Pugef Sound Estuary Program
USER'S MANUAL FOR THE
POLLUTANT OF CONCERN MATRIX
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED BY:
TETRA TECH, INC.
PREPARED FOR:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X - OFFICE OF PUGET SOUND
AUGUST 1986
-------
TC3991-08
Task 6
Final Report
USER'S MANUAL FOR
POLLUTANT OF CONCERN MATRIX
by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X - Office of Puget Sound
Seattle, Washington
August, 1986
Tetra Tech, Inc.
11820 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98005
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF TABLES v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND 1
ORGANIZATION OF USER'S MANUAL 2
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MATRIX 4
SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS 5
Sources of Information 5
Selection Criteria 5
DESCRIPTORS USED IN THE MATRIX 7
Matrix Table 1: Status and Analytical Considerations 7
Matrix Table 2: Criteria, Guidelines, and Regulatory
Action Levels 12
Matrix Table 3: Sources of Pollutants 22
Matrix Table 4: Characteristics and Sinks 28
Matrix Table 5: Concentrations in Puget Sound 38
DATA MANAGEMENT 41
APPROACH 41
Implementation Using Lotus 1-2-3 41
System Upgrade to dBASE III 42
OVERVIEW OF MATRIX SYSTEM 43
System Configuration 43
HOW TO ACCESS MATRIX DATA ON LOTUS 1-2-3 45
File Structure 45
Loading Lotus 1-2-3 46
Accessing the Worksheet Files 47
Paging through the Files 49
Printing Copies of the Matrix 51
Transferring (Downloading) Data to Other Systems 53
Exiting Lotus 55
UPDATING THE MATRIX 55
REFERENCES 56
11
-------
APPENDIX A: CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN PUGET SOUND A-l
APPENDIX B: MATRIX FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN B-l
APPENDIX C: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION C-l
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Flowchart of tasks for completion of "pollutants of
concern" matrix 3
IV
-------
TABLES
(APPENDIX B)
Number Page
1 Status and analytical considerations for pollutants of
concern B-l
2 Criteria, guidelines, and regulatory action levels for
pollutants of concern B-4
3 Sources of pollutants B-10
4 Characteristics and sinks for pollutants of concern B-13
5 Concentrations in Puget Sound B-19
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. under the direction
of Mr. Robert C. Barrick, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-1977. Or. Thomas C. Ginn was
Program Manager. Ms. Sally Hanft of U.S. EPA was the Project Officer and
Mr. John Underwood of U.S. EPA was Project Monitor. Mr. Bill Yake, Washington
Department of Ecology, provided the concept for the matrix and valuable
comments on the draft report from which this report was developed.
Primary authors of this report were Ms. Julia F. Wilcox and Ms. Nancy
A. Musgrove. Technical assitance was provided by Ms. Karen L. Keeley and
Mr. Pieter N. Booth. Ms. Theresa M. Wood assisted in technical editing
and report production.
VI
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent studies by federal, state, and local agencies have identified
adverse biological conditions associated with contaminants in some areas
of Puget Sound. Permit writers, resource managers, reviewers of environmental
impact statements (EIS), and others involved in environmental decision-
making are faced with the task of assessing a wide variety of information
to deal with the pollution problems. The pollutant of concern matrix was
developed to handle the needs of a diverse group of users. The matrix,
in five tables, summarizes information about 52 pollutants of concern.
It is expected that users will have different information needs that will
be handled by this compilation.
The Lotus spreadsheet data system allows easy updating and distribution
of the matrix. The five matrix tables reside on a floppy disk. A hard
copy is found in Appendix B in the following order:
Table 1: Status and Analytical Considerations for Pollutants of Concern
Table 2: Criteria, Guidelines, Regulatory Action Levels for Pollutants
of Concern
Table 3: Sources of Pollutants
Table 4: Characteristics and Sinks for Pollutants of Concern
Table 5: Concentrations in Puget Sound.
The matrix is schedulexl to be updated and expanded to 100 chemicals
next year. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X - Office
of Puget Sound is seeking user's comments on the matrix and suggestions
concerning potential improvements or additional chemicals to be included.
-------
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND/ORGANIZATION
Revision: August 15, 1986
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Recent studies by federal, state, and local agencies have found that
significant adverse biological conditions are associated with contaminated
sediments in some areas of Puget Sound (i.e., Commencement Bay, Elliott
Bay, Eagle Harbor, Everett Harbor, and the Duwamish River). These studies
have been performed by or for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Washington Department of Ecology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Seattle District,
and Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). A limited number of
chemicals of concern were listed as part of a U.S. EPA Region X project
to quantify pollutant loadings into Puget Sound. This list was circulated
for review to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) and the Implementation
Committee of the Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP). Review comments from
Washington Department of Ecology suggested development of a pollutant matrix.
A conceptual design of the matrix was submitted with these comments (Yake,
W., 3 January 1986, personal communication).
PSEP agreed that the approach was useful and sponsored work to complete
the matrix table according to the following steps:
• Define and justify the information to be included for all
chemicals in the final matrix
• Define and justify a list of 100 pollutants to be eventually
included in the matrix
-------
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND/ORGANIZATION
Revision: August 15, 1986
• Develop a draft user's manual that describes the matrix
and its use
• Complete a draft matrix for at least 50 chemicals
• Revise the matrix table and a draft user's manual according
to technical comments received from the U.S. EPA and outside
reviewers.
The relationship of this report (Task 6) to the project as a whole is shown
in Figure 1. The information in the matrix resulting from this work assignment
is expected to have many uses. These uses include a reference for permit
writers, reviewers, and inspectors; an aid for the design and execution
of field investigations and monitoring efforts; and a resource for agency
personnel in evaluating environmental conditions and potential impacts.
Existing data gaps apparent upon "completion" of the matrix will help identify
future research needs.
ORGANIZATION OF USER'S MANUAL
The structure of the matrix is described in the next section. Criteria
used to select pollutants of concern are indicated and descriptors (i.e.,
column headings and codes) are explained. Examples of how data for one
chemical [i.e., benzo(a)pyrene] may be interpreted from each of the five
matrix tables are also given. The approach for managing data within the
matrix is described in the subsequent section. File structure, data types,
procedures for accessing data, and matrix update procedures are described.
-------
Taskl
Task 2
TaskS
Task 4
TaskS
Tasks
Conceptual Matrix
Develop Work Plan
Define Matrix Columns
Define Matrix Rows
Define Data Systems
Prepare Draft Matrix and
Draft Users Manual
Technical Review Meeting
Produce Final Matrix
and Users Manual
Figure 1. Flowchart of tasks for completion of "pollutants of concern"
matrix.
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
POLLUTANTS
Revision: August 15, 1986
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MATRIX
The conceptual matrix drafted by Washington Department of Ecology
was used to determine column headings (i.e., the types of information presented
for each contaminant). Further revisions were based on written or verbal
comments from PSEP TAG and Implementation Committee members. Committee
members from the following agencies provided comments:
• Fisheries and Oceans (Canada)
• Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro)
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA/NMFS)
Ocean Assessment Division (NOAA/OAD)
• Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA)
• University of Washington (UW)
College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences (UW/COFS)
Puget Sound Institute (UW/PSI)
Institute for Marine Studies (IMS)
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
Office of Puget Sound
• Washington Department of Ecology
• Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF)
t Washington Department of Game (WDG)
• Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
• Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS)
• Western Washington University.
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
POLLUTANTS
Revision: August 15, 1986
SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS
Sources of Information
A list of over 100 inorganic and organic contaminants of potential
concern in Puget Sound was compiled for possible inclusion in the matrix
(Appendix A, Tables Al and A2). These contaminants were chosen from the
U.S. EPA priority pollutant list, other lists compiled specifically for
Puget Sound (e.g., Konasewich et al. 1982; Quinlan et al. 1985; Jones and
Stokes 1983), results of workshops held by PSEP and the Puget Sound Dredged
Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) to establish procedures for environmental analysis
of inorganic and organic contaminants (Tetra Tech 1986a,b), and results
of various field investigations in Puget Sound (e.g., Gahler et al. 1982;
Malins 1980; Romberg et al. 1984; Tetra Tech 1985a). Experts in various
fields (e.g., from the PSEP TAG) were also consulted during preparation
of the list. In addition to the individual compounds listed, three "groups
of compounds" are recommended for inclusion in the matrix: high molecular
weight polyaromatic hydrocarbons (HPAH), low molecular weight polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (LPAH), and total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (rather
than individual Aroclors or PCB congeners). Fifty-two chemicals were chosen
from this list of 100 for inclusion in the matrix (see Appendix Table A3).
Selection Criteria
Criteria used to determine if a chemical is of concern include high
toxicity (measured in laboratory studies), high environmental persistence,
high bioaccumulation potential, high measured water column concentration,
existence of known sources, high concentration relative to sediments from
Puget Sound reference areas, or widespread distribution in Puget Sound.
The last two criteria were evaluated with data from Romberg et al . (1984),
Tetra Tech (1985a), and Malins et al. (1982). Selection of additional
contaminants to be included in the matrix will be based on similar criteria.
5
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
POLLUTANTS
Revision: August 15, 1986
Known toxic contaminants for which few environmental data are available
for Puget Sound, but which may be of concern (e.g., chlorinated dibenzofurans
and chlorinated guaiacols), were included in the initial list of 100 chemicals.
These contaminants generally received lower priority for inclusion in the
matrix of 52 chemicals. However, some of these chemicals with few data
are included in the matrix (e.g., organotins and polychlorinated dioxins)
because of sufficient public or agency concern over the potential impact
that these extremely toxic chemicals may have in Puget Sound. Inclusion
of these chemicals with few data indicates gaps in our present knowledge
of toxic pollutants in Puget Sound.
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 1
Revision: August 15, 1986
DESCRIPTORS USED IN THE MATRIX
Printouts of the five matrix tables are included in Appendix B. The
information provided in each matrix table is explained in this section
along with any codes or footnotes used. References are also cited for
information found in each column.
Matrix Table 1: Status and Analytical Considerations
The regulatory status and general analytical considerations are reviewed
in Table 1 of the matrix.
Column 1—
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified 65 categories of "priority
pollutants" (including 126 specific chemical substances to be the focus
for regulation under the Clean Water Act). Because of their status as
"priority pollutants," these chemicals are most frequently analyzed for
in environmental matrices. The U.S. EPA also requires the analysis of
additional hazardous substance list compounds by their contract laboratories
participating in Superfund work.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 1 of Table 1:
P = Chemical is currently on the U.S. EPA Priority Pollutant List
H = Chemical is on the U.S. EPA Hazardous Substance List (HSL) and
routinely analyzed by U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
although not a priority pollutant
N = Chemical is neither a U.S. EPA priority pollutant, nor other
routinely analyzed HSL compound.
7
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 1
Revision: August 15, 1986
References—The list of the "priority pollutants" is found in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40: Part 401.15. The list of
additional HSL compounds analyzed by U.S. EPA CLP is found in U.S. EPA
(1984a).
Columns 2, 3, and 4—
The availability of analytical methods for three matrices (i.e., water,
sediment, and tissue) are listed in Columns 2, 3, and 4. PSEP has developed
protocols for analysis of many toxic pollutants, including most of the
U.S. EPA priority pollutants. For some pollutants, existing U.S. EPA methods
were adopted by PSEP (e.g., metals in water). At least one class of pollutants
included in the matrix (i.e., organotin complexes) involve analytical procedures
that are not routinely available.
Codes—The following codes are used in for Columns 2, 3, and 4 of
Table 1:
P = Work routinely performed by commercial laboratories for which
PSEP protocols are available
E = Work routinely performed by commercial laboratories for which
PSEP protocols are not yet available (e.g., standard U.S. EPA
procedures for the analysis of water and wastes have not been
specifically included in the PSEP protocols)
S = Work could be performed upon special request while using existing
protocols
N = Work requiring special equipment or procedures that are not generally
available
8
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 1
Revision: August 15, 1986
Blank spaces indicate that insufficient information is available
to complete the cell.
References—Sources of information for Columns 2, 3, and 4 include
Tetra Tech (1986a,b) and U.S. EPA (1983a; 1984a,b). Additional summary
information on the PSEP protocols for analyses of organic compounds is
presented in Table Cl of Appendix C.
Columns 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10—
Detection limits for analysis of pollutants will vary depending on
the method used and level of interferences present. Columns 5 through
10 provide both "high" and "low" detection limits for three matrices (i.e.,
water, sediment, and tissue). The terms "high" and "low" are used in this
context as general descriptive terms meant only to categorize two differing
levels of detection. These levels typically correspond to particular methods
or detection limits recommended by PSEP. Protocols dedicated to analysis
of individual contaminants or groups of contaminants may yield lower detection
limits. Some screening techniques may yield detection limits above those
shown in the "high" column. Individual project goals must be considered
when choosing target detection limits.
Footnotes—The following codes are used in Columns 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
and 10.
G = Detection limits for LPAH and HPAH are based on the detection
limit of a single compound. If PCBs are measured as Aroclors,
the detection limit is that for a representative Aroclor.
A blank indicates that insufficient information is available
to complete the cell.
9
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 1
Revision: August 15, 1986
References—"High-level" detection limits for water samples are listed
in Column 5. These were obtained from the U.S. EPA CLP for multimedia
analysis of inorganic pollutants (U.S. EPA 1985a) and organic pollutants
(U.S. EPA 1984a). "Low-level" detection limits in Column 6 are from the
PSEP inorganic protocol (Tetra Tech 1986a), the Quality Assurance Management
Plan for Remedial Investigations conducted by the Washington Department
of Ecology (Tetra Tech 1985) and Metro (1981).
"High-level" detection limits in sediments are listed in Column 7.
For inorganic analyses, these were derived from the U.S. EPA CLP (U.S. EPA
1985a). For organics, these detection limits correspond to those that
are the lowest routinely available through the U.S. EPA CLP and are equivalent
to the "screening level" recommended by PSEP (Tetra Tech 1986b). "Low-level"
detection limits in Column 8 are in accordance with those attainable using
recommended PSEP protocols (Tetra Tech 1986a,b).
A single level of detection limits for tissues is provided in Column 9.
These levels are in accordance with those recommended by PSEP (Tetra Tech
1986a,b). Detection limits for plant tissue, Column 10, has not yet been
completed.
Example: Benzo(a)pyrene is a U.S. EPA priority pollutant with analytical
methods available for samples of water, sediment, and tissues. The water
method for benzo(a)pyrene is" a standard U.S. EPA procedure for the analysis
of water and waste waters not yet included in the PSEP protocols. Draft
sediment and tissue protocols are available for benzo(a)pyrene through
PSEP (Tetra Tech 1986b). These protocols allow the use of different analytical
techniques according to a consistent set of quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) procedures.
10
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 1
Revision: August 15, 1986
In water, the analytical detection limit for benzo(a)pyrene in high-level
analyses is 10 ug/L (i.e., parts per billion) for routine analyses of 1-liter
samples by the U.S. EPA CLP. Low-level detection limits (i.e., 1 ug/L)
can be obtained through special anlaytical service requests. High- and
low-level detection limits are also available for benzo(a)pyrene in sediment
samples depending on the specification of routine (e.g., U.S. EPA CLP)
or more specialized analyses. The low-level detection limit of 5 ug/kg
dry weight shown in Table 1 for benzo(a)pyrene is within the range of <1
to 50 ug/kg detection limits possible by different analytical procedures.
Low-level detection limits are always recommended for analyses of benzo(a)pyrene
in tissue samples (e.g., 10 ug/kg wet weight). Analyses of benzo(a)pyrene
in plant samples are not addressed in Table 1 because detection limits
for plant tissue have not been compiled.
11
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 2
Revision: August 15, 1986
Matrix Table 2; Criteria. Guidelines, and Regulatory Action Levels
Criteria, guidelines, and regulatory action levels for drinking water,
ambient water, sediment, and animal tissue are summarized in Table 2 of
the matrix.
Column 1—
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, U.S. EPA promulgates Recommended
Maximum Contaminant Levels (RMCLs) for drinking water, which are non-enforceable
health goals. RMCLs are set at a level at which no known or anticipated
adverse effects on the health of persons occur and that allows an adequate
margin of safety. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are enforceable standards
and are set as close to RMCLs as is feasible. MCLs are based upon treatment
technologies, affordability; and other feasibility factors. Some of the
values in the matrix are proposed or not yet final, and have been indicated
as such. Secondary MCLs control aesthetic qualities such as odor.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 1 of Table 2:
R = Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL), non-enforceable
health goals
M = Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), enforceable standards
P = Proposed value
( ) = Secondary RMCL
Blank spaces indicate that no MCLs or RMCLs are proposed or exist.
12
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 2
Revision: August 15, 1986
References—Primary and secondary drinking water regulations are found
in 40 CFR Part 141 and Part 143, respectively. Proposed and recently finalized
RMCLs and MCLs were published in the Federal Register (U.S. EPA 1985b).
Columns 2, 3, 4, and 5—
Ambient water quality criteria documents are published and updated
periodically by the U.S. EPA. These criteria reflect the latest scientific
knowledge on identifiable effects of pollutants on the public health, freshwater
and saltwater aquatic life, and recreation. The available acute and chronic
criteria are summarized and presented for freshwater and saltwater aquatic
life.
Codes—The following codes are used to clarify information provided
in Columns 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Table 2:
( ) = Where insufficient data are available to derive criteria, concen-
trations representative of apparent threshold levels for acute
and/or chronic toxic effects are described in the U.S. EPA criteria
documents. These concentrations, along with associated narrative
descriptions, are intended to convey some information about the
degree of toxicity of a pollutant in the absence of established
criteria. These concentrations are shown in parentheses. A
calculated criteria concentration would likely be lower than
this value. In some instances, the documents provide separate
toxicity concentrations for algae. These have not been included
in this table.
H = Freshwater quality criteria for some chemicals are a function
of hardness. The relationship is not linear and the equations
specific to each chemical are found in the criteria documents.
For this table, a criteria concentration based on a hardness
13
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 2
Revision: August 15, 1986
value of 50 mg/L calcium carbonate is provided. Exact criteria
values must be calculated from the equations.
* = Where two values are provided for chromium, the first is for trivalent
chromium (III) and the second is for hexavalent chromium (VI).
Blank spaces indicate that no criteria or toxicity thresholds
are available in the water quality criteria documents.
References—The ambient water quality criteria documents are published
and updated by U.S. EPA. Table 2 data were obtained from the Red Book
(U.S. EPA 1976) and the Water Quality Criteria documents announced in the
Federal Register (U.S. EPA 1980, 1985c).
Columns 6 and 7—
Human health effects presented in the ambient water quality documents
are summarized in Columns 6 and 7. Values in the carcinogen column ("Cancer
Risk") reflect estimates of ambient water concentrations of known or suspected
carcinogens that represent a one in one million (10 ) incremental cancer
risk. The 10~6 incremental cancer risk was chosen for presentation because
it represents the mid-range of values presented by U.S. EPA in the water
quality criteria documents. The no-effect (toxicity) or specified risk
(cancer) concentrations for noncarcinogens were estimated by extrapolation
from animal toxicity or human epidemiological studies using the following
assumptions: a 70-kg man as the exposed individual, and an average daily
consumption of freshwater and estuarine fish and shellfish products equal
to 6.5 g/day. Criteria based on these assumptions are estimated to be
protective of an adult male who experiences average exposure conditions.
The 65 ambient water quality documents provide a wealth of information
on contaminants. The summaries provided in the matrix are not meant as
a replacement for these documents.
14
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 2
Revision: August 15, 1986
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 6 and 7 of Table 2:
The U.S. EPA water quality criteria documents contain criteria
based on the-human health effects associated with exposure from
consumption of fish and shellfish that are assumed to have biocon-
centrated pollutants from the water in which they live. The
criteria concentrations were estimated using the following assump-
tions: a 70-kg man as the exposed individual, and an average
daily consumption of freshwater and estuarine fish and shellfish
products equal to 6.5 g/day. The calculated concentrations presented
in the "Cancer Risk" column are associated with an estimated
1 in 1 million incremental cancer risk. For noncarcinogens,
the "Toxicity" column displays the calculated concentration expected
to protect humans from adverse effects.
# = Analysis of the toxic effects data resulted in a calculated value
comparable to the existing drinking water standard. No criterion
was calculated based solely on the consumption of seafood. The
drinking water standard is shown.
* = Where two values are provided for chromium, the first is for
trivalent chromium (III) and the second is for hexavalent chromium
(VI).
Blank spaces indicate that no human health data are available
in the water quality criteria documents.
References—The information for Columns 6 and 7 is found in the ambient
water quality documents announced in the Federal Register (U.S. EPA 1980).
