EPA/833/R-93/002
                   APPENDIX I

                     of the

          ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL OF

              BIOCONCENTRATABLE

        CONTAMINANTS IN SURFACE WATERS:
      FIELD EVALUATION  OF RESIDUE
         PREDICTION  PROCEDURES
                   1993 Draft
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Office of Research and Development
                    Office of Water

-------
               FIELD EVALUATION OF RESIDUE PREDICTION PROCEDURES

                             USED IN ERA'S GUIDANCE;

        "ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL OF BIOCONCENTRATABLE CONTAMINANTS

                               IN SURFACE WATERS":




                            THE FIVE MILE CREEK STUDY




                             1993 DRAFT FOR APPENDIX I
                                Lawrence P. Burkhard1
                               Barbara Riedel Sheedy2'3
                                 Nelson A. Thomas1
V                        1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(^                      Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth

-------
      On March 29, 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the
availability of the draft guidance document "Assessment and Control of
Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Waters" for review and comment in a
Federal Register notice (56 FR 13150).  This 1991 draft bioconcentration factor
guidance (the "draft BCF [guidance]") did not contain Appendix I, the field evaluation
studies of the residue prediction procedures.

      This draft Appendix I contains two field evaluation reports: the Louisiana study
and the Five Mile Creek Study. The two draft reports contain summary tables of the
field data, such as in-stream concentrations of the chemicals, tissue residues, and
predicted vs. measured tissue concentrations.  Each study is followed by an appendix
of individual or raw field data, which were included for comment and review. The final
BCF guidance will not include the two field data appendices, so the reviewer is
encouraged to keep these sections for future reference.

      At this time EPA is not asking for additional comments on the entire contents of
the 1991 guidance document, since EPA requested comments on the draft BCF (56
FR 13150) and extended the comment period to July 26, 1991 (56 FR 26411).
Comments on the draft BCF were taken into account when EPA applied its
methodology in the Great Lakes proposal. For instance, on page II-5 of the draft BCF,
EPA recommended use of BCF values calculated from the log P values preferentially
over measured BCF values. Commenters suggested that measured BAFs and BCFs
take precedence over calculated values, and EPA modified the BCF approach used in
the Great Lakes proposal (58 FR 20802) to reflect these comments.  Finally, EPA will
evaluate comments received on the bioaccumulation methodology in the Water Quality
Guidance for the Great Lakes System before preparing the  final BCF document.

-------
      Common and Scientific Names of Some of the Organisms
                    Collected in Field Studies
    Common Name
   Scientific Name8
Sea Catfish (hardhead)
Gulf Menhaden
Blue Crab
Crayfish
Banana Fish (Lady Fish)
Marsh Killifish
Cockahoo (mummy chog)
Channel catfish
Butterfish (spot)
Sunfish
Atlantic Croaker
Striped Mullet
Fiddler Crab
/\rius filus
Brevoortia patronus
Callinectes sapidus
Decaooda so.
Elopes saurus
Fundulus confluentus
Fundulus heteroclitus
Ictalarus punctatusb
Leiostomus xanthurus
Leoomis so.
Micropogan undulus
Mugil cephalus
Uca pugilator
Scientific names of fishes taken from: Common and Scientific Names of North
American Fishes. American Fisheries Society. 1970.
Spelled I. puctatus [sic] in the report

-------
                                   Foreword

      Recent advances in environmental sciences, analytical chemistry, and
toxicology have permitted the development of a systematic and scientifically defensible
procedure for identifying, assessing, and controlling chemicals which form residues in
fish and/or shellfish.  This procedure is descrbied in the guidance document
"Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Waters" and
is applicable to nonpolar organic chemicals which bioconcentrate and/or
bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms.

      Because the regulatory application of this procedure will direct regulatory
decisions on the control of pollutants, EPA has designed and implemented field
studies to establish the validity of the approach.  These field validation studies are
designed to show that the procedures can reliably use effluent data to identify the
presence and quantify the concentration of bioconcentratable contaminants in
receiving water organisms.  The reasonable demonstration of accurate predictions in
several situations will be considered to establish this correlation.

      This report presents results of the first field study conducted on a freshwater
site to determine how well tissue residue concentrations can be predicted in field
discharge situations using the guidance residue prediction procedure. Further work on
the samples from this field site are planned and these efforts will examine a much
larger set of chemicals.  A report on the field study for another site will be published
separately.

                                   Disclaimer

      This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency policy and approved for publication.  Mention of trade  names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

      Technical assistance was provided by Donald Mount,  Correne Jenson, Phillip
Marquis, Christine Soderberg, Jennifer Johnson and Kevin Hogfeldt (AScI Corporation,
Duluth, MM), Mark Yancey, Dale Foster, Laura Hernon-Kenny, Terry Nobles, Steve
Summer, William Clement, Dennis Mclntyre (Battelle Laboratories-Columbus Division),
Mick DeGraeve, John Shuey, Dennis McCauley (Battelle Laboratories-Great Lakes
Division), and Michael Griffin (State of Alabama). The clerical support of Debra
Williams (AScI Corporation, Duluth, MN) is gratefully acknowledged.

      Financial support for this study was provided by the US-EPA Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, Permit Division.

-------
                                   Contents
                                                                         Page No.

Foreword                                                                     2

Disclaimer                                                                    2

Acknowledgements                                                            2

Contents                                                                     3

Figures                                                                      5

Tables                                                                       6

Executive Summary                                                          10

Introduction                                                                  11
      1.1    Site Study Objective                                              11
      1.2    Constraints                                                      12

Site Selection and Description                                                 13
      2.1    Description of Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama                13
      2.2    Screening of the Effluents                                         15
      2.3    Selection of Target Chemicals                                     15

Methods                                                                    17
      3.1    Site Study Plan                                                  17
      3.2    Estimation of Residues in Aquatic Organisms                        17
            3.2.1  Prediction of Bioconcentration Factors
                        for Aquatic Organisms                                17
            3.2.2  Prediction of Bioaccumulation Factors
                        for Aquatic Organisms                                18
            3.2.3  Prediction of Residues in Aquatic Organisms                  18
            3.2.4  Metabolism and Prediction of Residues                       18
                        in  Aquatic Organisms
      3.3    Sampling Procedures                                             19
            3.3.1  Field Sampling Procedures for Effluents                      19
            3.3.2  Field Sampling Procedures for Ambient
                        Grab Samples                                       19
            3.3.3  Field Procedures for Measuring Stream Flows                 19
            3.3.4  Field Procedures for Sampling Indigenous Organisms          19
            3.3.5  Field Procedures for the Caged Ictalarus puctatus
                        Exposures                                           20

-------
      3.4   Analytical Procedures
            3.4.1  Effluent Analysis Procedure
            3.4.2  Weekly Effluent Composite Analysis
            3.4.3  Ambient Water Samples Analysis
            3.4.4  Tissue Analysis

Results and Discussion
      4.1   Expected Tissue Residues Trends
      4.2   Flow Data for Five Mile Creek and Effluents
      4.3   In-Stream Effluent Concentrations
      4.4   Analysis of the Weekly Effluent Composites for the Five Target
            Chemicals
      4.5   In-Stream Chemical Concentrations for the Five Target Chemicals
      4.6   Indigenous Organisms
            4.6.1  Tissue Data
            4.6.2  Residue Trends
            4.6.3  Significance Testing of Residues
            4.6.4  Comparison of Predicted and Observed Residues
            4.6.5  Comparison of Measured and Predicted Residues:
                        Error Analysis
      4.7   Caged Organisms
      4.8   Comparison of the Measured and Predicted Tissue Residues:
            Unaddressed Variables

Summary

References

Appendix A: Study Data
21
21
22
22
23

25
25
25
26

31
31
31
32
32
43
44

48
52

53

55

56

57

-------
                                    Figures
                                                                          Page No.
Figure 2-1.   Map of Sampling Stations for Aquatic Organisms,
                  Sediment, and Caged Organisms on Five Mile Creek.          14
Figure 4-1.   Measured and Predicted Flows on Five Mile Creek.                  27
Figure 4-2.   Measured Discharge Flow for Coke Plant 1.                         28
Figure 4-3.   Measured Discharge Flow for Coke Plant 2.                         29
Figure 4-4.   In-Stream Effluent Concentration for Coke Plant 1.                   34
Figure 4-5.   In-Stream Effluent Concentration for Coke Plant 2.                   35
Figure 4-6.   In-Stream Concentration for Biphenyl.                               36
Figure 4-7.   In-Stream Concentration for Phenanthrene.                          37
Figure 4-8.   In-Stream Concentration for Anthracene.                             38
Figure 4-9.   In-Stream Concentration for Fluoranthene                           39
Figure 4-10. In-Stream Concentration for Pyrene.                                40

-------
                                    Tables
                                                                         Page No.
Table 4-1.      Average Predicted Stream Flows, Average Discharge
               Flows, and Average In-Stream Effluent Concentration
               for Two Coking Plants on Five Mile Creek for
               March 26, 1990 - April 26, 1990.                                30

Table 4-2.      Concentration of Target Chemicals in Weekly Effluent
               Composite Samples from Two Coking Plants on Five
               Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama.                              33

Table 4-3.      Grand Mean Daily In-Stream Concentration of the Five
               Target Chemicals for Stations 2 and 3 for Five Mile Creek.         41

Table 4-4.      Average Tissue Residues (ppb) in Two Species of Resident
               Organisms for Five Mile Creek.                                 42

Table 4-5.      Residue Prediction Parameters.                                 45

Table 4-6.      Predicted and Measured Decapoda Tissue Concentrations
               for Five Mile Creek.                                           46

Table 4-7.      Predicted and Measured Lepomis sp. Tissue Concentrations
               for Five Mile Creek.                                           47

Table 4-8.      Confidence Limits for the Predicted Decapoda Tissue
               Concentrations for Five Mile Creek.                             49

Table 4-9.      Confidence Limits for the Predicted Lepomis sp. Tissue
               Concentrations for Five Mile Creek.                             50

Table 4-10.     Average Tissue Residues (ppb) in Caged Ictalarus puctatus
               for Five Mile Creek.                                           52

-------
Appendix A Tables:                                                        Page No.

Table A-1.       Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using
                the Effluent Analytical Procedure:  Coke Plant 1, Fraction 1.       A-1

Table A-2.       Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using
                the Effluent Analytical Procedure:  Coke Plant 1, Fraction 2.       A-3

Table A-3.       Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using
                the Effluent Analytical Procedure:  Coke Plant 2, Fraction 1.      A-10

Table A-4.       Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using
                the Effluent Analytical Procedure:  Coke Plant 2, Fraction 2.      A-11

Table A-5.       Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using
                the Effluent Analytical Procedure:  Coke Plant 2, Fraction 3.      A-12

Table A-6.       Measured and Predicted Stream Flows at Three
                Locations on Five Mile Creek, Jefferson County,
                Alabama.                                                    A-13

Table A-7.       Regression Equations for Predicting Stream Flows
                at Stations 1 and 3 and Predicted Stream Flows with
                95% Confidence and Prediction Intervals for Selected
                Flows for Stations 1 and 3 for Five Mile Creek.                 A-14

Table A-8.       Daily Effluent Flow for Coke Plant  1 and Coke Plant 2.          A-15

Table A-9.       In-stream Effluent Concentrations for Discharges from
                Coke Plants 1 and 2.                                         A-16

Table A-10.     Coke Plant 1 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target
                Analysis on Biphenyl.                                         A-17

Table A-11.     Coke Plant 1 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target
                Analysis on Phenanthrene.                                    A-18

Table A-12.     Coke Plant 1 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target
                Analysis on Anthracene.                                      A-19

Table A-13.     Coke Plant 1 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target
                Analysis on Fluoranthene.                                     A-20

-------
Table A-14.     Coke Plant 1 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target
               Analysis on  Pyrene.                                         A-21

Table A-15.     Coke Plant 2 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target
               Analysis on  Biphenyl.                                        A-22

Table A-16.     Coke Plant 2 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target
               Analysis on  Phenanthrene.                                   A-23

Table A-17.     Coke Plant 2 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target
               Analysis on  Anthracene.                                     A-24

Table A-18.     Coke Plant 2 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target
               Analysis on  Fluoranthene.                                   A-25

Table A-19.     Coke Plant 2 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target
               Analysis on  Pyrene.                                         A-26

Table A-20.     In-Stream Concentration of Biphenyl for Stations 2
               and 3 on Five Mile Creek.                                   A-27

Table A-21.     In-Stream Concentration of Phenanthrene for Stations
               2 and 3 on Five Mile Creek.                                  A-28

Table A-22.     In-Stream Concentration of Anthracene for Stations 2
               and 3 on Five Mile Creek.                                   A-29

Table A-23.     In-Stream Concentration of Fluoranthene for Stations 2
               and 3 on Five Mile Creek.                                   A-30

Table A-24.     In-Stream Concentration of Pyrene for Stations 2 and 3
               on Five Mile Creek.                                         A-31

Table A-25.     Tissue Target Analysis for Decapoda From Four Stations
               on Five Mile Creek, Jefferson County, Alabama.                A-32

Table A-26.     Tissue Target Analysis for Lepomis sp. From Four Stations
               on Five Mile Creek, Jefferson County, Alabama.                A-34

Table A-27.     Blank Concentrations and Surrogate Recoveries for Tissue
               Analysis.                                                   A-36

Table A-28.     Percent Lipid Content  in Tissues From Four Stations on
               Five Mile Creek, Jefferson County, Alabama.                  A-37
                                       8

-------
Table A-29.     Tissue Target Analysis for Ictalarus puctatus From Caged
               Exposures at Five Mile Creek, Jefferson County, Alabama.      A-38

Table A-30.     Ambient Water Samples for Target Chemical Analysis for
               Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama.                       A-39

-------
                              Executive Summary

     This report describes an investigation to determine how well tissue residue
concentrations can be predicted in field discharge situations using the EPA's residue
prediction procedure.  This procedure is used in EPA's guidance document entitled
"Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Waters" to
predict residues in receiving water organisms.

     The study consisted of measuring and predicting tissue residue concentrations
for receiving water organisms for a segment of Five Mile Creek, Birmingham,
Alabama. Two point source discharges, both from coke manufacturing  facilities, were
included in the field site and five chemicals were studied, i.e., biphenyl,  phenanthrene,
anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene.  Effluent composites, receiving water organisms
(Decapoda and Lepomis sp.), and flow data were collected in April, 1990.  Data from
these samples were used to predict receiving water tissue concentrations and then, to
evaluate the guidance residue prediction procedure.

     This investigation demonstrated that tissue residues in field discharge situations
can be predicted within a factor of 3 for "non-metabolizable" chemicals  using the
guidance residue prediction procedure.  When metabolism is important, residues
predicted using the guidance procedure will be too large. In these cases, the
guidance document recommends the  use  of measured
bioconcentration/bioaccumulation factors which  includes the effects of metabolism  in
the residue prediction.

     Results from this investigation and from another yet to be completed will
demonstrate the predictive ability of EPA's residue prediction procedures.
                                       10

-------
                                INTRODUCTION

     The Environmental Protection Agency has developed a guidance procedure,
"Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Chemicals in Surface Waters" (1), to
control bioconcentratable chemicals in effluents.  This guidance consists of a number
of technical procedures that have been developed during the past several years. The
principle components of the guidance approach are: 1) analytical procedures for
detecting and identifying bioconcentratable chemicals in effluents or receiving water
organisms, 2) prediction of the bioconcentration factor (BCF) from the n-octanol water
partition  coefficient (P) using quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR),  3)
prediction of the bioaccumulation factor (BAF) from the chemical's BCF and log P, and
the trophic status of the organism of concern, 4) prediction of residues in aquatic
organisms using the BCF or BAF and concentration of the chemical in the receiving
water, and 5) calculation of allowable ambient water or tissue residue concentrations
for bioconcentratable chemicals based upon human consumption of contaminated fish
and shellfish. The guidance protocol combines these procedures to arrive at
discharge concentrations for bioconcentratable chemicals which will limit residues in
aquatic organisms used for human consumption.

     The guidance approach provides two alternatives for assessing point source
discharges for bioconcentratable chemicals, the effluent and tissue alternatives
(component 1). With these alternatives, either effluent from a point source discharge
or indigenous receiving water organisms are analyzed.  Results from the analytical
methods for the both alternatives are listings of bioconcentratable chemicals. These
results are evaluated further using components 2 through  5, to determine if
development of permit limits are  needed for any of the identified bioconcentratable
chemicals.

     With the tissue alternative,  the analytical results provide information for the entire
receiving water since the aquatic organisms provide an integrated assessment of all
point and nonpoint sources of bioconcentratable chemicals.  When an unallowable
tissue residue is found, additional chemical analyses are required to determine the
source(s) of the residue forming  chemical to the receiving water.  In contrast, with the
effluent alternative, point source  discharges are examined individually.  The  inclusion
of both alternatives in the guidance provides greater flexibility and usefulness for the
guidance approach since neither alternative by itself is useful in all permitting
situations.

1.1  Site Study Objective

     The objective of the site study was to determine how well tissue residue
concentrations can be predicted  in field discharge situations using the guidance
procedures, i.e., components 2, 3, and 4.
                                       11

-------
     This validation effort was not designed to verify a) the accuracy of the allowable
tissue residues, b) the analytical procedures associated with the tissue alternative, c)
the prediction of residues where exposure is intermittent, d) the prediction of residues
where exposure is difficult to estimate, or e) the derivation of acceptable human
uptake levels.

1.2  Constraints

     In order to predict residues in receiving water organisms, the concentration of
the chemicals in the receiving water must be known and these concentrations (in the
receiving water) must be relatively constant for a 20 to 40 day period.  Without these
conditions, successful evaluation of the field data will be nearly impossible since the
indigenous organisms will never come to steady-state conditions with the receiving
water.

     These characteristics, in general, are associated with sites which: a) have
reasonably simple hydrodynamics so that receiving water concentrations can be
determined and/or calculated, b) have short hydraulic resident times so that fate and
halflife considerations are minimized for the discharged chemicals, c) have effluent
discharges with relatively constant concentrations of bioconcentratable chemicals, and
d) have limited sources of the bioconcentratable chemicals under investigation.
                                        12

-------
                     SITE SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION

     This report details the validation study performed on Five Mile Creek,
Birmingham, Alabama in April, 1990.  This field site was selected because a) the
effluent upon assessment on several different occasions with the effluent alternative
analytical method contained bioconcentratable chemicals in relatively constant
concentrations, b) the flow regime of the site was reasonably simple and had short
flow times, and c) native populations of fish and shellfish were available. Furthermore,
preliminary calculations suggested that concentrations of the chemicals in the effluents
after dilution in the receiving water were high enough to result in measurable tissue
residues in the indigenous organisms.

2.1  Description of Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama

     The site selected for the validation study was a 5.3 km stretch of Five Mile Creek
near Birmingham, Alabama (Figure 2-1). Within the study area, Five Mile Creek
receives discharges from two coking operations, Coke Plant 1 and Coke Plant 2, and
runoff from a railroad maintenance facility  and  Coke Plant 1 grounds. Five Mile Creek
originates within a residential and commercial area of Birmingham.  A United States
Geological Service (USGS) stream flow gauge was located 14.4 km downstream of
the study site at Mineral Springs Republic Road (Figure 2-1).

     Indigenous organisms were sampled at four stations in this study. Station 1 was
located immediately upstream of the Coke Plant 1 effluent discharge. This station was
a small pool located behind a low head dam. The Coke Plant 1 discharge pipe
entered Five Mile Creek at the base of the dam downstream from this site. Because
of the dam, this station was deeper (over 3 m deep) and wider than the other three
stations.  140  m upstream of Station 1 on  the Coke Plant 1  side of Five Mile Creek, a
drainage ditch for runoff from the parking lots and grounds of Coke Plant 1 entered
the reservoir behind the  dam. 40 m upstream  of Station 1  on the Coke Plant 1 creek
bank, the water intake for Coke Plant 1  was located.  Under typical flow conditions,
water flowed over the dam, across its entire width, at a level of 2.5 to 5.0 cm above
the dam, and this dam was approximately 15 m in width. Large rocks (rip-rap) lined
the edges of the pool, and the bottom was not visible from shore.  Organic sediments
were scarce; the bottom substrate consisted primarily of sand or gravel.

     Station 2 was located 1.3 km downstream from the Coke Plant 1  effluent
discharge  and immediately upstream of the Coke  Plant 2 discharge.  The creek was
nearly 9 m wide at this point, and depth ranged from  relatively shallow on one side to
approximately 1.5 m on the other. At this  site, the bottom consisted  of bedrock with
large rocks scattered throughout the creek. A  fine layer of white sediment lined all
substrates, and any disturbance caused the white, chalky substance to increase
turbidity in the creek. This substance was most likely the result of runoff from a
nearby limestone quarry.


                                       13

-------

     0)
     s
     
     E
    8


    ?
    cd
   a-
   to
 g
 a
 O)

II

-------
     Station 3 was located at the US 31 bridge, 3.2 km downstream from the Coke
Plant 1 effluent discharge and 1.8 km downstream from the Coke Plant 2 effluent
discharge.  The stream was 9 m  wide at this point and 0.3 to 1.3 m deep. The bottom
consisted of bedrock, with many large scattered rocks. The sediments were limited to
a gravel substrate with little organic material.

     Station 4 was located in an isolated wooded area 5.3 km downstream from the
Coke Plant 1 effluent discharge and 3.9 km downstream from the Coke Plant 2
effluent discharge.  The creek bottom consisted of large boulders on a bedrock sheet,
with sandy substrate material and organic sediments.  The creek was about 4.6 m
wide and ranged in depth from 0.3 to 1.8 m.

     In addition to Stations 1, 2,  3, and 4, six ambient water sampling locations were
used in the study.  Ambient (station) 1 was located at the site of the caged Ictalarus
puctatus  exposure  at Station 1.  Ambient 2 was located 40 m upstream of Station 1 at
the water intake for Coke Plant 1 and downstream of the runoff ditch for Coke  Plant 1
grounds on the Coke Plant 1 side of the creek.  Ambient 3 was located far upstream
of the Station 1 at Springdale Road (see Figure 2-1).  Ambient 4 was the runoff ditch
itself from Coke Plant  1. Ambient 5 was located in the reservoir upstream of the dam
and upstream of the runoff ditch for Coke Plant 1 grounds on the Coke Plant 1 side of
the creek.  Ambient 6  was the same as Station  3, above.

2.2  Screening of the Effluents

     Prior to as well as during the site study, the effluent analytical method was
performed on composites and grab effluent samples.  These samples consisted of
a) pre-site study grab samples, and b) samples from the composites taking during the
fourth week of the study.  This method detected numerous chemicals:  polycyclic
aromatic  hydrocarbons (PAHs), alkyl PAHs, and some hetero-PAHs.  All of the
effluents  contained the same types  of chemicals, but the concentrations in the
effluents  were quite different between the two dischargers. Data illustrative of  all
samples are reported in Appendix A (Tables A-1 through A-5) for grab samples from
Coke Plant 1  (collected on 2/9/90), and  Coke Plant 2 (collected on 2/28/90) during  the
pre-site study time  period.  (For Coke Plant 1, data from fraction three are not
presented since interferences from the hydrocarbon "hump" during the GC/MS
analysis prevent successful analysis.)

2.3  Selection of Target Chemicals

     For this study, five chemicals, identified with the effluent analytical procedure,
were chosen:  biphenyl, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene.  These
chemicals were selected in part since they were typical of all of the chemicals from the
coke plant effluents. Their calculated BCFs ranged from 608 to  3240, and these
chemicals were available in both  natural and stable isotope form, i.e., deuterated.

                                       15

-------
With the stable isotopes, recoveries for each chemical through the analytical
procedure can be determined for each sample.

     Selection of the PAHs for this study did cause some concern since PAHs are
metabolized by some aquatic species (7). Metabolism of the chemicals would cause
the predicted  residues to be too high in comparison to the measured residues.
However, James (7) has reported that invertebrates metabolize PAHs very slowly, if at
all, and that vertebrates metabolize PAHs easily. Consequently, it was concluded that
if a successful validation was to be performed, the  study design must include both
invertebrates and vertebrates. By sampling both phylum of organisms, the importance
of metabolism could possibly be detected as well as addressed.
                                      16

-------
                                  METHODS
3.1  Site Study Plan

     Measured residue levels in indigenous organisms and caged organisms placed
in situ from Five Mile Creek were compared to residue concentrations predicted for
these organisms.

     Residue levels in the organisms were predicted by estimating the in-stream
chemical concentrations and using this data in the residue prediction procedure.  In-
stream chemical concentrations were determined by collecting and analyzing four,
seven-day effluent composites taken consecutively over a 28 day period. During this
28 day period, stream and discharge flows were measured. With the flow and
concentration data, the  receiving water concentrations were estimated for each
chemical. Subsequently, these concentrations were used in the residue prediction
procedure.

      Indigenous and caged organisms were collected at the end of the 28 day period
at sampling stations above and below the discharges. Residue analyses and lipid
content determinations for the resident and caged organisms were performed.

     Replicate chemical analyses were performed on the weekly effluent composites
by two analytical laboratories. These analyses included both inter- and intra-
replication for each weekly composite.  For the organism samples, duplicate analyses
were performed on selected samples by each laboratory when enough tissue mass
was available. Four replicate samples  for each organism collected were assembled in
the field at each sampling station and each laboratory received and analyzed two of
the four replicates.

3.2  Estimation of Residues in Aquatic Organisms

     Only a brief description of the residues prediction technique is presented here.
The reader is referred to EPA 1991 (1) for further details.

3.2.1      Prediction of Bioconcentration Factors for Aquatic Organisms

     Bioconcentration factors for aquatic organisms are estimated using the multi-
species log BCF-log P correlation developed by Veith and Kosian (2). This correlation
is:
             log BCF = 0.79 log P - 0.40       n = 112    r2 = 0.86

     This correlation, derived from a data set consisting of 122 BCF values for 13
freshwater and marine species, is typical of all log BCF-log P correlations (3). The
above equation has 95% prediction intervals (note, confidence intervals are much
                                      17

-------
smaller) of approximately one order of magnitude, and the predicted BCF values are
for organisms with 7.6% lipid content.

     The predicted BCF values must be corrected to the appropriate lipid content
before prediction of the tissue residues since numerous fishes and shellfishes have
lipid contents differing from 7.6%.  The BCF is directly proportional to lipid content,
and corrections for lipid content are done using a simple proportionality.

3.2.2      Prediction of Bloaccumulation Factors for Aquatic Organisms

     Bioaccumulation factors are derived by "adjusting" the BCF using a food chain
multiplier (FM) for the organism of concern (1).  In equation form,

                                BAF = FM * BCF

The FM is dependent upon the log P of the chemical and  the structure of the
organism's food chain (4-6).

     In this site study, the FMs for all of the chemicals under investigation are equal
to 1.0 due to their relatively low log P values and consequently, the BAF and BCF are
equal for this site study. For different chemicals, readers should consult EPA 1991 (1)
to obtain the appropriate FM  value.

3.2.3      Prediction of Residues in Aquatic Organisms

     The tissue residues for  a  chemical are calculated by multiplying the BAF, the
product of the BCF and FM terms, after correction for lipid content, by the
concentration of the chemical in the water.  In equation form,

                    [Fish] m BAF * [Water] = BCF * FM * [Water]

where [Fish] and [Water] are the concentration of the chemical in the aquatic
organism, and in the  receiving water, respectively.  Residue concentrations predicted
using the  BCF or BAF are for steady state conditions which implies that the
concentration of a chemical in the receiving water is at steady state also.

3.2.4      Metabolism and Prediction of Residues in Aquatic Organisms

     The tissue residues predicted using the procedure outlined in Sections 3.2.1
through 3.2.3 assumes  that metabolism in vivo does not occur.  When  metabolism
does occur, the predicted residues will be, in general, larger than those measured in
the  organisms since metabolism of a chemical in vivo reduces the concentration of the
chemical in the organism.
                                      18

-------
     The difference between the actual and predicted tissue residue due to
metabolism is dependent upon the rate of metabolism for each chemical. For
chemicals with slow rates of metabolism, the differences between the predicted and
measured tissue residues will be small, and for chemicals with fast rates of
metabolism, the differences between the predicted and measured tissue residues will
be large.

3.3  Sampling Procedures

3.3.1      Field Sampling Procedures for Effluents

     A series of four, seven-day composite effluent samples from both Coke Plant 1
and Coke Plant 2 were collected and sample collection was initiated on March  26 and
27, 1990, respectively.  Samples were collected in an iced ISCO sampler equipped
with teflon tubing and a glass collection vessel. The samplers were inspected  every
other day, at which time the ice was replenished and the effluent samples were
removed and taken to refrigerated storage. At the end of each seven-day period, the
individual 48-hour samples from  each coke plant were composited and immediately
mixed in  a Nalgene® carboy.  Replicate four liter subsamples were drawn from the
two seven-day composite samples, put on ice, and shipped to the analytical
laboratories.  The last seven-day composite samples were collected on April 23rd at
Coke Plant 1  and April 24th at Coke Plant 2.

3.3.2      Field Sampling Procedures for Ambient Grab Samples

     Ambient water samples were collected from  Five Mile Creek on December 4,
1990.  Two 4 liter grab samples  were collected at six different locations, put on ice,
and shipped to one of the analytical laboratories using overnight delivery.

3.3.3      Field Procedures for Measuring Stream Flows

     Stream flow at two points on Five Mile Creek were measured at various times
during the study by measuring stream velocity and depth at 30 cm (1 foot) intervals
across the creek. Total stream flow was calculated by summing the surface area
velocities across the stream.  Stream flows were measured at the US 31 overpass
(Station 3) and approximately 50 meters downstream of Station 1 (near Coke Plant 1).
These sites were selected to provide an approximation  of stream flow below the two
discharges included in this study. USGS flow data from Five Mile Creek at Republic
(14.4 km  downstream from the US  31 overpass) were acquired for the time period of
the study.

3.3.4      Field Procedures for Sampling Indigenous Organisms
                                      19

-------
     Resident organisms were collected on April 25-26 at four stations by
electroshocking the creek for approximately one hour at each site.  Shocked
organisms were collected using dip nets and were placed into a cooler containing ice.
Separate coolers were used during field sampling for each station to prevent mixing of
the organism from the different stations. After collection of the organisms, four
replicate samples (when possible) containing a minimum of 30 grams of body mass
were assembled for each type of organism. The only criteria for compositing the
organisms was the minimum amount of mass.  Compositing based on sex, size,
reproductive state, age of the organism, etc. was not done.  The number of organisms
per sample varied from  1 to 6 organisms.  Lepomis sp. (sunfish) and Decapoda
(crayfish) samples were assembled for all stations.  Campostoma sp., Hybopsis sp.,
and Notropis hudsonius samples were assembled for some of the stations. All tissue
samples were  placed in methanol-rinsed aluminum foil, double wrapped, and labeled.
The samples were immediately frozen in a cooler filled with dry ice, and were held
frozen during transport and storage until analysis.

     For Station 1, the Lepomis sp. were collected from the Coke Plant 1 side of the
creek in an area extending from the dam to 50 meters upstream of the dam.  The
Decapoda were collected at the base (upstream side) of the dam on the gradual drop
off which leads into the deeper water behind the dam.

     For Stations 2, 3, and 4, all organisms were collected in and around the rip-rap
and rubble on  both edges of the creek. Approximately 25 meters of shoreline on both
sides were sampled.  None of the organisms were collected from open pools or basins
for these stations.

3.3.5      Field Procedures for the Caged Ictalarus puctatus Exposures

     Caged Ictalarus puctatus  exposures were performed during this study by placing
the caged organisms into Five Mile Creek at Stations 1 and  3. These cages were
constructed out of 20 L Nalgene® carboys as described in Jones and Sloan (8).

     At Station 1, four cages were placed on the Coke Plant 1 side of the creek in
1 m of water in a rectangular area ranging from 1 to 2 m from the dam and 1 to 2 m
from the shore.  At Station 3, four cages were placed in approximately 1  m of water
at the 1/3 point of the stream from the Coke Plant 1  side of the creek.

     Ictalarus  puctatus were obtained from a commercial catfish supplier, Pettit
Farms, Dlountsville, Alabama and were 4-6 grams in size. On April 5th, eight cages
containing 20 to 30 fish each were placed  into Five Mile Creek at Stations 1 and 3.  At
this time, a group of Ictalarus puctatus was retained for background analysis.  These
cages were monitored and fed  daily with commercial catfish food obtained from Pettit
Farms.  A fair  amount of daily mortality was noted, and on each day, all dead fish
were removed. On April 15th, all surviving fish died in all cages.

                                      20

-------
     New fish were obtained from Pettit Farms and the eight cages were put back
into Five Mile Creek on April 18th at Stations 1 and 3. These cages were monitored
and fed daily.  On April 28th, the Station 1 cages were removed from the stream.
Because of increased stream turbidity and flow due to a overnight storm, the Station 3
cages were impossible to locate on the 28th of April.  On May 2nd, these cages were
found and removed from the stream.

     For the background and the Station 1 Ictalarus puctatus (taken from  the cages
on April 28th), two and four replicate samples containing a minimum of 30 grams of
body mass were prepared, respectively. These tissue samples were placed in
methanol-rinsed aluminum foil,  double wrapped, and labeled.  The samples were
immediately frozen in a cooler filled with dry ice, and were  held frozen during transport
and storage until analysis.

     For the Station 3 Ictalarus puctatus (taken from the cages on May 2nd), all of the
organisms were wrapped together in methanol-rinsed aluminum foil  and were frozen
and shipped to Battelle-Great Lakes on dry-ice. Upon arrival, this sample  was partially
thawed and then subdivided into four samples consisting of a minimum of  30 grams
per sample.  These subsamples were placed in methanol-rinsed aluminum foil, double
wrapped, and labeled. The samples were frozen and were held frozen during
transport and storage until analysis.

3.4  Analytical Procedures

3.4.1      Effluent Analysis Procedure

     Only a brief account of the procedure for detecting and identifying
bioconcentratable chemicals in  effluents will be present here.  Readers are referred to
Appendix B of EPA's guidance  (1) for further details.

     A 10 L effluent sample is  spiked with three surrogate compounds, d10-biphenyl,
13C6-1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene, and 13Ce-hexachlorobenzene, and extracted with
hexane.  The hexane extract is subsequently cleaned up using sulfuric acid, and
concentrated to a volume of 0.50 mL The extract  is chromatographed using reverse
phase HPLC, and three fractions are collected. The fractions are extracted,
concentrated to 0.10 mL, and spiked with the internal standard, d12-chrysene. The
fraction extracts are analyzed using capillary gas chromatography with  full scan
electron impact ionization mass spectrometry (GC/MS).

     Each chromatographic peak in the GC/MS chromatograms is quantified using the
response factor calculated from its appropriate surrogate.  For fractions one, two, and
three, the quantification surrogates are d10-biphenyl, 3Ce-1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene,
and 13C6-hexachlorobenzene, respectively.
                                      21

-------
     For each fraction, all chromatographic peaks are reverse-searched against
(compared with) the Chemicals of Highest Concern (CMC) mass spectral library.
Those chemicals not identified with the CHC search with effluent concentrations above
100 ng/L, are then reversed-searched against the EPA/NIH/NBS mass spectral library.
Peaks with fits of greater than 70% are considered tentatively identified.  For each
tentatively identified component, a list of the best mass spectral library identifications
(up to a total of ten identifications) is  reported along with the percent fit values.

3.4.2      Weekly Effluent Composite Analysis

     The weekly effluent composite samples were analyzed at two different
laboratories in this study, Battelle-Columbus and Environmental Research Laboratory-
Duluth (ERL-D). The analytical methods used at both laboratories were  very similar,
and the concentrations reported for the five target chemicals were nearly identical for
the two laboratories.  Comparable data between the two laboratories was obtained by
the use of an internal standard quantification method, deuterated surrogates for
determining compound recoveries, and reporting of the data after recovery correction.
The chemicals used for recovery correction were the deuterated form of  the target
chemical, e.g., for biphenyl, recovery corrections were based upon d10-biphenyl.

     The analytical procedures for both labs consisted of spiking a known volume of
effluent, i.e., 1 L or 900 ml, with d10-biphenyl, d10-phenanthrene, d10-anthracene, d10-
fluoranthene (Battelle only), and d10-pyrene at concentrations similar to the target
chemical concentrations.  In general,  for the effluents from Coke Plants 1 and 2, spike
concentrations of 0.1 and 1.0 ug/L were used, respectively.  The spiked  effluents were
extracted three times using hexane, 60 mL per extraction.  The hexane was dried
using sodium sulfate, concentrated using a Kudema-Danish concentrator (KD) to ca.
10 mL and reduced to 1.0 or 0.10 using a gentle stream of nitrogen.  These extracts
were spiked with the internal standard, d12-chrysene, at a 10 mg/L concentration.

     GC/MS analysis using selected  ion monitoring (SIM)  was performed, and
quantifications were performed using  an internal standard method with a 4 or 5 point
calibration curve using the M+ ion for  each  chemical. Quantification  standards
contained the internal standard d12-chrysene and both the deuterated and native forms
of the five target chemicals except for ERL-D's standards which did not contain d10-
fluoranthene. For biphenyl, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene and pyrene,
recovery corrections were made using the recoveries of d10-biphenyl, d10-
phenanthrene, d10-anthracene, d10-fluoranthene (Battelle) or d10-pyrene (ERL-D), and
d10-pyrene, respectively.

3.4.3      Ambient Water Samples Analysis

     Ambient water samples were analyzed at ERL-D with the same procedure used
for the weekly effluent composite samples, see Section 3.3.


                                      22

-------
3.4.4     Tissue Analysis

     Tissue samples were analyzed at two different laboratories in this study, Battelle-
Columbus and ERL-D.  As with the procedures used for the analysis of weekly effluent
composites, the analytical methods used at both  laboratories were very similar and the
concentrations of the five target chemicals were not significantly different between the
two laboratories. Comparable data was obtained due to the use of appropriate
analytical techniques as described in Section 3.4.2.

     Battelle:  The thawed whole organisms were finely chopped with a Hobart
mincer, and a 20-gram  aliquot of tissue was transferred to a centrifuge bottle
containing magnesium sulfate and methylene chloride.  The tissue was spiked with the
deuterated compounds used for the effluent analyses and extracted with a Polytron*
tissue homogenizer for two minutes. The extract was then transferred to an alumina
column, and the homogenate was extracted twice more by shaking with  additional
methylene chloride.  Each extract was passed through the alumina column, and the
methylene chloride eluate was concentrated by using a Kuderna-Danish (K-D)
concentrator to a volume of 2.0 ml.

     One ml_ of the concentrated extract was injected onto a gel  permeation
chromatograph (GPC) to remove lipids.  The collected fraction was concentrated to
about 10 ml by K-D, exchanged to hexane, and  reduced to 100 (iL by natural
evaporation. The prepared samples were analyzed  using the GC/MS procedures
used for the effluent analysis.

     Lipid contents were determined by extracting known amount of tissue (1 to 2
grams) with methylene chloride, evaporating the solvent, placing the extract into an
oven at 130°C for 60 minutes, and after cooling, weighing the extract. Lipid content
was calculated by dividing the extracted mass by the mass of the extract tissue.

     ERL-Duluth:  The frozen whole organisms, consisting of one to six animals per
sample, were finely chopped and mixed together using a Waring blender.  A 20-gram
aliquot of tissue was mixed with sodium sulfate, spiked with the deuterated
compounds used for the effluent analyses, and extracted using methylene
chloride:hexane (1:1) with a Soxhlet extractor.  The extract was concentrated to 10 ml
using a K-D concentrator and then, to dryness with a gentle stream of nitrogen gas.
The K-D lower tubes with extract were weighed and then diluted with methylene
chloride for GPC to remove the lipids. After GPC, the extract was concentrated and
subjected to silica gel chromatography to remove cholesterol-like compounds. The
extract was concentrated to  a volume less than 1 ml and spiked with 
-------
     The lipid content for each analysis was determined by dividing the iipid mass
measured during the analysis by the tissue sample mass placed into the Soxhlet
extractor.
                                       24

-------
                         RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1  Expected Tissue Residues Trends

     Since the technique used for predicting residues in aquatic organisms does not
account for metabolism, the following general statements about the comparison of the
measured and predicted tissue residues for the five PAHs can be made prior to
examination of any of the data.

     a)   Evidence on the metabolic abilities of aquatic invertebrates and vertebrates
          for PAHs suggests that the agreement between the measured and
          observed tissue residues should be better for the Decapoda than for the
          Lepomis sp. organisms collected in the site study.  James (7) has reported
          for aquatic species that invertebrates do not (or very slowly) metabolize
          PAHs, and that vertebrates metabolize PAHs fairly easily.
     b)   The residues predicted for the Lepomis sp. should  be larger than the
          measured residues due to metabolism.  For the Deoapoda, this bias should
          not exist due to  the limited metabolic ability of the organisms.
     c)   Evidence on the relative rates of metabolism for the five chemicals under
          investigation suggest that with increasing size, poorer agreement between
          the measured and predicted tissue residues should exist for the Lepomis
          sp. than for with Decapoda (10). The rate of metabolism for PAHs in
          fishes appears to increase with  increasing size of the molecule (10).

     These general statements assume that the residue prediction technique is valid
and provides reliable predictions, and that the metabolic behavior of PAHs in both of
the evaluated species occurs as stated above.

4.2  Flow Data for Five Mile Creek and Effluents

     The stream flows were measured on  Five Mile Creek at Station 3 and 50 meters
downstream of Station 1 five or six times during the study and these values are
reported in Table A-6.  (Note, Tables A-# are in Appendix A of this report.)  Daily flows
for the USGS gauge at Mineral Springs-Republic Road, 14.4 km downstream from
Station 3, were measured, and these flows are  reported in Table A-6 for the length of
the study, March 26 through April 26, 1990. With the measured flows, two regression
models were constructed (y=mx+b) to estimate the stream flows at Stations 1 and 3
from the USGS daily flows at Republic (Table A-7).

     The use of these equations for estimating stream  flows at Stations 1  and 3
assumes that flows at Stations 1  and 3 were directly proportional to the measured
flows at the Republic gauge.  However, this proportionality was not always true.  Other
streams enter Five  Mile Creek between Station 3 and the USGS gauge at Republic,
and due to differences in watershed areas and hydraulics as well as differences in


                                     25

-------
rainfall during storm events, the assumption of direct proportionality was not always
valid. The flows estimated using the derived equations are our best estimate for the
average daily flows for Stations 1 and 3. To obtain some estimate of the error
associated with the predicted flows, confidence and prediction intervals for the
estimated flows were determined using the regression statistics for both equations.  In
Table A-7, the estimated flow and the 95% confidence and prediction intervals for
measured flows of 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.00,  and 2.25 m3/s for both Stations 1 and
3 are reported. The 95% prediction intervals for the estimated flows ranged from ±24
to ±42% and ±25 to ±39% of the estimated flows at Stations 1 and 3, respectively.

     In Figure 4-1, the estimated and measured daily flows have been plotted for the
time period of the study.  During the time period of the site study, daily flows
decreased by approximately a factor of 2 and short term increases in flow due to
storm events were observed five or six times.  The average daily stream flows for
Stations 1 and 3, computed from the estimated flows, were 0.748 and 0.981 m3/s with
coefficients of variation of 13.7% and 10.9%, respectively (Tables 4-1 and A-6).

     The daily discharge flows for both  dischargers are reported in Table A-8 and  are
plotted in  Figures 4-2 and 4-3 for the time period of the study. These flows were
measured and reported to the State of Alabama by each discharger as part of their
NPDES permit.  In Table 4-1, the flow data are summarized for each discharger.

     For Coke Plant 2, the  average discharge flow and its coefficient of variation were
0.184 m3/s and 8.16%, respectively.  For Coke  Plant 1, the average discharge flow
and its coefficient of variation were 0.00478 ma/s and 42.1%, respectively.  The larger
coefficient of variation for Coke Plant 1 was caused by the stoppage of discharge flow
on 2 days during the site study.

4.3  In-Stream Effluent Concentrations

     In 1983,  Mount et al. (9) performed dye studies on Five Mile Creek to determine
mixing characteristics for the discharges from both coking  operations. For Coke Plant
1, dye studies were performed in February and October of 1983 and complete mixing
of the effluent with Five Mile Creek occurred 762 m and 15m downstream of the
discharge, respectively.  These dye studies were performed with stream flows of 1.95
and 0.292 m3/sec at 500 m  below the discharge and with discharge  flows of 0.008 and
0.009 m3/sec,  respectively.  For Coke Plant 2, one dye study was performed in
October,  1983, and complete mixing of the effluent with Five Mile Creek occurred 457
m downstream of the discharge with stream and discharge flows of 0.527 and 0.120
m3/sec.

     Stations  2 and 3 for this study were 1300 and 1800 m downstream of the
discharge points for Coke Plants 1 and 2, respectively. These distances well exceed
those, i.e., 752 and 457 m,  determined with the dye studies for complete mixing in the


                                       26

-------
o
 
                                                                              3
                                              in
                                              o
                                                                                                       CM

-------
  (0
  o
 O
 u.
 0>
 S>
 (0
 TJ


 I
 U)
 CO
 
-------
CM

i
s
o
O
1
u_
 (D
 S>
 CO
 (A
 cd
CM
O
00

  •
O
                                                              CO
                                                              T~

                                                              o
 O)
 E
                                                                            CM
                                                                            CM


                                                                            O>
                                                                            10
                                                                            *- O
                                                                                o>
                                                                            co O>
                                                                             O)
                                            O

                                            05
                                        U)



                                        CO
                                                                             o
                                                                             CO
                                        CO
                                        CM
                                                                             (D
                                                                             CM
                                                                                           O)
                                                                                           CM

-------
Table 4-1.   Average Predicted Stream Flows, Average Discharge Flows, and
            Average In-Stream Effluent Concentration for Two Coking Plants on Five
            Mile Creek for March 26, 1990 - April 26, 1990.
Average Flows
                      Average
                       (m3/s)
Standard
Deviation
n
      Coefficient
      of Variation
Range
(m3/s)
Station 1a
Station 3
Coke Plant 1 Effluent
Coke Plant 2 Effluent
0.748
0.981
0.00478
0.184
0.102
0.107
0.00201
0.0150
32
32
32
32
                      13.7     0.613-0.979
                      10.9     0.840-1.223
                      42.1    0.00-0.00814
                       8.16    0.149-0.223
In-Stream Effluent Concentration

                      Average
Standard           Coefficient
Deviation     n     of Variation    Range
Station 1 (Station 2)
Station 3
0.644
19.0
0.282
2.80
32
32
43.9
15.8
0.00-1.153
13.9-24.0
* Approximately 50 m downstream of Station 1.
                                       30

-------
creek. These results suggest that the effluents from Coke Plants 1 and 2 are
completely mixed with Five Mile Creek at Stations 2 and 3 for this study, respectively.

      Daily in-stream effluent concentrations for the discharges from Coke Plants 1
and 2, assuming complete mixing, were calculated using the predicted stream and
measured discharge flows for Stations 2 and 3 (Table A-9, Figures 4-4 and 4-5). For
Station 2, flows predicted for 50 m downstream of Station 1 and  measured discharge
flows for Coke Plant 1 were used.  For Station 3, flows predicted for Station 3 and
measured discharge flows for Coke Plant 2 were used.  For both discharges, a
gradual increase in the in-stream effluent concentration occurred during the study
period as illustrated in Figures 4-4 and 4-5. For the effluents from Coke Plants  1 and
2, the coefficients of variation for the  in-stream effluent concentrations were 43.9%
and 15.8% at Stations 2 and 3, respectively (Tables 4-1 and A-9).

