I EPA 903/9-76-023
I

                                                             U.S.E. P. A. RegionFII
•                                                         informalion Resource Center
I
I
•                                      June 1976
•                               Technical Report No. 61
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                DISTRIBUTION OF METALS IN
                                ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
                                 Annapolis Field Office
                                       Region III
                            Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
     This report has been reviewed by EPA and approved for                   I
publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental              —
Protection Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or                    •
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation                 ™
for use.
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA 903/9-76-023
                         Annapolis Field Office
                               Region  III

                     Environmental Protection Agency
         DISTRIBUTION OF METALS  IN ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS



                           Technical Report



                          Patricia G. Johnson
                           Orterio Villa, Jr.
                      Annapolis  Field Office Staff
     Maryann Bonning                          Sigrid R. Kayser
     Tangie Brown                            Donald W. Lear, Jr.
     Leo Clark _                               James W. Marks
     Gerald W. Crutchley                      Margaret S. Mason
     Daniel K. Donnelly                      Evelyn P. McPherson
     Gerald R. Donovan, Jr.                   Margaret B. Munro
     Margaret E.  Fanning                      Maria L. 0'Malley
     Bettina B. Fletcher                      Thomas H. Pheiffer
     Norman E. Fritsche                      Susan K. Smith
     Victor Guide                            Earl C. Staton
     George Houghton                          William M. Thomas, Jr.
     Ronald Jones                            Robert L. Vallandingham

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                             Page
VIII.  Appendix III - Description of Sediment Samples 	  VIII-1
  IX.  Appendix IV - Toxicity of Metals to Marine Life ...    IX-1
I
I
I
I
   I.   Introduction	.,	     1-1
  II.   Summary and Conclusions 	    II-l
 III.   Geographical Description 	   III-l             *
  IV.   Experimental 	    IV-1
   V.   Results and Discussion 	     V-l
  VI.   Appendix I - Data Tables and Figures 	    VI-1             •
 VTI.   Appendix II - Frequency Distribution Histograms ...   VTI-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
  I
  I
  I
                                FIGURES


                                                            Page


 1.  Vicinity Map 	    III-2

 2.  Sewage Treatment Plant Location Map 	    III-6

 3.  Industrial Discharges 	    111-10

 k.  Sampling Stations 	    III-5

 5.  Distribution of Cadmium 	      V-3

 6.  Distribution of Copper 	      V-4

 7.  Distribution of Chromium 	      V-5

 8.  Distribution of Mercury 	      V-6

 9.  Distribution of Lead 	      V-7

10.  Distribution of Zinc 	      V-8

11.  Distribution of Iron 	      V-9

12.  Distribution of Aluminum 	      V-10

13•  Frequency Distribution - Cadmium 	    VII-1

Ik.  Frequency Distribution - Copper 	    VTI-1

15 •  Frequency Distribution - Chromium 	    VII-2

16.  Frequency Distribution - Mercury 	    VII-2

17.  Frequency Distribution - Lead 	    VII-3

18.  Frequency Distribution - Zinc 	    VII-3

19 •  Frequency Distribution - Iron .	    VII-4

20.  Frequency Distribution - Aluminum 	    VII-4

21.  Water Content Correlation - Entire Area 	      V-15

22.  Water Content Correlation - Eastern Branch 	      V-15

23.  Water Content Correlation - Southern Branch 	      V-15

2k.  Water Content Correlation - Main Branch 	      V-15

25.  Bottom Sediment Classification 	      V-19

26.  Organic Sediment Index 	      V-21

27.  Sampling Locations at or near STP Locations 	      V-2^

-------
                                TABLES
                                                             Page
                                                                            I
 1.  Municipal Wastewater Loadings - 1971 	 III-7
 2.  Industrial Discharges (including Mass Emission Rates)...111-8          •
 3.  Operating Parameters 	 TV-3
 4.  Distribution by Geographical Area 	  V-2          «
 5.  Cadmium Concentrations at Sampling Locations 	VI-1          •
 6.  Copper Concentrations at Sampling Locations 	 VI-2
 7.  Chromium Concentrations at Sampling Locations 	 VI-3          •
 8.  Mercury Concentrations at Sampling Locations 	 VI-4
 9.  Lead Concentrations at Sampling Locations 	VI-5          I
10.  Zinc Concentratiors at Sampling Locations 	VI-6
11.  Iron Concentrations at Sampling Locations 	VI-7          •
12.  Aluminum Concentrations at Sampling Locations 	VI-8
13.  Skewness Values 	  V-12         M
14.  Water Content - % at Sampling Locations  	VI-9          I
15.  Concentration Ratios between Elizabeth River Sediments                 _
     and Chesapeake Bay Sediments 	  V-17         •
16.  COD Concentrations at Sampling Locations 	VI-10
17.  Metals in Elizabeth River and Baltimore Harbor                         •
     Sediments 	  V-26         •
18.  Metals in Elizabeth River and Chesapeake Bay Sediments .  V-28
19.  Metals in Elizabeth River, Delaware River, Potomac                     |
     and James River Sediments	  V-29
21.  Toxicity of Metals to Marine Life 	 IX-1          ™
22.  Trace Metals - uses and Hazards 	 DC-2
23.  % Organic Carbon at Sampling Locations 	 VI-11
20.  Metals in the Earth's Crust 	  V-31


                                                                            I
24.  % Organic Nitrogen (TKN) at Sampling Locations 	 VI-12
25.  Organic Sediment Index at Sampling Locations 	 VI-13         |
26.  Elizabeth River Bottom Sediment Classification 	  V-20
27.  Organic Sediment Index as a Description of Elizabeth                   I
     River Bottom Deposits 	  V-23         •
28.  Total Volatile Solids Concentrations at Sampling                       •
     Locations 	 VI-14         |
29.  Oil and Grease Concentrations at Sampling Locations .... VI-15
                                                                            I
                                                                            I

-------
I
I
I
ABSTRACT
                In order to develop a current inventory of metals contamination
            of the Elizabeth River, sediment samples were collected at ninety-six
•          (96) stations in February of 197^ and analyzed for Cd, Cu, Cr, Hg,
            Fb, Zn, Al and Fe using atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
•          Concentration levels were compared with levels found in another highly
•          industrialized harbor complex, other estuarine systems and in
            Chesapeake Bay sediments geographically removed from the study area.
•          Distribution patterns of various metals are outlined for reference
            to various inputs.  Possible mechanisms for transport and distribution
|          are discussed.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-------
                                                                       1-1
I
I
I
                            INTRODUCTION


    The Elizabeth River is a tributary of the James River located


in Virginia.  The river is largely estuarine in nature and as such is          flj


a physical and chemical mixing zone.  A major physical characteristic


of any estuary is that its volume and comparatively sluggish tidal             •


cycles slows the inflow of fresh water.  As a result of this                   _


decreased velocity the load of suspended matter introduced into the            ™


system settles to the bottom, rendering the sediment a reservoir for           B


a diverse and heterogeneous accumulation of material, much of


which may have potential toxic properties (l).  This natural condition         •


tends to create a "sink" for many metallic compounds due to their
reactions with particulate matter.  Heavy industrial loadings


increase the potential toxlcity of the bottom sediments to aquatic


life.


    The Elizabeth River is an example of an excessively utilized               •
I
waterway in regard to waste assimilation.  Due to its relatively


shallow nature, the low dispersion and transport characteristics               •


mentioned above, accompanied by low freshwater flow rates, and its             •


intensified industrial, commercial and domestic development, the


Elizabeth River's ability to assimilate the diverse waste input                •


from these sources is severely limited.  These inputs from other


than natural sources take  many forms.  Discharges from primary                •


treatment plants contribute to the widespread water quality problems           •


associated with this area.  The overflow of pumping stations
                                                                               I

                                                                               I

-------
I

I
              has contributed to the high coliform levels in the receiving waters.
|            Progressive stream fertilization by domestic and industrial waste
•            inputs , primarily from nitrogen and phosphorus , has contributed
              to recurring eutrophication problems .  Industrial and commercial
I            inputs from varied chemical and domestic processes add further
              to the burden of the river.  Fish kills, frequent reports of oil
|            spills, and other accidents associated with shipping lanes further
M            characterize the pollution problems in the Elizabeth River (2).
              Richardson (1971), in a study of the benthic community of the
I            Elizabeth River, found the dominant organisms to be those types
              that are pollution tolerant, with wide geographic range, and
•            which rarely dominant other communities except under stress
_            conditions.  "Non-selective deposit feeders were found in low
™            numbers because of the lack of oxygen and high concentration of
•            hydrogen sulfide found in the deposits below 1 cm.  Suspension
              feeders and selective deposit feeders were favored because of the
•            good supply of well aerated detrital material in the sediment
              surface and trapped in abundant oyster shells."  (46)  A similar
•            study by Boesch (47) reported the same result - the Elizabeth River
•            is characterized by the presence of pollution tolerant species.
                   Although it is not the intent of this effort to deal with
•            toxicological effects in any detail, it should be noted that the
              State of Virginia has found some areas of the bottom toxic to
I            fish (1), the Virginia Institute of Marine Science has reported high
                     01 Pb (550 ppm) , Hg (3 ppm) , Zn (1200 ppm), and Cu (300 ppm)
•

I

-------
                                                                              I
                                                                              I
in bottom sediments (2), and the Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation
has designated the Elizabeth River a "condemned area" for the direct          |
marketing of shellfish (16).  The oysters must be placed in a                 im
cleansing area for a fifteen (15) day period prior to sale.  Zn
(» 2000 ppm), Cu (25-100), and Cd (1.0 - 2.0 ppm) values have                •
been found in Elizabeth River oysters (36).  Although it is not
necessarily unusual to-find such elevated levels (levels of                   |
20,000 ppm have been found near outfalls disposing zinc (50)),                M
inputs manifested in the oiota to such a degree may be of public
health significance.  Certainly the ability of the oyster to                  I
concentrate metals is well documented (50, 51).  What remains
unclear is the mechanisms of transfer from the sediment or water              •
phase to the biological phase, and since little information exists
on the bioavaliability of these elements, it is  difficult to                 •
correlate a given, measured concentration of a metal with a specific          •
toxic level.  Considerations such as chemical bonding of the
metallic species (11), particle size of the substrate (12), valence           •
state and humic acid availability (13), synergistic and antag-
onistic mechanisms all relate to the reactivity of a given metal.             H
The toxicity in terms of 1,050 of various metals has been well                 •
documented (3, 4, 5) and large scale outbreaks of metal poisoning
(6, 7, 8, 9, 10) illustrate the potential health hazard of these              I
substances.  The relationship between acute high level doses to
test organisms under laboratory conditions versus chronic low
level, long term effects in the environment remains a question.
I
I

-------
I

I
                  Even though the mechanism of exchange from the physical to the
•            biological is unclear there can be no doubt that such a mechanism
              exists.  The implications of this exchange is important as  it relates
•            to the impact of dredging and open water disposal of dredged spoil.
•            At present, all dredged spoil from the Southern Branch of the
              Elizabeth River is disposed of in a specially constructed dyked area -
•            Craney Island (36) .  Drifmeyer and Odum (1975) investigated dredge
              spoil as a possible source of metals uptake by salt marsh biota
B            using Craney Island as one of the study areas.  The spoil itself
•            was classified as polluted, highly organic (9-6 % loss on ignition)
              and as a silt-clay complex (^5).  Marsh grasses showed significantly
•            higher levels of Pb and Zn in the spoil area compared to the control
              area.  Pb and Mn were also higher in grass shrimp from the  spoil
•            area.  Fb values in fish were higher in the spoil ponds. Drifmeyer
•j            concluded that dredge spoil, even though disposed of in a contained
              area, may act as a source of certain heavy metals that are  potentially
•            toxic to the biota (^5).
                  For reference purposes the toxicity of some heavy metals is
 |            presented in Appendix IV, Tables 21 and 22.
 mm                Sampling programs spanning several years have been carried out
              by various private and public institutions.  Each of these  studies
 •            has provided valuable data for the area studied.  This study is an
              effort to provide a synoptic picture of the metals accumulation in the
              Elizabeth River sediments .
 I
 I

-------
                                                                    II-l
                       SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
1.  This report provides an inventory of present conditions  relating


    to metals contamination of Elizabeth River sediments.


2.  Concentrations of all metals analyzed in the Elizabeth River             •


    sediments were two (2) to ten (10) times greater than  sediments


    from the mid-Chesapee.ke Bay.                                             •


3 .  Distribution of metals generally reflected the inputs  from               •


    heavy industrial, commercial and domestic sources which  the
                                                                             •
    Elizabeth River receives.


