)
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AF
AFL
AFL
Little Patux
Little Patux
Little Patux
Little Patux
Little Patux
Little Patux
Little Patux
Little Patux
Little Patux
Conoccheague
Low N Br.
Low N Br.
Low N Br.
Low N Br.
Low N Br.
Potomac
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
PA Waynesboro
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
Chromium
Chromium, hex-val
Chrysene
Copper
Cyanide
Dichlorobromomethane
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Lead
Mercury
Methylene chloride
Nickel
Phenol
Pyrene
Selenium
Silver
Tetrachloroethene(-ylene)
Toluene
Trichloroethene(-ylene)
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene)
Zinc
Copper
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Chromium
Copper
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Methylene chloride
Nickel
Trichloroethylene
Zinc
Arsenic
Arsenic
Copper
Copper
Nickel
Nickel
Zinc
Zinc
Chromium
Chloroform
Chromium
Cyanide
Dioxin
Zinc
Chlorine
1,450
3,906
1
16
12,638
1,214
1
53
52
1,276
26
19
4,740
15,497
97
83
210
878
14
2
3
37,322
204
106
87
7
1
23
103
26
36
1
595
2
111
42
42
52
52
32
32
867
867
827
1,295
617
555
0
23,436
1,881
96
Appendix
-------
Basin
Table 4 (continued)
Fall Line Sub Basin State Facility Name Chemical Name
Annual Load (Ibs)
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
AFL Potomac
AFL Potomac
AFL Potomac
AFL Potomac
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
PA Waynesboro
PA Waynesboro
PA Waynesboro
PA Waynesboro
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
VA
VA
Copper
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Zinc
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Chromium, total
Chromium, total
Chromium, total
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
55
27,668
27,668
111
31
31
25
21
9
25
21
9
90
81
90
81
504
287
504
287
22
258
56
22
258
56
34
4
34
4
758
172
93
758
172
93
40
9
40
9
53
24
53
24
1,142
561
1,142
561
371
40
Appendix
97
-------
Table 4 (continued)
Basin
Fall Line Sub Basin State Facility Name Chemical Name
Annual Load (Ibs)
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Rappahannock
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
AFL
Up tidal
Up tidal
Up tidal
Up tidal
Up tidal
Up tidal
Up tidal
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
Mid Potomac
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
DC Blue Plains
DC Blue Plains
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
VA
Arsenic
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cadmium
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Ethylbenzene
Lead
Mercury
Methylene chloride
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tetrachloroethene(-ylene)
Toluene
Trichloroethene(-ylene)
Zinc
Acetone
Ammonia
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium, hexavalent
Cyanide
Diethanolamine
Hydroquinone
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium, hexavalent
Blue Plains Copper
Blue Plains Iron
Blue Plains Lead
Blue Plains Mercury
Blue Plains Zinc
Acetone
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Methylene chloride
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Trichloroethylene
Zinc
Arsenic
45
82
222
180
49
705
1,176
2,259
104
1,470
2
307
342
26
88
13
97
273
19,004
1000
9673
250
250
642
321
250
250
250
163
2412
25885
324070
3182
72
97710
40
8
2
53
435
622
219
2
0
44
2
6
357
184
129
98
Appendix
-------
Basin
Table 4 (continued)
Fall Line Sub Basin State Facility Name Chemical Name
Annual Load (Ibs)
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
Juniata
Juniata
Juniata
Juniata
Juniata
Juniata
Juniata
Juniata
Juniata
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
VA
VA
VA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Huntington
Huntington
Huntington
Loewengart & Co.
Loewengart & Co.
Loewengart & Co.
Loewengart & Co.
Loewengart & Co.
Loewengart & Co.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
PH Gladfelter
PH Gladfelter
Armstrong World
Armstrong World
Armstrong World
Armstrong World
Armstrong World
Chloe Textiles
Chloe Textiles
Chloe Textiles
LetterkennyArmy
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
• Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Manheim
Manheim
Manheim
New Freedom
New Freedom
New Freedom
New Freedom
Chromium
Copper
Phenol
Cadmium
Copper
Zinc
Chromium
Chromium, hexavalent
Lead
Nickel
Phenol
Phenolics
Aluminum
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Chloroform
Phenol
Chloroform
Chromium
Molybdenum
Silver
Triethylamine
Formaldehyde
Fhenol
Sulfide
Butoxyethoxyethanol
Cadmium
Chloroform
Chromium
Chromium, hexavalent
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Methylchloride
Methylene chloride
Nickel
Total Toxic Organics
Zinc
Copper
Phenol
Phenolics
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Lead
210
92
16
3
108
215
89
4
32
19
21
4
281
3
4
3
299
1
7
89
1,095
365
2
3
40
9
152
78
124
93
17
7
1
17
3
15
4
11
10
366
7
57
27
103
26
38
241
134
428
107
Appendix
99
-------
Basin
Table 4 (continued)
Fall Line Sub Basin State Facility Name Chemical Name
Annual Load (Ibs)
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
AFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Mainstem
Sus North Br.
Sus North Br.
Sus North Br.
Sus North Br.
Sus North Br.
Sus West Br.
Sus West Br.
Sus West Br.
Sus West Br.
Sus West Br.
Sus West Br.
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Liberty Rese
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
New Freedom
New Freedom
New Freedom
New Freedom
Penn Township
Penn Township
Penn Township
Penn Township
Penn Township
Penn Township
Penn Township
Penn Township
Penn Township
mountaintop
mountaintop
mountaintop
mountaintop
mountaintop
westfield tanning
westfield tanning
Penn Elec Co.
Penn Elec Co.
Penn Elec Co.
Penn Elec Co.
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium, hexavalent
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Fluoride
Lead
Tetrachloroethylene
Chromium
Phenol
Aluminum
Beryllium
Iron
Manganese
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chloroform
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Antimony
Arsenic
107
1
107
134
16
26
21
105
16
52
105
5
418
3
32
29,866
25
4
15
38
4,649
1
803
169
27
407
165
1
4
12
1
2
1
2
9
3
12
24
2
119
1
86
58
1
39
823
2
553
153
68
100
Appendix
-------
Table 4 (continued)
Basin
Fall Line Sub Basin State Facility Name Chemical Name
Annual Load (Ibs)
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Low Bear Cr.
Low Bear Cr.
Low Bear Cr.
Low Bear Cr.
Low Bear Cr.
Low Bear Cr.
Low Bear Cr.
Low Bear Cr.
Low Bear Cr.
Low Bear Cr.
Low Bear Cr.
Low Bear Cr.
Low Bear Cr.
Low Mid Br.
Low Mid Br.
Low Mid Br
Low Mid Br.
Low Mid Br.
Low Mid Br.
Low Mid Br.
Low Mid Br.
Low Mid Br.
Low Mid Br.
Low Mid Br.
Low Mid Br.
Marley Fur C
Mariey Fur C
Marley Fur C
Marley Fur C
Marley Fur C
Marley Fur C
Marley Fur C
Marley Fur C
Marley Fur C
Marley Fur C
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
Benzene
Cadmium
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Naphthalene
Nickel
Phenol
Silver
Toluene
Zinc
Bhc-gamma (lindane)
Cadmium
Chloroform
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Lead
Naphthalene
Nickel
Phenol
Zinc
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Mercury
Nickel
Phenol
Zinc
13
1
2
4
148
445
224
6
111
111
188
89
4
16
591
1,993
91
1,186
268
2,690
591
13,651
1,993
94
909
4,453
759
24,711
672
391
1,106
5
4
297
3
14
19
1
3
515
7
7
4
61
0
32
2
113
65
47
Appendix
101
-------
Table 4 (continued)
Basin
Fail Line Sub Basin State Facility Name Chemical Name
Annual Load (Ibs)
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Mid. Harbor
Middle River
Middle River
Middle River
Middle River
Middle River
N.W. Branch
N.W. Branch
N.W. Branch
N.W. Branch
N.W. Branch
N.W. Branch
N.W. Branch
N.W. Branch
N.W. Branch
N.W. Branch
N.W. Branch
N.W. Branch
Old Bay Rd
Old Bay Rd
Old Bay Rd
Old Bay Rd
Old Bay Rd
Old Bay Rd
Old Bay Rd
Old Bay Rd
Old Bay Rd
Old Bay Rd
Old Bay Rd
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
Antimony
Arsenic
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Cadmium
Chloroform
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dibromochloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Phenol
Selenium
Toluene
Zinc
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Selenium
Zinc
Antimony
Arsenic
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Phenol
Toluene
Zinc
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Lead
Naphthalene
Nickel
1
17
1
3
1,613
1
57
3
5,256
11,206
9
7
5
273
1
11
14
4,088
1,299
32
2,088
4,307
72
2
17
272
51
10
17
117
4,453
1
6
33
59
9
8
291
133
95
1,219
489
2,183
6,242
7,373
44,895
15,586
1,891
365
17,082
102
Appendix
-------
Basin
Table 4 (continued)
Fall Line Sub Basin State Facility Name Chemical Name
Annual Load (Ibs)
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
Old Bay Rd
Old Bay Rd
Old Bay Rd
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Severn Riv.
Severn Riv.
Severn Riv.
Severn Riv.
Up Mid. Br.
Up Mid. Br.
Up Mid. Br.
Up Mid. Br.
Up Mid. Br.
Up Mid. Br.
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
Phenol
Selenium
Zinc
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Acenaphthylene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Bromodichloromethane
Cadmium
Chloroform
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dibromochloromethane
Lead
Methylene chloride
Nickel
Phenol
Selenium
Toluene
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Beryllium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Chromium, total
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
1,778
212
127,750
704
102
21
6
73
555
489
5,694
21,061
3,179
0
5,475
20
4,088
1,854
325
8,760
8,724
12
81
69
115
5
2
0
29
0
2
155
155
246
246
2,300
2,300
150
2,382
145
300
2,457
2,457
646
278
206
206
1,568
516
516
Appendix
103
-------
Table 4 (continued)
Basin . Fall Line Sub Basin State Facility Name Chemical Name Annual Load (Ibs)
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
W Chesap
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
BFL
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
Silver
Silver
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
541
541
17,320
289
15,258
289
15,258
104 Appendix
-------
c
"co
co
-Q
O
'co
E
.a
CD
05
S
CD
O
CD
0.
-o
CO
CO
CO
_O
CO
§
"o
c
co
-S
in
.SJ
,5
c
0>
Q.
a.
•HO % U;SBS MOMS uja»SB3
IdV % UlSBg d-IOlfS UJ9JSB3
Ida % ujSBg sauiBp
IdV % UjSBg sauiBp
lde%u!s*a)MOA
IdV % UjSBg )|K>A
Ida % UjSBg >|OOUUBU.BddBU
IdV % ujSBg >|oouueijBddBU
Ida % UjSBg 3BUIO)Od
IdV % ujseg OBiuoiod
Ida % uisBg )uaxn)Bd
IdV % ujSBg iiiaxniBd
Ida % UjSBg 8)|B8dBS8lO 'M
IdV % UjSBg 8)|B8dBS8U,0 'M
Ida % ujSBg BuuBijanbsns
IdV % ujSBg Buuei|anbsns
•2 To "*"
?M ^ 3 fR C
15 £ £ 0 3
«8 < °
ill
o
Chemical Name
by Category
| Trace Metals:
z
co
CO
o
in
CO
CM
CO
Z
1
co1
o
8
CO
o
<
i
CO
CO
o
in
CO
CM
CO
1
1
CO
o
8
fe
CM
O
'c
i
co
CO
0
in
CO
CM
CO
i
1
8!
8
o
en
T—
m
1
co
CO
o
in
CO
CM
CO
1
1
CO
o
o
o
Tf
| Cadmium
i
co.
CO
o
in
CO
CM
CO
i
i
CO
8
CM
CO
| Chromium
i
CD
CO
,
O
in
CO
CM
CO
i
i
CO
o
8
CM
CO
O
i
CO
CO
0
in
CO
CM
CO
i
i
CO
o
8
*
"8
CD
i
CO
CO
0
in
CO
CM
CO
z
i
Si
o
o
CO
CM
1
1
CD
CO
o
in
CO
CM
CO
i
i
§>!
8
o
o
CD
"53
z
i
CD
CO
o
in
CO
CM
CD
i
1
CM
CO
8
CD
o
o>
CM
| Selenium
i
r-
co
CO
CD
in
CO
CM
CD
1
i
s
8
in
CO
E
"c5
i
r--
co
CO
o
in
CO
CM
CO
1
1
CM
CO
8
8
CM
.s
Nl
(O
1
CO
i
in
CO
CO
o
o
CM
f-
CM
CO
CM
i
i
S3
o
| 1-Methylnapththalene
CO
i
in
CO
CO
o
o
CM
^
CM
CO'
CM
i
i
^
o
9
| 2-Ethylnapththalene
CO
z
in
co
CO
o
o
CM
r--
CM
CO
CM
i
i
z
o
| 2-Methylnapththalene
CO
z
in
CO
CO
o
o
CM
^
CM
CO
CM
i
i
S3
o
| Benzo(e)pyrene
CO
i
in
CO
CO
o
o
CM
r-.
CM
CO
CM
i
i
S3
o
-
| Benzo(a)pyrene
CO
i
in
CO
CO
o
0
CM
f-
CM
CO
CM
i
i
S3
CO
-
| Benz(a)anthracene
CO
z
in
CO
CO
o
0
CM
-
CM
CO
CM
i
i
S3
o
o
o
-
CO
c
CO
I
CO
I
in
CO
CO
o
o
CM
f-.