4.4   Analysis of the Weekly Effluent Composites for the Five Target Chemicals

      Replicate analyses were performed on each weekly effluent composite for the
five target chemicals. The individual  determinations are reported in Tables A-10
through A-19. In Table 4-2, the average weekly and grand mean concentrations for
the five target chemicals are reported for both effluents for the period of the study.
For each chemical, effluent concentrations were relatively constant over the 4 week
study period for both effluents (Table 4-2).

4.5   In-Stream Chemical Concentrations for the Five Target Chemicals

      The daily in-stream concentrations for each chemical in Five Mile Creek were
computed for Stations 2 and 3 using the estimated daily stream flows, the daily
discharge flows, and the chemical concentrations in the weekly effluent composite
samples  (Tables A-20 through A-24).  The concentrations for biphenyl,  phenanthrene,
anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene are plotted in Figures 4-6,  4-7, 4-8, 4-9, and 4-
10 and are summarized in Table 4-3.

      For all five chemicals, their coefficients of variation for the in-stream chemical
concentrations at both Stations 2 and 3 were approximately 40%, except for biphenyl
at Station 2.  These coefficients of variation include variability due to changes in
discharge and stream flows, to changes in chemical concentrations in the discharge,
and to analytical measurement. Most of the variability in the in-stream chemical
concentrations was due to the large variability in discharge flow from  Coke Plant 1.
The only chemical with substantially larger variability than that observed for the
discharge flow for Coke Plant 1 was biphenyl, and its variability was due largely to
analytical measurement since it was not detected in two of the effluent composite
samples.

4.6   Indigenous Organisms


                                       31

-------
4.6.1  Tissue Data

      Two species of resident organisms, Lepomis sp. and Decapoda, were analyzed
for the five target chemicals by two laboratories.  These results are reported in Tables
A-25, A-26, A-27, and A-28 and are summarized in Table 4-4.

      For the Lepomis sp., inter- and intra-laboratory agreement was good for
phenanthracene, anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene.  However, for biphenyl, there
was a substantial difference in reported residue concentrations between the
laboratories for aH four sampling Stations. Examination of the procedural blanks
performed with these analyses revealed that one laboratory had very high background
concentrations which suggests that the difference in reported residue concentrations
was due to in-house background contamination.  Consequently, all of the biphenyl
tissue data for both resident organisms from this laboratory were not used in the
analysis of the data for the site study.

      For the Decapoda, inter- and intra-laboratory agreement was good for
phenanthracene, anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene.  However, one
Decapodasample, which was analyzed in duplicate, for Station 3 had  residue
concentrations for all five target chemicals which were much higher than the other
replicates samples analyzed for that Station, e.g., for phenanthrene, residue
concentrations of 39.4, 48.1, 64.6, and 2720 u.g/kg were determined.  Because this
one sample was so different from the three replicate samples, we believe that this
sample was an outlier and was not representative of resident organisms for this
Station.  Consequently, in the summary data in Table 4-4 and in the analysis of the
data for the site study, this sample was not included.

4.6.2 Residue Trends

      The average tissue residue concentrations for four of the target chemicals,
biphenyl, anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene, followed the same general trend from
Station 1 to Station 4 for the Lepomis sp. and Decapoda (Table 4-4).  The average
residue levels in the organisms from Station 1  (the reservoir upstream of the Coke
Plant 1 discharge) were relatively low, and at Station 2, which is 1300 m downstream
of the discharge point for Coke Plant 1, the average tissue residues were much higher
than at Station 1. At Station 3, which is 1800 m downstream of the discharge from
Coke Plant 2, the average residues were higher than Station 1 but slightly less than
Station 2.  At Station 4, the average residue concentrations were similar to those
determined for the organisms  from Station 3.

      For the fifth target chemical, phenanthrene, the average residue concentrations
for  Station 1 were much higher than those determined for the other 4 target chemicals.
                                      32

-------
Table 4-2.   Concentration of Target Chemicals in Weekly Effluent Composite Samples from Two
            Coking Plants on Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama.
                                     Concentration in Effluent. poba
                 Weekl   Week 2    Week3   Week 4
       Std.    Coefficient
Avg.   Dev.   of Variation, %
Coke Plant 1 Effluent6

 Biphenyl          0        0         1.88       0.34       0.56 (0.91)     162
 Phenanthrene     16.6      12.7      15.6       15.5       15.1   (1.68)      11.1
 Anthracene        7.26      4.45      6.68       7.22       6.40 (1.33)      20.8
 Fluoranthene      21.1      17.4      21.4       21.4       20.3   (1.95)       9.62
 Pyrene            14.4      12.0      15.7       17.4       14.9   (2.28)      15.3

Coke Plant 2 Effluent0
Biphenyl 0
Phenanthrene 0.02
Anthracene 0.02
Fluoranthene 0.19
Pyrene 0.10
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.23
0.12
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.23
0.12
0.06
0.20
0.02
0.28
0.13
0.04 (0.03)
0.08 (0.08)
0.02 (0.00)
0.23 (0.04)
0.12 (0.01)
71.9
104
0.0
15.8
10.7
a Recovery and blank corrected.
™ TV»A PAH^SNI'tA^i UA|| (A^t f^r tl^A \*t£\A\sl\t f\S\m*\f\f*ttf±f ** r A 4 1*1 A AtfAr^^lA S\f *fc"fc#"w r ArNllj-Nrt+XN. *\r*r*l\if+f\f+
         •                         #     •                   ^         I          4
    Number of replicate analyses performed for weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 2, 2, 4, and 4,
    respectively.
    The reported values for the weekly composites are the average of the replicate analyses.
    Number of replicate analyses performed for weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 4, 4, 6, and 4,
    respectively.
                                           33

-------
   .2?
   Q.


   I
  O
  2

  I
  o

  §
 O

3
2
O)

-------
 CM
 •*-*

 jC
 0-
 0)
 ^
 O
 O
 o

 1
 +m*
 0>
 U
 §
 O
 •*-•
 
-------
0)
g.
CO
2

0)
o
o
E
CO
£
35
c
3
2
3
O)
     Lf)
     CM
                      \
                      I
                      I
                      *
                      I
                 t
                 I
                 I
                 t
                 t
                 t
                 t
                 /
                 f
                 • ^

                                          ID
                                          CM
                             cv

                             O)
                                         in
                                            O

                                            O>
                                         O)
                                            g
CO
                                         CO
|/6U 'UOUB4U90UOO

-------
(D
"c
CO

0)

Q.
 §
 -»— »
 o

 o
O

 E
 to
 0)
                                                                                                                                    CO
 3
 CD

-------
0)

0)
o
CO
.1

2

0)
o

o
o

CO
CO
 I
op
0


O)
il
      O
      o
      S      §

|/6U 'UOHBJIU90UOQ
                                                           CO
                                                           CO

-------
0)
c
0)
£

"c

2
O
g
as
o

o
O


CO
(1)
o>
4

£

O)
il
                       i     I    ,    I     ,    I
          O
          O
          CO
CM
                 O
                 U)
§       $
    l/6u  '
                                                                                       O5
                                                                                       CO

-------
 
|/6U 'UOUBJIU90UOQ

-------
Table 4-3.   Grand Mean Daily In-Stream Concentration of the Five Target Chemicals
            for Stations 2 and 3 for Five Mile Creek.
                         Average
                          (ng/l)
                  Standard
                  Deviation
                   Coefficient
                   of Variation
Station 2

  Biphenyl
  Phenanthrene
  Anthracene
  Fluoranthene
  Pyrene
  4.06
 97.3
 41.6
132.
 97.6
 6.39
42.8
19.3
59.0
45.8
157.
 44.0
 46.4
 44.8
 47.0
Station 3

  Biphenyl
  Phenanthrene
  Anthracene
  Fluoranthene
  Pyrene
  Anthracene
 10.8
 93.8
 35.3
146.
 96.8
 35.3
 7.22
35.4
14.5
46.1
35.4
14.5
 67.0
 37.7
 41.0
 31.6
 36.5
 41.0
                                      41

-------
Table 4-4.    Average Tissue Residues (ppb) in Two Species of Resident Organisms
             for Five Mile Creek.
                    Station 1        Station 2       Station 3        Station 4
Decapoda (Crayfish)

  Biphenyl            1.16(2)a        16.7# (2)        3.13b(1)        2.97(2)
  Phenanthrene     54.9  (4)       171.*   (5)       50.7b  (3)       41.9  (4)
  Anthracene         3.40(4)        55.3* (5)       21.4b  (3)       15.6  (4)
  Fluoranthene     23.4  (4)       228.*   (5)       68.6b  (3)       65.9  (4)
  Pyrene           16.6  (4)       207.*   (5)       50.3b  (3)       53.2  (4)
Lepomis sp. (Sunfish)
Biphenyl
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
6.34 (2)
77.0 (4)
8.33 (4)
19.2 (4)
9.86 (4)
7.15 (3)
65.1 (5)
18.2* (5)
27.2 (5)
10.2 (5)
9.60 (2)
57.9 (4)
18.1* (4)
32.8 (4)
13.3 (4)
5.37 (3)
27.7 (5)
13.4 (5)
22.3 (5)
13.2 (5)
a    Number of different organism samples analyzed for that station are in
     parentheses.
b    Outlier not used in calculating average residue concentration, see Section 4.5.1.
     Significantly greater than residue levels for Station 1, Dunnett's test, 95%
     confidence level.
#    Significantly greater that residue levels for Station 1, one way analysis of
     variance, 95% confidence level.
                                       42

-------
In addition, for nearly all sampling stations, average tissue residues for phenanthrene
for Station 1 were much higher than those determined for Stations 2, 3, and 4 for both
species of organisms. We cannot explain this anomaly of having higher upstream,
Station 1, residue concentrations for phenanthrene. However, this trend suggests that
in-stream concentrations for phenanthrene might have been higher at Station 1 than at
Stations 2, 3, and 4. Higher concentrations for phenanthrene could possibly occur if a
point and/or nonpoint source containing phenanthrene was discharged into Five Mile
Creek upstream of Station 1  during the site study.  Ambient water samples, taken after
the site study, suggest that a point source of phenanthrene might exist upstream of
station 1, see Section 4.7.

      The increase in residue concentrations at Stations 2 and 3 for both species of
organisms demonstrates that accumulation of the chemicals discharged does occur in
the receiving water organisms for Five Mile Creek.  In the 30 residues determined for
Stations 2, 3, and 4, 80% of  the measured residues were greater than their
corresponding residues at Station 1.  Excluding phenanthrene, 95.8% (23 out of 24) of
the measured  residues were greater than their corresponding residues at Station  1.

4.6.3 Significance Testing of Residues

      To further evaluate the increases in tissue concentrations, an analysis of
variance and then Dunnett's  test  was performed for each chemical to determine if the
residues in the Lepomis sp. and Decapoda from the downstream stations (Stations 2,
3, and 4) were significantly greater than residues measured in the upstream
organisms at Station 1 (Table 4-4).  (Note, for the Decapoda biphenyl data, Dunnett's
test could not be performed due to the limited number of samples, and thus, a simple
t-test using the pooled standard deviation was used).

      For the Decapoda, the tissue concentrations for biphenyl, phenanthrene,
anthracene,  fluoranthene, and pyrene, at Stations 2 were significantly greater,  95%
confidence level, than those  determined for the upstream site, Station 1. For stations
3 and 4, none of the residue levels for the Decapoda were significantly greater, 95%
confidence level, than those  determined for Station 1.  For the Lepomis sp., one
chemical, anthracene, at Stations 2 and 3 was significantly greater than the residues
measured for Station 1.  For the other four target chemicals,  none of the Lepomis sp.
tissue residues for Stations 2, 3, and 4 were significantly greater than the tissue
residues  measured for Station 1.

      The number of residues which were significantly greater than Station 1 was
much smaller than the number of residues which were just greater than the residues
for Station 1, i.e., 23% (7 of 30) vs. 80% (24 of 30), respectively.  The lack of
statistically significant increases in tissue residues for the stations downstream of
Station 1 may  have  been due to the limited number of tissue samples analyzed and/or
to the organism compositing  technique which did not consider the size of the
individuals in the samples. If larger numbers of sample analyses had been performed
and/or larger as well as consistent numbers of organisms used for each species, the
variances of the measured tissue residues at each  Station might have been smaller.

                                      43

-------
Smaller variances would allow smaller differences between Station 1 and the other
sampling Stations to be statistically significant. Even so, the combination of having
80% of the residues downstream of Station 1 higher than the residues for Station 1
and that 23% of these residues were statistically significant, strongly suggests that the
accumulation of these chemicals from the effluents is occurring with the resident
organisms in Five Mile Creek.

4.6.4 Comparison of Predicted and Observed Residues

      To evaluate the residue prediction procedure, residues were predicted and then
compared to the measured residues for the indigenous organisms.  By using the
residue  prediction procedures, values for the log P, BCF, FM, and BAF were derived
for each chemical (Table 4-5).  Subsequently, residues for the Lepomis sp.  and
Decapoda organisms were predicted for Stations 2 and 3 on Five Mile Creek by using
the derived BAFs  (Table 4-5), the average in-stream chemical concentrations (Table
4-3), and the average lipid content for each species (Table A-28). To these values,
the average residue levels for the upstream  site, Station  1, were added and these
predictions are reported in Tables 4-6 and 4-7.

      For the Decapoda organisms, the predicted tissue residues were, in general,
within a factor of 3 or less of the measured tissue residues for Stations 2 and 3, and
the predicted residues tended to be slightly lower and higher at Stations 2 and 3,
respectively (Table 4-6).  The ratio of  the observed to predicted tissue residues ranged
from 0.39 to 8.57  (Table 4-6).

      For the Lepomis sp., the predicted tissue concentrations were, in general,
higher than the observed values for both Stations 2 and  3.   The ratio of the observed
to predicted ranged from 0.05 to 0.96 for both Stations 2 and 3. With increasing BCF
value for the five target chemicals, wider disagreement between the measured and
predicted values was observed (Table 4-7).

      The better agreement between the predicted and  observed tissue residues for
the Decapoda, in comparison to the Lepomis sp., was expected for this study (Section
4.1).  The predicted BCF values for the five target chemicals assumes that  metabolism
does not chemical occur. However, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are metabolized
by vertebrates such as fish and are slowly (if at all) metabolized by  invertebrates such
as arthropods (7).  Furthermore, studies have shown that for unsubstituted  polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, their rate of metabolism is dependent upon  the size, e.g.,
number of aromatic rings or molecular weight. In general, larger unsubstituted
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons tend to have faster rates of metabolism than smaller
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (10).

      When a chemical  is metabolize in an  aquatic organism, the true BAF value for
the chemical will be lower than the BAF predicted using  the residue prediction
procedure (which  assumes no metabolism).  Consequently,  the predicted tissue
concentrations will be larger than those measured in the indigenous organisms. In
this study, the ratios of the observed to predicted tissue  residues were lower for the

                                      44

-------
Table 4-5.   Residue Prediction Parameters.
     Compound          Log P         BCF         FM        BAF
Biphenyl
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
4.03
4.49
4.49
4.95
4.95
608
1400
1400
3240
3240
1
1
1
1
1
608
1400
1400
3240
3240
                                  45

-------
Table 4-6.      Predicted and Measured Decapoda Tissue Concentrations for Five
               Mile Creek.



QSAR
BCF



Target
Compound

Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue
(ppb)

Observed
Cone, in
Tissue
(ppb)
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue
Station 2   608
           1400
           1400
           3240
           3240
Biphenyl
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
  1.95
 89.6
 22.0
160.
118.
 16.7
171.
 55.3
228.
207.
8.57
1.74
2.51
1.42
1.76
Station 3



608
1400
1400
3240
3240
Biphenyl
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
3.26
97.0
19.2
175.
117.
3.13
50.7
21.4
68.6
50.3
0.96
0.52
1.11
0.39
0.43
Predicted Tissue Concentration = BCF x FM x Decapoda lipid/QSAR lipid x (In-stream
Chemical Concentration) + Upstream (Station 1) Tissue Concentration. All values
corrected for recoveries.  Decapoda lipid content 2.43%, QSAR lipid 7.6%.
                                      46

-------
Table 4-7.      Predicted and Measured Lepomis sp. Tissue Concentrations for Five
               Mile Creek.



QSAR
BCF



Target
Compound

Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue
(ppb)

Observed
Cone, in
Tissue
(ppb)
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue
Station 2   608       Biphenyl               7.71
           1400      Phenanthrene        153.
           1400      Anthracene      .    40.8
           3240      Fluoranthene        257.
           3240      Pyrene              186.
 7.15
65.1
18.2
27.2
10.2
0.93
0.43
0.45
0.11
0.05
Station 3   608       Biphenyl               9.99
           1400      Phenanthrene        150.
           1400      Anthracene           35.9
           3240      Fluoranthene        282.
           3240      Pyrene              184.
 9.60
32.8
18.1
32.8
13.3
0.96
0.39
0.50
0.12
0.07
Predicted Tissue Concentration = BCF x FM x Lepomis sp. lipid/QSAR lipid x (In-
stream Chemical Concentration) + Upstream (Station 1) Tissue Concentration. All
values corrected for recoveries.  Lepomis sp. lipid content 4.23%, QSAR lipid 7.6%.
                                     47

-------
Lepomis sp. than for the Decapods.  These results are consistent with the expected
metabolic abilities of the species, i.e., low or almost nonexistent metabolic activity for
the Decapoda and higher (or substantial) metabolic activity for the Lepomis sp.
(Tables 4-6 and 4-7).

      Considering the rates of metabolism for the five target chemicals, one would
expect that the rates of metabolism should follow the general order of biphenyl <
phenanthrene = anthracene < fluoranthene = pyrene for the five chemicals in this
study.  (Note, the number of aromatic rings in the five target chemicals are 2, 3, 3, 4,
and 4,  respectively.) In this study, the Lepomis sp. residue data mimics this expected
metabolic behavior, i.e., with  increasing size of the chemical, the differences between
the measured and  observed tissue residues increases.  In addition, for the
Decaporfawhere metabolism is expected  to be low or almost nonexistent, this
metabolic behavior is not observed.

      Overall, the  agreement between the measured and predicted tissue residues
were quite reasonable for both species of organisms considering that metabolism  of
the chemicals was ignored in the residue prediction procedure.  In this study, the
ratios of the observed to predicted tissue residues were lower for the Lepomis sp. than
for the Decapoda which suggests that metabolism was  occurring with the Lepomis sp.
The differences between the  measured and predicted tissue residues were consistent
with the expected differences  in the species metabolic activity and in the rates of
metabolism for the parent chemicals.

4.6.5  Comparison of Measured  and Predicted Residues: Error Analysis

      To further evaluate the predicted tissue residues, a propagation of error
analysis was performed for the predicted tissue concentrations for each chemical for
Stations 2 and 3 so that confidence limits could be derived for the predicted values.
The derived 95% and 99% confidence limits for each chemical residue are reported in
Tables 4-8 and 4-9 for the Decapoda and Lepomis sp., respectively.

      The error analysis was performed  by using the mean and standard deviations
for the in-stream and Station 1 tissue concentrations from Tables 4-3 and 4-4 for each
chemical.  The predicted logarithm of the BCF and its standard deviation (for the
predicted value) were obtained from the regression equation and data of Veith and
Kosian (2).  The mean lipid content and its standard deviation for each species were
taken from Table A-28. With these values, a  Monte Carlo analysis was performed to
derive the error estimates for the predicted the tissue concentrations. Note, the
predicted tissue concentrations have a lognormal like distribution which is caused by
the antilog transformation for the BCF parameter.

      The 95% confidence limits for both species for all chemicals are approximately
one order of magnitude. This large uncertainty is caused mostly by the variability
associated with the predicted  BCF. We estimate that more than 95% of the total
uncertainty in the predicted tissue  residues is due to the predicted BCF.
                                      48

-------
Table 4-8.   Confidence Limits for the Predicted Decapoda Tissue Concentrations for
            Five Mile Creek.
Tissue Concentration
Predicted Observed
(ppb) (ppb)
95%
Confidence
Limits
99%
Confidence
Limits
Station 2

  Biphenyl           1.95   16.7          0.00   13.1          0.00    30.9
  Phenanthrene     89.6   171.           49.4   492.          41.4   1038.
  Anthracene       22.0    55.3        .  3.28  194.           0.00   418.
  Fluoranthene     160.    228.           26.3  1394.           5.96  3066.
  Pyrene          118.    207.           17.8  1047.           0.00  2277.
Station 3
  Biphenyl           3.26    3.13         0.51    24.2         0.00    53.2
  Phenanthrene     97.0    50.7         50.6    465.          44.0    966.
  Anthracene       19.2    21.4          3.54   161.           1.85   353.
  Fluoranthene     175.     68.6         32.2   1471.          22.7   3101.
  Pyrene          117.     50.3         21.7    992.          14.7   2167.
                                      49

-------
Table 4-9.   Confidence Limits for the Predicted Lepomis sp. Tissue Concentrations
            for Five Mile Creek.
Tissue Concentration
Predicted Observed
(ppb) (ppb)
95%
Confidence
Limits
99%
Confidence
Limits
Station 2

  Biphenyl           7.71    7.15         0.00   27.1          0.00    56.7
  Phenanthrene    153.     65.1          57.5   820.          38.7   1646.
  Anthracene       40.8    18.2           6.17  332.           0.23   685.
  Fluoranthene     257.     27.2          28.5  2342.           0.00  4870.
  Pyrene          186.     10.2          16.4  1778.           0.00  3695.
Station 3

  Biphenyl           9.99    9.60         3.17   45.9         0.00    91.7
  Phenanthrene    150.     57.9         59.2   772.          42.4   1555.
  Anthracene       35.9    18.1          6.46  272.           2.00   564.
  Fluoranthene     282.     32.8         41.3  2468.          27.7   5163.
  Pyrene          184.     13.3         24.3  1669.          14.2   3505.
                                      50

-------
      For the Decapoda and Lepomis sp., 95%, i.e., 19 of 20, of the measured tissue
concentrations at Station 2 and 3 were within the 99% confidence limits for the
predicted residues, Table 4-8 and 4-9. For the 95% confidence  limits, 90% and 50%
of the observed residues for the Decapoda and Lepomis sp., respectively, were within
their corresponding prediction limits. For the Lepomis sp., chemicals not within their
95% confidence  limits were lower than the lower bounds on their confidence limits and
having measured residues lower than the predicted residues is consistent with the
metabolic abilities of these organisms.

4.7   Caged Organisms

      The caged organisms, Ictalarus puctatus, were analyzed for the five target
chemicals (Table A-29).  Average tissue concentrations for each species  were
calculated for Stations 1  and 3 (Table 4-10).

      Comparison of the Station 1, upstream of Coke Plant 1, and Station 3,
downstream of Coke Plants 1 and 2, residue concentrations for the caged Ictalarus
puctatus reveals that upstream organisms had higher residue concentrations than the
downstream organisms for the five target chemicals.  Also, the tissue concentrations
for the Lepomis sp. and Ictalarus puctatus were quite similar for  Station 3 (after
correction for lipid content) and very different for Station 1 (after  correction for lipid
content). These results suggested that the upstream cages at Station 1 were
contaminated, had different exposure  conditions than the indigenous organisms,
and/or possibly, were mislabeled.

      After careful evaluation, no evidence for mislabeling the samples in either the
field or the analytical procedure could be found.  In addition, the same type of cages
were used at Stations 1 and 3 which suggests that the cage design was not a factor
for the higher residue concentrations at Station 1.

      To evaluate if the  different exposure conditions existed at the location of the
cages at Station  1, a set of ambient water samples were collected in December 1990.
Target chemical  analyses were performed on the six ambient water samples (Table A-
30).  One of the  ambient samples, Ambient 4, was taken from a  runoff/drainage ditch
which was 140 meters upstream of the dam at Station 1.  This ditch and the cages
were on the same creek  bank of Five  Mile Creek.

      The runoff ditch, Ambient 4, contained the highest concentrations for the five
target chemicals all of the ambient water samples, Table A-30.  In general, the
ambient water concentrations increased with increasing distance downstream, i.e.,
Ambient 3 < Ambient 5 < Ambient 2 < Ambient 1 < Ambient 6.  The ambient
concentrations downstream of the runoff/drainage ditch, Ambients 1 and 2, had higher
concentrations than the upstream stations, Ambients 3 and 5. Note, Ambient 6 was
taken at Station 3 of the site study.

      While at the site, we observed that the discharge from the ditch did not mix well
with the reservoir behind the dam. This discharge hugged the creek bank and flowed

                                       51

-------
Table 4-10. Average Tissue Residues (ppb) in Caged Ictalarus puctatus for Five Mile
            Creek.
                    Station 1         Station 2      Station 3       Station 4
Ictalarus puctatus (Catfish)
Biphenyl
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
16.3 (2)a
109. (2)
12.0 (2)
33.0 (2)
16.4 (2)
3.84 (2)
13.3 (2)
7.11 (2)
16.2 (2)
9.72 (2)
     Number of different organism samples analyzed for that station are in
     parentheses.
                                        52

-------
towards the dam following the shore.  The cages at Station 1 were near the shore and
in the incompletely mixed water from the ditch. Visual observation of the flow regime
in the creek and conductivity measurements performed on Five Mile Creek were used
to determine that incomplete mixing of the ditch water and reservoir had occurred at
the location of the Station 1  caged exposures.

     Further evaluation of the Ictalarus puctatus data was not done due to the lack of
uncontaminated measured tissue residues for Station 1.

     The occurrence of the  contaminated caged Ictalarus puctatus at Station 1 in the
site study leads to the natural question of "Were the Lepomis sp. and Decapoda
contaminated at Station 1 ?". For both organisms, we believe that the tissue residues
measured for the organisms for Station 1 were not strongly influenced by the
discharge from the drainage ditch. The Decapoda were sampled at the base of the
dam in much  deep water and away from the discharge flow from the ditch. The
Lepomis sp. were sampled away from the shore in deeper water and not in the
incompletely mixed water from the drainage ditch. In addition, the  Lepomis sp. were
free ranging and their exposure to the discharge from the ditch would be small since
the near shore part of the reservoir was quite shallow and had no vegetation or cover
for the Lepomis sp. organisms.

4.8  Comparison of the Measured and Predicted Tissue  Residues: Unaddressed
     Variables

     The comparison of the measured and predicted tissue residues in this study
could be influenced by a number of unaddressed variables.  In selecting the study
site, a "simple" site was chosen which minimized many of the variables in the study
(section 2). However, some variables and implicit assumptions were beyond control,
e.g., stream and discharge flows.  For most of these variables, their importance in the
comparison of the measured and predicted residues was difficult, if not impossible, to
assess.

     Probably the most important unaddressed variable in the study was that the
predicted tissue residues were derived by using a model developed from steady-state
exposure conditions.  However, the daily in-stream chemical concentrations varied
significantly  during the study.  For example, anthracene in-stream concentrations
ranged from 0.0 to 77 and 4.3 to 61 ng/l at Stations 2 and 3, respectively, and
changed abruptly 4 or 5 times during the site study.  To predict the tissue residues  in
the study, the grand means  of the  daily in-stream concentrations for the length of the
study were used as the best estimator for the exposure concentration for the receiving
water organisms.  Other estimators could have been used in this study such as a time
weighted exposure concentration.  These estimators might have provided better
predictions with the widely changing exposure concentrations.  The exposure
conditions strongly effect the residues predicted and this variable is a source for error.

    The measured residue data for the aquatic organisms were implicitly assumed to
be at steady-state/equilibrium with  the receiving water. With the dramatic changes in

                                      53

-------
the daily in-stream concentrations, steady-state conditions were not likely to have
been achieved by the receiving water organisms.  The use of tissue data from
receiving organisms not at steady-state conditions is a source of error in this
evaluation.

     The residue prediction procedure does not address bioavailability issues
associated with the bioconcentration/bioaccumulation process. At the study site, a
discharge of fines from a upstream quarrying operation was very conspicuous. These
fines may have had an effect on the availability of these chemicals for uptake by the
receiving water organisms. If a significant portion of the chemical was not
bioavailable, the actual exposure conditions would be  different than those based on
dilution only.

     All of these issues influence the predicted and/or measured tissue residues in the
Decapoda and Lepomis sp. for this study and the importance of each issue is difficult
to evaluate. The most important, possibly,  are the issues associated with the steady-
state exposure conditions used in the predictive technique and its relationship to the
widely changing exposure concentrations.

     Field studies by their inherent nature can not be  controlled like laboratory studies.
Field studies include variables such as those discussed above and allow their
importance/effect in predicting receiving water tissue concentrations to be assessed.
                                       54

-------
                                  SUMMARY

      The objective of the site study was to determine how well tissue residues could
be predicted in field discharge situations using the guidance procedures.  For the
Decapoda organisms from Five Mile Creek, the observed and predicted residues
differed by no  more than a factor 3 for 9 of the 10 predicted residues.  All of the
measured Decapoda tissue residues were within the bounds of the 99% confidence
limits for the predicted residues.  For the Lepomis sp., the observed and predicted
residues differed by no more that a factor of 3 for 6 of the 10 predicted residues. For
each chemical, similar agreement between the measured and predicted Lepomis sp.
tissue residues was observed for both sampling stations on Five Mile Creek. For the
caged Ictalarus puctatus,  data from these exposures could not be used to evaluate the
residue prediction procedure due to experimental problems.

      The chemicals under investigation in this study can be metabolized by aquatic
vertebrates such as fishes.  The observed residues in the Lepomis sp.  were consistent
with  this process. The observed residues were lower than predicted and the more
easily metabolized chemicals had lower observed residues than the less easily
metabolized chemicals. For aquatic invertebrates, metabolism of the five chemicals
under investigation was (or should have been) essentially nonexistent.  The data for
the Decapoda organisms were consistent with this metabolic behavior as similar
differences between the measured  and predicted residues were observed for all
chemicals at each sampling station.

      This study demonstrates that tissue residue concentrations in field discharge
situations can  be predicted within a factor of 3 using the developed residue prediction
procedure provided the chemicals are  not easily metabolized.  When metabolism is
important, residues predicted  using the guidance procedure will be too  large. The rate
of metabolism  will directly influence the difference between the  measured and
predicted residues.

      The prediction of tissue residues within a factor of 3 for "non-metabolizable"
chemicals, in field discharge situations strongly demonstrates the validity of the
developed residue prediction procedure.  Field studies, by their inherent nature,
include the dynamics and variabilities associated with natural aquatic systems.  The
predictive ability  demonstrated in this site study when considering the variabilities
associated with study, e.g., the widely  changing daily in-stream  chemical
concentrations, further underscores the capabilities of the prediction technique.
                                       55

-------
                                REFERENCES

1.     United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement
      and Permits.  Assessment and control of bioconcentratable contaminants in
      surface waters.  Public Comment Draft (Fed. Regist. 1991, 56, 13150-13151),
      March 1991.

2.     Veith, G.D. and P. Kosian.  1982. Estimating bioconcentration potential from
      octanol/water partition coefficients, in Physical Behavior of PCBs in the Great
      Lakes. MacKay, Paterson, Eisenreich, and Simmons, Eds., Chapter 15, Ann
      Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Ml.

3.     Schuurmann, G. and W. Klein.  1988. Advances in bioconcentration prediction.
      Chemosphere.  17(8): 1551-1574.

4.     Thomann, R.V.  1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution
      in aquatic food chains. Environ. Sci. Technol.  23:699-707.

5.     Thomann, R.V.  1987.  A statistical model of environmental contaminants using
      variance spectrum analysis.  Report to National Science Foundation.  August
      1987. NTIS#: PB88-235130/A09.

6.     Rasmussen, J.B., D.J. Rowan, D.R.S. Lean, and J.H. Carey.  1990.  Food
      chain structure in Ontario lakes determines PCB levels in lake trout (Salvelinus
      namaycush) and other pelagic fish.  Can. Journal of Fish. Sci.  47:2030-2038.

7.     James, M. O.  1989. Biotransformation and disposition of PAH in  aquatic
      invertebrates, in Metabolism of Polvcvclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons  in the Aquatic
      Environment  (Varanasi, U., Ed.), CRC: Boca Raton, Florida. Chap 3.

8.     Jones, P.A. and R.J. Sloan.  1989.  An in situ river exposure vessel for
      bioaccumulation studies with juvenile fish.  Environ. Toxicol. and Chem. 8:151-
      155.

9.     Mount, D.I., A.E. Steen, and T.J. Norberg-King.  1985.  Validity of  effluent and
      ambient toxicity testing for predicting biological impact on Five  Mile Creek,
      Birmingham, AL. EPA/600/8-85/015.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
      Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.

10.   Varanasi, U., J.E. Stein, and M. Nishimoto.  1989.  Biotransformation  and
      disposition of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) in fish, in Metabolism of
      Polvcvclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic Environment  (Varanasi, U.,
      Ed.),  CRC: Boca Raton, Florida. Chap 4.
                                      56

-------
APPENDIX A
     57

-------
  Table A-1.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent
              Analytical Procedure: Coke Plant 1, Fraction 1.


          NBS/EPA/NIH TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATIONS    /chem/msd/90a530901011.d

Peak RTHeightAmount (ng/L)
     (Fit)     (Name)

  6.132        183520          185.95
      83        1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 5-(l-methylethylidene)- (SCI)
      80        Benzene, 1,2-dimethyl-  (9CI)
      72        Benzene, ethyl- (8CI9CI)

  9.402        287010          336.59
      94        Benzene, 1-propynyl- (9CI)
      91        Benzene, l-ethynyl-4-methyl- (9CI)
      91        Benzene, 1,2-propadienyi- (9CI)
      90        IH-Indene (9CI)

' 11.944       1704130          2699.71
      97        Azulene (8CI9CI)
      90        Naphthalene (ACN)(DOT)(8CI9CI)
      83        IH-Indene, 1-methylene-  (9CI)

 13.673        537907          718.99
      90        Naphthalene, 1-methyl-  (8CI9CI)
      87        Naphthalene, 2-methyl-  (8CI9CI)
      83        1,4-Methanonaphthalene,  1,4-dihydro- (8CI9CI)
      72        IH-Indene, 1-ethylidene- (9CI)

 13.921        280745          327.04
      93        IH-Indene, 1-ethylidene- (9CI)
      91        Naphthalene, 1-methyl-  (8CI9CI)
      91        Naphthalene, 2-methyl-  (8CI9CI)
      87        1,4-Methanonaphthalene,  1,4-dihydro- (8CI9CI)

 14.689        232018          252.77
      90        l,l'-Biphenyl  (9CI>
      87        Naphthalene, 2-ethenyl-  (9CI)

 15.888        648837          888.06
      91        Acenaphthylene (8CI9CI)

 16.682        901367          1311.00
      94        Phenol, 2,6-bis(1,l-dimethylethyl)-4-methyl- (9CI)

 16.780        810408          1153.65
      83        Dibenzofuran (8CI9CI)

 17.709       1122900          1694.24
      87        9H-Fluorene (9CI)
      80        9H-Fluorene-9-carboxylic acid  (9CI)

 18.270        119301          123.96
      72        9H-Fluorene-9-carboxylic acid  (9CI)

 18.394        130809          135.07
      94        Dibenzofuran,  4-methyl-  (8CI9CI)
                                       A-1

-------
Table A-1.   continued.
 20.737       1914910         3064.34
      97        9H-Fluorene, 9-methylene- (9CI)
      91        Benzene, 1,1'-(l,2-ethynediyl)bis- (9CI)
      87        Anthracene (8CI9CI)
      78        2-Cyclopropen-l-one, 2,3-diphenyl- (9CI)
      74        Phenanthrene (8CI9CI)

 20.839       1159380         1757.34
      94        9H-Fluorene, 9-methylene- (9CI)

 20.169        447845          581.72
      72        l,l'-Biphenyl,  2-methoxy- (9CI)

 20.737       1914910         3064.34
      97        9H-Fluorene, 9-methylene- (9CI)
      91        Benzene, 1,1'-(1,2-ethynediyl)bis- (9CI)
      87        Anthracene (8CI9CI)
      78        2-Cyclopropen-l-one, 2,3-diphenyl- (9CI)
      74        Phenanthrene (8CI9CI)

 20.839       1159380         1757.34
      94        9H-Fluorene, 9-methylene- (9CI)
      91        Benzene, 1,1'-(1,2-ethynediyl)bis- (9CI)
      72        2-Cyclopropen-l-one, 2,3-diphenyl- (9CI)

 22.606        113068          117.94
      97        9H-Fluorene-2-carbonitrile (9CI)

 25.679        123128          127.65
      95        9-Anthracenecarbonitrile (9CI)

 26.090        181249          183.76
      91        Heptadecanoic acid, 15-methyl-,  methyl ester (9CI)
      83        Octadecanoic acid, methyl ester (9CI)
      81        Pentadecanoic acid, methyl ester (8CI9CI)
      72        9-Octadecenoic acid, 12-(acetyloxy)-,  methyl ester, [R-(Z)]- (9CI)
      72        2-Naphthalenol,  8-amino- (9CI)
                                      A-2

-------
Table A-2.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent
            Analytical Procedure: Coke Plant 1,  Fraction 2.
       NBS/EPA/NIH TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATIONS
/chem/msd/90a531001012.d
Peak

15.










15.












15.






16.

16.

16-.




16.




RT
(Fit)
261
97
97
96
96
95
95
95
95
91
90
472
97
96
96
95
94
93
93
87
76
72
70
70
516
93
89
89
89
76
70
100
99
680
96
890
93
93
93
91
953
91
90
90
87
Height Amount (ng/L)
(Name)
143304 211.62
Naphthalene, 1 ,7-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 2 ,6-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 ,6-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 ,8-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 , 3-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 ,5-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 2,7-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 2 , 3-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 , 2-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 , 4-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
126182 187.86
Naphthalene, 1 , 6-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 2, 3-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 ,8-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 , 4-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1,7-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1, 2-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 , 3-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 2-ethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 , 5-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1-ethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 2, 6-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 2,7-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
88561 135.66
Naphthalene, 2,7-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 ,6-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 2, 6-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1,7-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 , 5-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 , 3-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
194957 312.30
2,5-Cyclohexadiene-l,4-dione, 2,6-bis( 1,1-dimethylethyl)- (9CI)
679136 1429.58
Phenol, 2,6-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)-4-methyl- (9CI)
66374 104.87
Naphthalene, 1,4,6-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1,6,7-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 2,3,6-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 , 4 , 5-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
90725 138.66
Naphthalene, 2,3,6-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1 ,4, 5-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1,6,7-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
Naphthalene, 1,4,6-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
                                      A-3

-------
  Table A-2.   continued.
17.173
     98
     98
     97
     95

17.407
     97
     97
     97

     96

18.208
     90

16.401
     94

18 912
     93
     91

19.350
     93
     93
     80
     74
     72

20.591
     97
     94
     93
     81

20.759
     95
     93
     81

21.123
     90

21.349
     94
     91

21.544
     81

21.754
     90
     90

21.811
     70
 83064          128.03
 Naphthalene,  1,4,6-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
 Naphthalene,  1,4,5-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
 Naphthalene,  1,6,7-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
 Naphthalene,  2,3,6-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)

 64300          102.00
 Naphthalene,  1,4,6-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
 Naphthalene,  1,6,7-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
 Naphthalene,  2,3,6-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)
 Naphthalene,  1,4,5-trimethyl- (8CI9CI)

240205          414.20
 Dibenzofuran, 4-methyl- f8CI9CI)

207488          340.52
 Dibenzofuran, 4-methyl-  8CI9CI)

 74735          116.48
 Azulene, 7-ethyl-l,4-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
 Naphthalene,  l-methyl-7-(l-methylethyl)- (9CI)
2753-78
 9H-Fluorene,
 9H-Fluorene,
 9H-Fluorene,
 Benzene, 1,1
  493.41
2-methyl- f9CI)
1-methyl- (9CI)
4-methyl- (9CI)
-(l,2-ethenediyl)bis-
(9CI)
 Benzene, 1,1'-(1,2-ethenediyl)bis-,  (Z)- f9CI)

202913          330.22
 Phenanthrene f 8CI9CI)
 9H-Fluorene, 9-methylene- (9CI)
 Benzene, 1,1'-(1,2-ethynediyl)bis- (9CI)
 Anthracene (8CI9CI)

463151          916.27
 9H-Fluorene, 9-methylene- (9CI)
 Anthracene (8CI9CI)
 Benzene, 1,1'-(1,2-ethynediyl)bis- (9CI)

133089          197.45
 9H-Fluorene, 2,3-dimethyl- (9CI)

151597          223.13
 9H-Fluorene, 2,3-dimethyl- (9CI)
 Benzene, l-methyl-2-(2-phenylethenyl)- (9CI)

 98748          149.80
 9H-Fluorene, 2,3-dimethyl- (9CI)

249444          435.01
 Dibenzothiophene,  4-methyl- (8CI9CI)
 Dibenzothiophene,  3-methyl- (8CI9CI)

194489          311.25
 IH-Indene, l-(phenylmethylene)-  (9CI)
                                      A-4

-------
  Table A-2.  continued.
22.070        180863          280.56
     93        Dibenzothiophene,  3-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     83        Dibenzothiophene,  4-methyl- (8CI9CI)

22.441        494623          987.14
     93        Anthracene, 1-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     93        Phenanthrene,  4-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     87        IH-Indene, 1-phenyl- (9CI)
     87        Anthracene, 2-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     87        Phenanthrene,  1-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     80        9H-Fluorene, 9-ethylidene-  (9CI)
     80        IH-Indene, 2-phenyl- (9CI)
     80        Phenanthrene,  3-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     80        Phenanthrene,  9-methyl- (8CI9CI)

22.551        639218         1328.64
     93        Anthracene, 2-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     87        IH-Indene, 1-phenyl- (9CI)
     83        Phenanthrene,  4-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     81        Phenanthrene,  3-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     81        Phenanthrene,  1-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     76        IH-Indene, 2-phenyl- (9CI)
     72        9H-Fluorene, 9-ethylidene-  (9CI)

22.703        203799          332.21
     96        Phenanthrene,  4-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     91        Anthracene, 1-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     90        Phenanthrene,  2-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     90        Anthracene, 2-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     87        Phenanthrene,  3-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     87        Phenanthrene,  1-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     80        IH-Indene, 2-phenyl- (9CI)
     74        IH-Indene, 1-phenyl- (9CI)
     72        Phenanthrene,  9-methyl- (8CI9CI)

22.959        472102          936.43
     94        Anthracene, 1-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     90        Anthracene, 2-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     87        Phenanthrene,  3-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     81        IH-Indene, 1-phenyl- (9CI)
     80        IH-Indene, 2-phenyl- (9CI)
     74        Phenanthrene,  4-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     72        Phenanthrene,  2-methyl- (8CI9CI)

23.394        166108          247.33
     78        Naphtho[2,3-b]thiophene, 4,9-dimethyl- (SCI)

23.665        473879          940.43
     80        Naphthalene, 2-phenyl- (8CI9CI)

24.238        110229          165.73 .
     91        Phenanthrene,  2,3-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
     90        Phenanthrene,  4,5-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
     81        Phenanthrene,  2-ethyl- (8CI9CI)
     76        Phenanthrene,  2,5-dimethyl- (8CI9CI)
                                       A-5

-------
  Table A-2.  continued.
24.408        156439          229.85
     91        Phenanthrene,  2,5-dimethyl-  (8CI9CI)
     86        Phenanthrene,  3,6-dimethyl-  (8CI9CI)
     70        Phenanthrene,  2,7-dimethyl-  (8CI9CI)

24.478        104224          157.39
     81        Phenanthrene,  2,7-dimethyl-  (8CI9CI)

24.794        177122          272.14
     83        Phenanthrene,  2,7-dimethyl-  (8CI9CI)

25.495       1903910         4526.76
     93        Pluoranthana (8CI9CI)

25.694        507242         1015.56
     95        Fluor«nth«ne (8CI9CI)
     80        Benzene, 1,1'-(1,3-butadiyne-l,4-diyl)bis- (9CI)
     74      .—9yrmn» -(8CI9CI)

26.456       1867360         4434.33
     94        PyrMM (8CI9CI)
     76        Fluoranthene (8CI9CI)

26.594        385418          741.22
     81        Benzo[b]naphtho[2,3-d]furan (8CI9CI)

26.822        530465         1067.86
     96        Benzo[b]naphtho[2,3-d]furan (8CI9CI)

27.315        650297          1356.65
     90        llH-Benzo[b]fluorene (8CI9CI)
     87        HH-Benzo[a]fluorene (8CI9CI)

27.343        915614          2027.58
     81        HH-Benzo[a]fluorene (8CI9CI)
     ?8        llH-Benzo[b]fluorene (8CI9CI)

2-T.145        761893          1638.85
     8i        Pyrene, 4-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     81        HH-Benzo[a]fluorene (8CI9CI)
     81        Pyrene, 1-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     74        Pyrene, 2-methyl- (8CI9CI)

28.256        835136          1824.07
     81        Pyrer.e, 2-menhyl- (8CI9CI)
     76        Pyrene, i-methyl- '8CI9CI)
     70        Pyrene, 4-methyi- (8CI9CI)

2S.605        6946U7          1468.70
     89        Pyrene, 2-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     81        Pyrer.e, 1-methyl- (6CI9CI)
     76        Pyrene, 4-methyl- (8CI9CI

28.721        584954          1191.42
     87        llH-Benzo[b]fluorene (SCIsCI)
     87        Pyrene, 1-metnyl- (8CI9CI)
     81        HH-Benzo[ a ]f luorene (8CI9CI)
                                      A-6

-------
   Table A-2.   continued.
29.265
     93
     72

29.425
     78

30.532
     96
     94

30.798
     93

30.901
     98
     96

31.152
     97
     94

31.227
     90
     81

32.059
     97
     93
     91
     76

32.313
     90
     81
     81
     74

32.677
     70
     70
     70
     70

33.407
     93

     91
     91
     89
     81
     81
 104178          157.33
  1,1':2',1"-Terphenyl (9CI)
  Pyrene,  1,3-dimethyl- (9CI)

  80283          124,17
  Pyrene,  1,3-dimethyl- (9CI)

 489954          976.63
  Benzo[b]naphtho[2,1-d]thiophene (8CI9CI)
  Benzo[b Jnaphtho[1,2-d]thiophene (8CI9CI)

1068460         2414.09
  Benzo[ghi]fluoranthene  (8CI9CI)

 361217          686.72
  Benzo[b Jnaphtho[2,1-d]thiophene (8CI9CI)
  Benzo[b]naphtho[l,2-d]thiophene (8CI9CI)

 176891          271.62
  Benzo[b]naphtho[l,2-d]thiophene (8CI9CI)
  Benzo[b]naphtho[2,1-d]thiophene (8CI9CI)

 361056          686.35
  Benzo[b]naphtho[2,1-d]thiophene (8CI9CI)
  Benzotb]naphtho[1,2-d]thiophene (8CI9CI)

1393330         3235.62
  Triphenylene (8CI9CI)
  Benzo[c]phenanthrene (8CI9CI)
  Chrysene  (8CI9CI)
  Naphthacene  (8CI9CI)

 144968          213.93
  Benzo[a]pyrene, 4,5-dihydro-
  l,2'-Binaphthalene  (9CI)
  Anthracene,  9-phenyl- (8CI9CI)
  l,l'-Binaphthaiene  (9CI)
 575109         1168,
  Benz[a]anthracene,
  Benz[a]anthracene,
  Benz[a]anthracene,
  Benz[a]anthracene,
40
4-methyl- (8CI9CI)
9-methyl- (8CI9CI)
10-methyl- f8CI9CI)
11-methyl- (8CI9CI)
 176196          270.05
  Benz[a]anthracene,  1-methyl- (8CI9CI)

  Chrysene, 5-methyl- (8CI9CI)
  Chrysene, 4-methyl- (8CI9CI)
  Benz[a]anthracene,  12-methyl- (8CI9CI)
  Benz[a]anthracene,  7-methyl- (8CI9CI)
  Triphenylene,  2-methyl^ (8CI9CI)
                                       A-7

-------
  Table A-2.   continued.
33.639        61S697         1269.16
     98        Benzfa]anthracene,  1-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     97        Benz[a]anthracene,  12-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     97        Chrysene,  5-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     96        Triphenylene,  2-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     95        Chrysene,  4-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     91        Chrysene,  6-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     90        Benz[a]anthracene,  2-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     89        Benz[a]anthracene,  8-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     89        Chrysene,  3-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     89        Benz[a]anthracene,  7-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     89        Chrysene,  1-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     81        Benz[a]anthracene,  5-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     81        Benzfajanthracene,  6-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     81        Benz[ajanthracene,  3-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     81        Benz[a]anthracene,  4-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     76        Benzo[c]phenanthrene, 6-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     76        Benzo[c]phenanthrene, 5-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     76        Benz[ajanthracene,  11-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     70        Benzofcjphenantnrene, 3-methyl- (8CI9CI)

33.791        431246          844.42
     92     '   Benz[a]anthracene,  1-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     86        Chrysene,  4-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     83        Benzo[c]phenanthrene, 6-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     83        Benzo[c]phenanthrene, 5-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     70        Chrysene,  5-methyl- (8CI9CI)
     70        Berxz[a]anthracene,  7-methyl- (8CI9CI)

34.627        246755          428.95
     87        2,2'-Binaphthalene (9CI)

34.802         79481          123.06
     87        2,2'-Binaphthalene (9CI)

35.111         72493          113.36
     93        Benzo[a]pyrene, 4,5-dihydro-
     89        9H-Fluorene, 9-(phenylmethylene)- (9CI)
     76        l,l'-Binaphthalene (9CI)

36.735        1330180          3075.93
     98        Benzo[j]fluoranthene (8CI9CI)
     98        Benz[e]acephenanthrylene  (8CI9CI)
     95        Benzole]pyrene (8CI9CI)
     94        Benzo[k]fluoranthene f8CI9CI)
     94        Benzofajpyrene (8CI9CI)

37.041        796934          1727.47
     94        Benzo[e]pyrene (8CI9CI)
     89        Benz[e]acephenanthrylene  (8CI9CI)
     83        Benzo[k]fluoranthene (8CI9CI)
     76        Benzo[j]fluoranthene (8CI9CI)
     70        Benzo[a]pyrene (8CI9CI)
                                        A-8

-------
 Table A-2.  continued.
37.188        161686          237.38
     78        1,1'-Binaphthalene,  3,3',4,4'-tetrahvdro- (9CI1

37.871       1200820         2748.80
     98        Benzo[e]pyrene (8CI9CI)
     96        Benzotj]fluoranthene (8CI9CI)
     96        Benz[e]acephenanthrylene (8CI9CI)
     86        Benzota]pyrene (8CI9CI)
     76        Benzotk]fluoranthene (8CI9CI)

38.044        973206         2173.22
     95        Benzotj]fluoranthene (8CI9CI)
     94        Benzota]pyrene (8CI9C1)
     93        Benzotelpyrene (8CI9CI)

38.253        313810          591.22
     95        Benzotj]fluoranthene (8CI9CI)
     95        Benzotk]fluoranthene (8CI9CI)
     95        Benzfelacephenanthrylene (8CI9CI)
     93        Benzotelpyrene (8CI9CI)
                                        A-9

-------
  Table A-3.   Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent
               Analytical Procedure: Coke Plant 2, Fraction 1.
          NBS/EPA/NIH TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATIONS
                                      /chem/msd/90a780901009.d
Peak RT
     (Fit)

 16.279
      94

 16.610
      96

 16.696
      72

 17.599
      90
      90
 25.986
      94
      91
      87
      36
      86
      78
      78
 32.802
      87
Height
  (Name)
Amount (ng/L)
  596946          195.6.9
   Acenaphthene (8CJ)

 2768910         1103.14
   Phenol, 2,6-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)-4-methyl- (9CI)

  495917          164.57
   Benzenemethanol, 3,4-dimethoxy- (9CI)

  730106          242.22
   9H-Fluorene-9-carboxylic acid (9CI)
   9H-Fluorene (9CI)
  592929
  194.45
   Heptadecanoic acid, 14-methyl-
   Heptadecanoic acid, 14-methyl-
   Heptadecanoic acid, 15-methyl-
   Pentadecanoic acid, methyl ester
   Heptadecanoic acid, 16-methyl-
   Heptadecanoic acid, 10-methyl-
   Octadecanoic acid, methyl ester  (9CI)

  290054          101.18
   1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 3-nitro-  (9CI)
                   methyl ester, (.*-.)- (9CI)
                   methyl ester (9CI)
                   methyl ester (9CI)
                    (8CI9CI)
                   methyl ester (8CI9CI)
                   methyl ester (9CI)
                                        A-10

-------
     Table A-4.   Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent
                 Analytical Procedure: Coke Plant 2, Fraction 2.


