EPA 903/R/98/008
CBP/TRS 199/98
February 1998
Ambient Toxicity Testing in
Chesapeake Bay
Year 5 Report
Chesapeake Bay Program
EPA Report Collection
Regional Center for Environmental Information
U.S. EPA Region HI
DL:i.J.|nhi
-------
Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay
Year 5 Report
U.S. EPA Region:
^.°^ch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
February 1998
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
1-800-YOU R-BAY
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/bayprogram
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Year 5 Report
February 1998
Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay
Lenwood W. Hall, Jr.
Ronald D. Anderson
University of Maryland System
Agricultural Experiment Station
Wye Research and Education Center
P.O. Box 169
Queenstown, Maryland 21658
and
Raymond W. Alden, IE
Peter Adolphson
Old Dominion University
College of Sciences
Applied Marine Research Laboratory
Norfolk, Virginia 23529-0456
-------
FOREWORD
This study was designed to evaluate ambient toxicity in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by
using a battery of water column and sediment toxicity tests. A team of scientists from two
Chesapeake Bay research laboratories worked jointly to complete this goal. Water column toxicity
studies and overall project management were directed by Lenwood W. Hall, Jr. of the University of
Maryland's Agricultural Experiment Station. Sediment toxicity tests were managed by Raymond
W. Alden, III of Old Dominion University Applied Marine Research Laboratory. This report
summarizes data from the fifth year of a five-year ambient toxicity testing program. The following
government agencies were responsible for supporting and/or managing this research: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Maryland Department of Environment and Maryland Department
of Natural Resources.
-------
ABSTRACT
Data presented in this report were collected during the fifth year of a research program
designed to assess ambient toxicity of living resource habitats in Chesapeake Bay. The goals of this
study were to identify toxic ambient areas in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by using a battery of
standardized, directly modified, or recently developed water column and sediment toxicity tests. The
toxicity of ambient estuarine water and sediment was evaluated during the fall of 1995 at eight
stations in following areas: Pamunkey River (two stations), York River (two stations), James River
(two stations), Willoughby Bay (one station) and Lynnhaven River (one station). The toxicity of
ambient estuarine water was assessed at all stations by using the following estuarine tests: 8-d larval
sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus, survival and growth test; 8-d Eurytemora qffinis life
cycle test and two different 48-h coot clam, Mulinia lateralis embryo/larval tests. Toxicity of
ambient estuarine sediment was determined by using the following tests: 10-d sheepshead minnow
embryo-larval test; 20-d survival, growth and reburial test with the amphipods Leptacheinis
plumulosus and Lepidactylus dytiscus and 20-d polychaete worm, Streblospio benedicti survival and
growth test. Both inorganic and organic contaminants were assessed in ambient sediment and
inorganic contaminants were measured in ambient water concurrently with toxicity testing to assess
"possible" causes of toxicity.
Both univariate and multivariate (using all endpoints) statistical techniques were used to
analyze the water column and sediment toxicity data. Results from univariate analysis of water
column tests with sheepshead minnows and Mulinia showed that the various endpoints were not
significantly reduced at any of the stations when compared with the controls. However, Eurytemora
survival was significantly reduced at both the Willoughby Bay and York River upstream station
when compared with the controls. The only contaminant exceeding the water quality criteria was
lead as a concentration of 13 ug/L was reported at the Pamunkey River upstream site. Results from
multivariate analysis with the water column data showed a low to moderate level of toxicity at the
Willoughby Bay and the Pamunkey River downstream site.
Results from sediment toxicity tests showed few toxic effects for any of the eight stations
using univariate analysis. Significant mortality was observed at the Willoughby Bay station in L
dytiscus and C. variegatus tests. The ER-Ls (sediment toxicity guidelines) for six metals (As, Cu,
Pb, Hg, Ni, and Zn) were exceeded at this station, and Acid Volatile Sulfides (AVS) were extremely
high. Other stations showed some minor toxicity effects. The Pamunkey River stations showed
mortality in the C. variegatus tests. Sediment from the James River downstream station resulted in
reduced survival at day 20 in the £ benedicti test after adjusting for particle size effects. The York
River upstream station contained concentrations of arsenic slightly above the ER-L, but no
significant toxic effects were noted. Sediment from the Lynnhaven River station resulted in reduced
length in L .dytiscus, however it is believed aberrant, as metal and organic components were
extremely low, and pore water quality was not notably different from the control and reference sites.
Several other effects were also observed, but were not consistent between species, therefore these
toxic effects were inconclusive. Organic contaminants in sediments were below detection for all
stations. Multivariate analysis of the sediment toxicity data showed significant biological effects at
the Willoughby Bay and James River downstream station.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program
Office for supporting this study through the Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grant with
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Maryland Department of the
Environment is acknowledged for providing technical oversight to MDNR. We would like to
acknowledge individuals from the University of Maryland and Old Dominion University for
technical assistance; and the U.S. EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office and Maryland
Department of the Environment for their comments on the study design.
111
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i
Abstract ii
Acknowledgments iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures ix
1. Introduction 1-1
2. Objectives 2-1
3. Methods 3-1
3.1 Study Areas 3-1
3.2 Water Column Toxicity Tests 3-1
3.2.1 Test Species 3-1
3.2.2 Test Procedures 3-2
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis 3-3
3.2.4 Sample Collection, Handling and
Storage 3-3
3.2.5 Quality Assurance 3-3
3.2.6 Contaminant Analysis and Water
Quality Evaluations 3-4
3.3 Sediment Toxicity Tests 3-4
3.3.1 Test Species 3-4
3.3.2 Test Procedures 3-4
3.3.3 Statistical Analysis of Sediment
Data 3-5
3.3.4 Sample Collection, Handling and
Storage 3-5
3.3.5 Quality Assurance 3-6
3.3.6 Contaminant and Sediment Quality
Evaluations 3-6
3.4 Analysis of 5 Year Data Base 3-7
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page
4. Results 4-1
4.1 Water Column Toxicity Tests 4-1
4.1.1 Toxicity Data 4-1
4.1.2 Contaminants Data 4-1
4.1.3 Water Quality Data 4-1
4.1.4 Reference Toxicant Data 4-1
4.2 Sediment Tests 4-2
4.2.1 Toxicity Data 4-2
4.2.2 Contaminants Data 4-2
4.2.3 Pore Water Data 4-4
4.2.4 Reference Toxicant Data 4-4
5. Discussion 5-1
5.1 Pamunkey River 5-1
5.2 York River 5-1
5.3 James River 5-2
5.4 Willoughby Bay 5-2
5.5 Lynnhaven River 5-3
6. Analysis of Five Year Data Base 6-1
6.1 Water Column Toxicity 6-1
6.2 Sediment Toxicity 6-3
7. Recommendations 7-1
8. References 8-1
9. List of Tables and Figures 9-1
Appendices
Appendix A
Pesticides and semi-volatile compounds
data from sediment toxicity tests.
Appendix B
Water quality conditions reported in test
chambers during all water column tests.
Test species were Cyprinodon variegatus
(Cv), Eurytemora affinis (Ea) and Mulinia lateralis (Ml).
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1 Analytical methods used for inorganic analysis in water samples. The
following abbreviations are used: AE-ICP (Atomic Absorption -
Inductively Coupled Plasma), AA-H (Atomic Absorption - Hydride),
AA-F (Atomic Absorption - Furnace), AA-DA (Atomic Absorption -
Direct Aspiration) and AA-CV (Atomic Absorption - Cold Vapor) 9-1
Table 3.2 Particle size analysis of sediments from eight stations and references
and controls used in toxicity tests. Samples collected 10/4/95-10/11/95 9-2
Table 4.1 Survival data from 8-d toxicity tests with sheepshead minnow larvae
at 8 stations from 10/10/95 to 10/18/95 9-3
Table 4.2 Growth data from sheepshead minnow larvae from the 10/10/95 to
10/18/95 experiments 9-4
Table 4.3 Percent normal shell development from two 48-h coot clam embryo/
larval tests conducted from 10/13/95 to 10/15/95 (Test 1) and
10/16/95 to 10/18/95 (Test 2) 9-5
Table 4.4 Survival and reproduction data for Eurytemora after 8 d tests at 8
stations from 10/10/95 to 10/18/95 9-6
Table 4.5 Inorganic contaminants data from the 8 stations sampled during the
fall of 1995. Marine U.S. EPA acute water quality criteria (WQC)
are listed beside each metal. All values exceeding the criteria are
underlined 9-7
Table 4.6 Water quality parameters reported in the field during water sample
collection in the fall of 1995 9-8
Table 4.7 Toxicity data (48-h LCSOs or EC50s mg/L) from reference toxicant
tests conducted with cadmium chloride for the three test species.
Previous values from year 1,2,3 and 4 are reported 9-9
Table 4.8 Survival data from L. dytiscus, L plumulosus, and S. benedicti at the
eight stations. Tests were conducted from 10/24/95 to 11/13/95. "(R)"
= Reference, "(C)"= Control, "SE" = Standard Error 9-10
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Eags
Table 4.9 Survival data from L. dytiscus, L plumulosus, and S. benedicti at the
eight stations. Tests were conducted from 10/24/95 to 11/13/95. "(R)"
= Reference, "(C)"= Control, "SE" = Standard Error
9-11
Table 4.10
Table 4.11
Table 4.12
Table 4.13
Table 4.14
Table 4.15
Table 4.16
Survival data from L. dytiscus, L. plumulosus, and S. benedicti at the
eight stations. Tests were conducted from 10/24/95 to 11/13/95. "(R)"
= Reference, "(C)"= Control, "SE" = Standard Error
Survival data from C. variegatus at the eight stations. Tests were
conducted from 11/2/95 to 11/9/95. "(R)" = Reference, "(C)" = Control ..
Growth data (dry weight and length) for L dytiscus after 20-day
exposure to sediments. Initial weight and length represent the mean
and SE of 5 replicates of 20 animals of each species at the start of the test
Data for each replicate is the mean of the surviving animals from each.
Tests were conducted 10/24/95 through 11/13/95. "(R)" = Reference,
"(C)"= Control
Growth data (dry weight and length) for L plumulosus after 20-day
exposure to sediments. Initial weight and length represent the mean
and SD of 5 replicates of 20 animals of each species at the start of the test.
Data for each replicate is the mean of the surviving animals from each.
Tests were conducted 10/24/95 through 11/13/95. (R)" = Reference,
"(C)"= Control
Growth data (dry weight and length) for S. benedicti after 20-day
exposure to sediments. Initial weight and length represent the mean
and SE of 5 replicates of 15 animals of each species at the start of the test.
Data for each replicate is the mean of the surviving animals from each.
Tests were conducted 10/24/95 through 11/13/95. "(R)" = Reference,
"(C)"= Control
Chemical data (TOC) for sediment samples from the eight stations and
the controls. All data is on a dry weight basis
9-12
9-13
9-14
9-15
Average SEM and AVS values and the SEMrAVS ratio for sediment
samples tested in 1995
9-16
9-17
9-18
Vli
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued) Page
Table 4.17 SEM analysis for sediments collected 10/4/95-10/11/95.
Concentrations for each metal are expressed in umol per gram of
sediment 9-19
Table 4.18 Inorganic contaminants for sediment samples from the eight stations
and the controls. (Note: single underlined values represent concentrations
exceeding "Effects Range-Low", and double underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Median" levels listed below as
defined in Long et al 1995). NA = not available; - = not listed;
< = values were less than those listed 9-20
Table 4.19 Chemical data for pore water samples from the eight stations and the
references and controls 9-21
Table 4.20 Reference toxicant data results from 96-h, water only, reference toxicant
tests for the fifth year of the ambient toxicity project. Cadmium chloride
(CdCl2) was used for all organisms 9-22
Table 6.1 Summary of comparisons of water column RTRM indices for reference
and test sites presented in Figures 6.1 - 6.5. Comparisons for which
confidence limits overlap are indicated by "O", those for which the
confidence limits do not overlap are indicated by "X" while " "
indicates no data taken for the period 9-23
Table 6.2 Summary of comparisons of sediment RTRM indices for references and
test sites presented in Figures 6.7 - 6.11. Comparisons for which
confidence limits overlap are indicated by an "O", those for which
the confidence limits do not overlap are indicated by "X" while" "
indicates no data taken for the period 9-25
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 3.1 Eight sampling locations used for the 1995 Ambient Toxicity
Program 9-27
Figure 6.1 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 water column data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 9-28
Figure 6.2 Toxicity Index results for the 1991 water column data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 9-29
Figure 6.3 Toxicity Index results for the 1992-3 water column data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 9-30
Figure 6.4a Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for the
Severn, Magothy and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for a
detailed description of presentation.) 9-31
Figure 6.4b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for
Baltimore Harbor sites. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.) 9-32
Figure 6.5 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 water column data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 9-33
Figure 6.6 Summary of water column Toxicity Index results for 1990-1995.
The sites are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values.
Also shown are the 95% confidence limits for the Toxicity Index
values (open bars) and the percentage of endpoints displaying
significant differences from the references (controls). The dashed
horizontal line is the maximum upper confidence limit observed
for any reference during the study and is included as a general
benchmark. The identities of the site numbers are provided in
Table 6.1 9-34
Figure 6.7 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 sediment data,
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 9-35
Figure 6.8 Toxicity Index results for the 1991 sediment data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 9-36
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Page
Figure 6.9 Toxicity Index results for 1992-93 sediment data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 9-37
Figure 6. lOa Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data from the Severn,
Magothy and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.) 9-38
Figure 6.1 Ob Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data from Baltimore
Harbor sites. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of
presentation.) 9-39
Figure 6.11 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 sediment data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 9-40
Figure 6.12 Summary of sediment Toxicity Index results for 1990-1995.
The sites are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values.
Also shown are the 95% confidence limits for the Toxicity Index
values (open bars) and the percentage of endpoints displaying
significant differences from the references. The dashed
horizontal line is the maximum upper confidence limit
observed for any reference during the study and is included
as a general benchmark. The identities of the site numbers are
provided in Table 6.2 9-41
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Decline of various living Chesapeake Bay resources such as submerged aquatic vegetation,
anadromous fish and the American oyster has been an area of concern in recent years (Majumdar et
al., 1987). Possible causes of these declining resources are fishing pressure, nutrient enrichment,
disease and pollution. The link between contaminants (including adverse water quality such as
reduced dissolved oxygen) and biological effects has been of concern in critical Chesapeake Bay
habitat areas. Information derived from the loading of toxic chemicals and/or chemical monitoring
studies are not adequate for assessing the biological effects resulting from numerous sources such
as multiple point source effluents, nonpoint source runoff from agriculture, silviculture and urban
sites, atmospheric deposition, groundwater contamination, and release of toxic chemicals from
sediments. The most realistic approach for evaluating the adverse effects of toxic conditions on
living resources is by direct measurement of biological responses in the ambient environment. For
the purposes of this report, the ambient environment is defined as aquatic areas located outside of
mixing zones of point source discharges.
Research efforts designed to address the link between contaminants and adverse effects on
living aquatic resources have been supported by various state and federal agencies in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. For example, the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy has a
commitment to develop and implement a plan for Baywide assessment and monitoring of the effects
of toxic substances, within natural habitats, on selected commercially, recreationally and
ecologically important species of living resources (CEC, 1989). This commitment is consistent with
the recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay Living Resource Monitoring Plan (CEC, 1988).
The idea for an Ambient Toxicity Testing Program was discussed at an Ambient Toxicity
Assessment Workshop held in Annapolis, Maryland in July of 1989 (Chesapeake Bay Program,
1990). The goals of this workshop were to provide a forum on how to use biological indicators to
monitor the effects of toxic contaminants on living resources in Chesapeake Bay. Recommendations
from this workshop were used to develop an ongoing ambient toxicity monitoring program (1990
to present).
Objectives from the previous assessments (1990-1994) have been completed and reports have
been published (Hall et al., 1991; Hall et al., 1992; Hall et al., 1994; Hall et al., 1996). General
conclusions to date have shown that 43% of the time water column tests conducted in 25 stations
(nine rivers and harbors) have suggested some degree of toxicity. The most toxic sites were located
in urbanized areas such as the Elizabeth River, Baltimore Harbor and Middle River. Water quality
criteria for copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc were exceeded at one or more of these sites. Some
degree of sediment toxicity was reported from 70% of the tests at 25 stations conducted during the
five year period (1990 -1994). The Elizabeth River and Baltimore Harbor stations were reported as
the most toxic areas based on sediment results. Sediment toxicity guidelines (Long and Morgan
ER-M values) were exceeded for one or more of the following metals at these two locations: arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. At the Elizabeth River station, nine of sixteen
semi-volatile organics and two of seven pesticides measured exceeded the ER-M values. Various
semi-volatile organics exceeded the ER-M values at a number of Baltimore Harbor sites; pyrene and
1-1
-------
pyrene and dibenzo (a, h) anthracene were particularly high at one of the stations (Northwest
Harbor).
The goals of this study were to conduct three water column and four sediment toxicity tests
at the following locations in Virginia waters of the Chesapeake Bay: Pamunkey River (two stations),
York River (two stations), James River (two stations), Willoughbay Bay (one station) and
Lynnhaven River (one station). Inorganic contaminants were evaluated in water and both organic
and inorganic contaminants were evaluated in sediment during these experiments.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
OBJECTIVES
This ambient toxicity study was a continuation of an assessment effort previously conducted
from 1990-1994 in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The major goal of this program was to assess
and determine the toxicity of ambient water and sediment in selected areas of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed by using a battery of standardized, directly modified, or recently developed water column
and sediment toxicity tests.
The specific objectives of the fifth year of this study were to:
• assess the toxicity of ambient estuarine water and sediment during the fall of 1995
at the following eight stations: Pamunkey River (two stations), York River (two
stations), James River (two stations), Willoughby Bay (one station) and Lynnhaven
River (one station);
• determine the toxicity of ambient estuarine water described in the first objective by
using the following estuarine tests: 8-d larval sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon
variegatus survival and growth test; 8-d Eurytemora affinis life cycle test and 48-h
coot clam, Mulinia lateralis embryo-larval tests;
• evaluate the toxicity of ambient sediment described in the first objective by using the
following estuarine tests: 10-d sheepshead minnow embryo-larval test; 20-d
amphipod, Lepidactylus dytiscus and Leptocheims plumulosus survival, growth and
reburial test and 20-d polychaete worm, Streblospio benedicti survival and growth
test;
• measure inorganic contaminants in ambient water and organic and inorganic
contaminants in sediment concurrently with toxicity tests to determine "possible"
causes of toxicity;
• determine the relative sensitivity of test species for each type of test and compare
between test methods to identify regions where ambient toxicity exists;
• identify longer term test methods development or follow up survey design needs (if
any) to support baywide assessment of ambient toxicity; and
• summarize water column and sediment toxicity data from 1990 to 1995 using a
composite index approach for each site.