CM
CO
CM
Z"
i
S3
o
8.
| Dibenzothiophene
CO
i
in
co
CO
o
o
CM
-
CM
CO
CM
Z
1
S3
o
o
in
-
CO
c:
re
o
C
CO
i
in
co
CO
0
o
CM
N-
CM
CO
CM
i
i
S3
§
| Fluorene
~
a
ra
2
(X
§
in
-o
-------
CO
co
.o
o
"to"
E
(D
O)
CD
CD
O.
CO
CO
co
_0
(O
o
o
c.
CO
JO
in
CO
«D
QL
Q.
Ida % uiseg aioijs ujajseg
IdV % ujseg ajoiis ujajseg
IdS % uiseg sauiep
IdV % uiseg sauiep
IdS % uisea IWA
IdV % ujseg )|JOA
IdQ % uiseg i(3ouuei|edM
IdS % uiseg euueuanbsns
IdV % u;seg euueuanbsns
"6 •= "S"
31 fS =
•2-iJ.s §
CO < Q.
m — '
sll
UJ ~ =
°-i£
1*2*1
o
Chemical Name
by Category
«0
1
CO
i
in
CO
CO
o
0
CM
Is-
CM
CO
f-
CM
I
i
s
§
*
-
CD
c
CD
CO
t
ce
i
LO
CO
CO
o
0
CM
r-
CVJ
CO
Is-
CM
1
i
8
I
*
o>
1
CO
tz
CD
Q.
CO
i
m
CO
CO
o
o
CM
I--
CM
CO
r-
-
r--
eo
.^
CO
CO
CM
CM
i
i
CM
CO
8
o
•*r
| Total Hydrocarbons-Particulate
Ti-
i
r~-
co
CO
o
in
CO
CM
CO
1
i
c^
8
o
8
CM
m"
| Total Hydrocarbons-Soluble
| Other Inorganics:
•*
i
r--
co
CO
*-
-
-
0
in
CO
CM
CO
1
1
8
o
CO
*
1
t
O
:snoauB||aosiw |
CO
i
in
CO
co
-
o
0
CM
r^-
CM
CO
h-
CM
i
i
s?
8
o
o"
in
•^-
I
m
ti
U> O
£ '-5
o-S
"TO
e
CD
o
15
I
II 8
I 1
TO £
.2
in
T3
(U
ll I
*= » § s
•s 5 B -l
51 I |
« S 5 g
1
"JS
I
9
I
^
I'll I Hi
*•* ro ^^ ~o o UJ
E M.
«1 CO
1
o
I
-z
-
S. -^ izr fO W CD 7%
•§
TD
1
8
o
CO
1 »
^ «0
Q_ CO
fl
S CD m "S
S C c °
*- S 5 O
« £ J2 t,
2 — - e?
?%- ® i CJQ
.. 5 £ «
-------
CO
CO
.Q
O
'to
D3
CD
CD
CL
•D
to
•8
to
.o
"x
2
.0
'55
o
Q.
CD
T3
CD
Q.
co
O
(0
Q.
Q.
IdS % UI8)SUJBH
IdS % uiseg 9Joi|s ujajssg
IdV % U|SBg 8JOIJS UJaiSeg
IdS % uissg sauiep
IdV % UJSBS saiuBp
IdS % U;SBS )HOA
IdV % UISBQ >|JOA
IdS % U.ISBg )|30UUBl)BddBU
IdV % uiSBg )|oouuBMBddea
IdS % UjSBg 9BU10)0(]
IdV % ujsBg oetuoiod
IdS % UJSBS juaxniBd
IdV % U|SBg juaxnjBd
IdS % u;sBg a)|BadBsai|o 'M
IdS % ujSBg BuuBijanbsns
IdV % u;sBg BUUBiianbsns
_«_ w^
||
|2 §
o
Chemical Name
by Category
in
ta
»
8
2
m
CO
CO
i
CO
i
CNJ
i
Z
i
CM
1
i
O
O
o
1
erf
| Aluminum
in
CO
co
i
CO
Z
CM
Z
i
i
CM
i
i
8
CO
CO
CM
CU
52
S
CO
1
co
i
CM
Z
1
i
CM
i
i
8
r-
CM
-
| Cadmium
in
CO
CO
1
CO
z
CM
i
1
i
CM
i
1
8
r--
*-
| Chromium
8
CO
i
co
S
CM
Z
i
i
CM
i
i
8
o
CM
-
s.
Q.
O
0
in
CO
CD
i
CD
Z
CM
i
i
i
CM
i
i
o
o
o
o
o
c.
o
in
CO
CD
Z
CO
Z
CM
Z
1
i
CM
i
1
8
o
0
"-
TJ
CO
3
m
CO
co
1
CO
Z
CM
i
z^
i
CM
i
Z^
8
o
CO
1
co
CO
in
CO
CO
1
co
Z
CM
Z
z
1
CM
i
Z
8
o
CM
1
O
Z
S
CD
Z
CO
Z
CM
Z
i
i
CM
1
1
1
| Selenium
S
CO
z
CO
z
CM
Z
1
i
CM
i
i
8
en
CM
CJ
R
(O
Q.
£
CO
1
CO
i
CM
1
-
Z^
i
CM
1
V
i
o
CO
| Anthracene
in
CO
co
Z
CD
1
CM
i
i
1
CM
1
V
i
1
T—
| Benzo(a)anthracene
in
CD
CO
i
CD
i
CM
Z
z
i
CM
1
V
i
8
CM
*-
| Benzo(a)pyrene
in
CD
CD
i
co
i
CM
1
1
1
CM
i
V
z
o
8.
| Benzo(b)fluoranthene
m
CO
co
i
CO
i
CM
i
i
i
CM
i
i
8
| Benzo(e)pyrene
in
CO
co
Z
CO
1
CM
i
1
Z
CM
Z
1
O
LO
| Benzo(ghi)perylene
CO
CO
z
CO
i
CM
i
i
i
CM
Z
i
o
CO
| Benzo(k)fluoranthene
in
CO
CO
1
CO
1
CM
Z
1
i
CM
Z'
i
o
"-
I
6
in
CO
CO
i
CD
i
CM
i
i
i
CM
Z
i
8
| Dibenz(ah)anthracene
in
CO
CO
1
CO
1
CM
Z
z.
1
CM
1
i
1
T— •
-
| Fluoranthene
CO
co
i
CD
i
CM
i
I
i
CM
i
i
8
CM
| Fluorene
Appendix
-------
Appendix Table 6: Atmospheric deposition toxic loads and percentage by major basin
Ida % uiaisuiew
Id8 % ujseg ajoiis ujajseg
IdV % wseg woqs ujajseg
IdS % U!SB8 saiuep
IdV % u|seg saiuep
Ida % uiseg )|JOA
IdV % "iseg )|JOA
IdS % u|seg >|oouueijeddeH
IdV % ujseg >|oouueu.eddeu
US % ugseg oeiuoiod
IdV % ujseg OBUIOIOJ
Ida «/„ uiseg juaxniEd
TdV % "iseg juaxnjBd
Ida % uiseg 9>|eades9u.o >M
Ida % uiseg euueijanbsns
IdV % ujseg euueqanbsns
sf l«f
MI3J
m —
*l
s s
*£
H
Chemical Name
by Category
| PAHs (continued):
in
CO
CO
<
CO
1
CM
<
Z
i
1
CM
i
V
i
s
•«s-
•K
O>
§
5,
Ji
TJ
O
CO
CM
_c
£
CO
1
CO
i
CM
1
i
i
CM
1
V
i
O
£
*
| Phenanthrene
in
CO
CO
i
CO
i
CM
i
^
z
1
CM
1
V
i
8
co_
*
CD
I
M
i
in
CD
CD
<
Z
CD
1
CM
<:
1
1
CM
i
V
i
r--
| Heptachlorobiphenyls
in
CD
CO
^
Z
CO
i
CM
i
<
Z
i
CM
<
Z
V
i
in
| Hexachlorobiphenyls
in
CO
CO
i
CO
<
CM
<
Z
<
Z
1
CM
i
V
1
CM
| Octachlorobiphenyls
£
CD
-------
CO
co
-0
s>
CD
CD
Q-
•o
CO
•8
CO
o
"x
o
CO
8.
•8
•g
CD
OL
CO
O
E
|oouuBq.BddBH
IdV % "isea >|30uuBijBddBu
Ida % U!se8 oeuiojod
IdV % uiseg oBiuojod
Ida % uiseg ;uaxnjBd
IdV % ujseg »uaxnjBd
Ida % "isea a^eadesaqo -^
Ida % ujSBg euuBqanbsns
IdV % u;sBg BUUBqanbsns
illff
2i|sl
CD < -* a.
to — -
f!
21
.2 1
£*g
0
Chemical Name
by Category
| Pesticides (continued):
to
co
CD
<
Z
CD
1
CM
i
•o-
1
^
1
C\J
1
Tl-
'v
i
I
CM
CM
| Metolachlor
in
CO
CO
1
CD
<
Z
CM
i
T
1
-
<
z
CM
i
•*
^
i
o
Tf
CM
| Simazine
8
CO
1
CO
i
CM
<
Z
TT
1
-
i
CM
1
Tt
*V
i
o
o
GO
*
CM
o>
1
o
in
co
CD
<:
z
co
i
CM
1
•*
^
Z
-
1
CM
<
Z
•^r
^
i
o
CM
CM
| Trans-chlordane
= c
"is 2
£ 01 c
Appendix
109
-------
-------
w
o
•e
o
"co"
CD
O)
_CD
CD
O
d>
CL
T3
CD
CO
•o
J
o
"§
O)
CO
.Q
0)
Q.
CL
Ida % UI31SIUBH
Ida % wseg 3J°MS uja»SBg
Ida % u|SBg sauiBp
Ida % u|SBg )|.IOA
Ida % u!seg JioouuB^Bddea
Ida % UjSBg OBUIOlOd
Ida % wseg iiiaxnisd
Ida % "'sea a>|Bsdesai|0 'M
Ida % UjSBg euueuanbsns
"5 »
,H,t
M|3|
"§ 1
o" O
"• Q.
0 .
1 «
•M o
0) >»
jjg
*
o
o
8
0
o
o
o
o
o
CM
O
8
8
Aluminum sulfate
her Inorganics:
5
o
0
r-
0
o
o
0
S
o
CO
§
Caustic soda solution
0
o
0
fe
0
o
o
CO
o
CM
8
o>
CO
Chlorosulfonic acid
;
CO
O.
o
0
o
0
o
0
0
8
o
CO
CD
Decahydronaphthalen
o
0
o
o
o
0
0
8
o
Tf
*
•r-
Naphthalene
CO
o
Q.
o
o
s
O
0
o
o
%
0
r-
co
*
T-
-^
c
CD
15
PCB (Polychlorinated
CO
o
e
i»
o
?
S
o
CD
CD
O
O
o
0
o
CD
O
-
•K
Benzene
CD
0
8
0
o
o
o
o
o
8
•>.
c:
CL
TJ
Toluene diisocyanate,
1
•o
••§
£
CD
O
0
O
O
CD
CD
8
o
-
Dursban
o
0
o
0
CD
CD
CD
8
0
-
*
CM
Toxaphene
CO
S
S
CD
0
8
CD
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CM
*
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
o
o
s
CD
CD
CM
O
r-
o
CO
8
CM
o
1
CO
"c
o
1
o
o
8
o
o
0
0
0
o
•«—
8
§
r
.2
CO
CO
ru
Ammonium nitrate, ur
o
0
CM
CD
0
%
CD
S
O
CO
§
"CO
1
o
0
-
o
0
s
CD
CD
CD
Tt
CO
"5
o
55
Asphalt blending stoc
CD
O
0
o
o
o
o
o
CD
O
»-
CD
6
CD
0
CD
0
CD
CD
O
CD
O
O
r-.
*
Chloromethane
2
O
_3>
-8
1
I
Appendix
111
-------
"S
t
o>
o>
o
O)
c
"o.
a.
Ic
CO
.
a.
Ida % uiaiswew
Ida % U!SB9 aj°MS UJajseg
Ida % uiseg sauiep
Ida % "'.sea >I«A.
Ida % u!sea JtoouueijeddeH
Ida % U!SB9 OBUIOJOJ
Ida % u|seg )uaxnied
Ida % "peg aipadesaia -/A
Ida % uiseg euueiianbsns
"o .2
6 '5.
z to
•llTof
•" < o ~" a.
11
£1
H
1 g.
"• o>
p
I
c
.§,
S
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
8
o
o
S
I
i
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
I
o
CO
CL
o
o
o
CM
8
o
o
05
o
o
0
m
CO
.CD
o
8
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
•^
co
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I
0
0
CM
1
CD
o
0
0
3
CO
o
o
o
o
o
CM
S?
8
CO
"8
-o
1
1
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I
CD
•^
CD
t
o
t
LU
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
8
o
•^
"o
t
o
o
se.
o
o
o
o
S
0
CM
•^
"5
'o
CD
co
a
CM
o>
o>
0
cz>
5
o
00
CM
0
eg
I
CD
o
co
o
CO
co
a
CM
0
in
CO
o
co
CO
•
3
0
CO
S
cp_
c=
_o
1
CD
cz
o
CO
CO
o
o
o
o
o
0
%
o
o
o
1
•D
CO
CD
"co
CO
o
co
CD
0
0
8
o
o
o
o
0
0
CM
in
CD
f
CD
c
o
CO
CO
o
o
o
i
0
o
o
o
o
0
*-
c-
?