          NES/EPA/NIH TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATIONS    /chem/msd/90a7810010in .d

Peak R7      Height          Amount (r.g/L)
     (Fit)     (Name)

  8.996        361495          173.43
      87        Benzene, 1,2,3,5-tetramethyl- (8CI9CI)
      63        Benzene, l-methyl-3-(1-methylethyl)- (9CI)
      83        Benzene, methyl(1-methylethyl)- (9CI)
      83        Benzene, l-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)- (9CI)
      78        1,4-Cyclohexadiene, 3-ethenyl-l,2-dimethyl- (9CI)
      72        Benzene, 2-ethyl-l,4-dimethyl- (9CI)
      72        Benzene, l-ethyl-3,S-dimethyl- (9CI)
      72        Benzene, 2-ethyl-l,3-dimethyl- (9CI)
      72        Benzene, l-ethyl-2,4-dimethyl- (9CI)
      72        Benzene, 4-ethyl-l,2-dimethyl- (9CI)

 16.032       1050520          542.74
      99        2,5-Cyclohexadiene-l,4-dione, 2,6-bis(l,1-dimethylethyl)-  (9CI)

 16.608       1746700          962.22
      93        Phenol, 2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methyl- (9CI)

 19.351        198626          100.63
      81        9H-Fluorene, 4-methyl- (9CI)
      76        9H-Fluorene, 1-methyl- (9CI)
      76        9H-Fluorene, 2-methyl- (9CI)
      70        9H-Fluorene, 9-methyl- (9CI)

 22.663        472215          222.92
      80        4H-Cyclopenta[def]phenanthrene (8CI9CI)

 25.041       1200400          633.05
      95        Fluoranthene (8CI9CI)

 25.894        587394          274.40
      87        Fluoranthene (8CI9CI)
      81        Pyrene  (8CI9CI)

 25.982        279542          136.80
      83        Heptadecanoic acid, 14-methyl-, methyl ester, (.-»•-.)-  (9CI)
      83        Heptadecanoic acid, 14-methyl-, methyl ester (9CI)
      80        Heptadecanoic acid, 16-methyl-, methyl ester (8CI9CI)
      74        Heptadecanoic acid, 15-methyl-, methyl ester (9CI)
                                         A-11

-------
   Table A-5.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent
               Analytical Procedure:  Coke Plant 2, Fraction 3.
          NBS/EPA/NIH TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATIONS    /chem/msd/90a781101011.d

Peak RTHeight-Amount (ng/L)
     (Fit)     (Name)

 16.597       3140390         1612.96
      94        Phenol, 2,6-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)-4-methyl-  (9CI)

 22.656        330255          121.45
      83        Docosane  (8CI9CI)
      80        Heptacosane  (8CI9CI)
      80        Heptadecane, 9-octyl-  (8CI9CI)
      72        Tetradecane, 2-methyl-  (8CI9CI)

 32.805        640152          242.07
      72        1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diisooctyl  ester (9CI)
                                        A-12

-------
Table A-6.  Measured and Predicted Stream Flows at Three Locations on Five Mile
            Creek, Jefferson County, Alabama.
Measured Flow (m3/s)
Date Station 1a Station 3
March 26
27
28
29
30
31
.April 1
2
3
4
5
6
7 0.872
8 1.045
9
10
1 1 0.767 0.988
12 0.646
13
14
15 0.708 0.929
16
17
18
19 0.943
20
21 0.677 0.813
22
23 0.790
24
25
26
Average Flow
Standard Deviation
Coefficient of Variation, %
Republicb
2.24
2.07
1.93
1.84
2.15
1.98
1.76
1.67
1.61
1.53
1.53
1.76
1.76
1.42
1.39
1.67
1.67
1.36
1.36
1.33
1.44
1.27
1.27
1.22
1.19
1.22
1.16
1.22
1.13
1.39
1.10
1.10
1.52
0.316
20.8
Predicted Flow (m3/s)
Station 1a
0.979
0.924
0.879
0.851
0.952
0.897
0.824
0.796
0.778
0.750
0.750
0.824
0.824
0.714
0.705
0.796
0.796
0.696
0.696
0.686
0.723
0.668
0.668
0.650
0.641
0.650
0.631
0.650
0.622
0.705
0.613
0.613
0.748
0.102
13.7
Station 3
1.223
1.165
1.117
1.089
1.194
1.137
1.060
1.031
1.012
0.983
0.983
1.060
1.060
0.945
0.935
1.031
1.031
0.926
0.926
0.916
0.955
0.897
0.897
0.878
0.868
0.878
0.859
0.878
0.849
0.935
0.840
0.840
0.981
0.107
10.9
a 50 m downstream of Station 1.
b USGS gage located at Republic, Alabama.
                                    A-13

-------
Table A-7.  Regression Equations for Predicting Stream Flows at Stations 1 and 3
            and Predicted Stream Flows with 95% Confidence and Prediction
            Intervals for Selected Flows for Stations 1 and 3 for Five Mile Creek.
Station 1
      Predicted Flow = 0.2563 + 0.3232 (Measured Flow at Republic)

            Standard  Deviation of Slope =        0.1074
            Standard  Deviation of Constant =      0.2563
            r2 =                                0.7512
            degrees of freedom  =               4
          Measured
            Row

            1.00
            1.25
            1.50
            1.75
            2.00
            2.25
Predicted
  Flow

  0.5795
  0.6602
  0.7410
  0.8218
  0.9026
  0.9834
95% Confidence
    Interval
0.4004
0.5533
0.6674
0.7035
0.7098
0.7097
0.7585
0.7672
0.8147
0.9401
1.0954
1.2571
            95% Prediction
               Interval
0.3367
0.4646
0.5614
0.6197
0.6496
0.6644
0.8222
0.8559
0.9207
1.0239
1.1556
1.3024
Station 3

       Predicted Flow = 0.4663 + 0.3381 (Measured Flow at Republic)

            Standard Deviation of Slope =          0.1627
            Standard Deviation of Constant =       0.2196
            r2  =                                 0.5191
            degrees of freedom =                5
          Measured
            Flow

            1.00
            1.25
            1.50
            1.75
            2.00
            2.25
Predicted
  Flow

  0.8045
  0.8890
  0.9735
  1.0581
  1.1426
  1.2271
95% Confidence
    Interval
0.6295
0.7936
0.8589
0.8515
0.8299
0.8048
0.9794
0.9844
1.0881
1.2646
1.4552
1.6494
            95% Prediction
               Interval
0.5283
0.6550
0.731 1
0.7609
0.7639
0.7538
1.0806
1.1230
1.2160
1.3553
1.5213
1.7004
                                      A-14

-------
Table A-8.  Daily Effluent Flow for Coke Plant 1 and Coke Plant 2.
Date
March 26
27
28
29
30
31
April 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10



Flow (m3/s}
Coke Coke
Plant 1 Plant 2
0.00358 0.175
0.00615 0.162
0.00599 0.175
0.00677 0.197
0.00441 0.188
0.00372 0.171
0.00400 0.188
0.00386 0.188
0.00439 0.171
0.00799 0.180
0.00499 0.188
0.00814 0.188
0.00128 0.149
0.00467 0.149
0.00593 0.180
0.00529 0.223
Average discharge flow
Standard Deviation
Coefficient of Variation,
Date
April 1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26


%
Flow
Coke
Plant 1
0.00457
0.00413
0.00612
0.00792
0.00755
0.00680
0.00509
0.00188
0.00000
0.00000
0.00338
0.00587
0.00522
0.00426
0.00395
0.00493
0.00478
0.00201
42.1
(m3/s)
Coke
Plant 2
0.184
0.180
0.175
0.166
0.175
0.197
0.197
0.188
0.188
0.193
0.180
0.184
0.202
0.202
0.202
0.188
0.184
0.0150
8.16
                                     A-15

-------
Table A-9.   In-stream Effluent Concentrations for Discharges from Coke Plants 1 and
             2.
    Date
    Predicted
  Stream Flow
Station 1 Station 3
  m3/s      m3/s
 Discharge Flow
 Plant 1 Plant 2
m3/s        m3/s
                                                                    In-Stream
                                                                     Effluent
                                                                  Concentration
                                                                 Plant 1  Plant 2
March 26
27
28
29
30
31
April 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26


0.979
0.924
0.879
0.851
0.952
0.897
0.824
0.796
0.778
0.750
0.750
0.824
0.824
0.714
0.705
0.796
0.796
0.696
0.696
0.686
0.723
0.668
0.668
0.650
0.641
0.650
0.631
0.650
0.622
0.705
0.613
0.613


1.223
1.165
1.117
1.089
1.194
1.137
1.060
1.031
1.012
0.983
0.983
1.060
1.060
0.945
0.935
1.031
1.031
0.926
0.926
0.916
0.955
0.897
0.897
0.878
0.868
0.878
0.859
0.878
0.849
0.935
0.840
0.840
average
standard
0.00358
0.00615
0.00599
0.00677
0.00441
0.00372
0.00400
0.00386
0.00439
0.00799
0.00499
0.00814
0.00128
0.00467
0.00593
0.00529
0.00457
0.00413
0.00612
0.00792
0.00755
0.00680
0.00509
0.00188
0.00000
0.00000
0.00338
0.00587
0.00522
0.00426
0.00395
0.00493

deviation
0.175
0.162
0.175
0.197
0.188
0.171
0.188
0.188
0.171
0.180
0.188
0.188
0.149
0.149
0.180
0.223
0.184
0.180
0.175
0.166
0.175
0.197
0.197
0.188
0.188
0.193
0.180
0.184
0.202
0.202
0.202
0.188


coefficient of variation, %
0.365
0.666
0.682
0.795
0.464
0.414
0.485
0.485
0.564
1.064
0.666
0.988
0.155
0.654
0.842
0.664
0.574
0.594
0.880
1.153
1.044
1.017
0.762
0.290
0.000
0.000
0.535
0.903
0.838
0.605
0.644
0.805
0.644
0.282
43.9
14.3
13.9
15.7
18.1
15.8
15.0
17.8
18.3
16.9
18.3
19.2
17.8
14.1
15.8
19.2
21.7
17.8
19.4
18.9
18.2
18.4
22.0
22.0
21.5
21.7
22.0
20.9
21.0
23.7
21.5
24.0
22.4
19.0
2.80
15.8
                                       A-16

-------
Table A-10. Coke Plant 1 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target Analysis on Biphenyl.
	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	    Week 4

A. Effluent Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)

Battelle                                                0.44             0.68
                                                       0.40             0.66

ERL-D                 0              0               3.34             0
                       0              0               3.35             0
B. Blank Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)

Battelle                                                0.02             0

ERL-D                 0              0               00


C. Surrogate Recoveries

Effluent

Battelle


ERL-D



Blank

Battelle                                               82.0             64.0

ERL-D                74.0           102.8             76.9             98.3

45.0
48.3

91.8
97.3
66.0
55.4
74.7
73.4
44.4
42.2
87.4
88.7
                                     A-17

-------
Table A-11. Coke Plant 1 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target Analysis on
            Phenanthrene.
	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4

A. Effluent Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)

Battelle                                               18.0             24.5
                                                      14.9             20.3

ERL-D                15.9            12.0             15.9             10.1
                      17.2            13.4             14.0              7.19
B. Blank Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)

Battelle                                                0.12             0.14

ERL-D                 0000


C. Surrogate Recoveries

Effluent

Battelle


ERL-D



Blank

Battelle                                               86               74

ERL-D                76.6           106.2             84.9             99.0

48.9
54.4

97.4
96.7
56.0
49.4
79.3
80.1
46.7
52.6
88.2
89.4
                                     A-18

-------
Table A-12. Coke Plant 1 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target Analysis on
            Anthracene.
	Weekl	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4

A. Effluent Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)

Battelle                                                6.64            12.0
                                                       6.15             8.33

ERL-D                 7.17       .    4.19             7.31             4.89
                       7.36           4.71             6.64             3.94
B. Blank Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)

Battelle                                                0.01             0.14

ERL-D                 0000


C. Surrogate Recoveries

Effluent

Battelle


ERL-D



Blank

Battelle                                               88.0             84.0

ERL-D                70.0          103.9             74.2             95.3

53.7
57.6

95.5
92.2
66.0
53.0
75.3
79.1
55.6
74.1
88.2
90.0
                                     A-19

-------
Table A-13. Coke Plant 1 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target Analysis on
            Fluoranthene.
	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4

A. Effluent Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)

Battelle                                               25.9             25.1
                                                      22.1             28.2

ERL-D                19.7            16.4             20.5             18.9
                      22.5            18.4             17.4             13.7
B. Blank Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)

Battelle                                                0.08             0.05

ERL-D                 0000


C. Surrogate Recoveries

Effluent

Battelle                                               66.0             86.7
                                                      57.0             70.7

ERL-D
Blank
Battelle
ERL-D
92.0 78.0
•  d10-Pyrene recoveries used for recovery correction.
                                     A-20

-------
Table A-14. Coke Plant 1 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target Analysis on Pyrene.
	Week"!	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4

A. Effluent Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)

Battelle                                               19.2             21.9
                                                      17.0             23.1

ERL-D                13.5            11.3             14.4             14.2
                      15.4            12.8             12.3             10.6
B. Blank Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)

Battelle                                                0.03             0.03

ERL-D                 0000


C. Surrogate Recoveries

Effluent

Battelle


ERL-D



Blank

Battelle                                               94.0            74.0

ERL-D                79.7           109.2             79.5            100.1

64.9
71.5

102.8
98.6
68.0
56.7
84.8
87.5
82.2
70.0
96.9
98.4
                                    A-21

-------
Table A-15. Coke Plant 2 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target Analysis on Biphenyl.
Week 1 Week 2
Weeks
Week 4
A. Effluent Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)
Battelle
ERL-D
B. Blank
Battelle
ERL-D
0
0
0
0.00695
Concentrations (ppb, recovery
0.00
„
0.03
0.05
0.0407
0.0410
corrected)
0.00
0
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.0567
0.0577

0.02
0
0.06
0.09
0.0508
0.0508

0.00
0
C.  Surrogate Recoveries
Effluent
Battelle



ERL-D

Blank
Battelle
ERL-D


77.8
78.3
102.2
103.3

66.7
..


88.9
71.6
93.4
92.3

100.0
101.1
73.3
65.5
74.0
59.2
102.2
81.3

82.0
87.9


51.1
63.7
84.6
75.8

64.0
83.5
                                       A-22

-------
Table A-16.  Coke Plant 2 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target Analysis on
            Phenanthrene.

Weekl
Week 2
Weeks
Week 4
A. Effluent Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)
Battelle
ERL-D
0.08
0.07
0.0208
0.0214
B. Blank Concentrations (ppb, recovery
Battelle
ERL-D
C. Surrogate
Effluent
Battelle
ERL-D
Blank
Battelle
ERL-D
0.06
--
Recoveries

77.8
84.9
94.5
102.2

66.7
._
0.09
0.08
0.0621
0.0594
corrected)
0.08
0


88.9
85.1
98.9
98.9

100.0
85.7
0.14
0.13
0.19
0.20
0.117
0.123

0.12
0


77.8
75.0
68.0
65.8
105.5
93.4

86.0
85.7
0.14
0.81
0.0588
0.0670

0.14
0


64.4
88.9
95.6
79.1

74.0
84.6
                                     A-23

-------
Table A-17. Coke Plant 2 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target Analysis on
            Anthracene.
Week 1 Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
A. Effluent Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)
Battelle
ERL-D
B. Blank
Battelle
ERL-D
0.02
0.02
0.0180
0.0191
Concentrations (ppb, recovery
0.00
..
0.03
0.02
0.0361
0.0327
corrected)
0.11
0
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.0310
0.0304

0.01
0
0.04
0.09
0.0336
0.0349

0.14
0
C.  Surrogate Recoveries

Effluent
Battelle



ERL-D

Blank
Battelle
ERL-D


88.9
98.9
84.3
91.6

77.8
__


88.9
89.2
92.8
95.2

77.8
73.5
91.1
89.6
76.0
75.4
114.5
109.6

88.0
88.0


77.8
104.4
92.8
83.1

84.0
78.3
                                      A-24

-------
Table A-18. Coke Plant 2 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target Analysis on
            Fluoranthene.

Weekl
Week 2
WeekS
Week 4
A. Effluent Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)
Battelle
ERL-D
B. Blank
Battelle
ERL-D
0.18
0.19
0.227
0.228
Concentrations (ppb, recovery
0.04
__
0.25
0.22
0.275
0.280
corrected)
0.05
0
0.29
0.29
0.35
0.36
0.216
0.219

0.08
0
0.31
0.42
0.257
0.247

0.05
0
C. Surrogate Recoveries
Effluent
Battelle
88.9 88.9
90.6 81.8
ERL-D
Blank
Battelle 77.8 111.1
ERL-D


91.1
83.7
74.0 64.4
71.5 90.7
..

92.0 78.0
—
a d10-Pyrene recoveries used for recovery correction.
                                     A-25

-------
Table A-19. Coke Plant 2 Weekly Effluent Composite for Target Analysis on Pyrene.

                     Week 1         Week 2          Week 3            Week 4
A. Effluent Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)
Battelle


0.10
0.10
0.128
0.132


0.14
0.13
0.134
0.136
0.13
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.108
0.109


0.16
0.20
0.100
0.106
ERL-D
B.  Blank Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)
Battelle                0.03            0.03             0.03             0.03
ERL-D                                 0               0                0

C.  Surrogate Recoveries
Effluent
Battelle


77.8
86.0
100.0
103.3


77.8
74.6
100.0
101.1
84.4
80.0
68.0
68.4
123.9
119.6


64.4
86.7
100.0
90.2
 ERL-D

 Blank
 Battelle               77.8           100.0             94.0             74.0
 ERL-D                 --              84.8            106.5             88.0
                                     A-26

-------
Table A-20. In-Stream Concentration of Biphenyl for Stations 2 and 3 on Five Mile
            Creek.
Concentration
in Discharae
Date
March 26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Average
Standard
Plant 1
ng/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34

Deviation
Coefficient of Variation,
Plant 2
H9/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06


%157.
In-Stream Chemical
Concentration
Station 2
ng/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.83
12.49
10.79
11.17
16.54
21.68
19.62
3.46
2.59
0.99
0.00
0.00
1.82
3.07
2.85
2.06
2.19
2.74
4.06
6.39
67.0
Station 3
ng/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.31
6.75
7.31
7.66
7.11
5.62
6.30
19.61
18.31
15.47
16.15
19.99
23.51
22.20
15.76
15.12
13.60
13.02
13.17
13.89
14.85
16.33
14.48
16.00
15.46
10.8
7.22

                                      A-27

-------
Table A-21. In-Stream Concentration of Phenanthrene for Stations 2 and 3 on Five
            Mile Creek.
Concentration
in Discharae
Date
March





April




























26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Average
Standard
Plant 1
W/L
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
12.70
12.70
12.70
12.70
12.70
12.70
12.70
15.60
15.60
15.60
15.60
15.60
15.60
15.60
15.50
15.50
15.50
15.50
15.50
15.50
15.50
15.50
15.50
15.50
15.50

Deviation
Coefficient of Variation,
Plant 2
H9/L
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20


% 44.0
In-Stream Chemical
Concentration
Station 2
ng/L
60.7
110.5
113.1
132.0
77.0
68.8
80.5
61.6
71.6
135.2
84.5
125.5
19.7
83.0
131.4
103.6
89.5
92.7
137.2
179.9
162.8
157.7
118.2
44.9
0.0
0.0
82.9
139.9
129.9
93.8
99.8
124.7
97.3
42.8
37.7
Station 3
ng/L
51.4
90.4
92.1
106.8
64.5
57.3
66.1
53.0
60.1
108.6
70.3
102.9
19.5
67.4
112.4
95.2
81.6
83.2
116.3
147.5
136.2
161.4
131.9
76.2
43.4
43.9
102.8
145.5
142.7
113.7
120.9
135.9
93.8
35.4

                                      A-28

-------
Table A-22. In-Stream Concentration of Anthracene for Stations 2 and 3 on Five Mile
            Creek.
Concentration
in Discharge
Date
March 26
27
28
29
30
31
April 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Average
Plant 1
H9/L
7.26
7.26
7.26
7.26
7.26
7.26
7.26
4.45
4.45
4.45
4.45
4.45
4.45
4.45
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
7.22
7.22
7.22
7.22
7.22
7.22
7.22
7.22
7.22
7.22
7.22

Plant 2
H9/L
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

Standard Deviation
Coefficient
of Variation,
% 46.4
In-Stream Chemical
Concentration
Station 2
ng/L
26.5
48.3
49.5
57.7
33.7
30.1
35.2
21.6
25.1
47.4
29.6
44.0
6.9
29.1
56.2
44.4
38.3
39.7
58.8
77.0
69.7
73.5
55.0
20.9
0.0
0.0
38.6
65.2
60.5
43.7
46.5
58.1
41.6
19.3
41.0
Station 3
ng/L
24.1
41.1
42.0
48.7
30.0
26.7
30.9
20.3
22.7
39.8
26.4
37.7
8.2
25.1
46.2
38.6
33.2
33.7
47.9
61.3
56.5
59.1
45.4
19.8
4.3
4.4
32.6
52.4
49.1
37.2
38.7
46.9
35.3
14.5

                                      A-29

-------
Table A-23.     In-Stream Concentration of Fluoranthene for Stations 2 and 3 on
                Five Mile Creek.
Concentration
in Discharae
Date
March





April



























26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Average
Plant 1
W/L
21.10
21.10
21.10
21.10
21.10
21.10
21.10
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40
21.40

Plant 2
W/L
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28

Standard Deviation

Coefficient
of Variation,
% 44.8
In-Stream Chemical
Concentration
Station 2
ng/L
77.1
140.5
143.8
167.8
97.8
87.4
102.4
84.4
98.1
185.2
115.8
172.0
27.0
113.7
180.2
142.2
122.8
127.2
188.2
246.8
223.3
217.7
163.2
62.0
0.0
0.0
114.4
193.2
179.4
129.5
137.8
172.2
132.
59.0
31.6
Station 3
ng/L
89.0
137.8
142.9
165.6
108.0
97.6
113.3
107.2
114.2
183.3
132.4
174.5
53.3
122.1
179.9
159.6
135.9
140.2
184.9
226.6
211.4
223.6
183.0
106.0
60.8
61.5
142.7
201.7
197.9
157.9
167.8
188.5
146.
46.1

                                      A-30

-------
Table A-24. In-Stream Concentration of Pyrene for Stations 2 and 3 on Five Mile
            Creek.
Concentration
in Discharge
Date
March 26
27
28
29
30
31
April 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Average
Plant 1
W/L
14.40
14.40
14.40
14.40
14.40
14.40
14.40
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
15.70
15.70
15.70
15.70
15.70
15.70
15.70
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40

Plant 2
H9/L
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13

Standard Deviation
Coefficient
of Variation,
% 47.0
In-Stream Chemical
Concentration
Station 2
ng/L
52.6
95.9
98.1
114.5
66.8
59.7
69.9
58.2
67.7
127.7
79.9
118.6
18.6
78.4
132.2
104.3
90.1
93.3
138.1
181.0
163.9
177.0
132.7
50.4
0.0
0.0
93.1
157.1
145.8
105.3
112.0
140.0
97.6
45.8
36.5
Station 3
ng/L
56.5
89.9
92.8
107.6
69.0
62.1
72.1
66.8
72.3
119.4
83.9
113.5
31.3
78.2
122.6
106.5
91.0
93.4
126.4
157.4
146.1
160.4
127.4
65.2
28.2
28.5
95.6
143.5
137.7
107.3
113.0
131.4
96.8
35.4

                                     A-31

-------
Table A-25. Tissue Target Analysis for Decapods From Four Stations on Five Mile
            Creek, Jefferson County, Alabama.
Upstream
Station 1
Tissue Concentrations (ppb,
Biphenvl
Battelle
ERL-D
Phenanthrene
Battelle
ERL-D
Anthracene
Battelle
ERL-D
Fluoranthene
Battelle
ERL-D
Pvrene
Battelle
ERL-D
67.5
64.1
1.24
1.07
55.6
64.2
44.5
55.3
3.82
5.26
3.34
1.91
18.4
23.5
23.2
28.4
17.4
19.9
14.9
14.3
Discharge
Station 2
recovery corrected)
91.7(78.4)a
19.9
75.2
34.3(6.81)
12.8
294(116)
247
70.8
79.5 (69.5)
260
78.5 (29.4)
144
31.7
23.8 (19.7)
25.2
440 (130)
537
88.2
121 (115)
112
393 (121)
491
88.2
132(91.3)
87.4
US31 Bridge
Station 3

41.9
57.3
3 13
140(116)
39.4
64.6
48.1
2720 (2720)
16.8
32.2
15.3
366 (290)
48.3
75.4
82.0
2060 (1700)
40.3
59.2
51.5
1010(812)
3m i Down
Station 4

67.0
69.4
3.54
2.40
57.6
50.6
38.2
21.1
25.2
19.9
11.0
6.47
89.7
68.0
69.4
36.6
75.3
59.8
51.0
26.6
                                     A-32

-------
Table A-25.  continued.
Upstream
Station 1
Discharge
Station 2
US31 Bridge
Station 3
3m i Down
Station 4
Surrogate Recoveries for Tissues
Biphenvl
Battelle
ERL-D
Phenanthrene
Battelle
ERL-D
Anthracene
Battelle
ERL-D
Fluoranthene
Battelle
ERL-D
Pvrene
Battelle
ERL-D
67.0
51.0
67.1
62.6
80.0
55.5
78.5
77.4
78.5
60.5
78.7
75.2
62.5
47.5
—
57.0
45.5
87.0
86.3
42.0 (44.0)
65.5
45.5
61.7(61.2)
53.8
39.0(41.0)
35.5
35.5
72.8 (74.5)
58.2
43.0 (44.0)
38.5
37.5
74.3 (74.2)
59.6
38.5(41.5)
36.0
39.5
—
40.0 (40.5)
36.0
40.5
84 (82)
89.1
51.0
56.5
69.9
37.0 (49.8)
41.0
33.0
65.1
50.7 (48.2)
42.5
31.0
64.1
62.0 (74.6)
47.0
37.5
~
49.0
39.0
88.4
61.7(71.5)
37.0
38.5
59.6
53.7
76
28.5
40.5
69.9
75.3
32.0
43.0
68.2
69.7
30.0
43.5
_„
32.0
43.5
82.4
83.4
  Duplicate analysis.




                                      A-33

-------
Table A-26. Tissue Target Analysis for Lepomis sp. From Four Stations on Five Mile
            Creek, Jefferson County, Alabama.
Upstream
Station 1
Discharge
Station 2
US31 Bridge
Station 3
3m i Down
Station 4
Tissue Concentrations (ppb, recovery corrected)
Biphenyl
Battelle
ERL-D
Phenanthrene
Battelle
ERL-D
Anthracene
Battelle
ERL-D
Fluoranthene
Battelle
ERL-D
Pyrene
Battelle
ERL-D
63.0
61.0
4.93
7.76
95.0
97.0
47.0
69.0
10.4
14.2
5.19
3.53
18.8
24.2
14.2
19.6
11.9
17.4
9.52
7.82
56.9
65.2
12.5
3.14
5.81
55.6
99.8
81.7
34.3
53.9
30.3
28.5
15.5
5.76
8.84
29.1
29.8
40.5
12.4
24.1
12.4
14.9
10.1
5.47
8.31
74.7
69.9
7.29
11.9
48.4
70.9
39.5
72.6
20.1
21.6
10.2
20.3
19.0
35.8
24.5
51.7
12.9
15.2
8.85
16.2
68.7 (73.6)a
57.0
6.38 (6.08)
4.59
5.29
29.2 (35.2)
26.3
27.8 (26.5)
26.3
26.3
20.5 (24.4)
13.47
11.6(11.3)
9.59
10.1
18.5(21.0)
16.3
27.9 (27.6)
22.2
25.7
8.51 (9.47)
7.67
52.8 (10.5)
8.07
9.83
                                     A-34

-------
Table A-26.  continued.
Upstream
Station 1
Discharge
Station 2
US31 Bridge
Station 3
3mi Down
Station 4
Surrogate Recoveries for Tissues
Biphenyl
Battelle

ERL-D


Phenanthrene
Battelle

ERL-D


Anthracene
Battelle

ERL-D


Fluoranthene
Battelle

ERL-D
Pvrene
Battelle

ERL-D



51.0
59.0
50.1
68.3


59.5
60.0
50.9
76.2


51.5
45.5
49.9
73.7


53.0
55.5
~

52.5
56.5
68.7
79.5


42.5
40.0
67.0
46.2
53.7

43.5
42.5
79.3
58.0
60.7

31.0
40.0
76.1
55.6
59.3

50.5
47.0
" (")

48.5
47.0
81.0
79.0
66.3

42.0
34.5
62.1
54.7


42.5
37.5
73.6
66.7


41.0
31.5
71.9
64.0


43.5
38.5
--

44.5
39.5
76.8
69.6


45.0 (47.0)
43.5
42.0 (40.8)
56.7
76.0

47.0(51.0)
41.5
43.6 (39.3)
52.8
86.2

37.0 (39.5)
35.5
43.5 (38.2)
53.6
84.9

47.0 (52.0)
42.5
—

47.0 (52.0)
42.0
58.5(51.0)
74.7
86.8
  Duplicate analysis.
                                      A-35

-------
Table A-27. Blank Concentrations and Surrogate Recoveries for Tissue Analysis.
                          Blank Concentrations              Surrogate
                         (ppb, recovery corrected)           Recoveries

Biphenvl
  Battelle                          10.0                       52.5
                                  24.1                        45.0

  ERL-D                            0                         53.5
                                 0.230                       50.5
                                 0.242                       53.7

Phenanthrene
  Battelle                          2.10                       52.0
                                  3.00                       52.0

  ERL-D                           1.28                       61.4
                                  1.51                        47.7
                                  1.50                       48.0

Anthracene
  Battelle                          0.20                       53.5
                                  0.20                       52.5

  ERL-D                            0                         59.4
                                   0                         44.6
                                   0                         45.6

Fluoranthene
  Battelle                          0.80                       56.0
                                  0.90                       56.5

  ERL-D                          0.297*
                                   0
                                   0

Pyrene
  Battelle                          0.45                       54.0
                                  0.65                       57.5

  ERL-D                          0.747                       75.8
                                 0.565                       75.0
                                 0.666                       67.6
  d10-Pyrene used for recovery correction.
                                     A-36

-------
Table A-28. Percent Lipid Content in Tissues From Four Stations on Five Mile Creek,
            Jefferson County, Alabama.
          Upstream   Discharge US31 Bridge 3mi Down   Background
ERL-D    Station 1    Station 2    Station 3    Station 4
Decapoda    3.50
             3.15
         2.24 (2.50)
            2.08
Lepomis sp.  3.99
             4.58
Ictalarus
puctatus
2.24
4.16
Battelle (no site indicated)

Decapoda    2.0

Lepomis sp.  2.9
   2.83
1.80(1.40)
 3.00
0.893
                                                       Average (n = 8)
                                                            2.43
4.10
2.83
4.55
3.20
4.76

5.60 (6.13)
4.22
4.22
   1.95
   2.60
       Average (n = 10)
             4.23

             3.46
                                                       Average (n = 5)
                                                            2.88
                                     A-37

-------
Table A-29. Tissue Target Analysis for Ictalarus puctatus From Caged Exposures at
            Five Mile Creek, Jefferson County, Alabama.
Upstream
Station 1
Tissue Concentrations
Biphenvl
ERL-D
Phenanthrene
ERL-D
Anthracene
ERL-D
Fluoranthene
ERL-D
Pyrene
ERL-D
Surrogate Recoveries
Biphenvl
ERL-D
Phenanthrene
ERL-D
Anthracene
ERL-D
Fluoranthene
ERL-D
Pyrene
ERL-D
(ppb, recovery
15.2
17.4
106
112
12.4
11.5
33.5
32.6
16.9
16.0
for Tissues
65.1
56.3
72.7
113.8
73.6
117.3
—
77.4
79.5
US31 Bridge
Station 3
corrected)
3.36
4.32
13.6
13.0
6.73
7.50
17.4
14.9
11.0
8.43

67.0
61.6
79.3
66.0
76.1
63.7
—
81.0
85.3
Background

1.44
7.25
0.00
1.01
1.26

65.9
79.4
77.9
—
85.0
                                     A-38

-------
Table A-30. Ambient Water Samples for Target Chemical Analysis for Five Mile
            Creek, Birmingham, Alabama.
Ambient Station:         Blank    123      4      56

A. Ambient Concentrations (ng/L, recovery corrected)

Biphenyl                   0.460  6.52  2.11   1.95 710.     3.37  4.32
Phenanthrene             3.35  19.5   7.90   6.63 886.    12.7   43.5
Anthracene                2.72   6.91  3.96   3.35 188.     4.14  25.9
Fluoranthene              3.62  15.0  11.6    7.21 327.    10.4   167.
Pyrene                    3.12  14.0  11.6    6.89 166.    10.4   154.

B. Surrogate Recoveries (%)

Biphenyl                 89.1   62.1  84.5   84.7    69.3   74.7   22.7
Phenanthrene           90.7   62.6  86.5   87.5    88.2   76.4   25.6
Anthracene              86.4   59.6  84.2   80.8    92.7   74.6   25.7
Fluoranthene8             ....      .       .
Pyrene                  89.9   70.2  97.9   91.1    97.3   79.5   29.6
  d10-Pyrene recoveries used for recovery correction.
                                     A-39

-------
      FIELD EVALUATION OF RESIDUE PREDICTION PROCEDURES

                    USED IN ERA'S GUIDANCE:

"ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL OF BIOCONCENTRATABLE CONTAMINANTS

                      IN SURFACE WATERS":



                      THE LOUISIANA STUDY



                    1993 DRAFT FOR APPENDIX I
                       Lawrence P. Burkhard1
                       Barbara Riedel Sheedy2
                        Nelson A. Thomas1
                 1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth
                      6201 Congdon Boulevard
                        Duluth.MN 55804

                        2AScl Corporation
                      6201 Congdon Boulevard
                        Duluth.MN 55804

-------
                                  Foreword

      Recent advances in environmental sciences, analytical chemistry, and
toxicology have permitted the development of a systematic and scientifically
defensible procedure for identifying, assessing, and controlling chemicals which
form residues in fish and/or shellfish. This guidance procedure, "Assessment and
Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Waters", is applicable  to
nonpolar organic chemicals  which bioconcentrate and/or bioaccumulate in aquatic
organisms.

    .  The principal components of this newly developed guidance approach  are:
a) analytical procedures for detecting and identifying bioconcentratable chemicals
in effluents or receiving water organisms, b) procedures to predict residues of
bioconcentratable chemicals in aquatic organisms, c) procedures for deriving
criteria for aquatic organisms and receiving waters for bioconcentratable chemicals,
and d) permitting guidance for control of these  pollutants from point sources. The
guidance approach combines these procedures  to arrive at discharge
concentrations for bioconcentratable chemicals which limit residues in aquatic
organisms used for human consumption.

      This report  presents results of a field study conducted on an estuarine bayou
with one point source discharge. The objective of the study was to determine  how
well tissue residue concentrations can be predicted in field discharge situations
using the guidance residue prediction procedure.  Thirteen chemicals were studied.
                                  Disclaimer

      This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                            Acknowledgements

      Technical assistance was provided by Donald Mount, Correne Jenson, Lara
Andersen, Christine Harper (AScI Corporation, Duluth, MN), Mark Yancey, Laura
Hernon-Kenny, Terry Nobles, Steve Summer, William Clement, Dennis Mclntyre
(Battelle Laboratories-Columbus Division), Mick DeGraeve, John Shuey, Dennis
McCauley, Robin Silva-Wilkinson (Battelle Laboratories-Great Lakes Division),
William Morrow and Robert Wood, U.S. EPA (Office of Wastewater Enforcement
and Compliance), and Kirk Manual and Larry Racca (State of Louisiana). The
clerical support of Debra Williams and Jane Norlander (AScI Corporation, Duluth,
MN) is gratefully acknowledged.

      Financial support for this study was provided by the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance.

-------
                                  Contents
                                                                       Page No.

Foreword                                                                  2

Disclaimer                                                                 2

Acknowledgements                                                        3

Contents                                                                  4

Figures                                                                    6

Tables                                                                    7

Introduction                                                              13
      1.1    Site Study Objective                                           13
      1.2   Constraints                                                   14

Site .Selection and Description                                              15
      2.1    Description of Bayou d'lnde, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana           15
      2.2   Screening of the Effluents                                      17
      2.3   Selection of Target Chemicals                                   17

Methods                                                                 20
      3.1    Site Study Plan                                                20
      3.2   Estimation of Residues in Aquatic Organisms                     20
            3.2.1  Prediction of Bioconcentration Factors
                        for Aquatic Organisms                              20
            3.2.2  Prediction of Bioaccumulation Factors
                        for Aquatic Organisms                              21
            3.2.3  Prediction of Residues in Aquatic Organisms                21
            3.2.4  Metabolism and Prediction of Residues in Aquatic
                        Organisms                                        21

      3.3   Sampling Procedures                                           22
            3.3.1  Field Sampling Procedures for the Composite
                        Ambient Water Samples                            22
            3.3.2  Field Sampling Procedures for the Grab Ambient
                        Water Samples                                    22
            3.3.3  Field Sampling Procedure for the Grab Water
                        Samples from the Outfall                           22
            3.3.4  Field Procedures for Sampling Sediments                   23
            3.3.5  Field Sampling Procedures for Indigenous Organisms        23

-------
      3.4   Analytical Procedures                                          23
            3.4.1  Effluent Analysis Procedure                               23
            3.4.2  Weekly Ambient Water (Grab and Composite) and
                       Outfall (Grab) Samples Analysis Procedure           25
            3.4.3  Tissue Analysis Procedure                                27
            3.4.3.1     Compositing and Homogenization
                              Procedures                                 27
            3.4.3.2     Tissue Analysis                                    28
            3.4.4  Sediment Analysis Procedure                             30
            3.4.5  Dissolved and Particulate Organic Carbon
                       Analysis Procedures                                31
            3.4.6  Procedures for Particle Sizing the Sediments                31

Results and Discussion                                                    32
      4.1   Expected Tissue Residues Trends                                32
      4.2   Ambient Water Concentrations: Results                         32
      4.3   Ambient Water Concentrations: Discussion                      36
      4.4   Sediment Results                                              37
      4.5   Tissue Data:  Results                                          42
      4.6   Prediction of the Tissue Residues                                42
      4.7   Comparison of the Predicted and Observed Tissue
                  Residues:  Results                                       61
      4.8   Comparison of the Predicted and Observed Tissue
                  Residues:  Discussion                                    63
      4.9   Summary                                                     68

References                                                               69

Appendix A:  Study Data                                                  72

-------
                                   Figures
                                                                       Page No.
Figure
2-1   Location of sampling sites during a toxicity-characterization study        16
      of the lower Calcasieu River and Bayou d'lnde, Louisiana, June 1988,
      from Demcheck et al. 1990 [5].

-------
                                   Tables
                                                                       Page No.
Table

2-1   Site Study Chemicals.                                                18

3-1   Common and Scientific Names of the Organisms Collected as Six
      Sample Stations Near Lake Charles, Louisiana.                          24

4-1   Concentration of Target Chemicals in Weekly Ambient Water Samples
      from the Canal and Bayou d'lnde.                                      33

4-2   Concentration of Target Chemical in Sediment Samples from the
      Canal and Bayou d'lnde.       .                                       38

4-3   Concentration of Target Chemicals in Fundulus heteroclitus from
    • Cooling Water/Effluent Canal and Bayou d'lnde.                         43

4-4   Concentration of Target Chemicals in Callinectes sapidus from
      Cooling Water/Effluent Canal and Bayou d'lnde.                         44

4-5   Concentration of Target Chemicals in Brevoortia oatronus from
      Cooling Water/Effluent Canal and Bayou d'lnde.                         45

4-6   Concentration of Target Chemicals in Microoogan undulus from
      Cooling Water/Effluent Canal and Bayou d'lnde.                         46

4-7   Residue Prediction Parameters.                                        47

4-8   Predicted and Measured Fundulus heteroclitus Tissue Concentrations
      for the Louisiana Study.                                               48

4-9.   Predicted and Measured Callinectes sapidus Tissue Concentrations
      for the Louisiana Study.                                               52

4-1O Predicted and Measured Brevoortia patronus Tissue Concentrations
      for the Louisiana Study.                                               56

4-11  Predicted and Measured Micropogan undulus Tissue Concentrations
      for the Louisiana Study.                                               58

4-12  Distribution of the Ratios of the Observed to Predicted Tissue
      Concentrations for All Field Stations.                                   62

-------
                               Tables (continued)
4-13  Distribution of the Ratios of the Observed to Predicted Tissue
      Concentrations for Field Stations A, 1-G, and B                         66

4-14  Distribution of the Ratios of the Observed to Predicted Tissue
      Concentrations for Field Stations A, 1-G, B, D, and E.                    67
                                       8

-------
                              Appendix A Tables

Table A-1.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent
            Analytical Procedure: Outfall, Fraction  1.

Table A-2.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent
            Analytical Procedure: Outfall, Fraction  2.

Table A-3.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent
            Analytical Procedure: Outfall, Fraction  3.

Table A-4.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent
            Analytical Procedure: Station 1, Fraction 1.

Table A-5.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent
            Analytical Procedure: Station 1, Fraction 2.

Table A-6.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent
            Analytical Procedure: Station 1, Fraction 3.

Table A-7.  Concentrations of Hexachloroethane in  Ambient Water Samples.

Table A-8.  Concentrations of Tetrachlorobutadiene #1  in Ambient Water
            Samples.

Table A-9.  Concentrations of Tetrachlorobutadiene #2  in Ambient Water
            Samples.

Table A-10. Concentrations of Pentachlorobutadiene #1  in Ambient Water
            Samples.

Table A-11. Concentrations of Pentachlorobutadiene #2 in Ambient Water
            Samples.

Table A-12. Concentrations of Hexachlorobutadiene in Ambient Water Samples.

Table A-13. Concentrations of 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene in Ambient Water Samples.