2-1
-------
SECTION 3
METHODS
3.1 Study Areas
Study areas (eight stations) were selected to represent either historically impacted locations,
locations of unknown impact or ecologically important areas (Figure 3.1). Various regulatory
agencies in the state of Virginia (e.g. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality) provided
valuable historical data for selecting these stations. The two Pamunkey River stations were selected
to represent an area suspected to be impacted by the operation of a large paper mill (Chesapeake
Corporation) at West Point. Stations were located above (PRAWP - Pamunkey River above West
Point - 37° 32 47° N x 76° 48 44 W) and below (PRBWP -Pamunkey River below West Point - 37°
31 55 N x 76° 48 13 W) the Chesapeake Corporation paper mill at West Point. The two York River
stations were near a major federal installation at Cheathan Annex where various point source
discharges enter the river. The toxicity status of this area was unknown. The two stations selected
in the York River were located above (YRACA - York River above Cheathan Annex - 37° 18 18 N
x 76° 36 19 W) and below (YRBCA - York River below Cheathan Annex - 37° 17 00 N x 76° 34
36 W) Cheathan Annex. The two James river stations were located in an area with extensive
industrial waterfront activities at shipyard and coal terminals (Newport News Shipbuilding and
drydock). The area was suspected to be impacted by these activities; however, data are lacking to
show any impact. The James River stations were located above the Newport News ship building and
dry dock (JRANN - 37° 00 37 N x 76° 27 15 W) and below this facility (JRBNN - 36° 58 33 N x 76°
26 20 W). One station was tested at Willoughby Bay at the mouth of the James River because this
shallow bay receives effluent from Sewells Point Naval Base and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
contamination has also been reported in this area. The coordinates for the Willoughby Bay station
(WB) were 36° 57 10 N x 76 ° 16 55 W. The Lynnhaven River station was selected to represent an
urbanized area potentially impacted by non-point source runoff. The Lynnhaven River (LR) station
was located at the following coordinates: 36° 53 50 N x 76° 05 19 W.
3.2 Water Column Toxicity Tests
The objectives of the water column toxicity tests were to determine the toxicity of ambient
water at the eight stations described above. The following tests were conducted at these stations
during the fall of 1995: 8-d larval sheepshead minnow survival and growth test; 8-d E. affinis life
cycle test and two 48-h coot clam embryo/larval tests. A suite of metals was also measured in
ambient water used for these tests.
3.2.1 Test species
Larval sheepshead minnows and the copepod E. affinis have been used in the previous four
years of ambient toxicity testing. These test species were selected because they meet most of the
following criteria: (1) resident Chesapeake Bay species, (2) sensitive to contaminants in short time
period (less than 10 d) and (3) standard test organism that does not require additional research.
Larval sheepshead. minnows are highly abundant, resident Chesapeake Bay organisms used
extensively in standard tests. Sheepshead minnows have demonstrated moderate sensitivity in
3-1
-------
subchronic tests and are commonly used in EPA's and MDE's Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing
Program. E. qffinis is an extremely abundant, resident Chesapeake Bay zooplankton species that is
sensitive to contaminants. We recently developed a Standard Operating Procedure for this species
that was used for these tests (Ziegenfuss and Hall, 1994). The test methods used for E. qffinis during
1995 were slightly different than used in previous years because a higher test salinity was used. This
issue is discussed in detail hi Section 3.2.2.
The coot clam, M. later alls, was a new species added to the suite of test organisms during
the third year of ambient toxicity testing. This clam is a small (< 2 cm length) euryhaline bivalve.
It is a numerically dominant species in the mesohaline areas of the Chesapeake Bay as well as
numerous tributaries (Shaughnessy et al., 1990). Embryo/larval development occurs in the water
column in approximately 6-8 days. It is, therefore, suitable for water column testing because the
sensitive life stage occurs in the water column. The coot clam adds another dimension to the suite
of test organisms because it represents a class of organisms (bivalves) not presently represented.
This clam is not a standard test organism, however, the U.S. EPA has written a draft test method for
estimating toxicity of effluents using Mulinia (Morrison and Petrocelli, 1990a; 1990b).
3.2.2 Test Procedures
Test procedures and culture methods previously described in the year 1 report for the 8-d
larval sheepshead minnow survival and growth test and 8-d E. qffinis life cycle test were used for
this study (Hall et al., 1991). The test procedures for the coot clam described in the year 3 report
were also used for these experiments (Hall et al. 1994). The sources for the species were as follows:
sheepshead minnows, Aquatic Biosystems, Denver, Colorado; E. qffinis, in-house cultures
(orginally from University of Maryland - Chesapeake Biological Laboratory) and coot clams (U. S.
EPA Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island).
One modification in test methods that was implemented in 1995 was the test salinity used
for the ambient tests. In previous years we have used a standard test salinity of 15 ppt. For most of
the tests conducted in previous years, the ambient salinities for the various stations ranged from 3
to 15 ppt. Water samples from all station were salinity adjusted to 15 ppt to allow annual
comparisons of data. For the ambient tests conducted in Virginia waters of Chesapeake Bay during
this study we used a standard salinity of 25 ppt at all stations because the highest salinity reported
for the various stations was 25 ppt. Salinity adjustments (increases) were conducted at stations when
measurements were below 25 ppt.
The higher test salinities of 25 ppt were optimum for both sheepshead minnows and the coot
clam. Therefore, test protocols (such as acceptable survival) were not affected. The 25 ppt salinity
was slightly higher than the optimum for E. qffinis but still within the range where this species is
found and can reproduce. Since our standard SOP for E. affinis (Ziegenfuss and Hall, 1994) was
based on a test salinity of 15 ppt and this salinity has been used for previous ambient toxicity tests,
it was necessary that we conduct additional experiments to determine acceptable control survival for
this species at 25 ppt. The results from this 8-day experiment showed that mean survival for four
groups of four replicates was 68.8% with a standard deviation of 9.5% and two standard errors of
9.5% (Memorandum from Jay Kilian, 1995). Two standard errors approximates the 95% confidence
interval. Therefore, acceptable E. qffinis control survival for this test salinity was greater than 59%.
3-2
-------
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis
Univariate statistical tests described in Fisher et al. (1988) were used for each test species
when appropriate. The goal of this study was not to generate typical LC50 data with various
dilutions of ambient water. For each test species response, control and test conditions (100 percent
ambient water) were compared using a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). A statistical
difference between the response of a species exposed to a control condition and an ambient condition
was used to determine toxicity. Dunnett's (parametric) or Dunn's (non-parametric) mean testing
procedures were used in cases where comparisons of a species response on a spatial scale was
necessary.
3.2.4 Sample Collection. Handling and Storage
Sample collection, handling and storage procedures used in the previous studies were
implemented (Hall et al., 1991). Ambient water was collected from all study areas and taken to our
toxicity testing facility at the Wye Research and Education Center, Queenstown, Maryland for
testing.
Grab samples were used because they are easier to collect, require minimum equipment (no
composite samplers), instantaneous toxicity is evaluated, and toxicity spikes are not masked by
dilution. Grab samples collected from each station represented a composite of the water column
(top, mid-depth and bottom). A metering pump with teflon line was used to collect samples in 13.25
L glass containers.
The time lapsed from the collection of a grab sample and the initiation of the test or renewal
did not exceed 72 hours. Samples were collected on days 0, 3 and 6 during the 8 day tests. All
samples were chilled after collection and maintained at 4°C until used. The temperature of the
ambient water used for testing was 25°C. Salinity adjustments (increase) were performed on samples
collected from less saline sites to obtain a standard test salinity of 25 ppt.
3.2.5 Quality Assurance
A copy of our general Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual (including the
sheepshead minnow SOP) was submitted and approved by the sponsor prior to the study (Fisher et
al., 1988). Standard Quality Assurance (QA) procedures used in our laboratory for The State of
Maryland's Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Program were followed (Fisher et al., 1988). These QA
procedures were also used during the previous four years of ambient toxicity testing study. Specific
SOPs for E. affinis (Ziegenfuss and Hall, 1994) and M. later alls (Hall and Ziegenfuss, 1993) were
followed. The control water used for these experiments was obtained from a pristine area of the
Choptank River. The water was autoclaved and filtered with a 1 um filter. Hawaiian (HW) Marine
sea salts were used to salinity adjust samples to 25 ppt. The pH was also adjusted to 7.5 to 8.0 after
salinity adjustment.
Acute reference toxicant tests with cadmium chloride were conducted with the same stocks
of species used for ambient toxicity tests. Cadmium chloride was selected as the reference toxicant
because there is an established data base with this chemical for all of the proposed tests. Reference
toxicity tests were used to establish the validity of ambient toxicity data generated from toxicity tests
by ensuring that the test species showed the expected toxic response to cadmium chloride (Fisher
3-3
-------
et al., 1988). The reference toxicant tests were conducted on each test species and source (of
species) once during this study using procedures described in Hall et al. (1991).
3.2.6 Contaminant Analysis and Water Quality Evaluations
The contaminant analyses used for these studies provided limited information on selected
contaminants that may be present in the study areas. It was not our intention to suggest that the
proposed analysis for inorganic contaminants would provide an absolute "cause and effect
relationship" between contaminants and biological effects if effects were reported. Information on
suspected contaminants in the study areas may, however, provide valuable insights if high
potentially toxic concentrations of inorganic contaminants were reported in conjunction with
biological effects.
Aqueous samples for analysis of inorganic contaminants listed in Table 3.1 were collected
during the ambient toxicity tests. These contaminants and methods for their measurement have been
used in our previous ambient toxicity testing study (Hall et al., 1991). Analytical procedures and
references for analysis of these samples are presented in Table 3.1. Total inorganic contaminant
analysis (dissolved metals) were conducted on filtered samples using 0.40 urn polycarbonate
membranes. The Applied Marine Research Laboratory of Old Dominion University conducted the
inorganic analysis.
Standard water quality conditions of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH and
conductivity was evaluated at each site after sample collection. These conditions were evaluated
every 24 hours at all test conditions during the tests.
3.3 Sediment Toxicity Tests
All tests and analyses were conducted according to the SOPs and QA plans previously
submitted to the sponsor. The methods described in this report are general summaries of those
protocols.
3.3.1 Test Species
Sediment samples (100 percent ambient sediment samples) from eight stations were tested
using four organisms: eggs of the sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus, the amphipods
Lepidactylus dytiscus and Leptocheirus plumulosus, and the polychaete worm Streblospio benedicti.
3.3.2 Test Procedures
All tests were conducted for 10 days at 25°C and monitored daily. Daily monitoring in the
sheepshead test included the assessment of egg and larval mortality, hatching success and water
quality parameters (Hall et al., 1994) until the end of the test. On day 10 of the S. benedicti, L.
plumulosus, and L. dytiscus tests, mortalities were recorded, and the animals were returned to the
original test containers. The organisms were then monitored daily for an additional 10 days.
Numbers of live animals were recorded on day 20. Any living organisms were preserved for length
and weight measurements.
The sediment samples were collected from eight stations in the Pamunkey River, York River,
James River, Lynnhaven River and Willoughby Bay (see Section 3.1). Control sediments for each
3-4
-------
species consisted of native sediments from the area in which the test organisms were collected or
naturally occur. Control and reference sediments (see below) were tested with each set of test
samples. Reference sediments were employed to assist in determining any possible naturally
occurring geochemical and physical conditions inherent to the sediment being tested which may
influence mortality.
Because of the large range in particle size between test sites observed in past studies, two
reference sediments were used with each organism per test. These reference sediments bracketed
the sediment particle sizes found at the selected test sites. For example, one reference sediment most
closely matched the test site with highest sand proportion and one reference most closely matched
the test site with highest silt/clay proportion. Reference and control sediments were designated as
follows: (1) Lynnhaven sand, (2) Lynnhaven mud, and (3) Poropatank sediment. Lynnhaven mud
was used as the control sediment for S. benedicti and C. variegatus eggs, Lynnhaven sand was used
as the control for L dytiscus, and Poropatank sediment was used as the control for L plumulosus.
Lynnhaven sand (97.97 percent sand) and Poropatank sediment (14.03 percent sand) bracket the
particle size of nearly all test samples and were therefore considered suitable as reference sediments
as well. The test sediment samples were also analyzed for sand, silt, and clay content, and the
particle size/composition of the test sediments (Table 3.2) were quite variable even between
replicates at the same site.
The culture and maintenance procedures used for the polychaete S. benedicti and the
amphipod Lepidactylus dytiscus are described in Hall et al. (1991). Leptocheirus plumulosus and
the sheepshead minnow egg tests are described in Hall et al. (1994).
3.3.3 Statistical Analysis of Sediment Data
The goal of this study was not to generate LC50 data from dilution series tests. The main
objective was to evaluate for each test species, the response (mortality, growth, etc.) when tested in
100 percent ambient sediment, as compared to a control. Statistical differences between the
responses of species exposed to control and ambient sediments were used to determine the toxicity.
Evaluations relative to particle size effects were made based on the response seen hi the reference
sediments. Sheepshead egg data were evaluated using ANOVA contrasts and compared to the
controls. Evaluation of total mortality was assessed by combining egg mortality, larval mortality,
and unhatched eggs remaining at the termination of the test. Unhatched eggs were included as
mortality based upon previous observations and the assumption that probability of hatching and thus
survival decreases essentially to zero by test termination.
For all other tests, the statistical approaches that were employed in the first four years of the
study (Hall et al., 1992) were again utilized in the fifth year. Basically, the analyses consisted of
analysis of variance (ANOVA) models with a priori tests of each treatment contrasted to the
controls. Arcsine transformations were used for the percent mortality data. Mortality was corrected
for particle size effects using the regression equations presented in year 2 of the study. Length and
weight were expressed as percentage of change from the initial length and weight measurements.
3.3.4 Sample Collection. Handling and Storage
The general sediment sample collection, handling, and storage procedures described in Hall et
al. 1991 were used in this study. Sediment samples were collected at each site by Applied Marine
3-5
-------
Research Laboratory (AMRL) personnel and returned to the laboratory for testing. The sediments
were collected October 4 and 5, 1995 by petite ponar grab. True field replicates were maintained
separately for transport to the laboratory. Sediment was collected at each site by first randomly
identifying five grab sample locations along a 100 meter square grid. At each site a discrete field
subsample was collected for bioassays and stored on ice. A separate subset from the same ponar
grab series was placed into a handling container. Subsamples from all five sites within a station
were serially placed into the same handling container. When all five sites within the station had been
sampled, the entire batch was homogenized and distributed into the sample containers designated
for chemical analyses. All samples were transported on ice, out of direct sunlight. Bioassay samples
were held in refrigerators at 4°C until initiation of the toxicity tests. Samples for chemical analysis
were frozen and stored until tested. All samples were analyzed within EPA recommended holding
times.
3.3.5 Quality Assurance
All quality assurance procedures submitted previously to the sponsoring agency were
implemented following the testing protocols and associated SOP's. Laboratory quality assurance
procedures for sediment and pore water and inorganic and organic chemical analyses followed
standard EPA quality assurance guidelines.
Toxicity test sediment controls consisted of sediment from sites where either the animals
were collected, or the animals are naturally resident. Reference sediments were used to compare the
effects non-toxicity related parameters such as sediment particle size, ammonia, nitrate, and total
organic carbon (TOC) had on the test animals. Because of the apparent notable effect particle size
has on survival, and the large heterogeneity of particle size at the sites, two references sediments
(high percent sand, high percent silt/clay) were used for C. variegatus and S. benedicti to bracket
the particle sizes encountered at the test sites. Only one reference was used for each of the
amphipods. It was necessary to use only one reference because the control sediment for each animal
represented one end of the particle size scale in each case. The control for the L, dytiscus was at the
high end of the sand scale, while the control for L. plumulosus represented the high end of the
silt/clay scale. Other physico-chemical parameters were measured for comparison, but not controlled
for in the references.
Static acute non-renewal water-only 96-h reference toxicant tests were performed for each
species during each sampling period. Cadmium chloride was used as a reference toxicant for each
animal because the existing laboratory data base is available for this chemical. Reference toxicant
information was used to establish the validity and sensitivity of the populations of animals used in
the sediment test. Seasonal changes in sensitivity have been observed previously in L. dytiscus
(Deaver and Adolphson, 1990), therefore consideration of this QA reference data is paramount to
proper interpretation.
3.3.6 Contaminant and Sediment Quality Evaluations
Contaminants were evaluated concurrently with toxicity tests. It was not our intention to
suggest that the presence of inorganic and organic contaminants provide an absolute "cause and
effect" relationship between contaminants and any observed biological effects. Information on
suspected contaminants does however, provide valuable insights if high concentrations of potentially
toxic contaminants were reported in conjunction with biological effects.
3-6
-------
Sediment samples for organic contaminants analysis were collected in conjunction with
bioassay sediment samples. The contaminants assayed are listed in Appendix A. Organic analytical
procedures used were in accordance with a modified EPA method 8270..
All sediment samples were analyzed for acid volatile sulfides(AVS) and Total Organic
Carbon (TOC). Samples were frozen until analysis, at which time they were thawed, then
homogenized by gently stirring. Sediment samples were analyzed for AVS using the method of
DiToro et al. (1990) and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency method "Determination of Acid
Volatile Sulfides in Sediment" (U. S. EPA, 1991). Details of the analytical procedures for both AVS
and TOC are described in Hall et al., 1991. Pore water samples were removed from all sediment
samples by squeezing with a nitrogen press. All pore water samples were filtered then frozen until
analyses of ammonia, nitrite and sulfides were conducted. These analyses were conducted on all
samples. Details of the methods are described in Hall et al. (1991).
All sediment samples were analyzed for the following bulk metals: aluminum, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, tin and zinc, using an ICP (inductively coupled plasma atomic
emission spectroscopy) following USEPA/SW-846, Method 6010 (see Hall et al., 1991). In
addition, a Simultaneously Extractable Metals (SEM) analysis was conducted on all samples to use
with the AVS data to determine the potential toxicity of the sediment due to metals. The sample for
the SEM analysis was obtained from a step in the AVS procedure. The AVS method was detailed
in Hall et al. (1991). The SEM sample was the sediment suspension remaining in the generation
flask after the cold acid extraction had been completed. The sediment suspension was filtered
through a 0.2 micron membrane filter into a 250 ml volumetric flask. The sample was then diluted
to volume with deionized water. The concentrations of the SEM were determined by EPA-600/4-79-
020 Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (U.S. EPA, 1979). Cadmium, lead,
copper, nickel, and zinc were determined by ICP following U.S.EPA method number 200.7.
Mercury was determined by cold vapor generation following USEPA method number 245.1. The
concentrations were then converted to micromoles per gram dry sediment and were added together
to give total SEM.
3.4 Analysis of Five Year DataBase
A series of summary statistical analyses were conducted in order to provide environmental
managers with summary information concerning the relative toxicity of water and sediments from
the collection areas. These analyses also provide quantitative indicators of the degree of confidence
which may be given to differences between responses observed for "clean" ("reference") conditions
and those seen for test media (water or sediments) of unknown quality. These analyses are based
upon the summary composite indices first developed for the toxicity axis of the "sediment quality
triad" (Long and Chapman, 1985; Chapman, 1986; Chapman et al. 1987 and Chapman 1990). This
approach has been modified to provide confidence limits on composite indices designated as "ratio-
to-reference mean" (RTRM) indices (Alden, 1992). Details of the calculation of the RTRM indices
for the Ambient Toxicity Program are presented in the Year 3 report (Hall et al., 1994).
In order to make the RTRM indices more meaningful to managers, a method was developed
to scale the values, so that they range between a "best case" (uncontaminated) condition, represented
by a score of 0 and a "worst case" (highly contaminated and toxic) condition, represented by a score
of 100. A value of 0 would represent the median response of a reference test of uncontaminated
water or sediment, while a value of 100 would represent a condition producing the maximum
3-7
-------
detrimental responses in all of the endpoints (e.g. no growth, reproduction, or survival of all test
populations). Not only does this sort of scaling provide a "frame of reference" to address the
question of "how bad is this site?", but it allows scores of RTRM indices from different years (which
may have had different numbers of endpoints) to be evaluated on the same scale. This well-defined
scaling system is much more readily interpreted than the sediment quality triad RTR values or the
RTRM indices, which have a reference value of 1, but have an open-ended scale for toxic conditions,
the maximum value of which depends upon the number of endpoints, the magnitude of the test
responses, and the reference response values used in the calculations.