15
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 2
Revision: August 15, 1986
Column 8—
Some interim guidelines were recently developed for assessing sediment
quality. Battelle and the Standards and Criteria Division of U.S. EPA
are developing, from a national database, what were originally termed "probable
no-effects levels" (PNEL) and are now termed "screening level concentrations"
(SLC). The presence of a given benthic species is correlated to sedimentary
contaminant concentrations to determine the minimum concentration for a
given chemical compound that was not exceeded in 90 percent of the samples
containing the species. This process is carried out for numerous species
and a "screening level concentration" is determined (Battelle 1985a; Battelle
1986). Nine values (normalized to organic carbon content) are available
for organic compounds in marine sediments and are listed in Column 8.
Footnotes—The following footnotes are used in Column 8 of Table 2:
(d) = The screening level concentrations (SLC) are expressed as ug/kg
organic carbon. For comparison purposes only, dry-weight values
in parentheses are calculated by multiplying the SLC values by
the average organic carbon content in Puget Sound (i.e., 2 percent)
expressed as a decimal fraction. The dry-weight values calculated
in this manner are not the same values that would be derived if the
SLC approach were applied to dry-weight concentrations for individual
data points. Hence, these values should not be used as guidelines.
Also, the developers of the SLC approach only recommend using
data normalized to organic carbon content for determining SLC.
Blank spaces indicate that no SLC value has been established.
Reference—The SLC values (normalized to organic carbon content) are
from a memorandum to U.S. EPA regarding the status of U.S. EPA's sediment
quality criteria effort (Tobin, P., 28 May 1986, personal communication).
16
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 2
Revision: August 15, 1986
Columns 9, 10, 11, and 12—
Other interim guidelines called apparent effect thresholds (AET) have
been developed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Tetra Tech 1986c).
These AET were derived using chemical and biological data from several
Puget Sound investigations. The AET in Columns 9, 10, and 11 are based
on toxicity data from the amphipod bioassay, the oyster larvae bioassay,
and the Microtox bioassay respectively- AET in Column 12 are based on
effects as measured by abundances of benthic infauna. The AET are defined
as the concentration above which significant biological effects are predicted
to occur in sediments.
Codes—The following codes are used in Columns 9 through 12 of Table 2:
> = Indicates that an AET has not been established (i.e., the value
shown is the highest concentration found at a non-impacted station
and no higher concentrations have been documented)
Blank spaces indicate that AET have not been established, usually
because insufficient data are available.
References—The data used by Tetra Tech (1986c) in developing AET
are from Battelle (1985), Chan et al. (1985a,b), Osborn et al . (1985),
Romberg et al. (1984), Tetra Tech (1985b), and U.S. Navy (1985).
Column 13—
Washington Department of Ecology Dangerous Waste Regulations are generally
dependent upon volume generated as well as chemical and physical character-
istics of waste. Although the numeric criteria are not easily adapted
to the matrix format, the Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303) do
17
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 2
Revision: August 15, 1986
list the reasons for designation of a discarded chemical product as either
dangerous waste (DW) or extremely hazardous waste (EHW), and categories
of reportable quantities. This information has been coded into the table
where data are available. Chemicals that are not specifically listed or
designated may still be classified as EHW or DW by the regulations.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 13 of Table 2:
EHW = Extremely hazardous waste
DW = Dangerous waste
X = Toxic, Category X
A = Toxic, Category A
B = Toxic, Category B
C = Toxic, Category C
D = Toxic, Category D
H = Persistent, halogenated compound
0 = Corrosive
P = Persistent, PAH
18
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 2
Revision: August 15, 1986
+ = International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) animal or
human, positive or suspected carcinogen
I = Ignitable
R - Reactive
EP = Extraction procedure toxicity
Blank spaces indicate that the chemical is not specifically listed
in the regulations.*
References—The information in Column 13 was compiled from the Dangerous
Waste Regulations (Washington Department of Ecology 1984). These regulations
incorporate by reference the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health's (NIOSH) Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances and
U.S. EPA Spill Table (40 CFR 117.3).
Columns 14 and 15—
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established action levels
for a limited number of contaminants in seafood (i.e., fish and shellfish).
These levels are listed in Column 14 under the heading "Animal Tissue."
These administrative guidelines, when exceeded, may trigger FDA to investigate
the area where the seafood was raised or caught. A range of legal limits
for seafood established by other countries is provided in Column 15 of
Table 2.
Footnotes—The following footnotes describe the information in Columns 14
and 15 of Table 2:
19
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 2
Revision: August 15, 1986
(g) = The ranges shown represent legal limits established by other
countries for edible marine organisms. The values were compiled
by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
Blank spaces indicate that no value is available.
References—The U.S. FDA action levels have been compiled from U.S. FDA
documents (U.S. FDA 1982, 1984). Nauen (1983) compiled a summary of legal
limits for other countries for the Food and Agricultural organization of
the United Nations.
Columns 16 and 17—
A measure of toxicological potency is derived by U.S. EPA from the
dose-response relationship for a chemical of concern using a data set for
the most sensitive species. Carcinogens are characterized by a Carcinogenic
Potency Factor, a measure of the cancer-causing potential of a substance.
Noncarcinogens are characterized by a Reference Dose (RfD) value, the highest
average daily exposure over a lifetime that would not be expected to cause
adverse effects. Both Carcinogenic Potency Factors and RfD are provided
in Columns 16 and 17, respectively, of Table 2.
Codes—The following codes are used in Columns 16 and 17 of Table 2:
C = A plot of lifetime cancer risk vs. concentration in seafood is
found in Appendix C
N = Not considered a carcinogen via dietary exposure
* = Where two values are provided for chromium, the first is for
trivalent chromium (III) and the second is for hexavalent chromium
(VI)
20
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 2
Revision: August 15, 1986
Blank spaces indicate that neither an RfD or a carcinogenic potency
factor are available.
References—The data summaries and the risk curves in Appendix C are
found in Tetra Tech (1986d,e), which summarized the information from U.S. EPA
(1980, 1986).
Example: No U.S. EPA drinking water standards or ambient water criteria
have been set for benzo(a)pyrene. Some information is available for PAH,
a group of compounds on the U.S. EPA priority pollutant list that includes
benzo(a)pyrene. These data include water concentrations described in U.S. EPA
criteria documents as apparent threshold levels for acute or chronic toxic
effects on marine organisms (300 ug/L), and an estimate of the 10 incremental
cancer risk (33.1 ng/L) to humans by consumption of contaminated seafood.
A U.S. EPA AET values for benzo(a)pyrene in sediments is not yet available.
Apparent effects threshold values for benzo(a)pyrene in sediments are available
for different biological effects indicators based on Puget Sound field
investigations and range from 1,600 to 6,800 ug/kg dry-weight sediment.
The Washington Department of Ecology Hazardous Waste Regulations classify
benzo(a)pyrene as Category X for reportable quantity purposes. Benzo(a)pyrene
is a "persistant, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon" and a "suspected or
proven animal or human carcinogen." There are no U.S. FDA or other legal
limits for benzo(a)pyrene in tissue samples.
21
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 3
Revision: August 15, 1986
Matrix Table 3; Sources of Pollutants
Major known sources of contamination around Puget Sound are listed
in Table 3 of the matrix. Municipal and industrial discharges are the
two main categories of point sources.
Column 1—
For municipal discharges, chemicals are classified according to their
frequency of detection (i.e., detected in >25 percent of samples analyzed,
<25 percent of samples, or not detected). When results for less than five
samples were available, no estimate of the frequency of detection is given.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 1 of Table 3:
A = Chemical occurs in >25 percent of samples from Puget Sound municipal
discharges
B = Chemical occurs in <25 percent of samples from Puget Sound municipal
discharges
C = Chemical not detected based on available information
Blank spaces indicate that insufficient information (i.e., less
than five samples) are available to categorize.
References—The municipal discharge data used to categorize the pollutants
are from Metro's Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study (TPPS) (Cooley et al.
1984), and (Barrick 1982). Supporting data were obtained from city of
Everett wastewater treatment plant (Baird, C.E., 1 August 1985, personal
communication).
22
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 3
Revision: August 15, 1986
Column 2—
The type of industry from which release of each chemical has been
documented is coded in the "Industrial" (point source) column of Table 3.
Codes—The codes used in Column 2 of Table 3 indicate industries in
which the chemical may be found:
S = Shipbuilding/repair
P = Pulp mills
C = Copper smelters
CP = Chrome plating, silver plating
F = Ferro, silicon, chrome industries
CA = Chioroalkali plants
B = Bleach plant
L = Log/wood treatment facility
OC = Organic chemical manufacturing
1C - Inorganic chemical manufacturing
LS = Log sort yards
M = Primary production of ferrous and nonferrous metals
23
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 3
Revision: August 15, 1986
OR = Oil refining
DC = Dry cleaning
( ) = Industries that are potential sources in Puget Sound, but have
not been documented
Blank spaces indicate that insufficient data are available to
categorize.
References—The industrial classifications of pollutants was accomplished
using data from industrial reports by the water quality investigation section
of the Department of Ecology and Class II industrial surveys. These data
are summarized for the Commencement Bay Remedial Investigation (Tetra Tech
1985b) and Feasibility Study (Tetra Tech 1986f). Additional data were
included from Norton (1986), Galvin and Moore (1982), Martin and Paulou (1985),
Palmork (1973), Sittig (1980), Stranks (1976), and Young et al. (1979).
Column 3—
Data generated from combined sewer overflow (CSO) sampling are included
in Column 3. Chemicals found in CSOs are classified according to their
frequency of detection (i.e., the same as municipal discharges).
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 3 of Table 3:
A = Chemical occurs in >25 percent of samples from Puget Sound CSOs
B = Chemical occurs in <25 percent of samples from Puget Sound CSOs
C = Chemical not detected based on available information
24
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 3
Revision: August 15, 1986
Blank spaces indicate that insufficient information are available
to categorize.
References—The Metro TPPS (Cooley et al. 1984) was the source of
information on pollutants in CSOs.
Column 4—
Nonpoint sources are difficult to identify and quantify. Kinds of nonpoint
sources listed in Table 3 include agricultural, urban and industrial runoffs,
and groundwater seeps. The urban runoff designation includes those chemicals
detected in >10 percent of the samples analyzed for the National Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) (U.S. EPA 1983). The 10-percent criterion, used in the NURP
summary report, was also used for this matrix to minimize further data
reduction.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 4 of Table 3:
UR = Urban runoff
AR = Agricultural runoff
IR = Industrial runoff
GW = Groundwater
Blank spaces indicate that insufficient information is available
to categorize.
References—Urban runoff data are solely from the NURP (U.S. EPA 1983)
and are considered representative of Puget Sound's urban runoff. The NURP
study included analyses of runoff from Bellevue, WA. Also included are
25
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 3
Revision: August 15, 1986
data gathered by Washington Department of Ecology and other investigators
summarized in Tetra Tech (1985b).
Column 5—
Occasionally product spills (e.g., ore, oil) occur in Puget Sound
releasing chemicals into the environment. The types of spills that have
occurred in Puget Sound where chemicals are expected to be found are indicated
in Column 5.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 5 of Table 3:
0 = Oil spills
C = Miscellaneous spills
OS = Ore spills
Blank spaces indicate that there are insufficient data to categorize.
References—Sources of information used to categorize pollutants include
Norton (1985d), Sittig (1980), and data compiled in Tetra Tech (1985b).
Example: Benzo(a)pyrene has been detected in >25 percent of available
municipal effluent and combined sewer overflow samples from Puget Sound.
There are insufficient data to document the presence of benzo(a)pyrene
in discharges from industrial point sources in Puget Sound, although there
are a number of industrial processes that are expected to generate benzo(a)-
pyrene (e.g., combustion of fossil fuel, primary production of ferrous
and nonferrous metals, and wood treatment with creosote). There are also
insufficient published data from Puget Sound or the NURP (U.S. EPA 1983)
to document the presence of benzo(a)pyrene in discharges from nonpoint
26
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 3
Revision: August 15, 1986
sources in Puget Sound, although benzo(a)pyrene has been reported as a
component of stonnwater runoff in research studies conducted in Lake Washington,
southern California, Narragansett Bay, and Europe. Benzo(a)pyrene is an
expected component of most oil spills.
27
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 4
Revision: August 15, 1986
Matrix Table 4: Character!si tics and Sinks
Descriptive information on the known or suspected characteristics
and sinks of the contaminants is contained in Table 4 of the matrix. The
major categories are sediment, water, wildlife, surface microlayer, and
fish/shellfish tissue.
Column 1—
The sediments are an important sink for many anthropogenic pollutants.
Column 1 provides information on the tendency of a chemical to accumulate
in sediments.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 1 of Table 4:
Y = Yes, chemical has been documented to accumulate in sediment in
Puget Sound
U = Uncertain if chemical accumulates in sediment but data suggest
that it does not
Blank spaces indicate that insufficient data are available to
categorize.
References—The sources of information used to categorize the chemicals
in Column 1 include Battelle (1985), Romberg et al. (1984), U.S. Navy (1985),
Alki outfall predesign study (Trial and Michaud 1985), Tetra Tech (1985b),
and U.S. COE dredging surveys (Chan et al. 1985a,b).
28
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 4
Revision: August 15, 1986
Column 2—
The potential effects of contaminated sediments on benthic infauna
are summarized in Column 2. Detected concentrations in sediments are compared
to values for the benthic AET listed in Column 12 of Table 2 for Puget
Sound. If no guideline relating to benthic effects is available for comparison,
the chemical is classified according to known characteristics in available
literature.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 2 for chemicals that
are known or suspected of accumulating in sediments and causing adverse
effects:
A = Pollutant has been detected in Puget Sound >10 percent of the
time, at a concentration half or greater than half a benthic
effects sediment quality value
B = Pollutant has been detected in Puget Sound <10 percent of the
time, at a concentration half or greater than half benthic effects
sediment quality value
C = Benthic effects sediment quality values have not been established,
but based on known characteristics this chemical has the potential
to create problems
Blank spaces, indicate that insufficient data are available to
categorize.
References—Sediment data used for these classifications are from
a computerized database consisting of data from Battelle (1985) Metro's
TPPS (Romberg et al. 1984), U.S. Navy (1985), Alki outfall predesign study
29
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 4
Revision: August 15, 1986
(Trial and Michaud 1985), Tetra Tech (1985b), and U.S. COE dredging surveys
(Chan et al. 1985a,b).
Column 3—
Chemicals that are suspected of being associated with pathological
effects in fish are indicated in Column 3 of Table 4. Contaminant-specific
guidelines for fish pathological effects are not yet available.
Codes—A single code is used in Column 3 of Table 4:
C = Chemical can accumulate in sediments and is suspected of causing
pathological effects in fish. There are no sediment quality
values based on fish pathology
Blank spaces indicate that there is insufficient information
to categorize.
References—The information on fish pathological effects is from Krahn
et al. (1985), Malins et al. (1980, 1982, 1985), and Tetra Tech (1985b).
Column 4—
Potential problems with waterborne contaminants can be predicted based
on known physical or chemical characteristics and on concentrations of
pollutants discharged into the environment (Callahan et al. 1979). The
effects of contaminants on marine organisms exposed via water are available
from results of bioassay toxicity studies (U.S. EPA 1980, 1985b). Codes
in the "Water" column of Table 4 indicate the relationship between the
maximum concentration of each chemical detected in Puget Sound water samples
30
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 4
Revision: August 15, 1986
(see Table 5 of the matrix) and available water quality criteria (see Table
2 of the matrix).
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 4 of Table 4:
A = Chemical has been detected in Puget Sound at a concentration
exceeding an available U.S. EPA saltwater criterion
B = Chemical has not been detected in Puget Sound at a concentration
exceeding an available U.S. EPA saltwater criterion
C = U.S. EPA saltwater criterion is not available.
References—These codes are based on a limited set of published data
on concentrations of contaminants in Puget Sound ambient water (e.g., Romberg
et al. 1984; Riley et al. 1980).
Columns 5 and 6—
The wildlife category is subdivided into birds and mammals. Data
for other wildlife (e.g., reptiles) were not available. Effects data on
wildlife for specific contaminants are not generally available and represent
a large data gap. Hence, a summary of frequency of detection was not considered
meaningful. The codes displayed in the wildlife columns indicate whether
each contaminant has been detected in the tissue of Puget Sound wildlife
and give some indication of the maximum concentration found relative to
reference conditions as defined by the investigator, when available.
Codes—The following codes are used in Columns 5 and 6 of Table 4:
A = Pollutant has been detected in tissue of wildlife at levels 10
times as high as those from reference areas
31
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 4
Revision: August 15, 1986
B = Based on limited data, this pollutant has been detected but con-
centrations are less than 10 times as high as reference or reference
concentrations were not provided
C = Chemical was analyzed for in wildlife tissue and not detected
Blank spaces indicate that insufficient data are available to
categorize.
References—Information for this column was obtained from Calambokidis
et al. (1984, 1985) and Ginn and Barrick (in press).
Column 7—
The interface between the atmosphere and the water (i.e., the surface
microlayer) provides an important habitat for biota, including the larvae
of many commercial fish species. This microlayer is also a collection
point for anthropogenic materials, some of which are contaminants of concern.
Recent studies have reported on this microlayer enrichment but chemical-specific
effects on the neuston (i.e., those organisms living in or on the surface
microlayer) have not been evaluated. Codes in the "Surface Microlayer"
column indicate chemicals that have been detected in the microlayer of
Puget Sound waters at concentrations higher than those in the water column.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 7 of Table 4:
X = Chemical has been detected in the microlayer of Puget Sound waters
at concentrations higher than those found in the water column
32
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 4
Revision: August 15, 1986
N = Based on the limited data available, the chemical has not been
detected in the microlayer at concentrations higher than those
found in the water column
Blank spaces indicate that insufficient data are available to
categorize.
References—Sources of information on the microlayer of Puget Sound
waters are Hardy (1982), Hardy et al. (1985, 1986), and Word et al . (unpub-
lished).
Column 8—
Bioaccumulation is defined as the overall process of biological uptake
and retention of chemical contaminants from food, water, or sediments.
Sediment contaminants may be retained in a variety of tissues, depending
on the organism and the specific contaminant. Edible tissues of selected
fish and shellfish have been found to contain some of the contaminants
of concern (i.e., chemical has been detected in at least one tissue sample).
This contamination raises several human consumption issues, although there
are few U.S. FDA guidelines for these contaminants in seafood.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 8 of Table 4:
A = The chemical bioaccumulates in Puget Sound and is considered
a carcinogen
B = The chemical bioaccumulates in Puget Sound and has an established
Reference Dose (RfD)
C = The chemical bioaccumulates in Puget Sound but is not a carcinogen
and does not have an RfD
33
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 4
Revision: August 15, 1986
D = Based on available information, the chemical does not bioaccumulate
in Puget Sound
Blanks indicate that there is insufficient information to categorize.
References—Sources of information used to categorize the chemicals
include the water quality criteria documents (U.S. EPA 1980, 1985b) and
various compilations of bioaccumulation data (Gahler et al . 1982; Ginn
and Barrick, in press; Long 1985; Romberg et al. 1984; Tetra Tech 1985b,c,d;
Yake 1984).
Column 9—
Biomagnification is the relative increase in tissue concentrations
of contaminants as a function of trophic level.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 9 of Table 4:
Y = Yes, chemical has been shown to biomagnify through at least a
portion of the food web
N = No, chemical has not been shown to biomagnify
U = Uncertain if biomagnification occurs
Blanks indicate that there is insufficent information to categorize.
References—Information for this column was obtained from Ginn and
Barrick (in press) and Kay (1984).
34
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 4
Revision: August 15, 1986
Column 10—
The chemical alteration of a pollutant by an organism is called biotrans-
formation (e.g., by metabolism). Organisms have widely varying degrees
of biological complexity and abilities to chemically transform pollutants.
The term bioactivation refers to chemicals that are metabolized into other
substances with a known higher toxicity.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 10 of Table 4:
Y = Yes, chemical has the potential to metabolize into a substance
with a known higher toxicity (i.e., bioactivate)
P = Chemical follows metabolic pathway that is known to produce poten-
tially damaging intermediates (e.g., dihydrodiol formation from
naphthalene through formation of potentially damaging epoxide)
N = No, chemical is not expected to metabolize into a substance with
a known higher toxicity (i.e., does not bioactivate) or does
not undergo alteration
U = Uncertain if bioactivation occurs
Blank spaces indicate that there is insufficient information
to categorize.
References—Sources of information included Brown et al. (1984), Callahan
et al. (1979), Krahn et al. (1985 and 1984), Malins (1979), and Sittig
(1980).