Table A-14. Concentrations of 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene in Ambient Water Samples.

Table A-15. Concentrations of 1,2,4,5- and 1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene in
            Ambient Water Samples.

-------
                        Appendix A Tables (continued)

Table A-16.  Concentrations of 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene in Ambient Water
            Samples.

Table A-17.  Concentrations of Pentachlorobenzene in Ambient Water Samples.

Table A-18.  Concentrations of Hexachlorobenzene in Ambient Water Samples.

Table A-19.  Dissolved Chemical Concentrations for Ambient Composite Water
            Samples from Station 1.

Table A-20.  Particulate Chemical Concentrations for Ambient Composite Water
            Samples from Station 1.

Table A-21.  POC and DOC for Ambient Water Samples.

Table A-22.  DOC, POC, and TOC Values for Ambient Water Samples.

Table A-23.  Percentages of Daily Composite Versus Daily Grab Samples in the
            Seven Day Composite Water Samples from Station 1.

Table A-24.  Organic Carbon Content for Sediment Samples.

Table A-25.  Particle Size Distribution for Sediments.

Table A-26.  Tissue Compositing Information

Table A-27.  Hexachloroethane Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.

Table A-28.  Tetrachlorobutadiene #1 Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus
            heteroclitus.

Table A-29.  Tetrachlorobutadiene #2 Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus
            heteroclitus.

Table A-30.  Pentachlorobutadiene #1  Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus
            heteroclitus.

Table A-31.  Pentachlorobutadiene #2 Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus
            heteroclitus.

Table A-32.  Hexachlorobutadiene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.
                                     10

-------
                        Appendix A Tables (continued)

Table A-33. 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus
            heteroclitus.

Table A-34. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus
            heteroclitus.

Table A-35. 1,2,4,5- and 1,2,3,5- Tetrachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for
            Fundulus heteroclitus.
Table A-36. 1,2,3,4- Tetrachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus
            heteroclitus.

Table A-37. Pentachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.

Table A-38. Hexachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.

Table A-39. Hexachloroethane Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes sapidus.

Table A-40. Tetrachlorobutadiene #1 Tissue Concentrations  for Callinectes
            sapidus.

Table A-41. Tetrachlorobutadiene #2 Tissue Concentrations  for Callinectes
            sapidus.

Table A-42. Pentachlorobutadiene #1  Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes
            sapidus.

Table A-43. Pentachlorobutadiene #2 Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes
            sapidus.

Table A-44. Hexachlorobutadiene Tissue Concentrations for  Callinectes sapidus.

Table A-45. 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes sapidus.

Table A-46. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes sapidus.

Table A-47. 1,2,4,5- and 1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for
            Callinectes sapidus.

Table A-48. 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes
            saoidus.

Table A-49. Pentachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes  sapidus.

                                      11

-------
                        Appendix A Tables (continued)

Table A-50. Hexachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes sapidus.

Table A-51. Hexachloroethane Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patron us and
            Micropogan undulus.

Table A-52. Tetrachlorobutadiene #1  Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia
            patronus and Micropogan undulus.

Table A-53. Tetrachlorobutadiene #2 Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia
            patronus and Micropogan undulus.
Table A-54. Pentachlorobutadiene #1 Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia
            patronus and Micropogan undulus.
Table A-55. Pentachlorobutadiene #2 Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia
            patronus and Micropogan undulus.

Table A-56. Hexachlorobutadiene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus
            and Micropogan undulus.

Table A-57. 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus
            and Micropogan undulus.

Table A-58. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus
            and Micropogan undulus.
Table A-59. 1,2,4,5- and 1,2,3-5 Tetrachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for
            Brevoortia patronus and Micropogan undulus.

Table A-60. 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia
            patronus and Micropogan undulus.

Table A-61. Pentachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus
            and Micropogan undulus.

Table A-62. Hexachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus and
            Micropooan undulus.
                                     12

-------
                               INTRODUCTION

      The Environmental Protection Agency has developed a guidance procedure,
"Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Chemicals in Surface Waters" [1],
to control bioconcentratable chemicals in effluents. This guidance consists of a
number of technical procedures that have been developed during the past several
years.  The principal components of the  guidance approach are:  1) analytical
procedures for detecting and identifying  bioconcentratable chemicals in effluents,
receiving water, and organisms, 2) prediction of the bioconcentration factor (BCF)
from the n-octanol water partition coefficient (P)  using quantitative structure
activity relationships (QSAR), 3) prediction of the bioaccumulation factor (BAF)
from the chemical's BCF and log P, and the trophic status of the organism of
concern, 4) prediction of residues in aquatic organisms using the BCF or BAF and
concentration of the chemical in the receiving water, and  5) calculation of
allowable ambient water or tissue residue concentrations for  bioconcentratable
chemicals based upon human consumption  of contaminated fish and shellfish. The
guidance protocol combines these  procedures to  arrive at discharge concentrations
for bioconcentratable chemicals which will limit residues in aquatic organisms used
for human consumption.

      The guidance approach provides two alternatives for assessing point source
discharges for bioconcentratable chemicals, the effluent and  tissue alternatives
(component 1).  With these alternatives, either effluent from a point source
discharge or indigenous receiving water organisms are analyzed.  Results from the
analytical methods for both alternatives are listings of bioconcentratable chemicals.
These results are evaluated further using components 2 through 5, to determine if
development of permit  limits are needed for any of the identified bioconcentratable
chemicals.

      With the tissue alternative, the analytical results provide information for the
entire receiving water since the aquatic organisms provide an integrated
assessment of all point and nonpoint sources of bioconcentratable chemicals.
When an unallowable tissue residue is found, additional chemical analyses are
required to determine the source(s) of the residue forming chemical to the receiving
water.  In contrast, with the effluent alternative,  point source discharges are
examined individually.  The inclusion of both alternatives in the guidance provides
greater  flexibility and usefulness for the guidance approach since neither alternative
by itself is useful in all  permitting situations.

1.1   Site Study Objective

    " The objective of  the site study was to determine how well tissue residue
concentrations can be predicted in field discharge situations using the guidance
procedures, i.e., components 2, 3, and 4.

                                      13

-------
      This validation effort was not designed to verify a) the accuracy of the
allowable tissue residues, b) the analytical procedures associated with the tissue
alternative, c) the prediction of residues where exposure is intermittent, d) the
prediction of residues where exposure is difficult to estimate, or e) the derivation
of acceptable human uptake levels.

1.2   Constraints

      In order to predict residues in receiving water organisms, the concentration
of tlie chemicals in the receiving water must be known, and these concentrations
(in the receiving water) must be relatively constant for a 20  to 40 day period.
Without these conditions, successful evaluation of the field data will be nearly
impossible since the indigenous organisms will never come to steady-state
conditions with  the receiving water.

      These characteristics, in general, are associated with sites which: a) have
reasonably simple hydrodynamics so that receiving water concentrations can be
determined and/or calculated, b) have short  hydraulic resident times so that fate
and halflife considerations are minimized for the discharged chemicals, c) have
effluent discharges with  relatively constant concentrations of bioconcentratable
chemicals, and d) have limited sources of the bioconcentratable chemicals under
investigation.
                                      14

-------
                     SITE SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION

      This report details the validation study performed on Bayou d'lnde, Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana in September and October, 1990. This field site was selected
because a) the effluent upon assessment with the effluent alternative analytical
method contained bioconcentratable chemicals, b) the flow regime of the site was
reasonably simple and had short flow times, and c) native populations of fish and
shellfish were available. Furthermore, preliminary calculations suggested that
concentrations of the chemicals in the receiving water were high enough to result
in measurable tissue  residues in the indigenous organisms.

2.1   Description of  Bayou d'lnde, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana

      The site selected for the validation study was a 1.6  km stretch of Bayou
d'lnde and a 1.6 km  length of an effluent/cooling water canal which flows in to the
bayou (Figure 2-1).  This site is located about 6.4 km west of Lake Charles,
Louisiana and is in the lower Calcasieu River system (Figure 2-1). The
effluent/cooling water canal receives a discharge from a chemical manufacturing
plant which produces a variety of synthetic organic chemicals.  The
effluent/cooling water canal is a dredged channel, 3 m deep and 20 m wide.  Three
bridges cross the  canal within the study area, and these bridges provide access to
natural gas and oil wells in the marshes adjacent to the canal.

      Bayou d'lnde is a lowland channel that meanders through a tidally-influenced
brackish/freshwater marsh. Water  from Bayou d'lnde flows in a southeasterly
direction into the  Calcasieu River ship canal, and Bayou d'lnde is used for
commercial navigation.  Commercial navigation in the bayou consists primarily of
petroleum carrying barges and barge tows.  Water levels in Bayou d'lnde and the
surrounding marsh fluctuate with the daily tidal cycle, and  with seiches generated
by northerly and southerly winds on the lower Calcasieu River system.  The water
level of the effluent canal is influenced by the fluctuating water levels in Bayou
d'lnde. Typical tidal  fluctuations are about  15 cm in the bayou [2].

      Bayou d'lnde is a highly industrialized estuary and the bayou  receives
discharges from at least five different manufacturing facilities. The bayou is highly
contaminated with metals and chlorinated nonpolar organics [3,4].  In general, the
water quality of the bayou is highly degraded, and numerous EPA criteria and state
water quality standards are exceeded.
                                     15

-------
CO

-------
      After discovery of the contaminant problem in 1986 and 1987, advisories
were issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and the
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals against the consumption of fish and
shellfish and against swimming, wading, and water sports in Bayou d'lnde. In
1989, advisories against the sale and consumption of speckled trout and white
trout from the lower Calcasieu estuary were issued in light of the high fish and
shellfish tissue residue levels of hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene.

      Seven sample collection sites were used for this study (Figure 2-1). This
figure was taken from a previous study [5], and therefore, the sample locations 1,
2, 3, 9, 10, and  11 correspond with stations A, 1, B, C, D, E, respectively, in this
study.  For the effluent/cooling water canal, three stations, Stations A, 1, and B,
were located at the three bridges crossing the canal.  Station A was furthest
upstream and  Station  1 was 400 m downstream  of Station A.  Station B was 400
m downstream of Station 1, and approximately 400 m upstream of the confluence
of the effluent/cooling water canal and Bayou d'lnde.

      Three stations, Stations C, D  and E, were located in a navigable stretch of
Bayou d'lnde.  Station C was located 400 m upstream of the confluence of the
effluent/cooling water canal and Bayou d'lnde. Stations D and E were located 400
and 800 m, respectively,  downstream of the confluence of the effluent/cooling
water canal and Bayou d'lnde.

      The seventh sampling station was the outfall from the chemical plant prior
to dilution with cooling water.  The outfall after dilution with cooling water enters
the upstream end of the canal.  The canal is composed of 100% effluent, i.e.,
outfall after dilution with cooling water, and Station  1 corresponds to the NPDES
permitted sample location for the chemical manufacturing facility.

2.2   Screening of the Effluents

      Prior to  the site study, the effluent  analytical method was performed on grab
effluent samples from Station 1 and the outfall. This method detected and
identified a number of chlorinated organics, i.e., chloro-benzenes and chloro-
butadienes, and a few polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).  Data for these
analyses are reported in Appendix A (Tables A-1 through A-6) for the samples from
Station 1 and  the outfall.

2.3   Selection of Target Chemicals

      For this study, thirteen chemicals were  chosen for evaluation. In Table 2-1,
a listing of the thirteen site  study chemicals, their abbreviations, and BCFs are
reported. Six  of the thirteen chemicals were identified by using the effluent
analytical procedure on the  outfall and Station 1 grab samples prior to the study
(Table 2-1).  Of the remaining seven chemicals, two were isomers and five were
structural analogs of the chemicals identified using the effluent analytical
procedure.
                                     17

-------
Table 2.1    Site Study Chemicals
Full Chemical Name
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachlorobutadiene #1
Tetrachlorobutadiene #2
Pentachlorobutadiene #1
Pentachlorobutadiene #2
Hexachlorobuta-1 ,3-diene
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4,5- and 1,2,3,5-
"Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Abbreviation
(HCE)
(TeCBD#1)
(TeCBD#2)
(PeCBD#1)
(PeCBD#2)
(HCBD)
(1,2,3-TrCB)
(1,2,4-TrCB)

(TeCB Mix)
(1,2,3,4-TeCB)
(PeCB)
(HCB)
Calculated
BCF
742
140
140
340
340
2380
630
597

2800
1840
4850
6240
Identified in
the Effluent
Analysis?
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes

no
no
yes
yes
                                     18

-------
     All thirteen site study chemicals were present in the outfall and/or Station 1
grab samples even though they were not all identified with the effluent analytical
procedure. The inclusion of the seven remaining chemicals allowed a more
complete and comprehensive evaluation of the chlorinated butadiene and benzene
classes of compounds.

      Two of the selected chemicals, 1,2,4,5- and 1,2,3,5-TeCBs, could not be
consistently resolved in the instrumental analysis and therefore, these two
chemicals were treated as one in this site study. For the TeCBDs and  PeCBDs, the
lack of reference materials, i.e., neat material, prevented direct confirmation of
each chemical.  Therefore, the TeCBDs and PeCBDs were referred to as TeCBD#1,
TeCBD#2, PeCBD#1, and PeCBD#2 in this study.

    "  The chemicals selected for the site study were typical of the chemicals from
the discharge. Their calculated BCFs ranged from  140 to 6,420 (Table 2-1).
Some of the chemicals were available in stable isotope form; with stable isotopes,
recoveries for the chemicals through the analytical procedure can be determined for
each sample.
                                    19

-------
                                 METHODS

3.1   Site Study Plan

      Measured residue levels in indigenous organisms for the Bayou d'lnde site
were compared to residue concentrations predicted for these organisms.

      Residue levels in the organisms were predicted by determining the ambient
chemical concentrations and using these data in the residue prediction procedure.
Ambient water concentrations were determined by collecting and analyzing one
grab'water sample every seven days for four weeks at six sampling stations.
Three of the sampling stations were located in the canal, and the remaining three
stations were located in the bayou. One of the bayou stations was above the
confluence of the canal and the bayou.  In conjunction with the collection of the
grab samples,  a series of  four, seven-day 24-hour composite ambient water
samples were collected and analyzed from one of the sampling stations  located on
the canal.

      Indigenous organisms were collected at the end of the 28 day period at the
six stations used for the collection of the ambient water samples.  Residue
analyses and lipid content determinations were performed on the indigenous
organisms.

      Replicate chemical  analyses were performed on the ambient water samples
and indigenous organisms by two analytical laboratories.  These analyses included
both inter- and intra-laboratory replication of the ambient water samples.  For the
tissue samples, replicate analyses were performed on selected samples  when
enough tissue  mass was available.

3.2 •  Estimation of Residues in Aquatic Organisms

      Only a brief description of the residue prediction technique is presented here.
The reader is referred to EPA 1991 [1] for further details.

3.2.1  Prediction  of  Bioconcentration Factors for Aquatic Organisms

      Bioconcentration factors for aquatic organisms were estimated using the
multi-species log BCF-log P correlation developed by Veith and Kosian [61:

           log BCF = 0.79 log P - 0.40       n = 112    r2  = 0.86

      This correlation, derived from a data set consisting of 122 BCF values for 13
freshwater and marine species, was typical of all log BCF-log P correlations [7].
The above equation has 95% prediction intervals (note, 95% confidence intervals
for the mean BCF are much smaller) of approximately one order of magnitude, and
the predicted BCF values  were for organisms with 7.6% lipid content.
                                     20

-------
      The predicted BCF values must be corrected to the appropriate lipid content
before prediction of the tissue residues since numerous fishes and shellfishes have
lipid contents differing from 7.6%.  The BCF is directly proportional to lipid
content, and corrections for lipid content were done using a simple proportionality.

3.2.2 Prediction of Bioaccumulation Factors for Aquatic Organisms

      Bioaccumulation factors are derived by "adjusting" the BCF using a food
chain multiplier (FM) for the organism of concern [1]:

                              BAF = FM * BCF

The FM is dependent upon the log P of the chemical and the structure of the
organism's food chain [8-10].

      In this site study,  the FMs for the.chemicals under investigation were equal
to 1.0 for eleven of the thirteen chemicals due to their relatively low log P values
and consequently,  the BAF and BCF were equal for these chemicals.  For two other
chemicals, PeCB and HCB, their FMs were 3.0 and 3.7,  respectively. For different
chemicals, readers should consult EPA 1991  [1] to obtain the appropriate FM
value.

3.2.3 Prediction of Residues in Aquatic Organisms

      The tissue residues for a chemical were calculated by multiplying the  BAF,
the product of the  BCF and FM terms, after correction for lipid content, by the
concentration of the chemical in the water:

                 [Fish]  = BAF  * [Water] =  BCF * FM * [Water]

The [Fish] and [Water] terms are the concentration of the chemical in the aquatic
organism and in the receiving water, respectively.  Residue concentrations
predicted using the BCF or BAF were for steady-state conditions which implies that
the concentration of a chemical  in the receiving water was  at steady-state also.

3.2.4 Metabolism and Prediction of Residues in Aquatic Organisms

      The tissue residues predicted using the procedure outlined  in Sections 3.2.1
through 3.2.3 assumes that in vivo metabolism of the contaminants does not
occur. When metabolism occurs, the predicted residues will be larger than those
measured in the organisms, because metabolism enhances excretion of zenobiotic
chemicals.

      The effects of metabolism on the actual versus predicted tissue residue
concentrations is dependent upon the rate of metabolism for each chemical.  For
chemicals with  slow rates of metabolism, the differences between the predicted
and measured tissue residues will be small, while for chemicals with rapid rates of
metabolism, differences  between the predicted and measured tissue residues will
be large.


                                     21

-------
3.3   Sampling Procedures

3.3.1       Field Sampling Procedures for the Composite Ambient Water Samples

      A series of four, seven-day, 24-hour composite ambient water samples were
collected from Station  1. Sample collection was initiated on September 12, 1990,
and was completed on October 10, 1990. The individual composites were taken
during the time periods of September 12-19, September 19-26, September 26 to
October 3, and October 3-10.

      The samples were collected in an iced ISCO* water sampler equipped with a
glass collection vessel.  The ISCO* sampler was inspected daily, at which time the
ice was replenished and the water samples were removed and placed in
refrigerated storage. Because of the heat and humidity at Station 1 during the
course of the study, the ISCO* sampler occasionally failed. On the days when a
24-hour composite sample was not available, or when the volume of sample was
insufficient, a grab sample from the canal was collected to supplement the daily
composite sample. At the end of each seven-day period, the individual 24-hour
samples were composited and mixed in a 60 liter carboy container.  Replicate four
liter samples were drawn from the seven-day composite samples, placed into new
brown glass 1  gallon solvent bottles with teflon lined caps, packed on ice, and
shipped using overnight delivery to two analytical laboratories, Battelle-Columbus
and Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth (ERL-D).

3.3.2       Field  Sampling Procedures for the Grab Ambient Water Samples

      On the seventh day of the collection of the seven-day composite ambient
water samples at Station 1, replicate four liter ambient canal and Bayou d'lnde
water samples were collected from stations A, 1, B, C, D and E. These samples
were collected on September 19, September 26, October 3, and October 10. The
only exception was the collection of the  Station  1 grab sample which was taken on
the 20th  instead of the 19th of September.

      The ambient grab samples were collected at mid-channel/mid-water column
at each station using a battery operated  electric pump. Upon collection, these
samples were placed into new brown glass 1  gallon solvent bottles with teflon
lined caps, packed on ice, and shipped using overnight delivery to Battelle and
EPA-Duluth.

3.3.3 Field Sampling Procedure for the Grab Water Samples From the Outfall.

    .  Replicate four liter grab samples were collected from the outfall from the
chemical plant prior to dilution with cooling water on September 20, September 26
October 3, and October 10, 1990.  These samples were placed into  new brown
glass  1 gallon solvent bottles with teflon lined caps, packed on ice, and shipped
using  overnight delivery to ERL-D.
                                    22

-------
3.3.4       Field Procedures for Sampling Sediments

      Concurrently with the collection of the last ambient water grab samples (10
and 11 October 1990), sediment samples were collected from all six ambient
stations using an Eckman dredge sampler.  Three samples were collected per
station, the quarter, mid-, and 3/4 quarters channel locations. Samples were
transferred to glass containers, capped with teflon  lined lids, packed on ice, and
shipped to Battelle-Columbus and EPA-Duluth.

3.3.5       Field Sampling Procedures for Indigenous Organisms

      Resident organisms were collected on October 8-11,  1990,  using a
combination of variable mesh gill nets, cast nets, minnow traps and crab pots.
The common and scientific  names of the organisms collected are listed in Table 3-
1.  Of the ten species collected, two spe.cies, Fundulus heteroclitus and Callinectes
sapidus. were collected at all six stations.  The third most common species,
Brevoortia patronus. was collected at five of the six stations. The fourth most
abundant species, Micropoaan undulus. was collected at four of the six stations.
The six remaining species collected were present only at low numbers (one or two)
at  few of the stations.

      Immediately after collection, the organisms were placed in coolers containing

wet ice until they were labeled and frozen (<24 h). Special care was taken to
insure that separate coolers were used for holding the organisms at each station.
The collected organisms were frozen whole in solvent rinsed aluminum foil
packages containing 3 to 10 organisms.  Individual organisms that weighed more
than 100 grams were packaged separately. When the collection of resident
organisms was completed, the frozen packages of organisms were inventoried,
shipped on dry ice to Battelle-Great Lakes, and then shipped on dry ice to Battelle-
Columbus and ERL-D for compositing and analysis.

3.4   Analytical  Procedures

3.4.1 Effluent Analysis Procedure

      Only a brief account of the procedure for detecting and identifying
bioconcentratable chemicals in effluents will be presented here.  Readers are
referred to Appendix B of EPA's guidance [1] for further details.

      A 10 L effluent sample was spiked  with three surrogate compounds, d10-
biphenyl, 13Ce-1,2,4,5-TeCB, and 13C6-HCB, and extracted with hexane. The
hexane extract was subsequently cleaned up using sulfuric  acid, and concentrated
to  a volume  of 0.50 ml_.  The extract was chromatographed using reverse phase
high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC), and three fractions were collected.
The fractions were extracted, concentrated to 0.10 ml, and spiked with the
internal standard, d12-chrysene.  The fraction extracts  were analyzed using  capillary
gas ghromatography with full scan electron impact ionization mass spectrometry
(GC/MS).
                                     23

-------
Table 3-1.        Common and Scientific Names of Organisms Collected at Six
                 Sample Stations Near Lake Charles, Louisiana.
          Common Name                  Scientific Name"

       Cockahoo (mummy chog)b         Fundulus heteroclitus

       Striped Mullet                    Mugil cephalus

       Blue Crab0                       Callinectes sapid us

       Gulf Menhadend                  Brevoortia patronus

       Butterfish (spot)                  Leiostomus xanthurus

       Atlantic Croaker"                 Micropogan undulus

       Sea Catfish (hardhead)            Arius filus

       Marsh Killifish                    Fundulus confluentus

       Banana Fish (Lady Fish)           Elopes saurus

       Fiddler Crab                      Uca pugilator
       Scientific names of fishes taken from:  Common and Scientific Names of
       North American Fishes.  American Fisheries Society. 1970.
       Most common fish.
       Most common invertebrate.
       Third most common organism collected.
       Fourth most common organisms collected.
                                    24

-------
       Each chromatographic peak in the GC/MS chromatograms was quantified
using the response factor calculated from its appropriate surrogate. For fractions
one, two, and three, the quantification surrogates were d10-biphenyl, 13C6-1,2,4,5-
TeCB, and 13C6-HCB, respectively.

       For each fraction, all chromatographic peaks were reverse-searched against
(compared with) the Chemicals of Highest Concern (CMC) mass spectral library [1].
Those chemicals not identified with the CHC search with effluent concentrations
above 100 ng/L, were then reversed-searched against the EPA/NIH/NBS mass
spectral library. Peaks with fits of greater than 70% were considered tentatively
identified. For each tentatively identified component, a list of the best mass
spectral library identifications  (up to a total of ten  identifications) was reported
along with the percent fit values.

3.4.2  Weekly Ambient Water (Grab and Composite) and Outfall (Grab) Samples
       Analysis Procedure

       The weekly ambient composite and ambient grab samples were analyzed at
two different laboratories, Battelle-Columbus and ERL-D. The outfall water sample
fronrfthe chemical plant was analyzed at ERL-D. The ambient grab samples for
Station  1 were analyzed for dissolved and paniculate chemical concentrations at
Battelle-Columbus.

       The analytical methods used at both laboratories were similar, and the
concentrations reported for the target chemicals were comparable between the
two laboratories.  Similar data between the two laboratories were obtained by the
use of an internal standard quantification method, 13C- labelled surrogates for
determining compound recoveries, and reporting of the data after recovery
correction.

       The analytical procedures consisted of spiking a known sample volume of
water,  Battelle, 5.0 L, and ERL-D, 3.6 L, with "C^HCE,  13C4-HCBD, 13C6-TeCB,
and 13C6-HCB at concentrations similar to the target chemical concentrations,
Battelle, 600 ng/L, and ERL-D, 200 ng/L. The spiked water samples were
extracted three times using hexane at 60 mL per liter. The hexane was dried using
sodium sulfate, concentrated using a Kuderna-Danish concentrator (K-D) to ca. 10
mL and reduced to 1.0 or 0.10 mL using a gentle stream of nitrogen.  These
extracts were spiked with the internal standard, d12-chrysene, Battelle, 2  mg/L and
ERL-0, 10 mg/L.

       Dissolved chemical concentrations in this study were defined as the
chemical which passes through a Whatman glass fiber filter.  (Note, the exact filter
type was not recorded in laboratory record book.)  Particulate chemical
concentrations were defined as the chemical which was retained by the Whatman


                                     25

-------
glass fiber filter.  For the filtered samples from Station 1, ten liter samples were
filtered through Whatman glass fiber filters, (pore size was not recorded) using
vacuum filtration. The filtered ambient samples were analyzed as described above.
The particulates retained on the filters were analyzed by crumbling the filters, then
spiking the filters with the surrogate solution, and finally extracting with two  100
ml aliquots of hexane followed by one 100 ml aliquot of acetone  using a tumbling
extractor device. The hexane and acetone were combined, concentrated to
approximately 0.5 ml using a K-D concentrator, and reduced to 100 //L using
natural evaporation. These extracts were spiked with the internal  standard, d12-
chrysene, at a 2 mg/L concentration.

       GC/MS analysis  using selected ion monitoring (SIM) was performed, and
quantifications were performed using an internal standard method  with 5 or 6
standard concentrations.  An average response factor (Battelle) or  a piece-wise
calibration curve  (ERL-D) were used in the quantification of each chemical.  The
responses of the  surrogate chemicals were corrected for isotopic inferences from
the native chemical responses prior to calculation of their response factors. The
most predominant ion was used to quantify each compound.

       Quantification standards contained the internal standard (d12-chrysene), the
four carbon-13 labelled  surrogates ('^-HCE, 13C4-HCBD, 13C6-TeCB, and 13C6-
HCB), and the native forms of the target chemicals except for the  TeCBD and
PeCBD compounds, which were not available commercially. For the TeCBD#1,
TeCBD#2, PeCBD#1, and PeCBD#2 compounds, the response factor for HCBD
was used for quantification.  The 1,2,4,5- and 1,2,3,5-TeCBs could not be
consistently resolved on the gas chromatograph and therefore, these two
chemicals were quantified and reported as a mixture.

       All quantification results for the site study chemicals were  recovery
corrected. For HCE, recovery corrections were made using the recoveries of  ^C,-
HCE.  For PeCB and HCB, recovery corrections were made  using the recoveries of
13Ce-HCB. For 1,2,4-TrCB, 1,2,3-TrCB,  1,2,4,5-and 1,2,3,5-TeCB  mixture (TeCB
Mix), 1,2,3,4-TeCB, TeCBD#1, TeCBD#2,  PeCBD#1, PeCBD#2, and HCBD,
recovery corrections were made using the recoveries of 13C6-1,2,4,5-TeCB. The
recovery of the 13C4-HCBD surrogate was not used to recovery correct the
TeCBD#1, TeCBD#2, PeCBD#1, PeCBD#2, and HCBD compounds due to the
extremely high concentrations of natural HCBD which masked the  responses  of the
labelled HCBD on the GC/MS.

       Since some of the site study chemicals were recovery corrected using the
recoveries for different compounds, recovery confirmation experiments were
performed using the analysis procedure with reagent water spiked with these
chemicals.  Differences  in recoveries between PeCB and HCB were 1%, and
                                    26

-------
between TeCB Mix and 1,2,4-TrCB, 1,2,3-TrCB, 1,2,3,4-TeCB, and HCBD were
small, 23, 17, 14, and 1%, respectively.

       Before finalizing the data, surrogate recoveries, inter- and intra-laboratory
consistency, and procedure blank values were evaluated for each sample.  An
acceptable range of recoveries for the surrogates was set at 20% to 120% for
water analyses.  Site chemicals with surrogate recoveries outside of this range
were rejected as being unreliable. For chemicals failing this evaluation, their
determinations were not reported but were labeled as not passing this quality
control evaluation.

       Inter- and  intra-laboratory precision of the recovery corrected chemical
concentrations reported was evaluated by comparing replicate determinations.  For
replicate samples  with chemical concentrations differing by a factor of 4 or more,
sample extracts were reanalyzed on the GC/MS, and when  available, an additional
aliquot of sample  was prepared and analyzed.  Samples with data not  consistent
with their reanalysis on the GC/MS were rejected as unreliable. Samples  not
consistent with the  newly prepared sample extracts were also rejected as
unreliable.  The chemical  concentrations determined by the  reanalysis  of the
sample extracts and by the extraction of a new aliquot sample were not reported.

       Procedural blanks for each sample set were evaluated for each site study
chemical. Blank concentrations were compared with previous analyses.  When
blank concentrations changed by a factor of 4 or more, the procedural blank
extract was reanalyzed on the  GC/MS.  Blanks with data not consistent with their
reanalysis on the GC/MS  were rejected as unreliable.  If all  of the analytes in the
blank were greater than a factor of 4 from past analyses, the entire sample set
was rejected as unreliable.

       For each sampling station, average concentrations were determined for
each chemical after  correction  for the procedural blank.  Correction for the
procedural blank was performed by averaging blank concentrations from all
procedural blank analyses and then subtracting their average blank value from their
reported concentrations.  If a blank corrected concentration of less than zero was
obtained, a value  of zero  was used for that replicate when the average station
concentration was calculated.
3.4.3  Tissue Analysis Procedure

3.4.3.1
Procedures
Compositing and Homogenization
       Enough organisms and tissue mass existed for four of the ten species for
making tissue composites.  These species were the R. heteroclitus. £_.. saoidus.
                                     27

-------
EL patronus. and M. undulus and twelve, three, five, and three organisms per
composite were used, respectively. Due to inadequate numbers of organisms for
the JL patronus at Stations 1 and B, tissue composites were obtained for only
three stations. Compositing of the R heteroclitus and the C^ sapid us were
performed at ERL-D.  Compositing of the M, undulus and EL patronus was
performed at Battelle-Columbus.

       At both laboratories, the individual organisms were randomly assigned to
composite groups and the weight of each organism in each composite group was
recorded.  Prior to the randomization process, a few very small and very large
organisms were withdrawn from the selection process.  By withdrawing these
organisms, composite groups could be constructed where each organism was
about equally represented (using the whole  organism body mass) in  each
composite.  Compositing information is listed for each composite sample in Table
A-26.

       At ERL-D, after randomization, the R_ heteroclitus composite groups were
homogenized using the whole organisms and a Waring blender.  The ground tissues
were- placed into glass containers, capped with an aluminum foil lined lids, and
then stored frozen until analysis.  The C^. sapidug were divided into two groups
prior to randomization (large and small) and then were randomly assigned to
composite groups. The body weight for C_.. sapidus consisted of the shell and soft
parts without any legs since many legs were broken off in the freezing and
shipping process. The anterior portion of the shell was removed and the soft body
parts (not including the legs) were scraped out and weighed.  The soft body  parts
were homogenized using a Waring blender,  placed into glass jars, capped with a
aluminum foil lined lid, and stored frozen until analysis.

       At Battelle, EL patronus and M. undulus composite groups were made by
individually grinding each organism, placing the ground tissue into glass jars, and
then thoroughly mixing the tissue. The homogenized tissue were capped and
stored  frozen until analysis.
3.4.3.2                                Tissue Analysis

       Tissue samples were analyzed at Battelle-Columbus and ERL-D. As with
the procedures used for the analysis of ambient water samples, the analytical
methods used at both laboratories were similar, and the concentrations of the
target chemicals were not greatly different between the two laboratories.
Comparable data were obtained through the use of the internal standard technique
described in Section 3.4.2.
                                     28

-------
       At ERL-D, a 20-gram aliquot of tissue was mixed with sodium sulfate,
spiked with the 13C- labelled compounds, and extracted using methylene
chloride:hexane (1:1) with a Soxhlet extractor. The extract was concentrated to
about 8 mL using a K-D concentrator and then was adjusted to 10 mL. Five or ten
percent of the extract was placed into a preheated, cooled, and tared aluminum
cup.- The cup was dried at 105°C for 15 minutes, allowed to cool in a desiccator,
and then weighed for the lipid determination. The remaining portion of the extract,
i.e, 90% or 95%, was diluted with methylene chloride in preparation for gel
permeation chromatography (GPC) to remove the lipids. The extract was
concentrated to a volume less than 1 mL and spiked with d12-chrysene.  The
prepared samples were analyzed using the same GC/MS procedures used for the
ambient water samples.

       At Battelle, a 20-gram aliquot of tissue was transferred to a centrifuge
bottle containing magnesium sulfate and methylene chloride.  The tissue was
spiked with the 13C- labelled compounds and blended with a Polytron* tissue
homogenizer for two minutes. The sample was centrifuged at 2000 rpm for five
minutes and the supernatant removed. The extract was then transferred to an
alumina column, and the homogenate  was extracted twice  more by shaking with
additional methylene chloride. Each extract was passed through the alumina
column, the column  was rinsed with an additional 10 ml of methylene chloride, and
the methylene chloride eluate was concentrated by using a K-D concentrator to a
volume of 2.0 ml.

    .  One mL of the concentrated extract was injected onto a gel permeation
chromatograph  (GPC) to remove lipids. The collected fraction was concentrated to
about 5 mL by K-D,  exchanged to hexane, and reduced to 100 //L by natural
evaporation.  The prepared samples were analyzed using the GC/MS procedures
used for the ambient water samples.

       Lipid contents were determined by extracting known amount of tissue (1 to
2 grams) with methylene chloride, evaporating the solvent, placing the extract into
an oven at 130°C for 60 minutes, and after cooling, weighing the  extract.

       Data from both laboratories were evaluated prior to final reporting.
Surrogate recoveries, inter- and intra-laboratory consistency, and procedural blank
values were evaluated for each sample using the  procedures described in section
3.4.2.  For the tissues, a slightly different surrogate recovery range was used,
15% to 120%.  For samples where the mass of lipid prevented all  of the extract
from being chromatographed on the GPC, the reported recovery was divided by the
fraction of the extract put onto the GPC. This adjusted recovery value was used in
the procedures in section 3.4.2. Recoveries for those chemicals without labelled
analogs were determined using the analysis procedure with Osmerus mordax
(rainbow smelt) spiked with these chemicals.  Differences in recovery  were small


                                     29

-------
between PeCB and 13C6-HCB, 0%, and between 13C6-1,2,4,5-TeCB and 1,2,4-
TrCB, 1,2,3-TrCB, 1,2,3,4-TeCB, and HCBD, 14%, 1%, 9%, and 4%,
respectively.

3.4.4  Sediment Analysis Procedure

       The sediment analysis was performed at ERL-D.  Although sediment was
collected from three locations at each station, only one sample (usually the mid-
channel location) was analyzed per station.

       Samples were removed from the refrigerator and allowed to warm to room
temperature.  Two grams of sediment were weighed out and mixed with enough
anhydrous sodium sulfate to dry the sample. The dried samples were spiked with
the 13C-labelled surrogates, i.e., 13CrHCE, 13C4-HCBD,13Ce-TeCBD and 13C6-HCB, at
a concentration of approximately 4.0 //g/g per compound and were Soxhlet
extracted using 1:1 mixture of methylene chloride and hexane. After extraction,
the extracts were passed through columns containing sodium sulfate and activated
copper, and were concentrated using a  K-D concentrator to approximately 10 ml.
These extracts were concentrated further to 1.5 ml using a stream of nitrogen
gas. Portions of  the 1.5 mL extract were spiked with the internal standard, d12-
chrysene, at concentrations ranging from 0.5 mg/L to 10 mg/L. The spiked
extracts were analyzed  using the GC/MS and data review procedures used for the
ambient water samples.

       Concurrently with the sediment  residue analyses, percent moisture
determinations for sediment samples were  performed by drying a 4 to 5 g aliquot
of the sediment in an oven at 105°C for 12 hours.

       Concurrently with the sediment  residue analyses, total organic carbon
analysis was performed by weighing a 4 or 5 g aliquot of each sample and drying
therri at 105°C for 12 hours.  The samples were allowed to cool in a desiccator
and then were ground with a mortar and pestle into a fine powder.  Approximately
0.3 to 0.5 g of each sample was transferred into a preweighed vial.  The samples
were acidified dropwise with 10% HCI until the foaming ceased and  returned to
the oven for 12 hours (overnight).  The following day, total organic carbon was
measured for each sample by using a Dohrmann TOC Analyzer DC80 with a
DC183 furnace.
                                    30

-------
3.4.5  Dissolved and Particulate Organic Carbon Analysis Procedures

       Dissolved, participate, and total organic carbon (DOC, POC, and TOC,
respectively) were determined for the ambient water samples.  Prior to filtration, all
glassware and glass fiber filters were "ashed" in a muffle furnace.  A 100 ml
aliquot of a water sample was vacuum-filtered through a pre-moistened 47 mm
(filter diameter) Gelman A/E glass fiber filter (1 ym pore size). The filtrates were
poured into a glass bottle, adjusted to less than a pH of 2 with HCI, capped with a
teflon lined lid, and placed in a refrigerator at 4°C.  Between each filtration, the
filtering apparatus was rinsed with Millipore* water. The filter pads were dried in a
covered aluminum pan at 110°C for more than 2 hours.  Filter and filtrate blanks
were collected after the processing of every 2 to 3 samples by filtering 100 mL of
Millipore* water through the system.  Concurrently with the filtration of the water
samples, whole water samples were poured into a glass bottle, adjusted to less
than a pH of 2 with HCI, capped with a teflon lined lid, and placed into a
refrigerator at 4°C.

       The ambient water samples collected on September 19 and 26 were  not
acidified (preserved) until the 9th of October, 17 and 11 days after filtration,
respectively.

       The filtrates, filters, and whole water samples were analyzed by the
National Spectrographic Laboratories  (Cleveland, Ohio) for organic carbon.
Dissolved organic carbon and total organic carbon were measured using the EPA
method 415.1.   Particulate organic carbon was measured using a LECO* carbon
analyzer and the ASTM method E350.

3.4.6  Procedures for Particle Sizing  the Sediments

       A composite sediment sample was prepared for each station by mixing
equal portions of the mid-channel and quarter points.  An aliquot of the composite
was treated with H202 to remove organic  carbon and the sample was dispersed in
water using a sodium metaphosphate and sodium carbonate solution.  The <20
//m,  <5 fjm, and <0.2 /vm fractions were determined by pipetting after
sedimentation and  <0.2 //m fraction  was  determined by pipetting after
centrifugation.  The pipetted solutions were dried at 105°C for at least 12 hours
and then weighed. The sand fraction was separated from the silt and clay
fractions by washing a sample through a 300 mesh sieve and the various sand
fractions were determined by sieving  and  weighing a dried portion (at 105°C) of
the washed sand.  The particle sizing procedure was performed by the Ohio State
University, Department of Agronomy, Soil Characterization Laboratory in Columbus
Ohio.
                                     31

-------
                         RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1    Expected Tissue Residue Trends

       The guidance procedure for predicting residues in aquatic organisms does
not account for metabolism.  For this site study, it is believed that the chemicals
under investigation, i.e., chlorinated benzenes, butadienes, and ethanes, are very
slowly metabolized by invertebrate and vertebrate aquatic organisms.

       Studies by Nichols et al. [11] and Gargas and Andersen [12] have shown
that hexachloroethane is poorly metabolized in rainbow trout and rats, respectively.
In the review by Matthews [13], pentachlorobenzene and hexachlorobenzene were
reported to be slightly metabolized in rabbits and rats.  Bauer et al. [14] and
Sanborn et al. [15] have shown that hexachlorobenzene metabolites  can be found
at trace levels in blue mussel and green sunfish when they are exposed to
hexachlorobenzene. Matthews [13] has also reported that for the  chlorinated
benzene family, the rate of metabolism by mammalian species was inversely
proportional to the degree of chlorination, i.e., the higher the degree  of
chlorination, the less metabolism occurs.

       In view of the slow rate of metabolism for these chemicals, the following
general statements about the comparison of the measured and predicted tissue
residues can be made prior to examining the site study data.

       a)        Agreement  between the measured and predicted  tissue residues
                should be fairly similar for invertebrate and vertebrate organisms.
       b)        Similar agreement between the measured and predicted tissue
                residues should be observed all for chemicals for a  given
                organism.
       c)        If any metabolism did occur in the site study organisms, the lower
                chlorinated  benzenes and butadienes would have poorer
                agreement between the measured and predicted tissue residues
                than the higher chlorinated congeners .

4.2    Ambient Water Concentrations:  Results

       Replicate analyses were performed on each ambient water sample for the
thirteen site study chemicals. The individual determinations as well as the
procedural blanks performed  with these analyses are reported in Tables A-7
through A-18. In Table 4-1,  the weekly and four week average chemical
concentrations are reported for the ambient grab samples taken at each sampling
station, for the ambient composite samples taken at Station 1, and for the grab
samples taken from the outfall of the chemical plant prior to dilution  with cooling
water.


                                     32

-------
Table 4-1.     Concentration of Target Chemicals in Weekly Ambient Water Samples from the Canal and Bayou
              d'lnde.


                  	Concentration in Effluent ng/L*	
                                                                                             Coefficient
                                                                                    Std.          of
	Week 1      Week 2      Week 3	Week 4	Avg.	Dev.      Variation, %

Hexachloroethane
Outfall
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
350
222
46.9
99.0
932
47.2
81.5
51.5
87.2
188
144
237
264
136
198
152
23.1
134
153
138
144
8.67
16.4
8.23
34.0
848
229
1283
681
21.6
874
425
124
348
143
439
505
53.3
292
159
153
335
74.8
566
366
57.2
395
187
124
96.4
52.2
129
72.4
107
135
118
Tetrachlorobutadiene
Outfall
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
0.665
13.6
7.56
12.5
18.9
9.77
11.4
7.29
0.00
18.9
8.07
30.4
44.5
24.3
32.0
30.3
0.00
26.2
9.15
8.26
33.0
1.31
2.36
1.05
0.00
94.5
16.6
194
61.0
3.89
137
32.5
0.166
38.3
10.3
61.3
39.3
9.81
45.7
17.8
0.333
37.8
4.22
89.0
17.8
10.3
62.1
16.0
200
98.8
40.8
145
45.4
105
136
89.7
Tetrachlorobutadiene #2
Outfall
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
1.04
33.1
17.7
26.6
38.5
23.7
31.9
16.9
2.95
45.3
24.6
73.4
90.3
62.2
71.1
45.6
1.69
49.1
17.5
18.5
67.9
5.33
7.63
7.64
2.79
302
37.8
484
204
13.0
466
102
2.12
107
24.4
151
100
26.1
144
43.0
0.912
130
9.53
224
72.7
25.3
216
42.5
43.1
121
39.1
148
72.1
97.0
150
98.8
Pentachlorobutadiene
Outfall
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
7.08
199
70.9
102
275
113
171
96.0
8.44
280
92.6
340
303
123
246
231
5.38
356
64.2
90.2
324
0.00
0.302
0.393
8.50
1503
179
2240
799
16.9
899
369
7.35
584
102
692
425
63.2
329
174
1.47
615
53.0
1040
250
63.7
393
161
20.0
105
52.1
150
58.8
101
120
92.3
                                                   33

-------
Table 4-1.
Continued
Concentration in Effluent na/L1
Week 1
Pentachlorobutadiene
Outfall
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Hexachlorobutadiene
Outfall
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2
Outfall
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Trichlorobenzene, 1.2
Outfall
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
#2
3.39
58.2
22.8
37.0
75.3
28.8
37.5
20.5

51.5
389
128
235
745
235
364
224
,3-
2.02
15.7
16.1
12.4
32.7
26.4
14.8
23.8
,4-
9.95
103
49.8
80.8
164
77.4
106
67.9
Week 2

6.35
73.6
29.6
110
93.4
79.1
109
114

253
616
397
681
890
385
562
456

1.39
20.1
28.0
28.1
33.7
28.4
23.6
22.2

16.1
149
115
216
242
169
180
172
Week 3

2.99
102
23.3
24.0
118
0.475
1.44
1.75

83.8
598
407
498
530
0.359
0.894
1.72

3.35
27.4
28.8
25.7
22.0
5.96
2.01
7.0

14.6
148
121
104
157
23.8
18.4
14.5
Week 4

2.72
530
41.5
821
249
3.89
1610
85.8

173
4280
1540
5040
4780
180
4630
2740

2.60
156
42.9
202
194
13.3
182
90.3

12.8
801
222
1130
685
57.8
1140
458
Avg.

3.86
191
29.3
248
134
28.0
439
55.4

141
1470
618
1610
1740
200
1390
855

2.34
54.8
28.9
67.1
70.7
18.5
55.6
35.8

13.3
300
127
382
312
81.9
360
178
Std.
Dev.