The scaled RTRM index, hereafter designated as "toxicity index" or TOX-INDEX, was
calculated as follows. The RTRM values and confidence limits were calculated as in previous years
(Hall et al., 1994). The reference median for any given site was subtracted from all reference and
test values (medians, lower and upper confidence limits). This step scales the reference median to
0. The values are then divided by a "worst case" constant for each test data set. This "worst case"
constant is calculated by taking the test data set and setting the values to the maximum detrimental
responses for each endpoint (e.g. no survival, growth, reproduction, hatching of eggs, etc.),
calculating the RTRM values for these "worst case" conditions by dividing by the appropriate
reference means (i.e.,for the sediment data set, each sample was matched to the reference data set
that most closely matched the sediment characteristics) and calculating the "worst case" constant as
the mean of RTRM values for all endpoints. The division by the "worst case" constant makes all
values (medians and confidence limits) a fraction of the "worst case" condition. The TOX-INDEX
values are converted to a percentage scale by multiplying by 100. The TOX-INDEX medians and
confidence limits for test and reference conditions of each site are plotted on maps of the Bay to
indicate the relative toxicity of various geographic locations. For graphical purposes, the lower
confidence limits of the reference data are not shown, unless the test confidence limits overlap those
of the reference conditions (i.e. a portion of the confidence limits for both the test and reference
conditions are less than zero).
In order to provide more information to the TOX-INDEX maps, pie charts are included to
indicate the relative percentage of endpoints that were shown to be different between the test and
reference data sets in the RTRM simulations. Therefore, a highly toxic site would not only be shown
to have high TOX-INDEX values which display a low degree of uncertainty (i.e., to have narrow
confidence bands that are well separated from reference conditions), but it would also be shown to
have a high percentage of endpoints that were adversely affected by the toxic conditions.
This type of presentation should provide managers with a tool to evaluate the relative
ecological risk of the sites in comparison to each other and aid in targeting mitigation efforts on a
spatial scale. A site with TOX-INDEX confidence limits that overlap those of a reference site, and
which displays few statistically significant endpoints, would be expected to pose little ecological risk
with respect to ambient toxicity. On the other hand, a site displaying a large TOX-INDEX value,
with confidence limits that are well separated for the reference condition and with many significantly
impacted endpoints would be expected to pose a much greater ecological risk. The ecological
significance of toxicity at sites with intermediate TOX-INDEX scores would have to be interpreted
through the best professional judgement of scientists and managers, although the relative magnitude
of the values does provide information on the relative degree of toxicity with respect to other sites.
Although absolute ecological risk assessments would require much more intensive biological
evaluations of long-term population and community level effects, TOX-INDEX provides a screening
3-8
-------
system that indicates the relative ranking by which regions can be prioritized for management
actions related to toxicity. Thus, the maps provide quantitative indications of the magnitude,
certainty and consistency of toxic effects.
The site location symbols in the TOX-INDEX maps indicate the degree to which water or
sediment benchmarks (water quality criteria or ER-M values, respectively) were exceeded. Thus,
the maps also display the qualitative degree of chemical contamination.
3-9
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS
4.1 Water Column Tests
The following results from water column tests are presented below: toxicity data,
contaminants data, water quality data and toxicity data from reference toxicant tests.
4.1.1 ToxicitvData
Survival, growth, reproduction and percent normal shell development from the three
estuarine tests conducted from 10/10/95 to 10/18/95 are presented in Tables 4.1 to 4.4. Based on
univariate analysis, sheepshead minnow survival and growth was not significantly different at any
of the ambient conditions when compared to the controls (Table 4.1 and 4.2). The percent normal
shell development of the coot clam was also similar when controls were compared with the test
conditions (Table 4.3). The results from the Eurytemora tests showed reduced survival for this
species at the York River upriver stations (YRACA) and the Willoughby Bay (WILLO) station when
compared with the controls (Table 4.4). Mean percent gravid females and the mean percent
immatures were not significantly reduced at any of the ambient conditions when compared with the
controls.
4.1.2 Contaminants Data
Inorganic contaminants data from the eight stations are presented in Table 4.5. Metals were
generally low at all location based on the one grab sample collected at each station during the study.
Only one metal (13 ug/L of lead at the Pamunkey River above West Point) exceeded the U.S. EPA
marine chronic water quality criteria (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987).
4.1.3 Water Quality Data
Water quality parameters reported from grab samples collected three times at all stations are
presented in Table 4.6. The temperature and salinity of ambient water collected from all sites was
adjusted to 25 °C and 25 ppt before testing. Ambient water quality conditions appeared adequate
for survival of test species. Water quality conditions reported in test containers during testing are
reported in Appendix B. All parameters appeared adequate for survival of test species.
4.1.4 Reference Toxicant Data
Forty-eight hour LC or EC50 values for the three test species exposed to cadmium chloride
during reference toxicant tests are presented in Table 4.7. These toxicity values were compared with
the values from the previous four years for all species except the coot clam where only two years of
data were available. Toxicity values for sheepshead minnows and E. affinis were similar to values
previously reported. The coot clam EC50 value for year 5 was higher than the other two values, but
similar to a value of (.040 mg/L) reported in 1996. Therefore, this value is still within an acceptable
range. The reference toxicant data in Table 4.7 demonstrates that the test species from the various
sources are healthy and the ambient toxicity data were valid.
4-1
-------
4.2 Sediment Tests
The following results from sediment toxicity tests are presented below: toxicity data,
contaminants data, pore water data and data from reference toxicant tests.
4.2.1 Toxicity Data
Survival data from sediment toxicity tests conducted with the four test species at the eight
station is presented in Tables 4.8 through 4.11. Survival in the controls was greater than 80 percent
and 73 percent at day 10 and day 20, respectively, for both amphipods and the polychaete worm.
Although unadjusted means for survival resulted in significant mortality at both day 10 and 20 for
L dytiscus, when mortality was adjusted for particle size effects, only two stations resulted in
significant differences from controls. Significant mortality was observed only in the L dytiscus test
in the Willoughby Bay sediment at day 10 when adjusted for particle size effects and in S. benedicti
in the James River upstream station sediment on day 20. Survival data for C. variegatus showed
reduction at James River downstream station and both Pamunkey River stations. The most
significant reduction in survival occurred at Willoughby Bay (48.00%). Also at Willoughby Bay,
a majority of the mortality resulted from post-hatch death (43.86%), while 20% resulted from egg
death prior to hatch. Generally, past results have shown death of eggs prior to hatching for most
stations rather than post-hatch mortality fish. The James River downstream station also showed
significant post-hatch death, but to a lesser extent. At both Pamunkey River stations, significant
reductions in survival resulted from pre-hatch death of eggs.
Growth data (mean length and dry weight) for amphipods and worms after 20 day exposure
to sediments are included in Tables 4.12 through 4.14. Growth data indicated significant reduction
in L. dytiscus in length in Lynnhaven River sediment and a significant reduction in length was
observed in S. benedicti in the York River downstream sediment. L plumulosus showed a reduction
in length at all sites except the Lynnhaven River when compared with controls. Since no significant
reduction in weight was observed, it is likely that factors other than toxicity may have affected
molting frequency and therefore length.
4.2.2 Contaminants Data
Toxicity of chemicals in sediments is determined by the extent to which chemicals bind to
the sediments. There are many factors that influence the binding capabilities of a particular
sediment. The toxicity of non-ionic organic chemicals is related to the organic content of the
sediments, and it appears that the bioavailability of sediment-associated metals is related to the
concentration of Acid Volatile Sulfides (AVS) present (DiToro, 1990). Sediment samples from
the eight stations and the controls were analyzed for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Acid Volatile
Sulfides (AVS). The results are shown in Tables 4.15 and 4.16. At present, there is no readily
accessible data base for comparison of TOC normalized data, therefore the TOC analysis from this
study was included to allow for future comparisons. The AVS approach to sediment contaminants
evaluation is still developmental and has been published only recently (DiToro, 1990). To
appropriately interpret the AVS data, simultaneously extractable metals (SEM) must also be
analyzed. The data for SEM are presented in Table 4.17. In evaluating the AVS values, a ratio of
4-2
-------
the sum of the SEM to the total AVS is calculated. If the ratio is greater than one (1), toxicity is
predicted. It should be noted however, that if the total concentration of metals is very low, toxic
effects may not be observed. If the SEM: AVS ratio produces a value less than one, it is assumed
that there is sufficient AVS present in the sediment to bind with the metals, rendering them non-
bioavailable and non-toxic. Evaluation of the SEM to AVS ratio is included in Table 4.16. All
stations had ratios much less than one, therefore toxicity due to metals would be unlikely. AVS in
the Willoughby Bay sediment is greatly elevated, therefore some consideration of the formation of
sulfuric and other acids in the anoxic zones must be considered as a potential natural "toxicants" that
may lead to mortality. Additionally, because the SEM value in the Pamunkey River sediments, is
relatively high when compared to the other stations, mainly due to copper, lead and zinc, the
potential exists for oxidizing the sediments thus providing a mode for providing bioavailability of
these metals. It should also be mentioned that the Pamunkey River downstream sediment was 7-10
times higher in cadmium than any other stations.
Inorganic contaminants data from the eight stations are presented in Table 4.18. All test sites
had concentrations above the detection limits for ten of the eleven metals analyzed. The eleventh
metal, tin, was below detection limit at the Lynnhaven River station. The Lynnhaven sand station
had concentrations below detection limits for a number of metals, while Poropotank sediment was
below detection limit for mercury but above the ER-L for arsenic. Sediment-sorbed contaminants
have been extensively studied by Long and Morgan (1990) and Long et. al. (1995). These studies
have established tables of concentrations at which biological effects would be expected if these
contaminants were present in the sediment. The lower ten percentile of data for which biological
effects were observed was established as the "Effects Range-Low" (ER-L). The median
concentrations for which biological effects were observed were identified as the "Effects Range-
Median" (ER-M). Long et. al. (1995) indicate that the ER-L and ER-M values can be used for
comparisons between sites. The concentrations of toxicants in the sediments of the sites are
compared with the ER-L or ER-M values, which are used simply as "benchmarks" for the relative
degree of contamination. Those contaminants with concentrations exceeding the ER-L fall into a
category that Long et. al. (1995) consider to be the "possible" effects range for toxic effects.
Contaminant concentrations above the ER-M fall in the category of "probable" toxic effects. Of
course, many biogeochemical factors influence biological availability of contaminants in sediments,
so comparisons of "bulk" chemical concentrations against these benchmark values represent rough
attempts at ranking the relative potential of various sediments for toxicity. These comparisons are
believed to be overly conservative in many cases, so theoretically-based approaches such as the
SEM/AVS method described above should be given more weight hi the interpretation of the data.
Inorganic analysis showed that one station (Willoughby Bay) exceeded the ER-L values for
six metals (arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc). This was by far the most contaminated
station for metals. Arsenic above the ERL was also found in the York River upstream sediment. No
other metals were observed above the ERL except arsenic at the Poropotank River site as noted
previously.
The results of semi-volatile organic compound analyses in sediment samples are presented
in Appendix A. No compounds exceeded either the ER-L or ER-M for these compounds (Long et.
al. 1995). Concentrations of all compounds were below the detection limits.
4-3
-------
4.2.3 Pore Water Data
Sediment pore water was analyzed for sulfide, ammonia, and nitrite at all stations and the
controls (Table 4.19). Ammonia concentrations were converted to percent unionized ammonia for
comparison with EPA criteria for continuous concentrations for saltwater aquatic life. Values for
sediment exposure concentrations have not been determined. Therefore these "comparison" values
should be extremely conservative as it is suspected that sediment organisms have developed either
a greater tolerance for ammonia, or exhibit behaviors or physiological responses which enable them
to live in high ammonia environments. It is interesting to note however, that Willoughby Bay
unionized ammonia concentrations were nearly twice that of any other site.
4.2.4 Reference Toxicant Data
The relative sensitivities of each set of test organisms were evaluated with cadmium chloride
(CdCl2) reference toxicant tests. The results of each reference toxicant test conducted with each
batch of amphipods, worms and Sheepshead minnows are shown in Table 4.20. All test LCSO's were
within the range of the previous reference toxicant tests conducted, with the exception of the L.
plumulosus data which exhibited higher sensitivity to cadmium than previous reference tests.
Higher sensitivity was likely because a smaller size class of animal is now being used for testing in
order to better elucidate any changes in growth due to toxicity. The evaluation time was changed
from 96 to 48 hours because caloric reserves in the juveniles is not sufficient to sustain effectively
for more than 48 hours. The reference toxicant value was very similar to that of last years tests
(LC50 = 0.25 mg/L) which also employed smaller (younger) L. plumulosus. This increased
sensitivity in reference tests seemed to mirror the decrease in overall negative control survival when
compared with previous tests.
4-4
-------
SECTION 5
DISCUSSION
5.1 Pamunkey River
Background ambient toxicity and chemical exposure data were lacking for the Pamunkey
River near West Point. In order to provide this information, two Pamunkey River stations were
located upstream and downstream from a large paper Mill (Chesapeake Corporation) at West Point.
Results from the water column toxicity tests did not show any significant effects based on the
univariate analysis of the various endpoints used with the three test species. However, the
multivariate analysis, a more powerful statistical analysis, did show effects at the Pamunkey River
downstream station when all endpoints were combined (see Section 6). Concentrations of lead (13
ug/L) higher than background concentrations at the upstream site were measured from a grab sample
collected during the water column tests. This lead value exceeded the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agencies marine chronic water quality criterion of 8.5 ug/L (U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1987).
The upstream and downstream stations on the Pamunkey River exhibited few survival effects
from sediment exposures. Only the sheepshead minnow test resulted in reduced survival. Mortality
was due to effects on egg hatching success. Reduction in length of L. plumulosus was also observed
at both sites, however weight reduction was not observed. Reduction in length of L. plumulosus
occurred at nearly all test stations which is somewhat suspect and perhaps an artifact of other non-
toxicity related factors. Contaminant data revealed the highest SEM/AVS ratio compared with all
other stations, however this value was also well below the biological threshold of one. Extracted
(SEM) cadmium concentrations were comparatively high at the downstream station relative to other
stations, but "bulk" cadmium reached only approximately one fourth of the ER-L. Organic
contaminants were all below detection limits at the Pamunkey stations even though the TOC was
above 2 percent at both stations. Total Organic Carbon in this range often results in the sequestering
of organic components. Total unionized ammonia was not notably above that found at the other
stations. However, the nitrite concentrations appeared elevated compared with the reference and
controls as well as the other test stations.
5.2 York River
The York River was selected for ambient toxicity testing because both ambient toxicity and
chemical exposure data were lacking for this basin. The two stations selected for ambient toxicity
testing were located upstream and downstream of a major federal installation at Cheathan Annex.
Results from univariate analysis of the water column toxicity data showed reduced survival of
Eurytemora affinis at the upstream station. Significant effects from univariate analysis were not
reported for any of the other species and associated endpoints. Multivariate analysis showed
significant biological effects at upstream station but this effect was considered to have low
ecological risk (see Section 6). Concentrations of all metals measured in the water column were also
below biological thresholds.
Survival was not significantly reduced at either of the York River stations for any of the
species exposed to sediment. The only growth effects observed were in L. plumulosus (length) at
both stations, and S. benedicti (length) at the downstream station. However, neither species
5-1
-------
demonstrated a reduction in weight compared with controls. SEM/AVS ratios resulted in values
approaching only 0.2, and SEM for both stations approximated those found in the reference and
control sediments. The ER-Ls and ER-Ms for total metals were not exceeded in either station, and
organic contaminants were below detection limits as well. Pore water and TOC were not notably
different from the reference and control sites with the exception of unionized ammonia which was
3-4 times higher.
5.3 James River
The two locations in the James River, located above and below the Newport News
Shipbuilding and Dry dock Operation, were areas where contaminant problems were suspected.
However, ambient toxicity and concurrent chemical exposure data were lacking. Results from the
water column ambient toxicity tests did not show any significant biological effects based on
univariate analysis although multivariate analysis did show significant biological effects with a
moderate to low degree of ecological risk at both stations (see Section 6). Concentrations of all
metals measured in the water column were also below biological thresholds at these two stations.
For sediment tests, the James River upstream station showed no survival effects while the
downstream station showed reduced survival at day 20 for S. benedicti and C. variegatus. The
survival effects for the C. variegatus were a result of mortalities occurring post-hatch. This may
have occurred because toxic compounds were unable to penetrate the egg membrane but affected this
species only after hatching had occurred. Reduction in growth was only observed in length ofL.
plumulosus at the downstream station. The SEM/AVS ratio was slightly elevated at the James River
downstream station, however the ratio remained well below the level which is normally indicative
of toxicity. The ER-Ls and ER-Ms were not exceeded for neither bulk metals or organics. The
sediment TOC was less than one percent at both stations and none of the pore water parameters
appeared to significantly exceed those found in the reference and control stations. Results from
multivariate analysis showed significant biological effects with a low to moderate degree of
ecological risk (see Section 6).
5.4 Willoughbv Bav
One station was selected for ambient toxicity testing in Willoughby Bay because this shallow
bay area at the mouth of the James River is the receiving system for the Sewell's Point Naval Base.
Previous investigations have reported PCB contamination in this area (personal communication,
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). Historical ambient toxicity testing with concurrent
chemical exposure measurements are also lacking in this area. Our ambient water column toxicity
tests showed a significant reduction in E. affinis survival at this station. Biological effects were not
reported for any of the other test species and their respective endpoints based on univariate analysis.
However, results from multivariate analysis presented in Section 6 showed significant effects
considered to pose ecological risk at this station. All the metals measured at this station were below
biological thresholds.
The Willoughby Bay sediment resulted in significant mortality at day 10 for L dytiscus for
both unadjusted and adjusted means. Significantly reduced survival also occurred in the C.
variegatus test. Mortality occurred for both the egg and larval stage. Reduction in length compared
with controls in L plumulosus was also observed. The mean AVS values at this station were much
higher than the controls or reference sites, as well as all other test sites. The mean SEM value was
5-2
-------
the highest of those sites tested, however because of the high AVS in the sediment, the ratio of
SEM/AVS was less than 0.1 and not considered a significant factor affecting toxicity (DiToro et.
al. 1990). lonization of metals at the sediment/water interface may be a factor affecting toxicity at
this station. High AVS can also result in high acidity through the production of sulfuric acid in the
anoxic layers again affecting toxicity. Bulk metals analysis revealed that six metals exceed the ER-
Ls at this site (As, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, and Zn). Combined toxicity of these metals may account for a
major portion of the toxicity observed in Willoughby Bay since organic contaminants were below
the detection limit at this station. Unionized ammonia was over 10 times that observed in the
reference and control sediments and was nearly twice that of the next highest site (York River
downstream). Results from the multivariate analysis showed significant biological effects that
indicate ecological risk at this station (Section 6). This was the only station tested in 1995 where
both sediment and water column results suggested ecological risk.
5.5 Lynnhaven River
The Lynnhaven River station was selected to represent an urbanized area with potential non-
point source impacts. Concurrent ambient toxicity and chemical exposure data were lacking for this
area. Results from our water column ambient toxicity tests did not show any significant effects for
any of the three tests species with their respective endpoints. All metals measured in the water
column during these tests were also below the biological thresholds.
Reduced survival of the four test species was not reported in the Lynnhaven River sediment.
A significant reduction hi length was observed when compared with controls after 20 day in L.
dytiscus, although reductions in weight were not significant. Surprisingly, no significant reduction
in length was observed in L. plumulosus as had been seen at all other test sites except James River
upstream. There was no significant reduction in weight in any of the animals in the Lynnhaven river
sediment. The SEM/AVS analysis revealed very few metals at this station and a ratio of only 0.051.
Bulk metals analysis reported low levels of metals in this sediment. Organic contaminants were also
below detection limits at this station.