35
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 4
Revision: August 15, 1986
Column 11—
Geographical distribution of the contaminants in Puget Sound is indicated
in Column 11 of Table 4. Codes indicating "patchy" and "Puget Sound wide"
distributions are used as descriptors. When only limited data were available
(e.g., because of a small number of samples analyzed to date), the code
appears in parentheses to denote an estimate based on these limited data
and available literature on distributions of the chemical in other environments.
Codes—The following codes are used in Column 11:
W = Chemical has widespread distribution in Puget Sound
P = Chemical has patchy distribution in Puget Sound
( ) = Categorized based on limited data
Blank spaces indicate that there is insufficient data to categorize.
References—Distribution of chemicals in Puget Sound was determined
from a wide variety of sources including Barrick and Dexter (1985), Battelle
(1985b), Chan et al. (1985a,b), Dexter et al. (1981), Osborn et al. (1985),
Romberg et al. (1984), Tetra Tech [1985b (in preparation)], and U.S. Navy
(1985).
Example: Benzo(a)pyrene accumulates in sediments at concentrations
that may be associated with effects on benthic infauna and fish in field
studies. Concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene exceed AET values (dry weight)
for benthic effects in sediments in <10 percent of the samples in the available
computerized database. A U.S. EPA saltwater criterion is not available
to determine if water column concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene are predicted
to have an effect on marine organisms. Benzo(a)pyrene has not been detected
36
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 4
Revision: August 15, 1986
in tissues sampled from wildlife in Puget Sound. There are no data to
document the presence of benzo(a)pyrene in the surface microlayer of Puget
Sound. Benzo(a)pyrene bioaccumulates, but does not biomagnify through
the food web. It can be metabolized to substances that are known carcinogens.
Benzo(a)pyrene has been demonstrated to be widely distributed over Puget
Sound. This distribution is expected because of its association with combusted
fossil fuels and a number of sources that discharge hydrocarbons in Puget
Sound.
37
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 5
Revision: August 15, 1986
Table 5; Concentrations in Puget Sound
Concentrations of chemicals in three kinds of samples from Puget Sound
(i.e., water, sediment, animal tissue) are summarized in Table 5 of the
matrix. The summary includes data for non-reference areas of Puget Sound
(e.g., urban embayments, central basin) and reference areas chosen by different
investigators as regions removed from known sources of contamination in
Puget Sound.
Columns 1 through 10—
A computerized database was available to enable calculation of medians,
90th percentiles, and frequencies for most detected sediment pollutants.
All sediment analyses conducted in Puget Sound have not been incorporated
into the database, but the data represent nearly 200 samples from a wide
range of environments in Puget Sound. This database will likely be expanded
in the future. In all cases, the highest detected value is used as the
maximum. The minimum is either the lowest detected value or the lowest
detection limit for undetected values (whichever is smaller). These criteria
were used because detection limits can vary substantially for different
samples and studies.
Codes—The following codes are used for values reported in Columns 1
through 10.
U = Undetected at detection limit shown
Blanks indicate that insufficient data are available to calculate
means or percentiles, or no data are available for that chemical.
References—The sediment chemistry database compiled for the U.S. Army
COE (Tetra Tech 1986c) included data from Chan et al . (1985a,b); Battelle
38
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 5
Revision: August 15, 1986
(1985); Romberg et al. (1984); Tetra Tech (1985); Trial and Michaud (1985);
and U.S. Navy (1985).
Columns 11, 12, 13, and 14—
Minimum and maximum concentrations of chemicals found in fish muscle
tissue and shellfish tissue are found in Columns 11 through 14 of Table 5.
Fish livers are not included. Non-reference and reference areas have been
listed separately. The data are not presently available in a form that
readily allows computation of the means and percentiles provided for the
sediments.
Codes—The following codes are used in Columns 11 through 14 of Table 5:
U = Undetected at detection limit shown
Blank spaces indicate insufficient data are available.
References—The data were compiled from Clark (1983), Goldberg et
al. (1983), Malins et al. (1980), Norton (1986), Sherwood et al . (1980),
Tetra Tech (1985b), and Yake et al. (1984).
Columns 15 and 16—
Minimum and maximum concentrations found in non-reference Puget Sound
waters are provided in Columns 15 and 16 of Table 5. The data are not
presently in a database to allow computation of means and percentiles provided
for the sediments.
39
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF MATRIX
DESCRIPTORS: Table 5
Revision: August 15, 1986
Codes—The following codes are used in Columns 15 and 16 in Table 5:
U = Undetected at detection limit shown
Blank spaces indicate that insufficient data are available.
References—Receiving water data were compiled from water quality surveys
by Washington Department of Ecology (Bernhardt 1982; Johnson 1982a,b,c,d;
Norton 1985a,b) and U.S. EPA (Osborn 1980a,b).
Columns 17 and 18—
Information for concentrations of pollutants in waters from reference
areas has not been included in the matrix. Thus, Columns 17 and 18 are
left blank.
Example: Benzo(a)pyrene is found in sediments from nonreference and
reference areas. Based on the current database, concentrations of benzo(a)-
pyrene in sediments of Puget Sound range from <1 to 22,000 ug/kg dry weight,
although most concentrations even in nonreference areas are <350 ug/kg
dry weight. Benzo(a)pyrene has been detected in shellfish tissue (maximum
58 ug/kg wet weight), and in internal organs of other organisms (e.g.,
liver tissue), but not in muscle tissue of fish or wildlife. Water concentra-
tions of benzo(a)pyrene are typically low (i.e., below 1 ug/L), and range
in Puget Sound from undetected (at 0.11 ug/L) to 0.64 ug/L.
40
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
APPROACH
Revision: August 15, 1986
DATA MANAGEMENT
APPROACH
The data management approach described below includes descriptions
of two information management systems that were or will be used during
the development and evolution of the matrix. Step-by-step procedures for
accessing data in the the matrix are described, as is information on updating
the matrix to include new data.
Implementation Using Lotus 1-2-3
Information on the pollutants of concern are entered into a micro-
computer-based data management system. Lotus 1-2-3 was selected as the
most appropriate system for initial management of matrix data. The volume
of data included in the initial matrix can be easily manipulated in a spread-
sheet format. The advantages to using Lotus 1-2-3 to structure and manage
the matrix include:
0 Lotus 1-2-3 is widely accessible to a variety of users
• Lotus 1-2-3 is the U.S. EPA standard spreadsheet software
• Lotus 1-2-3 is easy to use and requires a minimal amount
of training
• Incorporation of data into a spreadsheet requires minimal
effort for formatting and data entry
41
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
APPROACH
Revision: August 15, 1986
• Data can be easily transferred to more sophisticated database
systems.
System Upgrade to dBase III
As the information stored in the matrix increases in volume, and retrieval
requirements become more complex, the advantages of using a spreadsheet
format will be diminished. It is planned that the matrix will be transferred
to a dBase III system at a future date.
The advantages to implementing the dBase III database system will
be substantial to both the user and the data manager. These advantages
include:
• Ability to link different tables containing a variety of
information together
• Additional or expanded background and explanatory information
• Customized menus and retrieval programs to meet specific
needs
• More powerful data selection, allowing extraction of only
the desired information
• An agency standard software used by many microcomputer operators.
From a data management perspective, new types of information can be
easily added in a database environment. dBase III can integrate and link
information, making it easier to manage a larger matrix for multiple appli-
cations. Accurate updating or revisions to the matrix can be easily accom-
plished in dBase III.
42
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
APPROACH
Revision: August 15, 1986
OVERVIEW OF THE MATRIX SYSTEM
The matrix is implemented on a microcomputer system using commonly
available hardware and software. The following sections provide specific
information to the user regarding the types of equipment and software that
are needed.
System Configuration
Lotus 1-2-3 operates on IBM PC, XT, and AT, as well as most microcomputers
compatible with IBM standards. Initial implementation of Lotus 1-2-3 requires
the following minimum system requirements:
• Two floppy disk drives or one floppy disk drive and a fixed
(hard) disk
0 256K RAM
• Lotus 1-2-3 Version 1A
• DOS (disk operating system).
Eventual implementation of dBase III will require the user to have a copy
of the dBase III software and a system that includes:
• One hard disk
• 640K RAM.
If a printed copy of the matrix information is needed, users will
also need access to either a dot-matrix or letter-quality printer. The
43
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
APPROACH
Revision: August 15, 1986
following is a partial list of printers that are compatible with IBM micro-
computers and Lotus 1-2-3:
• Epson
0 Toshiba
0 Qume
0 Diablo
0 Okidata
0 Anadex
0 NEC.
When a printer is used, the microcomputer must also have an appropriate
serial or parallel interface port.
44
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
ACCESS
Revision: August 15, 1986
HOW TO ACCESS MATRIX DATA ON LOTUS 1-2-3
Data from the matrix are stored in Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets, with
each of the tables described in the previous section located in separate
Lotus files. Users can access data via Lotus 1-2-3 retrieval menus. Data
can be viewed within a spreadsheet by paging through the file using the
cursor and page keys on the microcomputer. Specific Information regarding
use of Lotus, accessing the matrix, retrievals, and downloading the data
is provided in the following sections.
File Structure
Each matrix table is stored in a separate Lotus file on a floppy disk.
Lotus considers each table a worksheet and each worksheet has an individual
file name. The Lotus file names for each of the matrix tables (worksheets)
are listed below:
TABLE NAME
LOTUS FILE NAME
Table 1: Status and Analytical Considerations
Table 2: Criteria, Guidelines, and Regulatory
Action Levels
Table 3: Sources of Pollutants
Table 4: Characteristics and Sinks
Table 5: Concentrations in Puget Sound
TABLE1.WKS
TABLE2.WKS
TABLES.WKS
TABLE4.WKS
TABLES.WKS
45
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
ACCESS
Revision: August 15, 1986
The information in each table (worksheet) is organized into rows and
columns. The left-most column lists the pollutants of concern. Each additional
column provides information or data regarding the topics listed across
the top of the table. Codes, footnotes, and references are provided where
appropriate and are listed at the bottom of each table.
Loading Lotus 1-2-3
If Lotus 1-2-3 has not been installed on your microcomputer, you will
need to follow the Lotus user's guide for getting started. Installation
of Lotus will generally only need to be done once. When Lotus is installed
on your hard disk or the Lotus system disk is in Drive A on your dual-floppy
system, call up the Lotus program by performing the following steps:
1. Turn on your machine. If you have a dual-floppy system,
make sure the DOS disk is in Drive A.
2. Wait for the machine to complete its start-up functions.
DOS may ask you to enter the date and the time. If so,
use MM/DD/YY format to enter date and HH:MM format to enter
the time.
3. When the DOS prompt is displayed on the screen (i.e., C:\>)
replace the DOS disk in Drive A with the Lotus system disk
if you have a dual-floppy microcomputer. If Lotus already
resides on your machine's hard disk, make sure you are in
the correct directory to call up the Lotus programs. (For
those of you with a hard disk that are not familiar with
your machines, please ask for help from the member of your
staff who set up your machine and organized the directories).
46
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
ACCESS
Revision: August 15, 1986
4. Type 123 followed by a carriage return. This will bring
up a blank worksheet from which you can now access the matrix
worksheets.
Accessing the Worksheet Files
The matrix tables (worksheets) reside on a floppy disk to be distributed
by the U.S. EPA Office of Puget Sound. The version number and revision
date are printed on the floppy disk label. To access particular worksheets,
please complete the following steps:
1. If your microcomputer has a fixed disk, place the matrix
disk in Drive A. On a dual-floppy system, the Lotus system
disk will be in Drive A so place the matrix disk in Drive B.
2. Call up the Lotus command menu by typing / (this is the
virgule key, usually found in the lower right corner of
the keyboard). The main menu will then be displayed across
the top of the blank worksheet.
3. Using your cursor keys, move right across the menu choices
until File is highlighted. Enter a carriage return to choose
this option. The sub-menu for File will now be displayed.
4. The Retrieve option is the first one listed on the sub-menu
and will already be highlighted. Enter a carriage return
to implement the file retrieve option.
5. Lotus will now ask you for the name of the file you wish
to retrieve. To retrieve a particular table, indicate the
matrix disk drive followed by a colon and the Lotus file
name for the table you are interested in. For example:
47
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
ACCESS
Revision: August 15, 1986
Name of file to retrieve: A:\TABLJE1 (if the matrix
disk is in Drive A)
or
Name of file to retrieve: B:\TABLE1 (if the matrix
disk is in Drive B).
There is no need to indicate the file extension that is attached to the
worksheet file name. Lotus automatically assumes it is looking for a file
with the extension .WKS.
When working through the Lotus menu choices and you choose an option
you did not want or you mistype a file name, you may use the Esc(ape) key
to move back one level in the menu and repeat the step correctly.
Depending on the Lotus configuration for your computer, Lotus may
automatically display the file names on the matrix disk after you choose
the Retrieve option. If this is the case, you can retrieve a file by moving
to the right until the file name you want to retrieve is highlighted and
then enter a carriage return.
Lotus will now load the table you are interested in. The upper corner
of the screen will flash Wait until the retrieval is complete. You will
now be able to view your chosen table. Please note that the version number
and last revision date is displayed as part of the table title.
When you have finished viewing the table, you may select another table
to view by using the following procedures:
48
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
ACCESS
Revision: August 15, 1986
1. Bring up the Lotus main menu by typing / and choose the
Worksheet option.
2. When the Worksheet sub-menu is displayed, select the Erase
function. Lotus will ask you if you are sure. Respond
Yes.
3. Display the next worksheet you want to look at by calling
up the Lotus main menu (/) and selecting the File and Retrieval
functions that you used for the first worksheet, remembering
to replace the original worksheet name you requested with
the file name for the table you now wish to view.
Lotus has a feature that will facilitate moving through a given menu.
Rather than moving the cursor over until your choice is highlighted and
entering a carriage return, you may just enter the first letter of the
choice you want to make. Once you are more familiar with Lotus you may
want to use this feature to enable you to move more quickly through the
Lotus menus.
Paging through the Files
Depending on the size of the table, you may not be able to view the
contents on one screen. To "page" through a table, use the Pagedown and
Pageup keys on your keyboard. This will move you a screen at a time up
and down through the table. You may also page to the left and right in
a large table. Typically this is accomplished using the Tab key. If you
wish to move only one row or column at a time the cursor keys can be used.
Several special keys in Lotus allow to move even more quickly through
a worksheet. The Home key will always return you to the beginning of a
worksheet (i.e., cell Al). The End key can be used prior to a cursor key
49
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
ACCESS
Revision: August 15, 1986
(left, right, up, down) to move all the way to the end of filled cells
in the direction you specify.
If a table is fairly large, you will notice that the headings for
columns or the chemical names can no longer be seen on the screen as you
move down or across a table. A special feature in Lotus will hold the
headings in place for you while you are paging through the table. To set
the column and row headings so you can always view them on the screen,
perform the following steps:
1. Use the Home key to position the cursor in the top, left-
most cell (i.e., Al)
2. Move the cursor to the first row below the headings you
want fixed on the screen and to the first column to the
right of the list of the pollutants of concern.
3. Call up the Lotus command menu (/) and select the Worksheet
option.
4. When the Worksheet sub-menu is displayed, select the Titles
option by moving the cursor to the right and entering a
carriage return when Titles is highlighted (or just type T).
5. Choose the Both option from the Titles sub-menu. This will
fix the column and row headings during the viewing.
If you no longer want the titles fixed in place or you want to print
all or a portion of the table it will be necessary to clear the titles.
To do so, follow these steps:
50
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
ACCESS
Revision: August 15, 1986
1. Call up the Lotus command menu and select the Worksheet
option.
2. When the Worksheet submenu is displayed, select the Titles
option by moving the cursor to the right and entering a
carriage return when Titles is highlighted (or by typing T).
3. Choose the Clear option from the Titles sub-menu.
Printing Copies of the Matrix
If you would like to print all or a portion of a given table, the
following minimum Lotus menu choices need to be specified:
1. Bring up the Lotus main menu using the virgule key (/).
2. Move the cursor to highlight Print and enter a carriage
to select this option (or type P).
3. Lotus will ask you if you wish to write to your printer
or a file. Select Printer.
4. Lotus will now display the Print menu. You can now select
the part you wish to print. This is defined by selecting
the Range option.
5. Using the cursor, page, or tab keys, move to the upper,
left-most cell of the area you wish to print.
6. Lock the highlighting feature for the range definition by
pressing the Period (.) character key (this will allow you
to define a block rather than a single cell in the worksheet).
51
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
ACCESS
Revision: August 15, 1986
Note that the highlight locking feature can be toggled off
by typing Period a second time. Remember, if you change
your mind, hit the escape key to move back one level in
the menu and try again.
7. Move the cursor down and across to the lower, right-hand
corner of the area you want to print. When the entire block,
row, or column you wish to print is highlighted by Lotus,
enter a carriage return.
8. Enter the Go option to tell Lotus to start printing.
9. Lotus will flash Wait while the table is being printed.
When complete, you can exit the Lotus print menu by selecting
Quit.
These are the basic instructions for printing all or part of a matrix
table. Lotus has many features that will allow you to customize a printing
task. Most of these features are found under the Option selection in the
Print menu. For in-depth instructions for all the features, please see
the Lotus manual. Some of the Option features you may find useful are
described below:
• The Margins feature will allow you to change the left and
right margins as well as the top and bottom margins for
a given page. Each margin is set separately by selecting
Margins, the margin you wish to set (e.g., right), and then
entering the margin value (e.g., 150).
t Page will allow you to set the length of the page to other
than the default setting of 66 lines to a page by entering
a number greater or less than 66.
52
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
ACCESS
Revision: August 15, 1986
• Borders will allow you to define the column headings and
list of chemicals as borders that will appear on every page
that gets printed. This feature is similar to the Titles
feature in the Worksheet sub-menu, but to indicate a border,
you need only indicate the column or rows the headings occur
in (i.e., you do not have to highlight the. column or row
one beyond your choice. Please note: if you use this feature,
do not define the column or row headings as part of your chosen
print range, otherwise your headings will be printed twice.
Transferring (Downloading) Data to Other Systems
You may find it useful to download (transfer) a matrix table as an
ASCII file to enter the data into another system or to include portions
of the table in a document for word processing. Downloading a file is
very similar to printing. Many of the same menu choices are made. The
procedure for downloading all or part of a table is:
1. Bring up the Lotus main menu using the virgule key (/).
2. Move the cursor to highlight Print and enter a carriage
to select this option.
3. Lotus will ask you if you wish to write to your printer
or a file. Select File.
4. Lotus will now ask you to name your file. If you do not
want your file to be written to the default drive, you will
need to specify which drive you want your file on. Name
your file by typing in a name using up to eight characters
and then enter a carriage return. You will not need to
53
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
ACCESS
Revision: August 15, 1986
add a file extension to the name. Lotus automatically assigns
.PRN to your file name.
5. Lotus will now display the Print menu. You can now select
the part you wish to print. This is defined by selecting
the Range option.
6. Using the cursor, page, tab, or home keys, move to the upper,
left-most cell of the area you wish to print.
7. Lock the highlighting feature for the range definition by
pressing the Period (.) character key.
8. Move the cursor down and across to the lower, right-hand
corner of the area you want to print. When the entire block,
row, or column you wish to print is highlighted by Lotus,
enter a carriage return.
9. After the print range is defined and entered, choose the
Options feature from the Print menu.
10. When the Options menu is displayed, select the Other feature.
11. The Other feature will allow several choices. Choose Unfor-
matted. This will write the file as an ASCII text file.
12. Quit from the Options menu. The Print menu will now be
displayed.
13. Enter the Go option contained in the Print menu to tell
Lotus to start printing.
54
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
ACCESS
Revision: August 15, 1986
14. Lotus will flash Wait while the table is being printed.
When complete, you can exit the Lotus print menu by selecting
Quit.
Exiting Lotus
When you are finished reviewing and printing different matrix tables,
you can exit Lotus using the Quit option from the Lotus main menu. Lotus
will then ask you if you want to end your session. Respond by choosing
Yes. Lotus will return you to DOS. Remember to remove your matrix diskette
from your microcomputer. If you have a dual-floppy system, you will also
need to remove and store the Lotus system disk.
UPDATING THE MATRIX
Revisions and additions will be coordinated by the U.S. EPA Office
of Puget Sound. Matrix information can be sent to users as a Lotus file
or an ASCII file that can be accessed with word processing software. It
is recommended that all copies of the matrix be write-protected to prevent
accidental erasures or changes to the stored information. This is accomplished
by using a locking feature in Lotus in addition to write-protect tabs on
the floppy disk itself. These procedures will protect the data within
the system from accidental changes, while still allowing the data to be
viewed or copied to other diskettes. Each matrix will have a version number
and a date to assist the user in maintaining the most recent version of
the matrix. All older versions will be replaced with each distribution.