 .   Metal concentration ratios  between the  Elizabeth River  sediments


    and Chesapeake Bay sediments  follow a pattern (Cu >  Fb  >  Cd > Zn)         m


    suggesting that in black colored sediments  from the  Eastern and           •


    Southern Branches, Cu,  Fb,  Cd,  and Zn may exist as sulfides since


    the order for solubilities  of divalent  sulfides exhibits  the              •


    same pattern.  In the Main  Branch the ratio pattern  in  black


    sediments suggests that these metals are  probably present in              •


    forms other than sulfides .  Provided the  metal sulfide  solubilities       •


    are low, the deposition as  a  sulfide would  be one mechanism of
    the sediment acting as a "sink".   Additionally,  so long as  the            •

    metals are tightly bound in the  sink,  their bioavailability would

    be lessened and the metals would therefore be unavailable for

    introduction into the biological segment assuming that the  system

    is not disturbed.

5.   Non-linear relationships between metal and aluminum/metal ratios          •

    suggest that Cu, Cr, Pb and Fe are not associated with the  clay


                                                                             I
                                                                             I

                                                                             I

-------
I

I
                  mineral portion of the sediment.
•            6.  No black sediment was found in the Western Branch.  Being the
•                least industrialized of the various branches it does not receive
                  the quantities of organic materials, sulfides, etc. to which
                                                                     II-2
I

I
 I

 I

 I

 I

 I
 I

 I
    the other branches are exposed.  The black color has  been related

    to hydrotrolite which depends on the presence of sulfide and

    poorly oxygenated water for its formation (23).   Such conditions

    apparently do not exist in the Western Branch.
 I
              7-  Better than half of the total number of black sediments found in
    the study area had distinct "air" pockets in the core when the

    sample arrived at the laboratory for analysis.   No gray samples

    showed this phenomenon.  It is possible that the black sediments

    were evolving HpS which is characteristic of hydrotrolite.  The

    absence of gas in gray samples, the sulfide solubility pattern

    and the correlation between water content and color support

    this conclusion.

8.  A pronounced difference in water content between the black and

    gray sediments was evident.  The correlation exists for the
                  entire study area, excluding the Western Branch which had no

 •                black sediments, and is very pronounced in the Southern and

                  Eastern Branches.  No explanation is offered for this phenomenon

 I                although some references indicate that the presence of hydrotrolite

I                  in some way contributes to the high water content found in
                                                      ,'
                  black sediments (23).

-------
                                                                      H-3
9-  Particle size can play a significant role in adsorption reactions
                                                                               I
                                                                               I
                                                                                •


     of metallic species.  The appearance of the sediments  was  recorded


     as the sample was removed from the core.  The sediments  of the             •


     Elizabeth River appear to be of a silt-clay nature and were


     uniform in appearance throughout the study area in terms of                •


     size.  Differences in color were noted and recorded.                        •


10.  Examination of the four major river divisions revealed the


     following:                                                                 •


          a.  The entrance of the Elizabeth River at Craney Island


     shows high concentrations of Cr, Fe, and Al, with lesser amounts            |


     of Zn.  Pb, Cu, Cd and Hg increase in concentration moving in              jm


     a southerly direction as the branches are approached.


          b.  The Eastern Branch has very high concentrations of                I


     Cu, Pb and Fe, with slightly lesser, but still high concentrations


     of Zn, Cr, Cd, and Al.                                                     |


          c.  The western side of the Southern Branch showed  very               «


     high concentrations of Fb and Cu, with Cr, Zn and Cd also high.


     The eastern side showed lesser amounts of a.1 J metals except                •


     Cd and Hg which are equally distributed on both sides .


          d.  The Western Branch had several areas that were  very               |


     high in Al, Fe, Fb, Zn, Cd, Cu and Cr.                                     _


11.  Comparison of the Elizabeth River with other estuaries revealed


     the following:                                                             fl


          a.  Concentrations of all metals analyzed from the  Elizabeth
                                                                                I
                                                                                I

-------
I

I
                    River were  two  (2)  to  ten (10)  times greater than  concentrations
•                  found in the  Chesapeake  Bay.
                        b.   The  Elizabeth River showed three  (3) times the Fb and Zn
«•                  concentrations  found in  the James River  (river miles 0 - 84),
•                  but  slightly  less Hg was found  in the Elizabeth.   The James River
                    shows little  accumulation of Fb and Zn compared to the Chesapeake
•                  Bay, although Hg was five (5) times greater than in Bay sediments.
                        c.   The  Elizabeth River concentrations for metals analyzed
™                  were from two (2) to ten (10) times the  concentrations reported
•                  for  the  Potomac River.
                        d.   The  Delaware  estuary shows consistently higher than
•                  ambient  levels  that are  similar to the levels found in the
                    Elizabeth River.
9                      e.   Average Zn and  Cd concentrations  in Baltimore Harbor
•                  were twice  (2)  the  levels found in the Elizabeth River.  Baltimore
                    Harbor showed four  (4),  five (5) and eleven (ll) times the
•                  concentrations  of Fb,  Cu and Cr, respectively, found in the

I

I

I

I

I

I
                                                                  Il-k
Elizabeth River.

-------
                                                              III-l
                    GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION
Principal Exports - Norfolk Harbor -
Commodity
Coal and lignite
Corn
Grain mill products
Wheat
Coke, petroleum products,
asphalts , s olvents
Tobacco
Iron and Steel Scrap
All others
Short Tons
25,0^7,03*4-
875,7^8
28k, kko
135,981

122,205
101,856
96,911
989,678
19711
% of Total
90.60
3-16
1.02
0.^9

o.kk
0.36
0.35
3-58
"Waterborne Commerce of the U.S.," Calendar Year 1971, Part 1,
Waterways and Harbors of the Atlantic Coast, Department of the
Army, Corps of Engineers, 266 p.
                                                                                I
                                                                                I
                                                                                I
     The Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia, including the cities of
Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Newport News,  and Hampton,  is the              •
largest port complex in Virginia, in fact,  one  of the finest natural            •
harbors in the world.  The combined population  of the cities located
around Hampton Roads was 725,62k in 1970 (lU).   Hampton Roads is                •
located at the southern end of the Chesapeake Bay, approximately
in the middle of the Atlantic seaboard, 300 miles south of New York,            |
180 miles southeast of Washington, B.C., and 20 miles west of the               M
entrance of Chesapeake Bay (Figure l).
     Hampton Roads is the laxgest bulk cargo exporting port in the              •
United States, with bituminous coal being the principal export.
Tobacco and grain exports are also among the world's largest.  The              J|
following table lists the most common items exported from Norfolk
Harbor in 1971.
                                                                                I
                                                                            I
                                                                                I
                                                                                I
                                                                                I
                                                                                I
                                                                                I
                                                                                I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                                            III-.
ANNAPOLIS MD.
WASHINGTON  D.C.
  NEWPORT NEWS
  HAMPTON ROADS

  CRANEY ISLAND

  STUDY  AREA

  PORTSMOUTH

-------
                                                                  III-3

                                                                                 I
     There are natural depths of 20 to 80 feet in the main part of               _
Hampton Roads, "but the harbor shoals to less than 10 feet toward the             *
shores .   Dredged channels lead to the principal ports .   Federal                  •
project depth is kO feet in the two main channels in Hampton Roads (15) •
One leads southward along the waterfronts of Norfolk,, Portsmouth,                •
and Chesapeake, following the Elizabeth River, and the other leads west-
ward to the waterfront of Newport News at the entrance to the James River .        ™
     The climate throughout the James River Basin, of which the                  •
Elizabeth River is a part, is temperate, as determined by the latitude,
prevailing westerly winds, the influence of the Atlantic Ocean, and its          •
overall topography.  The terrain is low-lying and flat with a maximum
elevation of 25 feet, except for isolated sand dunes along beach                  •
areas (l^-) .  Average annual weather factors are:
                                                                                •
                   Precipits.tion: U2.5 inches
                   Snowfall: 17 inches (about 1.7 inches of precipitation)      •
                   Temperature: 57° F                                            ™
The eastern portion of the basin is sometimes subjected to the effects          B
of hurricanes in the summer and early fall.  Average annual temperature
is generally higher near the ocean - 6l.7°F.   The average velocity of          •
the wind is 8 to 10 MPH, but winds of 80 MPH may occur in storms (16) .          _
     The currents in this area are influenced considerably by the               *
winds.  The current velocity is 1.1 knots in Hampton Roads and .6 knots         ft
in the Elizabeth River (15) .  Tides in the vicinity of Craney Island
(on the flats opposite the entrance of the Lafayette River which bisects        •
Norfolk from east to west) a.re primarily semi-diurnal with a mean
range of 2.6 feet and a spring range of 3-1 feet (lU) .                          •
                                                                                 I

-------
•                                                                           III-4


I
                The Elizabeth River study area,  a tributary of the James River

I          just above the Hampton Roads Tunnel, is formed by three main branches;

•          the Eastern Branch,  the Western Branch, and the Southern Branch.  Sampling

            stations are shown in Figure h.  A map indicating the location of the

•          various sewage treatment plants in given in Figure 2.  Municipal

            wastewater loadings  for 1971 are presented in Table 1 and major

•          industrial dischargers and associated average wastewater flows are

•          given in Table 2 (52).  In addition, the largest or most significant

            m&3,-: emission rates  (ibs/day) are also given in Table 2.  The inputs

•          of the various industrial dischargers are graphically presented

            in Figure 3 (52). The three branches of the Elizabeth are characterized

B          by heavy industrial,  commercial and domestic facilities with their

m          inherent problems.  In addition to domestic waste discharged by

            primary sewage treatment plants and toxic wastes discharged by a variety

•          of industrial concerns, the area is  plagued by frequent oil spills

            and waste discharges  from the extensive shipyard and docking facilities.

B              The Eastern Branch has shipbuilding and drydock facilities,

•          an automobile assembly plant,  an electric power plant, and several

            shipping docks which  contribute to the waste input of the river.  The

•          Southern Branch,  the  most industrialized and longest branch of the

            Elizabeth River,  is  characterized by a variety of industrial and

B          commercial concerns:  cement plants,  creosote treatment plants, ship-

^          building and drydock  facilities,  food processing plants, power plants,

"          chemical plants and U.S. Navy shipyards.   On the Western Branch,

B          the least industrialized branch of the Elizabeth River, are located a


I

-------
                                                             III
    WESTERN
     BRANCH
                                               EASTERN
                                                BRANCH
                                        22  SOUTHERN
                                             BRANCH
        FIGURE  4
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS

   SAMPLING STATIONS
                                                    NAUTICAL MILES
                                                     ^^^*^^*^^m

                                                      I      2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------

 Hampton
  Roads
                                         Lafayette
                                          River
 Western
Branch STPi
                 Sewell s
                  Point
  Army Base
    STP
     M  2

   Western Branch
Pinner Pt.
   STP   11
                                     Southern Branch
           Deep Creek
              STP
X                Washington
                  STP
                                        Hreat Bridge STP

                                          1
                                                Eastern
                                                Branch
      2    Sewage Treatment Plant Locations (kk)

-------
                                                                                                                        111-7
H




















^^
ON
_^-
*~*
rH
t—
ON
i-l
l
CO
M
d
•H
T)
o3
o
^
£_i
0)
-p
03

CD
-p
CQ
eg
ts
•d
P4
•H
O
•H
d




























-p
d
0)
fj
'^"^s rH
-3-03 > SH
O o3 CH
CQ -d pq

• CQ
CQ ,Q -P
2 R d
CQ 	 CD
£j
31— j
^M
d
O H
EH

d
0

Ift!
— ^ pip
P CQ
O ,Q
W H +3

(D
r^S
d
H
~TD
M ^ ^r.
o5 H > P
?H -H O Ci
CD rf H S
|> P PC, 	
»
-p
•H
O


L/N
00




l/N
ON





^_
L/N
OJ



LTN
OO
OJ




_-j.
OO
-*






o
o

1 — j





H
OO





o
-3-
H


H
•
H





-8
d
05
£_j
PQ

d
£_l
CD
-p
CQ
CD
£g
P

ffi



O
t-
H
OJ


O
o

OJ



o
H
L/N
VD


O
oo
OJ




O
O
vS
H





O
0
OJ
ON
oo




0

o
OO





H
L/N
-3"

PO
ON
•
00
OJ



-p
d
•H
O


CQ

-P
£_l
0)



l_3
P

P|



^j"
£-.._
ON



0
00
o
H



O
OJ
ON
OJ


o
l/N
OJ
00



0
o
t-
L/N






8
^j-
_^j-
H




o
0
L/N
H



O
o
pi
H

ON
ON
•
OJ
H








CD
CQ
JS
m

^
H
^j

-------


































"o?
LTN


CQ
0)
bO
OJ 3
(H
A-*
pr"] O
1-3 CQ
pq tj
»
•ri cd

CQ
 fe
<;