5-3
-------
SECTION 6
ANALYSIS OF FIVE YEAR DATA BASE
6.1 Water Column Toxicity
The results of Toxicity Index calculations for water column toxicity for the 1990, 1991,
1992-93, 1994, and 1995 experiments are summarized in Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5,
respectively. The species tested and the number of endpoints used varied slightly from year to year
(i.e., five water column tests for 1990, four tests for 1991-1994). Therefore, comparisons of index
values within the figures for same year are more comparable than those of different years. The
Toxicity Index calculations generated for each station and year from concurrent reference (control
value) and test conditions, therefore, provide interpretation on the relative magnitude of the toxic
response of the various sites. This analysis also provided a degree of confidence that could be given
to differences between reference and test values. A summary of comparison of Toxicity Index
values for reference (control) and test sites is presented in Table 6.1.
The Toxicity Index analysis for the 1990 data in Figure 6.1 showed that the Elizabeth River
was clearly the most toxic site tested as the median for the index of the test condition was clearly
greater than the reference (control). The confidence limits for the reference and test condition did
not overlap at this location. Nearly half of the endpoints displayed significant differences between
the reference and test conditions. The results from the Elizabeth River are not surprising since
significant mortality was observed in two of the three tests that were conducted. The second most
toxic station identified with the Toxicity Index analysis was the Patapsco River as significant
mortality was reported in one out of three tests. However, the confidence interval was fairly wide
(indicating variability) for this station and there was no difference in the median values for the
reference and test site. The results from the Indian Head, Freestone Point, Possum Point,
Morgantown, Dahlgren and Wye River stations indicated no significant difference with index values
between the reference and test conditions for the 1990 tests. Both Morgantown and Dahlgren
stations did show limited biological effects with one of the tests (significant mortality with the
sheepshead minnow test). However, these results from the test condition were not significantly
different than the reference when all endpoints from all tests were combined for the final index
calculations.
The Toxicity Index calculations for the 1991 experiments are presented in Figure 6.2. Four
water column tests with two endpoints for each test were used to determine the final values for two
testing periods (summer and fall). The Wye River site showed the most significant effects as
significant mortality was reported for two different test species during different testing periods.
Although the median values from the reference and test sites were different, there was overlap of
confidence limits with these two conditions. A comparison of reference and test index values for
the Patapsco River, Morgantown and Dahlgren sites showed no significant differences. However,
reduced growth of the sheepshead minnow was reported at both the Morgantown and Dahlgren sites
during the summer experiments.
The results from the 1992-93 experiments presented in Figure 6.3 include experiments
conducted during the fall (1992) and spring (1993) at each of the six sites (two sites per river). The
most toxic sites were reported at both Middle River stations (Wilson Point and Frog Mortar Creek).
Results from the coot clam toxicity tests (2 tests per experiment conducted in the fall and spring)
6-1
-------
showed consistent toxicity at both sites. Although median values were similar for both Middle River
sites, the variability at Wilson Point was greater than at Frog Mortar. Water quality criteria were
exceeded at both sites. The results from Toxicity Index analysis at the other four sites showed no
difference between the reference and the test condition. The only other biological effect reported
at any of these four sites was significant mortality of E. affinis at the Quarter Creek site during the
spring experiments.
The results of the 1994 experiments are presented in Figure 6.4a and 6.4b. The Toxicity
Index values from the Severn, Magothy and Sassafras Rivers were quite similar to those of the
corresponding references (Fig. 6.4a). However, the confidence limits for all sites in these rivers
except South Ferry (Magothy) did not overlap the limits for the reference condition. Thus, the sites
displayed statistical differences that appeared to be negligible in an ecological sense. On the other
hand, Sparrow Point in Baltimore Harbor displayed significant toxicity (Fig. 6.4b). The Curtis Bay
site exhibited no toxic effects, while the other Baltimore Harbor sites displayed statistically
significant but negligible toxicity.
The results of the 1995 studies are presented in Figure 6.5. The Toxicity Index values for
the Lynnhaven River were not significantly different from the reference. In the James River basin,
the James River "Above", the James River "Below" and the Willoughby Bay sites displayed Toxicity
Index values which were significantly greater than the respective references, but the values for
former two James River sites were only slightly greater than the reference condition in overall
magnitude. The York River sites also displayed negligible to low water column toxicity. The
Pamunkey "Above" and York River "Below" sites had Toxicity Index values that were not
significantly different from the references. The York River "Above" had only a very slight elevation
of toxicity above controls; and the Pamunkey "Below" displayed a low to moderate level of toxicity,
similar to the magnitude observed for the Willoughby Bay site.
A summary of the five year water column data base using the Toxicity Index analysis (Figure
6.6) indicated the following ranking of toxicity for the various sites:
• the sites (and dates tested) displaying the greatest water column toxicity were as
follows:
Sparrows Point, Baltimore Harbor (1994)
Middle River (1994)
Elizabeth River (1990)
Willoughby Bay (1995)
Pamunkey River, below West Point in the York River basin (1995)
• the sites that displayed a low to moderate degree of water column toxicity were:
• Manor House site, Wye River (1991)
• James River, above and below Newport News (1995)
• Patapsco River (1990)
» Gibson Island site in Magothy River (1994)
• the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that displayed water column
toxicity that was low hi magnitude, but significantly different from reference
(control) responses were:
• Sassafras River (1994)
6-2
-------
• Bear Creek, Middle Branch, Northwest Harbor and Outer Harbor sites in
Baltimore Harbor (1994)
• Severn River (1994)
• York River, above Cheatham Annex (1995)
• the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that displayed no significant
water column toxicity were:
• Curtis Bay, Baltimore Harbor (1994)
• South Ferry, Magothy River (1994)
• Wye River (1990,1991,1992-3)
• Bivalve and Sandy Hill Beach sites in the Nanticoke River (1992-3)
• Dahlgren (1990, 1991), Freestone Point (1990), Indian Head (1990),
Morgantown (1990, 1991), and Possum Point (1990) sites in the Potomac
River
• Pamunkey River, above West Point (1995)
• York River, below Cheatham Annex, (1995)
• Lynnhaven River (1995)
6.2 Sediment Toxicity
The results of the Toxicity Index calculations for sediment toxicity for the 1990,1991,1992-
93,1994, and 1995 studies are summarized in Figures 6.7,6.8,6.9,6.10, and 6.11, respectively. It
should be noted that the species and the number of endpoints tested varied slightly from year to year,
so comparisons of index values within the figures (within the same year) are more comparable than
those between figures. Nonetheless, the comparisons of concurrent reference and test experiments
provide insight into the relative magnitude of the toxic responses of the various sites. Table 6.2
summarizes the comparisons presented in Figures 6.7 - 6.11.
During the 1990 study, the Elizabeth River was clearly the most toxic of the sites, since all
species displayed nearly complete mortality during the first 10 days of the experiment (i.e., the
median for the index for the test data was greatly separated from the median for the reference data,
little variation; Figure 6.7). The Elizabeth River provides an example of the worst case Toxicity
Index values. The confidence limits of the test data index values were well separated from those of
the corresponding reference sites for a number of other sites: Patapsco River; Wye River; and the
Freestone Point, Possum Point and Dahlgren sites on the Potomac River (although the latter two sites
displayed a considerable degree of variation in index values). The Indian Head and Morgantown
sites on the Potomac River displayed only slight separation between the median index values for the
test and reference conditions. Thus, the magnitude of potential toxicity appears to be less for the
Indian Head and Morgantown sites than for the others. It should be noted, however, that all sites
selected for the first year of the study were those considered "suspect" due to the results of previous
studies, so it is not surprising that most displayed significant deviations from the reference
conditions.
The 1991 study involved an assessment of the effects of short-term temporal variability (a
summer versus a fall collection) on the apparent toxicity of sediments from four sites. The separation
between test and reference treatments was greatest for the Patapsco River site, with less separation
being displayed for Dahlgren, Morgantown, and the Wye (Figure 6.8). The results of the Patapsco
6-3
-------
River index comparison were remarkably similar to those observed for the 1990 study. The
Dahlgren site index values, which were quite variable in the 1990 study, were still separated from
the reference values in the 1991 study. The small degree of separation observed between the
Morgantown index limits and reference limits in 1990 was also observed for 1991. The Wye River
index limits were only slightly separated from the reference limits due to the fact that only one of
the two sets of experiments displayed significant differences between test and control treatments.
This slight variability in responses could be due to temporal variation in toxicity, but is more likely
due to small scale spatial heterogeneity (i.e., sediments were taken from the same general station,
but there may have been patchiness in sediment quality in the grabs composited for the two sets of
tests). Overall, the degree of variability observed in the Toxicity Index limits for the combination
of the two sampling events was quite small for all four sites. The patterns were remarkably consistent
with those observed at these same sites during the previous year.
The 1992-93 study also involved two sampling periods during the Fall and Spring. The test
and reference Toxicity Index limits overlapped for all of the sites selected for testing (Figure 6.9).
Thus, the sites in the Middle River (Frog Mortar and Wilson Point), the Wye River (Quarter Creek
and Manor House), and the Nanticoke River (Sandy Hill Beach and Bivalve) appeared to contain
sediment displaying little or no overall toxicity compared to reference conditions. It should be noted,
however, that the Frog Mortar sediments were quite heterogenous in character and they displayed
somewhat elevated metals in the composite samples (see Hall et al., 1993). Therefore, there may
be patches of contaminated sediments at this site, which may have produced responses in a few of
the field replicates. The purpose of taking true field replicates at two different times during the 1992-
93 study was to produce confidence limits to indicate the probability of observing the same sort of
response if the site were sampled again, so the observed variability provides insight into the variation
in sediment quality expected for this site.
The results of the 1992-3 studies on the two Wye River sites (Quarter Creek and Manor
House) displayed little difference from the reference conditions, which is in contrast to the apparent
toxicity observed in 1990 and one of the sampling period of the 1991 study. The Wye River Manor
House site was sampled during the first four years of testing.
The 1994 studies focused on the Sassafras River, Severn River, Magothy River and the
Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco River (Fig. 6.10a and 6.1 Ob). The Sassafras River sites displayed no
sediment toxicity (Fig. 6.10a). The Magothy River sites exhibited slight to moderate toxicity,
particularly the South Ferry site, which was highly variable (Fig. 6.10a). The Annapolis site on the
Severn River also displayed significant but moderately low toxicity. On the other hand, the Toxicity
Index limits from the Severn River site at the Route 50 bridge overlapped those of the reference site.
The Baltimore Harbor sites showed various degrees of toxicity from slight (Outer Harbor) to quite
high (Bear Creek and Northwest Harbor), with most displaying moderate toxicity (Sparrow Point,
Middle Branch and Curtis Bay; Fig. 6.1 Ob). All Baltimore Harbor sites contained sediments that
exceeded ER-M values for three or more contaminants.
The 1995 studies focused on sites in the James River and York River basins and a site in the
Lynnhaven River (Fig. 6.11). The Toxicity Index was elevated for the Willoughby Bay site, which
is located near the mouth of the James River and in the vicinity of heavy military, residential, and
marina activities. The James River site below Newport News displayed Toxicity Index values that
were also significantly elevated relative to the reference, but the degree of toxicity was lower than
for the Willoughby site. None of the other sites displayed overall significance in the Toxicity Index
6-4
-------
comparisons to references, although the Lynnhaven site was the only one to display no significant
endpoints in the univariate comparison of confidence limits.
A summary of the five year sediment data base using the Toxicity Index analysis (Figure
6.12) indicated the following ranking of toxicity for the various sites:
• the sites (and dates tested) displaying the greatest sediment toxicity were as follows:
Elizabeth River (1990)
Northwest Harbor, Bear Creek, Sparrows Point, Curtis Bay, and Middle
Branch sites in Baltimore Harbor (1994)
Willoughby Bay site in James River basin (1995)
South Ferry site in the Magothy River (1994)
Possum Point and Dahlgren sites in the Potomac River (1990)
the sites that displayed a low to moderate degree of sediment toxicity were:
• Patapsco River sites (1990,1991)
• Freestone Point (1990) and Dahlgren (1991) sites in the Potomac River
• Annapolis site in Severn River (1994)
• Manor House site, Wye River (1991)
• James River site, below Newport News (1995)
• Outer Harbor site, Baltimore Harbor (1994)
the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that displayed sediment toxicity
that was low in magnitude, but significantly different from reference responses were:
• Gibson Island site in the Magothy River (1994)
• Manor House site, Wye River (1990)
• Morgantown (1990,1991) and Indian Head (1990) sites in the Potomac River
the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that displayed no significant
sediment toxicity were:
• Frog Mortar and Wilson Point sites in the Middle River (1992-3)
• Betterton and Turner Creek sites in the Sassafras River (1994)
• Quarter Creek and Manor House sites in Wye River (1992-3)
• Bivalve and Sandy Hill Beach sites in Nanticoke River (1992-3)
• Pamunkey and York River sites (4 sites) (1995)
• James River site, above Newport News (1995)
• Lynnhaven River site (1995)
6-5
-------
SECTION 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are suggested after five years of ambient toxicity tests in
Chesapeake Bay:
• The ambient toxicity testing approach (water column and sediment tests) should be used to
assess the status of important living resource habitats (e. g. spawing areas of anadromous
fish) and the status of areas where historical data are lacking. This approach could be added
to an array of multi-metric assessment tools that are currently under development with the
long term goal of targeting tributaries and watersheds for nonpoint source monitoring and
remediation. The goals of such a targeting effort would be to determine where management-
based habitat improvement programs should be focused, based on the status of biological
communities and other environmental indicators.
• Community metric approaches which determine an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) with fish
and benthos (or other trophic groups) which assess "impact observed responses" should be
conducted concurrently with water column and sediment ambient toxicity tests (first tier
tests) which determine "impact predicted" responses. A cumulative index that combines all
four types of data (ambient water column/sediment toxicity and fish/benthic IBIs) into a
single number should be developed to aid resouce managers in identifying high and low
quality areas.
• Water column and sediment ambient toxicity tests with resident Chesapeake Bay plant
species (submerged aquatic vegetation and/or phytoplankton) should be conducted (or
developed if needed) in concert with the present battery of animal tests. This would provide
a plant indicator that would be useful for identifying the presence of herbicides in the
Chesapeake Bay.
7-1
-------
SECTION 8
REFERENCES
Alden, R.W. 1992. Uncertainty and sediment quality assessments: Confidence limits for the triad.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11:645-651.
CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council). 1988. Chesapeake Bay living resource monitoring plan.
Chesapeake Bay Agreement Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office,
Annapolis, MD.
CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council). 1989. Chesapeake Bay basinwide reduction strategy.
Chesapeake Bay Agreement Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office,
Annapolis, MD.
Chapman, P.M. 1986. Sediment quality criteria from the sediment quality Triad -an example.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5: 957-964.
Chapman, P.M. 1990. The sediment quality Triad approach to determining pollution-induced
degradation. Sci. Tot. Envrion. 97-8: 815-825.
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter and E.R. Long. 1987. Synoptic measures of sediment contamination,
toxicity and infaunal community composition (the Sediment Quality Triad) in San Francisco
Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37: 75-96.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1990. Chesapeake Bay ambient toxicity assessment report.CBP/TRS
42/90, Annapolis, MD.
Deaver, E. and P.C. Adolphson. 1990. Evaluation of the amphipodLepidactylus dytiscus as a
sediment toxicity test organism. SET AC poster & manuscript (in review).
DiToro, D.M., J.D. Mahony, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, M.B. Hicks, S.M.Mayrand and M. S.
Redmond. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediment; the role of acid volatile sulfide.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1487-1502.
Fisher, D.J., D.T. Burton, L.W. Hall Jr., R.L. Paulson and C.M. Hersh. 1988.Standard operating
procedures for short-term chronic effluent toxicity tests with freshwater and saltwater
organisms. Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Aquatic Ecology
Section, Shady Side, MD.
Hall, L.W., Jr., R. D. Anderson, W. D. Killen, M. C. Scott, J. V. Kilian, R. M. Alden, III and P.
Adolphson. 1996 . Ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 4 Report. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W.., Jr. and M.C. Ziegenfuss. 1993. Standard operating procedures for conducting embyro-
larval toxicity tests with the coot clam, Mulinia lateralis: Effluent, ambient water, single-
multiple chemical or porewater toxicity tests. Report. University of Maryland, Wye
Research and Education, Center, Queenstown, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, R.D. Anderson, W.D. Killen, R.W. Alden, III and P. Adolphson.
1994. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 3 Report.
CBP/TRS116/94. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, R.W. Alden, III, E. Deaver, J. Gooch and N. Debert-
Hastings. 1991. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay. Volume 1 -
Year 1 Report CBP/TRS 64/91. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
8-1
-------
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, R.D. Anderson, W.D. Killen, R.W. Alden, III, E.
Deaver, J. Gooch and N. Shaw. 1992. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in
Chesapeake Bay - Year 2 report. CBP/TRS 82/92. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Kilian, J. 1995. Memorandun to L. W. Hall on control survival of Eurytemora affinis at 25 ppt. Wye
Research and Education Center, Queenstown, MD.
Long., E.R. and P.M. Chapman. 1985. A sediment quality Triad: Measures of sediment
contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 16: 105-115.
Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed
contaminants tested in the national status and trends program. National Technical
Memorandum Nos. OMA 52. Seattle, WA.
Long. E. R., D. D. McDonald, S. L. Smith, and R. D. Cable. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological
effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ.
Manag. 19: 81-97.
Majumdar, S.K., L.W. Hall Jr., and H.M. Austin. 1987. Contaminant Problems and Management
of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources. Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Easton, PA.
Morrison, G. and E. Petrocelli. 1990a. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of
effluents and receiving waters to marine and estuarine organisms: supplement: Test method
for the coot clam, Mulinia lateralis, embryo/larval test. Draft report. U.S. EPA,
Narragansett, R.I.
Morrison, G. and E. Petrocelli. 1990b. Mulinia lateralis - Microscale marine toxicity test.
Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RL
Shaughnessy, T.J., L.C. Scott, J.A. Ranasinghe, A.F. Holland and T.A. Tornatore. 1990. Long-term
benthic monitoring and assessment program for the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay:
Data summary and progress report (July 1984-August 1990). Report Volume 1. Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division,
Annapolis, MD.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1979. Methods for chemical analysis
of water and wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
U. S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Water quality criteria summary.
U. S. Enviromental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Criteria
and Standards Division, Washington, D. C.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Draft analytical method for the
determination of acid volatile sulfides in sediment. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, D. C.
Ziegenfuss, M.C. and L.W. Hall, Jr. 1994. Standard operating procedures for conducting acute and
chronic aquatic toxicity tests with Eurytemora affinis, a calanoid copepod. Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
8-2
-------
SECTION 9
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
-------
Table 3.1 Analytical methods used for inorganic analysis in water samples. The following
abbreviations are used: AE-ICP (Atomic Absorption - Inductively Coupled Plasma),
AA-H (Atomic Absorption - Hydride), AA-F (Atomic Absorption - Furnace), AA-
DA (Atomic Absorption - Direct Aspiration) and AA-CV (Atomic Absorption -
Cold Vapor).
Contaminant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Method
AA-H
AA-F
AA-F
AA-F
AA-F
AA-CV
AA-F
AA-H
AA-DA
Method it
206.3
213.2
218.2
220.2
239.2
245.1
249.2
270.3
200.7
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
9-1
-------
Table 3.2 Particle size analysis of sediments from eight stations and references and controls used
in toxicity tests. Samples collected 10/4/95-10/11/95.