I
2
CO
o
CD
o
o
0
o
0
o
S
S
0
CO
a
T3
"co
•S
o
•fi
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
8
o
CM
fluoric acid
o
"O
x"
o
o
8
ez>
o
o
0
o
o
o
CO
Q-
C5
o
S
en
CM
CM
o
0
o
0
CO
o
O)
1
1
o
iS
S.
"D CO
1
CO
S S:
CO C
1 S
DC .g
Appendix
-------
CO
jo
15
"co
CO
o
"of
E
ca
T3
CO
CO
o
CO
o
"
05
o.
o.
•2
X
'•o
I.
Q.
Ida % uiajsiHBW
Ida % ujseg ajoqs ujajseg
Ida % U!SB8 sauiep
ua % u«Bg )IJOA
Ida % U!SB8 >|oouuBu.BddBU
Ida % wses OBUIOJOJ
Ida % u|SBg luaxmed
Ida % "Peg a)|B9dBsau.o 'M
1d8 % wseg BUUBijanbsns
"5 .2
O O.
Z CO
_ To To _ 2
iisll
-<5-'3
•**
£•§
"s s
*£
c
o £;
^|
If
Z 0)
s«
E"
o> >>
J= -0
o
ous (contJnued)
TK
^
"s
o
o
g
T—
0
0
o
o
o
o
§
§
CO
r
CO
o>
.c
CD"
c
CD
CO
o
a
in
.4
"55
a
•S
o
o
T~
o
0
s?
0
o
0
CO
g
o
8
co
c
£
0
o
o
o
o
8
o
0
0
'v
&
'1
2
CD
Si
O
0
o
O
o
0
0
o
o
0
in
•o
o
CO
.a
ss
0
o
I
o
o
0
o
0
o
le: cottonseed
-O
'•^3
CD
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
"2
JO
o>
±2
-a
(O
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
8
o
o
o
'S
c
CO
o>
CL
h>
JD
T3
o>
o
CD
o
T~
o
o
o
o
g
o
o
fc
c
CO
s
1
QJ
.^J
•D
o>
o
C3
C3
0
o
o
o
o
8
o
s
O)
s
s
o>
en
5
oi
JD
T3
O)
o
co
o
o
CO
CO
o
o
o
o
0
5
CJ
Z
o>
3
o
o
CM
CO
'-
o
CM
o
fc
o
CO
o
TO
a"
o
o
•z.
CD
=)
o
o
0
o3
0
o
CO
o
m
o
o>
•*
I
CM
o
§
o
0
o
o
o>
CM
CM
o
^
0
o
in
0
K
g
CO
Tf
•*
0
CD
3
0
o
o
g
o
CD
CO
o
in
0
g
in
in
d
z
CD
3
o
co
-
in
CM
CO
o
£3
in
CM
0
in
CM
CM
o
o
•«!•
CO
CO
o
z
CD
=>
o
o
o
m
CM
o
o
Tl-
o
?^
o
5
;: absorption
CO
E
o
CM
o
CO
CM
'-
o
s
0
CD
0
g
g
CO
o>
1
_Q
ZJ
'E
o
CO
o
fe
o
o
0
o
o
0
£8
n
0
c.
"E
CO
"E
o
o
o
CO
•*!•
o
o
co
o
8
o
o
CO
;: mineral seal
CO
E
o
l-~
o
s
CO
C3
CM
C3
s
o
r-
o
o
in
in
0
o
»
"E
o
o
o
&
o
o
CD
o
1*.
•*
0
o
CM
:: penetrating
X
'E
0
CO
CM
CO
o>
o
o
0
o
CM
o
CD
CD
0>
c
s
»
"E
o
Appendix
113
-------
tn
J
co
CO
.0
0)
CD
o>
Q.
CO
CO
T3
CC
to
.o
"x
_o
O)
c
"o.
CL
Ic
C/3
J3
T3
O)
Ida % uraisureft
1da % uiseg MODS uJa,SB3
Ida % uiseg sauiBp
Ida % u|seg )|jox
Ida % U!SB8 JfOOUUBljeddeU
Ida % u;seg oBiuojod
Ida % ujsea luaxnjBd
Ida % uiseg 8)|eadesaio '/^
"Ida % uiseg euueqanbsns
0 ^
d 'o.
Z CO
IIP!
If
c
JU fe
Z 0
1 to
1"
o
f
c
'e
o
«n
=
_CO
"s;
8
•g
o
CD
CO
0
O
0
O
CO
o
cn
CM
CO
c
'tn
CD
o
tn
"E
o
o
o
cn
CM
CD
s
o
CD
CD
cn
&
•o
1
1
O
CD
CD
CO
-
CD
*
O
OO
o
o
co
•o
c.
'5.
CO
1
O
Tf
CO
CO
5
0
CM
0
cn
0
cn
8
2
'E
0
CO
o
CM
CM
0
»-
0
S
CD
CD
S
co
1
1
0
o
CD
8
^
°
T~
O
s
0
CM
rl-
CO
E
"53
I
E
O
o
0
eg
•^
0
CD
0
CM
0
8
CM
0)
i
I
0
CO
"-
cn
^
o
o
o
CD
0
CM
8
CO
j3
CO
o
Q.
£
CO
^J
1
O
CM
CO
OO
CM
-
O
9
o
CO
o
CD
co"
•o
0)
CO
O
0
0
o
CO
oo
CD
CD
CD
0
t
O
IT)
CD
CO
co
To
8
0
CM
O
CM
-
O
CO
o
CO
o
00
CO
CD
g
a"
"0
0
-
o
f2
CM
CD
0
O
t
O
in
^
8
oo
to"
CO
T3
0
o
o
8
0
o
0
o
CD
O
v
CO
CO
0)
CO
CL
F
a!
o
CD
o
CD
CD
O
0
O
O
o
CO
CD
~
"1
.£2
§
CL
o
CL
O
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
o
CD
C
TO
oT
o
CD
CO
CD
CD
0
O
S
O
en
CD
ao
"5
_c
CL
CD
o
CD
CD
0
CD
0
0
CD
CD
CM
CO
-o
1
•§.
E
"o
CO
o
0
CD
O
CD
O
CD
CD
CD
O
CD
52
o
.c
1
CO
0
o
8
CD
CD
0
CD
O
CD
in
CO
1
tn
o
CD
CD
CD
O
'-
O
s?
0
CD
1
•o
"ra
£J
=
CO
CD
CD
CM
-
O
CO
0
s
CD
0
CD
* — «
•§
^
T3
CO
CD
-o
'o
h^
CD
CD
CO
CD
CD
CD
CD
S
0
CO
1
h^
O
CD
0
CD
O
CD
CD
8
CD
CD
CM
co
ca
co
o
X
CO
ro S
"S-5
co 25
S P
s
S
5
CD
CL
ca
tn
a>
s
a!
u
o
CO
2
a>
-8
~ »,
° -D
-0 £
0> p
^3 „
§^
s -°
1 %
E ®"
8 -
f £
.2 e-
& f
cr .£
-i
S
2
Appendix
-------
1
£•§
_o
"ro
o>
"*— *•
r-
"55
(C
JQ
k~
"TO"
E
>•«
o>
D)
TO
1
0>
o.
T3
TO
T3
CO
_O
cS
"g
o>
"cL
Q.
(/5
1^
«
^
X
TJ
O.
(5 m
« -0
-g §
•5 f-
.tr o
I «
t- ^ <0
"B "JS "CL 'P
* -i e S. 1
.» Ta S c E
> u> -JS oj £
£ -g i -s 8
8 § « 2, r
.t: ^
3 cd »— 5 aj ^:-
cr =J ^r o -2J- ^i O 3 C
a 1 g o. o J
*1* 1 r§
•85^* 11
g « sg o E 2.
ts £ i ^ 5
^•e-i* i
« 1 "8 § *-g
•E S> t Z. o t3 TJ S
75 = CX C => -.r
£ g S 0 « OJ
a'l g ^ '« =
2 E S S
E o
5 8-
"5
"H -D <5
^ i- I
I g a
it ^
j** • 2 S E
•« co o -B
S £ co Z
HI 1
5|,S S
•o ^ « S
•J5 ^ « -D ^
2: co co cp CD
S-i 8 ? |
S C g -o JJ P- £
8" < ro T " S
— »- O W CD
si^gt^
o. i- 5 zz. tn "
2 K
"o
Q.
<
Q.
CD
t/J
5
s
1
Appendix
115
-------
-------
O
O.
Q.
a.
IdS % uaisujeifl
IdS % wseg ajoqs wajseg
IdS % U!SB9 sauiep
IdS % usseg )|JOA
IdS % uiseg )|3ouueqeddeu
IdS % wseg oeuioiod
IdS % uiseg luaxniej
"IdS % U!SB9 a)|eadesaqo -/\A
IdS % u;ses euueqanbsns
"5 .2
**
- « «-o¥
"5 e w O 3
1- 5 0 _l 0
< O 0.,
11
c
-S »
O
i £•
2 8,
53
J~ 0
.8*
o
ther Inorganics:
o
0
0
0
s?
0
o
0
fe
o
o
Chlorosulfonic acic
in
Q.
8
o
o
C3
O
O
O
O
0
s
*
-
Naphthalene
ther Organics:
o
o
o
0
o
°.
CD
O
8
*
o
o
o
*
Benzene
|
"•
o
o
8
0
o
o
o
o
o
-
Dursban
iscellaneous:
^
o
o
0
a
0
CD
0
8
o
CD
8
S
f>
Ammonium nitrate
o
CD
0
O
O
O
O
8
CD
r-
Benzyl chloride
o
CD
8
o
CD
CD
O
0
CD
CD
8
CO
Carbolic oil
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
O
8
o
CD
CD
5
6
O
O
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
C\J
Chromic anhydride
CD
CD
0
CD
0
O
0
8
o
CvJ
O>
O
CD
O
0
O
O
O
0
o
o
0
u>
§
"5
"5
CO
1
s
CD
o
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
8
CO
"*~
Hydrochloric acid
CD
O
8
CD
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
^
CM
O
"55
5
c5
o
o
o
CD
CD
CD
O
O
o
o
in
Q)
CO
CO
o>
Potassium perman
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
CD
O
T
O
*v
•i
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
O
O
O
CD
O
CD
8
*~
CO
la
CD
CD
o
CD
CD
CD
o
O
O
o
CD
Sodium hydroxide
CD
CD
CM
CD
CD
O
O
CO
CO
O
O
CD
CM
-o
"8
O
•zr
jg
CO
o
(O
,
jg
"o
S 8
" CO
g a
S -°
E 8
E CD
o •£
o ;!
S £
I
Appendix
117
-------
.2
Te
-ft
2>
O CO
.11
o. o
e £|
O> C g
£O CO &* "
— ro s> P1
£ i ! § lg §
a) r;
S CO ~- O 3 c
"S "^5 co ^ »
2
t
-o
o
o.
CO
X)
o,
"(0
E
S-.
jO
"c
o>
o3
Q.
CO
CO
CO
o
"x
o
CT
"5.
Q.
o5
CO
£
.o
m
118
Appendix
-------
o
"co
f
CD
CD
CD
O.
TJ
CO
CO
_o
X
CD
1
o>
I
j<
•o
i
Ida % U!SB9 aj°MS ujaisBH
IdV % u|seg ajoijs ujajsBg
Ida % U!SBS saiucp
IdV % wseg sauicp
IdB % ujseg )|JOA
IdV % usseg )|40A
IdS % U!SB8 )|oouuBijBddBU
IdV % U!SB8 JioouueijBddBH
IdS % U!SB8 oeiuojod
IdV % wseg 3Biuo)Od
IdS % u.iseg luaxniBd
IdV % wseg luexnjBd
Ida % "iseg a))BadBsaqo >M
IdV % "iseg a)|B8dBsau.3 >M
1d8 % u!$eg BuuBqanbsns
IdV % u;sBg BUUBifanbsns
in *s?
-I II
?!*§
<4&
f"c
i
EZ
« i
I* 8
u
Chemical Name
by Category
| Trace Metals:
i
i
i
3
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
s
o
8
o
8
CO
| Aluminum, dissolved
i
i
<
z
i
<
z
^
z
1
i
I
i
i
i
00
8
o
s
CO
| Lithium, total recoverable
i
i
^
z
o
i
<
z
<:
z
<
z
<:
z
1
i
1
:<
z
1
i
8
8
o
§
ID
T3
O)
>
^
|
CJ>
CO
i
^
z
i
h-
<:
z
<
z
i
1
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
13
8
o
8
o
o>
| Manganese, total recoverable
<
z
i
i
CM
i
<
z
1
1
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
CD
CO
O
8
CD
-
T3
1
T3
|p
1
2
o>
>
s
§
IP
o
OJ
i
i
1
CO
<:
z
i
i
1
<
z
1
<:
z
^
z
i
i
i
a
o
8
o
CM
| Nickel, dissolved
i
•<
z
<
z
en
<:
z
i
i
i
<:
z
^
z
i
$
z
i
<
z
i
o>
8
o
pi
| Nickel, total recoverable
1
i
I
CO
^
Z
i
1
i
^
Z
<:
z
i
i
i
i
i
CM
CT>
O
8
CO
en
| Selenium, total recoverable
i
i
i
CM
i
i
i
<
z
i
i
i
<
z
i
<
z
i
§
o
8
§
| Silver, total recoverable
Appendix
119
-------
XI
^-
.0^
E
8,
1
o>
o
CD
O-
1
u>
u>
x
o
(D
O)
XI
.
