FINAL REPORT
on
ANALYSIS OF BASELINE SEAWATER
AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM THE
106-MILE DEEPWATER
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE SITE
Contract No. 68-03-3319
Work Assignment 1-21
April 25, 1988
to
Frank Csulak
Robert King
Work Assignment Managers
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region II, New York, NY
and
Office of Marine and Estuarlne Protection
Washington, DC
Prepared by
Jeffrey Waugh, William Stelnhauer,
Nancy Madolek, Paul Boehm, and Christine Werrae
BATTELLE
Ocean Sciences
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
The registered trademarks and material suppliers are referenced for
reader convenience In replicating experiments and do not represent endorsement
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 STUDY AREA 2-1
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.2 STATION LOCATIONS 2-1
3.0 METHODS 3-1
3.1 SAMPLE COLLECTION 3-1
3.1.1 Water 3-1
3.1.1.1 Water Quality and Trace Metals 3-1
3.1.1.2 Organic Compounds 3-1
3.1.2 Sediments 3-2
3.2 SHIPBOARD ANALYSIS OF WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 3-2
3.2.1 Salinity 3-2
3.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen 3-2
3.2.3 pH 3-3
3.2.4 Turbidity 3-3
3.2.5 Chlorophyll a. and Phaeophytin 3-3
3.2.6 Clostridium perfringens 3-3
3.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SEAWATER SAMPLES 3-4
3.3.1 Trace Metals Procedures 3-4
3.3.1.1 Dissolved Trace Metals Procedures 3-4
Silver 3-4
Cadmium, Copper, Iron, Lead, and Zinc 3-4
Chromium 3-5
Mercury 3-5
3.3.1.2 Particulate Trace Metals Procedures 3-5
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
3.3.2 Analysis of Organic Compounds 3-5
3.3.2.1 Preparation of Samples 3-5
Filtrate Extracts 3-5
Filters 3-6
3.3.2.2 Analysis of Samples 3-6
Coprostanol 3-6
Pesticides and PCBs 3-6
PAH and Phthalate 3-6
3.3.3 Analysis of Total Suspended Solids 3-7
3.3.4 Analysis of Adenosine Triphosphate 3-7
3.4 LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES 3-7
3.4.1 Trace Metals 3-7
3.4.2 Organic Compounds and Priority Pollutants 3-8
3.4.3 Total Organic Carbon 3-8
3.4.4 Grain-Size Distribution 3-8
3.4.5 Benthic Infauna 3-9
3.4.6 Clostridium perfrinqens 3-9
3.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES 3-10
4.0 QUALITY CONTROL 4-1
4.1 DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND OBJECTIVES 4-1
4.2 QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS 4-1
4.2.1 Hater 4-1
4.2.1.1 Hater Quality 4-1
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 4-1
Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) 4-5
4.2.1.2 Trace Metals 4-5
4.2.1.3 Organic Compounds 4-5
11,
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
4.2.2 Sediment 4-10
4.2.2.1 Grain Size 4-10
4.2.2.2 Trace Metals 4-14
4.2.2.3 Organic Compounds 4-14
4.2.2.4 Total Organic Carbon 4-21
5.0 RESULTS 5-1
5.1 WATER 5-1
5.1.1 Hater Quality 5-1
5.1.2 Seawater Trace Metals 5-3
5.1.3 Organic Compounds 5-3
5.2 SEDIMENTS 5-12
5.2.1 Grain-Size Distribution 5-12
5.2.2 Trace Metals 5-12
5.2.3 Organic Compounds and Priority Pollutants 5-16
5.2.4 Benthic Infauna 5-16
5.2.5 Clostridium perfringens 5-16
5.3 ENDANGERED SPECIES 5-29
6.0 DISCUSSION 6-1
6.1 COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH OTHER DATA SETS 6-1
6.1.1 Hater 6-1
6.1.1.1 Hater Quality 6-1
6.1.1.2 Trace Metals 6-1
6.1.1.3 Organic Compounds 6-1
6.1.2 Sediments 6-2
6.1.2.1 Grain Size 6-2
6.1.2.2 Trace Metals 6-2
6.1.2.3 Organic Compounds 6-3
6.1.2.4 Benthic Infauna 6-3
6.2 DISTRIBUTIONAL TRENDS OF THE MEASURED PARAMETERS 6-4
6.3 CONCLUSIONS 6-5
7.0 REFERENCES 7-1
^^^
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Parameters to be Monitored as Part of the 106-Mile
Site Monitoring Program 1-4
Table 2. Location of Stations Occupied 2-2
Table 3. Objectives for Analytical Measurements of Water and
Sediment Samples 4-2
Table 4. Analysis of Procedural Blanks for TSS and ATP 4-3
Table 5. Determination of Precision From Duplicate Weighings of
TSS Filters 4-4
Table 6. Determination of Precision From Duplicate Analysis of
Selected ATP Sample Extracts 4-6
Table 7. Determination of Precision From Duplicate Analysis of
Seawater for Trace Metals 4-7
Table 8. Determination of Accuracy From Trace Metal Matrix Spike
Recoveries in Seawater 4-8
Table 9. Determination of Accuracy From Recoveries of
Surrogate Organic Compounds in Seawater Filtrate
and Particul ate Extracts 4-9
Table 10. Determination of Accuracy From Blank Spike Recoveries
and Procedural Blank Analysis of Polyaromatic
Hydrocarbons in Seawater Filtrate and Participate
Extracts 4-11
Table 11. Determination of Accuracy From Blank Spike Recoveries
and Procedural Blank Analysis of Pesticides and PCBs
and Coprostanol in Seawater Filtrate Extracts 4-12
Table 12. Determination of Precision From Duplicate Sediment
Grain-Size Analyses 4-13
Table 13. Determination of Precision From Quadruplicate Digestions
of a Sediment Sample for Trace Metal Analysis 4-15
Table 14. Analysis of Procedural Blanks for Sediment Trace
Metals 4-16
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table 15. Determination of Accuracy From Matrix Spike Recoveries of
Trace Metals in Sediment 4-17
Table 16. Determination of Accuracy From Trace Metal Analysis of
Standard Reference Sediments 4-18
Table 17. Determination of Accuracy From Surrogate Organic
Compounds Matrix Spike Recoveries in Sediment 4-19
Table 18. Determination of Accuracy From Semivolatile Organic
Surrogate Recoveries in Sediment Extracts 4-20
Table 19. Results of Hater Quality Parameters and Concentrations of
Clostridium perfringens Spores at the 106-Mile Site 5-2
Table 20. Microbial Analysis of Seawater at the 106-Mile Site 5-4
Table 21. Concentration of Selected Trace Metals in Unfiltered
Seawater at the 106-Mile Site 5-5
Table 22. Concentration of Selected Trace Metals in Filtered
Surface Water at the 106-Mile Site 5-6
Table 23. Concentration of Trace Metals in Suspended Particulates
at the 106-Mile Site 5-7
Table 24. Concentration (pg/L) of Pesticides, PCBs, and Coprostanol
in Suspended Participate Matter at the 106-Mile Site 5-8
Table 25. Concentration (pg/L) of Pesticides, PCBs, and Coprostanol
in Seawater Filtrates at the 106-Mile Site 5-9
Table 26. Concentration (ng/L) of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
in Suspended Particulate Matter at the 106-Mile Site 5-10
Table 27. Concentration (ng/L) of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
in Filtered Seawater at the 106-Mile Site 5-11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table 28. Grain-Size Distribution In Sediments at the 106-Mile
Site 5-13
Table 29. Concentration of Selected Trace Metals in Sediments
at the 106-Mile Site 5-14
Table 30. Concentration of Selected Trace Metals in Surface
Sediment at the 106-Mile Site 5-15
Table 31. Concentration of Selected Organic Compounds in Sediments
at the 106-Mile Site 5-17
Table 32. Concentration of Priority Pollutants in Sediments at
the 106-Mile Site 5-18
Table 33. Total Number of Invertebrate Species (>300 yn) Found
in Six Box Core Samples Taken at Two Stations at the
106-Mile Site 5-20
Table 34. Clostridium perfringens Spores Per Gram Dry Weight of
Sediment Collected From the 106-Mile Site 5-30
Table 35. Microbial Analysis of Sediments at the 106-Mile Site 5-31
Table 36. Listing of All Cetacean Species, Numbers, and Locations
of Sightings Observed During Three Surveys to the
106-Mile Site 5-32
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the 106-Mile Site 1-2
Figure 2. Station Locations for the 1984 Survey at the
106-Mile Site 2-3
Figure 3. Station Locations for the 1985 Surveys at the
106-Mile Site 2-4
Figure 4. Station Locations for the 1986 Survey at the
106-Mile Site 2-5
Figure 5. Locations of Cetacean Sightings From NAIS and
the 106-Mile Site Surveys 5-33
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA, PL 92-532), is
responsible for regulating the disposal of sewage sludges in the oceans. Part
of the strategy for regulating sludge disposal includes the preparation and
implementation of an effective monitoring program for the 106-Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sewage Sludge Site (106-Mile Site) (Battelle, 1987e). The 106-Mile
Site is located approximately 120 nautical miles (nmi) southeast of Ambrose
Light, New York, and beyond the edge of the continental shelf in water depths
ranging from 2250 to 2750 m (Figure 1).
EPA has published ocean dumping regulations designed to protect the
marine environment from unreasonable degradation resulting from ocean dumping
activities. Site monitoring is a tool provided by the regulations for
protecting the marine environment. The overall objective of the 106-Mile Site
monitoring program is to ensure that the regulations are met by
• Assessing whether ocean dumping conditions for permits
and requirements for site management are being met, and
• Assessing whether dumping of sludges adversely impacts
resources or other aspects of the marine environment.
Data collected under the monitoring program will be used in making decisions
about continued designation of the site, status of ocean dumping permits, and
continuation or alteration of the monitoring program.
The 106-Mile Site monitoring program is being implemented according
to a tiered approach (Zeller and Wastler, 1987). The conceptual basis of the
approach is that data collected in each of a hierarchy of tiers are required
as the foundation for the design and extent of monitoring activities in the
next tier. Such an approach also ensures that only information needed for
making decisions will be collected. The 106-Mile Site monitoring program
includes four tiers:
Tier l--Sludge Characteristics and Disposal Operations
Tier 2—Nearfield Fate and Short-Term Effects
1-1
-------
106-Mil* 0*«pvrat«r
Municipal Studg* Sit* ^
73.
FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF THE 106-MILE SITE
1-2
-------
Tier 3—Farfield Fate
Tier 4—Long-Term Effects
Using this approach, a series of parameters (Table 1) may be monitored in the
water column or sediment in Tiers 2 and 4. Monitoring results will be
compared to baseline conditions to determine whether ocean dumping of sludges
is adversely impacting the marine environment.
Some of these parameters were measured for the environmental impact
statement filed for the designation of the 106-Mile Site (EPA, 1980).
However, environmental changes may have occurred and sampling and analytical
methods have been improved since this earlier study. Therefore, additional
baseline studies have been conducted by EPA.
As a first step toward obtaining additional baseline information,
the environmental studies performed in the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site since
site designation were reviewed. Five surveys during which baseline samples
were collected and archived for analysis were identified. Those surveys were
part of the following programs and studies:
t Studies funded by EPA: Baseline studies of the 106-
Mile Site in 1984, 1985, and 1986.
• Studies funded by the Department of the Interior,
Minerals Management Service (MMS): Study of Biological
Processes on the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Slope and Rise.
A set of the archived samples was selected for analysis. Selection
criteria were based on the proximity of the station to the 106-Mile Site,
quality of the sample, methods of collection, and comparability to other
samples collected at the 106-Mile Site.
This document presents the results of those analyses. In addition,
it summarizes previously reported data from the five selected surveys at the
106-Mile Site. Section 2 describes the 106-Mile Site and the location of the
sampling stations for each survey. Section 3 outlines the field and
laboratory methods used to collect and analyze all survey samples. Section 4
describes the procedures followed to ensure the accuracy and precision of the
data. The results of the quality assurance analyses are presented and
discussed in Section 4. In Section 5, the analytical results are presented.
The results are discussed and interpreted within the framework of the 106-Mile
Site monitoring plan in Section 6.
1-3
-------
TABLE 1. PARAMETERS ANALYZED IN BASELINE SAMPLES FOR THE 106-MILE SITE
MONITORING PROGRAM
Hater Samples
1. Trace metals: Ag, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Pb, Zn
2. Priority pollutant PAH: acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo-
(g ,h,i)perylene,benzo(k)f1uoranthene,chrysene, di benzo(a,h)anthracene,
fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phen-
anthrene, pyrene
3. Priority pollutant organochlorine compounds: aldrin, B-BHC, -BHC, -
BHC, chlordane, 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDD, dieldrin, endosulfan I,
endosulfan II, endosulfan sulfate, endrin, endrin aldehyde,
heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, toxaphene, PCB (total)
4. Other organics: phthalate, coprostanol
5. Clostridium perfringens
6. Water quality parameters: Total suspended solids, adenosine
triphosphate, dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, and temperature
Sediment Samples
1. Trace metals: Ag, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Pb, Zn
2. Priority pollutant PAH: acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fl uoranthene, benzo-
(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a.h)-
anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphtha-
lene, phenanthrene, pyrene
3. Priority pollutant organochlorine compounds: PCB isomers, aldrin,
dieldrin, chlordane 4,4'-DDT, heptachlor, toxaphene
4. Other organics: phthalate, total organic carbon
5. Benthic infauna
6. Sediment grain size
7. Clostridium perfringens
1-4
-------
2.0 STUDY AREA
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The area designated by EPA for disposal of sewage sludge is located
near the 2500-m isobath approximately 120 nmi southeast of Ambrose Light, New
York, and 115 nmi east of Atlantic City, New Jersey. The site is
approximately 100 square nmi in area and is bounded by latitudes 38°40'N to
39°00'N and longitudes 72000'W to 72°05'W (Figure 1).
The 106-Mile Site is a designated U.S. deepwater dumpsite for the
ocean disposal of sewage sludge. EPA designated this site because of a
demonstrated need for ocean disposal of sludge, and because the site meets all
specified requirements of the MPRSA of 1972 for site designation. The site is
not located in an area of significant commercial or recreational fish or
shellfish harvesting. The currents in the vicinity of the site, the deep
permanent pycnocline, and the great distance of the site from shore assure
that impacts associated with ocean dumping will be minimal.