Station
James R. Above Rl
James R. Above R2
James R. Above R3
James R. Above R4
James R. Above R5
James R. Below Rl
James R. Below R2
James R. Below R3
James R. Below R4
James R. Below R5
Lynnhaven River Rl
Lynnhaven River R2
Lynnhaven River R3
Lynnhaven River R4
Lynnhaven River R5
Pamunkey R. Above Rl
Pamunkey R. Above R2
Pamunkey R. Above R3
Pamunkey R. Above R4
Pamunkey R. Above R5
Pamunkey R. Below Rl
Parnunkey R. Below R2
Pamunkey R. Below R3
Pamunkey R. Below R4
Pamunkey R. Below R5
Willoughby Bay Rl
Willoughby Bay R2
Willoughby Bay R3
Willoughby Bay R4
Willoughby Bay R5
York R. Above Rl
York R. Above R2
York R. Above R3
York R. Above R4
York R. Above R5
York R. Below Rl
York R. Below R2
York R. Below R3
York R. Below R4
York R. Below , R5
Lynnhaven Sand
Poropotank Mud
Lynnhaven Mud
% Sand
88.25
89.10
90.30
87.30
72.01
71.51
54.53
88.53
66.87
33.19
53.86
97.14
96.26
63.28
97.71
22.64
7.33
2.08
1.31
1.17
27.52
29.53
33.75
41.64
6.49
1.18
1.20
0.81
10.39
6.27
4.52
3.38
4.27
11.14
15.94
23.80
71.83
82.37
84.13
78.14
97.94
14.03
17.54
% Silt
6.45
6.26
5.59
7.47
16.98
18.15
27.08
6.92
21.17
42.71
31.68
1.82
2.02
24.58
1.18
46.61
57.20
60.61
58.30
59.21
45.18
44.60
42.32
35.65
56.84
62.29
67.91
63.15
57.53
61.92
64.16
63.23
62.96
58.66
54.76
46.47
17.54
10.68
9.78
13.50
1.26
37.06
61.40
% Clay
5.30
4.63
4.11
5.23
11.01
10.34
18.38
4.55
11.95
24.10
14.46
1.04
1.72
12.14
1.10
30.75
35.47
37.31
40.39
39.62
27.30
25.86
23.93
22.71
36.67
36.53
30.89
36.04
32.07
31.82
31.31
33.38
32.77
30.20
29.30
29.72
10.63
6.95
6.09
8.36
0.80
48.91
21.06
9-2
-------
Table 4.1 Survival data from 8-d toxicity tests with sheepshead minnow larvae at 8 stations
from 10/10/95 to 10/18/95.
Species
Sheepshead
minnows
Station
CONTROL
YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
1
100
98
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Cumulative Percent Survival Per
23456
100
98
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
98
100
95
100
100
100
98
100
93
98
100
95
100
100
100
98
100
93
98
95
90
100
100
100
98
100
93
98
95
88
98
100
100
98
Day
7
100
90
98
95
85
98
100
100
98
8
100
90
98
95
85
95
100
100
98
9-3
-------
Table 4.2 Growth data from sheepshead minnow larvae from the 10/10/95 to 10/18/95
experiments.
Sheepshead larvae mean dry weight/individual (initial weight at day 0=0.14mg)
Station natdS x faig at d=8t ± S.E.
CONTROL 40 1.71 0.05
YRACA 36 1.67 0.07
YRBCA 39 1.79 0.06
PRAWP 38 1.49 0.43
PRBWP 34 0.96 0.32
JRANN 38 0.85 0.24
JRBNN 40 1.80 0.02
LYNN 40 1.83 0.03
WILLO 39 1.79 0.06
9-4
-------
Table 4.3 Percent normal shell development from two 48-h coot clam embryo/larval tests
conducted from 10/13/95 to 10/15/95 (test 1) and 10/16/95 to 10/18/95 (test 2).
Test 1 Test 2
Station Percent Normal ± S.E. Percent Normal ± S.E.
CONTROL
YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
97.0
97.9
97.7
96.1
97.0
95.5
95.9
96.4
97.1
1.12
0.15
0.38
0.20
0.23
1.63
0.47
1.20
0.56
77.3
95.3
95.4
92.4
94.3
95.6
93.6
94.0
95.4
0.22
1.36
2.09
2.83
1.08
0.42
2.21
1.93
1.13
9-5
-------
Table 4.4 Survival and reproduction data for Eurytemora after 8-d tests at 8 stations from
10/10/95 to 10/18/95.
Station
CONTROL
YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
Mean Percent Mean Percent
Survival ±S.E. Gravid Female ±S.E.
60.9
28.1*
42.7
59.6
49.6
42.6
57.2
51.3
1.8*
9.4
6.4
11.6
6.0
5.9
4.8
6.4
3.8
7.8
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
27.4
4.2
0.0
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
6.3
4.2
0.0
5.6
0.0
Mean Percent
Immature ±S.E.
66.6
93.7
59.4
57.5
6.7
28.1
14.8
72.8
25.0
16.6
6.2
13.9
9.0
6.7
13.3
1.9
21.1
25.0
* Significantly different (lower) from Control Group (p<.05)
9-6
-------
a
3
0*
l_l
4)
X
o
'2
o
o
CL,
3*8
p .S
4) "5
_c 5
^ 1
m ™
ON «
ON 'C
*° ' o
U
33
31?
00 "O
•c S
s u
•3 X
T3 o>
4) 4>
1!
s<
O __;
1 «
00 «
3 03
i|
c ^2
C 41
II
ll
II
*-3 o
^1
1
en
1
j3
00
,
£^<
S
J
O
J
?
1
t-5
2
1
e?
n
V
q
in
V
^
in
U
t*~
C3
m
?
oo
0
oo
o
s
o
in
V
o
q
O\
q
— ^
ON
cl
u
q
V
q
r-H
V
q
V«4
V
q
q
V
q
V
o
,_^
V
2|
m
00*
{X,
O
m
?
m
?
O
in
o
V
o
in
o
V
o
m
O
V
in
V
o
in
o
V
in
irT
(S
q
00
ffi
q
in
V
q
>n
V
q
in
V
q
-------
Table 4.6 Water quality parameters reported in the field during water sample collection in the
fall of 1995.
Date Station
10/9/95 YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
10/12/95 YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
10/15/95 YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
Temp.
(C)
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
21
21
21
22
22
21
19
21
20
22
21
21
21
19
18
19
19
Salinity
(PPO
20
20
12
12
20
21
25
25
19
19
11
12
21
22
24
24
20
20
11
12
18
22
27
26
Cond.
(umhos/cm)
28500
29000
18000
19000
30500
31000
36000
34000
28500
28500
17000
18000
30500
30000
34000
34000
28500
28500
17000
18500
26000
30000
37000
31000
DO
(mg/L)
7.6
8.0
7.6
7.7
5.9
5.9
7.0
6.4
7.4
7.6
6.4
6.8
6.5
5.8
7.5
6.9
6.4
6.6
6.6
6.8
7.1
6.9
6.6
6.3
PH
7.8
7.9
7.3
7.3
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.0
7.3
7.2
7.8
7.9
8.0
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.2
7.2
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.8
9-8
-------
Table 4.7 Toxicity data (48h LC50s or EC50s mg/L) from reference toxicant tests
conducted with cadmium chloride for the three test species. Previous values
from years 1, 2, 3 and 4 are reported.
48h Previous 48h LC50 values
Date Species LC50 Yr 1 Y.r2 Yr3 Yr4
(95% Conf. Limits)
9/26/95 Sheepshead minnow 1.03 0.510 1.540 1.180 0.710
(0.90-1.18)
10/3/95 E. affinis 0.192 0.021 0.095 0.120 0.143
(0.192-0.243)
10/24/95 Coot clam 0.069' 0.005a 0.008*
(0.067 - 0.072)
a Value is an EC50 (percent normal shell development is the endpoint measured).
9-9
-------
ON
co
IT)
Q
§
O
%
T3
§
U
O
tl
a u
II
l¥
oo
3
H
o
cs
CO
Q
f
fcd
^
e
•5*
<
U
1
n
f
o
-
o
*o
*""
vo
O
O
CO
wo
ON
*
OO
oo
•/">
00
oo
"fr
o
o
o
oo
I
u
H
*5
^
ON
"*
vo
(N
_l
"*
g
(N
O
O
vo
_
.
,_(
ON
OO
r^-
oo
f*
§
oo
vo
o
u
CQ
w
u
s
*?
vO
00
ON
r-
UO
o
r-
o
0
VO
8
^+
ON
co
oo
l/"J
•— «
«/o
g
^»
^
1
I
>"»
_3
ON
O
^
oo
o
co
oo
o
o
o
o
,_
«n
c^
v^
VO
fS
ON
O
vo
vo
O
o
vo
vo
0)
1
§
(X
VO
O
o
•—1
^
oo
o
0
o
o
_l
8
*
^^
p*«
CO
ON
rj-
<^
g
(N
r>
'o
CQ
§
O,
uo
co
ON
ON
ON
t*.
fN
(N
jt
§
o
co
VO
OO
VO
00
00
o
o
If)
00
r.
co
O
l
*Significantl
^
w
H
0
1
z
¥
1
on
V
I
.S2
13
i
9-10
-------
g
c
V
Ct
II
^
&
^
s
Q
ON
5
o
1
1
•§
c
2
4>
U
^
w
H
C/5
0
• w^
*«*
3
to
1
^^ «j
|g
*S
J 1
1 "
5t
Survival data from
"(C)"= Control. "5
ON
^
1
H
r^ i^^ ^^^ v^5 ^^ ^^i co v^ ^^ ^o
U vor^w^O^^OOONVOt**
5^ roON(N'«a:rric>ONVOo6od
1
S*
oooooooooo
;g» oooooooooo
eg ^ooor^cs^oo*- 'en"— '
Q r** ^^ oo ^o rs* f^ ^^^ t*^ r** *"^
P
"«
•|
K
^1
t^ co co OO f^ ^^ ON O ro C^ ^
^ to co ^^cNuScsr^cor^^*
"8
•g oooooooooo
g O OOOOOOOOO
S* «— 'COtJ'O'^'VOtNOOOP*-
2 ^o oo ON oo oo oo oo oo oo r^*
0*
B
p
Jl £
ll|^I?|o|
^"TjKQ/jjy'r O^S-'W2
boja^^ls SJ
I Jssilll^^i'i
^ cdl fc fc ^L S S *^^ O o ^ ^L
•3 &0| ^"^ ^~S H-3 0^ PH i^ r^ ^^ CU ^«-3
03 §
1,"^
&0 *^
^
v^
o
?
a
CO
1
8
Mt
* Significantly lesj
,1;
w
s
J2
CO
0
i§
*co
1
O.
"8
5
• fK
1
<2
1
to
"5*
03
*«
.£
ja
CO
§
k.
g.
CO
•a
"I
H
7
CO
••s
^
C
•C
•o
§
!
1
tN
m
O
2
9-11
-------
o
I
•a
v
fti
v>
»•«*
I
CO
g
1
I.
« O
u C
^ W
O
Tj-'
U
CA
s»
(N rs —' — " " ^
s
•O
«
•O
«
a
C/3
tN tS ^
§
^
CO
.2
'3
o
?
o.
~*~s
CO
09
C/5
U
33
*
C/9
U
§
CO
^W
U
1
U
^
g.
f
CO
1
I
CO
I
1
3
B B
o o
: z
9-12
-------
•^
o
aj
<2
II
£
e?
MM
"•
O^
S
10
§
^^J
•-*
1
vh
1
1
c
o
o
4>
S
«
£"*
S
O
•a
w
•fcj
§
/us at the e
8>
Survival data from C. varie,
Control.
t
T-l
•^f
0
35
M
01
Ol
W
"S
TO
"?
X
1C
T3
1
™
|
S
e
"«
.S
|
£
1
c/a
• vH
do
o o o
o o o
O O 00 ON
*
O O O
o o o
oo o vo
00 f^ ^^
James R. Above
James R. Below
Lynnhaven River
•§
^»
&0
•
§
g
*
o
o
vO
•— '
o
0
0
*
o
o
o
r^
*
o
o
o
Pamunkey R. Above
*
o
o
(N
fS
O
o
0
*
o
o
u
00
%
^
o
1
£J
to
s
oo
u
•o
•o
i Survival =!-[ (Dead fish +
0
•4-jJ
^
4 Dead fish - (Dead fish)/(#
0
o
o
o *
•O ws
P
^5 co
% OO
'o Dead eggs = (Dead eggs)/(
'o Hatched = (# hatched)/(# e
0 0
9-13
-------
4>
'l-l
o
*§1
^* v O
J 6 u
T3 .2 Jl
^ ftj M
III
lai.
lag
C/> u
4) OS
*3 SC.
u >fi CT
s
3
13
J
OJ
1
f
ates
e
in^rfNrooo — OOOOO
OOOt^rOOOfNOvOOOs
<— — •—i c^OOvOOroOC>
oociodooocJcJo
c>C5
rrvor--«trf-«or^ooTr
ror^
P
d
V
£>
CO
1
en
g
C/3
*
9-14
-------
r-i — — Ttoo — o *- o «n
oooo'ooooo'oo
£
£
1
u
* *
* * *
OOOOOOOOOOO
oo'ooo'ooooo'o
&
|
01
'53
^™^ C^ ^^ ^^ ^O OO ^O ^"^ ^^ ''^ ^O
^™* ^^ ^"^ ^^ i"™^ 0^ ^^ ^^ C!^ ^^ ^^
O — — (N — 0 — 0 — ^0
ooooooooooo
J2
2
•i
I
ft,
-------
to "5
oo .a r
to
o *-
or
al
re
CO
I
rr m NO •**• ON o oo
O «—i m VO «n O O
^ OO CN OO t"^ ON *n
«—' tN t^ >n r>; (N ON
O O O O O O O
m ON m vo m
r*- *n r^ o C5
rn — ON >n ^
O -^ O C? O
^ vO CN ^ OO ON ON (N ^^ O ON f^
tv-TfOtNoomoo«nr^n'«i-
ot^fNrsi-nt~>
oo •—' oo cnvoo*—ivotNooo NO
O^tN'-tN'^tN — tNtNCN-*
oooppopooooo
oo'o'oooo'oo'oo'o
1
*
«ni—iONOint^ONcn«—'•—•t^oo
m QJ oo *^ •"* m oo ^^ *n in t*^ *~^
in ^•-•mNO'nt^tNO'—'^ oo
^5 *~^ *"^ ••"' *™* ""^ *"^ '"^ »"^ ^^ **^ C^
oooooo'oooooo
en en
O
1
V
CO
p
o
V
G
8
>?
**•!
i*^
«*-!
1
9-16
-------
Table 4.15 Chemical data (TOC) for sediment samples from the eight stations and the controls.
All data is on a dry weight basis.
Station Total Organic Carbon (%)
James R. Above 0.62
James R. Below 0.29
Lynnhaven River 0.30
Pamunkey R. Above 3.80
Pamunkey R. Below 2.31
Willoughby Bay 2.13
York R. Above 2.00
York R. Below 0.79
Poropatank (R) 5.61
Lynnhaven Mud (C) 1.67
Lynnhaven Sand (R) 0.12
9-17
-------
Table 4.16 Average SEM and AVS values and the SEM:AVS ratio for sediment samples tested in 1995.
Mean AVS Mean SEM Ratio
^mole/gram umole/gram
James R. Above 4.70 0.208 0.044
James R. Below 2.55 0.960 0.376
Lynnhaven River 2.77 0.140 0.051
Pamunkey R. Above 3.77 2.125 0.564
Pamunkey R. Below 3.37 1.906 0.566
Willoughby Bay 35.05 2.926 0.083
York R. Above 7.65 1.477 0.193
York R. Below 2.36 0.391 0.166
Lynnhaven Sand 0.09 0.000 0.000
Lynnhaven Mud 3.10 1.310 0.423
Poropatank 6.61 1.115 0.168
9-18
-------
o>
1/5
I
oo o o in vo
O vO ^ (N O
t~» — O O u~>
f- ON O —• —
dddrj —
ooooooooooo o
ooooooooooo o
ooooooooooo o
ooooooooooo o
ddo'dddddddd o
H
§
I
i
cS
o
d
o
o
p
d
r)OONf>*-« — oovooo
Sooovoot^-oor^r^
opp^ppppo
dddddddddd
S
o
OO^OvOtSW^Ovt^OfOO
•—» i/^ o ON C** v0 vo *•* O vo v%
ppppp^ppppp
ddddddddodd
o
o'
vo <^> O vO CN CO v^ OO O fO O
>t--(Somo
pop — p — pop — p
ddddddddodd
o
«o
Cadm
ooovooooo^-ooo
OOOVOONVO^TOOO
pppp-^ppppp
ddddddddddd
« —
s
O
O
3
1
"3
0
ver
|
8 fi
9 &
& &» si's!
<|4lsa
ft<
-------
u
~ 2P
8
o
3 = wj
•a ao s
> d —
•O '
o ?•
* S
75 3
II
d -a v
>55 8 if
d V
o ^ y
« k -I
^S "i ^
•2 > >
§•8 B
2 .S °
O is 11
M Z
« •
i s*
O « w
tfc s 00
«S o q
"is
. 0
.8 00.2
HI
d S "«
8-2 ^
° 2 -""
Illl
I 8 S3
oo
4>
eo
o
U
oo
^ ^^o-*22?J^:-:
— oooo
?
JSI
o ~ w ~ - -
t^
S
d
OO'— '
v
tN
a
•-^ ^T CS «"• ^1 •— 1
d
CN
atN
<=>
0
2 s a P •-
O
O
d
o
d
o
d
o
o
d
o
en
O
d
co
o
o
O
O
d
o
p
d
o
m
o
d
o
d
o
c^
d
o o
o ~
tN >/•>
d
vo oo
^CN
O
tN
-^ O
00 t~»
(N
cs
00 O
t--
II
^^ CQ
S
§
§3
oo
S o
U H-)
9-20
-------
Table 4.19 Chemical data for pore water samples from the eight stations and the references and
controls.
Site:
James R. Above
James R. Below
Lynnhaven River
Pamunkey R. Above
Pamunkey R. Below
Willoughby Bay
York R. Above
York R. Below
Lynnhaven Sand
Lynnhaven Mud
Poropatank
Ammonia
(mg/D
15.77
3.84
7.46
14.60
3.04
15.65
12.84
14.60
2.50
5.04
3.44
Nitrite
(mg/L^
0.0060
0.0007
0.0024
0.0248
0.0204
0.0001
0.0051
0.0051
0.0076
0.0123
0.0043
Sulfide
rmg/L)
0.008
0.008
0.018
0.015
0.006
0.087
0.007
0.006
0.004
0.018
0.027
Unionized
Ammonia
fmg/L^
0.0321
0.0196
0.0601
0.0745
0.0308
0.2498
0.1301
0.1479
0.0202
0.0323
0.0221
Toxicity*
Limits
Trng/L)
0.0033
0.0082
0.0130
0.0082
0.0164
0.0259
0.0164
0.0164
0.0130
0.0103
0.0103
NOTE: * EPA criteria for continuous concentrations for saltwater aquatic life. Values for
sediment exposure concentrations have not been determined.
9-21
-------
Table 4.20 Reference toxicant data results from 96 h, water only, reference toxicant tests for the fifth year
of the ambient toxicity project. Cadmium chloride (CdCl2) was used for all organisms.
Historical
Organism Chemical LC50 & CIs (mg/U Mean
L. plumulosus CdCl2 0.47(0.63-0.35) 1.00
L. dvtiscus CdCl2 1.40(2.04-0.96) 3.54
S. benedicti CdCl2 1.98(2.87-1.36) 4.03
C. variegatus CdCl2 1.03(1.13-0.93) 0.75
9-22
-------
Table 6.1 Summary of comparisons of water column RTRM indices for reference and test sites presented in Figures 6.1 - 6.5.
Comparisons for which confidence limits overlap are indicated by "O*. those for which the confidence limits do not overlap
are indicated by "X", while *-* indicates no data taken for the period.