M
CD
bO
SH
3
•s
CO
£
1 — 1
=«=









S
S-t
-p
CQ
r^
T3
«
H


a
f.
f-t

K
B
»\
LPv Tj S3
H O tsl
LA
oj vo
*>H OO
p
O -v -s
pq -*ri
0 &
8W^
O O OO
-^Om
•\
•\co ^
P co bO
O H K
0
^J-
O cq t—
0^0
^-
^^•^
t— •<
^iP
*r-\ R
g^^
LTN •
§S- H
LT\
«\
•> •> M
LTN H O
00 Ft,
O LTN
•s LTS •
H LTNCO






OOO O
OOO 0
OOO 0
LT\ O O CO
OJ OJ O M3
VO
»\
J-






0 H
H


'S
f>5 cd
-P 0
.__J P.
H 3
bQ -ri -ri
n o o cd
•3 & 8 w
•ri fl
tin H CQ }-,
 fe
h
pq -4- o -* s-
fl O co -4- _t
•ri
crt
1






























CQ CQ
EH EH
OO CO
MD
H CO






O O OOO
O O O O VO
O O O ON t—
CO CO t— OJ ON
•3- 00 -4- MD
H
vrT
-Hh





CO 00 t— CO



0
0
1
bO >j
(H p .
H M
3 «
-p 08 >
•ri a
05 ^ -ri
• H H ^3
O O -ri • CQ
O O S O
1 fi OH
°8 cd ft cd
o -H S t>
co O fi 3 cd
CD O CQ CO S
H ft
•H AJ ,X bO P> Ai
S H H fT C? H
O O -ri O
•  S

t— -4- O -4- CO
LO \O CO CO CO






^
•N
H -4-
fe cd O
S CQ
CO
UT\ -4- CO C—
H O OJ H
•» CQ m LT\
rH
O * ^
•» O _4" CQ
t! ON O EH
O •> CQ
H O
OJ ^- O
OS •. LTN O
OJ H H ON
CQ 0 H
CQ *> »
EH co on O CQ -.
 EH • OJ H OJ O
r>3 CO H H LT\ O
SB O H -4- LT\
O u~\ »s ^ H
-4- CQ CQ •> -*
CO EH EH CQ O -V
•» EH P
^ P O O CQ 08 H O 00
POOO OEH OOO
O 0 O O O O CQ
pq ~ -N H -4- O MD
O LTN t— ^ • CO LTN OJ LTN
OJOJOJH H -4- MD LA OJ OO






O O O M3 O O O
8O O ON O O O
O O H O O O
O O O O O LTN
H ir\ OJ VO -4- LT\
H H







-4- H H



•a
cd

if
•ri
O CQ t-j O
O CQ H O
CQ 0) -H O
o bD o S o bo
•ri a o a
fn -ri £n T3 bO -ri
-p • -p ffi on -p
MOO  • CQ
•o O • • o5 O O
•£3£-|CUOS>CQp4OCU
OH(UMs3-riH M
0 -POHPH^JHO
^H CO 'ri -P *ri
HcS^iO -Nbpspioo
•ri -P O *ri rH G O -H
O CQ W -P r-| -H TJ S OH
fl iH d 0) CO O J2
Via) -c(5bD-ri-ri-Pa5p
H dCQH -jCHr-H JH Kpn
PO ••P3
-------
o
•H
CQ
ra
•d
S

CQ
s
-p
C3
go
•H CO
MH ^
"H ^**->»
Cl CQ
t^O rQ
•H H
CQ ^— '

-P CD
CQ -P
^>] ftj

O
-p
CQ
0)
tjfl
o5
CD
-P
05
CD tj
-P PH
13^
£?£



CQ
0)
bO
o
CQ
P










>,
CQ
I
H
9
•rl
K








CQ
EH

8
o
H
oo

»\
.4
0
CO
o
0
CO
vo
•s
H
o
OJ
vo





8
o
Lf\






H











1 — (
CD
CQ
1
08
CD
•H
PH
oo
^































0
•s
OO
















fl
O
•H
-p
-P
CQ
a
o
[s
1
LTN
^'
fl
to

CO
VO
H"
PC) *x
•H
ON ^
ON
c5 *

08 ^
0 M

OJ CO
ON oo
•
•s
P -X
o 3
o o
VO^
ON H
•X ^
CO -H;
EH 0
° H
C-H





0
O
O
oo
vo






oo

PH
0
- o 	

CQ
"ccl
O
•g
CD
fi
0

gri culture
<;
fi
•H
£
H
OJ
H
















ft
O
O

§
j — j
i — [
^
CQ
EH
8
&
-*





















^
o
•H
H
•H
-p
&H
CQ
o5
H
=?
A
fi
4J
1
vo
01
H





fl

E o
O CM
CM -v

CQ*
EH u"N
•
O OJ
0
0 ^
VO H
00 P-H
OJ

EH H

O •»
OO CO
OO CQ
EH
^ O
EH 0
LTN
OJ VO
VO H





O
O
t-
ir\
•s
H














O
O

Fertilizer

Weaver
ON
"







%
8
o
o
oo
•N
P
O fn
O O

O LTN
O •
O H
ITN LT\
VO
O -N
H CQ
EH
p"o
0 0
pq 0
O
O O
o o
O.d/
OO (\l
-4" 
o
PH
^
03

a Electric
•H
•H
bO
OO (DO
oo CQ ro
•H ra3 h
pq pq




















-d
o
CQ
fl
Kl O\
t—
ON
H •<
CQ
- CO EH
O O
t- 0
OO OO C—
-=t Lf\ VO





o o o
O 0 O
o t— o
O H LT\
O OJ LTN
o

«
CM



t^— |j"N


^
o
O 0
O Tj
?H ^
0> P
0 08
PH
bp CQ
08 fl CD
•H -H
a Electric
Shipbuild
ar Indus tr
•H A; -P
fl H CQ
•H O
bD tH 0>
•H O O
£> ^j j_i]
t— O H
0 H H




















CQ

H
C—
OJ

P"
O
pq
H





0
o
o
ur\
t—






H



" CQ
&
0


CQ
CD
pq


-P
fl

pq
w
H
OJ



.
^
OJ

•X
fi
ro


H

OJ

LTN

^
CO
EH
O
o

p-J

p"
o
0
o
H





0 0
0 0
0 0
o vo
H ON
LTN






CM










•
O
O
-p
O a!
° -a
fH CQ
-p
O fl

& jj
fo o
OJ H (DO
OJ OO CQ n5




















CQ
EH
o
vo
OJ
p"
o
0
0
OJ





§ §
VO OJ
H oo









.
o
o

fl°
•H
H
-p
H -P
CD O
CQ pq
(1)
Branch Dii
Coca-Cola
fl M
CD O
-O fj_i
CQ f-l
CD O
O LT\
O OO
HI-9
      I

-------

                        A HUMBLE OIL 8 REFIN'NG CO
                        B USN-CRANEY IS PjEL FAC.
                        C VIRGINIA CHEMICALS INC
                        0 NORFOLK  COCA COLA
                        D WESTERN  BRANCH DIESEL
                        E N.8W RR
                        F J H. MILES  S CO
                        G NORFOLK COCA COLA
                        H CHEVRON ASPHALT CO  •
                        H FORD MOTOR CO
                        H H.B HUNTER CO
                        H SOUTHERN/NORFOLK SB 8D.D.
                        H CPC INTERNATIONAL
                        H LONE STAR IND
                        H BRAMBLETON/NORFOLKSBaOC
                        I  BERKELEY/NORFOLK SB 80 Q
                        JUS GYPSUM CO
                        K NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD
                        L  PROCTOR a  GAMBLE
                        M GULF OIL  CO
                        N  LONE STAR  IND
                       ,0  FS ROYSTER.CO


                         LEGE.ND
                                        P  ATLA'.-C CSEC
                                        0  CARO'LL. '>C
                                        R  ALLIE3  FEtD  MILLS
                                        S  PCfTS'.CLTK  PAVING
                                        T  TEXACO :v,C
                                        U  RE=^2L/C  CfiiGSGT \G  C
                                        V  EPP:,S3£S  8 R-JSSr—  C
                                        W  USN-W£i=C».tS STATC\
                                        X  SWiFT  O-iV.CALS
                                        Y  SViTH-EO'JSLAS Cl-Ev
                                        Z  WEAVER  rtS7!LI2E3 CC
                     Figure 3
111-10
                   Industrial  Discharges
                          (52)
                             NOTES
                   CUMULATIVE DISCHARGES DO NOT
                   INCLUDE THOSE Or V£=CO

                   ta DISCHARGE CONSTITlizf
-------
                                                LEGEND
                                                                                    Figure  3  Con't.    HI-11
                                     ZINC (Zn)

                                     CfAMDE  (CO _

                             r-WESTERN BRANCH

                            /L  rEASTERN BRANCH
                                                         LSS./DAY
                                                                       P.E.
                                                                  - 6.0CD.OCO -- .=
                8 C 0 E F G' H l'J'K'L M N 0 P 0 R S T U V WX
                                                      YZ
                       LEGEND
          NICKEL (NIJ
   h>--ft.      pEASTERN  BRANCH
  	,//,//ii'\\\ NXXXN^xX
BCDEFGHIJ KLM.NOPORSTUVWXY2
              pWESTERN BRANCH

                  r--EASTERiM BRANCH
                                                                                                 LSS./DAV P. E.

                                                                                                          C'j
ABCDEFGHlVKL^W^^oVsNVv


-------
 I
 I
111-12
            chemical manufacturing plant and shipyards.   The Main Branch houses
            shipping terminals,  coal loading  yards,  an oil terminal,  and sewage
 •          treatment plants  (2),   The navigable  portion of the  three  branches
            of the river is located within the boundaries of the cities  of
 |          Portsmouth and Norfolk (l).

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

 I

I

I

I

I

-------
                                                                     IV-1
      Any volume between 20 and 25 mis can be used, the volume used
here was delivered from a dispenser with a fixed volume delivery head
that happened to deliver 21.5 mis. and was used for convenience sake.
                                                                                 I
                                                                                 I
                            EXPERIMENTAL


     Samples were taken with a Phelger corer.   The top five centimeters           •


representing substantial sediment-water interface were discarded and


the sediment between five and fifteen centimeters was taken as the               |


sample to be analyzed.                                                           •


     A portion of the well-mixed sediment was  spread to dry at room


temperature for 48 hours.  After drying, the sample was pulverized               •


using an agate mortar and pestle and again spread to dry for an
                                                                                 I
glass-stoppered erlenmeyer to which 25-50 ml of deionized-


distilled water and 21.5 ml concentrated HNO- were added.    The samples


were then heated at 48-50°C (17) for k-6 hours in a shaking                      I


hot water bath.  After digestion, the samples were cooled  to room


temperature and filtered through a 0.^5 micron membrane filter and               |


the volume adjusted to 100 mis.   Blank solutions were run  throughout             «


the same extraction procedure (l8, 19)•  This acid extraction


procedure is believed to be 80 - 90 % efficient in the removal of                •


sorbed and bound metals (ko, ^5, 5^)•


     The filtered acid extracts  were analyzed for Cd, Cr,  Cu, Fb,                |


Zn, Al and Fe, using a Varian Techtron AA-6  absorption spectrophotometer


equipped with a standard pre-mix burner. Air and acetylene were used             *


for all flame techniques, except for Al for which nitrous-oxide and              •


acetylene were used.  The flame stoichiometry was established
                                                                                  I
                                                                                  I
                                                                                  I

-------
I                                                                               IV-2


I
            as  per manufacturers  instructions  for  optimum working  conditions.

•          Standard operating parameters  are  shown in Table  3•

_               Mercury was  analyzed using an automated flameless  atomic

*          absorption technique  (20,  21,  22).  Mercury analysis was performed

I          by  a cold vapor technique employing the Coleman Mercury Analyzer

            MA.S-50 and a Technicon AutoAnalyzer.   Concentrated sulfuric  acid

•          and potassium  permanganate were added  to oxidize  the sample.   Further

_          oxidation of organomercury compounds was assured  through the

            addition of potassium persulfate.   Samples were then heated  to 105°C

I          in  a closed system.   Hydroxylamine sulfate-sodium chloride was used

            to  reduce the  excess  permanganate.  The mercury in the  sample  was

•          then reduced to the elemental  state through the addition of  excess

_          stannous sulfate  and  a large amount of air.   The  gaseous phase was

•          then analyzed  in  the  MA.S-50.

I               Other paramteres used in  the  interpretation  and examination

            of  the metals  results were determined  as follows:

•                    1.   Water content -  determined as  per cent weight  lost

                 after samples  were dried  (l8,  19);

•                    2.   COD - dichromate reflux  (18,  19);

•                    3-   Total volatile solids - weight loss associated with

                 ignition  of  sample in muffle  furnace (18,  19);

•                    k.   Oil and grease - as  hexane extractables  (l8, 19); and,

                      5.   TKN - semi-automated phenolate method (l8, 19).

B               In general,  for  all parameters including metals, precision

•          of  analysis was checked by duplication  of 10 %  or more  of the  samples.