55
-------
REFERENCES
Baird, C.E., 1 August 1985. Personal Communication (letter to Dr. Robert
A. Pastorok). City of Everett Public Works Department, Everett, WA.
Baird, C.E. 1 August 1985. Personal Communication (letter to Dr. Robert
A. Pastorok). City of Everett Public Works Department, Everett, WA.
Barrick, R.C. 1982 Flux of aliphatic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
to central Puget Sound from Seattle (West Point) primary sewage effluent.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:682-692.
Barrick, R., and R. Dexter. 1985. Chemical contamination in Puget Sound
sediments. Puget Sound Notes: September 1985. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Washington Department of Ecology.
Bates, T., S. Hamilton, and J. Cline. 1984. Vertical transport and sedi-
mentation of hydrocarbons in the central main basin of Puget Sound, Washington.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 18:5.
Battelle Marine Research Laboratory. 1985a. Summary report on sediment
quality criteria development workshop (Nov. 28-30, 1984). Prepared for
the U.S. EPA, Criteria and Standards Division. Battelle, Washington, DC.
25 pp.
Battelle Marine Research Laboratory. 1985b. Detailed chemical and biological
analyses of selected sediments from Puget Sound. Draft Final Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Seattle, WA. 300 pp.
Battelle Marine Research Laboratory. 1986. Sediment quality criteria
methodology validation: calculation of screening level concentrations
from field data. Final Report. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Criteria and Standard
Division. Battelle, Washington, DC. 60 pp. + appendices.
Bernhardt, J. 1982. Assessment of surface water quality in the vicinity
of Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., Tacoma, Washington (April 21, 1981). Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 19 pp.
Boehm, P., W. Steinbaeur, E. Crecelius, and J. Nett. 1985. Contaminant
residence times and ecosystem recovery rate, for shelf and estuarine eco-
systems. NOAA technical report. Prepared by Battelle New England for
NOAA Ocean Assessments Division.
Brown, D.A., R.W. Gossett, and S.R. McHugh. 1985. The occurrence of oxygenated
metabolites of DDT and PCBs in marine sediments and organisms. In: Oceanic
Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 1, Biological Processes and Wastes
in the Ocean. J.M. Capuzzo and D.R. Kesler (eds). Krieger Publishing
Company, Inc., Melbourne, FL.
56
-------
Calambokidis, J., J. Peard, G. Steiger, J. Cubbage, and R. DeLong. 1984.
Chemical contaminants in marine mammals from Washington State. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOSOMS6. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville,
MD. 167 pp.
Calambokidas, J., S. Speich, J. Peard, G. Steiger, J. Cubbage, D. Fry,
and L. Lowenstine. 1985. Biology of Puget Sound marine mammals and marine
birds: population health and evidence of pollution effects. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOSOMA 18. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Rockville, MD. 159 pp.
Callahan, M.A., M.W. Slimak, N.W. Gable, I.P. May, C.F. Fowler, J.R. Freed,
P. Jennings, R.L. Durfee, F.C. Whitmore, B. Amestri, W.R. Mabey, B.R. Holt,
and C. Gould. 1979. Water-related environmental fate of 129 priority
pollutants. Volumes I and II. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Versar, Inc., Springfield, VA. Available from NTIS. PB80-204373.
Chan, S., M. Schiewe, and D. Brown. 1985a. Analysis of sediment samples
for U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Seattle harbor navigation project, operations
and maintenance sampling and testing of Duwamish River sediments. Draft
Report. 15 pp. + appendices.
Chan, S., M. Schiewe, and D. Brown. 1985b. Analyses of sediment samples
for U.S. Army Corp of Engineers East, West, and Duwamish Waterway navigation
improvement project, operations and maintenance sampling and testing of
Duwamish River sediments. Unpublished.
Clark, R.C. 1983. The biogeochemistry of aromatic and saturated hydrocarbons
in a rocky intertidal marine community in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Ph.D. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 268 pp.
Cooley, R., R. Matasci, M.S. Merrill. 1984. TPPS Technical Report A2:
Collection system evalution. Data Appendices. Metro Toxicant Program Report
No. 4B. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
Crecelius, E., and C. Apts. 1984. Concentration and speciation of arsenic
in flatfish and crabs collected from Commencement Bay. Prepared for Tacoma-
Pierce County Health Department under Contract No. 2311206362. Battene
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA.
Dexter, R.N., D.E. Anderson, and E.A. Quinlan. 1981. A summary of knowledge
of Puget Sound related to chemical contaminants. NOAA Technical Memorandum
OMPA-13. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO.
435 pp.
Gahler, A.R., R.L. Arp, and J.M. Cummins. 1982. Chemical contaminants
in edible non-salmonoid fish and crabs from Commencement Bay, Washington.
Environmental Services Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Seattle, WA. 117 pp.
57
-------
Galvin, D.V., and R.K. Moore. 1982. Toxicants in urban runoff. Metro
toxicant program report No. 2. Toxicant Control Planning Section, Water
Quality Division, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
Ginn, T., and R. Barrick. (In press). Bioaccumulation of toxic substances
in Puget Sound organisms. Paper presented at the International Ocean Disposal
Symposium, September 10-14, 1984. Con/all is, OR.
Goldberg, E.D., M. Koide, V. Hodge, R. Flegal, and J. Martin. 1983. U.S.
mussel watch: 1977-1978 results on trace metals and radionuclides. Estuar.
Coast. Shelf Sci. 16:69-93.
Hardy, J. 1982. The sea-surface microlayer: biology, chemistry and anthro-
pogenic enrichment. Prog. Oceanog. 11:307-328.
Hardy, J., C. Apts, E. Crecelius, and N. Bloom. 1985. Sea-surface microlayer
metals enrichments in an urban and rural bay. Estuarine, Coastal, and
Shelf Science 20:299-312.
Hardy, J.T., E.A. Crecelius, R. Kocan. 1986. Concentration and toxicity
of sea-surface contaminants in Puget Sound. Prepared for National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessment Division by Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratory. Richland, WA. 46 pp.
Johnson, A., and S. Prescott. 1982a. Receiving environment survey in
the Puyallup River at the Tacoma Central (No. 1) Sewage Treatment Plant,
7/28/81, 8/25/81, 2/1/82. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
25 pp.
Johnson, A., and S. Prescott. 1982b. Receiving environment survey at
the St. Regis Paper Company, Tacoma, Washington, August 11-12, 1981. Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 25 pp.
Johnson, A., and S. Prescott. 1982c. Receiving environment survey in
Hylebos Waterway at the Pennwalt Corporation Facility, Tacoma, Washington,
June 2, 1981. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 21 pp.
Johnson, A., and S. Prescott. 1982d. Receiving environment survey in
Hylebos Waterway at the Sound Refining Facility^ Tacoma, Washington, June
30, 1981. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 18 pp.
Jones & Stokes. 1983. Water quality management program for Puget Sound.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X. Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA.
Kay, S.H. 1984. Potential for biomagnification of contaminants within
marine and freshwater food webs. Technical Report D-84-7. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. 166 pp.
58
-------
Konasewich, D.E., P.M. Chapman, E. Gerencher, G. Vigers, and N. Treloar.
1982. Effects, pathways, processes, and transformation of Puget Sound
contaminants of concern. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-20. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO. 357 pp.
Krahn, M.M., M.S. Myers, D.G. Burrows, and D.C. Mai ins. 1984. Determination
of metabol ites of xenobiotics in bile of fish from polluted waterways.
Xenobiotica (in press).
Krahn, M., L. Rhodes, M. Meyers, L. Moore, W. MacLeod Jr., and 0. Malins.
1985. Associations between metabolites of aromatic compounds in bile and
the occurence of hepatic lesions in English sole (Parophrys vetulus) from
Puget Sound, Washington. Arch. Environ. Contam. and Toxicol.
Long, E. 1985. Biological indications of pollution in Puget Sound, Puget
Sound Notes: July 1985. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington
Department of Ecology.
Long, E.R., and P.M. Chapman. 1985. A sediment quality triad: measures
of sediment contamination, toxicity, and infaunal community composition
in Puget Sound. Mar. Poll. Bull. 16(10):405-416.
Malins, D.C., T.K. Collier, L.C. Thomas, and W.T. Roubal. 1979. Metabolic
fate of aromatic hydrocarbons in aquatic organisms. Intern. J. Environ. Anal.
Chem. 6:55-66.
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, A.K. Sparks, and H.O. Hodgins.
1980. Chemical contaminants and biological abnormalities in central and
southern Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-2. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO. 295 pp.
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, A.K. Sparks, H.O. Hodgins, and S.L.
Chan. 1982. Chemical contaminants and abnormalities in fish and invertebrates
from Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-19. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO. 168 pp.
Malins, D., M. Krahn, M. Meyers, L. Rhodes, D. Brown, C. Krone, B. McCain,
and S. Chan. 1985. Toxic chemicals in sediments and biota from a creosote-
polluted harbor: relationships with hepatic neoplasms and other hepatic
lesions in English sole (Parophrys vetulus). Carcinogenesis 6(10):1436-1469.
Martin, D., and S. Pavlou. 1985. Sources of contamination in Puget Sound,
Puget Sound notes: November 1985. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and Washington Department of Ecology.
Metro. 1981 (Revised 1983). Analytical support and data validity: organics.
Prepared for Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study. Seattle, WA.
Nauen, C.E. 1983. Compilation of legal limits for hazardous substances
in fish and fishery products. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 764. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 102 pp.
59
-------
Norton, D. 1985a. Washington Department of Ecology project position data
PP1.8: Log sort yards as metals sources to Commencement Bay waterways.
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 73 pp.
Norton, D. 1985b. Washington Department of Ecology project position data
PP4.5: Metals in Sitcum Waterway sediments. Washington Department of
Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Norton, D. 5 February 1986. Personal Communication (Memorandum to Tom
Eaton). Results of priority pollutant analyses on water sediment, and
clam samples collected in lower Budd Inlet near McFarland Cascade, Olympia,
WA. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Osborn, J. 1980a. Commencement Bay waterways survey. September 23-24,
1980. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Seattle, WA. 17 pp.
Osborn, J. 1980b. Commencement Bay/Port of Tacoma field study. June
2, 1980. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Seattle, WA.
29 pp.
Osborn, J.G., D.E. Weitkamp, and T.H. Schadt. 1985. Alki wastewater treatment
plant outfall improvements predesign study. Technical Report No. 6.0,
Marine Biology. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 50 pp.
Palmork, K.H., S. Wilhelmson, and T. Neppelberg. 1973. The contribution
from various industries of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons to the marine
environment. Intern. Council for Explor. of the Sea, Fisheries Improvement
Comm. Report No. 1973/E33. 20 pp.
Quinlan, E.A., P.M. Chapman, R.N. Dexter, D.E. Konasewich, C.C. Ebbesmeyer,
G.A. Erickson, B.R. Kowalski, and T.A. Silver. 1985. Toxic chemicals
and biological effects in Puget Sound: states and scenarios for the future.
Draft. NOAA Technical Memorandum. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration, Boulder, CO. 334 pp.
Riley, R.G., E.A. Crecelius, and D.C. Mann. 1980. Quantisation of pollutants
in suspended matter and water from Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum
ERL MESA 49. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder,
CO. 99 pp.
Riley, R.G., E.A. Crecelius, R.E. Fitzner, B.L. Thomas, J.M. Gurtisen,
and N.S. Bloom. 1983. Organic and inorganic toxicants in sediment and
marine birds from Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS CMS 1. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD. 125 pp.
Romberg, G.P., S.P. Pavlou, and E.A. Crecelius. 1984. Presence, distribution,
and fate of toxicants in Puget Sound and Lake Washington. Metro Toxicant
Program Report No. 6A. Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study Technical
Report Cl. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 231 pp.
Schell, W.R., and A. Nevissi. 1977. Heavy metals from waste disposal
in central Puget Sound. Environ. Sci. Technol. ll(9):887-893.
60
-------
Sherwood, M.J., A.J. Mearns, D.R. Young, B.B. McCain, R.A. Murchelano,
G. Alexander, T.C. Heeson, and T.-K. Jan. 1980. A comparison of trace
contaminants in diseased fishes from three areas. South. Calif. Coastal
Water Res. Proj., Long Beach, CA. 131 pp.
Sittig, M. (ed.). 1980. Priority toxic pollutants. NOYES Data Corporation,
Park Ridge, NJ. 370 pp.
Stranks, D.W. 1976. Wood preservatives: their depletion as fungicides
and fate in the environment. Published by Ottawa Department of the Environment,
Canadian Forest Service. Forestry Technical Report No. 10. 35 pp.
Tetra Tech. 1985a. Quality assurance management plan for remedial investi-
gations. Prepared for Black & Veatch, Engineers-Architects and Washington
Department of Ecology Remedial Action Division. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue,
WA. 63 pp.
Tetra Tech. 1985b. Commencement Bay nearshore/tideflats remedial investi-
gation. Volume 1. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Region X. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1985c. Bioaccumulation monitoring guidance: 2. selection
of target species and review of available bioaccumulation data. Final
Report. Prepared for the Marine Operations Division, Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract
No. 68-01-6938. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA~. 52 pp. + appendicies
(383 pp.).
Tetra Tech. 1985d. Bioaccumulation monitoring guidance: 1. estimating
the potential for bioaccumulation of priority pollutants and 301(h) pesticides
discharged into marine and estuarine waters. Final Report. Prepared for
the Marine Operations Division, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6938. Tetra
Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 61 pp.
Tetra Tech. 1986a. Metals protocol development for Puget Sound. Draft
Final Task A-4 Report. Prepared for Resource Planning Associates and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. 25 pp. + appendices.
Tetra Tech. 1986b. Protocols for measuring organic compounds in Puget
Sound sediment and tissue samples. Draft report prepared for the U.S. EPA,
Region X. 45 pp. + appendices.
Tetra Tech. 1986c. Application of selected sediment quality value approaches
to Puget Sound data. Sediment Quality Values Tasks 4 and 5a. Draft Report.
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue,
WA. 59 pp. + appendices.
61
-------
Tetra Tech. 1986d. Guidance manual for health risk assessment of chemically
contaminated seafood. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X Office of Puget Sound by Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 75 pp
+ appendices.
Tetra Tech. 1986e. Bioaccumulation monitoring guidance: 6. assessment
of potential human health hazards from priority pollutants in edible marine
organisms. Marine Operations Division Office of Marine and Estuarine Protec-
tion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA Contract No. 68-01-6938
by Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 66 pp. + appendix.
Tetra Tech. 1986f. Commencement Bay/nearshore tideflats feasiblity study.
Source evaluation refinement. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Bellevue, WA. 278 pp.
Tetra Tech. (In Prep.). Eagle Harbor Phase II preliminary investigation.
Prepared for Black & Veatch, Engineers-Architects and Washington Department
of Ecology.
Tobin, P. 28 May 1986. Personal Communication (memorandum to U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Water Quality Management Division Directors, Regions
I-X regarding status of U.S. EPA's sediment quality criteria development
effort). Criteria and Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 5 pp.
Trial, W., and J. Michaud. 1985. Alki wastewater treatment plant outfall
improvements predesign study. Technical Report No. 8.3. Water Quality-
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 89 pp.
U.S. Department of the Navy. 1985. Final environmental impact statement.
Carrier battle group Puget Sound region ship homeporting project. Technical
Appendix. Vol. 2. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Navy, Western Division,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Bruno, CA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria for water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 256 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Water quality criteria documents;
availability. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 231.
pp. 79318-79379.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Development document for
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the pulp, paper, and
paperboard point source category. EPA 440/1-82/025. Effluent Guidelines
Division, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Methods for chemical analysis
of water and wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020. Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
62
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 19835. Results of the nationwide
urban runoff program. Volume 1-Final Report. NTIS No. PB84-185552. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984a (revised July 1985). U.S. EPA
contract laboratory program statement of work for organic analysis, multi-
media, multi-concentration. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Guidelines establishing
test procedures for the analysis of pollutants unde the Clean Water Act.
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Federal Register, Vol. 49. No. 209, pp. 43234-43436.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985a. Contract. 1 aboratory program
statement of work (SOW), inorganic analysis, multimedia, multi-concentration.
SOW No. 785. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985b. National primary drinking
water regulations; volatile synthetic organic chemicals; final rule and
proposed rule. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 219,
pp. 46880-47022.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985c. Water quality criteria;
availability of documents. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Federal Register,
Vol. 50, No. 145, pp. 30784-30796.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Verified Reference Doses
(RfDs) of the U.S. EPA. 1 ECAO-CIN-475. Office of Research and Development,
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 1982. Action levels for poisonous
or deleterious substances in human food and animal feed. Washington, DC.
13 pp.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 1984. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
in fish and shellfish; reduction of tolerance; final decision. U.S. FDA,
Rockville, MO. Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 100. pp. 21514-21520.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1984 (revised 1986). Dangerous waste
regulations. Chapter 173-303 WAC. 122 pp.
Word, J., C. Boatman, C. Ebbesmeyer, R. Finger, S. Fischnaller, and Q. Stober.
(Unpublished). Vertical transport of freon extractable and nonextractable
material and bacteria (fecal col i form and enterococci) to the surface of
marine waters: some experimental results using secondary sewage effluent.
Yake, W., 3 January 1986. Personal Communication. (Draft conceptual matrix
provided to J. Underwood). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia,
WA.
63
-------
Yake, W., J. Joy, and A. Johnson.. 1984. Chemical contaminants in clams
and crabs from Eagle Harbor, Washington State with emphasis on polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons. Water Quality Investigations Section, Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 30 pp.
Young, D.R., G.V. Alexander, and D. McDermott-Ehrlich. 1979. Vessel-related
contamination of southern California harbors by copper and other metals.
Mar. Pollut. Bull., 10:50-56.
64
-------
APPENDIX A
CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN PUGET SOUND
-108
" fi 1983
-------
APPENDIX A TABLES
Number
Al Inorganic contaminants of potential concern in Puget Sound
A2 Organic contaminants of potential concern in Puget Sound
A3 Pollutants of concern included in the draft matrix
A-l
-------
TABLE Al. INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN IN PUGET SOUNDa
Antimony Copperb Si 1 verb
Arsenicb Leadb zinc
Cadmiumb Mercuryb Cyanide
Chromiumc Nickel Organotinsd
a The elements listed are 11 of the 14 U.S. EPA
priority pollutant metals. The remaining three
priority pollutant metals not recommended are
beryllium, thallium, and selenium.
Beryllium and thallium are toxic but have not
been found at concentrations that exceed reference
levels in Puget Sound (see Tetra Tech 1986a,
Appendix A).
High selenium concentrations have been reported
in sediments in a single Puget Sound study;
these values are considered to be elevated
likely because of spectral interferences during
the particular instrumental analysis used (see
Tetra Tech 1986a, Appendix A). Other studies
using alternative techniques have not found
sediment levels of selenium in excess of reference
conditions.
b These elements have been suggested previously
as contaminants of concern in Puget Sound based
on elevated sediment concentrations, bioaccumulation
potential, or toxicity (see Konasewich et al. 1982;
Jones and Stokes 1984).
c Although not found at elevated concentrations
in Puget Sound sediments, chromium may be of
concern in localized areas where chromium-rich
waste are being discharged (e.g., chrome plating
industries).
d Organotins, especially tributyltin, are highly
toxic components of some antifouling paints
used on ships. Analytical techniques are not
readily available and very little data are
available for these compounds in Puget Sound
waters. Because of the large number of shipyard
industries in the Puget Sound area, organotins
may be of concern.