2.2 STATION LOCATIONS
The locations of all of the stations occupied during the five
surveys are given in Table 2. Water and sediment samples were collected on
the OSV Anderson August 1984 Survey (Figure 2). The three surveys in 1985
(Figure 3, OSV Anderson August 1985, RV Oceanus August 1985, and RV Gyre
November 1985) focused on the collection of sediment samples. However, water
was also collected for microbial analysis at two stations on the OSV Anderson
August 1985 Survey. The OSV Anderson February 1986 Survey collected sediment
samples at Station Al (Figure 4). All of the stations on this survey were
sampled for surface (10-m) water. Samples from below the thermocline were
collected at Stations A5 and A6.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2. LOCATION OF STATIONS OCCUPIED
Ship/Survey Date
Station ID
Position
Lat1tude/Longitude
RV Oceanus
August 2 to 12, 1985
RV Gyre
November 9 to 19, 1985
OSV Anderson
August 1984
OSV Anderson
August 18 to 30, 1985
OSV Anderson
February 5 to 24, 1986
A
B
C
6
12
F
G
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
D2
D3
D7
D10
Oil
D12
D14
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
38040'N 71059'W
38020'N 72014'W
38000'N 72029'W
39005'N 720Q3'W
38029'N 72042'W
38051'N 72016'W
38055'N 72002'W
38019'N
38040'N
38050'N
390QO'N
38039'N
38024'N
39013'N
38059'N
39015'N
39014'N
39030'N
39050'N
38010'N
38028'N
73029'W
73000'W
72022'W
72029'W
72040'W
72054'W
71048'W
71059'W
72029'W
72045'W
72050'W
730Q5'W
73051'W
73014'W
38°22'N
38°23'N
38°57'N
39°35'N
39°15'N
39°14'N
38°59'N
39°15'N
38°58'N
39°01'N
38°30'N
38036'N
38046'N
74015'W
73052'W
72018'W
72043'W
72029'W
72045'W
72057'W
72°54'W
72°28'W
71°39'W
71°48'W
72°34'W
72005'W
2-2
-------
106—Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Site ^
FIGURE 2. STATION LOCATIONS FOR THE 1984 SURVEY AT THE 106-MILE SITE
2-3
-------
106—Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Site ^
73*
FIGURE 3. STATION LOCATIONS FOR THE 1985 SURVEYS AT THE 106-MILE SITE
2-4
-------
106—Mile Oeepwater
Municipal Sludge Site ^
FIGURE 4. STATION LOCATIONS FOR THE 1986 SURVEY AT THE 106-MILE SITE
2-5
-------
3.0 METHODS
The analyses of baseline samples included metals and organic
compound determinations on seawater filtrate, seawater particulate, and
sediment samples. Seawater particulate samples were also analyzed for
adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and total suspended solids (TSS). Sediment
samples were analyzed for infauna, sediment grain-size distribution, and
Clostridium perfringens spore content. Laboratory analyses were completed
according to standard methods for the 106-Mile Site monitoring program
(Battelle, 1987b). Details of methods for sample collection and water quality
analyses can be found in a survey report (JRB, 1985) and a field Quality
Assurance (QA) Plan (Battelle, 1987c). Similar methods were used during all
surveys.
3.1 SAMPLE COLLECTION
3.1.1 Water
3.1.1.1 WATER QUALITY AND TRACE METALS
Seawater samples for trace metal analysis were collected in an acid-
cleaned, Teflon-lined, 30-L GO-FLO sample bottle. The hydrowire was made of
non-contaminating Kevlar. A second unlined GO-FLO bottle was used to collect
water for analysis of the water quality parameters and microbiology. For
surface (10-m) samples, each bottle was lowered separately. For each
replicate of subthermocline samples, the water quality bottle was attached to
the hydrowire 10 m above the trace metal bottle.
3.1.1.2 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Surface water for trace organic analysis was pumped to the ship
through 1-in. O.D. stainless steel tubing which was clamped to the ship's
trawl cable. Using a stainless steel centrifugal pump, water was pumped
through an in-line glass fiber filter and into a 1000-L extraction vessel.
3-1
-------
Subthermocline samples were collected by repeated lowerings of 90-L
Kel-F-lined sampling bottles (Bodman bottle). Upon.retrieval, water from each
bottle was pumped through the in-line filter to the 1000-L extraction vessel.
3.1.2 Sediments
Sediment samples were collected using two sampling devices. Samples
were collected aboard the OSV Anderson with a 0.1-n)2 Smith-MacIntyre grab.
Sediment sampling aboard the RV Oceanus and RV Gyre (MMS surveys) was
performed with a Mark III box corer. On all surveys, only the top 2 cm of
sediment was collected for chemical, microbiological, or grain-size analysis.
On the MMS surveys, additional subsamples were taken for infaunal analysis.
3.2 SHIPBOARD ANALYSIS OF HATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
The procedures summarized below for the analysis of water samples
for water quality parameters were performed on board the OSV Anderson during
the 1986 survey.
3.2.1 Salinity
Salinity determinations were made on board the OSV Anderson with the
Beckman Model RS-7L induction salinometer. Standard seawater (Copenhagen
water) was used to calibrate the instrument at the start of the survey and was
also used as a control sample with each set of samples analyzed.
3.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (DO) in seawater was measured on board the OSV
Anderson with the YSI Model 57 dissolved oxygen meter. DO seawater samples
were taken from the GO-FLO sample bottles before other samples. Analysis was
conducted within 15 min of sample collection. Oxygen-saturated, deionized
water and seawater were used as controls.
3-2
-------
3.2.3 pH
Seawater pH was determined with the Beckman Model 4500 pH meter.
Instrument performance was checked and the pH meter calibrated at the start
of the survey and before each set of samples.
3.2.4 Turbidity
The seawater turbidity was determined with the Hach Model 2100
turbidometer. The instrument was calibrated before each set of samples using
a commercial turbidity standard.
3.2.5 Chlorophyll a and Phaeophytin
Seawater was analyzed for chlorophyll £ and phaeophytin following
standard procedures using a Turner Model 1000 fluorometer. Water samples were
filtered through a glass fiber filter, and the cells collected on the filters
disintegrated by freezing the filters in acetone. After thawing, the
resulting slurry was centrifuged, and the supernatant decanted into a clean
culture tube for analysis. By obtaining fluorescence measurements before and
after adding acid to each sample extract, both chlorophyll a_ and phaeophytin
were determined. Analytical standards were prepared from a commercial
chlorophyll £ stock solution.
3.2.6 Clostridium perfringens
Enumerations of C. perfringens in seawater were performed after the
method of Cabelli and Pedersen (1982). £. perfringens spores were collected
by filtering aliquots of seawater (0.1, 1.0, and 10 L) through 0.4-um
polycarbonate filters. Spores in the 10-L aliquots were cultured in
reinforced C. perfringens medium. After incubation, portions from the bottles
showing a positive response were filtered. These filters along with filters
collected from the 0.1-L and 1.0-L aliquots were then cultured anaerobically
3-3
-------
on modified JC. perfringens (m-CP) medium. Confirmation was performed by
exposing the incubated plates to ammonium hydroxide vapors, causing £.
perfringens colonies to turn to a magenta color. The bacteria were quantified
using the Thomas equation (APHA, 1985) to calculate a most probable number
value (MPN).
Additional sewage indicator microorganisms (enterococci, coliforms,
and antiobiotic-resistant bacteria) were quantified on the 1984 and 1985 OSV
Anderson surveys. The collection procedures for those organisms were the same
as for £. perfringens. The culturing procedures are described in ORB (1985).
3.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SEAMATER SAMPLES
3.3.1 Trace Metals Procedures
3.3.1.1 DISSOLVED TRACE METALS PROCEDURES
Silver. Silver was analyzed by the direct injection of the
unfiltered seawater sample into a graphite furnace atomic absorption
spectrometer (GFAAS). The standard additions method was used to quantify the
silver in each sample. This method compares the reading obtained from a
sample with no addition, to readings obtained when known amounts of silver are
added to the sample.
Cadmium, Copper, Iron, Lead, and Zinc. Both unfiltered and filtered
seawater samples were extracted at pH 4 using a 1 percent solution of purified
ammonium-1-pyrrolidine dithiocarbamate diethylammonium diethyldithiocarbamate
(APDC-ODDC) and 20 ml of freon. The metals were back-extracted into hot
nitric acid. Next, the nitric acid solutions were analyzed directly for
cadmium, copper, iron, lead, and zinc by GFAAS.
3-4
-------
Chromium. The procedure for determining chromium in seawater is a
modification of the methods described by Cranston and Murray (1977). Chromium
(Cr) was coprecipitated with 0.01 N Fe(OH)2 in aliquots of seawater at pH 8.
The precipitate was filtered, then digested with 6 N hydrochloric acid. After
dilution with deionized water, the acid digests were analyzed for Cr by GFAAS.
Mercury. Seawater mercury was determined after the method of
Fitzgerald and Gill (1979). Mercury (Hg) in seawater samples was reduced with
stannous chloride, the water sample purged with nitrogen and the resulting
elemental Hg concentrated on a gold-coated quartz trap. The Hg was then
desorbed from the trap into a stream of nitrogen and analyzed with a
Laboratory Data Control UV Mercury monitor.
3.3.1.2 PARTICULATE TRACE METALS PROCEDURES
i
Suspended particulate matter samples for trace metals analysis were
collected on the OSV Anderson August 1984 Survey. The samples were collected
by pressure-filtering seawater through preweighed 0.4-um polycarbonate
membrane filters. The filters were air-dried in the laboratory and then
weighed. The membranes were placed in Teflon bombs with concentrated
hydrochloric, nitric, and hydrofluoric acids. After digestion at 90°C for
3 h, the samples were diluted with deionized water. The samples were analyzed
for silver, iron, lead, and zinc by AAS.
3.3.2 Analysis of Organic Compounds
3.3.2.1 PREPARATION OF SAMPLES
Filtrate Extracts. Seawater samples for trace organic analysis were
extracted on board the OSV Anderson in a 1000-L extraction vessel. A 950-L
sample was saturated with 8 L of dichloromethane (DCM), whereupon the water
was extracted with three successive 4-L aliquots of DCM. After settling, the
3-5
-------
DCM layer was removed and the extraction procedure repeated two additional
times. Upon receipt in the laboratory, the DCM extracts were combined and
concentrated using Kuderna-Danish evaporative techniques. The concentrated
extracts were processed through silica-alumina column chromatography and
separate fractions were collected containing PAH/pesticide/PCB and
coprostanol.
Filters. Filters were extracted in the laboratory with DCM. The
filter extracts were concentrated using Kuderna-Danish apparatus. The
concentrated extracts were then processed through silica-alumina column
chromatography to remove interfering substances and to separate fractions for
PAH/pesticide/PCB and coprostanol analyses.
3.3.2.2 ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES
Coprostanol. The polar fraction from the column chromatography
procedure was analyzed for coprostanol using gas chromatography. A
calibration curve was determined by analyzing standards over a range of
concentrations. During analysis, the routine calibration was performed every
eight hours.
Pesticides and PCBs. A subsample of the non-polar fraction from the
column chromatography procedure was analyzed for pesticides and PCB by
capillary WCOT gas chromatography using electron capture detection (GC-ECD).
Quantification was performed by adding an internal standard
(dibromooctafluorobiphenyl) to each sample. Response factors for each
compound relative to the internal standard were determined before the start of
analysis.
PAH and Phthalate. A subsample of the non-polar fraction was
analyzed for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP) by capillary WCOT gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy (GC/MS). Compounds were identified by comparing retention times
and mass spectra of unknown compounds to those of the known standard
compounds. The internal standard, di2-chrysene, was added to each sample
before analysis. A calibration curve was established by analyzing calibration
3-6
-------
standards of selected known compounds and calculating reponse factors for each
compound relative to the internal standard. Concentrations of PAH and BEHP
were then determined by the internal standard method of quantification.
3.3.3 Analysis of Total Suspended Solids
Total suspended solids (TSS) samples were collected on board the
OSV Anderson by filtering 4 L of seawater through pre-tared 0.45-ym membrane
filters. After collection, the filters were stored at -20°C until analysis.
In the laboratory, the filters were air-dried for 24 h, weighed on a Mettler
analytical balance, and the amount of TSS collected determined by difference.
3.3.4 Analysis of Adenoslne Triphosphate
Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) samples were collected on board the
OSV Anderson by filtering 4 L of seawater through glass fiber filters. The
filters were then extracted with acetone and the extracts frozen until
analysis. After thawing, luciferin was added to the extracts and the ATP
quantified by liquid scintillation counting of the light emission from the
ATP-enzyme complex.
3.4 LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES
Sediment samples were archived at -20°C until preparation and
analysis. The archived sediments were thawed and split into subsamples for
the following analytical procedures.
3.4.1 Trace Metals
The sediment subsamples were freeze-dried prior to an aqua-regia
digestion for trace metal analysis. After digestion, the samples were weight-
diluted with 1 N nitric acid and centrifuged. The supernatant was then
3-7
-------
analyzed by Flame AAS for Cu, Fe, Pb, and Zn; GFAAS for Cd, Cr, and Ag; and
cold vapor AAS for Hg. Samples were quantified against a calibration curve
constructed using known amounts of standards. The calibration was checked
against an independent standard every 10 samples.
3.4.2 Organic Compounds and Priority Pollutants
The extraction and analysis of sediment samples for selected organic
compounds and priority pollutants were performed according to 301(h)
guidelines (Tetra Tech, 1986). A 50-g subsample of the wet sediment was
placed in a Soxhlet extractor and extracted with a 2:1 methylene
chloride:methanol mixture. Elemental sulfur was removed from the sample
extracts by reaction with metallic mercury. Biological macromolecules were
removed by gel permeation chromatography (GPC) cleanup. The majority (80
percent) of the extract was further cleaned up by Cjg reverse-phase
chromatography, then concentrated for GC/MS analysis, whereas 20 percent of
the extract was further processed through alumina column chromatography before
analysis by GC-ECD. PCB and pesticides were detected and quantified by GC-
ECD. PAH and base/neutral priority pollutants were quantified by GC/MS.
Quantification was by the internal standard method for both GC-ECD and GC/MS
analyses.
3.4.3 Total Organic Carbon
Total organic carbon (TOC) was determined using wet combustion
methods and a TOC analyzer.
3.4.4 Grain-Size Distribution
Sediment grain-size analysis was performed using the sieve-pipet
method. Samples were first washed through a 62-ym sieve to separate the sand
and gravel from the silt-clay fraction. The coarse fractions were oven-dried,
weighed, and then passed through a 2-mm sieve to collect the gravel fraction.
The sand fraction was treated with hydrogen peroxide to remove organic matter,
3-8
-------
washed, dried, and weighed. A pipet analysis was performed on the silt-clay
fraction.