I

-------
IV-3
TABLE 3
OPEFATING PARAMETERS
Metal
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Zn
Al
Fe
Wavelength
228.8
357-9
324.7
217.0
213.9
309.3
248.3
Slit
.5 nm
.2
• 5
1.0
.5
• 5
.2
Lamp Current
3 ma
5
3
5
5
5
5
AA - Air/Acetylene
Flame
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
NA
AA
Stoichiometry
Oxidizing
Reducing
Oxidizing
Oxidizing
Oxidizing
Reducing
Oxidizing

HA - Nitrous Oxide/Acetylene
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
IV-
I
I
«             Accuracy was checked by periodically spiking samples and calculating
               $ recovery.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
                                                                  V-l
I
I
                       RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

     The purpose of this study was to assemble an up-to-date inventory

of metals accumulation in the Elizabeth River.  Ninety-six stations              •

(Figure 2) were sampled in February of 197-4 and the surfaces (5-15 cm)         •

analyzed for Cd, Cu, Cr, Pb, Zn, Hg, Al and Fe.

     The distribution of metals by geographical area is presented in             I

Table 4.  The average concentrations of Cr, Cd, Al and Fe were

similar in all four divisions indicating that these metals are                   •

fairly evenly distributed throughout the entire area with some                   •

localized high spots.  The Eastern Branch is highly contaminated

with Cu, Pb, and Zn; the Southern and Western Branches also exhibit              I

high levels of these metals.  The Main Branch has  somewhat less of

all the metals analyzed, with localized high concentrations along its            |

western side.  The entire area is contaminated with Zn, Cr, and Cu               •

but the concentrations in the Southern and Eastern Branches are

greatest.  High levels of Al and Fe found in the study area are                  •

normal estuarine concentrations and represent natural levels due

to the relative abundance of both metals and the chemistry of the                |

estuarine system.  The remaining metals are expected to show the                 «

impact of man through waste discharges into the river.  Figures 5

through 12 graphically depict the distribution pattern of metals                 I

in the Elizabeth River.  Appendix I, Tables 5 through 12, lists the

concentration of each metal found at the sampling stations.  The                 p

concentrations for the remairing parameters are also listed in                   _

Appendix I, Tables H, 16, 2;-, 24, 28 and 29.                                    •

     The data has also been compiled as frequency distributions to               •

illustrate the relative occurences for a given concentration range.


                                                                                 I

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
                                      V-2
Table
GEOGRAPHICAL
Metal
Cadmium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Chromium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Copper, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Lead, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Zinc, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Mercury, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Aluminum, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Iron, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
DISTRIBUTION
Main
Branch

< 1
1*.0-1*.2
26

9
1*7
95

< 2
36.6-36.7
2^6

< 3
61*. 5-61*. 8
21*2

65
388
1690

< .01
.10
.65

1*790
13180
17990

10180
2871*9
3681*0
OF METALS
Eastern
Branch

< 1
2.9-3.0
6

17
1*3
7!*

27
11*0
221

35
179
280

73
1*22
81*1

< .01
.37
2.73

9600
13539
16980

20560
26235
35330
IN ELIZABETH RIVER
Western
Branch

< 1
3-8-1*.!
22

19
1*1
110

10
70
233

< 3
79.8-80.1
366

80
1*51*
2380

.10
.21*
M

10960
1560U
17920

21670
33521*
1*01*1*0
Southern
Branch

< 1
1.8-2.0
6

10
38
109

< 2
7^.8-7^.9
395

< 3
96.2-96.3
382

38
271*
1016

< .01
• 38
1.1*9

3980
10656
11*290

7970
263^8
375^0

-------
                                                         V-j
    WESTERN
     BRANCH
                                              EASTERN
                                               BRANCH
                                          SOUTHERN
                                             BRANCH
       FIGURE 5
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS

  CADMIUM  MG/KG  DRY
< I

I - 5

5-10


> 10
                                                   NAUTICAL MILES
                                                    3?
                                                    I


-------

    WESTERN
     BRANCH
                                             EASTERN
                                              BRANCH
       FIGURE 6

ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
  COPPER   MG/KG DRY
                                          SOUTHERN
                                            BRANCH
                                                   NAUTICAL  MILES
                                                          •c
                                                           2

-------
                                                         v-s
    WESTERN
     BRANCH
                                              EASTERN
                                               BRANCH
       FIGURE 7
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
 CHROMIUM   MG/KG DRY
                                          SOUTHERN
                                             BRANCH
                                                   NAUTICAL MILES
                                                          !5
                                                           2


-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
t
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
                                                        V-6
    WESTERN
     BRANCH
                                              EASTERN
                                               BRANCH
       FIGURE 8
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
  MERCURY  MG/KG  DRY
                                          SOUTHERN
                                            BRANCH
                                                   NAUTICAL  MILES
                                                  ~~Z
                                                    l

-------
                                                        V-7
    WESTERN
     BRANCH
                                      3.      EASTERN
                                              BRANCH
       FIGURE 9
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
    LEAD  MG/KG  DRY
                                          SOUTHERN
                                            BRANCH
                                                  NAUTICAL MILES
                                                    2
                                                    I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                                           V-8
    WESTERN
     BRANCH
                                               EASTERN
                                                BRANCH
                                           SOUTHERN
                                              BRANCH
        FIGURE 10
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
  ZINC


I - 50

50 - 250

250- 1,000


>  1,000
          MG/KG .DRY
                                                    _NAUTICAL  MILES


                                                      I

-------
                                                      V-9
WESTERN
 BRANCH
                                           EASTERN
                                            BRANCH
                                       SOUTHERN
                                          BRANCH
        FIGURE 11

ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS

    IRON  MG/KG  DRY

  0 - 10,000

  10,000 - 20,000

  20,000 - 30,000

  > 30.000
                                                NAUTICAL  MILES
                                                  2
                                                  I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                                       V-10
WESTERN
 BRANCH
                                            EASTERN
                                             BRANCH
                                        SOUTHERN
                                          BRANCH
        FIGURE 12

ELIZABETH  RIVER SEDIMENTS

  ALUMINUM  MG/KG  DRY


  0 -  10,000

  10,000  -  15.000

  > 15,000
                                                 NAUTICAL MILES
                                                         Hi
                                                         2

-------
                                                                    v-n
I
I
This information is presented in histogram form in Appendix II,                    _


Figures 13 through 20.  It is interesting to note that all the metals             ™


exhibit frequency distribution patterns that are skewed to the right              •


with the exception of Al and Fe which are skewed to the left.  A skew-


ness value, "k", has been calculated for each distribution (Table 13),            |


and as expected only Al and Fe show negative skewness (37)- As                    _


mentioned above, Al and Fe represent naturally occuring levels


which may account for the different distribution which they exhibit.              •


     This difference in distribution pattern may be of use in


evaluating metal-sediment associations.  Sommer (197^-) has discussed              •


the use of metal versus aluminum/metal concentration ratios as an                 _


aid for just this purpose (38).  Aluminum was used as an indicator                ™


of clay mineral concentration in Sommers* Chesapeake Bay work  since               •


aluminum is associated with clay minerals in Bay sediments. The


linear relationships found in his work for Cu and Al/Cu, Pb and  Al/Pb,            I


Cr and Al/Cr, and Mn and Al/Mn suggested that the metals were  associated


with the clay mineral portion of the sediment.  Fe did not show  a                 B


linear relationship.  Sommers suggested sulfides as a possible                    •


alternate distribution mechanism for Fe.  The occurences of high


carbon concentrations also suggested the importance of possible                    I


organic matrices in which the metals might be held.  The Elizabeth


River data was examined in a like manner to see if the relationships              B


exist in a similar manner for a highly industrialized estuary, as                 •


compared to the Chesapeake Bay.  No linear relationships were  found


for any of the metals tested: Fe, Cr, Pb and Cu.  Either Al is not                I
                                                                                  I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                                     V-12
               Table 13
       "k" Values for Skewness
Metal
 Fe

 Hg

 Al

 Zn

 Fb

 Cu

 Cr

 Cd
- 1-77

  5.08

- 0.82

  2.16

  1.19

  1.79

  0.60

-------
                                                                     V-13
I
I
associated with clay minerals in the Elizabeth River as  it is  in                   _


Bay sediments or non-linear relationships are indicative of man-made               ™


sources rather than naturally occuring levels.  Metallic speciation                •


may depend on the availability of anions such as sulfide or organic


complexes which are not normally encountered in great abundance in                 •


non-industrial areas.


     Changes in color from black to gray were noted in many of the                 ™


core samples.  An attempt was made to describe the color and texture               •


of each sample as it was removed from the core for analysis.  These


descriptions are presented in Appendix III.  Aside from  the organic                •


contribution to color, Biggs (23) and others (24, 25, 26, 27,  28,  29)


have attributed the color of black sediments to hydrotrolite                       •


(FeS'nHgO), an amorphous ferrous sulfide.  Black sediments will                     •


evolve BUS when treated with acid if soluble sulfides are present,


gray sediments evolve no E^S.  Sixteen (l6) of the thirty (30)                     I


black sediments taken from the study area had "air" pockets which


may have been HpS and would indicate the presence of hydrotrolite.                 •


Van Straaten (26) found that the monosulfide (hydrotrolite) converts               •


to the bisulfide (pyrite) with time.  This conversion alters the


color from black to gray.  During the drying process the color of                   I


all samples that were black initially had changed to gray at the


end of the drying period.                                                          I


     It has been suggested (23) that the ability of the  hydrotrolite               •


to precipitate is due to the condition of the overlying  water: when


there is no oxygen, hydrotrolite precipitates, and conversely, when                •


the water oxygenated, it does not.  The observed banding of black  and


                                                                                   I

-------
I
I
V-lk
            gray could be the result of deposition in alternating oxygen-
            deprived  and oxygenated waters combined with the time dependent


I          conversion of hydrotrolite to pyrite.   This  banding phenomenon


            was observed in 15 cores.  Weilson (M^) has  observed periods  of


|          stratification in the Elizabeth River  that would tend to produce


•          periods with resultant oxygen deficient waters that would favor the


            formation of hydrotrolite and thus account for the observed color


•          changes and banding.


                 Biggs (23) also  found a marked correlation between water content


•          and sediment color.  The samples analyzed in this study showed such


•          a relationship except in the Western Branch  where no black sediments


            were found.  The relationship is particularly pronounced in the


I          Eastern and Southern  Branches (Figures 21 through 2^).  The more


            separation that exists between the white and black areas on the


|          graphs, the greater the correlation to water content;  the striped


•m          area represents overlap.  The actual water content at each station


            is presented in Appendix I, Table 14.


•               The suspected evolution of E^S, the change in color from black


            to gray on drying, the banding phenomenon, and the correlation between


|          water content and color certainly suggest the possible presence of


_          hydrotrolite and, therefore, a "sulfide-precipitation" mechanism


™          of metallic deposition in the Elizabeth River.  Since the order


 •          of solubilities for divalent sulfides  is Hg  < Cu < Fb < Cd < Ni < Zn,


            Biggs (30) postulated that in black sediment the least soluble


 |          sulfides would show the highest ratio  in the Elizabeth River  relative




 I

-------
            Figure 21
w
0)
03
                                             30 -
                               CQ
                               a)
                                          CQ
                                             20
                                           0)
                                           ,3
                                             10 -
     0
                                  0
    40-,
         123^5678   9   lo xio
                   $ Water  Content
           Entire Area  -  96 Samples
           Figure  22
    30-
CQ
    20-
    10-
      Water Content
Southern Branch - 21 Samples
                                          Figure 23
  V-15


Black

Gray
                                       123456789  10 xlO
                                            % Water  Content
                                       Eastern  Branch  -  14 Samples
                                         Figure  24
                                                                               10 xlO
                                                             Water Content
                                                       Main' Branch - 49 Samples
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
V-16
I

I
            to their  abundance  in the  Chesapeake Bay.  If there'is a greater
•          concentration of the  element  in the Elizabeth River and if the sulfide
•          is the least  soluble  chemical form which that element can be present
            as,  then  the  elements should  be present in the following ratio:
I                    Hg  > Cu > Pb > Cd > Nl > Zn
            Table  15  shows the  order of the ratios between the Elizabeth River and
™          the Chesapeake Bay  sediments.
•              Only one sample  in  the Main Branch exhibits the expected ratio,
            exclusive of  Hg.  One of the  criteria given above was that the Elizabeth
•          River  value must  exceed  the Bay value in order for it to be used, since
            this is not the case  with  the Elizabeth River, the mercury values
B          may be dropped from consideration.  The metals in the Main Branch,
•          then,  probably exist  in  some  form other than the sulfide.  All six
            samples from  the  Eastern Branch follow the expected pattern.  A
•          similar situation exists in the Southern Branch: all but one sample
            conform to the pattern except for several inverted Zn and Cd values.
•          In general the metals seem to exhibit the pattern given above and
•          probably  exist as sulfide  in  the Eastern and Southern Branches.
                Using a  technique developed by Ballinger and McKee (1971) to
I          characterize  bottom sediments  using organic carbon and organic
            nitrogen   data,  the values  from the Elizabeth River were tabulated
•          (Appendix I,  Table  23 -  $  TKN, Table 2k - % Organic Carbon).
•          Organic nitrogen  and  organic  carbon have been shown to correlate
            well  with known  sources and  permit the classification of deposits
•          into four general types  (53).  The four types are:

I

-------
V-IT
Table 15
Metals Concentration Ratios Between Elizabeth
Bay Sediments
Station Branch
C-l Main
D-l
D-2
E-l
P-2
F-3
G-2
H-3
1-4
J-5
M-2
N-2
N-3
EB-2 Eastern
EB-3
EB-4
EB-7
EB-8
EB-10
SB- 5 Southern
SB-6
SB- 7
SB- 9
SB-10
SB-12
SB-13
SB-15
SB-18
SB-19
SB-20
Order of
Cu ^
Cu ^
Cu >
Zn >
Cu i
Cu ;
Cu ^
Cu 2
Cu ^
Cd >
cu ;
Cu i
Cu ^
Cu -
Cu -
Cu ;
cu ;
cu ;
cu ;
cu ;
cu :
cu ;
Cu ;
c:u ;
cu ;
Cu :
Cu ;
Cu :
Cu ;
Cu ;
> Zn ^
> Zn ^
> Zn ^
> Cu 2
> Zn ^
> Zn ^
> Cd -
> Fb ;
=• Cd :
> Zn ^
> Cd ;
> Cd ;
> Cd :
> Fb ^
> Fb ^
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
> Fb ^
> Fb i
> Fb ;
> Zn ;
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
> Fb :
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
River and Chesapeake
Decreasing Ratio
> Cd >
> Cd ^
> Cd >
> Cd >
> Cd "
> Fb 2
> Zn ;
> Cd ?
> Zn ^
> Cu ^
> Zn ^
> Fb 2
> Fb 5
> Cd >
> Zn ^
> Cd ^
> Zn ;
> Zn 2
> Zn >
> Zn ;
> Fb :
> Zn ;
> Zn ;
> Zn ;
> Zn ;
> Zn ^
> cd ;
> cd ;
> Zn ;
> Zn :
> Cr ;
> Cr ;
> Cr ;
> Fb :
> Fb :
> Cd :
> Fb ;
> Cr ;
> Fb ;
> Fb 5
> Fb ;
> Zn :
> Zn ;
> Zn ;
> cd ;
> Zn :
> Cr ;
> Cr :
> cd :
> cd :
> cd ;
> cd :
> cd ;
> cd ;
> cd ;
> cd :
> Cr :
> Zn :
> Cr ;
> cd ;
> Fb
> Fb
> Fb
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Zn
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cd
> Cd
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Zn
> Cr
> Cd
> Cr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
•
 I
 I
 I
                                                                                V-18
                         I.  Inorganic  or aged, stabilized organic deposits;
I
                       II.  High carbon, little N? contribution, slow 02 demand;

•                    III.  Nitrogenous, substantial Np contribution, further
                            stabilization likely, and;

                       IIV.  Actively decomposing sediments, high potential Np
                            release and high Op demand.

                   Figure 25 shows the plotted Elizabeth River data.  The type

               of bottom sediment associated with each station is presented in Table

•             26.  The Main Branch is predominantly Types I and II; the Eastern

               Branch appears to have equal amounts of all four types; the Western

•             Branch is predominantly Type I, as is the Southern Branch.  It is

•             interesting to note that the Western Branch had no Type IV sediments,

               which may explain the absence of black sediment noted earlier.  The

•             Western Branch has little industry and would appear to be relatively

               stabilized.
                   A further extension of this work is the product of organic

              nitrogen times organic carbon or OSI (Organic Sediment Index), which
              has been used to  classify the bottom sediments into four categories

 I            which are:

                        I.  OSI  (0.0 - O.U8) - sand, clay, old stable sludge;

 I                     II.  OSI  (O.kQ - 1.0) - organic detritus, peat, partially
                            stabilized sludge;
                      III.  OSI (l.O - 5.0) - sewage sludge, decaying vegetation,
                            pulp and paper wastes, sugar beet wastes, and;

                       IV.  OSI (5.0 - > 10.0) - actively decomposing sludge,
                            fresh sewage, matted algae, packinghouse wastes.
 •                 The numeric OSI values for the Elizabeth River are depicted
              graphically in Figure 26, and are presented by type of sediment in

 I

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                                               V.-20
                             TABLE 26

                   BOTTOM SEDIMENT CLASSIFICATION.
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1.
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Type
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
II
I
I
I
IV
III
I
I
II
I
NS
I
I
II
IV
I
II
I
II
I
I
I
II
I
II
I
I
II
II
II
I
I
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WB 1
2
3
4 i
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12




Type
II
I
II
II
I
I
II
I
IV
II
II
IV
IV
II
III
II
I
IV
I
IV
IV
I
III
III
I
I
I
I
III
I
I
II
I
II
III
I




Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22





'












Type
I
I
I
I
III
I
IV
NS
III
I
I
IV
I
I
III
I
I
I
III
IV
I
III


















NS - No Sample

-------
V-21



-------
•




I
                                                                                  V-22
•             Table 27.  It is interesting to note that the sharp peaks in Figure




               26  (which represent high OSI values in Table 27) are in many cases at




I             or  near the location of a sewage treatment plant (by superimposing




•             Figures 2 and 4, the following sampling stations are at or near




               STPs: D 1-4, E 1-4, G 1-3, J 1-7, and SB 15-22 - see Figure 27).




I             As  expected from the calculated OSI values, the bottom at these




               locations shows some impact from the presence of the sewage treatment




|             plants .




•                  The bottom sediment classification and OSI values are useful




               tools for examining the nature of the sediments from the Elizabeth




•             River and have shown the possibility of an "organic matrix




               mechanism" of deposit and exchange, as an alternate or co-mechanism




|             to  sulfide precipitation and other forms of deposition and transport.




.                  Another factor in evaluating the concentrations of metals in




               addition to their distribution and the form in which they may exist,




•             is  the particle size of the sediment.  High surface area and adsorption



               capacity make clays a perfect scavenger for metallic substances.




|             Given the absence of other contributing causes, particle size can




_             be  indicative of the metallic concentration of sediments (12) .




*             Before comparing one system to another, the particle size differences




•             or  similarities between the two should be accounted for so that particle




               size does not distort the interpretation of the data.  No actual




•             determination of particle size was possible in this study, however,




               the texture of each sample was recorded as the core was prepared for




•             analysis.  The sediments for the most part resembled those taken from






I

-------
                                                              V-23
                            TABLE 27
                        OSI CLASSIFICATION
Location
A 1
2
3
k
B 1
2
3
l^
C 1
2
3
, k
D 1
2
3
h
E 1
2
3
h
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
h
J 1
2
3
^
5
6
T
Class
I
II
I
I
I
III
I
I
III
I
I
I
III
III
I
I
II
II
NS
I
I
II
III
I
III
I
III
I
II
I
II
I
III
I
I
III
I
II
I
I
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
h
5
6
1
8
9
10
n
12
13
Ik
W3 1
2
3
If
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12




Class
II
II
III
II
I
II
III
I
III
II
III
III
III
III
II
III
II
III
I
III
III
II
III
II
I
I
I
II
II
II
I
III
I
II
II
I




Location
SB 1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1^
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22





-












Class
I
I
I
I
III
I
III
NS
II
II
I
III
II
I
III
I
I
I
III
III
II
III


















NS - No Sample
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
      Figure  27 Sampling  Locations  at  or  near  STPs
 Hampton
  Roads
                                         Lafayette
                                          River
 Western
Branch STP
                                        Oreat Bridge STP
                                                Eastern
                                                Branch

-------
                                                           V-25
I
I
the Baltimore Harbor in an earlier study (31), being of a silt or

clay nature with no large sand particles or pebbles.  In addition,               •

Drifmeyer (1975) has indicated that Elizabeth River sediment is

primarily a silt-clay complex and highly organic (45).  Because the              I

comparisons to follow are based on fairly large numbers of determinations


that have been converted to overall averages for each system, it is felt         I

that particle size is not lixely to be a contributing factor in                  •


evaluating the distribution patters between one area and another.

     Assuming that particle size will not bias the comparison of the             •

Elizabeth River to other systems, (This assumption is based on 1) visual

observations, 2) Drifmeyer's findings (45), 3) the averaging procedure           I

used, and 4) comparisons are made between estuarines in fairly close             •

geographic proximity.) an attempt has been made to define the degree of

metallic pollution in the Elizabeth River.  In attempting to evaluate            •

the degree of metals contamination in the Elizabeth River, comparisons

of concentrations found in the Elizabeth River were made to those found in:      I

             1) the Patapsco River (Baltimore Harbor), a tributary of            H

     Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, representing another highly industri-

     alized estuary (Table 17);                                                  •

             2) the open regions of the mid-Chesapeake Bay (Table 18);

             3) other estuarine environments, in this case, the                  |


     Delaware, Potomac, and James River estuaries (Table 19); and,               —

             4) the earth's crust (average values at best) (Table 20).           *


     The Elizabeth River is similar to the Baltimore Harbor in that it,          •

too, supports a highly industrialized port facility.  Table 17 provides

a comparison of Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Zn and Hg levels in these two harbors.           I
                                                                                 I

-------
1
1
1


1




1

1




1

1




1

1
1

1
1
1


METALS IN ELIZABETH

Metal
Copper, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Lead, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Zinc, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Cadmium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Chromium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Mercury, mg/kg
Low
Average
High

"Villa, 0. and P.G.
Harbor Sediments,"
Table 17

RIVER AND BALTIMORE HARBOR

Elizabeth River

< 2
65.1-65.2
395

< 3
91.0-91.2
382

38
379.1
2380

< l
3.3-3-5
26

9
44.4
110

< .01
.22
2.73

Johnson, "Distribution of
Environmental Protection
V-26

SEDIMENTS

Baltimore Harbor

< 1
342
2926

< 1
341
13890

31
888
6040

< 1
6.3-6.6
654

10
492
5745

< .01
1.17
12.20
.
Metals in Baltimore
Agency Region III
Technical Report No. 59, Annapolis Field Office, (Jan. 1974).







-------
                                                                   V-27          •

                                                                                 I
     Average Zn and Cd concentrations in Baltimore Harbor were                   _
twice the levels found in the Elizabeth River.  Baltimore Harbor                 I
showed four, five and eleven times the concentrations of Pb, Cu and              •
Cr, respectively, found in the Elizabeth River.  For all the
metals compared, Baltimore Harbor had considerably higher "high"                 I
values than the Elizabeth River.
     Table 18 is a comparison of Elizabeth River values with those               |
found in the open Chesapeake Bay (approximately five miles from the              •
Magothy River, in mid-bay, to Cove Point).  For all metals compared
the average and "high" values found in the Elizabeth River exceeded              I
the open Bay values.  The Hg, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Zn were two to four
times the average in the Bay; while the average Cu value was ten                 |
times the Bay value.                                '                             •
     The Delaware, Potomac e.nd James estuaries provide additional
opportunities to evaluate the Elizabeth River data.  While none of               •
these three estuaries have the concentrated industrial complex to
the extent that Baltimore Harbor and the Elizabeth River do, they                |
provide for comparisons primarily with an industrialized tidal                   .
system (Delaware), an estuary with mainly municipal inputs (Potomac),            ™
and a third system with a lesser degree of both municipal and industrial         I
inputs (James).  The James River, being physically adjacent to the
Elizabeth River, provides an interesting contrast: the sediments                 •
of the James contain the least amount of Zn and Pb, and in fact,                 _
the average values of the James (Table 19) are similar to the Bay                *
values (Table 18).  Potomac estuary sediments exhibit greater ranges             •
of values than the James but are no more than two times greater than
Bay concentrations.                                                              •

-------
1
1

1
1
•V
1

1
••

1

1

1
•

1

1

1
•

1

1
1
1


METALS IN
Metal
Copper, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Lead, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Zinc, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Cadmium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Chromium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Mercury, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Annapolis



Table 18

V-2f

ELIZABETH RIVER AND CHESAPEAKE BAY SEDIMENTS
Elizabeth River

< 2
65.1-65.2
395

< 3
91.0-91.2
382

38
379
2380

< 1
3.3-3.5
26

9
kk
110

< .01
.22
2.73
Field Office, unpublished,



Chesapeake Bay

< 1
6.U-7.0
22

9
27
86

33
128
312

< 1
< l
< 1

18
25
42

< .01
.061-. 067
• 31
1972-1973




-------
                                                                V-29
                        Table 19
METALS IN ELIZABETH RIVER, DELAWARE RIVER,
POTOMAC RIVER AND JAMES RIVER SEDIMENTS
Metal
Copper, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Lead, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Zinc, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Cadmium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Chromium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Mercury, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Elizabeth
River

< 2
65.1-65.2
395

< 3
91.0-91.2
382

38
379
2380

< l
3.3-3.5
26

9
44
110

< .01
.22
2.73
Delaware
River -1

4
73
201

26
145
805

137
523
1364

< 1
2.9-3.1
17

8
58
172

< .01
1.99
6.97
Potomac
River 2

10
--
60

20
--
100

125
--
1000

< 1
—
.60

20
--
80

.01
--
.03
James
River

NO
—
DATA

4
27
55

10
131
708

NO
—
DATA

NO
--
DATA

.
.
1.
3





















02
32
00
1
 "Annapolis Field Office, unpublished, 1972-1973-

~Houser, M.E., and M.I. Fauth, "Potomac River Sediment Study,"
 Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Maryland (1972).