STATION
BALTIMORE HARBOR
BEAR CREEK (1)
PTTPTTC RAY CJ\
MIDDLE BRANCH (3)
NORTHWEST HARBOR (4)
OUTER HARBOR (5)
PATAPSCO RIVER (6a, b)
SPARROWS POINT (7)
ELIZABETH RIVER (8)
MAGOTHY
GIBSON ISLAND (9)
SOUTH FERRY (10)
MIDDLE RIVER
FROG MORTAR (11)
WILSON POINT (12)
NANTICOKE RIVER
BIVALVE (13)
SANDY HILL BEACH (14)
POTOMAC RIVER
DAHLGREN (15a, b)
FREESTONE POINT (16)
INDIAN HEAD (17)
MORGANTOWN (18a, b)
POSSUM POINT (19)
SASSAFRAS
BETTERTON (20)
TURNER'S CREEK (21)
SEVERE
ANNAPOLIS (22)
JUNCTION ROUTE 50 (23)
WYERJVER.
MANOR HOUSE (24a b c)
QUARTER TRFFlf C)V\
1990
—
-
-
-
-
O
-
X
_
-
-
-
O
0
0
0
0
_
-
-
-
0
1991
-
-
-
-
-
O
-
-
-
-
O
-
-
0
-
_
-
-
-
0
-
1992-3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
X
X
0
O
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
0
0
1994
X
O
X
X
X
-
X
_
X
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
-
9-23
-------
T*bl«6.1 (coot.)
Station
PAMUNKEY RIVER
PAMUNKEY RIVER ABOVE WEST POINT (26)
PAMUNKEY RIVER BELOW WEST POINT (27)
YORK RIVER
YORK RIVER ABOVE CHEATHAM ANNEX (28)
YORK RIVER BELOW CHEATHAM ANNEX (29)
JAMES RIVER
JAMES RJVER ABOVE NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING (30)
JAMES RIVER BELOW NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING (31)
WILLOUGHBY BAY (32)
LYNNHAVEN RIVER (33)
1995
0
X
X
O
X
X
X
O
9-24
-------
Table 6.2 Summary of comparisons of sediment RTRM indices for reference and test sites presented in Figures 6.7 - 6.11.
Comparisons for which confidence limits overlap are indicated by "0", those for which the confidence limits do not overlap
are indicated by 'X", while "-* indicates no data taken for the period.
STATION
BALTIMORE HARBOR
BEAR CREEK (1)
PTTPTTQ RAV F)\
MIDDLE BRANCH (3)
NORTHWEST HARBOR (4)
OUTER HARBOR (5)
PATAPSCO RIVER (6a, b)
SPARROWS POINT (7)
ELIZABETH RIVER (8)
MAGOTHY
GIBSON ISLAND (9)
SOUTH FERRY (10)
MIDDLE RIVER
FROG MORTAR (11)
WILSON POINT (12)
NANTJCOKE RIVER.
BIVALVE (131
SANDY HILL BEACH (14)
POTOMAC RJVER
DAHLGREN (15a, b)
FBFP^TnVP POINT I\K\
INDIAN HEAD (17)
MORGANTOWN (18a, b)
POSSUM POINT (19)
SASSAFRAS
BETTERTON (20)
TURNER'S CREEK (21)
SEVERN
ANNAPOLIS (22)
JUNCTION ROUTE 50 (23)
WYERTVER
MANOR HOUSE (24a, b, c)
QUARTER CREEK (25)
1990
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
_
-
-
-
X
-
1991
_
-
-
-
-
X
-
—
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
_
-
-
-
X
-
1992-3
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
O
o
0
o
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
o
0
1994
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
_
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
o
o
X
o
-
-
9-25
-------
Table 6.2 (cont.)
Sution
PAMUNKEY RIVER
PAMUNKEY RIVER ABOVE WEST POINT (26)
PAMUNKEY RIVER BELOW WEST POINT (27)
YORK RIVER
YORK RIVER ABOVE CHEATHAM ANNEX (28)
YORK RIVER BELOW CHEATHAM ANNEX (29)
JAMES RIVER
JAMES RIVER ABOVE NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING (30)
JAMES RIVER BELOW NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING (31)
WILLOUGHBY BAY (32)
LYNNHAVEN RIVER (33)
1995
O
O
O
O
O
X
X
O
9-26
-------
Figure 3.1 Eight sampling locations used for the 1995 Ambient Toxicity Program.
Pamunkey River
Below West Point
(PRBWP)
Pamunkey River
Above West Point
(PRAWP)
James River Above
Newport News Shipyard
(JRANN)
James River Below
Newport News Shipyard
(JRBNN)
York River Above
Cheatham Annex
fVRACA)
York River Below
Cheatham Annex
(YRBCA)
Willoughby Bay
(WILLO)
Lynnhaven River
(LYNN)
9-27
-------
Figure 6.1 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 water column data. (See Section 3.4 for a
detailed description of presentation).
50
^40-
y 30 •
& 20
5 10 j
i 0
-10
Indian Head
Reference
Test
Freestone Point
50
£.40 •
|30-
"~20 -
$10-
* 0
-10
Reference
Test
Possum Point
50
30
"~ 20 ]
• 0
-10
Reference
Test
50
£-40 -
8 30 "
" 20 -
Dahlgren
• o
-10
Reference
Test
Patapsco River
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 €1-2 •
Reference
*Test is significantly separated from reference
9-28
-------
Figure 6.2
Toxicity Index results for the 1991 water column data. (See Section 3.4
for a detailed description of presentation).
50
£40 "I
Patapsco River
20 1
I 10
£ 0
-10
Reference
Test
50
40
30
20 -I
Dahlgren
o
-10
Reference
Test
50 T
Wye River
Reference Test
Morgantown
w
^40
£30-
0
o
" 201
£ 10-I
^ 0 ! •)
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 € 1-2 • 3+
*Test is significantly separated from reference
9-29
-------
Figure 6.3
Toxicity Index results for the 1992-3 water column data. (See Section 3.4
for a detailed description of presentation).
Wilson Point
50 -
£-40 -
| 30 J
520 I
10 I
0
Frog Mortar
Reference
Test
Manor House
•in *" ••"— "
^40
£30.
S20 •
£ 10 •
^ r\ .
.in -
c*\
(^
Tesf
50
Sandy Hill Beach
30 j '
20 1
10 "
0 :
' °
Reference
Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 O 1-2 03+
*Test is significantly separated from reference
9-30
-------
Figure 6.4a Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for the Severn,
Magothy and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description
of presentation).
50
South Ferry
g 30
1 20-
-------
Figure 6.4b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for Baltimore
Harbor sites. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation).
Northwest Harbor
50 •
J40
,2 30
B 10 •
n .
3
*
Reference
Test
50
Curtis Bay
,030
5 2°1
B 10
o
Reference
Test
50
5*20
10
0
Middle Branch
o
Bear Creek
* 50
e AT\ •
*£
,6 30'
Bio-
n-
3
*
Test
Sparrows Point
Reference
Tesf
Outer Harbor
n^*A
n^u-nfcw
uroi.k'l
\ *°
£ 30-
_ 20
(D
B 10-
n .
3
*
Reference
Reference Test Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 € 1-2 03+
*Test is significantly separated from reference
Test
9-32
-------
Figure 6.5
Toxicity Index results for the 1995 water column data. (See Section 3.4
for a detailed description of presentation).
Pamunkey Below
York River Above
f <°1
2 301
2O
10
Reference
Test
Pamunkey Above
1-1
20-
10-
Reference
Test
James River Above "
so
,2 30 •
£ 20-
S 10 •
(
Reference
Test
James River Below
so
20
1O •
Reference
Reference
Test
York River Below
Reference
Test
Willoughby Bay
Reference
Test
Lynnhaven River
Tesl Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 € 1-2 03+
Reference
Test
* Test is significantly separated from reference
9-33
-------
sjuiodpug
g
-------
Figure 6.7 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for a detaile
description of presentation).
Indian Head
Patapsco River
20
I10
0
Refe,ence
Location Symbol Key « Refe(ence
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 € 1-2 03+
Test
*Test is significantly separated from reference
9-35
-------
Figure 6.8 Toxicity Index results for the 1991 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.)
50
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 O 1-2 • 3+
Test is significantly separated from reference
9-36
-------
Figure 6.9 Toxicity Index results for 1992-93 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.)
Wilson toint
Frog Mortar
Reference
Test
Manor House
Reference
Test
Sandy Hill Beach
Reference
Reference
Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 € 1-2 03 +
*Test is significantly separated from reference
9-37
-------
Figure 6.10a Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data from the Severn, Magothy and
Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
South Ferry
50
50
Reference
Junction Route 50
Betterton
Test
Turner Creek
Reference
Test
Gibson Island
Reference Test Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 € 1-2 03+
Reference
Test
*Test is significantly separated from reference
9-38
-------
Figure 6.10b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data from Baltimore Harbor sites.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
Northwest Harbor
100
Bear Creek
MIDtXE RIVER
M BALTIMORE
Reference
Reference
Test
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
: -o e-1-2 •-3 +
Test is significantly separated from reference
9-39
-------
Figure 6.11 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.)
Pamunkey Below
Reference
Pamunkey Above
i
4O
3O
20 '
1O '
O
Reference
Test
James River Above
so
£ «o
£ 30
•£ 20 •
£ 10
8 O
• 1O
0
Reference
Test
James River Below
so
4O -
3O-
20
IO •
O
York River Above
: T^
Reference
York River Below
' (T]
*"; W
TO
Refererx^
Test
Willoughby Bay
Reference
Test
Lynnhaven River
Reference
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 C 1-2 • 3+
Reference
* Test is significantly separated from reference
9-40
-------
*
CJ
«•- U K
O 4) Cl
tt C.~
M C. '-C
5 3 g
g §1
sju.iodpug
x fc
a ft*
£?
I 5
11
«
Si-* a
nil
S*|i
•a § 2 «
2
* « « fi
18 ~ .a -S
~ £» H .S
55 rf-S
^i «- C «
£«2 25
§^ 5 - M
-< •- a c
illl:
5 S s g
1111 =
.3*1 ^"5
^&) g « 2
'3 ^ * a ^
•S 2 S «2 £
e € B *a Q,
H • .» S •
^- I. w C l«
^
S
s
•3
S
m
fc»
k.
A
E
|
A
/N
— u
d- "^
WW ^
o
r> /. i Q)
O)
0)
QC
0)
(0
0)
**
(0
-------
APPENDIX A
Pesticides and semi-volatile compounds from sediment tests
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX 96
553801
11/29,95
11/29,95
11/29/95
12/19,95
FINNIGANINCOS 50
RJMII
USEPA 8270, modified
F.AAMBTOX\DATA\BNA\BLK1129.WQ1
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No.:
Matrix:
Sample Vol.(g).
Wet Wt:
DryWt:
PanWt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page 1 of 2
ORGANICS
METHOD BUVNK
BLK1129
GLASSWARE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rob McDaniel II
CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
108-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
65-85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
» Extract Cone.
(uQ/ml)
Aniline
2-Chlorophenol
Bis(2-chloroethvi)ether
Phenol
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichtorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzvl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisoDroovltether
2-MethvlDhenol
Hexachtoroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-Droovlamine
4-MethvlDhenol
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-NitroDhenol
Benzole acid
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chloroethoxv)methane
2.4-DichloroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trichtorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-ChloroaniIine
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
HexachtorocvclODentadiene
2.4.6-TrichloroDhenol
2.4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Chtoronaphthalene
2-N'rtroaniline
Acenaphthalene
DimethylDhthalate
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Sample Cone.
(uQ/ka dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Taa
Detection Limit
(ua/ka dry)
4.79E+02
4.36E-K)2
3.70E+02
3.05E-KJ2
2.05E-K32
2.41 E+02
1.35E+02
2.28E-K)2
1.95E+02
3.83E+02
1.54E-K52
2.74E-KJ2
3.79E-K)2
7.10E+01
1.03E+02
6.80E+02
6.11E+02
1^4E+02
1.47E-K)2
2.96E+02
2.91E-K)2
1.52E-K>2
8.71 E+02
5.94E+02
4.94E-KJ2
3.04E+02
2.67E+02
3.23E-K)2
4.59E-KJ2
2.38E-KJ2
3.86E-KJ2
1.95E-K)2
1.77E+02
5.21E-KJ2
1.94E+01
225E-K)2
4.69E-K)2
1.49E-K)2
A-l
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE
Page 2 of 2
METHOD BLANK
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
Compound
4-NilroDhenol
2.4-Dinitrotoluene
Puorene
4-Chlorophenyiphenylether
Dietnylphthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodjphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachbrobenzene
Pentachbrophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pvrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrvsene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethyihexvnphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
BenzofWfluoranthene
BenzoflOfluoranthene
Benzo{a)pyrene
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pvrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Exlract Cone. I Sample Cone.
(uq/ml) I (uq/kq dry)
-
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
(Detection Limit
(uq/kq dry)
1 86 E+2
1 .44E-KJ3
2.27E-K)2
2.76E+02
2.26E-K)2
9.21E-KJ3
2.58E-KJ2
6.30E+02
7.76E-KJ2
7.52E+02
5.21E-K)2
2.90E-KJ2
2.65E-KJ2
1 .95E-KJ2
3.50E-KJ2
3.50E+02
1.91E+02
5.87E-K)2
4.79E-H)2
3.33E-KJ3
4.13E-KJ2
2.41 E+02
4.59E-KJ2
4.59E-KJ2
5.02E-KJ2
5.45E-K)2
5.87E-K)2
5.45E-K)2
2.41E-KJ2
8.05E-K)2
BDL - Below detection limit.
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B - Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-2
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX 96
553801
10/04/95
10/25/95
11/29/95
12/19/95
FINNIGAN INCOS 50
RJMII
USEPA 8270. modified
F:\AMBTOX\DATA\BNA\49141 .WQ1
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No.:
Matrix:
Sample Vol (g)
Wet Wt:
DryWt:
Pan Wt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page 1 of 2
ORGANICS
PAMUNKEY ABOVE WP
49141
SOIUSEDIMENT
30
16.48
6.14
1.59
69.442578912
Rob McDaniel II
CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
108-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
65-85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
Compound
Aniline
2-Chlorophenol
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Phenol
1 .3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichtorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzvl alcohol
Biste-chloroisoDroDvltether
2-MethylDhenol
Hexachtoroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-oroovlamine
4-Methvlphenol
Nitrobenzene
Isoohorone
2-Nitroohenol
Benzofcacid
2.4-Dimethvlphenol
Bis(2-chloroethoxv)methane
2.4-DichtoroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trichtorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chtoroaniline
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Methvlnaphthalene
Hexachlorocvclopentadiene
2.4.6-TrichloroDhenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
2.6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Extract Cone.
(uQ/ml)
,
Sample Cone.
(ua/kQ dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
(Detection Limn
(uq/kQ dry)
4.79E+02
4.36E-KJ2
3.70E+02
3.05E+02
2.05E-K)2
2.41E-K)2
1.35E+02
2.28E-KJ2
1 .95E-KJ2
3.83E+02
1.54E-KJ2
2.74E-KJ2
3.79E-KJ2
7.10E+01
1 .03E-K)2
6.80E-KJ2
6.11E-KJ2
1.24E-KJ2
1.47E+02
2.96E+02
2.91E-KJ2
1.52E-KJ2
8.71E-K)2
5.94E-K)2
4.94E-KJ2
3.04E-KJ2
2.67E-K)2
3.23E+02
4.59E-KJ2
2.38E-K)2
3.86E-KJ2
1.95E-K)2
1.77E-K)2
5.21 E+02
1 .94E-KJ1
2.25E+02
4.69E-K)2
1.49E-K)2
A-3
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE
Page 2 of 2
49141
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
J Extract Cone.
(uQ/ml)
4-NitroDhenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Fluorene
4-ChloroDhenylDhenylether
Diethylphthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-NitrosodiDhenylamine
4-Bromophenyj-Phenylether
Hexachtorobenzene
Pentachtoroohenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylohthalate
Fluoranthene
Pvrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylDhthalate
BenzofWfluoranthene
BenzoMfluoranthene
Benzolajpyrene
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo[a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Sample Cone.
(ua/kQ dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Taq
Detection Limit
(uq/kq dry)
1.86E+2
1 .44E+03
2.27E+02
2.76E+02
2.26E+02
9.21 E-KB
2.58E+02
6.30E+02
7.76E-KJ2
7.52E-KJ2
5.21E-KI2
2.90E-K)2
2.65E-K)2
1.95E-KJ2
3.50E-K)2
3.50E-K)2
1.91E+02
5.87E-K)2
4.79E-KJ2
3.33E+03
4.13E+02
2.41 E+02
4.59E-KJ2
4.59E-K)2
5.02E-KJ2
5.45E-KJ2
5.87E-KJ2
5.45E-KJ2
2.41E-K)2
8.05E-KJ2
BDL - Below detection limit.
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B - Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-4
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID.
Contract No..
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX 96
553801
10/04/95
10/25/95
11/29/95
12/19/95
FINNIGAN INCOS 50'
RJMII
USEPA 8270, modified
F:\AMBTOX\DATAVBNA\49142.WQ1
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No.:
Matrix:
Sample Vol.(g):
Wet Wt:
DryWt:
Pan Wt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page 1 of 2
ORGANICS
PAMUNKEY BELOW WP
49142
SOIL/SEDIMENT
30.09
17.88
8.32
1.58
58.650306748
Rob McDaniel II
CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
10&46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
108-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
65-85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-S2-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
Compound
Aniline
2-Chlorophenol
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Phenol
1 .3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisooroDvnether
2-Methylphenol
Hexachloroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-Dropvlamine
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
Benzole acid
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
2,4-DichloroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trtehlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-methyiphenol
2-MethylnaphthaJene
Hexachbrocvdopentadiene
2.4.6-Trichloroohenol
2,4,5-Trtehtorophenol
2-Chtoronaphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Extract Cone.
fug/ml)
Sample Cone.
(uQ/kd dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
i_ BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Taq
Detection Limit
(uQ/ko. dry)
4.79E-K)2
4.36E+02
3.70E-K)2
3.05E+02
2.05E+02
2.41E-KJ2
1.35E+02
2.28E+02
1.95E+02
3.83E-KJ2
1.54E+02
2.74E-K)2
3.79E+02
7.10E-K)1
1.03E+02
6.80E-KJ2
6.11E-K)2
124E-K)2
1.47E+02
2.96E-K)2
2.91E-K)2
1.52E-K)2
8.71E-K)2
5.94E+02
4.94E-K)2
3.04E-KJ2
2.67E-KJ2
3.23E-KJ2
4.59E+02
2.38E+02
3.86E-K)2
1.95E-K)2
1.77E-KJ2
521E-K)2
1.94E-K)!
225E-KJ2
4.69E-K)2
1.49E-KJ2
A-5
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE
Page 2 of 2
49142
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
Compound
4-Nitroohenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Fluorene
4-Chlorophenylphenylether
Diethvlphthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenvlamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pvrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
S.S'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethy1hexvf)ohtha)ate
Di-n-octvlphthalate
BenzofWfluoranthene
Benzo(k)fiuoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indenod .2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Extract Cone.
(uQ/ml)
Sample Cone.
(uq/kq dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Taq
Detection Limit
(uq/kq dry)
1.86E+2
1 .44E+03
2.27E-K12
2.76E-K)2
2.26E-K)2
9.21E-K)3
2.58E-K)2
6.30E+02
7.76E+02
7.52E-KJ2
5.21E-KJ2
2.90E+02
2.65E-KJ2
1.95E-K)2
3.50E+02
3.50E-K)2
1.91E-KJ2
5.87E-K)2
4.79E+02
3.33E+03
4.13E-KJ2
2.41 E+02
4.59E-K)2
4.59E-K)2
5.02E+02
5.45E-K)2
5.87E-KJ2
5.45E+02
2.41E-KJ2
8.05E-K)2
BDL - Below detection limit
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B - Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-6
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX 96
553801
10/04/95
10/25/95
11/29-95
12/19-95
FINNIGAN INCOS 50
RJMII
USEPA 8270, modified
F:\AMBTOX\DATA\BNA\49143.WQ1
Latx>ratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No.:
Matrix:
Sample Vol.(g):
Wet Wt:
DryWt:
Pan Wt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page: of 2
ORGAMCS
YORK RIVER ABOVE CA
49143
SOIL-SEDIMENT
30.11
17.48
7.36
1.61
63.768115942
Rob McDaniel II
CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
1 08-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
65-85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
Compound
Aniline
2-Chlorophenol
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Phenol
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichtorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichtorobenzene
Benzvl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisoDroDvhether
2-Methvlphenol
Hexachloroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-proovlamine
4-MethvlDhenol
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
Benzole acid
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chtoroethoxv)methane
2.4-DtohtoroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachtorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-methylpherol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Hexachtorocvdopentadiene
2.4.6-TrichloroDhenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Chtoronaphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthalene
Dimethvlphthalate
2.6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Extract Cone.