1d9 % ujseg ajoiis ujajsBg
IdV % uiSBg awns uwjsea
US % u|seg sauiep
IdV % uisBg sauiBp
Ida % usseg VGA
IdV % upeg )|JOA
IdS % u;seg )|3ouueqeddeu
IdV % U!SB9 ^oouueqcddea
IdS % uiseg OBiuoiod
IdV % U!SB8 OBUIOJOtj
IdS % uiseg luaxnjed
IdV % "(sag juaxnjBd
IdS % "!SBS wiBadBsaijo 'M
IdV % "Pea 0|BadBS9i|3 ~M
IdS % uiseg euueqanbsns
IdV % u;seg euueqanbsns
_ "s * If
T3 = «•> T2
Mli
*i
M
Chemical Name
by Category
f
«
i
£
i
i
i
-
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
§
1
o
c\r
| Strontium
i
i
i
CM
CM
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
s
o
8
8"
en
«
CM
O
M
1
i
i
in
1
1
i
I
1
^
Z
i
i
I
I
i
in
CO
8
o
o
m
10
•K
CM
| Zinc, dissolved
1
1
o
1
1
i
<
z
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Q
"5
i
Q.
ce
| Pesticides:
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
CD
i
o
•*
CM
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
<
•z.
1
i
^
z
i
i
i
1
o
| 3-Hydroxycarbofuran
1
i
i
CNJ
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
<
z
i
s
8
CO
CM
_O
^
i
i
i
<:
z
<
z
1
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
a
-S
CO
o
is
<
i
i
^
z
i
i
i
i
^
<:
z
i
i
<
z
i
i
i
i
a
[ Aldicarb suit one
i
i
i
<
z
1
i
i
i
<
z
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
0
| Aldicarb sulfoxide
i
i
i
CM
i
^
z
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
<:
1
§
o
§
o"
-
s
I
1
i
i
i
i
1
<
z
i
i
1
I
1
1
i
i
i
o
f
CO
O
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
o
c
2
1
O
i
<
z
i
i
i
i
<
z
<:
z
^
1
i
<
z
i
<
i
i
o
8
CM"
S
'a
i
<5-
1
i
i
o
o
i
^
i
i
i
i
i
<:
i
^
i
o
CO
N«.
*
O
0
i
i
i
8
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
<
o
s
"1
b
1
1
<
z
8
<
z
^
i
<
z
i
<
z
1
i
i
i
<
o
K
\ Dicamba
i
i
i
o
o
1
^
1
<
z
^
1
1
1
<
i
i
o
o
o
CO
c\f
CD
|
CD
X
i
i
«c
z
<
z
i
<:
z
^
i
^
1
<
z
i
i
<
i
i
a
z
cz
o
^
c.
LJ
i
i
i
CD
i
<:
i
<
z
^
1
^
i
i
^
-------
O
"tF
CD
.2
1
0)
O.
CO
(A
"8
o>
«J
_x
•o
US % u;seg aioqs uja»seg
IdV % inseg ajoijs uiajseg
IdS % uiseg saiuep
IdV % ujseg sewer
IdS % uiseg VGA
IdV % uiseg >H°A
IdS % ujseg )|0ouueqeddeu
IdV % uiseg ))oouueu,eddBH
"IdS % ujseg oeuoiod
IdV % U|Seg OBUIOPd
IdS % uiseg juaxniBd
IdV % uiseg juaxmej
IdS % uiseg o|B9desau.3 'M
IdV % uiseg a>|eades9i|o 'M
IdS % uiseg euueganbsns
IdV % uiseg cuueganbsns
in -s>
«1 s-s
^iii
l!
si
c
0 fc
1*1
Chemical Name
by Category
| Pesticides (continued):
i
<
z
1
i
<
z
i
i
1
1
i
i
1
i
5:
z
1
1
o
•5.
o
i
i
i
i
CM
1
i
i
l
i
i
l
i
i
l
l
CD
CD
O>
CM
O
1
1
i
<
z
i
i
^
z
<:
z
i
<
z
i
l
i
l
l
i
<
z
1
a
•>,
1
i
i
i
§
i
i
<
z
i
i
i
i
i
l
l
i
o
o
m
_o
o
b.
i
i
l
r-
i
l
i
l
i
l
l
i
<
z
<:
z
1
S
§
CD'
| Prometone
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
<
z
<
z
i
i
l
i
i
i
0
1
1-
£
<
z
i
1
1
i
i
i
<:
z
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
Q
Z
1
&
Q_
1
<
Z
1
co
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
l
i
s
o
s
in
| Aimazine
c= to
S O
IS
S E
II
o -f
ll
12
a'g
E «
8 -
S «
Q- CD
13 £
I-S
O 'F
.i *
II
? i
« =
-= <0
•S co
8
u
Q
co
.0
"c
o
^
1
1
"•5 —
I s
:E 10
•c w
11
£ g.
J CD
3 ^
°o "co
.11
£ ">
CO CO
cp 2
o
o
TJ
CD
S>
CO
I
To
3
C
I
CD
to
CD
cn
«= to
O S
.1 a
CO
f 2
II
CO O
i I
CO —
s §
CD <2
§ I
o
2
o>
S
Q_
I
o
CO
"co
LU
I..!*
® 1 "g o
C O) eo —
'•5 £ 5 S
CD c en 9-
g -S « .i
(3 2 2 CD
ilisl
si
fl
U>
8-
Appendix
121
-------
-------
Idg % uiseg ajoqs ujajscg
IdV % uiseg ajoqs uwiseg
Id8 % u;seg saiuep
IdV % uiseg saiuep
Ida % "peg >MOA
IjV % uiseg )|JOA
Ida % u.iseg )|oouueueddeu
IdV % U!SB8 )|oouuBueddea
1d8 % u;ses oeiuoiod
IdV % u;seg OBUiojod
IdS % uiseg juaxn»ed
IdV % "!seg juexmed
Idg % uiseg a^adesatio ~M
IdV % uiseg aipadesaiio *M
IdS % u|seg euuenanbsns
IdV % u;seg euueuanbsns
«fis«
* 1 § 1 §
-J<2£
l!
if
.2 «
g"5 S
H- 0
U
Chemical Name
by Category
1 Fungicides:
^
i
CM
r~
o
o
CM
CO
CO
o
in
CO
CM
o
i
o
f-
8
o
8
•>,
o
i
-
i
CO
O5
o
o
CO
•*r
-
5
o
0
CM
1
^-~
TT
CM
s
O
S
CO
*
o
^
z
CO
CM
P-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
0
o
CM
CM
| Carboxin
S
i
to
c»
CM
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO
CM
-
O
1
o
o
1
o
| Chlorothalonil
5
^
z
-sr
•«!•
1/5
CO
IO
r--
CM
f-
o
0
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
*
—
1
o
o
i
CO
CM
p-
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
i
0
o
1
o>
| Cupric hydroxide
0
i
in
co
o
o
m
r-
jr
CO
in
o
0
o
1
o
o
8
o
CO
CD
c
T3
O
Q
O
i
co
CM
^
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
1
o
o
§
in
8
m
UJ
o
i
m
CO
o
o
m
r-
jr
CO
in
o
o
0
i
o
o
8
CO
| Fenarimol
o
i
co
,-
o
'-
CO
TT
-
9
O
o
Si
1
0
o
8
CO
CM
_Q
O>
U_
O
CM
i
t^-
i^
o
0
-
'-
-
CO
o
o
o
i
0
o
8
o
(0
o>
c:
o
T3
O
_Q-
O
i
in
i-~
CM
CM
in
CO
CO
9
o
o
o
i
0
o
8
CM
CO
| Lime sulfur
-
^
z
CM
f-
O
O
CM
CO
O>
in
CO
o
o
co
1
-
CM
CO
8
o
CM
| Mancozeb
l-~
i
co
en
o
o
o
0
o
—
s
s
cvi
i
o
in
8
8
f
S3
"3
o
^
z
in
co
o
o
in
r-~.
^
CO
in
o
o
o
i
o
0
8
ffi
•I
o
<
z
m
co
o
o
m
r^
Tl-
S
o
o
o
i
o
o
8
o
CO
|iue)nqopA|A| |
CO
<
z
•*
CM
-
—
CM
CM
CM
CD
O
O
O
i
O
O
8
i--
CD
O
Q_
•*!-
i
•q-
in
o>
^
-
^r
f*.
in
CM
o
o
o
1
o
o
8
CM
| Propiconazole
o
i
r^
CM
-
—
in
CO
CM
$
CD
0
O
1
O
0
o
8
o
CO
CM
h—
13
w
O
i
in
r-~
o
o
in
f-
^r
CM
in
o
o
0
1
o
o
o
o
o
CM
">.
£
o>
E
a>
"a
1
o.
o
j:
o
i
in
in
r~-
^
CO
in
o
o
0
1
o
o
o
8
(D
T
CO
f
Ri
i
•^r
CM
I--
CO
CO
O
CO
CO
CM
O
o
0
1
0
o
8
CO
| Triadimefon
o
<
z
m
N-
CM
CM
in
CO
CO
^—
9
C3
o
o
i
o
o
CO
CM
CD
er
1
CO ***
£-2
ra g
O
co
I
(X
8
I
CO
-e
o
'to
0)
CD
CD
E
CD
Q.
T3
CO
C/>
Q>
(O
s
X
2
CD
OT
o>
D_
•8
•a
§
Q.
Q.
o
-32
-a
|€
§ -°
E S
E CD
f
Appendix
123
-------
IdS % U!SB9 awilS uwjsBg
IdV % "!SBg ajoiis uiaisBg
Ida % ujseg sauiep
IdV % "'.sea sauiep
Ida % "peg vox
IdV % uiseg JIJOA
IdS % U!S89 Jjoouueqeddeu
IdV % wseg )|oouuBqBddBb
IdS % wseg OBiuoiod
IdV % U!SBS oeuioiod
IdS % uiseg luaxnjed
IdV % U!SBS WiaxniBd
IdS % "Peg 3)|eadBSai|0 'M
IdV % uiseg 8>iB8dBsavio -^
IdS % wsEg BuiiBnanbsns
IdV % u;$Bg BuuBqanbsns
»f lit
|I|s§
*- v> S "Z °
£•* = fe
tS
1
SI
1*1
h- 0
o
Chemical Name
by Category
o
i
in
r~-
CM
CM
in
CO
CO
3
o
o
0
i
o
o
CO
CM
| Vinclozolin
o
i
in
r-.
CM
CM
m
CD
CO
?
o
0
0
i
o
o
§
CM
CO
M
| Herbicides:
c§
i
-
CM
^
—
^
—
CO
CO
CM
CO
-
CO
CM
1
0
"-
I
o
c?
0
^
CM
•«}•
i
•»»•
^
r~-
oo
in
r-
•^
in
o
0
0
1
o
o
g
in
CO
CD
O
•«i-
CM
5
i
"S-
CO
t^
01
ID
r~-
-
LO
o
o
o
1
0
o
o
g
5
| Acifluorfen
S3
i
CM
t-~
•*!•
in
•*r
in
•M-
m
T—
—
-
o>
i
-
s
B
g
Tl-_
^-
CM
O
€
(C
<
r^
1
-
•f
CM
CM
CM
CO
in
o
o
o
-
i
-
c3
g
o
o
o
CO
c\f
-
Q>
'R
CO
«C
o
<
2
8
fi
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
i
o
0
o
o
.£
"55
r-
o
i
0
*-
-
»-
o
C3
o
o
C3
0
O
1
O
o
£
CM
| Bensulide
csi
1
in
CO
O5
o
CO
oo
CO
CM
o
o
m
1
0
-
g
5
| Bentazon
•*!•
1
•«!•
•^~
0
CM
-
in
CO
Si
o
0
o
1
o
0
g
CD
T
O
m
§
<:
•z.
-
in
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
O
0
O
i
o
o
§
g
CM
s
(3
r^-
i
T
CO
-
CO
CO
V—
CO
en
0
0
-
1
-
c5
g
•«•
in
| Chlorimuron ethyl
55
<
0
'-
-
—
-
t—
'-
CO
0
0
o
1
0
o
g
CM
[ Clomazone
co
1
"-
CO
-
CM
CM
CM
in
o
CM
-
-
in
i
-
?8
g
g
m
"R
I
•rf
^
-
CM
-
*-
-
CM
CO
CM
O
o
CD
i
T—
^
O
g
eg
CD
JD
CO
.^
0
•"d-
i
•««•
-«r
o
CM
^
in
CO
Si
o
o
0
^
CD
O
O
O
in
r-
| Diclofop methyl
o
<
2
o
o
o
o
o
o
-
CM
O
CO
••d-
^
CO
g
CO
o
13
3
O"
Q
o
<
2
CM
CO
o
o
CM
CO
l-~
m
CM
o
o
CO
in
^
o
0
o
o
o
r-.
c
o
=3
Q
o
i
Tfr
CO
CO
r-
f-
cn
03
c^
0
0
in
1
o
o
o
o
CM
£
&
CO
i
CM
CM
CM
r~-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
0
o
o
CM
C
1
^ra
£
LLJ
CD
i
in
CO
in
r-~
^
TJ-
CO
-
o
0
0
^
o
o
g
CO
5-
_o
ex
^
1
[L
o>
i
in
CO
in
^.