3.4.5 Benthlc Infauna
Each sediment sample, covering a surface area of 0.09 m?, was sieved
on a 0.3-mm screen and then stained with Rose Bengal dye to make the organisms
more visible for sorting and identification. The sample was examined under a
dissecting microscope and each organism removed from the sediment residue.
Organisms were sorted to major taxonomic group. After sorting, the organisms
were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level and quantified.
Colonial forms for which the number of individuals could not be determined
were identified; these taxa were included in the total number of species
reported from each sample, but by definition were not included in the total
infaunal densities reported. Pelagic forms that were captured by the box core
were also listed, but were not included in the numbers of benthic individuals
or species. Undescribed species were recorded in a manner consistent with
that used by Battelle in the "Study of Biological Processes on the U.S. Mid-
Atlantic Slope and Rise," performed for the Minerals Management Service (MMS)
(Maciolek et al., 1986).
3.4.6 Clostridiua perfringens
C. perfringens spores were separated from sediment samples by an
extraction with sterile deionized water. The aqueous and sediment phases were
then separated by centrifugation. The spores in the aqueous phase were then
collected on a 0.45-um membrane filter. After incubation of the filters on
modified £. perfringens medium (mCP), presumptively positive C. perfringens
colonies were counted and submitted to a series of biochemical tests for
confirmation.
3-9
-------
3.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES
Because of concern for the possible impact of ocean dumping
activities on endangered or threatened species of marine mammals and turtles,
the presence of these species in the area were investigated. Observations
were made by a qualified observer on the 1985 and 1986 OSV Anderson surveys
and on the 1985 RV Gyre Survey. These observations were recorded along
predetermined survey paths in 15-min periods, where each period represented a
transect.
The collected data were recorded into two major categories—
location/environmental and species/behavior. Each category was recorded for
each 15-min observation period and both categories were identified by a unique
survey and observation number. Location/environmental data included latitude-
longitude, start time, elapsed time, vessel speed and course, water depth and
temperature, barometric pressure trend, visibility, and wind direction and
speed. Species/behavior data included species group (mammal, turtle), species
identification, numbers seen, age, distance and angle to sightings, heading,
animal association, debris association, and behavior.
3-10
-------
4.0 QUALITY CONTROL
4.1 DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND OBJECTIVES
The data requirements for chemical analyses and other targeted water
and sediment parameters are summarized in Table 3. Accuracy and precision of
the chemical measurement techniques were determined by the analysis of spiked
blank samples or, when possible, the analysis of standard reference materials
(SRM). The efficiency of the analytical techniques, expressed as percent
recovery, was determined by adding surrogate compounds to samples prior to
extraction and comparing the amount added to the amount determined after
sample workup. Field blanks were collected and processed to document possible
bias resulting from sample collection or storage. Analysis of method blanks
ensured that analytical results could be corrected for compounds contributed
by the reagents and chemicals used in the analytical procedures.
The accuracy and precision of some measurements (TSS, £.
perfringens, benthic infauna, grain size, and water quality parameters) could
not be estimated using SRM or spiked samples. The accuracy of infauna sorting
procedures and taxonomy was confirmed by an independent check of 10 percent of
the samples. The data were audited to confirm absolute number of organisms
and proper taxonomic identification.
4.2 QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS
4.2.1 Water
4.2.1.1 HATER QUALITY
Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The results of the analysis of five
blank filters and the reweighing of selected filters are given in Tables 4 and
5. The CV from all duplicates was less than 22 percent. The blank values
were above the recommended detection limit of 0.01 mg/L, but still well below
the amounts found in the samples. Thus, TSS values obtained during the survey
truly reflect levels at the site.
4-1
-------
TABLE 3. OBJECTIVES FOR MALTTICAL MTASUREMENTS OF HATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES.
Parameter
Seawater Filtrate or Parti cul ate,
Organic Compounds
Aromatic hydrocarbons,
phthalate
PCB Isomers, pesticides
Coprostanol
Seawater Metals
Ag, Cd, Zn
Cr, Pb, Cu
Fe
Hg
Seawater TSS
Seawater ATP
Sediment Metals
Fe
Ag, Cd, Zn
Cu, Pb, Cr
"9
Sediment Organic Compounds
Aromatic hydrocarbons
phthalate
PCB Isomers, pesticides
Coprostanol
Sediment TOC
Sediment Grain Size
Sediment Infauna
£. perfrlngens
Units
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
ng/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/g
pg/g
pg/g
P9/9
pg/9
pg/g
pg/g
ng/g
phi
Individual/
sample
Spores/g
Detection
Limit
1
0.1-5
1
.015
.030
.050
0.5
.01
10
0.005
.005
.02
.02
.01
.001-. 005
.01
.01
-
1
NA
Accuracy*
Percent
50
50
50
50
50
50
100
30
30
50
50
50
50
20
50
20
50
-
100
50
Precision''
Percent
100
100
100
30
30
30
50
30
30
30
30
30
30
100
100
100
30
-
-
30
Method
Solvent extraction, GC/MS
Solvent extraction, GC-ECD
Solvent extraction, GC-FID
Chelatlon-extractlon. GFAA
Chelatlon-extractlon, GFAA
Chelatlon-extractlon, GFAA
Gold trap. AAS
Filtration, gravimetric determination
Filtration, extraction. LSC
Add digestion. FAA or ICP
Acid digestion. GFAA
Acid digestion. GFAA
Acid digestion, cold vapor
Soxhlet extraction, GC/MS
Soxhlet extraction, GC-ECD
Soxhlet extraction, GC-FID
TOC analyzer
Sleve-plpet
Sorting, taxonomlc analysis
Filtration, direct enumeration
Accuracy defined as percent difference between amount of analyte added and the amount determined
by the method.
bPreds1on expressed as percent CV, where percent CV =-2—.o Is Standard deviation, and x fs the mean of replicate measurements.
x
-------
TABLE 4. ANALYSIS OF PROCEDURAL BLANKS FOR TSS AND ATPa
Sample
Number
1
2
3
4
5
TSS
(mg/L)
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.05 u
0.08
ATP
(ng/L)
0.03
0.05
0.1
0.01
0.02
aOSV Anderson February 1986 Survey.
u = Sample Detection Limit (assumed volume: 3 L for TSS, 4 L for ATP).
4-3
-------
TABLE 5. DETERMINATION OF PRECISION FROM DUPLICATE WEIGHINGS OF TSS
FILTERS*
TSS Concentrations (tnq/L)
Station
A2
A2
A4
A5
A5
A6
A6 T
A6 T
Replicate
2
3
1
1
3
3
3
. 1
Measurement
1
1.0
0.25
1.1
1.1
0.34
0.20
0.85
0.52
Measurement
2
1.0
0.33
1.1
1.1
0.46
0.31
0.87
0.55
X
1.0
0.29
1.1
1.1
0.40
0.26
0.86
0.53
cv
0
14
0
1.8
15
22
1.4
3.5
aOSV Anderson February 1986 Survey.
T = Subthermocline.
4-4
-------
Adenoslne Triphosphate (ATP). The results of the analysis of
procedural blanks and the duplicate analysis of individual samples are
presented in Tables 4 and 6. The highest blank value of 0.11 ng/L was well
below the recommended detection limit of 10.0 ng/L (0.010 ug/L), indicating
that the procedure did not contribute to ATP levels found in the field. The
procedure was highly precise. The CV of replicate analysis never exceeded
2.6 percent.
4.2.1.2 TRACE METALS
The results of the analysis of duplicate aliquots of seawater
samples is given in Tables 7. The reproducibility of the duplicates is very
good, well within the precision limits given in Table 3. Seawater samples
were spiked with Ag, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Pb, and Zn and analyzed to evaluate
matrix effects. The results are presented in Table 8. The recovery of the
matrix spike solutions varies from 82 to 115 percent, depending on the metal.
All recoveries are higher than the required 50 percent accuracy.
The chelation-extraction technique yielded poor Ag
recoveriesTherefore, Ag was analyzed by direct injection of seawater into the
GFAAS. The direct injection technique does not involve a concentration step
resulting in a higher detection limit than given in Table 3. For all of the
elements analyzed, oceanic detection levels were not achieved.
4.2.1.3 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
The accuracy of the laboratory preparation procedures for trace
organic analysis was determined by two methods. The recovery of PAH, PCB, and
pesticide compounds and androstanol was determined by the addition of
surrogate compounds to blank solvents which were prepared along with the
filtrate and particulate extracts. These recoveries are given in Table 9.
With the exception of dibromooctofluorobiphenyl and naphthalene, the
recoveries were better than the 50 percent given as a requirement (Table 3).
Naphthalene generally had lower recoveries because of its high volatility.
4-5
-------
TABLE 6. DETERMINATION OF PRECISION RON DUPLICATE ANALYSIS OF
SELECTED ATP SAMPLE EXTRACTS9
Station**
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
A5 T
A5 T
A6
AST
aOSV Anderson
Replicate
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
February 1986 Survey.
X
nNol/L
43
21
45
126
62
1.3
4.6
1.8
1.8
CV
0.81
1.1
0.28
2.6
2.2
0.55
0.88
1.4
1.4
bUn!ess Indicated, water samples were collected at the surface
(10 m).
T = Subsurface water collected at 365 m.
4-6
-------
TABLE 7. DETERMINATION OF PRECISION FROM DUPLICATE ANALYSIS OF SEAWATER
FOR TRACE METALS3
Aliquot
1
2
Mean
CV
Station
Silver
(pg/L)
0.61 u
0.61 u
-
-
Cadmium^
(ng/L)
6.3 u
6.3 u
-
-
Al, Replicate 3, OSV
Chromium
(pg/L)
0.20
0.23
0.22
6.8
Anderson
Copper
(pg/L)
0.73
0.72
0.72
0.7
Iron
(pg/L)
12
13
12
4.2
Mercury Lead
(ng/L) (pg/L)
2.1 0.042 u
2.0 0.042 u
2.0
2.5
Zinc
(pg/L)
0.76
0.72
0.74
2.7
Survey, February 1986.
bThe Station A2, Replicate 1 sample was used for the cadmium duplicate
analysis because of insufficient quantity of the Station 1, Replicate 3 sample.
u = Sample Detection Limit.
4-7
-------
TABLE 8. DETERMINATION OF ACCURACY FROM TRACE METAL MATRIX SPIKE
RECOVERIES IN SEAHATER*
Sample
Amount
""Mded
vvg)
Percent
Recovered
Aliquot 1
Percent
Recovered
Aliquot 2
Silver Cadmium^
20 0.45
110 82
110 87
Chromium
2.5
92
88
Copper Iron Mercury
1.4
100
110
aOSV Anderson February 1986 Survey, Station Al,
16 6.1
98 100
98 98
Replicate 3.
Lead Zinc
0.67 4.0
100 110
110 110
bThe Station A2, Replicate 1 sample was used for the cadmium matrix spike
analysis because of the insufficient quantity of the Station 1, Replicate 3 sample.
4-8
-------
TABLE 9. DETERMINATION OF ACCURACY FROM RECOVERIES OF SURROGATE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN SEA-
HATER FILTRATE AND PARTICULATE EXTRACTS'
•£>•
I i
UJ i
Station/Replicate
Surrogate
Analytes
Al
A2
A3
A4
AS
AST
A6/1
A6/2
A6/3
A6T
;b cvb
Filtrates
D1 bromoocta f 1 uorobl phenyl
Naphthalene-do
Phenanthrene-dio
Anthracene-dio
Benz (a )anthracene-di2
Androstanol
01 bromoocta fl uorobl phenyl
Naphthalene-dg
Anthracene-djo
Benz(a)anthracene-dj2
Androstanol
20
78
87
100
89
16
49
26
97
73
120
29
22
33
42
120
36
65
33
100
85
26
41
26
42
62
52
3.5
49
21
98
100
200
40
26
7.5
75
30
220
74
29
98
100
58
40
0.0
54
57
58
100
81
52
98
96
22
101 0.0
16 3.5
33 3.1
52 14
61 8.7
38 320
Partlculates
23
79
99
140
NA
43
57
100
130
35
39
11
53
66
52
98
86
44
101
120
NA
29
0.0
24
29
51
140
63
44
100
120
27
34
5.9
16
24
21
42
54
66
95
130
200
41 54
20 110
39 58
56 39
59 48
77 85
59 31
45 39
99 1.7
110 19
86 84
aOSV Anderson Survey, February 1986.
bThe filtrate sample from Station A6, Replicate 1, Is not Included In the calculations.
T • ThermocHne Sample.
NA • Not Analyzed.
-------
The wide range of surrogate recoveries reflected the difficulty of performing
the analysis near the method detection limits. The wide range of androstanol
recoveries reflected the difficulty of the trace sterol analysis. The
recoveries of phenanthrene and dibromooctofluorobiphenyl were low for the
filtrate samples, possibly due to the increased handling required by the large
volume of solvent in each extract. Handling problems during sample
preparation likely caused the poor surrogate recoveries for the Station A6,
Replicate 1, filtrate sample. Recovery of individual PAH and pesticide
contaminants in these samples is assumed to be similar to those of the
surrogate materials.
The accuracy of analytical method was also determined by the
analysis of blanks and blank spikes. The recoveries of PAH and pesticides
were greater than the required 50 percent (Tables 10 and 11) with the
exception of naphthalene. Procedural blanks revealed no contamination that
might bias results. The detection limits for the procedures are equal to or
better than the 0.1 to 5 ng/L objectives presented in Table 3.
The accuracy of the at-sea filtrate extraction procedure method was
also to be determined through the use of field surrogates. However, the
amounts of surrogate compounds added to the seawater filtrate in the field
were at or below method detection limits for all analytes. Therefore, the
accuracy of the field extraction technique could not be determined.
An estimation of field variability of seawater trace organic
analysis was to be addressed by the analysis of triplicate samples. However,
because most of the target compounds were below detection limits, this
determination of variability yielded little information. Only o-BHC in
seawater filtrate (x=26 pg/L, CVS33 percent) was found in all three field
replicate samples.
4.2.2 Sediment
4.2.2.1 GRAIN SIZE
The results of the duplicate analysis of one replicate sediment are
given in Table 12. There were no analytical objectives of accuracy or
4-10
-------
TABLE 10. DETERMINATION OF ACCURACY FROM BLANK SPIKE RECOVERIES AND
PROCEDURAL BLANK ANALYSIS OF POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS IN SEAWATER FILTRATE AND PARTICULATE EXTRACTS*
Amount Percent Recovered Procedural
Compound
Naphthalene
Cj-Naphthalene
C2-Naphtha1ene
Biphenyl
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Cj-Anthracene
Dibenzothiophene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Added
(pg) Particulates
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
aOSV Anderson February
45
50
54
52
56
64
52
65
53
66
64
66
68
62
59
1986 Survey.
Filtrates
Aliquot 1
56
60
62
60
61
72
60
74
46
78
76
83
86
93
93
Aliquot 2
47
54
58
57
62
72
64
80
29
80
76
82
83
72
73
Blank
(ng/L)
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
0.5
2
1
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u = Sample Detection Limit assuming a sample volume of 950L.