1.68
227
87.0
384
78.7
36.3
780
52.9

91.3
1880
628
2290
2030
159
2170
1270

0.835
67.7
10.9
90.3
82.6
10.7
84.8
37.1

2.63
334
70.9
500
251
61.9
523
198
Coefficient
of
Variation, %

43.5
119
29.7
155
58.7
129
178
95.5

64.9
128
102
142
117
79.3
156
148

35.7
123
37.8
135
171
58.0
152
103

19.7
111
55.9
131
80.6
75.5
145
111
                                                  34

-------
Table 4-1.
Continued
                                           Concentration in Effluent ng/L*
                  Week 1
                Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Avg.
Std.
Dev.
 Coefficient
    of
Variation, %
Tetrachlorobenzene Mix
Outfall
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Tetrachlorobenzene,
Outfall
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Pentachlorobenzene
Outfall
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
7.63
26.1
13.9
26.5
44.3
24.1
30.3
25.3
1.2.3.4-
3.95
27.6
7.83
26.0
40.2
20.4
26.6
21.2

15.7
40.1
17.9
35.1
72.9
25.2
33.4
31.5
                               15.2
                               21.8
                               27.9
                               65.2
                               63.0
                               53.8
                               53.9
                               34.4
                              5.94
                              10.9
                              23.9
                              28.3
                              63.6
                              48.2
                              56.4
                              45.2
                               54.7
                               52.0
                               52.0
                               78.2
                               76.8
                               61.1
                               69.7
                               56.0
                             15.6
                             42.1
                             74.9
                             65.4
                             34.4
                             25.0
                             13.5
                             9.87
                             10.8
                             49.2
                             41.9
                             41.9
                             46.7
                             16.4
                             11.6
                             10.1
                             32.1
                             46.9
                             97.4
                             48.9
                             56.7
                             23.0
                             16.1
                             13.7
              12.3
              435
              129
              524
              830
              41.0
              467
              361
              6.55
              347
              83.1
              471
              448
              22.2
              408
              197
              27.7
              855
              148
              1160
              1190
              23.3
              544
              287
             12.7
              131
             61.3
              170
              243
             36.0
              141
              108
             6.81
              109
             39.2
              142
              150
             26.8
              126
             68.4
             32.5
              249
             78.8
              331
              349
             33.2
              166
             97.1
           3.68
            203
           51.9
            236
            392
           14.2
            218
            169
           2.88
            159
           32.4
            220
            199
           14.5
            189
           87.0
            16.3
            404
            56.5
            554
            561
            18.7
            253
            128
           29.0
            154
           84.7
            139
            161
           39.5
            154
            157
            42.4
            147
            82.7
            155
            133
            54.0
            150
            127
            50.1
            163
            71.6
            167
            161
            56.3
            153
            132
Hexachlorobenzene
Outfall
A
1 Composite"
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
44.6
41.8
16.6
28.9
127
17.9
24.9
28.0
189
31.8
30.1
34.1
35.9
25.9
32.9
26.0
88.0
41.9
77.1
56.5
43.4
17.3
14.2
13.6
189
739
138
1340
1460
8.26
265
122
128
214
65.4
364
418
17.4
84.2
47.4
72.9
350
54.8
649
699
7.22
121
50.1
57.2
164
83.8
178
167
41.6
143
106
• Recovery and blank corrected
                                               35

-------
      The inter- and intra-laboratory agreement was good for all of the site study
chemicals, e.g., for HCBD at Station B, coefficients of variation were 0.5, 4.4,
12.4, and 25.4% for intra- and 2.8 and 11.7% for inter-laboratory variability.  The
average recoveries (coefficients of variation) of the surrogates, 13C,-HCE, 13C6-
TeCB, and 13Ce-HCB, were 45.7 (36.6), 45.5 (39.1),  and 49.7 (35.0)%,
respectively.  The procedural blanks performed with these analyses were
consistently very low at both laboratories for all chemicals.  The only exception
was one procedural blank which had an unusually high HCE concentration and very
low concentrations for all of the other chemicals.  We believe that this high
determination is an outlier since  10 other procedural blanks performed by this
laboratory were consistent and substantially lower in  concentration.  Consequently,
this value was not used in the blank correction procedure for determining the
average concentrations reported in Table 4-1.

      In Tables A-19 and A-20,  the dissolved and particulate chemical
concentrations for the ambient composite samples taken from Station 1 are
reported, respectively.  In Tables A-21  and A-22, particulate and dissolved organic
carbon results are reported for the ambient water samples, respectively.

4.3   Ambient Water Concentrations:  Discussion

      To predict residues in the  indigenous organisms, the ambient water
concentration of each chemical must be known and these concentrations must be
relatively constant for a 20 to 40 day period. The best way to estimate the
ambient water concentrations would have been to collect four, seven day 24-hour
composite samples at each of the field sampling stations. However, field
conditions, especially in the bayou, as well as the costs associated with such field
work precluded this type of sampling for this study.

      For this study, ambient seven day 24-hour composite samples were
collected at Station 1 only.  For the other field stations as well as  Station  1,
weekly ambient grab samples were collected.  By comparing the composite and
grab samples at Station 1, the representativeness of the grab samples for
establishing the overall ambient water concentrations for the site study could be
evaluated.

      Examination of the composite and grab sample data taken at Station 1
(Table 4-1) indicates that for the first three weeks of the site study that the grab
samples provided estimates similar to those obtained by the composite sampling
technique.  Differences between the grab and composite chemical concentrations
were less than a factor of 1.8 on average and the individual differences ranged
from 0.5 to 3.8. These composite samples, weeks 1, 2, and 3, were not
completely based upon continuous intermittent sampling. Due to problems with
the ISCO* sampler, some of the composite  sample collected each day were brought

                                     36

-------
to volume using a grab sample taken that same day.  In Table A-23, the
percentages of composite versus grab samples in the seven day composites are
reported.  This equipment problem introduces some bias into the ambient water
concentrations reported for the composite samples.

      In contrast to weeks 1, 2, and 3, the grab and composite samples for the
fourth week were markedly different.  The ambient concentrations reported for the
grab sample were always higher than the composite sample concentrations,
sometimes by an order of magnitude.  In addition, the water concentrations for the
grab and composite samples were higher than the concentrations observed for the
previous three weeks. Differences in reported ambient concentrations between
weeks 3 and 4 ranged from a factor of 7.8 to 34 for the grab samples, and 1.5 to
3.8 for the composite samples.

      In comparing the grab samples from the canal and bayou sampling stations
for weeks 3 and 4, elevated chemical concentrations observed at these field
stations suggest that the grab sample from Station 1 wasn't an outlier. The whole
field site appears to have elevated ambient concentrations during  the fourth week
of the study, Table 4-1.  The only site where an elevated grab sample doesn't exist
was the outfall for the chemical plant prior to dilution with  cooling water.

      The establishment of the 28 day "steady-state" exposure concentrations for
the six field stations presents some difficulty due to the unusually high grab sample
concentrations in the fourth week.  In this investigation, we decided to determine
the 28 day "steady-state" exposure concentration by averaging the four weekly
concentrations for each station since none of the data could be dismissed  as being
not representative.  Furthermore, by including on an equal basis all four weeks of
data, naturally occurring variability for this site is included.   The bayou is
influenced by storm and wind surges off the Gulf of Mexico, by the tides,  runoff
passing through Bayou d'lnde, and changes in discharge flow and its composition.

    • By using the four week arithmetic average for the 28 day exposure
concentration, some error exists in the  derived average exposure concentrations.
The dynamics of this tidally influenced  receiving water are complex, and should not
be overlooked.

4.4   Sediment Results

      For each field station, the concentrations of the site study chemicals in  the
sediments were measured. In general,  the canal sediments  were  highly
contaminated and bayou sediments were less contaminated, Table 4-2.  The
organic carbon content and particle size data  for the sediments are reported in
Tables A-24 and A-25.
                                     37

-------
Tab,e
Conoenua, »no,
Chemica|s j
Station
Hexachloroethane
Blank
Blank
A
1
B
C
D
E
TOCfl
Percent
b
0.00
0.00
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
Percent
Moisture

0.00
0.00
75.8
72.9
80.6
60.3
69.5
69.9
Surrogate
% Recovery

78.2
83.0
100
43.5
41.7
82.3
92.1
81.6
Target Chemical
Recovery Corrected
[ng/g]

206
218
1090
199
266
157
210
183



(1.09/yg/g)





Tetrachlorobutadiene #1C
Blank
Blank
A
1
B
C
D
E
0.00
0.00
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
0.00
0.00
75.8
72.9
80.6
60.3
69.5
69.9
86.2
91.1
97.3
91.4
86.9
91.6
87.2
95.2
0.00
0.00
233
70.6
124
0.00
3.71
0.00








Tetrachlprobutadiene #2°
Blank
Blank
A
1
B
C
D
E
0.00
0.00
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
0.00
0.00
75.8
72.9
80.6
60.3
69.5
69.9
86.2
91.1
97.3
91.4
86.9
91.6
87.2
95.2
0.00
0.00
3150
955
2070
4.50
29.3
15.1


(3.15//g/g)

(2.07 /yg/g)



   38

-------
Table 4-2.   Continued.
Station
TOG'
Percent
Percent
Moisture
Surrogate
% Recovery
Target Chemical
Recovery Corrected
[ng/g]
Pentachlorobutadiene #1C
Blank
Blank
A
1
B
C
D
E
0.00
0.00
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
0.00
0.00
75.8
72.9
80.6
60.3
69.5
69.9
86.2
91.1
97.3
91.4
86.9
91.6
87.2
95.2
0.00
0.00
17300 (17.3/;g/g)
3920 (3.92 jjg/g)
2920 (2.92^g/g)
6.50
44.8
23.7
Pentachlorobutadiene #2C
Blank
Blank
A
1
B
C
D
E
0.00
0.00
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
0.00
0.00
75.8
72.9
80.6
60.3
69.5
69.9
86.2
91.1
97.3
91.4
86.9
91.6
87.2
95.2
0.00
0.00
2380 (2.38 jjg/g)
354
365
0.00
4.87
2.52
Hexachlorobutadiened
Blank
Blank
A
1
B
C
D
E
0.00
0.00
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
0.00
0.00
75.8
72.9
80.6
60.3
69.5
69.9
86.2
91.1
97.3
91.4
86.9
91.6
87.2
95.2
12.9
18.7
591000(591 fjg/g)
301000(301 fjg/g)
245000(245 A/g/g)
62.1
1110 (1.11//g/g)
249
                                     39

-------
Table 4-2.   Continued.
Station
Trichlorobenzene.
Blank
Blank
A -
1
B
C
D
E
Trichlorobenzene.
Blank
Blank
A
1
B
C
D
E
TOCa
Percent
1.2.3-c
0.00
0.00
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
1.2.4-c
0.00
0.00
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
Percent
Moisture

0.00
0.00
75.8
72.9
80.6
60.3
69.5
69.9

0.00
0.00
75.8
72.9
80.6
60.3
69.5
69.9
Surrogate
% Recovery

86.2
91.1
97.3
91.4
86.9
91.6
87.2
95.2

86.2
91.1
97.3
91.4
86.9
91.6
87.2
95.2
Target Chemical
Recovery Corrected
[ng/g]

8.88
0.523
2080 (2.08 /;g/g)
368
747
8.01
28.4
9.67

0.00
0.00
21500 (21.5//g/g)
5310 (5.31 fjq/g)
12100 (12.1 fjg/g)
59.9
529
232
Tetrachlorobenzene Mixc
Blank
Blank
A
1
B
C
D
E
0.00
0.00
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
0.00
0.00
75.8
72.9
80.6
60.3
69.5
69.9
86.2
91.1
97.3
91.4
86.9
91.6
87.2
95.2
12.7
12.5
24800 (24.8 ^g/g)
8330 (8.33 //g/g)
10600 (10.6/yg/g)
22.6
145
88.9
                                     40

-------
Table 4-2.   Continued.


Station

TOC8
Percent

Percent
Moisture

Surrogate
% Recovery
Target Chemical
Recovery Corrected
[ng/g]
Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2.3.4-c
Blank
Blank
A
1
B
C
D
E
0.00
0.00
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
0.00
0.00
75.8
72.9
80.6
60.3
69.5
69.9
86.2
91.1
97.3
91.4
86.9
91.6
87.2
95.2
0.00
0.00
17400 (17. 4 //g/g)
5520 (5. 52 //g/g)
2940 (2.94 fjg/g)
9.27
100
43.9
Pentachlorobenzened
Blank
Blank
A
1
B
C
D
E
0.00
0.00
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
0.00
0.00
75.8
72.9
80.6
60.3
69.5
69.9
93.8
95.9
67.9
32.8
59.6
97.9
85.2
93.8
0.00
0.00
152000(1 52 //g/g)
167000(1 67 //g/g)
48200 (48.2 //g/g)
0.00
1100 (1.10 //g/g)
272
Hexachlorobenzened
Blank
Blank
A
1
B
C
D
E
' TOC =
0.00
0.00
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
total organic carbon.
0.00
0.00
75.8
72.9
80.6
60.3
69.5
69.9

93.8
95.9
67.9
32.8
59.6
97.9
85.2
93.8

4.18
5.53
156000(1 56 /;g/g)
656000(656 //g/g)
246000(246 fjg/g)
56.2
7690 (7.69 /vg/g)
1810 (1.81 //g/g)

b 13C, HCE surrogate.
C 13p TuPP 01 irrnnota
    "6
d 13C6 HCB surrogate.
                                    41

-------
4.5                Tissue Data:  Results

  Replicate analyses were performed on each tissue composite for the thirteen site
study chemicals.  The individual determinations as well as the procedural blanks
performed these analyses are reported in Tables A-27 through A-62 for the
fL heteroclitus, Q-. sapidus, EL. oatronus. and M. undulus species.  In Tables 4-3, 4-
4, 4-5, and 4-6, the average residue concentrations after  correction for procedural
blanks and normalization to 7.6% lipid content for each species are reported for
each station.

  The inter- and intra-laboratory agreement was good for all of the site study data,
e.g., for C. saoidus. the coefficients of variation for HCBD were 52.8,  11.0, 14.1,
12.8, and 56.8%  for intra- and 9.8, 7.21, 25.4, and 4.4% for inter-laboratory
variability.  The average recoveries (coefficients of variation) of the surrogates,
13CrHCE, 13Ca-TeCB, and 13C6-HCB, were 38.6 (36.0), 33.0 (37.3), and 36.1
(35.9)%, respectively.  The procedural blanks performed with these analyses were
consistently low at both laboratories for all  chemicals and species.

4.6                Prediction of the Tissue  Residues

  To evaluate the residue prediction procedure, residues were predicted and then
compared to the measured residues for the indigenous organisms. By using the
residue prediction procedures, values for the log P, BCF, FM, and BAF were derived
for ejach chemical, Table 4-7. For HCE, 1,2,4-TrCB, 1,2,3-TrCB, 1,2,3,4-TeCB,
PeCB, HCB, and HCBD, measured  log P values were used [16, 16, 17, 18, 17, 17,
19, respectively].  For the TeCB Mix, a mixture of 1,2,4,5- and 1,2,3,5-TeCBs, the
average of the measured log P value for each compound was used [18].  For the
PeCBD#1, PeCBD#2, TeCBD#1, and TeCBD#2  compounds, log P values were
derived by using the CLogP program [20] with the buta-1,3-diene structure. For
the TeCBDs and PeCBDs, the average of the  CLogP log P values for the 5 and 2
possible isomers were used, respectively.

  Residues were  predicted for the Louisiana site by using the derived BAFs (Table
4-7) and the average ambient water chemical concentrations. The predicted tissue
residues are reported in Tables 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, and 4-11.
                                     42

-------
Table 4-3.         Concentration of Target Chemicals in Fundulus heteroclitus
                  from Cooling Water/Effluent Canal and Bayou d'lnde.
                      Concentration in Tissue,
ssb avgb  sdb  cv,%b nb   ss  avg   sd   cv,% n    ss  avg   sd   cv,% n
Hexachloroethane
A   471  97.0  20.6  4
1   925     -      -  1
B   688  245  35.7  5
C   788     -      -  1
D   176  143  80.9  3
E   533     -      -  1

Pentachlorobutadiene #1
A  1270 1130  88.7  4
1  1660     -      -  1
B  2720 2040  74.8  5
C   902     -      -  1
D   594  885   149  3
E   430     -      -  1

Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.3-
A   122 25.4  20.8  4
1   266     -      -  1
B   226 70.6  31.3  5
C   182     -      -  1
D  47.5 31.6  66.5  3
E   142     -      -  1
Tetrachlorobutadiene #1
A  30.4 16.5  54.2  4
1  31.0     -      -  1
B  54.0 36.4  67.3  5
C  23.7     -      -  1
D  13.3 21.4   161  3
E  13.3     -      -  1

Pentachlorobutadiene #2
A   221  361   163  4
1   360     -      -  1
B   663  506  76.2  5
C   205     -      -  1
D   144  240   166  3
E   100     -      -  1

Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.4-
A   807  199  24.6  4
1  1350     -      -  1
B  1240  303  24.4  5
C  2670     -      -  1
D   280  155  55.4  3
E   872     -      -  1
Tetrachlorobenzene. 1.2.3.4-  Pentachlorobenzene
A   717  151  21.1  4
1  1160     -      -  1
B  1240  361  29.2  5
C  1050     -      -  1
D   371  219  59.0  3
E   734     -      -  1
A 4720 1010  21.4  4
1 8210     -      -  1
B 78804820  61.2  5
C 7980     -      -  1
D 1740  897  51.5  3
E 3990     -      -  1
Tetrachlorobutadiene #2
A   137 36.8  26.9  4
1   206     -      -  1
B   183 61.3  33.5  5
C   133     -      -  1
D  38.5 29.6  76.9  3
E  87.6     -      -  1

Hexachlorobutadiene
A2890015400  53.4  4
169800     -      -  1
B3800021600  55.6  5
C68100     -      -  1
D 8580 5480  63.9  3
E34100

Tetrachlorobenzene Mix
A 1290  846  65.5  4
1 2770     -      -  1
B 1750 1170  66.6  5
C  9.45     -      -  1
D   499  215  43.1  3
E 1790     -      -  1

Hexachlorobenzene
A 5400 2930  54.3  4
1 6430     -      -  1
B 4650 2880  62.0  5
C 5960     -      -  1
D 1220  317  26.1  3
E 1370     -      -  1
   Recovery, blank and lipid corrected. 7.6% lipid content.
   ss = sampling station, avg = average, sd  = standard deviation, cv,% =
   coefficient of variation in percent, n = number of tissue samples analyzed.
                                   43

-------
Table 4-4.    Concentration of Target Chemicals in Callinectes sapidus from
             Cooling Water/Effluent Canal and Bayou d'lnde.

                        Concentration in Tissue, /yg/kg"

ssb avgb   sdb  cv,%b nb    ss  avg   sd   cv,% n    ss  avg   sd   cv,% n
Hexachloroethane
A 16.8
1 11.0
B 18.6
C 19.8
D 10.0
E 15.3
6.77
3.07
4.52
14.5
1.68
8.21
40.2
27.8
24.2
73.2
16.9
53.6
Pentachlorobutadiene
A 306
1 219
B 459
C 328
D 80
E 309
74.3
78.8
219
464
28.4
216
69.8
36.0
47.7
141
35.6
69.8
3
4
2
2
2
3
£1
3
4
2
2
2
3
Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.3-
A 81.5
1 166
B 267
C 172
D 91.1
E 138
45.7
78.0
154
189
29.5
83.7
56.1
47.0
57.7
110
32.4
60.6
Tetrachlorobenzene. 1
A 368
1 706
B 928
C 692
D 368
E 497
122
294
625
654
188
292
33.1
41.6
67.4
94.5
51.2
58.8
3
4
2
2
2
3
.2.3.4-
3
4
2
2
2
3
Tetrachlorobutadiene #1
A 6.20
1 16.5
B 33.5
C 29.8
D 7.85
E 24.4
7.10
16.4
8.19
42.1
1.04
15.2
115
99.0
24.5
141
13.3
62.3
Pentachlorobutadiene
A 1.81
1 7.24
B 10.3
C 10.7
D 3.04
E 4.86
3.13
3.46
9.51
15.2
1.03
4.80
173
47.8
92.0
141
33.9
98.7
3
4
2
2
2
3
12
3
4
2
2
2
3
Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.4-
A 308
1 713
B 1455
C 967
D 416
E 706
209
315
652
1220
84.2
349
67.8
44.3
44.8
126
20.2
49.4
3
4
2
2
2
3
Pentachlorobenzene
A 1467
1 2473
B 2348
C 1630
D 987
E 1239
278
845
1500
1380
717
787
19.0
34.2
63.9
84.7
72.7
63.5
3
4
2
2
2
3
Tetrachlorobutadiene #2
A 21.9
1 64.3
B 170
C 103
D 52.2
E 80.4
5.22
30.3
82.8
132
15.2
36.2
23.8
47.1
48.8
128
29.2
45.0
3
4
2
2
2
3
Hexachlorobutadiene
A 274
1 340
B 728
C 482
D 261
E 363
160
270
259
682
175
200
58.6
79.6
35.6
141
67.1
55.2
3
4
2
2
2
3
Tetrachlorobenzene Mix
A 476
1 849
B 1450
C 1049
D 571
E 682
85.1
524
1210
933
332
468
17.9
61.7
83.2
89.0
58.1
68.6
3
4
2
2
2
3
Hexachlorobenzene
A 1772
1 2093
B 1486
C 868
D 781
E 1052
131
624
943
594
713
734
7.37
29.8
63.5
68.5
91.3
69.7
3
4
2
2
2
3
"Recovery, blank and lipid corrected.  7.6% lipid content.
bss = sampling station, avg = average, sd  = standard deviation, cv,% =
coefficient of variation in percent, n =  number of tissue samples analyzed.
                                     44

-------
Table 4-5.   Concentration of Target Chemicals in Brevoortia patronus from
            Cooling Water/Effluent Canal and Bayou d'lnde.

                       Concentration in Tissue, //g/kga

ssb avgb  sdb  cv,%b nb    ss  avg   sd   cv,% n    ss  avg   sd    cv,% n
Hexachloroethane
C   222  108   48.7  7
D   391  225   57.5  2
E   374  149   39.7  4
Tetrachlorobutadiene #1
C  46.0  19.7  42.9 7
D  79.7  53.0  66.5 2
E  91.3  30.1  33.0 5
Tetrachlorobutadiene #2
C   132  60.1   45.5 7
D   235  136   57.6 2
E   237  75.6   31.9 4
Pentachlorobutadiene #1
C  24401210  49.5  7
D  5320 2950  55.5  2
E  5370 1970  36.8  4
Pentachlorobutadiene #2
C   530  246  46.4  7
D  1090  640  58.8  2
E  1020  354  34.6  4
Hexachlorobutadiene
C  85103460  40.7  7
D  159006100  38.5  2
E  166005850  35.2  4
Trichlorobenzene. 1.2,3-
C   113  34.2   30.3  7
D   165  91.4   55.4  2
E   201  46.0   22.9  4
Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.4-
C   669  262   39.2  7
D  1150  684   59.6  2
E  1200  315   26.1  4
Tetrachlorobenzene Mix
C   497  162   32.6 7
D   862  382   44.4 2
E   887  331   37.3 4
Tetrgchlorobenzene. 1.2.3.4-
C   646  249   38.5   7    C
D  1070 574   53.6   2    D
E  1170 442   37.6   4    E
    Pentachlorobenzene
   3040 1130  37.1  7
   5140 1500  29.2  2
   5320 2670  50.2  4
Hexachlorobenzene
C  1950 530   27.1  7
D  3510 670   19.1  2
E  49204520  91.9  4
' Recovery, blank and lipid corrected. 7.6% lipid content.
bss  = sampling station, avg = average, sd = standard deviation, cv,% =
coefficient of variation in percent, n = number of tissue samples analyzed.
                                   45

-------
Table 4-6.  Concentration of Target Chemicals in Micropogan undulus from
           Cooling Water/Effluent Canal and Bayou d'lnde.

                        Concentration in Tissue, //g/kg"
ssb avgb   sdb   cv,%b n     ss  avg   sd   cv,% n    ss  avg   sd   cv,% n
Hexachloroethane
B 85.2
C 48.7
D 241 53.1 22.1
E 326
Pentachlorobutadiene
B 858
C 401
D 4040 400 9.90
E 5000
Trichlorobenzene. 1.2
B 81.4
C 27.0
D 210 94.8 45.1
E 218
Tetrachlorobenzene. 1
B 339
C 303
D 1020 322 31.6
E 948

1
1
2
1
11
1
1
3
1
<2z
1
1
3
1
.2,3.4-
1
1
3
1
Tetrachlorobutadiene
B 19.2
C 6.35
D 81.50.965 1.18
E 102
Pentachlorobutadiene
B 92.2
C 35.5
D 426 118 27.7
E 443
Trichlorobenzene. 1,2
A 356
B 142
C 1160 241 20.9
D 1290
#1
1
1
3
1
_£2
1
1
3
1
,4-
1
1
3
1
Pentachlorobenzene
B 1972
C 1820
D 3860 910 23.6
E 3360
1
1
3
1
Tetrachlorobutadiene #2
B 65.6
C 20.2
D 203 1.50 0.737
E 276
Hexachlorobutadiene
B 5600
C 4180
D 206007820 37.9
E 17300
1
1
3
1

1
1
3
1
Tetrachlorobenzene Mix
B 309
C 248
D 810 242 29.9
E 788
Hexachlorobenzene
B 2200
C 2100
D 2890 800 27.7
E 2500
1
1
3
1

1
1
3
1
• Recovery, blank and lipid corrected.  7.6% lipid content.
bss = sampling station, avg = average, sd = standard deviation, cv,% =
coefficient of variation in percent, n = number of tissue samples analyzed.
                                     46

-------
Table 4-7.   Residue Prediction Parameters.
Compound
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachlorobutadiene #1
Tetrachlorobutadiene #2
Pentachlorobutadiene #1
Pentachlorobutadiene #2
Hexachlorobutadiene
1,2,3- Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene
Tetrachlorobenzene Mix
1,2,3,4- Tetrachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
logP
4.14
3.22
3.22
3.71
3.71
4.78
4.05
4.02
4.87
4.64
5.17
5.31
BCF
742
140
140
340
340
2380
630
597
2800
1840
4830
6240
FM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3.7
BAF
742
140
140
340
340
2380
630
597
2800
1840
14500
23100
                                      47

-------
Table 4-8.   Predicted and Measured Fundulus heteroclitus Tissue Concentrations
for the Louisiana Study.




Average
Cone, in
Ambient Water
Station
Hexachloroethane
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Tetrachlorobutadiene
A '
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Tetrachlorobutadiene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
(ng/L)

348
143
439
505
53.3
292
159
11
38.3
10.3
61.3
39.3
9.81
45.7
17.8
12
107
24.4
151
100
26.1
144
43.0

Predicted*
Cone, in
Tissue
(//g/kg)

258
106
326
375
39.5
217
118

5.36
1.44
8.58
5.50
1.37
6.40
2.46

15.0
3.42
21.1
14.0
3.65
20.2
6.02

Observed11
Cone, in
Tissue
U/g/kg)

471
925

688
788
176
533

30.4
31.0

54.0
23.7
13.3
13.3

137
206

183
133
38.5
87.6
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue

1.82

2.84
1.84
19.9
0.812
4.52

5.67

3.61
9.81
17.3
2.08
5.34

9.15

9.74
13.1
36.4
1.93
14.6
                                      48

-------
Table 4-8.   Continued.
Average Predicted"
Cone, in Cone, in
Ambient Water Tissue
Station (ng/L) (^g/kg)
Pentachlorobutadiene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Pentachlorobutadiene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Hexachlorobutadiene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
_£1
584
102
692
425
63.2
329
174
12
191
29.3
248
134
28.0
439
55.4

1470
618
1610
1740
200
1390
855

199
34.7
235
145
21.5
112
59.2

64.9
10.0
84.3
45.6
9.52
149
18.8

3499
1471
3832
4141
476
3308
2035
Ratio of
Observed15 Observed to
Cone, in Predicted
Tissue Cone, in
(/•/g/kg) Tissue

1270
1660

2720
902
594
430

221
360

663
205
144
100

28900
69800

38000
68100
8580
34100

6.40

7.06
18.8
42.0
5.31
7.27

3.40

4.27
14.6
21.5
0.965
5.31

8.26

18.2
9.18
143
2.59
16.8
                                     49

-------
Table 4-8.   Continued.
Average Predicted"
Cone, in Cone, in
Ambient Water Tissue
Station (ng/L) U/g/kg)
Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.3-
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
c -
D
E
Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.4-
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Tetrachlorobenzene Mix
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B -
C
D
E

54.8
28.9
67.1
70.7
18.5
55.6
35.8

300
127
382
312
81.9
360
178

131
61.3
170
243
36.0
141
108

34.5
18.2
42.3
44.5
11.7
35.0
22.6

179
75.8
228
186
48.9
215
106

367
172
476
681
101
395
303
Observed6
Cone, in
Tissue
(/vg/kg)

122
266

226
182
47.5
142

807
1350

1240
9.45
280
872

1290
2770

1750
2670
499
1790
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue

3.53

6.29
5.07
15.6
1.36
6.30

4.51

5.92
6.66
0.193
1.30
8.21

3.52

5.82
2.57
26.5
1.26
5.92
                                     50

-------
Table 4-8.   Continued.




Station
Tetrachlorobenzene.
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Pentachlorobenzene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Hexachlorobenzene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E

Average
Cone, in
Ambient Water
(ng/L)
1.2.3.4-
109
39.2
142
150
26.8
126
68.4

249
78.8
331
349
33.2
166
97.1

214
65.4
364
418
17.4
84.2
47.4

Predicted*
Cone, in
Tissue
U/g/kg)

201
72.1
261
276
49.3
232
126

3610
1140
4800
5060
481
2400
1410

4940
1510
8400
9650
402
1940
1090

Observedb
Cone, in
Tissue
Gug/kg)

717
1160

1240
1050
371
734

4720
8210

7880
7980
1740
3990

5400
6430

4650
5960
1220
1370
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue

3.57

4.44
4.49
21.3
1.60
5.83

1.31

1.71
1.56
16.6
0.723
2.84

1.09

0.765
0.482
14.8
0.628
1.25
' 7.6% lipid content.
" "7 C+ O/. Iirt!s4 f*r\n+ar\+ ^r\ri f*r\rre*f*+f±r4 fs\r rf*r*s\\/f*r\ / **r\rl m*s^r*s%s
-------
Table 4-9.   Predicted and Measured Callinectes sapidus Tissue Concentrations for
the Louisiana Study.




Average
Cone, in
Ambient Water
Station
Hexachloroethane
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Tetrachlorobutadiene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Tetrachlorobutadiene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
(ng/L)

348
143
439
505
53.3
292
159
11
38.3
10.3
61.3
39.3
9.81
45.7
17.8
12
107
24.4
151
100
26.1
144
43.0

Predicted'
Cone, in
Tissue
Gwg/kg)

258
106
326
375
39.5
217
118

5.36
1.44
8.58
5.50
1.37
6.40
2.49

15.0
3.42
21.1
14.0
3.65
20.2
6.02

Observed6
Cone, in
Tissue
(//g/kg)

16.8
11.0

18.6
19.8
10.0
15.3

6.20
16.5

33.5
29.8
7.85
24.4

21.9
64.3

170
103
52.2
80.4
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue

0.0651

0.0338
0.0496
0.501
0.0462
0.130

1.16

1.92
6.09
21.7
1.23
9.79

1.46

3.04
12.1
28.2
2.59
13.4
                                      52

-------
Table 4-9.   Continued.
Average Predicted"
Cone, in Cone, in
Ambient Water Tissue
Station (ng/L) (//g/kg)
Pentachlorobutadiene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Pentachlorobutadiene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Hexachlorobutadiene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
11
584
102
692
425
63.2
329
174
12
191
29.3
248
134
28.0
439
55.4

1470
618
1610
1740
200
1390
855

199
34.7
235
145
21.5
112
59.2

64.9
10.0
84.3
45.6
9.52
149
18.8

3499
1471
3832
4141
476
3308
2035
Observed"
Cone, in
Tissue
Gwg/kg)

106
219

459
328
80
309

1.81
7.24

10.3
10.7
3.04
4.86

274
340

728
482
261
363
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue

0.534

0.931
3.18
15.3
0.715
5.22

0.0279

0.0859
0.226
1.12
0.0204
0.258

0.0783

0.0887
0.176
1.01
0.0789
0.178
                                     53

-------
Table 4-9.   Continued.
Average Predicted"
Cone, in Cone, in
Ambient Water Tissue
Station (ng/L) (/vg/kg)
Trichlorobenzene. 1,2,3-
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Trichlorobenzene. 1,2,4-
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Tetrachlorobenzene Mix
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E

54.8
28.9
67.1
70.7
18.5
55.6
35.8

300
127
382
312
81.9
360
178

131
61.3
170
243
36.0
141
108

34.5
18.2
42.3
44.5
11.7
35.0
22.6

179
75.8
228
186
48.9
215
106

367
172
476
681
101
395
303
Observed6
Cone, in
Tissue
U/g/kg)

81.5
166

267
172
91.1
138

308
713

1460
967
416
706

476
849

1450
1050
571
682
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue

2.36

3.93
5.99
14.8
2.60
6.12

1.72

3.13
7.84
19.8
1.94
6.66

1.30

1.78
2.13
10.4
1.45
2.25
                                     54

-------
Table 4-9.   Continued.
Average Predicted*
Cone, in Cone, in
Ambient Water Tissue
Station (ng/L) U/g/kg)
Tetrachlorobenzene, 1
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Pentachlorobenzene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
Hexachlorobenzene
A
1 Composite
1 Grab
B
C
D
E
.2.3.4-
109
39.2
142
150
26.8
126
68.4

249
78.8
331
349
33.2
166
97.1

214
65.4
364
418
17.4
84.2
47.4

201
72.1
261
276
49.3
232
126

3610
1140
4800
5060
481
2400
1410

4940
1510
8400
9650
402
1940
1090
Observed6
Cone, in
Tissue
Gug/kg)

368
706

928
692
368
497

1470
2470

2350
1630
987
1240

1770
2090

1490
868
781
1050
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue

1.83

2.70
3.36
14.0
1.59
3.95

0.407

0.515
0.465
3.39
0.410
0.881

0.358

0.249
0.154
2.16
0.402
0.959
      7.6% lipid content.
      7.6% lipid content and corrected for recovery and procedural blank.
                                       55

-------
Table 4-10.  Predicted and Measured Brevoortia patron us Tissue Concentrations for
the Louisiana Study.
Average
Cone, in
Ambient Water
Station (ng/L)
Hexgchloroethane
C
D
E
Tetrachlorobutadiene
C
D
E
Tetrachlorobutadiene
C
D
E
Pentachlorobutadiene
C "
D
E
Pentachlorobutadiene
C
D
E
Hexachlorobutadiene
C
D
E

53.3
292
159
£L
9.81
45.7
17.8
12
26.1
144
43.0
JLL
63.2
329
174
32.
28.0
439
55.4

200
1390
855
Predicted*
Cone, in
Tissue
Oug/kg)

39.5
217
118

1.37
6.40
2.49

3.65
20.2
6.02

21.5
112
59.2

9.52
149
18.8

476
3308
2035
Observed6
Cone, in
Tissue
(//g/kg)

222
391
374

46.0
79.7
91.3

132
235
237

2440
5320
5370

530
1090
1020

8510
15900
16600
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue

5.61
1.80
3.17

33.5
12.5
36.6

36.1
11.7
39.4

114
47.6
90.8

55.7
7.30
54.2

17.9
4.81
8.16
                                      56

-------
Table 4-10.  Continued.
Average Predicted"
Cone, in Cone, in
Ambient Water Tissue
Station (ng/L) (//g/kg)
Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.3-
C
D
E
Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.4-
C
D
E
Tetrachlorobenzene Mix
C
D
E
Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2.
C
D
E
Pentachlorobenzene
C
D
E
Hexachlorobenzene
C
D
E

18.5
55.6
35.8

81.9
360
178

36.0
141
108
3,4-
26.8
126
68.4

33.2
166
97.1

17.4
84.2
47.4

11.7
35.0
22.6

48.9
215
106

101
395
303

49.3
232
126

481
2400
1410

402
1940
1090
Observed6
Cone, in
Tissue
U/g/kg)

113
165
201

669
1150
1200

497
862
887

646
1070
1170

3040
5140
5320

1950
3510
4920
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue

9.70
4.71
8.91

13.7
5.35
11.3

4.93
2.18
2.93

13.1
4.62
9.30

6.32
2.14
3.78

4.85
1.81
4.50
      7.6% lipid content.
      7.6% lipid content and
for recovery and procedural
                                      57

-------
Table 4-11.  Predicted and Measured Micropogan undulus Tissue Concentrations for
the Louisiana Study.




Average
Cone, in
Ambient Water
Station
Hexachloroethane
B
C
D
E
Tetrachlorobutadiene
B
C
D
E •
Tetrachlorobutadiene
B
C
D
E
Pentachlorobutadiene
B
C
D
E
Pentachlorobutadiene
B
C
D
E
(ng/L)

505
53.3
292
159
£1
39.3
9.81
45.7
17.8
12
100
26.1
144
43
Jl
425
63.2
329
174
_#2
134
28.0
439
55.4

Predicted'
Cone, in
Tissue
(A/g/kg)

375
39.5
217
118

5.50
1.37
6.40
2.49

14.0
3.65
20.2
6.02

145
21.5
112
59.2

45.6
9.5
149
18.8

Observed6
Cone, in
Tissue
(//g/kg)

85.2
48.7
241
326

19.2
6.35
81.5
102.0

65.6
20.2
203.0
276.0

858
401
4040
5000

92.2
35.5
426
443
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue

0.227
1.23
1.11
2.76

3.49
4.62
12.7
40.9

4.69
5.53
10.1
45.8

5.94
18.7
36.1
84.5

2.02
3.73
2.85
23.5
                                     58

-------
Table 4-11. Continued.




Station

Average
Cone, in
Ambient Water
(ng/L)

Predicted"
Cone, in
Tissue
(//g/kg)

Observed6
Cone, in
Tissue
(//g/kg)
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue
Hexachlorobutadiene

B
C
D
E
Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.3-

B
C
D
E

Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.4-
1740
200
1390
855
4141
476
3308
2035
5600
4180
20600
17300
                                         1.35
                                         8.78
                                         6.23
                                         8.50
70.7
18.5
55.6
35.8
44.5
11.7
35.0
22.6
81.4
27.0
210
218
1.83
2.32
6.00
9.67
B
C
D
E

Tetrachlorobenzene Mix

B
C
D
E
312
81.9
360
178
186
48.9
215
106
356
142
1160
1290
1.91
2.90
5.40
12.1
243
 36.0
141
108
Tetrachlorobenzene. 1.2.3.4-
B
C
D
E
150
 26.8
126
 68.4
681
101
395
303
276
 49
232
126
 309
 248
 810
 788
 339
 303
1020
 948
0.454
2.46
2.05
2.60
1.23
6.14
4.40
7,53
                                    59

-------
Table 4-11. Continued.




Station

Average
Cone, in
Ambient Water
(ng/L)

Predicted"
Cone, in
Tissue
(/;g/kg)

Observed6
Cone, in
Tissue
0/g/kg)
Ratio of
Observed to
Predicted
Cone, in
Tissue
Pentachlorobenzene

B                    349        5060
C                     33.2        481
D                    166        2400
E                     97.1       1410
1970
1820
3860
3360
0.390
3.78
1.60
2.39
Hexachlorobenzene

B                    418        9650
C                      17.4        402
D                      84.2       1940
E                      47.4       1090
2200
2100
2890
2500
0.228
5.23
1.49
2.28
      7.6% lipid content.
      7.6% lipid content and corrected for recovery and procedural blank.
                                   60

-------
4.7   Comparison of the Predicted and Observed Tissue Residues:  Results

      In Table 4-12, all of the tissue predictions based upon the ambient grab
watef samples were tabulated according to the ratio of the observed to predicted
tissue residues.

      For the &. saoidus. 32, 42, and 53 of the 72 predicted residues for all
chemicals were within  a factor of 3, 5, and 10, respectively, of the observed
residues.  For predicted residues differing by a factor of 5 or more, approximately
half were  smaller than the measured residues.  In general, better predictability was
observed for the tetra-  through hexa-chlorobenzenes, i.e., 17 of the 24 predicted
residues were within a  factor of 3, and 21 of the 24 predicted residues were
within a factor of 5 of the measured residues.  The poorest predictability was
observed for HCE and HCBD where only of 2 of the  12 predicted residues were
within a factor of 5 of the measured tissue residues. The field stations where the
best predictability was  observed were A and D, i.e.,  10 of the 12 predicted
residues for each station were within a factor of 3.  Stations C and E tended to
predict tissue residues  which were much smaller than the observed residues.

      For the R. heteroclitus. 23, 33, and 55 of the  72 predicted residues for all
chemicals were within  a factor of 3, 5, and 10 of the observed residues,
respectively.  All of the remaining predicted residues, except for one, were smaller
than-the measured residues.  The best predictability  was observed for HCE,  PeCB
and HCB where 4, 5, and 5 of the 6 predicted residues, respectively, were within a
factor of 3 of the measured tissues.  The poorest predictability was observed for
the chlorinated butadienes where 1 or less of the 6 predicted residues were  within
a factor of 3 at each station. The field stations where the best predictability was
observed were  A, 1, and D.  The poorest predictability was observed at stations B
and C and predictions were smaller than the measured residues by factors ranging
up to 42.

      For the ML  undulus. 20, 28, and 35 of the 48 predicted residues were within
a factor of 3, 5, and 10 of the observed residues, respectively. The remaining
predicted  residues were all too small by factors ranging up to 84.5.  Predicted
residues for HCE, TeCB mix, PeCB and HCB were all within a factor of 5 (16 of  16
predictions) and the predicted residues for HCBD, 1,2,3-TrCB, and 1,2,3,4-TeCB
were all within a factor of 10. Stations B, C, D, and E had  7, 6, 5, and 4 of the
12 predicted residues within a factor of 3, respectively, and had 11, 8, 6, and 4 of
the 12 residues with a  factor of 5, respectively.

      For the EL. oatronus. 5, 13, and 21  of the 36 predicted residues were  within
a factor of 3, 5, and 10 of the observed residues, respectively. The best
predictability was observed with the HCE, TeCB Mix, 1,2,3,4-TeCB, PeCB and
HCB compounds. For the rest of the chemicals, 14 of the 36 predicted residues


                                     61

-------
Table 4-12  Distribution of the Ratios of the Observed to Predicted Tissue
            Concentrations for All Field Stations.
Factor"
of 3


It
eq
gt
Factorb
of 5
It
eq
gt
Factor0
of 10
It
eq
gt
Total Number
of Tissue
Predictions
Hexachloroethane





C. sapidus
F.-heteroclitus
M. undulus
B. patronus
All fishes
5
0
1
0
1
1
4
3
1
8
0
2
0
2
4
5
0
0
0
0
1
5
4
2
11
0
1
0
1
2
4
0
0
0
0
2
5
4
3
12
0
1
0
0
1
6
6
4
3
13
Chlorinated Butadienes





C. sapidus
F. heteroclitus
M. undulus
B. patronus
All fishes
10
0
0
0
0
10
4
3
0
7
10
26
17
15
58
8
0
0
0
0
14
7
7
1
15
8
23
13
14
50
6
0
0
0
0
19
19
8
3
30
5
11
12
12
35
30
30
20
15
65
Chlorinated Benzenes





All





C. sapidus
F. heteroclitus
M. undulus
B. patronus
All fishes
Chemicals
C. sapidus
F. heteroclitus
M. undulus
B. oatronus
All fishes
2
1
1
0
2

17
1
2
0
3
21
15
14
4
33

32
23
20
5
13
20
9
14
43

23
48
26
31
48105
1
1
0
0
1

14
1
0
0
1
27
21
17
10
48

42
33
28
13
74
8
14
7
8
29

16
38
20
23
81
0
0
0
0
0

10
0
0
0
01
32
31
23
15
69

53
55
35
21
11
4
5
1
3
9

9
17
13
15
45
36
36
24
18
78

72
72
48
36
156
' It  = Number of ratios < 1/3; eq = Number of ratios > 1/3 and < 3; gt =
Number of tissue residue ratios > 3.
b It  = Number of ratios < 1/5; eq = Number of ratios > 1/5 and < 5; gt =
Number of tissue residue ratios > 5.
c It  = Number of ratios < 1/10; eq = Number of ratios >  1/10 and < 10; gt
Number of tissue residue ratios > 10.
                                     62

-------
were too small by a factor of 10 or more and the poorest predictability was
observed at Stations C and E.

  Overall, the guidance residue prediction procedure had slightly better
predictability for the invertebrate, C^. sapidus than for the fishes, R. heteroclitus. EL
patronus. and M. undulus. The guidance procedure tended to have a skewed
predictability for the fishes, i.e., substantially more of the predicted residues were
smaller than the measured residues. The residues predicted using  the guidance
procedure were in better agreement for Stations A and D, and in poorest
agreement at  Stations C and  E.  The predicted and measured residues for the
highly chlorinated benzenes, TeCB Mix, 1,2,3,4-TeCB, PeCB, and HCB, were in
good agreement for all species at nearly of all stations.  The predicted and
measured  residues for HCE were in good agreement for the fishes  but in poor
agreement for the invertebrate, £.. sapidus. at nearly all stations.
4.8  Comparison of the Predicted and Observed Tissue Residues:  Discussion

  The predicted tissue residues derived using the guidance procedure tended to
be, on average, smaller than the concentrations measured  in the site study
organisms. Prediction of tissue residues which were smaller than the observed
residues might be caused by the elevated ambient water concentrations in the
fourth week of the study and/or the use of inaccurate  log P values with the
guidance procedure.

  As previously discussed, the ambient water concentrations for the site study
chemicals were not constant during the 28 day study.  During the fourth week of
the study, chemical concentrations in the ambient water samples were up to an
order of magnitude larger than the concentrations observed in the previous three
weeks of the  study.

  In this study, the indigenous organisms were collected in the fourth week, the
time of the highest ambient water concentrations. For some of the site study
chemicals, aquatic organisms reach or approach steady-state conditions with their
exposure water in relatively short time periods.  For example, Konemann and van
Leeuwen [21] have shown with Poecilia reticulata (guppy)  that di- and tri-
chlorobenzenes reach steady-state conditions within 2 days, and TeCBs, PeCB and
HCB reach steady-state conditions in approximately 7  days. It can be estimated by
using the third and fourth week concentrations in the ambient grab samples  and
assuming that an abrupt change in the ambient water  concentrations  occurred at
Station 1, e.g., HCB concentrations went from 56.5 to 1340 ng/L, that a time
period of approximately 0.5 to  1.5 days of higher exposure concentrations, e.g.,
1340 ng/L, could have existed  (based upon HCBD, PeCB, and HCB data).  This
short period of higher exposure concentration just before collection of the


                                     63

-------
organisms would cause the observed residues to be slightly larger than predicted
residues. The ratios of the observed to predicted tissue concentrations for the
chlorjnated benzenes are consistent with this hypothesis since their ratios tend  to
decrease with decreasing chemical uptake rate in all four species, e.g., 1,2,3-TrCB
should and does have, on average, larger ratios than HCB.

  The tendency of the predicted tissue residues  to be smaller than the observed
residues may also be, in part, caused by the use  of inaccurate log P values with
the guidance technique.  The guidance procedure uses a log P - log BCF
relationship to estimate the BCF for each chemical and then uses this value to
predict the tissue residue. Therefore, any  uncertainty/inaccuracy in the log P
values are directly reflected in the predicted tissue residues.

  For the chlorinated benzenes, numerous high quality log P measurements exist.
For the chlorinated butadienes,  a few log P measurements exist only for HCBD.  In
this study,  we used estimated log P values for the TeCBDs and PeCBDs,  and the
uncertainties associated with these values could  be large.  For the HCBD, the
estimated and measured  log P values are 4.3 [20] and 4.78 [19], respectively.
This difference suggests that estimated log P values for the chlorinated butadienes
in all likelihood are too small. In addition, a field  measured BAF for HCBD of  3580
[22] is also slightly larger than the predicted BAF of 2380  for HCBD  which
suggests that the log P values are, possibly, too  low for the chlorinated
butadienes. The ratios of the observed to predicted residues (Table 4-12) shows
that the tendency to predict residues which are too small are greater for the
chlorinated butadienes than for  the chlorinated benzenes and this trend is
consistent with the quality of the  log P values used in the residue predictions.

  The tendency to predict residues which were smaller than the  observed residues
can not be  solely attributed to the quality of the log P values used with the
guidance technique.  Overall, the log P values for the chlorinated benzenes were of
high quality and approximately  12% of the predicted  residues for this chemical
class were  too small by a factor of 10 or more.