 Pheiffer, T.H., et al., "Water Quality Conditions in the
 Cheaspeake Bay System,"  Environmental Protection Agency Region III
 Technical Report No. 55, Annapolis Field Office (August 1972).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I

I
I              The Delaware estuary shows consistently higher levels than the
           James or Potomac and is quite similar to the Elizabeth River values.
•              Table 20 shows average concentrations of heavy metals in the
_         earth's crust.  As can be seen these concentration ranges are far
*         less than those found in the Elizabeth River.  Those values from
I         the Chesapeake Bay and the James River are just slightly higher than
           the values in Table 20.  For the Potomac sediments, Pb, Zn and Cd
•         are in excess of the averages, while Cr, Cu and Hg are within the
_         specified ranges.
'              An inventory of existing metals concentrations in Elizabeth
•         River sediments has been presented and evaluated in terms of
           distribution.  Factors such as sulfide precipitation and organic
•         matrices and others have been addressed as possible mechanisms of
           transport and distribution.


I

I

I

I

I

I

I
V-30

-------
                                                                    V-31
                             Table 20
CONCENTRATION OF HEAVY METALS IN EARTH'S CRUST, AVG. RANGE '
I
I
I
            Metal                     Range, rag/kg
          Chromium                       .10  -  100 1 00                           |
          Copper                        1^-. 00  -   55.00                           •
          Lead                          7.00  -   20.00
          Zinc                         16.00  -   95-00                           I
          Cadmium                        .05  -    0.30
          Nickel                        2.00-75-00                           |
          Manganese                    50.00  - 1100.00                           _
          Mercury                        .03-0.40
                                                                                  I
          "Bowen, H.J.M., Trace Elements in Biochemistry, Academic                •
           Press, N.Y. (l9
-------
APPENDIX I

-------
                                                             VI-1
TABLE 5
Location
A 1
2
3
k
B 1
2
3
k
C 1
2
3
h
D 1
2
3
k
E 1
2
3
1+
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
Ij.
J 1
2
3
U
5
6
T
CAEMIUM
ELIZABETH
mg/kg Location
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
3
< l
< 1
< 1
k
3
< 1
1
7
1
NS
< 1
1
2
2
1
7
1
U
1
1
3
4
3
10
k
3
3
23
26
9
7
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
WE 1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12




RIVER SEDIMENT
mg/kg
4
k
7
6
2
3
9
3
9
11
4
6
6
5
4
1+
1
1
< 1
4
3
1
l
l
2
5
1
5
22
< 1
2
5
< 1
< 1
3
1




STUDY
Location
SB 1
2
3
1*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ll+
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22



















mg/kg
1
2
< 1
< 1
h
3
6
NS
1
2
1
u
u
1
u
1
2
< 1
1
< 1
1
1


















ES - No Sample
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
I

-------
1
1
1



1

1

1
•

1

1
••
1

1

1
••



1





1
1
1


TABLE

Location

A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
i
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NS - No



6 COPPER

mg/kg

13
4
2
3
19
J
< 2
4o
3
< 2
12
40
4
4
50
46
NS
13
28
56
65
3
52
7
30
13
41
43
71
18
7
11
60
66
25
22
Sample



ELIZABETH

Location

K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
WB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12








RIVER SEDIMENT

mg/kg

32
40
246
90
15
49
87
3
112
128
137
169
204
141
192
112
189
195
27
221
198
74
30
74
15
32
13
212
232
18
27
130
16
18
122
10








STUDY

Location

SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
















VI -2



mg/kg

6
83
55
3
192
395
NS
30
91
< 2
165
149
24
112
27
9
24
96
52
27
32

















-------
                                                                   VI-3
TABLE 7
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
I
4
D 1
2
3
\
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
1+
5
6
T
CHROMIUM
mg/kg
39
44
58
40
60
46
50
25
75
45
29
12
86
75
35
9
82
40
NS
10
39
23
51
23
82
9
43
25
25
40
44
32
81
32
32
26
88
92
2k
20
ELIZABETH RIVER
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WE 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12




SEDIMENT
mg/kg
48
41
81
72
19
39
94
40
95
95
26
55
67
32
20
17
53
53
30
74
73
27
41
40
39
51
35
19
110
32
36
40
30
35
39
31




STUDY
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22



















mg/kg
18
23
17
10
78
^5
109
WS
30
48
25
99
77
23
71
36
11
16
43
24
13
26


















NS - Wo sample
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
                                                                     VT-U
TABLE  8
MERCURY ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY
Location
A 1
2
3
k
B 1
2
3
k
C 1
2
3
k
D 1
2
3
if
E 1
2
3
k
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
^
5
6
7
mg/kg
.60
.18
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
Al
< .01
.10
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
.23
ws
.15
< .01
< .01
< .01
.15
.60
< .01
.15
< .01
< .01
< .01
.16
• 30
.28
.15
.22
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
WB 1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12




mg/kg
< .01
< .01
•65
< .01
< .01
• 33
< .01
< .01
.23
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
.13
A3
< .01
< .01
2.73
.52
.85
A3
.10
.25
.23
.2k
.25
.10
A5
A7
.23
.11
• 30
.11




Location
SB 1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22


















mg/kg
.07
• 33
.15
< .01
• 57
-31
.9k
NS
.13
1A9
< .01
A6
• 52
.2k
• 52
.17
< .01
.05
.2k
.73
.22
.80


















NS - No Sample

-------
                                                                    VI-5
TABLE 9
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
1*
5
6
7

mg/kg
35
3
2
3
41
3
< 3
< 3
76
6
3
32
9
8
6
10
153
67
NS
6
29
48
70
130
130
< 3
86
22
60
35
80
89
156
44
16
2
226
191
35
51
LEAD ELIZABETH
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
. N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
WE 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12




RIVER SEDIMENT
mg/kg
67
64
194
162
< 3
100
162
13
194
242
275
251
242
188
280
181
183
169
41
235
207
99
35
118
10
64
< 3
143
366
10
35
156
6
13
145
10




STUDY
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22



















mg/kg
41
92
102
< 3
382
108
344
NS
51
150
6
184
165
60
114
51
3
29
86
56
48
44


















NS - No Sample
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                                                    vi-6
TABLE  10
ZINC ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
•2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
mg/kg
249
80
86
71
237
87
72
53
564
83
68
271
541
^55
120
155
961
427
NS
65
230
441
373
198
885
39
367
73
107
212
217
186
1023
161
87
95
1660
1690
314
153
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12




mg/kg
440
476
999
747
122
197
93^
80
920
934
456
674
841
402
289
240
402
377
73
776
801
207
145
230
94
397
91
470
2380
105
334
841
103
80
467
83




Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22


















mg/kg
38
349
179
132
747
532
1016
NS
168
255
60
665
507
122
337
120
54
80
255
152
108
159


















NS - No Sample

-------
                                                                      VI-7
TABLE  11
IRON ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
mg/kg
24020
33460
35460
27390
33120
35520
36690
16240
34440
35960
28420
11710
34390
35320
28520
10420
36840
27200
NS
10180
31940
17520
29910
31600
31060
14630
33270
28770
30580
31850
35080
31600
33220
28670
34240
27200
30320
35220
22700
31HO
Location
K Z.
2
L Z.
2
")
J
M :.
2
N :.
2
3
EB :.
2.
3
4
5
6
•Y
8
9
10
II-
IS
13
14
WB :.
2
3
4
5
6
V
8
9
10
r.
12




mg/kg
27740
18490
33750
33950
33560
33460
35900
33^60
31010
31600
26300
27430
30040
30430
27820
35330
29960
20560
28450
NSQ
28760
27440
29080
29890
37740
21670
38440
26450
30190
29250
28350
38740
38540
35840
36640
40440




Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22


















mg/kg
27210
16120
10070
7970
33540
36540
37540
NS
25540
35140
29250
29140
28530
18770
29620
27330
21500
13970
26070
27380
22220
23500


















  NS - No Sample
  NSQ- Not sufficient quantity
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
1
1

1

1
•

1

1





1

1





1

1





1





1
1
1


TABLE 12






ALUMINUM ELIZABETH


Location rag/kg
A 1
2
3
1+
B 1
2
3
k
C 1
2
3
1+
D 1
2
3
1+
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
k
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7

WS - Wo

10660
1601+0
15900
13210
121*50
15900
16090
7990
171+20
16900
12120
5170
16370
15710
1091+0
1+790
17530
11290
NS
5800
11+080
6790
13170
13120
13690
6220
13670
12370
1^160
13330
15030
12560
1301+0
11770
13870
1321+0
13VjTO
16730
111+60
13830

Sample



Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1U
₯B 1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12









RIVER SEDIMENT


mg/kg
13930
9880
11+880
11+360
13170
15250
17990
15710
16320
1631+0
9600
13670
13180
13280
111+80
13730
12250
13030
13760
16700
ll+61+O
13^30
13820
16980
16720
10960
1651+0
13530
11+500
15390
13700
17010
161+80
18030
17920
161+70









STUDY


Location
SB 1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22


















VI-8




mg/kg
^750
6930
1+7^0
3980
12380
10800
11+290
NS
9980
12820
10770
12930
12080
8120
131+60
111+60
8520
6710
13920
12790
11260
ioi+1+o



















-------
                                                                     vi-9
TABLE 14
WATER CONTENT ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1'
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
k
E 1
2
3
k
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H i
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
*
Wet Wt.
45.04
58.89
55-05
51.29
56.06
54.30
53-00
39-40
68.10
53.20
51-30
32.30
71.90
68.00
46.30
30.80
69.4o
56.00
NS
28.70
67.10
48.50
69.4o
57.60
71.80
31.00
64.50
53-90
55-20
61.10
63.80
58.30
66.60
57.60
60.70
56.30
58.40
66.60
52.30
53-80
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
S
1C'
11
12
13
14
WB 1
/~L
c_
.J
L
5
6
rr
1
8
9
10
11
12




%
Wet Wt.
61.10
49.50
63.80
58.60
50.10
62.30
70.20
49.80
69.40
65.20
56.60
68.70
68.40
66.60
55.90
61.50
66.60
64.40
56.70
71.80
69.80
61.90
62.20
59.80
47-30
45.30
49.80
53-50
59.00
55-40
55-20
60.60
54.00
60.00
60.50
55.20




Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22


















*
Wet Wt.
37.20
56.00
31-50
21.40
66.80
65.10
70.00
NS
63.60
67.50
52.30
71.80
68.40
48.90
70.4o
58.90
39-20
47.60
66.40
67.80
54.00
49.00


















  WS - No sample
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I

-------
1
1



1








1








1




















1
1


TABLE 16




COD


Location mg/kg

A 1
2
3

B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3

5
6
7

NS - No


86440
126080
98330
89960
210110
209910
69430
85580
225890
58730
62530
38040
404880
119030
110580
64410
134970
121410
NS
18060
116520
206310
194540
107740
294540
9970
209310
66530
86260
114500
134410
95850
303350
127730
120890
263500
168800
155870
120310
107990

Sample





ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT


Location

K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12









mg/kg

187570
91540
152900
129880
21160
98l4o
268260
61690
153790
136720
173410
175690
175920
240720
82810
158180
126320
228200
80920
128320
172480
111550
106560
106790
35650
56510
58470
123720
91540
73900
61340
152260
64o4o
138320
99490
70830









STUDY


Location

SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22





















VI -10




mg/kg

36390
68040
74130
153000
122860
64610
310430
NS
61510
116950
75350
158650
90440
51960
116300
61290
22720
38470
118510
190370
110230
10494






















-------
                                                               VI-11
TABLE 23
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C :1
2
3
; 4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
T

$ Org. C
3-2
4.6
3-7
3.5
7-9
7.8
2.6
3-2
8.5
2.2
2.3
1.4
15-2
4.4
4.1
2.4
5-0
4.5
WS
• 7
4.4
7-7
7-3
3-4
11.0
.4
10.9
2-5
3-2
4.3
5.0
3.6
11.4
4.8
4.5
9-9
6.3
5.8
4.5
4.0
% Organic
Location $
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
H 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3.0
JJL
12
13
14
W3 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2




Carbon
Org. C
7-0
3.4
5-7
4.9
.8
3-7
10.0
2.3
5-8
5-1
6.5
6.6
6.6
9-0
3-1
5-9
4.7
8.5
3-0
5-1
6.5
4.2
4.0
4.0
1.3
2.1
2.2
4.6
4.4
2.8
2.3
5.7
2.4
5-2
3.7
2.6





Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22





,













% Org. C
1.4
2.5
2.8
.6
4.6
2.4
7.0
NS
2.3
4.4
2.8
5-9
3.4
1.9
4.4
2.3
.8
1.4
4.4
7-1
4.1
3-9


















NS - No Sample
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                                                VI-12
TABLE 24
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1.
2
3
) 4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7

$ TKN
.087
.146
.064
.074
.050
.142
.068
.048
.159
.057
.151
.051
.246
.231
.054
.049
.193
.129
NS
.030
.074
.068
.269
.110
.188
.033
.096
.078
.188
.086
.131
.078
.136
.026
.057
' .136
.074
.123
.027
.050
%
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
tfl
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12




TKN
°lo TKN
.080
.146
.229
.100
.090
.172
.129
.092
.223
.162
.177
• 295
.247
.190
• 303
.192
.205
.198
.149
.264
• 253
.179
.302
.208
.107
.134
.142
.178
.212
.179
.127
.195
.155
.145
.217
.152





Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22





.