(ua/ml)
Sample Cone.
(ua/ka dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
I Detecton Limit
(uQ/ko. dry)
4.79E-K)2
4.36E-KI2
3.70E+02
3.05E+02
2.05E+02
2.41 E+02
1.35E-K)2
2.28E-KJ2
1.95E-K)2
3.83E+02
1.54E-KJ2
2.74E-K)2
3.79E+02
7.10E+01
1.03E-K)2
6.80E-KJ2
6.11E+02
1^4E-K)2
1.47E-KJ2
2.96E+02
2.91E-K)2
1.52E-K)2
8.71E-KJ2
5.94E-K)2
4.94E-K)2
3.04E-KJ2
2.67E-KJ2
3.23E402
4.59E-KJ2
2.38E-KJ2
3.86E-K)2
1.95E-^2
1.77E-KJ2
521E-K)2
1.94E-K)!
225E-KJ2
4.69E-KJ2
1.49E-KJ2
A-7
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE
Page 2 of 2
49143
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206^4-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
Compound
4-Nitroohenol
2.4-Dinitrotoluene
Fluorene
4-Chlorophenylphenylether
Diethvlohthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachtorobenzene
Pentachloroohenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrvsene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)Dhthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
BenzofWfluoranthene
BenzofWfluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indenof 1 ,2,3-cdtoyrene
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)pefylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Extract Cone.
(uo/ml)
Sample Cone.
(uq/kQ dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Tap
Detection Limit
(uq/ka dry)
1 86 E+2
1.44E-KJ3
2.27E-HD2
2.76E+02
2.26E-K)2
9.21E-K)3
2.58E+02
6.30E-H32
7.76E-K)2
7.52E-KJ2
5.21E-K)2
2.90E-K)2
2.65E-KJ2
1.95E-KJ2
3.50E-KJ2
3.50E-K)2
1.91E-K)2
5.87E-KJ2
4.79E-K)2
3.33E-KQ
4.13E-K)2
2.41E-KI2
4.59E-K)2
4.59E+02
5.02E-K)2
5.45E-KJ2
5.87E-KJ2
5.45E-K12
2.41E-K)2
8.05E+02
BDL - Betow detection limit.
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B - Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-8
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX96
553801
10/04-95
10/25/95
11/29/95
12/19/95
FINNIGAN INCOS 50
RJMII
USEPA 8270, modified
F:\AMBTOX\DATABNA\49144.WQ1
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No
Matrix:
Sample Vol.(g):
Wet Wt:
DryWt:
Pan Wt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page 1 of 2
ORGANICS
YORK RIVER BELOW CA
49144
SOIL-SEDIMENT
30.13
17.42
11.81
1.59
35.439039798
Rob McDaniel II
CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
108-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
65^5-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
10&47-S
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
Compound
Aniline
2-Chtorophenol
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Phenol
1 .3-Dichlorobenzene
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
1.2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzvl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisoDroDvl)ether
2-Methylphenol
Hexachloroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-propvlamine
4-Methvlphenol
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitroohenol
Benzole acid
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chloroetnoxY)melhane
2.4-DichloroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chtoro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Hexachlorocvctooentadiene
2.4.6-TrfchloroDhenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
AcenaphthaJene
Dimethylphthalate
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Extract Cone.
(ud/ml)
Sample Cone.
(uq/kq dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
I Detection Limit
(uo/ka drv)
4.79E+02
4.36E+02
3.70E+02
3.05E+02
2.05E-KJ2
2.41E-K)2
1.35E+02
2.28E-KJ2
1.95E+02
3.83E+02
1.54E+02
2.74E+02
3.79E+02
7.10E+01
1.03E+02
6.80E+02
6.11E+02
154E+02
1.47E+02
2.96E-K)2
2.91E-K)2
1.52E+02
8.71E-KJ2
5.94E-K)2
4.94E+02
3.04E-K)2
2.67E-KJ2
3.23E+02
4.59E-K)2
2.38E-K)2
3.86E+02
1.95E-K)2
1.77E-H)2
521E-K)2
1.94E+01
225E-K)2
4.69E+02
1.49E-KJ2
A-9
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE
Page 2 of 2
49144
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
I Extract Cone.
(uq/ml)
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimtroto!uene
Fluorene
4-Chlorophenylphenylether
Diethvtohthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-NitrosodiDhenvlamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachtorobenzene
PentachforoDhenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphtha!ate
Fluoranthene
Pvrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethylhexvnDhthalate
Di-n-octylDhthalate •
BenzofWfluoranthene
BenzofMfluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
IndenoO ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h}anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Sample Cone.
(uq/kq dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Tag
Detection Limit
(uq/kQ dry)
1 .86 E+2
1 .44E+03
2.27E+02
2.76E-K)2
2.26E-K)2
9.21E-K)3
2.58E+02
6.30E+02
7.76E+02
7.52E+02
5.21E-K)2
2.90E+02
2.65E-H)2
1.95E+02
3.50E-K52
3.50E+02
1.91E+02
5.87E+02
4.79E-K)2
3.33E-KJ3
4.13E-K)2
2.41 E+02
4.59E-KJ2
4.59E+02
5.02E-KJ2
5.45E-K)2
5.87E+02
5.45E+02
2.41E-KJ2
8.05E+02
BDL - Below detection limit
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B - Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-10
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX 96
553801
10/05/95
10/2595
11/29/95
12/19/95
FINNIGAN INCOS 50
RJMII
USEPA 8270, modified
F:VAMBTOX\DATA\BNA\49145.WQ1
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No.:
Matrix:
Sample Vol.(g).
WetWt:
DryWt:
Pan Wt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page 1 of 2
ORGANICS
JAMES RIVER ABOVE N
49145
SOIL/SEDIMENT
30
17.72
14.14
1.6
22.208436725
Rob McDaniel II
CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
108-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
65-85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-5
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
Compound
Aniline
2-Chlorophenol
Bis(2-chloroethvOether
Phenol
1 .3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzvl alcohol
Biste-chloroisoDroDvltether
2-MethyfDhenol
Hexachtoroethane
N-NitrosCKJi-n-DrODvtamine
4-MethvlDhenol
Nitrobenzene
Isoohorone
2-NifroDhenol
Benzole acid
2,4-DimethylDhenol
Bis(2-chloroethoxY)methane
2.4-DtehtoroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trichtorobenzene
NaDhthatene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachtorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-methyfphenol
2-MethylnaDhthalene
HexachtorocvdoDentadiene
24.6-TrichloroDhenol
2,4.5-TrichloroDhenol
2-ChtoronaDhthalene
2-N'rtroaniline
Acenaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
2.6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
D'benzofuran
Extract Cone.
(uq/mO
Sample Cone.
(ua/kq dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
L BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Taq
Detection Limit
(uq/kQ dry)
4.79E+02
4.36E+02
3.70E-K)2
3.05E-KJ2
2.05E-KJ2
2.41E-M32
1.35E+02
2.28E-KJ2
1.95E+Q2
3.83E+02
1.54E-KJ2
2.74E-KJ2
3.79E-KJ2
7.10E-KJ1
1.03E-KJ2
6.80E+02
6.11E+02
1.24E+02
1.47E-K)2
2.96E-K)2
2.91E+02
1.52E+02
8.71E-KJ2
5.94E-K)2
4.94E-KJ2
3.04E-K)2
2.67E+02
3.23E-K)2
4.59E-K)2
2.38E-K)2
3.86E-KJ2
1.95E-KJ2
1.77E-KJ2
521 E-^
1.94E-K)!
2.25E+02
4.69E-K)2
149E-KJ2
A-ll
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE
Page 2 of 2
49145
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
Compound
4-Nitroohenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Fluorene
4-Chlorophenylphenylether
Diethylphthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachtorobenzene
Pentachtorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pvrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrvsene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethylhexvl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
BenzoflOfluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Extract Cone.
(uq/ml)
Sample Cone'.
(DQ/kQ dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
I Detection Limit
(uq/kq dry)
1 86 E+2
1 .44E-K13
2.27E+02
2.76E-K)2
2.26E-K)2
9.21E-KJ3
2.58E-K)2
6.30E-K)2
7.76E+02
7.52E-KJ2
5.21 E+02
2.90E-KI2
2.65E-K)2
1.95E+02
3.50E-K)2
3.50E+02
1.91E-KJ2
5.87E-K)2
4.79E-K)2
3.33E-KJ3
4.13E-K)2
2.41E-K)2
4.59E+02
4.59E-KJ2
5.02E-K)2
5.45E-KJ2
5.87E-K)2
5.45E-KJ2
2.41E-KJ2
8.05E-KJ2
BDL - Below detection limit.
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B - Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-12
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected.
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX 96
553801
10/05/95
10/25/95
11/29/95
12/19/95
FINNIGAN INCOS 50
RJMII
USEPA 8270. modified
F:\AMBTOX\DATA\BNA\49146.WQ1
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No.:
Matrix:
Sample Vol.(g):
WetWt:
DryWt:
Pan Wt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page 1 of 2
ORGANICS
JAMES RIVER BELOW N
49146
SOIL/SEDIMENT
30.15
16.74
11.60
1.6
33.949801849
Rob McDaniel II
CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
108-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
65-85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-S
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
Comoound
Aniline
2-Chlorophenol
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Phenol
1 .3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichtorobenzene
1 ,2-Dtohlorobenzene
Benzvl alcohol
Biste-chloroisoDroDvHether
2-Methylphenol
Hexachloroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-oroDvlamine
4-Methvlohenol
Nitrobenzene
Isoohorone
2-Nitroohenol
Benzoic acid
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chtoroethoxv)methane
2.4-DichloroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trichtorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachtorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-MethyInaDhthalene
Hexachlorocvclopentadiene
2.4.6-TrichloroDhenol
2,4,5-TrichloroDhenol
2-Chloronaohthalene
2-Nitroaniline
Acenaphtnalene
Dimethylphthalate
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3-N'rtroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitroohenol
Dibenzofuran
Extract Cone.
(uq/ml)
Sample Cone.
(uq/kq dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
(Detection Limit
(uq/kq dry)
4.79E-K)2
4.36E-K)2
3.70E-K)2
3.05E+02
2.05E+02
2.41 E+02
1.35E-KJ2
2.28E+02
1.95E-K52
3.83E-KJ2
1.54E-KJ2
2.74E+02
3.79E-KJ2
7.10E+01
1.03E+02
6.80E-KJ2
6.11E+02
124E-K)2
1.47E-K)2
2.96E+02
2.91 E+02
1.52E-KJ2
8.71 E+02
5.94E-KJ2
4.94E-K)2
3.04E-K)2
2.67E-KJ2
3.23E-KJ2
4.59E-KJ2
2.38E-K)2
3.86E-KJ2
1.95E+02
1.77E+02
5.21 E+02
1.94E+01
225E-K)2
4.69E-K)2
1.49E-KJ2
A-13
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE
Page 2 of 2
49146
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
I Extract Cone.
(uq/ml)
4-Nitroohenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Fluorene
4-Chlorophenylphenylether
Diethvfohthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4.6-dinitro-2-methyIphenol
N-Nitrosodjphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachtorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pvrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrvsene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthaJate
Di-n-octylDhthalate
Benzofbtfluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,Qperylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Sample Cone.
(uq/kq dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Taq
Detection Limit
(uQ/kq dry)
1.86E+2
1 .44E+03
2.27E+02
2.76E-K)2
2.26E-K)2
9.21E-KJ3
2.58E+02
6.30E+02
7.76E+02
7.52E-KJ2
5.21E-K)2
2.90E-K)2
2.65E-KJ2
1.95E-K)2
3.50E+02
3.50E+02
1.91E-K)2
5.87E-K)2
4.79E-KJ2
3.33E-KJ3
4.13E-KJ2
2.41 E+02
4.59E-K52
4.59E-K)2
5.02E-K)2
5.45E+02
5.87E-KJ2
5.45E-KJ2
2.41E-K)2
8.05E-KJ2
BDL - Below detection limit.
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B - Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-14
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX 96
553801
10/05/95
10/25/95
11/30/95
12/19/95
FINNIGANINCOS 50
RJMII
USEPA 8270, modified
F:\AMBTOX\DATA\BNA\49147.WQ1
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No/
Matrix:
Sample Vol.(g).
Wet Wt:
DryWt:
PanWt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page 1 of 2
ORGANICS
WILLOUGHBY BAY
49147
SOIUSEDIMENT
30.02
16.62
5.77
1.61
72.285143238
Rob McDaniel II
CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
108-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
65-85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
Compound
Aniline
2-Chlorophenol
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Phenol
1 .3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichtorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzvl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisoDroovl)ether
2-Methvlphenol
Hexachloroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-oropvlamine
4-Methvlohenol
Nitrobenzene
IsoDhorone
2-Nitroohenol
Benzole acid
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis{2-chtoroethoxv)methane
2.4-DichtoroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachtorobutadiene
4-Chtoro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Hexachtorocvctopentadiene
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphtha)ene
2-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Extract Cone.
(uq/ml)
Sample Cone.
(ug/kQ dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
(Detection Limit
(uQ/kq dry)
4.79E+02
4.36E+02
3.70E-KJ2
3.05E-K)2
2.05E-KJ2
2.41E-KJ2
1.35E+02
2.28E-KJ2
1 .95E+02
3.83E+02
1.54E-KJ2
2.74E-KJ2
3.79E-K52
7.10E+01
1.03E-KJ2
6.80E-KJ2
6.11E+02
1.24E+02
1.47E+02
2.96E-K)2
2.91E-KJ2
1.52E-KJ2
8.71E-K)2
5.94E-K)2
4.94E-KJ2
3.04E-KJ2
2.67E-K)2
3.23E-KJ2
4.59E-K)2
2.38E-K)2
3.86E-KJ2
1.95E-K)2
1.77E-KJ2
5.21E-K)2
1.94E-KJ1
2.25E-KJ2
4.69E-K)2
1.49E-KJ2
A-15
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE
Page 2 of 2
49147
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117^84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
Compound
4-Nitroohenol
2,4-Dimtrotoluene
Fluorene
4-Chlorophenylphenylether
Diethylphthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiph enylamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachbrobenzene
Pentachloroohenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butytphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pvrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrvsene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethyihexvtohthaiate
Di-n-octvlphthalate
BenzofWfluoranthene
BenzofWfluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)peiylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Extract Cone. 1 Sample Cone.
(uq/ml) 1 (ua/kq dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL -
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
(Detection Limit
(uq "«q dry)
1.86E+2
1 .44E-K)3
2.27E+02
2.76E-HD2
2.26E-KJ2
9.21E-KJ3
2.58E-KJ2
6.30E-KJ2
7.76E+02
7.52E-K)2
5.21E-K)2
2.90E-KJ2
2.65E+02
1 .95E+02
3.50E-K)2
3.50E-K32
1.91E-KJ2
5.87E-KJ2
4.79E+02
3.33E-K)3
4.13E-K)2
2.41E-KJ2
4.59E-tf2
4.59E-KJ2
5.02E-K)2
5.45E+02
5.87E+02
5.45E-KJ2
2.41E-KJ2
8.05E-K)2
BDL - Below detection limit
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B • Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-16
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX 96
553801
10/05,95
10/25-95
11/30-95
12/19,95
FINNIGAN INCOS 50
RJMII
USEPA 8270, modified
F:\AMBTOODATA\BNA\49148.WQ1
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No.:
Matrix:
Sample Vol.(g)-
Wet Wt:
DryWt:
PanWt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page 1 of 2
ORGANICS
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
49148
SOIL/SEDIMENT
30.17
16.71
13.82
1.58
19.101123596
Rob McDaniel II
CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
108-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
6^85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
Compound
Aniline
2-Chlorophenol
Bis(2-chloroethyt)ether
Phenol
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisooroDvnether
2-Methylphenol
Hexachtoroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-propviamine
4-Methylphenpl
Nitrobenzene
Isoohorone
2-NitroDhenol
Benzole acid
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chloroethoxY) methane
2.4-DichloroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachtorobutadiene
4-Chtoro-3-methylphenol
2-MethylnaphthaIene
Hexachlorocvclooentadiene
2.4.6-TrichloroDhenol
2.4,5-TrichtoroDhenol
2-Chtoronaphtha)ene
2-N"rtroaniline
Acenaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
2.6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroani!ine
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Extract Cone.
(uq/ml)
Sample Cone.
(UQ/KQ dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL -
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
(Detection Limit
(uQ/kd dry)
4.79E+02
4.36E+02
3.70E+02
3.05E+02
2.05E-K)2
2.41 E+02
1.35E-K)2
2.28E-KJ2
1.95E+02
3.83E-K)2
1.54E-KJ2
2.74E-H)2
3.79E-K)2
7.10E-K51
1.03E-K)2
6.80E-K)2
6.11E-K)2
154E+02
1.47E+02
2.96E-K)2
2.91E-KJ2
1.52E-KJ2
8.71E-K)2
5.94E-KJ2
4.94E-K)2
3.04E+02
2.67E+02
3.23E-*02
4.59E-KJ2
2.38E-H)2
3.86E-K)2
1.95E-K)2
1.77E-KJ2
521E-KJ2
1.94E-KJ1
225E-KJ2
4.69E-KJ2
1.49E-K)2
A-17
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE
Page 2 of 2
49148
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
Compound
4-Nitroohenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Fluorene
4-Chlorophenylphenylether
Diethylphthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4J5-dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl-pheny!ether
Hexachtorobenzene
Pentachtorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butvlohthalate
Fluoranthene
Pvrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrvsene
3 .3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethylhexyf)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
BenzofWfluoranthene
BenzofWfluoranthene
Benzo(ajpyrene
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Extract Cone. 1 Sample Cone.
(uQ/ml) 1 (uq Xq dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Taq
Detection Limit
(UQ/KQ dry)
1.86E+2
1.44E+03
2.27E+02
2.76E-K)2
2.26E-K52
9.21 E+03
2.58E+02
6.30E-H02
7.76E+02
7.52E-K)2
5.21E-K)2
2.90E+02
2.65E+02
1.95E-KJ2
3.50E+02
3.50E-KJ2
1.91E-K)2
5.87E+02
4.79E-KJ2
3.33E-K)3
4.13E+02
2.41E+02
4.59E-KJ2
4.59E+02
5.02E+02
5.45E-K)2
5.87E-KJ2
5.45E-K)2
2.41E-K)2
8.05E-KI2
BDL - Below detection limit
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B - Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-18
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX 96
553801
10/12/95
10/25/95
11/30/95
12/20/95
FINNIGAN INCOS 50
RJMII
USEPA 8270, modified
F:\AMBTCOODATA\BNA\49149.WQ1
Laboratory:
Sample ID.