  Variability associated with the ambient exposure concentrations used in the
prediction of the tissues might also be, in part, a cause of the tendency to predict
residues which were too  small for the site study  chemicals. Based upon the
hydrodynamics of the field site, greater changes/fluctuations in ambient
concentrationswould be expected at the bayou sampling stations due to tides and
run-off. In Table 4-13, the distribution of the ratios of the observed  to predicted
tissue  residues for the canal sampling stations  are reported. As  expected,
substantially better predictability was obtained for the canal sampling stations,
e.g.,"all of the residues predicted for the chlorinated benzenes were within a  factor
of 10 or less.
                                      64

-------
  The residue prediction procedure provided particularly poor estimates for
Station C.  Station C was located above the confluence of the bayou and the canal
and had the lowest ambient water chemical concentrations of all of the stations.
This station should have had the lowest observed tissue residues in the study.
However, tissue residues measured at station C were very similar to those at
stations D and E in the bayou.  The mobility of the aquatic organisms at this site is
unknown.  However, the tissue data suggests that the  organisms were fairly
mobile in the bayou during the  time of the site study since fairly similar tissue
concentrations were observed for all three bayou sampling stations.  If station C is
not included in the tabulation of the ratios of the observed to predicted tissue
residues (Table 4-14), the number of predicted residues which were too small
decreases substantially, e.g., 24% to 13%. Even with C station not included in
the tabulation, the poorest predictability was still observed for the chlorinated
butadienes.

  The chemicals predicted to be larger than their measured tissue concentrations
for the C. sapidus, in general, were HCE, PeCBDs, and  HCBD.  In contrast, no
chemicals were predicted to  be larger for the fishes, e.g., none of 156 predicted
tissue concentrations were greater than their measured residues by a factor of 10
or more (Table 4-12).

  The measured ambient water concentrations were expected to be more
representative of the exposure  conditions for the fishes since these samples were
taken from the middle of the water column at each sampling station. The C.
sapidus live on the sediments and their exposure via the water could be different
from that observed at the middle of the water column.  Groundwater intrusion from
the marshes surrounding the canal and bayou, salinity gradients due to the tides,
thermal gradients caused by  the discharge, and/or runoff could cause differences in
ambfent water concentrations between the middle of the water column and the
sediment/water interface. These differences might account for the tissue
predictions which were much larger than the measured concentrations. For
example, the sediments contain nondetectable amounts of HCE and  therefore, the
C. sapidus  might have lower tissue concentrations for HCE due to lower ambient
water concentrations at the sediment/water interface.

  The measured and predicted tissue concentrations were in agreement with the
expected trends for metabolic behavior of the site study chemicals.  In Section 4.1,
similar agreement between the  measured and predicted tissue residues a) for all
chemicals for a given organism and b) for both invertebrate and  vertebrate
organisms were forecasted.  Similar levels of agreement did occur for these
chemicals for each organism as well as among the fishes and C. sapidus. The only
chemicals with divergent behavior were HCE, PeCDBs,  and HCBD  for the C.
sapidus.  Exposure conditions,  specific metabolic abilities and/or special
                                     65

-------
Table 4-13 Distribution of the Ratios of the Observed to Predicted Tissue
           Concentrations for Field Stations A, 1-G, and B
Factor"
of 3

Hexachloroethane
C. sapid us
F. heteroclitus
M. undulus
B. patronus
All fishes
Chlorinated Butadienes
C. sapidus
F. heteroclitus
M. undulus
B. patronus
All fishes
Chlorinated Benzenes
C. sapidus
F. heteroclitus
M. undulus
B. patronus
All fishes
All Chemicals
C. sapidus
F. heteroclitus
M. undulus
B. oatronus
All fishes
It

3
0
1
0
1

6
0
0
0
0

2
0
1
0
1

11
0
2
0
2
eq

0
3
0
0
3

5
0
2
0
2

11
7
5
0
12

16
10
7
0
17
gt

0
0
0
0
0

4
15
3
0
18

5
11
0
0
11

9
26
3
0
29
Factorb
of 5
It

3
0
0
0
0

5
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0

10
0
0
0
0
eq

0
3
1
0
4

8
3
4
0
7

15
13
6
0
19

23
19
11
0
30
gt

0
0
0
0
0

2
12
1
0
13

2
5
0
0
5

4
17
1
0
18
Factor0
of 10
It

3
0
0
0
0

4
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

7
0
0
0
0
eq

0
3
1
0
4

10
11
5
0
16

18
18
6
0
24

28
32
12
0
44
gt

0
0
0
0
0

1
4
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
0

1
4
0
0
4
Total Number
of Tissue
Predictions

3
3
1
0
4

15
15
5
0
20

18
18
6
0
24

36
36
12
0
48
' It = Number of ratios < 1/3; eq = Number of ratios > 1/3 and < 3; gt  =
Number of tissue residue ratios > 3.
b It = Number of ratios < 1/5; eq = Number of ratios ^ 1/5 and < 5; gt  =
Number of tissue residue ratios > 5.
c It = Number of ratios < 1/10; eq = Number of ratios >  1/10 and < 10; gt
Number of tissue residue ratios > 10.
                                     66

-------
Table 4-14  Distribution of the Ratios of the Observed to Predicted Tissue
            Concentrations for Field Stations A, 1-G, B, D, and E.
Factor"
of 3
It eq gt
Hexachloroethane
C. sapidus 500
F. heteroclitus 0 4 1
M. undulus 1 2 0
B. patronus 0 1 1
All fishes 1 7 2
Chlorinated Butadienes
C. saoidus 10 8 7
F. heteroclitus 0 4 21
M. undulus 0 3 12
B. patronus 0 0 10
All fishes 0 7 43
Chlo'rinated Benzenes
C. sapidus 2 20 8
F. heteroclitus 0 15 15
M. undulus 1 11 6
B. patronus 048
All fishes 1 30 29
All Chemicals
C. sapidus 17 28 15
F. heteroclitus 0 23 37
M. undulus 2 16 18
B. patronus 0 5 19
All fishes 2 44 74
" It = Number of ratios < 1/3; eq
Number of tissue residue ratios >
b It = Number of ratios < 1/5; eq
Number of tissue residue ratios >
Factor"
of 5
It eq gt

500
050
030
020
0 10 0

8 12 5
0 7 18
0 5 10
0 1 9
0 13 37

1 25 4
0 21 9
0 13 5
084
0 42 18

14 37 9
0 33 27
0 21 15
0 11 13
0 65 55
= Number of
3.
= Number of
5.
Factor6 Total Number
of 10
It eq gt

4 1 0
050
030
020
0 10 0

6 17 2
0 19 6
087
037
0 30 20

0 30 0
0 30 0
0 17 1
0 11 1
0 58 2

10 38 2
0 54 6
0 28 8
0 16 8
0 98 22
ratios > 1/3 and

ratios > 1/5 and

of Tissue
Predictions

5
5
3
2
10

25
25
15
10
50

30
30
18
12
60

60
60
36
24
120
< 3; gt =

^ 5; gt =

0 It = Number of ratios < 1/10; eq = Number of ratios > 1/10 and < 10; gt =
Number of tissue residue ratios >
10.


                                      67

-------
physiological abilities, i.e., C. sapidus have anaerobic metabolism pathways, might
be responsible for the observed differences for these four chemicals.

4.9 Summary

  Six chemicals identified in the grab samples from Station 1 and the outfall using
the effluent analytical method produced chemical residues in the receiving water
fishes and C. sapidus.  Seven additional chemicals, found in the sample extracts
prepared by using the effluent analytical method and which were similar to those
identified by the effluent method, also produced chemical residues in the receiving
fishes and C. sapidus.

  The guidance technique predicted tissue concentrations which were smaller than
the measured concentrations by a factor of 1.1 and 5.3 on average (geometric
average) for the C. sapidus and fishes,  respectively. For the C.  sapidus, 32, 42,
and 53 of 72 predicted tissue residues  were within a factor of 3, 5,  and 10 of the
measured tissue concentrations, respectively (Table 4-12). For the fishes, 48, 74,
and 111  of 156 predicted tissue residues were within a factor of 3,  5, and 10,
respectively (Table 4-12).

  The guidance technique provided more accurate tissue concentrations for
chemicals with the highest quality log P values and with the  least variable
exposure concentrations.  The best predictability was observed for the chlorinated
benzenes (chemicals with the highest quality log P values) at the canal sampling
stations, the field stations with  the smallest  variability in exposure concentrations.
The poorest predictability was observed for the chlorinated butadienes (chemicals
with the lowest quality log P values) at Station C, the field station upstream of the
confluence of the bayou and  canal.

  The measured and predicted  tissue concentrations were in agreement with the
expected trends for metabolic behavior for the site study chemicals for the fishes.
For the C. sapidus, the measured and predicted tissue concentrations except for
HCE, PeCBDs, and HCBD were  in agreement with their expected metabolic
behavior.  The HCE, PeCBDs, and HCBD were divergent from their expected
metabolic behavior in that their measured concentrations were substantially lower
than the predicted tissue concentrations suggesting that special metabolic,
exposure, and/or physiological conditions might be controlling bioaccumulation of
these chemicals in C. sapidus.

  Field studies, by their inherent nature, include the dynamics and variabilities
associated  with natural aquatic systems. The predictability demonstrated at this
tidal site includes the variabilities associated with the natural system, e.g. tides,
highly contaminated sediments, non-sessile organisms, and run off events, and
uncertainties associated with the predictive technique, e.g., uncertainties
associated  with the log  P values, the log P - BCF relationship, and the food chain
multipliers.

                                      68

-------
                               REFERENCES

[1]   United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement
     and Permits.  Assessment and control of bioconcentratable contaminants in
     surface waters. Public Comment Draft (Fed. Regist.  1991, 56, 13150-
     13151), March 1991.

[2]   Racca, L.  1991. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Personal
     Communication.

[3]   United States Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Management
     Branch, Region 6.  1990. Toxics Study of the Lower Calcasieu River.

[4]   Pereira, W.E., C.E. Rostad, C.T.  Chiou, T.I. Brinton and L.B. Barber II.  1988.
     Contamination of estuaries, water, biota, and sediment by halogenated
    " organic compounds: A field study.  Environmental Science and Technology,
     22: 772-778.

[5]   Demcheck, O.K., C.R.  Demas and C.R. Garrison.  1990. Chemical, tissue,
     and physical data  from water and bottom material in  the lower Calcasieu
     River, Louisiana, 1985-88. United States Geological  Survey,  Open-Filp
     Report 89-420.

[6]   Veith, G.D. and P. Kosian. 1982.  Estimating bioconcentration potential
     from octanol/water partition coefficients, in Physical  Behavior of PCBs  in the
     Great Lakes. MacKay,  Paterson,  Eisenreich, and Simmons, Eds., Chapter 15,
     Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Ml.

[7]   Schuurmann, G. and W. Klein. 1988.  Advances in bioconcentration
     prediction. Chemosphere, 17(8):  1551-1574.

[8]   Thomann, R.V. 1989.  Bioaccumulation model of organic  chemical
     distribution in aquatic food chains. Environmental Science and Technology,
     23: 699-707.

[9]   Thomann, R.V. 1987.  A statistical model of environmental contaminants
     using variance spectrum analysis. Report to National Science Foundation.
     August 1987.  NTIS #: PB88-235130/A09.

[10]  Rasmussen, J.B.,  D.J. Rowan, D.R.S. Lean, and J.H. Carey.  1990.  Food
     chain structure in  Ontario lakes determines PCB levels in lake trout (Salvelinus
     namaycush) and other pelagic fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Science,
     47: 2030-2038.

[11]  Nichols, J.W., J.M. McKim, G.J. Lien, A.D. Hoffman  and S.L. Bertelsen.
     1991.  Physiologically based toxicokinetic modeling of three waterborne

                                    69

-------
     chloroethanes in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss.  Toxicology and
     Applied Pharmacology, 110: 374-389.

[12]  Gargas, M.L. and Andersen, M.E.  1989. Determining kinetic constants of
     chlorinated ethane metabolism in the rat from rates of exhalation.
     Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 99: 344-353.

[13]  Matthews, H.B.  1982.  Aryl halides.  In Metabolic basis of detoxification:
     Metabolism of functional groups. Jakoby, Bend and Caldwell, Editors.
     Chapter 3. Academic Press, New York, NY.

[14]  Bauer, I., S. Weigelt and W. Ernst.  1989. Biotransformation of
     hexachlorobenzene in the blue mussel Mvtilus edulis. Chemosphere,
     19(10/11): 1701-1707.

[15]  Sanborn, J.R., W.F. Childers and L.G. Hansen.  1977. Uptake and
     elimination of [14C]hexachlorobenzene (HCB) by the green sunfish, Lepomis
     cyanellus Raf., after feeding contaminated food.  Journal Agricultural Food
     and Chemistry, 25(3): 551-553.

[16]  Chiou, C.T. 1985.  Partition coefficients of organic compounds in lipid water
    " systems and correlation with fish bioconcentration factors. Environmental
     Science and Technology, 19(1): 57-62.

[17]  Watarai, H., M. Tanaka, and N. Suzuki. 1982.  Determination of partition
     coefficients of halobenzenes in heptane/water and 1-octanol/water systems
     and comparison with the scaled particle calculation. Analytical Chemistry,
     54(4): 702-705.

[18]  Konemann, H., R. Zelle, F. Busser and W.E. Hammers.  1979.  Determination
     of log Poct values of chloro-substituted benzenes, toluenes and anilines by
     high-performance liquid chromatography on ODS-silica.  Journal of
     Chromatography, 178: 559-565.

[19]  Banarjee, S., S.H. Yalkowsky and S.C. Valvani. 1980.  Water solubility and
     octanol/water partition coefficients of organics. Limitations of the solubility-
     partition coefficient correlation.  Environmental Science and Technology,
     14(10): 1227.

[20] Leo, A. and D.  Weininger. 1984.  CLog P version 3.2 User Reference
    • Manual. Pomona Medicinal Chemistry Project, Pomona College, Claremont,
     CA  91711.
                                     70

-------
[21]  Konemann, H. and K. van Leeuwen.  1980.  Toxicokinetics in fish:
     Accumulation and elimination of six chlorobenzenes by guppies.
     Chemosphere, 9: 3-19.

[22]  Oliver, B.C. and A.J. Niimi.  1983.  Bioconcentration of chlorobenzenes from
     water by brook trout.  Correlations with partition coefficients and
     environmental residues.  Environmental Science and Technology, 17(5): 287-
     291.
                                    71

-------
APPENDIX A
     72

-------
Table A-l.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively  Identified Using the Effluent Analytical Procedure:  Outfall,  Fraction 1.

          NBS/EPA/NIH TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATIONS        /chem/msd/90c911601016.d
 Peak RT
 8.756
 9.514
 10.213
 11.186
 11.476
 14.508
15.859
16.258
16.990
17.221
18.550
19.848
22.568
24.226
(Fit)


 97

 95


 91


 74


 93
          95
          94
          94
          93
          76
          76
          86
          81
          95
          89
          86
          90
          87
          83
          81
          78
          90
          90
          86
          78
          87
Height
                           Amount (ng/L)
                          (Name)
 73916                18Z07
 Benzene,  1,2-dichloro- (9CI)
 Benzene,  1,4-dichloro- (9CI)
 Benzene,  1,3-dichloro- (9CI)

 138398               325.87
 Ethane, hexachloro- (8CI9CI)

 48924                126.33
 Benzene,  (2-chloroethyl)- (8CI9CI)

 28443                 8Z24
 1,3-Butadiene, pentachloro- (9CI)

 101974                244.64
 Naphthalene (ACN) (DOT) (8CI9CI)'
 IH-Indene,  1-methylene- (9CI)
 Azulene (8CI9CI)

 3881660               10766.62
 Naphthalene, 2-ethenyl- (9CI)
 l.l'-Biphenyl (9CI)
43474
Acenaphthene (SCI)
                                 114.18
77577                  190.23
Dibenzofuran (8CI9CI)

100639                 241.66
Benzene,  l-chloro-2-phenoxy- (9CI)

212867                 491.94
Benzene,  l-chloro-4-phenoxy- (9CI)
Benzene,  l-chloro-3-phenoxy- (9CI)

306136                 699.93
Benzene,  bromophenoxy- (9CI)

71340                  176.32
Phenanthrene (8CI9CI)
Benzene,  l,l'-(l,2-ethynediyl)bis- (9CI)
Anthracene (8CI9CI)
9H-Fluorene, 9-methylene- (9CI)
2-Cyclopropen-l-one, 2,3-diphenyl- (9CI)

153846                 360.32
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylicacid,  bis(2-methoxyethyl) ester (9CI)
1,2-Benzencdicarboxylicacid,  butyl eyelohcxyl ester (9CI)
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylicacid,  butyl 2-methylpropyl ester (9CI)
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylicacid,  butyl 8-methylnonyl ester (9CI)

48495                  125.38
Fluoranthene (8CI9CI)
                                                         A-1

-------
Table A-2.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent Analytical Procedure:  Outfall, Fraction 2.

	NBS/EPA/NIH  TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATIONS	/chem/msd/90c911601017.d	

Peak RT            Height          Amount (ng/L)
         (Fit)             (Name)
11.233
12.098
15.651
16.352
20.052
24.232
25.080
          99
          99
          99
          94
          95
          90
          72
          87
394254                362.25
1,3-Butadiene, pentachloro- (9CI)

1090000               1012.20
1,3-Butadiene, I,l,i3,4,4,-hexachloro- (8CI9CI)

272065                252.21
24-Cyclohexadiene-l,4-dionc,2,6-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)- (9CI)

94122                  91.95
Benzene, pentachloro- (8CI9CI)

99228                  96.55
Benzene, l-l'-oxybis (4-chloro- (9CI)

93216                  91.14
Fluoramhenc (8CI9CI)
Benzene, l,l'-(1.3-butadiyne-l,4-diyl)bis- (9CI)
129281
Pyrene (8CI9CI)
Fluoranthene (8CI9CI)
123.62
                                                         A-2

-------
Table A-3.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using  the  Effluent Analytical  Procedure:  Outfall, Fraction 3.

	NBS/EPA/NIH TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATIONS	/chem/msd/90c911601018.d	

Peak RT            Height           Amount (ng/L)
         (Fit)            (Name)
12.070
18.907
23.987
24.779
31.999
          99
          98
          89
         93
          72
         72
460690                203.13
13-Butadiene,  1,1,2^,4,4,-hexachIoro- (8CI9CI)

652558                285.62
Benzene, hexachloro- (8CI9CI)
U-Cyclopentadiene, l,23,4-tetrachloro-5-(dichloromethyleneH8CI9CI)

1539990              1052.43
Sulfur, mol. (S8) (8CI9CI)
271343
Mirex
121.72
156969                 72.55
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 3-nitro- (9CI)
                                                       A-3

-------
Table A-4   Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent  Analytical Procedure: Station 1,  Fraction 1

         NBS/EPA/NIH TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATIONS        /chem/msd/90c911601022.d
Peak RT
 8.048
 8.320
11.400
         (Fit)
          72
          97
          97
          96
          94
          87
          87
Height
Amount (ng/L)
     (Name)
227053                151.17
Pyridine, 2,3,4,5-tetrahydro- (8CI9CI)

301839                199.07
Benzene, 1,4-dichloro- (9CI)
Benzene, 1,3-dichloro- (9CI)
Benzene, 1,2-dichloro- (9CI)

116305                 80.23
Benzene, 1,2,4-trichloro- (8CI9CI)
Benzene, 1,2,3-trichloro- (8CI9CI)
Benzene, 1,3,5-trichloro- (8CI9CI)
11.501              102574                71.44
          91        Azulene X8CI9CI)   '   •
          91        IH-Indene, l-methylene- (9CI)
          90        Naphthalene (ACN) (DOT) (8CI9CI)

14.463              1541280              1169.58
          90        Naphthalene, 2-ethenyl- (9CI)
          81        l.l'-Biphenyl (9CI)
                                                        A-4

-------
Table A-5  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively Identified Using the Effluent Analytical Procedure: Station 1,  Fraction 2.

	NBS/EPA/NIH TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATIONS	/chem/msd/90c911601023.d	

Peak RT            Height           Amount (ng/L)
         (Fit)            (Name)
11.208              391250                184.59
          98        1,3-Butadiene, pentachloro- (9CI)

12.071              292527                139.43
          99        U-Butadiene, 1,1.23,4,4,-hexachloro- (8CI9CI)

15.646              640694                298.69
          99        24-Cyclohexadiene-l,4-dione,2,6-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)- (9CI)
                                                       A-5

-------
Table A-6.  Bioconcentratable Chemicals Tentatively  Identified Using the Effluent Analytical Procedure: Station 1,  Fraction 3

         NBS/EPA/NIH TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATIONS       /chem/msd/90c911601024.d
Peak RT
 8.107
12.040
23.889
(Fit)


 72


 99
          93
          91
           Height
                         (Name)
                Amount (ng/L)
307900                113.68
Cyclopropane, 1,1,2,2-tetramethyl- (8CI9CI)

539792                195.64
1,3-Butadicne, 1,1,2,3,4,4,-hexachloro- (8CI9CI)

9532070               400.37
Sulfur, mol.  (S8)  (8CI9CI)
Maneb (ACN)
                                                       A-6

-------
Table A-7.   Concentrations of Hexachioroethane in Ambient Water Samples.

Procedure Blanks
Batte*lle













ERL-D



Outfall
ERL-D




Station A
Battelle








Week of
Sample
Collection

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
a
b
c
d

1-a
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-G
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-K
4-K
Surrogate
Recovery6
%

R-L
71.5
34.7
R-L
23.8
58.5
57.9
28.0
25.5
R-L
61.3
74.4
48.6
26.2
72.9
87.0
66.8
86.8

33.4
33.7
36.0
38.4
51.0

34.7
R-L
21.6
22.4
39.2
R-L
35.0
R-L
24.1
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


3.95
3.53

4.91
1.17
4.46
2.21
2.26

1.66
3.28
5.27
84.1
3.80
4.00
3.82
5.06

330
378
91.3
27.3
38.2

203

206
167
246

137

865
                                    A-7

-------
Table A-7.   Continued.
Week of
Sample
Collection
ERL-D



Station 1 - Composite
Battelle


ERL-D



Station 1 • Grab
Battelle







ERL-D



Station B
Battelle







1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
1-A
2-C
3-E
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-B
1-B
2-E
2-N
3-F
3-L
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-J
4-J
Surrogate
Recovery1'
%
37.9
47.3
42.7
78.8
38.7
21.0
R-L
40.7
45.7
54.1
59.9

38.7
R-L
R-L
26.8
R-L
R-l
32.6
39.7
37.5
41.4
44.9
58.7

46.4
45.7
30.3
45.4
54.2
42.4
R-l
R-l
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
267
161
138
838
48.8
131

52.5
164
158
233

104


245


1320
1200
102
237
142
1340

774
1080
283
243
137
158


                                     A-8

-------
Table A-7.   Continued.

ERL-D




Station C
Battelle






ERL-D




Station D
Battelle








ERL-D




Week of8
Sample
Collection
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-N
3-L
4-I
4- 1
1-a
2-b
3-c
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-H
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-K
4-K
1-a
2-b
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery6
%
39.1
47.4
R-H
61.2
63.4

97.6
43.0
40.7
48.7
R-l
R-l
R-l
34.2
47.9
53.5
34.4
70.4

R-L
77.1
51.6
31.5
67.2
28.7
R-l
29.1
34.4
43.9
46.4
R-H
40.5
67.5
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
954
276

789
582

52.3
47.5
176
101



52.5
141
13.9
11.8
25.8


76.3
85.8
233
162
23.4

1210
1350
93.0
208

16.7
73.2
                                    A-9

-------
Table A-7.   Continued.

Station E
Battelle







ERL-D



Week of
Sample
Collection

1-A
1-H
2-C
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery11
%

R-L
35.8
47.7
26.6
29.6
22.3
R-l
R-l
39.7
R-P
41.7
59.3
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


62.3
122
188
7.69
18.2


48.2

9.52
429
      The letter following the week is the procedural blank done with the analysis
      of the sample.

      Surrogate: I^AS-13^ HCE, R-L: rejected, recovery <20%, R-H:
    - rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l:  rejected, incorrect data, R-P: rejected,
      procedural error in sample preparation.
                                     A-10

-------
Table A-8.   Concentrations of Tetrachlorobutadiene #1 in Ambient Water
            Samples.

Procedure Blanks
Battelle













ERL-D



Outfall
ERL-D




Station A
Battelle








Week of"
Sample
Collection

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
I
K
L
M
N
a
b
c
d

1-a
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-G
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-K
4-K
Surrogate
Recovery13
%

R-L
45.0
33.6
29.8
39.4
51.9
45.7
34.2
R-L
29.1
55.4
53.9
40.6
37.6
88.2
106
84.3
93.0

39.9
39.7
40.5
52.3
53.7

33.6
29.3
20.9
28.7
29.1
21.1
31.7
R-L
22.7
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

1.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

20.2
4.60
21.7
17.3
30.6
46.7
25.1

142
                                   A-11

-------
Table A-8.  Continued.
Week of8
Sample
Collection
ERL-D



Station 1 - Composite
Battelle


ERL-D



Station 1 - Grab
Battelle







ERL-D



Station B
Battelle







1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
2-C
3-E
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-B
1-B
2-E
2-N
3-F
3-L
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-J
4-J
Surrogate
Recovery6
44.9
55.2
54.6
80.0

29.5
20.7
R-L
44.5
54.8
72.6
59.8

29.9
25.3
R-L
29.7
R-L
R-l
28.0
26.4
41.9
46.6
66.9
57.7

39.6
29.0
27.2
30.9
40.5
41.4
R-l
R-l
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
7.70
8.85
6.81
46.9

11.4
6.64

3.72
9.50
9.15
16.6

24.4
5.31

42.8


292
217
7.92
18.0
8.26
73.1

5.10
39.9
67.0
46.0
27.4
38.5


                                   A-12

-------
Table A-8.   Continued.

ERL-D




Station - C
Battelle






ERL-D




Station - D
Battelle








ERL-D




Week of"
Sample
Collection
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-N
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-H
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-K
4-K
1-a
2-b
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery''
%
44.5
53.4
R-H
67.1
62.7

55.6
37.3
39.6
45.6
R-l
R-l
R-l
39.5
57.6
76.5
53.7
80.3

R-L
40.5
42.3
30.1
48.5
29.8
R-l
R-L
20.1
46.7
55.7
R-H
55.5
66.5
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
11.6
20.4

60.1
61.8

11.1
13.7
33.4
28.3



4.52
11.1
1.33
1.28
3.89


4.27
21.0
51.4
30.2
3.82


230
8.79
14.5

0.896
43.9
                                   A-13

-------
Table A-8.   Continued.

Station E
Battelle







ERUD



Week of
Sample
Collection

1-A
1-H
2-C
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery6
%

R-L
39.1
35.9
27.5
33.9
25.5
R-l
R-l
45.0
R-P
59.2
63.3
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


10.1
30.8
29.8
1.12
1.49


4.48

0.526
32.5
      The letter following the week is the procedural blank done with the analysis
      of the sample.

      Surrogate: 1,2,4,5-13C6 TeCB, R-L: rejected, recovery < 20%, R-H:
      rejected, recovery >120%, R-l:  rejected, incorrect data, R-P: rejected,
      procedural error in sample preparation.
                                     A-14

-------
Table A-9.   Concentrations of Tetrachlorobutadiene #2 in Ambient Water
            Samples.

Procedure Blanks
Battelle













ERL-D



Outfall
ERL-D




Station A
Battelle








Week of8
Sample
Collection

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
a
b
c
d

1-a
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-G
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-K
4-K
Surrogate
Recovery6
%

R-L
46.4
33.6
29.7
39.4
51.9
45.7
34.2
29.1
R-L
55.4
53.9
40.6
37.6
88.2
106
84.3
93.0

39.9
39.7
40.5
52.3
53.7

33.6
29.3
20.9
28.7
29.1
21.1
31.7
R-L
22.7
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.814
1.26
2.95
1.69
2.79

46.2
25.6
43.9
34.3
77.3
75.2
57.3

422
                                   A-15

-------
Table A-9.  Continued.
Week of
Sample
Collection
ERL-D



Station 1 - Composite
Battelle


ERL-D



Station 1 - Grab
Battelle







ERL-D



Station B
Battelle







1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
2-C
3-E
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-B
1-B
2-E
2-IM
3-F
3-L
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-J
4-J
Surrogate
Recovery''
%
44.9
55.2
54.6
80.0

29.5
20.7
R-L
44.5
54.8
72.6
59.8

29.9
25.3
R-L
29.7
R-L
R-l
28.0
20.1
41.9
46.6
66.9
57.7

39.6
29.0
27.2
30.9
40.4
41.3
R-l
R-l
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
16.6
24.4
14.7
181

28.5
27.3

6.85
21.8
17.5
37.8

53.9
10.1

105


628
570
15.9
41.8
18.5
254

13.2
78.1
113
113
61.3
74.5


                                   A-16

-------
Table A-9.   Continued.

ERL-D




Station C
Battelle






ERL-D




Station D
Battelle








ERL-D




Week of"
Sample
Collection
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-N
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-H
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-K
4-K
1-a
2-b
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery6
%
44.5
53.4
R-H
67.1
62.7

55.5
37.3
39.6
45.5
R-l
R-l
R-l
39.5
57.6
76.5
53.7
80.3

R-L
40.5
42.3
30.1
48.5
29.8
R-l
R-L
20.1
46.7
55.7
R-H
55.5
66.5
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
24.2
44.9

202
205

30.8
28.3
80.7
72.5



11.90
33.50
5.15
5.50
13.0


31.2
45.8
117
62.3
10.9


708
18.7
34.0.

4.36
224
                                   A-17

-------
Table A-9.  Continued.

Station E
Battelle







ERL-D



Week of
Sample
Collection

1-A
1-H
2-C
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery6
%

R-L
39.1
35.9
27.5
33.9
25.5
R-l
n-i
45.0
R-P
59.2
63.3
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


22.6
83.1
8.13
4.84
15.1


11.1

2.97
102
      The letter following the week is the procedural blank done with the analysis
      of the sample.

      Surrogate: 1,2,4,5-13Ce TeCB, R-L: rejected, recovery <20%, R-H:
      rejected, recovery >120%, R-l:  rejected, incorrect data,  R-P: rejected,
      procedural error in sample preparation.
                                     A-18

-------
Table A-10.  Concentrations of Pentachlorobutadiene #1 in Ambient Water
            Samples.

Procedure Blanks
Battelle













ERL-D



Outfall
ERL-D




Station A
Battelle







Week of
Sample
Collection

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-a
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-G
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-K
Surrogate
Recovery15
%

R-L
45.0
33.6
29.8
39.4
51.9
45.7
34.2
29.1
R-L
55.4
53.9
40.6
37.6
88.2
106
84.3
93.0

39.9
39.7
40.5
52.3
53.7

33.6
29.3
20.9
28.7
29.1
21.1
31.7
R-L
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
tng/L]


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

8.23
5.92
8.44
5.38
8.50

247
202
277
204
515
605
381

                                   A-19

-------
Table A-10. Continued.


ERL-D



Station 1 -
Battelle


ERL-D



Station 1 -
Battelle







ERL-D



Station B
Battelle





Week of
Sample
Collection
4-K
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
Composite
1-A
2-C
3-E
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
Grab
1-B
1-B
2-E
2-N
3-F
3-L
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
Surrogate
Recovery15
%
22.7
44.9
55.2
54.6
80.0
29.5
20.7
R-L
44.5
54.8
72.6
59.8

29.9
25.3
R-L
29.7
R-L
R-l
28.0
26.4
41.9
46.6
66.9
57.7

39.6
29.0
27.2
30.9
40.5
41.4
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
2200
71.3
121
82.5
805
114
88.4

27.8
96.7
64.2
179

195
62.2

525


2770
3000
49.4
154
90.2
938

324
423
652
58.6
311
337
                                   A-20

-------
Table A-10.  Continued.



ERL-D




Station C
Battelle






ERL-D




Station D
Battelle








ERL-D



Week of
Sample
Collection
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-N
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-H
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-K
4-K
1-a
2-b
2-b
3-c
Surrogate
Recovery1"
%
R-l
R-l
44.5
53.4
R-H
67.1
62.7

55.6
37.3
39.6
45.6
R-l
R-l
R-l
39.5
57.6
76.5
53.7
80.3

R-L
40.5
42.3
30.1
48.5
29.8
R-l
R-L
20.1
46.7
55.7
R-H
55.5
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


77.5
199

739
859

149
156
181
144



32.7
45.0
0.00
0.00
16.9


211
245
364
285
0.603


1150
56.6
88.6

0.00
                                   A-21

-------
Table A-10. Continued.
                   Week of
                    Sample
                   Collection
Surrogate
Recovery*1
   Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
       [ng/L]
                      4-d
  66.5
        647
Station E
Battelle







ERL-D



1-A
1-H
2-C
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
R-L
39.1
35.9
27.5
33.9
25.5
R-l
R-l
45.0
R-P
59.2
63.3

165
222
240
0.00
1.18


26.9

0.00
369
      The letter following the week is the procedural blank done with the analysis
      of the sample.

      Surrogate: 1,2,4,5-13C6 TeCB, R-L:  rejected,  recovery <20%, R-H:
      rejected, recovery  >120%, R-l:  rejected, incorrect data, R-P:  rejected,
      procedural error in  sample preparation.
                                    A-22

-------
Table A-11.  Concentrations of Pentachlorobutadiene #2 in Ambient Water Samples.

Procedure Blanks
Battelle













ERL-D



Outfall
ERL-D




Station A
Battelle








Week of
Sample
Collection

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
a
b
c
d

1-a
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-G
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-K
4-K
Surrogate
Recovery6
%

R-L
45.0
33.6
29.8
39.4
51.9
45.7
34.2
29.1
R-L
55.4
53.9
40.6
37.6
88.2
106
84.3
93.0

39.9
39.7
40.5
52.3
53.7

33.6
29.3
20.9
28.7
29.1
21.1
31.7
R-L
22.7
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

3.57
3.20
6.35
2.99
2.72

72.5
58.6
81.1
59.6
132
175
109

837
                                   A-23

-------
Table A-11. Continued.
Week of*
Sample
Collection
ERL-D



Station 1 - Composite
Battelle


ERL-D



Station 1 - Grab
Battelle







ERL-D



Station B
Battelle







1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
2-C
3-E
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-B
1-B
2-E
2-N
3-F
3-L
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-J
4-J
Surrogate
Recovery6
%
44.9
55.2
54.6
80.0

29.5
20.7
R-L
44.5
54.8
72.6
59.8

29.9
25.3
R-L
29.7
R-L
R-l
28.0
26.4
41.9
46.6
66.9
57.7

39.6
29.0
27.2
30.9
40.5
41.4
R-l
R-l
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
20.5
29.3
20.6
223

37.7
31.0

7.88
28.2
23.3
41.5

72.6
21.3

177


1080
1100
17.0
43.2
24.0
282

90.0
115
207
21.3
109
127


                                   A-24

-------
Table A-11. Continued.

ERL-D




Station C
Battelle






ERL-D




Station D
Battelle








ERL-D




Week of
Sample
Collection
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-N
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-H
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-K
4-K
1-a
2-b
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery6
%
44.5
53.4
R-H
67.1
62.7

55.6
37.3
39.6
45.6
R-l
R-l
R-l
39.5
57.6
76.5
53.7
80.3

R-L
40.5
42.3
30.1
48.5
29.8
R-l
R-L
20.1
46.7
55.7
R-H
55.5
66.5
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
21.0
52.0

241
257

42.0
34.9
117
93.9



9.35
26.3
0.530
0.420
3.89


38.0
58.7
169
121
2.88


3170
15.8
36.0

0.00
43.9
                                   A-25

-------
Table A-11. Continued.

Station E
Battelle







ERL-D



Week of
Sample
Collection

1-A
1-H
2-C
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery1'
%

R-L
39.1
35.9
27.5
33.9
25.5
R-l
R-l
45.0
R-P
59.2
63.3
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


32.1
112
115
1.47
3.77


8.85

0.00
85.8
      The letter following the week is the procedural blank done with the analysis of
      the sample.

      Surrogate:  1,2,4,5-13C6 TeCB, R-L: rejected, recovery < 20%, R-H: rejected,
      recovery >120%, R-l:  rejected, incorrect data, R-P: rejected, procedural error
      in sample preparation.
                                    A-26

-------
Table A-12. Concentrations of Hexachlorobutadiene in Ambient Water Samples.

Procedure Blanks
Battelle













ERL-D



Outfall
ERL-D




Station A
Battelle








Week of
Sample
Collection

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
a
b
c
d

1-a
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-G
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-K
4-K
Surrogate
Recovery6
%

R-L
45.0
33.6
29.8
39.4
51.9
45.7
34.2
29.1
R-L
55.4
53.9
40.6
37.6
88.2
106
84.3
93.0

39.9
39.7
40.5
52.3
53.7

33.6
29.3
20.9
28.7
29.1
21.1
31.7
R-L
22.7
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


0.501
0.787
0.202
0.00
0.362
0.455
0.00
0.282

1.34
0.520
0.542
0.402
0.00
0.410
0.00
1.72

59.2
44.9
254
84.3
174

333
342
360
586
770
860
501

3740
                                   A-27

-------
TableA-12. Continued.
Week of8
Sample
Collection
ERL-D



Station 1 - Composite
Battelle


ERL-D



Station 1 - Grab
Battelle







ERL-D



Station B
Battelle







1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
2-C
3-E
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-B
1-B
2-E
2-N
3-F
3-L
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-J
4-J
Surrogate
Recovery6
%
44.9
55.2
54.6
80.0

29.5
20.7
R-L
44.5
54.8
72.6
59.8

29.9
25.3
R-L
29.7
R-L
R-l
28.0
26.4
41.9
46.6
66.9
57.7

39.6
29.0
27.2
30.9
40.5
41.4
R-l
R-l
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/U
521
494
433
4820

141
385

116
409
408
1540

304
100

688


4700
5550
302
674
499
4880

577
829
906
899
547
514


                                   A-28

-------
Table A-12. Continued.

ERL-D




Station C
Battelle






ERL-D




Station D
Battelle








ERL-D




Week of
Sample
Collection
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-N
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-H
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-K
4-K
1-a
2-b
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery6
%
44.5
53.4
R-H
67.1
62.7

55.6
37.3
39.6
45.6
R-l
R-l
R-l
39.5
57.6
76.5
53.7
80.3

R-L
40.5
42.3
30.1
48.5
29.8
R-l
R-L
20.1
46.7
55.7
R-H
55.5
66.5
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
830
867

4360
5200

270
239
475
321



197
359
0.908
0.874
181


359
357
636
526
1.67


5520
377
525

1.10
3740
                                   A-29

-------
TableA-12. Continued.

Station E
Battelle







ERL-D



Week of
Sample
Collection

1-A
1-H
2-C
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery13
%

R-L
39.1
35.9
27.5
33.9
25.5
R-l
R-l
45.0
R-P
59.2
63.3
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


266
423
490
1.06
4.63


182

0.916
2740
      The letter following the week is the procedural blank done with the analysis
      of the sample.

      Surrogate:  1,2,4,5-13Ce TeCB, R-L:  rejected, recovery <20%, R-H:
      rejected, recovery  >120%, R-l: rejected, incorrect data, R-P:  rejected,
      procedural error in  sample preparation.
                                    A-30

-------
Table A-13. Concentrations of 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene in Ambient Water Samples.

Procedure Blanks
Battelle













ERL-D



Outfall
ERL-D




Station A
Battelle








Week of
Sample
Collection

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
a
b
c
d

1-a
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-G
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-K
4-K
Surrogate
Recovery5
%

R-L
45.0
33.6
29.8
39.4
51.9
45.7
34.2
29.1
R-L
55.4
53.9
40.6
37.6
88.2
106
84.3
93.0

39.9
39.7
40.5
52.3
53.7

33.6
29.3
20.9
28.7
29.1
21.1
31.7
R-L
22.7
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


2.41
21.9
3.56
1.21
1.47
31.8
7.19
25.6

29.4
9.14
8.50
9.04
0.00
0.174
0.386
0.400

2,39
2.13
1.63
3.59
2.84

29.3
21.5
27.7
32.3
40.9
55.2
29.1

168
                                   A-31

-------
Table A-13. Continued.
Week of
Sample
Collection
ERL-D



Station 1 - Composite
Battelle


ERL-D



Station 1 - Grab
Battelle







ERL-D



Station B
Battelle







1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
2-C
3-E
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-B
1-B
2-E
2-N
3-F
3-L
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-J
4-J
Surrogate
Recovery1'
%
44.9
55.2
54.6
80.0

29.5
20.7
R-L
44.5
54.8
72.6
59.8

29.9
25.3
R-L
29.7
R-L
R-l
28.0
26.4
41.9
46.6
66.9
57.7

39.6
29.0
27.2
30.9
40.5
41.4
R-l
R-l
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
22.5
12.5
23.4
157

33.1
57.3

12.0
11.6
29.0
43.1

26.1
13.5

48.4


193
210
22.9
20.7
25.9
229

51.2
45.0
48.1
51.9
30.1
39.2


                                   A-32

-------
Table A-13. Continued.

ERL-D




Station C
Battelle






ERL-D




Station D
Battelle








ERL-D




Week of
Sample
Collection
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-N
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-H
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-K
4-K
1-a
2-b
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery6
%
44.5
53.4
R-H
67.1
62.7

55.6
37.3
39.6
45.6
R-l
R-l
R-l
39.5
57.6
76.5
53.7
80.3

R-L
40.5
42.3
30.1
48.5
29.8
R-l
R-L
20.1
46.7
55.7
R-H
55.5
66.5
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
27.3
26.5

192
197

68.4
21.3
57.6
37.1



14.8
16.0
5.99
6.40
13.5


27.1
21.1
41.0
38.6
7.76


225
21.5
16.5

4.27
152
                                   A-33

-------
Table A-13. Continued,



Station E
Battelle





Week of Surrogate
Sample Reco ve ryb
Co'lestion %

< ~i"- ••• ',,
"-H :*<>.•:
2-C 35.9
2-3.»j ?"/ 5;
3-'" 33.9
3-?. 25.6
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
Ing/L]


47.7
32.1
37.6
3.89
31.3
ERL-D
                      4-1
                      2-b
 R-s
43.0
 R-P
£9,2
63.3
12.7

2.64
90.5
    1  The Setter following the week is the procedural blank done with the analysis
      of the sample.

      Surrogate:  1,2,4,5-13Ce T'eCB, R-L:  rejected,  recovery <20%, R-H:
      rejected, recovery  >120%, R-S: rejected, incorrect data, R-P:  rejected,
      procedural error in  sample preparation.
                                    A-34

-------
Table A-14.  Concentrations of 1,2,4-Trichiorob8nzsne in Ambient Water Samples.

Procedure Blanks
Battelle













ERL-D



QutfaiS
ERL-D




Station A
Battei'e








Week of8
Sample
Collection

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
a
b
c
d

1-a
1-8
2-b
3-c
4-tJ

1-A
1-G
1-B
2-D
2-tVt
3-E
3-N
4-K
4-K
Surrogate
Recovery"
%

R-L
45.0
33.6
29.8
33.4
51.9
45.7
34.2
29.1
R-L
55.4
53.9
40.8
37.6
88.2
106
84 3
33.0

39.9
39.7
40.5
52,3
53.7

33.6
29.3
20,3
28.7
29.1
21,1
31.7
R-L
22.7
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


4.26
3.66
1.55
1.76
',.55
7.17
2.32
6.08

7 63
3.40
4.0G
4.24
1.30
0.415
0.0?
o,co

h • , "• /
y/7i>
18.5
•? "' f'\
1 3.3

J ; £
••* ** /",
»T» / . _'
• ^ **
'; .fci _,
1 f* ^
2S?
'. iar M

872
                                   A-35

-------
Table A-14. Continued.
Week of
Sample
Collection
ERL-D



Station 1 - Composite
Battelle


ERL-D



Station 1 - Grab
Battelle







ERL-D



Station B
Battelle




1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
2-C
3-E
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-B
1-B
2-E
2-N
3-F
3-L
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-M
3-E
Surrogate
Recovery6
%
44.9
55.2
54.6
80.0

29.5
20.7
R-L
44.5
54.8
72.6
59.8

29.9
25.3
R-L
29.7
R-L
R-l
28.0
26.4
41.9
46.6
66.9
57.7

39.6
29.0
27.2
30.9
40.5
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
105
125
95.6
734

57.4
120

46.7
115
121
222

111
44.1

233


1050
1260
95.8
203
104
1080

152
210
259
258
153
                                   A-36

-------
Table A-14. Continued.




ERL-D




Station C
Battelle






ERL-D




Station D
Battelle








Week of
Sample
Collection
3-N
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-N
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-H
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-K
4-K
Surrogate
Recoveryb
%
41.4
R-l
R-l
44.5
53.4
R-H
67.1
62.7

55.6
37.3
39.6
45.6
R-l
R-l
R-l
39.5
57.6
76.5
53.7
80.3

R-L
40.5
42.3
30.1
48.5
29.8
R-l
R-L
20.1
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
170


139
216

330
1040

90.6
81.6
212
162



68.5
140
22.0
26.5
58.2


106
114
206
183
26.0


1460
                                   A-37

-------
Table A-14. Continued.
If
ERL-D




Week of
Sample
Collection
1-a
2-b
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery6
46.7
55.7
R-H
55.5
66.5
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
105
158

15.3
821
Station E
Battelle







ERL-D



1-A
1-H
2-C
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-4
R-L
39.1
35.9
27.5
33.9
25.5
R-l
R-l
45.0
R-P
59.2
63.3

81.6
172
180
13.0
31.7


58.6

7.41
458
      The letter following the week is the procedural blank done with the analysis
      of the sample.
      Surrogate: 1,2,4,5-Ce TeCB, R-L: rejected, recovery <20%, R-H:
      rejected, recovery >120%, R-l:  rejected, incorrect data, R-P: rejected,
      procedural error in sample preparation.
                                    A-38

-------
Table A-15. Concentrations of 1,2,4,5- and 1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene in
           Ambient Water Samples.

Procedure Blanks
Battelle













ERL-D



Outfall
ERL-D




Station A
Battelle







Week of
Sample
Collection

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
a
b
c
d

1-a
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
1-A
1-G
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-K
Surrogate
Recovery6
%

R-L
45.0
33.6
29.8
39.4
51.9
45.7
34.2
29.1
R-L
55.4
53.9
40.6
37.6
88.2
106
84.3
93.0

39.9
39.7
40.5
52.3
53.7
33.6
29.3
20.9
28.7
29.1
21.1
31.7
R-L
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


1.11
0.00
2.02
0.507
0.617
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.397
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.24
1.05
1.23
1.65

9.36
8.49
16.5
16.9
13.6
19.4
22.9
19.4
14.2
2.3
44.9
26.8

                                   A-39

-------
Table A-15. Continued.
Week of
Sample
Collection

ERL-D



Station 1 - Composite
Battelle


ERL-D



Station 1 - Grab
Battelle







ERL-D



Station B
Battelle





4-K
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
2-C
3-E
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-B
1-B
2-E
2-N
3-F
3-L
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
Surrogate
Recovery13
%
22.7
44.9
55.2
54.6
80.0

29.5
20.7
R-L
44.5
54.8
72.6
59.8

29.9
25.3
R-L
29.7
R-L
R-l
28.0
26.4
41.9
46.6
66.9
57.7

39.6
29.0
27.2
30.9
40.5
41.4
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/U
256
45.3
50.9
56.6
616

8.81
7.62

20.7
49.8
76.2
130

19.6
18.3

45.1


330
348
43.6
87.0
66.7
895

29.6
39.3
48.3
43.7
31.8
37.7
                                   A-40

-------
TableA-15. Continued.