4-11
-------
TABLE 11. DETERMINATION OF ACCURACY FROM BLANK SPIKE RECOVERIES AND
PROCEDURAL BLANK ANALYSIS OF PESTICIDES AND PCBs IN SEAWATER
FILTRATE EXTRACTSa
Procedural
Analyte
a-BHC
B-BHC
-BHC
-BHC
Heptachlor
Heptachlorepoxide
Aldrin
Oieldrin
Endrin
Endn'n aldehyde
a-Endosulfan
B-Endosulfan
Endosulfan sulfate
4, 4 '-DDE
4, 4 '-ODD
4, 4 '-DDT
Methoxychlor
Mi rex
Chlordane
Toxaphene
PCB
1242
1254
1260
aOSV Anderson February
Amount Added
(ug)
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1986 Survey.
Percent
Recovered
66
80
72
108
68
84
52
93
80
58
96
67
78
89
111
116
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Blank
(pg/D
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
7
5
2
2
5
3
4
2
4
3
530
1000
200
200
200
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u = Sample Detection Limit assuming sample volume of 950 L.
NA = Not Analyzed.
4-12
-------
TABLE 12. DETERMINATION OF PRECISION FROM DUPLICATE SEDIMENT GRAIN-SIZE
ANALYSES8
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Repl Icate
Aliquot 1
(Percent Ut)
0.0
5.7
45
49
Replicate
Aliquot 2
(Percent Ut)
0.0
5.8
45
50
Mean
-
5.8
45
50
CV
(Percent)
-
0.9
0
1.0
aRV Gyre November 1985 Survey, Station G, Replicate 1.
4-13
-------
precision given for this procedure. However, the duplicate results were
within 5 percent, which is considered optimal for this analysis.
4.2.2.2 TRACE METALS
The results of the analysis of quality assurance samples for
sediment metals are given in Tables 13 to 16. The precision of the method as
determined by quadruplicate analysis of one sample exceeded the analytical
objectives (Table 13). The procedural blank concentrations were below the
detection limits (Table 14).
The matrix spike recoveries (Table 15) and the analysis of standard
reference materials (Table 16) were within the analytical objectives with the
exception of Cd. The high recovery of Cd may be due to either a matrix
mismatch or contamination of the samples. However, Cd was nondetectable in
all three blank samples, indicating that contamination is not likely to be a
problem. The low recoveries in the NBS 1646 sample were due to the
differences in sample preparation. The NBS-certified values are determined by
total digestion, therefore the certified value includes the concentrations in
silicate minerals. The aqua regia digestion used in this program does not
dissolve silicates and, therefore, reported concentrations are lower than the
certified values.
4.2.2.3 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
The accuracy of the extraction method for pesticides and TOC was
determined by measuring the recoveries of organic surrogate materials added to
the sediment sample before preparation (Table 17). The recoveries for both
pesticides and TOC were within the analytical objective (Table 3).
The accuracy of the analysis for semi volatile organic compounds was
determined by measuring the recoveries of surrogates added to the sample
extracts before analysis (Table 18). These results were highly variable
overall, but generally consistent for each compound.
4-14
-------
TABLE 13. DETERMINATION OF PRECISION FROM QUADRUPLICATE DIGESTIONS OF
A SEDIMENT SAMPLE FOR TRACE METAL ANALYSIS*
Aliquot
1
2
3
4
Mean
CV
Silver
(yg/g)
.05 u
.05 u
.07 u
.07 u
-
-
Cadmium
(yg/g)
0.14
0.16
0.15
0.16
0.15
5.5
Chromium
(yg/g)
21
28
29
29
27
12
Copper
(yg/g)
18
19
17
17
18
4.6
Iron
(mg/g)
11
14
15
14
14
11
Mercury
(ng/g)
17
13 u
19
20 u
-
-
Lead
(yg/g)
10
10
8.9
9.6
9.6
4.7
Zinc
(yg/g)
45
51
52
49
49
5.5
aSample from Station G, Replicate 1, RV Gyre November 1985 Survey.
u = Sample Detection Limit.
4-15
-------
TABLE 14. ANALYSIS OF PROCEDURAL BLANKS FOR SEDIMENT TRACE METALSa
Aliquot
1
2
3
Silver
(yg/g)
.05 u
.05 u
.05 u
Cadmium
(ug/g)
0.002 u
0.002 u
0.002 u
Chromium
(yg/g)
4.0 u
4.6 u
3.9 u
Copper
(yg/g)
4.5 u
5.2 u
4.4 u
Iron
(mg/g)
0.025 u
0.025 u
0.025 u
Mercury
(ng/g)
7 u
9 u
8 u
Lead
(yg/g)
2.5 u
2.9 u
2.5 u
Zinc
(yg/g)
0.50 u
0.57 u
0.49 u
Reported as units per dry weight, assuming 2 g of sediment digested.
u = Sample Detection Limit.
4-16
-------
TABLE 15. DETERMINATION OF ACCURACY FROM MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES OF
TRACE METALS IN SEDIMENT*
Sample
Amount
Expected
(yg)
Percent
Recovered
Silver Cadmium Chromium Copper
0.50 0.20 50 15
110 200 120 100
Iron Mercury Lead
NA 0.50 NA
NA 90 NA
Z1nc
100
100
aRV Gyre November 1985 Survey, Station G,
Replicate 1 Sample.
NA = Not Analyzed.
4-17
-------
TABLE 16. DETERMINATION OF ACCURACY FROM TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF
STANDARD REFERENCE SEDIMENTS
Reference
Materials
NBS 1646
Certified
Amount
Imount
Recovered
1C EMS -A
Certified
Amount
Amount
Recovered
Silver
(yg/g)
a
.09
a
.69
Cadmium
(yg/g)
0.36
0.39
1.5
1.9
/
Chromium
(yg/g)
76
44
31
35
Copper
(yg/g)
18
15
18
12
Iron
(mg/g)
34
25
39
34
Mercury
(ng/g)
63
56
a
350
Lead
(yg/g)
28
20
320
290
Zinc
(yg/g)
140
120
530
450
a = No certified value from this element.
4-18
-------
TABLE 17. DETERMINATION OF ACCURACY FROM SURROGATE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES IN SEDIMENT a
Analyte
Heptachlor
(ng)
Aldrin
(ng)
Dieldrin
(ng)
4, 4 '-DDT
(ng)
Anthracene
dig)
Pyrene
(yg)
Chrysene
(yg)
TOC (ug)
Amount
Added
g.o
9.0
22
22
0.90
0.90
0.90
20
Aliquot 1
Percent
Recovered
91
139
89
140
49
69
64
100
Aliquot
Anount
Added
8.6
8.6
22
22
0.86
0.86
0.86
20
2
Percent
Recovered
84
99
70
123
43
57
55
97
aRV Oceanus August 1985 Survey, Station A, Replicate 1.
4-19
-------
TABLE 18. DETERMINATION OF ACCURACY FROM SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC SURROGATE RECOVERIES IN SEDIMENT EXTRACTS
i
ro
o
OSV Anderson
August, 1984 August .1985
RV Ocearius
Auqust. 1985
RV Gyre
Noveaber. 1985
Station/Replicate
Analyte
Nltrobenzene-ds
2-Fluoroblphenyl.
Terphenyl-dn
Phenol -d5
2-F1uoropheno1
2 ,4 ,6-Tr 1 broraophenol
Tl/1
11
25
89
18
9
34
D7/1
7
14
82
9
6
36
D7/2
12
21
112
15
9
29
A/1
14
24
66
18
11
24
A/2
15
25
48
20
11
0
F/2 F/3
Percent Recovery
12 9
21 19
66 57
15 13
9 8
39 35
F/l
9
21
67
15
9
49
6/1
9
17
42
12
7
32
6/2
13
27
75
21
12
45
6/3
16
29
78
24
14
34
X
12
23
70
17
10
33
CV
V
23
20
25
24
21
37
-------
4.2.2.4 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
The results of the analysis of matrix spike samples for TOC are
given in Table 17. The results exceeded the analytical objectives given in
Table 3.
4-21
-------
5.0 RESULTS
5.1 MATER
5.1.1 Hater Quality
The results of the water quality analyses from the OSV Anderson
February 1986 survey are presented in Table 19. The results of each replicate
are presented along with the mean; allowing an estimate of the water column
variability. The variation between replicate samples was small for the
dissolved parameters (S °/oo, temperature, DO, and pH). The particulate
parameters (turbidity, chlorophyll £, phaeophytin, TSS and ATP) did show
significant variation between replicate samples. The poor reproducebility may
have been due to variation in particle distribution in the water column or
particles settling before filtration.
The shelf station (Al) was characterized by cold, less saline water.
This area was most productive, as demonstrated by highest chlorophyll a
concentrations, and most turbid, as demonstrated by highest TSS and turbidity
values compared to the slope waters (Stations A3, A4, A5, and A6). The
surface water over the slope was uniform with respect to the water quality
parameters. However, the offshore station (A4) water was slightly less
saline, and the 106-Mile Site station (A6) had lower ATP. The slope stations
had lower turbidity and were less productive than the nearshore stations. The
salinity and temperature values for the shelf break station (A2) were between
Station Al and the slope stations. The shelf break was also less productive
than other areas, having lower chlorophyll a_, and ATP concentrations.
The subthermocline water was less saline and colder than the
surface water. Also, the DO, chlorophyll a_, and ATP concentrations were lower
at depth than at the surface.
Only the shelf station had a significant concentration of C.
perfringens spores. This station was resampled two days later to confirm the
high value. The second sampling found even higher numbers of C. perfringens
5-1
-------
TABLE 19. RESULTS OF HATER QUALITY PARAMETERS AMD CONCENTRATION OF Clostrldlua pcrfrlnqens SPORES AT THE 106-MILE SITE'
en
i
ro
Station
Al
A2
A3
A4
AS
AST
A6
A6T
Replicate
1
2
3
Mean
1
2
3
Mean
1
2
3
Mean
1
2
3
Mean
1
2
3
Mean
1
2
3
Mean
1
2
' 3
Mean
1
2
3
Mean
Depth
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
365
365
365
10
10
10
366
366
366
Salinity
(ppt)
34.52
34.41
34.40
34.44
35.64
35.50
35.52
35.55
36.06
36.21
36.34
36.21
35.83
35.97
35.75
35.85
36.18
36.30 .
36.10
36.19
35.29
35.36
35.32
35.32
36.19
36.13
36.17
36.16
34.98
35.43
35.47
35.29
Temperature
10.00
9.50
8.50
9.33
12.00
12.50
12.00
12.17
15.00
15.00
15.20
15.07
13.20
14.00
13.80
13.67
14.20
14.00
13.80
14.00
8.00
8.50
10.00
8.83
15.50
13.50
13.80
14.27
9.50
10.00
10.50
10.00
00
(•9/L)
8.60
9.10
9.65
9.12
8.10
8.00
7.95
8.02
7.60
7.55
7.40
7.52
7.85
7.95
7.80
7.87
7.25
7.80
7.30
7.45
5.25
5.10
4.70
5.02
7.30
7.25
7.25
7.27
5.00
4.90
5.00
4.97
Turbidity
(NTU)b
0.96
0.51
0.31
0.59
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.06
0.10
0.09
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.08
0.14
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.15
0.13
pH
8.06
8.03
e
8.05
8.07
8.09
8.12
8.09
8.29
8.23
8.23
8.25
8.17
8.20
8.20
8.19
8.13
8.19
8.16
8.16
7.86
7.90
7.91
7.89
8.15
8.19
8.19
8.18
7.91
7.80
7.80
7.84
Total
Suspended
Solids
(•9/L)
4.76
4.39
1.80
3.65
0.89
1.05
0.25
0.73
1.25
0.73
0.83
0.94
1.10
0.43
0.44
0.66
1.08
1.00
0.34
0.81
0.52
0.55
0.41
0.49
0.55
0.59
0.20
0.45
0.60
0.54
0.85
0.66
Chloro-
phyll •
(ug/Lf
0.857
1.169
0.929
0.985
0.206
0.246
0.201
0.218
0.364
0.300
0.289
0.318
0.268
0.321
0.364
0.318
0.300
0.364
0.418
0.361
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.343
0.289
0.300
0.311
0.003
'0.003
0.003
0.003
Phaeophytln
(pg/L) 1
0.597 1
0.517 2
0.526
0.547
0.128
0.135
0.126
0.130
0.236
0.164
0.174
0.191
0.223
0.169
0.236
0.209
0.218
0.249
0.182 i
0.217 1
0.013 I
0.018 I
0.018 (
0.016 (
0.216 1
0.188
0.205 1
0.203
0.021 I
0.021 (
0.021 (
0.021 (
:/P«
.4
!.3
.8
.8
.6
.8
.6
.7
.5
.8
.7
.7
.2
.9
.5
.5
.4
.5
!.3
1.7
).2
).2
).l
).l
.6
1.5
.5
1.5
).l
).l
J.I
1.1
ATP
(ng/L)
29.7
40.9
96.0
55.5
11.8
27.8
6.27
15.3
24.6
48.4
52.8
41.9
69.2
50.3
49.7
56.4
33.9
59.2
60.5
51.2
0.68
2.19
2.51
1.80
0.95
20.8
18.3
13.3
0.94
3.36
3.21
2.50
C1ostrjd1u§
perfrlngens
(MPN/100 nL)dc
0.16
4.93f
0.004
0.004 u
*
0.004 u
0.011
0.004
0.029
0.004
aOSV Anderson February 1986 Survey.
t>Nephe1oaetr1c turbldooetrlc units.
'Chlorophyll a/phaeophytln ratio.
dMost probable nunber; all replicates Mere used In the calculation.
'Sample was lost.
fReoccupled station.
T • Thermcline.
u • Saaple Detection Unit.
-------
spores. Spores were also measurable in surface water collected at Stations A5
and A6, located to the southwest and in the 106-Mile Site. The subthermocline
water, and the surface water at the shelf break showed traces of C. perfrin-
gens spores. The previous baseline surveys (OSV Anderson August 1984 and
1985) found evidence of C. perfringens spores in the water column north of the
106-Mile Site (Table 20).
5.1.2 Seawater Trace Metals
The concentrations of selected trace metals in unfiltered seawater
collected on the OSV Anderson February 1986 Survey are presented in Table 21.