A-2
-------
TABLE A2. ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN IN PUGET SOUND
65* phenol c
HSLb 2-methyl phenolc
HSL 4-methylphenolc
34 2,4-dimethylphenol
Phenols
Substituted Phenols
24 2-chlorophenol
31 2,4-dichlorophenol
22 4-chloro-3-methylphenol
21 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
HSL 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
64 pentachlorophenold
57 2-nitrophenol
59 2,4-dinitrophenoie
60 4,6-dinitro-o-cresole
Mi
scellaneous Organic Acids (guaiacols/resin acids)^
2-methoxyphenol (guaiacol)
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
tetrachloroguaiacol
mono- and di- chlorodehydroabietic acids
Low Molecular Weight Aromatic Hydrocarbonsd
55 naphthalene
77 acenaphthylene
1 acenaphthene
80 fluorene
81 phenanthrene
78 anthracene
Alkylated Low Molecular Weight Aromatic Hydrocarbonsd,g
HSL 2-methyl naphthalene
1-methylnaphthalene
1-, 2-, and 3-methyl phenanthrenes
High Molecular Weight PAH
39 fluoranthene
84 pyrene
72 benzo(a)anthracene
76 chrysene
74 benzo(b)fluoranthene
75
73
83
82
79
A-3
benzo(k)f1uoranthene
benzo(a)pyrene
indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
benzo(g,h,i jperylene
-------
TABLE A2. (Continued)
Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
26 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27 1,4-dichlorobenzene
25 1,2-dichlorobenzene
8 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
20 2-chloronaphthalene
9 hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
12 hexachloroethane
52 hexachlorobutadiened
71 dimethyl phthalate
70 diethyl phthalate
68 di-n-butyl phthalate
Phthalatesd
67 butyl benzyl phthalate
69 di-n-octyl phthalate
Miscellaneous oxygenated compounds
54 isophorone
HSL benzyl alcohqli
HSL benzoic acidi
HSL dibenzofurani
polychlorinated dibenzofuransd.j
polychlorinated dibenzodioxinsj
Organonitrogen Compoundsk
62 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
9(H)- carbazolel
Pesticides
93 p,p'-DOEd»
94 p.p'-DDOdB
92 p.p'-ODTda
89 aldrinda
90 dieldrind
91 alpha-chlordane
98 endrind
100 heptachlor
102 alpha-HCH
103 beta-HCH
104 delta-HCH
105 gamma-HCH (lindane)
PCBsn
Total PCBs (this class includes monochloro-
through decachlorobiphenyls)
A-4
-------
TABLE A2. (Continued)
Volatile Halogenated AlkanesO
45 chloromethane
46 bromomethane
16 chloroethanee
44 dichloromethane
13 l,r-dichloroethane
23 chloroform
10 1,2-dichloroethanee
11 1,1,1-trichloroethanee
6 carbon tetrachloridee
48 bromodichloromethanee
32 1,2-dichloropropane
51 chlorodibromomethanee
14 1,1,2-trichloroethane
47 bromoforme
15 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethanee
Volatile Halogenated AlkenesQ
88 vinyl chloride
29 l.l'-dichloroethene
30 trans-l,2-dichloroethene
33 cis-l,3-dichloropropene
trans-l,3-dichloropropene
87 trichloroethene
85 tetrachloroethene
Volatile Aromatic and Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbonso
4 benzene
86 toluene
38 ethyl benzene
HSL styrene (ethenylbenzene)
HSL total xylenes
7 chlorobenzene
NOTE: Compounds not recommended from the U.S. EPA priority pollutant
list include:
o Halogenated ethers (two volatile and five semivolatile compounds)
are rarely reported in Puget Sound and are not expected
to persist in sediments.
o Hexachlorocyclopentadiene has not been confirmed to be present
in Puget Sound sediments, is easily degraded during laboratory
analysis, and has no suspected sources in Puget Sound.
o Acrolein and acrylonitril e have not been detected in Puget
Sound sediments and are difficult to analyze for in routine
volatiles analysis.
o Other priority pollutants not recommended are indicated
in the following footnotes.
a Indicates U.S. EPA priority pollutant number.
b U.S. EPA Hazardous Substance List (HSL) compound.
A-5
-------
TABLE A2. (Continued)
c Phenol, a U.S. EPA priority pollutant, has been reported at elevated
concentrations in several areas of Puget Sound. Phenol is toxic and may
be associated with effects observed at selected sites in Commencenient Bay,
but because of its slightly polar character, does not have a high bioaccumu-
lation potential. Industrial chemical synthesis is one of many sources
of phenol. 2-Methylphenol is an HSL compound and is a known component
of Kraft pulp effluents. 4-Methylphenol is an HSL compound that was reported
at high concentration in numerous areas of Commencement Bay. There are
little or no historical data available for this compound and it is unknown
whether 4-methylphenol derives principally from degradation of other compounds
or is present directly in industrial discharges. The occurrence of 4-methyl-
phenol was highly correlated with sediment toxicity and effects on benthic
biota in a problem area near a pulp and paper operation in Commencement
Bay. The compound may also be derived as a ground-water contaminant in
other areas.
** Compound or group of compounds has been designated previously as a contaminant
of concern in Puget Sound based on elevated sediment concentrations, bioaccu-
mulation potential, or toxicity (Jones and Stokes 1984, Konasewich et al. 1982,
Quinlan et al. 1985).
e Compound is seldom or not reported, possibly due to analytical problems
presented by the compounds or limited number of analyses.
* Guaiacol was reported in Commencement Bay and is useful as an indicator
of pulp mill effluent. The chlorinated guaiacols have toxicity comparable
to phenolic priority pollutants, are persistent, and are good indicators
of chlorinated pulp mill effluents. Chlorinated dehydroababietic acids
are also good indicators of chlorinated pulp effluent and are expected
to be toxic and persistent (based on studies of unchlorinated dehydroabietic
acid).
9 These non-priority pollutant (U.S. EPA) compounds are often detected
in Puget Sound sediments. Although this is not an exhaustive list of alkylated
aromatic compounds, the compounds shown are accessible as analytical standards
and are useful for determining alkylated/non-alkylated ratios used to indicated
PAH sources.
** HCBD is a toxic and carcinogenic U.S. EPA priority pollutant that has
been reported in various regions of Puget Sound. It is largely a byproduct
of chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g., tri- and tetrachloroethylene) manufacture.
1 Dibenzofuran, benzyl alcohol, and benzoic acid are HSL compounds and
have been detected frequently in Commencement Bay.
A-6
-------
TABLE A2. (Continued)
^ Both classes of compound are of concern because of their severe toxic
affects on higher organisms. Dedicated chemical analyses are required
for these compounds, and few such analyses have been performed on Puget
Sound samples. Thus, the occurrences of these compounds are unknown but
are nonetheless of great potential concern.
tf
The remaining 7 priority pollution organic bases are seldom detected
in Puget Sound and often present analytical problems (e.g., benzidine and
3,3-dichloro-benzidine).
' 9(H)-carbazol is a component of creosote and coal tar and has been reported
in Puget Sound regions with these sources.
m DDT and its chlorinated hydrocarbon metabolites, DOE and ODD, are U.S. EPA
priority pollutants that are persistent, readily bioaccumulated, and very
toxic; DDT itself is a carcinogen. Of the U.S. EPA priority pollutant
pesticides, these compounds are most frequently reported in Puget Sound
sediments and biota although not nearly as often as the other compounds
recommended. Aldrin, another pesticide priority pollutant, has not been
widely reported in Puget Sound but is of concern because of its extremely
high acute toxicity.
n PCBs are a class of U.S. EPA priority pollutants that are widely distributed
among sediments and biota of Puget Sound. PCBs are persistent and have
a high potential to bioaccumulate. PCBs are the only substances present
in Commencement Bay tissue samples that were judged to present a significant
health risk, and were also highly correlated with sediment toxicity. Commercial
PCB mixtures are suspected of containing carcinogens or co-carcinogens
and were used historically in enclosed systems (e.g., capacitors and trans-
formers) that have often been discarded into the environment.
0 Some of the volatile organic compounds are of concern because of their
use in industry and their potential for contamination of groundwater.
A-7
-------
TABLE A3. POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT MATRIX
METALS/METALLOIDS/MISCELLANEOUS INORGANICS
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Organotin complexes
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Low molecular weight PAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
High molecular weight PAH
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
8enzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Total benzofluoranthenes
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons/Pesticides
Total PCBs
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-0 i ch1orobenzene
Organic Acids
Phenol
4-Methylphenol
Miscellaneous Organics
Dibenzofuran
2-Methoxyphenol (guaiacol)
2,3,7,8-Tetrach1orod i ben zo-p-
dioxin (i.e., 2,3,7,8 TCDD)
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-ODD
4,4'-DOE
Aldrin
Dieldrin
gamma-HCH (lindane)
Pentachlorophenol
2-Methylnaphtha!ene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
A-8
Ethyl benzene
Chloroform
-------
APPENDIX B
MATRIX FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
-------
REVISION: 8/15/86
TABLE I. STATUS AND ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
1 23 45678
10
Availability of
U.S. EPA Analytical Methods
Detection Limits (c)
CD
1
t—t
Pollutant
of
Concern
An t Imony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chronlum
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanides
LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
HPAH
Fluoranthene
ri lui IIJT
Pollutant
Water
Sediment
Tissue
Water
High low
Level Level
ug/L ug/l
F
P
P
F
P
P
F
P
P
F
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
F
P
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
£
P
P
P
P
P
F
P
P
P
P
P
F
P
P
F
P
P
F
P
P
P
F
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
f
P
P
P
P
P
F
P
P
P
20
10
1
10
50
S
0.2
40
10
10
10
10 G
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 G
10
3
1
0.1
1
1
1
0.2
1
0.2
10
1 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 G
1
Sediment
High
Level
ug/kg
dry
Might
3000
500
2M
500
1250
250
10
2000
500
1000
2000
MO G
500
500
500
500
500
500
500 G
500
Low
level
ug/kg
dry
Might
100
100
100
100
100
100
10
100
100
200
2000
5 G
S
S
5
S
5
5
5 G
5
Tissue Plant
Low Low
Level level
ug/kg
Mt
Might
20
20
10
20
10
30
10
20
10
200
10 G
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 C
10
lable I footnotes:
a. P • Chemical Is currently on the U.S. EPA Priority Pollutant List.
H •'Chemical Is on the U.S. EPA Hazardous Substance List and
routinely analyzed by the U.S. EPA CLP. although not a priority
pollutant.
H • Chemical is neither * U.S. EPA priority pollutant, nor other
routinely analyzed HSL compound.
b. Availability of analytical Methods.
P - Work routinely performed by ccnaerclal laboratories for which
PSEP protocols are available.
E - Work routinely performed by connerclal laboratories for which
PSEP protocols ire not yet available (e.g.. standard U.S. EPA
procedures for analysis of waters and wastes have not been
specifically Included in the PSEP protocols). N-nltrosodlphenyl-
amlne is covered by PSEP protocol for screening level analysis
only.
S - Work could be performed upon special request while using
existing protocols.
C - Work requiring special equipment or procedures that are not
generally available.
c. G - Detection limits for LPAH and HPAH are based on the detection limit
of a single compound. If PCBs are measured as Aroclors. the
detection limit is that for a single representative Aroclor.
Blank spaces Indicate that the chemical is not typically measured or
two levels of detection limits are not generally applied.
-------
REVISION: 8/15/86
Pollutant
of
Concern
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Total benzof luoranthenes
Benzo( a) pyrene
Indeno) 1 ,2 ,3.c ,d) pyrene
Dtbenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo( g .h , i ) pery lene
Total PCBs
Heiach 1 orobenzene
He»ach lorbutad iene
1 ,3-01chlorobenzene
1 ,4-Olchlorobenzene
4. 4 '-DOT
4. 4 '-ODE
4. 4 '-ODD
Aldrin
Dleldrin
Ganma-HCH
Phenol
TABLE 1. STATUS AND ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
1
U.S. EPA
Pollutant
Status (a)
F
F
P
F
F
P
F
P
P
F
P
P
F
P
F
P
P
F
f
F
2
3
Availability of
Analytical Methods
Water Sediment
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
P
P
F
P
P
P
P
F
P
F
F
P
P
F
P
F
F
P
F
F
4
(°)
Tissue
P
F
F
P
F
P
P
F
P
P
F
P
F
P
P
P
F
P
F
P
5
6
7
8
Detection Limits
Water
High
Level
ug/L
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1.0 C
10
10
10
10
O.I
O.I
0.1
0.05
0.10
0.05
10
low
Level
ug/L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.2 C
1
5
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
2
Sediment
High
Level
ug/kg
dry
weight
500
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
200 6
500
500
500
500
20
20
20
10
10
10
500
Low
Level
ug/kg
dry
weight
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10 C
5
20
5
5
5
5
5
0.1
O.I
O.I
10
9
(c)
Tissue
Low
Level
ug/kg
wet
weight
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
20 C
10
40
10
10
s
5
5
O.I
O.I
O.I
20
10
Plant
low
Level
lable I footnotes:
a. P • Chemical Is currently on the U.S. EPA Priority Pollutant List.
H • Chemical Is on the U.S. EPA Hazardous Substance List and
routinely analyzed by the U.S. EPA CLP. although not a priority
pollutant.
N • Chemical Work requiring special equipment or procedures that are not
generally available.
c. G - Detection limits for LPAH and HPAN are based on the detection limit
of a single compound. If PCBs are measured as Aroclors, the
detection limit is that for a single representative Aroclor.
Blank spaces indicate that the chemical Is not typically measured or
two levels of detection limits are not generally applied.
-------
KEVISION: 8/15/86
Pollutant
of
Concern
CD
I
CJ
4-Hethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Dibenzofuran
2-Metho«yphenol
2-Hethy(naphthalene
N-n1trosodiphenylamine
Tr ichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Chloroform
2.3.7,8-Tetrachlorodtoiiin
Organotin
TABLE 1.
1
U.S. EPA
Priority
Pollutant
H
P
H
N
H
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
STATUS AND
2
ANALVTICAl
J
CONSIDERATIONS FOR POLLUTANTS
4
5 6
Availability of
Analytical Methods (b)
Water
E
E
E
S
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
S
Sediment
f
P
t
S
P
E
P
P
P
P
E
C
Tissue
P
P
P
S
r
E
P
P
P
P
E
C
Water
High Low
Level Level
ug/L ug/L
10 2
SO 10
10 1
20
10
10
10 1
10 1
10 1
10 1
0.01 0.001
0.1
OF CONCERN
7
a
Detection Limits
Sediment
High
level
ug/kg
dry
weight
SOD
1000
500
1000
500
1000
10
10
10
10
1
low
level
ug/kg
dry
weight
10
40
5
10
S
10
S
5
S
S
0.01
9
(c)
Tissue
low
Level
ug/kg
wet
weight
20
ao
10
20
10
20
10
10
10
10
0.01
10
Plant
Low
level
table I footnotes:
a. P - Chemical Is currently on the U.S. EPA Priority Pollutant List.
H - Chemical Is on the U.S. EPA Hazardous Substance List and
routinely analyzed fay the U.S. EPA CLP. although not a priority
pollutant.
N • Chemical Is neither a U.S. EPA priority pollutant, nor other
routinely analyzed HSL compound.
b. Availability of analytical methods.
P * Work routinely performed by commercial laboratories for which
PSEP protocols are available.
E • Work routinely performed by comerclal laboratories for which
PSEP protocols are not yet available (e.g.. standard U.S. EPA
procedures for analysis of waters and wastes have not been
specifically included In the PSEP protocols). H-nltrosodlphenyl-
amine Is covered by PSEP protocol for screening level analysis
only.
S * Work could be performed upon special request while using
existing protocols.
C * Work requiring special equipment or procedures that are not
generally available.
c. G • Detection limits for LPAH and HPAH are based on the detection limit
of a single compound. If PCBs are measured as Aroclors, the
detection limit Is that for a single representative Aroclor.
Blank spaces Indicate that the chemical Is not typically measured or
two levels of detection limits are not generally applied.
-------
REVISION: 8/15/86
TABLE 2. CRITERIA. GUIDELINES. AND REGULATOR* ACTION LEVELS FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
1 234567
4 S
Ambient Uater
U.S. EPA
Drinking
Uater
Standards (a)
U.S. EPA Ambient Uater Criteria
freshwater
Aquatic Life (
Saltwater
Aquatic Life (b)
Hunan
Health Effects (c)
Pollutant
of
Concern
CO
Antimony
Arsenic
CadmluB
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Z1nc
Cyanides
LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
HPAH
Fluoranthene
ug/L
Acute
ug/L
Chronic
ug/L
Acute
ug/L
Chronic
ug/L
10 E-6
Cancer
Risk
ng/L
Toxic Ity
ug/L
SON
ION. 5PR
SON, 5PR
(9000)
190
1.8H
980H/16*
(1000), 1300PR 9.2H
SON, 20PR
2N, 3PR
SON
(5000)
34H
2.4
IIOOH
1.2H
180H
22
(2300)
(1700)
(1600)
360
0.66H
I20H/I1*
6.5H
1.3H
0.012
56H
(0.12)
47
5.2
(620)
69
43
1100
2.9
140
2.1
140
2.3
170
1.0
(300)
(2350)
(970) (710)
36
9.3
50
2.9
5.6
0.025
7.1
58
1.0
17.5
45000
101
3433/501
501
0.146
100
501
33.1
(3980)
(300)
(40)
33.1
(16)
52
Table 2 footnotes:
a. R • Recommended maximum contaminant levels (RHCL). non-enforceable
health goals.
N • Naxtmum contaminant Itvel (NCL); enforceable standards.
P * Proposed value.
( ) * Secondary RCML are In parentheses.
Blank spaces Indicate no NCL or RHCL are proposed or exist.
b.( ) • Where Insufficient data are available to derive criteria,
concentrations representative of apparent threshold levels for
acute and/or chronic toxic effects are described in the U.S.
EPA criteria documents. These concentrations, along with
associated narrative descriptions, are intended to convey some
Information about the degree of toxicity of a pollutant in the
absence of established criteria. In sane Instances, the
documents provide separate toxicity concentrations for algae.
These have not been Included In this table.
H • Freshwater quality criteria for some chemicals are a function of
hardness. The relationship is not linear and the equations
specific to each chemical are found in the criteria documents.
For this table, a criteria concentration based on a hardness
value of SO mg/L calcium carbonate Is provided. Exact criteria
values must be calculated from the equations.
• • Where two values are provided for chromium, the first Is for
trlvalent chromium (HI) and the second Is for hexavalent
chromium (VI).
Blank spaces Indicate that no criteria or toxicity thresholds
are presented In the water quality criteria documents.
c. The U.S. EPA water quality criteria documents contain criteria based
on human health effects associated with exposure from consumption of
fish and shellfish that are assumed to have bloconcentrated
pollutants from the water In which they live. The criteria
concentrations were estimated using the following assumptions:
one 70-kg man as the exposed individual, and the average daily
consumption of freshwater and estaurlne fish and shellfish products
equal to 6.5 g/day. The calculated concentrations presented In the
•cancer risk* column are associated with an estimated 1 in 1 million
incremental cancer risk. For noncarclnogens, the "toxtclty* column
displays the calculated concentration expected to protect humans
from adverse effects.
I • Analysis of the toxic effects data resulted In a calculated
value comparable to the existing drinking water standards. No
criteria were calculated based solely on the consumption of
seafood. The drinking water standard Is shown.
* • Where two values are provided for chromium, the first Is for
trlvalent chromium (III) and the second Is for hexavalent
chromium (VI).
Blank spaces indicate that no hunan health data are available
in the water quality criteria documents.
-------
REVISION: 8/15/86
TABLE 2. CRITERIA, GUIDELINES. AMI REGULATOR* ACTION LEVELS FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
4 S
Ambient UiUr
Pollutant
of
Concern
U.S. EPA
Drinking
Hater
Standards (a)
ug/L
U.S. EPA Art lent Hater Criteria
Table 2 footnotes:
Freshwater
Aquatic Life (b)
Saltwater
Aquatic life (b)
HUMH
Health Effects (c)
Acute
ug/L
Chronic
ug/L
10 E-6
Cancer
Acute Chronic Risk Toxicity
ug/L ug/L ng/L ug/L
Pyrene
6enzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Total benzofluoranthenes
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(l,2,3,c,d)pyrene
01benzo(a,h)anthracene
Ben;o(g.h,l)perylene
Total PCBs
CO Hexachlorobenzene
I
Cn Hexachtorbutadlene
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
4.4'-00I
4.4'-DDE
4.4'-ODD
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Gamna-HCH
Phenol
0.014
(250)
(90)
11120)
(1120)
1.1
(1050)
(0.6)
3.0
2.S
2.0
(10200)
0.014
(9.31
(763)
(7631
0.0010
0.001)
0.080
(2560)
(160)
(32)
(1970)
(1970)
0.13
(14)
(3.6)
1.3
0.71
0.16
(SUM)
0.030
(129)
0.0010
0.0019
0.079
0.74
50000
0.024
0.079
0.076
2600
2600
769000
contaminant levels (RHCL), non-enforceable
a. R • Recommended maxim
health goals.
H • Maximum contaminant level (MCL); enforceable standards.
P • Proposed value.
( ) • Secondary RCML are In parentheses.
Blank spaces Indicate no MCL or RHCL are proposed or exist.
b.( ) > Hhere Insufficient data are available to derive criteria,
concentrations representative of apparent threshold levels for
acute and/or chronic toxic effects are described in the U.S.
EPA criteria documenti. These concentrations, along with
associated narrative descriptions, are Intended to convey some
Information about the degree of toxicity of a pollutant in the
absence of established criteria. In some Instances, the
documents provide separate toxicity concentrations for algae.