ERL-D




Station C
Battelle






ERL-D




Station D
Battelle








ERL-D



Week of"
Sample
Collection
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-N
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-H
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-K
4-K
1-a
2-b
2-b
3-c
Surrogate
Recovery6
%
R-l
R-l
44.5
53.4
R-H
67.1
62.7

55.6
37.3
39.6
45.6
R-l
R-l
R-l
39.5
57.6
76.5
53.7
80.3

R-L
40.5
42.3
30.1
48.5
29.8
R-l
R-L
20.1
46.7
55.7
R-H
55.5
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


66.2
99.0

858
805

17.7
17.7
44.7
36.1



38.9
82.7
25.0
27.5
42.3


20.8
23.5
44.2
34.9
9.72


349
48.7
84.8

19.0
                                   A-41

-------
Table A-15. Continued.
                   Week of
                    Sample
                   Collection
Surrogate
Recovery6
   Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
       [ng/L]
Station E
                      4-d
  66.5
        587
Battelle







ERL-D



1-A
1-H
2-C
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
R-L
39.1
35.9
27.5
33.9
25.5
R-l
R-l
45.0
R-P
59.2
63.3

18.9
32.5
37.0
7.02
11.3


33.3

13.4
362
      The letter following the week is the procedural blank done with the analysis
      of the sample.

      Surrogate:  1,2,4,5-13Ce TeCB, R-L:  rejected, recovery <20%, R-H:
      rejected, recovery  >120%, R-l: rejected, incorrect data, R-P:  rejected,
      procedural error in  sample preparation.
                                    A-42

-------
Table A-16.  Concentrations of 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene in Ambient Water
            Samples.

Procedure Blanks
Battelle













ERL-D



Outfall
ERL-D




Station A
Battelle







Week of
Sample
Collection

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
a
b
c
d

1-a
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-G
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-K
Surrogate
Recovery''
%

R-L
45.0
33.6
29.8
39.4
51.9
45.7
34.2
29.1
R-L
55.4
53.9
40.6
37.6
88.2
106
84.3
93.0

39.9
39.7
40.5
52.3
53.7

33.6
29.3
20.9
28.7
29.1
21.1
31.7
R-L
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.347
2.37
0.00
2.27

2.46
0.928
0.00
1.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

4.74
3.15
5.94
10.8
6.55

25.9
33.5
26.9
15.2
3.16
69.6
40.4

                                   A-43

-------
TableA-16. Continued.
Week of
Sample
Collection

ERL-D



Station 1 - Composite
Battelle


ERL-D

<4

Station 1 - Grab
Battelle







ERL-D



Station B
Battelle

••



4-K
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
2-C
3-E
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-B
1-B
2-E
2-N
3-F
3-L
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
Surrogate
Recovery1"
%
22.7
44.9
55.2
54.6
80.0

29.5
20.7
R-L
44.5
54.8
72.6
59.8

29.9
25.3
R-L
29.7
R-L
R-l
28.0
26.4
41.9
46.6
66.9
57.7

39.6
29.0
27.2
30.9
40.5
41.4
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
349
26.6
16.0
39.1
345

5.76
12.7

10.7
35.9
41.9
83.1

27.7
28.1

1.14


458
496
23.9
56.2
41.9
462

35.0
46.0
67.2
61.0
44.1
50.9
                                   A-44

-------
Table A-16. Continued.



ERL-D




Station C
Battelle






ERL-D




Station D
Battelle








ERL-D



Week of
Sample
Collection
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-N
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-H
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-K
4-K
1-a
2-b
2-b
3-c
Surrogate
Recovery1*
%
R-l
R-l
44.5
53.4
R-H
67.1
62.7

55.6
37.3
39.6
45.5
R-l
R-l
R-l
39.5
57.6
76.5
53.7
80.3

R-L
40.5
42.3
30.1
48.5
29.8
R-l
R-L
20.1
46.7
55.7
R-H
55.5
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


41.3
64.3

424
471

20.6
21.0
44.9
45.0



21.3
56.2
15.8
16.9
22.2


24.8
29.3
64.1
49.3
11.8


486
27.4
57.5

12.2
                                   A-45

-------
Table A-16. Continued.
                   Week of
                    Sample
                   Collection
Surrogate          Concentration
Recovery6       (Recovery Corrected)
    %                  [ng/L]
Station E
                      4-d
  66.5
330
Battelle







ERL-D



1-A
1-H
2-C
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
R-L
39.1
35.9
27.5
33.9
25.5
R-l
R-l
45.0
R-P
59.2
63.3

25.8
41.7
50.3
8.79
14.6


17.5

8.45
197
      The letter following the week is the procedural blank done with the analysis
      of the sample.

      Surrogate:  1,2,4,5-13Ce TeCB, R-L:  rejected, recovery <20%, R-H:
      rejected, recovery >120%, R-l: rejected, incorrect data, R-P:  rejected,
      procedural error in sample preparation.
                                    A-46

-------
Table A-17. Concentrations of Pentachlorobenzene in Ambient Water Samples.

Procedure Blanks
Battelle
f












ERL-D



Outfall
ERL-D




Station A
Battelle








Week of
Sample
Collection

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
a
b
c
d

1-a
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-G
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-K
4-K
Surrogate
Recovery1"
%

R-L
49.5
39.8
32.1
44.3
52.7
49.2
40.3
31.8
R-L
60.1
56.8
42.2
44.1
94.2
104
79.4
120

48.3
56.3
44.2
48.9
74.6

36.0
37.8
R-L
37.6
48.8
35.8
39.9
27.1
R-L
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


0.866
1.01
0.00
0.00
1.11
1.48
0.466
1.42

1.59
0.794
0.756
0.714
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

17.8
13.6
54.7
32.1
27.7

41.2
46.1

49.6
46.0
54.0
40.8
916

                                   A-47

-------
Table A-17. Continued.
Week ofa
Sample
Collection
ERL-D



Station 1 - Composite
Battelle


ERL-D



Station 1 - Grab
Battelle







ERL-D


-
Station B
Battelle







1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
2-C
3-E
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-B
1-B
2-E
2-N
3-F
3-L
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-J
4-J
Surrogate
Recovery6
%
53.9
44.5
53.4
87.7

33.0
26.1
22.7
54.9
53.4
62.1
72.9

33.5
50.0
R-L
35.4
32.2
R-l
34.3
31.2
43.6
45.5
58.2
43.8

41.9
43.2
36.4
38.3
42.8
50.1
R-l
R-l
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
34.7
62.1
47.7
795

19.5
48.7
118
17.1
56.2
76.9
148

37.7
35.0

75.4
37.6

938
1060
34.2
81.9
60.3
1490

72.0
69.4
75.4
72.0
57.7
57.4


                                   A-48

-------
Table A-17. Continued.

ERL-P




Station C
Battelle






ERL-D




Station D
Battelle








ERL-D




Week of
Sample
Collection
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-N
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-H
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-K
4-K
1-a
2-b
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery6
%
56.1
52.9
R-H
60.7
61.5

60.4
43.2
52.9
51.0
R-l
R-l
R-l
47.0
57.1
70.1
50.8
94.6

21.8
47.0
50.2
38.9
51.2
36.3
R-l
30.9
34.7
58.3
54.2
R-H
54.3
68.2
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
78.9
84.8

1180
1200

29.3
24.8
65.6
54.4



23.2
65.1
21.7
24.4
23.3

52.8
33.0
39.0
70.8
67.7
15.3

552
542
29.9
72.3

17.8
540
                                   A-49

-------
Table A-17. Continued.

Station E
Battelle







ERL-D



Week of
Sample
Collection

1-A
1-H
2-C
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-I
4-I
1
2
3
4
Surrogate
Recoveryb
%

R-L
37.8
39.3
37.4
39.0
29.6
R-l
R-l
52.7
R-P
56.4
75.7
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


41.0
59.8
54.0
12.7
17.2


22.9

12.9
287
      The letter following the week is the procedural blank done with the analysis
      of the sample.

      Surrogate: 1,2,4,5-13C6 HCB, R-L: rejected, recovery  < 20%, R-H:
      rejected, recovery >120%, R-l:  rejected, incorrect data, R-P: rejected,
      procedural error in sample preparation.
                                    A-50

-------
Table A-18. Concentrations of Hexachlorobenzene in Ambient Water Samples.

Procedure Blanks
Battelle













ERL-D



Outfall
ERL-D




Station A
Battelle







Week of
Sample
Collection

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
a
b
c
d

1-a
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-G
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-K
4-K
Surrogate
Recovery11
%

R-L
49.5
39.8
32.1
44.3
52.7
49.2
40.3
31.8
R-L
60.1
56.8
42.2
44.1
94.2
104
79.4
120

48.3
56.3
44.2
48.9
74.6

36.0
37.8
37.6
48.8
35.8
39.9
27.1
R-L
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


1.08
1.18
0.125
0.00
1.25
1.23
0.492
1.21

1.32
1.55
0.887
0.695
0.00
0.204
0.252
0.00

49.0
40.5
189
88.1
189

39.6
58.9
42.1
30.0
49.1
39.0
618

                                   A-51

-------
Table A-18. Continued.
Week of
Sample
Collection
ERL-D



Station 1 - Composite
Battelle


ERL-D



Station 1 - Grab
Battelle







ERL-D



Station B
Battelle







1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
1-A
2-C
3-E
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-B
1-B
2-E
2-N
3-F
3-L
4-J
4-J
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d

1-C
1-H
2-D
2-M
3-E
3-N
4-J
4-J
Surrogate
Recoveryb
%
53.9
44.5
53.4
87.7
33.0
26.1
22.7
54.9
53.4
62.1
72.9

33.5
50.0
R-L
35.4
32.2
R-l
34.3
31.2
43.6
45.5
58.2
43.8

41.9
43.2
36.4
38.3
42.8
50.1
R-l
R-l
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]
29.0
25.3
39.7
861
19.9
32.9
86.7
14.3
28.3
67.6
138

30.8
33.1

34.3
57.8

805
970
24.8
34.9
55.4
2240

145
110
36.8
33.0
44.6
44.0


                                   A-52

-------
Table A-18. Continued.

ERL-D




Station C
Battelle






ERL-D


-

Station D
Battelle








ERL-D




Week of
Sample
Collection
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
4-d
•
1-C
1-H
2-D
2-N
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
3-c
4-d

1-A
1-H
1-B
2-D
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-K
4-K
1-a
2-b
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate Concentration
Recovery* (Recovery Corrected)
% [ng/L]
56.1
52.9
R-H
60.7
61.5

60.4
43.2
52.9
51.0
R-l
R-l
R-l
47.0
57.1
70.1
50.8 ;
94.6

21.8
47.0
50.2
38.9
51.2
36.3
R-l
30.9
34.7
58.3
54.2
R-H
54.3
68.2
129
39.9

1210
1720

24.9
16.0
27.3
.25.6



14.9
26.8
17.5
17.3
8.37

37.8
26.4
25.6
33.5
31.8
13.8

269
284
24.6
35.5

15.6
242
                                  A-53

-------
Table A-18. Continued.

*
Station E
Battelle







ERL-D



Week of"
Sample
Collection

1-A
1-H
2-C
2-M
3-F
3-L
4-I
4-I
1-a
2-b
3-c
4-d
Surrogate
Recovery1*
%

R-L
37.8
39.3
37.4
39.0
29.6
R-l
R-l
52.7
R-P
56.4
75.7
Concentration
(Recovery Corrected)
[ng/L]


34.5
27.1
26.8
11.4
20.1


22.5

11.4
122
      The letter following the week is the procedural blank done with the analysis
      of the sample.

      Surrogate: 1,2,4,5-13C6 HCB, R-L:  rejected, recovery <20%, R-H:
      rejected, recovery  >12Q%, R-l: rejected, incorrect data, R-P:  rejected,
      procedural error in  sample preparation.
                                    A-54

-------
Table A-19. Dissolved Chemical Concentrations for Ambient Composite Water Samples
           from Station 1.
Hexachloroethane
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Blank
Tetrachlorobutadiene #1
Week 1
Week 2
WeekS
Blank
Tetrachlorobutadiene #2
Week 1
Week 2
WeekS
Blank
Pentachlorobutadiene #1
Week 1
Week 2
WeekS
Blank
Pentachlorobutadiene #2
Week 1
Week 2
WeekS
Blank
Hexachlorobutadiene
Week 1
Week 2
WeekS
Blank
13CrHCE Recovery (%)
18.0
26.5
18.9
57.9
13C»-TeCB Recoverv (%)
18.7
26.7
20.3
45.7
13C»-TeCB Recoverv (%)
18.7
26.7
20.3
45.7
13Ca-TeCB Recoverv (%)
18.7
26.7
20.3
45.7
13C.-TeCB Recoverv (%)
18.7
26.7
20.3
45.7
13CP-TeCB Recoverv (%)
18.7
26.7
20.3
45.7
HCE (na/L)
55.5
159
125
4.46
TeCBD #1 (na/Ll
7.51
20.2
25.6
0
TeCBD #2 (no/L)
30.9
55.7
81.1
0
PeCBD #1 (no/Li
99.9
286
246
0
PeCBD #2 (na/IJ
35.0
94.7
101
0
HCBD (na/L)
110
352
336
0.455
                                     A-55

-------
Table A-19. Continued.
   Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.3-

           Week 1
           Week 2
           WeekS
           Blank

   Trichlorobenzene. 1.2.4-

           Week 1
           Week 2
           Week3
           Blank

   Tetrachlorobenzene Mix

           Week 1
           Week 2
           Week 3
           Blank

 Tetrachlorobenzene. 1.2.3.4-

           Week 1
           Week 2
           Week3
           Blank

     Pentachlorobenzene

           Week 1
           Week 2
           Week 3
           Blank

     Hexachlorobenzene

       '   Week 1
           Week 2
           WeekS
           Blank
13C«-TeCB Recovery (%)

        18.7
        26.7
        20.3
        45.7

13C?-TeCB Recovery (%1

        18.7
        26.7
        20.3
        45.7

13C»-TeCB Recovery (%)

        18.7
        26.7
        20.3
        45.7

13C«-TeCB Recovery (%)

        18.7
        26.7
        20.3
        45.7

13C«-HCB Recovery (%)

        25.6
        37.0
        20.6
        49.2

13C?-HCB Recovery (%)

        25.6
        37.0
        20.6
        49.2
 TrCB. 1.2.3- (no/Ll

       12.9
       26.8
       73.7
       31.8

 TrCB. 1.2.4- (na/Ll

       54.8
      136
      150
        7.17

  TeCB Mix (ng/L)

        8.61
       27.0
       31.6
        0

TeCB. 1.2.3.4- (na/L)

       14.4
       41.3
       48.1
        2.37

    PeCB (na/L)

       14.0
       45.1
       54.5
        1.48

     HCB (na/L)

       10.6
       19.4
       34.1
        1.23
                                     A-56

-------
Table A-20. Particulate Chemical Concentrations for Ambient Composite Water Samples
           from Station 1.
      Hexachloroethane           13C,-HCE Recovery (%)           HCE (no/Ll

          Week 1                      30.4                       3.10
          Week 2                      10.3                       1.90
          WeekS                      41.4                       2.48
          Week 4                       9.80                      2.68
          Blank                        48.0                       1.91

   Tetrachlorobutadiene #1         13C.-TeCB Recovery (%)       TeCBD #1 (no/Li

          Week 1                      51.8          .             0
          Week 2                      12.0                       0
          Week 3                      52.9                       0
          Week 4                      40.6                       0
          Blank                        49.5                       0

   Tetrachlorobutadiene #2         13C«-TeCB Recovery (%)       TeCBD #2 (no/L)

          Week 1                      51.8                       0
          Week 2                      12.0                       0
          Week 3                      52.9                       0
          Week 4                      40.6                       0
          Blank                        49.5                       0

   Pentachlorobutadiene f 1         13Cff-TeCB Recovery (%)       PeCBD #1 (no/L)

          Week 1                      51.8                       0
          Week 2                      12.0                       0
          Week 3                      52.9                       1.65
          Week 4                      40.6                       0.580
          Blank                        49.5                       0

   Pentachlorobutadiene #2         13C«-TeCB Recovery (%)       PeCBD #2 (no/L)

          Week 1                      51.8                       0
          Week 2                      12.0                       0
          Week 3                      52.9                       0.507
          Week 4                      40.6                       0
          Blank                        49.5                       0
                                    A 57

-------
Table A-20. Continued.
     Hexachlorobutadiene

          Week 1
          Week 2
          Week 3
          Week 4
          Blank

   Trighlorobenzene. 1.2.3*

          Week 1
          Week 2
          Week 3
          Week 4
          Blank

   Trighlgrobenzene. 1.2,4-

          Week 1
          Week 2
          Week 3
          Week 4
          Blank

   Tetrachlorobenzene Mix

       •   Week 1
          Week 2
          Week 3
          Week 4
          Blank

 Tetrachlorobenzene. 1.2.3.4-

          Week 1
          Week 2
          Week3
          Week 4
          Blank
13C«-TeCB Recovery (%)

        51.8
        12.0
        52.9
        40.6
        49.5

13Cff-TeCB Recovery (%1

        51.8
        12.0
        52.9
        40.6
        49.5

13Cff-TeCB Recovery (%)

        51.8
        12.0
        52.9
        40.6
        49.5'

13Cfl-TeCB Recovery (%)

        51.8
        12,0
        52.9
        40.6
        49.5

13C9-TeCB Recovery (%)

        51.8
        12.0
        52.9
        40.6
        49.5
    HCBD (no/L)

        7.33
        7.08
       16.2
       60.1
        0.275

 TrCB. 1.2.3- (no/U

        6.25
        3.60
        5.85
        4.24
        7.14

 TrCB. 1.2.4- (no/L)

        1.87
        1.24
        2.31
        3.72
        1.70

  TeCB Mix (no/L>

        0.541
        0
        0,454
        0.837
        0

TeCB. 1.2.3.4- (no/Li

        0.386
        0
        1.04
        1.21
        0
                                     A-58

-------
Table A-20. Continued.
     Pentachlorobenzene          13Cg-HCB Recovery (%)          PeCB fno/L)

          Week 1                       62.1                      2.38
          Week 2                      17.1                      2.48
          Week 3                      64.3                      6.13
          Week 4                      53.7                     24.9
          Blank                        60.0                      0.632

     Hexachlorobenzene          13CP-HCB Recovery (%)           HCB (na/L)

          Week 1                       62.1                      7.45
          Week 2                      17.1                      6.70
          WeekS                      64.3          .           14.0
          Week 4                      53.7                     60.7
          Blank                        60.0                      5.05
                                    A-59

-------
Table A-21. POC and DOC for Ambient Water Samples.


POC:

                	POC. //a/filter1	.
  Station           Week 1        Week 2         Week 3         Week 4

    A               580          400           400            360
    B               440          370           270            410
    C               510          350           330            460
    D               360          340           390            380
    E               610          400           380            400
    1 Grab          620          330           300            420
    1 Composite      710          330                          400

mean of 9 blank samples = 184 //g/filter (std. dev.  = 31 //g/filter)

  sample size = 100 ml


DOC:

                 	DOC. mo/L	
  Station            Week 1        Week 2         Week 3         Week 42

    A               8.6           81             78
    B               7.2           94            84
    C               11.0          50            77
    D               7.8           81             76
    E               7.7           73            78
    1 Grab          60           82            33
    1 Composite      363           39            67

mean of 9 blank samples = 1.4 mg/L (std. dev. = 0.5 mg/L)

2 Samples were not analyzed because holding time of samples were exceeded.
                                 A-60

-------
Table A-22. DOC, POC, and TOC Values for Ambient Water Samples.
'" "
Week Station
1 A
B
C
D
E
1 Grab
1 Composite
2 A
B
C
D
E
1 Grab
1 Composite
3 A
B
C
D
E
1 Grab
1 Composite
4 A
B
C
D
E
1 Grab
1 Composite
Oraanic
DOC1
7.2
5.8
9.6
6.4
6.3
59
362
80
93
49
80
72
81
38
77
83
76
75
77
32
66







Carbon. mg/L
POC2
4.0
2.6
3.3
1.8
4.3
4.4
5.3
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.5
1.5
2.2
0.9
1.5
2.1
2.0
1.2

1.8
2.3
2.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.2

TOC1
7.1
11.6
7.5
6.2
12.6
68
408
81
101
61
82
84
89
68














1  Corrected for background (1.4 mg/L)
2  Corrected for background (184 /yg/filter)

                                  A-61

-------
T°b" A-
        Sampling Date	% Composite	% Grab

          Week 1

          Sept. 12/13              100                  0
          Sept. 13/14               33                 66
          Sept. 14/15               33                 66
          Sept. 15/16               33                 66
          Sept. 16/17               50                 50
          Sept. 17/18                0                100
          Sept. 18/19              100                  0

          Week 2

          Sept. 19/20               33                 66
          Sept. 20/21              100                  0
          Sept. 21/22              100                  0
          Sept. 22/23                0                100
          Sept. 23/24               33                 66
          Sept. 24/25                0                100
          Sept. 25/26                0                100

          Week3

          Sept. 26/27              100                  0
          Sept. 27/28                0                100
          Sept. 28/29              100                  0
          Sept. 29/30               12                 88
          Sept. 30/Oct. 1             0                100
          Oct. 1/2                 100                  0
          Oct. 2/3                 100                  0

          Week 4

          Oct. 3/4                 100                  0
          Oct. 4/5                 100                  0
          Oct. 5/6                 100                  0
          Oct. 6/7                 100                  0
          Oct. 7/8                 100                  0
          Oct. 8/9                 100                  0
                                 A-62

-------
Table A-24.  Organic Carbon Content for Sediment Samples.
Station
A
1
B
C
D
E
Percent Organic Carbon1
7.19
3.69
9.12
2.99
4.14
5.31
1  Percent organic carbon = total carbon - carbonate carbon
                                   A-63

-------




























,
M
c
o>
E
'•5
0)
CO
o
•^
.1
**
.-S

M
5
V
N
CO
T3
t

ra
O





•2
|

c/5

















E
E
1
c/:









(J CM
(- V


CM
U. ®
V

CM
89

— CM
PS
— CM
u. in



Sw 6
CM


_ 0
CO *?*
CJ 0
in

m
co9
h- O
CM

in
co§

it *^
^ *~
0

^
o
u. in
CM
6
in
CM
s?
in
6

in
159
^

to ^
u •
>CM


1
. fl>
CO
7-1-1 _l _1 _1
^ to -1 u u u
^* in co Tf co CM
o * in" CD «-^ ^
CM t- CM CO CO CO

Tt co cp co co r^
06 Tf co in r»" co
t— ^ r~ *«

o cn rs oo co m
CM OJ T^ 6 TT Tf
«- i- CM r- t-
r- ^ CO O PS CO
CO r^ O> in Tf Tf
CM in CM CO CM CO
en en co en co o
CM t-' CO CO Tf CO



in o o co in oo
co in co *— co 01


r+ it) o 00 to o
^ ^ CO CO «— CO
,- 

CM 9- r» r^ co PS
CO «- t- *- .-



O> CO CO r- CM CO
CD «-' co o co in
^- CM CM r- CM i-


CM CO CO CO CM CO
oi CM T-^ ci *^ C)



T" CO ^" ^ C7> CO
^ co t-' o o' c>


00 O l"» Tt CM »*
6 in d c> 6 6



< .- ca u Q ai

















































• 1
V) .-

•? J* C 4)
>OCO S
II II II "
> U CO S
                                  CO
                                  <
^> > ra
   u   u

-------
 Table A-26.  Tissue Compoaiting InfonMtion.
 For each compoaite sample, the Met Might (g) of the organism and the fittd sample
 package fro* which that organism MM randomly chosen ara listed.,.
 Fundul'js hataroelitua

 Station A   Composite 1
Composite 2
Compoaite 3
Compoatte 4
Tissua Maaa g
n*
Average maaa
Std Oav.
Coaf.Var.
Station 1   Compoaite 1
0009 2.'
0011 2.'
0009 2.
0011 3.1
0012 U.
0011 1.
0012 5.
0012 8.
0009 10.
0010 4.
0010 9.(
0012 S.(
71. C
i;
5.<
4.C
67. i
r -0009
t -0009
1 -0011
. -0012
•0012
•0012
•0009
•0012
•0011
•0012
) -0010
1 -0009
>
;
>
I

4
7
2
5
9
4
2
5
2
2
5
1
53

4
2
S3
.1
.9
.2
.0
.3
.7
.5
.8
.0
.9
.4
.7
.5
12
.5
.4
.9
•0010
•0011
•0009
•0011
•0010
•0011
-0011
-0010
•0010
•0012
-0011
•0011





1
1
2
2
5
2
• 4
6
3
6
4
2
42

3
1
JJ
.9
.4
.1
.5
.3
.5
.7
.0
.4
.1
.7
.3
.9
12
.6
.7
.3
•0012
•0009
•0011
•0009
•0010
•0010
•0010
•0009
•0012
-0011
•0012
•0010





14.0
6.7
2.2
8.4
8.7
4.0
3.7
5.7
14.6
5.0
2.5
2.6
78.1
12
6.5
4.2
65.0
Tissua mass g
n»
Avaraga mass
Std Oav.
Coaf.Var.
Station 8   Compoaita 1
011
•011
011
009
009
009
009
009
009
009
009
009





7.1
4.6
1.5
9.3
2.1
6.5
1.7
1.9
3.3
2.0
2.4
2.1
44.5
12
3.7
2.6
69.7
CoMpoaita 2
Coupes ite 3
Compoaita 4
Compoaita 5
Compoaita 6
0017
•014
-014
0020
-013
0018
0018
0020
0020
0018
0020
0017
2.4
4.7
3.0
3.6
2.6
8.2
8.2
7.0
9.2
2.1
3.4
4.1
•0017
•0020
•0013
-0013
-0020
-0017
-0020
-0013
-0018
•0018
-0017
-0020
8.4
2.2
3.6
1.9
3.4
3.8
5.8
2.4
4.7
4.8
3.5
4.3
•0013
-0019
•0014
•0017
•0019
•0020
•0020
•0017
-0014
•0019
•0017
•0017
5.1
9.3
4.4
4.2
5.6
10.6
4.8
6.2
5.7
10.3
3.0
7.4
•0017
•0014
•0014
•0017
•0014
•0013
•0013
•0014
•0013
•0013
•0018
-0013
4.7
1.9
10.4
7.0
11.5
1.8
2.4
3.5
2.6
2.4
6.8
3.4
-0013
•0017
•0013
-0018
-0014
•0018
•0014
•0014
-0014
•0018
•0018
•0014
4.4
4.0
5.4
6.4
14.1
14.2
3.3
8.4
1.5
12.4
13.1
3.4
-0018
-0018
-0018
•0018
-0013
•0014
-0014
-0014
••0014
•0014
•0014
•0014
6.6
4.5
0.7
1.3
0.6
3.6
3.1
2.0
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.6

-------
Tissue mass g
nm
Average mass
Std Oev.
Coef.var.
Station C Coapoette












Tissue waa g
n*
Average aaaa
Std Oev.
Coef.var.
Station 0 Coapoeite 1
•0001
•0022
•0021
•0024
•0022
•0022
•0022
•0022
•0021
•0022
•0001
•0002
Tissue mass g
n»

Average MM
Std Oev.
Coef.var.
Station D Composite 1












»;» 48.8
12 ij
4.9 * i
%• 1
2.4 i A
!••
»•• 4S.7
i
2.2
3.3
6.Q
4.7
.1
.1
.9
.3
.7
10.4
11.8
12.3
87.8
12
7.3
3.4
46.0
CoapMltt * Coipoaft*
13.7 -0002 4.6 -0002
'•3 *0024 1.6 -0002
4.7 -0024 4.4 .oofl|
4.2 -0024 2.1 -0001
12.3 -0001 ,2.7 .£S
3.2 -0024 8.9 .0001
13.3 -0001 6.0 .Q001
14.0 -0002 4.4 -0001
6.6 -0002 13.9 '0002
7.5 -0024 1.4 .0002
10.3 -0001 1S.4 -0002
2.7 -0001 6.4 -0002
9M "••
12 «»
'«
8.2 A 7
r * *'7
4-3 4.6
"•< 61.5

2.2
2.8
3.1
2.0
2.9
4.9
2.8
2.1
3.7
3.1
3.4
3.4
76
6
2.
39.


















!
3.8
5.4
12.7
4.3
2.1
6.4
S.O
11.1
2.1
7.0
4.8
5.7
71.1

12
5.9
3.3
55.9













12
.4
.5
.0
                                                                                     58.4
                                                                                        12
                                                                                      4.9
                                                                                      3.3
                                                                                     68.4
90.6
   12
 7.6
 4.7
62.2
27.6
  12
 2.3
 1.8
79.0
Tissue
                          36.4

-------
Average mass
Std Oev.
Coef.var.
Callinectes sapidua

Station A   Composite 1
  12
 3.0
 o.a
26.2
Uhola
Uhole mass (g) includes shall and soft body without legs.

         Composite 2
                                                          Soft
         Soft
                                                   Uhole
     Composite 3
Soft             Uhola


T issue mass
n*
•0001
•0002
•0003
9

Average Mass
Std Oev.
Coef.Var.
Station 1




Tissue mass
n*


Composite 1

•0004
•0002
-0005
9

Average mass
Std Oev.
Coef.Var.
Station B




Tissue mass
n*
Average mass
Std Oev.
Coef.Var.
Station C




Tissue mass
n»
Average mass
Std Oev.
Coef.Var.
Station 0





Composite 1

-012
•0009
•0010
9




Composite 1

•oooa
•000?
-0009
9




Composite 1

-0014
-0004
94.6
123.7
110.3
328.6
3
109.5
14.6
13.3

Uhola
184.5
146.0
240.8
571.3
3
190.4
47.7
25.0

Uhola
179.0
147.8
114.2
441.0
3
147.0
32.4
22.0

Uhola
249.6
244. t
208.*
702:5
3
234.2
22.1
9.5

uhola
229.8
171.2
22.4
33.5
36.0
91.9
3
30.6
7.2
23.6

Soft
91.8
65.2
96.4
253.4
3
84.5
16.8
19.9

Soft
92.5
56.6
42.6
191.7
3
63.9
25.7
40.3

Soft
97.5
93.3
84.6
275.4
3
91.8
6.6
7.2

Soft
39.8
76.2
•0001
-0007
•0003





Composite

•0003
•0005
•0003





Composite

•012
•011
•011





Composite

-0001
-0007
-0007





Composite

-0005
•0015
125.7
101.6
202.0
429.3
3
143.1
S2.4
36.6
2
Uhola
130.5
91.2
94.7
316.4
3
105.5
21.8
20.6
2
Uhola
171.6
181.1
208.6
561.3
3
187.1
19.2
10.3
2
Uhola
56.6
64.8
48.2
169.6
3
56.5
8.3
14.7
2
whole
118.3
99.8
34.3 -0002 138.0 50.6
62.7 -0002' 110.6 38.9
40.8 -0001 103.6 27.7
137.8 352.2 117.2
3 33
45.9 117.4 39.1
14.9 18.2 11.5
32.4 15.5 29.3
Composite 3 Composite 4
Soft Whole Soft uhola
44.4 -0004 71.3 36.2 -0004 86.0
39.1 -0003 82.2 28.5 -0006 67.8
50.8 -0002 68.6 28.1 -0006 56.4
134.3 222.1 92.8 210.2
3 33 3
44.8 74.0 30.9 70.1
5.9 7.2 4.6 14.9
13.1 9.7 14.8 21.3

Soft
70.4
76.6
74.1
221.1
3
73.7
3.1
4.2

Soft
20.9
26.6
20.1
67.6
3
22.5
3.5
15.7

Soft
54.5
39.6








Soft
28.5
24.5
18.7
71.7
3
23.9
4.9
20.6

























-------
               •0018    US.7
83.1
-0015
91.8
36.9
Tissue mss g
n»
Avaraga DIMS
Std Otv.
Coaf.var.
Station E




Tissua Ma
n»
Avaraga M
Std Oav.
Coaf.var.

Conpoaita 1

•0003
-0002
-0004
* 9

*a


544.7
3
182.2
43.1
23.7

Uholt
228.4
232.
244.
705.

235.
8.4
3.6
24».1
3
83.0
6.8
8.2
Co
Scft
96.9
90.4
108.6
297.9
3
99.3
9.1
9.2
309.9
3
103.3
13.6
13.2
•poaita 2
Uholt
-0002 193.0
-0005 216.9
•0001 195.7
605.6
3
201.9
13.1
6.S
131.0
3
43.7
9.5
21.7
Co
Soft
74.1
90.4
65.3
229.8
3
76.6
12.7
16.6


•poaita 3
Who I a
-0004 154.5
•0001 169.6
-0003 164.7
488.8
3
162.9
7.7
4.7



Soft
64.7
54.8
59.4
178.9
3
59.6
5.0
8.3
Micropogan undulua



Station •   Conpoaita 1



Tisaua Maa
n*
Avaraga mat
Std Oav,
Coaf.Var.
Station C



Tfssua ma*
n*
Avaraga mass
Std Oav.
Coaf.Var.
Station 0



Tissua mass
n*
Avaraga maaa
Std Oav.
Coaf.Var.
Station E



-0006
-0006
•0006
g




Compoaita 1
-0006
-0006
-0006
g




CoMiMaita 1
-0010
•0010
-0010
9




Compos ita 1
-0011
-0011
•0011
28.6
28.3
21.7
78.6
3
26.2
3.9
14.9

21.0
20.8
18.2
59.9
3
20.0
1.6
7.8
(A) CoaaMita 2
24.8 -0009
20.* -0009
2S.2 -0019
70.9
3
23.6
2.4
10.2

20.7
19.3
22.5

















(!) Coapoaita 3 (C)
20.7 -0009 24.7
27.7 -0009 20.6
27.9 -0019 19.3
76.3 64.6
3 3
25.4 21.5
4.1 2.9
16.1 13.3





-------
Tissue mass g

Average maaa
Std Oev.
Coef.Var.
                         20,
                          1.
                          7.
Brevoortia patronua

Station C   Composite 1 (A)   Coapoaite 2 (I)   Composite 3  (C)   Composite 4 (0)   Composite 5 (E)   Composite 6 (F)





Tissue mass
n«
•0011
•0004
-0011
-0005
-0002
9

Average mass
Std Oev.
Coef. Var.






Tissue mass
n*


Composite
-0004
-0005
-0002
-0014
•0014
9

Average mass
Std Oev.
Coef .Var.
Station 0





Tissue mesa
n*
Average mess
Std Oev.
Coef .Var.
Station E





Tissue mass
n»
Average mass
Std Oev.
Coef. Var.


Composite
-0020
•0020
•0020
•0011
•0011
9




Composite
-0010
•0010
•0007
•0010
•0010
9




8.6
12.3
11.1
12.2
14.1
58.3
5
11.7
2.0
17.4
6 (G)
12.2
12.8
13.9
12.6
13.5
64.9
5
13.0
0.7
5.4
1 (A)
11.2
10.6
6.5
10.2
8.5
47.0
5
9.4
1.9
20.4
1 (A)
10.8
12.4
10.7
9.2
14.4
57.5
5
11.5
2.0
17.1
•0009
-0014
-0005
•0011
•0004
















Composite 2
•0011
•0011
•0011
-0011
-0011





Composite 2
-0009
-0009
-0009
-0010
-0007





14.8
10.6
13.6
10.3
15.1
64.4
5
12.9
2.3
17.6











(8)
9.0
11.9
8.2
8.2
8.3
45.5
5
9.1
1.6
17.3
(8)
13.5
13.8
13.1
12.0
11.0
63.4
5
12.7
1.2
9.1
-0004
•0009
-0004
-0005
-0014



























Composite 3
•0009
•0010
-0010
-0009
-0009





13.8
10.3
15.6
13.3
11.8
64.8
5
13.0
2.0
15.7






















(C)
9.1
10.5
8.7
11.7
12.3
52.2
5
10.4
1.6
15.2
-0009
•0002
-0014
-0014
•0014




•






















Composite 4
•0007
-0009
•0010
•0007
•0009





15.1 -0014
11.7 -0014
17.8 -0014
17.4 -0009
14.8 -0004
76.7
5
15.3
2.5
16.0






















<0>
13.4
10.6
9.0
10.4
11.3
54.7
5
10.9
1.6
14.8
13.2 -0014 11.5
9.7 -0011 8.5
12.7 -0004 11.1
12.7 -0011 14.1
11.2 -0004 11.1
59.5 56.3
5 5
11.9 11.3
1.4 2.0
12.0 17.6


































-------
Table A-27. Hexachloroethane Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.
••
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #4
1
Comp #1
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #5
Comp #6
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
D
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #3
E
Comp #1
	 • — • 	 .
Laboratory8

Bat E
ERL-D 5/17
Bat E
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat E
Bat E
BatE
ERL-D 5/1 5
Bat E

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17

Bat E
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/15
M—
Lipid
%

0.975
1.01
1.42
0.612
1.42

1.24

0.794
1.37
0.615
1.58

1.54
0.954
2.04

0.825
0.994

2.18
0.930
1.03
0.988
1.30

1.31
— — — — — — — __
13C,-HCE
Recovery6
%
™™^"^™^^^^^"^™^^^-^^^—

42.6
16.3C
55.1
16.7
17.1

18.7

20.8
20.4
R-L
39.0
36.7
23.8
20.1
45.8

18.0
20.3

24.8
39.2
38.0
20.1
19.1

20.4
	 	 	 . — -
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

78.0
55.6
82.6
69.6
65.8

154

107
91.1

128
119
202
112
103

102
90.0

104
20.8
22.3
29.4
9.97

94.9
	 	 • 	
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]
^ ^— m —

523
396
384
827
336

925

995
489

563
520
943
868
343

912
665

325
145
142
203
40.6

533
                                        A-70

-------
Table A-27. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Lipid
Laboratory" %
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13CrHCE (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
% tng/g] [ng/g]
29.3
42.4
0.00d
0.00d
58.8
23.3
62.7
64.1
51.1
59.1
41.2
R-L
37.5
31.4
45.5
46.9
52.8
4.01
3.63


4.12
0.00
3.21
2.91
3.38
3.01
11.9

8.41
9.50
12.7
11.1
11.5
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.  The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with  the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery <15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery >120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural  blanks.
                                       A-71

-------
Table A-28. Tetrachlorobutadiene #1 Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #4
1
Comp #1
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #5
Comp #6
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
0
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #3
E
Comp #1
Laboratory"

Bat E
ERL-D 5/17
Bat E
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/17
Bat E
Bat E
Bat E
. ERL-D 5/1 5
Bat E

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17

Bat E
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/1 5
Lipid
%

0.975
1.01
1.42
0.612
1.42

1.24

0.794
1.37
0.615
1.58

1.54
0.954
2.04

0.825
0.994

2.18
0.930
1.03
0.988
1.30

1.31
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
% [ng/g] [ng/g]

30.7
18. 1C
30.8
16.6
18.4

17.7

24.1
21.2
R-L
19.2
30.4
15.4
19.3
29.5

18.5
21.1

22.7
45.5
40.9
19.8
20.2

20.1

5.71
1.44
8.12
2.60
2.43

5.05

2.90
3.28

16.4
8.58
22.5
2.73
14.6

3.03
2.56

10.9
0.00
0.00
0.709
0.00

2.29

44.5
10.8
43.5
32.3
13.0

31.0

27.8
18.2

78.9
41.3
111
21.7
54.4

27.9
19.6

38.0
0.00
0.00
5.45
0.00

13.3
                                         A-72

-------
Table A-28. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13Ce-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery11 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
BatE
BatF
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
0.00
0.00


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-T_:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P:  rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added  to these  procedural blanks.
                                       A-73

-------
Table A-29. Tetrachlorobutadiene #2 Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.
• —
Station "
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #4
1
Comp #1
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #5
Comp #6
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
D
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #3
E
Comp #1
— 	 .,
Laboratory*
^^^^"^"^^"^^^^^^^•^"•"•••^•^••M
BatE
ERL-D 5/17
BatE
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 5

ERL-D 5/1 5

ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7
BatE
BatE
BatE
ERL-D 5/1 5
BatE

ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7

BatE
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/1 5
— — — — — .
Lipid
%

0.975
1.01
1.42
0.612
1.42

1.24

0.794
1.37
0.615
1.58

1.54
0.954
2.04

0.825
0.994

2.18
0.930
1.03
0.988
1.30

1.31
——————
13C9-TeCB
Recovery6
%

30.7
18.1°
30.8
16.6
18.4

17.7

24.1
21.2
R-L
19.2
30.4
15.4
19.3
9.5

18.5
21.1

22.7
45.5
40.9
19.8
20.2

20.1
	 ,
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

22.4
11.9
24.1
16.3
20.3

33.6

15.8
18.2

40.5
28.7
58.0
23.1
41.2

17.3
13.9

20.6
2.94
3.07
5.18
2.56

15.1
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]
^^"^"^^^^^^^•^^•^^^•^^WMB™*^^^^^^^
175
89.5
129
202
109

206

151
101

195
138
286
184
153

159
106

71.8
24.0
22.7
39.8
15.0

87.6
                                        A-74

-------
Table A-29. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery11 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat A
Bat B
BatC
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
0.00
0.00


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with  the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these  procedural blanks.
                                       A-75

-------
Table A-30. Pentachlorobutadiene #1 Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #4
1
Comp #1
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #5
Comp #6
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
D
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #3
E
Comp #1
Laboratory"

BatE
ERL-D 5/1 7
BatE
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/1 5

ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7
BatE
BatE
BatE
ERL-D 5/15
BatE

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7

BatE
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5

ERL-D 5/1 5
Lipid
%

0.975
1.01
1.42
0.612
1.42

1.24

0.794
1.37
0.615
1.58

1.54
0.954
2.04

0.825
0.994

2.18
0.930
1.03
0.988
1.30

1.31
13C6-TeCB
Recovery6
%

30.7
18.1C
30.8
16.6
18.4

17.7

24.1
21.2
R-L
19.2
30.4
15.4
19.3
29.5

18.5
21.1

22.7
45.5
40.9
19.8
20.2

20.1
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

380
92.5
110
100
86.3

270

136
146

656
460
1230
138
730

112
101

463
17.8
16.3
21.5
4.24

74.2
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

2960
696
587
1242
462

1655

1302
810

3154
2211
6069
1099
2718

1032
772

1613
145
120
165
24.8

430
                                        A-76

-------
Table A-30. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % tng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
0.00
0.00


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P:  rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural blanks.
                                       A-77

-------
Table A-31. Pentachlorobutadiene #2 Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #4
1
Comp #1
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #5
Comp #6
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
D
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #3
CT5-E
Comp #1
Laboratory"

Bat E
ERL-D5/17
Bat E
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
BatE
BatE
Bat E
ERL-D 5/15
BatE

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7

BatE
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5

ERL-D 5/1 5
Lipid
%

0.975
1.01
1.42
0.612
1.42

1.24

0.794
1.37
0.615
1.58

1.54
0.954
2.04

0.825
0.994

2.18
0.930
1.03
0.988
1.30

1.31
13C6-TeCB
Recovery1*
%

30.7
18.1°
30.8
16.6
18.4

17.7

24.1
21.2
R-L
19.2
30.4
15.4
19.3
29.5

18.5
21.1

22.7
45.5
40.9
19.8
20.2

20.1
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

97.0
17.1
0.00
21.2
18.5

58.7

25.7
31.3

184
139
294
29.3
174

24.3
24.3

121
4.42
5.00
5.32
2.05

17.2
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

755
129
0.00
263
99.0

360

246
174

884
668
1450
233
648

224
186

421
36.1
36.9
40.9
12.0

100
                                        A-78

-------
Table A-31. Continued.
Station -
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank -
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13Ce-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
BatE
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
0.00
0.00


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.948
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery <15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery >120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P:  rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low  because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural blanks.
                                        A-79

-------
Table A-32. Hexachlorobutadiene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #4
1
Comp #1
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #5
Comp #6
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
D
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #3
E
Comp #1
Laboratory"

BatE
ERL-D 5/17
Bat E
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat E
Bat E
Bat E
ERL-D 5/1 5
Bat E

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7

Bat E
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/15
Lipid
%

0.975
1.01
1.42
0.612
1.42

1.24

0.794
1.37
0.615
1.58

1.54
0.954
2.04

0.825
0.994

2.18
0.930
1.03
0.988
1.30

1.31
13C6-TeCB
Recovery15
%

30.7
18. r
30.8
16.6
18.4

17.7

24.1
21.2
R-L
19.2
30.4
15.4
19.3
29.5

18.5
21.1

22.7
45.5
40.9
19.8
20.2

20.1
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

2510
3960
2990
5990
4920

11400

7130
8320

5840
4270
6290
7940
3890

8540
7530

3270
1410
1540
1760
395

5890
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

19538
29742
15984
74293
26292

69825

68175
46113

28074
20522
31024
63194
14479

78603
57516

11388
11461
11308
13481
2266

34128
                                        A-80

-------
Table A-32. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13Ce-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory' % % tng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
BatF
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
5.04
2.81


4.93
9.90
7.46
7.28
11.2
11.2
11.5
1.50
2.11
0.00
6.30
2.23
0.840
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-1: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural blanks.
                                       A-81

-------
Table A-33. 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #4
1
Comp #1
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #5
Comp #6
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
D
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #3
E
Comp #1
Laboratory"

Bat E
ERL-D 5/17
Bat E
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/17
Bat E
Bat E
Bat E
ERL-D 5/15
Bat E

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17

Bat E
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/15
Lip id
%

0.975
1.01
1.42
0.612
1.42

1.24

0.794
1.37
0.615
1.58

1.54
0.954
2.04

0.825
0.994

2.18
0.930
1.03
0.988
1.30

1.31
13Ce-TeCB
Recovery6
%

30.7
18. 1C
30.8
16.6
18.4

17.7

24.1
21.2
R-L
19.2
30.4
15.4
19.3
29.5

18.5
21.1

22.7
45.5
40.9
19.8
20.2

20.1
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

22.1
13.8
21.5
15.3
16.0

43.8

41.6
27.2

39.8
33.0
57.2
36.5
39.1

22.1
21.9

25.6
6.08
5.82
6.70
3.30

24.9
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

152
101
101
185
83.7

266

395
149

179
146
269
288
136

200
165

80.2
46.7
40.2
48.7
17.1

142
                                         A-82

-------
Table A-33. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery1* Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
BatF
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
0.00
0.00


0.00
0.00
0.473
0.856
0.902
0.717
4.58
0.00
0.00
3.42
4.57
2.21
3.44
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.  The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery <15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery >120%, R-l:  rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural  blanks.
                                       A-83

-------
Table A-34. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #4
1
Comp #1
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #5
Comp #6
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
D
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #3
E
Comp #1
Laboratory*

Bat E
ERL-D 5/17
Bat E
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/1 5

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
BatE
Bat E
BatE
ERL-D 5/1 5
Bat E

ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7

Bat E
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5

ERL-D 5/15
Lipid
%

0.975
1.01
1.42
0.612
1.42

1.24

0.794
1.37
0.615
1.58

1.54
0.954
2.04

0.825
0.994

2.18
0.930
1.03
0.988
1.30

1.31
13C6-TeCB
Recovery6
%

30.7
18.1°
30.8
16.6
18.4

17.7

24.1
21.2
R-L
19.2
30.4
15.4
19.3
29.5

18.5
21.1

22.7
45.5
40.9
19.8
20.2

20.1
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
tng/g]

110
102
126
137
138

237

167
169

230
174
333
203
266

141
114

126
38.0
55.4
66.1
38.0

167
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

846
642
667
1494
649

1350

1439
845

1099
830
1636
1484
986

1145
744

434
174
286
380
125

872
                                         A-84

-------
Table A-34. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank -
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13Ce-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 5
ELD-D5/17
ELD-D5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
12.7
10.5


14.7
35.6
12.8
12.6
17.6
17.0
1.90
0.00
0.00
1.02
1.05
3.11
3.12
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.  The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery <15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery >120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P:  rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural blanks.
                                       A-85

-------
Table A-35. 1,2,4,5- and 1,2,3,5- Tetrachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus
            heteroclitus.

Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #4
1
Comp #1
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #5
Comp #6
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
D
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #3
E
Comp #1
Laboratory'

Bat E
ERL-D5/17
Bat E
ERL-D5/15
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D5/15

ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat E
Bat E
BatE
ERL-D 5/1 5
BatE

ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7

BatE
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5

ERL-D 5/1 5
Lipid
%

0.975
1.01
1.42
0.612
1.42

1.24

0.794
1.37
0.615
1.58

1.54
0.954
2.04

0.825
0.994

2.18
0.930
1.03
0.988
1.30

1.31
13Ca-TeCB
Recovery1*
%

30.7
18.1C
30.8
16.6
18.4

17.7

24.1
21.2
R-L
19.2
30.4
15.4
19.3
29.5

18.5
21.1

22.7
45.5
40.9
19.8
20.2

20.1
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

100
189
104
276
275

453

356
387

190
177
263
404
164

331
303

131
86.9
99.9
103
54.9

310
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

769
1410
549
3408
1464

2767

3393
2138

907
845
1291
3206
606

3035
2305

452
697
726
780
312

1789
                                        A-86

-------
Table A-35. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank •
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13Ca-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery1" Corrected) Content)
Laboratory* % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
1.38
0.799


1.14
1.81
1.92
1.60
1.85
1.92
1.86
3.36
1.03
0.958
0.00
1.39
0.778
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery <15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery >120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P:  rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low  because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural blanks.
                                        A-87

-------
Table A-36. 1,2,3,4- Tetrachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus hetemciitus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #4
1
Comp #1
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #5
Comp #6
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
D
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #3
E
Comp #1
Laboratory"

BatE
ERL-D 5/1 7
BatE
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 5

ERL-D 5/1 5

ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat E
BatE
BatE
ERL-D 5/1 5
BatE

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7

BatE
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5

ERL-D 5/1 5
Lipid
%

0.975
1.01
1.42
0.612
1.42

1.24

0.794
1.37
0.615
1.58

1.54
0.954
2.04

0.825
0.994

2.18
0.930
1.03
0.988
1.30

1.31
13Ce-TeCB
Recovery6
%

30.7
18.1°
30.8
16.6
18.4

17.7

24.1
21.2
R-L
19.2
30.4
15.4
19.3
29.5

18.5
21.1

22.7
45.5
40.9
19.8
20.2

20.1
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

116
72.7
124
90.8
78.5

189

133
151

243
227
343
191
215

131
119

172
35.8
47.6
56.5
27.9

127
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

897
543
659
1121
417

1155

1268
835

1165
1088
1688
1517
798

1202
906

597
288
347
431
160

734
                                        A-88

-------
Table A-36. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank "
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13Ce-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
BatF
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
0.00
0.00


0.361
0.981
0.888
0.647
0.640
0.686
0.954
0.00
1.57
1.73
0.00
1.49
0.467
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P:  rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low  because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural blanks.
                                        A-89

-------
Table A-37. Pentachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.
— ^— .— — — .
Station *
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #4
1
Comp #1
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #5
Comp #6
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
D
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #3
E
Comp #1
Laboratory*

Bat E
ERL-D5/17
Bat E
ERL-D5/15
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat E
Bat E
Bat E
ERL-D 5/1 5
Bat E

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7

Bat E
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5

ERL-D 5/15
Lipid
%

0.975
1.01
1.42
0.612
1.42

1.24

0.794
1.37
0.615
1.58

1.54
0.954
2.04

0.825
0.994

2.18
0.930
1.03
0.988
1.30

1.31
13C6-HCB
Recovery19
%

26.7
19. 9C
28.3
17.7
17.6

18.2

27.2
22.7
16.3
18.8
29.7
15.6
20.3
30.2

19.5
25.1

25.2
49.9
46.4
21.7
23.2

21.9
	 — — — — — —
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]
~~^~*^~" '"^™^^™^— ^™^— l^-B.
705
483
769
620
685

1340

806
1060
1400
1390
1320
1280
899
871

962
929

715
251
257
265
128

688
	 	 	
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

5479
3631
4105
7693
3664

8210

7710
5878
17295
6676
6340
6307
7158
3237

8857
7099

2486
2047
1893
2035
745

3989
                                        A-90

-------
Table A-37. Continued.
Station"
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13Ce-HCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
31.5
46.2
0.00d
0.00d
55.6
22.8
63.8
62.9
50.8
57.2
36.9
32.2
29.5
24.6
37.6
35.1
34.0
0.456
0.425


0.507
0.480
0.481
0.241
0.838
0.588
2.47
3.74
0.967
1.38
1.35
3.63
0.779
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural blanks.
                                       A-91

-------
Table A-38. Hexachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Fundulus heteroclitus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #4
1
Comp #1
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #3
Comp #4
Comp #5
Comp #6
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
0
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #2
Comp #3
E
Comp #1
Laboratory"

BatE
ERL-D 5/17
BatE
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat E
Bat E
Bat E
ERL-D 5/15
Bat E

ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/17

Bat E
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15

ERL-D 5/15
Lipid
%

0.975
1.01
1.42
0.612
1.42

1.24

0.794
1.37
0.615
1.58

1.54
0.954
2.04

0.825
0.994

2.18
0.930
1.03
0.988
1.30

1.31
13C6-HCB
Recovery6
%

26.7
19.9C
28.3
17.7
17.6

18.2

27.2
22.7
16.3
18.8
29.7
15.6
20.3
30.2

19.5
25.1

25.2
49.9
46.4
21.7
23.2

21.9
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

644
528
564
844
1640

1050

732
753
805
719
633
648
528
475

703
714

361
201
200
188
152

237
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

4996
3970
3002
10475
8775

6433

7002
4175
9942
3443
3030
3183
4203
1758

6472
5456

1248
1639
1472
1443
886

1372
                                        A-92

-------
Table A-*38. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank /
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-HCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery1" Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
BatF
Bat G
31.5
46.2
0.00d
0.00d
55.6
22.8
63.8
62.9
50.8
57.2
36.9
32.2
29.5
24.6
37.6
35.1
34.0
0.458
0.347


0.446
0.552
0.393
0.318
0.594
0.570
3.78
1.33
6.06
3.27
2.74
2.43
2.25
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.  The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery <15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery >120%, R-l:  rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural  blanks.
                                       A-93

-------
Table A-39. Hexachloroethane Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes sapidus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
D
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
E
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Laboratory"

ERL-D 1/30
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
BatFG
ERL-D 1/30
Bat E

Bat FG
Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23

BatFG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/30

BatFG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
Bat E
ERL-D 1/30
Lipid
%

0.575
2.49
0.916

0.902
0.416
1.22
1.49
1.09

2.59

1.93
1.02
0.953

1.95
1.56
1.83
0.960

2.22
1.25
1.57

1.10
0.953
1.06
3.36
1.85
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13CrHCE (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
% [ng/g] [ng/g]

28.9
37.2
24.5

42.2
8.61°
49.0
29.9
46.1

27.1
62.3
22.2
29.7
R-L

44.4
48.2
18.7
23.6

16.2
33.2
26.8

48.8
36.8
47.5
41.2
27.8

4.83
14.2
5.03

13.7
0.00
12.5
5.90
11.9

15.6
10.8
4.36
7.18


21.1
9.25
7.82
4.24

14.9
4.43
4.85

16.6
5.14
5.52
15.8
5.47

23.7
10.2
16.6

24.0
0.00
10.3
14.6
7.31

13.9
0.00
5.22
30.9


39.9
30.3
19.9
9.55

13.9
8.49
8.79

39.7
16.8
17.8
11.2
10.0
                                        A-94

-------
Table A-39. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank -
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13d-HCE (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
29.3
42.4
0.00d
0.00d
58.8
. 23.3
62.7
64.1
51.1
59.1
41.2
R-L
37.5
31.4
45.5
46.9
52.8
4.01
3.63


4.12
0.00
3.21
2.91
3.38
3.01
11.9

8.41
9.50
12.7
11.1
11.5
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P:  rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural blanks.
                                       A-95

-------
Table A-40. Tetrachlorobutadiene #1 Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes saoidus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
D
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
E
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Laboratory"

ERL-D 1/30
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30
Bat E

Bat FG
BatFG
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30

BatFG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
Bat E
ERL-D 1/30
Lipid
%

0.575
2.49
0.916

0.902
0.416
1.22
1.49
1.09

2.59

1.93
1.02
0.953

1.95
1.56
1.83
0.960

2.22
1.25
1.57

1.10
0.953
1.06
3.36
1.85
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13Ce-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
% [ng/g] [ng/g]

33.8
27.8
30.4

27.4
9.07C
32.2
33.8
28.8

18.7
42.4
24.7
31.7
16.4

24.0
55.3
22.0
28.3

17.2
37.7
32.1

27.4
43.0
50.1
27.6
32.9

0.00
4.57
0.559

8.79
0.00
3.48
1.45
0.00

17.7
17.4
3.75
4.09
3.12

29.0
7.86
6.61
0.00

2.87
1.21
1.47

13.8
1.85
1.72
9.57
2.62

0.00
13.9
4.64

74.1
0.00
21.7
7.40
0.00

51.9
51.1
14.8
30.5
24.9

113
38.3
27.5
0.00

9.83
7.36
7.12

95.3
14.8
12.3
21.6
10.8
                                        A-96

-------
Table A-40. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery*5 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
0.00
0.00


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l:  rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P:  rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these  procedural blanks.
                                       A-97

-------
Table A-41. Tetrachlorobutadiene #2 Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes sapidus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
B
Comp #1
Comp #4
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
D
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
E
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Laboratory"

ERL-D 1/30
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30
Bat E

Bat FG
Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
Bat E
ERL-D 1/30
Lipid
%

0.575
2.49
0.916

0.902
0.416
1.22
1.49
1.09

2.59

1.93
1.02
0.953

1.95
1.56
1.83
0.960

2.22
1.25
1.57

1.10
0.953
1.06
3.36
1.85
Concentration
Concentration {Blank Corrected,
13Ce-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
% fng/g] [ng/g]

33.8
27.8
30.4

27.4
9.07C
32.2
33.8
28.8

18.7
42.4
24.7
31.7
16.4

24.0
55.3
22.0
28.3

17.2
37.7
32.1

27.4
43.0
50.1
27.6
32.9

1.21
7.81
3.12

13.9
5.19
6.70
13.2
6.03

38.4
38.6
27.2
33.2
26.2

47.9
46.4
42.3
1.19

7.39
9.45
13.0

18.7
13.4
13.1
17.7
22.2

16.0
23.8
25.9

117
94.8
41.7
67.3
42.0

113
113
107
247
209

187
226
176
9.42

25.3
57.5
62.9

129
107
93.9
40.0
91.2
                                        A-98

-------
Table A-41. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13Ce-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery15 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory8 % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
BatE
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
0.00
0.00


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural  blanks.
                                       A-99

-------
Table A-42. Pentachlorobutadiene #1 Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes sapidus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
D
Comp #1
Comp #3
Comp #2
E
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Laboratory*

ERL-D 1/30
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 5/1 5
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30
Bat E

Bat FG
Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
Bat E
ERL-D 1/30
Lipid
%

0.575
2.49
0.916

0.902
0.416
1.22
1.49
1.09

2.59

1.93
1.02
0.953

1.95
1.56
1.83
0.960

2.22
1.25
1.57

1.10
0.953
1.06
3.36
1.85
13C6-TeCB
Recovery"3
%

33.8
27.8
30.4

27.4
9.07C
32.2
33.8
28.8

18.7
42.4
24.7
31.7
16.4

24.0
55.3
22.0
28.3

17.2
37.7
32.1

27.4
43.0
50.1
27.6
32.9
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

6.31
62.4
5.59

43.7
9.30
45.3
21.0
32.0

272
282
55.4
43.3
35.8

347
72.0
64.1
0.00

41.4
9.64
12.3

172
22.0
22.0
152
19.1
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

83.4
190
46.4

366
170
280
107
221

797
827
218
323
285

1351
351
266
0.00

141
58.6
59.5

1186
175
158
343
78.5
                                       A-100

-------
Table A-42. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank •
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery13 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
0.00
0.00


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.  The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery <15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery >120%, R-l:  rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural  blanks.
                                      A-101

-------
Table A-43. Pentachlorobutadiene #2 Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes sapidus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
D
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
E
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Laboratory"

ERL-D 1/30
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30
Bat E

Bat FG
Bat FG
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
Bat E
ERL-D 1/30
Lipid
%

0.575
2.49
0.916

0.902
0.416
1.22
1.49
1.09

2.59

1.93
1.02
0.953

1.95
1.56
1.83
0.960

2.22
1.25
1.57

1.10
0.953
1.06
3.36
1.85
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13Ce-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Recoveryb Corrected) Content)
% [ng/g] [ng/g]

33.8
27.8
30.4

27.4
9.07C
32.2
33.8
28.8

18.7
42.4
24.7
31.7
16.4

24.0
55.3
22.0
28.3

17.2
37.7
32.1

27.4
43.0
50.1
27.6
32.9

0.00
1.91
0.00

2.20
0.00
1.01
0.687
1.76

7.97
8.26
1.10
0.969
0.00

11.9
2.07
2.04
0.00

2.34
0.00
0.478

3.78
0.454
0.00
2.34
0.00

0.00
5.42
0.00

17.40
0.00
5.45
3.50
11.33

22.99
23.84
4.33
7.22
0.00

45.85
10.08
8.47
0.00

7.55
0.00
2.31

25.18
3.62
0.00
4.99
0.00
                                       A-102

-------
Table A-43.  Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery13 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
0.00
0.00


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.948
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.  The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery <15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery >120%, R-l:  rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P:  rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural  blanks.
                                      A-103

-------
Table A-44.  Hexachlorobutadiene Tissue Concentrations for CaJImectes sapjdus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
D
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
E
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Laboratory"

ERL-D 1/30
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30
Bat E

Bat FG
Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
Bat E
ERL-D 1/30
Lipid
%

0.575
2.49
0.916

0.902
0.416
1.22
1.49
1.09

2.59

1.93
1.02
0.953

1.95
1.56
1.83
0.960

2.22
1.25
1.57

1.10
0.953
1.06
3.36
1.85
13C6-TeCB
Recovery6
%

33.8
27.8
30.4

27.4
9.07C
32.2
33.8
28.8

18.7
42.4
24.7
31.7
16.4

24.0
55.3
22.0
28.3

17.2
37.7
32.1

27.4
43.0
50.1
27.6
32.9
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
tng/g]

41.6
79.3
24.2

52.2
56.7
0.947
85.4
47.4

185
212
132
136
116

285
225
185
3.64

39.9
32.2
87.1

141
59.9
62.3
136
56.6
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

451
231
139

410
899
0.00
397
306

533
612
490
958
865

1097
1060
737
0.00

125
150
385

950
418
393
300
202
                                       A-104

-------
Table A-44. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1 /24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
5.04
2.81


4.93
9.90
7.46
7.28
11.2
11.2
11.5
1.50
2.11
0.00
6.30
2.23
0.840
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural blanks.
                                       A-105

-------
Table A-45. 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes sapidus.
— • 	 ,
Station
1 —
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
D
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
E
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
	
Laboratory"

ERL-D 1/30
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30
Bat E

Bat FG
Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
Bat E
ERL-D 1/30
	 • 	 _
Lipid
%
~

0.575
2.49
0.916

0.902
0.416
1.22
1.49
1.09

2.59

1.93
1.02
0.953

1.95
1.56
1.83
0.960

2.22
1.25
1.57

1.10
0.953
1.06
3.36
1.85
	 ' 	 ' 	 	 	 	
Concentration
"r T r« Concentrat'on (Blank Corrected,
DO ! (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Recovery" Corrected) Content)
	 * 	 Wgl 	 [ng/g]

33.8
27.8
30.4

27.4
9.07°
32.2
33.8
28.8

18.7
42.4
24.7
31.7
16.4

24.0
55.3
22.0
28.3

17.2
37.7
32.1

27.4
43.0
50.1
27.6
32.9
	 	 	 — — — —
3.24
44.9
9.71

24.5
18.8
30.0
32.4
12.6

53.2
58.3
41.8
52.8
45.8

87.2
69.0
61.7
5.23

18.2
14.7
23.5

50.8
22.5
24.0
29.1
31.5
	
38.0
129
77.5

184
337
171
163
69.7

148
163
163
391
362

330
334
255
38.5

53.4
87.1
112

333
176
169
59.9
128
                                        A-106

-------
Table A-45. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
0.00
0.00


0.00
0.00
0.473
0.856
0.902
0.717
4.58
0.00
0.00
3.42
4.57
2.21
3.44
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural blanks.
                                       A-107

-------
Table A-46. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for CaMinectes sapjdus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
D
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
E
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Laboratory8

ERL-D 1/30
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30
Bat E

Bat FG
Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
Bat E
ERL-D 1/30
Lipid
%

0.575
2.49
0.916

0.902
0.416
1.22
1.49
1.09

2.59

1.93
1.02
0.953

1.95
1.56
1.83
0.960

2.22
1.25
1.57

1.10
0.953
1.06
3.36
1.85
13C6-TeCB
Recovery13
%

33.8
27.8
30.4

27.4
9.07C
32.2
33.8
28.8

18.7
42.4
24.7
31.7
16.4

24.0
55.3
22.0
28.3

17.2
37.7
32.1

27.4
43.0
50.1
27.6
32.9
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

26.7
178
47.1

89.6
93.6
136
134
50.2

337
354
261
294
238

534
432
352
29.7

97.1
80.2
115

260
111
113
171
177
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

132
539
252

743
1405
838
598
340

985
1034
962
2066
1765

2076
2023
1393
103

327
386
476

1786
752
691
383
659
                                       A-108

-------
Table A-46. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ELD-D 5/17
ELD-D 5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
12.7
10.5


14.7
35.6
12.8
12.6
17.6
17.0
1.90
0.00
0.00
1.02
1.05
3.11
3.12
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural  blanks.
                                       A-109

-------
Table A-47. 1,2,4,5- and 1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for
            Callinectes sapidus.

Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
B
Comp #3
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
D
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
E
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Laboratory'

ERL-D 1/30
BatFG
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30
Bat E

BatFG
Bat FG
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30

BatFG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
Bat E
ERL-D 1/30
Lipid
%

0.575
2.49
0.916

0.902
0.416
1.22
1.49
1.09

2.59

1.93
1.02
0.953

1.95
1.56
1.83
0.960

2.22
1.25
1.57

1.10
0.953
1.06
3.36
1.85
13C6-TeCB
Recovery6
%

33.8
27.8
30.4

27.4
9.07C
32.2
33.8
28.8

18.7
42.4
24.7
31.7
16.4

24.0
55.3
22.0
28.3

17.2
37.7
32.1

27.4
43.0
50.1
27.6
32.9
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

38.8
127
68.0

59.1
124
98.1
236
34.9

126
123
273
310
291

197
510
456
50.7

39.1
90.9
168

110
155
156
67.5
213
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

492
384
551

487
2237
603
1196
234

366
357
1069
2298
2308

763
2477
1887
389

129
543
806

751
1224
1107
150
869
                                        A-110

-------
Table A-47. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery1* Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
BatF
BatG
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
1.38
0.799


1.14
1.81
1.92
1.60
1.85
1.92
1.86
3.36
1.03
0.958
0.00
1.39
0.778
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.  The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural  blanks.
                                      A-111

-------
Table A-48.  1.2,3.4-Te,,ach,orobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Caffinscies
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
D
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
E
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
— — — — . 	 . —
Laboratory"

ERL-D 1/30
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30
Bat E

Bat FG
Bat FG
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
Bat E
ERL-D 1/30
" 	
Lipid
%

0.575
2.49
0.916

0.902
0.416
1.22
1.49
1.09

2.59

1.93
1.02
0.953

1.95
1.56
1.83
0.960

2.22
1.25
1.57

1.10
0.953
1.06
3.36
1.85
	 	 	 . 	 _
13C6-TeCB
Recovery6
%

33.8
27.8
30.4

27.4
9.07C
32.2
33.8
28.8

18.7
42.4
24.7
31.7
16.4

24.0
55.3
22.0
28.3

17.2
37.7
32.1

27.4
43.0
50.1
27.6
32.9
	 . —
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

21.7
167
38.8

86.5
73.9
137
115
52.9

176
169
115
189
168

264
284
255
29.5

48.7
50.8
104

145
90.1
89.3
88.5
125
	 • 	 	 — 	 	
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
(ng/g]

280
507
318

721
1340
848
584
363

514
493
451
1404
1336

1025
1381
1057
229

164
306
501

996
714
636
198
511
                                       A-112

-------
Table A-48. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank „
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory* % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 7
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
29.6
44.0
0.00d
0.00d
52.9
21.5
61.9
59.1
48.5
54.9
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
0.00
0.00


0.361
0.981
0.888
0.647
0.640
0.686
0.954
0.00
1.57
1.73
0.00
1.49
0.467
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P:  rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural blanks.
                                       A-113

-------
Table A-49. Pentachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes sapidus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
D
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
E
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Laboratory"

ERL-D 1/30
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30

BatFG
ERL-D 5/1 5
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30
Bat E

BatFG
BatFG
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23

BatFG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30

BatFG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/30

BatFG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
Bat E
ERL-D 1/30
Lipid
%

0.575
2.49
0.916

0.902
0.416
1.22
1.49
1.09

2.59

1.93
1.02
0.953

1.95
1.56
1.83
0.960

2.22
1.25
1.57

1.10
0.953
1.06
3.36
1.85
13Ce-HCB
Recovery6
%

38.1
28.1
33.4

30.8
9.83°
33.7
36.8
33.2

21.9
48.2
27.4
32.0
17.0

25.9
60.1
24.5
31.4

15.3
41.8
34.5

27.9
50.5
53.1
29.9
36.3
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

102
587
154

241
212
507
500
183

406
408
377
503
386

586
617
612
83.0

115
94.7
309

380
219
233
194
311
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

1342
1785
1274

2013
3864
3146
2548
1262

1185
1191
1483
3744
3074

2276
3003
2540
653

387
573
1493

2611
1742
1667
434
1276
                                       A-114

-------
Table A-49. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13C6-HCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recoveryb Corrected) Content)
Laboratory" % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/15
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/17
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
BatF
Bat G
31.5
46.2
0.00d
0.00d
55.6
22.8
63.8
62.9
50.8
57.2
36.9
32.2
29.5
24.6
37.6
35.1
34.0
0.456
0.425


0.507
0.480
0.481
0.241
0.838
0.588
2.47
3.74
0.967
1.38
1.35
3.63
0.779
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected,  recovery > 120%, R-l:  rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P:  rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these  procedural blanks.
                                       A-115

-------
Table A-50.  Hexachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Callinectes sapidus.
Station
A
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Comp #4
1164
B
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #2
C
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
D
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
E
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #1
Comp #2
Comp #3
Laboratory'

ERL-D 1/30
Bat FG
ERL-D 1/30

BatFG
ERL-D 5/1 5
BatFG
ERL-D 1/30
Bat E


BatFG
BatFG
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23

BatFG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/30

Bat FG
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
BatE
ERL-D 1/30
Lipid
%

0.575
2.49
0.916

0.902
0.416
1.22
1.49
1.09


2.59

1.93
1.02
0.953

1.95
1.56
1.83
0.960

2.22
1.25
1.57

1.10
0.953
1.06
3.36
1.85
13C6-HCB
Recovery11
%

38.1
28.1
33.4

30.8
9.83C
33.7
36.8
33.2


21.9
48.2
27.4
32.0
17.0

25.9
60.1
24.5
31.4

15.3
41.8
34.5

27.9
50.5
53.1
29.9
36.3
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

145
544
212

196
178
400
452
170


256
253
250
320
242

274
328
292
57.0

60.7
59.1
266

287
203
199
109
305
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

1910
1651
1755

1625
3244
2472
2303
1164


742
733
983
2381
1926

1056
1596
1211
448

197
357
1285

1961
1615
1423
239
1251
                                       A-116

-------
Table A-50. Continued.
Station
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,
13Ce-HCB (Recovery 7.6% Lipid
Lipid Recovery6 Corrected) Content)
Laboratory8 % % [ng/g] [ng/g]
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/3
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/24
ERL-D 1/30
ERL-D 4/23
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/1 5
ERL-D 5/17
ERL-D 5/1 7
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
BatE
BatF
Bat G
31.5
46.2
0.00d
. 0.00d
55.6
22.8
63.8
62.9
50.8
57.2
36.9
32.2
29.5
24.6
37.6
35.1
34.0
0.458
0.347


0.446
0.552
0,393
0.318
0.594
0.570
3.78
1.33
6.06
3.27
2.74
2.43
2.25
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.  The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R-L:  rejected, recovery <15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery >120%,  R-l:  rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P: rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.

      Recovery was low because not all of the extract was subjected to GPC cleanup.

      No surrogate added to these procedural  blanks.
                                       A-117

-------
Table A-51. Hexachloroethane Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus and
            Micropoaan undulus.

Station
Laboratory*
Lipid
%
13CrHCE
Recovery1"
%
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]
Brevoortia patronus
C
Comp A
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D
Comp E
Comp F
Comp G
Comp G'
D
Comp A
Comp B
E
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D
Micropoaan
B
Comp A
C
Comp A-
Comp A
D
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
undulus

Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD

2.77
2.56
3.46
6.15
3.28
3.22
3.14


2.34
3.22

2.06
3.05

2.37
1.54


1.53

1.24


1.51
3.01

0.964

45.5
32.7
21.9
48.2
51.8
48.9
31.2
65.9

33.2
27.7

31.0
30.8
25.4
30.7
26.0


31.2

57.6
R-L

R-L
52.1
37.9
35.5

36.0
105
45.2
231
164
116
129
102

180
109

168
123
127
130
61.2


28.0

18.8



108
134
36.6

69.0
280
75.4
272
355
248
286
221

549
232

580
279
289
382
248


85.2

48.7



245
311
203
                                       A-118

-------
Table A-51. Continued.



-
Station
E
Comp A
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank




Laboratory'

Bat A
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
BatE
BatF
Bat G


13C,-HCE
Lipid Recovery6
% %

1.26 51.4
41.2
R-L
37.5
31.4
45.5
46.9
52.8

Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

64.9
11.9

8.41
9.50
12.7
11.1
11.5
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

326







      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.

      R4_:  rejected, recovery < 15%, R-H:  rejected, recovery > 120%, R-l: rejected,
      incorrect sample, R-P:  rejected, procedural error during sample preparation.
                                       A-119

-------
Table A-52. Tetrachlorobutadiene #1 Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus and
Micropogan undulus.
Lipid
Station Laboratory" %
13C6-TeCB
Recovery
%
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]
Brevoortia oatronus
c
Comp A
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D
Comp E
Comp F"
Comp G
Comp G
D
Comp A
Comp B
E
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

2.77
2.56
3.46
6.15
3.28
3.22
3.14


2.34
3.22

2.06
3.05

2.37
1.54

37.1
28.0
25.3
48.2
39.0
39.1
21.2
46.5

27.8
30.0

22.0
25.4
23.6
21.8
24.4

8.90
23.7
7.20
37.0
27.4
22.1
21.4
19.7

36.1
17.9

31.1
30.4
23.4
37.4
12.9

24.4
70.4
15.8
45.7
63.5
52.2
51.8
47.7

117
42.2

115
75.8
58.3
120
63.7
Micropoaan undulus
B
Comp A

C
Comp A
Comp A

D
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
1.53
1.24
37.1
41.7
17.4
3.87
2.08
0.00
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
1.51
3.01

0.964
28.6
40.6
23.6
25.9
16.4
25.1
38.8
10.3
19.2
12.7
 0.00
                                                       82.5
                                                       63.4
                                                       98.0
                                                       81.2
                                    A-120

-------
Table A-52. Continued.
 Station
Laboratory'
                              Lipid
                            Concentration
            Concentration  (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB     (Recovery      7.6% Lipid
Recovery    Corrected)       Content)
    %          [ng/g]           [ng/g]
E
Comp A
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

Bat A
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
BatE
Bat F
Bat G

1.26 39.5
. 31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9

16.9 102
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.  The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.
                                       A-121

-------
Table A-53. Tetrachlorobutadiene #2 Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus and
Micropogan undulus.
Station
Laboratory"
Lipid
%
13C8-TeCB
Recovery
%
Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
fng/g]
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]
Brevoortia patronus
C
Comp A
Cornp B
Comp C
Comp D
Comp E
Comp F
Comp G
Comp G
D
Comp A
Comp B
E
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B-
Comp C
Comp D
Micropogan
B
Comp A
C
Comp A
Comp A
D
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
undulus

Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD

2.77
2.56
3.46
6.15
3.28
3.22
3.14


2.34
3.22

2.06
3.05

2.37
1.54


1.53

1.24


1.51
3.01

0.964

37.1
28.0
25.3
48.2
39.0
39.1
21.2
46.5

27.8
30.0

22.0
25.4
23.6
21.8
24.4


37.1

41.7
17.4

28.6
40.6
23.6
25.9

21.8
66.1
20.9
119
84.7
65.3
55.8
47.8

102
59.1

76.2
77.0
63.9
99.8
34.4


13.2

6.60
0.00

40.3
60.2
102
25.6

59.8
196
45.9
147
196
154
135
116

331
139

281
192
159
320
170


65.6

40.5
0.00

203
152
258
202
                                       A-122

-------
Table A-53. Continued.




Station
E
Comp A
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank




Laboratory*

Bat A
Bat A
Bat B
BatC
Bat D
BatE
Bat F
Bat G


13C8-TeCB
Lipid Recovery
% %

1.26 39.5
. 31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9

Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

45.7
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

276







      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.
                                       A-123

-------
Table A-54. Pentachlorobutadiene #1 Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus and
Micropogan undulus.
Lipid
Station Laboratory' %
Concentration
13C8-TeCB (Recovery
Recovery Corrected)
% [ng/g]
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]
Brevoortia oatronus
c
Comp A
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D
Comp E
Comp F
Comp G
Comp G
D
Comp A
Comp B
E
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

2.77
2.56
3.46
6.15
3.28
3.22
3.14


2.34
3.22

2.06
3.05

2.37
1.54

37.1
28.0
25.3
48.2
39.0
39.1
21.2
46.5

27.8
30.0

22.0
25.4
23.6
21.8
24.4

334
1340
366
2020
1460
1340
1060
890

2280
1370

1870
1480
1370
2260
767
Micropoaan undulus
B
Comp A

C
Comp A
Comp A

D
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
1.53
1.24
37.1
41.7
17.4
173
120
 11.6
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
1.51
3.01

0.964
28.6
40.6
23.6
25.9
826
1250
1600
555
                                                                916
                                                               3977
                                                                803
                                                               2496
                                                               3382
                                                               3162
                                                               2565
                                                               2153
                                                               7404
                                                               3233
                                                               6898
                                                               3687
                                                               3413
                                                               7246
                                                               3784
858
734
 69
                                                  4156
                                                  3155
                                                  4039
                                                  4373
                                   A-124

-------
Table A-54. Continued.




Station
E
Comp A
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank




Laboratory'

Bat A
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
BatE
BatF
Bat G


13Ce-TeCB
Lipid Recovery
% %

1.26 39.5
. 31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9

Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

830
2.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

5004







      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.
                                       A-125

-------
Table A-55. Pentachlorobutadiene #2 Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus and
Micropogan undglus.
Station
Lipid
Laboratory* %
Concentration
13C8-TeCB (Recovery
Recovery Corrected)
% [ng/g]
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]
Brevoortia oatronus
c
Comp A
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D
Comp E
Comp F
Comp G
Comp G
D
Comp A
Comp B
E
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

2.77
2.56
3.46
6.15
3.28
3.22
3.14


2.34
3.22

2.06
3.05

2.37
1.54

37.1
28.0
25.3
48.2
39.0
39.1
21.2
46.5

27.8
30.0

22.0
25.4
23.6
21.8
24.4

79.7
268
81.0
491
331
266
227
200

475
270

333
300
279
443
148
MicroDoaan undulus
B
Comp A

C
Comp A
Comp A

D
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
1.53
1.24
37.1
41.7
17.4
18.7
 9.39
 2.48
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
1.51
3.01

0.964
28.6
40.6
23.6
25.9
111
111
151
49.6
                                                                 218
                                                                 795
                                                                 178
                                                                 607
                                                                 767
                                                                 628
                                                                 549
                                                                 484
                                                                1542
                                                                 637
                                                                1228
                                                                 747
                                                                 695
                                                                1420
                                                                 730
92.2
56.7
14.4
                                                    558
                                                    280
                                                    381
                                                    390
                                   A-126

-------
Table A-55. Continued.
 Station
Laboratory'
Lipid
 %
                            Concentration
            Concentration  (Blank Corrected,
13C6-TeCB     (Recovery      7.6% Lipid
Recovery    Corrected)       Content)
    %           [ng/g]           [ng/g]
E
Comp A
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

Bat A
Bat A
BatB
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G

1.26 39.5
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9

73.6 443
0.948
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.  The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.
                                       A-127

-------
Table A-56. Hexachlorobutadiene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus and
           Microppgan undulus.
                                                                Concentration
                                                 Concentration  (Blank Corrected,
                                      13Ca-TeCB    (Recovery      7.6% Lipid
                            Lipid      Recovery    Corrected)       Content)
 Station     Laboratory"	%	%	[ng/g]	[ng/g]

Brevoortia oatronus
                                                                   5368
                                                                  13676
                                                                   4298
                                                                   5841
                                                                  10349
                                                                  11156
                                                                   9625
                                                                   8124
                                                                  20190
                                                                  11557
                                                                  21717
                                                                  10233
                                                                  10307
                                                                  21474
                                                                  13061
c
Comp A
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D
Comp E
Comp F
Comp G
Comp G
D
Comp A
Comp B
E
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

2.77
2.56
3.46
6.15
3.28
3.22
3.14


2.34
3.22

2.06
3.05

2.37
1.54

37.1
28.0
25.3
48.2
39.0
39.1
21.2
46.5

27.8
30.0

22.0
25.4
23.6
21.8
24.4

1960
4610
1960
4730
4470
4730
3980
3360

6220
4900

5890
4110
4140
6700
2650
Micropoaan undulus
B
Comp A
C
Comp A
Comp A
D
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C

Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD

1.53

1.24


1.51
3.01

0.964

37.1

41.7
17.4

28.6
40.6
23.6
25.9

1130

1110
262

5470
4290
5330
2830
                                                                   5596

                                                                   6782
                                                                   1584
                                                                  27514
                                                                  10823
                                                                  13449
                                                                  22284
                                     A-128

-------
Table A-56. Continued.
Station
E
Comp A
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Laboratory

Bat A
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
BatF
Bat G
Lipid 13C6-TeCB
Percent % Recovery

1.26 39.5
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
Corrected
[ng/g]

2870
11.5
1.50
2.11
0.00
6.30
2.23
0.840
Lipid
Corrected

17290







      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.
                                       A-129

-------
Table A-57. 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus and
           Micropooan undulus.
 Station     Laboratory"
              Lipid
               %
                                   Concentration
                    Concentration  (Blank Corrected,
         13Ca-TeCB    (Recovery      7.6% Lipid
         Recovery     Corrected)       Content)
             %          [ng/g]           [ng/g]
Brevoortia oatronus
c
Comp A
Comp B
Comp C
Comp 0
Comp E
Comp F
Comp G
Comp G
D
Comp A
Comp B
E
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

2.77
2.56
3.46
6.15
3.28
3.22
3.14


2.34
3.22

2.06
3.05

2.37
1.54

37.1
28.0
25.3
48.2
39.0
39.1
21.2
46.5

27.8
30.0

22.0
25.4
23.6
21.8
24.4
MicroDooan undulus
B
Comp A
C
Comp A
Comp A

D
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
1.53

1.24
1.51
3.01

0.964
37.1

41.7
17.4
28.6
40.6
23.6
25.9
                                                      31.1
                                                      59.7
                                                      33.2
                                                      87.0
                                                      59.2
                                                      52.6
                                                      58.3
                                                      48.4
                                                      73.3
                                                      45.1
                                                      60.1
                                                      65.6
                                                      63.7
                                                      83.6
                                                      38.3
19.0

10.8
 3.21
66.1
54.6
68.8
23.2
                                                       78.2
                                                      170
                                                       67.2
                                                      104
                                                      131
                                                      118
                                                      135
                                                      111
                                                      230
                                                      100
                                                       212
                                                       157
                                                       152
                                                       260
                                                       176
 81.4

 50.2
  3.72
320
131
167
162
                                     A-130

-------
Table A-57. Continued.




Station
E
Comp A
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank




Laboratory8

Bat A
Bat A
Bat B
BatC
BatD
Bat E
BatF
Bat G


13C6-TeCB
Lipid Recovery
% %

1.26 39.5
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9

Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

38.7
4.58
0.00
0.00
3.42
4.57
2.21
3.44
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

218







      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.
                                       A-131

-------
Table A-58. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus and
           Micropooan undulus.
                                                                Concentration
                                                 Concentration (Blank Corrected,
                                      13Ce-TeCB     (Recovery      7.6% Lipid
                            Lipid      Recovery     Corrected)       Content)
                             %           %         [ng/g]          [ng/g]
Station     Laboratory"
Brevoortia patronus
c
Comp A
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D
Comp E
Comp F
Comp G
Comp G
D
Comp A
Comp B
E
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D.

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

2.77
2.56
3.46
6.15
3.28
3.22
3.14


2.34
3.22

2.06
3.05

2.37
1.54

37.1
28.0
25.3
48.2
39.0
39.1
21.2
46.5

27.8
30.0

22.0
25.4
23.6
21.8
24.4

130
339
133
565
383
327
297
275

504
283

374
393
365
489
192
Micropoaan undulus
B
Comp A

C
Comp A
Comp A

D
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
             Bat A
             Bat BCD
             Bat BCD
1.53


1.24
37.1
41.7
17.4
                                                                    353
                                                                   1002
                                                                    289
                                                                    696
                                                                    884
                                                                    768
                                                                    715
                                                                    662
                                                                   1632
                                                                    665
                                                                   1374
                                                                    976
                                                                    906
                                                                   1563
                                                                    940
73.1
39.3
 9.85
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
1.51
3.01

0.964
28.6
40.6
23.6
25.9
286
336
455
133
356
232
 51.4
                                                                  1432
                                                                   845
                                                                  1145
                                                                  1037
                                     A-132

-------
Table A-58. Continued




Station
E
Comp A
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank




Laboratory'

Bat A
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G


13C6-TeCB
Lipid Recovery
% %

1.26 39.5
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9

Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

215
1.90
0.00
0.00
1.02
1.05
3.11
3.12
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

1288







      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.
                                       A-133

-------
Table A-59. 1,2,4,5- and 1,2,3-5 Tetrachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia
           patronus and Micropoaan undulus.
                                                                Concentration
                                                 Concentration (Blank Corrected,
                                      13Ce-TeCB     (Recovery      7.6% Lipid
                            Lipid      Recovery     Corrected)       Content)
 Station     Laboratory'	%	%	[ng/g]	[ng/g]

Brevoortia oatronus
c
Comp A
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D
Comp E
Comp F
Comp G
Comp G
D
Comp A
Comp B
E
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

2.77
2.56
3.46
6.15
3.28
3.22
3.14


2.34
3.22

2.06
3.05

2.37
1.54

37.1
28.0
25.3
48.2
39.0
39.1
21.2
46.5

27.8
30.0

22.0
25.4
23.6
21.8
24.4

117
227
129
343
274
278
221
200

350
252

295
261
234
392
123
Micropoaan undulus
B
Comp A

C
Comp A
Comp A
       m

D
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
 1.53
 1.24
17.4
37.1
41.7
47.1
                                                                    317
                                                                    670
                                                                    280
                                                                    422
                                                                    632
                                                                    653
                                                                    532
                                                                    481
                                                                   1132
                                                                    592
                                                                   1083
                                                                    647
                                                                    580
                                                                   1253
                                                                    600
 63.5
 36.5
280
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
1.51
3.01

0.964
28.6
40.6
23.6
25.9
216
222
268
94.4
309
216
                                                     1080
                                                      557
                                                      673
                                                      734
                                     A-134

-------
Table A-59. Continued.




Station
E
Comp A
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank




Laboratory'

Bat A
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
BatF
Bat G


13C6-TeCB
Lipid Recovery
% %

1.26 39.5
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9

Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

132
1.86
3.36
1.03
0.958
0.00
1.39
0.778
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

788







      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.
                                       A-135

-------
Table A-60. 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus
           and Micropoaan undulus.
                                                  Concentration
                                   Concentration  (Blank Corrected,
                        13Ce-TeCB    (Recovery      7.6% Lipid
              Lipid       Recovery    Corrected)       Content)
               %           %          [ng/g]          [ng/g]
 Station    Laboratory"
Brevoortia oatronus
c
Comp A
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D
Comp E
Comp F
Comp G
Comp G
D
Comp A
Comp B
E
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D-

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

2.77
2.56
3.46
6.15
3.28
3.22
3.14


2.34
3.22

2.06
3.05

2.37
1.54

37.1
28.0
25.3
48.2
39.0
39.1
21.2
46.5

27.8
30.0

22.0
25.4
23.6
21.8
24.4

143
343
155
423
352
348
276
243

456
283

391
345
300
514
159
MicroDoaan undulus
B
Comp A

C
Comp A
Comp A

D
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
1.53
1.24
37.1
41.7
17.4
69.1
41.2
59.6
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
1.51
3.01

0.964
28.6
40.6
23.6
25.9
275
266
333
119
                                                                    390
                                                                   1016
                                                                    339
                                                                    522
                                                                    814
                                                                    819
                                                                    666
                                                                    586
                                                                   1478
                                                                    666
                                                                   1439
                                                                    857
                                                                    745
                                                                   1645
                                                                    780
339
247
360
                                                     1380
                                                      669
                                                      839
                                                      931
                                     A-136

-------
Table A-60. Continued.




Concentration
Concentration (Blank Corrected,


Station
E
Comp A
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank


Laboratory'

Bat A
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G
13C6-TeCB
Lipid Recovery
% %

1.26 39.5
31.4
23.6
27.8
23.5
27.8
29.1
28.9
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

158
0.954
0.00
1.57
1.73
0.00
1.49
0.467
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

948







      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.
                                       A-137

-------
Table A-61. Pentachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus and
           Microppgan undulus.
                                                               Concentration
                                                Concentration (Blank Corrected,
                                      13C6-HCB     (Recovery      7.6% Lipid
                           Lipid       Recovery     Corrected)       Content)
                             %           %          [ng/g]          [ng/g]
Station     Laboratory"
Brevoortia oatronus
c
Comp A
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D
Comp E
Comp F-
Comp G
Comp G
0
Comp A
Comp B
E
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

2.77
2.56
3.46
6.15
3.28
3.22
3.14


2.34
3.22

2.06
3.05

2.37
1.54

32.2
23.1
24.6
36.7
33.0
31.6
19.4
39.4

25.6
27.7

18.2
21.9
21.3
20.3
23.7

778
1570
753
1740
1510
1763
1260
1250

1910
1730

2240
1330
1240
2160
594
Micropoaan undulus
B
Comp A

C
Comp A
Comp A

D
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
             Bat A
             Bat BCD
             Bat BCD
1.53
1.24
31.8
45.8
29.8
399
268
331
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
1.51
3.01

0.964
39.3
31.9
27.0
29.5
910
1110
1140
532
                                                                  2129
                                                                  4655
                                                                  1649
                                                                  2148
                                                                  3494
                                                                  4156
                                                                  3045
                                                                  3021
                                                                  6197
                                                                  4078
                                                                  8257
                                                                  3309
                                                                  3085
                                                                  6920
                                                                  2921
1972
1630
2016
                                                                 4570
                                                                 2797
                                                                 2873
                                                                 4178
                                    A-138

-------
Table A-61. Continued.


*

Station
E
Comp A
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank



Lipid
Laboratory* %

Bat A 1.26
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
BatE
BatF
Bat G


13Ce-HCB
Recovery
%

35.1
36.9
32.2
29.5
24.6
37.6
35.1
34.0

Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

560
2.47
3.74
0.967
1.38
1.35
3.63
0.779
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
[ng/g]

3365







      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with  the analysis of the sample.
                                       A-139

-------
Table A-62. Hexachlorobenzene Tissue Concentrations for Brevoortia patronus and
           Microppqan undulus.
 Station
Laboratory"
Lipid
 %
                         Concentration
          Concentration  (Blank Corrected,
13Ce-HCB     (Recovery      7.6% Lipid
Recovery     Corrected)       Content)
   %	[ng/g]          [ng/g]
Brevoortia oatronus
c
Comp A
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D
Comp E
Comp F
Comp G
Comp G
D
Comp A
Comp B
E
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
Comp D-

Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

Bat A
Bat A

Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD
Bat BCD

2.77
2.56
3.46
6.15
3.28
3.22
3.14


2.34
3.22

2.06
3.05

2.37
1.54

32.2
23.1
24.6
36.7
33.0
31.6
19.4
39.4

25.6
27.7

18.2
21.9
21.3
20.3
23.7

615
912
632
1030
894
1020
920
877

1230
1290

3140
860
863
1240
410
Micropooan undulus
B
Comp A

C
Comp A
Comp A

D
Comp A
Comp B
Comp B
Comp C
  Bat A
  Bat BCD
  Bat BCD
 1.53


 1.24
  31.8
  45.8
  29.8
447
282
410
Bat A
Bat A
Bat A
Bat BCD
1.51
3.01

0.964
39.3
31.9
27.0
29.5
729
724
912
377
                                                                  1679
                                                                  2698
                                                                  1381
                                                                  1269
                                                                  2064
                                                                  2400
                                                                  2219
                                                                  2115
                                                                  3985
                                                                  3037
                                                                 11573
                                                                  2135
                                                                  2143
                                                                  3966
                                                                  2008
2205
1709
2494
                                                      3653
                                                      1820
                                                      2295
                                                      2948
                                    A-140

-------
Table A-62. Continued.




Station
E
Comp A
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank .
Blank




Laboratory8

Bat A
Bat A
Bat B
Bat C
Bat D
Bat E
Bat F
Bat G


13Ce-HCB
Lipid Recovery
% %

1.26 35.1
36.9
32.2
29.5
24.6
37.6
35.1
34.0

Concentration
(Recovery
Corrected)
[ng/g]

418
3.78
1.33
6.06
3.27
2.74
2.43
2.25
Concentration
(Blank Corrected,
7.6% Lipid
Content)
Ing/g]

2502







      Bat:  Battelle-Columbus, ERL-D: Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. The
      letters or date following the laboratory abbreviation are the procedural blanks done
      with the analysis of the sample.
                                       A-141

-------