Copper, lead, mercury, silver, and zinc concentrations were not detected above
the field blank levels. Cadmium was only measurable below the thermocline.
The chromium concentrations were slightly higher in the slope water than on
the shelf. The iron concentration at the shelf station was significantly
higher than at the shelf break or on the slope.
The concentrations for most trace metals were more than a thousand
times lower than required by EPA's Water Quality Criteria for seawater. The
reported copper concentrations were only three to five times lower; however,
the accuracy of these values is uncertain because of the high concentration of
copper found in the field blank.
The silver, iron, lead, and zinc concentrations in filtered seawater
collected on the OSV Anderson Survey in August 1984, (JRB, 1985) are presented
in Table 22. Only zinc was detected in these samples. However, because of
the high concnetrations in the field blank, the accuracy of the results is
uncertain.
Seawater particulate samples were also collected for analysis of
trace metals during the'OSV Anderson August, 1984 Survey (Table 23). Only
zinc and iron were detectable. The Hudson Canyon station had higher metal
concentrations than the other areas.
5.1.3 Organic Compounds
The results of the analysis of seawater particulate and filtrate for
pesticides, PCBs, PAH, and coprostanol are presented in Tables 24 through 27.
5-3
-------
TABLE 20. MICROBIAL ANALYSIS OF SEAMATER AT THE 106-MILE SITE
en
i
osv
Anderson
Survey
August
August
Station
1984C 1
3
6
10
12
14
15
1985e D2
Oil
«
Depth
Surface
Bottom
Surface
Surface
Bottom
Bottom d
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Bottom
Surface
Bottom
C. perfrlngens
Isolated*
0.014
0.020 M
0.0058 u
0.0058 u
0.0041
0.016 u
0.0058 u
0.0058
0.0058 u
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
Confirmed0
0.33 u
0.33
0.14 u
0.14 u
0.33 u
0.14 u
0.14 u
0.14 u
0.14 u
0.001 u
0.001 u
0.001 u
0.001 u
Total*
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.011 M
0.016 N
NA
NA
NA
NA
6 M
6 H
0.001 u
0.001 u
Collform
Fecal*
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.004 u
0.004
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
E. COll*
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.004 u
0.004 u
NA
NA
NA
NA
6 M
0.001 u
NA
NA
Enterococclb
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.14 u
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.001 u
NA
6 H
0.001 u
aMost probable number/100 at--High-Volume Sampling procedure.
''Colony forming units/100 ml—Membrane filter procedure.
cData From JRB (1985).
''station reoccupled.
eData From URI, unpublished.
u = Sample Detection Limit.
M » Greater than, colonies too numerous to quantify.
NA = Not Analyzed.
-------
TABLE 21. CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED TRACE METALS IN UNFILTERED SEAUATER AT THE 106-MILE
SITE*
en
i
in
Sta
A 1
A 2
A 3
A 4
A 5
A 5T
A 6
A 6T
Rep Silver
(ug/L)
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Water Quality
Criteria
Field
Blankc
»OSV Anderson
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
0.61 u
NA
0.61 u
February 1986
Cadmium
(ng/L)
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
22
10
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
6.3 u
20
22
6.3 u
9300
6.3 u
Survey.
Chromium
(P9/L)
0.30
0.24
0.21
0.29
0.29
0.27
0.23
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.31
0.35
0.32
0.36
0.31
0.39
0.35
0.27
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.26
0.38
0.33
50b
0.10
Copper
(ug/O
0.82
0.72
0.73
0.83
0.71
0.59
0.66
0.73
0.70
0.55
0.73
0.55
0.60
0.59
0.60
0.46
0.60
0.51
0.50
0.47
0.46
0.39
0.57
0.64
2.9
0.49
Iron
(ng/L)
16
9.2
13
0.73
0.73
0.69
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.95
1.0
0.76
0.85
0.77
0.57
0.73
0.62
0.84
0.74
0.93
NA
0.38
Mercury
(ng/L)
1.4
1.8
2.1
0.6
0.6
1.3
1.3
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.5
1.3
0.8
0.5
0.8
1.2
0.9
1.3
25
1.2
Lead
(vg/L)
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
0.042 u
5.6
0.042 u
Zinc
(pg/D
0.34
0.56
0.74
0.22
0.19
0.22
0.25
0.26
0.23
0.23
0.28
0.21
0.20
0.23
0.25
0.51
0.37
0.35
0.32
0.39
0.27
0.38
0.46
0.38
86
0.51
bHexavalent Cr
CDelonlzed water rinsed through the GO-FLO bottle.
u * Sample Detection Limit.
T - Thermocllne Sample.
NA - Not Available
-------
TABLE 22. CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED TRACE METALS IN FILTERED SURFACE
HATER AT THE 106-MILE SITE9
Station
1
3
6
10
12
14
15
Silver
(yg/L)
0.005 u
0.005 u
0.005 u
0.005 u
0.005 u
0.005 u
0.005 u
Iron
(yg/L)
0.32 u
0.32 u
0.32 u
0.32 u
0.32 u
0.32 u
0.32 u
Lead
(yg/L)
0.05 u
0.05 u
0.05 u.
0.05 u
0.05 u
0.05 u
0.05 u
Zinc
(yg/L)
0.090
0.84
0.091
0.091
5.9
0.091
0.72
aOSV Anderson August 1984 Survey data from JRB (1985).
u = Sample Detection Limit.
5-6
-------
TABLE 23. CONCENTRATION OF TRACE METALS IN SUSPENDED PARTICULATES AT
THE 106-MILE SITEa
Station13
1
3
6
10
12
14
15
aOSV Anderson
Silver
(pg/L)
0.001 u
0.001 u
0.001 u
0.001 u
0.001 u
0.001 u
0.001 u
August 1984 Survey
Iron
(pg/L)
0.042 u
0.053
0.072
0.056
0.024 u
1.10
0.014
Data From JRB
Lead
(yg/L)
0.011 u
0.013 u
0.013 u
0.008 u
0.002
0.006
0.014 u
(1985).
Zinc
(pg/L)
0.003
0.009
0.010
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.007
bSurface Water.
u = Sample Detection Limit.
5-7
-------
TABLE 24. CONCENTRATION (pg/L) OF PESTICIDES, PCBs, AND COPROSTANOL IN
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER AT THE 106-MILE SITE3
Station Number
Compound
o-BHC
B-BHC
Y-BHC
6-BHC
Heptachlor
Heptachlorepoxide
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrln
Endrln aldehyde
ct-Endosul fan
-Endosulfan
-ndosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4, 4 '-DDT
Methoxychlor
Mi rex
Chlordane
Toxaphene
PCB
1242
1254
1260
Coprostanol
aSeawater collected
Al
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
120
250
100
100
100
270
at 10
at 365 m. OSV Anderson
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
c
u
u
u
u
u
m,
A2
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
3 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
1 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
210 u
420 u
170 u
170 u
170 u
220 u
except
A3
1
1
1
1
1
1
44
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
210
420
170
170
170
230
A5T and
A4
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
c
c
u
u
u
u
u
c
u
u
u
u
u
u
A6T
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
1
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
210
420
170
170
170
230
which
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
c
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
was
A5
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
10
1 u
2 u
1 u
c
c
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
c
130 u
260 u
100 u
100 u
100 u
230 u
collected
AST
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
170 u
330 u
130 u
130 u
130 u
NA
A6°
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1
1 u
9
1 u
3 u
2 u
c
1 u
2 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
2 u
c
260 u
530 u
210 u
210 u
210 u
230 u
A6T
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
290
570
230
230
230
310
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
February 1986 Survey.
bMean of 3 replicates.
cMatri.x interference, analyte not confirmed.
NA = Not Analyzed.
u = Sample Detection Limit.
5-8
-------
TABLE 25. CONCENTRATION (pg/L) OF PESTICIDES, PCBs. AND COPROSTANOL IN SEAUATER
FILTRATES AT THE 106-MILE SITE8
on
i
ID
Station Number
Compound
Sample Volume
(L)
o-BHC
B-BHC
Y-BHC
6-BHC
Heptachlor
Heptachlorepoxlde
Aldrln
Oleldrln
Endrln
Endrln aldehyde
a-Endosulfan
B-Endosulfan
Endosulfan sulfate
4. 4 '-DOE
4,4'-DDD
4, 4 '-DDT
Methoxychlor
Hi rex
Chlordane
Toxaphene
PCB
1242
1242
1260
Coprostanol
Alb
1000
46
22
17
20
14
11
14
14
38
29
14
14
27
16
24
14
22
16
3000
6000
2400
2400
2400
220
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u .
u
u
A2b
1000
11
25
4
4
15
4
10
13
10
5
9
5
8
23
17
5
1000
2000
800
800
800
220
u
u
u
d
u
u
d
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
A3
950
25
6
3
4
3
2
4
2
7
5
2
5
5
4
19
4
530
1000
420
420
420
230
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
d
u
u
u
u
u
d
u
u
u
u
u
u
A4
950
44
16
4
12
2
2
2
7
5
2
2
5
3
4
2
4
530
1000
420
420
420
230
d
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
d
u
u
u
u
u
u
AS
950
19
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
7
5
2
5
3
4
39
4
530
1000
420
420
420
230
AST
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
d
u
u
u
u
u
d
u
u
u
u
u
u
750
68
38
4
50
2
17
3
8
6
3
6
4
5
3
430
4
670
1300
530
530
530
290
u
d
u
u
u
u
d
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
A6C
950
26
2
4
8
2
2
2
7
5
2
5
3
4
2
4
530
1000
420
420
420
230
A6T
u
d
u
u
u
u
u
u
d
u
u
u
u
u
u
d
u
u
u
u
u
u
700
60
105
4
5
42
26
43
7
6
4
6
3
5
710
1400
570
570
570
310
u
u
d
d
u
d
d
u
u
u
u
u
d
u
u
u
u
u
u
Mater
Quality
Criteria
(ng/L)
340
3.6
1300
2.3
8.7
1
3
1
4
0.2
30
aSeawater collected at 10 m, except AST and A6T which was collected at 365 m. OSV Anderson February 1986 Survey.
^Extracts were diluted to remove analytical Interferences.
cMean of 3 replicates.
u = Sample Detection Limit.
d = Matrix Interference, analyte not confirmed.
-------
TABLE 26. CONCENTRATION (ng/L) OF POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER AT THE 106-MILE SITE*
Compound
Al
A2
Station Number
A3 A4
AS
AST
A6t>
A6T
Naphthalene
Cj-Naphthalene
C2-Naphthalene
C3-Naphthalene
C4-Naphthalene
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Biphenyl
Fluorene
Cj-Fluorene
C2-Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Cj-Phenanthrene
C2~Phenanthrene
C3~Phenanthrene
C4~Phenanthrene
Anthracene
— Cj-Anthracene
2-Anthracene
Dibenzothiophene
Cj-Dibenzothiophene
C2-Dibenzothiophene
C3-Dibenzothiophene
Fluoranthene
Cj-Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Ci-Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Cj-Chrysene
C2-Chrysene
Triphenylene
Benzofluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Ideno( 1 ,2 ,3 ,-cd ) peryl ene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Dibenzo(a,b)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.4 u
1 u
1 u
0.4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.4 u
1 u
1 u
0.4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.6
1
1
0.6
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
30
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0.6
1
1
0.6
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
aSeawater collected at 10 m, except AST and A6T (subthermocline)
"^vhich were collected at 365 m. OSV Anderson February 1986 Survey.
-Mean of 3 replicates.
u = Sample Detection Limit.
5-10
-------
TABLE 27. CONCENTRATION (ng/L) OF POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN
FILTERED SEAMATER AT THE 106-MILE SITE3
Station Number
uumpound
Sample Volume (L)
Naphthalene
Cj-Naphthalene
C2-Naphthalene
C3-Naphthalene
C4-Naphthalene
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Biphenyl
Fluorene
Ci-Fluorene
C2-Fluorene
Phenanthrene
C^-Phenanthrene
C2~Phenanthrene
C3-Phenanthrene
C4-Phenanthrene
Anthracene
^1-Anthracene
^-Anthracene
Dibenzothiophene
Cj-Dibenzothiophene
C2~Di benzothi ophene
C3-Dibenzothiophene
Fluoranthene
Cj-Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Ci-Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Cj-Chrysene
C2-Chrysene
Triphenylene
Benzof 1 uoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Ideno(l,2,3,-cd)perylene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Di benzo (a ,b janthracene
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl )phthal ate
Al
1000
17
20
30
15
5
1 u
1 u
2
2
2
1 u
3
5
4
3
1 u
1 u
1 u
4 u
1 u
1 u
2
2
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.4 u
1 u
1 u
0.4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
137
A2
1000
1 u
2
2
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.4 u
1 u
1 u
0.4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
2
A3
950
2
2
3
2
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
2
A4
950
1 u
2
3
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
1
AS
950
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
0
AST
750
2
2 u
3
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
6 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.6 u
1 u
1 u
0.6 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
3 u
3 u
1 u
1
A6b
950
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
4 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
0.5 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
5
A6T
700
1 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
2 u
2 u
6 u
2 u
2 u
2 u
2 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
0.6 u
1 u
1 u
0.6 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
3 u
3 u
1 u
7
Hater
Quality
Criteria
(P9/L)
7.5
16
Total PAH
112
300
dSeawater collected at 10 m, except A5T and A6T (subthermocline)
which were collected at 365 m. OSV Anderson February 1986 Survey.
bMean of 3 replicates.
u = Sample Detection Limit. -1
-------
With the exception of aldrin found in the slope samples and coprostanol in the
shelf sample, no contaminants of interest were found in seawater particulate
samples. PCBs were not detected in any of the samples in either the
particulate or filtrate phase.
Seawater filtrate samples did contain some analytes in
concentrations above method detection limits. Naphthalenes, phenanthrenes,
and dibenzothiophenes were found in shelf waters at Station Al, but were not
found elsewhere. ct-BHC appeared to be the most ubiquitous trace contaminant
in these samples, being found in shelf and slope waters. Heptachlor and
aldrin were also found in several samples. However, no pattern of contaminant
distribution was evident from these few samples.
5.2 LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTS
5.2.1 Grain-Size Distribution
The grain-size distribution in sediment samples collected on the OSV
Anderson August 1984 Survey (JRB, 1985) and the RV Gyre 1985 Survey are
presented in Table 28. The distribution was variable around Station F. In
general, the sediments in the 106-Mile Site (on the continental slope) were
greater than 75 percent silt-clay, while the shelf had predominately sandy
sediments.
5.2.2 Trace Metals
The results of the sediment trace metal analysis are presented in
Tables 29 and 30. Four metals were analyzed in the 1984 survey by JRB (1985).