These have not been Included In this table.
H • Freshwater quality criteria for some chemicals are a function of
hardness. The relationship Is not linear and the equations
specific to each chemical are found in the criteria documents.
For this table, a criteria concentration based on a hardness
value of SO mg/L calcium carbonate is provided. Exact criteria
values must be calculated from the equations.
• • Hhere two values are provided for chromium, the first is for
trivalent chromium (III) and the second Is for hexavalent
chromium (VI).
Blank spaces Indicate that no criteria or toxtclty thresholds
are presented in the water quality criteria documents.
c. The U.S. EPA water quality criteria documents contain criteria based
on human health effects associated with exposure from consumption of
fish and shellfish that are assumed to have btoconcentrated
pollutants fron the water in which they live. The criteria
concentrations were estimated using the following assumptions:
one 70-kg man as the exposed individual, and the average dally
consumption of freshwater and tstaurlne fish and shellfish products
equal to 6.5 g/day. The calculated concentrations presented in the
•cancer risk* column are associated with an estimated 1 in 1 million
Incremental cancer risk. For noncarclnogens, the "toxtcity' column
displays the calculated concentration expected to protect humans
from adverse effects.
I • Analysis of the toxic effects data resulted in a calculated
value comparable to the existing drinking water standards. 'No
criteria were calculated based solely on the consumption of
seafood. The drinking water standard Is shown.
• > Where two values are provided for chromium, the first is for
trivalent chromium (III) and the second is for hexavalent
chromium (VI).
Blank spaces indicate that no human health data are available
in the water quality criteria documents.
-------
REVISION: 8/15/8*
TABLE 2. CRITERIA. CUIDELIMES. AND REGULATOR* ACTION LEVELS FOR POLLUTANTS Of CONCERN
Pollutant
of
Concern
1
U.S. EPA
Drinking
Vtter
Standards (•)
ug/L
4 5
Ambient Hater
7
U.S. EPA Ambient Utter Criteria
Freshwater
Aquatic Life (b)
Saltwater
Aquatic life (b)
Hunan
Health Effects (c)
Acute
ug/L
Chronic
ug/L
Acute
ug/L
Chronic
ug/L
10 E-6
Cancer
Risk Toxlclty
ng/L ug/L
4-Methylphenol
PentachIorophenoI
Olbenzofuran
2-Hethoiyphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
N-nltrosodiphenylamlne
trtchloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Chloroforo
™ 2.3.7.8-Tetrachlorodloxln
Ot
OrganotIn
2ZOPR
OR. 5PM
OR
680P8
100M
(551
(5850)
(45000)
(5280)
(12000)
(3.2)
(53)
(34)
29400
(840)
(3300000)
(2000) (450)
(10200)
(410)
16100
80700
88SO
1280
15.7
Table 2 footnotes:
a. R • Recommended maximum contaminant levels (RHCL), non-enforceable
health goals.
H • Maximum contaminant level (MCL); enforceable standards.
P * Proposed value.
( ) • Secondary RCHL are In parentheses.
Blank spaces Indicate no HCL or RHCL are proposed or exist.
b.( ) • Where Insufficient data are available to derive criteria.
concentrations representative of apparent threshold levels for
acute and/or chronic toxic effects are described In the U.S.
EPA criteria documents. These concentrations, along with
associated narrative descriptions, are Intended to convey some
Information about the degree of toxlclty of a pollutant In the
absence of established criteria. In sone Instances, the
documents provide separate toxlclty concentrations for algae.
These have not been Included In this table.
H - Freshwater quality criteria for sone chemicals are a function of
hardness. The relationship Is not linear and the equations
specific to each chemical are found In the criteria documents.
For this table, a criteria concentration based on a hardness
value of SO ag/L calcium carbonate Is provided. Exact criteria
values must be calculated from the equations.
• • Where two values are provided for chromium, the first Is for
trlvalent chromium (III) and the second Is for hexavalent
chromium (VI).
Blank spaces Indicate that no criteria or toil city thresholds
are presented In the water quality criteria documents.
c. The U.S. EPA water quality criteria documents contain criteria based
on human health effects associated with exposure from consumption of
fish and shellfish that are assumed to have bloconcentrated
pollutants from the water In which they live. The criteria
concentrations were estimated using the following assumptions:
one 70-kg man as the exposed Individual, and the average dally
consumption of freshwater and estaurine fish and shellfish products
equal to 6.5 g/day. The calculated concentrations presented in the
•cancer risk* column are associated with an estimated 1 In 1 million
Incremental cancer risk. For noncarcinogens. the "toxlcity" column
displays the calculated concentration expected to protect humans
from adverse effects.
I * Analysis of the toxic effects data resulted In a calculated'
value comparable to the existing drinking water standards. No
criteria were calculated based solely on the consumption of
seafood. The drinking water standard is shown.
• • Where two values are provided for chromium, the first Is for
trlvalent chromium (III) and the second is for hexavalent
chromium (VI).
Blank spaces indicate that no hunan health data are available
in the water quality criteria documents.
-------
REVISION: 8/15/86
IABLE 2. CRITERIA. GUIDELINES. REGULATORY AC I ION LEVELS FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
a 9
10
Apparent Effects
Pollutant
of
Concern
Antinony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
CDZinc
^j Cyanides
LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
HPAH
Fluoranthene
Screening
Level Amphlpod
Concen. Toxic ity
ug/kg ug/kg
Organic Dry
Carbon (d) Weight
5300
93000
6700
> 130000
800000
700000
2100
> 120000
>3700
870000
5200
36700 (734) 2100
560
630
540
25100 (502) 2100
960
18000
41900 (838) 3900
Oyster
Larvae
Toxic Ity
ug/kg
Dry
Weight
26000
700000
9600
> 37000
390000
660000
590
39000
>560
1600000
5200
2100
>560
500
540
1500
960
17000
2500
II
Sediment
Threshold (e)
Nlcrotox
Toxic Ity
ug/kg
Dry
Weight
26000
700000
9600
27000
390000
530000
410
28000
>560
1600000
5200
2100
>560
500
540
1500
960
12000
1700
12
Btnthlc
Effects
ug/kg
Dry
Weight
3200
85000
5800
59000
310000
300000
880
49000
5200
260000
6100
2100
640
500
640
3200
1300
>51000
6300
13
Dangerous
Wast*
Designa-
tion
in
1
t.t.lP
EP
C,»,IP
EP
EP
EP
A.R
B
>
I
1
1
I
1
14 15 16 17
Shellfish and Fish Tissue
U.S. FOA Ranges (g)
Action of Other
level- Limits
Seafood Seafood
ppm pom Dos* genie
Wet Wet mg/day (h) Potency
Weight Weight Factor
ID
1-1.5 0.29
0.1-10 I5C
0-5.5 6. IN
1.0 125/0.175* 4IN
10-100
0.5-10
1.0 0.1-1 O.I
1.5 1.05N
0.016
30-1000
2
0.4
Table Z footnotes:
d. Ihe screening level concentrations (SLC) are expressed as ug/kg
organic carbon. For comparison purposes only, dry-weight values
In parentheses are calculated by Multiplying the SLC values by
the average organic carbon content In Puget Sound (I.e.. 2 percenI
expressed as a decimal fraction. The dry-weight values calculate!
In this aanner are not the sane values that would be derived
If the SIC approach were applied to dry-weight concentrations
for Individual data points. Hence, these values should not be
used as guidelines. Also, the developers of the SLC approach
only recoxnend using data normalized to organic carton content
for determining SLC.
Blank spaces Indicate that no SLC value has been established.
e. A *>* symbol Indicates that an apparent effect threshold has not
been established (I.e., the value shown Is the highest concentra-
tion found at a non-impacted station and no higher concentrations
have been documented.
f. The dangerous waste regulations (I.e., 173-303 UAC). provide the
reasons for designation of a chemical as an extremely hazardous
waste or dangerous waste and categories of reportable quantities.
EHW - Extremely Hazardous Waste
DU '.Dangerous Waste
I • Toxic. Catagorjr I
A - Toilc. Category A
B - Tonic, Calagory I
C = Toxic, Catagory C
0 - loilc, Catagory 0
H > Persistent, Halogenated Hydrocarbon
0 * Corrosive
P = Perststant, Polycycllc Aroutlc Hydrocarbon
« - International Agency for Research on Cancer (IAKCJ Animal or
Hunan positive or suspected carcinogen.
I * Ignitable
R * Reactive
EP » Extraction Procedure TonicIty.
A chemical that Is not listed or specifically designated My still
be designated as EHU or OW by the regulations.
g. The ranges shown represent the legal Halts established by other
countries for edible Marine organism. The values were compiled by
the Food and Agricultural Organization of the united Nations.
h. The Reference Dose (NfO) Is the highest average dally exposure
over a lifetime that would not be expected to cause adverse effects
* • Where two values are provided for chromium, the first Is for
trivalent chromium (III) and the second Is for hexavalent
chromium (VI).
Blank spaces Indicate that no RfO Is available.
I. Carcinogens are characterized by a Carcinogenic Potency Factor,
a measure of the cancer-causing potential of the substance.
C = A plot of lifetime cancer risk vs. concentration in seafood
is found in Appendix C.
N = Not considered a carcinogen via dietary exposure.
Blank spaces indicate that no potency factor is available.
-------
REVISION: 8/15/86
TABLE 2. CRITERIA. GUIDELINES. REGULATOR* ACTION LEVELS FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
8 9
10
Apparent Effects
Pollutant
of
Concern
Pyrene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Chrysene
Total benzof luoranthenes
Benzo(a)pyrene
1 ndeno) 1 .2 , 3 ,c ,d)pyrene
Dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzolg, h,i)perylene
Total PCBs
Hexachlorobenzene
CD Hexachlorbutadlene*
00 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Olchlorobenzene
4,4'-DDT
4.4'-DDE
4 4 '-000
A Irir in
A IQr Id
0 ic lor In
Gama-HCH
Phenol
Screening
Level Anphlpod
Cone en. Toxic Ity
ug/kg ug/kg
Organic Dry
Carbon (d) Height
18100 (762) 4100
26900 (538) 1600
26100 (522) 2800
3700
39600 (792) 2400
690
260
740
4360 (87) 2500
130
290
>170
260
47600 (952) 3.9
IS
43
560
Oyster
Larvae
Toxic Ity
ug/kg
Dry
Height
3300
1600
2800
3600
1600
690
230
720
1100
230
270
>I70
120
>6
420
11
Sediment
Threshold (ej
Hlcrotox
Toxic Ity
ug/kg
Dry
Height
2600
1300
1400
3200
1600
600
230
670
130
70
120
>170
110
1200
12
Benthlc
Effect!
ug/kg
Dry
Height
>7300
4500
6700
8000
6800
>5200
1200
5400
1100
230
270
>I70
120
11
9
2
1200
13
Dangerous
Haste
Designa-
tion
(0
II
P.*.«
P.*. I
P.*. «
»,«.P
P.*.»
».!•
».A.H
H,*
C.H.I.T
I.H
I.H
«.H.»
*,*.H
H,*,'
I.H
I,H.»
H,*.B
C
14 15 16 17
Shellfish and Fish Tissue
U.S. FDA Ranges (g)
Action of Other
Level- Halts
Seafood Seafood
ppm ppm Dos* genie
Het Met mg/day (h) Potency
Height Height Factor
II. 5C
2 1-$ 4.34C
1.67C
0.077SC
0.94
0.94
5 2-5 0.34
5 S 0.34
5 S 0.34
0.3 0.1-1 11.4
0.3 0.1-1
0.1-2 1.33
7
Table 2 footnotes:
d. The screening level concentrations (SLC) are expressed as ug/kg
organic carbon. For comparison purposes only, dry-weight values
In parentheses are calculated by Multiplying the SLC values by
the average organic carbon content in Puget Sound (I.e., 2 percent
expressed as a decuul fraction. The dry-weight values calculated
In this manner are not the same values that would be derived
If the SLC approach were applied to dry-weight concentrations
for individual data points. Hence, these values should not be
used as guidelines. Also, the developers of the SLC approach
only recomnend using data normalized to organic carbon content
for determining SLC.
Blank spaces Indicate that no SLC value has been established.
e. A *>* symbol indicates that an apparent effect threshold has not
been established (I.e., the value shown Is the highest concentra-
tion found at a non- Impacted station and no higher concentrations
have been documented.
f. The dangerous waste regulations (i.e., 173-303 MAC), provide the
reasons for designation of a chemical as an extremely hazardous
waste or dangerous waste and categories of reportatale quantities.
EHM Extremely Hazardous Waste
DM .Dangerous Haste
I Toxic, Catagory 1
A Toxic, Category A
B Toxic, Catagory (
C Toxic, Catagory C
D Toxic, Catagory D
H Persistent, Halogenated Hydrocarbon
0 Corrosive
P Persistant, Polycycllc ATOM tic Hydrocarbon
* International Agency for Research on Cancer (1ARC) Animal or
Human positive or suspected carcinogen.
1 Ignitable
R Reactive
EP Extraction Procedure Toxictty.
A chemical that Is not listed or specifically designated may still
be designated as EHM or DM by the regulations.
g. The ranges shown represent the legal limits established by other
countries for edible marine organisms. The values were compiled by
the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations'.
h. The Deference Dose (RfO) Is the highest average dally exposure
over a lifetime that would not be expected to cause adverse effects
• = Mhere two values are provided for chraatun, the first Is for
trivalent chromium (111) and the second is for hexavalent
chromium (VI).
Blank spaces Indicate that no RfD is available.
Carcinogens are characterized by a Carcinogenic Potency Factor,
a measure of the cancer-causing potential of the substance.
C - A plot of lifetime cancer risk vs. concentration in seafood
is found in Appendix C.
N = Not considered a carcinogen via dietary exposure.
Blank spaces indicate that no potency factor is available.
-------
REVISION: 8/IS/86
TABLE 2. CRITERIA, GUIDELINES, REGULATOR* ACTION LEVELS FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Pollutant
of
Concern
8
9
10
Apparent Effects
Screening
Level
Cone en.
ug/kg
Organic
Carbon (d)
Amphlpod
Toxlclty
ug/kg
Dry
Height
Oyster
larvae
foxlcity
ug/kg
Dry
Height
II
Sediment
Threshold (e)
Hlcroton
Toxlclty
ug/kg
Dry
Height
12
Benthlc
Effects
ug/kg
Dry
Height
13
Dangerous
Histe
DCS Igna-
tlon
(')
14
U.S. FDA
Action
Level-
Seafood
PP»
Met
Height
IS
Shellfish
Ranges (g)
of Other
Limits
Seafood
PP»
Uet
Height
16
and Fish Tissue
Reference
Dose
•g/diy (h)
17
Care 1 no-
gen Ic
Potency
Factor
(1)
4-Me thy I phenol
Pentachloropheno)
Olbenzofuran
2-Methoxyphenol
2-Hethylnaphthalene
N-nitrosodlphenylanlne
Irlchloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylben/ene
Chloroform
CO 2.J,7.8-Tetrachlorod1oxln
I
iO Organotin
1200
>MO
MO
670
220
>210
>50
670
>140
540
670
130
140
37
670
>140
540
670
40
>140
33
670 C
>140 A,H
$40
0
670 0
75 B.»
C.H.»
140 C.H.»
37 C.I
C.H.*
0.00492
0.011
O.OS1
0.07
156000
lable 2 footnotes:
d. The screening level concentrations (SLC) are expressed as ug/kg
organic carbon. For comparison purposes only, dry-weight values
in parentheses are calculated by null(plyIng the SLC values by
the average organic carbon content In Puget Sound (I.e., 2 percenl
expressed as a decimal fraction. The dry-weight values calculate!
in this Manner are not the sane values that would be derived
If the SLC approach were applied to dry-weight concentrations
for Individual data points. Hence, these values should not be
used as guidelines. Also, the developers of the SLC approach
only reconnend using data normalized to organic carbon content
for determining SLC.
Blank spaces Indicate that no SLC value has been established.
e. A •>' symbol Indicates that an apparent effect threshold has not
been established (I.e., the value shown Is the highest concentra-
tion found at a non-impacted station and no higher concentrations
have been documented.
f. The dangerous waste regulations (I.e.. 173-303 UAC). provide the
reasons for designation of a chemical as an extremely hazardous
waste or dangerous waste and categories of reportable quantities.
EHU • Extremely Hazardous Haste
OH '.Dangerous Haste
I = Toxic, Catagory I
A • Toxic. Category A
B * Toxic, Catagory B
C * Toxic, Catagory C
0 » Toxic, Catagory D
H - Persistent, Halogenated Hydrocarbon
0 » Corrosive
P ' Persistant, Polycycllc Aromatic Hydrocarbon
> » International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Animal or
Hunan positive or suspected carcinogen.
I - Ignitable
R > Reactive
EP * Extraction Procedure Toxlcity.
A chemical that is not listed or specifically designated nay still
be designated as EHH or DH by the regulations.
g. The ranges shown represent the legal limits established by other
countries for edible marine organisms. The values were compiled by
the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
h. The Reference Dose (RfO) Is the highest average dally exposure
over a lifetime that would not be expected to cause adverse effects,
• - Hhere two values are provided for chromium, the first Is for
trivalent chromium (III) and the second is for hexavalent
chromium (VI).
Blank spaces indicate that no RfO Is available.
i. Carcinogens are characterized by a Carcinogenic Potency Factor,
a measure of the cancer-causing potential of the substance.
C - A plot of lifetime cancer risk vs. concentration in seafood
is found in Appendix C.
N = Not considered a carcinogen via dietary exposure.
Blank spaces indicate that no potency factor Is available.
-------
REVISION: 8/15/86
REVISION: 8/15/86
IABLE 3. SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS
I 2
Pollutant
of
Concern
Antimony
Arsenic
Cactnium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanides
LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
HPAH
f luoranthene
Pollutant
of
Concern
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanides
LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
HPAH
F luoranthene
Point
Municipal (a)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
Sources
Industrial (b)
C.CA.LS.OR
C.OR.LS.(S)
CP.C.(M)
F.CP.(S)
P,C.CP.OR.CA.LS.(M).|L
C.OC.CA.OR
CA.B.OC.CA.OR
C.CA.OC.(M)
(CP)
C.OC.CA.OR.LS.fM)
CP.C.(F).(M)
L,(M)
L.P
L
L
L
L
I
L,(M)
L
CSOs (c)
A
A
A
A
).(S) A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
a
B
A
A
B
A
A
Nonpolnt
Sources (d)
UR.IR
UR
UR
UR
UR.IR.GU
UR.IR.GU
UR.IR.GU
UR
UR.IR.GU
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
Spills (e)
OS
OS
c
OS
OS
c.os
OS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 3 footnotes:
a. Municipal
A • Chemical occurs in >25 percent of samples from Puget Sound
municipal discharges.
B - Chemical occurs In <25 percent of samples from Puget Sound
municipal discharges.
C • Chemical not detected based on available information.
Blanks Indicate that there are insufficient data to categorize.
b. Industrial: Industries In which chemical nay be found.
S Ship building/repair
P Pulp mills
C Copper smelters
CP Chrome plating, sliver plating
F Ferro, silicon, chrome Industries
CA Chloral kail plants
B Bleach plant
L Log/wood treatment facility
OC Organic chemical manufacturing
1C Inorganic chemical manufacturing
IS Log sort yards
H Primary production of ferros and non«ferros metals
ON Oil refining
OC Dry-cleaning
Codes In parentheses Indicate Industries which are potential
sources but have not been documented In Puget Sound.
Blanks Indicate that there are Insufficient data to categorize
c. CSOs
A - Chemical occurs In >2S percent of samples from Puget Sound
B • Chemical occurs In <25 percent of samples from Puget Sound
C - Chemical not detected based on available Information.
Blanks Indicate that there are Insufficient data to categorize
d. Nonpolnt Sources: Types of nonpolnt sources where chemical ma
found.
UR - Urban runoff
AR ». Agricultural runoff
IR • .Industrial runoff
GU * Groundwater
CSOs
CSOs
y be
e. Spills: Kinds of spills where chemical may be found.
0 = Oil spills
C - Miscellaneous product spills
OS - Ore spills
Blanks indicate that there are insufficient data to categorize.