Sample No.:
Matrix:
Sample Vol.(g):
WetWt:
DryWt:
Pan Wt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page 1 of 2
ORGANICS
LYNNHAVEN MUD
49149
SOIL/SEDIMENT
30
17.09
8.67
1.58
54.287556415
Rob McDaniel II
L CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
108-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
65-85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-63-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
Compound
Aniline
2-Chlorophenol
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Phenol
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dtohlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisoDroDvltether
2-Methylphenol
Hexachloroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-DTOpylamine
4-Methvtohenol
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitroohenol
Benzoic acid
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chtoroethoxy) methane
2.4-DichloroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachbrobutadiene
4-Chtoro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Hexachtorocvctopentadiene
2.4.6-Trtehkjrophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-ChloronaohthaJene
2-N'rtroaniline
Acenaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Extract Cone.
(uQ/mi)
Sample Cone.
(uq/kq dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Taq
.
Detection Limit
(uq/kq dry)
4.79E+02
4.36E-K)2
3.70E-KJ2
3.05E-KJ2
2.05E-K52
2.41 E«Q2
1.35E-KJ2
2.28E+02
1.95E+02
3.83E-KJ2
1.54E-K)2
2.74E-KJ2
3.79E+02
7.10E-KH
1 .03E-K)2
6.80E+02
6.11E-K)2
1 .24E-KJ2
1.47E-K)2
2.96E-KJ2
2.91E-K)2
1.52E-KJ2
8.71E-K)2
594E-KJ2
4.94E-KJ2
3.04E-K)2
2.67E-K)2
3.23E-K)2
4.59E-K52
2.38E-K)2
386E-KJ2
1.95E-K)2
1.77E-K)2
521E-KJ2
1.94E-KM
2.25E-KJ2
4.69E-KJ2
1.49E-K)2
A-19
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE
Page 2 of 2
49149
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
| Extract Cone.
Compound ft (uq/ml)
4-Nitroohenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Ruorene
4-ChlorophenylDhenylether
Diethvtohthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachtorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pvrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrvsene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethylhexYOphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
BenzofMfluoranthene
Benzo{a)pyrene
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Sample Cone.
(uq/kq dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Taq
Detection Limit
(uq/kq dry)
1.86E+2
1.44E+03
2.27E-K52
2.76E-K32
2.26E+02
9.21E-KW
2.58E+02
6.30E+02
7.76E-K)2
7.52E+02
5.21E-KJ2
2.90E-K)2
2.65E+02
1.95E-K52
3.50E-KI2
3.50E-K)2
1.91E+02
5.87E-KJ2
4.79E-KJ2
3.33E-KJ3
4.13E-K)2
2.41E-KJ2
4.59E-KJ2
4.59E+02_
5.02E+02
5.45E-KJ2
5.87E-K)2
5.45E+02
2.41E-KK
8.05E+02
BDL - Below detection limit.
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B -Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-20
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX 96
553801
10/12/95
10/25^5
11/30/95
12/20/95
FINNIGAN (NCOS 50
RJMII
USEPA 8270, modified
F:\AMBTOX\DATA\BNA\49150.WQ1
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No.:
Matrix:
Sample Vol(g):
WetWt:
DryWt:
PanWt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page 1 of 2
ORGANICS
LYNNHAVEN SAND
49150
SOIL/SEDIMENT
30.18
16.20
13.21
1.58
20.451436389
Rob McDaniel II
CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
108-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
65-85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
Compound
Aniline
2-Chlorophenol
Bis{2-chloroethy!)ether
Phenol
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichtorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisooroDvltether
2-MethylDhenol
Hexachloroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
4-MethylDhenol
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nrtrophenol
Benzole acid
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
2.4-DichloroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-ChtoroaniIine
Hexachtorobutadiene
4-Chtoro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Hexachlorocvdopentadiene
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3-N'rtroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Extract Cone.
(uq/ml)
Sample Cone.
(ud/kQ dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Tag
6etection Limn
(ua/ko dry)
4.79E+02
4.36E-HJ2
3.70E-K)2
3.05E+02
2.05E+02
2.41E-KJ2
1.35E-K)2
2.28E+02
1.95E+02
3.83E-KJ2
1.54E+02
2.74E-K)2
3.79E+02
7.10E+01
1.03E-HJ2
6.80E-K»
6.11E-*02
1.24E-K)2
1.47E-K)2
2.96E-KJ2
2.91E-K)2
1.52E-K)2
8.71E-K)2
5.94E-KJ2
4.94E-KJ2
3.04E-KJ2
2.67E-KJ2
3.23E+02
4.59E+02
2.38E-KJ2
3.86E-KJ2
1.95E+02
1.77E-K)2
5.21 E+02
1.94E-KH
225E-KJ2
4.69E-KJ2
1.49E-KJ2
A-21
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE
Page 2 of 2
49150
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
(Extract Cone. 1 Sample Cone.
(uq/ml) 1 (ua/kQ dry)
4-Nitroohenol
2,4-Dimtrotoluene
Fluorene
4-Chlorophenyiphenylether
Diethvtohthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-dinitro-2-methylDhenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachtorobenzene
PentachtoroDhenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pvrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethylhexvOphthalate
Di-n-octvlphthalate
Benzofttfluoranthene
BenzoMfiuoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
IndenoO 2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1 Detection Limit
(ua/ka dry)
1 86 E+2
1.44E-K)3
2.27E-K52
2.76E-K)2
2.26E-KJ2
9.21E-HJ3
2.58E-K)2
6.30E-K)2
7.76E-H)2
7.52E-K)2
5.21E-KJ2
2.90E-K)2
2.65E+02
1.95E-K)2
3.50E+02
3.50E-K)2
1.91E-KJ2
5.87E-KJ2
4.79E-KJ2
3.33E-K)3
4.13E-K)2
2.41E-KJ2
4.59E+02
4.59E-KJ2
5.02E-K)2
5.45E-KJ2
5.87E-KJ2
5.45E-K)2
2.41E-K)2
8.05E-K)2
BDL - Below detection limit.
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B - Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-22
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX 96
553801
10/0335
10/25/95
11/30/95
1220/95
FINNIGAN INCOS 50
RJMII
USEPA 8270, modified
F:\AMBTOX\DATA\BNA\49151 .WQ1
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No.:
Matrix:
Sample Vol.(g):
WetWt:
DryWt:
PanWt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page 1 of 2
ORGANICS
POROPOTANK RIVER
49151
SOIL/SEDIMENT
30.06
17.24
6.05
1.58
71.455938697
Rob McDaniel II
CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
108-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
65-85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
Compound
Aniline
2-Chtorophenol
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Phenol
1 .3-Dichloroben2ene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisoDroDVltether
2-Methylphenol
Hexachtoroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-oroDvlannine
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
Isoonorone
2-N'rtroDhenol
Benzole acid
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chloroethoxv)methane
2.4-DichloroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachtorobutadiene
4-Chtoro-3-methylphenol
2-MethylnaphthaJene
HexachtorocvdODentadiene
2.4.6-Trichtorophenol
2,4,5-TrichloroDhenol
2-ChtoronaDhthalene
2-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
2,6-Dinrtrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Extract Cone.
(uq/ml)
Sample Cone.
(ua/kq dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Taq
Detection Limit
(uQ/ko. dry)
4.79E+02
4.36E+02
3.70E+02
3.05E+02
2.05E+02
2.41 E+02
1.35E-K)2
2.28E+02
1.95E+02
3.83E+02
1.54E+02
2.74E-K)2
3.79E-KJ2
7.10E-K)1
1.03E-K)2
6.80E+02
6.11E-KJ2
1.24E-KJ2
1.47E-K)2
2.96E-K)2
2.91E-KJ2
1.52E-KJ2
8.71E-K)2
5.94E-KJ2
4.94E-KC
3.04E-K)2
2.67E-K)2
3.23E-KJ2
4.59E-K)2
2.38E-KJ2
3.86E+02
1.95E-K)2
1.77E-KJ2
5.21E-KI2
1.94E-K)1
225E-K)2
4.69E-KJ2
1.49E-KI2
A-23
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE
Page 2 of 2
49151
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206^4-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
! Extract Cone.
(uq/ml)
4-NifODhenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Fluorene
4-ChlorophenylphenYiether
Diethvlohthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-NitrosodiDhenvlamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachtorobenzene
PentachbroDhenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphtha!ate
Ruoranthene
Pvrene
Butylbenzylohthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrvsene
3 .3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethylhexvl)phthalate
Di-n-octvlphthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indenod ^S-cdlpyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzota.hJJperylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Sample Cone.
(uq/kq dry)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1 Detection Limit
Juq/kgjjry)
1.86E+2
1 .44E-K)3
2.27E+02
2.76E-K)2
2.26E+02
9.21E-K)3
2.58E+02
6.30E-K)2
7.76E-KJ2
7.52E-K)2
5.21 E+02
2.90E-KJ2
2.65E-KJ2
1.95E-KJ2
3.50E-K)2
3.50E-KJ2
1.91E-K)2
5.87E-K)2
4.79E+02
3.33E-KJ3
4.13E-KJ2
2.41 E+02
4.59E+02
4 59E-KJ2
5.02E+02
5.45E-KJ2
5.87E-KJ2
5.45E-KI2
2.41 E+02
8.05E-KJ2
BDL - Below detection limit.
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B - Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-24
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MAES
AMTOX 96
553801
10/04-95
10/04/95
10/09-95
10/28/95
FINNIGANINCOS 50
RJMII
USEPA 8270, modified
F:\AMBTOX\DATA\BNA\49152.WQ1
Laboratory.
Sample ID:
Sample No.:
Matrix:
Sample Vol.(l):
WetWt:
DryWt:
Pan Wt:
% Moisture:
Data Released By:
Page 1 of 2
ORGANICS
LAB WATER
49152
WATER
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rob McDaniel I
CAS#
62-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
10646-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
108-60-1
95-48-7
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
65-85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
208-96-8
131-11-3
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-9
Compound
Aniline
2-Chlorophenol
Bis(2-ch!oroethyOether
Phenol
1 ,3-Dichtorobenzene
V,4-Dichforobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisooroDvltether
2-MethvtDhenol
Hexachtoroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-proDvlamine
4-Methvtohenol
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
Benzole acid
2,4-Dimethyiphenol
Bis(2-chtoroethoxv)methane
2.4-DichloroDhenol
1 ,2,4-Trichtorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chforoaniline
Hexachtorobutadiene
4-Chtoro-3-methyJpheno!
2-MethvlnaDhtha)ene
Hexachlorocydopentadiene
2.4.6-TrichbroDhenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenof
2-Chtoronaphtha)ene
2-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
2.6-Din'rtrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2J4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Extract Cone.
(uQ/ml)
Sample Cone.
(UQ/I)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
3
B
3
a
[
BDL
BDL
BDI
BD
-
BD.
BDL
B
B
3
D
_
„
BDL
BDL
B
Dl
L
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
3
B
X
DL
BDL
BDL
3
B
a
:>
BDL
3
§
)
W
.
BDL
BDL
3
B
DL
DL
B^DL
BDL
Taq
6etection Limit
(uo/1)
1 .85E+00
2.18E+00
2.94E+00
7.79E-01
2.09E+00
2.51E1-00
2.34E+00
1.83E+00
1.78E+00
1.75E-KJO
1.50E+00
2.64E+00
1.76E+00
2.26E+00
3.05E-KX)
1.64E-KX)
3.00E+00
1.30E+00
2.70E+00
1.93E+00
2.52E+00
3.19E+00
2.88E+00
2.16E+00
1.57E+00
2.43E+00
2.44E+00
1.63E+00
1.40E+00
2.06E+00
1.84E+00
1.55E-KX)
2.06E+00
1.33E+00
1.98E-KX)
1.40E+00
4.00E+00
129E+00
A-25
-------
AMRL
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATASHEET
Page 2 of 2
49152
CAS#
100-02-7
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-M-O
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
Compound
4-Nitroohenol
2,4-Dmitrotoluene
Ruorene
4-Chlorophenyiphenylether
Diethylohthalate
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiohenyjamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachtorobenzene
Pentachtorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Ruoranthene
Pvrene
Butvlbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrvsene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethylhexvl)phtha!ate
Di-n-octvlDhthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
BenzodOfluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indenod ^.S-ctftpyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,0perylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Extract Cone. 1 Sample Cone. 1
(uq/ml) 1 (UQ/I) 1 Taa
B
B
3
L>
.
SDL
BDL
BDL
B
5
L "
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
B
" 51
3
I^MHMM
BDL
BDL
B
B
3
[31
_
BDL
BDL
B
B
01
51
_
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Detection Limit
(ua/l)
4.00E+00
2.43E-»-00
1.24E+00
1.31E+00
1.33E-I-00
3.61 E+00
2.97E+00
1.35E-KX)
2.38E+00
3.50E+00
3.66E-I-00
1.75E+00
8.85E-01
1.56E+00
2.49E+00
2.05E+00
2.38E+00
1.15E+00
1.32E+00
3.53E-I-00
1.94E+00
1.38E+00
1.15E+00
1.22E+00
1.31 E+00
2.49E+00
2.22E+00
2.60E-KX)
6.44E+00
3.10E+00
BDL - Below detection limit.
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit
B - Compound detected in the QC Blank.
A-26
-------
APPENDIX B
Water quality conditions reported in test chambers during
water column tests. Test species were Cyprinodon variegatus (Cv),
Eurytemora qffinis (Ea) and Mulinia lateralis (Ml)
-------
Water quality conditions reported during ambient toxicity tests in 1995.
Date
10/10/95
10/10/95
10/11/95
10/11/95
Test Station
Species
Ea YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
Cv YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
Ea YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
Cv YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
T(C)
25.6
25.2
25.3
25.1
25.7
25.5
23.8
25.7
23.9
25.6
25.2
25.3
25.1
25.7
25.5
23.8
25.7
23.9
24.5
24.5
24.3
24.4
24.4
24.5
24.4
24.4
24.5
24.7
24.9
24.5
25.1
24.9
24.8
24.7
24.7
25.1
Sal(ppt)
25
24
24
23
24
24
25
24
24
25
24
24
23
24
24
25
24
24
26
24
24
24
25
24
26
24
24
26
24
24
24
25
25
26
25
24
DO(mg/L)
6.7
6.7
6.5
6.4
6.7
6.8
7.2
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.5
6.4
6.7
6.8
7.2
6.8
6.7
8.0
7.4
7.6
7.9
6.8
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.0
6.0
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.0
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.3
PH
7.92
7.84
7.92
7.88
7.94
7.83
7.84
7.86
8.03
7.92
7.84
7.92
7.88
7.94
7.83
7.84
7.86
8.03
8.27
8.16
8.33
8.24
8.08
8.08
8.07
8.14
8.17
7.95
7.93
7.96
7.95
7.93
7.90
7.88
7.90
7.95
B-l
-------
10/12/95
10/12/95
10/13/95
10/13/95
Ea YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
Cv YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
Ea YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
Cv YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
24.6
24.8
24.4
24.8
24.6
24.7
24.8
24.8
24.6
24.7
25
24.6
24.8
24.9
24.6
24.6
24.4
25
24.6
24.8
24.5
24.9
24.5
24.8
24.8
24.6
24.6
24.4
24.8
24.7
24.8
24.7
24.4
24.4
24.3
25.1
26
24
25
24
25
25
26
24
24
26
24
25
24
25
25
26
25
24
26
24
25
24
25
24
26
24
24
27
25
25
25
26
25
26
25
24
6.4
8.5
7.5
8.1
8.4
7.6
7.8
8.2
8.1
6.0
6.3
6.0
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.5
7.4
8.1
7.9
8.1
7.7
7.1
7.6
7.7
6.1
6.0
6.2
6.2
6.1
6.0
6.2
6.2
6.2
8.14
8.20
8.23
8.38
8.29
8.32
8.27
8.23
8.16
7.94
7.91
7.96
7.96
7.93
7.91
7.89
7.9
7.92
8.19
8.28
8.44
8.47
8.43
8.36
8.33
8.34
8.32
7.95
7.89
7.96
7.96
7.95
7.93
7.90
7.92
7.86
B-2
-------
10/13/95
10/14/95
10/14/95
10/15/95
Ml YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
wnxo
CONTROL
Ea YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
Cv YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
Ea YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
24.1
24.0
24.1
24.0
24.0
24.1
24.1
24.1
24.4
25.2
25.4
25.2
25.3
25.2
25.2
25.4
25.4
25.1
24.9
25.1
24.8
25
25
24.8
24.8
24.9
25.3
25.1
24.6
24.9
25.2
25.0
24.6
24.9
24.6
24.9
25
25
24
24
24
24
25
25
24
26
25
26
25
25
25
26
25
25
26
25
25
25
25
25
26
25
25
26
25
26
25
25
25
26
25
25
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.6
6.8
6.9
7.1
7.4
6.6
6.6
7.1
6.5
6.4
5.6
5.8
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.6
5.6
5.7
6.1
6.8
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.3
7.5
7.2
6.6
6.7
7.95
7.89
7.94
8.00
7.92
7.96
7.96
8.00
8.03
8.23
8.19
8.29
8.32
8.15
8.11
8.19
8.17
8.03
7.84
7.80
7.90
7.90
7.84
7.82
7.83
7.84
7.83
8.17
8.28
8.37
8.46
8.24
8.27
8.22
8.07
8.08
B-3
-------
10/15/95
10/16/95
10/16/95
10/16/95
Cv YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WJLLO
CONTROL
Ea YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WJLLO
CONTROL
Cv YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WELLO
CONTROL
Ml YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
23.5
23.8
23.4
23.5
24.1
23.6
23.4
23.6
23.4
24.7
24.9
24.8
24.7
24.9
24.9
24.8
24.8
25.0
23.7
23.4
24.3
23.6
23.7
23.9
23.9
23.7
24.4
22.8
22.9
23.1
22.5
22.8
23.0
23.0
22.9
22.9
26
26
26
26
25
25
27
26
26
26
26
26
26
25
25
26
25
25
27
27
26
26
26
26
27
27
26
25
24
24
24
24
24
27
24
25
5.5
5.6
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.8
7.9
8.2
8.5
8.9
8.2
8.2
8.3
7.1
7.6
5.4
5.2
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.2
5.4
5.2
6.9
6.6
7.1
6.6
6.7
7.0
6.8
6.6
7.1
7.87
7.81
7.85
7.90
7.86
7.82
7.85
7.87
7.81
8.25
8.42
8.48
8.59
8.46
8.40
8.37
8.16
8.23
7.74
7.75
7.73
7.80
7.77
7.69
7.75
7.75
7.72
7.95
7.94
7.84
7.97
7.96
7.89
7.88
7.84
8.00
B-4
-------
10/17/95
10/17/95
10/18/95
10/18/95
Ea YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
Cv YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
Ea YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
Cv YRACA
YRBCA
PRAWP
PRBWP
JRANN
JRBNN
LYNN
WILLO
CONTROL
24.8
24.8
24.6
24.8
24.7
24.6
24.8
24.6
24.8
23.9
23.7
24.3
23.9
23.7
23.9
24.1
23.7
24.3
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.5
25.2
25.1
25.4
25.1
24.8
24.1
24.5
24.4
24.5
24.5
24.2
24.3
24.1
24.5
26
25
25
25
25
25
27
25
26
27
26
26
26
26
26
28
26
27
26
26
26
25
25
25
28
25
26
27
26
27
26
26
26
29
27
26
7.6
8.1
8.0
8.6
8.7
8.1
8.3
7.7
8.3
5.4
5.8
5.0
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.1
5.4
5.0
7.5
8.1
8.3
8.7
8.5
8.9
8.0
7.8
7.5
4.6
4.9
4.6
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.4
4.8
4.8
8.31
8.43
8.45
8.54
8.53
8.38
8.42
8.24
8.44
7.69
7.69
7.71
7.78
7.70
7.63
7.66
7.68
7.57
8.42
8.62
8.55
8.69
8.68
8.52
8.45
8.41
8.45
7.62
7.60
7.65
7.73
7.67
7.60
7.58
7.69
7.51
B-5
-------
------- |