-
•
§
8
CO
Note: Review comments at end of table to
interpret these data correctly.
CO
co
.o
.2,
E
£•
I
o>
Q-
-o
CO
CO
CD
(/)
co
_QJ
CD
o
"x
o
CD
CD
QL
•2
X
TJ
§.
Q.
Appendix
-------
1d8 % U!SB9 aj°MS uja;seg
IdV % u;seg ajoijs ujaiseg
US % wseg sauiep
IdV % wseg sauiep
Ida % ufsea >MOA
IdV % ujseg )|JOA
Ida % u|seg >)OOuuBijBddBU
IdV % U!SB8 )(3ouuei|eddey
IdS % U!SB8 OBUIOJOd
IdV % uiseg oeuioiod
IdS % u.iseg juaxniBd
IdV % ujseg luaxnjBd
IdS % wseg a^eadesaMQ -^
IdV % wises aJieadBsaiio -/w
IdS % wseg euueqanbsns
IdV % u;seg BUUBqanbsns
* « 8^
•is "S 5 S> ~o
*l|i|
"l^st
ti
££
!'|
Chemical Name
by Category
o
•*!•
i
CM
co
•*r
Tf
CO
•*r
m
CM
0
o
05
1
o
-
8
o
o
c\i
| Glyphosate
8
^
z
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
i
0
o
§
CO
c
"=J
o-
CO
o
i
a
E
-
-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
0
o
o
8
| Isopropalin
en
i
in
co
in
r-
-
•*
CO
-
o
0
o
^
z
0
o
8
c
co
"o
3
in
i
-
co
cvi
CO
CVJ
CVJ
CO
^
"-
-
l~»
1
o
CO
8
o
oo
CO
1
1
0
i
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
V—
5
CO
-
0>
i
C3
o
o
8
5
CD
•o
'§
.a
1
0
CM
8
oo
2
o
o
I
o
o
o
o
o
o
f-
co
cvj
CO
CVJ
Tf
a
1
o
-
8
a
0.
O.
O
CO
CVJ
i
-
CVJ
-
-
-
cvi
in
I--
-
o
-
1
-
8
1
8
CO
cvf
CVJ
[ Metolachlor
CO
i
CO
-
0
CVI
CO
0
CVI
co
0
o
-
i
-
CVJ
o
o
o
CO
[ Metribuzin
-
i
CVI
O3
CO
•r—
-
CO
TJ-
GO
CO
o
0
0
i
o
o
8
CO
| Napropamide
S
i
O)
co
CVI
o
CD
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
i
o
o
o
8
0
to
ss
&
z
o
i
in
co
o
o
in
r-.
•*
CM
m
o
0
o
<
Z
0
o
8
CO
| Norflurazon
&
i
CO
-
o
o
Tfr
in
o
co
CO
o
0
0
1
o
o
1
CM
!
o
o
i
in
co
o
o
in
r—
TT
CO
in
0
o
o
1
o
0
CD
O
O
CM
| Oxyfluorfen
in
CM
i
-
•*t
CM
CVJ
CM
CO
CO
&
-
-
r-
^
Z
0
-
8
o
r~
CM
"55
1
-------
S
jQ
O
"of
.0
0
O)
I
1
o>
QL
-o
(0
Appendix Table 10: Pesticide toxic re
Ida % "Peg ajogs ujaiseg
IdV % u;seg ajoqs ineiseg
Ida % uiseg SSIUBP
•jjv % "!SBg sauiep
Ida % uisBg JIJOA
IdV % "!SBg JJJOA
Idg % uiseg >|3ouueqeddeu
IdV % u|seg )|oouuBijBddBU
Ida % wseg OBiuo»od
IdV % u;seg OBiuoiod
Ida % u.'seg juaxnjBd
TdV % Ujseg luaxnjBd
Ida % "!SBg wiBadBsaqo 'M
IdV % uiSBg a>|BadBsai|o -^
Ida % ujSBa Buueqanbsns
IdV % ujseg BuuBijanbsns
vtli?
f 1 1 s §
-|
§•5 g
- 5
Chemical Name
by Category
00
i
r~
CO
CVJ
CO
in
CO
CM
CO
C3
O
0
0
1
o
o
8
in
CM
[ Vernolate
1
_o
_c
o
i
Si
£
-
-
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
<
z
o
o
o
g
*
| 1,3-Dichloropropylene
CO
i
in
CD
o
o
o
o
0
&
o
CO
CM
i
O
o
8
CO
0)
j?
Q.
Q)
^
CO
1
o
8
o
OJ
h*
0
CM
N*.
O
o
o
i
o
o
8
CO
-s
co
u
T3
<
O
i
CO
O}
o
o
CO
•^~
-
5
0
0
0
i
-
in
CM
8
o
o
o
| Azinphos methyl
o>
i
co
0>
in
CO
TJ-
CM
CO
•A-
CM
O
0
0
i
o
o
o
CO
| Bacillus thuringiensis
r-
1
Tf
^
Tt
in
in
r-
CO
S
•*»•
CM
CD
i
O
O
o
8
o
CM
f
1
O
CM
CM
<
Z.
CO
o
•*!•
in
in
CO
in
CO
CM
-
CO
1
o
in
8
o
o
CO
CO
| Carbofuran
8
<
z.
in
N.
co
en
co
0
CM
00
0
O
0
1
0
o
8
r--
co
| Chloropicrin
CO
<
z?
CO
o
CO
CO
Tl-
in
CM
5
CD
Tt
0
^
o
•«»•
8
o
co
CO
| Chlorpyrifos
in
<
•z.
o
0
o
o
o
o
CO
-
en
in
f~.
CO
i
0
0
8
o
f-
I
1
b
o
i
in
CO
0
CD
m
!•-
TT
s
o
0
o
i
o
o
8
o
in
T—
-o
o
.a
o
05
CM
i
CM
CO
CO
•^~
in
CO
CO
CO
o
0
CO
i
0
0
8
o
co
CO
| Dimethoate
o
i
o
o
0
0
o
0
o
o
$
r—
CM
CO
CM
<
o
o
8
o
CO
CM
.£
o
•*r
i
m
co
o
-
T—
•*r
co
^r
CM
O
0
0
<
o
o
8
o
CO
CO
| Disulfoton
CM
<:
•z.
CO
o
*-
-
Tl-
in
CT>
&
o
0
-
<
-
s
8
o
00
CM
| Endosulfan
r-
i
TI-
CM
O
-
r-
o
TT
CO
o
0
o
i
*-
CD
8
CM
CM
[ Esfenvalerate
•««•
<
CO
CM
-
CM
O)
CM
in
en
a
0
o
i
o
0
o
£
Q.
O
O.
O
£
o
i
s
JS
-
-
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
i
o
o
o
o
CO
in
[ Fenamiphos
CO
I-
i
o
o
0
o
o
o
CO
o
CO
o
0
CO
1
o
-
o
§
co
CM
1 Fenvalerate
o
i
CO
CM
r —
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
0
o
i
o
o
o
o
CO
in
CO
0
o
g
UL
O
i
in
CO
o
o
in
r»-
•*
S
o
0
o
1
o
o
8
•*"
| Formetanate hydrochloride i
o
<
•z.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
:o
en
in
o
Tf
^
O
0
o
s
| Isofenphos
~° 3>
"?» m
n g
jtn
"o
^
C
c
<
CO
OS
m
CO
Q
o>
_o
o
s
s
Q_
>.
CD
1
a.
CO
w>
-------
_
O
TO
a>
ex
-a
ca
CO
CD
CO
CD
_CJ)
CD
o
"x
CD
S
.0
x
TO
Ida % uiseg aioiis ujajseg
IdV % «!seg aioiis ujaiseg
Ida % wsea sauiep
IdV % u;seg sauiBp
IdB % UISBB JIJOA
IdV % "!SB8 >H°A
IdS % u|seg )|DouuBi|BddBa
IdV % uiseg JioouuBijBddBU
Ida % u^eg oBiuoiod
IdV % uiseg OBUIOIOJ
"Ida % u;seg luaxniBj
IdV % ujsea luaxnjBd
Ida % uiseg ajieadesaio ~M
IdV % U!SB8 a)|eadesaiio -M
Ida % u;sea euueipnbsns
IdV % ujsea euueqanbsns
T5I182
o = = S i
•" 8< « «?
£ ^ cc £-
.$•1
51
*£
c
0 fe
^i
Chemical Name
by Category
co
CM
i
CO
o
in
CD
CO
00
•Tf
CO
in
CO
CO
1
o
0
8
o
a
1 Malathion
o
i
CO
CM
£
O
o
o
o
0
0
o
0
o
i
0
o
8
o
s
1
=5
o
CO
CO
"55
0
I
0
o
o
o
o
0
-
CM
O
o
Tt
1
CO
§
o
o
CO
CM
| Methamidophos
co
^
z
CO
o
Tl-
in
•*T
co
oo
8
-
-
-
1
-
o>
o
o
o
2
•5,
15
8
o
CD
CM
CO
o
o
o
0
1
o
0
o
o
o
g
CM
*
| Methyl bromide
o
1
ir>
co
0
o
m
t-~
•«*•
8
o
0
o
^
z
o
o
8
o
CM
| Methyl parathion
0
<
z
CO
O5
o
0
CO
T
-
§
O
o
0
i
-
in
CM
8
o
00
I
8
<
z
CO
o
-
-
CO
TT
CM
$
O
O
0
i
o
0
8
o
CO
CM
| Parathion
CO
1
CM
CO
in
CO
TI-
m
-
•*
o
0
§
i
o
CO
o
o
o
«
CM
| Permethrin
£
^
z
o
CD
O
O
O
O
I--
EM
CO
•*r
en
1
o
o
8
o
3
| Petroleum oils
o
i
CM
r^
o
o
o
o
-
CM
O
o
TC
i
CO
£
1
in
&
2
£
Q.
o>
^
Z
CO
0)
o
0
CO
Tf
o
8
o
o
^
i
o
0
8
o
r-
co
| Phosmet
o
i
in
§
o
o
CM
CO
CO
8
o
o
0
1
o
o
o
o
o
CO
CD
.t±
O)
CO
o.
o
a.
CO
i
in
h-
co
05
en
CM
co
o
CO
o
0
o
<
z
0
o
8
0
CM
| Terbufos
CD
i
in
CO
in
r-.
-
TT
CO
-
o
0
o
1
o
o
8
•>~
| Thiodicarb
o
i
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
8
f-
| Trichlorofon
o -»
to ">
E »
= 5?
•c o.
o „
I- o
CD CO
'> O
£ —
CO 5
£ |
CO
CD
CO
t3
1
£•
CO
£
CO
E ~
O CD
i
Q_
•s
w
II
i II
•=. CO CD
O -O ~%
B S^
£ - CO CD
,_ "O CO Q_
"o o
I .i
03 T3
£ «
°- p <
E -5
S *
ca
1 se
•J= cu
>- 73
CO >
03 _
O ^
-
CO
-Q
CD
.C
CD
I
CO
s — TS ?= _- S.
n *-* cz -= -•—
111
6 :§ i
^'S £
O O CD
£ -§ =g
S^-S
co £ £
1o « co
2 -S -S
£ g g
1 S S
C O> m
| 1 I
£ 15 15
S"*~
£ CD
S - ^
= 11
O
CO CD ^5 C
•J= •*? CD O
i£ £ °~ "13
•^ CM 5 « "g-
-------
-------
The following is the first step in the development of the initial baseline inventory of point
source facility level estimates of toxic loads called for by the Executive Council in its Directive,
Toxic Reduction Strategy Reevaluation. Additional facilities will be added to establish the
baseline inventory and presented in a technical update prior to April 1, 1994. These data include
1991 industry-reported TRI surface water discharges for industrial facilities in all Bay states
(Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware and New York - no TRI sources
were reported for the District of Columbia). TRI data was used to supplement state provided
estimates and used only for facilities where no state data was provided. Municipal data are
presented for Maryland, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Maryland municipal load
estimates were developed by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program based on data provided by the
Maryland Department of the Environment Pretreatment and Enforcement Division. Fourteen
Maryland municipal discharges are included. Pennsylvania provided industrial and municipal
toxic load estimates for 59 Pennsylvania facilities with NPDES permit limits for toxic
substances. Facility level data are included for the District of Columbia's Blue Plains municipal
plant. In Virginia, the inventory was forced to rely solely on TRI industrial data and was unable
to include any municipal facilities.
129
-------
-------
Appendix Table 11. Initial inventory of point source toxic loads by basin
.'FACILITY NAME
Du Pont Seafood Plant
Du Pont Seafood Plant
Eastern Shore Rendering
Huls America Inc.
Huls America Inc.
Huls America Inc.
Salisbury. City of WWTP
Salisbury. City of WWTP
Perdue Farms Inc.
Salisbury. City of WWTP
Allied Signal Corp.
Allied Signal Corp.
Allied-Signal Inc.
Burke- Parsons - Bowtby
Burke - Parsons - Bowlby
Burke-Parsons-Bowlby
Burke- Parsons - Bowlby
Chesapeake Fertilizer Co.
Chesapeake Fertilizer Co.
Chesapeake Fertilizer Co.
Chesapeake Fertilizer Co.
Chesapeake Fertilizer Co.
Chesapeake Fertilizer Co.
DuPont Spmance Plant
DuPont Spmance Plant
DuPont Spruance Plant
DuPont Spruance Plant
Qravure Packaging Inc.