-------
REVISION: a/15/86
MILE 3. SOUDCES Of POLLUTANTS
I Z
Pollutant
nf
Ol
Concern
Pyrene
Benzo( a | anthracene
Chrysene
Total benzofluoranthenes
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno|l,2,3,c,d)pyrene
D ibenzo) a ,h) anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Total PCBs
_ Heiachlorobenzene
, . Heiachlorbutadiene
I— •
1 ,3-dich!orobenzene
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
4.4'-OOT
4, 4 '-ODE
4 .4 '-000
Aldrin
Oieldrin
Qdima-HCH
Phenol
Point Sources
Municipal (a) Industrial (b)
A I
A L
A t
A L
A L
A L
B I
A L
B
C
C OC
B
B
C
C
c
c
A OC.IC.OR.P.L.LS
Nonpolnt
Sources (d) Spills (e)
CSOs (c)
A UR 0
A *0
A UR 0
0
B 0
A 0
B 0
8 0
A C
C
C
B IR
B IR
C AR
AR
C ,Aft
C AR
AR
UR.AR C
A UR.IR
Table 3 footnotes:
a. Municipal
A - Chemical occurs in >25 percent of samples from Puget Sound
municipal discharges.
B • Chemical occurs 1* <25 percent of samples from Puget Sound
municipal discharges.
C • Chemical not detected based on available Information.
Blanks Indicate that there are Insufficient data to categorize.
b. Industrial: Industries In which chemical may be found.
S Ship building/repair
P Pulp mills
C Copper smelters
CP Chrome plating, sliver plating
F Ferro. silicon, chrome Industries
CA Chloralkall plants
B Bleach plant
I Log/mod treatment facility
OC Organic chemical manufacturing
1C Inorganic chemical manufacturing
LS Log sort yards
H Primary production of ferros and non»ferros metals
OR Oil refining
OC Dry-cleaning
Codes In parentheses Indicate Industries which are potential
sources but have not been documented U Puget Sound.
Blanks Indicate that there are insufficient data to categorize.
c. CSOs
A - Chemical occurs In >25 percent of samples from Puget Sound CSOs
B - Chemical occurs In <2S percent of samples from Puget Sound CSOs
C • Chemical not detected based on available Information.
Blanks Indicate that there are insufficient data to categorize.
d. Nonpolnt Sources: Types of nonpotnt sources where chemical may be
found.
UR • Urban runoff
All - Agricultural runoff
ID • Industrial runoff
Blanks indicate that there are Insufficient data to categorize.
e. Spills: Kinds of spills where chemical may be found.
0 * Oil spills
C = Miscellaneous product spills
OS > Ore spills
Blanks indicate that there are Insufficient data to categorize.
-------
KfVlSION: fl/15/86
REVISION: 8/16/86
IABLE 3. SOURCES OF POLLUIANTS
I 2
Pollutant
of
Concern
Pollutant
of
Concern
4-methylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Oibenzofuran
2-netho>yphenol
2-methy(naphthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamlne
Trichloroethene
letrachloroethene
EthyIbenzene
Chloroform
2,3.7.8-tetrachlorodioiin
Organotin
4-methylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Oibenzofuran
2-metho«yphenol
2-methy (naphthalene
N-nltrosodlphenylamlne
Trlchloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Chloroform
2,J.7,8-tetrachlorod1o»1n
Organotin
Point Sources
Municipal (a) Industrial (b)
(H
B P.OC.IC.L
I
(•"I
C
A P.OC.CA.(DC)
A P.OC.IC.CA.(DC)
A
A F
Non point
Source, (d) Spills (.) ubu , 1oolaotei.
CSOt a. Municipal
A • Chemical occurs In >25 percent of samples from Puget Sound
municipal discharges.
B • Chemical occur. In <25 percent of samples from Puget Sound
. ... ,„ municipal discharges.
1 •' C - Chemical not detected based on available information.
Hanks Indicate that there are Insufficient data to categorize.
b. Industrial: Industries In which chemical may be found.
0 S
0 P
. C
* CP
. ,u F
A GU p.
A GU *
A f) *^
* ° 1C
A LS
* M
OR
ru-
Sh Ip building/repair
Pulp mills
Copper smelters
Chrome plating, silver plating
Ferro. silicon, chrome industries
Chloralkall plants
Bleach plant
Log/wood treatment facility
Organic chemical manufacturing
Inorganic chemical manufacturing
Log sort yards
Primary production of ferros and non*ferros metals
Oil refining
nrw*r leanlna
Codes In parentheses Indicate Industries uhlch are potential
sources but have not been documented in Puget Sound.
Blanks Indicate that there are insufficient data to categorize.
c. CSOs
A • Chealcal occurs In >25 percent of saoples fro* Puget Sound CSOs.
B » Chemical occurs In <25 percent of samples from Puget Sound CSOs.
C • Chemical not detected based on available information.
Blanks indicate that there are insufficient data to categorize.
d. Nonpolnt Sources: Types of nonpoint sources where chemical may be
found.
UR • Urban runoff
AH ' Agricultural runoff
IR * Industrial runoff
GU • Groundwater
Blanks Indicate that there are insufficient data to categorize.
e. Spills: Kinds of spills where chemical nay be found.
0 = Oil spills
C = Miscellaneous product spills
OS - Ore spills
Blanks Indicate that there are insufficient data to categorize.
-------
REVISIOH:8/15/86
TABLE 4. CHARACTERISTICS AW SINKS FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
123 4
Sediment Effect*
Pollutant
of
Concern
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Leid
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
CO line
J~* Cyanides
OJ
LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
phenanthrene
Anthracene
HPAH
Fluor an thene
Sediment la)
AccuMilttion
»
Y
If
Y
1
Y
r
i
i
Y
Y
r
T
r
i
Y
Y
Y
Y
Fish
Infauna (b) Pathology (c)
1
1
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
1
1
1
1
1
B
C
B
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Wattr
Marine
Organism (d)
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Wildlife (e)
Birds
Eagles Other
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C C
C C
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
Kraals
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Table 4 footnotes:
a. Y > Yes. chenlcal has been documented to accumulate In sediment
In Puget Sound.
U » Uncertain If chenlcal accumulates In sediment, but data suggest
that It does not.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
b. Chemicals that accumulate In sediments and are known or suspected of
adversely affecting benthic Infauna.
A » Pollutant has been detected In Puget Sound >10 percent of the
tine at concentrations half or greater than half an appropriate
sediment quality value.
B - Pollutant has been detected in Puget Sound <10 percent of the
tine, at concentrations half or greater than half an appropriate
sediment quality value.
C • Benthic effects sediment quality values have not been
established, but based on known characteristics this chemical
has the potential to create problems.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
c. C • Chemical can accumulate In sediments and Is suspected of
causing pathological effects in fish. There are no sediment
quality values based on fish pathology.
Blank spaces indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
d. A - Chemical has been detected In Puget Sound at a concentration
exceeding an available U.S. EPA saltwater criterion.
B - Chemical has not been detected In Puget Sound at a concentration
exceeding an available U.S. EPA saltwater criterion.
C « U.S. EPA saltwater criterion Is not available.
e. A > Pollutant has been detected In tissue of wildlife at levels 10
times as high as those from reference areas.
B = Based on limited data, this pollutant has been detected but
at concentrations less than 10 times as high as reference areas
or reference concentrations Here not provided.
C - Chemical has been analyzed for in wildlife tissue but has not.
been detected.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
-------
REVlS10N:am/86
TABLE 4. CHARACTERISTICS AND SINKS FOR POLLUTANTS Of CONCERN
I Z 3 4
Sediment Effects
Pollutant
Concern
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Total benzofluoranthenes
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(l,2,J.c,d)pyrenl
Dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene
Total PCBs
Of He«achlorobenzene
^ Hexachlorbutadlene
1 ,3-D1chlorobenzene
l,4-01chlorobenzene
4. 4 '-DOT
4. 4 '-ODE
4. 4 '-000
Aldrln
Dleldrln
Gama-HCH
Phenol
Sediment (a)
Accumulation
1
1
1
r
»
>
»
»
>
r
»
•
i
i
T
r
»
*
V
Infauna (b)
C
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
S
A
B
C
A
A
A
A
B
Fish
Pathology (c)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Mater
Htrln*
Organism (d)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
C
C
C
c
Mlldllf* (e)
Birds
Eagles Other
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
A
C
C
C
C
Mammals
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
B
B
B
B
B
table 4 footnotes:
a. V • fet, chemical h*t been documented to accumulate In sediment
In Puget Sound.
U • Uncertain If cheated accumulates In sediment, but data suggest
that It does not.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
b. Chemicals that accumiUte In sediments and are known or suspected of
adversely affecting benthlc Infauna.
A - Pollutant has been detected In Puget Sound >10 percent of the
tine at concentrations half or greater than half an appropriate
sediment quality value.
B - Pollutant has been detected In Puget Sound <10 percent of the
time, at concentrations half or greater than half an appropriate
sediment quality value.
C • Benthlc effects sediment quality values have not been
established, but based on known characteristics this chemical
has the potential to create problems.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
c. C • Chemical can accumulate In sediments and Is suspected of
causing pathological effects In fish. There are no sediment
quality values based on fish pathology.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
d. A - Chemical has been detected in Puget Sound at a concentration
exceeding an available U.S. EPA saltwater criterion.
B - Chemical has not been detected In Puget Sound at a concentration
exceeding an available U.S. EPA saltwater criterion.
C • U.S. EPA saltwater criterion Is not available.
e. A > Pollutant has been detected In tissue of wildlife at levels 10
times as high as those from reference areas.
B • Based on limited data, this pollutant has been detected but
at concentrations less than 10 times as high as reference areas
or reference concentrations were not provided.
C - Chemical has been analyzed for In wildlife tissue but has not
been detected.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
-------
REVISION:8/15/86
TABLE 4. CHARACTERISTICS AND SINKS FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
123 4
PolluUnt
of
Concern
CD
I
4-Hethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Dtbenzofuran
2-Hetho»yphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
N-nltrosodtphenylamlne
Trtchloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethy(benzene
Chloroform
2,3,7.8-Ietrachlorodlcutn
Organotln
Sediment (a)
Accumulation
1
I
1
1
1
T
»'
I
»
U
U
Sediment E
Infauna (b)
A
C
A
B
B
A
B
A
C
ffects Hater Wildlife (e)
Fish Marine
Pathology (c) Organisms (d) Birds Mammals
Eagles Other
C
C
C
C
C
C C
C
C
C
C
c c
c
Tible 4 footnotes:
t. 1 • let, cheated has been documented to accunulate In sedtnent
In Puget Sound.
I). • Uncertain If chealcal accumulates In sedloent. but data suggest
that It does not.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
b. Chemicals that accumulate la sediments and are known or suspected of
adversely affecting benthie Infauna.
A - Pollutant has been detected «• Puget Sound >10 percent of the
time at concentrations half or greater than half an appropriate
sedlnent quality value.
B - Pollutant has been detected In Puget Sound <10 percent of the
tine, at concentrations half or greater than half an appropriate
sediment quality value.
C • Benthlc effects sediment quality values have not been
established, but based on known characteristics this chemical
has the potential to create problem.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
c. C - Chenlcal can accumulate In sediments and Is suspected of
causing pathological effects In fish. There are no sediment
quality values based on fish pathology.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
d. A - Chemical has been detected In Puget Sound at a concentration
exceeding an available U.S. EPA saltwater criterion.
B • Chemical has not been detected In Puget Sound at a concentration
exceeding an available U.S. EPA saltwater criterion.
C - U.S. EPA saltwater criterion Is not available.
e. A - Pollutant has been detected In tissue of wildlife at levels 10
tines as high as those from reference areas.
B • Based on United data, this pollutant has been detected but
at concentrations less than 10 times as high as reference areas
or reference concentrations were not provided.
C - Chemical has been analyzed for In wildlife tissue but has not
been detected.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
-------
REVISION:8/15/86
TABU 4. CHARACTERISTICS AND SINKS FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
7 a 9 10
II
PolluUnt
of
Concern
Antimony
Arsenic
CD
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
»-•
C7> Cyanides
LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
HPAH
Fluoranthene
Surface
Mkrolayer (f)
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
N
X
I
I
I
1
I
Flih/Shellfls
lloaccuMj-
latlon (g)
1
A
C
1
C
1
1
1
1
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
h Tlstut
IIOHgnl-
flcellon (k)
N
N
H
N
N
N
H
N
N
N
N
N
N
•lotctlvatlon
(1)
Y
»
N
N
N
1
Y
N
N
N
If
Y
>
»
<
1
Y
V
»
>
Geographic
OtitrlDution(J)
F
W
H
U
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 4 footnotes:
f. I • Chemical hat been detected in Puget Sound In the mlcrolayer at
concentration! higher than those found In the water coluen.
N • Based on the Halted data available, the chemical has not been
detected In the mfcrolayer at concentrations higher than those
found In the water coluM.
•lank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
g. A • Chemical bloaccuaulates In Puget Sound and Is considered a
carcinogen via dietary exposure.
I • Chemical bloaccumulates In Puget Sound and has an established
Reference Dose (RfO).
C • Chemical bloaccunlates In Puget Sound but Is not a carcinogen
via dietary exposure and does not have an RfO.
0 • lased on available Information, the chemical does not faioaccu-
awlate in Puget Sound.
•lank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
h. Y
Yes, chemical has been shown to bio
a portion of the food web.
agnlfy through at least
N • No. chealcal has not been shown to biomagnlfy.
U • Uncertain If blomagnlficatlon of chemical occurs.
•lank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
. Y - Yes. cheaiical has the potential toMtaballze into a substance
with a known higher toxlclty (I.e.. bioactivate).
P • Chemical follows Metabolic pathways that produce potentially
damaging metabolites (e.g.. dlhydrodlol formation from
naphthalene through formation of potentially damaging eponide).
N - No. chemical it not expected to metabolize Into a substance with
a known higher toilclty (I.e.. does not bioactivate) or does
not undergo alteration.
U • Uncertain If bloactlvatlon occurs.
•lank spaces Indicate that insufficient data are available to
categorize.
. U • Chemical has widespread distribution in Puget Sound.
P • Chemical has patchy distribution in Puget Sound.
( ) • Chemical categorized based on limited data.
•lank spaces indicate that insufficient data are available to
categorize.
-------
REVISION.-8/15/86
TABLE 4. CHARACTERISTICS AND SINKS FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
7 8 9 10
11
Pollutant
of
Concern
Pyrene
Benzof a)anthracene
Chrysene
Total benzofluoranthenes
Benzofajpyrene
Indeno(1.2,3.c.d)pyrene
Olbenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzol g.h.l ) perylene
Total PCBs
Heiachlorobenzene
Huachlorbutadlene
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
4,4'-OOT
4. 4 '-ODE
4. 4 '-ODD
Aldrin
Oteldrin
Ganaa-HCH
Phenol
Surface
Nlcrolayer (f)
I
I
X
I
X
I
«
I
X
I
I
I
N
Fish/Shellfish Tissue
Bloaccumu- Blomagnl-
UtioA (g) f teat ion (h)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A Y
A
A
B
A U
A U
A
C N
N
B
Bloacttvatlon
(I)
Y
Y
»
»
U
U
U
N
U
U
U
U
U
<
U
»
»
Geographic
Dlstrtbutlon(j)
U
U
U
U
U
U
M
U
U
p
p
(U)
(U)
(U)
<»)
Table 4 footnotes:
f. I • Chemical has been detected In Puget Sound In the ulcrolayer at
concentrations higher than those found In the water column.
N • Based on the I tailed data available, the chemical has not been
detected In the aicrolayer at concentrations higher than those
found In the water CO)UM.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
g. A • Chemical btoaccumulates In Puget Sound and Is considered a
carcinogen via dietary exposure.
B - Chealcal bloaccutulates In Puget Sound and has an established
Reference Dose (RfO).
C - Chealcal btoaccuMlates In Puget Sound but Is not a carcinogen
via dietary exposure and does not have an RfO.
0 - Based on available Information, the chealcal does not bloaccu-
aulate In Puget Sound.
Blank spaces indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
h, v . let, chealcal has been shown to bloaagnlfy through at least
a portion of the food web.
N • No, chealcal has not been shown to biOBagnify.
U - Uncertain If blomagnlficatlon of chemical occurs.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
1. » • res. chealcal has the potential to Metabolize into a substance
with a known higher toitctty (i.e.. bioactivate).
P - Cheaical follows Metabolic pathways that produce potentially
daaaging Metabolites (e.g., dlhydrodiol formation fro*
naphthalene through formation of potentially damaging epoilde).
N - No. chemical is not eipected to metabolize into a substance with
a known higher toilclty (i.e., does not bioactivate) or does
not undergo alteration.
U • Uncertain if bloacttvatlon occurs.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
J. U • Chemical has widespread distribution In Puget Sound.
P • Chemical has patchy distribution in Puget Sound.
( ) • Chealcal categorized based on 1 tatted data.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
-------
REVISION:8/15/86
TABLE 4. CHARACTERISTICS AND SINKS FOR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
7 8 » 10
Suffice
Htcroliyer (f|
Fish/Shellfish Tlisut
Geographic
Olstrlbutlon(j)
Pollutant
of
Concern
BloiccuBU- BloMgnl-
latlon (g) fUitlon (h)
Bloactlvetlon
(I)
CD
CO
4-Nethylphenol
PenUchlorophenol
Olbenzofuran
2-Hetha«yphenol
2-Nethylnaphthalene
N-n I trosodIphenylaalne
Trtchloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Chloroforn
' 2.3.7.8-TetrachIorodto«1n
Organotln
Table 4 footnotes:
I. I • Chealcal has been detected In Puget Sound In the microlayer at
concentrations higher than those found In the water column.
N • Based on the 1 tailed data available, the Chealcal has not been
detected In the mlcrolayer at concentrations higher than those
found In the water CO|UM.
Hank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
g. A - Chealcal bloacciaulates In Puget Sound and Is considered t
carcinogen via dietary uposure.
B - Chemical bloaccumulates I* Puget Sound and has an established
Reference Dose (ifO).
C • Chealcal btoaccwulates In Puget Sound but Is not a carcinogen
via dietary uposure and does not have an RfO.
0 - Based on available Information, the Chealcal does not bloaccu-
mulate In Puget Sound.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
h. T > Yes, chemical has been shown to bloaagnlfy through at least
a portion of the food web.
N • No. chealcal has not been shown to blonagnlfy.
U • Uncertain If blougnlflcatlon of chealcal occurs.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
1. » - les. Chealcal has the potential to aetabollze Into a substance
with a known higher tonlclty (I.e.. bloactlvate).
P - Chealcal follows aetabollc pathways that produce potentially
damaging aetabolltes (e.g.. dlhydrodlol formation froa
naphthalene through formation of potentially damaging eponide).
N • No. Chealcal Is not eipected to aetabollze Into a substance with
a known higher toxlclty (I.e., does not bloactlvate) or does
not undergo alteration.
U • Uncertain If bloactlvatlon occurs.
Blank spaces- Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
j. U * Chealcal has widespread distribution In Puget Sound.
P - Chealcal has patchy distribution In Puget Sound.
( ) > Chemical categorized based on limited data.
Blank spaces Indicate that Insufficient data are available to
categorize.
-------
REVISION:8/15/86
TABLE 5. CONCENTMTIONS IN PUGtT SOUND
1234
10
Scdtwnt ug/kg Dry Utlght
Sediment ug/kg Dry Height
Pollutant
of
Concern
Antinony
Arsenic
CadnluB
Chroniu*
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanides
LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
HPAH
Ftuoranthene
Non-Reference Area
Mlnlu
U140
1200
U10
5400
3800
4400
10
6900
U20
18000
1.3
U1.6
1.7
U1.3
UI.2
Ul
Ul
1.3
Ul
Median
670
11000
620
31000
55000
48000
230
27000
380
100000
850
200
56
71
91
290
110
3400
530
90th
Percentlle
240000
39000
3200
66000
90000
220000
1100
51000
3500
320000
4400
1200
350
460
460
1300
530
4400
2300
Htilu
420000
9700000
180000
130000
11000000
6200000
52000
120000
5400
3300000
250000
5900
4000
3300
4800
34000
9960
55000
71000
Detection
Frequency
113/143
187/187
172/187
143/143
187/187
187/187
181/187
143/143
136/143
187/187
151/187
144/186
96/150
125/186
142/185
176/186
157/185
153/156
179/187
MlnlM
U40
1900
100
9600
3600
UIOO
16
11000
UIOO
15000
2.5
1.3
U2.7
1.3
2.5
2.6
2.7
22
9.6
Median
UIOO
5600
700
40000
33000
9600
55
23000
226
76000
24
7.1
U40
14
6
76
24
Reference Area
90th
Percentlle
UII5
19500
1480
66500
57000
19500
105
40000
570
95000
160
UIOO
200
91
Mantnun
140
22000
1900
76000
74000
23000
120
46000
780
102000
170
13
UIOO
1.3
2.6
170
22
217
97
Detection
Frequency
2/24
24/24
21/25
24/24
24/25
24/25
23/25
24/24
19/24
25/25
10/25
6/25
0/25
1/25
2/25
9/25
6/25
12/25
12/25
Table 5 footnotes:
«. Holnua values ere highest detected concentrations. MlnlM
values are the lower of either the lowest detected concentration
or the lowest detection lialt for undetected values. Statistics
(I.e., medlm. 90th percentlle) are based on detected values only.