Higher sediment contaminant levels were reported in 1984 than were found in
1986. However, it appears that the higher values are most likely due to
differences in analytical technique. One sample (Station 11) analyzed by JRB
(1985) had results that were between 124 (Zn) and 300 (Hg) percent higher than
found upon reanalysis.
The samples collected in replicate showed greater variability within
and between station replicates than between stations. The high mercury and
5-12
-------
TABLE 28. GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION IN SEDIMENTS AT THE 106-MILE SITE
Distribution (Percent /q Dry Sediment)
Survey
OSV Anderson
August 1984^
RV fiyre
November 1985
Station Replicate
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
Gravel
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
4.6
35
5.3
56
0.7
0.1
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sand
2.7
22
17
13
1.1
34
4.7
1.7
93
63
95
44
36
27
NA
52
15
5.7
4.6
5.0
snt
75
60
63
59
74
48
64
70
2.2
1.4
0.0
0.2
45
55
NA
23
44
45
50
47
Clay
22
17
20
28
25
14
31
28
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19
17
NA
24
41
49
45
48
Mater
78
48
47
52
58
43
58
56
26
23
1.5
33
44
52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
aData from JRB. (1985).
-^4 = Not Analyzed.
5-13
-------
TABLE 29. CONCENTRATION OF SaECTED TRACE METALS IN SEDIMENTS AT THE
106-MILE SITE
Survey Rep
(Station) No.
RV Oceanus(A)
August 1985
OSV Anderson (7)
August 1985
RV Gyre(G)
November 1985
RV Gyre(F)
November 1985
OSV Anderson (11)
August 1984
1
2
3
1
2
ia
2
3
1
2
3
1
Silver
(ug/g)
.04
.04
.05
.06
.05
.06
.03
.04
.05
.05
.04
.07
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Cadmium
(ug/g)
.14
.12
.16
.10
.10
.15
.04
.08
.14
.10
.07
.17
Chromium Copper Iron
(ug/g) (ug/g) (mg/g)
27
22
28
20
23
27
22
21
22
23
23
34
23
18
23
11
9
18
16
14
23
11
16
21
10
9.1
11
10
8.4
13
9.5
7.8
8.9
7.9
9.1
13
Mercury
(ug/g)
.007 u
.008 u
.012
.018
.012 u
.013b
.002
.006
.034C
.002
.008
.009
Lead
(ug/g)
10
7.
11
9.
6.
9.
9.
9.
35C
7.
11
14
3
4
7
8
9
7
4
Zinc
(ug/g)
49
40
50
37
32
49
39
35
42
32
40
54
aMean of 4 replicates.
bOne-ha1f of detection limit used to calculate mean.
cPossible contamination.
u = Sample Detection Limit.
5-14
-------
TABLE 30. CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED TRACE METALS IN SURFACE SEDIMENT
AT THE 106-MILE SITE*
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
aOSV Anderson
Iron
(mg/g)
28
19
20
27
27
170
26
27
12
22
4.8
22
23
21
August 1984
Mercury
(pg/g)
0.080
0.043
0.028
0.069
0.032
0.020
0.028
0.028
0.004
0.007
0.066
0.030
0.060
0.035
Survey data from
Lead
(pg/g)
30
13
14
20
19
10
16
19
4.9
9.2
3.2
13
14
14
Zinc
(yg/g)
76
56
52
64
72
39
67
67
21
31
7.6
34
55
53
JRB (1985).
5-15
-------
lead values from the Station F, Replicate 1 sample may have been due to
contamination.
5.2.3 Organic Compounds and Priority Pollutants
Organic compounds (pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs) were not detected in
any of the sediments (Tables 31 and 32). The exception was 4,4'-DDT which was
detected in trace amounts along a southwest transect through the 106-Mile Site
(Stations 11, F, and G). The variation within a station was greater than the
variation between stations for TOC concentrations (Tables 31 and 32). The
values ranged from 4.1 to 9.8 mg/g.
5.2.4. Benthic Infauna
Benthic infaunal samples collected at Station G contained slightly
more individuals than samples collected at Station F (Table 33). When the
numbers are extrapolated, Station F had mean densities of 2907 individuals per
square meter and Station G had mean densities of 4118 individuals per square
meter. The top dominant species at Station F was the spionid polychaete
Aurospio dibranchiata. which accounted for almost 10 percent of all benthic
individuals collected at that station. The species that ranked second and
third at Station F were undescribed species of polychaetes, Prionospio sp. 2
and Tharyx sp. 1, respectively.
The top dominant species recorded at Station G was the sipunculan,
Aspidosiphon zinni, which accounted for over 12 percent of the total
individuals collected at that station. The second ranked species was the
polychaete Aurospio dibranchiata.
5.2.5 Clostrldium perfringens
The number of £. perfringens spores counted in sediments collected
on the RV Gyre August 1985 and the OSV Anderson August 1985 and February 1986
5-16
-------
TABLE 31. CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN SEDIMENTS AT THE 106-MILE SITE
en
i
OS
August. 1984
.V Anderson
1 August, 1985
RV Oceanus
Auqust. 1585
RV Gyre
NovenbefTl985
Statlon/Repl Icate
Analyte
Pesticides (ng/q)
Heptachlor
Aldrln
Dleldrln
4, 4 '-DOT
Toxaphene
Chlordane
PCB (nfl/g)
1242
1254
1260
PAH (wg/a)
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo ( b ) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo ( k ) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
I ndeno ( 1 , 2 , 3-c ,d ) pyrene
01 benz (a ,h janthracene
Benzo(g,h,1)perylene
B1s(2-ethy1hexyl)-
phthalate
Total Organic Carbon
(•9/g)
11/1
0.42 u
0.47 u
0.56 u
8.5
58 u
12 u
28 u
15 u
13 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.11 u
0.50
9.8
D7/1
1.2 u
1.3 u
1.6 u
1.8 u
160 u
33 u
79 u
42 u
37 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.58 u
0.34 u
6.6
07/2
1.1 u
1.2 u
1.4 u
1.6 u
140 u
30 u
70 u
37 u
33 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
0.37 u
1.4
4.1
A/1
0.86 u
0.96 u
1.1 u
1.3 u
120 u
24 u
58 u
31 u
27 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
0.41 u
7.9
A/2
0.57 u
0.64 u
0.76 u
0.86 u
79 u
16 u
39 u
20 u
16 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
0.22 u
1.7
5.9
F/2
0.50 u
0.56 u
0.66 u
0.74 u
68 u
14 u
33 u
18 u
16 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
0.20 u
1.1
4.9
F/3
0.69 u
0.77 u
0.92 u
1.0 u
95 u
20 u
47 u
25 u
22 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.28 u
7.2
F/l
0.79 u
0.88 u
1.0 u
1.2 u
110 u
22 u
53 u
28 u
25 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
0.28 u
1.2
8.0
6/1
1.0 u
1.1 u
1.4 u
17
140 u
29 u
69 u
36 u
33 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.31 u
0.78
7.6
6/2
0.89 u
0.99 u
1.2 u
12
120 u
25 u
60 u
32 u
28 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
0.29 u
3.5
6.9
6/3
. 0.67 u
0.75 u
0.89 u
1.0 u
93 u
19 u
45 u
24 u
21 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.45
6.7
u = Sample Detection Limit.
-------
TABLE 32. CONCENTRATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN SEDIMENTS AT THE 106-
MILE
Concentration
301(h) Monitoring Parameters (yg/g)
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.23 u
Phenol 1.5 u
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 0.23 u
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.23 u
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.23 u
1,2-Dichlorobenzene • 0.23 u
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether 0.23 u
Hexachlorethane 0.23 u
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0.23 u
Nitrobenzene 0.23 u
Isophorone 0.23 u
2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.23 u
bis(2-Ch1oroethoxy)methane 0.23 u
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.23 u
Naphthalene 0.23 u
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.23 u
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.23 u
2-Chloronaphthalene 0.23 u
Biphenyl 0.23 u
Acenaphthylene 0.23 u
Dimethyl phthalate 0.23 u
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0.23 u
Acenaphthene 0.23 u
Dibenzofuran 0.23 u
Fluorene 0.23 u
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 0.23 u
Diethyl phthalate 0.23 u
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.23 u
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 0.23 u
Diphenylamine 0.23 u
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0.23 u
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 0.23 u
Hexachlorobenzene 0.23 u
Phenanthrene 0.02 j
Anthracene 0.23 u
Dibenzothiophene 0.23 u
Carbazole 0.23 u
Di-n-butyl phthalate 0.23 u
Fluoranthene 0.23 u
Pyrene 0.23 u
Benzidine 0.23 u
Butyl benzyl phthalate 0.23 u
Chrysene 0.23 u
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.23 u
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 0.23 u
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3.5
5-18
-------
TABLE 32. (Continued)
301(h) Monitoring Parameters
Concentration
(yg/g)
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo ( b ) fl uoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo (q,h,i)perylene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Di benzo (a ,h )anthracene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2-Methyl -4 ,6-Di ni trophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
a-BHC
6-BHC
-BHC
-BHC
Aldrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
-Chlordane
Endosulfan I
a-Chlordane
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
4,4'-DDD
Endosulfan sulfate
4, 4 '-DDT
Total Organic Carbon (mg/g)
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
0.23 u
1.5 u
1.5 u
1.5 u
1.5 u
1.5 u
1.5 u
1.5 u
1.5 u
1.5 u
0.13 u
0.063 u
0.034 u
0.030 u
0.00066 u
0.0019 u
0.00075 u
0.00094 u
0.0011 u
0.00094 u
0.0012 u
0.0010 u
0.0013 u
0.0011 u
0.0013 u
0.0014 u
0.0015 u
0.0015 u
0.0023 u
0.0019 u
0.0015 u
0.0014 u
7.2
aRV Oceanus August 1985 Survey: Station A, Replicate 3.
u = Sample Detection Limit.
j = Estimated value. Data indicate the presence of a target compound that
meets the identification criteria, but the result is less than the
specified detection limit.
5-19
-------
TABLE 33. TOTAL NUMBKR OF INVERTEBRATE SPECIES (>300 wm) FOUND IN SIX
BOX CORE S/LMPLES TAKEN AT TWO STATIONS AT THE 106-MILE SITE.
Species
Station F
Station G
CNIDARIA
Hydrozoa
*Egmundella iiuperba
*Monobrachium parasiturn
Hydrozoa sp. 2
Hydromedusa« spp. indeterminate
**Siphonophora spp. indeterminate
Scyphozoa
Coronatae scyphistoma sp. 1
x
1
1
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellaria spp. indeterminate
NEMERTEA
Lineus spp. indeterminate
Micrura sp. 1
Nemertea sp. 2
Nemertea sp, 5
Nemertea sp. A
1
3
9
1 12
6 6
2
14 12
3 9
3 1
9
6
ANNELIDA
Polychaeta
Acrocirridae
Flabelligella cirrata
Ampharetidae
Amphicteis
vestis
Anobothrus igracilis
Anobothrus sp. 1
Melinna cristata
Hugga vahrbergi
Sosanopsis vireni
Ampharetidae spp. juvenile
Ampharetidae spp. indeterminate
Amphinomidae
Paramphinome jeffreysii
1
3
2
1
1
6
1
1
5
5-20
-------
Table 33. Continued.
Species
Chaetopteridae
Phyllochaetopterus sp. 1
Chaetopteridae spp. indeterminate
Chrysopetalidai;
Dysponetus jjp. 4
Cirratulidae
Caulleriella sp. 1
Caulleriella sp. B
Chaetozone :>p. 1
Chaetozone sp. 6
Chaetozone ;;p. 10
Tharyx nr. uonilaris
Tharyx sp. I
Tharyx sp. 9
Cirratulida<> spp. juvenile
Cirratulidae spp. indeterminate
Dorvilleidae
Exallopus sp. 2
Exallopus sp. 3
Ophryotrocha sp. 1
Ophryotrocha sp. 2
Ophryotrocha sp. 3
Ophryotrocha sp. 5
Dorvilleidat; sp. 2
Fauveliopsidae
Fauveliopsij; brevis
Glyceridae
Glycera capita ta
Goniadidae
Goniada norvegica
Goniadidae sspp. juvenile
Hesionidae
Nereimyra sp. 3
Hesionidae sip. 3
Heterospionidac!
Heterospio nr. longissima
Station F
123
1
325
3
462
20 9 9
1
1
6 6
1
2 1
1
2 1
566
543
1
1
1
Station G
123
1
1
1
1
1
331
8 1 6
1
8 8 10
1
274
1
1
2 1
4 1
1
515
734
1
434
214
5-21
-------
Table 33. Continued.
Species
Lacydoniidae
Lacydonia cirrata
Lumbrineridae
Augeneria bid ens
Lumbrineris latreilli
Ninoe nr. bicevipes
Lumbrineridae sp. juvenile
Maldanidae
Clymenura Lmkesteri
Clymenura oolaris
Notoproctus nr. abyssus
Maldanidae sp. 1
Maldanidae sp. 3
Maldanidae spp. juvenile
Nephtyidae
Aglaophamus sp. 1
Aglaophamus sp. 2
Opheliidae
Kesun graviuri
Ophelina abranchiata
Ophelina aulogastrella
Ophelina cylindricaudata
Tachy try pane cf. jeffreysii
Orbiniidae
Orbiniella sp. 1
Orbiniella sp. 2
Orbiniidae spp. juvenile
Oveniidae
Galathovenia sp. 1
Hyriochele cf. heeri
Myriochele sp. 1
Myriochele sp. 4
Station F Station
123 1
1
1 3
3
211
2
1
1
2
1
311
21 1
3
3
1 1
1
1 2
1
1
1
133
1
2 4
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
G
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
5
Oveniidae spp. indeterminate
5-22
-------
Table 33. Continued.
Species
Paraonidae
Aricidea abranchiata
Aricidea catherinae
Aricidea nr. facilis
Aricidea guadrilobata
Aricidea tetrabranchia
Aricidea sp. 4
Aricidea sp. 5
Levinsenia sp. 1
Levensenia sp. 8
Paradoneis abranchiata
Paraonella sp. 1
Sabidius cornatus
Paraonidae spp. indeterminate
Pholoididae
Pholoe anoculata
Phyllodocidae
Mys tides rarica
Protomystides sp. 2
Pilargidae
Ancistrosyllis groenlandica
Syne 1m is sp. 1
Sabellidae
Euchone scotiarum
Euchone sp. 3
Sabellidae sp. 5
Scalibregmatidae
Oligobregma aciculatum
Sclerobregma branchiata
Scalibregmatidae spp. juvenile
Serpulidae
Serpulidae spp. indeterminate
Sigalionidae
Leanira minor
Sigalionidae spp. juvenile
Station F
1
1
3
6
1
1
16
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
1
4
2
5
1
7
3
3
2
3
3
5
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
Station G
1
1
4
1
3
1
1
13
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
6
1
14
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
7
6
16
1
5
1
5-23
-------
Table 33. Continued.