Gravure Packaging Inc.
Id Americas Inc.
Mann Industries Inc.
Phillip Moms USA
Phillip Moms USA
Primary Corp.
Smtthfield Packing Co.
Smithfield Packing Co.
Texaco Refining & Marketing
Weaver Fertilizer Co. Inc.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Primary Corp.
Southern States Coop Inc.
Westvaco Corp.
Utbe Patuxent STP
Little Patuxent STP
Little Patuxent STP
Western Branch
Western Branch
Western Branch
Western Branch
Coons Brewing Co.
Eastalco Aluminum Company
EastaJco Aluminum Company
Eastalco Aluminum Company
Frederick City WWTP
Frederick City WWTP
Frederick City WWTP
Frederick CHy WWTP
Frederick City WWTP
Frederick City WWTP
Frederick City WWTP
Frederick City WWTP
Frederick City WWTP
Garden State Tanning Inc.
Garden State Tanning Inc.
Garden State Tanning Inc.
Hagerstown, City of STP
Hagerstown. City of STP
Hagerstown, City of STP
Hagerstown, City of STP
Hagerstown, City of STP
Hagerstown, City of STP
Hagerstown, City of STP
Hagerstown, City of STP
Hagerstown, CHy of STP
Mineral Pigments Corp.
Mineral Pigments Corp.
TOXIC SUBSTANCE
Chlorine
Methanol
Ammonia
BIS(2-Ethylhexyl) Adipat
Dibutyl Phthalate
Di(2-Ethylriexyi) Phtnala
Lead
Zinc
Ammonia
Silver
Chlorine
Zinc Compounds
Biphenyl
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Creosote
Ammonia
Copper Compounds
Lead Compounds
Manganese Compounds
SuHuric Acid
Zinc Compounds
Carbon Dbulfide
Chlorine
Chloroform
Toluene
Acetone
Toluene
EtyteneOlycol
Zinc Compounds
Ammonia
Chlorine
Toluene
Ammonia
Ammonia
Zinc Compounds
Ammonia
Ammonia
Chloroform
Methanol
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Benzene
Manganese Compounds
Acetone
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Arsenic
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Chlorine
Aluminum (fume or dust)
Chlorine
Ethytene Grycol
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium Total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Ammonia
Chromium
Manganese Compounds
Cadmium
Chromium Total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Barium Compounds
Chromium Compounds
LOADING
ESTIMATE
(Ibs/year)
430
920
672
1
1
1
96
762
9,600
66
1.100
40
1,100
27
. 35
' 15
3.100
5
250
5
180
5
300
56
2,400
190
70
1
1
770
1.241
3.799
10.784
1
2.300
5.100
1
4200
710
2,400
73,000
650
1
5
3,900
205
87
8
42
52
32
867
39
10
55
5
31
25
90
504
22
34
758
53
1,142
41.385
717
1.125
21
81
287
258
4
172
40
24
561
250
5
DATA
SOURCE
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
THI-91
TRI-91
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
TRI-91
EPA-CB
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
THI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
THI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
THI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
TRI-91
TRI-91
NPDES
PERMIT
NUMBER
35
35
3247
345
345
345
21571
21571
3808
21571
5312
5312
5312
80241
80241
80241
80241
3174
3174
3174
3174
3174
3174
4669
4669
4669
4669
NA
NA
3077
3654
26577
26577
86151
59005
59005
4821
3875
3646
3646
3646
3646
86151
NA
3646
55174
55174
55174
21741
21741
21741
21741
73245
2429
2429
2429
21610
21610
21610
21610
21610
21610
21610
21610
21610
88DP1267
88DP1267
88DP1267
21776
21776
21776
21776
21776
21776
21776
21776
21776
3425
3425
STATE
DE
DE
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
VA
MD
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
VA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
BASIN
Eastern Shore
Eastern Shore
Eastern Shore
Eastern Shore
Eastern Shore
Eastern Shore
Eastern Shore
Eastern Shore
Eastern Shore
Eastern Shore
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
James
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
SUBBASIN
Nanticoke River
Nanticoke River
Transquaking River
Chester River
Chester River
Chester River
Nanticoke River
Nanticoke River
Trib. Beasley Bay
Nanticoke River
Swift Creek
Swift Creek
Swift Creek
Calfpasture River
Calfpasture River
Calfpasture River
Calfpasture River
Elizabeth River
Elizabeth River
Elizabeth River
Elizabeth River
Elizabeth River
Elizabeth River
James River
James River
James River
James River
James River
James River
James River
Trib. James River
Trib. James River
Trib. James River
James River
Pagan River
Pagan River
Elizabeth River
Elizabeth River
Jackson Creek
Jackson Creek
Jackson Creek
Jackson Creek
James River
James River
Jackson Creek
Patuxent River
Patuxent River
Patuxent River
Western Branch
Western Branch
Western Branch
Western Branch
South River
Monacacy River
Monacacy River
Monacaay River
Lower Monacacy
Lower Monacacy
Lower Monacacy
Lower Monacacy
Lower Monacacy
Lower Monacacy
Lower Monacacy
Lower Monacacy
Lower Monacacy
Potomac River
Potomac River
Potomac River
Antietam Creek
Antietam Creek
Antietam Creek
Antietam Crek
Antietam Creek
Antietam Creek
Antietam Creek
Antietam Creek
Antietam Creek
Anacostia River
Anacostia River
131
-------
FACILITY NAME
Mineral Pigments Corp.
Mineral Pigments Corp.
Mineral Pigments Corp.
Westminster WWTP
DAL-TILE
Waynes boro
Waynes boro
DuPont Spruance Plant
Merck & Co. Inc
Merck «. Co. Inc.
Merck & Co. Inc.
Merck & Co. Inc.
Merck & Co. Inc.
Merck & Co. Inc.
Merck & Co. Inc.
Merck & Co. Inc.
Reynolds Metal Co.
Reynolds Metal Co.
3M
3M
3M
3M
Coming Consumer Products
Coming Consumer Products
Coming Consumer Products
Coors Brewing Co.
Culpepper Wood Preservers
Culpepper Wood Preservers
Culpepper Wood Preservers
Pitts Lumber Co. Inc.
Wood Preservers Inc.
Wood Preservers Inc.
Wood Preservers Inc.
Amphenol Corp.
Amphenol Corp.
Amphenol Corp.
Corning Inc.
Coming Inc.
Coming Inc.
Coming Inc.
Coming Inc.
Coming Refractories
Coming Vitro Corp.
Endicott Johnson Corp.
Hadco Corp.
Hadco Corp.
Hadco Corp.
Hadco Corp.
IBM Corp.
IBM Corp.
IBM Corp.
IBM Corp.
IBM Corp.
IBM Corp.
IBM Corp.
IBM Corp.
IBM Corp.
IBM Corp.
IBM Federal Systems Company
IBM Federal Systems Company
Pollio Dairy Products Corp.
Toshiba Display Devices Inc.
Toshiba Display Devices Inc.
Toshiba Display Devices Inc.
Toshiba Display Devices Inc.
Toshiba Display Devices Inc.
Toshiba Display Devices Inc.
Toshiba Display Devices Inc.
Toshiba Display Devices Inc.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
AKoona-East
Altoona-East
AKoona-East
AKoona-East
AKoona-East
AKoona-East
Altoona-West
Altoona-West
132
TOXIC SUBSTANCE
Lead Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Zinc Compounds
Selenium
Chromium Compounds
Copper-Total
Zinc-Total
Amffionu
Chlorine
Acetone
Ammonia
Chloromethane
Cyanide Compounds
Etnvlbenzene
Methanol
Xytene (mixed isomers)
Barium Compounds
Zinc Compounds
Diethanolamine
Ethytene Qlycol
Hydroquinone
Phosphoric Acid
Arsenic Compounds
Barium Compounds
Zinc Compounds
Ammonia
Arsenic Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Copper Compounds
Copper Compounds
Arsenic Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Copper Compounds
Cadmium
Cyanide Compounds
Trichkxoethytene
Antimony Compounds
Arsenic Compounds
Barium Compounds
Lead Compounds
Lead Compounds
Lead
Nickel Compounds
Zinc Compounds
Ammonia
Copper Compounds
Formaldehyde
Qlycol Ethers
1.1,1 -Trichbroethane
1,2 - Dichlorobenzene
Copper Compounds
Dichkxom ethane
Ethylbenzene
Freon113
Manganese Compounds
Phenol
TetracMoroethytene
Xvtene (mixed isomers)
1,1.1 -Trichfofoe thane
Copper
Chlorine
Acetone
Ammonia
Chromium Compounds
Copper Compounds
Lead Compounds
Methanol
Toluene
Zinc Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Copper
Lead Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Trichtoroethytene
Cadmium-Total
Chromium-Hex
Copper-Total
Mercury-Total
Nickel-Total
Zinc-Total
Cadmium-Total
Chromium-Hex
LOADING
ESTIMATE
(tos/year)
5
250
250
9
5
55
111
577
; 640
12.050
10^00
520
2.180
5.340
8,400
19.050
2
. 1
1 5
5
5
5
250
5
250
1.905
5
10
5
1
17
14
12
250
250
5
5
5
5
255
4.500
5
60
40
11,000
170
250
250
5
5
250
250
5
5
250
5
5
5
13
150
13.000
250
7,600
200
46
410
730
2
90
5
250
5
250
5
139
156
1,716
5
312
1.560
66
166
DATA
SOURCE
TRI-91
TRI-91
TW-91
EPA-CB
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
THI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
THI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
NPDES
PERMIT
NUMBER
3425
3425
3425
21831
NA
20621
20621
2160
2178
2178
2178
2178
2178
2178
2178
2178
1767
1767
5533
5533
5533
5533
5576
5576
5576
73245
59145
59145
59145
83011
NA
NA
NA
3824
3824
3824
3981
3981
3981
3972
3981
3913
3981
4383
72231
72231
72231
72231
3808
3808
3808
3808
3808
3808
3808
3808
3808
3808
4057
4057
4308
161616
161616
161616
161616
161616
161616
161616
161616
4103
4103
4103
4103
4103
27014
27014
27014
27014
27014
27014
27022
27022
STATE
MD
MD
MD
MD
PA
PA
PA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
BASIN
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
Susqhehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
SUBBASIN
Anacostia River
Anacostia River
Anacostia River
Double Pip
Rock Creek
Potomac River
Potomac River
South River
South River
South River
South River
South River
South River
South River
South River
South River
South River
South River
Shanandoah River
Shanandoah River
Shanandoah River
Shanandoah River
Opequon Creek
Opequon Creek
Opequon Creek
South River
Mountain Run
Mountain Run
Mountain Run
Dragon Swamp
Trib.TotuskeyCr.
Trib. Totuskey Cr.
Trib. Totuskey Cr.
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Chemung River
Chemung River
Chemung River
Cohocton River
Chemung River
Chemung River
Chemung River
Susquehanna River
Catatonk Creek
Catatonk Creek
Catatonk Creek
Catatonk Creek
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Catatonk Creek
Catatonk Creek
Cohocton River
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River •
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
-------
FACILITY NAME
Altoona-West
Altoona-West
Attoona-Wast.
AMP Inc.
Appteton Paper
Appteton Paper
Armstrong World
Armstrong World
Armstrong World
Armstrong World
Armstrong World
Armstrong World
Beaver Shoe Co.
Bellefonte Boro
Bellefonte Boro
Bellefonte Boro
Bellefonte Boro
Bethlehem Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Bloomsburg MA
Bloomsburg MA
BMY
Burie Industries
Burte Industries
Burie Industries
Burie Industries
Campbell Cooper Tools
Campbell Cooper Tools
Campbell Cooper Toote
Caterpillar Inc.