 TKN
• 055
.077
.085
.024
.281
.160
.413
NS
.238
.189
.116
• 325
.190
.098
.252
.166
.052
.092
.246
.347
.200
.260


















WS - No Sample

-------
                                                                 VI-13
TABLE 25
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
•• 4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
1).
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Organic Sediment Index
OSI
.28
.67
.24
.26
.40
l.ll
.18
.15
1.35
.12
• 35
.07
3-74
1.02
.22
.12
• 96
• 58
NS
.02
• 32
• 52
1.96
• 37
2.07
.01
1.05
.20
.60
• 37
.66
.28
1-55
.12
.26
1.35
.47
• 71
.12
.20
Location
K I.
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
W3 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3.0
11
12




OSI
.56
• 50
1.30
.49
.07
.64
1.29
.21
1.29
.83
1.15
1.94
1.63
1.71
• 94
1.13
.96
1.68
• 45
1-35
1.64
• 75
1.21
.84
.14
.28
.31
.82
• 93
• 50
.29
1.11 •
.37
• 75
.80
.40




Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22


















OSI
.08
.19
.24
.01
1.29
.38
2.89
NS
.55
.83
• 32
1.92
.65
.19
1.11
.38
.04
.13
1.08
2.46
.82
1.01


















NS - No Sample
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 28  Total Volatile Solids ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
1+
C 1
2
3
1+
D 1
2
3
U
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
mg/kg
38000
54500
50300
51300
54600
54000
50200
27700
85100
52000
44700
27500
95000
891+00
446oo
26000
81700
53100
NS
34500
69400
44500
98000
80600
95500
27300
78800
60900
89500
64200
78600
68800
81100
63300
57100
50000
63300
81800
58600
55500
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
₯B 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12




mg/kg
61400
49900
79600
68700
55500
75100
89400
57200
91700
90100
87500
100500
100500
121100
109200
94700
107900
109200
72400
104300
101400
82300
82200
80500
52400
40000
52600
66700
71800
55900
51500
75600
57000
65600
75600
57000
4680



Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22


















rng/kg
46800
36200
27200
12700
90400
80000
111200
NS
73100
98800
72100
101700
85300
51500
100300
93900
34200
61300
99300
129100
80600
100400


















  WS - No Sample

-------
TABLE 29
Oil and Grease ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
1+
P 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
mg/kg
8?0
70
110
ND
40
320
50
ED
80
130
200
410
390
90
690
850
3120
1870
NS
410
1330
1190
3220
1370
2840
150
1820
1600
2030
1820
2550
2450
1790
1220
950
250
770
3050
230
1720
Loca.tion
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12




mg/kg
3100
3580
3610
3130
1160
1980
4060
520
3560
4710
2260
4460
4670
4400
2560
700
4390
2590
1140
3220
2620
1050
2340
800
1740
630
2290
2180
840
1060
1160
1330
430
1270
1420
890




Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22


















mg/kg
840
370
70
380
7970
5020
8410
ws
2700
7800
1540
7960
4920
530
1580
1210
720
950
2860
8600
1100
1650


















   NS - Wo Sample
   ND - Non-detectable
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I

-------
APPENDIX II

-------
f as
f as
                                                                          VII-1
100
 90
 80
 TO
 60
 50
 ho
 30
 20
 10
                                  Figure  13
                                     Cadmium
100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
               246
10 12
                              i - i - "F- =S==F=| - 1 - 1 - r
                              16  18 20 22 2k 26 28 30 32
                                  mg/kg dry
                                   Figure 14
                                   Chromium
               t— -4- H CO  LTNOJOAVQroO
                  HOJ oj  on  -^  -4-  LT\VD
                                   mg/kg dry


-------
1
1
1
••
1
1

1
••
1

1
1
I

1

1

1
1
1
•
1
1
1



100 •
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
f as 50 '
* uo-
30 -
20 '
10 •

Figure 15
Copper






	
' — 1 "1 — 1 I — ' — ' i — r
LT\ O LTNO tr\O UAO LfAO LTNO 'fN O LQ O
mg/kg dry

100 -, Figure lo
90 .
80 -
70-
60 -
VS 50-
IK> -
30-
20 -
10
Lead







1 1 1 1 1 iii i i i i
	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 l 	 T 	 1 	 1 -I 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 r
LPvOLr\OLnOLfNOLTNOlAOLrNOLf\C
OJ LT\t— OOJ l-T\t—OOJ LT\ r— O OJ LTN t— C
iHHHrHOJOJOJOJooononoo-4
mg/kg dry


VII-2

-------
                                                                    vil-3
f as
 f as
100 -
90 -
8o -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 •
20 •
10 •
100 .
90 .
80 -
70-
60 -
50 -
40 -
30-
20 .
10
Figure 17
Zinc









H r^, H,HHHHOJCMOJ
mg/kg dry
Figure 18
Aluminum








-J— ' T— r— i—*— 4— "1 	 ~~ "1— T
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
                                  mg/kg dry
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I

-------
1
1
1
100 -
190 -
80 -
1 T0"
1 6° •
f as 50 •
| * kO -
30 •
• 20 •
10 -
.J_V^

1
1
100 .
1 9° -
80 -
• 70-
60 -
i '<" ;::
i "•
^H o c\
• 20 -
10


1
1
1


Figure 19
Mercury


I 1 	 1 i 	 1 i — i
OJ^KOCOOOJ-^-VQOOOOJ-^tVQCOOCx]
HHHHHOJOJOJOJCMPOrO
mg/kg dry
Figure 20
Iron





-..I... n •fc
r*~""i . i '"[ [ \ i
8888888888888888
LTN O LT\ O LT\ O LT\ O L'N O l/N O L^ O '.r\ O
t— O CM ITNl^OOJ LC\I>-OCM IJAt—OOJ LT\
HHHHOJCMnjojmromro^tJ-^t
mg/kg dry

VLI-k

-------

-------
APPENDIX III

-------
                                             VIII-1
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA DREDGING SITES
Sample
Number
7l|020701
02
03
Ok
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12

13
Ik
15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23
2k
25

26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3k
35
36
37
38

39
Station
Location
A 1
2
3
k
B 1
2
3
li
C 1
2
3
li

D 1
2
3
k

E 1

2
It

F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3

H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
It
J 1
2
3
It
5
6

7
Core
Description
dark gray
medium gray - slight clay
medium gray clay
medium gray clay
medium/dark gray - dark bands & medium gray bands
medium gray clay - some shells
gray clay - some shells
- light gray - some sand
black - distinct air pockets
medium gray clay - some shells
medium gray clay - some sand
core of 3" - total core - taken as sample
sand, worms, large pieces of shell, pebbles
black - air pockets
black - air pockets
gray clay - small pebbles, shells
core of k" - total core - taken as sample
medium gray, sand
black - dark band & medium gray band - sample taken
from dark band
medium gray/black sand - distinct air pockets
core of k" - total core - taken as sample
light gray clay - very dry, extremely low moisture
median gray
black - some sand - air pockets
black - air pockets
dark gray
black - air pockets
core of 5" - total core - taken as sample
medium gray with sand - hard
medium gray
dark gray - varying shades of gray bands
black with shells - low moisture
medium gray
medium gray
dark gray
black - air pockets
medium gray
medium gray
medium gray - some sand
dark gray with sand
black - air pockets - heavy gray bottom of core
sample contains heavy brown clay - some sand -
medium gray band and dark gray band
medium gray - some sand
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                                         VIII-2
Sample      Station        Core
Number      Location 	Description
              K 1          dark gray/medium gray/dark  gray bands  -
                              core from first dark band
      ij.1        2          dark gray with sand - pulverized  dry sample
                              contained fish scales  (identity  confirmed
                              by AFO biology section)
      i|2      LI          dark gray
      h3        2          dark gray
      ilk        3          core of 6" - total core - taken as  sample
                              medium gray
      Ii5      Ml          dark gray - alternating medium, dark gray
                              and black bands, about k"  each
      1|6        2          black - air pockets
      hi      N 1          medium gray clay with sand, shells
      h$        2          black/ dark gray/ medium gray bands -
                              sample taken from black  band - air  pockets
      k9        3          black

-------
                                             VIII-3
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA DREDGING SITES
Sample
Number
7U021U01
02
03


Oli
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
lli
15
16
17
18
19

20
21

22
23
2k
25
26
27



28
29

30

31
32
33
3k
Station
Location
EB 1
2
3


k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
111
WB 1
2
3
k
5

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
SB 1



2
3

u

5
6
7
9
Core
Description
dark gray, some sand, small pebbles
black, some shell
black/dark gray/light gray bands - sample from
black band - light gray portion has definite
orange streaks
black
dark gray, some sand
dark gray/black bands - sajnple from dark gray band
black
black/dark gray bands - sample from black band
dark gray, some sand and shell
black, air pockets
dark gray, air pockets
dark gray
dark gray, some sand
dark gray, small pebbles
medium gray, very low moisture
medium gray, sand and pebbles
medium gray, low moisture
medium gray, many shells & organic debris, some sand
3" core - total taken as sample - dark gray,
organic debris
medium gray, some sand & shell
3" core - total taken as sample - dark gray,
organic debris
dark gray
medium gray, some sand
medium gray
medium gray
medium gray
medium gray-brown/light brown bands - sample from
medium gray-brown band - difficult to get sample
well.-mixed - extremely hard and brittle - almost
solid clay - yellow-brown sandy center of core
dark gray with lots of sand
1|" core - total core taken as sample - dark gray,
much sand, small pebbles, organic debris
light gray with orange streaks - yellow-brown sandy
center of core - greenish cast when mixed
black
black, center is gray granular
black, air pockets
black mixed with light gray clay
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample      Station       Core
Number      Location      Description
             SB 10        black, air pockets
      36        11        medium gray,  organic  debris  (hunk of decaying wood)
                             some sand
      37        12        black
      38        13        black, air pockets
      39        111        dark gray with  sand and  shell
      1|0        15>        black, air pockets
      111        16        medium gray/brown with sand
      1|2        17        medium gray clay
      1|3        18        black, light  gray granular center,  sand
      kk        19        black, air pockets
      1|5        20        black/brown,  some sand,  bottom 2" of core sandy brown
      1|6        21        brown with sand, sulfide odor
      hi        22        brown, large  amount of organic debris,  some sand

-------

-------
APPENDIX IV

-------
                                                                IX-1


Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Lead
Nickel
Zinc

TOXICITY OF
Chemical
Symbol
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Pb
Ni
Zn
Tattle 2 11
METALS TO MARINE LIFE
Range of Concentrations that have
Toxic Effects on Marine Life
(mg/1 or ppm)
2.0
0.01 to 10
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
10.0
"TTational Estuarine Pollution Study, U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
 IWPCA, 'oL. II, Page IV, 3^6 (Nov. 3, 1969)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

I]
TABLE 22
TRACE METALS - USES AMD HAZARDS
Metals Industrial Use
Arsenic coal, petroleum,, deter-
gents, pesticides, mine
tailings
Barium paints, linoleum, paper,
drilling mud
Cadmium batteries, paints, plas-
tics, coal, zinc mining,
water mains and pipes,
tobacco smoke
Chromium alloys, refractories,
catalysts
Lead batteries, auto exhaust
from gasoline, paints
(prior to 19U8)
Mercury coal, electrical batter-
ies, fungicides, elec-
trical instruments, paper
and pulp, pharmaceuti-
cals
Nickel diesel oil, residual oil,
coal, tobacco smoke, chem-
icals and catalysts,
steel and nonferrous al-
loys, plating

Health Effects
hazard disputed, may cause
cancer
muscular and cardiovascular
disorders, kidney damage
high blood pressure, ster-
ility, flu- like disorders,
cardiovascular disease and
hypertension in humans
suspected, interferes with
zinc and copper metabolism
skin disorders, lung can-
cer, liver damage
colic, brain damage, con-
vulsions, behavioral dis-
orders, death
birth defects, nerve dam-
age, death
dermatitis, lung cancer
(as carbonyl)


-------
                                                                                    I
                              REFERENCES

 1.  Blankenship, William M., personal communication, Dec.  20,  1971-                I

 2.  Pheiffer, T.H., D.K. Donnelly,  and D.A. Possehl, "Water Quality
     Conditions in the Chesapeake Bay System," Environmental Protection             •
     Agency Technical Report No. 55, Annapolis Field Office (August 1972).           |
3.  Blick, R.A.P., and 3. Wisely, "Mortality of Marine Invertebrate               •
    Larvae in Hg, Cu, arid Zn Solutions," Aust .  J .  Mar . Freshwat .  Res . ,             •
    18(1): 63 (1967).                                                              "

k.  Browning, E., "Toxicity of Industrial Metals," Butterworths ,                   I
    London, England (1961).                                                       •

5.  Corner, E.D.S., and B. W. Sparrows, "The Mode  of Action of Toxic              •
    Agents. I.  Observations on the Poisoning of Certain Crustaceans              |
    by Copper and Mercury," Jour . of Mar . Biol .  Assoc . , V.K. 35., 531
    (1956).                                                                       -

6.  Curley, A., et al . , "Organic Mercury Identified as the Cause  of
    Poisoning in Humans and Hogs," Science, 172 (1971).