Species Station F Station G
Spionidae
Aurospio dibranchiata
Laonice magnacristata
Laonice sp. 4
Prionospio sp. 1
Prionospio sp. 2
Prionospio sp. 6
Prionospio sp. 11
Prionospio sp. 20
Prionospio sp. 21
Prionospio spp. juvenile
Prionospio spp. indeterminate
Spiophanes sp. 3
Spionidae n. gen. 3
Syllidae
Exogone sp. 1
Syllis sp. 1
1
14
1
11
1
1
1
4
2
2
35
1
20
2
1
3
3
28
1
24
4
4
2
5
1
22
16
1
3'
5
7
1
7
1
2
18
18
1
4
5
4
3
14
19
1
7
1
1
7
1
Trochochaetidac!
Trochochaeta watsoni
Terebellidae
Amphitritinae sp. 1 37
Amphitritinae spp. juvenile 1 1
Terebellidac spp. juvenile 1 11
Tomopteridae
**Tomopteris spp. indeterminate 1
Trichobranchidae
Terebellides sp. 4 1
Terebellides sp. 5 1
Terebellideii spp. juvenile 11 3
Trichobranchidae sp. 5 2
Trichobranchidae spp. juvenile 1 1
Oligochaeta
Adelodrilus fimbriatus 1 22
Crania atlantica 243
Crania sp. 2 1
Phallodrilus grasslei 3 17 23
Tubificoides! aculeatus 961 17 4
Tubificoides: apectinatus 1
Tubificoides' sp. 6 10
Tubificoides spp. juvenile 3 1 13 3
Tubificoides spp. indeterminate 2
5-24
-------
Table 33. Continued.
Species
Station F
Station G
ECHIURA
Echiura sp. 1
Echiura sp. 2
3
2
SIPUNCULA
Aspidosiphon zinni 1
Golfingia (Nephasoma) capilleforme 1
Golfingia (Nephasoma) diaphanes
Golfingia (Nephasoma) flagriferum 8
Golfingia (Apionsoma) murinae 2
Sipuncula spp. juvenile 1 2
2
3
95
3
5
4
8
2
4
1
35
POGONOPHORA
Siboglinum bayeri
Siboglinum pholidotum
Siboglinum sp. 2
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Dactydium sp. 1
Lametila abyssorum
Halletia Johnsoni
Myonera atlantica
Neilonella subovata
Nucula cancellata
Pristogloma alba
Pristogloma nitens
Thyasira croulinensis
Thyasira ferruginea
Thyasira pyigmaea
Thyasira subovata
Xyloredo sp. 1
Yoldiella curta
Gastropoda
Cyclichna vortex
Haliella stenostoma
Retusa obtusa
Gastropoda spp. juvenile
1
10
1
10
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
5
1
3
1
2
7
1
1
5
2
1
1
1
1 8
5
2 3
8 12
1
3
4
1
2
6
8
3
1
2
4
1
5-25
-------
Table 33. Continued.
Species
Station F
123
Station G
123
Scaphopoda
Cadulus spp. indeterminate
Pulsellum affine
Pulsellum verrilli
Aplacophora
Falcidens sp. 4
Spathoderma clenchi
Lepidomeniidae sp. 2
Lepidomeniidae sp. 8
Neomeniidae sp. 3
532
19 7 10
1
2 3
3 3
14 8 10
1 2
1
1 2
ARTHROPODA
Arachnida
Acarina spp. indeterminate
Crustacea
Ostracoda
Myodocopa spp. indeterminate
Euphausiacea
**Meganyc t i phiuies norvegica
**Euphasiacea larvae
Decapoda
**Decapoda zoua
Cumacea
Eudorella spp. indeterminate
Leucon siphonatus
Leucon spp. indeterminate
Cumacea sp. 1
Cumacea sp. 2
Cumacea spp. indeterminate
3 2
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
5-26
-------
Table 33. Continued.
Species Station F
123
Tanaidacea
Agathotanaiis cf. hanseni
Collettea cf. cylindrata
Leptognathia breviremus 3 1
Leptognathia sp. 5 8
Leptognathia sp. 41
Leptognathiella sp. 2 21
Neotanais glganteus
Paranarthrura cf. insignis
Pseudotanais sp. 1
Pseudotanais sp. 2 2
Pseudotanais sp. 3
Pseudotanai:; spp. indeterminate
Siphonolabrum sp. 2 5
Stenotanais sp. 1 2
Typhlotanais sp. 1 31
Typhlotanaiis sp. 3
Typhlotanais trispinosus 2
Leptognathildae spp. indeterminate 2
Isopoda
Chelator insignis
Eurycope cf,, product a
Eurycope spp. juvenile
Eugerda fulcimandibulata
Eugerda spp, indeterminate
Exiliniscus clipeatus
Haplomesus sp. 2
Ilyarachna jjpp. juvenile 1
Macros tylis sp. 2 62
Mirabilicoxa similis
Momedossa sp. 1 1
Oecidiobranchus plebejum
Paramunnopsls sp. 2
Pseudomesus sp. 1
Thambema sp.. 1
Vhoia angusi:a 2
Station G
1
2
1
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
7
1
4
1
2
1
2
3
6
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
Amphipoda
Aceroides sp. 1 1
Leptophoxis sp. 1 11
Listriella sp. 1 1
Lysianassidae sp. 10 1
5-27
-------
Table 33. Continued.
Species Station F Station G
ECHINODERMATA
Echinoidea
Brissopsis sp. 1 • 1
Echinoidea sp. 2 juvenile 1 1
Echinoidea sp. 3 juvenile 1
Echinoidea sp. 4 juvenile 1
Echinoidea spp. indeterminate 1
Ophiuroidea
Amphiura griegi 1
Ophiura ljungmani 223 11
Qphiura sp. 1 juvenile 632 8 11 4
Holothuroidea
Acanthotrocus mirabilis 1 11
Labidoplax buskii 111 12
Myriotrochus bathybius 1
Myriotrochrnae sp. 1 juvenile 3 3 12
CHAETOGNATHA
**Chaetognatha spp. indeterminate
HEMICHORDATA
Enteropneusta sp. 1
Enteropneusta sp. 3
CHORDATA
Urochordata
Ascidiacea
Picarpa simplex
Thaliacea
**Salpa fusiformis
Total number of benthic animals 295 241 249 446 349 317
Total number of benthic species 89 76 83 101 101 101
x - present
* - colonial forms for which counts could not be determined
** - pelagic forms not included in totals of benthic organisms
5-28
-------
Surveys are presented in Table 34. The results of the microbial analysis of
sediments collected on the OSV Anderson August 1984 Survey are presented in
Table 35. A background level of 6 colony forming units (CFU/g dry weight) was
found on the shelf (Stations D2, 03, D14, and Al) and on the slope
(Stations 5, 6, 10, and 11). The levels were elevated along the Hudson, Toms,
and Wilmington Canyons (Stations 1, 2, 4, 12, 15, 16, 17, 07, Oil, and 012),
and on the slope south of the 106-Mile Site (Stations A, B, and C). Total
coliform bacteria were detected on the shelf (Station 12) during the OSV
Anderson August 1984 Survey.
5.3 ENDANGERED SPECIES
A list of endangered or threatened species observed during the three
surveys to the 106-Mile Site from August, 1985 to February, 1986, appears in
Table 36 (From Battelle, !L987a). Figure 5 shows the locations of these
sightings in relation to the 106-Mile Site. The majority of sightings in and
adjacent to the 106-Mile Site included several species of dolphins and
grampus. A small number of fin and pilot whales and the leatherback turtle
were also sighted in the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site during the three
surveys.
5-29
-------
TABLE 34. C1os1;rid1um
DRY HEIGHT OF
SEDIMENT COLLECTED FROM THE 106-MILE
Survey/
Station
OSV Anderson
August 1985
D2
02
02
03
03
03
03
07
07
010
010
010
on
Oil
Oil
012
012
012
"
014
014
014
014
RV Oceanus
August 1985
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
C
C
OSV Anderson
February 1986
Al
Al
Al
Replicate
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
Number of
Assays
2
4
4
Overall!
2
4
4
4
Overall
6
3
Overall
5
6
6
Overall
6
4
4
Overall
2
5
6
Overal 1
4
4
2
4
Overall
2
2
2
Overall
3
2
3
Overall
2
3
3
Overall
2
2
2
Overall
SITE.
X
3.0
7.6
5.1
"TT
2.8
6.0
6.0
11.3
nrr
110.0
150.0
130.0
12.6
9.1
12.3
irr
48.9
28.4
46.4
•4TT
48.9
34.0
26.9
36.6
6.0
5.2
6.5
7.0
6.2
76.4
66.7
223.8
122.3
83.2
70.3
107.5
87.0
74.7
27.0
34.1
-*rr
8.5
6.2
5.5
~rr
cv
7.2
101.0
72.6
1O
20.2
20.1
82.8
78.0
~5O
65.0
21.0
21.8
54.8
73.7
41.7
TO-
SS .8
70.2
100.0
-2TT
4.0
29.0
65.0
"30
47.0
42.0
41.0
41.3
12.4
4.4
39.0
18.5
~7O
61.0
41.0
36.0
22.0
49.0
49.0
45.9
~5O
55.1
0.6
0.8
23.3
All assays treated as a single sample per station.
5-30
-------
TABLE 35. MICROBIAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTS AT THE 106-MILE SITE
(NUMBERS PER GRAM DRY HEIGHT)3
C. perfringens
~~ Spores
Station x° CV Enterocc
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
89
60
16
40
4
7
3
5
6
84
14
120
50
68
aOSV Anderson August 1984
*>C. perfringens. trip!
8.1
24
NA
8.8
.8 NA
.4 NA
.6 NA
.9 NA
.0 23
33
NA
44
3.2
14
Survey. Source:
NA
NA
3.0
NA
NA
1.3
NA
NA
370
6.1
9.3
4.2
3.2
2.7
JRB
Col i form
icci Total Fecal E_. coll
NA
NA
u 3.0 u
NA
NA
u 1.3 u
NA
NA
36
u 6.1 u
u 9.3 u
u 4.2 u
u 3.2 u
u 2.7 u
, (1985).
NA
NA
3.0 u
NA
NA
1.3 u
NA
NA
5.4 u
6.1 u
9.3 u
4.2 u
3.2 u
2.7 u
NA
NA
3.0 u
NA
NA
1.3 u
NA
NA
5.4 u
6.1 u
9.3 u
4.2 u
3.2 u
2.7 u
Antiobiotic
Resistant
Bacteria
NA
NA
3.0 u
NA
NA
16 u
• NA
NA
NA
61 u
93 u
NA
32 u
27 u
icate determinations.
u = Sample Detection Limit.
NA = Not Analyzed.
5-31
-------
TABLE 36. LISTING OF AL1L CETACEAN SPECIES. NUMBERS. AND LOCATIONS OF SIGHTINGS OBSERVED
DURING THREE SURVEYS TO THE 106-NILE SITE
Region/
Subreglo*
106-MILE DUMPS 1TE
18 AUG TO 30 AU6~198S
Souther* New England
Mid-shelf
Outer-shelf
Mid-Atlantic
Near-shel f
Mid-shelf
Outer- shelf
106-MILE DUWSin
9 TO 19 NOY 1985
Souther* Nen England
Mid-shelf
Near-shelf
Mid-shelf
Shelf-break
Slop*
106-MILE MTSITt
5 TO Z4 FEB 1986
Southern NM EM! and
Mid-shelf
Near-shelf
Mid-shelf
Mid-Atlantic
Coastal
Near-shel f
Mid-shelf
Outer-shelf
Slope
linear ka
Surveyed
29.6V
s.ss
184.26
121.76
98.15
19.90
74.08
106.02
29.16
272.70
55.56
90.28
42.13
94.45
195.84
111.58
17.69
337.99
Species
None
None
Leatherback turtle, Oenaoehelys eorlacea
tottlenosed dolphin.
Turslops truneatus
T. truneatus
T. truncatuT
Sloblcephala sp.
Oelphlnldae sp.
DeiphmiHae sp.
Balaenoptere SP.
B. sp.
ff. physalus
I . phrsalus
None
None
Coeaaon dolphin. DelpHlnus del phis
D. delphls
Sratipus. Sranpus arlsnis
8ottlenoied dolphin. Turslops truneatus
T. truneatus
?tr1ped dolphin, Stenella eoeruleoalba
S. eoerul eoal ba "^^~~"~~~
J. coeruleoaTKa
J. eoerul eoaTEa
S. coeruleoalba
(potted dolphin, Stenella sp.
Stenella sp.
5 tent in sp.
Coeaaon dolphin. 0. delphU
0. del phis
Erapus. 6. orlseus
Unldentl fled Delphi n1d
Nora
None
None
None
Fin whale. Balaeneotera physalus
8. phy»«1us
I. physalus
Pilot «haTe, 61ob1eeoha1a spp.
Ftn whale. 8. physalus
Nora
Craapus, Sraapus arlseus
6. arlseus
6. orlseus
?11ot nhale. Slobleephala spp. ••
Sloblcaphala spp.
siripeo doipnln, Stenella coeruleoalba
S. coemleoilba
Dolpnin, unidentified spp.