Cero Metal
Cerro Metal
Cerro Metal
Cerro Metal
Cerro Metal
Cerro Metal
Cerro Metal
Cerro Metal
Cerro Metal
Cerro Metal
Cerro Metal
Chtoe Textiles
Chtoe Textiles
Chtoe Textiles
Chtoe Textiles
Clark Summit
Clark Summit
Clark Summit
Clark Summit
Clark Summit
Clark Summit
Clark Summit
Clark Summit
Coming-As ahi
Coming-Asahi
Coming-Asahi
Coming-Asahi
Coming-Asahi
Coming-Asahi
Coming-Asahi
Coming-Asahi
Corning-Asahi
Coming-Asahi
Coming-Asahi
C&O Charter Power Systems
Danville MA
Danville MA
Danville MA
Dillsburg Boro
Dillsburg Boro
Dillsburg Boro
Dillsburg Boro
Dillsburg Boro
Electro-Platers-York
Etectro- Platers -York
Electro-Platers-York
Electro-Platers-York
Electro- Platers -York
Electro- Platers -York
Electro-Platers-York
Electro-Platers-York
TOXIC SUBSTANCE
Mercury-Total
Nickel-Total
PCBs
COPPER
Aluminum-Total
Phenolics-ToLRec
Chloroform
Chcornkirn ~~ Hox
Formaldehyde
Molybdenum-Total
Silver-Total
Triethylamin*
Acetone
Copper-Total
Lead-Total
Silver-Total
Zinc-Total
Copper-Total
Lead-Total
Cadmium-Total
Copper-Total
Silver-Total
Chromium Compounds
Copper-Total
Cyanide-Free
Phenol.Single
Silver-Total
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
1,1,1,-Trichkxoethane
Zinc-Total
Benzidine
Cadmium-Total
Chromium-Hex
Chromium -Total
Copper-Total
Lead-Total
Nickel-Total
PCBs
Silver-Total
Anthracene
Chromium-Total
Formaldehyde
Phenol.Single
Suffide
Aluminum-Total
Chloroform
Copper-Total
Cyanide-Free
Iron-Total
Lead-Total
Manganese-Total
Zinc-Total
Aluminum-Total
Aluminum-Total
Cadmium-Total
Cadmium-Total
Chromium-Hex
Chromium-Hex
Copper-Total
Copper-Total
Flouride-Total
Iron-Total
Lead-Total
Lead Compounds
Chromium-Hex
Copper-Total
Silver-Total
Copper-Total
Cyanide-Free
Lead-Total
Silver-Total
Zinc-Total
Cadmium-Total
Chromium-Total
Copper-Total
Cyanide-Total
Lead-Total
Nickel-Total
Organic*-Total
Silver-Total
LOADING
ESTIMATE
(Ibs/year)
7
498
6,972
28
8.409
93
2
3
0
15
9
152
250
47
9
1
884
.'566
413
5
464
66
27
42
4
4
14
5
5
5
5
339
19
0
9
7
151
47
19
1
0
9
0
78
48
93
2,618
29
224
1,122
1.496
28
224
1,047
231
475
38
7
38
34
68
46
3.462
407
271
15
123
61
33
46
5
2
30
91
8
58
16
14
14
126
4
5
DATA
SOURCE
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
NPDES
PERMIT
NUMBER
27022
27022
27022
10294
8265
8265
8761
8761
8761
B761
8761
8761
NA
20486
20486
20486
20486
8303
8303
8303
27171
27171
9253
8508
8508
8508
8508
NA
NA
NA
NA
9202
9202
9202
9202
9202
9202
9202
9202
9202
9202
9202
9172
9172
9172
9172
28576
28576
28576
28576
28576
28576
28576
28576
8923
8923
8923
6923
8923
8923
8923
8923
8923
8923
8923
80772
23531
23531
23531
24431
24431
24431
24431
24431
7773
7773
7773
7773
7773
7773
7773
7773
STATE
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
BASIN
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
. Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
SUBBASIN
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Conestoga Creek
Juniata River
Juniata River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Middle Creek
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
North Branch
North Branch
Codorus Creek
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Codorus Creek
Codorus Creek
Codorus Creek
Codorus Creek
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
Conestoga Creek
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
133
-------
FACILITY NAME
Electro-Platers-York
Emporium Specialties Company
Emporium Specialties Company
Gold Bond Building Products
Gold Mills-Dyehouse
Gold Mills-Dyehouse
Gold Mills-Dyehouse
Gold Milte-Dyehouse
Grinned Corp.
Qrinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinned Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Grinnell Corp.
Gte Products Corp.
GTE Products Corp.
Hampden Twp - Roth
Hartey Davidson
Hariey Davidson
Hartey Davidson
Hariey Davidson
Hariey Davidson
Hariey Davidson
Hariey Davidson
Hariey Davidson
Harrisburg Water&Sewer
Harrisburg Water&Sewer
Hershey Food Corp.
Hollidaysburg - Regional
Hollidaysburg - Regional
Hollidaysburg-Regional
Hollidaysburg-Regional
Hollidaysburg - Regional
Hollidaysburg - Regional
Howes Leather
Howes Leather
Howes Leather
Howes Leather
Huntington
International Paper
International Paper
International Paper
International Paper
International Paper
Johnson BailHe Shoe Company
Johnson Baillie Shoe Company
Kelly Twp
Kelly Twp
Kelly Twp
Kelly Twp
Kelly Twp
Kelly Twp
Kelly Twp
Kelly Twp
Kelly Twp
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Lackawanna River B.
Letterkenny Army
TOXIC SUBSTANCE
Zinc-Total
Copper Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Ammonia
1.1-Dichloroethylene
Chromium -Total
Phenolic*-Tot
Suffide
Aluminum-Total
Cadmium-Total
Chromium -Total
Chromium-Total
Copper-Total
Cyanide-Total
Iron-Total
Lead-Total
Nickel-Total
Silver-Total
Zinc-Total
Barium Compounds
Antimony
Copper-Total
Chromium -Total
Cyanide-Free
Cyanide-Total
Iron-Total
Manganese-Total
Nickel-Total
Organic*-Total
Zinc-Total
Chloroform
Zinc-Total
Tetrachkxoethvtene
Copper-Total
MetMenechloride
Phenolics -Tot.Rec
Phenol, Single
Silver-Total
Zinc-Total
Chromium -Total
Cyanide-Free
Lead-Total
Phenolics-Total Rec.
Zinc-Total
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Chloroform
Copper-Total
Lead-Total
Acetone
Toluene
Cadmium-Total
Chromium -Total
Copper-Total
Cyanide-Total
Lead-Total
Mercury-Total
Nickel-Total
Silver-Total
Zinc-Total
Aluminum-Total
Aluminum-Total
Aluminum-Total
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Copper-Total
Copper-Total
Copper-Total
Iron-Total
Iron-Total
Iron-Total
Lead-Total
Lead-Total
Lead-Total
Manganese-Total
Manganese-Total
Manganese-Total
Zinc-Total
Zinc-Total
Zinc-Total
1,1 - Dtchtoroethylene
LOADING
ESTIMATE
(Ibs/year)
112
5
5
250
1
4
12
912
•' 281
1
3
0
4
3
299
2
7
.' 0
89
30
51
100
44
7
18
128
7
128
62
131
388
11,077
22
254
5.078
20
51
6
305
4
20
12
20
215
274
274
137
548
118
250
250
6
25
434
62
62
1
31
6
806
313
2.755
1.658
15
43
28
60
553
958
238
1,198
839
7
369
1,198
921
30
479
737
1,198
89
0
DATA
SOURCE
PA-DMR
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-OMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
NPDES
PERMIT
NUMBER
7773
111830
111830
8591
8231
8231
8231
8231
80195
80195
80195
80195
80195
80195
80195
80195
80195
80195
80195
9024
9024
80314
7765
7765
7765
7765
7765
7765
7765
7765
27197
27197
8087
43273
43273
43273
43273
43273
43273
9300
9300
9300
9300
26191
7510
7510
7510
7510
7510
NA
NA
28681
28681
28681
28681
28681
28681
28681
28681
28681
27073
27090
27065
27073
27090
27065
27073
27065
27090
27073
27065
27090
27073
27065
27090
27065
27073
27090
27065
27090
27073
10502
STATE
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
BASIN
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
SUBBASIN
Susquehanna River
Trib. First Fork
Trib. First Fork
West Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch ,
North Branch
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River ,
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
Juniata River
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch (
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
Susquehanna River
134
-------
FACILITY NAME
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Letterkenny Army
Lewisburg Area JA
Lewisburg Area J A
Lewisburg Area JA
Lewisburg Area JA
Lewisburg Area J A
Lewisburg Area J A
Litton Systems Inc.
Litton Systems Inc.
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Lock Haven City
Loewengart & Co.
Loewengart & Co.
Loewengart & Co.
Loewengart & Co.
Loewengart & Co.
Loewengart & Co.
Loewengart &Co.
Lower Lackawanna
Lower Lackawanna
Lower Lackawanna
Lower Lackawanna
Lower Lackawanna
Lower Lackawanna
Lower Lackawanna
Merck & Co.
Merck & Co.
Merck & Co.
Merck & Co.
Milton MA
Milton MA
Milton MA
Milton MA
Milton MA
Milton MA
Milton MA
Milton MA
Mountaintop
Mountaintop
Mountaintop
Mountaintop
Mountaintop
New Freedom Boro
New Freedom Boro
New Freedom Boro
New Freedom Boro
TOXIC SUBSTANCE
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichkxoethane
Butoxyethoxy Ethanol
Cadmium -Total
Copper-Total
Cyanide-Free
Cyanide-Total
Lead-Total
Methytchkxide
Methytene Chloride
Nickel-Total
Silver-Total
Silver-Total
Tetrachtoroethytene
Trichkxoethylene
TTO
Vinyl chloride
Zinc -Total
Cadmium -Total
Copper-Total
Lead-Total
Mercury-Total
Silver-Total
Zinc -Total
Copper Compounds
Nickel Compounds
1 2 - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2.4-Trichloro-benzene
1 ,3 - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4 - Dichlorobenzene
2-NHrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2.4,6-Trichbro-phenol
Benzene
Benzidine
Cadmium -Total
Chlorobenzene
Chromium -Hex
Chromium -Total
Copper-Total
Lead -Total
Mercury-Total
Methytene Chloride
Nitrobenzene
Phenolics -Total Rec.
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Zinc -Total
Cadmium -Total
Chromium -Hex
Chromium -Total
Lead-Total
Nickel-Total
Phenolics -Tot Rec
Aluminum -Total
Chloroform
Copper-Total
Iron-Total
Lead-Total
Manganese -Total
Zinc -Total
Acrytonitrite
Chloroform
Chromium -Hex
Cyanide-Total
Cadmium -Total
Chromium -Total
Copper-Total
Lead-Total
Mercury-Total
Nickel-Total
Sitver-TotaJ
Zinc-Total
Carbon Tetrachtoride
Chloroform
Flouride-Total
Lead-Total
Tetrachloroethylene
Aluminum -Total
Copper-Total
Iron-Total
Lead-Total
LOADING
ESTIMATE
(Ibs/year)
0
17
7
15
2
2
11
10
°. 366
7
0
0
0
0
57
0
27
: 3
29
3
1
3
234
5
5
661
59
59
59
67
540
34
34
50
7
59
67
67
67
67
1
67
67
472
34
34
337
0
4
89
32
19
4
21
420
26
336
3,441
168
5287
1.343
40
599
200
400
5
263
158
16
1
210
3
1,052
3
32
29.866
25
4
241
134
428
107
DATA
SOURCE
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
NPDES
PERMIT
NUMBER
10502
10502
10502
10502
10502
10502
105O2
10502
10502
10502
10502
10502
10502
10502
10502
10502
10502
44661
44661
44661
44661
44661
44661
8796
8796
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
25933
9521
9521
9521
9521
9521
9521
9521
26361
26361
26361
26361
26361
26361
26361
8419
8419
8419
8419
20273
20273
20273
20273
20273
20273
20273
20273
45985
45985
45985
45985
45985
43257
43257
43257
43257
STATE
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
BASIN
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
SUBBASIN
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
Susquehanoa River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
135
-------
FACILITY NAME
New Freedom Boro
New Freedom Boro
New Freedom Boro
New Holland Boro
New York Wire Co.
Orsham -Sylvania
Orsham -Syrvania
Orsham -Sylvania
Oreham - Sylvania
Orsham -Sylvania
Orsham - Sylvania
Orsham - Sylvania
Orsham - Sylvania
Orsham - Sylvania
Orsham-Sytvania
Orsham - Sylvania
Orsham - Sylvania
Penn Bee Co.
Perm Bee Co.
Penn Bee Co.
Penn Bee Co.
Penn Bee Co.
Penn Bee Co.
Penn Township
Penn Township
Perm Township
Penn Township
Penn Township
Penn Township
Penn Township
Perm Township
Penn Township
PH Qladletter
PHQladleKer
Pine Creek MA
Pin0 CrMk MA.
Pine Creek MA
Pine Creek MA
Pine Creek MA
Pine Creek MA
Pne Creek MA
Pine Creek MA
Pme Creek MA
Pne Creek MA
Pne Creek MA
Pne Creek MA
Pne Creek MA
Pope & Talbot Wis Inc.
PP&L Brunner Island
PP&L Brunner Island
PP&L Brunner Island
PP&L Brunner Island
PP&L Brunner Island
PPfcL Brunner Island
PPfcL Brunner Island
PPfcL Brunner Island
PPfcL Brunner Island
PPfcL Brunner Island
PPfcL Brunner Island
PPfcL Brunner Island
PPfcL Brunner Island
PPfcL Brunner Island
PP&L Brunner Island
PPfcL Montour
PPfcL Montour
PP&L Montour
PP&L Montour
PPfcL Montour
PPfcL Montour
PP&L Montour
PP&L Montour
PP&L Montour
PP&L Shamokin Dam
PP&L Shamokin Dam
PP&L Shamokin Dam
PP&L Shamokin Dam
Qebecor Printing Atglen
Quebecor Printing Atglen
Ouebecor Printing Atglen
Quebecor Printing Atglen
Sandvik Steel Co.
Sandvik Steel Co.