Sediments collected 1979 to 1985.
U - Undetected at detection Halt shown.
Blanks indicate Insufficient data were available.
S • Where two values are shown for DOT, the first value Is DOT
and the second value Is the SUB of DOT and Its Metabolites.
The sun was used only when Individual values were not reported.
-------
REVISION:8/lS/86
TABLE 5. CONCENTRATIONS IN PU6ET SOUND
1234
10
SidlMnt ug/kg Dry Height
Sedlaent ug/kg Dry Height
Pollutant
of
Concern
Pyrene
Ben2o(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Total benzofluoranthenes
Ben20(a)pyrene
lndeno(l.2.3,c.d)pyrene
Dtbenzof i ,h| anthracene
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene
Total PC 8s
CD
' Heiachlorobenzene
fXJ
°Hexachlorbutadtene
1,3-Dlchloroberuene
1 ,4-Olchlorobenzene
4. 4 '-DOT
4.4--DDE
4.4'-IH>0
Aldrln
Oleldrln
GMina-HCH
Phenol
Non-Reference Area
Hint**
111
III
Ul
2.6
Ul
1.6
Ul
Ul
UO.S
uo.oa
0.3
Ul
Ul
UO.l
U0.07
U0.08
1.7
Ned tan
630
S30
420
710
3SO
170
52
180
120
0.66
11
19
27
1.4
3
3.9
130
90th
Percent tie
2200
2300
2000
3600
1700
840
450
1300
1200
ISO
250
83
190
SO
IS
36
soo
Hutu
63000
71000
35000
2900Q
23000
9100
4000
11000
MOO
730
730
170
7700
77
47
180
820
0.6
40
1700
Detection
Frequency
179/187
164/184
167/185
136/153
154/180
93/148
76/148
98/18S
163/185
27/173
31/142
20/142
47/142
28/181
72/129
47/129
58/136
Nlnlaun
11
2.6
3.9
9.1
4.1
6.6
U3.3
4.0
2.7
4.1
U0.3
U4
U3
UO.l
0.07
U0.08
0.01
0.01
U4.3
Reference Area
90th
i Hedtan Per cent lie Maximum
22 114 120
S.5 7
10 16
18 SI
8.4 22
6.6
U500
7.6 9.4
8.6 2S.2
23
UI60 U400 U400
U40 U100 . U100
23
Ul U2S U2S
Ul Ul Ul
Ul Ul Ul
0.01
0.06
560
Detection
Frequency
11/25
7/25
8/25
7/25
6/25
1/25
0/25
4/25
5/25
2/25
0/25
0/25
2/25
0/25
0/21
0/21
5/24
Table 5 footnotes:
Maximo values are highest detected concentrations. Minim
values are the lower of either the lowest detected concentration
or the lowest detection Halt for undetected values. Statistics
(I.e.. Median. 90th percent lie) are based on detected values only.
Sedlnents collected 1979 to 1985.
U • Undetected at detection Halt shown.
Blanks Indicate Insufficient data were available.
S • Where two values are shown for DOT, the ftrit value Is DDT
and the second value Is the SUB of DOT and Its awtabolltes.
The SUB was used only when Individual values were not reported.
-------
REVISION:8/lS/86
TABLE 5. CONCENTRATIONS IN PU6ET SOUND
1234
10
Sedtawnt ug/kg Dry Might
Sedlaent ug/kg Dry Weight
Pollutint
of
Concern
4-Methyl phenol
Pen tach1orophenoI
Dlbenzofuran
2-Hetho«yphenol
2-Methyl naphthalene
N-n1trosodlphenyle»1ne
Trtchloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbeniene
OB Chloroform
I
r\j2.3.7.8-TCDO
Non-Re ftrtnce Ar«i
Nlntaw
10
Ul
US
1.5
ui.;
3
US
0.01
0.04
5
U0.007
NedUn
1M
s;
130
115
110
46
67
11
90th
Percent lie
760
380
990
410
490
200
49
NenlMi
96000
140
2000
3900
1200
610
19000000
14000000
SO
10
UO.I7
Detection
Frequency
45/48
9/133
47/48
28/46
8S/91
29/134
10/S4
12/61
10/60
2/S3
0/17
Nlnlme
U10
US
US
US
U10
U4.1
0.1
0.03
U4.1
U0.01S
Reference Area
90th
Hedlan Percent tie Minimum
32
4100 U2SO U2SO
US US US
1.3
9.1
U200
U13 U17 UI8
0.6
uia
UI8
UO.OS8
Detection
Frequency
2/4
0/24
0/4
1/4
I/S
0/24
0/16
2/20
1/20
1/16
0/2
Table S footnotes:
a. Hi«1«un values are highest detected concentrations. Mlnlewi
values are the lower of either the lowest detected concentration
or the lowest detection Italt for undetected values. Statistics
(I.e.. Median. 90th percent He) are based on detected values only.
Sedlmnts collected 1979 to I98S.
U > Undetected at detection Italt shown.
Blanks Indicate Insufficient data were available.
S • Where two values are shown for DOT. the first value Is DOT
and the second value is the SUB of DDT and its Metabolites.
The su« was used only when Individual values were not reported.
Organotin
-------
REmiON:8/l5/86
TABLE S. CONCENTRATIONS IN PUGET SOUND
II 12 U
14
IS
16
17
18
Fish Muscle and Shellfish
Fish Muscle and Shellfish
CD
I
ro
r\»
Pollutant
of
Concern
Ant laony
Arsenic
Cadnlin
Chrontua
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanides
LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
HPAH
Fluor anthene
Tissue
Non
ug/kg Wet Height
Reference Area
Minium* HailMM
U1000
USOO
U2
U8
U38
U73
230
U3J
IK
3140
S.6
U2
U2
U2
U2
UIO
U2
45
UIO
2200
22000
640
820
11000
1980
230
1900
165
50000
1210
2100
UIO
130
180
740
130
2680
970
Tissue ug/kg
Wet Weight
Reference Area
Minima
U1000
1100
U2
US
U38
30
10
U30
US
2900
UO.l
UIO
U0.08
UO.ll
UO.II
U0.22
UO.ll
Hulmji
1700
32000
1300
550
14000
1300
120
910
139
63000
170
320
UIO
UIO
S.79
6S.S
10.1
940
65.6
Receiving
Hater ug/l Receiving Water ug/L
Non Reference Area Reference Area
Mlnlwn
1
1
O.I
1
1
Ul
U0.056
Ul
0.3
Ul
5
uo.os
U0.05
UIO
UO.S
UO.S
110.5
UO.S
MenlMM Mtntaui Manlma
17
3815
29
320
1240
1750
1.4
435
9
11800
8
6.4
Ul
UIO
1.4
UIO
UIO
Ul
Table 5 footnotes:
ManiiMji values are highest detected concentrations. Minima
values are the lower of either the lowest detected concentration
or the lowest detection Unit for undetected values. Statistics
(i.e.. aedtan, 90th percent lie) are based on detected values only.
Sedlnents collected 1979 to 1985.
U • Undetected at detection Unit shown.
Blanks indicate insufficient data were available.
S » Where two values are shown for DOT. the first value is DDT
and the second value Is the SUB of ODT and its •etabolltes.
The sun was used only when Individual values were not reported.
-------
REVISION:8/15/86
TABLE 5. CONCENTRATIONS IN PU6ET SOUND
II 12 13
14
16
17
18
Fish HutcU and Shellfish
Fish Huicle and Shellfish
00
I
rv>
CO
Pol lu tint
of
Concern
Pvrene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Chrysene
Total beniafluaranthenes
(enio(a)pjrrene
lndeno(l,2.3.c,d)pyrene
D1benio( a ,h)anthracen*
Be«o(g ,h . 1 ) pern lene
Total PCBs
He«achlorobeniene
Heiachlorbutadfene
1.3-Olchlorotaenzene
1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene
4. 4 '-DOT
4.4'-00£
4. 4 '-000
Aldrln
Oleldrln
Bana-HCH
Phenol
II Hue
Nan
ug/kg Wet Height
Reference Area
Hlnlem Maxima
U0.7
U2
U2
U2
U6
I.4U
2.S
7.9
20
UIO
U40
U20
U20
U24/8S
0.9
U2.4
U0.4
U0.8
U0.4
U20
920
210
360
120
58
11
8.6
21
2100
70
70
530
U20
U120/160S
30
U16
U4
ua
U4
U40
Tttsue ug/kg
Net Height
Reference Area
Mtntau*,
0.97
U0.22
U0.22
UIO
UO.ll
UIO
UIO
UIO
7
2
0.2
U20
U20
U2.4/U4S
U0.8
U2.4
U0.4
uo.a
U0.08
U20
Nil (•>«
23.4
25.2
30
UIO
9.54
UIO
UIO
UIO
71
2
0.2
U20
U20
U12/3IOS
3.9
U12
U2.4
U2.4
U4
U40
Receiving
Hater ug/L Receiving Hater ug/L
Hon Reference Area Reference Area
HlntaM
U0.5
UIO
UO.S
Ul
Ul
UIO
Ul
Ul
U20
110.01
UO.OI
U0.01
UO.OI
UO.OI
UO.OI
2.1
Maileu* Min!«u» Hailaua
UO.S
UIO
UO.S
Ul
Ul
UIO
Ul
Ul
U20
2.1
UO.OI
UO.OI
UO.OI
UO.OI
UO.OI
UO.OI
80
Table 5 footnotes:
Hantnua values are highest detected concentrations. Minima
values are the loner of either the lowest detected concentration
or the lowest detection Halt for undetected values. Statistics
(I.e., »e
-------
REVISION:8/15/86
TABLE 5. CONCENTRATIONS IN PUGET SOUND
II 12 IJ
H
16
IB
ftih Huscli «nd Shellfish
Fish NuicU and Shellfish
CD
ro
Pollutint
of
Concern
4-Methylphenol
Pentichlorophenol
Dibeniofuran
2-Nethoiyphenol
2-«ethylnaphthalene
N-nltrosodlphenylaalne
Trlchloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbeniene
Chloroform
2.3.7.8-TCDO
Organottn
Tissue
Hon
N
-------
APPENDIX C
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Reference: Tetra Tech (19865,d)
-------
TABLE C-l. SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES AND DETECTION LIMITS
FOR ORGANIC COMPOUND ANALYSES
Detection Limit
Compound Type
Sediment Tissue
(ug/kg dry wt) (ug/kg wet wt)
Analytical Procedure
Volatile* 10-20
Senivolatiles3 500-1,000
Seaivolatiles5 1-50
Sample size
Sample drying
Extraction
Extract drying
Extract concentration
5-10
10-20
Extract cleanup
Extract analysis
Heated purge-and-trap, or vacuum
extract ion/purge-and-trap
Use U.S. EPA
procedure as
analyses
CLP "low-level"
screen ing level
50 to 100 g wet weight sediment
25 g wet weight tissue
Centrifugation or sodium sulfate
Shaker/roller; Soxhlet; or sonicationc
Separatory funnel partitioning as
needed to remove water (pH must
be controlled); sodium sulfate
used for all other extract drying
Kuderna-Danish apparatus (to
1 mL) or rotary evaporation (to
2 ml); purified N2 stream for
concentration to smaller volumes
- Remove elemental sulfur (sediments
only) with mercury or activated copper
- Remove organic interferents
with GPC, Sephadex, bonded octadecyl
columns, HPLC, silica gel, alumina
gel (for PCB/pesticides)
SC/MS; GC/FID; GC/ECD
The U.S. EPA CLP procedure was developed for "low level" analysis of hazardous
wastes (i.e., hundreds of parts per billion); these procedures are used as "screening
level" analyses in Puget Sound environmental samples.
b The steps described generally apply to low parts-per-billion, full scan analyses.
Some of the options for extract cleanup and analysis are best suited for certain
compound groups rather than full scan analyses.
C-l
-------
TABLE C-2. REFERENCE DOSE (RfD) VALUES FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
PP# Pollutant
126 silver
123 mercury
60 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
127 thallium
42 bis(2-chloroisopropy1)ether
98 endrin
59 2,4-dinitrophenol
33 1,3-dichloropropene
119 chromium VI
95 alpha-endosulfan
96 beta-endosulfan
97 endosulfan sulfate
114 antimony
39 fluoranthene
53 hexachlorocyclopentadiene
125 selenium
25 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27 1,4-dichlorobenzene
7 chlorobenzene
2 acrolein
46 bromome thane
124 nickel
38 ethyl benzene
64 pentachlorophenol
31 2,4-dichlorophenol
65 phenol
121 cyanide
54 isophorone
44 dichloromethane
86 toluene
11 1,1,1-trichloroethane
45 chloromethane
56 nitrobenzene
66 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
68 di-n-butyl phthalate
119 chromium III
71 dimethyl phthalate
70 diethyl phthalate
CAS 1
7440-22-4*
7439-97 -6a
534-52-1
563-68-8a
39638-32-9
72-20-8
51-28-5
10061-02-6
7440-47-3*
115-29-7
115-29-7
1031-07-8
7440-36-0*
206-44-0
77-47-4
7782-49-2
95-50-1
541-73-1
106-46-7
108-90-7
107-82-8
74-83-9
7440-02-0*
100-41-4
87-86-5
120-83-2
108-95-2
57-12-5*
78-59-1
75-09-02
108-88-3
71-55-6
74-87-3
98-95-3
' 117-81-7
87-74-2
7440-47-3*
131-11-3
84-66-2
RfO
mg/day
0.016
0.1
0.027
0.04
0.070
0.070
0.14
0.175
0.175
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.4
0.418
0.7
0.94
0.94
0.94
1.008
1.100
1.5
1.5
7
2
7.0
7
2
10.5
4
20
37.5
38
0.03
42
38
125
700
875
RfD
mg/kg/day
0.0002
0.002
0.0004
0.0004
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.03
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.150
0.06
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.0005
0.6
1
2
10
10
Criteria
Page
C-125
*
C-93
*
C-61
B-12
C-92
C-27
C-34
C-87
C-87
C-87
C-70
C-47
C-63
C-66
C-64
C-64
C-64
C-20
C-53
*
*
C-32
*
*
C-20
*
*
C-77
*
C-57
C-57
C-57
C-57
a CAS numbers for these substances vary depending on their specific form (e.g., inorganic salts
or organic complexes.
Asterisk indicates that values are verified RfOs from U.S. EPA (1986).
Reference: U.S. EPA (1980b). Priority pollutant numbers are shown in first column of tao'e.
For each RfO, page citation for corresponding Acceptable Daily Intake value from a Water Quality
Criteria document is shown in last column. Blanks in page citation column indicate that RfD
values are errata to water quality criteria (U.S. EPA, 8 August 1984, personal communication).
C-2
-------
TABLE C-3. CARCINOGENIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
RANKED BY POTENCY FACTORS
•PP# Pollutant
129 TCOO (dioxin)
5 benzidine
119 chromium VIC
90 dieldrin
61 N-nitrosodimethylamine
115 arsenic
73 benzo(a)pyrene
89 aldrin
102 alpha-HCH
118 cadmium0
106 PC8-1242
107 PCB-1254
108 PCB-1221
109 PCB-1232
110 PCB-1248
111 PCB-1260
112 PCB-1016
100 heptachlor
117 beryllium0
103 beta-HCH
28 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
9 hexachlorobenzene
91 chlordane
105 gamma-HCH
29 1,1-dichloroethene
18 bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
113 toxaphene
124 nickel (subsulfide,
refinery dust)c
37 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
92 4, 4 '-DOT
93 4, 4 '-ODE
94 4, 4' -ODD
35 2,4-dinitrotoluene
3 acrylonitrile
15 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
6 tetrachloromethane
10 1,2-dichloroethane
52 hexachlorobutadiene
23 chloroform
14 1,1,2-trichloroethane
85 tetrachloroethene
4 benzene
21 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
88 vinyl chloride
12 hexachloroethane
CAS Number
1746-01-6
92-87-5
7440-47-3°
60-57-1
62-75-9 .
7440-38-2d
50-32-8
309-00-2
319-84-6 .
7440-43-9d
53469-21-9
11097-69-1
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
12672-29-6
11096-82-5
12674-11-2
76-44-8
7440-41 -7d
319-85-7
91-94-1
118-74-1
57-74-9
58-89-9
75-35-4
111-44-4
8001-35-2
j
7440-02-0d
122-66-7
50-29-3
72-55-9
72-54-8
121-14-2
107-13-1
79-34-5
56-23-5
107-06-2
87-68-3
67-66-3
79-00-5
127-18-4
71-43-2
88-06-2
75-01-4
67-72-1
Level of Evidence15
Potency* Humans Animals
156000.00000
234.00000 (W)
41.00000 (W)
30.40000
25.90000 (B)
15.00000 (H)
11.50000
11.40000
11.12000
6.10000 (W)
4.34000
4.34000
4.34000
4.34000
4.34000
4.34000
4.34000
3.37000
2.60000
1.84000
1.69000
1.67000
1.61000
1.33000
1.16000 (I)
1.14000
1.13000
1.05000 (W)
0.77000
0.34000
0.34000
0.34000
0.31000
0.24000 (W)
0.20000
0.13000
0.09100
0.07750
0.07000
0.05730
0.05100
0.02900 (W)
0.01990
0.01750 (I)
0.01420
I
S
s
I
I
s
I
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S
I
I
I
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S
I
S
I
s
s
s
s
s
I
s
L
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
L
s
s
L
L
L
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
L
S
S
L
S
L
L
S
S
S
L
C-3
-------
TABLE C-3. (Continued).
PP# Pollutant
87 trichloroethene
62 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
44 dichloromethane
CAS Number
79-01-6
36-30-6
75-09-02
Potency*
0.01100
0.00492
0.00063 (I)
Level of
Humans
I
I
I
Evidence^
Animal s
L/S
S
L
a From U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1985a), Table 9-66. All slopes calculated as
upper 95 percent confidence limit of slope (qi*) based on animal oral data and multistage mode'
except:
(B) - slope calculated from 1-Hit model
(W) - slope calculated from occupational exposure
(H) - slope calculated from human drinking water exposure
(I) = slope calculated from animal inhalation studies.
b S = Sufficient evidence; L * Limited evidence; I = Inadequate evidence.
c Chromium (VI), cadmium, beryllium, and nickel are not considered to be carcinogenic via dietary
exposure.
d CAS numbers for these substances vary depending on whether they occur in their element-.'
form, as inorganic salts, or as organic complexes.
C-4
-------
10-2
10-3
CO
-------
10-a
CO
oc
cc
LU
O
UJ
i
u.
10-3
..I
11 III
....I
.001
.01
.10
1.0
10
100
As CONCENTRATION IN SEAFOOD (ppm)
Figure C-2.
Lifetime cancer risk vs. inorganic arsenic concen-
tration in seafood (ppm wet wt) for selected inges-
tion rates.
C-6
-------
en
(£
cc
UJ
o
tu
2
UJ
Benzo(a)pyrene CONCENTRATION IN SEAFOOD (ppm)
Figure C-3.
Lifetime cancer risk vs. benzo(a)pyrene concen-
tration in seafood (ppm wet wt) for selected
ingestion rates.
C-7
-------
10* c-
10*
oc
oc
UJ
UJ
u.
10-*
10-7
.0001
.0010 .010 .10 1.0
Z DDT CONCENTRATION IN SEAFOOD (ppm)
I I I I | I I
10
Figure C-4.
Lifetime cancer risk vs. sum of DDT, DDE, and ODD
concentration in seafood (ppm wet wt) for selected
ingestion rates.
C-8
-------
10-2.-
10-3
CO
en
QC
01
UJ
£
105
.0001
.001
.01
.10
1.0
10
HC8 CONCENTRATION IN SEAFOOD (ppm)
Figure C-5.
Lifetime cancer risk vs. hexachlorobenzene
concentration in seafood (ppm wet wt) at
selected ingestion rates.
C-9
-------
10*
CO
cc
QC
UJ
O
10-s
LU
U.
J—I 11 III
.001
I I I I III
JL
_uiL
' — I I I 1 1
1 J
•01 .10 1.0 10
HCBD CONCENTRATION IN SEAFOOD (ppm)
100
Figure C-6.
Lifetime cancer risk vs. hexachlorobutadiene
concentration in seafood (ppm wet wt) at selected
ingestion rates.
C-10
------- |