7-  Axelson, G., and P. Magnus, "Renal Damage after Prolonged Exposure            I
    to Cadmium," A.M. A. Archives of Environmental Health, Karolinska
    Institutet, Stockholme, Sweden, p. 360 (1966).                                •

8.  Irukayama, K.T. Kondo, F. Kai, and M. Fujiki,  "Studies on the
    origin of the causative agent of Minimata desease. I. Organic                 _
    mercury compounds in the :fish and shellfish from Minimata Bay,"               •
    Kumamoto Med. J., l4(U), pp. 157-169 (1961) .                                  "

9-  Schroeder, H.A., "Trace Metals and Chronic Diseases," Metal                   B
                                                                                  •
     Bindings in Medicine, Lippincott Co., Philadelphia (1960) .

10.  Kobayashi, J., "Relation between 'Itai-Itai' Disease and the                  •
     Pollution of River Waters by Cadmium from a Mine," presented                  •
     at the 5"th International Water Pollution Research Conference,
     held in San Francisco, July-August, 1970, 7 p., 2 Ref .,  3 Tab.,
     6 Fig., U.S.P.H.S., Grant WP-00359 (1970).                                    •

11.  Faust, S., and J. Hunter (eds), Organic Compounds in Aquatic
     Environments, Marcel Dekker, Inc.,  N.Y., Chap. 12 (1971) •                     •

12.  Oliver, B. "Heavy Metals Levels in Ottawa and Rideau River
     Sediments," Environmental Science and Technology, 7> Wo. 2,                    •
     p. 135 (February 1973T
                                                                                   I

                                                                                   I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13.  Martin, D., et al.,  "Distribution of Naturally Occurring
     Chelators (Humic Acids) and the Selected Trace Metals in some
     West Coast Florida Streams, 1968-1969," Univ. of South,  Florida,
     Professional Papers Series Number 12, (April 1971)•


Ik.  U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, Virginia (Sept. 1973).


15.  Harvey, H.D., Jr.,  E.D. Thoerber, and J.A. Gordon, "Radiological
     Survey of Hampton Roads, Virginia," Southeastern Radiological
     Health Laboratory,  U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare,
     Public Health Service, Bureau of Radiological Health, Montgomery,
     Alabama (Jan. 1968).


16.  Pleasants, J.B., "The Tidal James - A Review," Virginia  Institute
     of Marine Sciences Report No. 18, Applied Marine Science and
     Ocean Engineering of VIMS, Gloucester Point, Virginia (August 1971)•


17.  Carpenter, J., personal communication, Johns Hopkins Univ. (1970).


18.  StandaTdJMethods_fgr the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
     APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 13th Edition, American Public Health Association,

     N.Y. (1971).


19-  Great Lakes Region Committee on Analytical Methods,  "Chemistry
     Laboratory Manual - Bottom Sediments," F^QA, Environmental
     Protection Agency (December 1969).


20.  Goulden, P.D., and B.K. Afghan, "An Automated Method for Determining
     Mercury in Water,"  Te_chnicon Adv. in AutoAnal., 2, p. 317 (1970).


21.  Finger, J., personal communication, Southeast Water  Laboratory,
     Analytical Services Section (1970).


22.  "Mercury in Water (Automated Cold Vapor Technique)," Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Southeast Water Laboratory, Chemical  Services
     Section (April 1972).


23.  Biggs, R.B., "The Sediments of Chesapeake Bay," Estuaries,
     G.H. Lauff (ed), Publication No. 83, American Association for the
     Advancement of Science, pp. 230-260 (1967).


2k.  Smirnow, L.P., "Black Sea Basin," in Habitat of Oil, L.G. Weeks
     (ed), Am. Assoc, Petrol. Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 922-99^
     (1958).

-------
                                                                                  I
25.  Emery, K.O.,  and S.C. Rittenberg,  "Early Diagenesis of California            *
     Basin Sediments with Special Reference to the Origin of Oil,"
     Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol Geologists,  36:735-806 (1952).                       •

26.  Van Straaten, L.M.J.U., 'Composition and Structure of Recent
     Marine Sediments in the  Netherlands," Leidse, Geol. Mededel,                 •
     (195*0.                                                                      I

27.  Manheim, F.,  "Geochemical Cross-Section of the Baltic Sea,"                   _
     Geochim, Cosmochim. Acta,  25:52-70 (I96l).                                   I

28.  Oppenheimei',  C.H., "Bacterial Activity in Sediments in Shallow
     Marine Bays," Geochim. Cosmochim.  Acta., 19(U):I6l4-l623 (1960).              •

29.  Priddy, R.R., "Recent Mississippi  Sounds Sediments compared
     with some Upper Cretaceous Sediments," Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc.              •
     Geol. Soc, Ii:159-l68 (195*0 .
30.  Bigga, R.B., "Trace Metal Concentration in the Sediments of
     Baltimore Harbor at Dundalk Marine Terminal
     Laboratory, CBL Ref. Wo. 68-97 (Dec. 1968).
Baltimore Harbor at Dundalk Marine Terminal,"  Chesapeake Biological          •
31.  Villa, 0. and P.G. Johnson, "Distribution of Metals in                       •
     Baltimore Harbor Sediments," Environmental Protection Agency                 |
     Technical Report No. 59, Annapolis Field Office (Jan. 197*0.

32.  Pritchard, D.W., "Salinity Distribution and Circulation in the               I
     Chesapeake Bay Estuarine System," J.  Marine Res.,  11:106-123
     (1952).

33-  Ryan, J.D., "The Sediments of Chesapeake Bay," Maryland Board                •
     of Natural Resources, Dept. of Geol.  Mines, Water Resources
     Bulletin No. 12 (1953).                                                      •

3k.  Huggett, R.J., M.E. Bender, and H.D.  Slone, "Utilizing Metal
     Concentration in the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea Virginica) to               _
     Detect Heavy Metal Pollution," Virginia Institute of Marine                  •
     Sciences Contribution No. ^31, Gloucester Point,  Virginia (1971).            •

35.  Kopfler, F.C., and J. Mayer, "Studies of Trace Metals in Shellfish,"         •
     Proceedings, Gulf and South Atlantic Shellfish Sanitation                    I
     Research Conference, March 1967, Gulf Coast Marine Health Service
     Laboratory, Dauphic Island, Alabama (1969)•                                  •

36.  Bender, M.E., R.J. Hugget, and J.D. Slone, "Heavy Metals -
     an Inventory of Existing Conditions," J. Wash. Acad. Sci.,                   _
     Vol. 62, No. 2 (1972).                      "                                 I
                                                                                  I

                                                                                  I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
37-  ASTM Manual on Quality; Control of jjaterials, Special Technical
     Publication 15-C, Jan. 1951-


38.  Sommer, S.E., and A.J. Pyzik, "Geochemistry of Middle Chesapeake
     Bay Sediments from Upper Cretaceous to Present," Chesapeake^Sci.,
     Vol. 15, No. 1, p. 39-44, (March 1974).


39-  Cross, F.A., e^__aj.._}  "Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements in a
     Coastal Plain Estuary: Distribution of Mn, Fe and Zn in Sediments,
     Water, and Polychaetous Worms," Chesapeake_Science,  Vol. 11, No. 4,
     p. 221-234 (Dec. 1970).


hO.  Holmes, C.W., et al., "Migration and Redistributi .->u of Zn and
     Cd  in Marine Estuarine Systems," Environmental Science and
     Technology, Vol. 8, No. 3,  pp. 255-259 (March 197*0.


41.  Singer, P.C. (ed), Trace Metals and Met,al Organic Interactions
     in Natural Waters, Ann Arbor Science, Michigan (1973)•


42,  Walter, L.J., Jr., "Transfer of Heavy Metal Pollutants  from
     Lake Erie Bottom Sediments  to the Overlying Water,"   Water
     Resources Center, Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio (1974).


43.  Chesapeake Bilogical Laboratory,  "A Biological Inventory of
     Baltimore Harbor," Natural  Resources Institute, Univ. of Md.,
     N.R.I. Ref. No. 71-76 (Sept. 1971).


44.  Neilson, B.J, "A Water Quality Study of the Elizabeth River:
     The Effects of the Army Base and Lambert Point STP Effluents,"
     Special Report No. 75 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean
     Engineering, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester
     Point, Virginia (May 1975).


45.  Drifmeyer, J.E. and W. E. Odum, "Lead, Zinc and Manganese, in
     Dredge-spoil Pond Ecosystems," Environmental Conservation,
     Vol. 2, No. 1 (Spring 1975).


46.  Richardson, M.D., "Benthic  Macroinvertebrate Communities as
     Indicators of Pollution in  the Elizabeth River, Hampton Roads,
     Virginia," a thesis for the faculty of the school of Marine
     Science, William and Mary (1971).


47. Boesch, D.F., "Distribution  and Structure of Benthic Communities
     in the Hampton Roads Area,  Virginia," a technical ecological report
     to the Hampton Roads Sanitation District Commission, special
     report No. 15, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, (April 1971).

-------
                                                                                 I
U8.  Bender, M.E.,  "Physical,  Chemical and Biological Features  of                I
     the Tidal James," Final Report for Task VII-13,  Virginia Institute
     of Marine Science (April 1972).                                              •

^9.  "Lower James River Basin Comprehensive Water Quality Management
     Study," prepared by Engineering  Science Co.  for  the Virginia
     State Water Control Board,  Planning Bulletin No. 217-B (July 197*0 .          I

50.  Huggett, R.J.,  et al.,  "A Report on the Concentration,  Distribution
     and Impact of Certain Trace Metals from Sewage Treatment Plants             •
     on the Chesapeake Bay," CRC Publication No.  31,  VIMS Contribution           |
     No. 628 (June 197*)-) .

51.  Frazier, John M., "The Dynamics  of Metals in the American                   I
     Oyster, Crassostrea virginica. 1. Seasonal Effects," Chesapeake
     Science, Vol.  16, No. 3,,  p. 162-171 (Sept. 1975).

52.  "James River Comprehensive  Water Quality Management Study,"                  •
     Vol. VII- 8 & 9 Section A - Existing Data Base for Industrial
     Wastewater Management Systems, Commonwealth  of Virginia Water               •
     Control Board (May 1973).                                                    |

53-  Ballinger, D.G., and G.D. McKee, "Chemical Characterization                 •
     of Bottom Sediments," Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation,         I
     Vol. U3, No. 2, p. 216^227  (February 1971).*

5*)-.  Carmody, D.J.,  Pearce,  J.B., and W.E. Yasso, "Trace Metals                  I
     in Sediments of the New York Bight," Mar. Poll.  Bull.,  M9),                •
     p. 132-135 (1973).

55-  Frazier, J.M.,  "Current Status of Knowledge  of the Biological               |
     Effects of Heavy Metals in  the Chesapeake Bay,"  Chesapeake Science,
     13 (Supplement), p 51^9-53  (1972).                                          _
                                                                                 I

                                                                                 I

                                                                                 I

                                                                                 I

                                                                                 I

                                                                                 I

-------