Rater
1
200
(1)
6
25
3
20
100
1
3
5
1
200
25
3
75
15
IS
75
SO
50
50
50
30
15
100
ISO
3
1
1
3
1
7
I
6
6
3
1
7
30
ISO
30
Bit*
28 Aug 85
22 Aug 85
22 Aug 85
22 Aug 85
25 Aug 85
23 Aug 65
23 Aug 85
21 Aug 85
22 Aug 85
22 Aug 85
22 Aug 85
19 No* 85
» No* 85
If Not 15
14 No* 85
11 No* 85
14 No* 85
14 No* 85
IS No* 85
17 No* 85
18 No* 85
IS No* 85
16 No* 85
17 No* 85
11 No* 85
15 No* 85
10 No* 85
18 No* 85
14 Feb 86
16 Feb 86
16 Feb 86
16 Feb 86
23 Feb 88
10 Feb 86
24 Feb 86
24 Feb 86
23 Feb 86
24 Feb 86
23 Feb 86
24 Feb 86
16 Feb 86
Loeatio*
38048'N, 74017'W
380JS-N, 73»15'»
38032'R, 73017 'M
39014' . 72029'M
38030' . 73026 'U
38031' , 73022'H
38030' , 73026'
38022' , 74020'
38019' , 73029'
38019' , 73029'
38019' , 73029'
40040'N. 71018'H
40004'N. 71039'M
]f048'R. 71041'U
38029'R. 72048'U
38044'N. 72040'U
3S026'N, 73003 'W
38027'N. 73003'H
37052 'N. 73043 'V
38014'N, 73015'M
38049 ' II . 72014'H
37052'N, 73044'H
37051'H. 73033'M
38016'N, 73013'M
380511". 72033 'K
37047' II , 73044 'M
39010'R. 72001 'K
38049'R. 72014'W
38051'R. 74006 'W
38047 'N, 74003 'H
38045'N, 73018 'W
38047'N, 73051 'W
38«48'R. 73002'H
38037'R, 72035'W
38037 'N. 7203S'M
38037'R. 72035'K
380S2'R. 73045 'M
38037'R, 72035'K
38047'N, 72033'U
38037'N, 7203S'H
38044 'N, 72042 'W
5-32
-------
• Sightings on EPA November
1985 NAIS Survey
A Sightings on OOI/MMS November
1985 Mid -Atlantic Survey
Sightings on EPA August/
September 1985 Survey
*®RTB?$3
FIGURE 5. LOCATIONS OF CETACEAN SIGHTINGS FROM NAIS AND THE 106-MILE
SITE SURVEYS. SHADING DENOTES APPROXIMATE AREA COVERED BY THE
THREE SURVEYS.
5-33
-------
6.0 DISCUSSION
6.1 COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH OTHER DATA SETS
6.1.1 Hater
6.1.1.1 MATER QUALITY
The estimates of the productivity of site waters (chlorophyll a:
0.3 ng/L, ATP: 25-70 ng/L) obtained on the February 1986 Survey were similar
to those obtained by NOAA (1977; chlorophyll £: 0.1 to 0.7 ng/L, ATP: 30 to
300 ng/L). The TSS levels at the site appeared to be higher in 1986 (0.5 to
1 ng/L) than in 1977 (0.03 to 0.1 mg/L; NOAA, 1981). However, the technique
used for analysis on the 1986 survey is not sensitive enough to allow
conclusions to be made.
6.1.1.2 TRACE METALS
If the chromium concentrations are corrected for the field blank,
the values on the slope were similar to concentrations reported for the North
Atlantic (Campbell and Yeats, 1981). Iron increased in concentration
(13 ug/L) at the nearshore Station Al. Symes and Kester (1985) found that
iron concentrations decreased from 28 ug/L in the New York Bight to 0.2 ug/L
on the edge of the shelf, suggesting that the elevated levels at Al were due
to offshore transport of the more highly contaminated coastal waters. Cadmium
showed an enrichment in the subthermocline water. This increase, typical for
cadmium in open-ocean water (Wallace et al., 1983), is thought to be due to
desorbtion of the metal from settling particles.
6.1.1.3 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Because of the difficulty in detecting organic compounds at open-
ocean levels, there have been few studies in this area. A study by Battelle
6-1
-------
(1987d) in 1985 at the proposed North Atlantic Incineration Site, located on
the southern edge of the 106-Mile Site, did detect small amounts (1-8 ng/L) of
dissolved naphthalene compounds. Benzofluoranthene, benzo-(a)pyrenes, and
benzo(e)pyrene were also detected in three samples. The benzofluoranthene
concentration was 72 ng/L at a station in the southeast corner of the proposed
incineration site. PCBs (210-960 pg/L) were also detected at three stations
(Battelle, 1987a). These levels were lower than previously reported levels of
PCB in open-ocean North Atlantic water (Harvey and Steinhauer, 1976). The
concentrations of organic compounds in suspended participate matter at the
NAIS site were at or below detection limits (Battelle, 1987a).
6.1.2 Sediments
6.1.2.1 GRAIN SIZE
The results of the grain size, TOC, and metals analyses of site and
adjacent sediments were within the ranges reported by NOAA (1977, 1983) and
Maciolek et al. (1986). The grain-size distributions for slope sediments
ranged between 75 and 95 percent silt-clay. There was one exception, an area
to the southwest of the site (Station 6, OSV Anderson. August 1984 Survey and
one replicate of Station F:, RV Gyre. November 1985 Survey) found to contain
approximately 50 percent sand. This distribution was found when this area was
sampled during the MMS Mid-Atlantic Sampling Program (Maciolek et al., 1986;
Station 12).
The coarse-grain material tends to dominate sediments along seaward
extensions of canyons (NOAA, 1983). This enrichment of coarse material may be
due to bottom currents in the canyons that resuspend and tranport fine-grain
sediments (Shepard, 1973).
6.1.2.2 TRACE METALS
The trace metal content of the fine-grain sediments on the slope was
relatively uniform (Cd: 1.1-1.8 ug/g, Cr: 20-30 yg/g, Cu: 20-30 ug/g, Pb: 8
6-2
-------
to 20 ug/g, and Zn: 40-55 ug/g (NOAA, 1977)). The metal concentrations of the
sediments reported in this document (Tables 29 and 30) were within these
ranges.
6.1.2.3 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
The concentrations of individual PAH compounds ranged from 1 to 100
ng/g in sediments on the slope (Maciolek et al., 1986). These concentrations
are below the detection limits found for the analyses reported in this
document. The MMS Study (Maciolek et al., 1986) reported TOC concentrations
of 8 to 15 mg/g. The TOC concentrations reported in this document were
between 4 and 10 mg/g.
6.1.2.4 BENTHIC INFAUNA
In general, the species compositions at both Stations F and G were
highly similar to those recorded by Maciolek et al. (1986) at the MMS
stations. The infaunal densities of Stations G and F correspond very well
with densities reported from stations sampled at similar depths (2020 to
2500 m) on the Mid-Atlantic slope (Maciolek et al., 1986), and are much higher
than densities reported by Pearce et al. (1977). In the latter study,
screens with coarser mesh than those used in the current study probably
resulted in a loss of many of the small-bodied organisms that constitute the
infauna at these depths.
Aurospio dibranchiata, the dominant species at Station F, was also
reported as the top dominant at the MMS station at 2500 m as well as at
several stations between 2020 and 2195-m depth in the same general area
(Maciolek et al., 1986); at those stations A. dibranchiata also accounted for
7 to 10 percent of the infaunal organisms.
The dominant species at Station G, Aspidosiphon zinni, is common in
slope and rise depths, but has previously been recorded as a dominant only at
mid-slope depths of 1500 to 1600 m (Maciolek et al., 1986). Only three
individuals of this species occurred at Station F, accounting for less than 1
6-3
-------
percent of the fauna. At; the MMS station at 2500 m, A. zlnnl accounted for
1.8 percent of the fauna over a two-year period. The occurrence of this large
burrowing form does not appear to be correlated to total organic carbon in the
sediments nor to grain size.
6.2 DISTRIBUTIONAL TRENDS OF THE MEASURED PARAMETERS
The surface waters of the 106-Mile Site and vicinity was
characterized by two water masses during the February 1986 Survey. The
warmer, more saline Gulf Stream water was above the colder, less saline shelf
water at Stations A3, A5, and A6. Station Al was entirely shelf water,
whereas Stations A2 and A4 were mixtures of the two water masses.
The two water masses had distinct characteristics. The shelf water
(Station Al) was more turbid and highly productive than the Gulf Stream water
(Stations A3, AS, and A6). The shelf water was also more contaminated by some
parameters, e.g., higher concentrations of Fe, PAH, and £. perfringens spores.
The detection of C. perfringens spores and particulate coprostanol is
indicative of the presence of sewage sludge. Although seawater filtrate would
be contain higher levels of PAH and selected pesticides, PAH, pesticide, and
PCB levels were uniformly low in both filtrate and particulate samples.
Except for a-BHC found in all filtrate samples, no contaminant distribution
patterns were evident from these analyses. No significant differences were
seen between shelf and slope, or between surface and subsurface waters.
Metals analyses revealed that cadmium was enriched in subthermocline water due
to desorbtion of particles.
The only sediment parameter to show a trend was the number of C.
perfringens spores. The rnicrobial data indicated that the spores may be
transported down the Hudson Canyon and out onto the continental slope (RV Gyre
August 1985 Survey, Stations A, B, and C). This observation is substantiated
by the detection of spores in the bottom water. The reproducibility of the
measurements can be demonstrated by comparing the results found at one site in
1984 (Station 12, 61 CFU/cj dry weight) with the results from 1985 (Station 11,
41 CFU/g dry weight).
6-4
-------
6.3 CONCLUSIONS
The analyses reported in this document establish the baseline
conditions at the 106-Mile Site. In general, the environmental conditions
measured at the 106-Mile Site are similar to those in other slope areas. This
similarity allows comparisons between these areas and the 106-Mile Site to
determine changes in environmental conditions.
The 106-Mile Si1:e is subject to the transport of contaminants from
the coast. Sediment particles from the shelf may be transported down canyons
out onto the slope. The occurrence of C. perfringens spores and DDT in the
sediments near the Hudson Canyon may be due to this process. A previous study
(Battelle, 1987d) found that DDT could be traced from the 12-Mile Dumpsite
down the Hudson Canyon. The 12-Mile Dumpsite is also the most likely source
of C. perfringens spores.
Discernible differences between shelf and slope water seen during
these surveys suggests that contaminants may also be introduced to the 106-
Mile Site during overruns of the more contaminated shelf waters. Shelf water
contained significantly higher levels of the fecal tracers, C_. perfringens and
coprostanol, and contained higher levels of total iron than slope water.
Levels of most contaminants in seawater at the 106-Mile Site are at or near
detection levels. Because of the lack of any organic contaminants found in
seawater particulates in these background samples, and because of the
association of sludge contaminants with particulate matter, particulate
sampling may have great utility for monitoring the fate of sludge at the site.
Monitoring must address the fact that environmental conditions in
the water column at this site are dependent on the water mass present at the
time of sampling. The highly variable nature of the water column and the
potential transport of sediments into the 106-Mile Site emphasize the
importance of farfield monitoring. The occurrence of long-term environmental
degradation may be due to transport of contaminants into the 106-Mile Site,
rather than due to ocean dumping.
6-5
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
APHA. 1985. Standard Methods of Water and Wastewater Analysis. 16th
Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
1267 pp.
Battelle. 1987a. Analytical Results of Samples Collected During the 1985
North Atlantic Incineration Site (MAIS) Survey. A report submitted
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-
03-3319, Work Assignment 5. 184 pp.
Battelle. 1987b. Analytical Procedures in Support of the 106-Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sludg« Site Monitoring Program. An Analytical Quality
Assurance Plan submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract Ho. 68-03-3319, Work Assignment 21. 19 pp.
Battelle. 1987c. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Document for the
106-Mile Deepwater Dumpsite Monitoring Program. A Field Quality
Assurance Manual submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319, Work Assignment 45. 11 pp.
Battelle. 1987d. Organic: and Grain Size Analyses for New York Bight
Sediments Collected During the September 1986 Research Cruise. A
report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-03-3319, Work Assignment 38. 20 pp.
Battelle, 1987e. Final Draft Monitoring Plan for the-106-Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Site. A report submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319, Work Assignment 22.
81 pp.
Cabelli, V.J. and D. Pedersen. 1982. The movement of sewage sludge from the
New York Bight dumpsite as seen from Clostridium perfringens spore
densities. In: Marine Pollution Papers, Ocean '82, NOAA, Office of
Marine Pollution Assessment, pp. 995-1000.
Campbell, J.A. and P.A. Yeats. 1981. Dissolved chromium in the northwest
Atlantic Ocean. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 53:427-433.
Cranston, R.C. and J.W. Murray. 1977. The determination of chromium species
in natural waters. Anal. Chim. Acta 99:275-282.
EPA. 1980. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 106-Mile Ocean Waste
Disposal Site Designation. Final Report. Oil and Special Materials
Control Division, Marine Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Fitzgerald, W.F. and 6.A. Gill. 1979. Subnanogram determination of mercury
by two-stage gold amalgamation and gas phase detection applied to
atmospheric analysis. Anal. Chem. 51:1719-1720.
7-1
-------
Harvey, G.R. and W.G. Steinhauer. 1976. Transport pathways of
polychlorinated biphenyls in Atlantic water. Journal of Marine
Research, Volume 34(4):561-575.
JRB. 1985. Sampling and Analysis Support to the Summer, 1984 106-Mile Site
Baseline Survey. A Report submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-6388. Work
Assignment 86. 40 pp.
Maciolek, N., J.F. Grasslu, B. Hecker, P.O. Boehm, B. Brown, B. Oade, W.G.
Steinhauer, E. Baptiste, R.E. Ruff, and R. Petrecca. 1986. Study
of the Biological Processes on the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Slope and Rise.
A draft final report submitted to the U.S. Department of the
Interior Minerals Management Service under Contract No. 14-12-0001-
30064. 314 pp. plus Appendices A-M.
NOAA. 1975. May 1974 Baseline Investigation of Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA
Dumpsite Evaluation Report 75-1. . 388 pp.
NOAA. 1977. Baseline Report on Environmental Conditions in Deepwater
Dumpsite 106. Volumes I-III. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1.
798 pp.
NOAA. 1981. Assessment Report on the Effects of Waste Dumping in 106-Mile
Ocean Waste Disposal Site. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 81-1.
319 pp.
NOAA. 1983. 106-Mile Site Characterization Update. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-
F/NEC-26.
Pearce, J.B., J.V. Caracciolo, and F. Steimle. 1977. Final Report on Benthic
Infauna of the Cieepwater Dumpsite-106 and Adjacent Areas. Pp 465-
480 In: Baseline Report on Environmental Conditions in Deepwater
Dumpsite-106. MOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1.
Shepard, F.P. 1973. Submarine Geology. Harper & Row, New York, NY. 517 pp.
Symes, J.L. and D.R. Kester. 1985. The distribution of iron in the Northwest
Atlantic. Mar. Chem. 17:57-74.
Tetra Tech. 1986. Analytical Methods for U.S. EPA Priority Pollutants and
301(h) Pesticides in Estuarine and Marine Sediments. Final Report
to Marine Operations Division, Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
Wallace, G.T., N. Dudak, R. Dulmage, and 0. Mahony. 1983. Trace element
distributions in the Gulf Stream adjacent to the southeastern
Atlantic continental shelf influence of atmospheric and shelf water
inputs. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40(Suppl. 2):183-191.
Zeller, R.W. and T.A. Wastlier. 1986. Tiered Ocean Disposal Monitoring Will
Minimize Data Requirements. Oceans '86, Volume 3, Monitoring
Strategies Symposium. 6 pp.
7-2
------- |