136
TOXIC SUBSTANCE
Manganese-Total
Mercury-Total
Nickel-Total
Zinc-Total
Copper Compounds
Arsenic-Total
Cadmium-Total
Cobalt-Total
Copper-Total
Flouride-Total
Lead-Total
Molybdenum-Total
Nickel-Total
Selenium-Total
Tantalum-Total
Tungsten
Zinc-Total
Aluminum-Total
Beryllium-Total
Iron-Total
Manganese-Total
Manganese-Total
Zinc-Total
Cadmium-Total
Chromium-Hex
Chromium -Total
Copper-Total
Cyanide-Free
Lead-Total
Nickel-Total
SBver-Total
Zinc-Total
Chloroform
Phenol.Smgte
Cadmium-Total
Chloroform
Chromium -Total
Copper-Total
DDT
Qamma-BHC
Iron-Total
Lead-Total
Mercury-Total •
Nickel-Total
Phenol-Single
Silver-Total
Zinc-Total
Ammonia
Aluminum-Total
Antimony-Total
Arsenic-Total
Beryllium-Total
Cadmium-Total
Chromium -Total
Copper-Total
Lead-Total
Mercury-Total
Nickel-Total
Phenol.Single
Selenium-Total
SHver-Total
Thallium-Total
Zinc-Total
Beryllium-Total
Copper-Total
Copper-Total
Iron-Dissloved
Iron-Total
Manganese-Total
Nickel-Total
Thallium-Total
Zinc-Total
Antimony-Total
Beryllium-Total
Beryllium-Total
Thallium-Total
Zinc Compounds
Copper Componds
Toluene
Xytene (mixed isomers)
Chromium
Nickel
LOADING
ESTIMATE
(Ibs/year)
107
1
107
244
5
101
2
676
•' 269
12,737
23
25,937
2,450
3
56
28,726
3,192
4f,649
1
803
0
169
0
16
21
26
105
16
52
105
5
255
1,095
365
2
3
94
94
3
3
251
63
0
31
1,566
3
125
28
12,115
7,054
714
235
235
6238
595
2.352
29
1292
4.023
274
235
2,351
260
22
6
212
11,486
26,952
12.097
637
144
1,061
3284
29
6
132
13
2
1
1
3
3
DATA
SOURCE
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
NPDES
PERMIT
NUMBER
43257
43257
43257
21890
NA
9024
9024
9024
9024
9024
9024
9024
9024
9024
9024
9024
9024
10031
10031
10031
10031
10031
10031
37150
37150
37150
37150
37150
37150
37150
37150
37150
8869
8869
27553
27553
27553
27553
27553
27553
27553
27553
27553
27553
27553
27553
27553
7919
8281
82B1
8261
8281
8281
8281
8281
8281
8281
8281
8281
8281
8281
8281
8281
8443
8443
8443
8443
8443
8443
8443
8443
8443
8451
8451
8451
8451
45845
45845
45845
45845
9598
9598
STATE
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
BASIN
Susquehanna
S usque nan na
Susquenanna
Susquenanna
Susquehanna
Susquenanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
SUBBASIN
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Codorus Creek
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Octoraro Creek
Octoraro Creek
Octoraro CreeV
Octoraro Creek
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
-------
FACILITY NAME
Scrantoh City
ScrantonCity
Scranton City .
ScrantonCity
Shamokin-Coal Twp
Shamokin-Coal Twp
Shamokin-Coal Twp
Shamokin-Coal Twp
Shamokin-Coal Twp
Shamokin-Coal Twp
Shamokin-Coal Twp
Shippensburg Boro
Small Tube Products
Small Tube Products
Standard Steel
Standard Steel
Standard Steel
Standard Steel
Standard Steel
Sunbury City MA
Sunbury City MA
Sunbury City MA
Susq.Steam Electric
Textron Lycoming
Textron Lycoming
Textron Lycoming
TRW
Turkey Hill Dairy Inc.
UGI Huntock
UGI Hunlock
University Area J A
University Area J A
University Area J A
University Area J A
University Area J A
University Area J A
University Area J A
University Area J A
University Area JA
University Area JA
Valley Joint SA
Valley Joint SA
Valley Joint SA
Valley Joint S A
Valley Joints A
Valley Joint SA
Valley Joints A
Valley Joint SA
Wellsboro MA
Wellsboro MA
Wellsboro MA
Wellsboro MA
Wellsboro MA
Wellsboro MA
Wellsboro MA
Wellsboro MA
Welteboro MA
Wellsboro MA
Wellsboro MA
Westfield Tanning
Westfield Tanning
Westfield Tanning
Williamsport SA(C)
WilliamsportSA(C)
Williamsport SA(C)
Williamsport SA(C)
Williamsport SA(C)
Williamsport SA(C)
Williamsport SA(C)
Williamsport SA(C)
Williamsport SA(W)
Williamsport SA(W)
Williamsport SA(W)
Williamsport SA(W)
Williamsport SA(W)
Williamsport SA(W)
Williamsport SA(W)
Williamsport SA(W)
Williamsport SA(W)
Williamsport SA(W)
Williamsport SA(W)
Williamsport SA(W)
TOXIC SUBSTANCE
Aluminum-Total
Chloroform
Copper-Total
Zinc-Total
Cadmium-Total
Copper-Total
Lead-Total
Mercury-Total
Nickel-Total
Silver-Total
Zinc-Total
Cyanide-Free
Copper Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Iron-Dissolved
Iron-Total
Manganese-Total
Phenolics-TotRec
Zinc-Total
Copper-Total
Phenol.Single
Zinc-Total
Zinc-Total
Ammonia
Methanol
Trichkxoethylene
1,1,1-Trichbroethane
Ammonia
Iron-Total
Manganese-Total
Cadmium-Total
Chloroform
Chromium -Total
Copper-Total
Cyanide-Free
Lead-Total
Mercury-Total
Nickel-Total
Silver-Total
Zinc-Total
Cadmhin-Total
Chromium-Total
Copper-Total
Lead-Total
Mercury-Total
Nickel-Total
Silver-Total
Zinc-Total
Bromoform
Cadmium-Total
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
Chromium -Total
Copper-Total
Dichlorobromomethane
Lead-Total
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Zinc-Total
Chromium -Total
Mercury-Total
Phenol-Single
Cadmium-Total
Chromium -Total
Copper-Total
Cyanide-Free
Lead-Total
Nickel-Total
SHver-Total
Zinc-Total
BvofnofofTn
Cadmium-Total
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
Chromium -Total
Copper-Total
Dichlorobromomethane
Lead-Total
Methly Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Nickel-Total
Silver-Total
LOADING
ESTIMATE
(Ibs/year)
36,534
462
1,387
6,798
86
344
860
17
•' 430
430
860
23
250
250
2.088
3.603
313
• 212
447
176
176
617
4,783
250
34
10
1
5
6.881
883
5
5
997
997
100
50
2
399
3
1,296
30
158
158
16
2
158
79
277
1
0
11
36
4
36
21
4
3
3
107
15
0
38
136
68
678
678
452
11295
203
904
3.517
41
491
164
245
409
82
164
8
8
4,089
82
DATA
SOURCE
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
PA-DMR
NPDES
PERMIT
NUMBER
26492
26492
26492
26492
27324
27324
27324
27324
27324
27324
27324
30643
34886
34886
9164
9164
9164
9164
9164
26557
26557
26557
47325
7455
7455
7455
110957
83771
8664
8664
26239
26239
26239
26239
26239
26239
26239
26239
26239
26239
43681
43681
43681
43681
43681
43681
43681
43681
21687
21687
21687
21687
21687
21687
21687
21687
21687
21687
21687
8800
8800
8800
27057
27057
27057
27057
27057
27057
27057
27057
27049
27049
27049
27049
27049
27049
27049
27049
27049
27049
27049
27049
STATE
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
BASIN
Susquehanna
Susquahanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
SUBBASIN
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Little Juniata River
Little Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
North Branch
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Pequea Creek
North Branch
North Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
North Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
West Branch
137
-------
FACILITY NAME
WHIiamiportSAfW) .
Williamsprot Wirerope
Wyeth-Averst.Labs
York International Corp.
AA County Broadneck
ABC Rail Corp.
ABC Rail Corp.
ABC Rail Corp.
ABC Rail Corp.
ABC Rail Corp.
Aberdeen, Town of STP
Annapolis. City of STP
Armco Stainless
Armco Stainless
Armco Stainless
Armco Stainless
Armco Stainless
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Carr-Lowery Glass Company
Carr-Lowery Glass Company
Chemetals Inc.
Chemetals Inc.
Chemetals Inc.
Chevron USA Inc.
Chevron USA Inc.
Chevron USA Inc.
Chevron USA Inc.
Cox Creek Refinig Company
Cox Creek Refining Company
Cox Creek Refining Company
Eastern Stainless Corp.
Eastern Stainless Corp.
Eastern Stainless Corp.
Eastern Stainless Corp.
Eastern Stainless Corp.
Eastern Stainless Corp.
FMCCorp.
FMCCorp.
GMC
Kanasco Ltd.
Kanasco Ltd.
Kanasco Ltd.
Miles Inc.
Miles Inc.
Miles Inc.
Miles Inc.
Miles Inc.
Miles Inc.
Miles Inc.
Mites Inc.
Patapsco
Patapsco
Patapsco
Patapsco
Patapsco
Patapsco
Patapsco
Patapsco
Patuxent-Anne Arundel Co.
Peridot Chemicals Inc.
Red Star Yeast
TOXIC SUBSTANCE
Zinc-Total
Lead
Copper-Total
Copper Compounds
Copper
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Copper
Chromium Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Copper Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Ammonia
Benzene
Chromium Compounds
Copper Compounds
Cyanide Compounds
CNethanolamine
Ethyl benzene
Lead Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Naphthalene
Nickel Compounds
Phenol
Styrene
SuMuricAcid
Toluene
Xytone (mixed isomers)
Zinc Compounds
Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrogen Fluoride
Ammonia
Barium Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Toluene
Xytone (mixed isomers)
Nickel
Copper
Lead
Chromium Compounds
Hydrogen Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Nitric Acid
SulfuricAcid
Ethytene Glycol
Methanol
Zinc Compounds
Ammonia
Dichromethane
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Barium Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Cobalt Compounds
Copper Compounds
Lead Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Zinc Compounds
Berylium
Cadmium
Chromium Total
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Copper
Sulfuric Acid
Ammonia
LOADING
ESTIMATE
(Ibs/year)
327
5
17
12
146
5
5
5
5
5
289
151
10
500
500
255
500
2.382
' 647
278
1,569
17,321
37,040
313
2.530
8.560
6.414
26.000
1
6,577
23,910
95
4,100
4.550
4
170
20
9
126.100
207
113
54,937
607
30,489
50
50
90
50
250
250
250
590
5
750
1.622
5
5
1,344
2,776
230
5
5
5
6
3
4
2
4
3
5
41
155
246
2,300
2,457
206
516
541
15.258
106
1
6,500
DATA
SOURCE
PA-DMR
TRI-91
PA-DMR
TRI-91
EPA-CB
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
THI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
THI-91
THI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
EPA-CB
TRI-91
TRI-91
NPDES
PERMIT
NUMBER
27049
8575
13862
8541
21644
60011
60011
60011
60011
60011
21563
21814
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
21555
21555
21555
21555
21555
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
85DP0347
85DP0347
1775
1775
1775
89DP0043
B9DP0043
89DP0043
89DP0043
89DP0571
89DP0571
89DP0571
981
981
981
981
981
981
299
299
116
62553
62553
62553
1252
1252
1252
1252
1252
1252
1252
1252
21601
21601
21601
21601
21601
21601
21601
21601
21652
1015
3298
STATE
PA
PA
PA
PA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
BASIN
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
•West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
SUBBASIN
West Branch
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Codorus Creek
Lower Chesapeake
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Swan Creek
Lower Chesapeake
Patapsco River '
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River •
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
PAtapsco River
Out Harbor i
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor
Out Harbor •
Patuxent River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
138
-------
FACILITY NAME
SCM Chemicals
SCM Chemicals
SCM Glidco Organic* Corp.
SCM Glidco Organic* Corp.
SCM Glidco Organics Corp.
Sherwin-Williams Company
Sherwin-Williams Company
Sherwin-Williams Company
Sherwin-Williams Company
Sherwin-Williams Company
Sherwin-Williams Company
Signode Corp.
Sod Run
Southern States Feed Division
Southern States Feed Division
W.R. Grace & Co. - Conn
W.R. Grace & Co. - Conn
W.R. Grace & Co. - Conn
W.R. Grace & Co. - Conn
W.R. Grace & Co. - Conn
Chesapeake Paper Products
Chesapeake Paper Products
Chesapeake Paper Products
Gloucester Lumber Products
Gloucester Lumber Products
Gloucester Lumber Products
TOXIC SUBSTANCE
Hydrochloric Acid
SulfuricAcid
Ammonia
SulfuricAcid
Zinc Compounds
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Barium Compounds
Lead Compounds
PhthaJk: Anhydride
Xylene (mixed isomers)
Zinc Compounds
Lead
Copper
Copper Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Ammonia
Ammonium Nitrate (solution)
Chromium Compounds
Molybdenum Trioxide
Nickel Compounds
Acetone
Catechol
Chloroform
Arsenic Compounds
Cnromium Compounds
Copper Compounds
LOADING
ESTIMATE
(Ibs/year)
1
73
14.813
2
28
1
1
2
: 88
14
1
3
301
S
5
240,000
29,000
• 16
1,500
180
29
1,606
4,405
5
5
5
DATA
SOURCE
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
EPA-CB
THI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
TRI-91
NPDES
PERMIT
NUMBER
1261
1261
1279
1279
1279
1295
1295
1295
1295
1295
1295
311
21709
NA
NA
311
311
311
311
311
3115
3115
3115
77879
77879
77879
STATE
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
BASIN
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
West Chesapeake
York
York
York
York
York
York
SUBBASIN
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Bush River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Mataponi River
Mataponi River
Mataponi River
Ware River
Ware River
Ware River
DATA SOURCE KEY:
TRI-91 = industry reported discharges to surface waters, US EPA Toxic Release Inventory, 1991
EPA-CB = EPA Chesapeake Bay Program calculated loads based on flow and concentration data provided by states
PA-DMR = PA DER calculated estimates of industrial and municipal loads based on DMR data reported to PCS
TRIW91F.WK4
139
-------
-------
-------
------- |